Andrew Brown suggests that we shouldn’t suppose that religious belief is irrational, and I’m going to have to agree in part with him. I think theology is actually an exercise in reason — it is an activity that has engaged some of the greatest minds of the ages, and it is a sophisticated and elaborate logical edifice. It is a towering skyscraper constructed of finely honed girders of deductive logic, and I can appreciate how so many people respect it and admire it and want to protect it. I can also see how those who have dedicated much effort to working closely on the craftmanship of the structure are aghast at the idea that anyone should fail to see the work of the mind invested in it.
Step outside of it, though, and one sees immediately that flaw intrinsic to deductive logic: it’s only as good as the premise on which it is built. That magnificent skyscraper is tottering atop a flimsy foundation bobbing precariously in quicksand — it’s no surprise that many of the godly are frantically gesturing those obnoxiously inquisitive atheists away with such an air of desperate concern. A few pokes have made the structure wobble and sway, and if enough of us get together, we could push it all right over. All those exquisite arguments and detailed apologetics resting atop the rotting corpse of of god-belief … it would be such a shame if something happened to it, wouldn’t it?
Unfortunately, what collapses relatively easily with our nudging and poking and pushing is the fancy brickwork rising above the ugly foundation, not the foundation itself. And that foundation is worshipped by the unpleasant mass called fundamentalism, and the fundamentalists are also pushing at the theological structure — they’d like to replace it with their own bizarre (but also internally rational) construction. That should worry us, because there’s also another reason religion is rational. It’s an unpleasantly cynical, nasty reason, and I’m shocked that Andrew Brown would bring it up. Religion is politically useful as a tool for terror. What could be more intimidating than the idea that you can be tortured or executed for merely thinking heresy?
Superstitious nonsense makes perfect sense if your purpose is to demonstrate how powerful you are. Power can be demonstrated in many ways; forcing your opponent to agree to something untrue is one of the more common ones. But organised religions can do better than that. They can demonstrate their political power by forcing victims to agree something that couldn’t possibly be true and this is a much more effective demonstration, as any tyrant knows.
I had no idea Brown had such a Machiavellian mind, but I think he’s right, that this is one factor we can’t forget. When Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake, there might have been a taint assigned to him for disagreeing with Galen’s ideas about anatomy, stuff that was empirically testable and could fall before the evidence, but the real guilt and the real crime was for daring to doubt the absurd Christian trinity — and the message was that you could suffer an agonizing death for refusing to accept a ridiculous bit of dogma.
It’s powerful stuff, that religious fear.
If it is true that appeals to the sacred are among the most effective political technologies mankind has ever stumbled on, no Darwinian should expect them to be replaced by less effective pieties.
Demolish the calcified, gilded hulk of Catholicism, for instance, and who knows what screaming fierce fresh horror might replace it? This has to be a concern for the atheist movement, but we can’t cease our criticism for worry about the possibility that new fanaticisms could arise in a religious vacuum. We have to work to establish a positive secularism so there is no vacuum, but we also have to take a tack that Brown seems to neglect: we could construct an environment in which piety is no longer effective. We modern evolutionists do not see individuals as determined by intrinsic factors or tracking one path to optimality, after all, but by interactions between our own capabilities and the world around us. The fitness of traits are entirely context-dependent: we can build environments in which the old reliance on dogma is detrimental.
This is one reason some of us “New Atheists” are not compromising our attack on religion (I know some of the delicate and sensitive souls out there will quail at that thought — that we must attack religion — but outright opposition is what I encourage). We aim for a post-theistic world in which the religious rationale is recognized as a toxic pathology that diminishes the legitimacy of an argument, and that includes the humble homilies of the Christian moderate. It’s not that their conclusions are necessarily wicked, but that they promote a mode of thinking that can be so easily subverted to manufacture those frighteningly effective ancient pieties.
Our goal should be ambitious: to shape the culture and change the world. We can admire the scattered bits of rational architecture that have arisen from the flawed bases of religion … but what if all of humanity were building on the bedrock of naturalism and reason, instead of that quaking vapor of god-belief? We could reach so much higher!
A magnificent structure built in the middle of a fetid swamp of falsehood and terror?
Bravo PZ! You’ve thoroughly brightened my day. Again.
Good Lord, PZ. Do you ever sit back and really consider how utterly ridiculous you sound sometimes?
“We aim for a post-theistic world in which the religious rationale is recognized as a toxic pathology…”
We must ATTACK those religious nuts!!! Yeah…charge!
Are you for real? Take off those combat boots, big guy! Replace them with that pair of slippers ya got by your bed there… cuz you’re just dreamin’.
Your choir boys have apparently been giving you far too much attention because you’re having delusions of grandeur.
Bear in mind that atheist regimes have never proven to be particularly peaceful or prosperous, so chill out.
When an ignorant creationist like FtK whines at me, I am reassured that I’m on the right track.
Atheistic regimes? Name one. Atheism is disbelief in god. How can you form a system on a lack of belief? Communism was based on a positive belief in some corrupted Marxist theory. Nazism likewise based on positive beliefs of a fascist, catholic backed nature. Grow up Ftk.
By the way religion has had many cracks at it and all it manages is totalitarian states.
When I am tempted to become mesmerized by the brainpower spent on erecting the magnificent edifice that is theology, I remind myself that a lot of smart people can speak Klingon.
They even wrote dictionaries about it.
But you know, it’s still made up!
Just because a subject has lots of information written about it and just because it’s internally consistent doesn’t mean it’s real, or true.
Bear in mind that atheist regimes have never proven to be particularly peaceful or prosperous, so chill out.
Bear in mind that humans have never proven to be particularly peaceful or prosperous, so chill out.
Now, let’s return to our plans for world reason. There are 4 lights!
Thank you, for another well reasoned attack on the would be technocrats. Yes we do so need to attack religion and create a world where it at worst would be a minor and quaint phenomena
We atheists do not claim to be perfect FtK, we just want to create a world where the arguments are based on reason and evidence not millennium old fairy tales.
Far from it for me to be the grammar police but I believe “ignorant creationist” is redundant.
Been reading your blog for a while, and this is my first comment.
How are we, the atheist minority, going to achieve such a feat? I’ve spent much time wondering if this is at all possible, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way religious taint will be removed is by an entire restructuring of our education system. The more education, the more one realizes that the idea of a deity is total and utter nonsense.
However, it also seems as though the less educated might benefit from religious belief. Religion gives them “meaning” and “reason” for getting up and out of bed everyday, to go and do their remedial work, fueling our economy and keeping the wheels of industry turning. Sad as it may sound, it’s true. Religion came about as simply a controlling of the masses, and it’s still around for that very reason.
I’m not arguing with you at all. I hope that someday religious “thought” and “reasoning” will be wiped from the planet (yes, a somewhat strong ideal), but with this also comes a loss of culture…
“When an ignorant creationist like FtK whines at me, I am reassured that I’m on the right track.”
When an arrogant biologist like PZ responds to my comment, I know I’ve hit a sore spot.
PZ – honest questions here….
Do you *really* believe that your goal to put a stop to religious thought is wise? Do you realize how nasty that fight could ~potentially~ become at some point? Do you *really* think that you can succeed? Have you not learned anything from religious wars throughout history? How is a battle between theists and atheists any different that a religious war…both are fighting for their faith beliefs.
Why all the hatred? Why such intolerance for those who who don’t agree with your conclusions? Isn’t religious intolerance something you are always complaining about?
Why aren’t you striving to *not* make the same mistakes that various religious groups of people have made in the past? Wouldn’t the wise route be to consider tolerance rather than annihilation?
Do you even realize that you sound like a high priest for atheism at times?
This is the most bizarre place to visit…you all mope and complain about religion incessantly, but then you turn around and display the same *exact* attitudes that you condemn.
Ftk, how is atheism a faith? I’m sincerly interested in how you construe lack of belief as belief.
King: Listen, lad: I built this kingdom up from nuthin’. When I started
here, all of this was swamp! Other kings said it was *daft* to build a
castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show ’em! It
sank into the swamp. SO, I built a second one! That sank into the
swamp. So I built a *third* one. That burned down, fell over, *then*
sank into the swamp. But the fourth one……stayed up. And that’s what
you’re gonna get, lad: the *strongest* castle in these islands.
Son: But I don’t want any of that! I’d rather…
King: Rather what?
Son: I’d rather…just…live somewhere else?
(With apologies to Monty Python, but at least I didn’t let him sing!)
BT Murtagh I was thinking of the same skit when I read PZ’s words.
Quote: Do you realize how nasty that fight could ~potentially~ become at some point? /Quote
So i guess we should never do anything if it might be nasy. remind me that we should never defend ourselves in a fight, and that cops are a pointless idea.
Really, that’s something you consider a good argument?
Yeesh.
P.S. I know no html, can ya tell?
FtK: “This is the most bizarre place to visit…you all mope and complain about religion incessantly, but then you turn around and display the same *exact* attitudes that you condemn.”
There’s that infernal internalization again. So sorry all this complaining hurts your personal feelings so.
And what is that you’re doing? Why, if it isn’t Gripe, Mope & Complain.
FTK
You can be annihilated simply by someone demonstrating that your beliefs are unfounded and potentially destructive? Wow, conservative Christians are more allergic to reason than I’d thought.
FtK, I think the difference between PZ and most religious zealots is that when PZ talks of attacking he means `arguing and protesting’ rather than `stoning to death and/or burning at the stake’.
Similarly, there are no atheists in atheist Summer camps training as Warriors of Atheism, you know (cf. Jesus Camp)?
However, it also seems as though the less educated might benefit from religious belief. Religion gives them “meaning” and “reason” for getting up and out of bed everyday, to go and do their remedial work, fueling our economy and keeping the wheels of industry turning.
I thought it was Santa Claus that gave them meaning. You know, work hard and be a good little boy / girl all year, and you will get presents at Christmas.
At times i almost pity the theologians. So much time and energy spent defending and trying to explain….nothing.
“Demolish the calcified, gilded hulk of Catholicism, for instance, and who knows what screaming fierce fresh horror might replace it? This has to be a concern for the atheist movement, but we can’t cease our criticism for worry about the possibility that new fanaticisms could arise in a religious vacuum.”
Actually for me it’s not a concern. Look at the other parts of the world where there’s very little religious belief. Has anything big and horrible come along to replace that belief? Not really. Some of them have gotten a little newage-y but that’s hardly on the same level.
Also, i’d avoid using words like “attack” as much as possible. Not for the concern of anyone’s feeling but just because i think it feeds the persecution complex a lot of christians seem to have.
God and Santa aren’t all that different. Santa is a political tool used by parents to gain the obedience of children. God is a political tool used by authorities to gain the obedience of adults. It makes me wonder if there isn’t some psychological need in some individuals to be ruled over and told how to think. Barnum was right, though, people want to be fooled.
How about the small matter of a religious war involving swords and guns and people being killed, whereas the current atheist onslaught involves arguments and evidence and ideas being killed? Can you *really* not see the difference?
PZ wrote:
If I get your metaphor, and I’m not sure I do, then I think you’re kidding yourself on two counts, PZ:
1) There is no single structure to topple over, there are millions of towers, some better constructed than others. Even if you’re just talking about the writers of some mind numbing apologetics you’ve got Thomas Aquinas who isn’t like Paul Tillich who isn’t like C.S. Lewis, who isn’t Terence Penelhum…
2) Each of those towers is resting on something deeply arational (or even irrational) and deeply emotional (the denial of death).
The foundation for Christianity is the Bible. Discredit the Bible and all you’ve got left is an amorphous deism where God has left no instructions. All they’ll have is common sense and reason to guide them. It didn’t do badly for Thomas Paine and Voltaire.
In addition to Biblical criticism you should also try and encourage skepticism and critical thinking in people rather than to try and simply “convert” them to atheism. Both debunking the Bible and demonstrating critical thinking can be done at the same time.
On that point I agree. We want to rob the priesthood of its assumed authority to speak for God.
Think about all the things we believe without enough questioning because no one else around us questions them. I pretty much assumed our elections were fair and not rigged until someone made a big stink about Diebold in Ohio in 2004. Now I don’t know. Our culture, only a generation ago, gave us very little questioning of religion. Now the environment has changed.
About belief in general (Santa Claus, the Toothfairy, etc, etc). If you didn’t know, this is an adaptation of Terry Pratchett’s The Hogfather.
I think sometimes “new atheists” go too far, and I think this is a prime example of it. I cannot see that atheism/secularism/etc… can or will displace religious thought. Why? While we may be born atheists we’re also born rather dumb about reality. People born today are little different than those born 40,000 years ago. And early in our life our sense of wonder can more easily accept that our own human spirit – natural though it may be – is more easily associable to abstractions akin to imaginary friends than the natural reality we have come to realize exists.
Thus our religiosity is a quite natural aspect which ties our human social structure to a common belief which holds that society together. On a tribal basis that belief bonds disparate families together. It is a social aspect which likely was useful to man as tool to unite peoples together for purposeful ends. You can see that in the ancient Egyptian culture. Unfortunately as PZ proffers:
“…a toxic pathology that diminishes the legitimacy of an argument, and that includes the humble homilies of the Christian moderate. It’s not that their conclusions are necessarily wicked, but that they promote a mode of thinking that can be so easily subverted to manufacture those frighteningly effective ancient pieties.”
This is also seen in Egypt with Akhenaton who demanded allegiance to one god and Roman rulers who outlawed certain beliefs demanding that the Roman Pantheon only be worshipped. Which is why we atheists cannot also be seen as likened to them.
Still there is that aspect of fundamentalism inborne in either Christianity or Islam. I’ll state outright however that I prefef Christianity to Islam, simply because there is a greater capacity for love to be the expression of that religion. Still, the holy books of either are both ultimately apocalyptic, which is the bane of those religions and the cause of any problems stemming from those religions. Moderatism in either religion is easily turned into something worse, and it usually originates from a need for personal power – thus televangelists or Dobsonistic ministries.
For those reason I promote what might be called a “kinder atheism” – spiritual atheism. I always explain it as man is a spiritual animal, to be spiritual is a natural phenomena in man which religions have falsely determined to be indicative of greater “spirits” or gods. And yet I would hope that spiritual atheism is understanding of the human condition which results in religious beliefs. And thus tolerant of moderate religious belief.
Eh…. something like that….
As to the trinity, here is Ambrose Bierce’s definition in his “Devil’s Dictionary”.
“The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the case of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.”
Bierce also has a related definition, this time to “redemption”.
“Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sin, through their murder of the deity against whom they have sinned. The doctrine of Redemption is the fundamental mystery of our holy religion, and whoso believeth in it shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life in which to try to understand it.”
There are many occasions upon which rationality has provided great advances for civilization, especially when it convinced the religionists to go along: Ending of slavery, creation of modern republican democracy (chiefly in the U.S.), laws against spousal abuse, laws against cruelty to animals, laws against child abuse, laws on central banks and monetary systems, laws requiring clean water and setting up the mechanisms to deliver it to citizens, laws setting up sanitary sewers and sewage treatment, conservation laws.
We don’t need to predicate a call for reason on the destruction of faith. But we do need to resist calls against reason that are predicated on the irrational preservation of faith. Reason will support the good things faith facilitates; it’s fair to insist people of faith also support good things that reason facilitates.
