This response is too long to occupy a single post here, so it is posted in two parts...
Hi Frank,
I know that you don’t know me, and have already diagnosed me as an angry person, who has unresolved trauma issues. Therefore, you might misinterpret a testy jab here and there, on my part, taking advantage of the weakness of what I perceive to be one of the many vulnerable points in your arguments, as mean-spiritedness. On the contrary, I’m actually having a bit of fun with this, so I hope you can take it in the spirit of good-natured competition. You are the one who set the tone for this dialogue. Although there was nothing aggressive, nor offensive, in the tone of the audio clip to which you first responded, you nonetheless jumped in, unprovoked, with both guns blazing. I thought you were setting the precedent for the tone in which you wished for others to respond. I hope you won’t cry “foul” upon discovering that the camp you have chosen to assail is heavily armed—and not committed to non-resistance. I give my disclaimer at the outset. I will not pull punches. If we are both honest men, then vigorous, not vapid, debate is the only kind that we can enjoy and respect.
Darin has mentioned to me that you feel you were insulted by me in my former posts. You think it ironic that, in our interaction, the
Christian insulted the
atheist, while the
atheist did not insult the
Christian (your apparent perception). Now, since you are schooled in psychology and sociology, you may have a better grasp than would a rank layman, like myself, on the concept of what does, and what does not, constitute an “insult” (certainly an entirely
subjective phenomenon). From my benighted point of view, it seems that an ordinary man who is told that his worldview places him in the same psychological category with terrorists, who fly planes into buildings to kill innocent people, might regard this as an insulting remark. I suppose that it takes a person as well-trained as yourself to see that such comparisons should be taken by the one so described only as an objective and constructive evaluation, and that (being the assessment of an expert), such criticisms should be accepted with gratitude—perhaps even with prostrate abjection.
Of course, when I heard the report that I had insulted you, I combed carefully through my previous posts in order to find what element in them might have been so construed by a self-possessed man of learning, like yourself. All I could find in my posts was a reference to you as a “fundamentalist.” Since you have a taste for ironies, do you not find it amusing that the man who is gratuitously likened to an Islamo-fascist must never find this offensive, while a man being referred to as a “fundamentalist” must assume a posture of wounded dignity?
Our mutual friend Darin also shared some of what you wrote off-line to him, in which you apparently had a few more directly insulting things to say—seemingly giving you a slight lead on the insult tally. Perhaps you will think me to have evened-up the score in the present response, but it is not my intention to insult anyone—though it is hard to guarantee that rational criticisms will never be received with offense by the one critiqued. I am an educator. My sole interest in life is in identifying errors in thinking (my own and others’) and attempting to bring more clarity. If you tell a student he is failing miserably, he might feel his pride insulted, but he ought, instead of taking offense, make an effort to correct his trajectory. I realize that you have not asked to be my student, but you have submitted a "paper" for my evaluation, so it seems within my province to give it a grade (with my constructive criticisms attached).
Other than the use of the term “fundamentalist,” I could not find anything that I said that a person of normal emotional health should find offensive (Of course, I am not including “monumental arrogance” within the domain of "normal emotional health"). You must agree that a man who gets his panties in a wad, simply because another man is less than impressed with his pretenses of erudition, is not a healthy boy. Christians may be required to turn the other cheek, but no one ever is obliged to turn the other ear when hearing nonsense that calls for rebuttal. For this reason, I have reconsidered, and have decided to answer your last post after all.
First, a couple of the terms that I will use frequently should be clearly defined. One is “fundamentalist,” and the other is “open-minded thinker.” Without some explanation of my intended usage, one might assume that I intend the first of these as a term of abuse reserved for those with whom I disagree, while the other is being bestowed as a reward upon those wise and good enough to share my opinions. The fact that skeptics typically use these words in this disingenuous manner may engender that presumption.
Though the label “fundmentalist” is indeed used, in our times, almost exclusively as a term of derision, this was not always the case. The term was once used only of a group of conservative Christian scholars, and did not carry the negative associations that it now generally has. The first “fundamentalists” were Princeton scholars of impeccable credentials, who sought, by scholarly argumentation, to reassert what they regarded to be the “fundamentals” of historic Christianity in a time (the early 1900s) when European “modernist” scholars were challenging the reliability of those fundamentals. Fundamentalism was, in those days, an intellectually respectable movement.
That has changed in modern times. Today “fundamentalist”, when applied to Christians, usually means a pig-headed, intractable, religious bigot—who, as likely as not, will be envisaged carrying a sandwich-board with the slogan "God hates fags!" upon it.. Nor is the term popularly confined to “Christian” bigots, but also (even more commonly in our time) to Muslim extremists. The word’s original meaning has morphed to the point that, in common usage, it is thought to mean a (usually stupid) person blindly committed to a religious ideal, and immune to persuasion by any amount of evidence contrary to their position. Since the word hasn’t the same connotations to all people, I must clarify that I mean it in this latter, popular sense.
Thus no gratuitous insult was or is intended. It is being used as a term having a precise meaning—i.e., that of a person whose normal ability to think clearly seems to be paralyzed by a predominant religious prejudice. The word, in my usage, can be applied to any such people, regardless what their religious orientation—including certain people who share my general worldview, as well as atheists.
On the other hand, when I speak of an “open-minded thinker,” I am simply referring to an honest and rational person, who is capable of weighing the value of an argument and is willing to take all the facts into account, and to let them lead to whatever convictions are best supported by the evidence. The truth will always have the best arguments. For that reason, a truth seeker will always be interested in hearing the very best evidence available for every alternative position, so as to be able to recognize which of the alternatives has the best claim on his confidence. This is what I mean by an “open-minded thinker.”
