So "Francis Xavier is a Jewish Atheist? I could have guessed as much. Hey Dawn, didja get the book I sent?
Janjan | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 7:33 pm | #

"Jewish Atheist" is an even bigger oxymoron than "Jewish Christian."
Joseph Hertzlinger | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 8:00 pm | #

I had not noticed that thread going on, but skimmed it just now. I can't resist bragging that I suspected Francis X. was a provocateur from his first post, was fairly convinced at "And aren't the Jews damned?...", and certain at the pet bird.

Not that there aren't probably, sad to say, Catholics who believe that Jews are ipso facto damned, but Francis, you've got the tone all wrong. You need to sound either bloodthirsty (a good model is that guy Paul Pennyfeather encounters in jail in Decline and Fall) or coldly magisterial (strive for that Thomistic tone).

The fact is that the Catholic Church only says that damnation is possible; it has never affirmed of any individual that he or she is eternally lost. I hope this is not unduly melodramatic, but I think I have a fairly good idea of what damnation is like, and I would not wish it on anyone at all whatsoever.

What's the significance of "Dawneleh"?

Francis, philosophy is fun and all, but will only get you so far. Let Dawn's grandmother give you another place to start: "I think we need a God, if only to have someone to thank."
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 9:55 pm | #

Maclin,..."Dawneleh"= little Dawn. You've heard the term "bubbeleh"? If not, you don't know enough Jews?
Janjan | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 10:47 pm | #

Actually, I'm confused now. I knew that the "-eleh" marked a term of endearment. But wouldn't "bubbeleh" mean "little grandma"?

Sorry for going off topic, FX. :-)

Joseph H., I agree with you. Sorry if I offended--I think I was repeating FX's own self-description.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 11:25 pm | #

"Jewish Christian" is possible; the earliest ones all were. But "Jewish athiest"? I knew one at college, but only one. An *Orthodox* Jewish athiest, if you can believe it. Seemed to violate a Commandment or two, it seemed to me, and still seems to me.
npetrikov | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 11:26 pm | #

A visiting American, disgusted at the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics, exasperatingly asked, "Aren't there any atheists in this country?"

"Certainly!" came the reply. "We have two kinds: Catholic atheists and Protestant atheists."
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 11:30 pm | #

Spending pretty much your whole life in rural and small-town Alabama definitely leads to an under-representation of Jews among one's acquaintances. The ones who were there when I was growing up were pretty well acculturated, having been there for several generations already (like Miss Daisy). Out of curiosity, I just googled one of the family names (Rosenau) and find an Isaac Rosenau in the 1870 census for the county, age 38, occupation merchant, birthplace Bavaria. So that would make him probably the great-great-grandfather of the high school friend of mine whose grandfather was Judge Rosenau. An Old Family, in short. Well, anyway...

Dawn must bring that out in people. I have several times squelched a similar impulse. How is "bubbeleh" pronounced?
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 03.31.05 - 11:58 pm | #

Thanks for the new venue, Dawneleh. How your moods can change! A bissl yiddish and the boy who was herem is afforded special favors! Fiery woman, you are not yet fully shiksa.

Story about a kid, little Danny Gottlieb, who goes to a posh private school on the Upper West Side called Trinity. Though Trinity is no longer a parochial school, chapel is still mandatory. So after his first day in school, he comes home to his parents all excited. He explains, "Mommy, Daddy, today I learned so much! God doesn't have just one part, He's got 3! There's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost!" So Danny's parents exchange alarmed looks, and Mr. Gottlieb sits him down. He says, "Daniel, there's something very important your mother and I have to say to you. There's only ONE God. And we DON'T BELIEVE IN HIM."

Jewish Atheist is far from a contradiction in terms. Even leaving aside merely ethnic or "cultural" Jews, there's an argument to be made that the religion itself is predicated on, or at least accomodates, atheism.

How is it that a Catholic-by-choice like Waugh gets the tone right? And is it really right? All his Catholics seem to talk about being Catholics too much; from my experience, for most it seems to simply be part of the background atmosphere of life.

As for James ("Jimmy's" out), the grace and cancer thing kind of throws me. My urge has been to be completely irreverant and blasphamous here, but trammeling on something that has such profound and personal resonances for you is singularly un-funny. Let me just repeat what I said earlier: I doubt faith would provide a convinced materialist any peace, since I could not sustain the fiction that I was in anyone's bosom or hand.

One of the reasons I framed the question in terms of religion's value, rather than in terms of competing truth-claims, is because I feared that there simply is no resolution to the latter. You think God is there, I don't, end of conversation. I was looking for a way for the conversation to proceed given that we disagree about ontology. Can anyone help?
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 12:14 am | #

Imbibo ergo sum.
Can't we all agree on that?
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 12:44 am | #

Actually the Waugh character I was referring to wasn't a Catholic, just a homicidal maniac with some kind of apocalyptic vision. The tone I was half-jokingly referring to is that of the person who clearly gets a kick out of imagining other people in hell.

Re your last paragraph, let me admit that I did not read the whole earlier thread very closely, but you seem to be asking what good religion is in the here-and-now. I wouldn't press the argument that it is of much use apart from its truth claims. That is, any utility which it does have (psychological or behavioral) in this world derives precisely from the fact that people believe it to be true. The liberal theological effort to turn it into a branch of literature or psychology is fundamentally misguided.

As for the resolution of the truth claims, yeah, you're right, there isn't one that can really settle the matter. I will say though (in closing--I'm going to bed) that the older I get the more preposterous it seems to me that the world is not the product of an intelligent mind. That alone of course doesn't get one very far toward the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 1:05 am | #

Or . . . as a priest friend once said, "If there is no God, I'm getting laid tomorrow."

If we believe from the outset that our religion is based on a fantastic lie, are we also to believe that we can achieve virtue by lying fantastically? What would be the point? Indeed, what would be virtue?

I don't know how -- if we believe the fundamental moral organizational principle of our lives is a complete fraud -- that moral relativism could be kept in check at all and utter chaos averted. Kind of like what we're experiencing now societally, only faster.
James Freeman | 04.01.05 - 3:04 am | #

IOW, we'd all end up totally verklempt, because we'd know bubkes.

Not bad for a goy originally from south Louisiana, eh?
James Freeman | 04.01.05 - 3:12 am | #

Dear Francis,

I've read the whole thread and I'd like to give my 2 cents worth.

You ask about the value of religion. What would you think of me--a mother of young children who is trying to convert to Catholicism from Islam? That I'm an idiot for jeopordizing my marriage, yes?

I know that no-one saw the Resurrection and the Christianity claims can seem preposterous. I have a question for you, what is compelling you--a Jew atheist--to read up so much on Christianity and start up debates like this? You'll cringe, but I think it's the Holy Spirit. Speaking of which, do you know why it says that the only sin that is not forgiven is sinning against the Holy Spirit?

What you are asking (to debate the value of religion when you don't believe in God) is impossible. If there is no God then religion has no value, period. Believers don't subscribe to religion knowing that it's man-made simply because of its sociological utility. That would be irrational.

Speaking of rationality, you seem to be looking for an intellectual basis to believe--that is also impossible, imo, because the intellect cannot be used to find faith. Ultimately, faith is a thing of the heart.

Hannah
Hannah | 04.01.05 - 8:00 am | #

I’ve really enjoyed Francis Xavier’s posts. But I'm wondering along the same lines as Hannah alluded to: Could you tell us how you came to be an atheist? Did your atheism come naturally, through a rejection of religion, through faith in science? I don’t see how you can rely on logic alone to be an atheist anymore than a Jew or a Christian can rely solely on logic to be a believer. I know Jews and Christians who speak of feeling God’s presence and embrace the feeling. Do you feel nothing and embrace the void? Could you please explain?

Ed
Ed | 04.01.05 - 8:10 am | #

I'm with Hannah. During my adult life until age 31, I tried to find intellectual proof of God. The theophany that changed me gave the message, "Some things are not meant to be known. Some things are meant to be understood." It was when I trusted that the theophany was real, and took a leap of faith, that I gained the knowledge that I had been seeking through intellectual means.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 8:21 am | #

The question has arisen, how did I come to be an atheist. You're not going to like the answer: I grew up and said openly what everyone knows. I know that sounds obnoxious; but just as, when you speak from within your faith, you cannot help but use terms like grace and peace, when I speak from within my apprehension of reality, I cannot help but use terms like honesty and maturity.

Many of you tell me that faith brings solace. Of course it does! And faith is really is really a bundle of different comforting beliefs, all false: that some father-like intelligence cares about your thoughts and heart, that the cruelty or indifference of the natural world is only illusory, that death is illusion, and so on and so on. Who wouldn't want to be told this stuff? But, by my lights, the very fact that there is a compelling psychological explanation for those beliefs places a very high burden on anyone who thinks they're simply true. It does not defeat the truth-claim (to argue as much is called the "genetic fallacy", because providing a psychological account of the genesis of a belief does not directly discredit the truth of that belief); but it sure does weaken it. Death is terrifying, as is autonomy. And for a certain kind of person, the solitude of the mind can become unbearable loneliness (though I think real love is possible, and those who love and are loved are not fundamentally alone). Also, especially in an extremely sophisticated and rationalized world, there is a strong attraction to irrationality, to leaps of faith and believing in nonsense because it is nonsense (the term of art here is "because it is absurd"); this is a very dangerous, peculiarly modern urge beginning with Kierkegaard, which is both infantile and cynical.

Still, when I sit with myself and ask the very straightforward question, "what is there in the world?", taking together everything I know and everthing I feel, my answer is that there is matter, and there is the mystery of consciousness, but there is no God, and the indifference of the natural world to our suffering and our joy is not illusion, and when I die there will be nothing more. And, what's more, I think all of you know this, too, which is why I deny the solace you claim to have found.

That said, I am not at all satisfied with the creed that many, arrogant secular humanists espouse: a kind of baseless cheeriness about human nature, often, you are right, coupled with a softheaded moral relativism. Man is capable of real evil, and if we dispense with religion we must constantly police ourselves. What's more, I am open to the explanation that there is an ordering intelligence behind nature, if it can be demonstrated -- I do not think that Darwin fully put that to rest, unlike a lot of my fellow atheists. And, yes, if I were so convinced that might make some kind of theist; though that kind of creator-god would bear very little resemblance to the God(s) we see in the Bible, and I don't see why morality would have any connection with him. He would look a lot more like the Platonic demiourgos of the Phaedo.

