Last week Pope Benedict XVI issued an encyclical titled Spe Salvi, a reference to a statment made by Paul to the Romans; "Spe Salvi facti sumus"—in hope we were saved.It probably won't come as a surprise to learn that God is the "hope" that sustains all Roman Catholics.
In this sense it is true that anyone who does not know God, even though he may entertain all kinds of hopes, is ultimately without hope, without the great hope that sustains the whole of life (cf. Eph 2:12). Man's great, true hope which holds firm in spite of all disappointments can only be God—God who has loved us and who continues to love us "to the end," until all "is accomplished"Atheists, by definition, do not believe in God. Therefore, we cannot have hope. This makes sense if you substitute "superstition" for "hope."
It's often the case when reading these papal ramblings that some passages are difficult to understand. I wonder if this is deliberate? Here's an example,
It is not the elemental spirits of the universe, the laws of matter, which ultimately govern the world and mankind, but a personal God governs the stars, that is, the universe; it is not the laws of matter and of evolution that have the final say, but reason, will, love—a Person. And if we know this Person and he knows us, then truly the inexorable power of material elements no longer has the last word; we are not slaves of the universe and of its laws, we are free. In ancient times, honest enquiring minds were aware of this. Heaven is not empty. Life is not a simple product of laws and the randomness of matter, but within everything and at the same time above everything, there is a personal will, there is a Spirit who in Jesus has revealed himself as Love.This seems to be more than just the passive Theistic Evolutionism of Ken Miller. It seems to be closer to a God who intervenes and guides frequently. A God who plays a much more active role than most Catholics I know would be willing to admit.
The most controversial part of the Pope's message is the following,
The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is—in its origins and aims—a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history....If in the face of this world's suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope.Now, I understand the part about a world without hope. It must be nice to rely on your preferred superstitions to get out of dealing with the problems of the world. You can be comforted in the hope that God will eventually fix it when he turns his attention to our suffering.
The part I don't get is the claim that atheism is the source of the greatest forms of cruelty and injustice. For more than a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church dominated European culture and almost everyone was a Christian. As far as I know, cruelty and injustice didn't go away during those times.
On the other hand, since the enlightenment and the coming out of atheists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we have seen huge advances in extension of fairness and justice to all people. For example, in most secular nations women are treated with something approaching equality. Meanwhile, the true believers still haven't elected a female Pope.
33 comments :
"papal rambings", "It must be nice to rely on your preferred superstitions to get out of dealing with the problems of the world."--I find these two comments humorous.
A question, though: how many of the more liberal nations have ever had a female leader of state? Has Sweden, perhaps the most atheist nation in the West, ever had a female leader?
Larry, whole semesters of religion and philosophy classes could devote themselves to the issues mentioned by the Pope and your own particular predictable “ramblings.” I, as a member of the loyal opposition, prefer to offer my own humble ‘test’ for you – a naturalist. If there were a validity test to determine successful worldviews, three necessary criteria might be:
1. The ability to empirically explain reality.
2. The ability to be trusted: coherence, logic, grounds for reason.
3. The ability to address the internal existential needs of humans.
If naturalism (including atheism) were given the ‘test’, this is how I and others would score it.
1. The ability to empirically explain material reality = B. Naturalism is simple (compared to worldviews that involve supernatural realms). It has a simple direct focus on our known world. It is good at empirical investigation and explanation (notwithstanding its unique interpretation).
2. The ability to be trusted = D. Naturalism fails to provide a sufficient, meaningful non-scientific basis for rationality. Therefore, it fails to provide a justification for itself.
3. The ability to address the internal existential needs of humans = F. Naturalism provides very limited (often fluid) explanations for all of existential and metaphysical reality. It fails to provide humans (no matter their status in life) with something that they obviously thirst for - lasting meaning and purpose.
