…and this is a 
It's a pleasant Friday afternoon, so you've got nothing better to do than listen to some tedious apologetic drivel, right? Terry Eagleton is interviewed on Canadian radio, and he repeats the same boring noise he droned out in his book. For all the times the atheists are accused of sneering at the stupidity of their opponents, it's galling that pretentious defenders of the faith like Eagleton get a free pass: his entire interview consists of smug gibes at the smugness of Dawkins and Hitchens, dismissals of their ideas as ignorant and dishonest.
And of course he doesn't say one clear thing about religion. Well, he does claim that the idea of god as an entity is something that no theologian believes in — that there has been a long and sophisticated debate about something or other, which he can't define clearly, but that it sure hasn't been about whether god exists, and he acts as if the question doesn't even make sense. Probably because he can't even begin to answer it. When he's confronted with a question about whether believing in god is like believing in fairies, he simply insists that those are two very different questions, without explaining how. They just are. Therefore, anyone who asks for some reason to believe is simply stupid, afflicted with crude old Enlightenment values (which he uses as a kind of insult).
The telling point, though, comes at the end. The interviewer asks whether Eagleton prays. It's a simple question; you can answer yes, or no. If I were asked that, I'd be able to say no without a moment's hesitation, since it's a simple question about what a person does, requiring no philosophical maundering. Can you guess what Eagleton's reply might have been?
No answer at all. He laughs, and claims it's too long and hard to answer. And mumbles on and on, and the interviewer is clearly getting exasperated at his evasiveness. It's an astonishing performance, the Courtier's Reply brought to life in a half-hour teleplay in which the courtier is even more vapid and even more serious than I could have imagined.
(via The Accidental Weblog)
Comments
Posted by: Spud | June 19, 2009 4:12 PM
Only one, short, British English word will do:
arse.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 19, 2009 4:12 PM
All magic becomes very complicated, in order to explain why it fails so often (IOW, always).
Eagleton takes this to the max, making everything, including the question of god, just too complex to ever answer. It does one thing. It avoids the obvious answer of "no."
Well, it keeps some philosophers in business.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Abber | June 19, 2009 4:34 PM
I was looking forward to a good defence of religion, but was sorely disappointed. See blog post at Another Blogging Blog.
Posted by: eric | June 19, 2009 4:39 PM
The bit about evading the prayer question is completely baffling to me. Neither answer should be embarrassing, what purpose is served by equivocating? If you've already said you're a believer, no one's going to think less of you because you pray, and if you're not a believer, no one's going to expect that you do. Some believers don't pray. Heck, you could even get away with claiming to be a nonbeliever who did it occasionally. "Well Bob, there was that one time just before I asked Mary Sue out on a date..."
I mean, the question's a softball. There's practically no wrong answer to it. What possible reason could he have for avoiding it?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 4:40 PM
What? They have radio in Canada?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 19, 2009 4:43 PM
I hear they're all collections of vacuum tubes in Bakelite boxes, but sure, of course they have a few radios. Otherwise they'd all go insane when they're frozen into their igloos over a long winter.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
June 19, 2009 4:43 PM
No answer at all. He laughs, and claims it's too long and hard to answer. And mumbles on and on, and the interviewer is clearly getting exasperated at his evasiveness.
I guess it's a 'yes' then, eh. Eagletosh? Pwahhhh!
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 19, 2009 4:44 PM
Perhaps if they weren't so stupid, we wouldn't be sneering at them.
Posted by: llewelly | June 19, 2009 4:46 PM
C'mon PZ. Can't you just hug Eagleton and tell him everything will be okay and evolution won't hurt his little religion a bit?
What? You don't like lying?
You militant atheists are such sticklers for principle. You need to come down off your high horses and learn to swindle and deceive. That's how you forge alliances with those who believe.
Posted by: BigMKnows | June 19, 2009 4:46 PM
These guys live in (and relish) intellectual obfuscation. Rationality demands precision. Define your terms, state your premises, present a deductive argument, and state a conclusion. Or, present evidence and make a logical, inferential argument. Those are the two paths to truth.
They can't ever do it.
Posted by: Chayanov | June 19, 2009 4:51 PM
That attitude is just so irritating. They whine that atheists like Dawkins attack a simplistic view of religion that doesn't take into consideration just how complex their own beliefs are. Then when questioned about those beliefs and why anyone should take them seriously, they can't explain themselves clearly. We're just supposed to believe because they believe.
Posted by: Salamander | June 19, 2009 4:53 PM
I'm fairly sure that Eagleton is technically an atheist. He just doesn't see the world in the same way that you or I do.
It reminds me of when everyone on RichardDawkins.net was chastising the successor to Dawkins position at Oxford (as the Public Understanding of Science) because he didn't see dealing with/responding to/or feigning any interest in religious matters as important. I assume you do think religious matters have a big impact on your lives (an unwelcome one) but then Eagleton is ultimately an irrelevancy. If the religious "kooks" were converted to Eagleton's side I wouldn't have any problem and neither should you.
