Perhaps I’ll be going on a rant here, but don’t take this personally. This began as a response to Ed Lynam, but spiraled out of my control. I am critical of his comments because of his certitude that Christianity is correct – not due to an argument for morality or the inerrancy of the Bible, but because it is both practiced across the globe and is applicable to many. I begin by answering his comment from here, then continued on for a bit, skirting several diverging issues. If you’re lost at any one point, it’s likely that I referred to something taking place in the comments of soulster’s excellent paper, The Ethics of Pleasure. That, or I’m just writing willy-nilly.
Ed wrote,
Moby Dick doesn’t make any claims to divine inspiration, nor did its author, nor have there been people willing to die rather than renounce their faith in its teaching.
For a text to be holy, must the author be certain that inspiration comes from above? There is a reason I chose the word "afflatus" - it was arcane, but its meaning is still alive today: "a sudden rush of divine or poetic inspiration."
Must the author and reader - both flawed individuals living in a flawed world - know that they have crafted a holy text for such text to be holy? Could it even be remotely feasible that Melville's epic was given a divine spark, or is this possibility tallied solely by the number of bodies left in its wake and the certainty of its followers? The option must be open that if we accept the smallest possibility of the divine, that any text, be it Hop on Pop to the Bible, is holy.
The heart of the matter, I see, rests in polemic language – and may offend the reader, but stands as the main reason I do not accept the Bible as anything more than fairy tales. Cannot we see that a text is from a god by judging its content, by some novel examination – for example, a sequencing of the code of DNA in its Appendix, mathematical principals still undiscovered today in Deuteronomy, a way to stop all world hunger in Mark, a moral code that outlawed slavery and inequality centuries before society progressed far enough for it to be clear as day, predictions far past Nostradamus’s weak specificity explaining, for instance, in detail that on September 11th, 2001, a group of Muslim fanatics would attempt fly American planes into three buildings and a cornfield, and stopping this would be the mission of the sitting President – and not just by asserting its divine origins? Why does the Bible not revolutionize our understanding of the world in ways of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, hydrology, meteorology, physics, psychology, or sociology? Why is it that when I read the Bible, I can only see stories written by men, without afflatus, and without knowledge of the entire universe beyond Middle Eastern nomadic squabbles?
I do not trust a text that claims to be from the divine, yet provides no "sudden rush of divine or poetic inspiration."
This is why, when Ed said,
I think that much of the Bible in terms of specific passages is there to provide a narrative on the overall message, so, no, it depends a great deal on which part you choose to study.
I concluded (perhaps in error) that he knew this as well. Much of the Bible is abhorrent; much is full of love - yet none of it has the smell of the divine in its pages. I reason that Ed understood that parts of the Bible are best left behind us, while we should take what we can from not just the holy books of Christians and Jews, but of other faiths. Otherwise, many of the readers of this would not be here, expanding your mind and listening to others. Ed expressed a heartfelt interest in reading the Tao Te Ching, and for that I’m put in a good mood.
There is a story that appeared in The New Yorker years ago. Written by Joseph Mitchell, it was about a graduate from Harvard University, a Joe Gould that went by the nom de plume of Professor Sea Gull. He became a bum, renounced all earthly possessions, and began to write a book.
“Although Gould strives to give the impression that he is a philosophical loafer, he has done an immense amount of work during his career as a bohemian. Every day, even when he has a bad hangover or even when he is weak and listless from hunger, he spends at least a couple of hours working on a formless, rather mysterious book that he calls ‘An Oral History of Our Time.’ He began this book twenty-six years ago, and it is nowhere near finished… He says that one night he sat for six or seven hours in a boot in a Third Avenue bar and grill, listening to a beery old Hungarian woman, once a madam and once a dealer in narcotics and now a soup cook in a city hospital, tell the story of her life… Gould is haunted by the fear that he will die before he has the first draft of the Oral History finished. It is already eleven times as long as the Bible. He estimates that the manuscript contains 9,000,000 words, all in longhand. It may well be the lengthiest unpublished work in existence… ‘A couple of generations after I’m dead and gone,’ he likes to say, ‘the Ph.D.’s will start lousing through my work. Just imagine their surprise. ‘Why, I be damned,’ they’d say, ‘this fellow was the most brilliant historian of the century.’"
Years later a follow-up piece was written – it turns out that Gould never wrote a word. And this is the key: Some may see that and call the story itself bad or wrong or evil because it was an invention by a crackpot; I see it as a story, and just as I recognize that the story itself has meaning. It is an Aesop’s fable where the meaning is easily interpreted, and while many Christians may find it difficult to accept this, that is what I see in the Bible.
As a 'Jew' by culture, I celebrate Hanukkah. I light the candles, exchange gifts, talk amongst friends. I understand that it is a myth, the Torah is a collection of myths, but it also has stories and morality plays that are interpreted in the Tanach to help humanity. What I’d leave you with is what I see as a fundamental difference in worldviews:
1. Is it possible to consider yourself a Christian and follow Christ’s message, even if you believe that Christ was a myth? As a secular, skeptical, atheist Jew, I read the stories of the Bible as parables, but still consider myself a Jew.
2. If a Christian read the Bible as a parable, would you still consider him a Christian?
3. If you were to read the Bible as little more than stories, could you consider yourself a Christian?
4. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, do you choose between living a moral life regardless of faith in the supernatural, or magic, or God, or living for Jesus?
December 20th, 2006 by 
drunkentune
December 21st, 2006 at 4:48 am
Indulge me for a moment in a parable that came to my mind while I was asleep and is keeping me awake.
The Parable of the Kitchens
There is a big house with lots of kitchens. As you come along the hall, the first kitchen has a door with a sign, “Entrance, You Must Be This Tall To Enter”. On the inside of the door is a sign saying “NO EXIT, ALARM WILL SOUND”. Inside are a bunch of people eating and two chefs, Sunni and Shia, who are always arguing. But they agree that their recipe book must be kept the same, and each recipe followed exactly every time. The food served in the kitchen is always Arabic, but there are a few people who sometimes ask for Turkish.
Next down the hall there is a kitchen with no door. Inside, there are scraps of paper with recipes in hundreds of languages. There are some original Hebrew and Greek recipes, but they are old and well worn. But the variety of foods they employ and the possibilities of the dishes produced seem endless. However, it is clear that the recipes are not the main attraction in this kitchen. No, that would be Rabbi, who doesn’t actually do the cooking but he keeps running around helping the people in the kitchen to make their food and get it better, so they can eat and feel full. Around the kitchen, it is not tidy like down the hall. There are signs of burnt dishes from days past. There are little children trying their hands with their own “special” creations. And Rabbi keeps running out into the hallway inviting people in. The people have a great time, and they especially brag about the great bread and wine.
A little further down the hall is the Atheist kitchen. There are no recipes and there is no food cooking. No, the atheists have gotten into the liquor cabinet. They keep insisting that food is a non-sequitor, and that recipes have no meaning, and that they aren’t in a kitchen.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:57 am
Obviously there are no recipes in the atheist kitchen. There may be hoever, many recipes in many different kitchens of people who call themselves atheists.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:06 am
The word “atheist” describes what an individual does not believe in.