“The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible,”
It’s not incomprehensible so much as logically incoherent. If the trinity is correct then the law of identity is violated and maths and everything else in the universe no longer is useful. It’s belittles humanity to suggest that just because you can believe the impossible makes you anything else than dishonest. Believing without sufficient evidence and logic is lying.
There are 4 lights!
Yep, quite definitely 4 lights. Not 5. :)
It isn’t merely a persecution complex, in the sense of it all being in their heads, though. The whole of reality genuinely is against them – because they insist on believing so many falsehoods. However, they prefer to ignore the greater part of that opposed reality and to pretend instead that it’s just other humans who are against them.
FtK, do you really think PZ wants to kill or oppress you?
No. He wants to laugh at you, loudly, and in public, and he’d like us all to join.
Oh, how brutal!!!1! How intolerant!!eleven!
Surely you aren’t projecting.
Eh, no, they didn’t. They included every deity they tripped over into their pantheon (often, but not always, equating them with some of their own). They lived in constant low-level fear that somewhere there might be a god they had, out of ignorance, failed to worship and who was going to punish them. The only religions that were banned were so for pragmatic political reasons: Christianity made proper respect to the Emperor impossible, or so they thought, so it could have fueled sedition. I forgot what the second banned religion was. I think the druids in Gaul were oppressed for fomenting sedition, too.
Huh?
What do you mean? I am not spiritual. Tolerant, yes (I’m only an agnosticist), but not spiritual.
(And BTW, “phenomena” is the plural of “phenomenon”.)
All over the First World, and then some!
It has, after all, a well-known liberal bias.
FtK, do you really think PZ wants to kill or oppress you?
No. He wants to laugh at you, loudly, and in public, and he’d like us all to join.
Oh, how brutal!!!1! How intolerant!!eleven!
Surely you aren’t projecting.
Eh, no, they didn’t. They included every deity they tripped over into their pantheon (often, but not always, equating them with some of their own). They lived in constant low-level fear that somewhere there might be a god they had, out of ignorance, failed to worship and who was going to punish them. The only religions that were banned were so for pragmatic political reasons: Christianity made proper respect to the Emperor impossible, or so they thought, so it could have fueled sedition. I forgot what the second banned religion was. I think the druids in Gaul were oppressed for fomenting sedition, too.
Huh?
What do you mean? I am not spiritual. Tolerant, yes (I’m only an agnosticist), but not spiritual.
(And BTW, “phenomena” is the plural of “phenomenon”.)
All over the First World, and then some!
It has, after all, a well-known liberal bias.
“Demolish the calcified, gilded hulk of Catholicism, for instance, and who knows what screaming fierce fresh horror might replace it?”
All PZ Myers has to do is to turn a phrase, and I fall in love all over again.
Still waiting for that from the religious, FtK
Re: Comment #30 (SEF) – There are a significant number of fundamentalist Christians who are absolutely certain (in that smug “I know I’m right, so I don’t even need to bother considering any other points” way) that any part of reality in conflict with their revealed reality is the work of Satan trying to lead them astray. By believing thus, they construct themselves a nice little logic-proof house to live in. (Satan is apparently very talented, too – he integrates his deceptions so seamlessly into the universe that the only way to tell the difference is to rely on the writings of some ancient farmers and shepherds.)
It’s always good fun to ask how exactly we’re supposed to tell that the writings of said ancients are not themselves one of Satan’s deceptions. Never really got a coherent answer to that.
Wow, last night I saw Jonathon Wells talking about how we couldn’t be closely related to chimps because since there are only four components of DNA, we are 25% related to anything, he used the example of daffodils and today we have For the Kooks spreading her love and tolerance all over the place. I suppose that we should just be glad that she isn’t posting links to abortion photos again.
Do you *really* believe that your goal to put a stop to religious thought is wise? Do you realize how nasty that fight could ~potentially~ become at some point?
FtK, remember when John Lennon said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus and the death threats started rolling in? Were you saying that it could become nasty in that way? Another Waco? What about your buddy Eric Rudolph? There’s already Michael Korn.
Don’t we already have an example of what happens when there is a dogmatic religious vacuum: witness the new agers. Holistic alternative medicines, out of body experiences, yoga, etc. More unsubstantiated crap! Eventually the more intolerant memes will take over the more tolerant memes and a new framework will take root in the masses.
It just seems like humans are incapable of deducing spirituality as an amazing and powerful artifact of the brain. Science and reality based knowledge are not a cure – plenty of those advancing these new myths are well versed in science.
While being firmly on PZ’s side in general, he does from time to time send us to look at some whacky fundamentalist sites. For some reason his phrase:
“Our goal should be ambitious: to shape the culture and change the world.”
very much reminds me of them. It could have almost been lifted from one!
I have nothing against shaking the tree of religion to drop a few atheists out, but if we are to make real progress towards a less religious society, maybe we should look to see how mainly non-religious states have acheived this. The communists (anti-religion)to some extent failed and religion is now rampant where it was banned. Sweden seems to have been successful, and I suggest the way to address this is: 1. Education and 2. a balanced welfare state so people have a sense of blonging to a society which they are part of and that will look after them. This sense of belonging lowers their need to glomb onto some group that promises them inclusion amidst a ceremony of singing, kneeling and debasing themselves before an entirely imaginary being.
Oh? And why is that?
Doesn’t support the contention.
Doesn’t support the contention.
I mean, c’mon, you’re not even trying to create the impression that you’ve given this some thought. You could make the same points, equally validly, for phrenology, numerology, and alchemy.
As I’ve been told by many a (self-professed) good Christian, if it was rational it wouldn’t be faith.
And with this, your journey to the Stupid side of the Force is complete.
That just adds (an imaginary) Satan to their list of supposed persecutors. It doesn’t really detract from the fact of everything still being against them and not merely the humans they choose to accuse of that (or even at all in the manner they accuse it!). They are only adding a fictitious level of indirection to their reality denial in order to aid their reality ignorance.
It’s rather like the dishonest UK government packaging (“framing”!) many thousands of signatures against hospital closure as being only one protest vote. That gives them a singular “Satan” which they can more conveniently ignore rather than deal with the fact of the large number of individual people who are actually opposing their proposals.
We keep hearing that religion arose as people innocently tried to understand the world around them.
If this has any truth to it, then why don’t we see religious behavior in other mammals?
I suspect religion arose from the discovery that children, once they’ve begun to use language, are easy to fool.
People with kids are often amazed (and amused) at the crazy things a child can be made to believe.
Want to make your kids go to bed early? Tell them there are monsters under the bed who will eat them if their feet touch the floor. Or tell them about the monsters in the closet who will eat them if they get out of bed.
Want to keep your kids from straying too far from the house? Tell them the woods are haunted by dead people. Or tell them about the boogeyman who eats children.
Kids are easy to control by lies. We can scare them away from doing what we don’t want or con them into doing what we do want, all the while sparing us from ever having to reward the kid for doing our bidding. As cheap dirty tricks go, it can’t get any cheaper.
We have Santa Claus who will bring you gifts for being a good child all year long, or Your Loving God who will burn you in hell with fire and brimstone, searing your skin and eyes and lungs, torturing you with unimaginable pain (which we will happily describe for you in lurid detail) for all eternity if you don’t do what we want.
My theory is that the world’s religions are the results of lying to children that got out of hand. As the lies accumulated, the contradictions exploded exponentially, requiring ‘transcendence’ — illogical logic, sense that really makes no sense — to explain the flaw away as they got discovered, and that’s what we call theology.
PZ: “That magnificent skyscraper is tottering atop a flimsy foundation bobbing precariously in quicksand…”
JC: “But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.”
Hmmm. Is PZ channelling or plagiarising?
Religion came about as simply a controlling of the masses, and it’s still around for that very reason.
I’m going to take exception to this. I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that religion originated as a means to control people.
Spirituality isn’t even all that powerful an edifice. At its base, all it is is the refusal to admit that one’s childhood superstitions, which are nothing more than the result of developmental egotism, are false. The child-brain is limited in that it cannot comprehend the idea of people and objects outside of itself and unrelated to it, because of this it understands the world by making everything personal, and part of that requires granting inanimate objects personality and purpose. Most people begin to abandon this way of thinking around the age of 9; what religion does is tell people its ok for them to continue that egotistical and superstitious mode indefinitely, in certain respects. In a real, psychological sense religion is stunting. There isn’t some ingrained need for “spirituality”(what the hell does that even mean anyway?); just the developing mind’s inability to grasp a reality outside of itself, and a handful of evolutionary artifacts like fear of the dark, fear of large predators, respect for the opinions of people older and bigger than you ect. ect.
Religion is merely the tradition of generally useless people taking advantage of this phase to guarantee themselves a place at the table with a bare minimum of work.
As to FtK, what, you want a shooting war? Really? Good luck finding us. Nice to know a person like you, who entertains the idea that in the end the best way to deal with an atheist is to kill them, is raising two innocent children to take the same approach towards dissent in their own lives. It must make you proud of yourself to be so bloodthristy, I mean, thats what Christ was all about, right? Nice to see a believer who really takes the tenets of their faith seriously.
Caledonian, #39:
Uh, yes, you could. Those things were exercises in reason. They were equally wrong, of course. Doesn’t make them any less logical in their conclusions.
Alchemy, like religion, is wrong in its basic assumptions. Logical arguments only assure you of going from correct assumptions to correct conclusions. You can have a sophisticated, elaborate logical edifice and still be completely wrong. I’m not sure why you feel there is some sort of conflict here.
This, however, you are quite correct on. PZ, that was a bad, bad comment. That sort of crap is heard *regularly* from creationists and other woos. Hell, there’s even a Doggerel about it. You’re better than that. T_T
I thought FTK got de-vowelled ages ago?
And in response to her question, the way you combat religion is with education. Education and religious belief are diametrically opposed. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. The fundamentalists know this and that is why they are so determined in their attacks on high school science classes. They know full well that the more science education a person has, the better their “woo immune system” works.
1) There is no single structure to topple over, there are millions of towers, some better constructed than others.
Worse, they aren’t simply static towers. Religion is an organic structure with both reactive defenses and internal developmental cycles — more like a forest than a city.
For an example of the developmental patterns, I like to point out the cycle between the Promethean and Jovian themes; The former represents the “natural origin” of religion, in that it arises from the ecstatic experience among the population. Any “personal experience of the divine/occult” feeds into this theme. The Jovian pattern shows up when the shamans start gathering into a priestly heirarchy with its own politics, and eventually make common cause with the secular rulers. The fun part is that they cycle back and forth: As a Promethean cult grows, it starts to aquire more organization, and/or political ties. As a Jovian temple builds power and enforces unity, it starts to pass judgement on personal experiences of faith — but since these comes from individual ecstatic experiences, a fair number won’t fit the mold, and the attempt to suppress them triggers a Promethean schism.
(I have a much longer discussion of this on file, but I’ve already put older versions in other comment threads on Pharyngula and elsewhere, so I’ll skip it this time. Damn, but I ‘ve gotta get around to starting my own blog….)
I’m actually stuck on a few inter-related points regarding “the evils of religion”. The main one is the issue of the evils done (by/in the name of) religion. Is religion really the guilty party here, or is it tribalism is general? The same tools that are used for cult programming are also used by other, non-religious groups. Is this driven by conditioning (ie, since we are taught to be Believers, we are conditioned to be malleable) or is it underlying instinct? I suspect that the “rational” society requires not just the dismantling of religion, but also of the nation-state.
I’m not sure, but I suspect that in the US, if you said that you were committed to the abolition of the nation-state, you’d probably get a lot more (frenzied) opposition than if you simply said that you wanted to abolish religion. But I’m not sure how one can (rationally) commit to one idea and not the other.
“If this has any truth to it, then why don’t we see religious behavior in other mammals?”
Well we may not see animals praying and going to church but they do engage in superstitious behavior. Like the experiment where the pidgeons would be in front of a machine that would dispence food at random times. The pidgeons would develop elaborate dances thinking that doing that is what made the food appear. That’s essentially the same as thinking that prayer causes any changes in the world.
WRONG. Universities were originally founded as religious institutions – there was so much silly dogma that people couldn’t learn more than a tiny fraction of it without making a special effort.
“If this has any truth to it, then why don’t we see religious behavior in other mammals?”
Well we may not see animals praying and going to church but they do engage in superstitious behavior. Like the experiment where the pidgeons would be in front of a machine that would dispence food at random times. The pidgeons would develop elaborate dances thinking that doing that is what made the food appear. That’s essentially the same as thinking that prayer causes any changes in the world.
“If this has any truth to it, then why don’t we see religious behavior in other mammals?”
Well we may not see animals praying and going to church but they do engage in superstitious behavior. Like the experiment where the pidgeons would be in front of a machine that would dispence food at random times. The pidgeons would develop elaborate dances thinking that doing that is what made the food appear. That’s essentially the same as thinking that prayer causes any changes in the world.
FtK is too entertaining to disemvowel.
She’s also proof of why framing is pointless.
If prayer is superstition, what’s responsible for the inability of most people to acknowledge the scientific definition of ‘natural’?
It’s true that that there is an “internal logic” to religion, given that premises upon which it is built. And since these premises involve untestable, non-material supernatural beings, good luck in getting past them.
I recently challenged a local minister to declare that the genocide committed in Canaan by the Israelites (see the Book of Joshua) was just as much an atrocity as the 20th century Holocaust. One would think that if one of the two events was immoral, then the other event would have to be considered immoral, too. As it turns out, one would be wrong to think that way.
In part, here’s the reply that I received from the minister.
“So, what about the slaughter of the Canaanites? I have spent much time (and participated in organized conferences) on this subject.”
“My only answer is that the issue is more spiritual than moral, but here we have a huge epistomological disconnect between us, since you seem to insist on an empiricism that is limited to the 5 senses. I see the physical battles as a visible manifestation of an unseen, modified dualistic, spiritual, cosmological war.”
Well, what can you say to that? Really, how dare I insist on sticking to the material world when comparing historical events. What was I thinking? Of course, the genocide in Canaan was different. Once you understand cosmological war, it all makes sense. I’m sure that the screaming children of Canaan were comforted in their agonies by the thought that they were just victims of an “unseen, modified dualistic, spiritual, cosmological war.” As they say in the Godfather, “it’s not personal”.
1) There is no single structure to topple over, there are millions of towers, some better constructed than others.
Worse, they aren’t simply static towers. Religion is an organic structure with both reactive defenses and internal developmental cycles — more like a forest than a city.
For an example of the developmental patterns, I like to point out the cycle between the Promethean and Jovian themes; The former represents the “natural origin” of religion, in that it arises from the ecstatic experience among the population. Any “personal experience of the divine/occult” feeds into this theme. The Jovian pattern shows up when the shamans start gathering into a priestly heirarchy with its own politics, and eventually make common cause with the secular rulers. The fun part is that they cycle back and forth: As a Promethean cult grows, it starts to aquire more organization, and/or political ties. As a Jovian temple builds power and enforces unity, it starts to pass judgement on personal experiences of faith — but since those come from individual ecstatic experiences, a fair number won’t fit the mold, and the attempt to suppress them triggers a Promethean schism.
(I have a much longer discussion of this on file, but I’ve already put older versions in other comment threads on Pharyngula and elsewhere, so I’ll skip it this time. Damn, but I ‘ve gotta get around to starting my own blog….)
