James F. McGrath is still trying to explain what modern sophisticated religion is all about, and why amateur atheists, like me, just don't get it.His latest attempt is on his blog at Does Being Exist?. The most revealing paragraph is the last one ...
So if you are looking for evidence that ancient deities and angels exist, with or without wings, residing on Mt. Olympus or just beyond the moon, I don't believe that such entities exist. They were ancient explanations for what we today recognize as natural phenomena. But if you are asking about language that can give symbolic expression to the sense of awe many people feel about the "miracle" that anything exists at all, much less that we exist and can ponder the nature of our existence and wonder about these mysteries, then theology has a lot to offer. Not logical arguments for the existence of invisible persons, but metaphors that allow us to give voice to our limited and inadequate perception of life's inexpressable mystery, then theology has a lot to offer. That doesn't mean that amateurs can't do theology, or write poetry, or make music, or even make scientific discoveries. But in every field, there is a body of knowledge and wisdom that has accumulated that allows one to not repeat all the mistakes and positive groundwork done in the past and build on what has gone before, rather than reinventing the wheel. If one wishes to discuss theology at that sort of level of academic sophistication, it involves significant reading and research to inform oneself, and not simply a handful of conversations with fundamentalists.Translation: You can't say that the Emperor has no clothes because you haven't invested years of study at the best institutes of fashion design in Paris and Milan. There are hundreds of smart people who have written sophisticated, metaphorical books on the Emperor's clothes. Don't talk to me until you've read all of them and can quote mystical passages and scholarly names as easily as I do.
What McGrath is illustrating here is referred to as The Courtier's Reply [The Emperor's New Clothes and the Courtier's Reply]. The term refers to an elaborate justification of a questionable viewpoint. Instead of addressing whether of not the Emperor is clothed, the courtier defends the "sophisticated" rationalization that the sycophants have constructed to preserve the delusion, and avoid admitting that they can't see the clothes either.
McGrath thinks that theology can be justified because it addresses "life's inexpressable mystery." This is reason enough to reject atheism even though he denies the existence of any of the classical gods. Furthermore, this is reason enough to call himself a Christian.
I'd like to discuss why he is impressed by some "inexpressible mystery" and why he thinks it's a "miracle" that anything exists at all. Why does he feel that this is enough to cause him to posit something beyond the natural world? Why are these feelings so powerful that he rejects the label of atheist and adopts theology as a way of knowing? Those are the key points.
But I'm not allowed to discuss those points, according to McGrath. I can't enter into a debate with him until I've read all of the sophisticated theologians who agree with him. I haven't done my homework. Until then, I'm just an amateur who doesn't understand the arguments against atheism and in favor of modern mysticism/theology.
That's not very helpful. It's a way of protecting one's core beliefs from close scrutiny by skeptics.
There's nothing new about McGrath's argument. It's just a version of the Argument from Personal Experience. Those arguments have been dealt with by atheists. There's nothing sophisticated about them.
Perhaps McGrath has been fooled into thinking that the argument from personal experience is valid because there are many scholars who find it convincing? If so, this is evidence of another logical fallacy called Argumentum ad nauseam.
60 comments :
Actually, I don't think McGrath's statement has anything to do with theology or the courtiers reply. His statement seems to refer to general metaphysics and philosophy questions. I don't see any "theology" in it at all, so I don't see what his point is, other than that science can't explain everything. Well, we already knew that, which is why there are things like philosophy and metaphysics. Those subjects can, but don't necessarily have to, invoke deities. So why do we need theology?
James McGrath seems open and considerate and interested in understanding, so I tried to talk with him about these issues, but it's like trying to catch smoke with a box. From a distance, the terms "God" and "Christian" appear substantial but when you get up close, "sophisticated" theology becomes wispy and nebulous. It turns out none of the words they use mean anything, they're all just metaphors for who-the-hell-knows-what. God isn't a god, it's a metaphor for Being which isn't a being but the incarnate form of "being", but form and incarnate are just metaphors too of the great mysteries of life. Jesus may or may not be real and may or may not have taught and may or may not have risen from the dead (he sophisticatedly refuses to discuss trivial details), but is doubtless just a metaphor for the something-or-other of the mystery of life.
If this is sophistication, he's can keep it. I'll take genuine understanding over this pseudo-intellectual maundering. It's harder to achieve, but so much more valuable because of it.
We all depend on experts, from plumbers to airplane pilots, and trust their answers and skills. But, at some level, they must earn this trust, and this trust is earned by answering the stupid questions we ask. An expert will earn my trust when he can provide an answer or, even better, explain why my question is wrong (maybe this type of exchange is good framing?).
What will just piss me off is for an expert to say I'm too ignorant to do anything more than trust him. A person who cannot make the connection from my position to where his expertise puts him is no expert, but a charlatan.
Paul Tillich, one of the great and extremely influential theologians of the 20th century, spoke of God as Being itself rather than "a being".
I've heard this over and over again from different sources, but I'm still completely stumped as to how this statement is meaningful. Can you clarify this using terms that aren't meant to obfuscate your meaning and sound clever?
Maybe there's something huge that I'm missing, but I just don't see how this definitions of God has any impact on your actions or your thoughts. What are the implications of believing in this God?
After reading Dr. McGrath's post, I wrote a post of my own about how scientists and theologians obviously don't see eye-to-eye about how to communicate arguments and ideas. I think I know what he's trying to say (though I disagree), but his allegories and metaphors don't help me understand, they actually confuse me! For example, "Could the mitochondria in our bodies be expected to perceive the nature of the existence of the bodies of which they are a part?", is not a rhetorical question to me; the answer is no - the mitochondria do not have the appropriate biological structures to 'perceive' anything. Though obviously they have receptors allowing them to interact with the cytoplasmic environment - but it this what he means? I don't know!
Er 'is this what he means?', obviously.
If you take any decent philosophy 101 course, you'll get a healthy dose of questions like "what is Being", along with relevant commentary from various great thinkers throughout the ages. No theology or religion is required.
I feel Larry's (dawkins or PZ's) argument is like mentholatum; anyone can use it for anything. Why should I study evolutionary biology to question the basic fact of evolution? If evolution may be simply false, everything they say about it would be false, too. No matter how much sense it may make, internally.
Even though the reality of supernatural entities may be a false assumption, it does not mean that every piece of writing about theology is a piece of crap. Again, remember: Theology is something that PEOPLE do. Even if nothing else, it is something.
to MacGrath I'd say that he should make it clear that the achievements of theology do not prove the reality of god, which is a matter of faith. If, like the catholic church, you consider your theology to be simply "what is rational", we would have to disagree since not even science can make such a claim with a straight face.
Sanders,
I feel Larry's (dawkins or PZ's) argument is like mentholatum; anyone can use it for anything. Why should I study evolutionary biology to question the basic fact of evolution?
That's why we have a little thing we like to call "evidence".
The Courtier's Reply and their derivatives are to expose the utter lack of evidence and substance in many theological arguments, especially their appeals to authority. See X, read Y, study Z, then you'll understand, yet neither X nor Y nor Z has any substance.
I will grant you one thing: you can use this reply in a disgustingly large number of cases when discussing theology.
Even though the reality of supernatural entities may be a false assumption, it does not mean that every piece of writing about theology is a piece of crap.
"Crap" is such a harsh word. How about pointless, irrelevant, unsubstantiated, meaningless and self-indulgent? At the very least, the best theological writing is as good as the best writings on fairies or numerology - misguided and fundamentally flawed.
I think McGrath and his ilk thrive on the insubstantial "ology" that they have created. It's all pretend, really. It's far beyond learning Klingon or pretending you can use the Force. It's intellectual masturbation- getting off on your fellow "kolleages" and more importantly, basking in the "ignorance" of the unlearned.
Imagine two people viewing a modern art painting, maybe a few splashes of paint on a canvas:
#1 "Hm. What's this supposed to be?"
#2 "(Indignant snort) Supposed to be? Supposed to be? My friend, it simply is. It's clarity personified- if clarity were the scribblings of a soul."
#1 "Uh, I don't see it. Looks like splotches of paint."
#2 "Of course, my young friend (he smirks and lifts his nose a bit to look down at the other person). Tell me, are you familiar with the works of Korle' or even Daubau?"
#1 "Well, I can't say that I..."
#2 "Of course you haven't. It's apparent. If you had, your mind, or should I say your soul- well, that's not really the word I'm looking for- for your benefit let us say your All Being; if you were familiar with even Fraulie and Gutternst, your All Being would be more receptive to the insubstantial reality that you see before you."
#1 "I see paint."
#2 "Don't you think that may be your problem? You see? What is seeing? You have other senses- some you aren't even aware of. It is through these senses of Heaven that this primitive canvas has been inbued with the Glory of the Self."
#1 "Whatever."