Now, if you want to start counting the sins of naturalists the way you count the sins of non-naturalists, fine. I would respectfully invite you and other naturalists to explain why naturalism and its philosophical cousins should merit extraordinary influence over science and education at higher levels (in mostly ‘western/ countries), and why naturalism should get a passing grade as a successful worldview.
Dragon
Responding to anonymous...
I don't see the importance of either 2 or 3, at least as a way of grading science. But for 2, if you're going to offer an explanation for rationality, it'd better be something more than an appeal to religious dogma, or you're just wasting my time.
As for the "internal existential needs of humans" - not science's job. Other people do better job of that, and a lot better than any supernatural agent.
anonymous: science does not even make a pretense in the first place to some grand ontological justification of TRUTH... whatever such a thing might be. What it does is work to teach us things about this common reality we all seem to be collectively experiencing, and it works better than anything else at that (in part, frankly, because it relies on the simple common sense that if you want to learn if some claim is true or false, the best thing to do is go out and check rather than sitting in your easy chair making up answers as you go along)
Dragon:
Why do you give a B to naturalism for "ability to empirically explain material reality?" Isn't that what methodological naturalism is -- explaining material phenomena empirically? You give it less than an A for failing to not quite be itself?
As for 2, naturalism handles logic and reason just fine. There is no need to pretend such things are "supernatural" or mystic, or any such mumbo jumbo. For instance, logic as a discipline is the study of inferences, or as a system, is a set of inference rules. That's it. "God," "magic," and so forth have no place in any of this, and contribute nothing to coherency.
And 3 can be handled to some extent by psychology. Your corollary that naturalism "fails to provide humans...with something that they obviously thirst for - lasting meaning and purpose," is empirically falsified by the many humans of the naturalist persuasion that either find lasting meaning and purpose despite, or else see the concepts as vague, nebulous religio-ramblings and thus do not "obviously thirst for" them as you claim.
> Now, if you want to start counting the sins of naturalists the way you count the sins of non-naturalists, fine.
Then how many have been killed in the name of atheism, may I ask? Stalin specifically targeted people with religious commitments, this was not accidental, nor with Mao, nor the Vietnamese.
So indeed, let's count them up, to see if there may be a difference.
The head of the catholic church is as arrogant and presumptuous as we have to come to expect of main espousers of major religions. You would think that the fact that there are several major religions would make them refrain from such transparent intolerance, but apparently their followers allow them to get away with it.
That the usual false dichotomy that is the base of all religious thinking is paraded in its most extreme form (no alternative to moralism) is par for the course as well. More surprisingly is that it is Ratzinger that says so, as his philosophical bent should make him interested in history. Obviously modern atheism is as earlier atheism against the church whether with or without accentuating the moral failures of major religions.
Dragon:
I'm afraid I will have to give you an "F" on the subject of analysis.
Naturalism as espoused in science is the best example of empiricism we have, which gives it an "A" on both 1 and 2. (Possibly you could claim that it would be better to have immediate access to trustful facts, but that is but a fantasy of nutters.)
And the point 3 seems inconsequential to world views. Not all world views propose to address needs (naturalism for one). Nor is world views the only way to address diverse existential needs. Many use rituals or drugs, and religions of many kinds are well known to resort to such means, the catholic church among them. Perhaps because these religions fail as satisfying and trustful world views, and don't offer empirical explanations at all?
Stalin
Do you think the purpose of say Lenin's or Stalin's different politics was to propagate atheism as opposed to religion? That claim falls on its own incoherence, even more so as Stalin himself oppressed atheism and killed atheists after WWII.
It seems more reasonable to admit that communism worked as the de facto state religion that everyone paid obeisance to, and that atheism was at times used as a front to disempower contending power structures like churches.
And why did you stay away from the H-word, so popular among those who can't distinguish atheism from politics?
Naturalism provides very limited (often fluid) explanations for all of existential and metaphysical reality. It fails to provide humans (no matter their status in life) with something that they obviously thirst for - lasting meaning and purpose.
