Dialogue with a skeptic

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by Homer » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:20 pm

One little side-note on the question of the correlation between intelligence and atheism
Intelligence is overrated. There is no correlation between intelligence and wisdom. If you doubt this, look at the lives of intelligent people. They make a mess of their lives as much as, or more than anyone.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by darinhouston » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:38 pm

look2jesus wrote:Darin,

I am in the middle of various discussions within my family circle regarding atheism/evolution and I am really looking forward to this continuing dialog. Has Frank spoken with you to indicate a response to Steve is forthcoming? So far, it's been a captivating debate.

l2j
Nope -- I hope he does.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by darinhouston » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:51 pm

In an ongoing dialogue, this snippet came up -- anyone know of a site summing up the truth of what is known historically about these guys? I seem to hear a lot on both sides and can't tell what extent they were deists or theists, etc....
" A nonsentient supreme force, the deism of Jefferson, Franklin, Washington-ish, and Hobbes, is in practical terms atheism. There's no interaction, no worshipping or reason to, no eschatology... etc."

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by darinhouston » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:44 am

This is what I'm working on as a response...
Modern Atheistic responses such as this lack precision and rigor of earlier times and are hard to sustain in productive dialogue. Perhaps this is due to the casual and popular atheism that has spread without grounding in the earlier debates and in lexical discipline, owing more to avoidance of absolutism than to truth. Even something as recent as the theological positions of our founding fathers is bandied about with such cavalier disregard for actual truth that I was tempted just to drop the exchange. However, since I am quite the fan of both Jefferson and Franklin in some areas (though certainly not in all respects) and notwithstanding they were no theologians (and hence their religious views and those of others of the time have little bearing on the issue beyond self-defense, historic interest and constitutional interpretation), I dare to redeem them from your characterization if only slightly. Consider the following exchange from Jefferson to John Adams on the subject of the Deity, and the other snippets from his personal letters and speeches and also the following from Franklin. These provide but a glimpse, but it is hard to honestly suggest they didn’t believe in a sustaining and sentient God – a God who creates and sustains and judges all things. Jefferson, in particular, had no blind faith (in ANYTHING), but his questioning (and he, like I try to do, questioned EVERYTHING) led him to the inexorable conclusion that such a God existed. He, like many other founders, were cut from the Unitarian and Freemason cloth – I am no fan of Freemasonry (or of Unitarianism), but they are undoubtedly not the sort of Deists you suggest. They were, it seems to me, generally much more of the Aristotelian variety in all respects than even the Platonic. From my understanding, they believe completely in a personal God who is active in the world, that there is a divine punishment/consequence for evil, and that there is an afterlife. Today’s secular humanism owes little to them, and more to the French atheistic deists of the Enlightenment (so-called).

***

1787 August 10. (Jefferson to Peter Carr). "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."[8]

***

Existence of Deity/God, by Thomas Jefferson

I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that without a revelation. there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God.

Now, one-sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christian; the other five-sixths, then who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation. are without knowledge of the existence of a God! This gives completely a gain de cause to the disciples of Ocelllus Spinoza Diderot and D'Holbach.

The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is, that every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal preexistence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when only will suffice.

They say then that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a Being whom we see not and know not, of whose form, substance and mode, or place of existence, or of action, no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend.

On the contrary. I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in all its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.

The movements of the heavenly bodies so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal force, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands. water and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects. mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances. their generation and uses; it is impossible I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is in all this design, cause and effect up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms. We see, too evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the universe in its course and order.

Stars well known. have disappeared, new ones have come into view ; comets in their incalculable courses. may run afoul of suns and planets. and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals become extinct and were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one. Until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful agent that of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time they have believed, in the proportion at least to a unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator rather than in that of a self-existent universe.

Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis. Some early Christians, indeed have believed in the co-eternal pre-existence of both the Creator and the world, without changing their relation of cause and effect That was to opinion of St. Thomas we are informal by cardinal Toleta. To JOHN ADAMS vii 281 1823 Jefferson Cyclopedia, Foley 1900

***

“While we devoutly return thanks to the Beneficent Being who has been pleased to breath into our sister nations the spirit of conciliation and forgiveness, we are bound with peculiar gratitude to be thankful to Him that our own peace has been preserved.” JEFFERSON’S FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE. viii, 6. FORD ED., viii, 109. (Dec. 1801.)