#2 "Indeed. I suggest you broaden your Primitve Core and then return. Until then, I simply can't help you."
And on and on. You get the picture.
Maybe we should start taking a more etheral approach to science when dealing with others:
"Protein? Just what do you mean protein? What is a protein? You must learn to think beyond such antiquated ideas. A "protein" is and isn't. When you can understand that, come back and we can discuss signalling pathways- though you'll have much unlearning to do there, I'm afraid.
Paul
McGrath wrote
But if you are asking about language that can give symbolic expression to the sense of awe many people feel about the "miracle" that anything exists at all, much less that we exist and can ponder the nature of our existence and wonder about these mysteries, then theology has a lot to offer.
OK, lemme get this straight. Theology offers " ... language that can give symbolic expression blahblahblah ... ," but it is a language that is nevertheless incomprehensible to ordinary mortals that haven't read all the books McGrath has. In other words, it's just another mystery cult, accessible only to the initiates who know the secret language. How do those "many people" express their awe if they haven't read all those books? Who the fuck are the "many people" that McGrath is referring to?
Tyro, you mean you can't "see" god? That is the ony level where the emperors' clothes is of any use.
From what you say, provided the evidence, you would belive in god.
So, what exactly would you expect to see that would change your mind?
I for myself have reasons that are a litle more than just retina-deep for being an atheist.
This reminds me of creationists who say you cannot "see" macroevolution.
I didn't find the rebuttal of the argument from personal experience you linked to particularly persuasive. I think there are better ones online, but Janet Soskice's book on metaphor and religious language does a far better job than either of addressing the issue, as I recall (I haven't read the book since my undergraduate days, so forgive my being sketchy).
My experience was certainly subjective and psychological. All experiences are, as far as the qualia thereof are concerned. But I still think it is worth exploring whether our experiences, including mystical and aesthetic ones, tell us something "true" about the universe we inhabit.
I did find a helpful online syllabus with further reading about mysticism and religious language. But I know you don't want further reading and have already accused me of suggesting that you have to do much reading and research in order to converse with me. I sincerely hope I've never implied that, much less said it outright. All I intended to point out was that the views I'm expressing are not mine alone, but are part of a broader stream of theology and of Christianity. That's all I meant to say.
I've posted yet again on where I'm coming from, but I doubt you'll find that post any more interesting than any of my other recent ones.
I'm not aware that I'm positing something "beyond" the natural world. I'm talking about the nature of Reality itself. Are depth and transcendence, order and meaning and purpose, part of the nature of reality, or are they mere illusions, tricks played on us by the senses with which evolution has endowed us? I think that evolution will have favored perceptions and senses that give an accurate sense of what the world is really like, if only a partial one.
To say that we simply inhabit a multiverse that includes universes that can support life, of which ours happens to be one that gives rise to life forms that can appreciate the universe as beautiful and discuss the existence of God, is no more of an explanation, and no more satisfying or rational, than the classic theistic "there must be a Creator, an unmoved mover". Neither is a statement of verifiable fact. Both are speculative and metaphorical affirmations about what is ultimate, and whether meaning and purpose are authentic parts of our existence or an illusion. I choose religious metaphors because of my convictions about what is ultimate. I just hope that, in making your choice, you are aware that you are equally expressing your fundamental values, and not choosing one vs. the other because one is more obvious, more intellectually satisfying, or something else. As far as I can tell, neither of these choices, nor any other offered by pantheism or panentheism, is self explanatory or self evidence. They are all metaphorical expressions (as though they were "explanations") of human values and perceptions of the universe.
Sanders,
Tyro, you mean you can't "see" god? That is the ony level where the emperors' clothes is of any use.
No, I don't mean that.
Do you really not know the story? Were you born in a different culture?
From what you say, provided the evidence, you would belive in god.
So, what exactly would you expect to see that would change your mind?
Yes, I adjust my beliefs to reflect the evidence.
If there is evidence that prayer is effective, I'll believe that prayer is effective. If there is evidence that a Christian belief allows people to heal, then I'll believe that happens. If survival of disasters is related to one's belief in Jesus, what choice would I have but to start to believe some of the Christian claims?
As ever, if you can be more specific with what it is you want me to believe I can be more specific with the tests.
This reminds me of creationists who say you cannot "see" macroevolution.
Whoosh.
I was quite specific enough in my question, but you're already dodging. What exactly would you expect to see that would convince you of the existence of god?
Every culture knows the story, but using it like this is stupid: it's too easy. Many things in science are not as obvious as pointing out the nakedness of the emperor, that is, a matter of simply seeing, or not seeing.
Evolution is one. Continental drift is another. And if you were merely to believe your eyes, you would have to conclude that the earth is flat.
Your vision is simplistic. A strawman.
"If survival of disasters is related to one's belief in Jesus, what choice would I have but to start to believe some of the Christian claims?"
You mean, if some wacko christians staring shooting down all no-believers?
Don't get me wrong, I'd be the firt one wearing the cross, but my personal atheism more would more likely be reinforced, rather than "start to belive". Don't you think so?
"And if you were merely to believe your eyes, you would have to conclude that the earth is flat."
thats plain wrong. In a flat world, a Ship moving away from you and not changing its direction must be visible for eternity. (almost)
Especially using a telescope.
But in this world you cant see the ship anymore at some point of time, even using a telescope. Thats not the case in our world.
Well and in situations where survival depends on chance only, at least as far as it can be observed, if then believers in God would have a better survival rate, then I would think that this is evidence that there is something right about their believe and they are in a way chosen ones.
But the ultimate question is for me, not "what can I 'see'" but
"Whom can I trust? And about what?"
Why should I trust somebody who does strongly argue, that he does not need to bring evidence. The only things I can use decide what is true are my senses and reasoning. I know that I make errors, so will other humans.
But to avoid beeing hijacked by inhumane ideologies and fundamentalist religion I need to trust myself more than others. And going from this I will decide Whom I will respect as authority, if I'm to lazy or don't have time to clear the matters.
best regards
cptchaos
What a waste of time. I mean, ‘sense of awe’, ‘miracle of existence’ and ‘inexpressible mystery’ are meaningless, lazy phrase-oids that signal more a lack of imagination and effort than any real attempt to address a question or problem. What does McGrath actually mean when he writes these phrase-oids? It sounds like he’s simply feeling a little bit overwhelmed and “can’t find the words” so instead he gives up and sticks in the word “theology” or “God” (which god is that again?).
By contrast, when a scientist feels overwhelmed, she dissects things into their component parts and then reconstructs the whole. It’s like figuring out how an engine works by taking it apart and putting it back together again. Before you do that, the engine seems ‘mysterious’ perhaps even ‘miraculous’. To cope with the inexpressibly awesome engine-ness you might even invent yourself a metaphor. Or you can just take the engine apart and figure it out.
McGrath writes, “…not logical arguments for the existence of invisible persons, but metaphors…” . Oh, if only the majority of the world’s religious people shared his viewpoint, there might be a lot fewer crusades, jihads and school board takeovers. I wish McGrath would spend less time reading atheist blogs and more time visiting churches and mosques working to diffuse their evangelistic fervor. Please, Mr McGrath, stop reading this and go pour your big cool bucket of ‘metaphor’ all over their white hot fundamentalist fire.
All of theology comes down to the simple metaphor: Debating how many angels there are on a head of a pin.
Only pinheads discuss it.
James F. McGrath writes,
I'm not aware that I'm positing something "beyond" the natural world. I'm talking about the nature of Reality itself. Are depth and transcendence, order and meaning and purpose, part of the nature of reality, or are they mere illusions, tricks played on us by the senses with which evolution has endowed us?
This is a very confusing statement. First, let's stop pretending that you are on a search for truth. You have already decided the answer to your questions.
Second, you need to define the word transcendence. Most atheists see that as a weasel word for God. At the very least it strongly implies something beyond the natural world and yet you use the word in a sentence where you seem to be denying that you are making any claim for something beyond the natural world.
Do you not see how confusing your words and your rationalizations are to those outside of your cult of liberal theologians? You need to think hard about the words you use to communicate ideas. To most of us they don't mean what you think they mean.
Third, what exactly do you mean by "order, meaning, and purpose?" Apparently you look at the natural world and see something very different than what I see. I don't see no "purpose", for example. Can you show me what you mean when you say you see "purpose" in the natural world?
To me, when you say you see "purpose" it automatically conjures up images of God since that's the most common explanation of purpose in the universe. Yet, you claim that you are not positing anything beyond the natural world when you see purpose in the natural world. You claim that it could be just an illusion but you obviously don't believe that. Please tell me your version of how purpose becomes evident (to you) in the natural world without positing anything beyond the natural world.
Fourth, I'm glad to see you recognize that your senses can play tricks on you. As a rational being you need to examine your dreamlike experiences and decide whether they reflect reality or an illusion. If you opt for the illusion then your wordview becomes a delusion.