Posted by: articulett | June 19, 2009 4:54 PM
So long as there's "mystery" (and semantics), one can keep believing that his woo is true.
I guess it was too embarrassing for Eagleton to concede that he petitions an invisible-undetectable-supernatural magician to interfere with the natural world on his behalf. It would make him look like a hypocrite for vilifying those who point out there's no evidence for lending credence to such beliefs.
Posted by: Don | June 19, 2009 4:56 PM
Wow. What a load of utter codswallop.
And I though Hitchens loved to hear his own voice; at least Hitchens has points to make, and makes them eloquently.
Eagleton's logic and thoughts are so twisted, he can barely form a coherent sentence - and not one that doesn't run on and on and on and on and on...
The modality in his speech is overwhelming.
The interview asked several pointed and relevant questions, and Eagleton couldn't answer a single one.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
June 19, 2009 4:57 PM
What? They have radio in Canada?
They used to. There was CBC Radio 2 - now it's mostly crap.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 19, 2009 5:00 PM
Isn't that how the natives get through the winter in Minnesota?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 5:02 PM
The next time I hear someone dismiss Hitchens' God is Not Great, I'm going to launch into a twenty-minute monologue on how complex and nuanced the concepts of 'God', 'is', 'not', and 'great' are.
"Sir, you gravely underestimate the profound tradition of scholarship begun by early Zerologians and carried on today by leading Notologists around the world at top-rate institutions of higher learning. But before I get to what Not actually Is--and I implore you to note that that discussion will necessitate some study on what Is Is--I must point out that your simpleton's criticism is Not aimed at what Not Is, but exactly what Not Is Not...."
Can haz theology PhD now plz?
Posted by: CJColucci | June 19, 2009 5:04 PM
I can imagine someone who adheres to some particular religion without any great belief in its actual truth -- regarding it as a collective tradition embodying in a mythical-historical narrative a fair amount of human wisdom. Such a person would regard other religions in the same light and make no claims for the greater truth of his religious tradition over someone else's. People ought, in this view, to adhere to the local collective tradition and not make a fuss over other people's local collective traditions -- or lack of them. There probably are such people, and I have no problem with them if that is really how they view the matter and they're up front about it. It's also fair to say that very little Dawkins, et al. have to say relates to them. Eagleton might be one of these people, but if he is he isn't up front about it, because most people who regard themselves as "religious" would find his attitude incomprehensible and wouldn't cheer his defense of what he seems to regard as "religion." Eagleton's "argument," such as it is, works only if he is one of these non-belieivng adherents to local tradition, but Eagleton is a weasel and won't say what he really means.
Posted by: articulett | June 19, 2009 5:11 PM
I think that when people accuse atheists of "sneering at the stupidity of their opponents",they are playing a little semantic game to avoid the fact that atheists feel the same way towards theist "spin" that the accomodationist feels towards all the superstitious beliefs he doesn't apologize for.
It's easier to see the disbeliever as the bad guy then to realize that there's a very good reason for treating all "woo" claims similarly--even the faith the apologist finds worthy of protecting.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 5:22 PM
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”—Stephen Roberts
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | June 19, 2009 5:23 PM
Yes there's just one Radio in Canada. We pass it around from igloo to igloo, running miles and miles of extension cord across the country from the one wall plug just outside of Arva, Ontario. On odd-numbered days it broadcasts in English, on evens, in French. On Leap Day there is broadcasting in all the languages of the various First Nations peoples (with one person from each nation squeezing around the one microphone set up on a rusty card table, one leg of which is slightly shorter than the other three.) Specially selected members of linguistic groups not already mentioned get to stand and wave in front of the microphone just before midnight on Leap Day. This is called "multiculturalism".
Those who get The Radio in the wintertime use it primarily for warmth rather than listening. The vacuum tubes also give off a little bit of a glow for reading during the long months of total darkness.
Because there are some thirty million of us and just the one radio, most of us never get to see it in our lifetimes. Some Canadians doubt that The Radio even exists. They constantly threaten to go back to Newspapers. There are lots of them; three or four hundred issues of the Globe and Mail (dated October 18, 1938) floating around. Don't even mention "television". We're still waiting for the Americans to give it to us.
Posted by: Paula Kirby | June 19, 2009 5:33 PM
ROFL.
'You don't know what I believe, and that makes you ignorant and bigoted. I don't know what I believe, and that makes me sophisticated.'
Posted by: noodles | June 19, 2009 5:41 PM
RE: "Well, he does claim that the idea of god as an entity is something that no theologian believes in..."
What does he mean? How can an extraterrestrial intelligence involved in manipulating events on earth not be an "entity?" In mean, even if this non-earthy intelligence exists only partially in our dimemsion (see STrek #xxx) or is composed of pure energy (see STrek #xxx) it would still be an "entity." What does NOT being an entity mean?
