Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Carnival of the Godless #4

I recently discovered the Carnival of the Godless,...

2005-03-01T02:26:46.640-05:00

I recently discovered the Carnival of the Godless, and I think it's excellent. It's such a relief to find some sane people out there...

A brief rebuttal of RobertP's ridiculously overblo...

2005-02-23T16:15:46.040-05:00

A brief rebuttal of RobertP's ridiculously overblown link proclaiming the "Death of Empiricism" can be found on my blog here.

I think William James had it right: a "religious" ...

2005-02-23T01:39:54.706-05:00

I think William James had it right: a "religious" experience is something outside of the realm of empiricism and the 5 senses. Sure, science and empiricism and the exercise of reason can explain a great many things, but they can't explain everything.

I have never had a religious experience, and thus I don't believe in God. I don't necessarily reject the idea there's some higher power or Truth out there outside the realm of my experience, but I question why this has to be defined as some transcendant, patriarchal, anthropomorphic (in that at least human emotions and ambitions are often ascribed to God) omnipotent being. Surely there are a huge number of explanations for the things "God" does that don't require a God.

-False Prophet

loren, I can't speak for all Christian funerals, b...

2005-02-22T19:20:58.560-05:00

loren,
I can't speak for all Christian funerals, but most of the funerals I have been to of men and women of faith have been celebrations. Celebrations of a life lived for God, as well as celebration of being with God. I remember when my aunt Mary died. She had MS, but was constantly found at church, whenever she could make it. Her funeral was filled with singing songs of praise, my uncle gave an incredible 'sermon', one which involved much laughter and celebration. Or a young girl, Sarah who passed away from cancer at age 16. She had been really active with the youth group, and was dearly loved by everyone, the whole town turned up. Yes there were tears, and greif and the sadness that is naturally present when a loved one is lost. But there was also laughter, great food, fun, and a general feeling of peace. I could go on. My grandmother, other men and women, and children, all who loved Jesus with everything they had. If the person was a follower of Jesus, a funeral is not such a bad place to be.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that God is up in heaven and has created a place for us to go after we die. But the fact is that for a lot of Christians, this is sincere belief, and, unlike Rey's claim, it shows up in our funeral celebrations. His accusation that we betray our unbelief in our reactions to death and dying, i might suggest is false.

In response to Macht, it is not only the deaths of...

2005-02-21T20:55:36.806-05:00

In response to Macht, it is not only the deaths of other people we grieve over, but the deaths of pets and the destruction of favorite inanimate items. It's not what they are made of that counts, it's the organization that counts; I disagree with the crude reductionism presumed in Macht's comments.

Imagine that you had built a sand castle on a beach and someone destroys it. You feel very unhappy about the destruction of your work, though the sand still exists. You have every right to feel unhappy, however, since the sand-castleness is because of its shape rather than its material, and a destroyed sand castle no longer has the sand-castle shape.

And as to living happily ever after in Heaven, I wonder where are those who make their last words

See you in Heaven

It's as if most believers in Heaven are not completely convinced that they are going there when they die.

And why aren't funerals turned into celebrations?

My argument for meta-theism: Ask yourself why you ...

2005-02-21T19:16:23.753-05:00

My argument for meta-theism: Ask yourself why you (by "you" I mean atheists) feel intense grief when a loved one dies. The complex interaction of atoms that previously was, is no more. Actually, the atoms are still there, they just aren't interacting in the same way as before. It's just a change in matter from one form to another. What's so sad about that? It happens all the time. I think you guys are being inconsistent. ;)

Seriously, if I feel grief over somebody because I can no longer talk to, touch, have fun with, look at, eat with, drink with, argue with, cry with, play football with, be with, etc., etc., etc., that person, I'm somehow being inconsistent if that person went to a better place? Or better yet, this somehow means I don't actually believe he is in a better place?

Before the discussion gets too off-track, let me p...

2005-02-21T17:56:49.546-05:00

Before the discussion gets too off-track, let me point out that David's point could explain religious belief without necessarily justifying it. The analogy with science is that many people do not really understand it, not that it is good epistemic practice.

Anyway, I'm still interested in hearing what others think of meta-atheism, and I look forward to Smijer's forthcoming post on the subject...

'But it must be said that many of the greatest min...