So far, I don't see much evidence that you are really asking the hard questions about your dreamlike experiences of transcendence and purpose. You seem to defend them solely on the basis that they must be a reflection of reality because some other smart people have the same dreams.
Is that what you call a "sophisticated" version of god?
I think that evolution will have favored perceptions and senses that give an accurate sense of what the world is really like, if only a partial one.
I don't happen to agree with that version of evolution but let's, for the sake of argument, agree that our perceptions and senses will eventually give an accurate view of what the world is really like.
How do you explain the fact that a growing number of people are turning away from God and religion? Do you think our senses and perception are deluding us?
You see, the real issue is not about some metaphysical gobbledygook about the nature of reality. It's about how you decide what to believe.
Most of us have developed reasonable filters and procedures for distinguishing what's real from what's not real. We apply these filters all the time. For example, when we meet someone who says they've been abducted by aliens or when a psychic tells us that she can predict the future.
Some of us apply those very same filters when we meet someone who talks about transcendence and purpose in the universe. The difference between atheists and believers is that the believers stop using the filters when it comes to religious questions and the atheists/skeptics don't.
Why do you not apply the same form of reasoning to your own dreams as you do (presumably) to everything else in your life?
Worthwhile is this video of an award to Daniel Dennett with introductions by Julia Sweeney and Richard Dawkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyyRAE7PDvw&feature=rec-fresh
Dawkins's intro explains things rather simply.
It's a sad artifact of scientific education that encourages the idea that all language is mathematically specific and precise. It's not, and you smart chaps should all know this.
Moran et al are attempting to show that if McGrath doesn't "believe" in God in the same way they "believe" in mitochondria, then he doesn't believe in God after all. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure you've noticed that continued attempts to insist that believers are "wrong" does not have a very positive affect.
In Moran's comment above, he takes McGrath to task for using fuzzy and ambiguous language, writing, "To most of us [your words] don't mean what you think they mean." But there is an abundant literature, not just on theology, but about the whole range of thought that Tyro calls "catching smoke in a box." Ignore it, fine, but don't pretend that anything you can't rest your beer stein on isn't worth bothering about.
The problem of being is a real one. Why should there be something instead of nothing? It is not a scientific question; the methods and premises of science cannot address it. It's simply outside their scope. This doesn't make science bad or wrong or foolish, just (like all things) incomplete.
Likewise the epistemological questions of how we perceive the world. Feel free to ignore them, but if you want to assert that we are given a universe of things that we perceive and name as they are, you are opening yourself up to a legitimate charge of naivete.
The set up you have going pitting the realists against the fantasists is nonsense. There are possibilities you don't want to consider because they disturb the comforting metaphysics of physicalism. There are thousands if not millions of people who "believe" in God in a way you can't credit--can't even understand. Why is that? Because they are delusional and you're not might be a satisfying answer, but it's not a very interesting one.
To some people there are not just things, but there are relationships among things. There are signs and symbols standing for things. You'll find this is true in your own worldview too. Everything you call real is best considered a mental representation; a construct. You don't like it that some people want to call all Being "God" because all Being isn't a person. This is exactly the point. Through the symbols of God and (for Christians) Christ, a relationship is established with things that can't be named or understood, that can only be mediated through metaphor. The "sophisticated" version of this practice is to resist the temptation to take the symbols literally, or to believe that scientific understanding and religious understanding are cross-mappable.
You refuse to admit that this might be deep for some people, because it's not the way you create relationships of meaning. For you, the physicalist or naturalist metaphysics tells you all you need to know. Fine. Do what you do and be happy. But don't pretend that naturalism too is not a metaphysics. This Courtier's Reply bullshit is just an embarrassment. It's like Beavis and Butthead. Anonymous here has one of the characters in his satire say "I see paint" instead of art. Is that the road we want to travel down? Show me money (not strips of paper or metals disks.) Show me real estate, not aggregations of construction materials. Show me government, or freedom, or justice. All I see is a naked emperor. Kyuk Kyuk!
It's juvenile, and beneath you--can't you guys see that? Can you step out of your own self-satisfaction long enough to see that?
"In a flat world, a Ship moving away from you and not changing its direction must be visible for eternity"
Only if you assume your retina has infinite resolution. It doesn't
"But the ultimate question is for me, not "what can I 'see'" but
"Whom can I trust? And about what?"
No no no.
You can't trust anyone. You'll have to make up your own mind.
For instance, if you choose to ignore all of theology and metaphysics as crap; if you refuse to acknowledge any sophistication in religion (which, by the way, more often suffers due to excesses of sophistication) , well this may be veeery comforting for a merely antireligious brand of atheism. But it's hardly believable. I think it is as transparent as creationists choosing not to acknowledge any good in evolutionary science, or any need to delve in it. Both are mysterianist and fearful of the other.
To a well-based atheist, discussing theology is simply no big deal! We don't kick the table and refuse to play along with the rules. I can discuss a LOT of things assuming that god exists (though I am an atheist). Plus, much of religion, metaphysics, and yes, theology, is worth reading and even fun. Thomas Aquinas, Occam, Confucius
Sanders,
Only if you assume your retina has infinite resolution. It doesn't
It has enough resolution to see that ships disappear from the bottom up, first losing their hulls then their mast.
I was quite specific enough in my question, but you're already dodging. What exactly would you expect to see that would convince you of the existence of god?
No dodge. The whole question in this thread boils down to McGrath trying to re-define "God" into non-existence.
What I said is clear and it's how I approach all questions, not just this one. First, tell me what you want to prove and only then can we talk about evidence.
Now, if you want to attack me or say that I'm dishonest and wouldn't believe no matter what the evidence, I'm not interested.
"Now, if you want to attack me or say that I'm dishonest and wouldn't believe no matter what the evidence, I'm not interested"
You would not have to believe, you would know.
I am not accusing you of anything, I'm just testing your consistency. like your use of the word "believe" instead of "know". Interesting huh? Maybe you're not being totally honest to yourself at some level here.
Let's try this once again:
What exactly would you expect to see that would convince you of the existence of god?
Need a rewording, perhaps?
What exactly would you think would be evidence of....god???
just your regular christian, muslim or jewish god, ya know. Don't play dumb on me.
It's a sad artifact of scientific education that encourages the idea that all language is mathematically specific and precise. It's not, and you smart chaps should all know this.
Did somebody claim otherwise? Seriously, no one here claimed all language is precise. If we did, we wouldn't even be calling the sophisticated theologians out for imprecise language. Everyone is welcome to use imprecise language, but if you do, then you must accept the risk that others will not understand precisely what you mean. If I suffer a head injury in a car accident, I would hope the paramedic would write in his report "the patient suffered basilar skull fracture with leakage of cerebrospinal fluid from the ears and suspected subdural hematoma" rather than "patient's head looks pretty messed up," and then expect trauma center personnel to figure out what that means and accuse such personnel of lacking sophistication if they don't appreciate the beauty of eloquent phrases like "pretty messed up."
Moran et al are attempting to show that if McGrath doesn't "believe" in God in the same way they "believe" in mitochondria, then he doesn't believe in God after all. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure you've noticed that continued attempts to insist that believers are "wrong" does not have a very positive affect.
It is being pointed out that when we speak of mitochondria there is little to no confusion about what's being talked about. The same cannot be said of God.
In Moran's comment above, he takes McGrath to task for using fuzzy and ambiguous language, writing, "To most of us [your words] don't mean what you think they mean." But there is an abundant literature, not just on theology, but about the whole range of thought that Tyro calls "catching smoke in a box." Ignore it, fine, but don't pretend that anything you can't rest your beer stein on isn't worth bothering about.
See, here's your problem. Nothing you've said here actually defends the fuzzy and ambiguous language as pertaining to something substantial. All you've said is that there is an enormous literature filled with ambiguous fuzz. OK, none of us deny this. But you can see full well that it is a non-sequitur to say that the existence of a huge body of fuzzy literature implies that the fuzz pertains to something substantial, right? The astrology section of most bookstores is bigger than the science section, so this abundance of literature must mean astrological fuzz should be taken seriously, right?
The problem of being is a real one. Why should there be something instead of nothing?
Yes it is, but it is not a question atheists are ignoring. The position that most atheists I know, including myself, take on this matter is that if the question is a legitimate one, god is not an answer to it. (If god is something, then it doesn't answer the question of "why something rather than nothing," or IOW, "why is there a god rather than no god?" To say it does is to beg the question of theism's truth, and us rationalists are not fond of these kinds of fallacies.)
It is not a scientific question; the methods and premises of science cannot address it. It's simply outside their scope. This doesn't make science bad or wrong or foolish, just (like all things) incomplete.
