Lubac on Atheism - II
Lubac writes,
"We do not want a mysterious God. Neither do we want a God who is Some One. Nothing is more feared than this mystery of the God who is Some One.
We would rather not be some one ourselves, than meet that Some One!"
(Henri de Lubac, Paradoxes of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987 [1948]) 214.)
Short but deep. Lubac pierces directly to the heart of atheist spirituality (yes, that’s right, I said "atheist spirituality"). From a Christian perspective, men are fallen creatures - not seeking God as much as running from Him. Genuine "seekers" will find what they ask for, as Jesus tells us. But many who claim to be in pursuit of Truth are merely buying time for themselves to live according to their own dictates rather than submit to the will of God.
Just as in Lubac’s era, atheists today constantly hurl insults at Christians for being "irrational" and for believing in a Being they cannot see (a "mystery" which cannot be fathomed by human reckoning), and for believing in miracles and the Resurrection of Christ. If a God does or ever did exist, He would not the be the kind of Being described in the Bible, so we are told. He would rather be the kind of god famously spoken of by the philosopher Spinoza, or Einstein: universal and infinite, perhaps, but not conscious, not personal, and never interfering in the natural order of things. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins has said — and I am paraphrasing — that he could believe in such a god, because that type of god is not God. He is more of a mathematical concept.
Lubac was insightful: he saw such atheistic comments as the result of human fear. Not liberation, as is so often heralded by atheists, but fear of a God Who is both mysterious and personal. Human history and much of human behavior (not to mention our secret mental worlds) reflect too poorly upon us to accept such a God. So, we try everything to eradicate Him — even to the denial of the peculiar nature of His chief creation, humanity itself. We are no longer the offspring of God, sons of Adam, distinct from the animals, charged with dominion over the earth; rather, we are the offspring of animals, sons of apelike ancestors, one with the animals, charged with evolving the next great species. In short, we would rather not be the image of the mysterious-personal God, we would rather be the result of impersonal forces, somehow having arrived at something we call consciousness (don’t worry, science will soon "explain" consciousness as a "natural" — read impersonal — phenomenon).
Again, a paradox of atheism. Just as with that majority of atheists who are materialists, the deniers of a mysterious God must degrade man in order to do so. The denial of God always logically reduces the value of man. Even when those who argue otherwise speak of freedom, dignity, or progress, they destroy, or at least empty, the very category of personality which makes these concepts meaningful.
Anyone who would lower God beneath the bar of terrestrial measurement, would have no problem degrading man accordingly. But, as Lubac has noticed, the atheist would rather have it that way, even if he and his favorite propagandists say just the opposite.
"We do not want a mysterious God. Neither do we want a God who is Some One. Nothing is more feared than this mystery of the God who is Some One.
We would rather not be some one ourselves, than meet that Some One!"
(Henri de Lubac, Paradoxes of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987 [1948]) 214.)
Short but deep. Lubac pierces directly to the heart of atheist spirituality (yes, that’s right, I said "atheist spirituality"). From a Christian perspective, men are fallen creatures - not seeking God as much as running from Him. Genuine "seekers" will find what they ask for, as Jesus tells us. But many who claim to be in pursuit of Truth are merely buying time for themselves to live according to their own dictates rather than submit to the will of God.
Just as in Lubac’s era, atheists today constantly hurl insults at Christians for being "irrational" and for believing in a Being they cannot see (a "mystery" which cannot be fathomed by human reckoning), and for believing in miracles and the Resurrection of Christ. If a God does or ever did exist, He would not the be the kind of Being described in the Bible, so we are told. He would rather be the kind of god famously spoken of by the philosopher Spinoza, or Einstein: universal and infinite, perhaps, but not conscious, not personal, and never interfering in the natural order of things. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins has said — and I am paraphrasing — that he could believe in such a god, because that type of god is not God. He is more of a mathematical concept.
Lubac was insightful: he saw such atheistic comments as the result of human fear. Not liberation, as is so often heralded by atheists, but fear of a God Who is both mysterious and personal. Human history and much of human behavior (not to mention our secret mental worlds) reflect too poorly upon us to accept such a God. So, we try everything to eradicate Him — even to the denial of the peculiar nature of His chief creation, humanity itself. We are no longer the offspring of God, sons of Adam, distinct from the animals, charged with dominion over the earth; rather, we are the offspring of animals, sons of apelike ancestors, one with the animals, charged with evolving the next great species. In short, we would rather not be the image of the mysterious-personal God, we would rather be the result of impersonal forces, somehow having arrived at something we call consciousness (don’t worry, science will soon "explain" consciousness as a "natural" — read impersonal — phenomenon).
Again, a paradox of atheism. Just as with that majority of atheists who are materialists, the deniers of a mysterious God must degrade man in order to do so. The denial of God always logically reduces the value of man. Even when those who argue otherwise speak of freedom, dignity, or progress, they destroy, or at least empty, the very category of personality which makes these concepts meaningful.
Anyone who would lower God beneath the bar of terrestrial measurement, would have no problem degrading man accordingly. But, as Lubac has noticed, the atheist would rather have it that way, even if he and his favorite propagandists say just the opposite.
21 Comments:
This piece was not your best work. Long on preaching, short on rational explanation. As usual, you portray atheists as god haters, people who know deep down that god exists but deny him. We just don't believe in him or what seem to us to be the fairy tales that explain him.
This quote particular made me chuckle:
"The denial of God always logically reduces the value of man."
For atheists man is ultimately responsible for his own destiny, not some sky god that demands prayers and obedience in exchange for heaven and meddling in the affairs of the "righteous". It is the deluded worship of a non-existent god and all the trappings that follow wishful thinking for an afterlife that diminish man. I hope for the day when such superstition is behind us.
"From a Christian perspective, men are fallen creatures - not seeking God as much as running from Him." I think that sentence 'pierced' the issue deeper than the one you quoted.
The Christian perspective already told you that atheists were merely weak, frightened people unable or unwilling to give up their foolish pride and material desires. The quote you found merely helped you justify your predisposed view.
But hey how do I know why or how you came to these conclusions ?? answer ... I don't. Everyone is slightly different. These ad hominem attacks aren't going to get us anywhere.
It's like the Scientologists unloading on anyone who questions them with a torrent of, 'What are you afraid of ?? You must be afraid of something if you're attacking Scientology, why are you afraid of Hubbard ???' This demonising of those who hold opposing views and the idea that we know exactly why and how they think the things they do just shuts down discussion of the issues themselves.
P.S. Please don't say things like,'the atheist would rather have it that way, even if he and his favorite propagandists say just the opposite.' There's no such thing as 'the atheist', there are many people that DON'T happen to believe the things you believe for many different reasons.
Thank you for your delightful spilling, Mr. Stone. After such a thought-provoking loopty-loop I clicked through to your cultured blog entitled "Rotten Bastards." I took our comment much more seriously afterwards. To wit:
Bravo!: indulging yourself in my own prevailig sins in order to point them out to me! Double bravo! It was almost subtle.
Ad hominem?!? Much like saying, in effect, "you're acting just like those wacko Scientologists (aside: that'll get 'im!)" That's almost as sophisticated as Dawkins, et alia, saying something like, "Muslim extremists kill people; Muslim extremists believe in God; Ergo, belief in God kills people! We must stop those Christians!" It's not even entertaining any more.
As for your "P.S." --- digression, why do people continue to use "P.S." in a fully digital age? --- I will indeed continue to talk about that rascal "The Atheist" for he exists as much as you do. Forgive me for not succumbing to the existential demons --- "x" is every bit as real as "Ex" (sorry, there's no backwards "E" in this font), even though you can't touch it. You will never destroy the One, even in the most pressing necessity of the concrete many. (Have we learned nothing from the doctrine of the Trinity?)
Yes, every individual is different, and has their own story; but human nature has one primary dementia and One Single Cure. My "the atheist" is as concrete as your "us" - to steal a word from your post. We are all both abstract and concrete at once --- but the Christian perspective tells us who, in the end, wears the concrete shoes.
That's why my post mentioned "atheist spirituality." It was not merey an ad hominem, but an expression, following Lubac, of psychology from a Christian perspective.
Not that I'm immune from entertaining an ad hominem. Just read me a bit more, and you'll see. Anyone can. Even a "rotten bastard."
"Bravo!: indulging yourself in my own prevailig sins in order to point them out to me! Double bravo! It was almost subtle."
Are you implying it was supposed to be subtle ?? It wasnt. That's sort of why I said, "But hey how do I know why or how you came to these conclusions ?? answer ... I don't. Everyone is slightly different. These ad hominem attacks aren't going to get us anywhere." Meaning, let's spend less time concentrating on the atheist's motivation for making his/her point and more time concentrating on his/her actual point.
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens could all have wet the bed every single night of their childhood through fear of God. They could have decided since they hate this God they would try to eradicate him from existence.
Does this have any bearing on their actual arguments ?? No. It has a bearing on whether or not we can trust them but as I'm sure you know we shouldn't really trust anyone. If we just had unquestioning trust of everyone who made any kind of claim we'd be believing Richard Dawkins wants parents arrested for 'teaching their children about God'.
The fact that we don't trust the people telling us these things and decide to find out for ourselves if these arguments stand up is the reason we know Dawkins does NOT want parents arrested for 'teaching their children about God'.
You can group 'The atheist' together I'll give you that but you can only group 'The atheist' together in the fact they they don't have a believe in a supernatural Intelligence. Any positive statement about the desires or the agenda of 'The atheist' are just wild flights of fancy.
I'm an atheist and I disagree with Lubac's statement, am I still part of the great atheist beast ??? I'm not an anti theist, I would like there to be a personal God. Not the deity who'll torture me forever if I eat shellfish and have consensual sex with an adult of the same gender (not that I do either of those things ... often) but I would like there to be some kind of loving deity who would grant me eternal happiness for living a good life, I am just unconvinced of the existence of said Deity. Is it so hard to believe that somebody can just be unconvinced ?? Come on really, you've believed crazier things.
