Daniel Larison weighs in on Noah Feldman's "all religions are equally implausible" line of argument.
« Ron Paul and the Fringe | Main | Will Smith, Reprogrammed » Religion, Reason and Relativism09 Jan 2008 04:54 pm Comments (175)
Did everyone else predict that the first commenter would be the pathetic MoeLarryAndJesus? Help me out with the pathology Mr. Moe. you're a joke. 
I like Larison's post. He moves the focus onto the content of Mormonism, its actual beliefs and doctrines. This is good and gets us away from fruitless debates about revelation. Non-Mormons want to know about doctrinal truth-claims about the nature of God, the world and human beings. These are things that can hopefully be talked about at a level of theological and philosophical refinement. Non-Mormons do not want to hear about personal experiences of faith related to the BOM. They do not want to hear about their contrarian readings of disputed biblical passages. Those get us absolutely nowhere. Mormons: help us to understand in propositional language what it is Mormons believe. Be specific. Make your statements as logically and systematically tight as you can. Do not wax about how you love Jesus--we get that. I posted on the other thread a book which I have found very helpful on historical matters. It has an anti-Mormon animus. But it is relied upon by many professional scholars for its ample historical documentation, which has simply been cobbled together nowhere else as well as it is here: "The Changing World of Mormonism" http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm
Jeff Feagles writes: "Help me out with the pathology Mr. Moe. you're a joke." And Jeff Feagles is a uniform whore. "Feagles wore number 10 during his first year with the Giants in 2003. After the Giants drafted Eli Manning, he agreed to switch to number 17, coinciding with the number of seasons he was entering that year. In return for receiving the coveted number, Manning agreed to fund Feagles' family vacation. The next year, upon the signing of Plaxico Burress from free agency in 2005, Feagles again sold off his number 17, agreeing to wear 18 instead (2006 was his 18th year), in exchange for a new outdoor BBQ addition to his house."
Ross T. writes: "Non-Mormons want to know about doctrinal truth-claims about the nature of God, the world and human beings. These are things that can hopefully be talked about at a level of theological and philosophical refinement. Non-Mormons do not want to hear about personal experiences of faith related to the BOM. They do not want to hear about their contrarian readings of disputed biblical passages. Those get us absolutely nowhere." In other words you want to hold all Mormons to a standard 99% of "mainstream" Christians can't live up to when it comes to their own religion. That would be funny if it weren't so typical.
MoeLarryAndJesus, And what have you done with your life?
Jeff Feagles asks: "And what have you done with your life?" Enjoyed it, Jeff. It's what can happen when you don't see it as a dress rehearsal for an afterlife.
This then forces these Christians to argue that all these things are purely a matter of faith, where faith is defined not only as something inspired and the result of God’s grace (which it is), but also as something arational, rather than understanding that it is faith rightly understood that is the highest form of rationality. Could someone please explain this to me? In what sense can faith be understood to be "the highest form of rationality"?
Let's say for the sake of argument that Mormonism is less plausible than say Catholicism. Do you think catholicism is "plausible"? If not, does that diminish its worth as a religion? If so, do you think that factualy inaccurate passages in the bible affect its plausibility?
Look everybody, it's Jim Keane/MoeLarryAndJesus, the adolescent forty-something who has nothing better to do with his life than call everyone who disagrees with him stupid! Did you guys know he's like really, really smart? And did you also know that we are all really, really stupid? Fascinating, huh? If he keeps saying it over and over, it may one day be true! He also has an overbearing wife and issues with his Mommy and Daddy! Look at this brilliant little nugget from Moe-daddy: "Enjoyed it, Jeff. It's what can happen when you don't see it as a dress rehearsal for an afterlife" Because everyone knows that only atheists have fun in life! You know, Nietzsche, Camus, Schopenhauer, Sartre, just paradigms of optimism and living life to the fullest. Without a doubt, happy, happy people. Derrick, Derrick, Derrick...
I recognize that this is a sensitive subject that very few people are open to persuasion on. I also greatly enjoy Ross's blog. But I feel compelled to object to Ross's continuing effort to put down Mormonism as less "plausible" than his own religion. The relative plausibility issue is minor compared to the extremem implausibility of most popular religions. If Ross believes that reason can be brought to bear in favor of religious belief, I'd be interested to know why (top of mind questions) 2)How do we know which parts of, say, the Bible are meant literally? I am guessing Ross does not believe in the great flood, or that the world was created in seven days? Why not? The only compelling religious argument I have encountered is the enormous number of people (many far smarter than me, I'll admit) who have believed in the supernatural in some form. But the catch to that argument, is those people have believed in very different things and their majority crumbles in the face of any kind of definition of belief. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that if Ross has put out a defense of the reasonableness of his faith, I would be interested in reading it. Tom
Moe thinks that because the vast majority of Christians aren't able to intellectually defend their faith, this somehow makes the faith untrue, worthy of further ridicule, or at least all attempts by the intellectuals to do so pointless. Of course, the vast majority of people can't intellectually defend much of anything. I'm sure most Americans couldn't give a learned discourse on why every man has certain inalienable rights (how many people have read John Locke?). Does this make any intellectual defense of natural rights absurd? Of course not.
"Because everyone knows that only atheists have fun in life! You know, Nietzsche, Camus, Schopenhauer, Sartre, just paradigms of optimism and living life to the fullest. Without a doubt, happy, happy people." They all seem to have been much happier than Derrick. Of course I said nothing about "only atheists" having "fun in life." Derrick's stunning lack of wit and subtlety once again leads him to a faulty conclusion.
Derrick again: "Moe thinks that because the vast majority of Christians aren't able to intellectually defend their faith, this somehow makes the faith untrue, worthy of further ridicule, or at least all attempts by the intellectuals to do so pointless." Moe thinks no such thing. There may come a day when Derrick will make a salient point about something, but it doesn't look like this is that day.
That's right, silly me. The only thing Moe thinks is that he is smarter than everyone else. Let me know how the search for the therapist is going, Moe.
Derrick strikes out: "That's right, silly me. The only thing Moe thinks is that he is smarter than everyone else." Again, untrue. I'm quite sure I'm smarter than Derrick, but that's such a low standard it almost makes me feel badly about myself. I think Rainbow Man Rolle Stewart was probably smarter than Derrick. For more information about Rainbow Man, see this: http://www.pacifier.com/~dkossy/rainbow.html
Derrick, "Moe thinks that because the vast majority of Christians aren't able to intellectually defend their faith, this somehow makes the faith untrue" Derrick, can you intellectually defend your faith? Can you point us to someone who you think has? Tom
I was hoping we could maybe make this thread about the Larison's insightful essay. Again, it's the theological truth claims--doctrines, ideas, concepts, dogmas--that are important in having a discussion. Not competing revelations.
Oh Moe, you are no doubt a genius, certainly smarter than all of us morons who post on this blog. But you also have serious psychiatric problems (don't worry, most geniuses do, so don't feel too bad). I desperately urge you to have those looked into. You need to face some of those events in your history that have turned you into a pathetic, bitter liberal who has nothing better to do with his life than spend a significant majority of it on a conservative blog insulting people. Tom, I think I can intellectually defend my faith. Although, as Moe so correctly pointed out, I am a dullard, borderline retarded, so I won't bother here. As far as other people? Well, I'm a scary Papist, so obviously I'm going to have to go with Aquinas (but Moe can no doubt refute the entire Summa Theologica in two sentences). John Henry Newman, especially An Essay In Aid of a Grammar of Assent serves as nice counter-argument to Hume. Cardinal Ratzinger, now the Pope, has made some significant contributions to theology. My favorite theologian now living is in fact Eastern Orthodox, David Bentley Hart.
Ross T. says: "I was hoping we could maybe make this thread about the Larison's insightful essay. Again, it's the theological truth claims--doctrines, ideas, concepts, dogmas--that are important in having a discussion. Not competing revelations." I could see how you might say that if you're an adherent of a religion which has a lengthy history of painstaking (and often ridiculous), endless theological masturbatory exercises, but why should rationalists respect that in the absence of any convincing facts underlying those exercises? Tolkien had a deep and impressive framework when he was writing "The Lord of the Rings," while H.G. Wells was basically winging it when he wrote "The Time Machine," but that doesn't make hobbits more real than Morlocks. It's still a tie.
Ross T. You ask Mormons to come out and logically explain what they believe and then you immediately link to a book that, from looking over the chapter headings, seems to have almost nothing to do with that subject. What gives?
Locke ain't the fount for Natural Rights, guys. (And it isn't even Ockham, as contrary to what some historians who should know better claim.) Go back and start mucking around in what the Decretists say in canon law. So in some ways, yes, it does go all the way back to the Catholics--very much before the split. (IMO Christianity ran into a rock with Martin Luther and turned into a pumpkin with the Catholic/Protestant split. Once your religion gets hooked on Revealed Truth and the lack of any intervening authority, who's to say which Revelation Of God is the correct one? You might as well listen to that nutso down in Texas who killed and cooked his girlfriend, claiming God told him to do so. Who's to say he's wrong?)
Derrick, i don't think that Moe has psychiatric problems. Some of us get our kicks watching greyhound races, others writing silly comments on blogs. I actually agree with most of what Moe writes except on the topics of religion, abortion, and homosexuality. My personal favorite Christian thinker (also one of the favorites of the late Pope Paul VI) is Simone Weil. very heterodox on some issues, but also very clear in her love and devotion to Jesus Christ. Moe, if your views in politics are at all left-wing, you should really look into Simone Weil. You probably already agree with her- and me- on a great many issues of social justice, she just might convince you that without Christ, there ultimately is not and shall never be any social justice.
Feldman had it half right. Every religion suffers from the fact that there's no compelling reason to believe them, which is slightly different than saying every religion is equally implausible. Better stated, it should say: every religion is equally worthy of doubt.
Derrick writes: "I'm a scary Papist, so obviously I'm going to have to go with Aquinas (but Moe can no doubt refute the entire Summa Theologica in two sentences)." Well, here are two sentences from that work of genius: "It would seem that the virgin's aureole is the greatest of all. For it is said of virgins (Apocalypse 14:4) that they "follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth," and (Apocalypse 14:3) that "no" other "man could say the canticle" which the virgins sang. Therefore virgins have the most excellent aureole." I believe that quote was also used in "Derrick and Thomas's Excellent Adventure." Derrick also wrote: "I think I can intellectually defend my faith. Although, as Moe so correctly pointed out, I am a dullard, borderline retarded, so I won't bother here." Thus is the world deprived of a singular work of genius. I shall rend my garments now.
Moe, you need to pay closer attention to the style of the 'Summa'. Whenever St. Thomas Aquinas prefaces something by 'It would seem that', he is introducing the point of view that he _doesn't_ believe, and which he will proceed to negate further on in the article. Aquinas apparently believed in fairly presenting the arguments of his opponents, and showing the best possible arguments for them, before refuting them. You might learn a thing or two from him on that score.
Hector writes: "My personal favorite Christian thinker (also one of the favorites of the late Pope Paul VI) is Simone Weil. very heterodox on some issues, but also very clear in her love and devotion to Jesus Christ. Moe, if your views in politics are at all left-wing, you should really look into Simone Weil." Some of my views fit that description, Hector. As for poor Simone Weil, I think she would have been better off with a little less love for Jesus and a little more love for French cuisine.
Moe, she died from going on a hunger strike to protest the Nazi regime. I would think that that would be an admirable thing, not something to be laughed at. Why is it that the Jesoids can do no right in your eyes?
Hector tells me: "Moe, you need to pay closer attention to the style of the 'Summa'. Whenever St. Thomas Aquinas prefaces something by 'It would seem that', he is introducing the point of view that he _doesn't_ believe, and which he will proceed to negate further on in the article. Aquinas apparently believed in fairly presenting the arguments of his opponents, and showing the best possible arguments for them, before refuting them. You might learn a thing or two from him on that score." I know his method of operation, Hector, but in this case he didn't actually negate the original statement at all - he qualified it. Here you go: "I answer that, Precedence of one aureole over another may be considered from two standpoints. First, from the point of view of the conflicts, that aureole being considered greater which is due to the more strenuous battle. Looking at it thus the martyr's aureole takes precedence of the others in one way, and the virgin's in another. For the martyr's battle is more strenuous in itself, and more intensely painful; while the conflict with the flesh is fraught with greater danger, inasmuch as it is more lasting and threatens us at closer quarters. Secondly, from the point of view of the things about which the battle is fought: and thus the doctor's aureole takes precedence of all others, since this conflict is about intelligible goods. while the other conflicts are about sensible passions. Nevertheless, the precedence that is considered in view of the conflict is more essential to the aureole; since the aureole, according to its proper character, regards the victory and the battle, and the difficulty of fighting which is viewed from the standpoint of the battle is of greater importance than that which is considered from our standpoint through the conflict being at closer quarters. Therefore the martyr's aureole is simply the greatest of all: for which reason a gloss on Matthew 5:10, says that "all the other beatitudes are perfected in the eighth, which refers to the martyrs," namely, "Blessed are they that suffer persecution." For this reason, too, the Church in enumerating the saints together places the martyrs before the doctors and virgins. Yet nothing hinders the other aureoles from being more excellent in some particular way. And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections." So you have "most excellent" versus "more excellent in some particular way." I think it's all quite funny.