I am (as far as I know) human. I do not "obviously thirst for" anything I would call "lasting meaning" or "purpose". Please stop with this silly generalization, it is trivially not true.
> Do you think the purpose of say Lenin's or Stalin's different politics was to propagate atheism as opposed to religion?
It sure was, the state set out specifically to erase religion, and killed people who got in the way, many multiplied thousands, if not millions of them.
And as far as killing atheists, this bears further comment, thinking people are essentially dancing chemical collections makes it possible to destroy them in clear conscience.
Evolutionary impulses may forbid this, but what are they to tell me what I should do?
"...thinking people are essentially dancing chemical collections makes it possible to destroy them in clear conscience."
Perhaps to you, if this comment is as straightforwardly revealing as it appears. Not to the rest of us sane folk.
You can trivialize anything with that kind of reductionist breakdown. Your car isn't worth anything, it's just molecules. Give it to me. Your soul isn't worth anything, it's just ambiguous "soul stuff." Sell it to me. These words have no meaning, they're just lighted pixels on a screen. Stop reading and don't reply to me.
Or perhaps you want to join Club Sanity and get with the rest of us in acknowledging that the way all of us value things has little to do with simply summing up said things' constituent parts.
And Lo! he presented the Holy Spectacles of Blind Faith
lee-merril says,
And as far as killing atheists, this bears further comment, thinking people are essentially dancing chemical collections makes it possible to destroy them in clear conscience.
Evolutionary impulses may forbid this, but what are they to tell me what I should do?
I realize that this is tongue-in-cheek but it's still a pretty silly thing to say, even in jest.
It makes you look like one of those fools who think that ethics can only be based on religion.
Speaking of religion, your statement implies that once you start thinking of humans as something other than a bag of chemicals you will stop killing them. Or at least you will stop killing them with a clear conscience. Does history support such an implication?
Bad said... “Anonymous… Science does not even make a pretense in the first place to some grand ontological justification of TRUTH.”
Dragon replies… Thank you! However, Sandwalk visitors habitually fail to limit their views to science, but incorporate a worldview, which does require an ontological justification of TRUTH. A good example is this post by Larry and his condescending, “God is the ‘hope’ that sustains all Roman Catholics” (inferring that hope is somewhere else like naturalism or that hope is irrelevant). Given your statement, why do evolutionary scientists make such a big deal about evolution being “true” and invoke naturalism into science classrooms and Ph.D.s, if (scientifically speaking) they have no “ontological justification” for what’s true?
AL said... “Dragon: Why do you give a B to naturalism for ‘ability to empirically explain material reality?’ Isn't that what methodological naturalism is?”
Dragon replies… No. Methodological naturalism is an a priori philosophical view of material reality (science). And, if one brings a limiting view to the table of science, one doesn’t get an A.
AL said... “… logic as a discipline is the study of inferences, or as a system, is a set of inference rules.”
Dragon replies… I agree. There is a minority and steadily growing sentiment among scientists (even as publicly stated by many naturalistic scientists) that the empirical evidence is increasingly ‘inferring’ the characteristics of, (simply stated) design and therefore a designer (God).
AL said... “Your corollary that naturalism ‘fails to provide humans...with something that they obviously thirst for - lasting meaning and purpose,’ is empirically falsified by the many humans of the naturalist persuasion that … find lasting meaning and purpose.”
Dragon replies… I’ve never had the benefit of seeing naturalists explain where or how they find lasting meaning and purpose, especially outside science. And, while I agree with your statement, as it stands, it compares poorly to the anthropological evidence for all of human history, where humans consistently look outside of themselves and their natural environment for meaning and purpose.
"Dragon replies… No. Methodological naturalism is an a priori philosophical view of material reality (science). And, if one brings a limiting view to the table of science, one doesn’t get an A."