If science is restricted to a posteriori matters and not a priori matters, than yes, this does fall outside of science's scope. But it doesn't mean we can't apply a priori reasoning to the unreasonable claims of theism. Sometimes, science is not needed to know that when someone claims to have found a married bachelor, he is bullshitting. Likewise, when someone asks "why is there something rather than nothing," he is implicitly assuming that the existence and being of nothingness is a logical possibility. Is it? (Hence my disclaimer above: "if the question is a legitimate one...")
Likewise the epistemological questions of how we perceive the world. Feel free to ignore them, but if you want to assert that we are given a universe of things that we perceive and name as they are, you are opening yourself up to a legitimate charge of naivete.
What makes you say epistemological questions about how we perceive the world are beyond the scope of science? Do you believe neuroscience and cognitive science are not sciences?
The set up you have going pitting the realists against the fantasists is nonsense. There are possibilities you don't want to consider because they disturb the comforting metaphysics of physicalism. There are thousands if not millions of people who "believe" in God in a way you can't credit--can't even understand. Why is that? Because they are delusional and you're not might be a satisfying answer, but it's not a very interesting one.
Everything you just said in this paragraph can be said in defense of astrology, homeopathy, bigfoot, etc, etc. This is why it helps to tell us SPECIFICALLY why theism is defensible or true, rather than argue vaguely and metaphorically about it being possibly true or defensible. But you seem so opposed to specifics and enamored with vague language.
For you, the physicalist or naturalist metaphysics tells you all you need to know. Fine. Do what you do and be happy. But don't pretend that naturalism too is not a metaphysics.
Did anyone deny that naturalism is a metaphysics? You seem to want to accuse people of taking a position they didn't actually take. I'm well aware that my naturalism is a metaphysical position, but I don't consider supernaturalism a meaningful possibility until someone can actually give a coherent and sensible definition of supernatural such that a) it doesn't overlap with natural, and b) is distinguishable from fantastic thoughts, and c) is not trivial, such as "supernatural is that which transcends natural," a definition that doesn't tell us what it is, anymore than saying that a square circle is a "transcendent geometric figure."
This Courtier's Reply bullshit is just an embarrassment. It's like Beavis and Butthead. Anonymous here has one of the characters in his satire say "I see paint" instead of art. Is that the road we want to travel down? Show me money (not strips of paper or metals disks.) Show me real estate, not aggregations of construction materials. Show me government, or freedom, or justice. All I see is a naked emperor. Kyuk Kyuk!
I really can't stand this type of Platonic defense of god: reifying abstractions to make a case for some kind of "transcendent" existence. If you look at the history of mathematics in the West, this kind of thinking (what I'd call promiscuous reification) is what held mathematics back. Rather than say, treating the concept of zero abstractly as the additive identity where a + 0 yields a, Western thinkers had to ask questions like "how can zero simultaneously be a thing that represents nothing?" And they dwelled over these useless and meaningless questions that are simply the result of confusion over what it means to abstract and why one shouldn't attempt to reify an abstraction, and it really held the development of mathematics back. Likewise, we're getting theists doing the same thing, dwelling over "love," "freedom," and "justice," as reified Platonic entities rather than abstract categories we use to lump certain kinds of human individual and social behavior.
It's juvenile, and beneath you--can't you guys see that? Can you step out of your own self-satisfaction long enough to see that?
So where, in anything you've just said, is your defense of theism? For someone who's so adamant that atheists are being juvenile for pointing out that theism is indefensible, you'd think there'd be a direct counter to that charge with, you know, an actual defense. So....?
Did somebody claim otherwise? Seriously, no one here claimed all language is precise.
Implicitly, yes. When McGrath has responded to Moran's questions about his belief, and writes that it is a symbolic affair, Moran concludes that McGrath isn't "really" a Christian. What he means is that he isn't the kind of Christian Larry has in his mind, who must believe in God as a phenomenal proposition. It's worse than attacking a straw man. It's an argument from personal language.
All you've said is that there is an enormous literature filled with ambiguous fuzz. OK, none of us deny this. But you can see full well that it is a non-sequitur to say that the existence of a huge body of fuzzy literature implies that the fuzz pertains to something substantial, right?
Wait a minute. I wasn't referring to theology exclusively, but rather the set of all things that are difficult (but important) to talk about. Philosophy, mostly; ethics, metaphysics, semiotics, maybe psychology. Please clarify if you want to include Wittgenstein, Rorty, Saussure, Nietzsche, W. James--let alone someone like Schroedinger--in your description of "ambiguous fuzz."
Even religious philosophers like Kierkegaard, Buber, Tillich, or Bonhoeffer do not deserve to be lumped in with the crystal healers and UFOologists. These were intelligent writers engaging serious concerns, and to write them off because they discussed things you don't care about or understand is puerile.
About the question of something vs. nothing, and similar problems (e.g. infinity), you're missing my point. It is not that they require a God to be explicable. It is rather that some things cannot be made explicable, or at the very least have not yet been made so. These sorts of things matter to some people, who often use symbols and rituals as a way to make them, if not explicable, then at least real, and something relational to themselves.
What makes you say epistemological questions about how we perceive the world are beyond the scope of science? Do you believe neuroscience and cognitive science are not sciences?
This is a complicated topic I don't want to go deeply into here. But I think the nature of language, sensibility, and order is much less clear cut than you are letting on. Obviously neuroscience is teaching us a lot about what happens in our brain when we perceive, but not as much about how we construct "reality" from our sense data.
I'm not sure if I understand your distinction between reification and abstraction. It seems to me as soon as we give something a name, its too late to close the barn door on whether it's a "thing" or not. Either way, I'm no Platonist. I'm not arguing that freedom or justice are eternal forms. Merely that they are real, however abstract, and generally more important to us than diverse "concrete" things. (It seems unlikely, for example, than anyone would lay down their life for a potato, or a box of drywall screws, though recent highly publicized instances of kids killing each other over shoes shows how important abstractions can be--it wasn't footwear they were stealing, it was status.)
I'm not going to mount a very enthusiastic defense of theism here. I'm not a theist for one thing, and for another there's no single thing to defend. I would defend theism at its best, just as I would defend science at its best. Both have their less than noble adherents. What I am defending is McGrath's and others' right to be taken seriously for (as far as I can tell) engaging meaningfully with the world. As Elvis Costello sang, what's so funny about peace love and understanding? You may not need deity myths and rituals to get there, but if they reinforce someone's personal practice of patience, sacrifice dedication, charity, humility and compassion, I'm really at a loss to understand what there is to ridicule.
Please do not mistake my argument as saying that religions inevitably cultivate virtue. Of course they don't. We don't need to waste time listing examples. Nor do I argue that rationalists are incapable of all the qualities I list above. (Though in my anecdotal experience rationalists seem to me to be a lot less humble than the general population).
But neither you nor I get to decide how others decide to be the best people they can be. Not every religious person does this, but far more than you credit.
Sanders,
like your use of the word "believe" instead of "know". Interesting huh? Maybe you're not being totally honest to yourself at some level here
We can know facts such as the results of observations, but we must remain open to the possibility that there were mistakes in measurement. We accept or believe conclusions.
These are elementary distinctions. Either you understand this in which case you're an abuse troll and going on 'ignore', or you're ignorant in which case I've no intention of handling the rigorous level of education you need, especially with your arrogant attitude.
I'm happy to discuss issues, but you seem to be here just to abuse people over some of the stuidest little details I've seen.
just your regular christian, muslim or jewish god, ya know. Don't play dumb on me.
You get treated the way you act. If you act like you're unable to comprehend the barest issues in this thread, namely that Christians have hugely varying ideas of "god", then you'll be treated as if you really are that dumb.
If you want evidence of the God of the Bible, look for completed prophesies, a young earth, a small universe, created & designed life, miracle healings from Christians, etc.
There. Now if you want to talk with adults, act like one, I'm tired of continually trying to talk down to you.
"If you want evidence of the God of the Bible, look for completed prophesies, a young earth, a small universe, created & designed life, miracle healings from Christians, etc"
I wonder if you even realize how light-headed you are being.
That's the point: Anyone can argue "evidence", that actually is NOT evidence. There is no invoking evidence (or lack of it), without a discussion of WHAT is evidence. That is, you have to use your brains. Sorry, no way around that one.
I don't understand your motivations in talking to me so I'm leaving it here. If you want to base your epistemology on a silly antireligious argument picked from internet, be my guest.
@Sanders
Actually Sanders, there's a pretty firm definition of what constitutes scientific evidence. If we found a statistically significant effect of say, prayer on a person's rate of recovery (assuming the appropriate double-blind controls and all that) then we would say that there's evidence of some sort of effect. It doesn't automatically 'prove' God (science doesn't prove anything anyways, see Popper) however, we could say that there's now evidence of a god that produces tangible effects in our universe as a hypothesis. Actually, the Christian Bible makes all kinds of testable predictions about reality, which is the subject of the book God the Failed Hypothesis.