I am going on too long. I'll stop and read your responses, which should range from, on the one hand, offended that I presume to call you closet atheists, to, on the other, offers to pray for me so that I have the theophany you've all had.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 9:49 am | #

FX, you seem to be taking great pleasure in this dialogue, while attempting to deny respondents the pleasure of thinking they could write anything that would cause you to reassess your beliefs--hence your predicting possible responses. Either you're saying, "Don't respond if you fall into one of those categories," "If you fall into one of those categories, I'll tune you out," or both. I don't find the prospect of responding to such a challenge attractive.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 9:56 am | #

Robert N.G. above on the joke re the Irish Catholic & Protestant atheists:

Many years ago Bertrand Russell wrote an essay on how the religious background of various atheistic philosophers had affected their thought. Found in his book "Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays". Still interesting reading.

I myself am not an atheist, being a Christian of the Anglican persuasion and belonging to a parish about to vote on whether to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church - that's a whole different topic.

Hannah - I agree with Dawn - your comments are spot-on. Also, I commend you for your new-found Christian faith.

Dawn, you write above, "The theophany that changed me gave the message, "Some things are not meant to be known. Some things are meant to be understood." It was when I trusted that the theophany was real, and took a leap of faith, that I gained the knowledge that I had been seeking through intellectual means."

Which reminds me of a verse somewhere in the Psalms that says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good". The proof of faith is the life lived by and in it, and by the shape it gives to our thinking. Faith is not an anti-intellectual thing at all. We understand our world and universe in the light of Faith, in whatever we have faith in - whether that is God or something else (the material universe, ourselves or whatever). From the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, faith in anything besides God is idolatry.

It also reminds me of what St. Anselm wrote back in the early 12th Century "Credo ut intelligam" - "I believe in order that I may understand" (in his "Proslogion"). Some people like St Paul are given a face-to-face encounter with our Lord - a theophany. The rest of us are those Jesus referred to when he said to Thomas "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (John 20:29).

Dawn, I've been reading your blog since last December when I found the reference to your website in Touchstone magazine to which I subscribe. Love it. Keep up the good work.

Ken Eiler
Ken Eiler | 04.01.05 - 10:43 am | #

FX, I'm intrigued by your critique of "arrogant secular humanists" -- "a kind of baseless cheeriness about human nature, often, you are right, coupled with a softheaded moral relativism." You go on to say, "Man is capable of real evil." By what standard do you judge good and evil? What do you, as a materialist, propose as an alternative to softheaded moral relativism?
Michael Bates | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 10:54 am | #

Dawn,

I seem to have offended you again. I do not want to deny any of my interlocutors any pleasure, certainly, and I hope everyone is enjoying this as much as I am. If anyone wants to (a) yell at me and tell me not to speak for their apprehension of reality, or (b) pray for me, far be it from me to deny them. That said, as for (a), I think it's an important point. I really do think that believers are lying to themselves -- that is, that the thoughtful and introspective among them are atheists at heart, but choose to hold false beliefs because of the ancillary benefits (Ken alludes to the best of these benefits in his post above; I speak of more childish comforts in mine). I know it is singularly impolitic of me to speak this way, but it is relevant to the discussion because it is a necessary component of my atheism. So I retract the final of paragraph of my prior post in deference to our gracious hostess, but not the substance of the post itself.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 10:58 am | #

"And faith is really is really a bundle of different comforting beliefs"

Oh, right. Like the belief that we are essentially fallen, sinful beings. Like the belief that we could lose our salvation and go to Hell - far worse than what atheists believe about death. Like the stringent moral codes and obligations. Like the belief that suffering should be offered up to God, and that voluntary suffering and sacrifice is a good thing.

Frankly, I think these (and many more) are compelling psychological pressures NOT to believe in God, which at least balance out the 'comforting' religious beliefs you mention.
Atlantic | 04.01.05 - 11:25 am | #

Mike,

Just a quick reply: I judge evil by the same standard we all do -- my moral compass. You should read some of our posts in the previous exchange down below concerning the historical evolution of our moral sentiments, the role religious played in that development, and the fundamental autonomy of morality. Simply because there is no god does not mean there is a moral truth; and simply because there exists a diversity of moral judgments does not mean that some are right, and some are wrong. Relativism is not entailed by atheism.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 11:28 am | #

Hey Atlantic,

You sound like a real old-school, flesh-mortifying Cathoic. Love it!

As far as I'm concerned "the belief that we are essentially fallen, sinful beings" is fundamental to being human: it is the disjunction between our moral selves and our frailty. Again, doesn't require a God. "[T]he belief that we could lose our salvation and go to Hell" is a bogeyman to frighten children, nothing more (and it seems that in this circle, eveyone's very cagey about damnation). "[T]he belief that suffering should be offered up to God, and that voluntary suffering and sacrifice is a good thing" -- do you guys still believe this? This is a branch of that Catholic weirdness whose origins I never did understand. It gets pretty S&M-y and sexy if you ask me, but I haven't really met anyone who takes it seriously (till you). I see the perversity and the psychological motivation behind it, but not the place for morality in it, or for a beneficent God. But I'm open.

As for the stringent moral codes and high ideals, I agree it's about time we atheists had explicitly stricter standards. It is an admirable facet of some religions, and there is no secular analog or organization with any widespread acceptance. Want to form one with me?
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 11:38 am | #

FX: "And faith is really is really a bundle of different comforting beliefs, all false: that some father-like intelligence cares about your thoughts and heart, that the cruelty or indifference of the natural world is only illusory, that death is illusion, and so on and so on."

Well, the faith you're describing in the latter two items there is Buddhist, not Christian. Christianity declares suffering and death all too real, but posits both a cause to these and a point in our response to them. In fact, I find your philosophy almost demands a Buddhist denial of reality itself.

You believe in only the material, yet you acknowledge your own consciousness being something more than an epiphenomenon of material causes. If you are, at root, a more sophisticated Turing machine, then this conversation is strictly pointless -- but it's also deterministic, so there's no point in wishing it were over.

You believe in evil, but you have no basis for thinking that "good" or "evil" are anything more than your own particular preferences, and thus baseless as a measure of truth. Michael Bates beat me to the punch; there is no morality to police in your philosophy except whatever the strong choose to impose upon the weak. But you see the ridiculousness of equating popularity or power with morality. That you want to codify an atheist morality is good, but it shouldn't be construed as anything more than an emotional preference unless you ground it in an epistemology that claims to discern objective truth.

I'll grant you that there are closet atheists who have thus far been able to act Christian in a somewhat-still-Christian culture through a sort of cost-benefit analysis; these folks quickly apostatize when they experience suffering which they can escape by denying Him. It's when they experience suffering and cannot escape that they must either despair or believe. It is the mystery of suffering that makes it impossible to be a closet atheist when the chips are down; pain is pain no matter how one slices it, and all of us choose to avoid it unless we genuinely believe that there is a higher purpose and a good to be served by enduring it. If I didn't believe, I would have no obligation to a lot of people who annoy me or don't provide me with the pleasure I think I ought to have.
craig | 04.01.05 - 12:03 pm | #

A very interesting discussion. Unfortunately I have a lot to do today and can't get all that involved. But, Francis, let me assure you that the ideas about suffering that you refer to are very much a part of Catholic thinking and undoubtedly always will be. So if you really haven't met anyone who takes it seriously, you either haven't met very many or have met mostly those (not a small number) who, although formally Catholic, actually believe something closer to liberal Protestantism. (Personally I have never seen anything remotely sexual in it, but then I have never found the association of pain and sexuality to be in the least appealing.)

I'm sympathetic to your portrayal of the inner atheist in everyone. For my part it is indeed sometimes a struggle to maintain faith in the face of an ugly world. I would say, though, that intellect does not always or necessarily come down on the side of atheism. I think reason has a very difficult time accounting for a great many things (itself, for instance), so that belief is far from contrary to reason. Much of what you list as a sort of inevitable conclusion about the world seems a subjective or temperamental appraisal.

By the way, for what it's worth, I also experience no attraction whatsoever for the irrational, but I have a very strong sense of reason being as it were cradled in the arms of something much greater.

Gotta go--will check in later today and see how y'all are doing.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 12:13 pm | #

Dear Francis,

Even though you didn't answer any of questions/points I'll try again.

Regarding:
"As far as I'm concerned "the belief that we are essentially fallen, sinful beings" is fundamental to being human: it is the disjunction between our moral selves and our frailty."

This is emphatically a Catholic teaching, with a wealth or theology behind it. Reducing it to "disjunction between our moral selves and our frailty" is an example of defining downward. A few examples of contrary belief, Rousseau (sp?), marxism that identifies class warfare as the culprit, modern-day liberalism where all evils are from a combination of poverty and racism and sexism.

The moral compass works best in conjunction with religion. Without it, it quickly loses calibration. What does your moral compass tell you about toughies such as abortion, euthanesia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research?

I agree with Atlantic that belief in religion isn't comforting as you seem to think. Unless it's a Kumbaya religion where everybody goes to Heaven or rejects the afterlife, belief places a very difficult burden on us. You are free to dismiss the idea as a child's bogeyman, but it is very real to believers. It seems little unfair that you would deny us the courage of this belief.

Best,
Hannah
Hannah | 04.01.05 - 12:14 pm | #

F.X. - You write ""[T]he belief that suffering should be offered up to God, and that voluntary suffering and sacrifice is a good thing" -- do you guys still believe this? This is a branch of that Catholic weirdness whose origins I never did understand."

Well, we do and it's not just Roman Catholic. Read Dostoyevsky (Russian Orthodox). Being Christian involves living as an Imitation of Christ, taking up one's own cross (however it comes to us, in whatever shape or form)and following Him. This is true of most varieties of Christianity.
Ken Eiler | 04.01.05 - 12:26 pm | #

Sorry, Hannah, I didn't see any questions in your post. As for the move from Islam to Catholcism, whether that's a step up or a step down from my perspective (since you asked for it) depends on the kind of Islam you're leaving, and the kind of Catholicism you're embracing. If it's from Averroes to Mel Gibson, it's a step down; if it's from Bin Laden to Aquinas, step up.

As for our discomfort in the world, I really do think almost every artifact we make arises from it, not just Catholicism. There are better and worse responses to it, and Catholicism sits somewhere in the middle, I think.