P.s. I neither know nor care if 'people' still use 'p.s.'. I use it, is it hurting you ?? Oh and my writing at an online blog named, 'Rotten bastards' has absolutely no bearing on my point. Thanks for judging the validity of my argument on some irrelevant fact about my personal life.
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
P.P.S. (Wow now I'm writing PPS, why am I doing this ??) Sorry to add yet more onto my lengthy post but I just can't let this one go, it's bugging me too much.
"Muslim extremists kill people; Muslim extremists believe in God; Ergo, belief in God kills people! We must stop those Christians!"
I truly hope you weren't suggesting this is a point Richard Dawkins has ever made or would ever make. I'm not trying to put words into his mouth but I think you may have missed the general point of, 'This Religious book promotes violence, bigotry and a closed minded refusal to consider new evidence, these Religious people believe this book is without flaw. This is harmful'.
Ofcourse I may have missed your point, you may have just been giving me a hypothetical argument similar to my own but in a different context to highlight the faults of my argument. Sort of like I was doing bringing up the Scientology thing in the first place.
Tomby,
I orginally came to this site because Joel was shilling his anti-atheist book at the forums at Richarddawkins.net and i was in the mood for a smackdown. He created a provcative thread to promote it and then never posted again.
Like many Christians with a fixation on atheists he continually attacks a strawman created for the purposes of argument that rarely resembles most atheists I know. I wonder if he's ever really known any well.
Anyway, if you read other comments throughout this blog you will see his hypocrisy. In several comments he recoils and spouts when I made generalizations about his beliefs and attitudes based on what he has written. Yet he refuses to grant even less latitude to his adversaries than he demands for himself.
Now that he has several anti-atheist books under his belt he has a vested interest to never see or understand the other side in realistic terms. Otherwise, I think he's intelligent and perhaps even open-minded enough to know better. I'll continue to post here and hope for a dialogue though, and from time to time I see reason for hope.
How much of this is war to the death between worldviews and how much opportunity is there for real dialogue and toleration? I don't know and sometimes I'm torn too. But that's what makes Joel's blog interesting to me.
Jane, perhaps Joel is still waiting for you to admit the error of the statements about Eusebius you made on the previous thread. You seemed to have faded away from that thread, even after being corrected more than once and promising to look into the matter further. Perhaps admitting that you were wrong would go a long way to establishing "real dialogue and toleration."
Just a thought.
Tim,
I'm still not sure I was wrong about Eusebius. Joel never addressed the Carrier stuff either. Reading all the competing information regarding this area will take time. I'm not a scholar in this area. But admitting I might be wrong was the closest thing you'll ever see to real dialogue on this blog. At least I have an open mind about it. One thing is clear, there is plenty of baloney on both sides of this issue.
Jane, then I would think it would be a relatively easy matter for you to simply admit that the two citations you tried to attribute to Eusebius were very much mistaken. There may be other material out there (extremely doubtful, but possible), but Joel has pretty handily shown that the information you referenced was incorrect. If I were you, I would be somewhat incensed that someone had lied to me and misrepresented Eusebius just to futher a particular agenda. But I will agree with you on this: to do so is a quite a load of baloney.
Are you implying it was supposed to be subtle ??
No.
It wasnt. That's sort of why I said, "But hey how do I know why or how you came to these conclusions ?? answer ... I don't. Everyone is slightly different. These ad hominem attacks aren't going to get us anywhere." Meaning, let's spend less time concentrating on the atheist's motivation for making his/her point and more time concentrating on his/her actual point.
Good point. Well taken. I concede. Now, please try to see the actual point in Lubac’s quote, which this post is all about, how it applies to the Atheo-Darwinian worldview, and why that, at least, could, concern “the atheist” — any atheist.
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens could all have wet the bed every single night of their childhood through fear of God. They could have decided since they hate this God they would try to eradicate him from existence.
Does this have any bearing on their actual arguments ?? No. It has a bearing on whether or not we can trust them but as I'm sure you know we shouldn't really trust anyone. If we just had unquestioning trust of everyone who made any kind of claim we'd be believing Richard Dawkins wants parents arrested for 'teaching their children about God'.
I’m not sure I would even grant your analysis of “No.” here, or whether it only has a bearing on their trustworthiness. More on that at another time.
At least make a clearer distinction between “trust” and “unquestioning trust.” The first holds society tegether, and is also called “faith.” The second will rip society apart. OK, if you want that, but if so, say so.
we know Dawkins does NOT want parents arrested for 'teaching their children about God'.
Do we? You have already told us not to trust anyone. So why do you trust Dawkins on this matter? He has clearly stated that to label children as “Christian chidren” — which those of us who practice infant baptism must — is a form of child abuse. And what is the usual punishment for child abuse. I’m sure Dawkins could crab-walk out of this, but what is the clear implication? Honestly? Abusers of children should be incarcerated.
(As an aside, I will note that I did not write the script for the video Tomby quotes from, nor did I have any hand in producing it. I just like it, that’s all.)
You can group 'The atheist' together I'll give you that but you can only group 'The atheist' together in the fact they they don't have a believe in a supernatural Intelligence. Any positive statement about the desires or the agenda of 'The atheist' are just wild flights of fancy.
“Any positive statement” ---- do you mean “any” as in “all”??? My, that’s so abstract and universal. Almost a stereotype. "The atheist" reaches much farther than you realize --- even into the spirituality of many believers. "Beacuse the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:7). Harsh, that.
I'm an atheist and I disagree with Lubac's statement, am I still part of the great atheist beast ???
No. But, well, yes.
I'm not an anti theist, I would like there to be a personal God. Not the deity who'll torture me forever if I eat shellfish and have consensual sex with an adult of the same gender (not that I do either of those things ... often) but I would like there to be some kind of loving deity who would grant me eternal happiness for living a good life,
And here is the real crux (forgive the expression) of the issue. You would like a God, but not a judging God whom you cannot understand. Hmmmm. HMMMM. Did you read the original post?!?!?!?!? Rather, you would have a God that you like, one who will reward you for “living a good life” — “good” stipulated by whom is another question, the answer to which we can only presume. There are shellfish, and then there is selfish — both of which are defined by the Creator, not you.
I am just unconvinced of the existence of said Deity. Is it so hard to believe that somebody can just be unconvinced ??
Not at all. But I’m more interested in why someone is unconvinced than the fact that they say they are.
More:
P.P.S. (Wow now I'm writing PPS, why am I doing this ??) Sorry to add yet more onto my lengthy post but I just can't let this one go, it's bugging me too much.
Please! add as much as you like. You’re a very stimulating writer. Keep stacking bricks! Just more tomby stones to roll away. But Christianity specializes in those.
"Muslim extremists kill people; Muslim extremists believe in God; Ergo, belief in God kills people! We must stop those Christians!"
I truly hope you weren't suggesting this is a point Richard Dawkins has ever made or would ever make. I'm not trying to put words into his mouth but I think you may have missed the general point of, 'This Religious book promotes violence, bigotry and a closed minded refusal to consider new evidence, these Religious people believe this book is without flaw. This is harmful'.
I truly admit that I think Dawkins did at least approach if not outrightly intend this argument in “The Root of All Evil” — which was criticized from all quarters for its dastardliness and highly rationally calculated projection of resentment.
Of course I may have missed your point, you may have just been giving me a hypothetical argument similar to my own but in a different context to highlight the faults of my argument. Sort of like I was doing bringing up the Scientology thing in the first place.
Thank you for your candor. I’m glad neither of us seem to like Scientology. And I readily admit that you may have missed my point, but you didn’t after all.
And . . . Dear Jane,
Let me first say that I am always glad that you come back. Even if we don’t see eye to eye, or even eye to shirt-pocket, you do bring a certain ability which checks me somewhat. I do tire of what I perceive to be your straw men as well, but this is part of that “war of worldviews.” I’m just happy you see it as that. That’s the first step of TAG (I condescend to the label), which, while it has been written against, has never been genuinely – or even mildly — discredited (more on that later).
Your advice to our new friend “Tomby” I suspect will not be appreciated — since he (I am assuming “he”) does not take kindly to arguments concerning motives (e.g. my “vested interest”). He has taught us that any such comment is a rhetorical trick and is an ad hominem which must be avoided.
As for my hypocrisy in this area: while I have objected to being completely aligned with Falwell, I did openly admit that I admire him for some things. How much more honesty would you like? Name the issue and I will openly spill. I have nothing (er, make that “little”) to hide. Just don’t say I am a follower of someone when it can be openly disproved otherwise. If “tomby” wants to object to being lumped in with my “the atheist,” I have no problem with that. Just let him state something more specific than “there are many people that DON'T happen to believe the things you believe for many different reasons.” Name a person, name the reason — then we’ll be really concrete, just like he likes it.
Yes, I “shilled” my book in Dawkins’s forum. I’m sure you have not stooped to read it. I will send you a free copy, Jane, if you will write a full review, post it prominently in Dawkins’s forum, and allow me full editing right before you do (since I would be essentially paying for the review).
he continually attacks a strawman created for the purposes of argument that rarely resembles most atheists I know.
Name the strawman. Name the atheists.
I wonder if he's ever really known any well.
I suspect you’d have to count the secular humanists who “taught” my philosophy classes during my undergrad — not to mention more than a few individuals, and a family member or two..
Anyway, if you read other comments throughout this blog you will see his hypocrisy. In several comments he recoils and spouts when I made generalizations about his beliefs and attitudes based on what he has written. Yet he refuses to grant even less latitude to his adversaries than he demands for himself.
I would like to see you demonstrate a clear case when I “recoil” and “spout,” though I do like the image. I have already mentioned the generalizations I objected to, which were considerably different in nature than my talking about “the atheist” from a Christian perspective. THEN, prove how my refusal to grant this latitude to dear Tomby is measurably “less,” as you put it, than I demand for myself. Your claims are measurably empty.