Posted by: TheBear | June 19, 2009 5:47 PM
@#18:"but Eagleton is a weasel and won't say what he really means."
Quit defaming weasels! Weasels are nice creatures who eat mice for breakfast - nothing like Eagleton.
Posted by: Steven Carr | June 19, 2009 5:48 PM
If only Eagleton could be interviewed by Jeremy Paxman, famous for asking the same identical question 14 times in a row to show that the interviewee really did not answer the question....
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 5:50 PM
Next time the interviewer should just interrupt him and say: "Excuse me, Mr Eagleton. Who do you think you are? A politician!?!"
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 19, 2009 5:57 PM
Ah, yes, the true sign of a deep thinker is not answering even simple questions. Plus you're never, ever wrong about anything!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 5:58 PM
Ha-ha, noodles, so arrogant! Maybe you'll think about that the next time you criticise theology!
Kidding aside, regardless of whether or not all those uppity ivory-tower dancing-angel-counters believe God is an entity or not, the masses of morons infecting schoolboards, tossing themselves at school busses with dynamite vests, and denying basic human rights to GLBT folk sure as hell do, and it's those people the New Atheists are railing against.
What Eagleton believes is irrelevant, and even more wrong about God than Dawkins and Hitchens, if the millions of people who claim to talk with him on a daily basis are to be believed.
I wish all these geniuses who believe so fervently (or not; it's hard to tell from all the vacuous hand-waving) in the benevolent (maybe) non-entity would spend a fraction of the time they use setting Dawkins and Hitchens straight educating the misogynist homophobic rednecks who claim to share their faith instead.
Posted by: Newfie | June 19, 2009 6:03 PM
Word has it, that next year, we're getting touch tone dialing. I can't wait for that. And we don't have traffic lights here yet, but we do have the colours picked out.
PZ, I couldn't listen to more than 5 minutes of this boring, upper class twit of the year candidate. He takes great offense of others' ideas, and proceeds to make none of his own. "How dare you make a reasoned, rational, and concise argument. It's not very sporting, I say."
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 19, 2009 6:22 PM
Terry's indescribable and indefensible notion of God, aka Yahweh, aka 'El et cetera, is readily understandable. Consider how many holes have been shot in the claims of the True Believers. There is little left of the target but ragged shreds, so they have to stitch together disparate remnants in order to tailor some respectable garment for their delusions.
There really are no good arguments for the existence of an ISS* of any sort, even less for the one that we find constantly thrown in front of everyone who is just walking their own paths.
That Terry hasn't any is a lead pipe cinch. I guess that's the reason for worship services; the object really isn't to touch God every Sunday. The object is to be told that your delusions are true and to stand among others as they are likewise reassured that their ignorance is a virtue.
Could there be a pheromone involved here? I have observed the similarity of worship services, sporting events and concerts and there is certainly something common going on.
*Invisible Supernatural Spook
Posted by: Chip Williams | June 19, 2009 6:24 PM
Terry Eagleton has really opened my eyes. Before listening to this interview, I would have expected a scholar so openly contemptuous of The Enlightenment to put forward some sort of argument that Enlightenment values were wrongheaded. I now see that it is sufficient to merely dismiss The Enlightenment as "old fashioned". I finally understand what's wrong with those filthy, ignorant New Atheists© — nobody's told them that The Enlightenment just isn't trendy anymore. God bless you Terry Eagleton!
Posted by: fubar | June 19, 2009 6:32 PM
God is not an entity... how can even an upper class twit take that seriously?
Posted by: H.H. | June 19, 2009 6:40 PM
The next time someone interviews Terry Eagleton, they need to stop asking him what he believes, because he just blathers endlessly on. Instead, just ask him what he doesn't believe. Go down a checklist:
-Young Earth creationism?
-A God who answers petitionary prayers?
-The suspension of physical laws through miracles?
-Transubstantiation?
-Papal infallibility?
-The inerrancy of the bible?
-A god that is a conscious mind capable of manifesting itself in physical reality?
-Etc., etc.
Then let the listeners decide for themselves if Terry Eagleton's defense of theology in any way resembles what they themselves ascribe to.
Paula Kirby wrote:
That sums up Terry Eagleton perfectly.Posted by: CalGeorge | June 19, 2009 6:41 PM
From the interview:
"Christianity has nothing whatsoever to say about how the universe came about."
"Christianity is in no sense in competition with science."
What planet is he living on?
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | June 19, 2009 6:45 PM
Chayanov (#11) noted,
I think there's an even simpler answer: they've trained themselves to believe so very, very hard that everything about their faith is difficult to understand that they treat every possible question as really hard for anyone else to comprehend the answer.
Posted by: spondee | June 19, 2009 6:48 PM
Smug atheism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFvTAH2XgMg
Ahhhhhhh.