Therefore, it should not be thought that the deck is being stacked against unbelievers by this choice of vocabulary. Some believers are fundamentalists, some are open-minded thinkers; some non-believers are fundamentalists, while others are open-minded thinkers. It is not really hard to tell them apart. One insists upon following the evidence, while the other accepts only what agrees with his prejudices.
It seems that you have gotten in over your head in this dialogue. This is difficult to conceal in your writing. Since you find yourself unable to answer rational objections against, nor present positive evidence for, your worldview, you simply do what any insecure debater does to save face: resort to the use of
ad hominem. You strike me as a man who never met a logical fallacy that he did not like—though you are apparently more unfamiliar with them than you think you are, and, amusingly, you denied that you had resorted to them! At least
denial is itself not another logical fallacy—it is merely a clinical pathology. In writing me off as one who is allegedly troubled by unresolved trauma issues, rather than answering my points, you commit this fallacy in spades (before denying it, this time, you might look it up—it is the third logical fallacy found in your correspondence thus far). If (as may be the case) you have been out of school too long, I will remind you of the formal definitions of these fallacies:
Definition of “Category Error" (from: About.com)
A category error occurs when someone acts as though some object had properties which it does not or cannot have. The reason why it cannot have those properties is because the properties belong to objects in some other category or class.
This would occur, for example, when a man argues that things existing in the non-natural realm must possess the ability to be tested naturally.
------------------------------------
Definition of “Begging the Question” (from fallacyfiles.org)
The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.
This would obviously occur, for example, when the "question" being debated is whether scientific evidences are the only legitimate evidences worthy of consultation, and the debater argues that they must be, because they are the only evidences for which scrientific evidence can be found!
----------------------------------
Definition of ad hominem (from Wikipedia):
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.
This would occur, for example, when a debater, finding himself out of his depth and incapable of addressing the real arguments of his opponent, should begin to call him "a man of little education," or "of a low IQ", or a “religious nut.” Such tactics are intended to misdirect attention from the merits of the actual arguments, by suggesting that the person making them is unworthy of consideration.
Any of these sound familiar? Do I need to quote the actual examples from your posts, or can you find them yourself? I pointed them out
in situ. If you wish, I can cut and paste them from both of your former posts (along with your denials of having made them!!!!).
With these preliminary explanations behind us, I will turn to the specific points raised in your last posting to me. I will quote you in black text, and give my responses in blue:
I’ll respond to your paragraphs in numerical order. I’m a brusque and say what I think, so please don’t mistake my method for rudeness, as that isn’t my intention.
Better a “brusque” than a “bright,” I would say! By the way, it is not my intention to be rude either. I suspect that, in the process of making a prolonged presentation, the measured language that is attempted at the beginning tends to get run over by an adamant stream of consciousness. If I succumb to the same tendency, I apologize in advance. If I resort to a short and snide remark, I hope you will recognize that I am being playful.
In my answers to your points I will actually quote your own words, so that I cannot be accused of misconstruing you. This is a far preferable method than that of criticizing a mere summary of what a man’s general position is assumed to be. If you wish to critique my thoughts, please be so responsible as to cite my actual statements (since, without doing so, we will have no way of knowing whether you are answering my actual beliefs or a mere caricature of them).
I may not respect your beliefs as objective truths, but that doesn’t mean I disrespect you as a person.
It is a relief to know that you do not disrespect Christians, as persons, any more than you disrespect the 9/11 airplane bombers, as persons. Nor, apparently, do you recognize any glaring differences between the two. The common tactic of the new atheists is to lump Christians and Muslims together as “religious believers” and then to criticize the actual behavior of extremists, with the pretense that “this is what religious belief does to a person.” Your lumping us all together, I admit, was not in the context of a criticism of religious actions, but of the bases for our beliefs, a matter to which you apparently have not devoted much unprejudiced research.
Para. 1.) Nope, I didn’t make a mistake. I’ll rephrase with more qualifications, however. In the way that “we” (and I’m referring to scientific answers/definitions that “we” humans have arrived upon for things – in an objective way) understand what “evidence” is (including the English dictionary – “to make clear”), my statement that “there is no evidence” is true.
Rephrasing did not help! Your second statement simply confirmed your error. You just now (again) limited the method by which “we… humans have arrived upon for things” to one, narrow subset of knowledge, which you defined as “scientific answers/definitions.” You have required believers in the supernatural to prove their beliefs by natural means, which any clear-thinking person would never do. Your decision to ignore all valid evidence other than that which comes from the realm of science is detrimental to your ability to investigate subjects outside of that realm—and your failure to recognize this is the category error of which I spoke.
Maybe there is some “evidence” out there we are unaware of - of course this could be true. This could be true for absolutely ANYTHING, as well. But in the way we define evidence, in the same way we use it to travel in space, make buildings not fall down, and cure small pox…, there is NO evidence (“available to us” if you like).
This is an example of what I have pointed out earlier to you. No thinking person would require that the evidence of supernatural phenomena must be of the same sort as that which makes discoveries in the natural world, nor would he expect that the knowledge of such matters would be obtained through the same technologies that discovered the existence of germs, the tensile strength of steel girders, or the means of propelling and controlling space vehicles.
Your repeated mantra that “there is NO evidence” for the supernatural does not become more true, more convincing, nor conducive of other’s gaining a high opinion of your intelligence, simply by its being chanted. Nor is the sophistry of the statement diminished by the repeated modifier “available to us”—since those who believe there is excellent evidence would argue that it is available to any objective observer. The question is one of your objectivity. A man with the humility requisite to be regarded as a scholar would be less careless in his cavalier dismissals of evidences that men far wiser than himself have so frequently found convincing.