2005-02-21T11:15:44.270-05:00

'But it must be said that many of the greatest minds of the last two millenia have provided a rich library of defenses for the Christian faith. '

And many greater minds have rebuted each and every one of them.

Think about what your saying. A faith that needs defending? why?

Because it is based on ideas often devoid of sense, grown from previous ancient myths, and molded into a modern religion.

Come on you can't prove a man came back to life after 3 days, or that the Earth was created in 7days, or Noahs ark, or a worldwide flood. These are unprovable events. So all apologetics is simply mental masturbation that comes down to the fact that NOT ONE apologist has ever proven any of those things true.

It's faith. Period.

RobertP, Now your arguing semantics. switch god fo...

2005-02-21T00:24:50.906-05:00

RobertP,
Now your arguing semantics.
switch god for truth, whatever you like to call it is fine with me. The point being, there are no free-floating god's, and so there is no god beside the one in the head's of true believers, all as variable as imagination allows for.
Truths aren't universal. They are all tentative, until proven false, then they get discarded on the dustbins of knowledge.
Besides, David's analogy attempted to show that belief in god or science was the same or similar, and it's not. Sure, you can be ignorant on both and still believe in both or neither, but religious knowledge is gained ultimately through revelation, you can't argue with that can you. While the advancement of cool things we can know in science is accomplished via testable hypotheses, and that you can argue with.
And waznt the Westminster Confession like any apologetic prose that implies the bible as authoritative (as if it where historically accurate) ultimately ambiguous?
Perhaps one day you might realize all this like scooby doo and whinney the pooh and my vestigial tail.
Namedropping is a fav. pastime of the lazy intellect.

Caynazzo, you stretched the analogy quite a bit bu...

2005-02-20T23:39:50.510-05:00

Caynazzo, you stretched the analogy quite a bit but I think it still holds. Science and religion both have their rarefied fields of academia. Users of toasters do not need to understand Maxwell's electromagnetic theories. Nor do Sunday churchgoers need to understand Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Confession. I do not need to hold a BA in philosophy to write stuff on this site.

The analogy only falls down in the area of repeatable, empirical observations, but it wasn't intended to go that far (was it?).

You said "Now if I followed your recipe for belief really carefully—measured twice, cut once—could I replicate your results and make my own functioning god(s) exactly like yours."

Of course not. People are all different and their personality affects the nature of their relationship with God. That does not preclude the possibility of a transcendent Truth that exists whether you like it or not. Perhaps one day you might realise this, like CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Malcolm Muggeridge, or even Jacques Derrida

Not all authorities are created equal, and theolog...

2005-02-20T22:37:27.943-05:00

Not all authorities are created equal, and theologians aren’t scientists.
With statements from David like, “I believe that my toaster works. I also believe that scientists have shown that if certain fundamental physical laws were false, then my toaster wouldn't work…So I "believe" these basic physical laws.
My guess would be that he’s a stranger to the “Methods” section of a refereed scientific journal. Unlike David, toaster scientists aren’t afforded the luxury of believing that toasters work, they must know toasters work. How? Because:
1. We can verify/falsify the claim: There are toasters that don’t work and there are ones that do. Can you show me a god(s) that doesn’t work?
2. The Journal of Toaster Physics has peer reviewed studies that demonstrates just how toasters work. Whoa Tex, this isn’t some snooty authoritarian ode to ethos, because if I or you or another toaster scientist were so inclined she could scroll down the page to the Methods section and find exactly how it was done and replicate her own toast popping toaster. Now if I followed your recipe for belief really carefully—measured twice, cut once—could I replicate your results and make my own functioning god(s) exactly like yours.
Can you imagine if the FDA merely believed in the efficacy of prescription drugs? It is however, a human institution and fated to flaw.
Religious belief is fundamentally for everyone and that’s why there are so many followers. Science is elitist and selective by nature. It has to be b/c there’s way too much to know for any one person or god. That’s why scientists and David, will from time to time, resort to authoritarianism. If a physicist didn’t take anything on authority and so started each physics experiment from assuming nothing, he wouldn’t get very far as a scientist. However, if he wanted to, the physicist could go back, way back to Copernicus, and replicate each and every experiment because the results (for them to be scientific) are reproducible, completely, absolutely, no excuses. Do you have any idea how many of scientists shoot their wad when they shoot a few holes in a colleagues claims?
But that doesn’t mean you can’t benefit from science if you’re ignorant of some or all of its parts. Just because David doesn’t understand way complicated physics, does that mean no one does? Is D.A.V.E. an acronym for human intelligence? I’m not one of ‘em, but there are people who do understand the stuff.
And this is why I doubt David’s a scientist. That doesn’t make him a bad person or even a knave. But it does let him getaway with making bad analogies between science and religion. Or does it?