So, if you are looking for a worldview from an atheist, what you are essentially hoping for is a person who descibes themselves not only as an atheist, but as perhaps a materialist, or a naturalist, or a secular humanist.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:13 am
Ed,
Your parable does not work for me at all. How can you see Sunni and Shia always arguing in the first kitchen but not see Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant always arguing in the second? And how can you see lots of recipes in the Christian kitchen and no recipes in the Atheist’s kitchen? It would seem to me that Christians have the poverty of recipes since they are stuck with only the Bible while a non-believer is free to find truths in any and every tradition and book.
In my version of your parable I would have people in the Christian kitchen limited to slavisly following a few ancient recipes while people in the athiest kitchen having a much greater variety and being free to come up with new recipes.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:22 am
Ed, could you explain what recipes and food are intended to represent in your parable?
December 21st, 2006 at 9:31 am
@dt - yet none of it has the smell of the divine in its pages
What does the divine smell like, I wonder?
I wonder if it smells like people?
To answer the final questions:
1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. I don’t think I understand the question.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:00 pm
“1. Is it possible to consider yourself a Christian and follow Christ’s message, even if you believe that Christ was a myth?”
No. Only if anyone can make up their own definition of Christianity, in which case, I’m a Martian with green skin.
“As a secular, skeptical, atheist Jew, I read the stories of the Bible as parables, but still consider myself a Jew.”
These two questions are not parallel: Because of the strong ethnic identification and continuity within Jewish people, “Jew” can be considered a term of ethnic as well as religious identification. This same continuity does not exist in the Christian world.
“2. If a Christian read the Bible as a parable, would you still consider him a Christian?”
No. Absolutely not. If Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity is a sham. It’s not the “teachings of Christ” that are of primary importance. It is WHO he claimed to be (God.) In the WHAT of his moral teaching, Christ was not substantially different from Buddha or any of a number of people, though his WHY was radically different.
Look at the Apostle’s and the Nicene Creeds. The main thing is not the “teachings” of Jesus, but a declaration of who he is:
“By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was buried, on the third day he rose again.”
and “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.”
This is the essence of Christianity, not its morality but its theo-anthropology.
“3. If you were to read the Bible as little more than stories, could you consider yourself a Christian?”
This seems to be the same as question 2, and so again the answer is ‘no.’ This does not mean that every single thing in the bible must be read as literally true, but that is an internal debate. But again, no ressurection, no Christianity.
“4. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, do you choose between living a moral life regardless of faith in the supernatural, or magic, or God, or living for Jesus?”
Clarify. The question seems like a red-herring.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
ben and Matthew,
Both of you have asked to clarify my last question. I see now that It wasn't written well. Here it is rephrased:
December 21st, 2006 at 1:31 pm
@ dt:
I’ve read the original wording of the question, and the new re-phrasing from post 8. I still don’t understand. Why would a moral life and belief in God be mutually exclusive, such that one must choose one or the other?
December 21st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Even as rephrased, the question doesn’t make much sense.
Read my answer to question 2 again.
Belief over acts? What if your acts are informed by your belief?
December 21st, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Benny and ben,
Following the moral teachings of Jesus and the belief that Jesus was divine are separate. Many people follow the moral teachings of Jesus and believe that Jesus was divine; however, if you were to choose between the two, would you follow the moral teachings of Jesus and not believe Jesus was divine, or would you believe that Jesus was divine, and not follow the moral teachings of Jesus?
December 21st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
drunkentune:
That part I understood. It’s the having to choose between the two that I don’t understand. To me, the question is akin to asking, “if you had to choose between the two, would you believe in science or live a moral life?” An intriguing question, to be sure, but I don’t see what it illustrates, since the two are by no means mutually exclusive. But I guess I’ll answer and find out.
I see more value in living according to Jesus’ teachings than believing in his divine origin. The Bible wouldn’t need to contain any moral instructions if what’s important is belief in Jesus and God’s divine existence. But I say this as an agnostic with less than complete exposure to the Bible, so please take all this with huge grains of salt.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
“Following the moral teachings of Jesus and the belief that Jesus was divine are separate.”
No, not at all. If one doesn’t think Christ was divine then why claim to follow his teachings? There’s plenty of other moral teacher types out there, why not say you’re a follower of Marcus Aurelius?
Look at the Gospels. The moral teachings (The Sermon on the Mount) only form a small part of the narrative. The rest? Establishing that Christ is divine (miracles) and describing the relationship between God and Man (the parables).
I’m not saying that morality is unimportant, I’m just saying that you misunderstand the place that it holds in our thought.
“I see more value in living according to Jesus’ teachings than believing in his divine origin.”
Only someone who doesn’t at all understand the basics of Christianity would make that assertion.
I’m sorry if that comes across as rude, what I mean to say is that it sort of surprises me–the misunderstandings about the very very basics of Christianity that I am seeing reflected in the comments by atheists/agnostics here. I see the same utter misrepresentation in books by Dennett and Dawkins et al.
To me, the debate about God should follow a strict hierarchy. Step One is: is there ANYTHING beyond simple material?
Any debates beyond anything besides that kinda strike me as ridiculous, from the atheists perspective: why are you debating with us about the best kind of saddle for our “unicorn”? (And frustrating from the theist perspective, it is incumbent upon us to be patient, but it is hard to maintain this patience when atheists are telling us what we “realllly” believe.)
December 21st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
ben,
I understand Christianity. I understand what you’ve said – I’ve heard it plenty of times from many Christians. If, as you claim, morality is not central to Christianity, and instead there is faith, I see no need to follow the Bible, or even, frankly, care.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Atheist blind faith and irrationality far exceeds the supposed blind faith and irrationality of the Christian, I would contend:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html
So, if you atheists want to come after us, fine; just exercise the same scrutiny towards your own epistemology and cease with the double standards (hyper-examining us while ignoring your own ultimate philosophical commitments, which are ridiculous and intellectually-suicidal at worst and flimsy and unsubstantiated at best).
December 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Dave,
December 21st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
“I understand Christianity.”
I don’t really see much evidence of that in your posts. Please reconsider whether you really do understand what it is we are saying, especially if many of us have told you that you don’t understand it.
“…inordinate amounts of time detailing theology”
Potshot.
“What matters to me is that I’d live in a world where people that believe ridiculous things at least live a good life, follow the laws of a democratic society, and try to advance our acquisition of knowledge.”
Yeah, me too. How does atheism solve this problem?
December 21st, 2006 at 5:07 pm
ben,
How does your nonbelief in aliens help us live a good life, follow the laws of a democratic society, and try to advance our acquisition of knowledge?
It is not your nonbelief; it is your reasoning. Atheism is all sorts of things to people, but it is not a moral philosophy.
I don’t see how I did a “potshot”. Thousands of books have been written on theology. Thousands of lives have been spent working over theology. Countless hours have been spent thinking over things that I see are not spending more than an afternoon on. That, to me, is an inordinate amount of time.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:36 pm
I think that these four questions basically boil down to one: Would it be possible for you to follow a “Christian morality” without belief in the divinity of Christ? The only possible situation I could imagine in which one would have to make the one-or-the-other choice described is if they were presented with insurmountable evidence in the fiction of the Bible and had to choose either 1) turning from such evidence into self-deluded fictious belief, or 2) decide the Bible is myth and take what little good could be distilled from it. This is the world of the current popular plarualism, and though I know the rules there and for the sake of peace and progress I can work there, it is not my home.
For me, my home is with Jesus as he stand before the crowd. They ask him, “What are the works that God requires?” He replies, “to believe in the One whom he sent….unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you.” So for me, none of these either/or questions can be answered. They belong to a different world. In order for me do what God requires, I must believe in Jesus in such a way that I follow him, and, in some way, become him (incarnation).