Your comment would have had a more respectable tone had you honestly said, “I have very limited experience in any realm outside that of my academic training—which has, admittedly, not even begun to scratch the surface of all possibilities. Within that narrow range of my experience and knowledge, I have not yet seen or heard of anything that would convince me that there is a supernatural realm.” Anything more than a statement like this on your part is bound to be written-off by open-minded, thinking readers as the unvarnished arrogance of a religious fundamentalist—and an educated one, who ought to have known better than to think so highly of his own omniscience.
“Evidence” that may be out there may also NOT be out there, and certainly doesn’t count as evidence until it is clear.
An eye-witness testimony may be quite clear and unambiguous. It is not the clarity of the evidence, but the category, that is at issue here.
Moreover, no one could ever make the claim that they “ABSOLUTELY” know anything at all. We do the best we can with what is available or evident to us. I don’t absolutely KNOW that gravity or what we call gravity, is going to work in the same way next year, but I have a strong assumption that it will, based on what we do know about gravity.
This is what is rightly referred to as “faith.” We have all observed the faithfulness of the laws of physics with sufficient consistency to give us reasons to “believe” that they can be counted upon. The same is true of trusting a person. If you have observed, consistently, over a period of years, that a certain business partner, or employee, or vendor, has scruples and is reliable, then you will reasonably put faith in these qualities continuing to guide him in his future dealings with you. Without such faith, no fruitful human interactions could exist. Contrary to the frequent atheistic protestations, faith is not a synonym for irrationality. Properly understood, it is quite rational and rightly pervades almost all of our attitudes and beliefs, both scientific and otherwise.
We see (in the natural realm) a consistent law that intelligible information always originates only from rational minds, and never from random events. There has never been an observed exception. This being so, one is certainly not irrational in placing confidence in that same natural law when, upon discovering the existence of complex information in the DNA molecule, he deduces that this information, too, has its source in a rational mind—even if the possessor of that mind remains hidden from observation.
To conclude otherwise would be to depart from the normal rational process of placing confidence in established laws—as much as if we were to deny the law of gravity and so believe in flying horses. To discover complex, coded genetic information, and then to decide arbitrarily that, in this case alone, there is not a rational mind behind it, would require that we insist upon an ad hoc conclusion, based upon nothing other than blind, irrational faith. This is what dogmatic naturalists do, when they postulate a non-intelligent origin for the rational information written into all living cells. If this is not a form of religious fundamentalism, what could possibly qualify for such a label?
Your objection to my statement also applies to leprechauns and unicorns, as well as the assertion of the divinity of Gonesh, Jesus and Mohammed’s winged horseback ride to Jerusalem being true. There is no way to prove, disprove or clearly show any of these. Objectively. Which is what proof or evidence entails. Some form of “evidence” that is UNavailable to us is anyone’s ball game and ALL bets are off. Including yours. Descartes might suggest that maybe there’s no god, but a satanic figure is actually fooling you to believe in one, for some purpose that we are unaware of. Your objection gives this statement the same credence. And there is no evidence for it being true, either.
This is transparent nonsense. The mere assertion that we must be open-minded in looking at all credible evidence—whether of a scientific sort or of some other—does not translate into advocacy of gullibility.
I should not have thought it necessary to point out—even if I were addressing a bright child—that some very strange—even unique—events have been reported in history to have happened—some of which really occurred, and some of which did not. The scholar seeking to establish the credibility of any one of these stories is not being a fool if he says he wishes to rationally examine all the relevant data. If the story is a myth, the evidence for its truthfulness will not be impressive, so the researcher is not in danger of being led astray by such a policy.
That I have suggested nothing more than this should be obvious to anyone reading my statements—and that you object to this open-minded policy is equally obvious (peculiar, it seems to me, since you have degrees in psychology and sociology, neither of which are disciplines that depend for their theories upon strictly scientific verification).
Suffice it to say that your cliché comparisons of Christian beliefs with belief in the Olympian gods (if, indeed, anyone really DID believe in their existence—which is disputed), shows only that you either, a) have never bothered yourself to weigh the evidences supporting these respective beliefs, or b) that your formal education left you untrained in the skill of weighing evidences. This is a very common condition among the formally-educated, which can be easily-observed (it can be proven scientifically!). Parroting, rather than thinking, is what I far-too-frequently observe among many, including trained scholars—whether secular or Christian. Please see if you can surprise me by being an exception (you’re not off to a very good start).
Para. 2) Nope, I’m not begging the question. I don’t absolutely know that only nature exists, at all. I make an ASSUMPTION that all that we know of - that is entailed within what we call “nature” - exists.
Yes, you are begging the question—still and again! The phrase, “I make an ASSUMPTION that…” is followed by the very thesis that is under dispute. That is what “begging the question” means. Did you take any courses in formal logic? They should have covered this in the first or second week.
And the reason being is there is nothing that is available that is recognizable as objective evidence for this not being the case.
You keep referring to evidence that is or is not “available to us.” Are you claiming that all the evidence that is “available” to us has crossed your desk, been objectively analyzed and employed in forming of your conclusions? All the objective evidence an unprejudiced man could desire is quite accessible to any literate person with access to a good library. What are these “inaccessible” evidences to which you refer?
You also make frequent reference to such evidences as you are or are not willing to consider, because you say they are not “objective.” If you live long enough, you may yet come to know some human experiences that numbers can’t measure and cannot be charted on a periodic table—things like love, joy, serenity, outrage, sorrow, and such. All of these are 100% subjective—despite your feeble denials, which tell us either 1) that you have known no such experiences personally, or 2) you don’t know the meaning of the word “subjective,” or 3) you are speaking without thinking.
Would not a man, who equates “subjective” with “unreal,” appear to be a shallow, and unenviable, man indeed?
