Sunday, December 21, 2008

The Pastor Warren Dilemma

“A shrewd man has to arrange his interests in order of importance and deal with them one by one; but often our greed upsets this order and makes us run after so many things at once that through over-anxiety to obtain the trivial, we miss the most important.”
-François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld

"Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio."
(Nothing is so odious to knowledge as too much shrewdness)
-Seneca (Quotation best known from its use by Poe in "The Purloined Letter."


Much is being made about Barack Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church to speak at his Inauguration. Pastor Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” a book perhaps best known for defusing a deadly hostage situation (along with some methamphetamine of course) will be delivering the invocation.

(Incidentally, another copy of the book was found in Scott Peterson’s car…)

Pastor Warren is a vocal opponent of gay marriage, you see.

So the far left is up in arms that Obama would give such a closed-minded buffoon a podium at such an important event, and the far right is angry at Pastor Warren for even being seen as willing to stand up in the same room with Obama.

Both are good signs. Because Pastor Warren is the balanced choice. It makes sense that the balanced choice pisses off both extremes.

Obama needs to unite the majority of this country in order to get even a quarter of his agenda done, considering how ambitious that agenda it. This includes recalcitrant Christians that as of this moment are thinking of him as somewhere in between Osama Bin Obama, and Satan.

Pastor Warren, while having the common Christian myopia about gays, and having even publicly equated homosexuality to pedophilia and incest, is still a much more logical thinker than most of his Evangelical brethren, and far less hypocritical. And his church is enormous.

So he is the perfect bridge.

If Obama were to (for instance) speak to Pastor Warren about actually reducing the number of abortions drastically without making it illegal, I think that common ground can be found. And once the administration has Pastor Warren’s “blessing” as it were, a large percentage of Evangelicals will have something to think about. And they just might, too. Also, I do not see Obama ceding any ground to Pastor Warren’s side as regards the issue of Gay rights. He’s already made his move to the center on that issue by not technically backing Gay marriage while supporting Gay civil union with all of the equivalent perks.

Obama is as advertised, we are now seeing. He wishes to be a uniting force. We are not used to seeing anyone like this in American politics. We’re used to hearing people *talk* as if they were like this. Huge difference. The pundits are befuddled. Some of them seem angry and are apparently feeling betrayed. This will pass. He is not even the president yet, and already the country is straining at the bit for him to take over this leaking ship and steer it toward safer harbor. Or more like dry dock. Sometimes I think that some of the talking heads of the news business would like to see the President-Elect storm the oval office and physically decapitate Bush and proclaim himself President now, for the sake of the country of course.

(And oddly enough, looking at all the *horrific* “midnight regulations” that Bush & Co. is passing in their final days of power, they may be right; not that Obama really should behead Bush, but that, if he did, that we would be far better off, and that far more lives and treasure would be saved in the long run.)

If Obama were to alienate the evangelical community as the far left would have him do, perhaps justifiably, they can do a lot of harm to him. As it is, the RNC is already commencing its new life mission, to block whatever they can block, regardless of cost to the country, so as to try to “win” something, anything. They’re in the middle of one hell of an identity crisis, and they are desperate to gain back even a shred of their self-respect. (Perhaps if they acted respectably they wouldn’t lose it so easily) The Evangelical community would work with them against the common foe, as they often have in the past. Soulless people like Tony Perkins would come out of the woodwork and pronounce what is and is not moral to *us God-fearing folk* and would have no compunction in demonizing even a good man if it is in their political best interests. Florid-faced angry Caucasians would be on every television station casting aspersions on the very humanness of the man, spraying spittle sporadically as they splutter their specious spleen.

Pastor Warren is not of that ilk, which is why Obama chose him. He cares about the poor, or actually seems to. He seems genuinely to wish to live a Christ-like life, unlike so many who with debatable accuracy also call themselves Christians. He is reasonable on many issues, and is not an uncompassionate man, from what I can tell.

Now, I do not see Obama’s choice of the man in any way as an indication that he is moving toward the right. I see it as a validation that he will rule from the center-left, which is a far batter place to rule from than we’ve had in a very long time. He will accomplish this by not only creating a spirit of fairness and inclusiveness but also at the same time by, to paraphrase LBJ, having those who would stand outside his tent and piss in, stand instead inside and piss out.

I didn’t see it this way at first glance. It seemed an extreme choice. Pastor Warren after all, from the viewpoint of a gay American, is an espouser of hatred and ignorance. Indeed, his attitudes are appallingly closed-minded in many areas, in spite of his openness in some others. But at least he has his areas of openness. They’re hard to find in the Evangelical community. And it’s the very fact that he does represent or is at least related to by many people that hold hatred in their hearts for Gays and even for Liberals, that makes him such a valuable person to have “on the team.”

If he plays this right, both extremes will come around eventually, at least in part. And the middle will never have a qualm in the first place. So it would produce the maximum best-case-scenario result. Balance.

Obama knows that he cannot please all of the people all of the time. But then again, now that he’s been elected, he no longer has to. This is one tough, balanced, smart person that we’re dealing with here. Get used to it.

201 comments:

  1. Incidentally, while I started this new post, the "Big Brain Speculations" of my last one will continue. You will all note the picture at the top of my main page at the right. This link to the "BB" discussion will remain there indefinitely. So please do check back in there from time to time if you're at all interested in the subject.

    Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that if you're going to pis someone off, you might as well piss everyone off. The guy isnt going to be deciding policy. Its not like Rev Wright will be there.

    That would be a good one. He should have them both speak, one after the other. Piss the world off. Bring Falwells rotting corpse and put that on stage too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian, did you get your idea for the big brain from the tv show third rock from the sun.

    "THE BIG HEAD"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian; you are absolutely correct. Obama has to govern closed-minded buffoons just like he has to govern the rest of us. Rick Warren was a good move.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Many Americans have the ideas or seeds of ideas, about becoming centrist. More 17th Century Dutch if you will(kidding).

    I'm pro-life but why do I have to support the Republican party? I detest neo-conservative dogma, and that seems to be the Republican default. I want religious liberty (including atheism) protected to the hilt. There is no equivocating on this. Why do I have to support the Democrats?

    Yet, hypocrite that I am, I find myself feeling like I have to vote for one party or the other and frankly I feel used. Yes I know the choice was mine, I'm just being ridiculously open.

    Pretty much no party has the interests of Americans in mind like they say they do. This choice was a snub to ideology. Obama and Warren both compromised for the greater good of unity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LOL Observant, no. But I did love that show!

    Oneblood, very true. We need to be more centrist and less polarized in this country for a change.

    I mean, I was definitely a Democrat in this last election, but even to me, wouldn't it be nice if there were more "Goldwater" Republicans that actually had good ideas and not just fixed ideologies, and weren't just in it for the fight?

    Oh, and word verification: "abutsuc." Sounds bad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The day that Republilcans support religious liberty, real religious liberty including the liberty NOT to be a Christian, well that will be the one heckuva day.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And now for some irony: I sat down and turned on the t.v. and the History channel was on. The very first thing I heard was a scholar talking about angels casting people into hell and right above the History channel logo it said "Happy Holidays."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah Oneblood, what is your opinion on the Hell thingy?

    You sound like you don't believe in it, but you're a Christian, right?

    You know my personal opinion. That it's the stick in the carrot-and-stick conditioning system, and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Angels casting people into hell, and by the way, Happy Holidays!

    Merry f%&#ing Christmas, too.

    Burn, baby, burn...

    And Peace be unto you as you do so.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brian,

    That's actually a pretty complicated question to somebody who is a Christian.

    I don't believe in hell as a somehow not visible but still fiery pit burning below us awaiting you and me and pboy because we're heretics. Or is that hairy-tics?

    To be blunt, I am afraid to be without God and I don't know what that entails. It certainly doesn't entail Brian because this is my personal belief.

    It just doesn't seem like man's destiny is so simple. There are complexities to each human life so unique how could anybody be judged by such an x or y standard? In this context, if God exists he would either be a cruel bastard or a cruel bastard.

    I don't believe God is cruel but I don't believe he/she/it is fluffy. I "see" something else. Which is why I'm intellectually encouraged by other theories of existence.

    I'm glad you asked that question Brian because I've been ridden with fear while writing this. I needed to see for myself what I actually believed about hell and eternal punishment and not just what I reacted to.

    To tie up a loose end. My fear of being without God is very personal. It is not full of thoughts about hell, or any type of punishment. It could be a fear of deep loneliness like Sartre talked about; but in terms of eternal bbq, it's just not there.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You are one sensible Christian, 'blood. Don't take that wrong; its just that I see so many of the other kind...

    I don't know what to tell you about that fear, but all I can say is, I think I might have it too in a way. I 'feel' that something is 'out there' and I guess that I always did. But then I have to take into account the stuff that my religious parents told me before I was able to descriminate, and subtract as necessary. Still, I have a 'feeling' of something. The thing is, to me if that something isn't 'fluffy' enough to have as much compassion as I do, and me a mere man, than that something can't be the ultimate something, because love is the answer my friend, in more ways than one. As the most positive of all emotions, of all 'feelings,' love is in my BB speculations and in many extant spiritual belief systems, thus the most positive way to 'change the world.'

    I think that the illusion of seeing real love, real 'agape,' as 'fluffy' or some ther silly word that deflates its significance, is one of the conditioned impulses that is inserted into our programming by society, and has little to do with either God or spirituality.

    If God isn't love, then God isn't worthy of us.

    If God isn't love, isn't caring and empathetic and decent and fair, then I WANT to be separated from Him, get it?


    Because what I *sense* is 'out there' or perhaps better to say 'in here,' is loving and kind and decent and fair and even a bit 'fluffy' at times.


    And if its not, its because we're not, so if we want it to be, then we need to be first.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also, any God that would even doom your soul to 'eternal separation from Him' because you didn't believe in Him in life, with no evidence for Him existing, and a lot of indications that He doesn't, then that God wants to be worshipped by dummies.

    There's no moral nobility in being stupid. Only humor. No decent God would want His subjects to be that dumb. Why bother giving us minds in the first place?

    See the problem I have here?

    Sagan mentioned this. "If God wanted to be worshipped by sodden blockheads etc..." And like much if what he tought about life, it was dead-on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here, let Carl say it. He's so much more eloquent than I could ever be:

    "If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would He prefer His votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy? I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, then our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival in an extremely dangerous time. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is consistent surely with science; it should be with religion, and it is essential for the welfare of the human species."
    -Carl Sagan

    ReplyDelete
  15. Putting people in a fiery eternal pit for mere disbelief with no hard evidence would be shockingly sadistic and incredibly stupid, so you rightly reject it. You rightly reasaon that whatever God IS, God CANNOT BE shockingly sadistic and incredibly stupid. Good.

    Now the next step...

    If God is sensible and non-sadistic enough NOT to do the fiery pit thingy, then don't you thing said God would also be sensible and non-sadistic enough to know that there just isn't a preponderence of evidence "down here" for any sensible person to believe in Him? And thus, don't you think he's be okay with that? And even say something like "You were one of the ones that I liked best, since you tried to use that mind that I gave you..." etc....

    They try to get you with the grand old standby "God works in mysterious ways" ooogity boogity programming nonsense. Your own heart can tell you that there is no amount of mystery that can justify eternal sadism. Sadism is sadism. It should also tell you that IF your God or any God or whatever exists, then that God will never try to separate you from Itself. Why would it, if it created you? It wouldn't create you just to throw you away, now would it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Very encouraging Brian thank you.

    The one thing we can count on to be emotionally and spiritually fulfilling is love. It truly is the answer but we don't give it it's due. -Shakespeare called it many splendored and qualitatively that's a great start.- So since we have an answer, how did we arrive at it?

    Or as David Byrne put it, "Well, how did I get here?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have always wondered about the nature of "god". What ideas about the universe does he/she/it have? We are the created, we are put on this earth with no definite reason why, then we are told we have the free will to do whatever we want to. Heres the catch, if you dont live in a certain narrow way, you are fated to "burn" forever in the fires of hell.

    The whole fall of man was because man became self-conscience. He became aware of the universe. Then he was kicked out of the good ol boys club and sent out to suffer.

    What then can we infer of the nature of god. God is cruel, just, loving, wrathful, jealous, and all-knowing. These for the most part, are human traits. Why would an omniscient, all-knowing god get angry. He knows everything, therefore he knows what you will do to make him angry, yet he still gets angry. Also, an all-knowing god would preclude free will, as free will would suggest that actions have UNFORSEEN consequences. Yet if the consequence is already known to anyone or anything, then free will becomes moot.

    You are right, regardless of god, love is the answer.

    Happy Holidays sinners!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Happy Holidays, Stefan!

    Hey, here's a thought. If God is all-knowing, then He must have known when he created me that I wouldn't believe in Him, no? Even if I did not know it when I was younger, etc? So in that knowledge, why bother? Why have me live my life and then throw me away, or even let me continue to exist but in a state of disfavor and not in His presence? When he could have just not created me that way?

    I never get the answers to this one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The answer is:

    BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAID SO!!!!!!!!
    (fingers in my ears)
    LALALALALALAL LALAL ALLA AL LALALAL
    I CANT HEAR YOUR LACK OF FAITH!!!!
    LALALA LALALA LLAALALALA

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Pastor Warren is a vocal opponent of gay marriage, you see."