Derrick, Your decision not to personally defend your views here is unfortunate. You make a joke, but provide no explanation. Of course time is short for us all. I was hoping for a particular short essay you found powerful. "An Essay In Aid of a Grammar of Assent" is available on-line so I may take a shot at it although 500 pages is more than I was looking to commit to this argument. I will make a final request - can you offer your explanation to my first question? Tom
Hector replies: "Moe, she died from going on a hunger strike to protest the Nazi regime. I would think that that would be an admirable thing, not something to be laughed at. Why is it that the Jesoids can do no right in your eyes?" She was in the French Resistance for a while, wasn't she? That seems quite right to me. Starving to death while living in England to protest the Nazis doesn't seem admirable to me - it just seems like the manifestation of a mental illness. I wouldn't call her a Jesoid, though. We've been over this. Check your notes.
Hector, you can defend the pathetic loser if you like; I merely pity him. Why can the Jesoids do no right in his eyes? Because, like I said, he's got serious Daddy issues, like most atheists. He hates the Big Guy in the Sky, just like he hates his own Pops. Why does he constantly talk about how smart he is, incessantly degrading everyone else's point of view (with little to no substantive support, only sophistries and attempts at wit)? Two reasons: his Mommy did not give him enough love as a child, and was most likely quite overbearing. Thus, he lashes out at others. He most likely married an overbearing wife (to replace Mommy), and thus finds relief in insulting others on a relatively obscure conservative blog.
On the matter of 'faith' being the highest form of rationality... A slippery way of saying it, no? I agree if Larison is referring to reason's infinite regress -- its incompleteness -- and the fact that to actually use reason for something it's ultimately necessary to take a "leap of faith". But this is a very particular kind of faith: it is trust that you are close enough to truth to 'halt' yourself searching for truth. If, instead, Larison is saying that reason necessarily ends in submitting to a particular Revelation -- not intuition, not instinct, not an ineffable feeling, but language-based Revelation -- then he is absolutely wrong.
"Why does he constantly talk about how smart he is, incessantly degrading everyone else's point of view (with little to no substantive support, only sophistries and attempts at wit)?" I most certainly don't do this to "everyone else's point of view," of course. That's plainly a lie, and it's one motivated by the fact that I have treated Derrick that way. I've simply never seen him make a point or express a view that was worthy of any other reaction. It's instructive to see how he jumped on the opportunity Tom G. offered him to defend his beliefs intellectually - he simply couldn't be bothered to try, and he's not honest enough - with himself or others - to admit that he isn't up to the task. It doesn't take any "substantive support" to dismiss the comments of such a nitwit.
The previous thread also provided a fantastic essay called "Is Mormonism Christian?" I thought I would repost it. It's very respectful and worth reading through. http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2550#mormonism
Ross T. and select others, Well, I'd be interested in discussing Larson's post. Here's what struck me. The essay's first point is well-taken. Namely, that the right measure of plausibility isn't the age of a religion or the mere fact that it's a religion, but rather has to do with the theological content. The second point, though, seems to me to be a bare assertion that is supported by very little argument. That point is that mormon theology is less plausible than the theology of mainstream christianity. There is a lot here that's left unsaid. To begin with, which version of mainstream christianity are we talking about? More pressingly, on what specific points of theology is mormonism implausible?
dr writes: "The essay's first point is well-taken. Namely, that the right measure of plausibility isn't the age of a religion or the mere fact that it's a religion, but rather has to do with the theological content." This can't be distinguished from personal bias by any known mechanism. If you're a monotheist you won't find a theological tract justifying polytheism more convincing than those of your own faith. It just doesn't happen.
What stood out to me in Larison's post was: Out of some misplaced sense of solidarity with other religious people against the Christopher Hitchenses and Dawkinses of the world, Christians seem to feel obliged to make general defenses of generic theism or the even more amorphous category of Religion, and woe betide the bishop who attempts, as Pope Benedict did, to illustrate the implications of radically different doctrines of God. I don't buy that religious people who make general defenses of theism or "Religion" are doing so out of a feeling that they need to circle the wagons against the Hitchenses and Dawkinses, and he doesn't provide any evidence for that claim. It seems much more likely that most religious people who make these defenses do, in fact, believe that they share something important with most or all religious people that they don't share with atheists. That doesn't mean there can't still be radical differences. Furthermore, to say that not all religions are equally plausible doesn't mean that some religions are about equally plausible. It may be that some religious people who have given every bit as much thought to their faith as Larison has have, in fact, concluded that there is an arational component; that they cannot logically demonstrate the truth of their beliefs in the way that they can logically demonstrate the truth of simple statements about the observable world, and have reconciled themselves to that conclusion. Such people would naturally accord a respect to religions other than their own, which people who believe that plain evidence and logic illustrate the truth of their own religion would not. Anyway, as a couple of other commenters have said, if you want to defend the proposition that the truth of religious claims can be logically demonstrated, it would help to logically demonstrate them. I would be interested to read it.
There is only one measure of knowledge -- whether of type revelatory, abstract, empirical, or whatever: its level of isomorphism, i.e. it's fidelity to reality (which I am assuming everybody here agrees exists despite us). But how do you know whether a concept or, going higher, a paradigm is isomorphic to reality? Well, so far the best method we have to measure "knowledge" is to test it against the raw, observed data reality gives us. We do this via technique and/or prediction. Thus, if you have "knowledge" which gives you neither a useful technique nor an accurate prediction, you should probably be skeptical that it is knowledge at all.
ML&J - Maybe so, but I'd like to hear the argument from someone who accepts it rather than just assuming that it's dumb.
"Furthermore, to say that not all religions are equally plausible doesn't mean that some religions are about equally plausible." should be "Furthermore, to say that not all religions are equally plausible doesn't mean that some religions are not about equally plausible." Otherwise it doesn't make sense. To clarify, I mean that while I find Christianity a lot more plausible than Scientology, I don't find it more plausible than Buddhism.
dr replies: "ML&J - Maybe so, but I'd like to hear the argument from someone who accepts it rather than just assuming that it's dumb." Since I haven't see it, I don't assume it's dumb. But if you haven't seen it, why do you describe it as "well-taken"?
For instance, let's compare Genesis 1 with what we've been able to figure out about the beginning of the universe from observation. As I am sure all of you are aware, within the first trillion trillionth of a second after "the big event about which we know nothing" a quantum fluctuation started an immensely fast inflation of the universe. The resulting pattern of empty space and matter wells is what we call the microwave background. We've seen this background. Its light is about 14 billion years old. The amount of data that supports the above paragraph could and does fill up books. On the other hand, you have a Genesis 1, supported only by those who believe in it. If you take the former as fact subject to revision, and the latter as metaphor, then you are using what makes you human, your incredibly large cerebral cortex. Should you take the latter as truth, you are doing something else.
Tom G., I think a relatively short piece about the relationship between faith and reason is Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html Of course, it is not really an apology (it's an encyclical to the faithful, after all), but I suppose it's about as good an overview as any of the Catholic Church's position on the relationship. Alasdair MacIntyre's Whose Justice? Which Rationality? makes at least a mostly persuasive argument that rationality or reason have meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people throughout history. Best,
JA, What's your point? Science teaches the creation of the world out of nothing. Jews and Christians teach the creation of the world out of nothing. There was once absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever. Nothing. Then there was Bach. Therein lies a mystery. Back to the thread: How does LDS doctrine deal with the fact of the Big Bang? There is no finessing the issue to say that there was "something" which was there in the Big Bang. Precisely nothing was before it. Nothing. I find it interesting that the first theoretical defense of the Big Bang was made by a French Catholic priest.
I don't think Feldman believes "antiquity equals plausibility" as Ross stated or the neo-Barlaanism claimed by Larison, but that seems to be among the few objective ways of determining why some religions view others as respectable or ridiculous. Larison dodges and weaves by saying people don't understand the intricacies of theology and how to judge its merits, that its certainties are not ignorance or insanity, it simply escapes scientific inquiry. That's fine, just make sure apologists don't use that same scientific inquiry to prove why Mainstream Christianity is superior to Scientology. To any secular observer, the Gospel of Saint Matthew is just as preposterous as anything in the book of Mormon. If one is trying to apply the impartial logic of proof of existence of Saint Peter as validation of Catholicism compared to the scanty genetic proof of Nephites, it is also clear that the universe is 10 billion years old, life was produced by evolution and there is no God that involves himself with miracles such as water into wine or direct communication with prophets. If theology differs from science in its methods, as Larison claims, at least explain how theological proofs are evaluated and ordered in plausibility. Otherwise, I will go with Feldman that the reason Mormonism is seen as crazy by Protestants is because of its age, not its content.
scientism is a superstition Derrick, respectfully, "faithful" adherence to that superstition just allowed you to send your rejection of it over a virtual network -- whose complexity is rivaled only by the mind who rejects the superstition of scientism -- to my screen, after which a friendly snort could be heard echoing off the walls of my office. Remember, science says nothing about Truth, since Godel, ahem, proved that truth cannot be captured by a rational system, however complex. But science does demand respect. "Moses may have parted the waters, but science split the atom." -- The Life and Opinions of Som Gai
What's your point? Science teaches the creation of the world out of nothing. Jews and Christians teach the creation of the world out of nothing. The choice is in the subsequent narrative. My narrative gives me the power of prediction and technique, and has embedded in it its own mechanism of update and correction. Your narrative doesn't, and doesn't. That's my point.
JA, I think you misunderstood my criticism. I not "anti-science." I am no fundamentalist who denies evolution. If you'll recall, Walker Percy was himself a medical doctor. Again, my problem is only when science attempts to become an all-encompassing world-view. Yes, science does demand respect, but not idolatry.
Again, my problem is only when science attempts to become an all-encompassing world-view. I think the problem with science is as you say, which is why I have repeatedly conceded that no rational system can contain all truth. But when science and revelation are at loggerheads, the relevant question is "which do you trust?" Science at least gives you a "why" -- i.e. its method and result.
Re: To any secular observer, the Gospel of Saint Matthew is just as preposterous as anything in the book of Mormon. A duck-billed platypus and a welwitschia plant are both pretty bizarre too. Yet both have withstood the test of time, indicating they have at least something going for them.
JA, But it is the teaching of the Church (and Judaism) that science retains absolute autonomy in its own field of knowledge. Who on earth is bashing science? Science, and only science, can teach us all those things for which science is equipped. It tells us about efficient and material causality, to use traditional categories. That's what it does. It makes no claim to say anything about the Good and the Beautiful and the like. All those things are left out, and rightfully so. That's why science works. And that's why science and Jewish and Christian faiths are completely and utterly compatible. You doth protest too much.
And that's why science and Jewish and Christian faiths are completely and utterly compatible. I doubt you could convince Galileo on that score. I would say, instead, that the paragons of post-classical and medieval philosophy nudged Judeo-Christian belief toward compatibility, but it didn't have to be, and still isn't always, so.
JA quotes and writes: "scientism is a superstition Derrick, respectfully, "faithful" adherence to that superstition just allowed you to send your rejection of it over a virtual network -- whose complexity is rivaled only by the mind who rejects the superstition of scientism -- to my screen, after which a friendly snort could be heard echoing off the walls of my office." Perhaps if Derrick strokes his bible lovingly a few dozen times Pope Ratzinger gets the message, gets excited, and, uh, "snorts" in his apse. How can anyone prove otherwise? It's an odd but not uncommon theistic tactic to claim all atheists "worship" science and lack any sense of awe or mystery where the universe is concerned. The claim is simply stupid. Carl Sagan wasn't lacking in that department when compared to Pope Ratzinger - far from it. One can appreciate the efficacy of science without losing an love for literature, art, or music, or the wonders of the natural world. It's an old argument, and eventually the Church did apologize - sort of - to Galileo. And they never tried to use the power of prayer to propel the Pope through the air - instead they had the Popemobile. So which side is winning?