Posted by: Travis | June 19, 2009 6:55 PM
I was walking to the university this afternoon and listening to this interview. It was awful, I almost decided to turn it off. I wish he had actually been pushed more during the interview.
Posted by: moioci | June 19, 2009 6:57 PM
Already noted, but this blows what little mind I had left: "the idea of god as an entity is something that no theologian believes in"
I guess when challenged with numerous counterexamples, he would retreat to the No TRUE Theologian gambit.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 7:04 PM
Re: theology is so imprecise, think about it this way: We can say many very specific things about one living entity, i.e. this cat. However, as we move on to ever more general, but related, concepts, we notice an inverse relationship with respect to the degree of specificity we're capable of using. I can speak more precisely about this Abyssinian cat than I can about Abyssinian cats; I can speak more precisely about Abyssinian cats than I can about cats; I can speak more precisely about cats than I can about felidae; I can speak more precisely about felidae than I can about mammals; I can speak more precisely about mammals than I can about animals; and so on to living things, beings, etc.
Now, one of the broadest possible categories we have is 'existence'; notice how difficult it is to speak precisely about it. God, however, is a broader concept still: the proposition, 'god exists' uses the term 'existence' analogously, not univocally. So, is it any surprise that the broadest possible concept should be so unclear? If there were a god, wouldn't you just expect something like this, as opposed to some rather pedestrian being we could completely understand?
It seems to me that the sort of complaint I'm addressing only arises from those who have failed to consider just what it is they're complaining about.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 19, 2009 7:17 PM
Yeah it's hard to know anything about something that doesn't exist. Duh.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 7:21 PM
I tried to listen to it, I really did.
The sneering condescension was too much to bear, even after the first two minutes.
Eagleton: Hitchkins is wrong and backwards about their interpretation of theology.
interviewer: what's the right interpretation?
Eagleton: Could be anything but what Hitchkins describes it as.
*sigh*
this is suposed to be "one of Britain's leading literary critics and theorists"?
really?
I find that quite hard to believe.
maybe if they added "Self-Proclaimed" in between "Britain's" and "leading"?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 7:26 PM
We can say many very specific things about one living entity, i.e. this cat.
Schroedinger's cat?
If there were a god, wouldn't you just expect something like this, as opposed to some rather pedestrian being we could completely understand?
nope. not at all. conclusion does not follow from premise, nor does the premise even arise from the only descriptions of the activity of such a concept as the Abrahamic god that anybody ever bothered to invent on paper.
Theology has defined itself into nothingness.
I'd say that's where it belongs, but frankly would only really be happy when the majority of theologists admit this as well.
Some of them already have, like Hector Avalos.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 7:34 PM
"nope. not at all. conclusion does not follow from premise"
Ichthyic, that's an implication you're criticizing, not an argument. Implications are true or false; there's no question of whether 'conclusions' follow from 'premises' becuase there are neither premises nor conclusions in an implication.
"I'd say that's where it belongs, but frankly would only really be happy when the majority of theologists admit this as well.
Some of them already have, like Hector Avalos."
Avalos isn't a theologian.
Posted by: Canuck | June 19, 2009 7:38 PM
Being the CBC addicted Canadian I am, I listened to that interview today. I was gob-smacked at the pure, unadulterated bullshit coming out of that man's mouth. If you looked up "quibble" in the dictionary, his picture is there. Or if you looked up "equivocate", it's there too. Or even "prevaricate" - oh, sorry, Condi Rice has that one sewn up.
Honestly, it was the most slippery, non-committal, vague bit of sophistry I've ever heard on radio. His arguments were literally "insubstantial" (in the sense of absolutely no substance). Feints, diversions, baseless dismissals, and fluffy nonsense. Reminded me of the woman they interviewed on As It Happens a few years ago who published the magazine on "Faeries". She was a nutter, so is Eagleton.
It seems to be a trait of the religious that they cannot parse language for the purpose of logical argument. They use imprecise language, vague analogy, absurd metaphor, and "poetic" flourish to put forth their "argument", never addressing the question, never providing answers of substance, and always appealing to two baseless assertions for support of their case: "we can't understand what god has in store for us" (expressed in several different ways, such as "god works in mysterious ways", or "there has to be some good come of this", etc.) and "you can't know god (or jesus) unless you have faith" (which requires you to have already abandoned reason). I argued with these fuckwits all through university and finally gave up. You can have them cornered, metaphorically strangled, and they don't even realize they are in an indefensible position. They simply don't understand logic. I know computer science professors who believe this crap, and even though they are brutally logical in their assessment of condition tests, they turn to incoherent gibberish when they get on religion. The desire for a celestial father is strong in them (I feel like Obiwan Kenobe saying that).