Uh, hello? Did you even read what I wrote? Let me repeat what I said: you claimed naturalism fails to "empirically explain reality", when this is EXACTLY what methodological naturalism does. It seeks to explain the material world empirically. I pointed out that you seem to have a problem with identity here (A is not A, you claim) and now you're changing the subject by saying it brings a "limiting view" and therefore gets no A, when this was not at all what was being discussed. Nevermind that this "limiting view" charge is vague.
"Dragon replies… I agree. There is a minority and steadily growing sentiment among scientists (even as publicly stated by many naturalistic scientists) that the empirical evidence is increasingly ‘inferring’ the characteristics of, (simply stated) design and therefore a designer (God)."
Changing the subject again? Your original objection insinuated that logic can't be explained by naturalism, implying that theism would somehow explain it. Now you've managed to concede that in fact, logic is the epistemic justification for theism (you are inferring your designer), not the other way around as you initially claimed. The funny thing is, you didn't have to do that, because it has nothing to do with what was being discussed. You changed the subject into an admission that you have your fundamentals confused.
"Dragon replies… I’ve never had the benefit of seeing naturalists explain where or how they find lasting meaning and purpose, especially outside science. And, while I agree with your statement, as it stands, it compares poorly to the anthropological evidence for all of human history, where humans consistently look outside of themselves and their natural environment for meaning and purpose."
Define "lasting meaning and purpose." Until you do, any attempt by a naturalist to explain where they find meaning and purpose will likely result in you shifting the definition around so that it necessarily entails some kind of mystic, ineffable, incomprehensible divine incoherent woo-woo.
> Larry Moran: It makes you look like one of those fools who think that ethics can only be based on religion.
I would be such a fool. But not on religion, though, but on transcendent moral principles, I would hold that pragmatics won't do.
> ... your statement implies that once you start thinking of humans as something other than a bag of chemicals you will stop killing them. Or at least you will stop killing them with a clear conscience. Does history support such an implication?
If we do a body count, religious persecution versus atheist, then yes, I think the trend is clear.
But my point is that if humans indeed are dancing collections of chemicals, there is no inherent reason to forbid killing such, no reason at all.
Al said… “Did you even read what I wrote? … you claimed naturalism fails to "empirically explain reality", when this is EXACTLY what methodological naturalism does. It seeks to explain the material world empirically.”
Dragon replies… Any form of naturalism is a philosophical stance, no matter whether it is methodological, metaphysical or what. It is not experimental (empirical), as in a scientific sense.
Al said… “… logic as a discipline is the study of inferences, or as a system, is a set of inference rules.” Dragon agreed.
Dragon replies… Larry mockingly implied that hope does not ‘exist’ in God. Naturalism postulates that only the chance collision of molecules provide meaning to anything. I and many others postulate by the scientific inference of the ‘existing’ natural world along with the observable non-material cravings of humans (religion, generally stated) and the Bible (for me specifically) all correlate to hope in God. I have not seen that naturalism offers any hope to humans.
lee_merrill says,
But my point is that if humans indeed are dancing collections of chemicals, there is no inherent reason to forbid killing such, no reason at all.
Then why aren't secular societies full of murderers? Aren't you the least bit troubled by the fact that among the Western industrialized nations, the more secular societies have lower murder rates than the most religious one (USA)? [List of Countries by Homicide Rate]
I suppose I shouldn't be arguing with you about religion. If your belief in God is the only thing that keeps you from becoming a murderer then, by all means, keep on believing for all our sakes.
"Dragon replies… Any form of naturalism is a philosophical stance, no matter whether it is methodological, metaphysical or what. It is not experimental (empirical), as in a scientific sense."
Did I say naturalism was not a philosophical stance? No. This has squat to do with what I said. And empiricism is part of a naturalist's epistemology. If you observe it, it is necessarily part of the natural world, so empiricism necessarily cannot, in any way, shape or form, lead to conclusions about "supernaturalism" or "transcendent truths," whatever such nonsense means.
"Dragon replies… I have not seen that naturalism offers any hope to humans."