I completely reject the claim that "The moral compass works best in conjunction with religion." I don't know how anyone can look at the world and say that (particularly, these days, a former Muslim). I'd say the distribution of moral and immoral conduct both within and without religion is about equivalent, and that the habits of heart and mind that keep us to the straight and narrow are not in the least dependent on god-talk.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 12:31 pm | #

Ken,

Dostoevsky's my favorite, absolute favorite. Visited a flat he rented in Petersburg last year. Have you read the James Wood essay I referred to in the previous thread, "Dostoevsky's God"? In any case, it is very weird to me, and not necessarily a facet of Christianity that I applaud. Christopher Hitchens has written very well, I think, about the way Mother Theresa's celebration of suffering has caused her to become complicit in the systems that cause the suffering. I don't really see anything laudable about suffering for suffering's sake, imitatio christi or no; this is one of the reasons that I write above that Catholicism does not sit at the top of my list for human responses to our discomfort in the world. Better to abhor suffering and seek to alleviate it wherever you find it than to worship it.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 12:41 pm | #

Correction, Mike: I misspoke. I wrote: "Simply because there is no god does not mean there is a moral truth; and simply because there exists a diversity of moral judgments does not mean that some are right, and some are wrong." I of course meant to say: "Simply because there is no god does not mean there is *no* moral truth; and simply because there exists a diversity of moral judgments does not mean that some are *not* right, and some are *not* wrong."

Sorry for any confusion.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 12:55 pm | #

Francis,

You seem to support your atheism, for the most part, by finding fault in reasons to believe. That works a little, but you're fighting the fight with ammunition provided by the other side.

I also don't understand your high regard for morality. It seems to go way beyond merely saying its beneficial to human survival. You write:

"Simply because there is no god does not mean there is a moral truth; and simply because there exists a diversity of moral judgments does not mean that some are right, and some are wrong."

You appear to be speaking of good and evil in terms of absolutes. How can that be? If indeed good and evil are inventions of an evolved man, then they can't be absolutes; they have no independent existence. Yet you seem to say there is a right and wrong that transcends mere opinion. If evolution can explain it all surely you would agree that there are no absolutes, there are no right and wrong beyond someone's opinion.
Ed | 04.01.05 - 1:31 pm | #

FX:

Suffering for suffering's sake? Who teaches that is a good thing?

Suffering comes often enough without having to seek it out, and we can't make it all just go away when it does. That is the human condition.

The question, then, is what do you do with suffering when it comes? Catholicism has the best answer I've found.

At any rate, let me ask you this: Why are those who believe in God dupes, while atheists -- who cannot prove the negative at the core of their *belief* -- merely are being "rational"?

Finally you say:

"I completely reject the claim that 'The moral compass works best in conjunction with religion.' I don't know how anyone can look at the world and say that (particularly, these days, a former Muslim)."

First, I think you intentionally blur the wide spectrum within Islam (which Hannah certainly can speak to better than me). IMHO, I fail to see how other faiths ever could truly peacefully co-exist in a non-dhimmi manner with Wahabbis, but can easily see how things would be much different with, say, Sufis.

Second, I think you fail to realize the significance of the imagio Dei in religion. Believing that we are all created in the image of God, as do Christians and Jews, makes a BIG difference in the "do unto others" department.
James Freeman | 04.01.05 - 1:56 pm | #

Dear Francis,

Thanks for replying. In reading over my post, I understand why you would overlook my questions as I tend to mix in rhetorical ones.

My real question was more along the lines of what do you think of my jeopordizing my family by converting rather than what do you think of Islam vs. Catholocism. I have to tell you that I'm a little shocked that you prefer Averroe's Islam to Catholocism. You do know that under Averroe's Islam you'd be a dhimmi, right? Actually, maybe that is a rhetorical question because obviously you'd think I'm an idiot, so don't answer this one. But my other question was what is compelling you to read up on Christianity and enter debates like this? Please answer this one.

I've noticed this before but I still find it strange that a lot of atheists such as yourself prefer Islam to Christianity, or in other words, hate Christianity more than anything. As if hatred towards Christianity is a given but maybe it will take more generations to build up a dislike for Islam.

"I completely reject the claim that "The moral compass works best in conjunction with religion." I don't know how anyone can look at the world and say that (particularly, these days, a former Muslim)." >>Sorry, by religion I meant Judeo-Christian religion.

As I didn't want to bring Islam into the discussion, I'd like to bow out of any more discussion relating to Islam.

BTW, Mel Gibson rocks!! :)

Best,
Hannah
Hannah | 04.01.05 - 2:01 pm | #

Hmmm, interesting assertion - "We're all basically athiests at heart." I rather suspect that there are far more athiests who are really, at heart, believers, much like Vertue in CS Lewis' "Pilgrim's Regress." They find the road, they did not make the road, and the important thing is to do one's thirty miles a day - but to what destination?

The thing is, there are plenty of nominal believers who live as if they were athiests. From the empirical evidence, FX, perhaps you can't be blamed for the presumption that they are the normative example. I do believe that in your own way you are trying to compliment us by saying that they're as honest as you are!

I must confess, on your scale, to being less honest. I really do believe that Christ lived, and died, and was raised from the dead - that He is the Savior of mankind; that my sins are not just acts in this world but a fundamental flaw in my nature that He came to cure. The passage from Romans I spot-quoted in the previous thread is not only sound psychology, but also sound spirituality.

As for the difference, again, Lewis has that covered - psychology is what a man starts with and morality is what he does with it. (Mere Christianity is the source.) In short, two people may react the same way, but only God knows the starting point of each (and thus is solely fit for judging their souls, so it also helps explain the caginess of many Christians on damnation!). If someone, through psychology, gave each man a better starting point, it would still leave it up to each man to make a good choice. This involves will, thought, and virtue.
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 2:13 pm | #

Jews have lived under Muslims and under Catholics. It was a hell of a lot better living under Muslims. That said, not to make this a conversation about Islam, but it has degenerated into a grotesque religion. Everyone's always talking about the supposed Muslim moderates and the sufi mystics -- I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, world-Islam is a gutter. I certainly don't prefer it Christianity, and I especially don't prefer individual Muslims (again, generally speaking) to individual Christians.

I don't read up on Christianity that much (maybe the Holy Spirit is moving me in degrees so I don't OD on the stuff. I am generally interested in moral philosophy, and in what appears to me to be a nation-wide Fourth Great Awakening. Really much of my interest here is a growing revulsion toward religion that began on 9/11 and has only gotten stronge sincer.

I am very surprised to learn that the prevailing opinion in here is that the choice is either God or moral relativism or emotivism. That is simply bad philosophy, but if most Americans think the way you do, I can certainly see the appeal of religion. I still am convinced that the falsness of faith is gnawing away at most believers, however, and this seems to me a very unsturdy foundation for morality. Still, if the alternative is to be at sea where everyone merely does what is right in his own eyes, I might choose it, too. Thankfully, that is not the only alternative. It is fully consistent with materialism to take morality as an independent sphere, the way we do the aesthetic sphere, or the comedic sphere. There is no reason I have to provide a Darwinian account of the moral sentiments, since we all share them and can debate them and discuss them.

I failed to address the "hard questions" of morality Hannah raised before. I take them to be precisely that: hard questions, which must be puzzled out and debated. Really, Catholics agree with that; the problem with Catholics is that the hierarcy for the most part does the puzzling, and the faithful are supposed to abide by their decisions. I think people are perfectly capable of debating them and resolving them among themselves (there's the old Talmudist in me).

Ed, I've got very good affirmative reasons not to believe: the sufficiency of a non-theistic account of the world. The only exception to that sufficiency, so far as I can tell, is the problem of consciousness. And I enjoy reading up on that, to see how far philosophers can take me.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 2:40 pm | #

FX, you shouldn't be surprised to learn we here think the choice is either God or moral relativism or emotivism -- these are indeed the choices. It's not bad philosophy at all. Your insistence on a material standard for morality, aesthetics, etc., relies on your being able to substitute a secondary, utilitarian notion of "good" for any concept of "good" as a thing in itself. If one calls a thing good because it promotes the survival of the species (Darwinism) or the greatest happiness for the greatest number (utilitarianism), that still does not explain why either of these ends is desirable or "good" in its own right.

Also, if your self-awareness is purely material, then it is deterministic and thus useless as a point of reference. If it is not purely material, then there exists a non-material component (call it supernature) that is thus far unaccounted-for in your philosophy. I suggest you go away and solve the problem of consciousness before you delve any deeper, if you are not one of those folks who enjoys seeking answers but hates actually finding them.
craig | 04.01.05 - 3:03 pm | #

Addendum: a purely material self-awareness does not have to be deterministic, strictly speaking; it could be random, according to the probabilities of quantum mechanics. What it cannot be is intentional, or intelligent. For that you need existence apart from the material world.
craig | 04.01.05 - 3:09 pm | #

craig,

We should not turn this into a philosophy seminar. Still, can't we just take as read that (a) I hold the world to consist of matter, and (b) I take it as a given that I am conscious and have free will, and that I make moral judgments that cannot be reduced to darwinian / value-maximizing formulae, without resolving that tension? I am OK with some unresolved tensions. I am not capable of resolving them (not being a genius), and I'm content to be curious. God does not resolve these tensions, either -- if anything, he compounds them. Shouting "God" at a mystery is a kind of intellectual throwing-up of hands. This is a "god of the gaps" who gets smaller and smaller the more science can answer. You will whittle your god down to nothing by the time you're done.

And even if you believe that, in principle, morality is ungrounded without God, I can assure you that in practice moral concepts and practice do not require a belief in God.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 3:19 pm | #

Also, how'd you get italics in your post?
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 3:20 pm | #

Addendum:

You're also not reading me carefully. I never insisted on a "material standard" for morality. I insisted on the autonomy of the moral sphere -- the fact that we can have an argument about what is good and right without concerning ourselves with the "foundation" for those judgments beyond other moral judgments. I am not a sociobiologist, and I am not a utilitarian.
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 3:22 pm | #

FX writes:

"This is a "god of the gaps" who gets smaller and smaller the more science can answer. You will whittle your god down to nothing by the time you're done."


Why do you presume a conflict between science and faith or reason and faith?

Why must God diminish as science's understanding grows? Surely you don't think being able to say "So THAT was the mechanism God used" is somehow an argument against the existence of a Creator, period.
James Freeman | 04.01.05 - 3:45 pm | #

Not to get all Rumsfeldian on you, but Christian faith and reason together resolve more of the primary tensions, to the point that what remains falls mostly into the "known unknowns" category. Rejecting supernature, it seems to me, leaves your unresolved tensions back in the realm of "unknown unknowns".

Nature and supernature are both/and, not either/or. The universe is both rational (meaning it acts according to its own internal laws) and sacramental (meaning it is acted upon by intelligences -- God's and ours). If one postulates that action in nature is mutually exclusive with action in supernature (e.g., miracles), then one is led through deism into atheism. So if I were arguing for a "God of the gaps", your criticism would be justified. But I'm not.

Besides, I wasn't arguing that you were either a utilitarian or a sociobiologist, just pointing out two examples of how your thesis of a moral sphere without foundation nonetheless depends upon importing an intrinsic notion of the good from somewhere else. This is, in your case, an "unknown known".

Bottom line: we're arguing in circles, and unless you concede the point I don't see any reason to continue.