Jesus is personally necessary for my morality, and for that he must be divine to me. However, if Jesus is not divine, then I do not think he is necessary for anyone’s morality. Don’t we have humanism, philosophy and all the noble ideas of our age? Will the not keep this rolling as they have been?
As I see it, there is either the Kingdom of God that Christ preached, our there are the kingdoms of our own devices. It there is no King in the first, then we may assume the only kings are in the second. Only in disatisfaction and disbelief in the second is there any need for the first.
(Now, I appologize for using a great deal of theology here if that bores the unconvinced, but you cannot ask me to make questions about morality and believe without getting such since I am in many ways a seeker of God.)
At the very least, if Jesus is not divine, it is not moral to spread my faith or to preach that others should follow him. All faiths would be equal and all non-faith would be equal, and to promote would be to deny that. If Jesus is not divine, than the subversive mission of the Kingdom of God is not moral either, save in an exteremly liberationist view. I am than undoing the only support our race has. Therefore, I should stop subverting systems in an attempt to incarnate the Kingdom.
But, after saying all that, I agree that atheists and Christians can agree on a good to work towards for the betterment of the world that is not ‘my good’ or ‘his good’ but ‘our good’. For example, both may take the ‘Golden Rule’ and practice and teach it broadly — one as if it came from the lips of God (so long as he doesn’t require that conviction of others), and the other as though it is a well tested idea by the greatest minds of our civilization. While I will see God in that and rejoice, and an atheist partner would not, we may both just rejoice in the good that it produces. Listening is the good I want from this blog. It is a good drunkentune and many other want as well. Now that good has come to me from Jesus who taught me that being a listener was more important than being a preacher, and it came to drunkentune another way, but we both listen, and that is the point.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Sure we spend an inordinate amount of time of thinking about God. But if there is a God, would not his aspects and virutes be inordinate? Is not nature itself full of an inordinate diversity of life and many more secrets than even the number of species? Then those who study it will need to spend an inordinate amount of time in its exploration, writing many books, dedicating lives to is exploration, etc. It does not matter that some think the entomologist a fool, or the naturalist wandering the tundra in search of mosses. They are living in wonder, and who knows what their dedication, so foolish to some will one day produce? It is my passion as a human to spend inordinate, or at least liberal, amounts of my life on those things that I love and in which I hope. I would hope no less of anyone. But theology unapplied could be simply exercises of the imagination, God or no God, so I advocate spending an inordinate amount of time nurturing the lives of others as well, and working for a better world. In that, you and I may share the common road.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:27 pm
With respect to Drunkentune’s post 16’s query: For the believer, the first step is accepting the existence of the Supreme Being. After that, we are forced to parse through the evidence to try to decide what we can know about the Supreme Being. We will never know fully in this life since we are limited, but we will know sufficiently to make a judgment as to the “best fit”. Oscar the Grouch is not a good fit. The triune God of the Bible is much better, though perhaps someone else might conclude that the unitary God of the Koran is. That is their right, and despite their choice, they have not fallen into the greater error of non-belief in any Supreme Being, as you have, which is the point of the post.
One of the results of making such a choice is that the subsequent experience of Christian faith confirms its validity to the person. This confirmation is relational and subjective. The person can attempt to describe the effects of such confirmation, but as you know, it will sound quite foolish to an atheist. And, amazingly enough, that is exactly what the Bible predicts will happen in such cases.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
When it all boils down to it, you either have faith that there are gods or a god, or you don’t. All the writings about all the gods throughout history is not evidence of the existence of any god. What they are evidence of is belief or faith in gods.
Religions may have provided some good within various societies such as group cohesion, a common goal or focus - they may have even helped to form concepts of morality and ethics which have allowed large groups of people to work together for “the common good.”
But, for an atheist, it does not mean that any of the god concepts are actually true. The belief that they are true is what has allowed group cohesion, not the demonstrability that they are true.
I could, if pressed enough, agree that there may have been a guy called jesus in history who was a political dissident. He preached about a change in the mosaic system which he and his followers saw as unfair and corrupted.
Did he have a political and moral philosophy which was at odds with the system? Sure, I can go along with that. He may have even been nailed to a cross for his actions against the state.
Did he die and rise from the dead? Not as far as I am concerned. That takes faith that a god exists and that a god could become a man etc etc.
Was he god being born of a virgin? I don’t believe that that is so either. Theoretically, it could be possible to accept that a person called jesus existed without believing in the “divine nature” of said person.
Consequently, one could accept that aspects of jesus’ philosophy were controversial and groundbreaking for the time period.
But it takes FAITH to believe that jesus was a god. In the same way that it takes faith to accept any supernatural claim.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:00 pm
beep:
I am not sure the statement “But it takes FAITH to believe Jesus was God” has always been true. Surely, Peter and the other apostles, the other disciples who witnessed Jesus’ resurrection did not need faith, they had evidence. Paul, with his experience on the road to Damascus did not need faith, he had experiential evidence that he found irrefutable, despite his prior skepticism/oppression to Christians. What it takes is faith that the reports of those witnesses are true to believe. That is not a blind leap into some weird absurdity like “I believe the Munchkins are the only gods.” Now, if everyone who accepted the reports of the witnesses to those events found their subsequent experience to be devoid of meaning or any sense of the divine, then they would have reason to doubt the reports of those apostles. But if instead, they attested to personal experience of the divine in their lives, and the effect of their changed lives on their world was more in a positive direction than negative (especially if their works showed they actually were sincere in their devotion to Jesus’ teaching), then that would suggest their faith was not a delusion.
Also, many people have reported significant experiences with the supernatural via near-death experiences. Many of them say that after that following such experiences, they feel convinced of the spiritual aspect of the universe, that they no longer fear death, and that they were able to perceive things on earth and in another dimension (heaven). Some of them witnessed events that happened while the medical teams were administering CPR and the blood supply to the brain was minimal, so they could not have been able to biologically perceive such events. See http://www.nderf.org .
For the skeptic to deny their reports and the reports of the apostles and faithful Christians who report their experience of the spiritual, is as much a lack of faith in your fellow man than it is in God. Such a person should not trust the reports of scientists because they are fellow men. They could trust their own observations of nature when they become profient in an aspect of science, they should not accept any of the claims found in textbooks or research papers. They have no more reason to trust the reports of scientists than they do of near-death experiencers or apostles.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:20 pm
beepbeep:
Sure. I would never be one to say you must believe in Jesus’ divinity in order to believe in his historicity. There are a great many people who pick out the Jesus they judge to be real. So in that respect, someone could follow the ‘historical Jesus’ or the ‘mythical Jesus’ without believeing in his divinity, but they would not believe in him as I do. That goes without saying.
And so it is a different thing to say “I find him true” then to say, “I can prove he is true to everyone.” I only say the first. But my point is, if he is not divine, wouldn’t most people think we have better moral structures and social theories today? (Not that they are right, but given our progressive bias of modern over ancient, that’s what most people would likely think.) In my book, Jesus’ morality and social theory only really makes sense if his identity is also true, because he is offering a intergrated alternate view of reality — one in which there is a personal God, the dead are raised, prayer works, and miracles happen. For example, what does an ethic like “don’t store up treasures for yourself on earth…instead store them in the heavenes” mean apart from Jesus’ divinity? Nothing whatsoever, in my opinion, in a strictly material world, and there are many other teachings like this. In fact Jesus says relatively little of use to a purely materialistic cosmos.