My sister-in-law uses dirty tricks with her kids, too. She tells her hard-to-control five-year-old that he shouldn’t do certain things, because there are spiders over there.
Depending on the week, he’s the youngest of either four or six kids, so I tend to cut her some slack. There’s at least some possibility of there actually being spiders over there. Not so much for Santa.
First, thanks PZ, great way to start the day reading such a fine post.
Second, FtK, your question “Do you *really* think that you can succeed” reminded me of all the bad sci-fi, evil overlord type movies I’ve seen. You can practically here Darth Vader mouthing your words. Yes, fighting the death grip religion has on so many humans is hard, but so are most things worth fighting for.
Third, once more FtK, how is it you seem to read PZ’s writings here all the time and yet have no idea of what he believes or what he’s talking about?
Just to let you all know, FtK has posted the infamous clip of Dawkins being “stumped” by the creationists asking about increases in information, etc. There’s a whole lot of smug self-congratulating going on over there. In case you’re curious and would like to comment over there:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/
I nearly risked trying to post the chimpanzee waterfall link earlier but couldn’t quite be bothered with the trauma. I’ve seen the pigeon thing before but never had a decent link for it (ie ideally a non-blog permanentish-URL one!). It gets mentioned in subsequent studies (again of limited availability) though. Eg this excerpt.
Sorry about the double-posting. Note to self: When the SB server claims something wasn’t posted “due to a server error”, go back to the comments and check for myself.
While I feel fundamentalist religion has a strong negative impact on our world, I also feel that new fanaticisms arise on a nearly daily basis. Dislodging one fallacious set of easy beliefs makes room for another. New Age cultism exists everywhere… and many of these dress themselves in the trappings of so-called “science.” I think that organized religion might be judged as a form of superpower, much like the ’70s and ’80s US and USSR. In this, the enemy is big and obvious and all-consuming. If you are set up to topple the USSR, you must deal with the power vacuum that will exist afterward… as well as the fact that being the sole remaining superpower (the way the US is now) makes that superpower a target for everyone who is jealous.
The real problem that needs to be addressed is not just fighting religious fundamentalism. As long as there is some belief system which pertains to be the truth which happens to be easier to acquire than the actual truth, fundamentalism is going to exist. There is nothing to say that the enemy of reason tomorrow isn’t a bunch of wrong-headed, self-avowed-atheists who believe in some New Age, aliens-come-to-earth garbage.
The real problem that needs to be addressed is to make the actual truth more easy, interesting and more relevant to survival and simple livelihood than the falsehoods, superficial comforts and nonsense that masquerade as truths. Someone can rail against religion all they want, but they will be facing the same fight again and again, as fiercely, ad infinitum until this problem is solved. Otherwise, there will always be a different free-energy minimum for the majority of the population to sink to which is not acceptance of the truth. In my experience, it takes tremendous effort and determination to gain the truth, but it takes no effort at all and is ten times as comforting to believe in a seductive, pretty lie.
Pope “Benedict” is a fraud.
The Catholic church is a fraud.
God is a fraud.
People who fall for the religious crap spewed by Catholics are frauds.
The scary thing is not what would happen if we remove religion from our lives, it’s that we invented it in the first place.
Caledonian,
you know full well that indoctrination is not the same thing as education. Also, if education and religion are not diametrically opposed then explain to me why religiosity declines the further up the education ladder you go? At the “bottom floor” religiosity is about 90% or so, when you get to the “elite” levels of education religiosity drops off to less then 10%. I’m sure someone remembers the study I’m talking about and has a link to it.
Well, I salute the work of the new atheists. Not because they knock over the tower (they can’t) or because they can expose a rotten foundation (they can’t) and not because all of them working together can accomplish anything resembling a threat to Christianity (they can’t) or even a threat to exiting doctrine (possibly they can, but so far they haven’t come close, seemingly lacking the intellectual muscle needed for the task) but because they have rightly pointed out a true dichotomy: people are either believers or atheists. The more atheists you get to self identify as such, the better for all of us.
What you perceive as increasing the number of atheists, I recognize as decreasing the number of pretenders.
So what we’re basically talking about is founding the Federation from Star Trek, but without the Vulcans to show us how its done.
Faced with dismantaling all the world’s religious institutions, I’m inclined to think that inventing and testing a warp engine would be a lot simpler.
About that comment about New Age stuff springing up in the vacuum left by organized religion departing…
Sure, it’s silly, but I see it as preferable. Not because it’s any less ignorant, but because you don’t have New Agers knocking at your door with flyers and trying to influence the education system…
and you never will.
Because New Agers are only loosely organized. They don’t have dogma or conventions or a Papacy. You can’t get them to agree on much, and they don’t have deities to hold over their kids heads. They don’t disfellow their members (or dismember their non-members) as other religions do. In fact, while they are hotbeds of superstition and weirdness, they are hardly “religions” in the classical sense.
The problem with religions is not just that they’re silly and ignorant. It’s that they’ve gained power to spread their silliness and ignorance, and that they make it their mission to destroy other modes of thought, even if it means killing people.
Whoever pointed out the difference between PZ’s knocking down religion by argument and Christianities habit of killing people who disagree (even as recently as Dr Slepian) is absolutely right. And since religion DOES have the mission to obliterate all thought besides their own (especially fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity) this IS a war, a war declared by the religious right. We’re not at a point where we can sit passively by certain that we have the right of things. Science and rational thought are under attack.
This isn’t even a sensible attack, but one based on emotions. There is no real reason being used by the religious right (else they’d be in OUR camp). It’s all about “feeling” what’s right. And we KNOW that’s wrong.
So I really can’t feel too threatened by the demolition of organized religion, even if it means the rise of more New Age woo. The ignorant will be with us always. I just don’t think we should sit idly by while they take up pitchforks and flaming torches.
#25:
You don’t think that secularism will ever replace religious thought?
Oh, well I guess we should pack our bags and give up then.
All though i agree with your basic premise, the extremity of your argument is irrational. It is true that relegion often cloudes scientific thinking, but that is true of any beleif, even atheism.
“We need to build a world where arguments are based on reason and evidence not millennium old fairy tales.”
Yes and what do you suggest? Atheism is no more base on reason and evidence than christainity. As a scientist, you should bear in mind that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is dangerous to promote atheism or any other belief as scientific.
“the scary thing is not what would happen if we remove religion form our lives, it’s that we invented it in the first place.”
Ah but you see, therein lies the paradox. Religion, like language, is a human universal, every civilization has discovered it. Perhaps relegion was necessay for the growth of civilization. People are nasty and brutish if they can afford to be but will behave if threatened by an invisible god. Then we shall cooperate to be nasty and brutish to groups with different beliefs. In the process we shall deveolp technology, creating time for other activitys, such as education.. and Science. And what does science offer? teporary answers which lead to more questions? what is the security of that. The huddled masses shall never except such as solution, they shall cling to their foundation regardless of the fact that it is built in a swamp.
Oh C’mon fella this is lame. It’s the lack of evidence that makes it reasonable.
First of all, what is up with all these defeatist attitudes?
Second, Deeks, even if religion was once necessary for the development of society (keep in mind that it’s necessity has nothing to do with it’s truth value), it certainly is not now. There are plenty of atheists out there who pay their taxes, don’t murder people, and live happy, fulfilled lives. Whether we used to need to religion is irrelevant, because it’s simply weighing us down now.
I guess my lack in belief of Zeus, Wotan and Thor are just as unreasonable too…
Oh please. That is a ridiculous statement. If you can’t prove (and I use that loosely) something with evidence the logical conclusion is not “well then invisible force X [God] did it”, the answer is that there is not an invisible force. Lack in belief in that non-existent force is logical and scientific based on the complete lack of evidence for said force.
Its the same old accusation that Atheism is a denial of god when in truth it is a lack in a belief in god. Two completely different viewpoints.
This is just silly. I mean childish schoolyard type silly. They have moved the foundation already. As to being a threat as a movement? Rational thought is a threat not a movement of atheists. It’s not a lack of intellectual muscle thats lacking, religion isn’t argued into as it’s primarily emotional or indoctrinated.
And it’s not as if Dawkins and other atheists lack the brain power needed it’s more a question of why otherwise smart people find value in believing things for reasons they find fradulent in other aspects of life.
You silly side swipe notwithstanding lets not pretend you are in Dawkins class when it comes to intellect.
There is alot of in between. Lots of different beings to believe in and in a variety of ways.
Well then you are clearly clueless as you have shown in this post. Some likely do pretend, go along to get along. But more and more are beginning to see merit in counter arguments they had never been exposed to minus the internet and popular books.
I’m going to object to the use of the term “theology”, though not with the general premise of this blog post.
I take it you mean by “theology” the literal meaning of “study of God”. However as far as I can tell, theology as practised at the university I attend is more the study of religion, which is different to your definition of the word.
So I know atheist/agnostic theologians who are interested in the relationship between religion, society, politics. This kind of theology is evidence-based! So I’m not sure theology can be written off in the way you’ve done in this post.
Then again, maybe in the USA “theology” has a different meaning to what it does on this side of the pond.
“atheism is not based on reason because you cannot prove a negative”.
Atheism does not attempt to “prove a negative”, just that there is no reason to accept the positive. Science never really “proves” anything, but it does try to disprove hypotheses, and when an experiment fails to disprove it, the hypothesis is given more “weight” but is never declared “proven”. In this case, the null hypothesis is that God does not exist. Is there any reason to reject that hypothesis? No there isn’t by any measurement ever made of nature. Science does not disprove God, it just cannot find any evidence to reject the “God does not exist” hypothesis. Atheists have just concluded that the possibility that there will ever be a reason to reject that hypothesis is so small as let one just accept that God does not exist in any meaningful way. So, yes, there is reason to be atheist.
(And you know, this is exactly Catholic dogma. There is no reason to believe in God; it must be accepted on Faith. That if there were any reason to believe, it would undermine faith. I think faith is meant to be the ultimate expression of “free will”. If there were reasons (evidence) to believe then it would not be an act of free will to believe, it would just be rational. That is, God’s gift of “free will”, meant the freedom to accept or reject God and His Word, if there were reasons or evidence for the existence of God you would not be truly “free” to believe or not; just as you are not truly free to believe whether the Earth exists or not. Anyway, this is what I got out of my childhood Catholic Catechism classes)
That would be the semantics police. (As a sometime grammar cop, I should know.)
Brian W., you’re a cold, harsh, cruel man. You want to take away all of their fun, don’t you?
Yeah, well, a lot of us have pointed out the reason, logic, and rationality in religion before, and PZ pretty much blew us off. Not very liberal, that.
But even if he has to get it from someone he considers an “authority” before he’ll rationally consider the point, it’s about time that he recognizes not only that much of religion has a strong central rationality (it’s at the edges, where the evidence lies, that the logic fails), but that the strength of religion is in that.
You cannot get through to many people that there is one place where a consistent logic matters most of all–around the isses of the evidence–because they’re caught up in the rationalistic structures of their own world view. Some will even admit this in a way, that if they were to give up their belief that logic and the rest of thought were guaranteed by God’s creation of them and/or their souls, how could they begin to suppose that they can rely on logic and thought to lead them to leave religion?
And it’s not just religion, you know. Ancient Hebrew religion was not particularly rational, it was based on a despotic model where essentially you must agree with the head despot, who makes the rules. Xianity, later Judaism, and Islam, take in what we might call “Greek rationality,” which in its Platonic forms does rely on the “ideal” and “the Good” to found rationality and logic. It’s not hard to change Plato’s “the Good” into “God” in monotheistic thought, so naturally they did.
What I fear that PZ doesn’t recognize is that the excessive rationalism (despite the irrational components existing in religion) of religion virtually calls for there to be a God to make rationality metaphysically and undeniably true. They need to believe that logic is something more than just a useful yet fallible means to knowledge, for their whole world purportedly (if not actually) depends upon a supernatural Truth in the workings of logic. Hence, using logic, and the evidence that these people often don’t understand, in order to destroy their belief in a supernatural logic, doesn’t make sense to them.
Look, the IDists are busy trying to claim that the mind has to be caused by the supernatural, or it would be unreliable (and of course minds may indeed be very unreliable). It’s partly due to their egos, of course, since few if any of them have anything worthy of acclaim, so they have to believe that their faulty little minds must be capable of coming to complete truth without the benefit of learning what they so sorely lack, and they take pride in their “logic” that manages to destroy the “rotten edifice of evolutionary thought,” which is impossible to those of us who are so blinded by our ideology yada yada yada….
The trouble for us is that the logical edifice of religion is quite capable of providing the means to deal with the world if you’re a by-the-book physician, an engineer, a bad philosopher like Dembski, a mathematician, a theologian, indeed, most people in their lives. It should not be thought that religion is totally unadaptive, is part of what I’m saying, so that its quasi-Platonic “top-down” rational structure works well enough for most people. The same metaphysics seriously compromises scientific thought, however, but since they assume that science must be based on their top-down metaphysics, they think that evolution, with its lack of innovation in the essentials of science, is in fact highly innovative structure deviating from the normal practices of assuming that complexity comes from intelligence.
Besides which, religion more closely matches the way in which people think, and the notion that dogs and wheat, let alone humans, have no purpose, is anathema to their way of thinking (yes, I know that I mixed up organisms that we domesticated with those we did not (humans), but that is indeed what the rank and file normally do). Religion says “you’re already right that organisms were made for a purpose,” and not only do diseases like malaria not persuade them otherwise, Behe has the gall to showcase P. falciparum as a designed organism.
The edifice will not topple. Indeed, whatever you think of deconstructionism (my view of it is dim), the purpose of it was fairly sound. Derrida et al. knew that people cannot be easily persuaded or educated to give up the “logocentrism” of metaphysics and religion, so they would deconstruct it piece by piece from the inside. This contrasts with Nietzsche’s varied attacks on religion based upon reason, empiricism, and yes, deconstructing religion piecemeal from the inside. I think that Nietzsche had it right, for the most part, to the degree that religion is vulnerable–use a variety of means instead of the ivory tower approach of philosophical deconstruction alone (of course Deconstruction had its own problems of unquestioned assumption and lack of agreement with empiricism).
Then again, would any of the religious even notice if their religion were toppled? The point is that they’re on the inside, with the rank and file hardly understanding reason and logic like Pascal or C.S. Lewis (not that Lewis compares favorably with Pascal) did, yet their conception of their world and of logical thinking is heavily dependent upon the rationality of the church. If it falls over, like it does with respect to evolution, the mind, or our understandings of chaos, noise, and quantum mechanics, well, so what? Egnor can still do brain surgery without a coherent view of the world, and he can believe that he has a coherent view of the world by retreating into religion’s simplistic logic (and illogic, which he, like most of his fellows, ignores).
Religion is too dependent upon logic, without any real appreciation of empiricism at all (even the religions that accept empiricism and its conclusions do not adopt empirical practices into their religions). Religion disparages the empirical, that’s its primary, as well as insulating, failure in coming to grips with the world.
A simple rationality coming out of religion is very appealing, despite religion’s obvious rational failures, while the world is actually complex and difficult to synthesize into a coherent view. Many will not achieve an empirical view of the world, preferring a non-empirical rationalism instead.