Moe, The reason that you don't see anything admirable in Simone Weil's death is probably the same reason you don't understand the meaning of Christ on the Cross. She was, after all, the one who said, 'Whenever I think of the Crucifixion of Christ I commit the sin of envy." JA, I believe in supernatural realities on the basis of some of the following: To deny any of these could be marginally plausible, but to deny them all takes a greater leap of faith than believeing in God does. "I believe in Christ as I believe in the morning sun; not just because I can see Him but because by His light I see everything else."
JonF, Indeed. Complex numbers are pretty bizarre too. Yet they undoubtedly exist. You can't see them or taste them, but with them you can calculate the path of a damped pendulum, and without them you can't. Much like a world with God makes sense, and a world without Him doesn't. Perhaps that is why Euler, who was one of the first to discover them, believed that complex numbers proved the existence of God. have you ever read 'Life of Pi'? Your argument about the welwitschia plant struck me as very similar- it's one of my favorite books btw.
Re:JonF I was not saying they were not true, but their implausibility seems the same for secular observers. It would be like a Christian having to deal with a bitter debate between whether the Aga Khan was the rightful prophet descended from Mohammed. The fact that most Muslims see this as a ridiculous form of false prophet worship because of the fifth imam or whatever is largely irrelevent, the average Christian observer will see it as a choice between two false choices, and no amount of rigorous logical theology will help if both are wrong. The fact that Ismailis are a small minority of Shia who are a small minority is Islam suggest that in choosing between the scenarios, most Muslims see antiquity as imrpoving plausibility.
Hector, Nor do I deny them, exactly, though many of your points beg several questions. The problem is related to demonstrability. You can relate a mystical experience, but you cannot recreate it. Personal visions also exist that are false (schizophrenia). The parameters of the universe do seem to be fortuitously set for us to exist, but "we exist" is a given you have to start with (anthropic principle). The Gospels are beautiful, and, oddly, they are ostentatiously unique in style, different in form from predecessors, contemporaries, and followers (you got me). Einstein lamented the atheist who could not see the "music of the spheres." Godel spent his last forty years trying to find a logical proof of God. I am not someone on whom the mystery is lost. I am just someone who sees the mystery in retreat, and gladly.
JA writes: "I am not someone on whom the mystery is lost. I am just someone who sees the mystery in retreat, and gladly." Is that really it, or are you more glad to see the retreat of those who have stamped the mystery "solved"? Because that's what theism does, as I see it.
Is that really it, or are you more glad to see the retreat of those who have stamped the mystery "solved"? Ha. To be friendly, I say "reoriented" instead of "retreat." "The final temptation is punctuation." -- The Life and Opinions of Som Gai.
..."an love," Moe? You're slipping, sweetheart. Of course, predictably, Moe brings up Galileo (like all tired atheists), in order to illustrate some great rift between religion and science. Nevermind that Copernicus has formulated the heliocentric theory many years earlier and did not seem to fear Church reprisal. Quoting Lindberg and Numbers: "If Copernicus had any genuine fear of publication, it was the reaction of scientists, not clerics, that worried him. Other churchmen before him — Nicole Oresme (a French bishop) in the fourteenth century and Nicolaus Cusanus (a German cardinal) in the fifteenth — had freely discussed the possible motion of the earth, and there was no reason to suppose that the reappearance of this idea in the sixteenth century would cause a religious stir." Yes, when Galileo came around the Church was unfortunately anti-science. But it had not always been so, and it is not today. Moe, I would like to hear a scientific explanation for your "awe" or "mystery" directed at the universe. Is it simply the neurons firing in your brain? All discourse on ethics, aesthetics, etc., all are merely brain states, right? And therefore all the same and ultimately meaningless. Some mystery. Also, call him Pope Benedict XVI, you impetuous child.
HJ, Well, no, I would not say that a Christian can have nothing to say about whether the Sunni or the Ismaili Shia are more plausible. From my outsider (more or less Christian) stance, I think the Shia are more plausible, because it seems to be that their religion is unconsciously trying to grope towards things that are missing in the Muslim tradition, and present in the Christian. The Ismaili belief that Ali was God Incarnate, and that the martyr's death of Husayn illustrates redemption through suffering, are vague shadows of Christian beliefs. I don't believe that the Ismaili are correct that Ali is God Incarnate, but at least they recognize that a religion with an incarnate God and a cult of martyrdom are better than a religion without them. For this, I give them credit.
Hector, Maybe *you* could explain to me what's supposed to be theologically implausible about mormonism. dr
Hector, You are saying Shia Islam is more plausible because it is more like Christianity? Because of unconscious groping towards Christian traditions? (BTW most Shia do not believe Ali was God incarnate) When you argue theological plausibility is measured by the distance between the set of ideas and your own ideas of Christianity, you are pretty close to tautological reasoning.
hj to Hector: "When you argue theological plausibility is measured by the distance between the set of ideas and your own ideas of Christianity, you are pretty close to tautological reasoning." Yeah. It's shocking to see Christians behave in such a fashion, isn't it? The next thing you know Rastafarians will be smoking pot.
MoeLarryandJesus is an angry little man. Ignoring him will make these threads more enjoyable.
What is the point of these discussions? There is a difference between the honest seeker of truth and he who enjoys the sophistries of argumentation. One assumption I keep hearing is the assumption that today's scientific theories (such as the "Big Bang" and the universe being created out of nothing) are absolutely true, but science constantly changes its theories as we learn more of the universe. The same is true with DNA evidence, archeology, and every other science. John 7: 17 says, "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself". The Old Testament says something to the effect, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts and my ways higher than your ways". Truth is not about "plausibility". Who would risk Eternity on a 60% chance of being right vs. a 70%? It seems like nothing short of 100% is acceptable. Christ lays it out there. Try it. If its true you will know. If its not, you'll know. Someone argued against revelation by stating once we accept revelation, we don't know which prophet is telling the truth. But this is not what Christ is saying, he says if ANY MAN will do his will.... Christ's offers revelation to everyone, but requires us to exercise faith ("do his will") first. Why ridicule Mormons for saying the same thing about their beliefs? Mormons say, Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and ask God in faith if it is true and the truth will be made manifest to you. Try living the principles of the Gospel and see if it makes your life better. Why go through all this psuedo intellectual nonsense. If you want to find out if it is true, take the test. I'm always amazed at what lengths people go through to convince others not to take this simple test.
Derrick? You might want to study a wee bit more history before you start slinging around Copernicus. One of the reasons he delayed so much on the publication of his materials until late in his life was, indeed, his fear of getting into trouble with the Church. And anyone who doesn't think the Church would get pissy about the whole affair--please look at what happened to Giordano Bruno. I don't think the Church has ever apologized for what they did to him. OR to Hypatia. It's only been a few years since they desanctified from sainthood the bozo who whipped up the mob that lynched her. (Actually, "lynched" is a far too kind description. "Scraping the flesh from her bones when she was still alive and throwing her still quivering limbs into a fire" is more like it. Christians should think deeply about the sins they have committed against non-Christians.)
The Church was indeed showing far too much power in meddling in the affairs of the state and in science. Though Galileo's case is unique, though. The man himself was guilty of arrogance and stupidity for deliberately offending church officials. The church itself had astronomers, some of whom might have been more open to his theories had he acted less insulting about it. They even knew thought that comets were rocks from space, while he thought they were only optical illusions. Your other examples are probably all fully correct, though.
Geez will everyone quit responding to Moe already? You're just encouraging him. Anyway, Brent, the Big Bang isn't even close to an explanation of things. First off, the notion that there was nothing in existence prior to it is pure speculation. You might be able to deduct that there was nothing in THIS galaxy, but that certainly doesn't account for all possibilities. Secondly, the Big Bang is a pretty old theory. A lot has happened since then. Ever heard of string theory? I'd be careful about hanging your theological hat on the Big Bang. Human-made theories have this annoying tendency of failing you in unexpected ways. Now tell me Brent. Why was there nothing before? And what exactly was God doing during that time? And if He was already perfect, why did he decide to change things by bursting the bubble?
Grumpy realist: Wikipedia says Copernicus was a Catholic. Christians have a history of committing sins against other Christians that don't share their particular beliefs. But this isn't just a Christian fault-its human nature. Christ spoke of how the Jews of his day venerated the prophets of old, but rejected the Messiah in their midst! Would Christians today reject Christ if he were here because of the implausibilty of God himself coming to earth, or because not enough time has gone by to vindicate his teachings? Would they then justify their actions as "rationale"?
not in my league intellectually writes: "One assumption I keep hearing is the assumption that today's scientific theories (such as the "Big Bang" and the universe being created out of nothing) are absolutely true" In fact no one here wrote that or anything remotely like it, so you're just another theist setting up yet another absurd strawman. "science constantly changes its theories as we learn more of the universe." Imagine that! Of course it's also true that science gives rise to entirely new theories as we learn more about the universe. Sounds like an eminently sane way to proceed. "Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and ask God in faith if it is true and the truth will be made manifest to you." And if you do this and get no "manifestation," not and his sort will tell you you're just not ready, or you weren't sincere enough in your attempt, or it's just not your time yet, blah blah blah. Snakeoil salesmen always have an excuse ready.
Seth R writes: "Geez will everyone quit responding to Moe already? You're just encouraging him." I don't actually need any encouragement. Let's meet up near Kolob and have a few near-beers.
not in my intellectual league again: "Wikipedia says Copernicus was a Catholic. Christians have a history of committing sins against other Christians that don't share their particular beliefs." Um... are you seriously under the impression that Copernicus was being "sinned against" by NON-CATHOLIC Christians? You're special. Please keep posting here.
Sorry for the miscommunication. I consider anyone who accepts Christ as their savior (including Catholics and Mormons) and said nothing of "non-Catholic Christians".
"Sorry for the miscommunication. I consider anyone who accepts Christ as their savior (including Catholics and Mormons) and said nothing of "non-Catholic Christians"." Copernicus was a Catholic with a doctorate in canon law. His disputes were with other Catholics. He shared their religious beliefs, but disagreed with a scientific fact that contradicted the interpretations some had of biblical, uh, "facts." To describe that as Christians "committing sins against other Christians" is equating disagreement with sin. That's very funny.
Hector: "To deny any of these could be marginally plausible, but to deny them all takes a greater leap of faith than believeing in God does." Problem is, just about anyone with any belief could make a long list of similar assertions and insist the same (but contradictory) conclusion. You can't escape or lessen the burden of showing that your view is compelling and rational simply by making the list of your individually unconvincing arguments longer and longer by tossing in more and more that you can think of. Anyone can do that. So what?
Just so we're clear, the idea that the Big Bang is a theory that establishes an ultimate beginning to the universe is a common confusion. The Big Bang could certainly be described as the start of the universe as we know it, but is really not the same sort of thing that pop theologians need to establish that the BB is useful for their purposes (they need a real, ontological beginning, not just a new phase that may or may not be the only phase).
Bad says: "Just so we're clear, the idea that the Big Bang is a theory that establishes an ultimate beginning to the universe is a common confusion." Theists also should stop saying that the BB theory says the universe was created from "nothing." It says nothing of the kind, by definition, since a densely-compacted universe-in-waiting is pretty much the opposite of nothing.
Re: You can relate a mystical experience, but you cannot recreate it. This is true of innumerable other things too. So what? Re: It's only been a few years since they desanctified from sainthood the bozo who whipped up the mob that lynched her. The ringleaders of Hypatia's lunch mob were never sainted in the first place. We don't even know their names. Blaming the archbishop of Alexandria for her murder is a slander perpetrated by Gibbon. It is not supported by the ancient sources, indeed the archbishop was a former student of the Aleaxndrian Museum (to which Hyaptia was attached) and a patron of it. Like most Christian intellectuals of the era, he had no problem with "pagan" learning, and benefitted greatly from it. Hypatia was killed at a time of great socio-ethnic upheaval in Alexandria. The poorer, long-discounted Egyptians were beginning to take on the Greco-Roman elite that had ruled them for centuries. Hypatia's murder was just one nasty terrorist act in this process. Blame the authorirties for failing to prevent it, but not for instigating it.
>>Theists also should stop saying that the BB theory says the universe was created from "nothing." It says nothing of the kind, by definition, since a densely-compacted universe-in-waiting is pretty much the opposite of nothing.