    As is Barack Obama -- and both object to it on Christian grounds.

    Both also support civil unions.

    (For the record, I'm no Warren fan. I've never listened to him speak, and I've never read anything he's written, though I've of course read and heard about him. I only know about his views on gay marriage because of a blog post on this topic I read.)

    "Pastor Warren after all, from the viewpoint of a gay American, is an espouser of hatred and ignorance. Indeed, his attitudes are appallingly closed-minded in many areas, in spite of his openness in some others. But at least he has his areas of openness. They’re hard to find in the Evangelical community."

    I wonder what evangelicals you're referring to. I hope it's not the Fred Phelps types, which number about what -- thirty? And most of them are his own family members?

    From what little I've seen of Warren, it seems to me as if he's much more representative of the evangelical community as a whole than you make him out to be.

    As far as your overall point about balance, I'd agree, though I'd prefer to see more balance in his substantive choices, rather than in his symbolic choices -- and this one is clearly a symbolic choice (indeed, that's how most upset liberals are writing it off). In this sense, it's an unimportant, politically safe move -- it will have no affects on policy, but will allow President Obama to seem as if he's a moderate kind of guy. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, on the 'hell' topic, I must recommend one of my favorite books: 'The Great Divorce,' by C.S. Lewis. It's outstanding in a number of ways, and it's relatively short (a hundred pages or so). It's not a boring bit of philosophy (though Lewis is never boring), but a story about a group of people who travel from 'hell' to the outskirts of 'heaven' by bus (sounds pretty darn strange, but it's not what you think). I won't give away any of the story, but Lewis makes very profound theological points with it. And even if you don't give a rat's rear end about theology, it's just a 'helluva' great story.

    ReplyDelete
  22. brian; one rule of life is if you make a decision that revolts Joseph Farah, you can be reasonably assured that you've made a good decision.

    http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84211

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wow. Joseph Farah. Hadn't heard of him previously. Another Jerk for Jesus, I see.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eric, try Inferno by Larry Niven. An author makes the best-seller list and falls off his penthouse apartment landing during the party and dies, only to wake up on the vestibule of Dante's Hell. Yes, Dante's hell. It's a retelling of Dante's Inferno. Very entertaining. Not really philosophy though. Just fantasy.

    I've never really gotten into Lewis, although to be fair I haven't read him in many years. I'll look for that title. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  25. By the way, going to heaven on a bus isn't so strange to me. I liked the Albert Brooks film, "Defending Your Life" and that's pretty much what the plot was like...

    ReplyDelete
  26. I wass just reading an online review of the Great Divorce by Lewis. This paragraph in the review caught my attention:

    "In Lewis’ "imaginative supposal," even in hell, lost souls remain free to accept God’s grace, and yet do not. The story chronicles the responses of a busload of hell’s inhabitants to an imaginary tour of heaven. It offers a window into the fallen human psyche, with its pettiness, vanity and capacity for self-deception, where some humans keep finding creative ways to say no to God’s yes for them in Christ, through pride and selfishness—maybe forever."

    Now I'll tell you what "The Great Divorce" sounds like to me, without actually reading it of course and only going by this reviewer, who loved the book let's recall.

    It's not only apologetics, its programming in and of itself.

    As in, Lewis apparently makes the case that people in their pride etc put themselves in hell and find ways not to believe, so let's not have any pride in our intellects, let's not think that we can know anything about the universe ourselves, let's even call that "vanity" when it's not, let's not ever let logic prevail over FAITH in the redemptive power of Jesus. And so on... So don't use that brain! No! Stop it! Have faith, period. Don't think about it. Believe it.

    Horrific. Disgusting.

    Belief without evidence is stupidity, and has no moral or redemptive value, except to the people that are using it to CONTROL you.

    They like Lewis, I bet. The Church Pharisees, I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Eric, I didn't mean to offend you. You're not an aspiring pharisee, are you?

    :-)

    I might still read the book. I like a good story and a hundred pages is pretty short...

    But from that review I think I probably won't consider it one of my faves like you do.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Her's a good quote. It about sums it up for me...

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
    - Gene Roddenberry

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Pastor Warren is a vocal opponent of gay marriage, you see."

    As is Barack Obama -- and both object to it on Christian grounds.
    ------------------------
    Obama hasn't likened it to pedophilia and bestiality.

    Let's face it. Obama had to say that. What real choice did he have?

    If Obama's faith prevents him from seeing that gays are people too, then to that extent he is blinded by his faith, and so I hope that he was just telling a white lie.

    (It's a white lie because there SHOULDN'T be a religious test for that office, but there is, so the people doing the 'testing' don't deserve the truth)

    ReplyDelete
  30. I generally utterly devaluate any religious philosopher right down to zero, no matter what religion. (Buddhism is perhaps an exception, but the type I am thinking of is more of a pure philosophy without religious dogma) But especially the Christian philosophers. To my mind, there is no such thing. They're not trying to find the meaining in life, they're trying to justify their already-held belief that God is that meaning in life. So they're not philosophers, they're merely apologists.

    (and they SHOULD be sorry!)

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Horrific. Disgusting.
    Belief without evidence is stupidity, and has no moral or redemptive value, except to the people that are using it to CONTROL you."

    And Lewis would agree with you (from 'Mere Christianity'):

    "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it."

    So, Lewis is not in any way saying what you think he is. In fact, I think you'll find, if you do read the book, that much of what he has to say expresses (entertainingly) very deep truths about human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'll check it out then. Seriously.

    I still maintain that there's no such thing as a Christian Philosopher though. Sorry. Not that you should care what I think. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it."
    -----------------
    But he's betting that he can convince most people with his apologetics that sound a lot like philosophy. The ones he loses are irrelevant compared to the ones that he wins over. They're 'pure profit."

    ReplyDelete
  34. Does C.S. Lewis say anywhere in his writings that the Christian version of God is the One True God and is the right answer, as opposed to say, atheism or other religions? Because if he does, then as a philosopher I don't see how he "philos" "sophia" very much.

    He seems merely an unusually creative apologist for a particular superstition, er, religion, and not even close to a genuine "wisdom-lover" philosopher trying to derive meaning from experience.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it."
    -----------------
    Why thank you, C.S.

    My best reasoning not only tells me that the weight of evidence is COMICALLY against it, but also that you're just an unusually erudite snake-oil salesman with a penchant for fantasy and little grasp of reality. How's that sit with ya?

    ReplyDelete
  36. "I still maintain that there's no such thing as a Christian Philosopher though."

    Of course I disagree. :)

    I think the reason you're saying this is because you believe that 'Christian philosophers' *begin* with their Christianity, and only try to justify it in an ex post facto manner; somehow, this is supposed to make the entire enterprise seem fishy, and less than trustworthy. This, however (if I'm correct about your reasoning), is a textbook instance of the genetic fallacy.

    You have to judge the truth or falsity of a proposition by looking to the arguments that are used to support it, and not to how one came to believe the proposition. For example, I learned that evolution was true -- and believed it to be so -- long before I could provide anything close to a decent argument defending it. Did this say anything about its truth value at that time? Or, suppose that I learned about the truth of evolution from someone who had no understanding whatsoever of it, and who only accepted it because some religious people rejected it (say, he just happened to hate religious people). Would the fact that I learned about the truth of evolution from someone who accepted it on irrational grounds and who didn't understand it in any way undermine evolution? Or, take a third example: let's say I learned about evolution from someone who was brought up in a secular household, who was taught from an early age to despise religion and to devote all his efforts to science, and who believed that evolution was true long before he learned a thing about it. Again, would this in any way affect the truth of evolution?

    The basic point is this: if, say, a Christian believes Christianity to be true *only* because his pastor told him so, then of course we could say that he didn't have good grounds for his belief. Suppose, however, that he goes on to study philosophy and theology, and learns that what his pastor told him was in fact supported with sound arguments. In this case, his beliefs are justified, *even if he once believed without justification* (just as my beliefs about evolution are now justified, even if I once believed them without justification). The same goes for the person raised as an atheist, etc.

    Now, you couldn't say that of course the Christian would find his beliefs justified, since that's just what he was looking for, because there are countless counterexamples to this (i.e. people who, after looking at the arguments for Christianity, rejected beliefs they once ardently held, e.g. Bart Ehrman, John Loftus, Dan Barker, Hector Avalos, Charles Templeton, etc.). Also, there are plenty of people, such as Dawkins and Hitchens, who will tell you that they became atheists at the age of eight or twelve, and who have remained so, after all their studies. Have they only remained atheists because they set out to justify their atheism? The argument proves too much by cutting both ways.

    I think we have to judge who is and isn't a philosopher by looking at their arguments and at their whole approach to the subject, and not by looking at whether they ultimately came to accept the general worldview they began with. (If we reject these criteria, then we're left with the bizarre claim that S is a philosopher if and only if S, after completing his studies, comes to reject the general view of the world that he had once believed to be true! I say it's bizarre for this reason: it would entail that atheists become theists and theists become atheists, and thus reduce philosophy to something very different from the pursuit of the truth!)

    Word verification: 'stors'

    Is someone using phonics to tell me to get my butt moving and finish my Christmas shopping?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'll answer this one point-by-point:

    I think the reason you're saying this is because you believe that 'Christian philosophers' *begin* with their Christianity, and only try to justify it in an ex post facto manner;
    ---
    Of course they do.


    somehow, this is supposed to make the entire enterprise seem fishy,
    ---
    Somehow? Uh, in every possible way.



    and less than trustworthy. This, however (if I'm correct about your reasoning), is a textbook instance of the genetic fallacy.
    ---
    Of course it is. I saw this coming a mile and a half away...



    You have to judge the truth or falsity of a proposition by looking to the arguments that are used to support it, and not to how one came to believe the proposition. For example, I learned that evolution was true -- and believed it to be so -- long before I could provide anything close to a decent argument defending it.
    ---
    Why did you do that? I waited until I understood more of it than that... You had "faith" then. Not me. I waited.



    Did this say anything about its truth value at that time? Or, suppose that I learned about the truth of evolution from someone who had no understanding whatsoever of it, and who only accepted it because some religious people rejected it (say, he just happened to hate religious people). Would the fact that I learned about the truth of evolution from someone who accepted it on irrational grounds and who didn't understand it in any way undermine evolution?
    ---
    No more than hearing about the "truth" about God from someone that accepts it on irrational grounds in any way undermines the fact that there's nothing there whatsoever but hope and dreams.



    Or, take a third example: let's say I learned about evolution from someone who was brought up in a secular household, who was taught from an early age to despise religion and to devote all his efforts to science, and who believed that evolution was true long before he learned a thing about it. Again, would this in any way affect the truth of evolution?
    ---
    Since it happens to be true, no.


    The basic point is this: if, say, a Christian believes Christianity to be true *only* because his pastor told him so, then of course we could say that he didn't have good grounds for his belief. Suppose, however, that he goes on to study philosophy and theology, and learns that what his pastor told him was in fact supported with sound arguments. In this case, his beliefs are justified, *even if he once believed without justification* (just as my beliefs about evolution are now justified, even if I once believed them without justification). The same goes for the person raised as an atheist, etc.
    ---
    No, it's still tring to justify what you already believe or wish to be true. It's partial, not inpartial. Why can't you see this? Its easy, really.


    Now, you couldn't say that of course the Christian would find his beliefs justified, since that's just what he was looking for, because there are countless counterexamples to this (i.e. people who, after looking at the arguments for Christianity, rejected beliefs they once ardently held, e.g. Bart Ehrman, John Loftus, Dan Barker, Hector Avalos, Charles Templeton, etc.).
    ---
    How does a list of fools convince me of anything?



    Also, there are plenty of people, such as Dawkins and Hitchens, who will tell you that they became atheists at the age of eight or twelve, and who have remained so, after all their studies. Have they only remained atheists because they set out to justify their atheism? The argument proves too much by cutting both ways.
    ---
    When there are two choices, theism or atheism, even many chldren will make the correct choice, out of the sheer law of averages... Later on they realized that they were righ all along and so didn't have to change. I didn't realize that Christianity was hooey till I was fifteen or so. So I was wrong, until then. After that, I was right, though.



    I think we have to judge who is and isn't a philosopher by looking at their arguments and at their whole approach to the subject, and not by looking at whether they ultimately came to accept the general worldview they began with.
    ---
    I agree, and the Christian approach to the subject is to prove their God by using philosophy. You know. Like you do. Ex post facto. Even you don't realize that you're dong it. Pretty amazing, from my perspective.


    (If we reject these criteria, then we're left with the bizarre claim that S is a philosopher if and only if S, after completing his studies, comes to reject the general view of the world that he had once believed to be true! I say it's bizarre for this reason: it would entail that atheists become theists and theists become atheists, and thus reduce philosophy to something very different from the pursuit of the truth!)
    ---
    No, the real philosopher may have his views, but he doesn't look only for a confirmation of them. He looks for WHAT IS, and not what he THINKS IS. To do otherwise is invalid reasoning. If WHAT IS conflicts with his views, he changes his views. Not the facts. You modify the facts to suit your views, or muddle them enough so that even you yourself can't recognize them.