Now that he has several anti-atheist books under his belt
HaHaHa! I have ONE anti-atheist book, and another which deals with the historical Jesus and the doctrine of the Incarnation (which tangentially deals with a few atheists). And, they are hardly under my belt. The only thing under my belt is an extra twenty pounds accumulated from attending seminary classes for three years when I should have been exercising.
I think he's intelligent and perhaps even open-minded enough to know better.
Thanks, as always, for the compliment. But, open-minded enough to know better than what? To argue against atheists? Or to use ad hominems? Both are fun, and can be equally effective! “The Fool hath said . . .”
I'll continue to post here and hope for a dialogue though, and from time to time I see reason for hope.
My concern, Jane — and I speak in all seriousness — is immediately neither dialogue nor hope, per se, but why we ought to care about either dialogue or hope.
Tim (and Joel),
Just in case you don't often check old threads, I did recently post a retraction of the Eusebius allegations in your earlier blog.
Joel,
Every time I visit your blog, I’m torn about whether to try to find common ground for dialogue or just bitch slap you. Part of me would like to invite you over for a drink (if I drank), and part of me thinks your mix of intelligence and ignorance is dangerous and perhaps that’s just how you feel about me. Your sense of humor gives me signs of hope (ever noticed how dogmatic people tend to be humorless?). I guess deep down I think if you really knew a person like me well, you would change your tune a bit. More on this later.
” I do tire of what I perceive to be your straw men as well, but this is part of that “war of worldviews.” I’m just happy you see it as that. That’s the first step of TAG (I condescend to the label), which, while it has been written against, has never been genuinely – or even mildly — discredited (more on that later). “
Well, to the extent that I felt you thought I was creating straw men in the past at least I always clarified my position where you posited views that didn’t match the typical fundy stereotype. One day, it would be interesting if we could both cooperatively write an article on the straw men each side perceives and posits for the other. You could host it, if you didn’t mind co-authoring something with an evil heathen like myself. When you think I’ve set up a straw man than call me on it, otherwise, I’m not really sure what you’re referring to. If I did create straw men it was neither intentional nor systematic, as you appear to do repeatedly.
As to your second point I think it is important to take my point in context:
Jane: “How much of this is war to the death between worldviews and how much opportunity is there for real dialogue and toleration?”
Part of what drove me to RichardDawkins.net was not the admiration for his book (which I never finished) but rather the increasing polarization I’ve been witnessing for the last 40 years regarding religious and non-religious worldviews. I also cringe a bit when I hear “atheist worldview” because it is not nearly as monolithic as even the highly fragmented Christian one is. There are atheists who are Buddhists and others who are Secular Humanists. There are some lazy ones who really couldn’t care less. I frankly don’t like the tone I see in some atheist books any more than I like the tone of your writing Joel, which I presume is rife throughout your book – especially given the title. Let’s face it, your style of writing isn’t geared to persuade atheists or create a bridge of tolerant understanding. It’s preaches to the converted and inflames passions. We atheists are the barbarians at the gates of the few of you who are truly righteous in this sea of iniquity we call a world. Your battle of worldviews looks an awful lot to me like a battle to the death. I won’t buy it and it’s disturbing that so many do (or don’t in your case ;-)). But as I said, I’m torn, to some extent we both feel somewhat embattled, whether justifiable or not, and we have a right to defend our positions and stake out our territory. I don’t have the answer for how to resolve this and it is reflected in my tone throughout my comments across all your blogs. Do I resolve to fight you or try to find common ground? WWJD?
You made yourself pretty clear at your website:
”American Vision is partnering with several ministries to launch a relentless and systematic response to militant atheism. We've produced a hard-hitting 2-minute commercial that we are broadcasting globally via the Internet and Television.
Atheists present themselves as enlightened and civil. But this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers. The French Revolution, Communism, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the atheistic worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of Christians and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What’s worse is that atheism is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world.”
There is so much wrong in the above quote I don’t know where to begin. And so I’ll only take a cursory stab at it. The same mistakes are promulgated by that insipid video you love too. Hitler and most of his henchmen were Christian and Robespierre was a theist who leveraged good and bad atheists to wrest power and money from a church whose legendary corruption had begged for retribution. The communist issue is more complicated and we can tackle it another time.
To you, it seems, all atheism is militant unless it’s in the closet and keeps its mouth shut. But your vested interests are clear, based on faulty premises, and conveniently ignore the centuries of persecution of non-Christians by Christians. The real problem is human nature and the unfortunate tendency of some people to seek to force others to believe what they do when they don’t know how to persuade them by reason. When, dogma (religious, ideological, or otherwise), superstition, or fear cause faith and tribalism to substitute for reason and tolerance, such persecutions happen, no matter what the belief/non-belief system is. You’re simply adding coals to the fire. I have no problem with atheism and Christianity fighting it out in the marketplace of ideas, as long as it’s a free marketplace – free of coercion by either side. If we really wanted to work together for a better world we work to find ways to prevent either side from stacking the deck.
As for your TAG arguments we obviously disagree. Though like most semantic-ontological arguments it is hard to put a nail in the TAG coffin (it took centuries for St. Anselm’s argument to be thoroughly discredited). But it has been pretty thoroughly discredited and I don’t see any prominent philosophers, theist or atheist taking it seriously. The only god-argument that continues to merit some debate and has not been fully discredited that I’m aware of is Alvin Plantinga’s. But that modal logic stuff is pretty heady. It will take time.
I’m not really interested in continuing the debate on TAG at your website. I’d like to hear other voices that really think about this stuff rather than just cheerlead and I’m tired of writing tomes for the relatively few people that come here. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t owe a substantial part of your clicks to me since I’ve linked to this site on several occasions. I would be open to any forum you might be aware of that has a healthy mix of different beliefs and a high level of intellect. Though I recognize you might object given the biases inherent at RD.net, I’m gonna propose that you and I have the arguments there and I’m going to tell you why; it will suit both our purposes.
Although I’m regarded as somewhat of a troublemaking maverick at RD.net (for good reason) I have a decent and respected following. I can introduce you so you will be taken seriously and won’t be booed or ignored off the stage as when you came to shill before (that happens to everyone that shills there – even the atheists like Acharya S. who I reamed). I think you will be amazed at the quality of debate from atheists and theists on that site if they don’t react to you as a proselytizing troll. If you behave accordingly, your arguments will be respected and you might just learn something. Assuming TAG is right, won’t you be better off for engaging a gang of smart opponents? I always learn more struggling against the best opponents than preaching to people that agree with me. If you took this seriously, you wouldn’t need me to review your book. You’d create your own buzz.
You are correct that I haven’t read your book (I don’t know where I got the idea you’d done more than one on atheists – thought I heard it on the radio show). It’s not that I have any qualms about buying theist books, as you know I have a theist wife and best friend. But in your case it would feel like spending blood money to go after my own blood. So you correctly surmised I haven’t read it. Would I read a free copy? Sure, if we can figure out how to get me a copy without me having to reveal my identity (do you have an electronic version you can email?). Would I review it and post it on RD.net? Yes. With your edit control? - well that’s a problem. I would be prepared to do so if I could add the disclaimer that you edited my review by prior agreement so that I might obtain a copy to read for free. But I can assure you this would be a self-defeating proposition for you. Nobody would take it seriously and I’m well enough known there (I guess you know that) that they’d probably see right through the edits anyway. Furthermore, if it develops any buzz there will be question after question asked of me. How would I have to a respond to direct questions pertaining to something you edited out? Would I have to keep silent on it? That would damage my credibility and I’m not willing to do that. So I leave this in your hands.
Next:
”As for my hypocrisy in this area: while I have objected to being completely aligned with Falwell, I did openly admit that I admire him for some things. How much more honesty would you like? Name the issue and I will openly spill. I have nothing (er, make that “little”) to hide. Just don’t say I am a follower of someone when it can be openly disproved otherwise.”
As for your hypocrisy, I don’t think its one of those issues that merits a big deal as it’s quite secondary. Ironically, I was not referring to Falwell when I made this allegation, though it still fits. More typically I was referencing the way you “recoiled and spouted” when you thought I made assumptions about your educational philosophy (there are others – do I need to dig them all up?). If you read many of our comments back and forth you will see you object frequently to being lumped in or labeled with others who believe a certain way, even though I could argue, based on your own writings, that I had far more license to do that than you have with atheists to whom you do this all the time. It’s very tiring. We’ve had countries and civilizations dominated at one time or another by all sorts of beliefs, but somehow the vast diversity of human experience seems to endure. If you went to predominantly atheist countries in Europe, you’d find peaceful, well adjusted people with the same diversity (though not necessarily distribution) of worldviews and dreams as anywhere else, leaving God aside. I don’t believe a Christian world would have to be a bad place any more than I’m sure an atheist one would be good. They could both be good, or bad, depending on the path taken. It’s the path that concerns me. And I’m worried about yours, should it become popular.
My suspicions were further supported to my question about how well you knew any atheists:
”I suspect you’d have to count the secular humanists who “taught” my philosophy classes during my undergrad — not to mention more than a few individuals, and a family member or two.”
Of course, the “taught” in quotes is very telling as is the fact that you didn’t indicate any measure of respect or affection for any of the other atheists you glossed over. No “friends” I see. Have you ever had a meaningful relationship or friendship with an atheist that was more than superficial? Are there any atheists you respect without having to carve out a dispensation for their errant atheism? Will you allow your children to play with atheists (if yes, under what restrictions I wonder)? Could you imagine yourself married to an atheist or having one as a close best friend (the inverse of me)?
Finally:
”My concern, Jane — and I speak in all seriousness — is immediately neither dialogue nor hope, per se, but why we ought to care about either dialogue or hope. “
If you have read and understood what I wrote, then perhaps you can offer the answer yourself.