Brent quotes and writes: ">>Theists also should stop saying that the BB theory says the universe was created from "nothing." It says nothing of the kind, by definition, since a densely-compacted universe-in-waiting is pretty much the opposite of nothing. Nonsense! It just so happens we do not know--nor can we "know" for certain--what there was before there was space, time and whatever "creation" is. But when we suggest that there was some mysterious sub-atomic soup, some pre-existent matter, we are cheating. There was, before the Big Bang, no such thing." If there hadn't been a densely-compacted "ball" then the Big Bang couldn't have happened. Therefore if you accept that it did happen, you must concede something did exist prior to it. It is correct to say that we don't know how that "ball" came into being. "None of this absolutely "proves" the existence of God. It shows a generic theism to be reasonable. But it does take certain metaphysical options off the table. Aristotle understood this as well as Antony Flew, neither being remotely Christian so far as I know." There's no reason to regard the eternal existence of a generic god as more probable than the eternal existence of a universe in some form. Occam's Razor makes the latter more likely than the former. Theism just adds an extra layer of complexity with no evidence to support it. That said, I don't regard generic theism to be grossly unreasonable.
Dr, What is theologically implausible about Mormonism? - The belief in a material God. How is a material God diffrent from a sufficiently powerful space alien? I will ask again: how is the notion of a material God any different from Francis Crick's theory that we were created by space aliens? God as an immaterial spirit needs no explanation. God as a material being raises the question, who created God? Leading to the problem of infinite regress, which the idea of God was meant to solve in the first place.
Hector writes: "Mormons believe Jesus Christ was a created being, whereas I believe that He has eternally existed." And you also believe that "He" is a "He." Tell me, Hector, about the eternal immaterial testicles of Jesus and why they're plausible. That Christianity insists that their eternal spirit-god is still identifiably male is one of its funnier aspects. (And yes, I know not all Christians insist on this, but just start calling their god It and watch the sparks fly.)
Moe, I don't believe that God is a male. I use the term 'He' because English lacks a personal pronoun that is gender-neutral. "It" is too impersonal, and does not do justice to the fact that God is a personal God. If you want to use 'She' to describe God, be my guest, but I choose not to because 'He' is the traditional form. Incidentally, Moe, did you realize that "Holy Spirit" is a feminine noun in Aramaic? It reoresents the feminine aspect of God.
Hector says: "Incidentally, Moe, did you realize that "Holy Spirit" is a feminine noun in Aramaic? It reoresents the feminine aspect of God." I know, Hector. Early Hebrew mythology featured a male-female duo of gods, at least. Monotheism was a much later development, but vestiges remain, even in modern Christianity.
OK Hector, "The belief in a material God. How is a material God different from a sufficiently powerful space alien?" You'll have to do better than that. This is nothing but name-calling. And you fail to make anything approaching a logical argument. It says absolutely nothing about whether the Mormon God can be all-powerful. How is the traditional Christian God different from a disembodied space alien? Two can play at this game. I suggest you drop this line of argument and actually address the issues instead of diverting the issue with talk of "space aliens." "The belief that man can become a God. If man and God are not different in kind, then 'God' has no meaning." Another bare assertion that you utterly fail to back up with any sort of argument. Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilo. Neither do we accept your utterly artificial, unbiblical, and logically unnecessary assertion that a distinction must be maintained between creator and created. In the Mormon universe nothing, I repeat, NOTHING was ever created ex nihilo. All matter, all human identity is eternal in Mormon thought. God organized the universe from pre-existent matter. The most basic building blocks of human identity (our scripture terms it intelligence) is also eternal, was never created, neither can be. Sure, God is eternal, but so is the rest of the universe. There is no ontological distinction between creator and created - a notion of Greek philosophy that traditional Christians seem quite wild about, but is absolutely unnecessary to a logical understanding of the universe. But as to whether this makes God meaningless? Of course it doesn't. God the Father in Mormon thought is a perfected being. He is still all powerful in every sense that matters from a worship standpoint. He is not only loving, just merciful, and all that, but He is also our actual spirit Father. Why would we not wish to worship such a being? Because he doesn't match up with some trivial and nonsensical logic game you've arbitrarily assigned to Him? "A god who is not eternal is not a true God. Under the ontological argument for the existence of God, an eternal God is more perfect than a non-eternal God, therefore a non-eternal God is not the most perfect being conceivable." Ah, but God is eternal. And so am I, and so are you. Perfection and eternity are something God experiences and participates in fully. He has also invited us to do likewise. "If you believe that the spiritual is essentially superior to the material, then the idea of a material God is offensive to God." Maybe you believe that, but I don't. In fact, I would argue that perfected material is actually SUPERIOR to the spirit (at least in some ways). No disembodied God can ever be fully actualized, and therefore, cannot be perfect. "Mormons believe Jesus Christ was a created being, whereas I believe that He has eternally existed." Absolutely wrong. Mormons believe Jesus is eternal. We also believe, however, that you are eternal. Matter is also eternal. Like I said earlier. We have not degraded God, it is traditional Christianity that has degraded humanity (and by extension the material universe). "The beliefs in polygamy and in racial inferiority of Black people." You'll have to be more specific. A lot of the criticisms we get on those subjects actually have nothing to do with Mormon theology and whether it is logical or not. As for racial inferiority, those teachings and declarations by earlier Church authorities have been specifically repudiated. We don't believe it, we don't practice it. Why are you still harping on it? It's utterly irrelevant to our conversation.
Re: How is the traditional Christian God different from a disembodied space alien? Two can play at this game. The God I believe in is non-corporeal, a disembodied spirit. The space alien is made of matter. God cannot die, while the space alien can. God is perfectly good, while the space alien is not. God can be everywhere and see everything that happens at this moment in time, the space allien cannot. Re: Another bare assertion that you utterly fail to back up with any sort of argument. Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilo. Neither do we accept your utterly artificial, unbiblical, and logically unnecessary assertion that a distinction must be maintained between creator and created. In the Mormon universe nothing, I repeat, NOTHING was ever created ex nihilo. All matter, all human identity is eternal in Mormon thought. God organized the universe from pre-existent matter. The most basic building blocks of human identity (our scripture terms it intelligence) is also eternal, was never created, neither can be. I suppose that's a legitimate argument, although I don't agree with it, I also can't make a good argument why you are wrong. BTW, I also make some deviations from orthodoxy on this score. I believe that the Devil has eternally existed. I suppose it's no more of a stretch to say that matter is eternal than that the Devil is eternal. Re: Sure, God is eternal, but so is the rest of the universe. There is no ontological distinction between creator and created - a notion of Greek philosophy that traditional Christians seem quite wild about, but is absolutely unnecessary to a logical understanding of the universe. That's interesting. I wasn't aware of those details of Mormon thought. It still seems wrong to me- it seems to me that a God who creates the world from nothing is more perfect than one who assembles it out of preexisting matter. How would you avoid the problem that your world view seemes to lead to the problem of infinite regress? And without a First Cause, you can't use the cosmological argument to argue for the esixtence of God. Re:Ah, but God is eternal. And so am I, and so are you. Perfection and eternity are something God experiences and participates in fully. He has also invited us to do likewise. Doesn't this elide the distinction between man and God? Thanks for defending your faith eloquently though....I don't believe in it anymore than I did, but you've certainly given me something to think about.
Well, there is a statement made by Larison that "faith" is just the highest expresion of reason (I suppose the faith in the Christian God). But he does not develop that line in his argument....I wonder if anybody here can make a case to make me believe such idea
Well Hector, I'd agree with you that the cosmological argument is possibly unavailable to Mormons (although a couple of our scholars seem to be fans of "social trinitarianism" - which may be amenable to it). But this doesn't really trouble me much. The idea of "First Cause" seems to me another of those core "bare assertions" that Socrates and Aristotle were fond of, but which may or may not accurately capture the universal reality. Within it's own framework, the paradigm of first cause, creation ex nihilo, and ontological separation between creator and created makes a certain amount of sense. But that is only within its own framework. You have to accept its assumptions and priors for its logic to work. Mormon theology does not necessarily accept the assumptions and priors of conventional trinitarian thought. More on the problem of "infinite regress" later.
Wikipedia says Copernicus was a Catholic. Christians have a history of committing sins against other Christians that don't share their particular beliefs. But this isn't just a Christian fault-its human nature. Christ spoke of how the Jews of his day venerated the prophets of old, but rejected the Messiah in their midst! Would Christians today reject Christ if he were here because of the implausibilty of God himself coming to earth, or because not enough time has gone by to vindicate his teachings? Would they then justify their actions as "rationale"? Actually, the opposite is true. If God decided to demonstrate Her existence at this point, with mass media, millions of skeptics, broad freedom of expression, etc., She could probably do something that would cause everyone to believe in Her. Say, e.g., lifting the Golden Gate Bridge out of its moorings, transporting it 2,500 miles, and dropping it in New York Harbor. That would probably make believers out of us all. The point is precisely that believers of these ancient faiths can hang their hat on the fact that there's no way to use science and the media and free expression and the like to conclusively disprove that God may have appeared to people thousands of years ago. It's just so much easier to poke holes in modern beliefs. The thing, though, is that doesn't make the ancient beliefs true-- especially when they were generated by people who needed explanations in a pre-science era for complex natural phenomena.
Sergio, one can put it that reason in any form inevitably comes up against limits. Humans on their own are at best capable of only partial truth. That's when theologians based on various forms of revelation attempt truths about the transcendental realm. Of the world religions, Christianity in my view, with the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Aquinas, Barth, Niebuhr, and von Bathasar, excels at making a rational case for its revealed faith. Frankly, one of the least plausible faiths would be Mormonism, mainly due to serious questions about the honesty and integrity of Joseph Smith. Of course, it is futile for anyone to attempt rational argument for the Christian faith to a hard-edged secularist or atheist. These people are too wrapped up in the fervid pieties of their own religion of naturalism and romanticism. Few of them, as Larison remarks, have a clue about reasonable faith and fideism.
Dilan, wouldn't you rather resent a being who saw fit to coerce allegiance with such a show of brute force?
Remember, science says nothing about Truth, since Godel, ahem, proved that truth cannot be captured by a rational system, however complex. But science does demand respect. Darn it, people. I'm staying out of these endless dribbles mostly these days, but trust me, that's not what Goedel said, and he wasn't saying it about "science" at all, and so forth. Goedel is nearly as abused as poor Heisenberg, and he didn't even try to make Hitler a bomb. Goedel demonstrated several propositions about provability in formal systems with recursively enumerable axiom lists, particularly issues of consistency and completeness. There are reasonable implications (not to the level of proof without many more assumptions) to what Goedel showed, in terms of the philosophy of mathematics. He didn't say anything about science and Truth, though. And yes, though Tarski's the guy we generally give credit, Goedel did some work on Truth (semantic notions of in formal languages), related to this work. But that has little to do with what SCIENCE says about it -- this is all formal (mathematical) languages work. Science is a different beast, and has different epistemological and reality-modeling issues. We should all take a New Year's resolution to throw around references to deep work we clearly don't understand, ok? Heaven knows I'm guilty sometimes, myself.
Trust me, Marquis, the philosophical implications of Godel's theorems are precisely as I have stated them -- for all languages which are complex enough to state the truths of the natural numbers. You can have consistency, or you can have completeness, but you cannot have both. And this does apply to science, which is, at its foundation, an axiomatic language built to capture the truth of the natural world. Especially now with computation theory bleeding into everything. This happens to be my specialty, so if anybody should heed the warning of stepping into the deep, it is you.
Heh, it's something of my speciality too. Perhaps you're not ignorant, just form a really wrong-headed camp here -- science is an axiomatic language to capture the truth of the natural world???? Since when. Science is NOT an axiomatic language. I know axiomatic languages, I work with axiomatic languages, and "science" is not such a language. The limits to empirical science would be what they are with or without Goedel result.
He didn't say anything about science and Truth, though. That would be news to Godel. His collected works V.III is about almost nothing else. Look, I am not going to get into a pissing match about this, since I have no need of validation. But Turing, Hofstadter, Nagel, Dawson, Yourgrau, and everyone else who made a living from the downstream implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems would agree with what I wrote above.