As I said before, define "hope." I've been in enough discussions with theists to know better than to let your conceptual non-starters get away with pretending to be meaningful. I'm not going to play the shell game where if I tell you what "hope" is from a naturalist's standpoint, you simply twist the definition of "hope" so that it necessarily requires some nebulous, barely coherent god-concept.
"But my point is that if humans indeed are dancing collections of chemicals, there is no inherent reason to forbid killing such, no reason at all."
If what you're driving home is that is is not ought, then you are right. I should also add, however, that this applies full well to is statements about your "transcendent moral principles." It applies full well to supernaturalism or theism, or any other attempt to render morality a "fact" in a descriptive, "is" sense. To quote another commenter on another science blog, "is does not imply ought, and really, really weird is still does not imply ought either."
> Aren't you the least bit troubled by the fact that among the Western industrialized nations, the more secular societies have lower murder rates than the most religious one (USA)?
No, I'm speaking of implications, and of logical outcomes of views.
> If your belief in God is the only thing that keeps you from becoming a murderer then, by all means, keep on believing for all our sakes.
Well, the point remains that there is no basis to forbid stopping the dance of a chemical collection, if that is essentially what humans are.
If there is a reason to reject this, it has to be outside of nature--now maybe those who have such a reason don't follow it, but that is another question.
Regards,
Lee
P.S. My church has one female pastor, by the way.
lee-merrill says,
Well, the point remains that there is no basis to forbid stopping the dance of a chemical collection, if that is essentially what humans are.
I can't speak for other atheists but I'll let you in on my little secret.
The reason I don't go on a rampage and murder everyone on sight is because it drives the Christians absolutely nuts when I behave like a moral person. That's motive enough for me. :-)
> ... it drives the Christians absolutely nuts when I behave like a moral person. That's motive enough for me. :-)
Well, I'm already nutso, so I shall require more motive than that. 8^)
Well, the point remains that there is no basis to forbid stopping the dance of a chemical collection, if that is essentially what humans are.
If there is a reason to reject this, it has to be outside of nature....
This is not true. As individuals, we derive very large benefits from living in cooperative social groups. Murder disrupts the cooperativity of those groups, reducing their benefit to us as individuals.
That's a perfectly valid basis to forbid murder, without reference to any transcendant deity.
Lee, do yourself a favor- if you want anything you say to be taken seriously, don't use stupid arguments that have been comprehensively exploded many, many times. The notion that ethics "require" a supernatural foundation is one of the most boringly familiar of these, and one of the dumbest.
lee-merrill said… “Well, the point remains that there is no basis to forbid stopping the dance of a chemical collection, if that is essentially what humans are.”
Larry Moran replied… “The reason I don't go on a rampage and murder everyone on sight is because it drives the Christians absolutely nuts when I behave like a moral person. That's motive enough for me. :-)”
Dragon says… Funny Larry! What drives this Christian nuts is your lack of logic and reason. A collection of randomly mutated undirected dancing chemicals could not within itself logically or rationally form “reason” and “motive.” Reason & Motive (a rational ground & desire operating on the will) would logically imply futurity of intent and purpose, which, of course, is counter to blind evolution (no futurity) and your earlier proclamation that life has no purpose (no reason).
Dragon, m'boy, purposes are human things, not properties of non-sentient matter (or of the universe as a whole- as if that notion were even a coherent one). I am perfectly capable of forming and acting on them. Perhaps you are not; that would not surprise me. ;)
I feel happy for you that you are manifestly unable to conceive how abjectly stupid your comments appear to anyone with a functioning brain. I am happy because, being a kindly person, I would not want you to be humiliated by such knowledge. But it's quite apparent there's little danger of that.
"A collection of randomly mutated undirected dancing chemicals could not within itself logically or rationally form “reason” and “motive.”"
This sentence alone is loaded with category errors and reification fallacies. You might as well say "computers have souls, because silicon and electron cannot in themselves logically or rationally form 'computation' or 'information processing.'"
