Lately I’ve been encountering something that is disturbing to me. There is a popular version of postmodernism — an on-the-street version — far from the literary deconstruction where it was born. It seems to over-simplify a great deal of information, leaving behind a great deal of the nuance and intelligent dialogue for a sort of shallow relativism. Taking up the slogan of our age, it pronounces “whatever” on every aspect of life and every human endeavor. For one thing, such thinking uses the label “pluralism” to equalize and homogenize all faiths. Deep down, it believes religion is like blue jeans — all that’s different is the label.

Continue reading On Pluralism

The late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan once said that if you began using terminology created by your political adversary, the battle was over. I care how words are used, and their implicit messages that shape the debate. Thus, I begin a short story: Some time ago, a young man spoke privately with a philosopher. He asked the philosopher the first action he would take if he became the king. The man scratched his beard for a minute in thought, then spoke clearly: Rectify the names.

The young man was startled, but regained composure to scoff: This is your first action? Absurd!

The philosopher answered, correcting the young man: When the names are faulty, speech is not reasonable; when speech is not reasonable, actions are not conducted properly; when actions are not conducted properly, society begins to falter; when society begins to falter, the punishment does not fit the crime; when the punishment does not fit the crime, the people are at a loss. ‘The thing about the gentleman is that he is anything but casual when speech is concerned.’ (Confucious, Analects, Book XIII)

Continue reading RESPONSE: Do Atheists Have Faith?

UPDATE: My view here is conditional on my definition of faith. Due to comments on this and other posts, I have added My Definition of Faith as a separate post to clarify the definition given here.

I would like to give my opinion on this idea which has appeared on this blog, primarily in back-and-forth comments on Me Arguing with No One in Particular, especially between Dave Armstrong (who recently departed this blog) and beepbeepitsme (the charming lady from Down Under) (numbers 42-44). Drunkentune already responded to this assertion and several others in his post Red Dust, which is worth your reading.

Some people, believers especially, would like to think or to be able to say that all humans have faith, but differ in what they have faith in or upon. This is applied especially to atheists, and in particular in those conversations when atheists assert that they do not need or wish to resort to living by faith, as believers do (sometimes, blindly some atheists might also add). I disagree with this idea that atheists have faith and here’s why:

Continue reading Do Atheists Have Faith?

Drunkentune and I (soulster) thought we’d like to send each other some questions via email and share the answers with the readers of this blog. Here are three questions by drunkentune concerning my understanding of Christianity:

Drunkentune: Dominionism [wiki] is in part control of all parts of being: the control of the mind within congregation, the control of the dominionist’s body and the bodies of those that violate the dominionist’s rules of conduct, be them homosexual or abortionist, and ultimately, control over the environment. Calvinism [wiki] is the requisition of control to a higher power and absolving all responsibility. I see that all classes of Christianity have different interpretations of scripture that seem to pull from different worldviews existing independently of the Bible or their belief. A Christian may find any message he chooses in the Bible to fit his worldview, or a verse may reinforce such a worldview that had only begun to grow. Is it possible to learn what Jesus meant, or is it that, since Jesus’ words have been used historically for any purpose, is it worth it to even attempt such an endeavor?

Continue reading Drunkentune’s Christianty Questions

At present game theory has, in my opinion, two important uses, neither of them related to games nor to conflict directly. First, game theory stimulates us to think about conflict in a novel way. Second, game theory leads to some genuine impasses, that is, to situations where its axiomatic base is shown to be insufficient for dealing even theoretically with certain types of conflict situations. … Thus, the impact is made on our thinking process themselves, rather than on the actual content of our knowledge.” (Anatol Rapaport, Fights, Games, and Debates, p. 242)

In November I gave a brief overview of Rapoport’s process to ‘win’ a debate, titled On Debate. While I agree with the procedure, there may be some inherent difficulties in applying these principals. As shown in the comments section numerous times, we must implicitly assume that both parties wish to resolve the conflict; and we must explicitly assume that both parties have a similar psyche, that of rational thought: that is, an attempt to attain the best possible outcome. Otherwise, you have the beginnings of the Fight. Agreements based on mutual understanding and conviction from both parties are sometimes quite difficult to come by, but it must be assumed that while at Philaletheia, we wish to prevent the Fight.

The emphasis of [Rapator’s debate] is on problem-solving or problem-reduction rather than persuasion; on mutually satisfactory resolutions of differences rather than victory for one party. (Herbert Simons, “Toward a New Rhetoric.” Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings.)

Chess is an excellent metaphor for debate. Both sides are in conflict, where each move has a counter-move under the shared assumption that both wish to reach checkmate, at which point the game ends.

Yet, what if the assumptions vary greatly? Rapaport names two confrontational styles: that of debate, and of the Fight. The method of debate is to the opponent’s argument is to assume that you are responding as an objective observer, weighing the data and evidence as an impartial actor; the method of the Fight is to wipe out the opponent, where rational discussion is of no use because there is no dialogue. A chess game becomes a shouting match when one side drops the rules and removes his oponent’s pieces at whim, or decides that the loss of his King is not defeat. To those that assume the Fight from the beginning, it is essentially one-sided, but the debater will soon give up, and leave behind the promotion of mutual cooperation to garb himself in rhetoric.