Holy shit, as I type this, the "Review" is playing this interview again. His best weapon is that he's articulate, has a good vocabulary, and a British accent. The sad part is that he puts together the words in a way that they make no sense. And to top it off, he sounds like Count Dooku. I can't wait till they get Hitchens on the show to rebut this pompous asshole.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 7:41 PM
Ichthyic, that's an implication you're criticizing, not an argument.
fair enough, but I don't see the point in making the distinction, if YOU had a point to make originally. I'll repeat myself in different words:
One would not expect a nebulous understanding of a deity unless one deliberately attempts to make it nebulous. It's not a natural outcome of what actually is out there, even if it might be a natural outcome of nebulous non-arguments of the likes that Eagleton likes to make.
Avalos isn't a theologian.
His title is professor of religious studies, but in fact was trained as a theologian, and has a lot of insight into both the physical and philosophical aspects of the study of religion.
Posted by: H.H. | June 19, 2009 7:42 PM
Oh, fuck. Eric's back? It's like some sort of rule. Whenever you see empty theological blather, whenever an apologist makes a ridiculously invalid argument for god's existence, whenever someone says something so stupid all reasonable and sane people throw up a little in their mouths, Eric will be there! Does he follow some sort of Bat signal, I wonder? Does someone shine a picture of a cranium with the brain replaced by a cross into the night sky?
I admit, there's so much wrong with Eric's post that it's difficult to stop myself from shredding it immediately, but knowing Eric's M.O. I understand it's fruitless. He's one of the most intellectually dishonest people you'll ever meet. Ignore his bilge, because you can be certain he'll ignore any valid points made to him.
Posted by: Erp | June 19, 2009 7:43 PM
One possibility on the prayer is that Eagleton does not believe in or do petitioning prayers. He may believe in meditative type prayer where you are in effect talking to yourself. Admitting he doesn't believe God answers prayers isn't going to help his status with the majority of the religious.
If Eagleton doesn't believe God is an entity, I wonder if the Boy Scouts of America would accept him as a leader (assuming he lived in the US). The BSA seems very clear that God is a Supreme Being (aka Entity).
Posted by: JohnT | June 19, 2009 7:48 PM
That would be epic. Paxman wouldn't allow that weasel to be so evasive.
Watch the Best of Paxman for just some examples.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 7:53 PM
"I admit, there's so much wrong with Eric's post that it's difficult to stop myself from shredding it immediately"
Do you deny that as we move from a specific instance of something to ever more general concepts under which it falls that the precision with which we speak declines? We can give you 'this cat's' genome; this cat is also exists. Can you say something more specific about 'existence' than you can about 'this cat'? I'd like to see that.
Posted by: ckitching
|
June 19, 2009 7:55 PM
Okay, so is god a non-entity so that he/she/it always avoids Occam's razor? "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." God is a non-entity, so he/she/it may be invoked at will?
Or am I too cynical?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 8:05 PM
Do you deny that as we move from a specific instance of something to ever more general concepts under which it falls that the precision with which we speak declines?
Can you deny that you immediately chose to respond to the post that was more inflammatory than mine?
phht.
I think he's right, it's rather pointless debating you.
I have more interesting things to attend to than either Eagleton's mishmosh, or your defenses of it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 19, 2009 8:07 PM
Dude. Looks like you're trying to reinvent Pantheism. Nice try, but I kinda think Spinoza sorta maybe beat you to it, a few centuries ago.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 19, 2009 8:10 PM
Yawn Eric, your imaginary deity doesn't exist. No amount of sophist philosophy will change that. Get over it.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 8:18 PM
"Can you deny that you immediately chose to respond to the post that was more inflammatory than mine?"
I responded to it in a decidedly non-inflammatory manner. H.H.'s post was easier to respond to than yours, that's all.
"One would not expect a nebulous understanding of a deity unless one deliberately attempts to make it nebulous."
I certainly don't share this intuition. If there is a god, then minimally we should expect it to be unlike anything we encounter in our day to day existence. QM is bizarre; I think it's safe to say that if there is a god, we should minimally expect god to be more difficult to understand than QM.
"His title is professor of religious studies, but in fact was trained as a theologian, and has a lot of insight into both the physical and philosophical aspects of the study of religion."
Avalos has an Master's in theology, sure, but he has no specifically theological publications to his name (that I know of). Also, he doesn't list 'theology' on his areas of teaching and research interest, nor does he appear to have taught any courses in theology. The point is, he's not a professional theologian. I don't think that's controversial.
Posted by: articulett | June 19, 2009 8:20 PM
If theologians claim that god is NOT an entity, then how come atheists are called smug when they treat god as a "non-entity"?
Posted by: Katkinkate | June 19, 2009 8:22 PM
Posted by: noodles @ 23 "RE: "Well, he does claim that the idea of god as an entity is something that no theologian believes in..."
What does he mean? How can an extraterrestrial intelligence involved in manipulating events on earth not be an "entity?" In mean, even if this non-earthy intelligence exists only partially in our dimemsion (see STrek #xxx) or is composed of pure energy (see STrek #xxx) it would still be an "entity." What does NOT being an entity mean?"