Of course, it is futile for anyone to attempt rational argument for the Christian faith to a hard-edged secularist or atheist. These people are too wrapped up in the fervid pieties of their own religion of naturalism and romanticism. fervid pieties? I'm secularist because I don't see one shred of evidence for the existence of an interventionist god, Christian or otherwise. I have no idea what preceded the Big Bang (or whether that question even has meaning), but the mere existence of matter supports the Christian faith not at all. Please, try a rational argument. I'd love to hear it. Start by explaining why Jesus had to die. Then tell me whether or not he suffered on the cross. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Faith was a great way to get through a dangerous and mysterious world. Now that we know a lot more about the world around us, isn't it time to put away such a childish thing, and use reason instead?
That is, JA, I claim that science, for its purposes of understanding the material universe, would have the primary limitations it does, even if Goedel's theorems were not the case. I simply think it's crazy to think that, despite the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in science, science is at heart rational in the sense of being about formally manipulable languages. Computation theory is nice. Look, not to drop anonymity, but can you give me a hint where you're coming from, professionally here? I also don't want to bore everyone if this really is two scientists having a random battle about the philosophy of science.
Oh good grief. Hofstadter. The man can write a lovely book, but he can't get his story on non-standard models quite right. That would be news to Godel. His collected works V.III is about almost nothing else. Ok, ok. Yes, Goedel said quite a bit about it (though I think V.III is still more about mathematics than science), but I don't think that his major theorems demonstrate what you think they demonstrate. I'm betting you are a computer scientist (or a CS influences philosophy of science man) -- this seems to get down to: You think science is largely some empirical work connected to a formal language (that, in practice, no one uses formally, but that is ok). I don't think that's quite right, and overidentifies science and mathematics. There is a point here, in that in one sense, the Platonic views of Goedel make mathematics and science more alike -- in that they are "about" external realities, but I still don't think equation of limits here is a good idea. This has, for anyone else watching, almost nothing to do with the things mostly being argued about in this thread. Sorry.
hey Marquis, sounds like you are in the 'harder' more mathematical sciences. i'm in the softer, life sciences (plant ecology) myself. how would you assess Euler's argument that existence of complex numbers proves the existence of God?
Euler was a fine man, from all I know, but I don't think it's a very good proof. And that's an example -- plant ecology is science, surely. But I really really don't think it does too much with formal languages, other than _using_ (I'm betting) mathematics sometimes.
Granted that science might have the limitation no matter what -- due to various real-world factors -- but Godel proved, by implication, that it must be incomplete or inconsistent necessarily. I am not merely speaking about the uncertainty principle, renormalization, and all the other physical blocks to our complete capture of Truth. Let me see if I can explain (briefly, though brevis esse laboro obscurus fio). If the "rules" of the system are the laws of physics, then one might say that the axioms are the parameters of the universe. Or, if the parameters are themselves 'theorems' of the universe, then the sole axiom is the "beginning" state of the universe. The possible true theorems of the universe are the possible space-time configurations at different discrete times from The Beginning to Whatever. Insofar as science tries to recreate the language of the universe exactly, and insofar as any formal language of "sufficient power" can be translated into Godel numbering, then we are forced to accept that there are truths about the universe which cannot be captured in its own language -- and therefore cannot be captured by science. Oh, and I am in Chattanooga by way of Vanderbilt (philosophy) and Tennessee (law school). I hated the idea of practicing law, so I decided to do a u-turn, and...ta da...I'm now working on book number 1.
Dilan, wouldn't you rather resent a being who saw fit to coerce allegiance with such a show of brute force? Belief is different than allegiance. A God, if She exists might want us to believe that She exists. She also might not care. But if She wants us to believe She exists, one would think that She would demonstrate her existence in the modern world, where there are all these means of verification that were not present 2,000 years ago. The fact that She doesn't is telling. Allegiance is a separate thing. One of the dumbest parts of theology-- which made perfect sense 2,000 years ago but now doesn't due to what we now know about how unimportant we are in the universe-- is the idea that God, rather than just being a creator or a maintainer of the universe, the laws of physics, etc., actually decides the laws that humans must live by in their interactions with other humans. That's silly. We're mammals. We make our own rules. There's no reason why, even if God exists, we have to obey Her-- especially since we have no real idea of knowing what She wants. But She could certainly make Herself known if that was important to her, and the fact is, it is simply more comforting for believers to believe She made Herself known years ago when the technology wasn't around to debunk it.
Actually, theoretical physics into philosophy of science. I had to learn CS on my own. And I'll join the apology to others. I love this stuff.
You are quite right about the Platonic parallels, though that is another conversation, which is how I get to the idea that "science tries to recreate the language of the universe exactly." Not that we can ever get there, since algorithms for natural problems under natural input distributions are almost all NP-complete. But conceptually, if we could recreate the language of the universe exactly, we would still be faced with the fact that there are truths about the universe that cannot be stated in its own language.
then we are forced to accept that there are truths about the universe which cannot be captured in its own language Ok, we may not be as far apart as I thought, in that we both agree about this. I think I tend to think of science as an epistemological methodology (and body of results of applying it, or something like it) that A) doesn't always have to aim at formal language manipulation to "be science" and B) somewhat inherently grants that it has no good path to Truth in the full sense. Hrm, I might buy this, I'm just unconvinced that the "language of the universe" is a proper formal language -- I think science "exists" in human minds, which I don't think embed/mean based on RE axiom systems + inference rules. For the record, I'm (roughly) a computer scientist (or failed mathematician, if you want to look at it that way). Sorry for assuming you were talking out of your hat (which is clearly not the case), you must see a lot of it, too, out there on these internets.
Hector, If you're interested, here's a Mormon discussion of the problem of infinite regress: http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10583.html
Dilan, You seem to have a funny idea of who God really is. The idea of the God who loves His people and sets down the moral laws that they are to follow, is probably an older idea than the 'Creator of the universe' one, and more fundamental. Many of the heretical Christians credited the creation of the world to the Devil; the Mandaeans credited it to a fallen angel; the Hindus to the least important of their gods; the Platonists and Buddhists appear not to have thought much about it. You appear to think that we (humans) are unimportant because you think that God's attention span is finite, so the more planets He has to pay attention to, the less importance He can give to each one. Unfortunately, God is not you. The mind of God is big enough to care infinitely for a trillion beings on a trillion planets. Oddly enough, He cares infinitely even about you.
You're right, we are not so far apart. I agree with both A (doesn't always) and B (no good path), too. And I must admit the idea that "the language of the universe is formal and consistent" is more of a heuristic than a capital-T truth we can prove. It's mainly that starting with it has been a tremendous help; it led to many insights I probably wouldn't have had otherwise.
We're mammals. We make our own rules. Pity the poor arachnids, who don't have this luxury! Also, this will be news (and welcome news) to my dog.
re: seeing a lot. To say the least. Assuming BS in the blogo has become, via selective pressure, a too-often-accurate reflex for me as well.
Peter Leavitt writes: "Of the world religions, Christianity in my view, with the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Aquinas, Barth, Niebuhr, and von Bathasar, excels at making a rational case for its revealed faith. Frankly, one of the least plausible faiths would be Mormonism, mainly due to serious questions about the honesty and integrity of Joseph Smith." Y'all might find this hard to believe, but Peter Leavitt is a CHRISTIAN! So there's no way he could be a biased observer here. I know, I know, you could have knocked me over with a fucking feather when I found out. I thought he was a Muslim.
I am probably too late in response, but thank you Derrick for sketching out your views and for the link. " I find a worldview based solely on science to be a rather deficient, narrow worldview." My impression is that you regard incompleteness in science (e.g. the lack of the meaning) as evidence for religion. This does not follow to me - why should there be meaning? I can imagine religion providing comfort, but I don't see that as having anything to do with reason. Do you? Tom
"Frankly, one of the least plausible faiths would be Mormonism, mainly due to serious questions about the honesty and integrity of Joseph Smith." OK, let's just pretend, for the sake of argument that Joseph Smith was dishonest. Kay? What does that have to do with whether Mormon THEOLOGY is plausible or not? Just step back from the fray a moment and give it a bit of serious thought. Again, I find it telling that no one can ever discuss Mormon belief without resorting to ad hominem arguments.
Hector, I just read your reasons for believing. To avoid going on at too great a length, I'll shoot for 3 categories of points you raised. 1) God of the gaps style reasoning - science has not provided a full explanation for this event, therefore ... what? Why does this argue for God, unless God is defined as something we don't understand? 2) Personal experience - how do you respond to people who cite personal experiences that you disbelieve (e.g. being taking up in an alient spaceship). Personal experience is a weak reed to walk on. 3) The number of people who have held some religion. But the religions have been very different - how does one validate another except as a belief in the supernatural? What do you think of the large number of people who have believed in witches? Tom
The idea of the God who loves His people and sets down the moral laws that they are to follow, is probably an older idea than the 'Creator of the universe' one, and more fundamental. Hector, I don't doubt it is an old idea. But that gets back to the fact that when you have people who have no idea how the universe works, or how we came to populate the planet, or what our genetic relationships are with animals, they are going to come up with some myths and legends that explain it all. Further, when you have very loose associations, no strong central governments, constant warfare and conquest between tribes, and a need to ensure that the group can work towards cohesive goals-- plus the desires of leaders to want to lord over everyone else, have sex with the best looking women, etc.-- "God" becomes a convenient concept to situate both the rules by which the universe operates and the rules that govern human interaction. So when you say it is an "old" idea, I would rephrase it-- it is a PRIMITIVE idea. It is what people come up with when they don't know any better. But more broadly, you are ignoring the point. Which is, if God exists and wishes us to understand that, it would not be difficult for Her to let us know that. The fact that She doesn't do that now is powerful evidence that She didn't 2,000 years ago in the Middle East (or hundreds of years ago in the Americas, as the Mormons would have it, for that matter). And the problem with God as a lawmaker is that everything that we have learned from science confirms how unimportant we are to the workings of the universe. The universe functions on a scale unimaginable to any of us, in terms of time (billions of years), in terms of the forces at play (black holes that can swallow huge amounts of matter over immese areas), in terms of the size of celestial bodies (a universe filled with galaxies filled with solar systems filled with stars and planets). People who think that God made laws for human conduct are positing a God putting together a jigsaw puzzle the size of the Pacific Ocean and instead worrying about a microscopic speck of dust on one of the pieces. Or, alternatively, I can't improve on "Casablanca"-- the problems of you and me don't amount to a hill of beans. A belief surely as old as religion is that of human self-importance. We always think we are more important than we really are. Believers claim it is a matter of submitting to God's authority, but when you think about it, how arrogant it really is to pretend that the God who has to make sure that the entire universe doesn't go diving into a singularity somewhere actually is worried about whether some human in Minot, North Dakota is coveting his neighbor's ox! If God exists, and She cares that we are aware of her existence, She can announce Herself. Not 2,000 years ago, when these things aren't verifiable, but now, when they are. But there's no reason to supplant our human institutions of governance for the laws of a being who has better things to do than worry about our fate.
Seth R asks: "OK, let's just pretend, for the sake of argument that Joseph Smith was dishonest. Kay? What does that have to do with whether Mormon THEOLOGY is plausible or not? Just step back from the fray a moment and give it a bit of serious thought. Again, I find it telling that no one can ever discuss Mormon belief without resorting to ad hominem arguments." So do I, but obviously if Smith created the BOM as a fraud then Mormon theology is nonsense. Unless you think it's possible to create a valid theology (not that I'm aware of one) based on lies. Scientology faces the same problem. Again, I think it's the hurdle faced by newer religions, and I don't see the older ones as more or less plausible, but there you go.
Pity the poor arachnids, who don't have this luxury! Also, this will be news (and welcome news) to my dog. Marquis, every dog I ever have been around was quite aware that he or she made his or her own rules.
Seth R, I agree with what you've posted re: Mormon theology. One of the things Jews and Christians have always tried to do is to provide rational arguments defending their doctrine of God. They held that certain general things about God are knowable by reason--that he is one, incorporeal, good, omnipotent. They also held that other attributes--for Jews, his election of Israel; for Christians, his Triune nature--were only knowable by revelation. But let's get back to the philosophical foundations of Mormon belief. Do Mormons aspire to provide such arguments that do not rely on Mormon revelation? Is this something they work towards? By their second century, Christian thought had begun to come into its own with incredibly gifted thinkers like Justin Martyr, Origen and Tertullian, just to name a few. Where are the Mormons who are doing this early work? There are many, many more "early" Mormons than "early" Christians after all.
Moe, Larry, and Jim (Keane), yes, I happen to be a Christian, though not a proved stooge.