It may appear that all religious people care abo...

2005-02-20T20:38:23.900-05:00

It may *appear* that all religious people care about is applying rules to society; however this is not the message of the Gospel. The message is good news: that humans can know their Creator, and enjoy his presence in their life.

Dave said:
"it starts with a religious person's immediate moral experience and intuition, and tries to hold up factual claims by means of that starting-point"

Let me add that it's not just a moral or intellectual experience: many of my fellow believers have encountered a spiritual reality, that deeply touched their emotions, mind, and soul. And I can testify to prayers answered, lives changed, and many times when I personally have felt that Heaven has touched Earth.

Moral teachings then arise from a supernaturally regenerated conscience, informed by the work of God within. Think of an ex-smoker's passion to reform his smoky mates: it may be obnoxious but it is motivated by sincere concern for their wellbeing.

It's a bit of a diversion to debate moral issues, because Christians are primarily instructed to preach Christ.

PS: Sorry for my attitude yesterday

I cannot disagree with David; most of my fellow Ch...

2005-02-20T20:18:21.613-05:00

I cannot disagree with David; most of my fellow Christians do not delve into biblical exegesis, hermenutics, archaeology, apologetics, etc.

But it must be said that many of the greatest minds of the last two millenia have provided a rich library of defenses for the Christian faith.

I think that contemporary religious people are pri...

2005-02-20T19:44:05.176-05:00

I think that contemporary religious people are primarily interested in the moral aspects of religion ("Abortion is wrong," "Homosexuality is perverse," or whatever) and are often only interested in the factual portion of religion insofar as they think that that factual portion must be affirmed in order to get the moral aspects. So for instance, I have heard arguments like this one made:

"If there is no creator-God, then all our deepest moral beliefs are false. But they're obviously true; therefore there must be a creator-God."

This is a sort of "bottom-up" approach to religious belief; it starts with a religious person's immediate moral experience and intuition, and tries to hold up factual claims by means of that starting-point.

If I am right that this kind of approach is widespread among believers, then this may explain some of the "peculiarities" of their beliefs.

An analogy could be drawn with science. I believe that my toaster works. I also believe that scientists have shown that if certain fundamental physical laws were false, then my toaster wouldn't work. So I "believe" these basic physical laws. But I'd imagine that my beliefs in those laws exhibit certain peculiarities. Since I'm not very well familiar with them, and in many cases don't understand them, I'd guess that you could find in my practical behavior many signs that I don't "really" believe them.

Likewise: Many religious people believe certain moral claims. They also believe that others (i.e. religious authorities -- theologians, priests, etc.) have shown that if God didn't create the world in seven days (etc.) then those moral claims would be false. So they "believe" that God created the world in seven days (etc.). But they don't understand what it means to say that God created the world in seven days, just as I don't understand extremely complicated physics; so their everyday activities probably contain many signs they don't "really" believe them.

Interesting thoughts on the meta-atheism thing. I ...

2005-02-20T13:47:21.116-05:00

Interesting thoughts on the meta-atheism thing. I agree that it's obnoxious to be told that deep-down we really do believe, and that it's probably obnoxious to believers to be told that they don't... That said, the fellow makes some decent points, and I can't help but think there is a grain of truth to that theory, especially from my own past experiences with believing. I bet I'll spend this week trying to flesh those thoughts out and see if I can't elaborate for next week's Carnival. Speaking of which, nice job on this week's.

I know it was long. I wanted to pose a challenge t...

2005-02-20T01:03:05.866-05:00

I know it was long. I wanted to pose a challenge to your orgy of self-congratulatory anti-religious ad hominems.

If this comment survives, I recommend this link: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2005/563/print/

RobertP, please do not spam my site by copying & p...

2005-02-20T00:24:08.476-05:00

RobertP, please do not spam my site by copying & pasting whole (irrelevant) articles into my comments section. I do not appreciate it.

It's just getting better and better. Great job! ...

2005-02-20T00:10:32.070-05:00

It's just getting better and better. Great job!

So-called trackback-substitute