If a divine being is producing tangible effects on reality, then those effects should be detectable via scientific inquiry. If the hypothetical God exists outside of the universe, we may not be able to test for it directly, but measuring the effect said deity has on the universe provides evidence of its existence. No such scientific evidence has yet been found. Remember here that I'm assuming a non-pantheist God, but rather an Old-Testament biblical sort of God.
Also, when you randomly CAPITALIZE words in your sentences, I read them with Christopher Walken's voice in my head. Just sayin'.
The simple point we need to make, is that introducing supernatural elements cannot ever be the way of making a proper scientific explanation. It's just mysterianist and uninformative, a true appeal to stop research (since supernatural causation is beyond natural, scientific explanation)
Rather than thinking that supernatural explanations may suddenly become scientifically aceptable "because of the evidence", it is the PHILOSOPHICAL DISTINCTION of naturalism that must be emphasized and kept clear. Truly scientific explanations cannot ever resort to the supernatural. No matter what!
Carlo, honeslty, I think any mildly imaginative christian will dismiss those prayer studies. God simply does not let himself be put to unfaithful testing like that.
And even if we fund a correlation, would that mena that the only possible explanation is supernatural? I don't think we can keep it scientific and go down that road about any well-documented phenomenon, no matter how wondrous
@Sanders
Carlo, honeslty, I think any mildly imaginative christian will dismiss those prayer studies.
Your obfuscation is astounding; do you even remember what this discussion was about? Lack of evidence is lack of evidence, your asked what would constitute evidence of the existence of God, not what Christians would accept as evidence.
God simply does not let himself be put to unfaithful testing like that.
Umm, as I said in my previous comment, I'm assuming an Old Testament-style God who continually makes his presence known to his worshipers. For an atheist you've got a pretty firm idea of what God wants!
And even if we fund a correlation, would that mena that the only possible explanation is supernatural?
No, but you demonstrate your lack of familiarity with the logic of scientific discovery, there's never 'the only possible explanation' in science because that would mean that you're not open to new evidence. Based on the discussion we've been having here, God doesn't even have to be supernatural, he can be anything or nothing (apparently). All I've said is that the prayer study would provide evidence of an effect and we could hypothesize that that effect is some form of manifestation of God. Maybe the Jebon particles we haven't detected yet.
I don't think we can keep it scientific and go down that road about any well-documented phenomenon, no matter how wondrous
Right. As I said, if God is supernatural (whatever that word even means) then you probably can't detect it. However, if God has a measurable effect on the physical world that was not obviously explained by other phenomena, that would provide evidence of the existence of something with the properties of a God - perhaps he's not supernatural?
The problem is Sanders, that you're committing the same fallacy as the Christian apologists by wanting to have your cake and eat it too. We're supposed to follow the dictates of a God who destroyed entire cities, spoke to his followers constantly and performed all of these miracles - things that should have obvious, demonstrable effects. However, when it comes time to 'show the magic' they claim that God doesn't want to be seen. Well what's it going to be?
As I've repeatedly said, I'm not talking about your pantheistic entity. You told Tyro to choose a God, I picked the God from the Bible and according to the good book, he ain't hiding.
As to deciding whether a supernatural god exists or not,I find the discussion of prayer studies so profoundly square and stupid, on so many different accounts, that it bores me to the death to discuss it. I compare this to throwing apples in the air and seeing if by miracle it floats away. And then feeling all happy because it didn't. I mean..duh!!
At least you hseem to have come to realize, a positive correlation would not be evidence for the supernatural.
"For an atheist you've got a pretty firm idea of what God wants!"
It's nothing anyone could not guess about religious mentality, unless you have a very bad imagination, or are not interested in what actual believers think (but rather just wish to comfort your atheism).
"As I said, if God is supernatural (whatever that word even means) then you probably can't detect it"
Bravo, you may be understanding something by now. You just can't ever have any such thing as scientific evidence for the supernatural. Unfortunately, that is what you are demanding when you say "show me evidence there is a god".
"you told Tyro to choose a God, I picked the God from the Bible and according to the good book, he ain't hiding"
Again: Exactly what kind of manifestation are you expecting? heavenly fire? Again, you show you don't care about how true believers think. True believers attribute coincidences, fortunate happenings to god. They don't need obvious miracles to think that god intervenes actively and overlooks their lives. I feel like I'm spelling a, b, c here.
I think that you must relying upon some special fx or phenomenological spectacularity to prove supernaturality to you. What exactly do you have in mind?
In summary: Non belief in god is not merely about "the evidence" at the level of retina, as you guys would have it.It's also about philosophy.
Again, you show you don't care about how true believers think. True believers attribute coincidences, fortunate happenings to god. They don't need obvious miracles to think that god intervenes actively and overlooks their lives.
We've performed the tests and they've failed, hence our atheism. Think it through, man!
Yes, we all know what "evidence" true believers need to substantiate their beliefs - none. That's because they don't perform tests, they use wishful thinking, selection bias and other fallacies to prop up their predetermined conclusions. But if there really was a god we wouldn't have to have to resort to such logical depravities. Don't act like we don't understand True Believers just because we hold standards.
You ask what evidence would be sufficient, we tell you, and then you rant about how this evidence doesn't exist and how True Believers think. You tell us things we all know, all the while acting like you're benevolently bestowing upon us such great pearls of wisdom that it's only your superior sense of oneness with humanity that prevents you from charging us to hear more. Why don't you just tell us what your point is and stop drawing it out like you're the Second Coming of Socrates.
I am just correcting you guys on the oxymoron of demanding empirical evidence for god, which is, by definition, a supernatural entity and therefore of no interest to science.
It takes no socrates to realize this. The shortcomings of naïve empiricism (that anything can be resolved via "retina") in science have been well-characterized in the epistemological literature. To think the existence of god could be an empirically testable question...well, only on the internet.
Plus by making as if a non-scientific topic is amenable to scientific testing, you guys are stimulating the aberrant practice of presenting scientific evidence to justify the existence of god. After all, it's what you guys are asking for, no? Well "scientific creationism" delivers.
This is why I think he have no minor quibble here, even though we may all be atheists, I think you guys and creationists agree more, upon the existence of god actually being a scientific question. I'll step aside here.
I am just correcting you guys on the oxymoron of demanding empirical evidence for god, which is, by definition, a supernatural entity and therefore of no interest to science.
I get exactly what you're saying Sanders. You're just not understanding.
You're saying that, based on a non-scientific philosophical perspective, it's false to assume that God doesn't exist simply because there's no scientific evidence for his existence. The only way to do that is to assume that the scientific method is superior to revelatory knowledge a priori. I get it, and under a pantheistic and/or trickster god hypothesis (i.e., one that does not want to be involved, or detected) that makes sense.
But that 'God' only exists in the minds of 'sophisticated theologians'. That's the only God that fits all of your asinine claims and contentions. The God that the rest of us are talking about is the one that tells people what to do. In order to tell people what to do, he had to actually influence the material world. The ephemeral non-invasive entity that you seem to fall back upon for all of your arguments is not the God of Christianity or Islam. These Gods do things and their holy books have several testable effects. Stop ignoring the fact that I keep repeating this to you.
The concept of God that you keep trotting out in order to bestow untold reams of incomprehensibly CAPITALIZED wisdom and philosophy has no effect on anything. We scientists can ignore it, and the faithful cannot expect to derive wisdom from it in this lifetime.
You told us to choose a God then pretend that we're fools for not choosing the nebulous woo you had in mind. No one's going to take you seriously if you don't stop ignoring what people are actually telling you.
I am just correcting you guys on the oxymoron of demanding empirical evidence for god, which is, by definition, a supernatural entity and therefore of no interest to science.
It takes no socrates to realize this. The shortcomings of naïve empiricism (that anything can be resolved via "retina") in science have been well-characterized in the epistemological literature. To think the existence of god could be an empirically testable question...well, only on the internet.
We can go beyond empirical scientific investigation. We can bring in logic and math. We can figure out that if there are tens of thousands of contradictory versions of gods, then almost all of them must be false. We could do a little probabilistic analysis of that. So, given that an overwhelming fraction of religious frameworks are false, this places a heavy burden on any one religion to establish that it's epistemological basis is any different/better than "making shit up." If they restrict themselves to using the same methodology as all the other religions, e.g. revelation and personal experience, I don't see how they can be considered successful.
When it comes to God as depicted in the Bible, I think it is absolutely appropriate to point out the discrepancy between the depictions of a deity who sends fire from heaven to obliterate the prophets of Ba'al, or strikes the apostles' opponents with blindness, and the fact that Christians who claim to "believe the whole Bible" and "take it all literally" clearly do not expect such things to happen today.
When fundamentalists make such claims, they are being dishonest - whether they realize it or not.
No Carlo, you most defintiviely don't get it, and you're digging yourself deeper in the hole of your frivolity.