It makes god sound mysterious, spiritual and outside mere human interpretation. If it's hard to define clearly it is hard to deny, but easier to believe in 'cause belief doesn't have to conform with physical reality. All religions go down better with a bit mumbo-jumbo about the mysterious to make the priestly caste sound intelligent. They can't make it sound too straight-forward or people will think they don't need the priests to interpret for them any more.
Posted by: articulett | June 19, 2009 8:26 PM
If theologians claim that god is NOT a "thing", then this, of course, means that god = nothing. I concur.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 19, 2009 8:29 PM
Eric,
Quantum mechanics is bizarre, but the only reason anyone takes it seriously is because experiments have shown it to make accurate predictions to an unprecedented degree.
What predictions does the 'God hypothesis' make?
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 8:35 PM
"Quantum mechanics is bizarre, but the only reason anyone takes it seriously is because experiments have shown it to make accurate predictions to an unprecedented degree.
What predictions does the 'God hypothesis' make?"
First, the notion of a 'god hypothesis' is a strawman.
Second, I was talking about our intuitions concerning the conditional, *If* god were to exist, we should minimally expect god to be more bizarre than QM. I was talking about our expectations about the nature of god, were god to exist: would we expect a pedestrian easily understandable being or the bizarre, nebulous 'being' the theologians speak of (and have been speaking of, in this way, for quite some time -- before the advent of William of Ockham, to be sure).
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 19, 2009 8:40 PM
Eric,
If there were a God who regularly intervenes in human affairs you would expect there to be abundant evidence. You'd expect to find many events with with the only rational explanation being that an almighty entity intervened. I have not seen anything like this. Any time there was a claim for a 'miracle' there has always been a rational explanation.
There are only two ways I can see a theist getting out of this. One is to claim that God either "hides his tracks" or his very sneaky. I haven't seen many people take this position, probably because it makes God look deceptive, not a characteristic you would want in a supreme being. The other way out is to become some sort of Deist.
Posted by: articulett | June 19, 2009 8:41 PM
Paraphrasing Eric's argument at #39:
[quote]Think about it this way: We can say many very specific things about one potential critter, i.e. this equine. However, as we move on to ever more general, but related, concepts, we notice an inverse relationship with respect to the degree of specificity we're capable of using. I can speak more precisely about this horse than I can about all equines; I can speak more precisely about horse-type equines than I can about equines in general; I can speak more precisely about zoo equines than I can about mythological equines; I can speak more precisely about mythological equines such as unicorns than I can about pink unicorns; I can speak more precisely about pink unicorns than I can about invisible pink unicorns; and so on to other "non entities" one might "believe in".[/quote]
I comment #2 nailed this form of "argument"-- "All magic becomes very complicated, in order to explain why it fails so often (IOW, always)."
Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 8:49 PM
What would make it a god?
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 8:51 PM
"If there were a God who regularly intervenes in human affairs you would expect there to be abundant evidence."
Feynmaniac, theists believe that god is sustaining everything that exists at each and every moment, and this is the case whether one believes in miracles. In the end, I suspect that this really comes down to different intuitions about whether existence is self sufficient. David Hart puts the point nicely here:
"It seems more correct to say that religion, far from suppressing the vitality of human reason and will, opens up a dimension coterminous with rational consciousness as such. In purely theoretical terms, the question of the transcendent source of reality is an ontological—not a causal—question: not how things have come to be what they are, but how it is that things exist at all...In the terms of Thomas Aquinas, there is simply an obvious incommensurability between the essence and the existence of things, and hence finite reality cannot account for its own being. And if this incommensurability is considered with adequate probity and clarity, it cannot fail but lead reflection towards something like what Thomas calls the actus essendi subsistens—the subsistent act of being—which is one of his most beautiful names for God...
"But I suspect that this recognition of the sheer fortuity of existence—the sheer impossibility of anything’s essence ever being adequate to its existence—is what a certain sort of phenomenologist would call a “primordial intuition.” Though we may not all have concepts available to us to understand it, all of us experience from time to time that kind of wonder that for Plato and Aristotle is the beginning of all philosophy, that sudden immediate knowledge that existence is something in excess of everything that is, something not intrinsic to it, something strange in its familiarity and transcendent in its immanence. This is an awareness so obvious that there may never be a theoretical language sufficiently limpid and innocent to express it properly, but in it is a wisdom basic to all reflective thought. To fail to see it requires either an irredeemably brutish mind or a willful obtuseness of the sort that only years of education can induce. And this, I venture to say, is why atheism cannot win out in the end: it requires a moral and intellectual coarseness—a blindness to the obvious—too immense for the majority of mankind."
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 8:54 PM
Eric, why on earth would anyone wish to worship an abstraction?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 19, 2009 8:58 PM
Eric,
Alright. Please explain what your position on the existence of God is in two hundred words or less, written for an intelligent layman so that I could understand where you are coming from.