Ross T., Good question. Mormonism has a few scattered intellectual minds of some note among its leadership. Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, James Talmage. But it does seem a bit light in the area of philosophy that goes beyond the amateur level. I don't think it's the theology itself, because the building blocks are there to actually do quite well I think. One half-baked theory I've heard thrown around is that Mormons are, by nature, a pragmatic bunch and don't have much time or patience for ivory-tower nonsense. We tend to be businessmen, entrepreneurs, attorneys, etc. Not too many academics. You look at the ranks of our leadership and this seems born out to some extent. Doctors, lawyers, businessmen... A lot of impressive, savvy and rather smart people. But few disciplined academics. Brigham Young University is very much focused on student education, often at the expense of research concerns. Another possibility is our doctrine requiring a lay clergy. We don't pay people to sit around thinking religious thoughts. We don't have a career waiting for you if you get a masters degree in theology. We also have a much-quoted scripture that goes something like "wo unto the learned who think they are wise..." it goes on to talk about how pompous know-it-alls will be brought to shame by the humble... etc. etc. Another reason might be that Mormon scholarship is good, it's just that we are still too marginal in society for people to care. Maybe it's the Dangerfield "can't get no respect" thing. I don't know. Beats me. But I don't think it's due to weakness of the actual theology.
"Granted that science might have the limitation no matter what -- due to various real-world factors -- but Godel proved, by implication, that it must be incomplete or inconsistent necessarily." Ah, clumsy, misunderstood fumbling with Godel to match clumsy misunderstood fumbling with science and the Big Bang.
Dilan, So today we're quite a bit more faithless and cynical than we were 2,000 years ago. Exactly why should God cater to our faithlessness and cynicism? If you are truly open to seeing a sign from God, then He will send you one.
But others of us are open to other explanations when the materialistic ones fail.
Peter Leavitt replies: "I happen to be a Christian, though not a proved stooge." Untrue, Peter. All two-time Bush voters are proven stooges, and you qualify. By the way, Who Would Jesus Torture
Hector writes: "So today we're quite a bit more faithless and cynical than we were 2,000 years ago. Exactly why should God cater to our faithlessness and cynicism?" For the same reason your legends tell you he catered to Thomas's doubts, Hector. Why should you or Dilan or I get less proof than Thomas was supposedly given? Tell me how we're "more faithless and cynical" than he is in that story. Your god plays favorites. "Put it this way, Dilan: do you believe in the Devil? If not, then how do you explain features of the world like Nazis and pederasts? Without a devil, you are unable to explain the origin of human evil." We're complex animals, Hector. Driven by territorial and clannish imperatives, and with brains good enough to harbor ambition. Great apes have wars and do terrible things to each other, too - I suppose you think there's an Ape Devil? There is nothing rational about a belief in the Debbil, and your own peculiar belief - in an eternal Debbil who has powers of creation - is in itself a heresy in your own faith.
Don't Christians claim to believe more or less all the stuff Jews do, plus a lunatic story about how their god sent an avatar to earth to curse fig trees? So I'd think that Christianity is necessarily less plausible than Judaism.
Put it this way, Dilan: do you believe in the Devil? If not, then how do you explain features of the world like Nazis and pederasts? Without a devil, you are unable to explain the origin of human evil. Hector, in the animal kingdom, animals tear each other apart, ruthlessly compete, rape and pillage, hoard, and act in all sorts of other selfish ways. Now, they don't have the industrial capacity to build camps and gas chambers, but that's a matter of degree. We are mammals, and are no different. Indeed, by thinking that the only explanation for evil is a supernatural being, you are actually selling short one of the better arguments FOR some sort of religious belief, i.e., that we are, by our nature, capable of selfish and evil acts, and religion is one method (though not the only method) of providing a moral structure that restrains us from acting on our worst impulses.
Dilan, Mormons refer to it as the "natural man" (male-dominated scriptural language). We have both spirit and material nature. Yet that material reality makes strong demands and pulls on us. The primary purpose of mortal life in Mormonism is for human beings to gain material manifestation, and then learn mastery of it as best we are able. To become as God is, is to unite both aspects of ourselves in perfect harmony with our essential underlying spirit identity in mastery over our physical nature. The person who is instead mastered by the demands and urges of the body however, is regarded as a slave to her own appetites in Mormon thought. Such people are at a dead end and cannot expect to progress any further. Traditional Christianity holds somewhat similar views about the dual nature of human existence - physical and spiritual. However, we part ways over the true nature of physical reality. Traditional Christianity views materiality as a defect, our "fallen nature," some handicap we labor under that we can look forward to being freed from eventually. Mormons see this as a twisted and negative view of life. Materiality is not inherently bad in Mormon thought. It just makes a poor master, that's all. It is something to be controlled, but not reviled. The LDS view is that the body is ultimately a good thing and something we look forward to keeping.
Seth:Traditional Christianity views materiality as a defect, our "fallen nature," some handicap we labor under that we can look forward to being freed from eventually. Traditional Christianity accepts from Genesis on that creation is good including the material part. Human nature is regarded as a synthesis of creaturely material and heavenly spirit in the image of God. Having been created in the image of God is far different than incredibly hoping to be as God. This could be part of Romney's problem. To become as God is, is to unite both aspects of ourselves in perfect harmony with our essential underlying spirit identity in mastery over our physical nature. Orthodox Christians, knowing their fallen state, cannot hope to become "as God is." Avery Cardinal Dulles once visited a church that had a sign God is other people. Seeing this, he had a powerful urge to place a comma between "other" and "people."
Re: Personal experience is a weak reed to walk on. Really? then we have no knowledge at all since all human knwoledge is ultimately based on personal experience. Re: Traditional Christianity views materiality as a defect This is not correct. Our "fallen nature" is primarily a fall of the spirit, not of the flesh. Re: Orthodox Christians, knowing their fallen state, cannot hope to become "as God is." While not much emphasized in the West, Christianity does have a doctrine of theosis, meaning to become god-like. This does not mean (as in Mormonism) that one becomes a god in one's own right, but it does mean that through Christ, who united godhood with humanity, we can come to share in godhood. The saints (in traditional forms of Christianity) are seen as those who have acheived this state.
Moe, I love St. Thomas. Deeply. He was the apostle to my people, after all. He was pessimistic, but not cynical; and when he saw the living resurrected Christ, he believed. If you genuinely open your heart to the possibility of God, then I think that God will reveal himself to you, sooner or later. If not in this life, then in the life to come. But if you continue making jokes about His Mother taking a roll in the hay with Shlomo the camel jockey and his turkey baster, then I don't know that you have really laid your heart open to Him. Please lay aside the juvenile blasphemies ("Jeezass") for a while, and sincerely listen for His voice, and He will answer you. Read the newspapers every morning and then tell me that there's nothing rational about belief in the Devil? Child molesters, Moe, child molesters. They are all the proof that I need that the Devil is very real and very powerful. There is more evil in humanity than can be explained by our half animal nature. And yes, I know it's a heresy, thanks for pointing it out. Doesn't make it any less true, or any less false, for that matter.
Moe, Animal evil has many explanations within a religious context. mainstream Christians may argue that in order to create the Universe, God had to withdraw himself from it, so that there could exist something apart from himself. Since God is perfection, anything that is separate from God is necessarily imperfect. Natural selection is a reflection of the course that nature takes when God absents himself from it, and it produces 'nature red in tooth and claw'. heretical christians might argue that the brutal and wasteful nature of natural selections reflects the nature of a world which the devil has made himself prince of. some combination of those two arguments will do a good job, i think, of explaining why God hasn't smoothed out the rougher edges of natural selection (ape wars and things like that). He has of course smoothed them out in human beings, which is the main point.
Hector writes: "I love St. Thomas. Deeply. He was the apostle to my people, after all. He was pessimistic, but not cynical; and when he saw the living resurrected Christ, he believed." No, Hector, he didn't. He needed more proof. He needed to dig his hands into the gaping wounds of the zombie Jesus in order to believe. Once he was granted that level of proof, he did. Even just seeing and hearing wasn't enough! So I think saying that each of us should be granted that level of proof - or even some proof at all - before we're cast into the lake of fire isn't all that unreasonable. But maybe that's just me. "Read the newspapers every morning and then tell me that there's nothing rational about belief in the Devil? Child molesters, Moe, child molesters. They are all the proof that I need that the Devil is very real and very powerful. There is more evil in humanity than can be explained by our half animal nature." The key here is that you believed before you had ever heard about child molestors, so you don't need that "proof," and post facto you assign it as a proof. But of course it just isn't. Besides, the Catholic Church doesn't seem to regard child molestation as more serious than, say, a parking ticket. Aren't all sins equal in Christian thought? Rape sure seems like an animal act to me, Hector. For secularists such things are a failure of socialization, and they're wrong on that level and because of the harm they do to another human being - not because they're inspired by some serpent. "Animal evil has many explanations within a religious context. mainstream Christians may argue that in order to create the Universe, God had to withdraw himself from it, so that there could exist something apart from himself. Since God is perfection, anything that is separate from God is necessarily imperfect. Natural selection is a reflection of the course that nature takes when God absents himself from it, and it produces 'nature red in tooth and claw'." Um, yeah - otherwise tigers would be vegetarians! I've actually heard fundies say that carnivores on Moah's Ark turned veggie during the voyage for this reason. Hilarious stuff. Next time my cat shows up at the back door with a live field mouse in his mouth I'll drag him to a church and try to get him baptised. (He's actually named "Buddy," short for "Buddy Christ," which you should appreciate.) "God hasn't smoothed out the rougher edges of natural selection (ape wars and things like that). He has of course smoothed them out in human beings, which is the main point." He didn't smooth them out very well, then.
Hector, Dont waste your time responding to anti-Christian bigots.
No, Hector, he didn't. He needed more proof. He needed to dig his hands into the gaping wounds of the zombie Jesus in order to believe. Once he was granted that level of proof, he did. Even just seeing and hearing wasn't enough! Er, no, not quite. Possibly, but the most parsimonious in-context reading of those passages from John is: 1) Thomas said he wouldn't believe until etc. 2) He sees Christ, and immediately says "my Lord and my God" Given the "because thou hast seen me" bit, this is pretty straightforward. And it's in the Odyssey, not the Iliad.
Mark says: "Hector, Dont waste your time responding to anti-Christian bigots." Oh, shut up, fool. Hector and I have been engaging in a back-and-forth on many threads for months now. Go back to beating your kids. I'm certainly anti-Christianity, in some ways and at some times, but I am not anti-Christian at all.
TMoC quotes and replies: "No, Hector, he didn't. He needed more proof. He needed to dig his hands into the gaping wounds of the zombie Jesus in order to believe. Once he was granted that level of proof, he did. Even just seeing and hearing wasn't enough! Er, no, not quite. Possibly, but the most parsimonious in-context reading of those passages from John is: 1) Thomas said he wouldn't believe until etc. 2) He sees Christ, and immediately says "my Lord and my God"" Uh, no. He didn't "immediately" say it. First Jesus made the offer of proof I'm referring to, which you left out for some reason. It is true that the text doesn't say Thomas took him up on it, but I vividly remember hearing sermons on the topic that said he did, and why wouldn't he? Here you go: ---24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Jonf, "Re: Personal experience is a weak reed to walk on. Really? then we have no knowledge at all since all human knwoledge is ultimately based on personal experience" Perhaps I phrased this badly, but how do you approach a schizophrenic who "knows" that the clock is trying to kill him? Personal experience of God that can not be observed by anyone else is a weak claim. Tom G.
Re: Personal experience of God that can not be observed by anyone else is a weak claim. If only one person claimed to have experienced God you would have a valid point. This is not however the case.
Moe, No, I agree with you. It's not completely clear -- and my "immediately" is flat wrong. I do think it's "immediately" after the offer is made, but it's not completely clear. I think the "have seen and believed" is indication he speaks immediately after the offer, but that is not definitely the case. It's (I believe) the more prevalent interpretation, though, as to what the text means to imply.
Tom G writes: "Perhaps I phrased this badly, but how do you approach a schizophrenic who "knows" that the clock is trying to kill him? Personal experience of God that can not be observed by anyone else is a weak claim." Sure is. And I don't know a single Christian on the planet who would take seriously the claim of a Hindu that he had a genuine spiritual connection with Krishna. Not one. They might say the Hindu had experienced a connection with Christ and misinterpreted it, or was being misled by Satan, or was purely delusional, but they would never accept it as evidence of Krishna. Why anyone should take their own claims of experience seriously on this score is a real mystery of faith. The only phrase that really covers it is "full of shit."