You want a non-nebulous god to make himself manifest to you? How? Fire in the sky? You did not answer that.
Prayer studies? We already noted that prayer studies is silly. Let me recommend you throw a stone and implore "god, make it fly!!!". By watching it fall several times, you will be increasing the evidence that god does not exist. You can write Richard Dawkins about it.
You honestly think that modern religious beliefs require thinking of God as the frequent interventor and miracle-maker of the old testament? Then you obviously don't know two lines of any modern religion. Attacking strawmen is for the deluded.
And as of now, you have officially bored me to the death. Good luck with pursuing your neoatheist comfortations.
"it's false to assume that God doesn't exist simply because there's no scientific evidence for his existence. The only way to do that is to assume that the scientific method is superior to revelatory knowledge a priori. I get it"
HUh? Science IS indeed a priori preferable to "revelatory knowledge". Who said eanything else?
The point is that you can't whine over the non-existence of evidence for anything SUPERNATURAL. Is this so diffcult to understand? because you DON't get it.
Ok now. Byebye then
because you DON't get it.
Ok now. Byebye then
If I indeed 'don't get it Sanders' it's because you didn't explain yourself clearly, spoke to us in insulting tones, and kept changing your point. In a logical discussion the burden of making your case rests on you. I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. So bye, bye!
There is another possible reason you don't get it: your personal prejudice. You have a lot of "baggage" of silly arguments to get rid off.
I'm quite satisfied I have made my point clear enough
eeerr...Bayesian, so, the existence of god can be solved by mathematics?
It's just as silly: The mathematical version of demanding empirical evidence for god. You imply that soe calculation could exist that would legitimize a supernatural explanation. No, dude. There is no datum or calculus that will suddenly make the supernatural a part of science.
By thinking as if this were actually possible, you are setting the stage for someone to come along and say he has found such calculations. Actually, it happnes all the time. People with truly remarkable mathematical capabilities have goen for that crap time and again, be it ti demonstrate "the improbability of a natural origin of life" or "bible-code prohecies"... you name it. This crap is actually the inescapable "other half" of your epistemology.
Maybe it will help you to think about it from the perspective of a smart (noncreationist) believer. To such a beliver, it is inded laughable that, if the equation works, you belive in god, and if it doesn't, you don't. What kind of "strong faith" is that?
eeerr...Bayesian, so, the existence of god can be solved by mathematics?
It's just as silly:...
Here's a web site about logical fallacies. I've opened it to the page about Straw Man arguments for you.
Ok now. Byebye then
You further erode any credibility you may have had when you post something like that and then fail to leave. Bye bye.
-----------
Implicitly, yes. When McGrath has responded to Moran's questions about his belief, and writes that it is a symbolic affair, Moran concludes that McGrath isn't "really" a Christian. What he means is that he isn't the kind of Christian Larry has in his mind, who must believe in God as a phenomenal proposition. It's worse than attacking a straw man. It's an argument from personal language.
-----------
OK, well and good. Then you concede that McGrath's language is in fact imprecise and dodgy and thus entails all the baggage that comes with dodginess and imprecision -- namely, that no one should reasonably be expected to understand what you say until you clarify. Unfortunately, it appears that efforts to ask for clarification constitute a fallacy you call an "argument from personal language." I can imagine the paramedics in my example defending their nebulous patient care reporting with just such a claim, and I would hope you can see the absurdity in that.
-----------
Wait a minute. I wasn't referring to theology exclusively, but rather the set of all things that are difficult (but important) to talk about. Philosophy, mostly; ethics, metaphysics, semiotics, maybe psychology. Please clarify if you want to include Wittgenstein, Rorty, Saussure, Nietzsche, W. James--let alone someone like Schroedinger--in your description of "ambiguous fuzz."
Even religious philosophers like Kierkegaard, Buber, Tillich, or Bonhoeffer do not deserve to be lumped in with the crystal healers and UFOologists. These were intelligent writers engaging serious concerns, and to write them off because they discussed things you don't care about or understand is puerile.
-----------
Who says anything about writing any of these people off? The fact that Kierkegaard, say, may have written some intelligent things does not render the nebulous things he said non-nebulous. You seem to think that just because somebody says something intelligent, that therefore everything they say is intelligent or should be taken seriously. No. Seriously, just no. Does it really need to be pointed out how straightforwardly fallacious this is?
Please note that you have not in fact defended anything specific said by McGrath or any other theist you feel should be taken seriously. (This likely comes from the fact that you feel that vagueness is on the same intellectual level of respectability as specificity.) You have only waxed generally about their right to be vague, and loosely "defended" their theological notions by pointing out that a) there is a lot of it, and b) some of it was written by people who did have genuinely good ideas on other topics. Sorry, but neither of those constitutes a rational defense of theism or why theism should be taken seriously. They're fallacious appeals to quantity and authority.
-----------
About the question of something vs. nothing, and similar problems (e.g. infinity), you're missing my point. It is not that they require a God to be explicable. It is rather that some things cannot be made explicable, or at the very least have not yet been made so. These sorts of things matter to some people, who often use symbols and rituals as a way to make them, if not explicable, then at least real, and something relational to themselves.
-----------
You threw in the question of something ex nihilo in the context of wondering why, in your view, atheists are dismissive of this "legitimate question." I merely countered that this is not something ignored by atheists, to the extent the question is sensible.
-----------
I'm not sure if I understand your distinction between reification and abstraction. It seems to me as soon as we give something a name, its too late to close the barn door on whether it's a "thing" or not. Either way, I'm no Platonist. I'm not arguing that freedom or justice are eternal forms. Merely that they are real, however abstract, and generally more important to us than diverse "concrete" things. (It seems unlikely, for example, than anyone would lay down their life for a potato, or a box of drywall screws, though recent highly publicized instances of kids killing each other over shoes shows how important abstractions can be--it wasn't footwear they were stealing, it was status.)
-----------
I don't deny that abstract concepts can be powerful motivators. I did not sleep through 9/11 and the subsequent wars. Why does the fact that they are powerful motivators render the claims made by the motivated true or sensible? If Osama bin Laden is driven to kill Americans in the name of Truth, Righteousness, Justice for oppressed muslims, how does this in any way shape or form imply that Islam is a sensible set of beliefs and should be taken seriously in the intellectual sense of the religion being philosophically tenable? That is the issue being discussed here, not some red herring about whether abstractions or concrete objects motivate people more.
-----------
I'm not going to mount a very enthusiastic defense of theism here. I'm not a theist for one thing, and for another there's no single thing to defend. I would defend theism at its best, just as I would defend science at its best. Both have their less than noble adherents. What I am defending is McGrath's and others' right to be taken seriously for (as far as I can tell) engaging meaningfully with the world. As Elvis Costello sang, what's so funny about peace love and understanding? You may not need deity myths and rituals to get there, but if they reinforce someone's personal practice of patience, sacrifice dedication, charity, humility and compassion, I'm really at a loss to understand what there is to ridicule.
-----------
Once again, no one denies that religion is a motivator and can drive people to these virtues you've espoused. How does that make it defensible or worthy of serious philosophical consideration? And you seem to think that those of us who don't take religion seriously are trying to ridicule or dehumanize its adherents. I really can't stand this equivocation. Do you consider it ridicule and dehumanization when your math professor returns an exam to you with the wrong answers marked as such? Or, more pertinent to this discussion, do you consider it ridicule and dehumanizing when an English professor returns an essay to you because it was unclear what you were trying to say?
-----------
Please do not mistake my argument as saying that religions inevitably cultivate virtue. Of course they don't. We don't need to waste time listing examples. Nor do I argue that rationalists are incapable of all the qualities I list above. (Though in my anecdotal experience rationalists seem to me to be a lot less humble than the general population).
But neither you nor I get to decide how others decide to be the best people they can be. Not every religious person does this, but far more than you credit.
-----------
Once again, the false equivocation. I really wish people would stop assuming that because some atheists don't take theism seriously, that they necessarily think themselves morally better or smarter overall than theists, or that they want to force theists by coercion into believing or doing things atheists wish of them. Nowhere do I think theists are ethically inferior to myself, nor am I trying to infringe upon their right to believe what they want to believe. You (not saying you are a theist; I'm using "you" generally here) are welcome to believe 2+2=5 and you can be a wonderful human being who contributes positively to his community. You're still wrong about that equation. Or, again, more pertinent to this discussion, you can choose to answer the question of 2+2's value by stating "it is some value between x and y", and be a good member of your community. You're still vague and ambiguous about that value.
Al,
"Imprecise" and "dodgy" are two very different things. For example, I'm certain that at some point in your life you've had an awkward conversation with someone regarding feelings. At least I hope you have. We might call your language grasping and imprecise, but "dodgy" implies deceit, and while some louts use squishy talk manipulatively, it would be wrong to characterize all imprecision as duplicitous. At any rate, I can't at all agree that no one should reasonably expect another to understand non-propositonal language. That would obviate the work of all poetry great and small.