It would be stupid not to think that religion has many vulnerabilities, but it also has many psychological and cognitive strengths (in the same way that advertising does), especially their claim to an all-encompassing rationality (we, by contrast, have to settle for a useful, but evolved and fallible rationality). Attack religion’s vulnerabilities, indeed, but don’t ever forget what its strengths are among those to whom a worldview constructed rationally from the empirical data, has not become their own mental reality.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Chance,
How? When? I missed this foundation movement.
And while you are correct that religion is not argued into via reason, it is also true that it isn’t argued “out of” either. You are wrong that it is emotion or indoctrination, although the people, such as they are, who are switching to the atheist camp may have, in fact, been mislabeled because of emotion or indoctrination. People are either regenerated and believers, once for all, or they are not. The question of rationalism only comes in when we discuss defending the faith (and mostly with respect to other believers, not atheists), not finding the faith. The latter is a supernatural event that either happens, or it doesn’t.
Of course not–but that “swipe” as you call it was related to one specific point, if you go back and read my comment, namely that the new atheists who are free to attack Christian doctrine, and in principle could even be successful, haven’t done so. I challenge you to name one aspect of Christian doctrine that the new atheists have threatened. On a previous thread I contrasted this to the old atheists–especially Bertrand Russell. He made serious challenges to Christian doctrine. What has Dawkins done? He may be a genius, but has not posed any intellectual challenge to Christian doctrine. What has Harris done? Well, Harris has been a tireless apologist for mysticism, but rather a poor attacker of Christian doctrine. What about Hitchins? Well, Hitchens has been a rather stout defender of the Iraq war, but a rather poor attacker of Christian doctrine. In this regard the marquis new atheists look like a bunch of eunuchs.
I agree that at least religion should be kept in check at all times but I think most of the energies should be put into promoting scientific skepticism. Also I think that all that was missing from this blog entry was the “Mwahahahahaha!” at the end.
Odd that that didn’t bother the god when he was allegedly pootling around the garden of Eden with his pet humans and other talking animals, cheating at wrestling, speaking out of clouds on mountains and turning people into pillars of salt etc. Nor was it a consideration for the Greek and Roman gods during their alleged public speaking and smiting phases. Even the Jesus character and other supposed prophets of later times were not averse to claiming miracles. Faith only became important once people started to become wise to the non-existence of gods. The more smart alecs around sharing real world information, the shyer the gods had to be.
No this isn’t even remotely true. Every study of this shows religious indoctrination and thought is lessened by education. Leaving religion is often a long process where as conversion is quick. Polar opposites of one another. Your wrong – again.
No, they know themselves. They where believers now they are not.
This is just silliness. Theologically I may agree with you but that has no bearing on reality.
You so wrong it’s impossible to know where to begin. You claim supernatural without a definition that merits discussion, you assert something again with an unproven, unprovable premise. SO basically your chunking BS at an alarming rate.
What do you mean haven’t done so? All one has to do is read discussion boards to see that their arguments make a difference to many people. Follow on television. They have brought a huge amount of discussion on this issue.
Your so silly, it’s the only word I think that fits. Just silly. They attack the underpinnings and do so quite well. Bothering with doctrine is rather beside the point. As PZ states many are self consistent. So what? So is Islam, and Buddhism and on and on.
The answers to the arguments put forth by Dawkins et al simply can’t be answered satisfactorily without making logical fallacies come to light. It’s simple truth.
None of them are poor at attacking doctrine(first you’d have to choose one of many doctrines) they go at the foundation.
#67:
I have to agree : and when you get rid of the pretenders only the True Nuts will be left.
By their woo woo we will know them.
What are you, on a trolling spree today? How the hell can you compare an “education” in religious dogma to a true education in, um, REAL topics?
Chance,
No, they may have believed they believed, but from a Christian doctrinal viewpoint that is quite different from being a believer. Even the demons believe, etc.
Why would you need a definition of supernatural? If you don’t have that under your belt they why are you arguing? Well, this is a good enough definition as far as I am concerned: that which cannot be explained by natural causes, not even in principle. Regeneration is such an event–and I say that in agreement with your previous claim, if I understood it correctly, that people do not become believers through reason.
I never disputed that their arguments don’t make a difference, what gave you that idea? I even applauded the fact that their arguments have made a significant difference: they have caused some atheists to come out of the closet, which is a very good thing indeed. What their arguments have not done is caused anyone who was saved, or will be saved, to lose their salvation. Not one person. Nor have their arguments proved troubling to Christian doctrine or theology. I wish they had, I wish they were not so impotent in this regard, for it is a good thing when someone points out problems with our self-consistency–it allows us to make examine our thinking and make corrections. If I am wrong, give me an example.
ElJay,
Thank you, that’s perfect! This is exactly the level of the intellectual argument that the new atheists bring to bear: you have to be nuts to believe. Although they have popularized atheism, they have not advanced its intellectual basis. Instead they have set it back a couple of centuries.
Interesting, I find for the kids’ acronym FtK creepy; it always brings to mind the particularly nasty (is there any other kind?) serial killer Dennis Rader, who called himself bind-torture-kill (BTK); who, by the way, had been president of the Congregation Council of Christ Lutheran Church, a Cub Scout leader, and a registered member of the Republican Party. Funny that.
This is why you are silly. Who cares about the doctrinal standpoint? All you are doing is creating a state of circular logic. They don’t believe because they didn’t ever believe even though it is plain and obvious that they in fact did. This shows plainly you inability to be rational.
Like I said it’s unworkable as a definition. If you know about it it’s by definition natural. Within nature.
Of course they are troubling to religion- all religions. It’s the foundation that matters not this doctrine or that doctrine of which religions can’t agree in any event. It’s a waste of time and energy. Being self consistent is no big award. Star Wars is self consistent.
You call them impotent but have no evidence or proof for what they say. It is not they who is impotent.
Is it perhaps because there isn’t any more intellectual merit to the counter claim? No evidence to speak of nothing at all? It’s funny you say this about atheism but the same could be said of all religion. It’s popular and despite 1000’s of years and multitudes of religions none have advanced any intelllectual case for it that doesn’t dissolve with even the tiniest of rational, logical inquiry.
You have it exactly backwards.
#88
when you call those who do not 100% share your faith ‘pretenders’, as if you have some hotline to the True Faith that other lesser mortals do not share, well quite simply calling you a True Nut is the politest term I can think of.
Just as one can love sacred music and admire religiously-inspired architecture without being religious, can one perhaps indulge in genuine appreciation of Theology without taking to heart the (shabby) foundations of the discipline?
I don’t think I personally could—I admire logical reasoning only inasmuch as it leads to a better understanding of reality or a better understanding of important abstractions such as those in pure mathematics. But this might be an interesting face-saving avenue for theologians who find the foundations of their subject under attack.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/educate
A true education? Is that what a true Scotsman receives?
***
According to the show’s canon and developed fiction (which has been almost totally discarded by this point), the Vulcans spent thousands of years waging war on each other, almost taking their population below the viability level several times. Only the coming of Surak, with his philosophy of reason and logic, did peace come to Vulcan.
You make no sense. I wrote that they had had posed no argument against Christian doctrine, and then you argue “who cares about doctrine?” Obviously I care, otherwise I wouldn’t have brought it up. If your point is the new atheists have not challenged doctrine because “who cares about doctrine?” then you should’ve said so from the beginning. Then we would have agreed that they pose no threat to Christian doctrine, even if we disagreed on the reasons.
You claim I make circular arguments! According to you the supernatural does not exist, because if it did, it’d be natural. Perfect.
People keep asserting that but without proof. I’m as religious a person as you are likely to find, and none of the new atheism is troubling to me at all. Russell, he was troubling. Hypocrites like Hovind and Haggard: they are troubling. Fundamentalism and legalism, that’s troubling. The new generation of atheists? Sorry, not scary at all. Don’t confuse the fact that you want them to be troubling with them actually being troubling.
That would be one explanation. The other would be that they are too lazy to generate any arguments, preferring the easy and popular Dembski method: “preach loudly to the choir, write popularizations, take book tours, give lucrative lectures, etc.”
ElJay,
Nope, never made such a claim. I call those without a saving faith in Christ, even if they believe in some intellectual way, pretenders. Among true believers I have many theological disagreements–why I cannot think of anyone who is even close to sharing 100% of my beliefs. Yet I am sure the number of saved is, as described by scripture, an uncountable multitude. So on that criticsim you have missed the boat.
Confusing rationality with logic is one of the major weaknesses on our side. Call it the Spock fallacy (actually, I just Googled and it seems it already has been). Logic applied to irrational premises yields irrational results. In practical life, rationality is that which effectively leads to a desired outcome. If, as the common saying suggests, irrationality is repeating the same action and expecting different results, then rationality is correctly anticipating consistent results from a particular action.
Thus religion is rational given certain expected outcomes. Believers, however, generally misunderstand what those outcomes are. One might be tempted to claim this makes the believers irrational, and in one sense it does, but this misunderstanding is an essential component of the rationale of religion. The misunderstanding, however, is a major weakness on their side.
Morality is mostly social acceptance. Humans (by far most of them, at least) are driven to seek social acceptance. This is the reason morality would not collapse in the absence of religion. Ironically, the myth to the contrary is one of the major survival mechanisms of the religion meme. Religion has traditionally inculcated the understanding that rejection of the faith means a withdrawal of social acceptance. By affirmation of the consequent, religious leaders thus claim nonbelievers are immoral, and circularly use this false inference of immorality to justify the social outcasting. Note how in this case a tidy knot of logical fallacies amounts to a very rational scheme for driving religious cohesion.
The so-called “new atheism” is very much a product of the Internet. People who would not otherwise risk pariah status by challenging the nutty beliefs of religion in their local community can find a widespread support network online. This circumstance alone has made the environment less favorable for the religious meme. The religious meme persists in part because the disadvantages of being based on totally false claims and driving practically worthless behaviors (e.g., prayer) are less problematic for the individual than the social consequences of nonbelief.
Thus we have two obvious plausible attacks on the religious meme: reduce the cost of nonbelief or increase the cost of belief. The “kinder, gentler” atheists (those who are not simply atheist Uncle Toms at heart, anyway), are pursuing the former course. The foot is already in the door there, and once the taboo against pragmatic analysis of religious customs is reduced, religion itself is ultimately doomed to wither. The taboo need not be eliminated completely. It needs only be reduced in force to a level comparable to the substantial onus of belief itself. It is a longer-term strategy, but a far more realistic scenario for the demise of religion than the idea that it will be ridiculed into nonexistence.
This is not to say that raising the cost of belief through ridicule, as PZ and other “aggressive” atheists do, isn’t highly valuable. Aggressive atheism is a vital response in kind to the surfeit of aggressive believers. They are our front line, raising the cost of belief by attacking it in a like manner to the way aggressive believers attack us. This serves as defense, but is only a partial strategy. Atheists, however vocal, are still a minority, and substantial social networks will remain for believers despite our best efforts. Hence we cannot be fully effective in “turning the tables” on belief in the straightforward way.
In addition to its short-term militant function, aggressive atheism also helps lower the cost of “reasonable” atheism in both short and long terms. Some of us make believers feel like idiots for believing; others of us demonstrate more of a “love the sinner, hate the sin” attitude, not to enable belief but to discourage the misunderstanding of atheists as an enemy out to destroy believers personally. We need generals, but also diplomats — a carrot to accompany the stick.
The overall strategy is one that “evolutionist” nonbelievers are better equipped to orchestrate, because it is a selection strategy. Direct attacks on belief are useful only insofar as they support a broader strategy to change the environment in such a way that belief is less advantageous than nonbelief. The bottom line is that religion’s advantage is illusory, and dispelling the illusion (that nonbelievers are ipso facto bad people) levels the playing field. On a level field, atheism has the better game, because we’re playing the game instead of spending time and resources in the vain hope that a big booming voice from the sky will decree points in our favor.
sailor:
ten points for the verb “to glomb”, twenty-five more if you can decline it. i glomb, you glemb, he/she/it has glembed… =]
L
Alright clueless. I stated they do not attempt to discuss many doctrines because they are simply irrevelant past the foundation. What they say does/is pose a threat because the underpinnings of the doctrines are where the real discussion lies.
More or less your correct. If it did exist and I know about it being a natural being it makes it natural. I can only know the natural with my very organic organ systems.
I don’t want them to be anything. You don’t know my stance. The fact that it doesn’t trouble you doesn’t mean their stances are not correct. It could mean you don’t understand them, you don’t want to understand them, or you have some emotional reason to disavow them. What you/your ilk don’t seem to do is provide any evidence or counter argument not filled with logical fallacies and ad hoc explanations.
Back to being silly again. Yeah Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris are really preaching to the choir. They put their work out there and it has been accepted by a wide audience that knwos something just isn’t right with the pablum many have been told to believe or else. But of course you trash the very accomplished and hard working men who have stuck their neck out as similiar to a fraud like Dembski. You are shameful.
That is really sad. Just sad.
Nature is a closed system.
If you postulate a new phenomenon that interacts with what you know to be nature, all you’ve done is expand the definition of nature to include this new thing. Nothing supernatural exists.
Just wanted to add #95 is an excellent post. Pretty insightful.
“Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.”
There’s another way to put it: Religious ideas are typically “unreasonable” (in the vernacular) ideas that have been rationalized.
It is the very absurdity of most religious claims that has led to the frequent adoption of a hyper-rationalism which seeks to marginalize whatever “makes sense” to us, whether we are talking about sensory data or what might “seem sensible”. An overarching and oppressive rationality that incorporates what cannot be demonstrated is the best defense religion and metaphysics has against actually going out and investigating the world with an open mind (some religions do not oppose the latter, only because they’ve severed all empirical connections).
Thus ID presses its “rational” (rationalized) claims without troubling to do research (the little it does is aimed at destroying our empirical claims, not at giving their ideas empirical data). For, one cannot investigate the puff of smoke, one can only attempt to insist that their absurdities are the only “sensible way” to characterize the world.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#94,
An islamofascist sucide bomber is NOT a pretender, he has put his life on the line for his woo. He is as adamant as you that he has a hotline to the One True Faith, maybe more adamant. Your flavor of woo is Christianity, his is Islam and he is NOT a pretender.
He IS a True Nut however.
There are many religions out there and you have as much evidence for yours as they have for theirs: none.That is why it is called faith not reason or reality. Calling those who do not share your Christianity a pretender is silly.
Chance,
Stuck their necks out? Puh-leez–they may be right or they may be wrong, but they most certainly have not “stuck their necks out.” They are not risking anything–fame, fortune, career, reputation, life or limb. Indeed their fame is enhanced, their bank accounts swollen, and their careers are furthered. It is rare indeed to encounter selfless heroics such as this.
Caledonian:
Brilliant! Please publish this short proof-by-definition that God (who by definition is supernatural and who interacts with nature) doesn’t exist. Submit it to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. Many people have published much longer and impenetrable proofs that God doesn’t exist–I’m sure the community would welcome such elegance.
According to the show’s canon and developed fiction (which has been almost totally discarded by this point), the Vulcans spent thousands of years waging war on each other, almost taking their population below the viability level several times. Only the coming of Surak, with his philosophy of reason and logic, did peace come to Vulcan.
Shh! Stop talking about Star Trek before the fundies figure out that it’s the real reason we became atheists in the first place!