    Talk to me of all the Christian Philosophers that realized that they were wrong. I bet you can't. Since you can't even imagine that they were wrong. You're one of them, trying desperately to prove your fantasy true. It's so very silly from where I sit. Of course you're wrong. It's as if a baby wanted to prove that his diapers were the limits of the universe. Absurd. But you can't seem to ever prove it to the baby, is the problem...

    You kept using Evolution as your example because you know that I will accept that as true. But evolution is different from religion. Its science. It can support itself, whereas your faith is like a Cross-Your-Heart Bra. No visible means, if you catch my drift. Its not a valid comparison, in spite of how much you WISH that it was.

    Nice try though. It' always a nice try. I guess you have talent, if that's a talent...

    ReplyDelete
  38. then of course we could say that he didn't have good grounds for his belief. Suppose, however, that he goes on to study philosophy and theology, and learns that what his pastor told him was in fact supported with sound arguments.
    -------------
    See, that's a problem.

    He's already looking for confirmation, and he finds it. Big whoop. If he's have been a Muslim, and looked hard enough, guess what?

    Sure, the arguments might be sound, but that in no way makes them TRUE. You yourself have demonstrated enough verbal legerdemain so that I have no doubt that, were you motivated to do so, you could construct a sound argument for a flat earth. Knowing that YOU exist, I can only but assume the existence of someone even smoother, that could take YOU in completely.

    Plus, he could go on to study philosophy and theology, but that would be horribly myopic of him. He needs to also study science. Because, if you haven't already noticed, whenever science buts heads with philosophy or theology, science kicks it's butt.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Brian,

    That's an interesting question as well. Lewis was considered an apostate by some, who felt he was a pagan.

    When I read some of his stuff, I got the sense that he thought God worked through all religions but that Jesus (Christianity) was the pinnacle.

    As a "young" Christian I was baffled by his saying that in the beginning was the 'Tao' and other things.

    His theology seems to be classical but still somewhat heterodox. Which I guess is why he is loved and disliked amongst Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The idea of a philosopher somehow "proving" by argument that there is a God and it just happens to be the Christisn version and not any of the other versions, is far more preposterous than the idea of a scientist somehow "proving" by argument that there is no God, not even the Christian version.

    ReplyDelete
  41. In the beginning was the Big Brain...

    (Didn't I tell you that it's practically synonymous with the tao?)

    Hey, I haven't read Lewis. Just one review of his one book that Eric recommended. I'm basing all this on that. If somehow Lewis isn't as myopic or biased as the review suggested, then I recant.

    It was programming. That's how I saw it. Sophisticated programming. Not philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Maybe if I translate this argument into how I hear it, you'll understand my position better.

    To paraphrase:
    "The basic point is this: if, say, a primitive native believes his Ooga-Booga religion to be true *only* because his witch doctor told him so, then of course we could say that he didn't have good grounds for his belief. Suppose, however, that he goes on to study magic and shamanism, and learns that what his witch dictor told him was in fact supported with sound arguments. In this case, his beliefs are justified, *even if he once believed without justification."

    Congratulations. Your argument just proved "Ooga Booga" true.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have the same proble with a Christian looking at reality and studying Christian philosophy and Christian religion and deciding that not only does God exist, but He's the Christian version, as I would with a Muslim looking at reality and deciding that it's all Allah. The two scenarios are identical. Both are religions, and are therefore superstitions. Science is the way to go here, and not philosophy or religion. I talk about the Big Brain Scenario, but I wouldn't do so if it conflicted in any way with science. Your God, or any version of God, does.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Brian, rather than addressing your remarks point-by-point, I'm just going to make some general observations.

    Should we be suspicious of a conclusion if we have reason to be suspicious of its origins? Absolutely! If an oil rep tells me that global warming is a myth, or if someone who works for an organization that raises money for global warming research tells me that it's absolutely true, I have reasons to be skeptical in both cases. However, *skepticism is just the beginning*: ultimately, I must look to the *arguments* each one presents to determine who is telling me the truth (or if both are lying, or whatever).

    Do you see the point now? Alvin Plantinga was a Christian before he became a 'Christian philosopher,' and Daniel Dennett was a naturalist before he became a 'naturalist philosopher.' Let's agree that we have grounds in both cases to be skeptical of their motivations. Where does that leave us? Well, just where I insisted: we're now in a position where we must look at the merits of the arguments they provide. This is the whole point of the genetic fallacy: the origin of a belief can tell you nothing about the truth of a belief, even if it may give you reasons to be skeptical initially.

    One final observation. When science and philosophy clash *on properly scientific grounds*, then of course science kicks philosophy's butt. However, it works the other way around: when scientists intrude on properly philosophic issues, they generally make complete fools of themselves. The saying about retired scientists going on to become horrible philosophers is not around for nothing, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's ridiculous -- there is no necessary conflict between science and Christianity.

    And the identification of 'shamanism and magic' with 'sound arguments' (BTW, an argument is sound only if it's logically valid and its premises are true, so a sound argument *necessarily* leads to a true conclusion) is simply absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ultimately, I must look to the *arguments* each one presents to determine who is telling me the truth (or if both are lying, or whatever).
    ------------
    No, ultimately you must look not only at all the arguments presented, but also at all the other associated facts and data that you can find, anywhere. That's called 'lateral thinking' as opposed to 'linear thinking.'

    So when I hear an argument for a particular religion, I have to not only examine it, but also all the relevant science and non-religious philosophy and the even the related and possibly competing tenets of other religions before making a decision as to its veracity. If it can't stand out against all that, I can dismiss it.

    Your religion loses, just like all the other ones. Sorry, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And the identification of 'shamanism and magic' with 'sound arguments' (BTW, an argument is sound only if it's logically valid and its premises are true, so a sound argument *necessarily* leads to a true conclusion) is simply absurd.
    -------------
    NOW YOU FINALLY GET IT!!!

    I was hoping that that would do it!

    Yes, I see your religion as just exactly as unsupportable as a primitive shamanistic aboriginal religion. In fact, I see more merit in the abo faith. At least they respect nature and know their place in it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. That's ridiculous -- there is no necessary conflict between science and Christianity.
    -----------
    Only if you neuter the bible, like Catholics like to do, in order to fit it somehow into secular scientific reality. If you read it literally, it is irreconcilable with science. And since most Christians read it literally...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Also, I have yet to see any of your "sound" arguments for God as truly "sound" in the sense of necessarily being true. Not even close, I'm afraid. More like wishful thinking on your part...

    Sorry. I still like you, really I do. You're more fun to argue with than anyone I know.......

    ReplyDelete
  50. The proble with defining a "sound argument" as being necessarily true is that its almost impossible to tell when a sophisticated and convoluted well-constructed apparently sound argument is false, especially when it is related to things like faith and God. Its best to default to science in these matters, really. An argument for Bramah being the ultimate reality can be constructed with equivalent elegance, you know. And if it can't, it's only becaue there haven't been as many "Hindu Philosophers" (read: apologists) in history.

    ReplyDelete
  51. You show me a "sound argument" for Christianity and I bet I can transform it into a "sound argument" for shamanism with only minimal changes. If you use names of philosophers, I will be obliged to tell you names of people that theorize (even today) that shamanism is true. They're out there, and they write books too, you know.

    Its all the same. Go with science. Really.

    ReplyDelete
  52. And the identification of 'shamanism and magic' with 'sound arguments' (BTW, an argument is sound only if it's logically valid and its premises are true, so a sound argument *necessarily* leads to a true conclusion) is simply absurd.
    ---------------
    See, here's where it gets almost too easy:

    "And the identification of 'miracles and the existence of a mythical creator being in the sky who created and sent his own son down to earth only to die and be resurrected and bodily assumed into that sky place where his father lives' with 'sound arguments' (BTW, an argument is sound only if it's logically valid and its premises are true, so a sound argument *necessarily* leads to a true conclusion) is simply absurd."

    ReplyDelete
  53. Christianity calling shamanism absurd is like an ant calling a grasshopper an insect.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Also, shaman are VERY spiritual. Most Christians, not even slightly. They are so non-spiritual that they can't even recognize the spirituality of the shaman! So if I had to pick a RELIGION, I'd take the shamanism way before the Christianity.

    And shaman have hardly ever oppressed the entire world. That's another good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "And the identification of 'miracles and the existence of a mythical creator being in the sky who created and sent his own son down to earth only to die and be resurrected and bodily assumed into that sky place where his father lives' with 'sound arguments' (BTW, an argument is sound only if it's logically valid and its premises are true, so a sound argument *necessarily* leads to a true conclusion) is simply absurd."

    Indeed, I agree: it is absurd. Why? Because, "miracles and the existence of a mythical creator being in the sky who created and sent his own son down to earth only to die and be resurrected and bodily assumed into that sky place where his father lives" *is not an argument*. If it's not an argument, it can't be sound (by definition), so of course it's not a 'sound argument.'

    Too easy indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  56. I substituted it for your phrase "shamanism and magic" in your own paragraph!!!

    How is that an argument?

    Even easier than before...

    ReplyDelete
  57. You've made it your vocation to argue for "miracles and the existence of a mythical creator being in the sky who created and sent his own son down to earth only to die and be resurrected and bodily assumed into that sky place where his father lives" so if it's not an argument, then the construct that you assemble in support of it certainly is. And I can construct a similar one for shamanism. Apparently just by substituting a few key words rght into YOUR arguments!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Brian, I was quoting *you* when I used the phrase shamanism and magic, and I used it to make the same point I just made above: the identification of *either* 'shamanism and magic' *or* 'miracles and the existence of a mythical creator being in the sky who created and sent his own son down to earth only to die and be resurrected and bodily assumed into that sky place where his father lives' *with* 'sound arguments' is ridiculous, since *neither* are examples of arguments!

    Are you not sleeping much lately?

    ReplyDelete
  59. So you admit that arguing for your religion is by definition the creation of an unsound argument. Good. We're making progress.

    Nah, I'm sleeping fine. How about you?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Eric, how fine can you split a hair? I mean, it one nanometer too small or do you go all the way down to angstroms and microns?

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  61. "You've made it your vocation to argue for "miracles and the existence of a mythical creator being in the sky who created and sent his own son down to earth only to die and be resurrected and bodily assumed into that sky place where his father lives" so if it's not an argument, then the construct that you assemble in support of it certainly is."

    Yes and no. Yes, I have arguments to support my position, but no, I've not made it 'my vocation' to 'argue for' the position I currently hold. As I've said before, I'm fascinated with philosophy of religion, and, as I've said before, most philosophers of religion are atheists or agnostics. I simply think that the question of god's existence is *the* most important question one can ask, and I also think that the sorts of questions philosophers of religion (both atheists and theists) ask (and attempt to answer) shed light on all sorts of other, perfectly secular problems (e.g. with knowledge, causality, free will, naturalism, etc.), and do so in perfectly secular ways (just as thought experiments help us to think more clearly about all sorts of things). I simply think, for now, that the stronger arguments are with theism, just as I once thought that the stronger arguments were with atheism. I may change my mind in the future yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Eric, how fine can you split a hair?"

    Duns Scotus was called 'the subtle doctor' because of his remarkable ability to draw extremely fine distinctions. This ability apparently didn't serve him well, since we've derived our modern word 'dunce' from his name! (Or so I've heard...) Hmm, I hope I'm not going down that path...

    Seriously, though, many modern philosophers have made an entire career out of one nicely drawn distinction. Distinctions help us think and communicate much more clearly than would otherwise be possible (e.g. look at all the problems caused by our use of the copula 'to be,' given its various different meanings in English, and the attempts linguists and logicians have made to develop formal languages to clear up these difficulties).

    Word verification: blesu

    ReplyDelete
  63. I find the most important question that anybody can ask to be the question of the ultimate nature of reality and whether there's a spiritual component to it or not. To think of a God is to be an anthropomorphic teleologist.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Now if the *evidence* pointed to a god, and then the evidence further pointed to that god being your God, then that would be a different story.

    But it just doesn't. Not one little bit. It's all hopes and dreams, like the shaman, only less spiritual.

    Confirmation word: Antlear

    Ho ho ho!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hmm, I hope I'm not going down that path...
    -------------
    Are you so sure that you're not a modern day scotian?

    Hey, can't prove it by me...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Distinctions help us think and communicate much more clearly than would otherwise be possible
    ---------
    And drawing fine distinctions is one of the very best ways to obfuscate as well. Let's not forget the Master, Bill CLinton, who went so far as to try to redefine the word "is."

    Ya gotta love him.

    ReplyDelete
  67. In fact, most of the Christian delusion of this place being designed by some anthropomorphic God is due to the fact that we all evolved here, so of course it looks designed for us.

    Myopic silliness. The mind reels that anyone can take it seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "You've made it your vocation to argue for "miracles and the existence of a mythical creator being in the sky who created and sent his own son down to earth only to die and be resurrected and bodily assumed into that sky place where his father lives" so if it's not an argument, then the construct that you assemble in support of it certainly is."

    Yes and no. Yes, I have arguments to support my position, but no, I've not made it 'my vocation' to 'argue for' the position I currently hold.
    ----------------------
    Yes, you agree that you argue for such silliness and no, you don't get paid for it.

    Okay, thanks.