Best regards,
Jane
Jane,
Just one short question for now --- I hope address your long post later. What exactly do you do all day long? You mentioned that you've been married 27+/- years -- are you retired?
Joel,
"What do I do all day long?"
Answer: Whatever I want.
I don't think I'll ever retire Joel, I love working on stuff I'm passionate about. I'm only 46. My oldest boy is leaving for college this fall and I got a bit burnt out with the last company I founded, so I left about 6 months ago and decided I needed a change and to spend more time with my family for awhile. I've been renovating a farm I moved to 3 years ago (I love working with my hands) and am writing a novel. So I'm plenty busy. I'm fortunate that I don't have to worry about earning a living anymore. So I have some freedom to explore new things.
This quote and the video has a number of glaring errors.
"Atheists present themselves as enlightened and civil. But this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers. The French Revolution, Communism, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the atheistic worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of Christians and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What’s worse is that atheism is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world."
Martin Luther, considere by many the father of the reformation, specifically outllined programs much like the ones Hitler carried out against the Jews, in his book called "On the Jews and Their Lies."
Here are some of the things Martin Luther outlined for the Jews that bear striking similarity to Hitler's programs...
"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, "You are Peter," etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses his ambition is to become a Kokhba devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us an they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting., and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., if they had to serve and work for us -- for it is reasonable to assume that such noble lords of the world and venomous, bitter worms are not accustomed to working and would be very reluctant to humble themselves so deeply before the accursed Goyim -- then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide, divide this amicably, but then eject them forever from the country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!
Historically there has been far more violence in the name of Christianity than in atheism. And it has not been shown that atheism in itself causes people to be violent, but there are a number of texts in the Bible where God orders his followers to be violent. Fortunately most Christians don't take these as instructions to be carried out today, but it is disturbing that Christians believe that God ordered this type of violence at one time. And it is clear that in the middle ages we witnessed violence by Christians against non believers based on thier reading of the Bible.
And the idea that atheists have some sort of organized program to pave the way for Islam is simply paranoia and irresponsible. Christopher Hitchens is clear on his anti Islamic views and I don't hear any defense of Islam by any other popular atheistic writer or speaker. I thought that bearing false witness was one of the top 10 no no's?
Richard,
I've never seen you here before so since you might be a bit unfamiliar with these guys I'm sure they'll point out they're Calvinists not Lutherans. Your points on Luthor are certainly among the many that can be used to exemplify Christian persecution but I'm sure Joel will distance himself. Of course, Calvin, though a good bit nicer to Jews, was no saint either when it came to handling those pesky people who he considered apostates.
Let me also take a stab at what these guys might say against your Islam/Atheist-Hitchens/Christian argument. As secularism and atheism have advanced in Europe, birthrates have gone down. They attribute this decline to the purported malaise, selfishness and lack of optimism of atheism and secularism. Meanwhile, the Muslim immigrants in Europe are outbreeding their non-semitic neighbors so prodigiously that by some estimates they will take control withing 50 years. The assumption is they will never assimilate and will therefore turn Europe over to the mullahs.
America could face the same fate should Christians lose dominance. Furthermore evil secular atheist headway at the expense of Christianity simply weakens our moral fiber and resolve to beat evil Islam. To win we have to be right in God's eyes and that means being Christian. If God sees our country continue to embrace atheism (= ungodliness) like it has sodomy (homosexuality), he will surely turn a blind eye as Muslims destroy us.
How did I do Joel?
With opponents like you, Jane, who needs more opponents?
I really, really, hope you're joking, but I can't fully persuade myself that you don't believe I really think most of that.
My following post will restate this point: I didn't write the blurb, so I'll let my friends at AV respond to that if they want to take the time.
Joel,
Every time I visit your blog, I’m torn about whether to try to find common ground for dialogue or just b**** slap you.
Please don’t resort to violence, my friendly atheist. Everything is common ground — we just reject each others’ explanations for it. I don’t think we’ve really fleshed it out past that yet. But retorts about physical violence certainly won’t help overcome the image of the angry atheist, with you talk about wanting to get rid of.
Related:
- your moniker in the RichardDawkins forum is “FedUdWithFaith” as you’ve pointed out before.
- your first words to me on this site were “What a silly blathering argument you've made. But I'm sure you thought it was brilliant” — an insult and an alleged reading of my thoughts.
- After your response you returned to the RD forum to tell them: “I replied to that a**hole on his comments section as "Jane"”
These type actions (and I admit there is a bit more to you than this, but these are telling) do not speak of someone looking for common ground with any religious person. Even just the moniker is a wall.
Part of me would like to invite you over for a drink (if I drank), and part of me thinks your mix of intelligence and ignorance is dangerous and perhaps that’s just how you feel about me. Your sense of humor gives me signs of hope (ever noticed how dogmatic people tend to be humorless?). I guess deep down I think if you really knew a person like me well, you would change your tune a bit.
My concern is much less with miscellaneous individual atheists, especially hypothetical ones — most of who I’m quite sure I could and would get along with (especially if you’re buying the drinks) — than with atheism as a system of thought pushed to it’s logical conclusions (or if you insist on holding that atheism is not a system of thought because it has no tenets and because it is merely the absence of a belief, then I would say that my beef is with any particular atheistic system of thought pushed to it’s logical brink.) I think Nietzsche (among others) did that for us, and concluded very unsettling things.
When you think I’ve set up a straw man [then] call me on it, otherwise, I’m not really sure what you’re referring to. If I did create straw men it was neither intentional nor systematic, as you appear to do repeatedly.
First, I would like to see an example of me doing this “intentionally” and “systematically.” These extravagancies on your part are one version of a straw man.
What I am referring to more directly, however, is perhaps unconscious on your part, or at least presuppositional. It may not be helpful, I could admit, to call it a “straw man,” but it does ultimately fit in the category.
Here is an example, again from your first response to my article on Russell’s teapot (which, since then, has been published in Biblical Worldview Magazine). After the part about "silly" and "blathering," you said:
Most atheists are materialists because there is no sound evidence for any other view. Show us the evidence for a transcendent reality and we'll take a look.
For this to have been your initial reaction to my post I thought was laughable. It entirely misses the force of my argument. To ask for empirical evidence is to assume materialism to at least some degree if not totally (unless you are a Parmenidean, or one of his heirs). Like so many atheists, you want me to “show” “evidence” (from the latin e+videns — “from looking”) so you can “look” — all things the article was meant to show the error of. You can’t critique an immaterial being on material grounds. My argument is at least coherent, even if you deny the premises. But you didn’t even grant this much — I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) because of the degree to which you yourself are a materialist. Skepticism can have its drawbacks.
This is a straw man because my argument was never that there is somehow empirical evidence for a non-empirical being, only that you can’t use analogies such as Russell’s pot to critique a non-empirical Being. That’s simple. You attacked something that I did not say — the very definition of a straw man.
But, despite the fact that you completely ignored the thrust of the argument (or at least seemed to), and responded out of what seem to me to be materialistic presuppositions (which means you would have to challenge your own firm beliefs about reality in order to even grant me plausibility), you ridicule me (without knowing me I might add), thusly: Unlike you, we are not a close-minded and dogmatic lot.
So much for not making stereotypical claims for “my side” and villifying “the enemy.”
Part of what drove me to RichardDawkins.net was not the admiration for his book (which I never finished) but rather the increasing polarization I’ve been witnessing for the last 40 years regarding religious and non-religious worldviews. I also cringe a bit when I hear “atheist worldview” because it is not nearly as monolithic as even the highly fragmented Christian one is. There are atheists who are Buddhists and others who are Secular Humanists. There are some lazy ones who really couldn’t care less.
All of this, I believe.
I frankly don’t like the tone I see in some atheist books any more than I like the tone of your writing Joel, which I presume is rife throughout your book – especially given the title. Let’s face it, your style of writing isn’t geared to persuade atheists or create a bridge of tolerant understanding. It’s preaches to the converted and inflames passions.
It is a book primarily addressing Christians, and to be sold to Christians. I have no regrets about that. In fact, my only reason for posting in the RD forum was to try out the Mel Gibson approach (give a preview of The Passion to a primarily Jewish audience, and let their complaints be your free press). There is no way of telling how many, if any, of the people who have viewed the post have clicked through and even eventually bought the book. But the post — even though it is locked and buried in the forum — still continues to receive views.
But I’m pretty sure Mel Gibson has made more money than me.
We atheists are the barbarians at the gates of the few of you who are truly righteous in this sea of iniquity we call a world. Your battle of worldviews looks an awful lot to me like a battle to the death.
I have never presented the case like this. I have never called all atheists, or even the majority of them, barbarians. This, in itself, is a strawman. If I have set up the worldviews in this way, or if it has sounded so, it was only in counter to the claims of Harris, Dawkins, et al., that religious faith is dangerous and must come to an end.
On the contrary, in The Return of the Village Atheist, for example, I agree with Harris about the danger of fundy-dispensational eschatology. He’s right, if NYC was nuked, many Christians would probably see it as fulfilled prophecy — because they have an eschatology of doom for the world while they themselves are raptured out. I deny this view, and say why in the book. My publisher Gary DeMar has written several books on the subject, all having a much more optimistic view of the future.
I won’t buy it and it’s disturbing that so many do (or don’t in your case ;-)).
I don’t understand. Village Atheist is close to it’s second printing. Don’t trust Amazon for your sales figures. Most sales have come through Americanvision.org. There will be more.
But as I said, I’m torn, to some extent we both feel somewhat embattled, whether justifiable or not, and we have a right to defend our positions and stake out our territory. I don’t have the answer for how to resolve this and it is reflected in my tone throughout my comments across all your blogs. Do I resolve to fight you or try to find common ground? WWJD?
Do you mean “What Would Jane Do?” I’m just guessing.