In alternate dispute resolution (ADR), the conflict theory I like the best, it is the things you do not talk about that get you.  Negative outcomes (war, division, predjudice, hate) are more a product of the failure of cooperation on underlying issues than of the symptomatic events themselves.  For example: It is the failure to deal with a underlying economic inequality that leads to the war, not the diplomatic incident they broadcast on TV — but the economics are unlikely to become central to the dialogue, thus the conflict cannot be resolved.  Because the root issues cannot be solved, at best you can expect a win-lose outcome, at worst a lose-lose, but never a win-win.

Keeping this in mind, I would like to present a sensitive issue to our community here: sexual misconduct among Christian leaders.

Continue reading Cooperative Problem Solving: Church Sex Scandals

I'd like to point out a recent piece by Sam Harris. Now, I'm not usually one to quote the man, but I think his analysis of atheism's argument is perhaps the best I have read. Besides, we seem to use him a bit to exemplify the rabid atheist [1], [2].

The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism. The degree to which science is committed to the former, and religion to the latter remains one of the most salient and appalling disparities to be found in human discourse. Scientists spend an extraordinary amount of time worrying about being wrong and take great pains to prove others so. In fact, science is the one area of discourse in which a person can win considerable prestige by proving himself wrong. 

If there is an argument against "evangelical" atheists like Dawkins, Weinberg, and myself it must take one of these forms:

(1) Certain religious beliefs are true (or likely to be true); here's why…

(2) Religious beliefs, while not likely to be true, are so useful that they are necessary; here's the evidence…

(3) Many religious people are so irrational that it is simply too dangerous to criticize their beliefs. Please keep your mouth shut.

(Sam Harris, at Edge)

Our reader AV has coined a new term derived from this blog, "Philaletheists," over at Five Public Opinions.  That rocks.  If it should ever make it into a dictionary, I'll flip out.

He also points out an article on Jewcy called Why Are Atheists so Angry? where the "Atheist Evangelist" Sam Harris and popular talk-show host Dennis Prager debate.  In emails, they have four days to answer "The Big Question".  It's not quite clear if the big question is the title ( apparently as badly worded as my own "Can Atheists be Good?") or the existence of God, because the posts seem to be about the latter without regard to the former.

After talking for a while about Prager's lack of an argument or cheap tricks, AV asked:

On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear what a theist makes of Harris' arguments.

Continue reading Responding to Sam Harris on Jewcy

While searching for a plugin for this site, I ran into a blog post on Zy.ca about Richard Dawkins [wiki] recent speech at a University in Lynchburg.  In the post, Zyca says:

The whole exchange and his [Dawkin's] bit about atheists being fearful of revealing themselves in the US … disturbs me. It seems inconceivable that americans are so … fanatical, but then again their president is a strong believer in “your with us or against us” ideology so I could see it being true…..Basically his strongest arguement is that being an Atheist should not be a stigma … it shouldn’t prevent you from being elected, etc. It is creepy that it would be an issue … but more so, it is creepy that there would be a cohesive group of atheists imposing their beliefs upon others. I strongly believe in live and let live … but Neocons scare the crap out of me … so maybe there is a point to unity of atheist … mind, I consider myself Agnostic. Still, fervor is fervor and whether it is backed by faith or religion, it is still a very scary thing. 

I appreciate the oberservation and honesty from someone presumably outside to the US.  This impressed upon me the importance of our dialogue here.  It is interesting that this blog was started by two Americans, though our readership is not geographically limited.  I don't think either of us would agree that there should ever be such a society where certain thought systems are afraid of revealing themselves.  That amounts to truth-suppression, or, at the very least, gross insecurity on the part of the oppressors.  To say we believe our thinking is right as atheists, theists, or anything else is, of course, reasonable.  But to believe so deeply that others are wrong that you are willing to force their view into hiding or extinction is arrogance of the worst kind, unhealthy for the truth, and just generally evil.  Humans in general, and Americans in particular, could gain much by learning the art of humility. Since our talk of late has been a lot on ethics and the ethics of dialogue, I thought we might do some ethical work here on this blog and draft a atheist-theist ethical statement on the treatment of humans, specifically with regards to people of different truth-systems and their treatment. Continue reading Afraid to Be Atheist in America?

One cannot play chess if one becomes aware of the pieces as living souls and of the fact that the Whites and the Blacks have more in common with each other than with the players. Suddenly one loses all interest in who will be champion.
(Anatol Rapoport)

The social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport said that to ‘win’ a debate, you must be able to first clearly define your opponent’s position.

1. You must re-express the points made, creating a brief overview of the ‘heart of the matter,’ if you will. The overview must be done fairly, and without use of fallacious arguments. You must do this so exquisitely that your opponent begins to nod his head in agreement.

2. Then, you should point to any points both you and your opponent agree with.

3. Then, you should express anything you have learned from your opponent.

4. Only then are you permitted to rebut, refute or criticize.

I think this should help for both the atheist and the believer.