I agree with you. Faith is central. But I would not judge it an unreasoning faith or one that does not ask questions. No, since it is a system intergrated with the identity of Jesus, it is personal and relational faith, which is a different kind of truth measured in a different way. It cannot be measured by math or logic or biological probing any more than these could measure sociology or psychology. It is relational, and so that is the only kind of test that will suffice.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:24 pm
RE “I am not sure the statement “But it takes FAITH to believe Jesus was God†has always been true. Surely, Peter and the other apostles, the other disciples who witnessed Jesus’ resurrection did not need faith, they had evidence. Paul, with his experience on the road to Damascus did not need faith, he had experiential evidence that he found irrefutable, despite his prior skepticism/oppression to Christians.”
Nah. People writing about “mystical experiences” were a dime a dozen 2 thousand years ago. The ancient world is full of stories of gods, demons, angels, amn gods etc. People believed all sorts of crazy stuff. That someone writes in a 1500 year old book that a guy rose from the dead, doesn’t impress me much.
And that someone wrote there were witnesses to this “extraordinary event” doesn’t impress me much either.
These people believed that bird blood could cure leprosy for goodness sake. Not a lot of critical thinking going on.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:41 pm
RE soulster:
My opinion, is that all sorts of beliefs may have social value. It doesn’t mean that what is believed in is true. People acting as if it is true is where the value or potential lack of value lies.
Essentially it still takes faith to believe that any of the supernatural events occurred. Whether they are the supposed witnessing of the resurrection, or Paul’s “revelation” on the road.
I tend to go with the “noble lie theory” as a political construct. It is ancient, people find it attractive, and many societial structures have found it of value as it works to keep people politically compliant.
All Things Bright And Beautiful And The Noble Lie
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/search?q=noble+lie
Hey, I could be wrong. That is the good thing about being an atheist. I can admit that I might be wrong. A theist can’t doubt faith, because faith is the building block of their worldview and to say they might be wrong, is to doubt. Doubt is a no-no for those of religious faith.
December 21st, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Human beings share a genetic code sequence with all other living things based on a extraordinarily long double-helix molecule. Strings are the basis of the manifestation of matter and energy in the universe. There are over 30 billion stars. The earth has a molten core. Magnetic fields that surround the earth are caused by flows of magna in vast underground streams. People who have drowned in icy lakes have been brought back from the dead after more than an hour underwater. The modern world sure has a lot of unbelievable stories going around, doesn’t it? I mean I’ve never personally experienced any of those things that those guys are claiming, so why should I trust them any more than I trust the ancients. People are people, you know, they just can’t ever be trusted. Don’t put your faith in any of their reports.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Ed,
Science does not claim to have the ultimate truth, as many holy texts do. Science is a process, and I trust the process that attempts to uncover the truth because its results have been repeatedly verified by both skeptics and individuals disinterested in furthering a dogma.
There is a wonderful short story you might want to read, called The Parable of the Boulder
December 21st, 2006 at 9:13 pm
I think this is a false dichotomy. I say I could be wrong intellectually, as I have in many places on this blog, and many great Christian minds will say as much. I can doubt the intellectual side of faith as an atheist doubts non-faith, science, and everything else. What is required for the believer is faith as relational trust, which in all cases allows for intellectual doubt, though it insures consistency in behavior. In fact, for many, doubt plays a crucial role in faith, as it does for me. Only a elementray reading of the Bible would claim otherwise. It is doubt that drives all the great people of faith into the face of God. It is doubt that causes us to cry out and seek him. And it is doubt that keeps our arrogance from damaging others (hopefully). What else was Jesus saying when he cried from the cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” and referenced the Psalm of David?
December 21st, 2006 at 9:20 pm
My faith experience is also subject to revision, as is its collective experience. Belief is always accompanied by doubt for me, and while my Bible urges me not to doubt, it fully shows that it is expected I will doubt. So, I am also open to revising my understanding of my faith as I am my science. Faith understanding and science understanding will only reach perfection for me in heaven. I am over 99% confident in Christianity. It has been repeatedly replicated that skeptics have come to experience it. Their testimonies of faith mimic my own. I was a skeptic until age 18. I’ve known many other believers who were skeptics when younger as well.
December 21st, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Matthew (per Comment #6),
How do you feel that Ed Lynam does not think it is possible to consider someone a Christian and follow Christ’s message, even if they believe that Christ was a myth?
Ed,
Are you open to dismissing parts of the Bible if it contradicts science?
I’ll be out for a few days, so I hope you all have fun in my absence!
December 21st, 2006 at 9:57 pm
See, I am perplexed that people can be 99% sure that someone who was dead, can come to life again.
It is always the supernatural claims that present me with the most problems.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:05 pm
soulster:
I agree that some religious people can doubt, but it is rarely doubt that would cease them from having faith. When the doubt becmes great, most believers push it aside in preference to retaining faith. If they don’t make a conscious decision to push doubts aside they WILL become agnostic or atheist, like me.
And the realization of this is enough for many people to preserve faith by all or any means, especially in cultures where a lack of religious faith is seen as the lowest possible position in the social hierarchy.
On the otherhand, if I am willing to believe in what I consider to be improbables, I could become a believer and a follower of a religion tomorrow.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Well, I am open to interpreting portions of the Bible in a different manner than fundamentalists do. In fact, you may find it surprising that I find the theory of evolution to be more certain than I do Christianity. I would be seen by fundamentalists as possibly apostate, but that is the truth. However, I do not need to make a conscious decision to push doubts away about the theory of evolution and I don’t need to for Christianity. I would also say that when I was 18, and made my decision to become a Christian I was about 60% sure it was right (like string theory now). I guess that qualifies as about as small as a mustard seed. But my doubts have dimished as I’ve experienced the faith and learned more about spiritual things, which was not possible when I was a skeptic. My doubts have also diminished about the theory of evolution, as the genetic projects and further supportive scientifci evidence comes to light. An open minded religionist like me is very similar to an open minded skeptic (agnostic) about spiritual things. A closed minded religionist who refuses to look honestly at evidence for evolution is more similar to a closed minded skeptic who refuses to look honestly at evidence for spiritual things, than she would be to me. It is the openness to search for truth that is the key, and the humility to admit our limited experiences and biases, that are the mark of the philaletheian.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:25 am
Hi drunken
(#16)
I ain’t gonna answer your question-answer to my questions! LOL
If you want to actually interact with my paper, fine, but I don’t see the point of going down a rabbit trail.
Oh, and I would recommend actually reading it, not just skimming.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:28 am
I should add that my target in that paper is not non-belief in the Christian or theistic God, so much as it is what Atheists DO manage to believe, that I find essentially indistinguishable from gross polytheism, as argued in the paper.
In other words, it is your religious beliefs (the stuff you actually believe in faith) that I find intriguing and quite absurd, not your lack thereof (wrt Christianity or some form of western theism).
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:03 am
Dave,
Then you paper isn’t really targeting atheists and atheism - only the few atheists that express polytheistic language in relation to matter (as per your argument). You generalize the worldview of atheists by including other claims under the “atheist” label besides positive or negative atheism. The lack of faith in the existence of a god is not irrational; perhaps the beliefs of the atheists you quote are.
You are (presumably) an atheist in relation to the Greek Pantheon, Allah, and the Mormon god. That is not “blind faith” or “irrational” or “ridiculous and intellectually-suicidal at worst and flimsy and unsubstantiated at best.”