I often am frustrated by such impasses myself, but see my “ministry” to write for the Christian in the pew who won’t get the answers from their pastor (who probably is too overworked to get the answers). That’s worth $16.95 (or $12.95, depending on where they buy) to a lot of people. In the meantime, I try not to write anything I can’t back up (aside from my editorializing) no matter how impassioned. As one of my professors used to say, “I don’t make up anything you can check.”
I will be more than happy to aid your search for “common ground,” but, as I write in a new article for Patrick Leahy’s “Christian Faith and Reason” magazine (available free online), everything is common ground. Either everything is evidence of God, or nothing at all is (please don’t take this in an overly simplistic way).
You made yourself pretty clear at your website:
”American Vision is partnering with several ministries to launch a relentless and systematic response to militant atheism. We've produced a hard-hitting 2-minute commercial that we are broadcasting globally via the Internet and Television.
Atheists present themselves as enlightened and civil. But this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers. The French Revolution, Communism, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the atheistic worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of Christians and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What’s worse is that atheism is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world.”
There is so much wrong in the above quote I don’t know where to begin. And so I’ll only take a cursory stab at it. The same mistakes are promulgated by that insipid video you love too. Hitler and most of his henchmen were Christian
Firstly, I didn’t write a word of that. American Vision made the site. I just write the blog posts.
Nevertheless, I have heard these arguments trolled over and over. There is a vast difference between someone’s (Hitler's) profession as a Christian, and the philosophical basis of their worldview.
and Robespierre was a theist
Deism is practical atheism, no matter what else you call it. If, as Dawkins says, Spinoza’s and Einstein’s god is not truly “God,” then neither is Robespierre’s.
Besides, the real problem in this instance is this: the quote does not even mention Rosepierre, and the video never says he was an atheist. It blows me away that hundreds of comments on the video see the need to tell me that “Robespierre was actually a theist.” All it shows it that they didn’t pay attention to what it said.
who leveraged good and bad atheists to wrest power and money from a church whose legendary corruption had begged for retribution.
So if religious faith “begs for retribution” then it’s OK to use revolutionary violence?
The communist issue is more complicated and we can tackle it another time.
The communist issue is only “complicated” because some recent atheist propagandists can’t quickly and easily disprove it. That’s OK for them, however, most of their followers that I’ve encountered have no problem repeating Dawkins’s mantras on the issue rather than actually researching it themselves. The web is covered with such instances. But my book shows otherwise, and I am working on a much more thorough treatment of it. For now, read Pospielovsky for starters.
To you, it seems, all atheism is militant unless it’s in the closet and keeps its mouth shut.
I have never said this, but isn’t it pretty much a tautology anyway? If “atheism” speaks at all about matters of faith, mustn’t it be anti-faith to some degree? I don’t see how not. One exception would be a political system that allows “religious freedom” as long as religious people stay in their closets and keep their mouths shut.
If by “militant” you mean “violent,” then I have only intimated that in reference, as I said above, to atheism as a set of worked-out logical implications (Nietzsche style).
But your vested interests are clear, based on faulty premises, and conveniently ignore the centuries of persecution of non-Christians by Christians.
Another repeated argument: I “ignore” historic Christian crimes.
OH, please! Show me! Show me where I ignored these things! Probably right beside where I “ignored” the standard of living in Sweden . . . because, it’s an argument from silence. I do, however, talk about such things (both Christian violence and Sweden), in my book.
By the way, I did write a paper on the Albigensian Crusade (while in Seminary), so that counts as not ignoring, too. :-) And, by the way again, it was the murder of the papal legate that precipitated the military actions (see Runciman’s The Medieval Manichee).
The real problem is human nature and the unfortunate tendency of some people to seek to force others to believe what they do when they don’t know how to persuade them by reason.
Exactly, on a Darwinian model, how is this wrong? Why should we not encourage it? Hitler, remember, was much more a Darwinian than a Christian. After all, we know that most people are persuaded by something other than reason. They don’t teach many logic courses in advertising school. So why would any dictator try to use such an ineffective tool? It’s not that they don’t know how to persuade by reason, but rather, that much like our own impasses mentioned above, they recognize the general weakness and futility of reasoning among the masses.
When, dogma (religious, ideological, or otherwise), superstition, or fear cause faith and tribalism to substitute for reason and tolerance, such persecutions happen, no matter what the belief/non-belief system is.
So there can be no substitute for reason and tolerance? That’s a dogma. And an historically untenable one. Besides, reason and tolerance NEVER go to the voting booth. If they did, there would be no taxes.
Or is it only bad when faith substitutes for reason? I woudl argue that reason cannot operate apart from some foundation of faith and ethics.
You’re simply adding coals to the fire.
If you oppose something, you can’t not add coals (unless I “keep my mouth shut,” — but neither of us likes being told that). If we’re wrong in what we oppose, they may be unjustified coals, but then they will come back on us eventually. At least if the Christian worldview is correct, they will.
I have no problem with atheism and Christianity fighting it out in the marketplace of ideas, as long as it’s a free marketplace – free of coercion by either side.
Who’s coercing? I hate coercion. I prefer conversion.
If we really wanted to work together for a better world we work to find ways to prevent either side from stacking the deck.
Either time, chance and natural selection have stacked the deck, or God has. One of us must lose. Unfortunately, in the end, one side owns the deck, and the other is an intellectual imposter looking to steal the pot without having bought in.
Though like most semantic-ontological arguments it is hard to put a nail in the TAG coffin (it took centuries for St. Anselm’s argument to be thoroughly discredited).
I wouldn’t necessarily classify TAG is a semantic-ontological argument. It is a transcendental argument, a la Kant, but without his self-referential errors. Nothing like Anselm.
I can assure you this much, it is far more than pulling “fundamental truths about God or the universe from an assemblage of human words and concepts unmapped to reality” as you characterized it in another post.
it has been pretty thoroughly discredited and I don’t see any prominent philosophers, theist or atheist taking it seriously.
No one likes it because it came from a Dutch-Reformed theologian in a tiny school, and it proposes certainty. If I were an atheist or a member of a rival theology, I would deny it, too. There are many other demonstrable reasons for which it is denied by theistic groups. But denying it is not discrediting it.
The only god-argument that continues to merit some debate and has not been fully discredited that I’m aware of is Alvin Plantinga’s. But that modal logic stuff is pretty heady. It will take time.
I was thoroughly disgusted with Craig’s insulting of Van Til while supporting Plantinga in the “Four Views” book on the topic. Craig completely denigrated Van Til, and then gave an argument based on what he learned from Plantinga. What he didn’t realize it that what he wrote, based on Warrant, was almost completely identical to Van Til’s views (which came much earlier). Nevertheless, both have been too “ivory tower” to help much at all.
I’m not really interested in continuing the debate on TAG at your website.
That’s OK. Any long and narrowly focused debate, right now, is out of the picture. I have too many other projects that required my time. The prospect at RD is very tempting, however. I would want a dedicated forum with only me and one other opponent posting. To many people demanding answers to their post detracts from the quality and coherence.
But since you are a recognized expert in the area, would you please recommend for me five or ten of the best books on AI and neuroscience? I will need to catch up here.
As for my book, my mentioning of you reviewing it was somewhat tongue in cheek.
it would feel like spending blood money to go after my own blood.
I did it with Harris and Dawkins. Have done it with many others. It is painful, I agree. I at least bought Dawkins’s used. Have you, therefore, never bought a theistic book?
(do you have an electronic version you can email?)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAH!
Wew.
Would I review it and post it on RD.net? Yes. With your edit control? - well that’s a problem. . . .
Again, it was half-joke, but, by editorial control I would never have intended anything like “editing out parts” as if I could somehow skew the review to . . . what? weaken it? I can’t think of anything more dishonest. I simply meant having some review over how abusive or vulgar you may get. But then again, I could always just respond, couldn’t I? :-) I should have been a bit looser.
More typically I was referencing the way you “recoiled and spouted” when you thought I made assumptions about your educational philosophy (there are others – do I need to dig them all up?). If you read many of our comments back and forth you will see you object frequently to being lumped in or labeled with others who believe a certain way, even though I could argue, based on your own writings, that I had far more license to do that than you have with atheists to whom you do this all the time.
It’s one thing for you to make assumptions about an individual (me) based on a stereotype you think I fit in. At that point the rejoinder is to simply say, “Prove that I belong to that group and that I hold those views.” Oops. This is called slander.
It is quite another thing to draw conclusions based on the logical implications of a system of beliefs (without necessarily accusing any concrete individual of anything). My symbol for this concluded worldview sometimes has been “the atheist.” This is called literature. Maybe poor literature — but literature nonetheless.
If you went to predominantly atheist countries in Europe, you’d find peaceful, well adjusted people with the same diversity (though not necessarily distribution) of worldviews and dreams as anywhere else, leaving God aside. I don’t believe a Christian world would have to be a bad place any more than I’m sure an atheist one would be good. They could both be good, or bad, depending on the path taken. It’s the path that concerns me. And I’m worried about yours, should it become popular.
I address the “good atheist culture” argument in the book, and basically agree that it can (does) happen (Christianity predicts why). But please! show me what exactly about my alleged path should be a concern.
I have shown my worries with “atheism” in my book. Taken to its logical conclusion, an atheistic society should concern you more than a Christian one. Is this claim what you’re worried about, should it become popular?
My suspicions were further supported to my question about how well you knew any atheists:
”I suspect you’d have to count the secular humanists who “taught” my philosophy classes during my undergrad — not to mention more than a few individuals, and a family member or two.”
Of course, the “taught” in quotes is very telling
I put “taught” in quotes because there wasn’t much teaching that went on. The lectures were almost all dull and never added much to the readings (my apologies to any former professors who may read this). I did make all A’s however, and had my share of dialogue. None of them liked my faith too much, and took their chances to “correct” my misguided ways, though at least not in class.
as is the fact that you didn’t indicate any measure of respect or affection for any of the other atheists you glossed over.