    :-) Am I laying it on too thick here? I'm having fun... Hope you are too!

    ReplyDelete
  69. "Horrific. Disgusting.
    Belief without evidence is stupidity, and has no moral or redemptive value, except to the people that are using it to CONTROL you."

    And Lewis would agree with you (from 'Mere Christianity'):
    ------------------
    Would Lewis agree with me that Christianity is mostly about control, with a thin wrapper of Christ's Goodness as the bait? Because that's where I was going with it...

    ReplyDelete
  70. When you call the Christian god 'anthropomorphic,' you display that prejudice that causes you to place all Christians into the 'fundie' category (even when you deny doing so).

    Human beings are composites of form and matter; god is immaterial. Human beings exist in time and space; god is eternal. Human beings exhibit potentialities; god is pure actuality. Human beings are limited in knowledge and power; god is omnipotent and omniscient. Human beings exist; god's essence is existence. One could go on and on. The problem is that you think of 'god' as a human being, 'only more so,' i.e. as sort of a superman. Christians (educated Christians, that is) don't think of god in this way at all; when we say that god is 'personal,' we don't mean that he's personal in the same sense we are, but that he's not less than a person. It's similar when we speak about god's other attributes (and speak analogically, as I said before).

    I think that the best way to sum it all up is to say that to you, god is (understood as) just one more sort of thing among all other things, while for Christians god cannot be categorized in that way at all.

    I know the comebacks: 'what about the bible, where god walks in gardens, etc.' and 'what about human beings being made in god's image?'

    To me (and most Catholics), those biblical passages are to be understood in roughly the same way we understand descriptions like 'the atom is like a little solar system' or 'think about particles as little billiard balls' -- viz. as communicating a simplistic way of thinking about extremely complicated and abstract concepts. If you focus too much on the metaphors and the similes, you'll inevitably drag in inessential elements (e.g. we all know how inaccurate the 'solar system' simile is when it comes to atoms, though it does convey some fundamental concepts that aid us in the future as we learn more about what they're 'really' like); however, if you use it as it's intended, you'll be well on your way to improved understanding (just as evolution is introduced to children in simplified Darwinian terms today, and not in terms of the changes in allele frequencies).

    As for the second objection, we're made in god's image in the sense that we possess intellect and will (and all that they presuppose and entail) -- that's it.

    The 'anthropomorphic' charge can only be seriously made by those who understand next to nothing about Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I think that the best way to sum it all up is to say that to you, god is (understood as) just one more sort of thing among all other things, while for Christians god cannot be categorized in that way at all.
    -------------
    I'm well aware of that. Its due to the conditioning. Of course they believe that God is special.

    I've enjoyed this, in spite of the shots I've taken at you. You're a good sport, Eric. If you have the energy we can resume this tomorrow. As for now, I am called by the nepenthe of sleep. Best to you... Take care! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  72. The 'anthropomorphic' charge can only be seriously made by those who understand next to nothing about Christianity.
    ----------------
    Okay, just one more...

    The 'anthropomorphic' charge can only be refuted by someone that knows next to nothing about the Bible.

    Take that!

    (In His image, he created them...)

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Would Lewis agree with me that Christianity is mostly about control"

    Absolutely not! As Chesterton said, tell a Catholic that he's lost his freedom, and he'll simply laugh.

    (Oh, it's not exactly relevant, but here's one of my all time favorite Chesterton quotes, which I only came across the other day -- and I've read a lot of Chesterton: "What we all dread most is a maze with no a center...that is why atheism is only a nightmare.")

    "Yes, you agree that you argue for such silliness and no, you don't get paid for it."

    And I never will be paid very well for it! But hey, as Twain said, the secret to happiness is making your vacation your vocation. If I won the lottery tomorrow (difficult, since I don't play) or if I were to inherit a fortune (that's difficult too -- my whole family is poor), I'd be pursuing the same path I am now (though it would be easier to study without having to worry about work!).

    ReplyDelete
  74. "I've enjoyed this, in spite of the shots I've taken at you. You're a good sport, Eric."

    I think I 'get' your personality by now, so I don't take the 'shots' seriously (that is, not as serious insults). My closest friends are the biggest ballbusters you could imagine, so I'm used to the give and take. You're not such a bad sport yourself.

    "As for now, I am called by the nepenthe of sleep."

    'Nepenthe' -- one of my favorite words. I appreciate a person who knows his Homer!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Absolutely not! As Chesterton said, tell a Catholic that he's lost his freedom, and he'll simply laugh.
    -------------
    Funny thing. The Catholics can't know about the freedom that they've lost, since they've abdicated it years back when they signed on.

    Freedom of THOUGHT. To a Catholic, this is freedom to think about God and why He's real. To me, it's freedom to think about God and why He's not.

    The Catholic isn't free to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I think I 'get' your personality by now, so I don't take the 'shots' seriously (that is, not as serious insults). My closest friends are the biggest ballbusters you could imagine, so I'm used to the give and take. You're not such a bad sport yourself.
    ------------
    Yep. You're on the right track. Glad to hear it. I wouldn't want to genuinely offend you.

    Now I really DO have to sleep. I'm making an appalling amount of typos that I have to correct before I post the comments. Its taking me like twice as long to post as usual.

    Nitey nite!

    Oh, and feel free to continue to post if you haven't finished all your thoughts. I'll just answer them tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Eric, I just had to post this. It's nothing major, but it amuses me....

    I had just signed off, and I went to the bathroom. And yes, I have a book there to look at while I'm there. My book is the Oxford Etymological English Dictionary, by C.T. Onions.

    I've memorized about 40 percent of it by now, since I have used it like that, as a time-killer for three years or so, among a few other selections.

    So when I look at it, all I think about is choosing a page that doesn't look like it's been opened to very often. Since I want to learn new words, you see. And I'm the only one that's ever opened it.

    So here's how it went tonight. I opened the book, looked at a page, looked at a word, turned to another page, looked at a few words, turned to another page, and just kinda stared at it for a while. (I was preoccupied with other things of a biological nature at the moment)

    As my mind cleared a bit and I prepared to leave the room, I happened to notice a word on the page that the book was opened to.

    "Nepenthe."


    Goodnight, Eric.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Oh, and I see by today's news that Pastor Warren has already softened his rhetoric on his website, since Obama has chosen him and all...

    My plan is working perfectly... Muah hah hah hah hah!

    ReplyDelete
  79. I am the night watchman, here to post in the wee hours so that people wont think the place is empty......actually its not so far from the truth. Now I work the 6p-6a shift at an IT company. Somone has to be there to make sure the servers dont overheat, system is running, blah blah. Point is, no one is in the place but me. Kind of like it. I dont like people much as it is, so this is the perfect shift.

    Eric:

    I like to think of "god" (although I dont like that word) as the underlying energy that makes up the universe. It isnt intelligent, it doesnt listen or respond to us in any personal way, it rules nothing. It just keeps things together.

    I dont like the idea of a comsmic parental figure, judging my entire life. How would you like your parents looking over your shoulders at the age of 30? (mine almost do). It inspires a natural state of rebellion in me.

    While I am ok with anyone believing anything, it comes with the condition that you are doing it without expecting a reward. Meaning that you dont believe in god just because you dont want to burn in hell; its because you want to serve something larger than yourself. I think that is a large turnoff for many people (especially athiests) who see hordes of people in church for selfish reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  80. While I am ok with anyone believing anything, it comes with the condition that you are doing it without expecting a reward. Meaning that you dont believe in god just because you dont want to burn in hell; its because you want to serve something larger than yourself. I think that is a large turnoff for many people (especially athiests) who see hordes of people in church for selfish reasons.
    -------------------
    Same here. Too many Christians only beleve to "play it safe" so that they have their ticket to heaven when they die. That's the nature of Pascal's Wager after all.

    To believe for selfish reasons has GOT TO look bad to God. What do people think? That He doesn't care why you believe as long as you do?

    (Obviously I don't believe in any God or gods, so I'm speaking hypothetically here)

    ReplyDelete
  81. "While I am ok with anyone believing anything, it comes with the condition that you are doing it without expecting a reward. Meaning that you dont believe in god just because you dont want to burn in hell; its because you want to serve something larger than yourself. I think that is a large turnoff for many people (especially athiests) who see hordes of people in church for selfish reasons."

    Stefan, I agree. I could name any number of other things that used to annoy the heck out of me when I was an atheist (and some of which I still annoy me), such as the silliness involved in, say, driving a BMW to church to listen to a sermon on the virtues of poverty.

    Anyway, while some Christians may just 'fear hell,' I think most think about it in a different way. Let me put it like this: do you consider yourself selfish for eating? (I'm not talking about gluttony here, but simply about nourishment.) I hope not: you need to eat to live, because that's the kind of being you are. If you're deprived of food, your body shrivels up. Christians have a similar view of the soul: If Jesus is who he said he was, then our souls 'need him' (whether we get him explicitly as Christians, or in some other way -- the latter being a possibility the church has always recognized, i.e. one need not explicitly know Jesus to benefit from god's grace)for their own particular form of nourishment. In other words, just as we don't eat only because we 'fear starvation,' but because we need to eat to live a human life, so (many) Christians don't adopt their faith simply because they 'fear hell,' but because it provides the sort of spiritual nourishment they believe they need to live a human life.

    That said, I'm not sure I'd agree with the notion that fear is always to be looked down upon as a motive. Tolstoy, in his Confessions, describes the human condition in this way: we're all hanging from a branch that's growing out of the side of a pit; there's a drop into the darkness beneath us, a snarling animal at the edge of the pit above us -- and some small animals are chewing their way through the branch we're hanging on to. This is what it feels like to be a human being (that is, one who is aware of our existential predicament). Pain, death and the unknown await us all: we can't climb out of the pit, and we can't let go of the branch which, however desperately we grasp it, will soon break anyway. Naturally, such a situation cannot but lead to some uneasiness! However, it need not lead to despair, and coming to grips with it (no pun intended!)can help us to think more clearly about what it means to be human, and about how a proper human life should be lived.

    "I dont like the idea of a comsmic parental figure, judging my entire life."

    I think everyone feels this way. Christopher Hitchens describes it as a 'celestial North Korea'; who wants that? But I think that this can tell us two things: first, that there's something to the Christian doctrine of original sin(or, at least, that our thoughts about god -- even the thoughts of those who don't believe -- are consistent with it); and second, that the 'wish-fulfillment' argument is very poor indeed -- after all, who would *want* to believe in a 'supernatural parent' who is aware of our every act and thought, and who will judge them?

    ReplyDelete
  82. after all, who would *want* to believe in a 'supernatural parent' who is aware of our every act and thought, and who will judge them?
    -----------
    A fully conditioned Christian.

    You dismiss the fear factor too easily, Eric. Many, many Christians, if they KNEW that there was no pit, no devil, no angry vengeful God that required worship, would leave the faith, having not really had it in the first place. What they "had" was fear of the consequesces of nonbelief. I mean, look at them. WHenever I have a conversation with a fervent Christian, who do they invariably throw at me?
    Pascal, that's who.

    Believe, or suffer the eternal consequences. And best to "play it safe" and believe, since if there's no God you (suposedly) lose nothing, but if there is, you get to go to heaven. Childishly self-centered, and all based in fear.

    I said "supposedly" in the above paragraph because of course, A LOT is lost when you devote your entire life to a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Brian said,

    "Why thank you, C.S.

    My best reasoning not only tells me that the weight of evidence is COMICALLY against it, but also that you're just an unusually erudite snake-oil salesman with a penchant for fantasy and little grasp of reality. How's that sit with ya?"

    (Hint: It doesn't do any good to talk to him, he's been dead for 45 years.)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Eric said,

    "If we reject these criteria, then we're left with the bizarre claim that S is a philosopher if and only if S, after completing his studies, comes to reject the general view of the world that he had once believed to be true!"

    I disagree. You're putting the cart before the horse here. What Brian and I have been saying is that S must completely abandon preconceived views of the world BEFORE philosophising, and THEN come to a rational conclusion. This is the core of what I was saying about Aquinas in the last blog. There is no way he could have started from such a position as described above for the facts that:

    a) the Roman Catholic Church dominated thinking in Europe atthe time, even among secular thinkers, and

    b) Aquinas was a Dominican monk, and strike three:

    c) the Official Roman Catholic Church World View at the time still held the Earth as the Center of the Universe, with Man as the pinnacle of God's Creation.

    Aquinas was necessarily biased. There's no way around it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Eric said,

    "...god is omnipotent and omniscient."

    A little poem from Dawkins' 'The God Delusion':

    Can omniscient God
    Who knows the future find
    The omnipotence to
    Change his future mind?

    Both aspects of god in the same being are mutually exclusive. How's THAT for a sound argument?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Well, the conditioned Christian would answer that, being omniscient, God has never once had to change His mind. Of course, the fact that it says in the Bible that God did indeed change His maind about the efficacy of the flood, and the sending His son to earth, being a new tactic to Him, indicates a change of mind, does present problems.

    None that a conditioned Christian isn't programmed to overcome, though.




    Oh, and Ed;

    C.S. Lewis is DEAD???

    I didn't even know he was sick!