***

“When we assemble together to consider the state of our beloved country, our just attentions are first drawn to those pleasing circumstances which mark the goodness of that Being from whose favor they flow, and the large measure of thankfulness we owe for His bounty.” JEFFERSON’S SECOND ANNUAL MESSAGE, viii, 15. FORD ED., viii, 181. (Dec. 1802.)

***

“We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it ; and He will give them their effect in His own time.” Jefferson To DAVID BARROW, vi, 456. FORD ED., ix, 516. (M., 1815.)

***

1821 February 27.  (Jefferson to Timothy Pickering). "[n]o one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in it’s advances towards rational Christianity. when we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus, when, in short, we shall have unlearned every thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples: and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr Drake, has been a common one. the religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconcievable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce it’s founder an imposter. had there never been a Commentator, there never would have been an infidel. in the present advance of truth, which we both approve, I do not know that you and I may think alike on all points. as the Creator has made no two faces alike, so no two minds, and probably no two creeds. we well know that among Unitarians themselves there are strong shades of difference, as between Doctors Price and Priestley for example. so there may be peculiarities in your creed and in mine. they are honestly formed without doubt. I do not wish to trouble the world with mine, nor to be troubled for them. these accounts are to be settled only with him who made us; and to him we leave it, with charity for all others, of whom also he is the only rightful and competent judge. I have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the Unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also."[14]

***

Finally, with a nod to Ben Franklin, here is a letter from him to Ezra Stiles in 1790 pertaining to his flavor of Deism (again, bearing little resemblance to today’s secular humanism). “Here is my creed. I believe in One God, the Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render Him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion.”

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by darinhouston » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:34 pm

His reply...
Oh good lord! [sic], I didn't want another argument over the founders! But I DID jump the gun. I lumped Hobbe's deist phil. in with them unfairly. Jefferson dug Jesus's morality, but didn't believe the divinity, or in miracles. That means no intervention. He was a “naturalist’ and thought Revelations was the rantings of a mad man and didn't have any sort of conventional eschatology. Being a politician he had to give lip service to god - they ALWAYS have to, and still do... so I must say their speeches and such don't mean much to me (nor do they today - from either side...) but publishing his own bible with all the miracles and Jesus's divinity carefully removed, speaks volumes in my book... Don't forget, these guys were into Enlightenment phil. and regarded themselves as scientists and intellectuals more than politicians, and this was during a time when essentially the whole country/colonists were Christian in some distinct denomination. For these guys to reject or disbelieve miracles and the divinity of Jesus was a really big deal. I certainly don’t think a politician, CERTAINLY not for president, could ever hope of getting elected by calling themselves a deist, TODAY. Deism was popular among scientists and intellectuals at the time because it allowed for a belief in some sort of higher being without having to believe in stuff that looked like mythology. They sided with science. Search for “Jefferson’s anti-religious quotes.” You will get direct references also.

User avatar
Perry
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by Perry » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:38 pm

No doubt both of you could marshal a great number of notable figures from the past to shore up your side of the debate. Probably, Darin, you would win that one eventually, but only because the weight of history is on your side. I suspect your opponent could then claim that's only because there were probably many others who doubted God's existence, but were too timid to give voice to those doubts in public. Then things devolve into ad hominem pot shots at one another's army of authorities.

I guess for my part I see this whole idea of pointing to the beliefs of certain "heroic" figures from the past as a bit of a non sequitur and a distraction from the main thread of the debate.

[Edit] I probably shouldn't have said, "but only because the weight of history is on your side." I'm probably being too skeptical about where the preponderance of opinion is headed.

Also, I couldn't find you on facebook. That may be because I'm not a facebooker, and was attempting, without really knowing how, to find you using my wife's account. It would be nice to here the audio clip in question.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by darinhouston » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:22 am

Perry wrote:No doubt both of you could marshal a great number of notable figures from the past to shore up your side of the debate. Probably, Darin, you would win that one eventually, but only because the weight of history is on your side. I suspect your opponent could then claim that's only because there were probably many others who doubted God's existence, but were too timid to give voice to those doubts in public. Then things devolve into ad hominem pot shots at one another's army of authorities.