But then this manner of arguing is to be expected from theists. Only they would fabricate non-existent problems, and pretend a god-concept is necessary to solve it (when in fact, if the problem were even legitimate, a god-concept still wouldn't solve it).
> As individuals, we derive very large benefits from living in cooperative social groups.
Unless, of course, we are species-altruistic, and decide that butterflies should prosper at the expense of humans. You see, there is no inherent reason to prefer one assemblage of chemicals over another--in naturalism.
Of course, you may argue pragmatics from a particular perspective, but pragmatics may change with the next wind.
A little Chesterton may perhaps illuminate my prior point...
"But what do we mean by making things better? Most modern talk on this matter is a mere argument in a circle ... evolution is only good if it produces good; good is only good if it helps evolution. The elephant stands on the tortoise, and the tortoise on the elephant."
"Obviously, it will not do to take our ideal from the principle in nature; for the simple reason that (except for some human or divine theory), there is no principle in nature. For instance, the cheap anti-democrat of to-day will tell you solemnly that there is no equality in nature. He is right, but he does not see the logical addendum. There is no equality in nature; also there is no inequality in nature. Inequality, as much as equality, implies a standard of value. To read aristocracy into the anarchy of animals is just as sentimental as to read democracy into it. Both aristocracy and democracy are human ideals: the one saying that all men are valuable, the other that some men are more valuable. But nature does not say that cats are more valuable than mice; nature makes no remark on the subject. She does not even say that the cat is enviable or the mouse pitiable. We think the cat superior because we have (or most of us have) a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than death. But if the mouse were a German pessimist mouse, he might not think that the cat had beaten him at all. He might think he had beaten the cat by getting to the grave first. Or he might feel that he had actually inflicted frightful punishment on the cat by keeping him alive. Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence, so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing in the cat the torture of conscious existence. It all depends on the philosophy of the mouse."
lee_merrill said:
>You see, there is no inherent reason to prefer one assemblage of chemicals over another--in naturalism.
Sorry, I missed the inherent part in your earlier post.
What constitutes an inherent reason? Must it be something established by a god? If so, I agree. There can't be any god-given (i.e. inherent) reasons that don't require a god.
Is there more to your point? Do you think we should reject naturalism because it can't provide god-given reasons for anything?
> qetzal: What constitutes an inherent reason? Must it be something established by a god?
It must be inherent value, so no, that can't be established by edict.
> Do you think we should reject naturalism because it can't provide god-given reasons for anything?
Well, if naturalism is true, then let's believe naturalism. Only let's not think that there is some basic reason to forbid an act.
"You cannot even say that there is victory or superiority in nature unless you have some doctrine about what things are superior. You cannot even say that the cat scores unless there is a system of scoring. You cannot even say that the cat gets the best of it unless there is some best to be got. We cannot, then, get the ideal itself from nature."
"[Some] vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors, they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule."
"This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He says 'the upper man,' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being 'higher,' do not know either." (G.K. Chesterton, condensed from "Orthodoxy")
>lee_merrill: It must be inherent value, so no, that can't be established by edict.
Well, if inherent value doesn't exist under strict naturalism, and it's also not something that a god can establish, then what, if anything, is it?
> Well, if naturalism is true, then let's believe naturalism. Only let's not think that there is some basic reason to forbid an act.
I agree with that (and with the Chesterton quotes).
I'm not sure what inherent value is for you, but since it's clearly outside the bounds of naturalism, and since I see no reason to accept that anything outside the bounds of naturalism actually exists, it's a bit moot to me.
It sure was, the state set out specifically to erase religion
Your comment in no way addressed my arguments, instead you confuse politics and realpolitik with idealistic world views.
thinking people are essentially dancing chemical collections makes it possible to destroy them in clear conscience
If you are arguing in any form or thought that an entity, person or state, can murder people without moral consequences you are wrong. Such an entity is clearly psychopathically insane, btw.
Post a Comment