    ReplyDelete
  87. "You dismiss the fear factor too easily, Eric. Many, many Christians, if they KNEW that there was no pit, no devil, no angry vengeful God that required worship, would leave the faith, having not really had it in the first place. What they "had" was fear of the **consequesces of nonbelief**. I mean, look at them. WHenever I have a conversation with a fervent Christian, who do they invariably throw at me?
    Pascal, that's who."

    Do such Christians exist? I don't doubt it for a moment, just as I don't for a moment doubt that many atheists are atheists *only* because they don't like the consequences of theism (e.g. they want to live their lives without belief in any standard of morality beyond their own infallible consciences, etc.).

    As for Pascal, I would like to add that his famous 'wager' takes up only a few pages of his wonderful Pensees. It's not an argument for belief in god, but an argument about the inevitability of choosing what to believe, and hence about the inevitable consequences of that choice. There are countless famous objections to the wager, many of which are legitimate; however, many also miss the point of the wager because they focus *only* on the wager. The wager was never meant to justify belief in god, but to make skeptics aware of the fact that they must choose (and, of course, the range of possible choices is much more expansive than Pascal suggests, though not as expansive as many skeptics would suggest), and to get them to think about the fact that such choices may have eternal consequences. The big issue with Pascal is what comes *after* the wager, viz. a serious struggle with these eternal questions that goes far beyond the wager itself -- a point that most skeptics miss by focusing only on the wager.

    "What Brian and I have been saying is that S must completely abandon preconceived views of the world BEFORE philosophising, and THEN come to a rational conclusion."

    GearHedEd, what you're saying can be interpreted in different ways: if interpreted one way, it's impossible; if another, it's impossible to confirm (which was my point about Brian's criteria).

    If one takes you to mean (as you literally said) that a philosopher "must **completely abandon** preconceived views of the world BEFORE philosophising," then what you're suggesting is impossible. Even to begin to philosophize is to take for granted any number of assumptions about the world.

    If one doesn't read you literally, and instead takes the spirit of your remarks into consideration, then what it amounts to is that a philosopher must employ a rational skepticism about his preconceived views of the world, then I absolutely agree. However, how would a Christian who both began as a Christian and ended up as a Christian ever persuade someone like you or Brian that he had actually applied the skeptical razor to his beliefs at the outset? The two of you would take the fact that he remained a Christian as dispositive evidence that he had not applied it at all (or, minimally, that he had not applied it *properly* because of his desires, his conditioning, his incredible stupidity, etc.).

    "Can omniscient God
    Who knows the future find
    The omnipotence to
    Change his future mind?
    Both aspects of god in the same being are mutually exclusive. How's THAT for a sound argument?"

    Unfortunately for Mr. Dawkins, it's *not* sound, since its premises are false! (But then, Mr Dawkins wears his ignorance of theology as a badge of honor!) God doesn't exist in time, so to ask about his 'future' mind is literally nonsensical. Also, god's knowledge isn't the same 'kind' as ours (it's a complex topic, and I won't get into it now), so it's not at all clear that talk about god 'changing his mind' is even meaningful. Finally, god's omnipotence is often poorly understood by non-theists. For example, it's not the case that god can do *anything*: e.g., he couldn't make a squared circle or a stone too heavy for him to lift, not because his power is limited, but because omnipotence doesn't comprise the 'ability' to make sense of nonsense (i.e. to perform contradictions). Pseudo-problems relating to god's omniscience and omnipotence often come down to asking, in effect, 'can god square the circle?' because non-theists like Dawkins rarely take the time to understand the meaning of the theological terms (omnipotence, omniscience, -- or even god!) they're using.

    ReplyDelete
  88. God doesn't exist in time, so to ask about his 'future' mind is literally nonsensical.
    -------------------
    It's hard to believe someone so intelligent actually believes this. Not trying to be a jerk, just that when you say it so clinically and dispassionately as if it were a *fact* it sorta creeps me out a little bit. Like you know all about God. Pretty funny, for a human.

    ReplyDelete
  89. If God knows everything, then why does He always ask questions of people?

    If God knows everything, then why did He make bets with Satan? (Making a bet when you know the outcome is cheating, and I suspect that Satan would be aware of this capability in his opponent)

    If God knows everything, then why did He punish the snake by making it crawl on the ground, as all snakes do or else they're a lizard?

    If God knows everything, then how did Satan fool Him and sucessfully start a rebellion in heaven? I mean, if God knew, he'd have nipped it in the bud, no?

    God is not omniscient. The end.

    ReplyDelete
  90. And why punish snakes at all if it's the Devil in disguise?

    And not just THE snake. ALL snakes. All SPECIES of snakes. As if they're all the same species, like all men are. (Appallingly ignorant of God, no?)
    And what about the Sea Snakes? They can SWIM as well as CRAWL. I didn't hear God mentioning that little loophole? How'd they manage to get that by Him?

    Punishing the innocent is EVIL. PERIOD. EVIL. Even punishing innocent snakes. The same reasoning of course fits the doctrine of Original Sin as well. Balderdash.

    What part of this is cryptic to you, Eric?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Saying that 'God's knowledge is not the same kind as ours' is identical with 'God works in mysterious ways.'

    I'm so sick of it.

    Listen, punishing the innocent is EVIL. Throwing people into any kind of a hell for merely not believing in Him is EVIL. Sadism is evil, you know.

    No mystery to it. To say that there is, is to apologize for EVIL. To make obvious EVIL acceptable somehow on the premise that in some way, we just can't understand why God tells us to be moral and ignores his own advice at every possible opportunity.

    You support utter hypocrisy with convoluted reasoning. For shame.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Eric, you don't believe in hellfire and brimstone, do you?

    If you're the typical Catholic apologist you think more of it as separation from God, right?

    But is says "fire and brimstone" in the Bible, doesn't it?

    The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."

    In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

    In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

    Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

    So you don't believe the Bible? Just can't bring yourself to think of your God as that mean and sadistic?

    Then go the rest of the way and stop believing in ANY of it! Stop trying to MODIFY it so that it's acceptable to you, and saleable to others.

    ReplyDelete
  93. As for Pascal, I would like to add that his famous 'wager' takes up only a few pages of his wonderful Pensees. It's not an argument for belief in god, but an argument about the inevitability of choosing what to believe, and hence about the inevitable consequences of that choice.
    -------------
    See now that right there is a beautiful sidestep. You're good.

    You're lying, but you're very, very good.

    I like you. Never boring.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Oh, and I didn't mean that as an insult. I no longer believe that you're lying to *me.* That used to get me mad at you a lot.

    You're lying to yourself. I see that now.

    ReplyDelete
  95. See, it's not you that's thinking all the apologies up. You've memorized (and perhaps modified in some cases to suit you) the apologies of other men that went before you. To you, their motives were pure. Seekers after ultimate truth. To me, well, I can see that they were completely and utterly biased. Not seeing that, you as well come across as utterly biased. However I prefer to think of you as someone that believed the words of men that designed them so as to be believed by just such as you, a lover of logic and words. You've been lied to in such beautiful terms and premises and syllogisms that you fell in love with the lie. As it was designed to affect you, so it did.

    ReplyDelete
  96. In fact, they didn't even design the lie. They were victims of it too. They 'knew' that it all had to be God, so they devoted themselves and their considerable verbal abilities to "proving" that, and thus made an incredibly sucessful lie even much greater, more able to suck in even more intelligent people. Like you for instance.

    Most people that approach the problem of ultimate truth with only logic, science, and reason (not faith or belief) as their tools come to a different conclusion than you did, you know. The world round, most of them come to the *same* conclusion. Ever ask yourself if maybe you are the one in error? If maybe you approached the problem with at least a *hopefulness* that it all would turn out to be God, and so when you read all the great Christian philosophers you went "AHA!" and it all fell into place for you with an emotional rush? Incorrectly?

    When you read the Christian philosophers, didn't you feel that they were right before you thought it, rather than thinking they were right before you felt it? I bet if you really think about that, you'll realize that the former was the case and not the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Why give humans free will, free choice, if you have designed them to make bad choices? And then, even more asinine, why punish them for it? Other than for the personal pleasure involved in watching them squirm, of course...

    Let me guess...
    Regardless of the actual *words* in your answer, it will be able to be "boiled down" to "God works in mysterious ways..."

    Ooga booga. Very scary stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  98. One final thought on Pascal.

    I described how I see that Christians take the wager. How they generally DO take the wager. And you knew that. So I know what it means to them, and they know what it means to them, and so I base my argument on that. And then you, a third party if you will, comes along and tells me that the wager doesn't really MEAN that, and of course support your position. And you're right perhaps, but who cares? I'm not talking about the original meaning of it, I'm talking about how it's taken today by the common people. So by redefining it like that, you're intentionally missing my point so as to WIN. You did the same thing when I was blogging about empathy too. And liberal dictators. Everyone else knew how we were meaning the terms, but only you had to redefine them, again perhaps being technically correct but being not at all correct in that context, to secure the WIN for yourself by confusion. Which instead of coming across as intelligent, comes across as really sleazy.



    Just an FYI.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I hate to be so obnoxious and verbose tonight, but for some reason my mind is racing. Eric, you always get my wheels turning. For that I sincerely thank you. Totally serious here.

    Anyhow, final post, I'm fairly certain...

    It relates to my last one.

    I thought I'd re-try this from an oblique angle. Since you like oblique. :-)

    If someone were to call you a dunce, loudly, to your face, and you informed him of the fact that in actuality it refers to Duns Scotus, the "Subtle Doctor" who was so called because of his ability to draw finer and finer distinctions, therefore the word is in fact complimentary, does it change the fact that you've just been insulted?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Okay, so I was wrong about the final post. Sorry.

    I was just reflecting on our conversations lately and I wanted to thank you Eric, for teaching me about Duns Scotus. I'd never heard the etymology of the word "dunce" before.

    You are one smart bastard, and because of that I can't dislike you no matter how much you piss me off by being 'snakey.' I guess that it could be said that part of my inner motivation for arguing with you is to somehow get you to see that you're better than what you've decided that you are. But I'm not so stupid as to think that will actually happen. I just hope, I guess, due to the fact that I can't seem to dislike you. And I am fairly sure that you think... ... ... ... Hmm... Interesting. I was just going somewhere with that thought but I immediately found myself lost... It just occured to me that I have no idea what you *really* think about anything. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Heck, I'll just come out and say it...

    Merry Christmas Eve, everyone!!!

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  102. Brian,

    You are a true romantic. Fine I'll do the other salutations.

    Chappy Channukah
    Have a Quadrate Kwanzaa
    A Super Saturnalia

    And to all the right saucy atheists...may you be warm and fuzzy.

    -----------------------------------

    So to sum up some of the opinions that have been put forth here on the blog: even the most disparate of us think love is the answer.

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  103. I think that religious philosophy IS TO solving a system of differential equations that describe the forces acting on the ball while it is in the air and then run to the place at which the ball is predicted to hit the ground AS 'believing' IS TO moving in such a fashion that assures that the ball will hit the catcher.

    What I mean is that religious philosophers don't describe what believers are believing.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Synchronicity:

    I thought I'd re-try this from an oblique angle. Since you like oblique. :-)
    -posted on December 24th

    ---------
    Dictionary.com
    Word of the Day for Thursday, December 25, 2008
    oblique \oh-BLEEK\, adjective, noun:
    1. something oblique, such as a line or figure
    2. in military use, by turning 45 degrees
    3. not straight up and down or across; slanting
    4. a muscle attached at an oblique angle to the structure that it controls
    5. having unequal sides; situated obliquely instead of transverse or longitudinal
    6. not straightforward; indirect

    ReplyDelete
  105. Pboy,

    Being that I'm just coming out of the cave but you've been seeing the Forms for a long time...I have no idea what you're specifically on about. It went over my head, like a ball in the air that I never met up with.

    Can you dumb it down for me?

    ReplyDelete
  106. The passages about hellfire in Revelation opened up a lot to me. It is a fascinating book. I'm going to espouse a conservative and liberal view on it.

    When he (John? some other John?) was writing it, one gets the sense not only of deep conviction, but a real pain. There is a lot of metaphor, a lot. And there is a lot of stuff he actually believed. I have yet to see a book that does justice to it culturally and psychologically.

    That would be cool to see a genuine explication. Not right or wrong, but a genuine objective take at John's reasoning without condemning or exalting him.

    From the hellfire perspective you can see that John thought about it differently than Daniel (if that's who wrote Daniel) or Jesus. Judgment oriented people who like to make themselves feel better by going, "Look! See! Nah nanny boo boo. There is eternal punishment," ignore the discrepancies along with all the other discrepancies.

    I don't have time to go into it all, but it seems like John believed there would be hellfire, but some people would be burned up, some people wouldn't...and in a nod to the metaphorical, how does 'the grave' burn for eternity anyway? What does it mean that not only "bad" people would burn in the lake of fire but death, the grave, and satan as well?

    And why do those other "bad" people get the pleasure of execution by fire and not an eternal burning?

    Even in my more fundamental phase I paused at that. I just don't see how mainstream Christianity can get the picture out of Revelation they say they do when they ignore some parts and are confounded by the others?

    ¿Quien sabe?