Perhaps there are undetectable spirits that move my arms and legs parallel to my mind willing them to move, giving me the sensation of mechanically doing so. Or that (a) God, Allah or Zeus is watching and judging me. But without evidence for such forces, I assume that I am in charge of my arm movements, and what all goes into that which is “I.” And that I’m not being judged by a god.
The key phrase in this paragraph is “without evidence.” The assumption that Christians must be following convictions that are derived “without evidence” shows that your alleged “research” into the religions of the world (as per the following paragraph) has been fragmentary in the extreme.
Para. 3) Yes, I do know something of the world’s religions. I’ve studied and traveled about the world a bit. I’ve been to mosques in the Mid East, Africa and Bosnia, Buddhist temples in Thailand, Cambodia, Taiwan and Hong Kong, Spent an early morning in a Hindu temple in northern India once. I spent 14 days in Haiti with the express purpose of going to Voodoo ceremonies and Voodoo doctors so as to experience, learn and write about Voodoo. I’ve experienced Indo-hispanic “catholic-ish” folk religion in a few Central American countries and Mexico. Not to mention my exposure to many Christian and Jewish temples here in America and about the world as well. I’ve also many friends of these different religions and have freely discussed with them. I’ve read the Bible, Book of Mormon, Dhamapada, Tao te Ching, much of the Koran and some of the Bagavad Gita. I don’t feel compelled to belabor proof to you my knowledge of such things, but I also assume you’ll take my word for it.
:
I will gladly take your word for your catalogue of religious dabblings. Judging from the many misrepresentations that have appeared, thus far, in your posts, the quality of your “knowledge of such things” has not impressed me. Perhaps what has been lacking in your research has been that element that you profess to prize so highly—objectivity.
I do know of those authors, but I must admit I’ve never read any of their books. I’ve been an atheist since long before those books were written. I just googled their bios and Hitchens has a degree in philosophy, econ and politics from Oxford. Harris has a degree in philosophy from Stanford and a Phd in neuroscience from UCLA. I’m not sure how you can say they are poorly informed… those are of the top tier finest programs for such knowledge in the entire world, quite likely THE top.
The “finest” and “top” programs in the academy have not distinguished themselves for objectivity or fair-mindedness in their discussions of Christianity. If you think that they have done so, then this would explain a lot about your own objectivity.
I have not simply read about these men. I have read them and listened to them lecture and debate. Their understanding of the basis of Christian belief is clearly abysmal (if “evidence” be taken to mean “that which is clear”). I give them the benefit of the doubt when I assume that their arguments exhibit mere abject ignorance, rather than a conscious desire on their part to deceive the public. When the only way you can critique a philosophy is by appeal to its freaks, quacks and cranks—rather than to the most mainstream and erudite of its exponents—you are displaying to the public nothing but the fragility of your own position.
From a religious believer’s perspective, there are a MULTITUDE of reasons for belief in a particular religion. And a MULTITUDE of differences between them, as well. I’ll agree. But OBJECTIVELY, they ARE all the same. They all have the same elements.
If I knew as little on any topic as you seem to know about this topic, I would refrain from pretenses of expertise and devote myself to writing and speaking on subjects that I knew something about.
Do you really think that you have been inside the head of every person who has any kind of belief in the supernatural, and have had the opportunity to see the major elements that inform their beliefs? If you think so, you should come back down to the real world, where people are not all so easily pigeon-holed into a few discrete categories (of course, if your field is psychology, coming to this awareness would ruin the entire “scientific” basis of your discipline—which is one reason I am not expecting you to have the ability to think objectively. So far, you have done nothing that would disappoint my expectations).
Durkheim was perhaps the first to make that distinction widely shown. In a nutshell, they all serve the same social and psychological functions. Some sort of sacred force, a way to get the force/god(s) to work in your favor, a form of justice, social rules, special human spokesmen, assuagement of the fear of death… There are others and other qualifiers, but this is from whence you are getting the sense of others’ “broad stroke” perspectives. And I agree, there are certainly many, many small strokes, which science recognizes as well, but there are also these broad strokes they fit neatly under.
And perhaps we might be such naughty schoolboys as to ask how it is that Durkheim, et al, became the experts on what is actually going on in the heads of people he has never met? The findings of various psychological tests have certainly not spoken with a united voice about either the model of man, nor of the methods of change, which are supposed to be their exclusive domain. Since there is no unanimity about the first points among the “experts” are we to toss a coin to decide which of them to believe? If the real sciences were in such disarray as the “sciences of the mind”, we should expect to find five conflicting views about the speed of light.
I can only speak with real certainty for myself—but with a high level of confidence also about people intimately known to me—that I have never had the motivations described by the venerable Durkheim. I truly have no preference one way or another whether there is a life after death. I likewise do not carry within me a preference for belief in a God who will judge every one of my actions on the basis of the standard of perfection. If I have arrived at any conclusions on such matters, I have done so on the same basis as my belief in anything else—whether in the secular or the religious sphere: I follow the evidence—ALL of it that is available to me.
If I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, it is because the evidence for this fact is better than any that can be found against it. The evidence for this is, of course, of no different order, requiring no more exceptional disciplines, than the evidence for other historical events (although the evidence in favor of the resurrection quite exceeds that which we have for most historical events, of which we never think of raising a question).
The simple fact is that there is abundant evidence of the standard historical sort to suggest that Jesus rose from the dead (Please! Please! Please! Attempt to refute this!). On the other hand, there is not a single piece of “objective” or “scientific” evidence that would suggest that He did not do so. I am a reasonable man. If a proposition is put forth for which abundant evidence (following the standard canons of historiography) exists, and against which there is no evidence whatsoever, then my vote would be to follow the evidence. How about you?