It’s common sense.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Again, you completely miss the point. If you had actually read the paper and grasped the reductio argument I made there, it is a perfectly serious critique (incorporating provocative satirical humor) of what every atheist believes (indeed MUST believe (matter being all there is).
Clearly, neither you nor beepbeep have understood the very nature of the argument. You obviously think it is far less serious and ignorant than it actually is. It doesn’t rest upon you stating that you are a polytheist. Of course you don’t say that.
Rather, it is based on the attributes that you believe particles of matter inherently possess, that require no less faith (I would say much MORE faith) than the attributes we believe God possesses.
And so this is faith, and not a whit more reasonable than what we believe (again, I say, much LESS reasonable or plausible). You can hem and haw that you have no faith at all and your outlook is entirely reasoned and logically airtight if you like, but it’s sheer nonsense.
The sooner the atheist recognizes this, then the better off they will be epistemologically (because self-understandibng is key to all understanding).
Atheist-Christian discussion would then vastly improve, too, because you will cease laboring under the condescending illusion that y’all are so eminently rational and we are fundamentally irrational and gullible, and as if we are the only ones exercising faith or accepting things we can’t prove, whereas you supposedly are not.
It’s the residue of the dead philosophy of positivism, I reckon. It’ll take several more generations for atheists to get over that miserably failed thought-experiment.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Also, please read #36 above. You seem to have missed that, too, judging by your response, that #36 already dealt with. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Just wanted to say that some posts on this tread are getting dangerously close to a mocking tone. In the interest of keeping our ears open, we should be careful not to push people into defensiveness at which point listening becomes difficult if not impossible. Of course, this will require walking a knife edge of sorts since we must still be honest, which includes much evaluation and saying how we feel about things. I’m feeling that this conversation is teetering on the edge about to fall into closing each other’s minds. Perhaps we can practice good listening skills by summarizing the other person’s objection or position, stating politely that we understand but disagree or where we think they missed us, and moving on to the exploration of other things if the conversation is just going round in circles. Since we have very different views of the world in some areas, we should expect disagreements about the importance of certain pieces of evidence and the force of certain arguments, so none of that should be a surprise to anyone. There will likely be no single point where anyone stands or falls in this blog, or in the larger conversation it represents, so we are more faithful to ourselves and our readers by presenting the broadest picture possible.
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:58 pm
For my part (inasmuch as #40 would apply to me, if at all), I am simply turning the tables. The implication that Christians are somehow logically and intellectually deficient (and often, mentally ill) is standard, humdrum atheist modus operandi.
As long as that is the case, certainly it can’t be wrong for Christians to make arguments that atheist epistemology involves the same basic aspects of faith and induction that Christian epistemology entails.
Nor is it wrong for me to point out that my very argument is not being accurately portrayed in how it is described in replies.
It’s “mocking”, I suppose, insofar as the standard argumentative techniques of the reductio ad absurdum, analogy, or turning the tables are “mockery.” Much worse happens to us Christians all the time. My replies are, I think, quite mild compared to what Christians are routinely accused of.
To cite just one example above, drunkentune wrote:
“Science does not claim to have the ultimate truth, as many holy texts do. Science is a process, and I trust the process that attempts to uncover the truth because its results have been repeatedly verified by both skeptics and individuals disinterested in furthering a dogma.”
Now, the implication (subtle, but quite real and definite) is that Christians are either anti-science or irrational or dogmatic in the blind sense, or all of the above (or quantitatively much more so than atheists, at the least). This is common atheist polemic: they are the “scientific” ones, while we flounder around in gullible irrationality.
But it’s simply untrue. The materialist atheist is, I would argue, more dogmatic than the Christian. To show this is very simple. Take, for instance, the evolution / creation controversy.
The Christian can adopt either position (I have held both myself, at different times, as a Christian). But the atheist cannot possibly accept a creationist outlook in any way, shape, or form (even fairly secular Intelligent Design has to be derisively dismissed), because his dogma precludes it from the outset.
How about the question of spirit and matter, that has occupied philosophers for centuries? The materialist atheist (not all atheists are materialists, but most are) cannot accept the existence of spirit, because his materialist dogma forbids it. The Christian, of course, can, so his worldview is less dogmatic and less exclusive.
The materialist has the underlying dogma that science is pretty much the only path to truth (albeit constantly capable of being revised, but even so, it can give us much reliable truth about reality). Science, in turn, rules out (by definition) explanations involving non-material elements or aspects.
But that is pure dogma, and simplistic to boot. The Christian, on the other hand, recognizes that science is but one philosophy (roughly-speaking, empiricism): one which involves unproven axioms from the outset. To claim that it is the only way to arrive at truth is philosophically naive in the extreme.
The Christian is under no such constraints. Recognizing that science is but one species of philosophy, and that it can’t possibly exclude things that are beyond its purview (just as religion does not and cannot preclude science, because it is a separate inquiry), we can discuss and incorporate non-scientific avenues to truth.
But the atheist, by and large, cannot do that, because their dogma (generally-speaking, as throughout) confines them to one method, and then they labor under the illusion that this method is the be-all and end-all of reality (itself in turn reduced to materialism by most atheists).
All of that requires at least as much as, but arguably much more faith than any Christian exercises by believing in God and revelation. It entails dogma that has no shred of evidence suggesting that it is indubitably true, and that no one could possibly doubt it.
Blind faith? There is plenty in atheism. There are many faith-assumptions and axioms, just as in Christianity. The difference is that we honestly admit that we have faith and can’t and don’t know everything there is to know about reality.
In other words, Christianity allows a place for intellectual humility and the finiteness of humen beings and our minds. But atheism tends to make out that people can figure everything out, and it is relatively simple, etc., etc., because we have the “god” of science to solve all problems and reach virtually all knowledge.
But most atheists are unwilling to admit that they accept any tenets or presuppositions that involve any leaps of faith or unproven assumptions. This is itself irrational, and philosophically naive.
And that is what I was driving at in my paper about “Deo-Atomism.” Most atheists don’t dare to truly interact with it because it attacks their root assumptions at such a fundamental level, and they (like anyone else) don’t want to deal with that: it’s too frightening in its implications. Again, we Christians have our root assumptions attacked all the time (often gleefully so, with the “gotcha” attitude quite apparent), but atheists don’t like it so much when we do the same to them (minus the triumphalism and condescension and insinuations of mental and psychological abnormality).
It was that way when I first put out the paper some years ago and I see that nothing has changed: the reaction is precisely the same now (judging by drunken and beepbeep and their non-replies or non sequitur responses).
Nothing PERSONAL, I assure you. All I’m doing is responding to what Christians are subjected to and making a reasoned, analogical, analytical critique of atheist presuppositions.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Spme people just don’t get it. There is no “atheism” - certainly none that qualifies as an ideology.
I will accept that the word” atheism” exists, but it doesn’t define a set of beliefs.
So, when I hear the word “atheism” I realize that people are assuming a common set of beliefs associated with the term.
I think of it more this way. “Atheism” is the state of being an atheist. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or gods. But there really is no more to it than that.
Many atheists wouldn’t have a clue what materialism is, or naturalism, or secular humanism - the probably don’t care either.
They just don’t believe in the existence of gods. In the same way that someone doesn’t believe in the existence of plutonians. This doesn’t mean that they have an ideology associated with why they don’t believe in the existence of plutonians.