TMoC replies: "I think the "have seen and believed" is indication he speaks immediately after the offer, but that is not definitely the case. It's (I believe) the more prevalent interpretation, though, as to what the text means to imply." But I don't think it has been the more prevalent interpretation. In every dramatization I've seen Thomas goes for the touch, and I mentioned remembering this in at least one (and I think more than one) sermon. There's also a well-known painting by Caravaggio of the scene where Thomas is diddling Jesus's sidehole. (Like I could resist that one.)
TMoC, also look at the odd construction - Thomas answered AND said. It's a dramatic pause lending itself to gestures, isn't it?
Jonf quotes and writes: "Re: Personal experience of God that can not be observed by anyone else is a weak claim. If only one person claimed to have experienced God you would have a valid point. This is not however the case." If everyone that claimed to experience god had the same sort of experience, Jon, or even a recognizably Christian experience, you might have a valid point. This is not however the case.
St. Paul argued that deep down we're all aware of the moral truth of God and have no excuse for ignoring this. Theologians term this general revelation. Even primitive tribal people normally show awe about transcendent reality. Other than a few philosophical materialists throughout history, most people would agree with this. Of course, modern cultural despisers of the religious view talk of being "enlightened" through science and rational progress and above any sort of occultish reverence for transcendent reality and authority, though this view was the primary cause of the catastrophic Twentieth-Century. The liberal fascists, as Jonah Goldberg's recent book makes abundantly clear, have attempted to substitute an inevitably deluded and vicious earthly rule in place of heavenly rule.
Peter Leavitt stupidly writes: "Of course, modern cultural despisers of the religious view talk of being "enlightened" through science and rational progress and above any sort of occultish reverence for transcendent reality and authority, though this view was the primary cause of the catastrophic Twentieth-Century. The liberal fascists, as Jonah Goldberg's recent book makes abundantly clear, have attempted to substitute an inevitably deluded and vicious earthly rule in place of heavenly rule. " It's good to know that no theists were involved in violence during the 20th century. I would like to refer Peter Leavitt to his dream period in history, when Catholicism ruled Europe and Popes spoke of heaven while sodomizing altar boys and the "divine right of kings" granted in Romans 13:1 was used to keep most of the population in dire poverty, living lives that were nasty, brutish, and short. Peter Leavitt thinks that was a more moral time, and he would return us to it like a shot. I say if he wants heavenly rule he should step in front of a bus and leave the rest of us to enjoy our secular republic. For his sake let's hope he doesn't end up in Muslim hell cleaning camel stables out with his tongue for the next billion years, although he does sort of merit that "reward." Peter, you never answered me - Who Would Jesus Torture?
Dont waste your time responding to anti-Christian bigots. Mark, if someone on this thread refuses to hire a Christian or live in a building that has Christians, or pays them less, or tries to prevent them from going to church, then you can trot out your charges of anti-Christian bigotry. But people who think that Christianity, or religion in general, is a bunch of idiotic 2,000 year old hokum are not bigots. They may be wrong. They may even be going to hell. But there's a big difference between hating people and thinking that their beliefs are completely full of it.
And I don't know a single Christian on the planet who would take seriously the claim of a Hindu that he had a genuine spiritual connection with Krishna. Not one. They might say the Hindu had experienced a connection with Christ and misinterpreted it, or was being misled by Satan, or was purely delusional, but they would never accept it as evidence of Krishna. This is a very important point. Monotheists who can't conceive of nonbelief should consider-- they themselves are atheists when it comes to every other religion except theirs. They don't accept mystical experience, they don't accept stories of miracles, and they don't believe that the supernatural claims made in those other religions' holy scriptures are true. A monotheist is a person who holds his or her own religion to a lighter standard of proof than all the rest of them.
Re: If everyone that claimed to experience god had the same sort of experience, Jon, or even a recognizably Christian experience, you might have a valid point. Does everyone experience "love" in the same way? In fact, does everyone experience anything in the same way? We may choose the same words to talk about it, but can we really know for sure that the "red" I see is the same "red" you see? The fact that in some cases people use different words to talk about the "same" experience does not bother me. Do we doubt that the sun exists because we say (and perhaps are right) that it's an immense thermonuclear fireball while some ancients said (and were probably wrong) that it was a god driving a chariot across the sky? Re: Monotheists who can't conceive of nonbelief should consider-- they themselves are atheists when it comes to every other religion except theirs. Au contraire, I do believe that there's something behind all these myths about the gods. I donlt however believe that that something (which may be multiple somethings) is of the same order if being as the One God.
Jonf replies: "Does everyone experience "love" in the same way? In fact, does everyone experience anything in the same way? We may choose the same words to talk about it, but can we really know for sure that the "red" I see is the same "red" you see?" Since there is no such thing as "love" apart from our perceptions I don't see the analogy at all. It's a particularly stupid one that's used by fundies (not that you're one) constantly. "How do you know love exists? You can't see it, blah blah blah." The answer is that there is no independent, disembodied "love" just as there is no disembodied "grumpiness." But if you're going to claim that EVERYONE who claims to have been "down with god" is down with yours, except for the ones who aren't, or something, and then again... Come on, Jon! Even you basically admit that you've lost this one, and that your thoughts here are about as coherent as a wet fart when you say: "I do believe that there's something behind all these myths about the gods. I donlt however believe that that something (which may be multiple somethings) is of the same order if being as the One God." In other words, you're behaving exactly as Dilan and I said you would. Everything, to you, points to your own god, even when it doesn't.
Re: And I don't know a single Christian on the planet who would take seriously the claim of a Hindu that he had a genuine spiritual connection with Krishna. Not one. Moe, I know plenty of people who claim to have experienced Krishna, or other Hindu gods. I do believe there's something behind the experiences of people in non-Christian cultures, though I would probably think it was angels rather than the God Himself. Besides that, I try not to think too much about it. Interpreting _my own_ religious experience is enough for me. Actually, I would say that there is a disembodied thing called 'love', or 'grumpiness', or for that matter 'red'. You and I may not see red in the same way, but we both know what we mean when we say 'red' or 'love' or 'circle'. Ever try to draw a perfect circle? There are no perfect circles anywhere in the observable universe. Nevertheless, we both know what a perfect circle is, and we can even make true statements about the properties of said perfect circles.
Re: Since there is no such thing as "love" apart from our perceptions I don't see the analogy at all. Once we start down this road, where does it end? Does anything exist apart from our perception of it? Subjectivism is a dead-end street where we end up all alone with nothing but illusions to torment us. As an axiom to avoid this I suggest the simple definition of "real" as being anything that is generally perceived among us. "Love" therefore qualifies as real. Perhaps God does, perhaps God does not, depending on how high you set the bar. But God is at least in the running for "real", unlike say purple unicorns or the One Ring of Mordor. Re: Even you basically admit that you've lost this one Of course I won't admit that since from what I can see your type of thinking leads no where at all except to the blind alley I pointed out above. Epistemological skepticism is a universal solvent: it can attack and dissolve just about anything, save perhaps purely tautological ideas like those of mathemnatics. Skepticism is a useful tool, but you need to keep it on a very short leash. Letting it loose as a quick and lazy way of destroying God also lets it loose to devour Matter, Mind, Time and Space. Thank you, but no. Re: Everything, to you, points to your own god, even when it doesn't. If you've seen the foothills of the Rockies you haven't seen the mountains themselves, but you definitely seen something that points to them, and is geologically connected to them. There's nothing illogical or invalid about that statement is there? Your type of thinking is overly determined and way too absolutist. The world is ruled by fuzzy logic not by Boolean absolutes. I suspect that, like most of us save the incurably insane, you live your life that way, but just refuse to admit it.
JonF replies: "Of course I won't admit that since from what I can see your type of thinking leads no where at all except to the blind alley I pointed out above." Here we go again - sooner or later in a discussion of this sort a theist, who has already made up his mind and has thus chosen his alley, uses a "blind" reference to refer to those of us who haven't. Don't you even see the irony in prefacing it with "from what I can see"? I don't notice any special perspicacity in believers. "The world is ruled by fuzzy logic not by Boolean absolutes. I suspect that, like most of us save the incurably insane, you live your life that way, but just refuse to admit it." On the other hand, I've met very few Christians who live their lives as though they really believe what they say they believe. Since I don't pretend to live by absolutes, and Christians say they do, which one of us has an admittance problem? "But God is at least in the running for "real", unlike say purple unicorns or the One Ring of Mordor." I can agree that a generic god is "in the running for "real."" I don't agree that the god of Christianity is any more likely than the One Ring of Mordor. Purple unicorns are much more likely, and are in fact probably in the works in some lab somewhere, along with pink elephants.
Re: Since I don't pretend to live by absolutes, and Christians say they do, which one of us has an admittance problem? Since I don't know the Christian you've known, I cannot comment on them. What I can say is that I personally do not think human minds are capable of entertaining absolute truths about anything (exception: mathematical truths, which are tautologies). I am abundantly aware that there are vast oceans of things I do not know, and perhaps never can. So I always keep a modest amount of doubt on hand lest I be tempted to deify myself and exalt my own rectitude above all others. That's a sin not exactly specific to religious believers, you know, and absolutists can On my larger point let me spell it out a bit more precisely: what we might call naive realism, which includes modern science and much else besides, demands the possibility that God exists. Not the necessity, but the possibility. That means that reasonable people can and will disagree on the question and neither are necessarily benighted or malicious therefore. Hector and I have come away from this with different conclusions than you and Dilan do. Such is life in the here and now. Religion should not be a subject of contempt (I do not speak of fanaticism nor the shallow Tartuffery of our Religious Right). Neither should an honest secularism that knows it own limits and does not seek to play tyrant over human hopes.
Dilan, Who makes the more sweeping dismissal of the Hindu's truth claims here? You, or me? I claim that they were real experiences although not quite what the Hindu thought they were. (Perhaps they were visions of some lesser angel named Krishna). You dismiss them root and branch as delusions. It's you who is forced to throw out the testimony of myriads of people for thousands of years who claim to have personally experienced God. It's you who is comfortable with not having an explanation for how the world came into being. It's you who thinks that the fact that amino acids can spontaneously self-organize is equivalent to saying that an entire enzyme can self-organize spontaneously (and yes, I mean spontaneously- don't invoke evolution since evolution can't operate on anything smaller than a primitive enzyme, since by definition you need something that can catalyze its own replication.) None of these points _proves_ the existence of God, but they do, to me, indicate that agnosticism takes a greater leap of faith than belief.
Jonf replies: "On my larger point let me spell it out a bit more precisely: what we might call naive realism, which includes modern science and much else besides, demands the possibility that God exists. Not the necessity, but the possibility." No. It might require the possibility of A god existing, but not your God. That you can't even acknowledge that distinction even though I've tried several times to get you to do so is key. As I said, you think all notions of god point to your own in some way. "Religion should not be a subject of contempt (I do not speak of fanaticism nor the shallow Tartuffery of our Religious Right). Neither should an honest secularism that knows it own limits and does not seek to play tyrant over human hopes." I think through most of Christian history our current Religious Right doesn't stand out as particularly disgusting - it only looks so by modern standards. Fortunately when this country was being founded we had a narrow window of enlightened secularists who got their way with our Constitution. We would have done much worse if the nutjobs of that day had won out. When secularism becomes tyrannical it seems prone to take the form of a religion - as with Stalinism, formed by a former seminarian. Obviously that isn't something I want.
Hector writes: "It's you who is comfortable with not having an explanation for how the world came into being. " Being able to accept that you don't know the answer to a problem when you don't have enough data to solve it is a very good indicator of sanity, Hector. Picking an ancient fairy tale as your answer is not. If my parents had never told me the Tooth Fairy wasn't the one leaving money under my pillow when I lost a tooth and I still believed it, I don't think many people would think I was making a rational conclusion. I guess you don't agree.
Moe, Blaming Stalinism on the Russian Orthodox Church is like blaming homosexuals for Hitler. It's true that Stalin was a seminarian, much like Hitler was gay....so what? On the contrary, I think that we can solve the problem, and that people's mystical experiences of God are a piece of data in solving it. Above you say that some conception of God is reasonable, not the Christian one. That's a start. Which particular elements of the Christian God seem unreasonable to you? And more to the point, the God that you believe in- what's unreasonablein believeing that Jesus Christ was His Son.