They are very clear broad strokes if one is not trying to defend their particular faith. And you don’t have to “believe” the broad strokes, they are objective.
This is quite a claim. I would like to see what you are packing. Since you are a man of “objective” inquiry, perhaps you might refer to some of the “objective” evidence that all religious people have the same reasons underlying their beliefs. Please present only “objective” evidences, since it would seem hypocritical of you to rely upon the subjective opinions of psychologists, which are often as “scientific” as is the belief in unicorns.
Believers of other religions have the very same objection to this that you do. Psychology says it’s for the same reason, to continue to justify their belief without objective evidence. And yes, in the way that evidence is defined, they do all have the same amount. None.
If I were to assert that you had zero evidence, or objective basis for believing, that there is such a thing as a “science of human behavior,” would you recognize similarity between my statement and that which you have just made? The only difference between the two statements is that mine could be argued on the basis of objective evidence, whereas yours is demonstrably nothing more than an expression of prejudice.
Perhaps Muslims and Christians and Hindus are tuned into some evidence that is not available to others, that only they have, but they will all claim their belief is true and they cannot all be correct.
You are right about the law of non-contradiction. Not all belief systems can be correct—and to the list we must add the belief in naturalism, which is as arbitrary a faith as is the silliest of them.
You are certainly wrong, however, in assuming that all religions depend upon evidence that is available to some and not to others. This may be inherent in the claims of many religions, but it has never been one of the claims of Christianity. From the beginning, Christians have asserted that the principal evidences for their beliefs are in the public domain, and may be checked by anyone who has sufficient curiosity to look into it. This, of course, has never been true of narturalism, which is a proposition that no reasonable person would mistake for a testable worldview.
Truly, not all faith systems can be correct, and naturalism is as likely to be incorrect as any other. So whence comes the arrogance of the naturalist who stands in presumptuous mockery of other religions—most of which have as much evidence in their favor as naturalism has in its favor, and one of which one (Christianity) actually has more evidence in its favor than has any other faith system (which is probably why it is the only worldview that has ever been the majority view of our evidence-oriented, post-enlightnment, Western Civilization)?
It appears very much that there is another element at work here, a deep desire to believe. 100 yrs ago, Freud called this a “religious illusion.” I also have a degree in psychology, a master’s in philosophy and a phd in sociology/anthropology - whatever that is worth to you as indication of my knowledge base. Based on your assessment of Oxford and Stanford graduates, I’m guessing you discount academic knowledge if it doesn’t jive with your religious position. Degrees don’t make anyone correct, but I certainly don’t regard these topics frivolously, or from ignorance.
Should we defer to the religiously indoctrinated opinions of the popular priests of naturalism any more than to the religiously indoctrinated views of the Roman Catholic scholars, just because the former came from Stanford and the latter from Notre Dame? Anyone can become indoctrinated, and those who devote years and fortunes to learning to parrot and imitate their professors can hardly be suspected to be among the least affected by this influence!
A worldview is a religious conviction. As you have aptly pointed out, “religious” people are notoriously unobjective—and none is more worthy of this assessment than the naturalistic zealot. Freud’s “religious illusions” of atheism are no less illusory than those illusions associated with any competing worldview. Freud’s religious commitment to atheism is a matter of record, and had much to do with his parting of company with his former associate, the supernaturalist, Karl Jung.
No man really knows why another man does what he does, though theories can possess varying degrees of credibility. That Freud would be regarded as an expert in the inner workings of a man, other than himself, is not someplace that I would go, until I were to become more convinced that his own demons were not coloring his vision. A man who was so fearful of death that he could not attend a funeral is not a man in normal psychological health. In his theory of Oedipus Complex, he clearly tells us a great deal about what perversions he had discovered in his own head and heart—but he shows no insight into anything I, or the majority of healthy people have experienced. And no surprise! Psychologists do not primarily study the healthy, since such are not as likely to present themselves as patients. It is not surprising that those whose life study is conducted upon disturbed subjects might come to think all people (including those who have never been examined by them) to be disturbed—many such “doctors” have proven themselves to be among the ranks of the disturbed, as well!
It takes no special observational training to see that humans are demonstrably religious by nature. Is this because “religiosity” is a trait favored by natural selection? If so, then maybe there is some advantage in retaining it, and a disadvantage in seeking to destroy it. But, one might ask, is there any other universal animal impulse known to our natural sciences, which craves for what does not exist? All creatures crave food, water, a mate, and other things that exist in their environment. Can Freud explain why natural selection would favor a craving for the illusory? If so, then who can justify any confidence in his religious opinions (or yours) which arguably may be a mere illusion, which he inherited through such natural selection?
So that you might not be left guessing, I will state plainly exactly what my mindset is: I am hugely skeptical—and of nothing more than of religious counterfeits. I have spent 40 years of my teaching career examining and challenging illusions that have no basis other than a “religious impulse.” This includes such illusions as exist within Christian circles, as well as those of the religion you have been presenting for our examination here.
No one can be sure that he has reached absolute truth, but the man who has the best reason for confidence in his views is the one who has reached them through an agenda-free search for the truth, and is not afraid to change his mind when new evidence undermines his former beliefs. The God in whom I believe, and who has been a very practical (not theoretical) reality in my life, values and honors honesty in a man. If Christianity is a myth, God would wish for us to discover this as early as possible, and to abandon it in search of the actual Truth. According to my belief system, if anyone loves anything more than the Truth itself, God does not consider that person honest enough to be trusted with that commodity.
Para. 4) That such beliefs are not objective is as utterly self-evident as saying, “what we call blue jays are not what we call swans.” Either ALL religions are false or one particular perspective is true, and that perspective eludes EVERYONE that doesn’t already believe it, and there is STILL no evidence.