In the case of your paramedics, there is an agreed-upon medical lexicon that ensures things are communicated precisely and accurately, so that patients don't unnecessarly die. Away from the urgency of the ambulance however, we are free to re-examine our frames and reference points--perhaps working toward new medical advances, or perhaps just exploring unconsidered ethical concerns.
No one is arguing that what you call "nebulous" language should supplant all communication, any more than a scientist would argue that we should set in stone our present understanding and never expose it to new hypotheses.
The point is that our precisely described world has perimeters, and probably always will. Logical, causal, propositional language tends to break down at those perimeters. (Infinity is the classic example). There are generally two approaches to how we talk about these boundaries: as a problem to be solved, or as a mystery to be encountered. Either way, there is no "precise" comprehension, so I cannot see why using mythic, metaphorical language would be inferior to using no language at all.
If you had read the philosophers I cited in my last comment, you would know that a significant portion of their work focuses on the problems we're discussing: how to deal with the limits of language, how to maintain meaning when the semantics of literal correspondence do not apply. It is a difficult and challenging conversation; not for everyone; but you cannot on the one hand dismiss as fluff theological discussions of the nature that McGrath cites, and simultaneously hold Wittgenstein, James et al in high regard. It's the same conversation.
If Osama bin Laden is driven to kill Americans in the name of Truth, Righteousness, Justice for oppressed muslims, how does this in any way shape or form imply that Islam is a sensible set of beliefs and should be taken seriously in the intellectual sense of the religion being philosophically tenable?
I never said it did, but it's a nice trick trying to equate Truth, Righteousness and Justice with mass murder. Are you saying you don't value those things? Given that just about all humans value truth and justice I don't see what OBLs beliefs have to do with anything. There are some 5+ billion people with a religious frame to their values who are not engaged in organized violence (and what studies we do have on Islam specifically show that mosque attendance is a negative predictor of violence.) So your point about reification continues to elude me.
Once again, no one denies that religion is a motivator and can drive people to these virtues you've espoused. How does that make it defensible or worthy of serious philosophical consideration?
Your question implies a standard of justification that I do not accept. You are taking for granted that religious myth and ritual are needless things, signifying nothing. That doesn't bother me in itself, but you take a further step in insisting the whole world share your lens. (You deny this, but "indefensible," "unworthy" and "wrong" have moral, in addition to factual connotations). On what grounds do you get to determine what is meaningful to others?
Let's clear one thing up: What Dawkins so scornfully calls a "delusion" (as though any of us had direct access to reality!) may get a little bit of traction among those who believe god to be a sort of cosmic air cavalry they can call in to redress their wrongs, whether it be in the form of healing disease or smiting enemies. I share your concern and disappointment that this is still a form religion takes in the world.
But it often seems as though Dawkins, PZ, Moran, Harris et al only see this modality, and are blind or oblivious to the forms of religious belief that do not aggrandize its adherents in some juvenile wish-fulfillment way, but rather help them look past their immediate concerns, beyond self-involvement and neurosis, to the suffering of others, or to the beauty and "grace" of the world that exists outside (or "transcends") any single life span.
Christian doctrine organises itself around a personage (God), to demonstrate this transcendent element--a self that never dies, or "the infinite." But many other religions, including Taoism, Buddhism, and animism use other non-personal metaphors. The content is the same, essentially reinforcing the idea that everything finite is literally part of the cosmos as a whole.
This message is easily pooh-poohed as providing mere comfort in a harsh "hostile" world. But in its more mature forms, where it does not make promises it cannot keep, such as "everlasting life" in the literal continuance of a single personality, its affect is far more sublime and profound; it's an orientation that can provide great richness and fulfillment even in the face of adversity.
Now, perhaps to you richness and fulfillment signify something more tangible: having a decent life span in good health, helping others, continually learning, or raising decent children. I share these aspirations. But are you really prepared to say that what I have just described is nonsense, and that those who believe it are fools or worse? Is it really "untrue" that we are "connected" to the cosmos and all its contents? I believe that to casually answer that question is to succumb to a religion of another kind, which is beyond mere naturalism, approaching something like alienism, wherein it is literally true that life is "nasty, brutish and short." A good case can be made (and has been made) that this kind of thinking comprises the unconscious metaphysics of scientific naturalism. The question is, what's the evidence for it?
At any rate, I can't at all agree that no one should reasonably expect another to understand non-propositonal language. That would obviate the work of all poetry great and small.
I am not claiming that all poetry is meaningless. However, it is clear that non-literal language runs the risk of being misinterpreted, which is why I ask for CLARIFICATION (this is an important term, because you seem to be under the impression that I'm being dismissive, but would a dismissive person actually ask for a clear intepretation?). Non-literal figurative language still has a literal interpretation that does make direct sense (the substance behind the fluff). For instance, if I tell a fluffy essay writer to "quit beating around the bush" with his prose, that expression, although idiomatic and figurative, still has a literal interpretation that is unambiguous: namely, be direct about what you say. So let us be clear on one thing: I have no issue with non-literal fluffy language, per se. I do take issue with it if fluff is all there is. Now if you disagree that theism is all fluff, then once again, tell us what the theists mean. All you've done is tell us that it's OK to be vague so that no one knows what you're talking about, and lots of philosophers have been vague, and have even discussed the limits of language. Yes, the limits of language is an interesting philosophical issue -- it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore the fuzzy rantings of theists should be taken seriously.
I never said it did, but it's a nice trick trying to equate Truth, Righteousness and Justice with mass murder. Are you saying you don't value those things? Given that just about all humans value truth and justice I don't see what OBLs beliefs have to do with anything. There are some 5+ billion people with a religious frame to their values who are not engaged in organized violence (and what studies we do have on Islam specifically show that mosque attendance is a negative predictor of violence.) So your point about reification continues to elude me.
What are you ranting on about here? This has little to nothing to do with what we're talking about. You claimed that abstract concepts often have greater power over people's motivations than do concrete things. I am agreeing with you on that point by pointing out that I can definitely see OBL's motivations. I am not at all equating Truth, Justice, Freedom or even religion with evil, but I am noting the general trend with you and other middle of the roaders of automatically assuming I'm trying to morally demonize religious adherents despite my very specific, non-fuzzy and non-ambiguous disclaimer earlier saying I was doing no such thing. The point of this example is that you appeared in a previous post to be vaguely insinuating that because these abstract motivators have such a powerful hold on people, they should be taken seriously as important intellectual/philosophical ideas. Sorry, I don't see why OBL or any other highly motivated person or group should have their ideas taken seriously simply because they are motivated.
Your question implies a standard of justification that I do not accept. You are taking for granted that religious myth and ritual are needless things, signifying nothing. That doesn't bother me in itself, but you take a further step in insisting the whole world share your lens. (You deny this, but "indefensible," "unworthy" and "wrong" have moral, in addition to factual connotations). On what grounds do you get to determine what is meaningful to others?
Are you a relativist? If you take serious issue with the idea of telling others where their thoughts are astray, what are you doing to me? This is why I am asking for SPECIFICS here, because while I'm using words like "indefensible" and "untenable" very generally here because no specifics were brought up, I can very justifiably use those words to label the specific arguments of specific theists. Would you like to know what's wrong with some of the nonsense say, written over at Answers in Genesis? Or the Discovery Institute? And if you don't feel like these are the sophisticated theists, you're more than welcome to mention those that meet your criteria. Unfortunately, you refuse to name any theists and their specific ideas that you feel should be taken seriously. All you've done is complain generally that they should be.
This discussion is becoming very roundabout even though it is simple and direct at its core (though I suppose you are being consistent with your position that roundabout indirect discussions are acceptable). You claim that theists should be taken seriously. So what SPECIFIC ideas of theirs are worth serious consideration? All you've said in their defense is that it's OK for them to be vague. Forgive us if none of us find that compelling. I wish I could defend a Ph.D. thesis this way -- I'd have one in every field of study.
Um, okay, seems I missed some fun. I'm going to comment, as this have spun off further posts, and I want to make my thoughts clear.
- "what modern sophisticated religion is all about": Dawkins TGD debunks creationism by a creator specifically, and has a fair amount of motivation to do so, such as that this is the historical and factual religious tradition among most believers. (And this is why the Courtiers misses the point.)
Moran asks for a similar description of a supernatural being. That would similarly delineate between a teleological, interventionist, theology and a Courtier, philosophical, theology. If I understand McGrath's comments, he notes that there are some such believers. Fair enough, but still missing the TGD points.
- I've posted yet again on where I'm coming from: Okay, but finetuning isn't a mystery nor is the universe finetuned for life (as life occupies a very small volume of it). We just don't know the answers yet, but there are plenty of hypotheses, some of which makes its likelihood large.