I don't think that necessarily follows, however this reminds me on an old joke about a mathematician finding a way to increase the milk of a cow tenfold. He starts the paper "Assume a spherical cow.....". All this discussion of God's features is useless unless you can show God exists.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 9:09 PM
"this reminds me on an old joke about a mathematician finding a way to increase the milk of a cow tenfold. He starts the paper "Assume a spherical cow....."."
I've heard the same joke, but whoever told it didn't like economists, not mathematicians. An economist, a chemist and a physicist are stranded on a desert island with a can of beans. They're trying to figure out how to open the can. The physicist says that if they drop it from a sufficient height, the can will bust open. The chemist proposes heating the can. When the question gets to the economist, he says, 'Assume we have a can opener..."
"Please explain what your position on the existence of God is in two hundred words or less"
Aquinas, quoted by Hart above, put it as well as I can imagine it being put: god is actus essendi subsistens—the subsistent act of being.
"I don't think that necessarily follows,"
As I said earlier, it's not a question of what logically follows from what; I'm talking about our intuitions. Take these two propositions:
(1) If there were a god, god would minimally be more bizarre than QM.
(2) If there were a god, god would be less bizarre than QM.
Now, (1) strikes me as more plausible than (2).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 19, 2009 9:09 PM
Simple Eric, philosophy without evidence is sophistry. As has been stated many times. You sir, are a sophist. No evidence whatsoever for your delusions. As sophistry is what?
Posted by: Peter | June 19, 2009 9:14 PM
I see. No ad hominems there. If you don't agree with me, you're brutish, coarse and wilfully obtuse.
Of course, it's only these brutish and coarse atheists who fail to be appropriately respectful in their arguments.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 9:15 PM
Eric, why on earth would anyone worship an act?
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | June 19, 2009 9:18 PM
I suggest we all try the Paxman approach with Eric: do not - absolutely do not - answer of his evasions until he answers one reasonable question without shifting goalposts. Don't take the bait, just ask again. There's no point in talking about anything with him that derives from a premise he just wants us to assume as a given, but which he will not demonstrate. I'll start.
Eric, may we have your definition of God, and your evidence for why it's reasonable to believe in it, please?
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 9:21 PM
Peter, that's not Hart's argument; it's Hart's *explanation*. He's saying that P is so obvious, only M can explain the failure to see P. An ad hominem is by definition a fallacy, and fallacies by definition can only describe arguments. There's no such thing as an 'ad hominem explantion.'
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 19, 2009 9:24 PM
If you think theologians were dismissive of the moderns, they really blew past the ancients. Ask them how they refute Phyrronus Sextus or Epicurius and tell 'em thats the price of admission.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 19, 2009 9:25 PM
Eric,
I don't understand. Do you imagine God as an intelligent being? Or as simply a property of the universe? Forget the word limit, but please write what you think about the existence of God so that a non-Theologian can understand the fundamentals.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 9:28 PM
Josh, I haven't been shifting the goalposts; everyone else has been changing the issue. Go back to my first post at #39. If we're going to abide by your rules, then the issue is what I raised there: whether we should expect a god, if there is a god, to be easily understood and described. I have argued that as we move from specific instances to broader concepts, our precifying capabilities decrease. Now, if god is the broadest possible concept, it follows that we shouldn't expect the sort of precision when speaking about god that we expect when speaking about, say, X, the cause of X, or (even more broadly) the explanation of X (for any X such that X exists and X is not god).
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 19, 2009 9:30 PM
I meant Sextus Empiricus.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 9:33 PM
*precisifying
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 19, 2009 9:34 PM
It's the basis for creationism/intelligent design. There's a whole bunch of goddists who use a god hypothesis to explain all kinds of phenomena, real or imagined. Francis Collins accepts a god hypothesis. Are you calling his theistic evolution arguments "strawmen"?
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 9:39 PM
Eric, why on earth would anyone wish to worship a concept?
Posted by: raven | June 19, 2009 9:39 PM
This is gibberish. Words strung together that make no sense and mean nothing.
No wonder theology has a bad reputation.
Posted by: Peter | June 19, 2009 9:41 PM
(emphasis added by me)You are so close to getting the point there, Eric. Before any meaningful discussion on understanding and describing god(s) can be had, we first have to establish whether there is such a thing.
But what do I know? I'm only a brutish, coarse and wilfully obtuse atheist.
Posted by: John Morales | June 19, 2009 9:45 PM
Eric:
How vacuous.
What is "the subsistent act of being", other than existence?
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 9:51 PM
Feynmaniac, I hope that you'll understand that, given the argument I've been making, god is not at all easy to define. I would have a heck of a time defining 'existence,' as I imagine we all would. Given that, I think we'd be better off if I provided a couple of principles that would help you to think about any sort of god-talk as theologians use it.