You keep saying this. However, the repetition of nonsense does not increase its correctness. It only begins to look like a form of mania.
The “test” if you will is evident in that some people are willing to die believing in X, some believing in Y, and there is nothing objective to show that one or both are true. And a priori they can’t BOTH be.
So if one man dies believing that Nazism is evil and needs to be opposed, while another man dies because he believes that Nazism is virtue itself, are you suggesting that neither man is more correct than the other? Of course, consistent naturalists (of whom there are very few) would actually affirm that neither the Nazi nor the anti-Nazi has any transcendent validity behind his beliefs. Values, after all, are “subjective.” Killing Jews would, in that case, be no more absolutely immoral than killing cockroaches. It’s just natural selection taking its course. Peter Singer is one of the few who is willing to say this unashamedly (though he targets human babies of all races, not just Jews).
Most naturalists appear to be more squeamish than Singer about admitting this, though it is only consistent with their worldview. If nature is everything, then there can be nothing truly transcendent to determine ultimate values. If there is nothing transcendent, then there is no transcendent value to human life. When a naturalist says that he values human life, he is merely saying that he is unable to live with the real implications of his professed philosophy (and, probably, that he knows better than to really believe it).
We may agree that there is nothing irrational about giving our lives to save civilization from fascism, but this agreement cannot be proved to be correct by reference to anything resembling “scientific evidence.” That is because every rational person necessarily (as a consequence of being rational) accepts the validity of many propositions, concerning which science has no competence to speak. So why pretend otherwise? Isn’t it preferable to be honest?
But prayers can and HAVE been studied scientifically and shown to have no bearing greater than chance upon an outcome.
Yet more nonsense. Prayers cannot be studied scientifically any more than children’s requests to their parents can be. One may do a statistical analysis of how many such requests are granted and how many are denied, but this tells us nothing about whether there are parents who sometimes do and sometimes do not answer their children’s requests. Are you unaware that many parents override their children’s requests, due to parental considerations, and yet grant them on other occasions? Could we please speak like rational men?
If you are a psychologist, you have already bought into a bizarre definition of “science”—as in a “science of human behavior.” This is not science any more than religion is science—and many psychological experts have pointed this out (as you surely must know, since you have read widely on the subject).
Real “science” includes the element of predictability. Once you have discovered a truly scientific law, its predictability is absolute. Pseudo-sciences often can predict generalities. For example, psychology can predict that a certain, unpredictable number of persons enduring a significant loss will undergo five stages of grieving. However, there are too many exceptions to this general “rule” in real life to allow us to make hard and fast predictions. This is not true in real science. However, if you heat water at sea level, it will predictably boil at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. That is science.
By appeal to your imaginary “science,” you have diagnosed all religious believers as having certain motivations—an absolute statement which professes to know what no man can really know about so large a study group (all humanity!). The only motives that you can really know for certain are your own (and these are not always rigorously appraised).
Your diagnosis, for example, is not correct about me (the only person whose motives I know intimately, but one of the many that you know nothing about). Nor does it appear to be true of the class of believers with whom I generally associate. The fact that you are mistaken on these things shows the sketchiness of all such “science.”
Religions that believe in gods to pray to, speciously explain this in a small range of ways, none of which can be proven or disproven. Like the god didn’t want to, or has a better plan, or knows better than what I wanted, or will do it later… etc.
True, these explanations are sometimes given, and (as you say) they can neither be “proven or disproven.” The fact that they cannot be disproven, then, retains the possibility of their being true. It is the person who insists that these explanations are invalid that has the closed mind. How can a proposition, believed by the majority of rational people, and admittedly incapable of being disproven, be confidently rejected—I mean, other than by the hubris of the objector?
But what CAN be shown, is that they don’t alter outcomes. They DO make people feel better though, like they could maybe influence the god in their favor. It DOES assuage fears and bolster hopes. And I see some value in that, but these are of psychology and emotionality, not the cold hard facts of objective reality.
There is that red-herring “objective” again. Just so I might understand your use of words (since you often do not use them in their ordinary sense) let me ask if the following is an “objective” or a “subjective” phenomenon:
Some years ago, a friend of mine, living in Idaho, became alienated from me and was refusing to have contact with me, though I was interested in reconciling and wishing to know what offense had been taken. This concerned me and I knew that any contact would have to be accidental, since he would not agree to meet with me. On one occasion, this became a matter of prayer for me. That occasion was while I and my family were driving back to Idaho from Ontario, Canada. While I drove, and my family slept, I was praying and made the specific request that God would orchestrate a providential meeting between this man and myself, perhaps in some public place.
That night, my family stayed in a hotel in Billings, MT. As I was repacking the car the next morning, I saw this man loading his vehicle in the same parking lot. He had, unbeknown to me, embarked on a family trip from Idaho to Eastern Montana, and had stayed in the same hotel, the same night, as myself. The striking thing is that, had he or I packed and left a half-hour later or earlier, we would never have encountered each other. As the result of this meeting, he and I were able to have the conversation that I had prayed for.
Of course, one could speak of this as a “coincidence.” It could also be called a coincidence that, when I go into a bank to cash a check for $500, I actually leave with $500 cash. “Coincidence” is one possible explanation—but hardly the most plausible! Why reach implausible conclusions when a perfectly reasonable one is available?
Now, was this an “objective” or a “subjective” evidence of answered prayer? The prayer, coupled with its immediate answer, did not constitute an instance of mystical subjectivity, but involved just the kind of “cold hard facts of objective reality” of which you claim to be so fond.