    ReplyDelete
  107. John is only the "traditional" author of the fourth gospel. Chances are he had nothing to do with it. Probably the same with revelations. It's all later added-in stuff aso as to induce the right and proper amount of fear in the people so that they tow the line.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Pboy, you seem to be saying that that belief is like how we unconsciously 'solve' complex trigonometric and differential equations every time we catch a ball or cross a street in traffic. How so? In that we're unconsciously "compensating" for things?

    I'm with oneblood. 'Splain, please

    ReplyDelete
  109. " It went over my head, like a ball in the air that I never met up with.

    Can you dumb it down for me?"

    (whistle).... boink!

    is not equal to..

    (calculation of trajectory)... boink!

    ReplyDelete
  110. Okay.. 'any' step towards 'figuring it out' is taken as an indication that God exists.

    Theists already have taken a firm grip on both handlebars.

    If the right handlebar is 'we cannot know'... then 'God knows'.

    If the left handlebar is, 'hey, I'm starting to see a pattern here.."...
    then we are just seeing God's design.

    There is no escape.

    "I can see God everywhere! Oh wait, no, I can't see him anywhere, I'm not supposed to."

    ReplyDelete
  111. Pboy, you're still about as clear as forty-weight, dude. Can you try English? Its the preferred language on this blog. Maybe I shold have posted that in the blog descrition under the title.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Pboy, my last comment was posted BEFORE I had read your last post, so I "get" you now a bit better than I did before. If you still want to elaborate on it though, I think I'd like to understand what you're saying in full instead of just in a string of vague images.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I have here what I think is a VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE that I found.

    PLEASE read this article. I think it's very conversation-worthy, to say the least.

    Apparently they've located the spot in the brain that defines feelings of personal identity, defines the "me" feeling. And also apparently when peeple do not have a well-developed "ME" area, they tend to be more SPIRITUAL. This is pretty wild stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  114. Nice article. One thing that stuck out to me is that most of the article was spent talking about how lower function of the "Me-definer" (as they call it) heightens spirituality due to it being indicative of selflessness (and suggestive of willingness to transcend the self in considering reality). But, at the very beginning, they mention one very important role of this "Me-defining" right parietal lobe area's function: "self-criticism". I don't know if this is just a poor choice of words, but it seems like they are suggesting that spiritual people should be uncritical, and may have a hard time adjusting to social scenarios due to inability to update "self-knowledge" (and thus remain aware of how their demeanor and behavior appears to others).

    Obviously, the effects are probably minor in both directions (and the fact that "spirituality" is such a vague term doesn't help much either). But, I found it interesting that they didn't delve into much of those implications, instead of diving for the positive ones exclusively.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'd be interested to find out if this area of the parietal lobe changes size during life. As in, say a person is self-centered but hits an "awakening point" in their lives and has a paradigm shift, as happens with I think most spiritual people. What if the area in the brain atrophies slowly in those people until it's smaller as found in the brain scans?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Brian! How's life? Greetings from the Philadelphian Tundra.

    I am one of those folks highly dissapointed that Plastor Warren is leading the services at Obama's Inaug. I understand it's a Quid Pro Quo situation, but C'Mon. In the interest of all viewpoints, why not bring up David Duke for a few comments? Sarah (Palling with drug dealers) Palin on her support? Maybe haul up Phred Phelps?

    The point that burns our collective butts is that Warren will equate Gay to Bestiality at the drop of a hat. After all the "Yes We Can" platitudes, the first man to speak is a man whose hardline on gays is "No You Can't." Up till a few days ago, there was a post on the Saddlebacl website that said "Unrepentanent Gays can not be members." That ain't bring us all together.

    This will be noted as Obama's first big misstep.

    ReplyDelete
  117. tbrough,

    you realize mr. warren wouldn't have anybody to disagree with gays on if it weren't for the little christian tbroughs following his teachings and buying his books.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Which reminds me,

    speaking of gays. let me be real.

    1.I think there are people who are born gay. -thumbing my nose at conservative christianity- I've seen too many phenotypic bull dykes, and effetes (there are reasons for the stereotypes) to say other wise.

    2. I think there are people who choose to be gay or experiment with it because of abuse (mostly sexual) -thumbing my nose at the gay movement-

    It seems that along with almost all other things that have to do with the mind, genetics and environment play a role within the whole scope of a psychological subject. Even some of the most fundamental libs and cons will go along with that.

    But when it comes to homosexuality ohhh nooo it couldn't possibly be 'genetic' and it couldn't possibly be 'environmental'.

    I apologize, this topic makes me cranky. It's like dealing with racists, all of a sudden everyone's compassion and commonsense goes out the window because of their cultural biases.

    Fye on that I say!

    What doth ye declare olde posters?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Greetings Tbrough!

    Your description of tundra inspired me to post a picture that I just took a few days ago from out my bathroom window of the snowstorm we had... Take a look at the very BOTTOM of my main page above the kaballah tree-of-life and recommended website list...

    It's beautiful and so, so cold.


    You may yet be correct about the decision to use Warren, but I'm hoping against hope that you're not. I agree that it looks bad symbolically. That's the negative, no doubt. It seems to officialize that narrowminded agenda.

    But Pastor Warren did change his website, even if he later stated that the no gays policy is still in force. I'm seeing that as a man that wants to change but doesn't want to look like a hypocrite by changing all at once. Again, my hopes, and perhapps I'm being too hopeful here.

    ReplyDelete
  120. A point that came up in a recent (real world) conversation that I had with my wife.

    When christians want (for instance) a gay man to seek redemption and give up his "sin" they cannot empathize, cannot put themselves in the other person's place due to a gut level of revulsion they have toward his sexual orientation that is of course conditioned into them. But I think I have a valid way of illustrating the difficulty with all that in spite of it. Here:

    If you're a Christian:
    Imagine that you're straight (if you really are, lol) and wake up one day in an alternate reality (stay with me here, it's hypothetical but perfectly valid) where all children born are test tube babies, heterosexual sex is widely considered a perversion and disgusts many if not most people, and so being straight is considered a perversion. The elders of this new world that you now find yourself in tell you that you must stop this abomination of wanting to have sex with women, and learn to love men... You must become Gay to not be a pervert.

    Are you still with me here? It's a perfectly valid comparison, if a bit outlandish. Could you do it?
    Didn't think so...

    (If you couldn’t change your sexuality because someone else told you to, than why do you insist on gays having to do just that?)

    ReplyDelete
  121. Note:

    If in the above scenario you said to yourself "If I had to, I could switch" then you are either gay or bisexual naturally and are simply in denial and telling yourself that you're totally straight due to your cultural conditioning

    ReplyDelete
  122. I would say more but 'proymisp' is my word verification.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I also have a pic of my dog up there above the snowscape. He always wanted to be famous...

    Sorry, couldn't resist. He's just so damn *cute...*

    ReplyDelete
  124. He is cute. I would say more but 'hurofwjn' is my word verification.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Brian your analogy about test tube babies and heterosexuality was a little shaky but made the point well.

    A lot of our sexuality is culturally dictated.

    On a side note, I find that Phred Phelps the Phriendly Pharisee thinking homosexuality a worse sin than his evident pride funny. But not ha ha funny.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Observant got mad with me because I called him a pharisee, but he really is one as I've come to understand the word. His "biblical fact" thing is so funny, it's as if he thinks that's all it takes to be a fact, just to be stated as one in an old religious book!

    Its funny how Jesus warned about being a pharisee, very eloquently, with his parable about the pharisee and the sinner in the temple. And yet when one actually IS a pharisee, one simply cannot ever see that one is. Because it involves PRIDE, of course, the Great Blinder. It blinds you to everything, but especially to your own self and what you've let yourself become because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Well, the Republican National Comittee has just distributed a CD with a bunch of novelty political songs on it. One of them is "Barack the Magic Negro."

    Nice one...

    What a bunch of absolute mouthbreathing assholes.

    Sorry, but it gets to me sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  128. So I had to hear for myself what you were talking about Brian.

    This is what ruins true scathing satire.

    The first part of the song absolutely skewers white liberals whose hypocrisy is glaringly evident. I see them everywhere at the college I attend. The same ridiculous support of che guavara, the same mind numbing enthusiasm for a tibet they know nothing about except every other lib supports it and on and on it goes.

    Now the racist jerks who put this song together need to be publicly ridiculed even more for maligning african americans, and spitting on the art of satire.

    I knew they were going to fail. Racists always give themselves away. Their stupidity rises to the forefront of consciousness like an air bubble in water.

    What a bunch of crackers.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Eric said,

    "...God doesn't exist in time..."

    However, the things written about in the bible concerning god's interventions in human affairs most certainly DO have timing elements associated with them (god reacts to events here on Earth, such as tower of babel, Adam & Eve's fall, etc., in an ORDERED fashion), implying strongly that the concept of God DOES cohabit the timeline we experience at some level.

    So don't give me any crap about god not existing in time. That's an apologist's dodge, and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Definition: Apologist

    Someone who constructs a portrait of God to accomodate all the contradictory aspects of the creator thingy described in the bible, using the biblical descriptions as a model. The resulting creature is a patchwork golem used to justify all sorts of outlandish fairy tales and specious moral codices.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Eric said,

    "If one takes you to mean (as you literally said) that a philosopher "must **completely abandon** preconceived views of the world BEFORE philosophising," then what you're suggesting is impossible."

    Not impossible-just extremely difficult. What I was getting at was a view of the world based on raw observation, without any bias built in from OTHER sources (e.g., the bible, Aquinas, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Richard Dawkins, etc.)

    If one could do THAT, and still come to the conclusion that the Christian God is the rational, logical conclusion to the question, THEN I would be convinced.

    But I ain't holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Ed,

    Noone does that. Eric is right, it is impossible for a human to ditch preconceived ideas in favor for raw data. We have to use language to process that data, and a person will never be totally free from all his preconceptions.

    Human understanding starts from a flawed system, is nourished by a flawed system (language and culture), and ends with some improvement but essentially the same system.

    To get rid of preconceptions you would have to get rid of language.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Funny that you should mention language as the ultimate barrier to that hypothetical mode of reasoning, since a great deal of the controversy surrounding the bible is enmeshed in translations of words that do not exist in the languages of the new translations.

    Yet the result is generally consistent: that apologists once again twist the words to construct the story that they want to tell.

    Man created god in His image, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Tu quoque Ed and not the point.

    Your assertion about the ability to abandon preconceived notions in total is false.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I didn't claim that I was able to abandon my cultural or linguistic biases; but I still stand by what I said about philosophy based on a position of maximum ignorance of the possible conclusions to be made is preferable to the alternative. So, your accusation of tu quoque is valid in the sense that I, too am subject to the admittedly near impossibility of the premise.

    If an experiment could be conducted (again, very difficult and furthermore unethical) wherein a child were raised in isolation from cultural influences to maturity, then asked what his or her thoughts on why we are here are, the answer would have extremely low odds (likely approaching nil) of producing the "christian god".

    The experiment will never take place, however. We are doomed to speculate, and this brings us back to what Brian and Eric (and I) have been discussing for the last couple of weeks: that christian apologists reason from a basis of surety that the god of the bible (none other than the Christian GOD)is real, rational, and verifiable, and that atheists are somehow opposed to god on moral grounds; that we dislike being told how to behave. Not so.

    The "patchwork golem" I cited as my view of god still stands. He (she/it/spaghetti monster) is as real to me as the Easter Bunny or Jack Skellington. Good storytelling? Perhaps. Sitting in judgement of my immortal soul? I don't believe in soul, either.

    ReplyDelete
  136. One thing about that "cultural bias" that we all can't possibly get away from.

    Well, what is it biased toward?

    Atheism, or theism?

    Let's see. Isn't it well over 85% of all Americans that are Christians? And the rest of the world, mostly theists, no?

    Hmm...

    So if I have a cultural bias it would be toward and not away from thinking theistically.

    So I need to make sure that I compensate for that.

    And I do.

    ReplyDelete
  137. So, your accusation of tu quoque is valid in the sense that I, too am subject to the admittedly near impossibility of the premise.

    -----------------------------------

    I was talking about the post I replied to in terms of the tu quoque. Then I addressed your assertion that you are now qualifying.

    Someone could make the same statement about hard atheism. In fact if I were to ask you if you were an agnostic or a firm atheist what would you say?

    I am of the opinion that there is a fundamentally more full explanation of everything than simply nothing.

    I can no more trust you or Jesus or Brian or Dawkins or myself to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to 'why' or if there is a 'why.'

    My bias is that I trust third party speculation (like Brian's BB, or the holy grail of science the universal theory of everything) over hard atheism because it seems to take in the nothing it avows. It is as deluded in it's presuppositions as any other "true" belief system.

    Whether there is a something or a nothing that has made this something, or neither, is the most relevant state of mind to use for philosophical inquiry.

    I think you're saying that but it seems like you equivocate.

    The best thing for me as a Christian has not just been how I experience this religion but to realize that there are not just two camps: god and not god. There are many who have broken free from that thought and I hope many more still do. Each one may then choose to believe this that or the other thing but at least they realized the extent of their options.

    Hopefully you're one too.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "However, the things written about in the bible concerning god's interventions in human affairs most certainly DO have timing elements associated with them (god reacts to events here on Earth, such as tower of babel, Adam & Eve's fall, etc., in an ORDERED fashion), implying strongly that the concept of God DOES cohabit the timeline we experience at some level."