A groundless argument from silence: “Aha! You didn’t say that you liked them or respected them, therefore, you must not have! In fact, you simply glossed over them!”
No “friends” I see.
Another groundless argument from silence. Jane, you’ve ignored to tell me why you’re so susceptible to these! :-)
Was I supposed to list their names and phone numbers, so you can call and check?
Have you ever had a meaningful relationship or friendship with an atheist that was more than superficial? Are there any atheists you respect without having to carve out a dispensation for their errant atheism?
As if it were truly any of your business, and only, certainly as a necessary condition to possibly earn your respect, yes. I worked with and for an atheist for seven years. We ate and drank together, I played with his kids, helped him work on his house-remodeling project after hours. Borrowed twenty bucks, helped him move, helped me move, talked about religion. Designed highways. Seven years. Bowled in a league together. Pulled his truck out of the mud. Regular-life stuff. He was a decent guy, for the most part.
However, the “dispensation” thing doesn’t quite work that easily from a Christian view. If all men are fallen — if — then unbelief must be linked with immorality (maybe, as Isaac Newton argued, this relationship is reversed — immorality tends toward atheism). So what I saw in this man’s life that I would call immoral, would certainly de facto be related to unbelief. But no more than my sins are related to my own lack of faith.
Will you allow your children to play with atheists (if yes, under what restrictions I wonder)?
Depends on the “atheists.” I won’t let him play with just anyone, including some Christians. But also, it depends on the age.
BTW, do you mean play with other “children”? Didn’t Dawkins warn us not to call children either “Christian” or “atheist”? Maybe, like me, you disagree with him.
Could you imagine yourself married to an atheist or having one as a close best friend (the inverse of me)?
Easily, though, not a new marriage. If as a believer I married an unbeliever, I would be fundamentally denying much of my faith, which for the most part is a closed system. Please don’t misunderstand that. Covenant community is the heart of Christian life. To intentionally “become one” with someone who denies it is to partially deny it yourself. St. Paul was equally clear on the issue. Of course, the issue would be different if I became a Christian after the marriage. Would I remain? Absolutely. St. Paul was clear on that, also.
As far as “best friend,” you can’t really choose those, can you? If it had fallen out in my life that my best friend was an atheist, so be it. But it has not been so for me so far, at least not as far as a best friend. If, in the future, I am in such a situation, then, fine. Currently, I am quite too busy to be courting anyone else for “best friend” position in my life.
As far as building relationships goes, I think it is not only "alright" but vital. Isn’t this close to what the Incarnation was about? After all, Christ ate and drank with “publicans and sinners.” I have sometimes had more fun chatting with atheists, homosexuals, hippies, drug-addicts, bikers, you name it, than with many believers on many occasions (and don't skewer this as a "some of my best friends are . . ." line). But these were not deep relationships, many were with people I only met once.
Incidentally, at a time when I was practically an atheist (more likely a satanist), my best friend was a lapsed Christian. He returned to the faith, and then convinced me to come. So, there you have it. We are still great friends, though we live 1500 miles apart.
”My concern, Jane — and I speak in all seriousness — is immediately neither dialogue nor hope, per se, but why we ought to care about either dialogue or hope. “
If you have read and understood what I wrote, then perhaps you can offer the answer yourself.
I do have an answer. My point, again presuppositional, is that I don’t believe any atheistic worldview has the foundations to justify such a care for dialogue or hope. You may care about it, and you may be able to talk about why you care about it, but I don't think that in the end you can rationally justify it.
Joel,
Wow, after reading your last post I’m thinking I should be negotiating royalties from your next book. Am I writing half of it and don’t know it?
” Please don’t resort to violence, my friendly atheist. … But retorts about physical violence certainly won’t help overcome the image of the angry atheist, with you talk about wanting to get rid of.”
Cute, but you didn’t think I was serious about the “b-(female dog – I can’t believe they don’t allow THIS word!)-slapping did you? And you wonder how I create straw men about fundy literalism. Sometimes people like you make us angry atheists, but I assure you I’m a lover, not a fighter.
With respect to your points concerning my original derogatory references to your blogs and your troll shilling at Dawkins you are simply re-emphasizing my point that it now seems, or you pretend, you didn’t understand. I said I’ve been torn and explained why. When I first saw your trolling at Dawkins and then came to your site to read your posts and the diatribe against atheists on AmericanVision etc. I thought you were a typical closed-minded fundy a** hole. I wasn’t interested in what I figured was impossible dialogue at all. Insulting and laughing at you was all that interested me and several of my friends who came too. They left quickly when the quality and intellectual merit of the people arguing in your comments at that time confirmed their expectations and they became bored. You didn’t show up until much later.
I’m still not sure you’re worth arguing with in terms of a dialogue. You don’t seem to want one. But you do have intelligence and wit, well beyond someone like Frank Walton, and I have discovered some posters here like Tim who I also find intelligent and informative. So I keep coming back. Before you say it, I will, perhaps like a dog to its own vomit. You are one of the few theists who has truly bested me at least once (and certainly much more in the eyes of your compatriots) and revealed my weaknesses to me. I like that and learn from my mistakes. I always like to play chess with better players than I.
I really think you’ve made far too much of my moniker at Dawkins. First, you are fed up with atheists, at least certain kinds, and that’s a pretty weak statement. I am truly fed up with faith (blind faith as you might define it). It’s blunt but not really very antagonistic – at least not there. In any event, here I am “Jane” (actually my wife’s Google blogger which I used by mistake and am now stuck with) not FUWF. I have different names and alter egos in the different venues where I participate in for various reasons. In fact, if you were to really study FUWF at Dawkins he is a profane (often obscene), sexist pig prankster with delusions of godhood and an obsession with big breasts (can I say that?). He loves to attack idiotic fundy trolls, new-agers, Scientologists, and close-minded atheists too. Such is the beneficence of anonymity where I can indulge playing an alter ego that is only a dim reflection of me – a demon I can indulge. But it’s not really me. If you can stomach some bad words and strong sexual content, you might even get a laugh out of some of the stuff I’ve written there.
”My concern is much less with miscellaneous individual atheists, especially hypothetical ones — most of who I’m quite sure I could and would get along with (especially if you’re buying the drinks) — than with atheism as a system of thought pushed to it’s logical conclusions (or if you insist on holding that atheism is not a system of thought because it has no tenets and because it is merely the absence of a belief, then I would say that my beef is with any particular atheistic system of thought pushed to it’s logical brink.) I think Nietzsche (among others) did that for us, and concluded very unsettling things.”
[Yawn] This ground has a rut carved in it it’s been tread so often. This is one of your straw men you so desperately need. You’re starting to hedge a little, that’s good. Because it means I’ve been effective. But you still have a long way to go. I’ve already repeatedly tried to put this to rest and you keep bringing up the same tired straw man. Is it the heart of your book? If so, no wonder you can’t change now. You’re committed (or should be ;-) The best you’re gonna get from me is that the tenets or system of thought upon which atheism derives is simply a commitment to logic, reason, and open-minded skepticism that judges the evidence for gods to be insufficient. However, there are Christians who begin with these core “tenets” as well yet believe the evidence is sufficient. These tenets are also shared with much Secular Humanist philosophy where I think you really have your beef. But I know Christians (OK, you’ll say they really aren’t Christians) who accept various forms of Secular Humanist philosophy too – which incidentally comes in several forms and keeps evolving. As I said, many atheists are Buddhists. Atheism has implications for moral systems of thought (worldviews) but dictates none. People who are Buddhist sometimes come to atheism from a deistic or polytheistic version. Atheism is not a religion or worldview in that sense. It is merely associated with many different types of godless worldviews. I even know one atheist who actually acts and behaves as if a God existed because she likes the moral teachings of the bible in which she was raised even though she doesn’t believe in its god anymore. Except for the stuff directly pertaining to god, she believes in acting just as Jesus preached and would certainly be his disciple if he were alive today. So if you want to set up your battle of worldviews between Christianity and Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and other atheistic religions go ahead, but I hope you realize that many of these are as different as night and day and each deserves a separate book from you.
Now I’m gonna skip over some of your arguments where I just don’t think we’re going to get anywhere since they are matter of personal opinion in large part. All I can say is if you don’t think I draw appropriate conclusions about your behavior and you are content just to have people with your mindset interpret them, they will probably agree with you. If you got a thoughtful review of your blogs etc. from others not in your mindset (including atheists, deists, liberal theists), I think they will give you similar opinions to mine. You do the homework if you care to; it’s not worth my time anymore.
”Jane: Most atheists are materialists because there is no sound evidence for any other view. Show us the evidence for a transcendent reality and we'll take a look.”
Joel: “For this to have been your initial reaction to my post I thought was laughable. It entirely misses the force of my argument. To ask for empirical evidence is to assume materialism to at least some degree if not totally (unless you are a Parmenidean, or one of his heirs). Like so many atheists, you want me to “show” “evidence” (from the Latin e+videns — “from looking”) so you can “look” — all things the article was meant to show the error of. You can’t critique an immaterial being on material grounds. My argument is at least coherent, even if you deny the premises. But you didn’t even grant this much — I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) because of the degree to which you yourself are a materialist. Skepticism can have its drawbacks.
This is a straw man because my argument was never that there is somehow empirical evidence for a non-empirical being, only that you can’t use analogies such as Russell’s pot to critique a non-empirical Being. That’s simple. You attacked something that I did not say — the very definition of a straw man.”
Wow, this stunned me. First, you properly copied my quote and then promptly misquoted me. I didn’t say “empirical evidence” was required. I just said “evidence”. All beliefs are based on some form of evidence except those propositions that are accepted on delusion or blind faith (which I often just call “faith”). And blind faith, which I normally refer to as “belief without evidence”, could be restated as belief in things based on the evidence of ones own thoughts, wishful thinking, or any other purely human mental processes by which a person wants to or feels compelled to believe. For now, I will grant, for sake of argument to you that delusion is off the table. But off course, Dawkins and I believe otherwise.