I guess for my part I see this whole idea of pointing to the beliefs of certain "heroic" figures from the past as a bit of a non sequitur and a distraction from the main thread of the debate.

[Edit] I probably shouldn't have said, "but only because the weight of history is on your side." I'm probably being too skeptical about where the preponderance of opinion is headed.

Also, I couldn't find you on facebook. That may be because I'm not a facebooker, and was attempting, without really knowing how, to find you using my wife's account. It would be nice to here the audio clip in question.
It wasn't audio -- it was the following text:
Atheism: The belief there was once absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever), into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

And they mock your beliefs.

User avatar
Perry
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by Perry » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:34 am

Hi Darrin,

To what was Steve referring with the following?
You have become "Exhibit A" in demonstrating the point I made in the above audio clip, viz., that naturalism artificially binds its advocates in an intellectuial straight-jacket.
That seems to have little to do with the text you just posted.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by steve » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:17 pm

The original audio clip, to which Frank was responding, had said that, as long as a person insists upon a naturalistic worldview, which is an a priori denial of a supernatural realm, then all reported miracles will sound to him like faerie tales. Frank responded by proving my point. He is a committed naturalist, and was saying that the stories of Jesus' miracles were like other faerie tales. I was just pointing out that he had demonstrated my point.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Dialogue with a skeptic

Post by darinhouston » Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:22 pm

What do you think?
Frank
You have a funny way of avoiding a subject. ;) Seriously, even this post reflects what I'm talking about -- it's not a lack of detail and specificity I complain of, it's a lack of precision. Saying what you mean and using discipline in terminology and categories and avoiding kitchen sink hodgepodge shotgun and careless arguments is what I'm talking about.

First, a bit more on Jefferson et al. It seems hardly surprising that a man's theology might evolve over his lifetime and for a thinker (though non-theologian) like Jefferson, as but an example, I would actually be surprised if he wasn't somewhat inconsistent in his writings and speeches over the years. However, aside from his inaugural address, my examples were from private letters to his friends and confidants and brothers in arms, so to speak.

Second, you seem to confuse divinity and deity. Jesus' divinity is not the question, it's his deity. His deity (and all aspects of the trinitarian formulations) have been a hotly debated subject within Christianity since the beginning. A heterodox view of Christ's deity hardly makes him the sort of deist you suggest. I don't know a lot about his view of miracles, but as he believed God was and remains an active agent in Creation throughout time, he is again clearly not the sort of deist you are alluding to. As to eschatology, you didn't say he had a problem with the book of Revelation. You said he (and others) had "no discernible eschatology." This is demonstrably false. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term or perhaps you were just being careless with your terminology, but these men were keenly aware of the afterlife, and seemed to have had pretty conventional views about it even if they didn't accept the book of The Revelation, which itself has a questionable canonical history. Furthermore, the nature of a literal and eternal hellfire torment has also been hotly debated within Christianity. I believe Jefferson was wrong about The Revelation because he was as ignorant as many today are about the genre being used. If he had read some of today's theologians on the subject, he might have embraced it as I do (though my views are fairly unconventional today, they would not have been prior to the 1800s). All of this is a red herring, of course, because these individuals' (or any individual's) beliefs are quite irrelevant to the points being discussed. Their views are worth discussing, but their beliefs aren't really all that helpful to the present inquiry.

Turning to science, it seems you're "blinded by science." (sorry - I couldn't resist) I respect science. I am a scientist. I work with and for scientists and in pursuit of science every day. Science is a great tool. But, it lacks the capacity to prove this subject. We end up making a philosophical argument at the end of a scientific debate, anyway, so it doesn't really seem to help do anything but move the question. However, to be fair, the original post did not mock science. It mocked a philosophy and a world-view. Though people may base such a world view or reinforce it based on scientific discoveries, this doesn't make the statement a scientific proposition, and so mocking it doesn't mock science, it mocks the worldview of those who may or may not use science in support of their own presuppositions. Many Christians do the same, and when an atheist mocks a Christian who supports his beliefs from interpreting and extrapolating from scientific discoveries the atheist is no more mocking science than the Christian.