Those who want to suggest that for everything someone does not believe in that they must have an ideology which supports their lack of belief in something, are really just trying to shift the burden of proof.
It is with those who make the positive claim for the existence of something where this burden lies. Many recognize that this is a burden which they cannot fulfill therefore they wish to shift it. The burden cannot be fulfilled because the positive claim for the existence of any god relies on faith.
In the same way that if I believed in the existence of invisible teapots, my positive claim for their existence would rely faith.
It takes faith to believe that someone can come back from the dead and rise either physically or spiritually into the sky.
It takes faith to believe that the supposed witnesses are credible witnesses.
It takes faith to believe that the supernatural exists. etc etc.
The arguments FOR the existence of a god, any god - eventually rely upon faith. It is best, in my opinion, if believers recognized this and stopped claiming that they have definitive evidence of the existence of any god.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I suppose what it comes down to is that religious people consider faith to be the highest human expression. Whereas, many of the rest of us, don’t.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly that some people just don’t get it.
Many atheists wouldn’t have a clue what materialism is, or naturalism, or secular humanism - the probably don’t care either.
Exactly. You’re clearly one of those. You don’t have a clue even about what your own presuppositions are, or else you would defend them and not deny that you have any or assert that many atheists (possibly including yourself) are clueless. Hey; you said it, not I.
That has no bearing whatsoever as to whether non-theist belief-systems (whatever they are) have metaphysical and epistemological difficulties to be worked through or not. They do, and that doesn’t depend on your (or anyone else’s) relative cluelessness or apathy about philosophy and the important questions that philosophy has dealt with for 3000 years or so.
I’m not talking about lack of belief. I’m talking about belief. BELIEF. BELIEF Got that? ATHEIST belief. Yes, you have some, whether you admit it or not. Everyone who thinks does. No exceptions. None. Zero.
So rest assured. You have them. And THAT is what I am critiquing. If you think the universe isn’t really here, then just say so. Don’t keep us in suspense.
You have beliefs. You have faith. About how the universe got here. About the reliability of science. About how we can trust our senses that are necessarily used to do science. About how you and I exist. About the existence of the universe. Or do you deny this?
This is philosophy and logical argumentation. Or do you deny that you have any beliefs about those, too, and that your belief-system is simply a set of negatives about what you don’t believe (as if a totally negative, reactionary outlook without any positive beliefs of one’s own makes any sense).
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that something can come from nothing.
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that the universe can create itself.
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that science provides the only possible reliable knowledge to be had.
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that only matter exists and there is no spirit. Even Albert Einstein denied that.
The arguments FOR the inherent existence of such amazing creative characteristics of atoms - eventually rely upon faith. It is best, in my opinion, if atheists recognized this and stopped claiming that they do not accept unprovable axioms, and realize that they exercise faith at some point just like everyone else.
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:58 am
RE dave:
“happy holidays” - “merry mithras” and “happy santamas” to you too.
Re soulster:
“Merry Christmas”
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:00 am
Dave: Try not to get your panries in a bumch, it scares santa.
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:25 am
RE dave: (semi-serious comment)
The difference is that I don’t know if anything exists outside the natural world and I don’t claim to know. I also don’t have an overwhelming desire to believe that anything does.
You don’t know if anything exists outside of the material world either, but you have an overwhelming desire to believe that something does.
And that at least one of these somethings requires your worship. I have never been heavily into hero worhip of any kind. (Could be a genetic flaw, who knows?)
I have also never been interested in what I consider to be artificial supernatural hierarchies with an invisible superhero at the top either.
I don’t look for invisible nor visible beings to defer to. I sink or swim according to whatever knowledge I may be able to glean from the time I have as a naturally living being on planet earth.
In your opinion, I will be sinking and you are entitled to this opinion, as wrong as I think it might be.
To be quite frank with you, if there is a supernatural being that requires worship and general a*s* kissing to keep it happy, sedated and non-violent; it won’t be getting any smoochies from me.
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 am
Ben:
Thank you for the correction (comment 13). I apologize for my mistake. It is precisely because I don’t have a firm grasp of what Christians believe that I come here, to listen to beliefs other than my own.
Dave:
I think comment 40 indeed applies to you, in light of comments such as:
“So, if you atheists want to come after us, fine; just exercise the same scrutiny towards your own epistemology and cease with the double standards (hyper-examining us while ignoring your own ultimate philosophical commitments, which are ridiculous and intellectually-suicidal at worst and flimsy and unsubstantiated at best).”
“I ain’t gonna answer your question-answer to my questions! LOL”
“Also, please read #36 above. You seem to have missed that, too, judging by your response, that #36 already dealt with. Tsk, tsk, tsk.”
And this is just from your comments prior to comment 40; I see the tone as getting only more hostile afterwards.
I agree with you, everyone who holds beliefs, be they atheists, agnostics, theists, or another group that I apologize for not thinking of at 2:41 am, have the same responsibility to justify their beliefs. But it seems counter-productive to me to pre-suppose a number of beliefs as necessary consequences as atheism, when by definition atheism is merely the lack of belief in deities. It seems even more counter-productive if when someone disagrees with the beliefs you have assigned to them, you proceed to accuse them as refusing to own up to their supposed beliefs.
As I said, you have every right to challenge the beliefs of atheists (and everyone else, for that matter). But first please ask us and listen to us to determine what beliefs we actually hold. I think that would be a good place for us to start.
beepbeepitsme:
I agree with many of the points you have raised, but I don’t think “try not to get your panties in a bunch” is going to get this conversation anywhere good.
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I’d like to refer to the model proposed by Scott Peck on stages of spiritual growth. (I like Scott Peck’s stuff due to my partiality- he was a psychiatrist also, and graduated from the same medical school). He proposed that spiritual development progressed in life from chaotic/antisocial to formal/institutional to skeptical/individual to mystical/communal. People in different stages have a hard time understanding one another’s perspective, particularly those in the earlier stages. One of the most interesting things I’ve considered along these lines is Jesus’ statement (to the more spiritually advanced apostles), Suffer not the little children to come to me… Obviously this is meant to show that his purpose was to make an appeal to pathetically immature people of all walks of life. So, I think that some of the skeptic’s comments about the Supreme being wanting to have people kiss his heiny and kow-tow to keep him placid or favorably disposed, is a view of believers who are in the formal/institutional stage. I see myself (and I think this is true for Soulster) in the mystical/communal stage. I experience God as a friend, a pleasant companion, and someone I would never seek to manipulate because of my respect for him. Out of that experience, I see my life’s work to be that of helping patch up the damage done to children by abuse, neglect, and early onset mental illness, and outside my profession, to show the kind of respect and love that each person deserves. So, it may be useful to consider that our discussion here is about understanding one another and not about convincing one antoher.
December 24th, 2006 at 2:47 am
Well put, Ed. Where can I read more about Mr. Peck’s work? Or should I just google?
December 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Ok, Benny, sure. How do you believe that the universe got here? How did atoms and matter in general come to acquire the remarkable qualities that they have?
I agree with you, everyone who holds beliefs, be they atheists, agnostics, theists, or another group that I apologize for not thinking of at 2:41 am, have the same responsibility to justify their beliefs.
Great. Please do so with yours. What positive beliefs do you have about how the universe came to be as it is? On what basis do you have these opinions?
But it seems counter-productive to me to pre-suppose a number of beliefs as necessary consequences as atheism, when by definition atheism is merely the lack of belief in deities.