    Gearheded, here's a way of thinking about the issue that I'm borrowing from C.S. Lewis.

    Imagine that you're writing a book, and you're working on some of it in the morning after breakfast. One of your characters, say, hears a knock at the door and gets up to answer it. Now you, the author, finish writing this part, go out for a stroll, eat lunch, meet with some friends, etc. before returning to your desk in the evening. You complete this part of your story, and have your character answer the door, and so on. For your character in the story, there is only a moment from the time he gets up to answer the door, and actually answers it, while for you, the author, an entire day has passed. Now, this analogy is far from perfect, but it does give you an idea of how god could 'act' upon our world and not be 'in' our time. It takes much more, of course, to move beyond this to an eternal god outside all time (e.g. borrowing an idea from Vonnegut, we could say that god sees time as we see space, i.e. spread out all at 'once,' and that therefore all of god's 'acts' are ever present to him, though they appear to us 'in time'; it's abstract and imperfect, I know, but it does at least 'get at' the idea involved; some philosophers -- e.g. Craig -- have argued that god became temporal when he created the universe). However, god's eternity follows from our reasoning about him. Should we abandon reason and read the Bible literally? I thought you guys were against that! The truth is, reason informs our reading of the Bible.

    I often think of it this way (I'll repeat what I wrote earlier, since I'm short on time; it gets to the point, however): "To me (and most Catholics), those biblical passages are to be understood in roughly the same way we understand descriptions like 'the atom is like a little solar system' or 'think about particles as little billiard balls' -- viz. as communicating a simplistic way of thinking about extremely complicated and abstract concepts. If you focus too much on the metaphors and the similes, you'll inevitably drag in inessential elements (e.g. we all know how inaccurate the 'solar system' simile is when it comes to atoms, though it does convey some fundamental concepts that aid us in the future as we learn more about what they're 'really' like); however, if you use it as it's intended, you'll be well on your way to improved understanding (just as evolution is introduced to children in simplified Darwinian terms today, and not in terms of the changes in allele frequencies)."

    ReplyDelete
  139. A little clarification, if I may, and at the risk of saying something y’all might consider uninformed or foolish:

    I consider myself a “functional atheist” (my terminology). What that means is that I, too, have been contemplating the answer (if there is or even can be one) to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This is where the “functional” part comes in. While I may be forced to agree that there is some ultimate “cause” underlying our perceived reality, I reject the speculative assumption (C.S. Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, et al notwithstanding) that some ‘creator god’ as described in the bible is the CORRECT assumption. I come to this personal conclusion because the stories, legends, etc. in the bible have proved on several (physical) fundamental levels to have been mistaken and incorrect in their assumptions. This is not to say that science trumps religion; on the contrary, I think (and have said so in other blogs) that science and religion need not be at odds, for the simple observation that if god created all, then science is an integral part of that creation. The opposite does not follow logically from that statement, just like ‘absence of proof is NOT proof of absence’; i.e., IF science eventually pierces into the Ultimate Truth, there is no (yet known) logical reason that god must therefore be included within it.

    On the other hand, when statements such as “…Now, this analogy is far from perfect, but it does give you an idea of how god could 'act' upon our world and not be 'in' our time…”, I have to ask, isn’t the key word there “COULD”? That means speculation, without even addressing the assumptions being made in the analogy, which itself was admitted to being “far from perfect”.

    Also, I don’t believe in an “immortal soul”. I consider the concept to be more speculative assumption, based on the observation that we humans are in denial about the finality of death, and say to ourselves inane things like, “B-But there HAS to be something more…” No, there doesn’t.

    Therefore, I say to myself, “Self, whereas you say that religion is based on speculation and assumptions, many of which have been proven false; and whereas you don’t believe in an immortal soul, what then is left to you?” And I answer, “What you have is the life you are living, and it is bootless to argue endlessly about who has the correct speculative assumptions (witness the thousands upon tens of thousands of blog entries devoted to this ONE question!), so I will not waste the life I have searching for answers.” Functional atheism: behave as if there is NO god, because there is no reliable evidence that there IS one.

    One more item: most “true” atheists are not uninformed. Indeed, as many have pointed out, as a group, atheists are generally more intelligent and better educated (possible indication of a liberal bias there, but I digress…) than the average citizen. The usual accusations that Christians level at atheists, that we are bitter due to some perceived injustice God has done to us, or that we’re hedonists, unwilling to subordinate ourselves to “the Christian morality that can only come from God”, or even that we haven’t read the bible “correctly” (whatever THAT bullshit means!) are all disingenuous, and oversimplify the internal struggles all of us contend with.

    Don’t misunderstand me, though. I’m not abandoning the discussion, just pointing out my reasoning.

    P.S. Fellahs, and ladies, please call me “Gear”. GearHedEd sounds so…

    …formal.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Eric,

    I believe that the Bible was meant to be taken literally, by a world full of nearly illiterate peasants and shepherds. No hidden messages. Certainly not in the NT at any rate. Just hidden programming.

    I think that when the world got more complex it became necessary to develop all these explanations for how it could possibly still be relevant.

    When people became more educated they would have had to abandon the Bible and their faith except that the apologists were there explaining to them how it somehow is still valid, when it obviously isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  141. If there is one word that describes how I feel when I look at latkes it's my word verification...numpshes.

    Or a cute way of talking about your better half. "You're so numpshes."

    What do you think Ed?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Who you callin' a numpsch, Willis?!

    ReplyDelete
  143. (While doing my best Gary Coleman impression, of course)

    :o)

    word verification = "neocapi"

    Def: "neocapi": fundamentalist low-level Cosa Nostra operatives?

    ReplyDelete
  144. And all the apologists! What a pool of talent!

    Aquinas could have constructed irrefutable proof that Tinky Winky is God, and the rest of the teletubbies are the seraphim and we wouldn't be able to argue the point.

    It's still all Tinky-Winky to me, though.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Brian,
    Didja see where I defined "apologist" above?

    ReplyDelete
  146. What Brian is not taking into account is the untenability of the concepts in the bible.

    What puzzles atheists is the bible's popularity. It has a talking donkey, being taken up to heaven in a chariot, and walking on water. In a couple words, scientifically ludicrous. But the bible has a certain 'je ne se quois.' It is an almagamation of myth, philosophy, social laws, actual history, and the hope for something better.

    It has something almost every human being can relate to, even atheists. It reeks of life. When people were compiling and writing it I don't think everyone had the same agenda. So in this I have to disagree with Brian. His view seems to be cursory, and doesn't give ancient man his due. They had our frontal lobes, just not our technology.

    The idea of one god, is so symbolically leaps and bounds above polytheism and hard atheism it practically pours out apologetics if someone just considers it seriously. Why?

    It doesn't matter how many unscientific ideas or myths you combine with it. It is too powerful a philosophical concept to just ignore.

    Now if the idea could be isolated from the myth, that would be something. I myself am trying to do this.

    Think about it for a second, the idea that is, it causes speculation. The man who contemplates it without technology is left with questions.

    A relatively undefined primary cause is not going to answer those questions, and it isn't going to keep people running around in a circle as pboy believes, it will keep them pondering philosophically and scientifically for thousands of years.

    Take that and combine it with a book that practically has every ridiculous and real aspect of life in it.

    From practical atheism to theism to insanity, you get something that was not written just for shepherds, and not to control people but a significant construct.

    That's why the bible is so dangerous or sublime depending on the interpretation.

    You know I could give example after example of the bible giving smart men and women something to think about.

    You could give example after example of how ludicrous and closed-minded it can be. Each example closing down questioning not supporting it.

    It has both, it is not one or the other.

    As Ed said, what it can't do is provide an ultimately objective base for philosophical inquiry. But I assert that without the mix of ideas about a one god, science and philosophy would not be where they are today.

    It is one of the only things I ever agreed with D'Souza on, except his arrogance doesn't allow him to deconstruct the bible without lauding it in a religious manner. As well it seems that an intelligent atheist like Brian or you can't deconstruct it without using pejoratives.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Yes Ed and I agree with it completely.

    I find people like Aquinas to be morally bereft... They lie for a living, even to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  148. The idea of one god, is so symbolically leaps and bounds above polytheism and hard atheism it practically pours out apologetics if someone just considers it seriously. Why?

    It doesn't matter how many unscientific ideas or myths you combine with it. It is too powerful a philosophical concept to just ignore.
    ------------------------
    Really? I ignore it on a daily basis and have no problem whatsoever.

    I see nothing any more elegant in having one God, than in having a thousand. Same crap, different number.

    I CAN however see how people have been CONDITIONED to think it elegant.

    Monotheism has had all the press. That's the only thing that makes it any different from any other type of worship.

    ReplyDelete
  149. As well it seems that an intelligent atheist like Brian or you can't deconstruct it without using pejoratives.
    ---------------
    It's hard for me not to, true. But that's only because to me it's like reading the Satanic Bible by Lavey, only evil-er. Seriously. So it's very hard to take it seriously and without scorn, since it's just so dumb and so evil to me. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Oneblood I respect you and so do not wish to insult...

    I'm sorry that I honestly think that the Bible is nothing special. Except for the huge number of followers that read it and try to "interpret" it for themselves. The Bible needs to be interpreted "just so" and in depth in order to get the good out of it, but it can merely be read on the surface to get the evil out of it, so what are the majority of people going to get out of it?

    The Bible needs no interpretation. It was designed to be read as-is, by the ignorant. It only needs "interpretation" for someone that is above the shepherd level of intellect. It was designed to be read by the unwashed masses, literally. All the later apologetics were only necessary because the original is so untenable in modern life. They needed to update it somehow so as to make sense to modern man. Not that it does. But it can fool a lot more people now, with the apologetics in place, than it ever could have without them.

    ReplyDelete
  151. I was talking about if you're thinking philosophically brian...then it's hard to ignore that it's a powerful concept.

    I feel it's a legitimate appeal to authority that Aristotle did not come to a conclusion of the Judeo/Christian god but did come to the conclusion of one god.

    You ignore it because you're not a philosopher on a day to day basis. When you do think about it, you only think in terms of the cultural bias that was thrust upon you. You read the bible and you see what you want to see. You already know who wrote it and why, right?

    Was Pythagoras or Plato stupid? Or were their ideas a mix of illogic and logic?

    You believe that humans constructed god and the bible but only with bad intentions. The fact that it could be a mix, which would be very human, is not something you like to admit to.

    It's not very well written but you should read my blog article. It's my first, and inspired in a way by you.

    Despite our disagreements you bring out an affection in me you sassin frassin atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  152. The last sentence of paragraph four mainly.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I should qualify.

    It's inspired by you but your beliefs are not the subject. I have never considered you an absolute relativist.

    ReplyDelete
  154. "absolute relativism"

    The idea exists only as a paradox.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Oneblood said,

    "You believe that humans constructed god and the bible but only with bad intentions. The fact that it could be a mix, which would be very human, is not something you like to admit to."

    I don't know how Brian would respond to that, but I would say that the authors of the Bible most likely had the very best of intentions, motives, whatever. That doesn't change the fact that they were fundamentally wrong about a lot of basic stuff such as the earth being the center of the universe, for example.

    If the authors were so far off-base with those foundational items, how much trust can we have in ANYTHING else that they wrote?

    ReplyDelete
  156. In other words, they speculated about the structure of observable things, and guessed wrong. OK, that's human and understandable. But when one looks at transcendental, invisible, supernatural the things that the authors speculated about, and then says, "But THAT part they got right! Absolutely no question about it!", you have to say, "Hold on there, Skippy..."

    ReplyDelete
  157. Brian said,

    "I find people like Aquinas to be morally bereft... They lie for a living, even to themselves."

    Just to give Old Tom the benefit of the doubt, he was a creature of the culture and the times he lived in. What could he have done besides theorize from the commonly accepted assumptions about the nature of things? It only shows that he was no more than human, too.

    Remember, if he'd come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and founded on bullshit, we'd have never been acquainted with his thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Oneblood said,

    "As Ed said, what it can't do is provide an ultimately objective base for philosophical inquiry. But I assert that without the mix of ideas about a one god, science and philosophy would not be where they are today."

    The first half of that was an honest assessment. But why insist on injecting the religious speculations into the mix? Is religion so comfortable that you just can't let it go?

    I'll wager as much as anyone cares to ante up, that science and philosophy were actually SUPPRESSED for nearly 1500 years precisely because Christianity and the notion of "one god (even though he has three separate avatars)" were the official story until guys like Copernicus and Galileo began thinking outside the cathedral.

    So, yes, science and philosophy would not be where they are today- they would be MUCH farther along than they ARE.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Really, folks.

    Humanity is a bunch of petty, squabbling losers on a tiny speck of dust revolving around an ordinary star out of hundreds of billions (that's at least 11 zeros, kiddies!)of stars in a remote corner of a completely ordinary galaxy among hundreds of BILLIONS (that's at least 11 MORE zeros, kiddies!) of galaxies in the universe. That we might be the excuse for all that is astonishingly conceited, at best, and the notion that the Creator of the Universe gives even the tiniest crap about us is utter nonsense.