Now, looking more closely at a particular area of science as an example, I share your interest in the neurological implications of faith and such. I was listening to two separate debates between some renowned neuroscientists the other day on both sides of the debate who were discussing this very thing. Though interesting, they each pretty much agreed that nothing could be proven about the reality of faith or spiritual experiences by neurology. However, not surprisingly, they each drew separate conclusions from the same studies. An example, you have alluded to studies finding a place or mechanism in the brain that accounts for spiritual experiences and faith and the like. I have passing familiarity with those studies and have heard studied men discuss them. I do not find it surprising that we are created with the mechanism and even the predisposition to believe in the unprovable. This is what I would expect from a Creator God who desires His creation to know and experience Him. I don't find it at all problematic to my position that such an experience would involve natural processes. That some can be shown to have false experiences when these functions misfire (so to speak) doesn't negate the very real experiences others may have through them. Just because I can give someone a drug to excite a neurotransmitter to make a person believe and behave as if a monster was in the room does not mean that everyone who behaves as if a monster in the room is delusional. That reaction is quite normal in those who share a room with a monster. What I found most interesting -- BOTH neuroscientists adamantly agreed that the "norm" was the brain state that tended to accept these unprovable "faith" propositions, and even the commited atheist conceded that it was in a sense a brain dysfunction (or error) for those who were incapable or highly resistant to such beliefs. This has some bearing on my own theological position against a deterministic calvinism, but it doesn't to my mind do anything but support the Christian worldview and certainly doesn't disprove it (or seriously call it into question). So, to my point, science is fascinating but not all that helpful to the question of either the origin of mankind or (especially) the origin of the Universe.


I also recently watched Richard Dawkins in a dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury who discussed these issues, and Dawkins pointed out that a God of the Universe wouldn't have designed us in such an inefficient manner. I've obviously heard that argument before (as no doubt you have also). But, he identified as the best example in his opinion a particular nerve (I can't recall the name) that runs from the brain stem to the larynx -- instead of taking a direct route, it takes a long and indirect path down the spine and back up, which he claims makes perfect evolutionary sense if the same nerve derived evolutionally from a fish who needed that direct route. At the same time, he said this disproves an efficient and creative god, and particularly so if man was his ultimate creative purpose (in which case the nerve would always take the most direct route). Curiously, the Archbishop (who believes in evolutionary creationism by the way) conceded that this was a real problem with his position (no surprise -- he is himself an evolutionist so he didn't seem to try too hard to dissuade this line of argument). This was frustrating to me -- so clear is the response. The atheist acknowledged later in discussing a different point that he could only view design from the discrete design of specific material things, and had no idea what tools and methods one would employ if one were to create an entire universe full of varied life forms. That is PRECISELY the point -- the atheist scoffs at the creationist with reference to the similarity of the genome. I marvel at the elegance and efficiency of the creative use of such a small set of "code." What an efficient way to create all life if that's what happened -- vary this and tweak that and look at the beauty and diversity. It's a wonder that we share so many features and yet differ in so many ways. Where the evolutionist sees a single act of spontaneity and then natural selection, I see a common and well-worn tool set of a master craftsman keeping his inventory down and doing wonderful things with such a small set of tools. To create a man and a fish with the same raw materials is remarkable and if having an elongated nerve is the thing that enables this, then voila and voila. Finally, I think it's interesting that a scientist of 100 years ago would probably have locked you up if you pronounced some of today's quantum theories (or branded you as a witch or something). Science MUST remain humble, and a true scientist knows more than the theologian to avoid absolutism, especially in (so-called) "proven" theorems. All this is just to say that we shouldn't place too much emphasis on science -- it isn't your savior or mine.

By the way, I have heard Dawkins say he considers himself a 3.9 out of 4 (or 3.99) - he says he would be a 4 but for refusing to be mocked by the irrationality of absolutism (I paraphrase I'm sure) and especially so in proving a negative with stated absolutism (though he says he is as close as one can possibly be). I believe he would be a 3 or 4 in his belief that a plane can fly, so when atheists try to pretend their really agnostic, it comes across as dishonest and is just one more thing that gets in the way of honest dialogue.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”