As stated at least three times now, I am not critiquing the negative aspects of atheism (not beliving in God; not believing in the supernatural; not believing the Bible, etc.). I am criticizing what most atheists do believe.
It seems even more counter-productive if when someone disagrees with the beliefs you have assigned to them, you proceed to accuse them as refusing to own up to their supposed beliefs.
No atheist has shown me that he or she has no opinion whatsoever about the origin of the universe. It seems to me that everyone must have some opinion about that. If they have none, then fine; I’m not interested in that person with regard to this discussion because they are in an epistemological bubble, immune from all criticism or intelligent discourse, because they refuse to face the “philosophical music,” so to speak.
But for anyone who does have an opinion about matter and the nature of the universe: how it began (if it ever began); how it will end (if it ever does), this will intrinsically entail axiomatic presuppositions and the equivalent of ‘faith.”
You disagree? Please explain. Since no atheist I have ever encountered has not explained to me how they have less faith and fewer unprovable axioms than a Christian, I am perfectly within my “rights” to assert that the Christian is no less scientific or no more gullible or “dogmatic” or prone to believe technically unprovable things than the atheist.
THAT is my point. Either no atheist here understands it, or does and is unwilling to interact with it because it is too threatening, and that makes me frustrated, in light of the continued double-standard charges against Christians: that we are fundamentally deficient in our intellectual outlooks.
It’s easy to refuse to acknowledge and defend one’s own intellectual commitments and to simply run down Christians and Christianity and particularly the more extreme examples of same (for the sake of caricature and easy dismissal).
It’s not quite the same fun and games and amusement to actually closely examine one’s own presuppositions and the consequences of them.
I’ll guarantee that any atheist who is willing to open themselves up to such a close examination will be found to have every bit as much “faith” as any Christian who has ever lived. I’d be happy to demonstrate that, if any atheist is willing to take me up on the challenge.
But it requires sticking to the subject and the courage to submit one’s own views to intense scrutiny.
December 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Dave:
Thank you for your response. I feel like we’re getting somewhere now
I’ll start with one of your particularly salient points:
“It’s easy to refuse to acknowledge and defend one’s own intellectual commitments and to simply run down Christians and Christianity and particularly the more extreme examples of same (for the sake of caricature and easy dismissal).”
In the same vein, it’s easy to run down Atheists and Atheism and particularly the more extreme examples, right? And I feel that is what you have done in the paper you linked near the beginning of this discussion, which is probably what sparked much of the disagreement that followed. Let’s agree not to blame each other for the more extreme examples of our respective positions, which I’m sure are responsible for much of the frustration we each have felt.
You also said:
“I’ll guarantee that any atheist who is willing to open themselves up to such a close examination will be found to have every bit as much “faith†as any Christian who has ever lived. I’d be happy to demonstrate that, if any atheist is willing to take me up on the challenge.”
You may well be right. But I think it’s fool-hardy to try to make generalizations about the positive beliefs of atheists, simply because there’s so many different varieties. In general, I think if we can avoid the use of words like “guarantee” and “challenge”, it’ll be easier to do away with obstacles like the pre-suppositions and adversarial attitudes many of us (myself definitely included) have exhibited.
I would be happy to present my own beliefs regarding how the universe came into being and the other issues you raised. But I am not sure this particular comment thread is the best venue for such a discussion. I know, that sounds just like a cowardly dodge, and I hope you won’t view it as such.
What I propose is that we start a new discussion topic for this. Something where we can examine the various positive beliefs held by atheists and agnostics. Maybe something like “A Critique of the positive beliefs of Non-theists.” Or maybe something more focused, maybe start with a particular issue, like how we think the universe came into being. If this sounds agreeable to you, one or both of us can then email drunkentune and soulster to ask them to start a new discussion.
December 25th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
That’s fine. I contend not thatr I have critiqued what only a few fringe atheists belieev,. in my paper, but the logical consequences of what virtually every atheist believes. This is what hasn’t been understood.
Oftentimes, people see some sarcasm or satire and a reductio ad absurdum argument (my paper was all of the above) and they go all off in the wrong direction, thinking it is either :
1) misrepresenting what they believe,
or
2) that it isn’t a serious argument because it involves pointed humor.
Neither is true of my paper. It applies to almost all atheists (except perhaps the odd non-materialist one like David Chalmers).
Moreover, the nature of a reductio critique is to show that one’s beliefs have certain (to them, or generally) unacceptable consequences. It is designed precisely to demonstrate that the logical results of the position being examined are absurd; therefore, the position must be re-examined or discarded.
In this instance, I was also adding the additional element of making an analogy between atheist belief and the things in Christianity that the atheist critiques and despises, and believes are not present in the atheist position.
I’m doing several things at once there, but apparently little or none of that has been understood as of yet (at least judging by the responses).
No one has shown that the paper doesn’t have application to them. That’s what I’m waiting to see.
But I’m not so much interested in the question of origins (which I’ve debated to death with atheists in the past) as I am in the more specific question of whether the atheist story of origins involves as much or more faith than the Christian view.
I say yes; most atheists deny this. But I have not seen any demonstration of that from an atheist, thus far, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, for my esteemed atheist and agnostic and even liberal Christian friends, here’s a little bit more of my “turn the tables” humor, suitable for the occasion:
Silent Night (a “progressive” theological and agnostic re-interpretation and critical commentary)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/12/silent-night-progressive-theological.html
Hope you enjoy it.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Cool; emailing drunkentune and soulster now to request a new discussion where we can explore the relationship between faith and atheist stories (I must emphasize the plural here) of origins.
I dig your Silent Night commentary. Although the tone seems to dance closer to mocking rather than satire or sarcasm. But maybe that’s just me having a low tolerance for satire and sarcasm
December 25th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Wel, it ain’t to everyone’s taste, but surely you must realize that Christians are constantly mocked by atheists, and so it is understandable that we (at least some of us) would do a bit of satire in return, no?
The problem is (as in many cases where there is a large amount of stereotypical ignorance on both sides of a major debate), that atheists are rarely used to ever seeing a satirical Christian response (done properly).
So when they see this there tends to be a great deal of hostility towards the person doing it. The Christian satirist is accused of being too hostile or ignorant or merely interested in clueless mocking.
That doesn’t work in my case because I know exactly what I am talking about, what I am trying to accomplish, what the issues are; I have a working knowledge of most of the major arguments on both sides, I know how satire works, and I am not stupid.
Underestimating the intelligence and knowledge of one’s opponent can lead to quite comical results itself. But it happens all the time in atheist-Christian dialogue (real or imagined).
Typically, the Christian thinks the atheist is utterly immoral, and the atheist thinks the Christian is utterly stupid. It’s roughly the same in political discourse. One side is considered immoral; the other stupid, or stuffed-short hypocritical moralists.
I don’t think any of that of atheists as a class, so if any given atheist can also figure out that I’m not stupid, then we can get somewhere, past the caricatures and stereotypes and have some great, mutually-challenging discussion.
You seem like such a person.
I wish you and all here a happy Christmas (i.e., whoever celebrate it at all), and Happy Hannukah to drunkentune.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:41 am
Honestly, I was not aware of atheists constantly mocking Christians. I guess I have been naive, sheltered, or lucky, as my experiences with atheist/theist conversations have almost always been mocking-free in both directions. Hence, I was frankly shocked and offended when you came into the thread with your, for lack of a better description, salvo of counter-mocking. But since I’m not aware of anyone having mocked you previously, I felt the salvo was a bit mis-directed. It seemed unfair for you to vent your frustrations on commenters here, who by their very presence, seemed to me to be showing willingness to find common ground with one another.