P.S.:

"less-than" i "greater-than" starts italics
"less-than" /i "greater-than" stops italics
craig | 04.01.05 - 3:56 pm | #

James - again, a perfectly natural supposition on FX's part. Many people do point to the gaps as being de facto proof of God's existence, rather than taking the more reasonable (and older) position that natural processes themselves are of God's design. We may yet learn everything there is to possibly know in science, without getting any closer to the question beyond science - why is any of it here at all? Why something instead of something else, or nothing else at all?

FX - for italics, or bold, or other typographical showing off, you can use some basic html tags. Enclose an I with >< (only in reverse) for italics; use a B for bold. (And can anyone can show me how to be able to type the actual code without Halo turning it into a html tag?)
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 3:58 pm | #

"I take it as a given that I am conscious and have free will, and that I make moral judgments that cannot be reduced to darwinian / value-maximizing formulae."

I don't see how you can reasonably take free will and moral judgments as givens. Unless you just mean that it's a given that you experience them? Ok, but you can't expect theists to grant that you're being reasonable in your apparent belief that they have something to do with reality. But I guess these eventually get back to the question of consciousness.

In passing, regarding the history of Islam: I strongly suspect that we are getting a somewhat prettified version of it these days, in the interests of attacking Christianity. Not that I'm accusing you, Francis, of doing that, but I think it's in the air. And Christian crimes are far better known.

Also, mindful that it's odd that a Catholic should be rising to the defense of present-day Islam, I certainly don't see it as "a gutter." This wouldn't carry any weight with you, necessarily, but there's an Iranian movie called The Color of Paradise (I think) which is one of the most spiritually perceptive and moving films I've ever seen.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.01.05 - 4:15 pm | #

craig,

you lost me somewhere in there, I'm afraid.

You had written: "if your self-awareness is purely material, then it is deterministic and thus useless as a point of reference. If it is not purely material, then there exists a non-material component (call it supernature) that is thus far unaccounted-for in your philosophy."

I had taken you to mean that materialism implies determinism, and that the only way out of that conundrum is God (a "supernature...unaccounted for in my philosophy"). I thought you were also arguing that (1) consciousness and (2) a definition of "good" not reducible to a darwinian or utilitarian explanation were also inconsistent with a materialist ontology. So I simply responded that I was aware that there's an apparent tension, but didn't think god was a particularly illuminating resolution to it.

I said earlier that I might be open to a kind of theism: a creator-god or a watchmaker of sorts who sets the natural laws in motion and then stands aside. That is perfectly compatible with materialism, but it also does nothing to resolve the tensions we were debating. If, however, you need to import a God to explain mysterious aspects of the world (again our list is morality, consciousness and free will), then you have a god of the gaps.

As for the autonomous-sphere argument, it does not rule out goods-in-themselves. I say, you shouldn't murder an innocent. You say, why not? I say, because it is wrong. You say, why? I say, what do you mean? You say, in what does its wrongness consist? In virtue of what is it wrong? And I say, that is a meaningless question. I can tell you that it is inconsistent with human dignity or language like that, or use one of the stock christian answers ("because we are created in God's image"). But these don't really advance the argument or address the basic question. We have really hit rock bottom with "wrong"; it is a simple. It is like "redness" -- you simply know wrongness. That doesn't mean I can't try to persuade you that, say, this killing isn't murder, or that the victim isn't innocent, or that there might be exceptions to the principle that innocents shouldn't be murdered. But importing God into the conversation doesn't help. And all of this can proceed perfectly well without "greatest good for the greatest number" or "to advance the survival of the species" as further definitions of "good."
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 4:22 pm | #

Thanks for checking in, Mac. My productivity has plummeted since I started this thing, but ah, how my soul has risen!

I'm with you about Islam, brother. This is all really outside the scope of our present conversation, however, and I agree with Hannah that we should leave it alone.

[I've junked most of the italics-related comments to keep this post's comments count from looking even more amazingly high than it is--glad to see everyone enjoying the main topic, though - Dawn]

Edited By Siteowner
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 4:37 pm | #

And faith is really is really a bundle of different comforting beliefs, all false:

Like your belief, which you find comforting, that all religious people are self-deluding?

0:)
Mary | 04.01.05 - 7:04 pm | #

Not sure that belief comforts me, Mary -- it bothers me, I think (though I could be deluding myself).
Francis Xavier | 04.01.05 - 7:42 pm | #

In the NT it says we are the grafted branches on the olive tree- the adopted sons of God. If we become full of pride, we will be removed as the original branches had been, which will be re-grafted back on at some point in the future. Mankind is suppose to rank Christ and thank Christ first, last and always.
Faith | 04.01.05 - 10:21 pm | #

Wow. I've read this entire thread and even with seven years of higher education and a lifetime of reading and other intellectual pursuits, you guys make me really feel stupid.

My dad used to tell me how wonderful is the gift of Faith. I understood then and I understand now what he meant. I know that I am by nature a skeptic. I distrust large institutions and positions of power. If someone tries to tell me how to live my life, my rebel gene starts working overtime. I never fall for Urban Legends or trust any consensus of opinion.

And yet I have no trouble at all believing the outrageous idea that the universe in all its vastness was created by a loving God; and if that wasn't enough that He came to earth in the form of a Man to show us the way; that by example and His suffering and death he freed us from our sins; that He is with us always.

Does it make any sense at all that I would believe He left behind the great gifts of the Eucharist and the Church to continue to guide us? Preposterous! Yet I truly believe that the consecrated bread and wine is IN FACT the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

How can this be so? Yet it is. Not a doubt in my mind whatsoever.

The Gift of Faith is hovering near you, Francis.

My father, whose name was Francis, joined his Maker and friend on the feast of St. Francis Xavier. A skeptic like me would assume that was a coincidence. But I don't.
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 04.02.05 - 12:15 am | #

F.X.

Just getting back. Unfortunately I am not familiar with James Wood's essay "Dostoyevsky's God" - where do you find it? I haven't read anywhere near everything D. wrote, but I can believe his remark you referred to in the previous thread that it's all in the New Testament.

I seem to vaguely remember seeing Hitchens' article on Mother Teresa but don't remember reading it all. My impression was that he was saying something similar to the point George Bernard Shaw made in his play, "Major Barbara", about the daughter of an arms & munitions maker who joined the Salvation Army to work with the poor & downcast. As I remember, the play's point was that for all the good she was doing, it was essentially a band-aid approach and not really changing any of the fundamentals, which Shaw, as a Fabian Socialist advocated.


Your last comment, "Better to abhor suffering and seek to alleviate it wherever you find it than to worship it", I agree. Christianity (and Judaism too) as I understand it has never "worshipped" suffering - most of us do not seek it out. I certainly don't. But if you live long enough, it will seek you out sooner or later. Then we are back with Job and Jesus. And the questions come, how do you handle it, what is the meaning of it all? Christians believe that when God as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became one of us in the man Jesus of Nazareth, God thereby entered fully into human life and history, from the inside, and won the victory over suffering, sin and death, and we are invited to join in his victory (i.e. believe and be baptized).

Therefore God's grace is available to us to get through it all. We can have the grace to get through all kinds of hell on earth. Most of us, at least here in the USA, are not called to lives of martyrdom or major sacrifice. But it is happening in other parts of the world right now, in China, the Middle East, in Sudan, among other places. And why do these people cling to their Christian faith? Because it's the vision that gives meaning and purpose to their lives. "Where there is no vision the people perish". Look at so much of Western Europe today - overwhelmingly secular, the birthrate is going through the cellar and most of the population growth is among the Middle Eastern immigrants. The new vision is of Eurabia and it's not a secular one nor a Judeo-Christian one. Look at the recent terrorist murders in the Netherlands. Scarry.

I understand that none of the above is the kind of proof of God's existence that you have been asking for. But believing in God is the primary postulate that makes sense of everything else, for those of us who do.

Ken Eiler
Ken Eiler | 04.02.05 - 12:49 am | #

I get the sense this is all winding down, which is too bad, because it has been a lot of fun for me.

A few parting thoughts:

Ken: the essay is in Wood's latest book, still in hardcover I think, called "The Irresponsible Self." Barnes and Noble generally carries it. The uses of faith you cite, as giving meaning to apparently meaningless suffering, are precisely examples of the comforting lies I think religion is all about (this is why craig is mistaken that it is Buddhist, and not Christian, to believe that "the cruelty or indifference of the natural world is only illusory", as I wrote above). The hundreds of thousands of children and women who were swept out to sea in Asia died meaninglessly; it is, in my view, grotesque to "believe" that awfulness away.

Also, as a final provocation, let me say this to all my wonderful disputants: I hope I have planted the seed of real doubt in you. By your lights, doubt is a failure of faith; by mine, it is the beginning of adulthood and wisdom. I hope I have begun to persuade some of you that you believe not because it is true, but (a) out of fear, because you want to be told the awful parts of life aren't actually so awful, or (b) because you think the choice is between either a deterministic, amoral, meaningless and mechanistic world on the one hand, or a god-filled one on the other. And I want you to know that (a) is simply self-deception, and (b) is emphatically not the only options you have.

If any of you come out East to Sodom and want to continue this further, feel free to email me and I'd be happy to continue.

Thanks for the conversation!
Francis Xavier | 04.02.05 - 10:34 am | #

I hope I have planted the seed of real doubt in you.

Of course you don't have any way of knowing who you're talking to or where they've been, but I've travelled down that road as far as it goes, to the very end, and I believe it's you who are naive. I don't know where my copy of Beyond Good and Evil is at the moment (aside to Dawn, if you're reading: I found Daydream, in an obscure place where I had put some lps to keep them away from Hurricane Ivan), so I can't quote exactly, but somewhere in there Nietzche castigates an earlier philosopher, maybe Kant, who had proposed to erect a system of ethics on a rational but non-religious basis, for being merely sentimental. My view exactly.

I certainly still feel the pull of disbelief, sometimes quite powerfully, but I come back to the fact that if there is no God then the human race is superior to the rest of the universe (as far as we know it). This is not a very reasonable position, either.

You have a point about us (me anyway) not wanting to believe the universe is as awful as it seems. But it's not so much that I tell myself a lie in order to avoid that, as that belief in God is the only way I can resolve my direct apprehension of the good, the true, and the beautiful with the apparent mindlessness of the universe. I can either believe the former are illusory, or that they are real and the mindlessness is merely apparent.

A good discussion. Perhaps we've instilled a bit of doubt in you.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.02.05 - 11:50 am | #

Ken illuminates the fundamental problem: "But believing in God is the primary postulate that makes sense of everything else, for those of us who do."