Seriously though, I feel like we spend to much time attacking the myriad religious dogmas, and not enough time addressing the more existential stuff that makes belief in God so important to people in the first place. Specifically, The Fear of Death,
The main reason I believed in God was because I wanted there to be an afterlife. I wasn’t brought up as a fundamentalist, so I didn’t have all the easier glaring contradictions and denial of reality to start me on my way. I was more in the main-stream of moderate/loose religion (Episcipalianism is a slippery as an eel). The last, and most fundamental bastion of faith to go was my belief in an afterlife. Once I finally acknowledged the overwhelming probability of non-existance after death, and assumed it to be the case, I was able to face my fear instead of avoiding it. I realized that faith in the afterlife was never actually helping. Instead my constant doubting of it was just making me fixate on death.
We have to show that accepting oblivion doesn’t make you miserable, just the contrary.
As a former god-bot AND former Wiccan woo-woo, I have to disagree that the seemingly innocuous “new agers” are preferable, particularly if the decline of Christianity leaves a power vacuum in (mainly) western society.
I’d have to agree that most modern-day pagans are live-and-let-live, all-paths-lead-to-the-same-afterlife, do-no-harm, anti-proselytizing folk as things stand now. Given human nature, I would argue that if any of the “harmless” new-age woo-woos get a hold on some real power, that it would change their attitude. Additionally, even though there are loads of seemingly unrelated groups of “un-herdable cats,” pagans have a unique history of co-opting differing belief systems when it’s in their best interest.
ElJay,
No, no, no, you are inventing arguments again. I don’t call a Moslem a pretender. I call him a follower of a false prophet. I assume you agree with me, unless you are a Moslem. (So I’ll ask: are you a Moslem, or do you agree with me that Mohammed was a false prophet?)
No a pretender was the term I used for someone who claimed to be a Christian, but was not. Moslems generally do not claim to be Christians. Now pretender could apply to someone who knew they weren’t a believer but went along out of peer or family or societal pressure, or it could be someone who believed in an intellectual way only (like Simon the Magician in the book of Acts) or it could be someone who was misguided, perhaps by the easy-belief-ism practiced in many evangelical churches: say this prayer written on this card and you are saved, as long as you sincerely believe. The new atheism is liberating some of these people (and as far as Christianity is concerned, only these people.) It is making proud atheists out of people who were ashamed or afraid to admit their atheism, or who didn’t realize that they were atheists. It is not making atheists out of people who were saved.
heddle:
The irony of someone attacking a “proof-by-definition” by citing a definition is so profound, presumably even Ms. Morissette would recognize it.
Why would anyone want a Molly? Swordtails and Platys are cheaper and need less space.
Whoops! wrong thread. “Don’t stare at him, children, you’ll make him feel bad.”
Tulse,
Now do I have to be pedantic about it? A definition with which I think most people would concur concerning God, whether they believe in him or not, is that he (a) is a supernatural being and (b) can interact with nature through supernatural means (miracles.)
Caledonian has defined him out of existence by arguing that such an interaction would be natural ergo the supernatural doesn’t exist and so good-bye god. Like I said, brilliant.
The irony meter, however, is still pointing at zero. Otherwise any proof by definition that, um, contained definitions, would be oh-so-ironic.
Andrew Brown never actually argued that religious belief is rational, instead he argued that it is politically expedient. Not the same thing at all.
Heddle, why would someone need to submit proof for something to not exist, when there’s no evidence of it existing in the first place?
Steve_C,
?? Why are you asking me? Why don’t you ask the people who construct such proofs? I didn’t write The God Delusion, Dawkins did. I would agree with you, at least based on what I infer from the tone of your question, that such proofs are nonsense.
heddle, you offer a definition that is logically inconsistent with Caledonian’s. Why you somehow take that to show that your definition is correct is beyond me.
Your approach is no better than those who claim that is god is “by definition” perfect, and that perfect things “by definition” exist, therefore god “by definition” exists. Definitional arguments are not at all convincing, especially when you fail to define the main term of contention, namely “supernatural”. Caledonian argues that anything observable is part of the natural world, and therefore the supernatural doesn’t exist. Your response is essentially “Yes it does!!!” — no argument, no evidence, just a definition.
So yeah, you do need to be at least pedantic, because right now you’re just being unintentionally ironic.
Heh. Actually, Dawkins doesn’t try to prove that God does not exist. He just points out that when religionists do make testable claims about what God has allegedly done, those claims can be scientifically disproven.
Judeo-Christian claim: God made a worldwide flood about 6000 years ago.
Geologists, archaeologists, chemists: Uh, we can now date stuff going back many more years than 6000 years, and there’s no sign of any flood.
Oceanographers: Also, there’s not enough water to make a universal flood.
Biologists: We can track how animal populations change and grow genetically and geographically, and there’s no sign that all animals had a population bottleneck 6000 years ago, or radiated out from a single location 6000 years ago.
(and so on).
No Tulse, you are wrong on many fronts.
The minimal definition I gave of God, a supernatural being who can interact with nature, is non-controversial and established for millennia. Furthermore, the definition I gave of supernatural in an earlier comment: that which cannot be explained, even in principle, via natural causes is also non-controversial (which doesn’t mean you can’t nitpick it) and well-established. Caledonian is arguing the supernatural doesn’t exist, because if it did it would be the natural, thereby (by definition) disproving the supernatural and, by extension, god.
Owlmirror,
Fair enough–but the point stands. Steve_C should be asking those who have attempted to prove that God doesn’t exist why they do so–he shouldn’t be asking me.
Chris @87,
Caledonian is right and you are wrong. The original universities in Europe were woven tightly into the religious fabric of the day. They might not have been “religious institutions” in our contemporary sense, but that is only because people back then did not draw the same religious/secular distinction that we draw today.
And theology was a major focus of mediaeval university education. But it wasn’t the only focus. The early universities taught things we’d recognise even today as valid fields of study, albeit in a more primitive state. (I hasten to add, should it be necessary, that “primitive” here is no pejorative. If people taught that stuff today, pejoratives would be called for. Back then, though, what they taught was state-of-the-art.)
In any event, Caledonian is very far from a troll (and if you imagine s/he is pro-religion, pass me that bong you’ve been bogarting). Cantankerous, arrogant, with a whole bushel of fundamentally-inserted wild hairs, yes; troll, no. I don’t think C. has ever actually posted anything I agree with, but I am always happy to see the posts. (And I will say this. C. very rarely makes jokes. But when s/he does bring teh funny, it is bone-dry premium grade.)
Heddle, I suggest you don’t look around to hard if you seriously believe that only “some” Christians are false by your definition. Depending on whose poll, what data or which groups you talk to, **true** Christians by your silly definitions may be anything from 10% of the population to 80%. The only thing I *am* sure of is that you are probably, as far as the fundigelicals are concerned, **not** in the 10% **they** think are true believers and not just pretenders.
Just to be clear, who, what or why do you think you have any better authority to declare who is, how many, or what standards should be applied to define, which ones are true believers and which ones are posers? Especially when the fundigelicals are right about one thing, if their insane definitions of Christianity are correct (or any other “single” definition could be called correct), then nearly everyone is a fake. You are the one making “no true Scotsman” arguments here, by making the silly and absurd gut insistence that somehow “real” believers outnumber the unbelievers, or that you personally get to insist that, just because you like Christianity (or more likely because you fell for all the dogma about it being the true faith) somehow its your side that holds all the believers, and everyone else just follows false prophets. A claim that some Jews have always made (and arguably rightly, given that the OT, which describes the coming of the messiah **insists** he was supposed to be a war leader, not a peace maker), and which many Moslems say the same thing about (even if most just insist he was sort of an in-between one, with Mohammad being the last true prophet).
Fact is.. You have nothing but your own belief that you are right to make any such assertions, and lots of historical facts, if you assume the premises of any faith being right in the first place, contradict your own assertions. But then, that is what we have been talking about all along. The “foundations” is flawed and ignorance is used to buttress it up, not facts or knowledge of the history of your own religion, which both have a disturbing tendency of instead exposing the sand underneath instead of helping.
PZ,
Hopefully the pitifully backward Morris or some nearby town has shown or will show Goya’s Ghosts (s Milos Forman film) which wonderfully illustrates this post’s primary theme. Get thy butt to a seat there poste haste…..
http://www.churchofreality.org/
Are you already a Realist? – Do you find yourself thinking about reality? Do you think that it’s important that what you believe in is actually real? Do you think for yourself rather than just believe what you are told to believe? When you counsel friends on important matters, do you advise them to take reality into consideration? Do you believe the world would be better off if reality were a more important part of society? if you answered YES to these questions, you may already be a Realist.
Hmm. Here is a good one too, from Denialist Blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/09/the_right_to_trialby_elves.php
Seems this court judge, according to the link from the only comment so far, is going through the D&D Monster Manual or something. He used to think it was “three dwarves” helping him… lol
Just thought we could use a laugh break, given the thread.
So – how does one determine the truth between two conflicting world views based on faith? Perhaps both people could pray to their deities and then have a contest with swords and the one who is victorious is the one with the stronger deity? But they’ve been running that test for centuries and the results are inconclusive. So what is left? The only way they can really determine who is correct is to turn to reality.
If one can prove scientifically that they are right then they win. But anything proven scientifically is part of the real world, the physical universe that does not require faith. So if people who have conflicting faiths want to determine what is real then they have to come home to reality.
So – let’s just skip the faith crap and start with reality? Ultimately they have to come to us because reality isn’t something that you can ignore forever. Reality doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. Faith is like kicking a rock and imagining that you are punishing the rock when you are only hurting your own foot. It’s not about what you believe in, it’s about what’s real. Ultimately is about the one reality that we all share.
No one needs to prove he doesn’t exist.
And Dawkins has stated that the universe looks exactly like one where there is no god.
He feels the same way. No atheist thinks they need to prove there is no god. The utter lack of evidence for one says enough.
“Yep, quite definitely 4 lights. Not 5. :)”
No, 5 is right out!
Isn’t that so, Brother Maynard?
Kagehi,
Sigh. As it says in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun.
Of course proponents of all religions define “true adherents.” I have been called a heretic more than once by YECS, and that’s their right. It doesn’t bother me a bit. And it doesn’t mean they are guilty of the most misapplied of all fallacies, the True Scotsman. It just means that they have a right to define for themselves their own circle of orthodoxy. For me, it is the historic creeds. If you affirm those, then I’ll consider you a Christian, although whether or not you actually are, I obviously cannot say, although I am supposed to judge you (and you, me) by deeds, not words (Matt. 7).
Are all evolutionists “true” evolutionists? Are all theistic evolutionists true evolutionists? I bet some on here would say no–are they guilty of the true Scotsman fallacy?
I never understood why this statement of the obvious is considered a criticism. Of course I believe what I believe is correct, or I wouldn’t believe it. Of course I consider Mohammed and Joseph Smith to be false prophets, otherwise I’d be a Moslem or a Mormon. Of course Moslems deny the deity of Christ, otherwise they’d be Christians. Of course atheists claim all prophets as false prophets, otherwise they wouldn’t be atheists. Everybody, not just me, thinks they are right.
Or do you actually hold to some beliefs that you know are false? If so, would you share some of your knowingly false beliefs with us?
dwarf zebu:
Live and let live or die.
Supernatural:
Hm. There’s something wrong with this. I mean, you can define the word “supernatural”, but does that mean it has any reality?
How about if I suggested that “supernatural” means “a colorless green idea that sleeps furiously”?
Or, how about: “that which is performed by the Great God Marduk”?
What, exactly, makes your definition better than those above, given that they are all logically incoherent?
Demolish the calcified, gilded hulk of Catholicism, for instance, and who knows what screaming fierce fresh horror might replace it?
PZ, you haven’t been paying attention. The three fastest growing religious movements in the world are Islam, evangelical protestant Xtianity and Mormonism. The horror is already here.
Olwinner,
What are you talking about? I didn’t make up that definition–it is, at least arguably, the definition of supernatural that we have had for ages. True, it doesn’t mean that the supernatural exists–but I didn’t claim that it did–all I said was this is the accepted definition. Arguing that it is no better than:
is just silly. Of course it is a far superior definition, because it is the one people use, and usage is king.
oops, make that Owlmirror. Sorry.
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794:
True then, true now.
And yet, on what basis do you believe it?
Am I correct in inferring from some of your comments that you are some sort of Calvinist, and believe in predestination of both faith and salvation?
What evidence has any religious figure offered for the truth of their assertions?
Owlmirror,
Well, since you ask, yes, I am Calvinist to the core. So I believe that I believe because I was regenerated (not the other way around–which is what many evangelicals teach–that you are regenerated because you believe.) Before that, I was morally incapable of believing, even though I had (and have) free will. There is no perfect secular equivalent of moral inability in spite of free will, but is close to this: a mother who is not deranged, and in no unusual circumstances, is holding her sleeping infant. She has free will. Yet she is morally incapable of suddenly standing up, swinging her peaceful child by the feet, and smashing his head on the corner of a table. Likewise before regeneration a person is incapable of accepting the gospel. After regeneration, a person is given new desires and they can and do choose to accept the gospel by their free will. So atheists are not atheists because they have intellectually rejected the gospel, but rather because of an innate moral inability (aka original sin) to accept it.
That’s all I’ll say about it–because PZ has been kind enough not to toss me out of here, but if I start praching Calvinism I suspect I’ll cross a threshold.
I think theology is actually an exercise in reason — it is an activity that has engaged some of the greatest minds of the ages, and it is a sophisticated and elaborate logical edifice.
Tolkien constructed a sophisticated, elaborate logical edifice in his conceptualization of his fantasy world, too. But if he started believing it was real, I would indeed call him irrational.
Hm. I usually agree with descriptivism, and yet there still seems to be something wrong here. Perhaps I am simply not able to define my objection correctly?
I guess that what I am trying to say is that if the popular definition for something is an inherent logical contradiction in terms, then it is not correct.
The definition “that which cannot be explained, even in principle, via natural causes” is exactly such a contradiction in terms, because there is nothing which cannot, in principle, be explained via natural causes.
You might be moved to object that we do not yet have natural explanations for everything, but please note the bolded words — we are speaking of the principles, not the actual.
Is atheism a faith?
I think the “new atheists” could be characterized as a sub-culture, with some shared terminology, cultural references, and common goals, even clusters of common assumptions. That doesn’t make it a religion.
Based on my interactions with atheists and what I’ve learned from them, I’d have to say it’s not in any sense a “faith.” It doesn’t even seem to be one phenomenon. Some atheists aren’t the typically rational, scientific sort you find here. I’ve met atheists for whom the universe is nothing if not irrational. Some view science with as much suspicion as any communication from perceived authorities, be they teachers, politicians, or preachers. Some are less anarchic, but still believe the nature of reality to be subjective. Some atheists are humanist, or techno-humanist, and believe that our intellects will flourish when liberated from outmoded, irrational beliefs. Others are solipsists, for whom everything comes down to the self, its desires and preservation. Some may be any or all of these depending on the time and situation. Those who debate the scientific, rational atheists they find here can consider themselves lucky to have such reasonable debate partners.