Anyway, I’m glad we’ve moved on past that inauspicious beginning. Thank you for the compliments you have paid me. It’s gratifying to feel that I have been at least somewhat successful in my efforts to get past caricatures and stereotypes. Really, I’m just following the examples of others here. They deserve at least as much respect as you have accorded me.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all
December 26th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
It’s common procedure when I meet atheists, Benny. Some think I’m the most terrible thing since Attila the Hun, or an “arrogant idiot” and a “joke” (John Loftus), while others think quite otherwise (such as an articulate atheist on another blog who privately wrote to me and said I was one of the most polite theists he had met).
Some alas, think the first thing and then move onto the second, after they figure out that I’m different from their stereotype of a caricature of what a Christian (oops, so-called “fundamentalist”) is supposed to believe and how he is supposed to act.
So what else is new? You got past my satire and know that I’m not either a nut or an ignoramus. Great! Maybe now we can have a decent conversation!
And you think atheists don’t mock Christians? Then what is it to call them mentally ill? That happens ALL the time. Do I actually have to document it? You actually think that doesn’t routinely happen in many (thankfully not all) atheist forums? You may have had good conversations (so have I) but that doesn’t mean that it is the usual occurrence. There are exceptions, such as Jim Lazarus (who actually publicly chided fellow atheists of this type), and I have joyfully noted those on my own blog.
I don’t say atheists are nuts, nor do I say they are immoral en masse, simply by virtue of being atheists. I am on record time and again noting that atheists may even be saved in the end and are not necessarily damned at all.
Simple satire and argumentum ad absurdum is not “mocking.” It is (done right) a legitimate philosophical argument. You may wish to call it “mocking” if you like, but it isn’t. Insinuations that Christians are nuts or supremely ignorant or infantile or believers in and purveyors of blind, irrational faith are the true insults.
Here is just one example among many hundreds that could, no doubt, be found. “beepbeepitsme” - who is on this thread, above, wrote on my blog:
“And by the way, when I start demanding ‘under atom’ on the moneys, or ‘in atom we trust’ in the pledge, then I will do what most of you should have done 50 years ago - seen a psychiatrist.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116668168857890194/#125353
And (jokingly, no doubt, she will say):
“Well, some of us probably enjoy talking to lunatics. Not sure if we all do, but I quite enjoy it.”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116668168857890194/#125490
I took me two minutes on Google to find Richard Dawkins describing Christians as mentally ill:
“Faith is such a successful brainwasher in its own favour, especially a brainwasher of children, that it is hard to break its hold. But what, after all, is faith ? It is a state of mind that leads people to believe something — it doesn’t matter what — in the total absence of supporting evidence. . . . Faith cannot move mountains (though generations of children are solemnly told the contrary and believe it). But it is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”
(The Selfish Gene, 1976, ch. 11)
http://www.rubinghscience.org/memetics/dawkinsmemes.html
Would you say that is mocking and insulting, Benny? Or would you try to assert that Dawkins is an altogether atypical atheist, of no particular importance?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Here are some of the comments of atheist Jim Lazarus about fellow atheists who are prejudiced against Christians:
—————
Yeah, I know, what I said is harsh. But I can’t support a movement that depicts theism as a mind disease. It’s incredibly arrogant, in my never so humble opinion. I realize that you’re trying to do what you believe is a good thing. I don’t agree that it is, though.
* * *
Btw, I’m not alone in this assessment. There are several respected atheists that I talk to who are of the same opinion. I will not state their names, because it should [be] their decision to make their views public, and certainly not mine.
* * *
I haven’t mispresented your establishment. My problems were based on the arrogance and narrow mindedness of its attitude, evidenced by the way that you’ve been acting toward believers the entire time. Your catch phrases and slogans are especially telling. Right on the front page: “Fighting to Free Humanity from the Mind Disorder Known as Theism”.
And I don’t feel especially uncomfortable saying that you have not dealt with many intelligent and well respected believers.
Suggesting that belief in theism is worthy of comparison to beliefs of men in mental institutions demonstrates the same close-minded and arrogant attitude that I mentioned in my post.
Simply because some believers support ridiculous things does not mean that they all do, or that theism itself is necessarily a deranged idea.
* * *
If you support a movement, and some of your fellows are hurting that movement, then you ought to address them and call out their errors.
* * *
On the point of the RRS/FAOR project being close-minded and arrogant, I referenced your slogans, which are great examples of close-mindedness and arrogance.
* * *
My position is more along the lines that you should be less arrogant and close-minded toward theism, because there are many believers who hold to mature conceptions of theism that are not worthy of contempt. When you classify theism itself as a mind disorder, you do many people a disservice. And because your view is close-minded and arrogant, there’s no inconsistency in my having little respect for it.
————–
From my article praising this attitude:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/fair-mindedness-triumphant-atheist-jim.html
Here is Jim’s original article:
http://consolatione.blogspot.com/2006/10/fundy-atheists-on-run.html
Obviously, if atheists themselves are starting to react against the more extreme and insulting among their own fellows, then I am not incorrect (having been the recipient of the same sort of bilge) to also speak out against it.
Atheism, like Christianity, is made up of all sorts of people. But it is undeniable that certain broad, grossly unfair criticisms of Christianity are rampant in the atheist movement as a whole. One can always find exceptions. The more the merrier. But exceptions don’t negate the rule.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:57 am
Dave & Benny,
You two seem to have this conversation under control. I’ll let you two have at it amongst yourselves. I’ll throw it my small bit, then skedaddle for a bit (It’s almost the New Year, and I’ve yet to post again!).
Oh, Dave,
This caught my eye reading through the comments.
This got the gears turning in ol’ drunkentune’s clock tower, let me tell you. What we have here, if I’m correct, is a false dilemma. There is more than just atheism/materialism and Christianity. There are plenty of other faiths that stake claims on the origin of the universe, the earth, and man. Doesn’t your dogma preclude all other contradicting faiths? You have to contend with Zoroastrianism, for example.
Besides, having more options open to you matters little to me. ID is veiled Christian creationism that is in a class of thousands of other vying creation myths. If we have logical constraints against believing absurd things such as
, so be it. Having the option to follow the facts of evolution or Norse myths – no “constraintsâ€, if you will – looks very silly when you look at all your options.
Now, on to your It takes a lot of faith…:
What are you saying here? Can you rephrase this? I don’t believe that something can come from nothing, so I think you may either be confused with what atheists actually believe, or are misrepresenting the current scientific literature’s conclusions. Again, you have to contend with other religions out there. The atheist dismisses them all (including yours) because there’s no evidence for them (and yours).
Your use of language reveals a good deal. The universe didn’t create itself. No atheist I know believes that, and I certainly don’t believe that too. Just two months ago the theory of an oscillating universe, contracting and expanding, was given a boost after the background radiation of the universe was observed. I forget if they did or did not, but they may have won a Nobel Prize in astrophysics for their work. The verdict’s still out on the origins of the universe, but I don’t see how the faith you describe comes into play when we’re measuring dark matter and proposing different theories. On one hand, we have a holy book and a religion verses a couple thousand holy books and religions; on the other, we have testing, observation, and peer review.