I find very few theists who are willing to admit that their primary reason for believing in God or Jesus is blind faith. They always have evidence whether it be of a material nature (the existence of the universe, miracles, etc.), logic and reason (the purported supernatural beauty and self consistency of the bible, the sense Jesus or Buddha makes, the existence of logic and reason itself, etc.), or personal experience (God speaks to them, demonic possession, Buddha fills their lives with inner peace, etc. - this might bring us back to delusion and wishful thinking though).
Give us the reasons you believe in God and unless you are deluded or heavily into blind faith I’ll bet I can label most if not all of it as evidence I would truly consider. The question then becomes is it good enough? Is it properly interpreted? Are there better explanations? Is there better evidence to demonstrate the contrary position? I have encountered many former atheists who converted to various religions after a seemingly profound personal experience. They judged that evidence to be sufficient. Perhaps I could have such an experience. But it hasn’t happened yet.
But even if I set all this aside, you still have a problem that you failed to properly interpret from my original comment because YOU are so stuck in your straw men. You wish to make the claim that God is not subject to empirical validation. That would be true if God inhabited a supernatural plane outside ours and never left it. But as I said in my original posts, your Christian god leaves that plane all the time, to create the universe, billions of virtual particles (QM) that come into existence from nothing every day, answers prayers, perform miracles, and so on. As invisible particles leave visible trails in vapor chambers your god must leave a scientifically detectable trail or fingerprint unless he purposefully covers them up by deception. The power of prayer is testable in principle. It has been tested empirically many ways and in every case found to be null. New experiments are in progress, if they should all fail one will be forced to conclude that god never answers a prayer under investigation or he answers only a few types of prayers that can’t be tested. Yes, I know the bible has passages warning of putting god to the test. I’m sure you take comfort in them. For atheists they are merely clever excuses. Jesus of course makes some real big claims for prayer to move mountains. So there is some conflict (please, I’m taking liberties with this last one and I know it – just using the same hyperbole you do).
The Christian God also makes claims on being omniscient, omnipotent, all just, and all good. It is not empirical argument but rather pure logic and reason that can be used to dissect and dispute this claim and other inconsistencies in Christianity. We don’t need to tackle it all today – LOL. Geez, theodicy would take a month all by itself. Do you believe that Satan exists and tempts men, already susceptible to evil because of their free will? What happens to our free will in heaven? Why doesn’t god just destroy Satan to reduce needless human suffering? Satan makes your apologetics even harder. Do you believe in intelligent life on other planets in the universe? Does god care about them or hate/love(?) us more – why did the earth get the honor of having a third of the angels (cum demons) banned to earth with Satan? If you believe, as I do, that there must be millions, perhaps billions of other planets harboring intelligent life then god must have made them with far less capacity to sin or else the rest of the angels, should they turn on god too, will be pretty spread thin out there. Or is the bible incomplete and god will make more demons for the other planets?
So you see, you are the one with the straw man here Joel. And I just burned him down. But I look forward to the entertainment of watching you rebuild it, yet again.
As regards the book shilling at Dawkins. We knew exactly why you did it Mel – as you explained. We see it all the time. Acharya S. is doing it now after it didn’t work out the way she’d hoped. At least you didn’t send a bunch of your buddies to cheerlead your thread like her. That is truly disgusting.
”I have never presented the case like this. I have never called all atheists, or even the majority of them, barbarians. This, in itself, is a straw man. If I have set up the worldviews in this way, or if it has sounded so, it was only in counter to the claims of Harris, Dawkins, et al., that religious faith is dangerous and must come to an end.
…..
Firstly, I didn’t write a word of that. American Vision made the site. I just write the blog posts.”
A straw man eh? Well, Joel, if I hope to educate you about anything it’s how inflammatory and bigoted your views feel to atheists and why they take offense – probably as you intend(?). You are very quick to again “spout and recoil” against my legitimate deduction and inference of your beliefs that you are quick to disassociate yourself from. So let me point a few things out to you. When I go to your Blogger profile and click on “My Webpage” I get a site called www.foolsheart which is also the first part of your blog title “A Fool’s Heart: Answering the Villiage Atheist” [cum “Idiot”].
It is reasonable for me to guess, even conclude, that you agree with these views so don’t get on your high horse again about how I jump to conclusions. Likewise, it is reasonable for me to conclude that you have similar beliefs to those who seem to have an ongoing relationship with you who agree with you here and issue their views which I do not see you dispute. I concede I may be wrong, this is indirect evidence, but when I am you don’t deserve bigtime debate points for the victory. It is logical to define someone by the company they keep and if anybody takes that to ridiculous extremes it is you and AmericanVision. And I see it as hypocritical as well since you’re the one that takes reasoning based on guilt by association to extremes – not I.
Maybe you can see why this stuff is offensive – here it is again with one simple substitution:
”American Vision is partnering with several ministries to launch a relentless and systematic response to militant Jews. We've produced a hard-hitting 2-minute commercial that we are broadcasting globally via the Internet and Television.
Jews present themselves as enlightened and civil. But this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers. The French Revolution, Communism, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the Jewish worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of Christians and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What’s worse is that Jews are paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world.”
Would you fully disassociate from AmericanVision if they had that on your “my webpage”? How about if they prescribed a Levitican solution to atheists (death)? What about censorship or imprisonment? At what point will you put your book promotion and income at risk to do the right thing?
Nevertheless, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too:
” Nevertheless, I have heard these arguments trolled over and over. There is a vast difference between someone’s (Hitler's) profession as a Christian, and the philosophical basis of their worldview.
and Robespierre was a theist
Deism is practical atheism, no matter what else you call it. If, as Dawkins says, Spinoza’s and Einstein’s god is not truly “God,” then neither is Robespierre’s.
Besides, the real problem in this instance is this: the quote does not even mention Rosepierre, and the video never says he was an atheist. It blows me away that hundreds of comments on the video see the need to tell me that “Robespierre was actually a theist.” All it shows it that they didn’t pay attention to what it said. “
This is the worst kind of straw man on your part. If you think Hitler was a bad Christian fine. But a bad Christian is not a default atheist nor is there any relationship other than the fact that evil men come in all flavors – as you pretty much agreed elsewhere. Hitler was no atheist and I can present lots of evidence to back that up. Even if he were, it would prove nothing. I can find Christians who have done just as much evil in the name of God. And reading the OT one finds examples where God is encouraging just this type of genocide – Amalachites anyone? Hitler was just following some god’s orders [said with thick German accent] - you just thought they were delusions. The Jews had the same delusions from God when they committed genocide against the Amalachites. Or maybe they just used their made-up god as an excuse to do evil.
Likewise, your description of Robespierre is likewise misleading. Though he is arguably a deist he is better termed a theistic deist. Unlike Spinoza, Einstein, or most other Deists you tried to tie by association he believed his God cared about people and France and required worship. That’s closer to your side of the playing field. And don’t get me started on worldview again. He’s not an atheist no matter what semantic tricks you wanna play.
And puuuhhhlease! I’ve never heard so disingenuous an argument in your blog as about that stupid video, not even from Walton. For those who don’t know the real history, the inference is there and misleading. The whole voice, editing, and tone of that smear piece are short on facts and long on manipulative innuendo. It makes me think less of you that you post it and I believe I would feel the same way if I were a theist. It’s only good for persuading the ignorant and angering atheists – which is what I know you want to do so that you can then smear us as angry atheists. And it’s the path I want you to get off because it’s foolish, ultimately dangerous, and I don’t think Jesus would do it either – if he was always scrupulously honest. How far are you willing to incite anger Joel/Mel to get publicity for your book? Maybe you should get drunk and pulled over and tell a cop what scum atheists are. Problem is, few would care – even if you were famous.
”So if religious faith “begs for retribution” then it’s OK to use revolutionary violence?”
I didn’t say that and again I find your distortion disingenuous and manipulative. What I said was “Robespierre was a theist who leveraged good and bad atheists to wrest power and money from a church whose legendary corruption had begged for retribution. The church may leverage, elevate, and corrupt faith, but do you equate the two?
I always believe in looking first to non-violent means to correct injustice. You’re putting words in my mouth again. I’m merely saying that when you sow a powderkeg, don’t be surprised if it explodes. One can argue that a revolution of some sort was needed to correct the horrible injustice wrought by corrupt religion and government at that time. Perhaps it had to involve armed conflict. In many ways it involved removing a yoke of injustice far worse than the American Revolution did. Would you not have fought that revolution? I don’t really want to get into a deep speculative discussion of the French Revolution. Maybe if they had been Jains (where Gandhi got much of his philosophy) instead of Christian there might have been a peaceful birth of freedom. Perhaps if the pendulum hadn’t been so far swung to the corrupt right, it might not have swung so far left as to result in the terrors. Such extremely destructive pendulum swings are not uncommon in history and don’t necessarily have to have anything to do with religion or atheism. One could argue that a similar pattern emerged for the Bolsheviks and Romanovs.
”The communist issue is only “complicated” because some recent atheist propagandists can’t quickly and easily disprove it. That’s OK for them, however, most of their followers that I’ve encountered have no problem repeating Dawkins’s mantras on the issue rather than actually researching it themselves. The web is covered with such instances. But my book shows otherwise, and I am working on a much more thorough treatment of it. For now, read Pospielovsky for starters.”
If you read my recent posts at Dawkins there is a thread dealing with this where I take your side. In reality, I believe the truth lies halfway between your argument and Harris’. I’ve never claimed that someone who professes to be atheist is inherently any better than someone who says they’re a Christian. You will tell me that the evil Christian is not really following Christ, and I would tell you that the evil atheist is not following reason, logic, open-minded skepticism, and tolerance. You’ve already conceded that, the God-issue aside, atheists can be good people and have decent societies. The best you can argue for is that we are just somehow more predisposed to evil than Christians. Of course statistics on atheists vs. Christians regarding crime, divorce, and charity (see the recent article that non-religious doctors treat more charity cases than religious doctors?) don’t bear this out. All the studies I’ve seen say there is virtually no difference or, in fact, indicate a slight advantage on the part of atheists on a per capita basis.