I consider it best to see atheism for what it is, a simple “no” to the question of faith in god. It’s not my answer, I’ll admit, but I respect anyone who comes to it through science.
heddle @ #133: you answered my middle question @#132 (and explained a bit what is involved in Calvinism as you see it), but not the first and third questions. Do you feel up to doing so?
Let’s consider the example of ghosts. Ghosts are generally considered to not be part of what we would consider the normal, everyday world, and this is what is meant when they are commonly called supernatural.
Scientists don’t bother to object, because there is absolutely no evidence that ghosts exist, so people are free to assign whatever properties they like to the concept and call them whatever they please, as long as they don’t make claims about actual, y’know, reality.
But if new evidence demonstrating the reality of ghosts were to appear, scientists would be all over it, testing and validating. If they were found to be real, they may or may not require principles beyond what we now know to explain their existence, but in neither case could we continue to call them ‘supernatural’. Either they’d be part of the old familiar natural world, or our understanding of what the natural world consists of would be expanded.
Science has and continues to encounter phenomena it doesn’t understand – at some point, everything we now understand was once terra incognita. Hell, we know that our approximations are only imperfect representations of the true phenomena we try to study, and in some cases we *know* that our explanations aren’t just incomplete, but utterly wrong. Does that make those topics supernatural?
I am, as always, flabbergasted by the number of people who have still not managed to grasp this very simple concept. The natural world is closed under interaction. Any phenomenon within the natural world may be affected and influenced by any other, and no accurate description of any part is possible without acknowledging the whole. If you postulate a new thing, either it interacts with nature or it does not. If it does not, there is no way that its asserted existence differs from its nonexistence, and any further claims about it are invalid. If it does, it is real and part of the natural world, period.
There is no supernatural, people. That doesn’t mean that psychic forces, unicorns, alien greys, and David Bowie don’t exist. But if they do, they’re natural.
Owlmirror,
There is no evidence per se; believing in Christianity is not like believing in a scientific theory. When you are regenerated you begin to sense your own sinfulness, begin to sense your inability to save yourself, and the gospel and scriptures begin to make sense, were before they were just foolishness. The only scientific evidence is prima facie: If God created the universe, I would expect it to be orderly and understandable–and it is (to a certain extent, anyway.) As for the evidence for a specific theology, that is more concrete, since at that point you are arguing what the bible says, and anyone can read it and judge for themselves.
(hysterical laughter)
Orderly? The universe is chaos incarnate, little man. And understandable?!
(ROFLs uncontrollably)
Yes, it’s understandable. Comprehensibility is the thing typically invoked to convert a philosophical skeptic’s argument against empiricism into a modus tollens against the premise of philosophical skepticism. That’s what people mean when they talk about an “understandable world” or a “comprehensible world”. It is, in short, one which is amenable to thought on at least some level.
Rather than jumping down everyone’s throat for not using the 20983579234587th revision of “Caledonian’s Personal Dictionary”, you could try asking for clarification, or simply inferring that the person doing the talking meant something like, “the world must be, at some level, stable and comprehensible to a certain extent, as evidenced by our ability to have a conversation”. Otherwise, you should probably go about laughing hysterically at Wittgenstein, Reshcer, GE Moore, Victor Stenger, and others, rather than wasting your time with commenters who ascribe a certain degree of comprehensibility to the world.
It’s an illusion. You can understand the things you can understand, and what are those? What tiny fraction of the unimaginable infinity of the cosmos can you truly comprehend?
None. You create approximations that permit you to accomplish the things you desire – sometimes. And everything else you ignore.
And isn’t it easier to take issue with this:
from other grounds besides denying a certain degree of comprehensibility (especially since that position isn’t tenable)? It doesn’t need to be the case that a world created by a God is comprehensible or orderly in any respect. Quite the opposite is true if he’s always meddling in things with miracles. And, even if God did imply order and comprehensibility, it’s obviously fallacious to think that order and comprehensibility imply God.
Caledonian,
I take it you are not a scientist–no scientist that I know would bother doing science if it were not for the belief that science is not a fool’s errand–that indeed the universe is both orderly and, to an appreciable degree, comprehensible. We have physical theories that are accurate to eight or more orders of magnitude. That is a sign of an orderly and comprehensible universe. Although counter examples are easy to find: why this would make you ROTFLYAO is one aspect of the universe that is beyond comprehension.
Hmm… I suspect a definition can be bad in any of various ways and still be “correct” in being the accepted one (or one of several commonly accepted variants). It’s more that the holders of/to it are incorrect (in one or more ways) for not noticing. “Universe” is another tricky word in a manner much like “supernatural” over what gets included.
Even the existence issue isn’t guaranteed. Take “dragon” (since it’s probably less contentious than either “supernatural” or “god” or even “religion”). There would be a number of subtly different regional / cultural definitions which all come down to being a magical beastie of some sort. None of which mean any of those dragon types actually exist.
Meanwhile, it’s supposed to be a logical (or linguistic) contradiction to put a qualifier onto certain words. Yet most people do know what is meant by doing so – and it can be distinct from the unadorned meaning (whereas some other examples aren’t, eg “honest truth”).
So when an atheist accepts the Gospel and becomes a theist, it’s like an otherwise normal mother going nuts and smashing her child’s head in?
So finding religion is the equivalent to going insane. I thought as much, but thanks for the clarification.
I agree with the content here to such an extent that it won’t force me to discount behaviors arising from self-organization in a system. What I dispute is that it is sufficient grounds for dispensing with the notion of comprehensibility, since I’m taking “comprehensibility” to mean that we can affect such an approximation. If we mean by “comprehensibility” that we can, in principle, obtain an arbitrarily precise description of any thing at any time, then of course the world is not comprehensible.
Without getting into a debate over whether the universe is orderly or not, or comprehensible or not, at least for right now…
If, as strong atheists assert, God does not exist, is there any reason whatsoever to suppose that the universe would be any different from what it in fact is?
If the universe were not whatever it is you think of as being orderly and comprehensible; if all things changed at brief but random intervals in a genuinely chaotic and incomprehensible way — would you assert that God therefore does not exist?
Which means what, exactly? Is there a definition of “sinfulness” that is distinct from ordinary human fallibility?
Save oneself from what? How do you know that there is something that one needs to be saved from?
Even the parts that contradict each other? Even the parts that contradict easily observable reality? Even that parts where God lies to Adam, and commits mass murder, and orders mass murder?
We have different ideas of what makes sense, I think.
Owlmirror,
I think all scientists, atheists or not, often express surprise and delight that the universe is as orderly as it is–that we can develop and understand theories and perform precise calculations, say in Quantum Electrodynamics. I don’t think an atheist has an a priori reason to expect
science to be as successful as it is–it could have easily (so it seems) have turned out that the mathematical descriptions were so complicated that even simple calculations were impossible. Or it could have turned out that humans simply did not evolve the ability to comprehend abstract science. But instead we have many cases where the concepts are beautiful, the equations are simple, and linearity and superposition hold. To me, now as a theist, none of this implies God, but it is consistent with the scriptural admonition that all men are without excuse and with the proclamation that the heavens declare his glory. When I was an atheist, it was simply cool.
Yes of course, that’s exactly what I said. Before I was regenerated, the gospel made no sense. Afterwards, it did.
No (because he didn’t lie to Adam) yes and yes.
Would you agree that for all practical purposes to someone who is not “regenerated”, regeneration is the same as going insane?
What is the “regenerated” interpretation of Genesis 2:17?
Oh, good grief. Go away, Heddle — your blind dogma is contemptible. Masturbate at your own blog.
Heddle thinks genocide is fine if his imaginary buddy orders it. He and the monster he worships are evil.
Charming. Well, I knew I’d wear out my welcome sooner or later. OK, I’ll answer olwmirror and skedaddle.
owlmirror,
That if he eats he will surely die. And he did. Which is why men have to be reborn (which is, of course, exactly what regenerated means.) Which is why we are described as “dead in our sins.”
It is an interesting verse though, because it shows why, contrary to the YEC claims, and the claims of those atheists who for their own purposes argue that the YEC interpretation of Genesis is the only sensible one, the literal interpretation is not the historic interpretation. Several church fathers took the days in genesis to mean a thousand years (a day is like a thousand years) so that Adam did die on the day he was born–so they tossed out the straightforward literal interpretation. Today the reformed and Roman Catholic view is that Adam died spiritually–a fate worse than physical death because he (and we) now needed a savior–while the fundamentalist/YEC view, one that in my opinion does violence to the passage, is that “the process of death” began at that time.
I’m outa here. The new atheists have me so troubled, I gotta make sure the doors are all locked.
I’m still interested in the answer to my first question @ #151….
Seriously, is anyone more deluded than this heddle fella? It’s just funny and sad at the same time.
So basically the writer didn’t know what he was saying or couldn’t think of the word age and what a bunch of guys decades later thought is more revelant? Nice.
Only someone totally deranged and in some very real ways sick could even begin to think up the above. It really, truly is sad. I feel genuine sorrow for this person.
#31 – David Marjanović:: What do you mean? I am not spiritual. Tolerant, yes (I’m only an agnosticist), but not spiritual.
#46 – Julian:: Spirituality isn’t even all that powerful an edifice. At its base, all it is is the refusal to admit that one’s childhood superstitions…. There isn’t some ingrained need for “spirituality”(what the hell does that even mean anyway?); just the developing mind’s inability to grasp a reality outside of itself, and a handful of evolutionary artifacts…
There is a religious connotation to spirituality that is false; yet that does not deny that which is natural in man. Spirituality is nothing more than the sum total of our emotions. It’s the wonder we feel in our scientific endeavors and for the beauty we perceive within them. Atheists are often seen as unemotional zombies by those in religions. They consider that atheists are in that respect inhuman. By appending the word spiritual to atheist, that “fear” or stigmatism is allayed.
For the Kids intones, in a guttural voice, while her eyes roll back and forth in her giant, hairy head:
Do you *really* believe that your goal to put a stop to religious thought is wise? Do you realize how nasty that fight could ~potentially~ become at some point? Do you *really* think that you can succeed? Have you not learned anything from religious wars throughout history? How is a battle between theists and atheists any different that a religious war…both are fighting for their faith beliefs.
Wow, you couldn’t have made that sound more threatening than if you said it in Klingon!
A lot of us are ready for this fight, baby. Bring it on….
Ummm yeah… an Adam? Ever existed? Yeahhhh, no.
What a silly silly idea.
I beg to differ.
There are 4 lights!
Yep, quite definitely 4 lights. Not 5. :)
bloody splitter!
I can hold out much longer.
there are 5 lights.
A lot of us are ready for this fight, baby. Bring it on….
careful; there’s a reason the military indoctrinates religion into the ranks.
I’m more than ready to see it come to a head…. from a distance.
:)
yeah, yeah, I’m a big chicken.
can’t we agree on non-lethal weaponry to resolve this one? maybe nerf bats or something?
If God created the universe, I wouldn’t expect it to be so damned empty. And if he thought we were so darned special, why did he tuck us in an infintesimally small corner of creation, a creation that is otherwise completely inimical to us (at least that part that we can even get to)? We at least know one quality of God — he sure is wasteful…
I’m an absolute terror with a nerf bat… let’s do this.
J Myers #164:
How are you with a Narn bat? ;^)
It’s so cute how he talks about regeneration and salvation and demons as if they had any meaning to us.
Really just reminds me how God doesn’t heal amputees. Regeneration indeed.
Isn’t it obvious? God fell for a land scam.
One day religion will outlive its usefulness to humanity. It will die not a spectacular, violent death, but a quiet death shrouded in irrelevancy. All that is necessary is to light the lamp of reason and ensure it stays on.
The first person to mention “war” in this thread was…
… FtK.
How telling.
Heddle was playing some serious Calvinball. What he doesn’t know is that I secretly touched the moral degeneration inverse will incarcerator wicket in my imagination that means all True Christians are now hellbound.
I have been bludgeoned with those on occasion.
To get a general idea of what a post-religion society might look like, perhaps an (imperfect) example would be modern day Northern Europe. There are regions where 85% of the population is atheist/non-religious, and society seems to be doing just fine, thank you. People manage to get up in the morning and go to work, raise families, and behave in a generally orderly manner — all without the aide of religion. Here in Jena, Germany, secular humanists make up the vast majority of people in all walks of life, and things look pretty much… routine. The normalcy is almost underwhelming.
To tell you the truth, it’s a bit disappointing. True, this is a disproportionately science-heavy town, but intelligence still seems to have a Gaussian distribution. “Teh Stoopid” might be far less intense in a place like this, but it’s here regardless. I guess it’s just an unavoidable part of the human experience: some people are born with a built-in craving for social-oriented bullshit, and if they can’t get it through church, they’ll get it someplace else.
If you call “the sum of our emotions” “spiritual”, you use a quite different definition than everyone else. Don’t do that. It’s misleading. Emotions aren’t supernatural, as far as we can tell (Caledonian’s definition notwithstanding)
If you call “the sum of our emotions” “spiritual”, you use a quite different definition than everyone else. Don’t do that. It’s misleading. Emotions aren’t supernatural, as far as we can tell (Caledonian’s definition notwithstanding)
On another thread, I attempted to interject something about foundations. As usual, it elicited ridicule and an attack on my apparent IQ. (By the way, I’ve never really understood this schoolyard taunt — if one really suspected another’s intelligence as being retarded, pointing that out seems to be not only argumentatively empty [how would one persuade another who lacks the mental capacity to understand?] but also an indication of the ridiculer’s depraved personality.)
That said, I’ll try again.
My argument is one without a shred of scientific evidence. I think behind religion and superstition is a (possibly) unconscious sense among many that reasoning eventually ends up with something like Aristotle’s static mover. That a foundation of some sort — pace Rorty — is required for the presence of anything. The least-clothed fashion of this as a conscious idea is something like Ed Brayton’s deism. Or maybe Eckhardt’s godhead beyond all possible description. Or perhaps Schopenhauer’s numinous Will bleeding into non-numinous structures.
I realize this all sounds like ripe mumbo-jumbo to the empiricist with magnifying glass pressed close to the hard surface of things; yet I’ve found no rational explanation, so far, that would really debunk those (surely, not retarded) thinkers who have attempted to probe beyond the surface. Hawking’s rounded-bottom Mobius strip of being hits me without much force, as does the worlds-without-end scenarios. As logical (sometimes) animals we can simply ignore the looming requirement for a foundation or let it slowly spark as a theoretical live-wire in the back of our minds. Can it really be dismissed as a mere stupefaction?
My question: would science in all or any of its forms ever be able to address the question of existence as such?
Granted, many mystics and some philosophers (Wittgenstein among them) end up answering this question gnomically, but with the implication that the irrational is woven into a serious approach.
I left out the Theory-of-Everything as another example of an unsatisfying, for me, stop-gap on the path to a final Absurd.
As a side (essential?) issue, are my comments here considered to be trollish? If my trying to bring in certain philosophical notions is thought to be inappropriate on a science board, I’ll desist.
David (#172):
I think Lynn (#157) was simply saying that what the religious call “spirituality” is not actually a metaphysical conduit to some transcendent being, but simply an artifact of the human mind. It’s not a definition, it’s an explanation.
Or maybe it’s just that a “foundation” is necessary for human thought processes, not for existence.
Don’t worry about philosophy being out of place here: it pops up all over at scienceblogs, possibly even more often than alcohol. If you want a shot of the straight stuff, go to “Evolving Thoughts” under the “BLOGS IN THE NETWORK” heading.