You might argue that the events were objective events, but my religious interpretation of their connection is a subjective one. Of course, this gives up way too much, because it could as justly be argued that any other construction placed upon the situation (your explanation, for example) would be equally subjective. In fact, this argument calls into question every interpretation of every event (all interpretations are subject to our subjective worldviews), and leaves us adrift in infinite uncertainty about everything in the world—including our own objective existence (which might be entirely an illusion).
Of course, the reason we do reach any sound conclusions on many subjects is that we wisely ignore the irrelevant fact that all interpretations are subjective, and we look for the most plausible interpretations, given all the known factors—the shortest distance between two points, rather than an unnecessarily circuitous route.
In the case above, there is nothing to disqualify the most apparent explanation, other than an a priori prejudice against the supernatural. The religion of Naturalism is, by its very definition, institutionalized prejudice. I have never had any respect for prejudice, whether institutionalized or otherwise.
If this answer to prayer were an isolated case, it could more easily (but not very easily!) be discounted. However, such prayers, and their answers in “cold hard facts of objective reality” have characterized my ordinary life for over forty years, and have not been included in your “scientific” studies. I was never interviewed.
YES! We agree! The experiences are VALID. They are REAL experiences and they can certainly change a person’s life, the way they see it and live it. Wm. James wrote a book about this, “The Varieties of Religious Experience.” However, these experiences are entirely subjective/emotionally based and there is no evidence whatsoever that they are going on anywhere other than the persons’ minds. Like a fantasy, a dream, a thought, a delusion or a hallucination. Those are all real experiences, all subjective and purely psychological.
Dr. James’ venerable reputation notwithstanding, I must protest that his thesis is irrelevant to the kind of evidences that I, and most of my Christian friends, depend upon for our beliefs. The title of his book itself delineates the restricted nature of his study—religious experience. He apparently did not study believers, like myself, who are not leaning upon experiences but in historical and logical evidences for their convictions. You see, your field does not adequately explore all the relevant data, nor examine all the relevant study subjects.
You can pray to Jesus, a Hindu to Shiva, a Rastafarian to Jah (stoned) and a Voodoo believer to Dhambala, and ya’ll will all have meaningful religious experiences. To yourselves, in your minds. A child can be raised to worship a volcano or a river, and as an adult that volcano will give him meaningful religious experiences, also. But not to you. Certainly not in the way that they do for those believers.
But what has this to do with our topic? Who, other than yourself, is linking belief to “meaningful experiences”? This is where you reveal your ignorance of what inclines believers to believe. You believe in naturalism. Is there anything more or less respectable about your reasons for your belief than my reason for my beliefs? At least my beliefs are based upon positive, objective phenomena—something which cannot be said about naturalism. Its case is merely that of subjective disdain and ridicule. The position naturalists feel compelled to ridicule must first be egregiously misrepresented before it can be made to look ridiculous. This speaks well for the invincibility of the position being critiqued.
If you look about the world, and even amongst Christians, you see that most people are very easily led to believe absolutely ANYTHING. You are one of them. So are the Christians that you argue against.
And you are another (I’m sure you cannot think yourself to be the only exception to a universal human condition). Since you and I both belong to a race given to credulity, we both stand obligated to show that our beliefs have something beyond our own gullibility as their basis. This I can do. Can you?
Your love for your children is certainly real love, but yes, it is a psychoemotional experience – of your very own. This is very different than stating Shiva is in control of tsunamis and earthquakes or that Jesus or some other god(s) made something happen that we can all experience objectively.
It is a relief to hear that you are capable, in some cases, of distinguishing the credibility of one subjective experience over another. You have not shown this aptitude consistently, which has caused you to make the egregious error of assuming that Christianity is as bankrupt of evidential confirmation as is Islam, belief in Shiva, or belief in naturalism. I would encourage you that, if you keep on this road, you may be able to begin making more responsible assessments.
I’ve seen the look on a child’s face when he sees that Santa ate the cookie and drank the milk, I’ve been that child myself. Those are valid and real experiences as well. Your children exist, and Santa does not, but these experiences are similarly subjective only.
The references to Santa are significant. I never was permitted to believe in Santa as a child, nor were my children allowed to believe him, nor in any other elves. This is because my parents and I both felt that parents ought not to delude their children. It sounds as if your parents did not share this conviction, and your disillusionment upon learning that they lied to you about Santa may actually be the explanation of your additional rejection of the religion they taught you. I am no psychologist, of course, but it isn’t rocket science. Anyone might easily see the possibility of a connection between these two experiences in one’s life. There is no similarity between the rational basis of belief in Christ and the irrational basis of belief in Santa. Even to this day, as you have declared, you remain ignorant of this incredibly assessable fact.
Para. 5.) Nope, the evidence for evolution is most certainly not naïve. You obviously haven’t studied it academically. True, we can’t go back in time, and there are no ancient documents (altho they themselves wouldn’t mean anything anymore than the Koran/Bible does), but it is very credibly explained, and there is evidence galore.
Few things could be more gratifying than to publicly debate, on the basis of pure science, a person affirming what you have just affirmed! I have done so numerous times. If you would like to volunteer to debate this point formally and publicly, let me know, and I know it can be arranged.
You are altogether too unskeptical. Concerning evolution, you write “it is very credibly explained, and there is evidence galore.” If all it takes to persuade you that a thing is true is to bring a “credible explanation” in interpreting “evidence galore,” then I wish I had gotten to you sooner! There is no shortage of credible, non-evolutionary explanations of the abundant evidence around us that can be offered by less gullible folk.
Of course, there is a larger factor deciding what we will believe and what we will not believe about origins. Our worldview pre-limits what we are willing to regard as “credible” explanations. Surely you have noticed that there is more than one possible explanation for many observed phenomena. But which explanation is the most “credible”? That question will be answered by our worldview.