Jane: ”I won’t buy it and it’s disturbing that so many do (or don’t in your case ;-)).”
Joel: “I don’t understand. Village Atheist is close to it’s second printing. Don’t trust Amazon for your sales figures. Most sales have come through Americanvision.org. There will be more.”
I really don’t care Joel. But it’s interesting to see how touchy you are on the subject. Your archenemy Sam Harris I’m sure has your sales beat many times over and you’re probably desperate to debate him to generate publicity. I don’t know Sam but I do know his thesis advisor and a bunch of his friends, what do I get for setting it up?
Jane: ” Do I resolve to fight you or try to find common ground? WWJD?”
Joel: “Do you mean “What Would Jane Do?” I’m just guessing. “
LOL – good catch – actually I meant it as a double entendre though. You have a habit of making quips when you should give a serious answer though (for Jesus). Further examples above and to follow.
Joel: “I don’t make up anything you can check.”
I don’t doubt it anymore. That’s why expect a future post of yours or that of a close buddy will regale me with a deep personal experience of God that brought you/them to Christ or deepened your/their love for him. I can’t really check that.
”Either everything is evidence of God, or nothing at all is (please don’t take this in an overly simplistic way).”
I won’t take it at all. It’s virtually meaningless as written. You explain it to me, preferably using my definitions of materialistic and non-materialistic “evidence”.
Jane: ”To you, it seems, all atheism is militant unless it’s in the closet and keeps its mouth shut.”
Joel: “I have never said this, but isn’t it pretty much a tautology anyway? If “atheism” speaks at all about matters of faith, mustn’t it be anti-faith to some degree? I don’t see how not. One exception would be a political system that allows “religious freedom” as long as religious people stay in their closets and keep their mouths shut.”
Is this another quip, distortion, or manipulation on your part? First, I didn’t say you said it, I said [your beliefs] seem that way to me. Am I a militant atheist in your view? Give me some names of people who spoke out for atheism who weren’t militant in your view? This should tell me a lot about you. For that matter, tell me who all the militant ones are.
When a preacher gives a typical sermon on Sunday is he anti-Zeus, anti-Mohammed, or even anti-atheist? Does the fact that I think x is untrue make me anti-x? What’s with the polarized words all the time? Why aren’t I anti-my-Christian-wife? I suppose you’ll come back and argue for a soft meaning for “anti”. But it’s not what you implied. You imply “anti-“ means “seek to abolish” which flies in the face of the religious tolerance that I believe in.
Now I could live with being called anti-faith, in the sense of being “against” [blind] faith. In this language the pros and anti-s compete peaceably in the marketplace of ideas and hopefully, if the game isn’t rigged, the truth wins out eventually. I wouldn’t describe anyone on either side as “militant” for such rational arguments unless they advocated violence or the suppression of the other side.
In this area, you have distorted Dawkins’ arguments about “child abuse” and religious indoctrination by parents and other such provocative things he’s said in that vein to misconstrue and mislead. He is saying these things to get people thinking and to move the line about what people think is right and wrong. Nowhere can you show me that he would advocate having the government actually prosecute parents who religiously label their children. But he would like our beliefs to change individually so that one day when somebody says their 2 year old is Muslim, that will not be taken for granted as an OK thing to say, just as today you would laugh or cry if somebody told you about their 2 year old Republican or Green Party kids. Harris and Dawkins don’t want to kill, imprison, or restrict the legal rights of Christians (there may be some exceptions I hope, like not letting a gravely ill Christian Scientist child die from a treatable disease). They just want what they consider silly beliefs laughed off the public stage. And so do you. Or are you more militant than that?
Oh, and BTW,, can we leave Nietzsche out of our arguments please – at least for now? We have enough to deal with without defaming him with the usual slander and misinterpretations that lesser philosophers, and of course Nazis, have smeared over his grave. I will grant you that his writings are often more poetic than expository and intentionally left open to multiple interpretations quite often. I don’t even really want to know what point you want to make about nihilism, ubermensch, - can we agree to drop that for now? I’m not a Nietzsche scholar or follower but I have some admiration for his work. There’s a whole Nietzsche debating thread at Dawkins; take your arguments there.
Jane: “ The real problem is human nature and the unfortunate tendency of some people to seek to force others to believe what they do when they don’t know how to persuade them by reason.”
Joel: “Exactly, on a Darwinian model, how is this wrong? Why should we not encourage it? Hitler, remember, was much more a Darwinian than a Christian. After all, we know that most people are persuaded by something other than reason. They don’t teach many logic courses in advertising school. So why would any dictator try to use such an ineffective tool? It’s not that they don’t know how to persuade by reason, but rather, that much like our own impasses mentioned above, they recognize the general weakness and futility of reasoning among the masses.
[sigh] Not again – another straw man. The ol’ atheist morality is Social Darwinism straw man. God how many times we see that at Dawkins. I’m so sick of it. First, as I recall you don’t believe in evolution – right? So this already presupposes that Darwinian evolution is wrong. But assume it’s right scientifically. Then it is merely truth and if some psychopath wants to misinterpret it then it doesn’t make the theory wrong or the misinterpretation good. Hitler was an evil man who took whatever ideas he could to further his cause. But what he drew on most were the indoctrinal mind control tactics of religion that have worked for centuries. Read his comments someday on Japanese culture and religion and how he lamented that there was no Shinto Emperor worship in Christianity (it’s been years since I read these so the gist is right but I may be a little off).
Social Darwinism is a bastardized derivative of Darwinian Evolution theory. Darwin didn’t advocate it and I know of no modern atheists who do. On the surface, it seems like a simple rational explanation (sort of like God) if you accept evolution. Although Darwinian evolution has a lot to say about how morality evolved in our species, it cannot be reliably used to assert what should be moral. It simply says that natural selection will cause the more “fit” creatures to reproduce and pass along their genes and that beneficial mutations enable speciation through this process. It doesn’t say it propagates the most moral creatures or that the process is good. Rape can be an excellent propagation feature for many creatures including man. Nobody would argue that it is therefore moral.
A big problem with interpreting Darwin is in the understanding of “fitness”. It was only until later in the last century that the nature of individual fitness vs. societal fitness begin to become well understood. When Hitlerian eugenics decided to breed tall, blue-eyed blond haired, children of higher intelligence, he assumed it would make the society more fit. Many traits are linked and in so doing Hitler could have bred out resistance to diseases that hadn’t evolved yet and would end up wiping out humanity by limiting genetic diversity. Would our society function well with nothing but tall handsome geniuses? I’m not so sure – this is why even many atheist scientists are wary of “playing god”. We simply don’t know enough to understand the consequences.
I don’t want to open another can of worms but this comes up in examining the evolutionary societal fitness of individuals in the tails of genetic distributions. One example is homosexuality which is exhibited in almost all mammalian species in relative percentages that are significantly higher than can be attributed to “defects”. Overcrowding rats will cause higher proportions of homosexuality leading to higher group fitness in such environments. In other mammalian societies homosexual individuals add caretaker capacity to assist in the survivability of its relatives genes (and hence its own). I’ll stay away from the human debate for now except to say that in some societies, particularly some native American tribes, homosexuals seemed to serve in a similar and respected capacity. The basic point is that on a simplistic level you or I or Hitler may think we know what is “fit” and the kind of people to select for and against to improve our armies, our universities, or whatever you like. But meddling with the dynamics and complexities of genetic diversity against an ever-evolving environment would probably lead us to extinction more quickly.
If there is one sort of moral lesson I might take from evolution it is that diversity is good and strengthens populations. That can be true for societies too. I think pluralistic societies are more fit than rigid ones that follow one faith or type of thinking. I don’t want to wipe religion out. But I want it in the tail of the diversity distribution where I think it will keep us most fit ;-)
Let me tell you a true story from the late eighties when I was a budding AI researcher. Some guys, I think at Carnegie-Mellon were experimenting with A-life (artificial life simulations on computer) and genetic algorithms (programs that have genes, mutate, and evolve). They created a little environment with artificial food, water, and little creatures that had to go fend to keep alive. They could share to various levels and the less they shared the more they got when they found food. But the less they shared, the less others would share with them as they “learned” from contact. These creatures were left to breed and propagate where each one was given genes giving them different propensities to share or be greedy. The environment could also be manipulated (less food, odd locations. etc.). The researchers expected the greedy creatures to outbreed and win. But in almost all scenarios with widely varying parameters, some even with few initial “sharers”, the populations after several generations of breeding showed predominant altruism. The greedy didn’t die out, but they were like criminals in the tails of the distributions. It’s been many years but I recall that there were some highly stressed environments where the greedy won out, but I can’t remember the details – but they were fascinating. My point is, fear of God or hope for heaven isn’t required for man to be good. Evolution has predisposed us to it and for us to understand, both through instinct and through reason, the difference between right and wrong. But to do wrong can also be good for passing down your genes. It’s certainly a tried and true method through human history. So we as a species needed to evolve society’s morals to suit other objectives of our species – like happiness and avoidance of suffering, which can collide also across individuals. But even here a fitness function (actually called a utility function in operations research) also rules and is still evolving today.
All morality is ultimately tested by its consequences. Humans may be stubborn and often cruel, but they can observe the creatures around them and see who shares, loves or kills and who doesn’t – etc. What love, joy, envy, hate, etc. feel like through all our interactions, as the entire potpourri anneals on our world anvil, like when carbon steel is hardened, to relax to more optimal state – this is how society usually functions, regardless of the religious labels we put on it. Of course, calamities, both natural and manmade periodically disturb this balance. Nothin