This is, of course, the problem in trying to argue religious assertions on logical grounds. When you do this your beliefs become, like science, a model that adequately explains the world as you observe it. The conflict comes from the fact that mutually exclusive models can equally predict and explain the world as we observe it. An atheist can point to suffering and say that it has no inherent purpose, and troubling as it may be, it could be right; similarly, a Christian could say that everything has a purpose, and all he would have to do to make the model work is to find one. Religions (including atheism) cannot be proven through deductive logic because deductive logic requires working from a priori premises, which is what beliefs are. So the religion is true by definition.
Oz | Homepage | 04.02.05 - 12:09 pm | #

Maclin-

Just wondering why you say it's not reasonable for man to be superior to the rest of the universe as we know it. All the evidence we have says man is already ahead of the rest of life on earth - cognitive abilities, reason, language, abstraction, etc. Obviously the existence of a god makes the answer easy, but why is it not rational to assume that, say, the creator exists outside our universe and man is the pinnacle of this one? Just wondering, is all.
Oz | Homepage | 04.02.05 - 12:16 pm | #

"Death is terrifying, as is autonomy. And for a certain kind of person, the solitude of the mind can become unbearable loneliness (though I think real love is possible, and those who love and are loved are not fundamentally alone)"

FX,
As the daughter of a Lesbian(possibly bi)witch raised on a faith of internal and external covenants but no gods I feel a need to respond.
When I was a pagan, before my conversion death(baptism) when I ceased to be in sin, I had no fear of death. It was not terrifying nor was it at all unpleasant. I figured when it was over it was over and I could do what I wanted. Including practice in the manipulation of covanants(witchcraft to those who are simply pagan.. Black magic?)In my faith it was the natural thing for ones body to grow old and die. No big deal. I have done a great deal of study, due to both my RCIA class and my desire to learn, and have found that it is in fact not natural but a concequence of original sin. It wasn't until I chose to love God that I began to fear death. Can you understand that for me it is not a comfort that one day I will die and this great "Father" God will look me in the face and make me account for all the wrong I've done or the good I failed to do. It doesn't set me free from fear. Though it doesn't fill me with it anymore. I feel humbled. Even pained that I may find some thing I've done has effected some person in a terrible way.

You also said that in the absence of God we would have to police ourselves. I have been the butt of those who police themselves. It's not a great thing to be a child to a group of people who have no certain moral path. It ebbs and flows. One thing that was wrong last week may be ok next week. Morals cannot be based on empty principals nor on faulty human reasoning. If every person was let to follow thier own way it would be an absolute horror to live on this planet.I think the very fact that we cannot police ourselves or make ourselves behave is proof of original sin and also of God. I have heard that when God sent the 10 commandments it was a way of saying "here is what you have to do to be mine, but you can't so I will make myself human and die for you so that you can be mine anyway". We cannot police ourselves it's why we have laws and you were often killed if you didn't follow those laws in the past. Not so much death penalty anymore ,thank heavans, but still those who are caught are punished. And I'm not willing to say the presence of a God will deter crimes. Sure enough we have One now. A good many criminals believe in Him yet they are compelled to sin. The only way to get around the policing your self argument is to reclassify sin. Abortion-nahh its no big deal. Murder sure thats OK too. Soo if we get to decide what sin is or isn't nothing we want to do is sin. We can offend others by our practices ignore law officials and completly disregard human dignity and ,following our own compass, do nothing wrong.

I'd be willing to bet that a good many things that are damaging to the human body and spirit are ok with you because you think there is no true moral compass. And I find it a bit odd that you want to be moral when you have no real reason to desire morality. I remember a pastors wife who ran a church my mother helped to tear apart. They wanted to appear as holy in order to prove they were moral but the womans older daughter was pregnant and the younger was trying to arrange an abortion. The parents followed through with it and appearances were kept up. No one was really moral no on wanted to follow God but they wanted it to look like they did(possibly the christian athiest your thinking of). As a pagan child I never understood the desire to appear as moral when you were far from. It turned me away from God for a good long time but now as a grown woman I can see that we ineherintly want to be good and those who don't want to pay the cost of being truly right either pretend they are paying the cost or try to redefine right.. And since you have no desire to appear as Godly then you might be redifining right. I could be wrong. You pro-choice, pro gay rights, pro seperation of church and state(a euphemism for the desire to crush the church trough the power of the state.)by any chance?
trt | Homepage | 04.02.05 - 3:17 pm | #

The above was me. BTW I was baptized confirmed and recieved my first communion last saturday. I had been gone for Lent.
Josephine | Homepage | 04.02.05 - 3:56 pm | #

"Also, as a final provocation, let me say this to all my wonderful disputants: I hope I have planted the seed of real doubt in you."

I'm sure you do, FX. That's been your entire objective all along. I've been waiting to see if you'd would overplay your hand and sure enough, you didn't disappoint. I genuinely doubt you disbelieve in Heaven and, more importantly, Hell.

That gleeful, almost self-mockingly overblown prose is a dead give-away. I've read it before. It's either a conscious imitation of Uncle Screwtape or an unpleasant side-effect of something documented by Oesterreich.

Like you, I've enjoyed watching everyone spend enormous amounts of time arguing and reasoning within the confines of a discussion you've been continually allowed to set. Not surprisingly, you've done very well for yourself and you've been enjoying it immensely. A pity it's winding down, eh?

Throughout everyone's interchanges with you I've asked myself the same question.

Why should an atheist spend so much time, so much effort, just to make Christian believers doubt their faith? Who benefits the most when Christians doubt or, better still, renounce their faith? It's been pretty obvious your responses have been a means to that end, long before you admitted it.

What sort of "adult" deliberately goes out of his way to do everything he can to disabuse a child of a fictional belief that brings them wonder and joy, even if it's deluded? Most parents chastise older children for being spiteful and petty when they tell their younger siblings Santa Claus or their "imaginary friend" isn't real.

Why? Because parents recognize it's an act of purposeful evil, not guidance to adulthood and wisdom.

The older children don't benefit from trying to destroy the younger children's beliefs. Likewise from an atheist's perspective, you don't benefit when other people stop believing in God, though you've certainly made one heck of an effort in that direction.

If we follow a moral code that says "love one another as you would yourself, do to others as you would have them do to you", we certainly aren't harming anyone. What difference does it matter if we ascribe Divine origin to those teachings? If we childishly reject the clarity of thought you've supposedly achieved, why not recognize this as a wise "adult" and save your breath?

That's presupposing God is nothing more than an "imaginary friend".

One of the paradoxes of faith is the sort of adulthood and wisdom you've been leading us to is almost tailor-made to prevent the ability to simply believe.

Intelligence and scholarship as you've shown, are tools which can be as readily used to undermine faith as support it. This is precisely why God demands that leap beyond logic, that suspension of everything we think we know, and a deliberate conscious act of trust. Such an act is harder for many "smarter" people for just that reason.

It is far easier for the uneducated and the innocent to believe. They haven't bitten the apple of wisdom you've been helpfully offering everyone here. They're unencumbered by the convincing yet always incomplete explanations of science and they haven't gotten lost in some philosophical, metaphysical, or ontological dead end.

Instead, like children, they believe and trust on instinct. It's an act of the heart, not the mind. This is, I believe, one of the deeper reasons why Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Lk.18:17, Mk.10:14, Mt.19:14)

The barrier to faith is almost self-imposed. Perhaps God intended it to be so. The harder a person works to overcome it by their own efforts the more impossible it becomes and the more easily a they're mislead by others. Instead, as God repeatedly tells us, all we have to do is trust Him and ask for help. That's it.

You claimed "some of you that you believe not because it is true, but (a) out of fear, because you want to be told the awful parts of life aren't actually so awful, or (b) because you think the choice is between either a deterministic, amoral, meaningless and mechanistic world on the one hand, or a god-filled one on the other. And I want you to know that (a) is simply self-deception, and (b) is emphatically not the only options you have."

I dispute both those assertions. You claim that people who believe (a) out of fear are deceiving themselves. If it is self-deception that the awful parts of life aren't that awful, then they truly are awful and they can happen for any reason at all.

If it is self-deception that there are intelligences behind the good and ill that happens in our lives, then such things happen purely through human causes or by chance. If it is self deception that the good in our lives is a reward and evil is a punishment or "test of faith," then all our accomplishments and failures come from ourselves and luck.

If all that is true as you insist, then your first claim in (b) is essentially correct. Every atrocity, every horror, (and every good) happens for purely human reasons or no reason at all. Things happen because people make them or they just occur. Then, as you claim, the world is deterministic, amoral, meaningless and mechanistic.

You've already dismissed, over and over, any possibility of the God-filled world you mentioned as the second choice in (b). At the same time, you emphatically insist those are not our only options.

That's an impossibilty.

You've already denied the existence of God. There isn't anything left after that except the purely physical world of atheism.

Atheism offers its believers nothing. It is sterile. If there is no Divine, life is purely biological and then it ends. You die and become nothing. Christianity in particular offers its followers the promise of an inconceivable after-life. Can it be proven to exist? Some aspects of supernatural phenomena are probably the best and most telling proof, but a true atheist would naturally deny any evidence as having a "scientific" basis, even if he can't offer it. Proof notwithstanding, religion still offers its followers that promise.

Some of us consciously choose to follow God, to make that leap of trust and faith from a cost-benefit analysis. Frankly, you have yet to provide a better deal than the God-filled world you mentioned in (b).

Believing in Christianity is a good spiritual investment. We have everything to gain from worshipping God, from following the code of life He has given us, and very little to lose. Your atheism offers no greater end than ultimate nonexistence. Everything we've accomplished in life by whatever means, good, evil, or amoral, counts for nothing in the end. It doesn't matter if we die as kings or peasants, after all that frenetic struggle, we still die. As you already know, this was a common theme depicted in Medieval art.

If God and an afterlife don't exist, as you claim, then all we have done is spend our lives following the teachings of an ancient Jewish Rabbi who provided a positive moral code for living. We have tried our best to follow a system of beliefs which, while not easy, brings happiness and harmony with others through our actions. We might not have taken every amoral advantage available in our one and only chance at biological existence, but in a non-Divine world, random chance is the same for all. In the end, all of it doesn't matter because we die anyway.

If God does exist, and we've followed His teachings to the best of our abilities, and He forgives our sins, then there's a real a real chance we will enter a state of happiness beyond human conception, a state you will never see. Even better, Christianity offers the promise of eternal life, eternal consciousness, a communion with the Creator of the universe. That's a much better return on investment than the inevitable extinguishment of consciousness atheism offers as a future.

So, if we're wrong and you're right, we end up rotting in the earth along with you. If we're right and you're wrong, you rot alone. Or, more likely, you'll spend eternity in Hell. If we've offended God, we'll find ourselves in Hell along with you and end up having you as a cell mate.