However, it also seems as though the less educated might benefit from religious belief. Religion gives them “meaning” and “reason” for getting up and out of bed everyday, to go and do their remedial work, fueling our economy and keeping the wheels of industry turning. Sad as it may sound, it’s true. Religion came about as simply a controlling of the masses, and it’s still around for that very reason.
people saying shit like this is why I keep thinking it’s really the followers of Leo Strauss who are behind keeping things like creationism funded and politically connected.
for those who haven’t a clue who leo strauss is, just google him.
I think behind religion and superstition is a (possibly) unconscious sense among many that reasoning eventually ends up with something like Aristotle’s static mover. That a foundation of some sort — pace Rorty — is required for the presence of anything.
you should read some of Carl Jung’s writings; you might find a kindred spirit there.
read his ideas on archetypes of the collective subconscious, especially.
once you’ve done that, realize that there is as much data for that as for your idea.
fun to play, but you gotta pay.
translation: mental masturbation is fun, but without support from the collection of data, that’s all it is.
I’ve always tended to support the idea that early tribal societies were easily duped by religious shamans (provide hierarchical structure, “plausible” explanations for strange observations, etc.), so over time, selection would favor the development of religious behavior (best fit with group dynamic).
not much more data for that idea, either, but just a bit more than for the idea of the collective unconscious driving religious ideology.
of course, Jung might have just be mislabelling what could be a genetic component to religious behavior, and some studies are beginning to support that notion.
My question: would science in all or any of its forms ever be able to address the question of existence as such?
42
#172: David Marjanović wrote: “If you call “the sum of our emotions” “spiritual”, you use a quite different definition than everyone else. Don’t do that. It’s misleading. Emotions aren’t supernatural, as far as we can tell (Caledonian’s definition notwithstanding).”
And yet man is spiritual, is he not? I have defined spirituality as completely natural. That man incorrectly defined his emotional response to the natural world/universe doesn’t mean that he didn’t have it. Spirituality in man is a completely natural phenomena.
Sometimes I think atheists are afraid to admit to any irrational emotional moment in their lives.
Spirituality in man is a completely natural phenomena.
bloody Framer!
You had me going right up until the end when you said that the bedrock of reality is naturalism and reason.
The bedrock of reality is mind (i.e., awareness, consciousness).
I can prove this logically if you like.
PZ, I found you tonight for the first time through Andrew Sullivan’s dish site. I’m impressed with the general level of discourse. Not so many idiots. Even PtK expresses his moronic opinions eloquently.
I see that you’re a fellow Minnesotan. How exciting. I’m an amateur philosopher in Minneapolis. I totally empathize with your desire to knock down the structure of fundamentalism. And there is a responsible way to do it. I’ve been working on this very issue for over seven years now. I’m just starting to get a handle on it.
I’m very anxious to say more, but only if you’re interested.
I’ll be back.
Phylo
Phylo, comments are for all to enjoy; do share.
And I think this assumption of there being some “need” is absurd in that it hardly exists in conditions where it could be validly tested in the first place. Case in point, using someone else that is “just as common” today as religious thinking. On the website ‘Denialism Blog’ they had an article about one group of cranks in the UK who did a study comparing favorite colors to the colors used to dress babies at a young age. They found a **huge** correlation between women liking red/pink, while men tended to like blue. There conclusion was, “There must be some innate difference that is merely being **expressed** by color preferences, including the picking of pink and baby blue to dress babies.” One ***huge*** problem though. Someone did a bit of searching and found an article from 1918, from the UK, which stated, “Boys should be dressed in the color of passion, as appropriate for their natures, which is pink, while girls should naturally be dressed in virginal blue.”
Sure, one some level we may, by false deduction conclude that its “likely” for things to have thinking causes. This would be derived **straight** out of early childhood experience, where everything that happened was “somehow” tied to some person in their lives. The issue here is, without help to make such a false leap, is it natural for a child to automatically postulate a “creature” that makes the wind move OR would they be perfectly happy with a force, which doesn’t think, doesn’t have specific intents, but just “is”? And why, even if that is the conclusion they reach, why is the fact that it follows logically from **past** experience make it any more *reasonable* than them making the equally false jump in logic that things which are “orange” will burn them, based on past experience with flames? Part of growing up is **figuring out** that not everything the *seems* to fit on a category, like, “orange and yellow = hot”, *is* in that category. Same goes for forces making things move vs. people or animals doing it.
90% of everything we do is based on stuff that is “non-intuitive”, in the sense that it absolutely doesn’t fit the limited and simplistic concepts we learned while stacking colored blocks. Its hardly a sign of emotional or intellectual progress when you still think a monster lives in your dryer, which eats a random sock once in a while, instead of *rational* conclusions about how they go missing. Same for concluding that thunder is the sound of gods bowling, tsunamis happen because some god got mad at a few people on the beach, or even that there is some mini god sitting around with a set of dice, deciding which way a each particle is going to go when some scientist is studying quantum effects.
I see you’re already being quotemined by Andrew Sullivan, so you must have said something right.
yeah, I can’t figure that one out.
Is Sullivan trying to trick the religious into thinking PZ suddenly changed his mind, so they go and check out the thread?
I can’t imagine a more misleading part to quote mine from.
OTOH, maybe it’s simply because it’s the first part of the post and wasn’t intended to be a quotemine at all?
Jeff’s comments (#6) about all the smart people who speak Klingon, and his wonderful ending quote, “Just because a subject has lots of information written about it and just because it’s internally consistent doesn’t mean it’s real, or true.” points out one strategy. How does the bulk of the public view those people who learn to speak Tolkienian Elvish and write reams of commentary on The Lord of the Rings, or its apocrypha like the Silmarillion? Or those who memorize whole scripts of Star Trek and write long treatises on who was the better captain, Kirk or Picard?
We view them more or less indulgently as slightly wacky, sometimes interesting, but basically harmless people with too much time on their hands and not enough of a life. (and I say this having read LOTR more times than I can count, including once all the way through out loud)
If we could eventually make theology to be seen in the same light, as a relatively harmless, as long as it doesn’t cross the line into mania, mental exercise around a work of fiction we’d be all the way there.
It’s when people begin to act, or believe, as if Frodo is real that we start to look askance.
ANF
Well, I remember arguing on this board that theology can require intellectual rigor, and I was thoroughly disagreed-with. I’m glad Mr. Myers can at least see things my way. An idea, even if it’s completely false, can still be interesting and stimulating to think about. My wife used to study at St. John’s College and they had to learn Ptolemaic astronomy. I would say even though Ptolemy was following a false premise, he applied intellectual rigor in drawing his conclusions from that premise.
Yes, but Ptolemy had observable phenomena that his claims had to be consistent with.
What objective realities are theology forced to be consistent with?
I’m with Jeff Hebert. Phrenology once had “a sophisticated and elaborate logical edifice.” Now it’s a joke because scientists were willing to keep asking for proof. Theology stops well short of that. What are they scared of?
You speak, good Sir, as would one with a very large and prominent Scepticism bump. I am given to understand that this sad & lamentable condition can be cured with the proper application of a Faith Restorative procedure by a skilled retro-phrenologist. I believe they use a large mallet, carefully applied.
I believe they use a large mallet, carefully applied.
be careful, or HMO’s might look at that and decide it is more cost effective.
then, before you know it, we’ll be getting burrholes drilled in our skulls to allow the evil spirits to escape.
Thanks PZ.
The title of the book I’ve been working on is: The Distinction
The subtitle is: How to realize intellectual, emotional, and moral balance
Here’s my introduction.
Introduction
The point I’ll be making in this book is very simple: There is an all-important distinction between what is Real and what is conceptual. (Footnote on the definition of terms. conceptual: Anything we can think of. Real: What’s going on in This Moment prior to drawing boundaries and forming concepts.)
This book is about learning to see this distinction clearly.
You will most certainly ask: Why is this distinction so important?
As I hope to demonstrate, this distinction is the most fundamental of all distinctions; and, as such, when we are confused about this distinction, we are confused about everything.
Indeed, as I hope to explain, our confusion about the Real/conceptual distinction is the reason why we are confused about even our uttermost fundamental concepts, including; things, space, time, self, truth, good and bad, etc.
In the process, I will also try to explain how our confusion about The Distinction is the source of all of mankind’s suffering and immorality.
In other words, the reason it’s so important, so vital, so critical, to pay attention to this distinction, is that, if we can clear up our confusion about it, we can end our suffering and immoral behavior.
How’s that for a good reason?
Next, I’ll post chapter one. I’m eager to hear any comments.
Here’s Chapter One:
Things
Let’s begin with our four most fundamental ideas about material things:
1) Most of us think that the material things of the world have Real (i.e., Absolute) physical boundaries in space–that there are Real points in space where the essence of a particular thing ends, and the rest of the universe begins.
2) Most of us think that material things Really Are solid, or substantial.
3) Most of us think that material things have Real (i.e. Absolute) existential boundaries in time. In other words, most people think that there are Real points in time when material “things” “come into” and “go out of” existence.
4) Most of us think that material things retain a Real (i.e., Absolute and Unchanging) identity over time and space. In other words, we think that this book in your hands right now is the same thing you picked up moments ago.
For most of us, these aren’t merely ideas that we have about Reality; this is the way the world
Really Is. In other words, when it comes to these four ideas, most of us see no distinction whatsoever between Reality and our stories about reality. In other words, when it comes to these four ideas we are ignorant of The Distinction.
Let’s take a look at the first idea.
Examination of the idea that things have
Real physical and existential boundaries in space
When physicists first started experimenting with atoms they were initially frustrated because, under certain circumstances, they couldn’t seem to find the exact location of electrons. In other words, they couldn’t seem to identify an electron’s exact existential boundaries in space.
After a while some theoretical physicists began to wonder if, under certain circumstances, electrons had a location at all. And then they began to wonder if the whole universe is ultimately non-local—-that is, not divided up into separate locations.
At the time this question was first raised most physicists thought that even asking the question was a sure sign of insanity. One of them, a physicist named John Stewart Bell, felt so strongly about putting this nutty idea of a “nonlocal universe” to rest that he designed an experiment (known as the EPR experiment) that would prove, once and for all, that reality is divided up into separate locations.
Bell’s experiment worked perfectly. But to the shock and dismay of most physicists, it proved exactly the opposite. What the EPR experiment (or Bell’s Theorem as it is commonly known) demonstrates is that, as you do something–such as blink your eye, for example–every atom of everything in the universe simultaneously behaves differently than it would have had you not blinked your eye.
Some people like to point to the “butterfly effect” as evidence that everything is interconnected. This is the theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can result in a hurricane in New Orleans. But in this analogy, the “butterfly” and the “effects” still seem to occupy totally separate locations in space and time. Bell’s experiment brings this truism all the way Home: it suggests that any boundaries in space or time that would seem to distinguish the existence of one “thing” from that of another are ultimately illusory.
In other words, Bell’s work proves that reality is not merely “interconnected”, but is ultimately an Undivided Whole.
Over the past several decades, Bell’s experiment has been repeated many times–each time with the same result.
Still, some people (including many physicists) believe that, while Bell’s Theorem might hold true on the level of sub-atomic objects, it is irrelevant on the level of ordinary objects.
But as my teacher, the Buddhist priest and author, Steve Hagen, points out in his book How the World Can Be the Way It Is, boundaries to ordinary objects are equally unreal:
…let’s consider a common object. Say a lake. Where is its boundary? What defines it?
If we don’t scrutinize our object, this question will need no answer, and we think there is no problem–we think the lines are clearly drawn and our concept matches Reality. But where does the lake actually begin and end. How about this drop of water now entering the lake? What about the little stream that drains it, or the vapor that rises from its surface. (Indeed, under these circumstances, where is the surface?) And what about the water seeping down through the ground “beneath” the lake? Is that part of the lake? (If it were not there, the seeping water might not be there either.) And is the water around this little pebble on the beach the lake? What about the fish and the microbes and the flora of the lake?
What is the lake exactly? What defines it?
Also, consider the following passage from another Zen teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh:
If you really see what you are calling “cup,” well, then, you must see the sun as well. For many eons the sun has supplied the earth with energy, and it has helped to evaporate water into the atmosphere. The water has then condensed to form clouds and, for many eons, rain has fallen on the Earth. You have to understand this if you truly see this cup, because over many eons of time, under the sun and with the rain, vegetation began to creep out upon the land, and mosses and lichens began to create soils until eventually trees appeared. These trees get their nourishment from the sun and the rain and the soil. And being so nourished, the trees grew and produced wood.
And there was the person who thought to take some clay, and working with it a while, learned to shape it into many useful forms. And someone made a spinning potter’s wheel and shaped the clay into “this cup.” All of this thinking, all of this ingenuity and activity, all of this is the “cup”–for we can’t separate all this from what we call “the cup”.
And someone fashioned an axe and took the wood from the tree and split the wood and dried it in the sun. And someone built a fire. Eventually someone thought of making an oven and baking the clay. All of this goes into our “cup”.
So, while most of us think that there are Real (i.e., Absolute) boundaries to material things, physicists and Zen teachers tell us that, if we examine this idea more closely, we’ll realize that these boundaries are mirages.
Some people will have trouble with this. These same people will typically site the well-known argument that, when I kick a boulder, it hurts. So there must be a boundary.
My response is that we need to look deeper into the boundaries that define the things we are calling “When” “I” “kick” “a” “boulder” “it” and “hurts”.
Now let’s look at the second idea.
Examination of the idea that
things are solid or substantial.
Imagine a tiny pebble, approximately half an inch in diameter, hovering in the center of a two hundred yard wide sphere.
In this oversimplified model, the tiny pebble in the center would represent the neutrons and protons of an atom. Traveling at the edge of this huge sphere would be the various electrons, which would be about the size of tiny grains of sand. In between the pebble and the tiny grains of sand is nothing at all.
Now you understand that an atom is almost entirely empty space.
And if atoms are almost entirely empty space, then they’re not what we would call solid or substantial, are they?
Also, the subatomic particles–the electrons, protons, neutrons–aren’t anything that we could rightly call solid “matter” either. As Fritjof Capra explains in his book, The Turning Point:
At the subatomic level, matter does not exist with certainty at definite places, but rather shows “tendencies to exist”… In the formalism of quantum mechanics, these tendencies are expressed as probabilities and are associated with quantities that take the form of waves…they are not “real” three-dimensional waves like water waves or sound waves. They are “probability waves”–abstract mathematical quantities with all the characteristic properties of waves.
As any good physicists will tell you, if you dig deeply into the essence of matter, you won’t find anything solid or substantial. Instead, you’ll find mathematical abstractions. In short, you’ll find ideas.
That same physicist will then go on to explain that even these mathematical abstractions aren’t built on the solid ground of intellectual certainty. They’re founded on what is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. In other words, they’ll tell you that, in quantum physics, even our ideas about matter are inherently uncertain (i.e., insubstantial).
However, you don’t need an advanced degree in physics to understand the ultimate emptiness of things. For centuries now, successful Zen students have been coming to the same realization as the physicists; only they have done so through the practice of meditation, or what could also be called “mindfulness”. (For the sake of brevity and continuity, I’ll leave it up to the reader to explore this topic further. There are many good examples of Buddhist teachings on emptiness, but one of the best is the sixteenth century Buddhist teacher, Nagarjuna’s, Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness. Nagarjuna is, however, notoriously difficult reading and you should find a good teacher to guide you. Unfortunately, they are few and far between.)