I'm not sure McGrath understands finetuning as he links to an observation that has nothing to do with it. It is an exciting new observation where scientists don't know the explanation yet. It is an argument from incredulity, which on the face of the article seems to be a large part of the basis for McGrath's beliefs.
- The problem of being is a real one. Why should there be something instead of nothing?
"Being" is a symbol without empirical value. What is "non-being"; how do we measure "being"? And it is unrelated to the later question of observing a universe, except that a "non-universe" also is outside the considered ensemble. There are two equally valid empirical answers to the later question: "why not?" respectively "a non-universe isn't within the observable ensemble of universes"; meaning, the question is not valid.
What Dawkins so scornfully calls a "delusion" (as though any of us had direct access to reality!) may get a little bit of traction among those who believe god to be a sort of cosmic air cavalry they can call in to redress their wrongs, whether it be in the form of healing disease or smiting enemies. I share your concern and disappointment that this is still a form religion takes in the world.
But it often seems as though Dawkins, PZ, Moran, Harris et al only see this modality, and are blind or oblivious to the forms of religious belief that do not aggrandize its adherents in some juvenile wish-fulfillment way, but rather help them look past their immediate concerns, beyond self-involvement and neurosis, to the suffering of others, or to the beauty and "grace" of the world that exists outside (or "transcends") any single life span.
Dawkins has good reasons to call it a delusion, he wrote a whole book explaining why. And "direct access to reality" isn't relevant when you have direct access to observation.
I'm not sure what would satisfy each of these atheists you mention, nor do I think it is a problem for religion as we have freedom for religion in all democracies. I know they aren't blind to them, for example PZ has described that kind of "modality" as "knitting" (he wants to have religion seen as on the level of a hobby). And I would think that they would see them as deluded and irrational as creationist religions.
AL (is it "Al" or "A.L."?)
I had hoped to make clear in my last comment that asking which specific bits of religious doctrine I might find defensible is besides the point. The answer to that question is, potentially, all of them, given the right manner of understanding. That is: mythic rather than literal understanding.
I don't expect you to grok this right away, especially when you write things like the statement below, but I trust you to approach it earnestly and see what follows. You wrote:
Non-literal figurative language still has a literal interpretation that does make direct sense (the substance behind the fluff)... I have no issue with non-literal fluffy language, per se. I do take issue with it if fluff is all there is. Now if you disagree that theism is all fluff, then once again, tell us what the theists mean.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me what "The Rime of The Ancient Mariner" means? What is the "substance behind the fluff", and why didn't Coleridge just say that?
Perhaps you think Coleridge is crap, in which case feel free to substitute a literary work of your own liking. Why does art, in general, use symbols and metaphors? Why illustrate problems with character and storytelling? Why not just declare the problem outright, as science does? Your answer to that question will apply fairly well to the matter at hand.
Abstractions tend not to touch us very deeply (which is why they often get reified). Science, for better or worse, deals mostly in abstractions. The fact that these abstractions represent a statistical truth is immensely instrumental to our ability to make rational decisions (that is a Good Thing), but we are by no means fully rational creatures, and never will be. You don't have to like it, but mythic, symbolic or metaphoric understanding provides a concrete or specific way to relate to problems that have no rational solution, or even expression, whether they are logical problems (such as how causality can exist in an infinite universe) or moral problems (such as how to reconcile self-interest and compassion.)
I don't deny that rationalists have ways of dealing with these things too, and more power to you. But this isn't a zero sum arrangement. At any rate, the overwhelming majority of people are drawn to the symbolic approach (how many take the symbols literally is the question). In Christianity one of the primary symbols is the trinity, which, among other things, embodies the "part-whole" aspect of existence; the way that "things" (including people) are simultaneously separate from each other, and knitted together to make a whole (community, ecosystem, cosmos).
Another central symbol is (obviously) that of Christ, who embodies (depending on who you talk to) the element of the "divine" or infinite/eternal in finite, material substance. "Divine" in this sense does not mean some other, supernatural, non material "stuff," but rather the nature of a relationship, a contextualization, of the individual with infinity (a genuine concept in science).
Another big-ticket aspect of the myth or symbol of Christ is (again, obviously) that of sacrifice. The meaning of this will vary depending on the church or theologian (just like the meaning of a work of art has no confirmable correct answer), but it generally pertains to the act of acceptance, of sublimating one's ambition and desires and "let[ting] it be" as the Beatles put it.
Sacrifice is especially pronounced among mystics, who aim to let go of themselves completely, all concepts, all plans, all attachments. Most people are not mystics and will not live out this myth as fully, but it still serves a valuable role in accepting limitation and loss, which none of us are free from.
If you still want to object that none of this is real, feel free. What we are calling "sophisticated" religious folks already know this. I suspect that even less sophisticated believers know it too, to varying degrees. Obviously for many people it's a whole different ballgame, about following orders, getting revenge, getting payback in the afterlife, and so on, and God and Jesus and the Rapture are all as real as traffic jams and junk mail. But we need to be careful not to assume that all religion follows this model. (And, with a dose of humility we should remember our "middle world" is basically an illusion too.)
Perhaps you'd like to tell me what "The Rime of The Ancient Mariner" means? What is the "substance behind the fluff", and why didn't Coleridge just say that?
I don't see what your point is here. If I told you what the poem meant, it would have a meaning, which is what I want out of an idea whether the idea is presented straightforwardly or poetically. If I could not tell you what it meant because it was unclear to me, then that is making my point about lack of clarity resulting in confusion and interpretation. Of course, after reading a poem, one can always fabricate a meaning -- the ever subjective "what the poem means to you." But that simply falls in with the confusion over interpretation category, since there is no guarantee that you and I, despite having read the same poem, will not have interpretations that contradict each other, let alone interpretations that contradict what the author meant or intended.
Perhaps you think Coleridge is crap, in which case feel free to substitute a literary work of your own liking. Why does art, in general, use symbols and metaphors? Why illustrate problems with character and storytelling? Why not just declare the problem outright, as science does? Your answer to that question will apply fairly well to the matter at hand.
Didn't I already explain that I have no problem with figurative writing so long as there is little to no confusion about its interpretation? Yes I did. As I'm about to repeat probably for the fourth time here, there's nothing wrong with figurative language per se.
But every poet or figurative writer knows full well that use of figurative language can result in confusion, therefore it might be a good idea to clarify in some way unless you have no problem with confusion or if confusion was your intent.
When Douglas Hofstadter wrote Godel Escher Bach, he included a significant amount of verse, metaphor, allegory, and symbolism in between direct prose in which he explained what all of that meant, and book reviewers and his readers were still confused as to what he meant, such that in subsequent editions of his book, he would attempt to clarify in the preface. Now, not every author has the luxury of subsequent editions and revisions, but my point remains -- if you are unclear, how is anyone going to know what you're saying and why would you reasonably expect them to? It's just going to come down to personal preference/cynicism -- writers you're fond of get the generous interpretation, writers you don't quite like get the cynical one.
Another example is the fact that I keep replying to you. I am constantly replying and rewording the same things I've been saying in an effort to clarify my position. Now if I wasn't the least bit interested in being understood, I could simply pretend that those who misinterpret me aren't sophisticated enough to understand what I am saying and snub them. I am starting to get the impression that I'm actually on the receiving of this snubbing.
Al,
I'm not snubbing you I promise.
Yes, if you told me what "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" meant, it would (tautologically) have a meaning. But could you? Could anyone? You might interpret the poem, discuss the themes and symbols, and you could do this at great length, but when you were done would you have any kind of substitute for the poem itself? If five people did this, would you be able to analyze their findings and select the one that conveyed the "correct" meaning?
A poem cannot be translated into something unambiguous. It does not operate as a series of truth propositions. It does not serve the function of conveying factual, yes-or-no, right-or-wrong information. The criteria we require of factual propositions--that they correspond directly to something unambiguous--do not apply to poetry.
What is or is not clear to you personally is not entirely relevant here. I don't mean that as an insult, but for some people the things I'm writing about are quite clear. Certain types of expression require the right preparation. Jazz sounds like noise to most people if they walk into it without reference points, but when you step them through from Dixieland, to Big Band, to Bop, and so on, it begins to take shape. Modern art is another great example that arose earlier on this thread. It's understandable that an uninitiated museum-goer would sneer at the Picassos: "my 5 year old could paint that." But a little art history and a little open-mindedness and one begins to appreciate it.
"My kid could paint that" is the flipside of the "Emperor's new clothes." Maybe there's no there there, and we're being duped. But maybe it takes the right training and cast of mind. Or maybe a little of both.
I'm not saying you need to show any interest at all in theology, even as an academic interest. But to evaluate it as a series of propositions of the natural world, and then judge it as meaningless on those terms, is a waste of a perfectly good conversation among intelligent people.
Post a Comment