Make no mistake. I'm not witnessing to you. You made the choice to renounce God long ago. You claim God doesn't exist. If you're right, you're nothing but worm-food that isn't dead yet. If you're wrong, you're in for one hell of an ugly shock. Given those alternatives, it's easy to see why most of us reject your philosophy.
P.R. | 04.02.05 - 5:45 pm | #

Well, P.R., I guess this is still ongoing, somewhat. I have to say, I'm most hurt that you dislike my prose style.

Just three quick points.

The reason I care and want to disabuse you lot of false beliefs is not because I am the devil (which I guess is the subtext of a fair amount of the post ("who benefits?" and all that)). I care precisely because you are not children. Some of your remarks about faith are quite condescending; I wonder which offends readers here more: the paternalism of your Christianity, or the respect I afford them by expecting them to be adults and capable of a free exchange of ideas? I know it cuts against the religious instinct, but I assume that we are smart enough, and capable enough of moral discernment, to think through everything (Jews, you should note, whether of the religious or secular variety, also have this greater respect for man; it was the stupid thought of the Church that simply because we are not able to obey every commandment, we are therefore incapable of being good).

I thought I had made myself clear earlier: to the extent religious belief is compatable with or conducive to moral seriousness, I welcome it. Some of the teachings of that Jewish rabbi were very lovely indeed, and should be heeded. It is the giving-over of our conscience and intellect to others -- to the church leadership, to blind doctrines -- that I object to.

And I have always thought that Pascal is an ugly reason to believe. My life here is not a mere "investment", nor is it a wager. I will live my life as I see best, behaving as I think I ought to behave according to my better judgment; and I hope it will have been a good life that made others' lives better and made the most of the opportunities I had. If I awake after death, and some god sees fit to punish me for leading my life that way, I indict him, and will be right to do so. It is worse than childish -- it is cynical and craven -- to believe out of self interest of that sort.
Francis Xavier | 04.02.05 - 7:26 pm | #

Regarding your three points, FX.

First, you've never proven that our beliefs are false. That goes right back to an earlier point you made about differing truth claims. You've gone on at length why you personally don't share them, but in doing so, you've never actually disproven them either. So they're not false, or if they are, they haven't yet been proven so.

Personally, I know you're not the Devil. But that's not to say you might, conceivably, have allied yourself with him. Since the Devil is a liar, it would logically follow a person allied with him would deny any allegience in emulation of his master (if that were the case). Truly Evil (with a capital "E") people always deny the existence of God and the Devil and in so doing, do the Devil's work. Not because they personally don't believe in those concepts but precisely because they do believe and wish to lead others astray.

It's something that can't be proven conclusively on-line, but it's worth mentioning in the context of your enthusiastic and personally stated hope that you've caused readers to doubt their faith. That has, throughout human history, been a primary activity of Evil beings throughout the Old and New Testament.

A motivation does not become true, simply because it's publicly stated. You can't prove the basis for your motivation. A person who believes in the reality of a conscious Evil, as Christians do, has the right to question it given this context.

Instead, you claim you're trying to disabuse us of our religious faith, because you care. It's a purely altruistic gesture on your part and it's for our own good even if we don't yet know it ourselves, eh?

Now who's being paternalistic and condescending? I think you forfeited the right to make either charge with this gem,

"I grew up and said openly what everyone knows. I know that sounds obnoxious; but just as, when you speak from within your faith, you cannot help but use terms like grace and peace, when I speak from within my apprehension of reality, I cannot help but use terms like honesty and maturity."

Your apprehension of reality presupposes everyone who believes in God, by default, hasn't "grown up". It doesn't sound obnoxious, as much as astoundingly arrogant. In one sentence you've dismissed every Christian theologian in history as either dishonest, self-deceitful, or emotionally "immature". Naturally, that group also includes your readers.

If my vision of Christianity is of paternalistic deity who cares for his "children," then it's safely grounded in the Gospels. Jesus often used variations of "your Father" and "your heavenly Father" in describing God's spiritual role in people's lives. The prayer He taught His followers begins, "Our Father who art in heaven..." (Matthew 6: 9-15) In it, Christians ask their Father to provide all their temporal needs, "our day, our daily bread".

Jesus repeated this metaphor when He says, "how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7: 10-12).

You've wondered if Christian readers here would find my suggestion to faith over intellect "condescending" and offensive.

Unfortunately, you've made a critical mistake. It's not "my" suggestion at all. Jesus Himself explicitly stated it, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." (Matthew 11:25)

Jesus pointedly used the innocent joy and unquestioning trust of children as a teaching aid to his "adult" audience when He said, ?Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.?(Matthew 19: 14)

Children were used as examples. Unlike you, He didn't imply that his listeners (or readers) were immature for not agreeing with Him.

I question what sort of "respect" you've given your readers by constantly questioning their maturity, telling them to "grow up" and explaining how you expect them to be adults. We are adults. Disagreeing with your views doesn't render a Christian otherwise.

As for the motivations I use for belief, I was wondering if you'd fall into that trap. I said I choose to follow God out of self-interest. I never personally stipulated the basis for my own belief in the existence of God Himself.

A person can believe very much in the existence of God and still make a conscious choice not to follow Him. As I mentioned earlier, a person can believe in God and still choose to follow God's Enemy. After that, they can encourage others to turn away from God as well.

I choose to willingly trust God and make that leap of faith, because God specifically requires it for entrance into Heaven. There's some self-interest in every person who believes in the promise of eternal life. I doubt there's a Christian who simply doesn't care whether they end up in Heaven or Hell.

So my choice to follow God and obey His laws is based on the great deal He's offering people. Eternal life sounds a lot better than what you're selling. The reasons which convinced me of God's existence are an entirely different matter and not for you to know.

Incidentally, if you awake after death, you won't be in any position to indict God. Indict God? You're going to stand before the Creator and indict Him as though He were your equal? In full knowledge of what happened to the last being who tried that? If it were me, I'd be trying some fast talking to see if I could wheedle my way out of a mess like that. You might want to rethink your contingency plan, FX.
P.R. | 04.03.05 - 4:08 am | #

Quick reply to Oz above:

why is it not rational to assume that, say, the creator exists outside our universe and man is the pinnacle of this one?

That's reasonable as you mean it. I wouldn't use the word "universe" that way, though. I'm aware cosmologists speculate about multiple universes, but I think they need a different word. "Cosmos," maybe. I use the word "universe" to mean literally everything that exists.

I don't say there's no logical way out of the problem, but I do think materialists are blowing smoke in assuming that consciousness just somehow "arises" in a system of sufficient complexity. Consciousness and related phenomena such as the ethical sense are the great stumbling blocks for materialism.

Quick note to FX: I don't have time to get much involved in this thread again, but re Pascal's wager: I had a similar opinion of it when I was a lot younger. But with the passage of time (I'm 56) it has come to seem to me a much more serious point.

Josephine, welcome to the Church. Sounds like you travelled quite an unusual path to get here.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 04.03.05 - 2:38 pm | #

Thanks so much.. Unusual is only the beginning of the description.
josephine | Homepage | 04.03.05 - 5:28 pm | #

I think once your interlocutor thinks your the devil, or in service of the devil, the conversation isn't salvageable. (You'll notice that, as an atheist and a rationalist, I don't have that particular move in my arsenal.) I would just call attention to the degraded metaphors you're using: investments, deals, selling, hand-playing, traps and tricks. I can only assume you're adopting this kind of language because you suspect I'm not in earnest, not because you actually see life in these terms; I don't think even the worst of Christianty counsels you do adopt this view of life and of the choices it presents us. I certainly don't.

Take care of yourself.
Francis Xavier | 04.03.05 - 7:19 pm | #

FX, if you're still reading:

Do good. Love others. Take care of them when they suffer. Do your best to make right judgments, as you see them. The Christians, because the Bible won't up and do their work for them (nor will the Magisterium, for the Catholics), will work on doing the same. As, I assume, will the Jews, the Muslims, the Wiccans, the Buddhists, the Hindus, etc. etc etc.

If Christians find help in their reasoning from a tradition of authors (the authorities in Catholic tradition), what's the beef with that? Why can't they read philosophers, like you do?

IOW--I have to run, dinner is on the table--no one's asking you to use their sources. We're all aiming at the same goal of living rightly and well. What's to disabuse?

You're the only one who's said anyone's going to Hell. Why are you pushing so hard to make sure they get there? If you're disgusted with Christianity, don't believe. But until you've tried (sometimes after your teens) living with belief, don't knock it. Have fun disbelieving.
Kate | 04.03.05 - 8:55 pm | #

I've already discounted a supernatural basis for your existence in my second reply to you, Francis. The question "Why?" is perfectly fair to ask of anyone who desires to turn Christians away from their faith.

But that's just skepticism on my part. Ultimately, your motivation is irrelevant. It doesn't influence the way I approach the points you raise and there's no need to uptight about it. I was about to say, "no need to get your tail in a twist" but I don't want you to misinterpret the colloquialism.

Better to call attention to my metaphors and away from the issues themselves. Discovering Christianity's inherent "paternalism" after asserting it was strictly my interpretation must have stung.

I used an extended business metaphor to describe Christianity's benefits because you've already dismissed "the kind of exhortation found in the Bible" (your words). Then you complain that approach is cynical and craven. You can't have it both ways. After all, you've already dismissed Christianity's other advantages as self-deceit.

Since you've been promoting atheism to readers here, you're "selling" it, even if you don't like the particular metaphor. If we accept Ambrose Bierce's definition, you've been evangelizing atheism.
P.R. | 04.03.05 - 11:34 pm | #

FX
Thanks for providing the reference to Janes Wood's book, "The Irresponsible Self." I'll have to look it up.

Well, this thread really heated up since I last checked in late Friday night. I'll just say that what you call "comforting lies" above are only lies if they are indeed false and told maliciously. Neither assertion is proved and I believe to be wrong. Why did all those people die in the tsunami? I don't know any good spiritual answer to that (or the awful results of any other natural disaster) any more than Job could give an answer to explain his sufferings and the unjustified deaths of his family members. We Christians believe that all our sufferings are or will be redeemed as they are united to those of Jesus and we await the consummation of our salvation at the end of time.

There are some charges of condescension made up above back and forth, but the way I understand this life is that we are all (consciously or unconsciously) pilgrims on the road, or seeking the road, or maybe strayed off the road. We are made in God's image and as St. Augustine wrote in his "Confessions", we all have an emptiness in our souls that can only be completely filled by God. God really does have a purpose for all our lives - Rick Warren's best-selling book "The Purpose Driven Life" makes an excellent presentation of this from a Protestant point of view.