    Perspective

    ReplyDelete
  160. I was talking about if you're thinking philosophically brian...then it's hard to ignore that it's a powerful concept.
    ---------------
    But WHY is it so "powerful" a concept, Oneblood? THAT is the question.

    And my answer to it is that it is powerful because of the two-thousand-year intensive PR campaign that was *intensively* determined to MAKE us think that it is important.

    So I can adjust myself for that, and not think it's important anymore, for the sake of accuracy. Because when I really, really think about it, I realize that all the importance that I "automatically" attach to the concept of monotheism is due to two millennia of hype and spin and not to any real-world reason.

    ReplyDelete
  161. "Gear," (okay, that sounds funny) I have to agree about Aquinas, and absolve him.

    Ego te absolvo, Thomas... I must forgive ye for ye knew not what ye did.

    You are one sensible dude, "Gear," I have to admit.

    ReplyDelete
  162. I mean, let's really think about it. What's so "inherently" superior about the concept of one God as opposed to say the Hindu system of many Gods?

    What, is it just that all the powers of all the Gods are "rolled into one?"

    That's childishness, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  163. I mean, if Constantine had chosen Hinduism as the Offical Religion of Rome, who among you doubts that we wouldn't be talking about Brahma and Vishnu and Shiva instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Poltergeist?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Of course Constantine needed to choose a local cult. His domain didn't extend to India. So thus we have Christianity, a religion based on the life story of a liberal pacifist whose adherents today are all conservative warmongers...

    ReplyDelete
  165. A little more scale and perspective: Our galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years across. Means it takes 100,000 years for light from one side of our galaxy to reach the other side. So how long is a light year in units we all understand? OK, there's a unit of measurement called an AU, or astronomical unit. It's based on the mean orbital distance from the center of gravity of the sun to the center of gravity of the earth, and is roughly 93,000,000 miles (1 AU). Now, dividing this fact by the known speed of light of 186,282.4 miles/second gives a value vor the time light takes to reach the earth from the sun of ~8.32 minutes.

    Working backwards from 1 year = 365.25 days (+/-), the result is 63,211.02 AU/light year, or 6.068 x 10^12 miles. Written normal style, it's 6,068,258,545,800 miles, or Six TRILLION miles in one light year.

    The distance to the nearest star besides Sol is 4.3 light years, or 26.1 Trillion miles. Time for perspective: The fastest object Man has ever created is Voyager 1, launched in September 1977, is currently travelling to the outer reaces of our solar system at about 36,500 miles/hour (the space shuttle goes only about one half as fast). At that rate, it will have gone the distance to the nearest star to Sol in about 81,500 years, or to reach the other side of our galaxy, roughly 1.9 Billion years.

    Still think we're important?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Nope, Gear, but then again I never did.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  167. Brian said,

    ""Gear," (okay, that sounds funny)"

    Or if you prefer, call me Ed. But I've had the handle on aol since '97, and that's what all the people in the chat rooms I hung around in called me back then. It's just comfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Or how about the Hubble Deep Field?

    A whole field of galaxies each comprising millions of not billions of stars, and all about ten to fourteen billion light years away?

    Such distances are mind-boggling... Unless it's all a BB scenario of course, in which case we only imagined those distances and then they bacame real to us...

    In the BB, huge or even infinite distances are not a problem of course. It all being "mind" as it were.

    ReplyDelete
  169. It refers to my hobby of adopting abused musclecars. I currently own (and the first three are driveable, but not licensed and insured right now) a 1963 Chevy BelAir 2-door sedan, a 1965 Chevy Corvair Corsa (140 hp) convertible, a 1971 Chevy El Camino, and a 1969 Olds Cutlass S.
    None of them are anywhere near show-worthy, tho.

    word verification = "daring"

    ReplyDelete
  170. Invoking Edwin Hubble is appropriate here, on several fronts, not the least of which is the fact that before Hubble, the universe was thought to consist of the Milky Way galaxy, and some scattered nebulae surrounding it. Then, when you realize that what Hubble saw through his telescope happened in 1929 (AFTER Einstein's papers on relativity, even!), and proved that the Milky Way is most assuredly NOT unique...

    Yeah, it boggles the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  171. That, I believe, is one of the main reasons why religion is still so entrenched and pervasive: that our science and discoveries are still filtering into the nooks and crannies of humanity, and there's still a nostalgic fondness for doing things the "old way".

    ReplyDelete
  172. GearHedEd said...
    That, I believe, is one of the main reasons why religion is still so entrenched and pervasive: that our science and discoveries are still filtering into the nooks and crannies of humanity, and there's still a nostalgic fondness for doing things the "old way".
    -------------------
    I think that I have to agree with that.

    Makes me wonder if someday science comes over to a new paradigm, let's say for the sake of argument something closer to my pet "BB" speculations, if a lot of people won't cling to the "old way" of doing science out of just a sheer inability to grasp the new concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Gear, there's no way to move logically from some physical observation (e.g. size comparisons, 'one among many' evaluations, composition, etc.) to a conclusion about significance or importance. You simply can't squeeze out the conclusion "Human beings are unimportant, insignificant, etc." from premises about how small we are compared with X, how short our lifespans are compared with the age of the universe, how there are 1x10^80 (or so) atoms in the universe, how there are 100,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe, etc.

    Here's an intuition pump that may help clarify the issue: what would be more 'significant': the discovery of the 'largest' astronomical object ever observed, or the discovery of a microscopic organism on some distant, 'ordinary' planet? Now imagine how much more 'significant' the discovery of life becomes, and how increasingly 'insignificant' the discovery of the large object becomes, as we move from microscopic life, to sentient life, to intelligent life...

    ReplyDelete
  174. So Eric, once we discover myriad forms of extraterrestrial life you will recant your faith? Hope so...

    ReplyDelete
  175. So, yes, science and philosophy would not be where they are today- they would be MUCH farther along than they ARE.

    -----------------------------------

    That was good. And it was also a valid point. That means I have to begrudgingly acknowledge this by giving you a name for this post... like big meanie head ed.

    There, happy?

    Still the true philosopher would consider both points. Ah Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  176. Eric said,

    "Gear, there's no way to move logically from some physical observation (e.g. size comparisons, 'one among many' evaluations, composition, etc.) to a conclusion about significance or importance."

    Correct. But I was going for a more intuitive approach there.

    Logic may not be the "be all/end all" thingy we might prefer. Not sure if you've done this, Eric, as I'd have to pick through many entries to find an example, but I know at least some of the Christian post-ers have invoked intuition as a valid justification for their faith and beliefs. Can the converse not also therefore be valid?

    Oh, wait! You DID invoke intuition in your response!

    >ahem<

    "Here's an INTUITION pump that may help clarify the issue: what would be more 'significant': the discovery of the 'largest' astronomical object ever observed, or the discovery of a microscopic organism on some distant, 'ordinary' planet? "

    So, are we being deductive, or intuitive?

    ReplyDelete
  177. Eric said,

    "You simply can't squeeze out the conclusion "Human beings are unimportant, insignificant, etc." from premises about how small we are compared with X, how short our lifespans are compared with the age of the universe, how there are 1x10^80 (or so) atoms in the universe, how there are 100,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe, etc."

    No, but I DID come to that conclusion on INTUITIVE grounds.

    Just the same way Christians and religious people come to intuitive conclusions about our exalted position on earth based on the mythology of Genesis. I feel pretty comfortable saying that based on my thesis that the Bible could not and would not stand up to "peer review" (too late! none of the peers of biblical authors are still alive, unless you give credence to the rumors about Jesus...). So, take away the Bible (which isn't PROOF of anything anyway) and the Christians have nothing. Zilch.

    Except a feeling, an intuition, that we're special.

    (word verification = "slyce")

    ReplyDelete
  178. Good conversation guys.

    If the Universe IS as fine-tuned for life as theists seem to want to imagine these days, it is only a matter of minutes before we find some extra-terrestrials!

    Well, maybe quite a few more minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  179. I once had to call 911 because somehow my penis had become stuck in an intuition pump. Very embarassing, let me tell you! The paramedic had to employ a logic probe to get it to let go.

    Happy New Year, my acolytes! Let's go out and all howl at the moon. Dress warm.

    ReplyDelete
  180. An excerpt from something I stumbled upon:

    "Organized Bible based religions are, for the most part, also silent on the UFO phenomenon, either through fear of facing the reality, refusal to recognize it or church mandated social isolation. This is an enigma in itself considering the fame of Ezekiel's wheels, the chariots of the Gods, (the verse, not the book, well maybe the book too), and other evidence of flying vehicles in biblical text. When mainstream religion does deal with the anomaly, there are two doctrinal views concerning the presence of UFOs, the holograph theory and the evil alien conspiracy. One approach states that the UFOs are holographic illusions projected by Satan to lure the congregation away from the church and into alien worship, eventually enslaving mankind. The other, more radical view surmises that the beings piloting the UFOs are actually fallen angels with Satan in the mother ship. They are lurking on the dark side of the moon or some other evil hideaway, occasionally visiting our atmosphere to abduct and implant a few of their human followers, slaughter some cows, scrawl satanic graffiti in our barley fields or run circles around our jets. Either way, UFOs are evil and UFO believers are either dupes or disciples of Satan. Contrary to the doomsday bellowing of the satanic UFO prophets, this widespread cover-up itself could easily be classified as a Great Deception, while evil soul-stealing aliens piloting UFOs are not mentioned in scripture. Certainly the cover-up is safe here, in total confusion and ignorant bliss."

    Check out the Site

    ReplyDelete
  181. For shame, Brian!

    I thought you reserved your penis for 18 year old Victoria's Secret models...

    ReplyDelete
  182. I've moved up to twenty-year old Victoria's Secret models in recent times.

    The eighteen-year-old ones were just too immature for me.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Happy new year Bri and Pboy and Eric and Ed and everybody else.

    I know you guys have helped me to think more clearly about what I believe and why.

    Regardless of our beliefs I think there's a reason we do this...

    My hypothesis is that there is a tendency toward curmudgeonly teddy bear personalities.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Wow, it kinda sucks to be in Obama's position now...

    On another note, today is my brother's birthday. Happy New Year AND Happy Birthday!

    ReplyDelete
  185. As for the other intelligent life thing...

    (This is kinda crazy, but whatever)

    I imagine that other beings have evolved to a much higher mental state than we have, if they do exist. I say this because of all the UFO sightings and reports of abductions and whatnot that are out there, but again we have no real hard evidence of this.

    Maybe these aliens have all formed connections with each other and just not shown themselves to us because we're so busy fighting over stupid stuff like religion and resources that they figure we'll destroy our own planet someday soon, and they just don't want to bother with initiating Earth into the "Intergalactic Alliance" or something?

    It's because humans in general are retarded. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  186. I've thought the very same thing about possible aliens, cogs...

    Hey, you're new! Welcome to my humble home!

    ReplyDelete
  187. It's just like how the Vulcans didn't contact us until they detected a warp signature...

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  188. Heh heh... Hi!

    Another Trekkie nerd...

    I used to watch the first series every morning. :)

    ReplyDelete
  189. I don't realy have anything to add......

    I just had to laugh when I saw the word verification:

    abismol

    (as in religion )

    Yeah, well I don't spell that well anyway :-)

    ABYSMAL !

    ReplyDelete
  190. I watched it as it happened, as new programming, every week EXCEPT when my silly Italian family insisted on watching Lawrence Welk. (Back in the days of one tv per family)

    I hated that sonofabitch Welk for most of my life....

    When he died (I was like twelve) I remember (embarassed to say this, but hey, I was twelve) that I thought "Fantastic! I never have to watch that crap again!!!" Little did I know that he would live on in re-runs for like two decades! That bastard STILL stopped me from watching Star Trek, even from the bloody GRAVE!!!

    I still hold it against him personally...

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  191. I just looked up Lawrence Welk, and apparently I was 31 when he died.

    Today, I know that I am old.

    Wow.

    So I was that shallow that recently.

    Interesting.

    But as an aside, I found this absof%#&inglutely hilarious (unintentionally) clip from the old Lawrence Welk Show itself. I nearly died when I just watched this, so I hope tht you all enjoy it even half as much as I did...

    I'll post the link here and I'm also going to dedicate a new picture in my gallery to this one... It's too good to miss, really!

    ReplyDelete
  192. "When he died (I was like twelve) I remember (embarassed to say this, but hey, I was twelve) that I thought "Fantastic! I never have to watch that crap again!!!" Little did I know that he would live on in re-runs for like two decades!"

    Don't people generally say that being a star of some kind is way to become "immortal"? Perhaps, "undead" would be the better term. Sometimes, dead is better.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Hi Seeker!

    Yes. But I must have mixed up his show ending with him dying, because he actually died when I was in my 30s...

    I can't believe that people ever liked his show. It was so cornball. And the talent wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  194. That's quite the time gap! But, then again, I still insist that the 1990's are no more than a year or two into the past, so I am not exactly a master at keeping track of what happened and when myself.

    As for people liking the show: you can't account for taste. Some people just seem to have a liking for the "cornball", and others don't. I know that I would watch a show like that if it crossed the threshold into unintentional hilarity. You can have complete and other crap, but if you flavor it correctly, it ain't half bad.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Brian?

    Just nod if you can hear me.

    ReplyDelete