Now let’s look at the third idea.
Examination of the idea that
things have Real boundaries in time
Most of us think that things have Real boundaries in time–that they have a Real beginning (i.e., an Absolute point in time when they come into being) and a Real ending (i.e., an Absolute point in time when they stop existing).
When did this book in your hands actually begin?
If you think about it, we can come up with any number of answers to this question. We can say that it began when it first rolled off the binding machine, or when the publisher first agreed to publish it, or when I wrote the first sentence, or when I first had the idea to write it, or when the trees were processed into the paper, or when the trees were first harvested, or even when the seeds of those trees first germinated. We could go on indefinitely.
There isn’t just one Absolutely True answer to this question; it all depends on how you look at it.
Still some people might argue that this book came into existence the instant it rolled off the binding machine. After all, they might argue, before this exact point in time there was no finished, bound book; but after this point in time there was.
But when we move in for a closer look at this supposed boundary in time, we’ll find what we found when we went looking for the boundary to the lake:
Let’s say that we were to film the book coming off the binding machine. And let’s say that we use a camera that shoots 60,000 frames per second. If there is a Real (i.e., Absolute) beginning to the book, we should be able to identify THE exact frame in which the book first appears. And of course, in the frame immediately before it, we should see “no book.” (Steve Hagen makes this same basic argument in his aforementioned book.)
Do you see how finding this frame would be impossible?
Do you see how there is no ONE Absolute point in time when this book (or anything else) comes into existence?
And if there are no beginnings, there, of course, cannot be any endings, because a thing must begin before it can end.
In other words, while we commonly think that things pop in and out of existence, when we look more deeply, we find, in fact, that “this” flows seamlessly into “that”. Indeed, so seamlessly that there is no “this” and no “that”–but we’ll come to that shortly.
Now let’s take a closer look at the fourth idea.
Examination of the idea that “things”
retain a particular identity over space and time.
Most of us think (and unquestioningly assume) that things retain a particular identity over space and time. We think that this book, for instance, is the same thing we picked up moments ago; we think that there is something about this book–some core essence–that remains the same.
But, as any physicist will tell you, atoms are in a constant state of rapid and dynamic change. There is no such thing as an atom in a steady state. And of course, all material things are made of atoms.
So, if all things are made of atoms, and atoms are in a constant state of rapid and dynamic change, then what is it about material things that remain the same over space and time?
If you answered “nothing,” give yourself a gold star.
Again, Zen teachers are in agreement with physicists on this; they are constantly reminding their students that, ultimately, everything is nothing but continuous, thoroughgoing change.
And what’s important to understand is that this change is so continuous and so thoroughgoing that there are no things at all. There is simply an ever-changing, boundless stream of activity.
After all, for something to be considered a “thing” there must be some permanence to it; it must continue, as it’s self from one moment to the next. And, empirically speaking, nothing like this can be found.
We only think that things retain some particular identity over space and time. This is merely the way we have conceptually packaged the world. If you look deeper–i.e., as deeply as physicists and Zen teachers– you’ll see that, ultimately, no such frozen identities can be found.
What we have learned from the
examination of these basic ideas
Let’s review what we’ve learned so far:
1) We commonly think that there are Real (i.e., Absolute) physical boundaries to things, but Ultimately no such boundaries can be found.
2) We commonly think that things are substantial, but Ultimately no such substantiality can be found.
3) We commonly think that there are Real (i.e., Absolute) temporal boundaries to things, but Ultimately no such boundaries can be found.
4) We commonly think that things retain a particular identity over time, but Ultimately no static identities can be found.
Through examining these four ideas we’ve learned that there is a fundamental difference–and indeed, an apparently complete contradiction–between the way we think the world is and the way the world Really Is: We think that “things” are something in particular, but when we look deeper we find that Ultimately they are Nothing In Particular.
And in Western logic it’s generally assumed that, when there are two directly contradictory ideas, one must be right and the other must be wrong. And the right one should be held onto, and the wrong one should be disregarded.
But what we’re actually seeing here are the two fundamental aspects of things–the conceptual aspect and the Real aspect. And, if we want to have a fuller, clearer understanding of things, we need to learn to take both aspects into account at the same time. Neither one should be disregarded.
The idea that there are two fundamental aspects to things is not an original idea of mine. This theme is central to both Buddhism and Taoism. And, in the last century or so, physicists have come to the same basic conclusion. They call the two aspects Wave and particle.
It might interest (and comfort) you to know that it was extraordinarily difficult (both intellectually and psychologically) for the physicists to deal with this fundamental contradiction at first. How could something be both wave and particle at the same time?
But after wrestling with this for a while they eventually succumbed to the realization that, if you want to understand what an “electron” is, you have to learn that there are two seemingly contradictory aspects to “electrons”, and you have to learn to take both of them into account at the same time.
Actually, it was this very realization that led to the development of quantum theory. Which is remarkable because quantum theory is arguably the most successful theory ever developed. Quantum theory opened up a whole new understanding of the world–an understanding which, in turn, led to an explosion of creativity: Within mere decades of the formulation of this theory they had the knowledge and the ability to do what had previously seemed impossible; they knew how to examine the interior of the human body without opening it up (MRIs), they knew how to open a garage door from two hundred feet away with the push of a button; and many other remarkable things.
And I think that the rest of humanity can experience this same kind of explosion. Currently, our potential and our creativity are being stifled by our confusion about things. Because we don’t see a clear distinction between what is Real and what is conceptual we spend far too much thought and energy working on, and worrying about things that are ultimately illusory, which subsequently leads to frustration, cynicism and despair.
If we can clear up our confusion we’ll start to focus more of our attention on what is Real (i.e., what’s going on in This Moment prior to dividing the universe into concepts); hence our actions will be more sane, and therefore more appropriate and effective.
Our potential is further stifled by the fact that we have a limited view of things. Most of us only see the static, bounded aspect of things, not the dynamic, boundless aspect. If we can clear up our confusion and learn to take both aspects into account, we will break through false intellectual barriers (like the idea that a thing can’t be both wave and particle at the same time) and realize a fuller, clearer, more dynamic understanding of things.
Note: So far I’ve been talking about the intellectual aspect of The Distinction. I’ll continue to do this throughout Part One because that’s the whole point of this part of the book. But it’s very important to understand that that’s not enough. We must also understand it emotionally and physically. In other words, we must know The Distinction in our hearts and in our bones before it becomes fully clear.
How our confusion about things is related to suffering
Before we can understand how our confusion about things is related to suffering, we have to first understand how desire is related to suffering.
For many people, this connection isn’t so clear: desire is more often associated with fun and excitement–like when we’re going shopping, or trying to win a competition, or rooting for a character in a film.
But if you take a good look at fun and excitement, you’ll start to realize that they always come along with a small aching, a longing. We ache to have that special item. We yearn to win the competition. We long for our favorite character to get out of the jam. That’s what makes it exciting.
So, desire always involves some level of aching and suffering. But there are times when we enjoy the suffering a little bit.
Of course, there are times when desire can also be excruciating. Like when we deeply desire companionship, or enough money to pay the bills, or just a little more life.
The range of suffering can be great. But no matter where we are on the continuum, suffering is always a function of desire. There is no suffering that doesn’t also involve some form of desire. (Note: I make a distinction between pain and suffering. Pain is actual physical or mental discomfort; suffering is the desire to not have the physical or mental discomfort. So suffering is something that we, ourselves, pile on top of pain.)
Once it’s clear that suffering is a function of desire, it starts to become clear how our confusion about things is related to suffering.
After all, what is it that we desire?
We desire things of course.
And not just physical things like quality food, a comfortable home, sex, and a functional car; we desire mental things like love, success, winning, freedom from pain, security, serenity and so on.
And, as we’ve just seen, we are deeply confused about things. We think that things are something in particular and that’s it. We aren’t aware that there is this other aspect to things–this Nothing In Particular aspect.
And because we aren’t aware of the Nothing In Particular aspect, there is always the potential for people to get way too carried away with their objects of desire, and thereby fall into deep suffering.
This is why we must also take the Real aspect into account. In doing this, our passion for anything is going to be tempered by the fact that we are fully aware that the things we’re suffering over so terribly are, ultimately, Nothing In Particular.
And when we realize how painful and pointless it is to suffer over Nothing In Particular, we let go of our object of desire as quickly and as naturally as withdrawing our hand from a hot pan.
This is not to suggest that we should suppress or ignore our desires for things and just try to act happy and serene. That would be to suggest that we try to ignore the conceptual aspect of our experience, which would be just as foolish as ignoring the Real aspect. Should we not want food? Should we not want good health? Should we not want to have good relationships with our relatives, friends and colleagues? The results of a philosophy that ignores, or suppresses all desires would clearly be a disaster.
Besides, wanting to suppress, or ignore our desire for things just replaces one desire with another. Now we desire to have no desire. So we’re suffering because we don’t want to suffer any more. Clearly this strategy for freeing ourselves from suffering is a failure.
This is why we must learn to take both aspects of things into account at the same time: It helps us to find a balance between the painful extremes of asceticism or nihilism on one hand, and runaway obsession and greed on the other.
How our confusion about things is related to immorality
If you think about it, most, if not all of our immoral behavior, is, in some way, related to our inability to temper, or moderate our desires.
But this is only a problem for us because we tend to take just the conceptual (i.e., something in particular) aspect of things into account. When we take the Real (i.e., Nothing In Particular) aspect into account, this isn’t as much of a problem for us because we understand how ultimately foolish and painful it is to hang on too tightly to our objects of desire. (It’s foolish because ultimately, we’re trying to hang on to Nothing In Particular. And it’s painful because, as we just saw, hanging on to our desires is, in and of itself, suffering.)
This is why it’s so vital that we learn to take both aspects of things into account. It helps us to temper our desires. And tempering (not abandoning or ignoring) our desires is the essence of morality.
This is why it’s so important to pay attention to The Distinction.
The main point of the book will be clearer after you’ve read the first five chapters (things, time, space, self, truth). I’ll post the others if at least seven people say they want to read more.
I’m anxious to see any comments, critical or otherwise.
Phylo out.
IanR: The problems with religion are not mere tribalism – all religions make claims about the world, so these, like any such claims, are open to check and so on. When they fail to match up, religions do not have a good track record about changing them rationally. In fact, in most cases their very epistemology is hundreds of years out of date itself …
andy: Dunno about the US, but in Canada there are some universities with both faculties of religious studies (which often come close to social studies of religion, etc.) and schools of theology, which train people to be clergy. McGill (in Montreal) is one such place.
Gelf: To be fair, it appears that Vulcan logic includes epistemology, and probably an ethics and metaphysics as well. (Diane Duane noted this in Spock’s World where there’s a suggestion that “logic” is a mistranslation).
Tim B.: Why do you think that? Democritus realized 2450 years ago that matter can be eternal – and now we know that’s likely the case – at least no date is known for conservation laws. (Shorter: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a pseudoproblem in a naturalistic world view and a non-literal question even in a theistic one.)
Phylo Se Fizer: May I suggest a better physics text, not one that engages in bastardizations of quantum mechanics. As noted 40 years ago, it is possible to prove rigorously that QM doesn’t have any subjectivist conclusions. See Bunge’s edited collection Quantum Theory and Reality, which has TWO papers that do just this. (One by him, one by Popper.) And for more technical detail than you can shake a stick at, vol. 1-2 of B’s Treatise on Basic Philosophy will fill in the gaps on the theory of reference implicitly used in Bunge’s earlier paper.
Keith Douglas on Tim B’s point. The question “Why is there something rather than nothing” is a shorthand way of saying that matter can not account for it’s own existence. It is clearly conditional – it can be or not be (we see it destroyed), therefore it can’t be the source of it’s own existence. I think the problem is real rather than pseudo.
Ah, yes. C’thia, roughly translated as “reality-truth”.
Suggesting that logic is possible without ethics is absurd.
I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to explain how anything I’ve said is a bastardization of quantum theory. As far as I know, I didn’t make any subjectivist conclusions. Are you sure you read (and understood) my piece? The whole point is that it is impossible to make any absolute conclusions about any thing.
On something and nothing.
The question “Why is there something as opposed to nothing?” is a nonsensical question. Nothing isn’t opposed to something. Why the assumption that we can have only one or the other? Something and Nothing exist together. If you start with the assumption of something, you’ll find nothing. If you start with the assumption of nothing, you’ll find something. Indeed, in my long post above, I make the argument that there is both a something and a Nothing aspect to every thing.
Prove it.
PZ,
I was disappointed in your response to my post. You seem to be attacking some book I might have quoted from rather than anything I’ve written. I can only defend what I have written. I would be very interested if you could point out even one thing that I’ve said that is wrong, or even questionable. No one else has been able to do that yet.
Thanks.
Hmm. Tell me Phylo, why does a thing **have to have** a distinct boundary to be bounded? Isn’t that just a philosophical conceit in itself? Could not objects, one some level, be like a water balloon. The shape is indistinct, but limited in the shape it “can” be bent into, you cannot change its size, mass, etc., no matter how much you push, crush or stretch it, short of popping it, and thus altering its nature in the process. Obviously, a water balloon both “has” and “doesn’t have” a distinct outline, or a specific shapes, or a clear boundary, it changes as needed, to conform to other objects around it. So too with atoms. While they may not have a distinct shape, size, etc., they *are* bounded by limits, do not change their fundamental natures, and how they effect other things around them *is* limited by the bounds of those other atoms that come near them. The butterfly cannot cause a storm on the other side of the world, since the *bounds* of its effect are insufficient to overcome the bounds of all other things between it and the point you imply it may effect. It *may* cause a local effect though, which *is* within the limits of what its own bounds can effect. Put simply, one butterfly is not enough, and a thousand could just as easily counter each other as cause the storm. Meanwhile, a cube the same weight as the butterfly will have no more effect if alone, or if a thousands where to rest on the ground. **Its** bounds are more limited, more restricted, and thus even less significant than the butterfly. The only illusion broken here is the one that implies that the boundaries are “rigid”, not that a boundary exists, or what that generally means. To prove otherwise, you must first disprove the concept of equal forces. That the force of one loosely bounded atom **does not** have an effectively equal and opposite force on the one next to it, save where some outside force adds energy. If two atom, side beside, produce a result that looks like a + b = 0, then the resulting object is *still* bounded, still distinct, and is still not “connected” to the entire rest of the universe, in the sense you mean. And if it isn’t, then there are still going to be limits. Perhaps in one instant is it a + b = 4, the next it is a + b = -1, and the next a + b = -3, the end result is *still* a + b = 0, the object remains distinct, the boundary real, etc.
And even if it is an illusion. Why does it matter? For all practical purposes, to any being that is not omniscient, what the sun “may” have done a thousands years ago to something, which eventually produced a bit of clay, is no more pertinent to the “appearance” of a cup than if it had happened two thousand years ago instead. The limits of its *effect*, as far as things alive “now” is irrelevant, even if it is in some fashion real, in the grander scale. It solves nothing in the present, where only one person “can” use that piece of clay to make a cup, or drink from it at that moment in time.