FX, I don't know where you will be led to, or what you will discover as you move through this life. As a Christian I believe that Christ came and died and rose again that all might be saved, but maybe God wants you to remain Jewish, atheist or otherwise. There is a priest in the Church of England named Rob Richards who wrote a book entitled "Has God Finished with Israel?" published in the UK by Word Publishing, Milton Keynes, England. (The short answer to his title is "No"). A very interesting book if you can find it. I don't know whether it's been published over here or not. In any case, I believe that if God really wants you as a believer, He will direct you that way and you will be, as C.S. Lewis put it, "Surprised by Joy". Nothing I say, or anything anyone else says, in and of itself, is going to change your mind.

Speaking of pilgrims, to all of you pilgrims out there, a great read is the little book entitled "The Way of a Pilgrim" written in the 19th century by a Russian holy man who spent his days wandering around Russia & Siberia. There are several translations, one available from Image books. An older one, by R French, is the one I read some years ago. Paulist Press a few years ago brought out another one entitled "The Pilgrim's Tale", in its Classics of Western Spirituality series.

Josephine, I commend you on your recent baptism, etc. God bless you as you too follow the Pilgrim Way of the Cross in Christ's holy catholic church.

Maclin, I agree with you on Pascal's wager (I'm 59). Terminology drawn from the business world ("investment", etc.) that bothers our friend FX can seem awfully "materialistic" but Christianity has always been the most materialistic of religions - God the Son came down from Heaven and became "became flesh and dwelt among us". God got himself all mixed up in the material stuff of this world. The Sacraments use matter to convey spiritual reality to us - water for baptism, bread & wine for the Body and Blood of Our Lord Himself. And of course, the Church itself remains the Body of Christ here on earth as well as in heaven. The gates of hell will not prevail against it, in spite of the human corruption we see in the institutional churches.

All of you have a great week. God bless.
Ken Eiler | 04.03.05 - 11:54 pm | #

P.R. "Better to call attention to my metaphors and away from the issues themselves."

The metaphors and the issues are one and the same: we're discussing the way you and I perceive the world. The reason I cannot see my life as a poker hand, or as a "Who wants to make a deal?" blind choice, or even as an investment, is because there is nothing behind the curtain. This world is all there is. But this fact absolutely does not rob the world of meaning -- it makes it glorious, and beautiful, and to be treasured and treated lovingly; nor does this lead me to a philosophy of hedonism -- far from it: it makes me realize just how seriously I have to take my time here, so that when I die, and look back over my choices, I can confidently say I made the most of my brief span. This is not incompatible with Christianity in principle (Marilynne Robinson's Gilead gives a gorgeous portrait of a Christian life lived with this kind of seriousness). But it is absolutely incompatible with the brand of Christianity you've subscribed to.

"Discovering Christianity's inherent "paternalism" after asserting it was strictly my interpretation must have stung."

Well, I certainly don't have chapter and verse at my fingertips (though I was familiar with most of the verses you quoted). But if you're asking whether I was surprised that Christianity itself contains many elements that are condescending and insulting to our faculties, and is rife with hierarchical impulses -- no, I was not surprised. I wouldn't advertise them, is all.

"I've already discounted a supernatural basis for your existence in my second reply to you, Francis."

This is the post in which you write that I "might, conceivably, have allied [my]self with" the devil? And I see that the Screwtape Letters is also about demons tempting believers from their righteous path. You clearly think I am sinister, and have been placed here to tempt you away from your pure faith (nice that Christianity also contains this cult-like device to keep its adherents from thinking).

More importantly, however, this whole debate has taken a nasty turn, and it is best to put it to bed. Ken and Maclin, thank you for your contributions. Kate, I hope that you are right, and if your theology provides that people of good faith and good works will be rewarded, regardless of their metaphysical beliefs, than I would happily make common cause with you.

Best to you all --

Joe Schwartz
Francis Xavier | 04.04.05 - 9:21 am | #

You can't prove there's "nothing behind the curtain," FX. You'd have to die and come back from the dead with a knowledge most of us don't have. Even if you did, you would have succeeded in disproving your own position that the afterlife doesn't exist.

Spirit by its very nature is invisible and intangible to our perception. But that's not to say it doesn't exist, simply that we currently lack (and may always lack) the ability to perceive it. You have, I'm sure, no problem accepting the fact that right now you're surrounded by thousands of invisible, intangible (with unaided human perception) forms of energy carrying television and radio signals. In trying to explain what those forms of energy are, we still end up in some astoundingly complex and still unfinished theories.

Materialism can only take you so far. James Freeman made this point earlier. Science and religion are not always incompatible. Especially since science leaves so much unexplained. If you'll allow a hyperbole, the "God of the gaps" as you called Him, lives in a gap literally the vastness of the universe itself. Scientific materialists are going to be a long time in filling it up. That's excluding the possibilty God and His realm exists outside of what we call physical space.

By your own admission in an earlier discussion with another commentor, you see consciousness as a mystery. So why is spirit so difficult for you to accept? Why is an invisible, intangible, consciousness so hard for you to accept? If you don't know what the basis for consciousness is, how can you be so quick dismiss the answer Christianity provides? Since you can't conclusively prove its largely metaphoric descriptions are wrong, it's foolish to say so.

The business metaphor I provided to explain Christianity is only one aspect of how I percieve religion. Since you've already dismissed any other benefits as "self-deceit", the only thing left is a description in terms of self-interest.

I'd like to underscore that what you're describing as elements of Christianity "that are condescending and insulting to our faculties" are the quoted teachings of Jesus.

You may find the notion of faith over intellect insulting to your faculties, yet it's a selective inconsistency on your part. You take the notion that there is "nothing behind the curtain" on faith. You can't prove it one way or the other. So, you choose to believe. I wasn't entirely joking when I said you were evangelizing atheism. Like a Christian evangelist, you expect us to take certain atheist axioms on faith. You can't prove that there isn't an existence beyond death to an interested reader, yet you expect us to believe there isn't, just the same.

Why? If you find an insistence on faith so insulting and condescending, why do you insist on it for your own philosophy? Let's turn your materialism back on itself. Supply material proof negating the existence of the afterlife. Yes, that is impossible, and that's my point. You're denouncing our beliefs while offering nothing in their place except your own.

Discounting that a person is not a supernatural entity does not in any way discount the possibility that a person may believe in them. A person may indeed believe in supernatural entities, deceitful ones, and seek to emulate them, hence my multi-levelled reference to Uncle Screwtape. I was primarily referring to your writing style at the time, with supernaturalism being a secondary concomitant.

I have every reason to believe you're here to tempt us to doubt, to fail in our faith. You, yourself, admitted that was your aim. You may claim to perceive that doubt as "the beginning of adulthood and wisdom", but you did admit you were trying to instill it! As I've said several times now, while I may be curious about your motivation, I might (or might not) even ascribe a religious background to it, but it's unprovable and ultimately irrelevant.

But in raising that complaint, again, you're internally inconsistent. You scorn faith and laud skepticism when it comes to the unprovable aspects of religion. When that same skepticism is applied to something much more mudane, like human motivation, you immediately denounce it as being a cult-like device designed to inhibit thought.

That's foolish and it's wrong. What you've said would be true only if I allowed a religiously-inspired concern about your motivations to be the exclusive cause for dismissing your philosophy. I'm getting tired of pointing out that isn't the case.

This discussion hasn't turned ugly at all, I undertand you're becoming increasingly unhappy now that your self-referential statements of fact are being pointed out as such. You've got to develop a thicker skin than that, the sort Christian readers here have shown while you repeatedly mock and deride their beliefs.

But using it as an excuse to scuttle off while still continuing the discussion with a number of additional rejoinders is beneath you. If you've shot your philosophical bolt, so to speak, just say so.

If you haven't, then until next time!
P.R. | 04.04.05 - 1:27 pm | #

Dear P.R.,

Ok, ok, I can see you like the parry of this as much as I do (or did), so far be it from me to bow out -- especially if doing so now would lead you to think you've won, or found serious fault with my arguments. ;)

Let's see if I can address some of your points with sufficient clarity and depth to relieve your fatigue (for a tired guy, you sure do write a lot). Maybe it is your wicked plan to get me fired by having me unpack every last remark at extravagent length.... Tempter!

I'll begin with what I really think is the most salient point for this discussion, the thing that makes it worth discussing: our competing claims over the relative advantages of atheism and Christianity. Mine really is a simple point, but one that I cannot seem to make much headway with in this crowd. It is simply this: a commitment to atheism and to materialism does not diminish the world, at least not for me -- it makes it richer. I love the world: it dazzles and amazes me. Hopkins, a very religious poet, and Whitman, a fairly secular one, beautifully capture this wonder and fascination the world holds. It exceeds my ability to explain it; it contains an infinite richness of experience and splendor. And man is its crowning jewel ("what a piece of work is man..." and all that). And what is more, I take the human sphere to be full of inexhaustible meaning and variety: morality, aesthetics, comedy and tragedy, suffering and joy, and so on and so forth. Some of our logical concepts clash against our experience: the seeming logical inevitability of determinism against our experience of free will; the brutality of the natural world against our moral sentiments and judgments; and the coldness of matter against consciousness (these are the three most obvious great mysteries; there are others, like humor (one of my favorites)).

The existence of of a mystery does not destroy a logical postulate: it presents a challenge to it. You are certainly right that some materialists offer a crabbed worldview. But I take it as given that the world is gorgeously meaningful, and then set out to reconcile that reality with other realities that I have good reasons to believe. I will have to reconcile meaning with materialism. But it is easier to do that, I think, than accept the kinds of meanings and systems that much of Christianity offers (it has other sides, too, as I've said repeatedly; I'm interested here in the poisonous one).

It is really you (and you have a lot of company in here for this view) who keeps on insisting that we've got God or we've got nothing. Why? When you make your stabs at logical argument, you seem to torture yourself to reach this conclusion. Why does meaning in life only emerge if we are rewarded or punished in another life? In any case, what kind of meaning is that? What kind of meaning is there in that afterlife -- an after-afterlife? Or is it impermissible to ask those sorts of questions, because in heaven we will no longer require meaning? So I have to wait to be reborn to live life in earnest.

This kind of meaning really is childish (yes, and cynical and craven). It is the child who does good only because he will benefit from it or refrains from evil only because he will be punished. I must say, even believing Jews believe that performing a mitzvah is good in itself, and do not expect reward for it. To the extent Christianity taught otherwise, it was an enormous psychological step backward. If we restrict the conversation to a discussion of these sorts of questions, we might make some headway.

Now, as to the status of my beliefs. This really is too much philosophy for this forum, and I get kind of impatient with epistemology. I freely concede that the truth of the foundation of my philosophy cannot be demonstrated (I wrote earlier that if this conversation were permitted to degenerate into a "yes it is, no it ain't" back-and-forth, we would be at a stalemate -- and so we are). But I do try to adopt a consistent standard of proof for my beliefs.