Hector replies: "Blaming Stalinism on the Russian Orthodox Church is like blaming homosexuals for Hitler. It's true that Stalin was a seminarian, much like Hitler was gay....so what?" I didn't blame Stalinism on the Orthodox Church, Hector. I blamed it on Stalin. And Hitler wasn't gay, but I'm beginning to think you wish you weren't. You seem to have a real hang-up about it - more so than anyone I know, actually. You should probably think about why that is. "Above you say that some conception of God is reasonable, not the Christian one. That's a start. Which particular elements of the Christian God seem unreasonable to you? And more to the point, the God that you believe in- what's unreasonablein believeing that Jesus Christ was His Son." Oh, it's no more unreasonable than thinking Harvey Fierstein or Jack the Ripper was "His" son, I suppose. It's definitely no more unreasonable than thinking Satan was also "His" son. We've discussed Hell before, Hector, but since you absolve your god of any responsibility for that, I guess you can't accept my problem with that heinous idea. I would suggest that if you, yourself, have no problems with your own conception of god then you're not trying very hard. Even Mother Teresa wasn't that pure of heart. Of course, she was sort of a nasty old bat.
Well, OK, Moe, I agree. I should give it a rest, permanently. I won't talk about gay issues anymore, I mostly was doing it to get your goat, in the same way that you like to raise my hackles by calling Jesus 'Jeezass' and so forth. Not very Christian of me, and I apologize. On to better things. Do you think that Jesus was not different in kind than Jack the Ripper? Do you not think there's a reason why many people who knew Jesus thought it reasonable to call him Son of God? No one said that bout the Ripper. What's nasty about Mother Teresa? She was a revered person and not just by Christians. Did you know that even the atheist and communist leader of the West Bengal state had nothing but the highest respect and praise for her- he donated the land for her hospital, ensured that the power never went off at her hospital even when it went off all over the city, and said he would receive her anytime even if he had to interrupt a cabinet meeting. If the old communist warhorse Mr. Basu could have so much respect for someone whose metaphysics he did not share, then why can't you?
Above you say that some conception of God is reasonable, not the Christian one. That's a start. Which particular elements of the Christian God seem unreasonable to you? His supposed omnipotence and benevolence (raises the Problem of Evil). But then, I've never been able to understand how Christians can claim with a straight face both that God is benevolent and that the Bible is His Word. The God who stars in the Bible is anything but benevolent. And more to the point, the God that you believe in- what's unreasonablein believeing that Jesus Christ was His Son. It doesn't make any sense. I know that "son" is not supposed to be taken literally, but in exactly what sense is Jesus Christ supposed to be the "son" of God? The whole "savior of mankind" story seems to me nonsensical. Why was it necessary to create a son to "save" mankind? Why was it necessary for this son to die?
Who makes the more sweeping dismissal of the Hindu's truth claims here? You, or me? I claim that they were real experiences although not quite what the Hindu thought they were. (Perhaps they were visions of some lesser angel named Krishna). You dismiss them root and branch as delusions. Hector, I think you are cheating here. I am sure many Hindus experience precisely the Krishna that their religion posits, not as some "lesser angel" that you speculate might really explain the vision. Look, all you are doing is grafting explanations that are consistent with YOUR religious beliefs onto the mystical experiences of others. But there is no basis for this other than by assuming that YOUR beliefs are true in the first place. It's nothing more than begging the question. In contrast, a person who accepts naturalistic explanations doesn't have to beg the question. Our minds are capable of conjuring things that didn't actually happen, and which we perceive as "mystical" experiences. We know this. Indeed, you know this-- I am sure you will agree that SOME people who think they are seeing God are hallucinating. So naturalists are applying a well-established explanation to a category of experiences. No circular reasoning is required.
Jesus loved the Patriots and Packers today! What teams will Jesus love tomorrow? Quick, name some Christians who thinks Jesus punished Jacksonville and Seattle today. Hint: Don't let any of them handle your investments. (As a Patriots fan, I'm glad Belichick isn't one of the JesusJesusJesus coaches. I'm also glad he's been more successful than the ones who are.)
Mixner, "Son" in the sense that Jesus emanates, consubstantially, from the Father. A potter 'creates' a vase which is of a nature different from himself. but he 'begets' a son which is of the same nature as himself. Similarly, God creates the angels and humankind, of a nature diferent from himself, but He _begets_ Jesus, i.e. Jesus emanates from His being and is of a nature identical to the Father. In this sense Jesus is the (only) Son of the Father. Dilan, I doubt any single Hindu (and of course I know a lot of them, being from a part Hindu family) would be amenable to your explanation that Krishna is a figment of their imaginations, or that their minds 'conjure something that didn't really happen'. They might not be entirely happy with my explanation either, but at least my explanation posits that there really is someone called Krishna, albeit a lesser angel. Indeed, many people have proved amenable to the idea that their traditional gods are congruent with Christian angels or saints- consider the syncretistic religions in Africa, the Caribbean and South America.
I doubt any single Hindu (and of course I know a lot of them, being from a part Hindu family) would be amenable to your explanation that Krishna is a figment of their imaginations, or that their minds 'conjure something that didn't really happen'. They might not be entirely happy with my explanation either, but at least my explanation posits that there really is someone called Krishna, albeit a lesser angel. Indeed, many people have proved amenable to the idea that their traditional gods are congruent with Christian angels or saints- consider the syncretistic religions in Africa, the Caribbean and South America. Hector, what makes people happy and what is true are two different things.
This coming from the guy who thinks that we should redefine unborn children as 'unpersons' specifically because it would make the women of the boardroom happy, that's funny. Really priceless. You have given no reason to believe that the Hindu's mystical experiences with Krishna are hallucinations, and every indication of unwillingness to realize the plain fact that my metaphysic can account for the Hindu's experience better than your. Truly, I understand why your party (and mine too) symbol is a donkey....people like you are truly as stubborn as a donkey.
This coming from the guy who thinks that we should redefine unborn children as 'unpersons' specifically because it would make the women of the boardroom happy, that's funny. Hector, the pro-choice side ISN'T the side that screws with the definitions. The entire pro-life argument (at least the one that isn't overtly based on sexism) is based on using formal categories to ignore the obvious differences between a microscopic zygote and a born child. In fact, the sillyness of that position, and the way it ignores reality, is one of the reasons why most of us on the pro-choice side think that pro-lifers are simply motivated by a desire to roll back sex and gender roles.
Re: In fact, the sillyness of that position, and the way it ignores reality, is one of the reasons why most of us on the pro-choice side think that pro-lifers are simply motivated by a desire to roll back sex and gender roles. An embryo and a child share the same essential nature. A thing is not necessarily defined by its physical properties. Particularly not in this case, where some physical properties are in fact shared. The fact that you appear not to recognize the concept of 'essential nature' being distinct from the 'accidents' (what a thing looks like, etc.) is the root of your problem. Please read some Plato. Also, the early Church believed life began at conception. Tell me Dilan, is sexual morality freer and gender roles more equal in India where abortion is legal, or in Brazil where it isn't?
An embryo and a child share the same essential nature. You use these terms like "essential nature" to cover up the lack of an actual argument. What the heck is an essential nature? Where is the evidence that we have one? What is the criterion or test that one can use for determining it? Why was that essential nature selected from other attributes that might also be considered essential? The fact that you appear not to recognize the concept of 'essential nature' being distinct from the 'accidents' (what a thing looks like, etc.) is the root of your problem. Please read some Plato. With all respect to Plato, this one goes in the category of another great philosopher, who said that "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". It is perfectly obvious that lots of things have to happen for a human person to result, and the truth is that Plato and other thinkers of the distant past drew many, many categories (such as mind vs. substance, the four basic elements, the humour theory of human biology, etc.) that were completely wrong. Again, what you are concealing is something that I KNOW you know to be true, but will never in your life admit. There are a bunch of possible steps on the way to a live birth where one could draw the line and declare personhood, and that people who think that society is worse off when women gain the assurance that they can have sex without the potential consequence of childbearing always will pick the one event (conception) that allows them to hold that position. Tell me Dilan, is sexual morality freer and gender roles more equal in India where abortion is legal, or in Brazil where it isn't? That's not really relevant to the motives of AMERICAN pro-lifers, Hector. I think I have mentioned in other threads that it is possible for abortion to be legalized in a quite ANTI-feminist manner, i.e., to allow abortions of baby girls or to permit husbands or the state to force women to have abortions who don't want them. That's not what the abortion debate in this country is about, however.
Dilan - so abortion supporters are allowed to have either good motives or bad, but abortion opponents have only bad motives? You seem to be arguing that the (widely-agreed *) badness of legalising abortion for "paterfamilias" reasons is not allowed to taint the claimed goodness of legalising it for "materfamilias" reasons instead; that an evidence-based comparison between, say, the power of women in Russia or Japan vs the power of women in Ireland or Bavaria is irrelevant because "the US debate" is about something else. Do pro-lifers get judged by the same yardstick, or is every Nat Hentoff or Helen Alvare guilty by association with an Eric Rudolph? (* In that not even the most avowedly patriarchal conservatives - Robert Nisbet excepted - would argue that a father should have the power to decide whether to abort. Most pro-lifers are arguing for the man and the woman to have equal - ie, zero - power to abort their own children).
On the main question of relative weirdness of doctrines... Daniel C Dennett, in his much-quoted "playing tennis with the net down" argument, claims that all appeals to the supernatural are equally out of court (in both senss); that once you accept that a metaphysical force (God, gods, karma) exists, all statements about it are equally implausible. I don't accept this. I'm not Catholic or Pentecostal, eg, but I believe that claims about healings at Lourdes or your local megachurch deserve more respect from rationalists and skeptics, even from outright atheists - being harder to debunk - than, eg, the claims to godhood of ancient emperors. I'm not an Egyptian polytheist or a Mormon, but a doctrine that the gods helped build the pyramids is more difficult to refute than a claim that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. A claim that there's a sea monster in Loch Ness is harder to laugh off than a claim that there's a sea monster in your washbasin. And so forth. Even rationalists themselves concede that not all religions are equally implausible. Quite often one reads skeptics (eg, Gibbon) writing something on Islam that boils down to "Well, sure, it is tosh, but at least it's minimalist tosh - Muslims don't ask you to swallow such bizarre doctrines as transubstantiation, the Trinity, magical priestly powers, etc." Voltaire took a similar view: getting rid of Catholic dogmas was a good first step, he thought, but the Protestants would do even better if they stripped away the Biblical mumbo-jumbo too and got back to simple, naturally-reasoned Deism. I even doubt that Dennett himself would consider Bishop Spong's or the Unitarian Universalists' belief in some form of [d]eity to be as laughable - to them - as some elderly Italian lady with a scapular and Sacred Heart icon.
Ross, I propose that we chris- ... er, name this line of argument "The Baldur-dash Gambit", seeing as it, like so many other anti-Christian zings of the past forty years, was refuted by CS Lewis long before the [d]awkinians ever thought it up: "The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens – at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Baldur or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate." - "Myth Became Fact," (1944), rep in "God in the Dock" (1979), ed Walter Hooper.
Mr. Blaine, There are also suprising parallels and foreshadowings of the Christian story in the myths of the Persians, the Hindus and the Mesoamericans, as well as the better known ones of the Jews and Greeks (and it sounds like Baldur as well). The Hindu scriptures contain ten characteristics of the 'perfect sacrifice' to atone for sin which bear shocking similarities to the details of the crucifixion, for example. This is among the many reasons why it is reasonable to believe in Christianity; it provides an explanation not only of itself but (in part) of many other world religions as well.
Hector, MoeLJ is/ was right. You are a queer fish, theologico-politically speaking. Most left-wing Christians I've known are whitebread liberal/ mainstream Protestants. Anyway, keep it up, love your work. I should note that, pace Dennett, none other than Isaac Asimov - who, I think it safe to say, has faierly solid credentials as a rationalist - thought that the traditional theistic (Jewish and Christian) explanation for the Ten Plagues of Egypt was more plausible (or, at least, less implausible) than Immanuel Veikovsky's pseudo-scientific one.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
That intellectual Christians have been working on an "elaborately reasoned theological view" for 1900 years or so doesn't make the factual underpinnings of the religion more plausible than those of Mormonism. It just means they've wasted more man-hours on angels/dancing/pinhead arguments than Mormons have. At some point this will even out.
The Revelation-based eschatology of the Left Behind crowd is as screamingly stupid as anything in Mormonism, and we probably won't see Larison saying otherwise anytime soon. Like most modern Christians who are intellectuals, he has handcrafted his own version of the religion to make sure the naughty bits aren't hanging out. This avoids embarrassment.
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 9, 2008 5:33 PM