Your naturalistic worldview, as you have already declared, will accept no explanation as “credible” if it must invoke a supernatural element. For maintaining this limitation you can give (or at least have, as of yet, given) no rational reason. It is an arbitrarily chosen opinion, which you allow to determine the limits of what evidence you are willing to consider.
My approach, by contrast, is that of the open mind. If things can be explained naturally, well and good! If they cannot, then a supernatural, or other, explanation may be considered. For this reason, I am free to consider the evidence for naturalistic evolution (on the one hand) and the evidence for supernatural creation (on the other). Not being a fundamentalist of any kind, I am at liberty to maintain an open mind, and conduct a preference-free inquiry.
You, however, must accept evolution, no matter how lacking in the evidential support, since it is the only game in town for the naturalistic fundamentalist. You have not shown in our discussion so much a penchant for free and independent thought as for bowing to educated pundits. Perhaps you have not questioned whether the arbitrarily-chosen worldviews of these “brights” may have crippled them, as it has crippled you, in the enterprise of open-minded inquiry? They run in packs like lemmings. I am of the opinion that an unexamined life is not worth living, and an unexamined worldview is not worthy of my loyalty. This appears to be the primary respect in we differ from one another.
I enjoy academic freedom. The fundamentalist (of any religious persuasion—including yours) must do all he can to stifle such freedom and to delimit broader inquiry. You are welcome to that world, if you like it! I will not envy your confinement. I prefer the company of those who place a higher value on discovering the truth than of artificially bolstering a failing paradigm by suppression of evidence.
[Evolution] has been and is continuing to be studied to an enormous degree at the major universities throughout the world, with exceptions only to small schools and a small minority of scientists who are also attached to a religious creation story, usually the Christian evangelical one. All of the fields of science, geog, chem, bio, geol and their subsets like genetics, all point to the same evolutionary mechanism. There is certainly some squabbling amongst scientists regarding some particulars, but the general picture is utterly logical, quite obvious and agreed upon. I’ve studied it extensively at the graduate level myself.
It is precisely this fact—namely, that “It has been and is continuing to be studied to an enormous degree at the major universities throughout the world”—that renders it the more striking that no proof has yet emerged for any of evolution’s major claims. What are those claims? Certainly not merely that there is change through time. That is not debated! If we are going to have a robust debate, we must first legitimately define the distinctives of the thing under dispute.
We can let a leading evolutionist of the past define the special claims of naturalistic neo-Darwinism (feel free to let me know if anything on the list has subsequently been redefined by his modern-day successors). A generation ago, in his book “Implications of Evolution,” Prof. G. A Kerkut (Dept. of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton), observed that evolutionists must necessarily make the following seven assumptions (note: “assumptions” are unproven “worldview” components—not features of a purely scientific model):
1. Spontaneous generation occurred.
2. It occurred only once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
4. Protozoa gave rise to metazoa.
5. The various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
7. Fishes gave rise to amphibia, which gave rise to reptiles, which gave rise to birds and mammals.
To my knowledge, the most up-to-date evolutionist still depends upon the veracity of these seven assumptions. Without them, there is nothing left of Darwinism. How comforting it would be for evolutionists to be able to prove any of these seven assumptions! However, after listing them, Dr. Kerkut quite reasonably observes:
"The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification…we have to depend on limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions. There is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source, which itself came from an inorganic form...and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."
Many honest evolutionary scientists have admitted the same thing about the status of the case. Since you are scientifically-oriented, perhaps you could suggest even a “thought-experiment” by which one could scientifically test any of these seven faith statements. In a thought experiment, as in a lab experiment, you must have a control group as well as an experimental group. If the same results come up in the control group as in the experimental group, the experiment fails. Likewise, if you are thought-testing a hypothesis about the origin of things, and some alternative theory fits the facts as admirably as does your theory, then your hypothesis fails the test. This does not make it false, but it certainly deprives it of any scientific validity.
Drs. Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch are committed evolutionists, but were not shy in stating the obvious, when they wrote: "...Evolution is therefore outside empirical science, though not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas - either without basis, or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems - have obtained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." [in “Nature,” April 22, 1967 ]
“Dogma?” But isn’t that a religious word?
In 1981, Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, and the author of the museum’s general text on evolution, gave a lecture at the American Museum of Natural History, in which he asked, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing...that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff of the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said ‘I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.’”
Until someone can observe macro-evolution occurring (which is admittedly never going to happen, due to the alleged long periods of time required) the particles-to-people theory of evolution will never belong to the realm of experimental science. If it occurred, it is a matter of history, not science—as is the question of the resurrection of Christ. Both evolution and the resurrection of Christ involve apparent miracles—processes and energies never observed by science, though the Christian belief resurrection, of course, has more in its favor than does spontaneous generation, since there is at least historical documentation for it. Belief in spontaneous generation defies scientific law as much as does the Resurrection. The difference is that the Resurrection is part of a self-consistent worldview that allows for events beyond the explanation of science. Spontaneous generation is a component of a worldview that does not allow such phenomena. Ouch!
Evolution is, and will remain, the “creation myth” of the naturalistic religion, in competition with the “creation myths” of opposing religions. As long as the academy prefers the religion of naturalism (a modern vogue, certainly not dictated by “objective evidence”) evolution will continue to be, in the academy, the dominant paradigm for interpreting the evidence—regardless of its level of credibility. The supernaturalist can interpret the evidence in an evolutionary way, if he thinks the evidence compelling, but the naturalistic fundamentalist has no options—fewer, in fact, than were available to real scientists 100 years ago—before the days of secular fundamentalism.
(continued next post)