I begin with direct experience of the world around me, much of which I cannot reasonably doubt. I am not a skeptic, so I do not doubt the reality of meaning, consciousness, etc., unless I have good reason to -- and I don't. Neither do I have direct experience of God, so I don't include him in my starting point. Now I know that some religious types claim to have a direct experience of God. If you are among these, we have no common ground for argument. And if I were in this position, I would include him among my starting axioms. But I am not and, as I wrote earlier, I think the number of people who believe for this reason is quite small, and that most people believe for other reasons: out of wish-fulfillment, terror, inertia and immaturity.

After the things of which I have direct experience, I am left with things I have good reason to believe. For these things, I must adopt some consistant standard of proof. Materialism is a reasonable postulate, given the snares of dualism. You seem to assume that a religious world-view requires a dualistic ontology. This, of course, is not necessarily true. The reason I am not a dualist, and do not otherwise import God into my ontology, is that I have no need to, and many good reasons not to. I've been trying to persuade you that, absent direct experience of God, you have no reason to believe in him, either.

Science offers me good reasons for belief, on the other hand. When it posits imperceptible forces and bits of matter, it does so because they are necessary components of predictive theories, that themselves are falsifiable (it is because they are falsifiable that it revises its models constantly).

Now it is also true that, not being a scientist and not being in a position to decide whether, say, the existence of quarks is a necessary belief, I accept the truth of science's claims on the strength of its authority, rather than independently evaluating the truth of each and every claim it makes. I rely on its authority, however, because I have good reasons to do so. If I were living in the 12th century, I might have better reasons for believing a theologian than, say, a physicist at the time, since the former's concepts were much clearer and had more explanatory force that than the latter's. That's kind of a stupid example, since there was really no controversy between them at the time, but you get my point: This is no longer the case. Religion does not explain the physical world anymore. Even given the gaps between materialism and the three great mysteries, materialism is still preferable to revelation, by my lights.

Also, though I do not think that pointing to the psychological motivations of believers discredits their beliefs, it does weaken them for me (and for most people). If you get $1000 every time you say "X is true", we have reason to take a second look at X, even though X may still be true.

As for my being the devil, or the devil's minion, it is certainly relevant to this discussion, and in particular to the grounds on which you are engaging me. If you think I am not in good faith here, then you will not engage me in good faith. And, indeed, your tone is one of cynicism and mistrust, an attempt to set "traps" for me and so on (as you believe I am doing for you). The kind of skepticism (if that is the word) I laud with regard to faith is nothing like the kind of skepticism you have adopted with regard to me. I am trying to be true to my perception of the world, and to do justice to it. When you engage me cagily and suspiciously, you are denying me -- and yourself -- the opportunity of having an honest disagreement. And, indeed, that is part of the armor of faith, a bulwark against challenge and rational argument.

A perfectly adequate reply to all of this is: I know my Lord liveth. That really is the end of the conversation, and if it is true that you know this, destroys my claim that you, at least, are a closet atheist. Is that all there is to this?
Francis Xavier | 04.04.05 - 3:07 pm | #

On a more personal note, you really don't think your tone has turned nasty? And you don't think the fact that you believe you're conversing with a demon, or a tempter, or a person who unbeknownst to him is in the service of these things, has anything to do with it? I take for granted that I'm speaking with a bright(ish) person, amenable to argument and appeals to common experience. In all honesty -- what do you think you're doing here? Fighting evil? Resisting temptation? And isn't that weird? Don't you see that that is a symptom of the religious worldview, and a dangerous one? Stop fighting evil for a moment, P.R., and consider the many benefits of a worldview that dismisses out of hand the demonization of one's opponents, that proceeds exclusively on the assumption that one's interlocutor is a person of equal dignity, who should be appealed to only on the grounds of rational argument.

As a Jew, I cannot but recall the medieval disputations where Jews were murdered for winning arguments. This is inherent to the religious, and in particular the Christian, approach to challenge.
Francis Xavier | 04.04.05 - 4:34 pm | #

Well, you can rest easy, FX. It pleases me that I'm going to be the messenger of good tidings!

Guess what? I just checked my calendar and none of us are living in medieval times. People were killed for very little reason back then and Christians were killed over theology just as quickly as Jews. I take exception at your remark, "this is inherent to the religious, and in particular the Christian, approach to challenge."

"In particular the Christian", eh?
FX, that's outright rubbish and you should know better.

"Dhimmi" isn't a Christian term. It's a status that's still being imposed on millions today. I've got some bad news for you, Christians and Jews alike are on the brunt end of it just as if they were living in the Middle Ages.

Maybe the regulars on the Dawn Patrol can all chip in and buy you a ticket to Iran where Jews are still being denied equality or barring that, a couple books by Bat Ye'or.

I've found what I feel are serious errors in your basis for dismissing Christianity, why shouldn't I point them out? "Winning" has nothing to do with it. I suppose I could humor you, but I'd rather not get unfairly accused of paternalism and condescension again. Minor clarification. I'm not tired of talking to you. I'm tired of pointing out it's impossible to prove a motivation and that ultimately it doesn't affect how I view your arguments.

To answer your question directly, it genuinely doesn't matter to me what the basis of your errors are. Whether the cause is malice or ignorance, in the end it doesn't matter to me outside of personal curiosity. We'll disagree regardless of whether it's an honest one or not. What does matter, very much, is how well we can support our stated beliefs. I'll answer your points, regardless, with what I believe is truth and logic.

Since you've asked, what I'm doing is provoking you and challenging your assumptions as you have done to others. It might even be that I'm deriving satisfaction from doing so for its own sake. Fighting "evil" or resisting "temptation" has literally nothing to do with it. That's a red herring on your part.

So is griping about some perceived "nastiness". Everyone here, including me, has taken your claims of our self-deceit, immaturity, and childishness in good stride. No one has expressed any offense at your repeated denunciations of Christianity in general or, most recently, your criticisms of Jesus' teachings. A personal curiosity on my part as to your motivations pales compared to that, particularly when it doesn't affect our discussion while your claims form a part of your position.

Frankly, infernal beings and those humans with direct infernal assistance are reputed to be brilliant, literally undefeatable debators. As I've learned reading your replies, you're good, but you're not that good. :D

I believe you're missing the point. No one is contesting the slendor and beauty of this world. If you limit your world-view to strictly the material, in that case, it better be rich because that's all you've got. How desperately happy you have to be, knowing every day that big sign say "the end" just got a little closer. Every "bad day" is a day they'll never see again, a wasted moment of an atheist's strictly limited physical existence. Religion, not just Christianity, offers humanity the possibility of living life well and the possibility of an afterlife as well.

The human sphere is limited to a space of about 80 years. We may have an infinite amount of lee-way within that space, what Christianity calls "free will", but the space itself is finite. Where is the "meaning" of our physical existence at the moment it expires? Atheists tell us there's nothing behind the curtain. At that last fading moment of physical consciousness, what does all the joy, the sorrow, the experiences of your life afford you? An instant of nostalgia? Atheists and believers both approach the moment of death, but they do so very differently. I don't know what an atheist thinks of when they believe, with certainty, they're about to cease to exist. A Christian (as other believers in religion) approaches that moment of death in the belief that a new form of existence is about to begin. That's true for all religions which posit an afterlife.

A person's state in that afterlife, is a different matter. The determination of the state of that afterlife depends on our acts here. Even Buddhism, with its emphasis on "rebirth" and "karma" posits evil people will be reborn in a degraded form, like an animal, or even in hell. Not all Buddhists are "reborn" here.

You're making a subtle mistake if you assert that religion, including Christianity, forces believers to do good to be rewarded and not to do evil to avoid being punished. We have free will, to do as we please, to find meaning and pleasure in whatever we want. We can derive pleasure from the inherent good or evil in our actions as we choose.

Religion, however, makes us aware what the consequences of our actions will be on our state in the afterlife. It's up to the individual to decide if a certain action here is worth the repercussions after they die. Depending on the religion a person follows, the punishments are more or less severe. Only those of us who both believe and care about the supernatural consequences of our actions allow religion to guide our lives. Many people "sort of" believe, "sort of" care, and "sort of" allow religion to influence their behavior. Some do entirely and some don't. Religion doesn't diminish the meaning in our lives, it guides our behavior only if we believe and are concerned with the consequences.

Unlike you, I'm not prepared to state with certainty why other people believe in God outside of having a direct experience. By adhering to a strictly materialist view, you've decided to take the mysteries of science on faith. That's making a religion out of science. Science can only explain so much and in light of what it can't explain, that's not very much. After that, scientists start proposing theories which when disproven by new discoveries, are replaced by other theories. In that respect, science always has an explanation for everything even when the answer changes. No one ever asks, "what else is science wrong about"?

In essence scientists become secular "priests", describing the nature of the universe on the basis of their own interpretation of limited data. This is why science offers conflicting theories in the same way different religions do. That's not a sufficient replacement for religion. A religious world-view can encompass scientific proofs though it seems the reverse isn't true for materialists. Religion's main focus is on human conduct and the world of the spirit rather than the nature of physical creation.

When science can't conclusively prove that God, spirit, and the afterlife don't exist, (and they can't) that doesn't mean that a person who hasn't had a direct experience with God automatically has to say "yes they do" and blindly jump on the first religion that comes along. What they should ask is, "what if God does exist and what's at stake"? The answer is one you already know. If you turn out to be wrong, you're in for one hell of an ugly shock when you die. The nature of that shock depends on how God judges humans. If a believer in religion turns out to be wrong, they won't ever know it anyway.

This is why religion offers its believers a surety atheism doesn't. It's not wish-fulfillment at all. It's a cautious and positive approach to an unknown state that doesn't exactly lend itself to first-hand study. Even in our supposedly material world there are those occurrances which refute the natural laws of science. Simply because certain phenomena occur sporradically and under condtions science can't adequately study, doesn't prove they don't occur. That's where science begins to fail and materialist dismissals "there's a scientific explanation for it" ring very flat.
P.R. | 04.05.05 - 8:19 am | #

P.R.

Since we're now in a basement in a ghetto, and everyone else has moved on, I invite you to continue this dialogue, if you want to, by email.

Let me just say that I agree that everyone has been very gracious with me, very gracious indeed.

Also, when I said the conversation had taken a "nasty" turn, I wasn't offended or hurt -- I simply thought that you were no longer engaging me on honest grounds, and were more out to score points than to argue the merits of our positions. You assure me that's not the case, so I must have been wrong.

In any case, since I am far from a positivist or an evangelist for science, I am not really that interested in pursuing the epistemological portio