First, whenever god's attributes are spoken about, it's important to remember that the language is analogous. Here's one way to think about it: to call god a personal being -- which I think is fine, if misleading to those who don't understand the point I'm making -- is to say that god is not less than a personal being. In other words, god is like a personal being, but is not literally a personal being, and, most importantly, is not less than a personal being.
Second, the relationship between god and the universe (existence): god is not a property of the universe, and god is not another being along with the universe, or inside the universe. Rather, the best way to think about it is the way you think about the relationship between an orchestra and the music it plays. God as the act of being sustains the universe, just as the orchestra's act of playing sustains the music.
That's a start. Does it help? (One caveat: I'm not a theologian, I'm studying philosophy. Hence, my understanding is almost certainly amateurish and puerile itself.)
Posted by: windy | June 19, 2009 9:51 PM
Why? Genesis 1:27, anyone? QM does not say that we were made in the image of a subatomic particle.
Posted by: Peter | June 19, 2009 9:54 PM
Eric, you are a lying, two-faced, evasive sack of shit. A moron of such mind-boggling stupidity that I'd be surprised if you could tie your own shoes. If you are going to call me "brutish, coarse and wilfully obtuse", even if by proxy, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 9:59 PM
Peter, if you haven't yet learned the difference between an argument and an explanation -- a distinction that any decent logic 101 course will teach in the first week -- then that's your problem, not mine.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 19, 2009 10:01 PM
Peter @80
That is exactly what we must not do! At least, if by "establish" you mean reifying God beyond "existing" as an abstract conceptual "act of being".
You see, as long our abstract conceptual act / Goddish thingy never has to actually manifest itself to us beyond "intuition", then it can be whatever we want it to be. That way, we can be "spiritual" without all of the messy "prove this, prove that, show me your evidence" baggage.
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 10:02 PM
"Eric, you are a lying, two-faced, evasive sack of shit. A moron of such mind-boggling stupidity that I'd be surprised if you could tie your own shoes. If you are going to call me "brutish, coarse and wilfully obtuse", even if by proxy, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on."
Ah, I should have used this as an illustration: there's no argument above, so there's no ad hominem. An insult -- or a string of uncreative, unlettered insults -- does not an ad hominem make.
Posted by: Peter | June 19, 2009 10:06 PM
So, if it's not an ad hominem, a point I don't concede, then it's just a plain insult. That's much better, much more intellectual. So, here's my explanation for the shit you talk, Eric, you're a cretin. Remember, that's not an argument, that's an explanation.
Posted by: John Morales | June 19, 2009 10:10 PM
Eric:
Your imagination clearly is inadequate, though I don't doubt you'd have a hard time defining anything, given how evidently inchoate your conceptual ontology is.
Here: existence
Posted by: Eric | June 19, 2009 10:12 PM
John Morales, I'd expect you, of all people, to understand the difference between a dictionary definition that uses synonyms and a philosophically adequate definition. That move was beneath you, my friend, given the undeniably formidable intellect you've displayed in the past.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 19, 2009 10:15 PM
Eric,
Well, that did help me understand your position better. However, I don't understand why or how you arrived at that position (to be fair to you I never asked you to explain that).
I got a prearrangement I got to get to. I'll check back in later. Bye.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 19, 2009 10:17 PM
What does "not less than a personal being" even mean?
Either God is capable of acting like a personal being (or a person) or he is not.
If he is not, then it's meaningless to speak of him being like a personal being.
If he is, then we can indeed judge him by the same criteria that we judge people -- and find that he fails to meet the minimum standards that people meet.
God may very well be more incomprehensible than QM, but if he can't understand that we find him incomprehensible, and can't find any way to interact with us or communicate with us in a way that we would find comprehensible, then it is meaningless to suggest that he is in any way comparable to anything like us.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 19, 2009 10:19 PM
, I hope that you'll understand that, given the argument I've been making, god is not at all easy to define.
You've got the whole fucking electro-magnetic spectrum at your disposal, man - have at it!
Posted by: H.H. | June 19, 2009 10:45 PM
I know I said I wouldn't let Eric suck me in again, but I just can't let this go.
Primordial intuition, lol? The proper term to use here is "magical thinking," or perhaps even "cognitive error." But it is indeed primordial, as the theist's propensity for ascribing agency where none exists is certainly an evolutionary holdover from one of our earliest ancestors. This argument is also a classic argument from incredulity--a logical fallacy--which Eric must certainly know, as a first year philosophy student would immediately pick up on it.
Nope. Reality is the opposite, actually. Dupes constantly project their own desires onto the cosmos due to their "intellectual coarseness." The majority of mankind never learns the first thing about reason, logic, or critical thinking, but instead unquestioningly accepts the validity of their own innate biases. And as we see, so does Eric. He doesn't seek to eliminate his bias in an attempt to access truth. He embraces it. It's that bias--ahem--"intuition" that leads him to believe in god (which he cannot describe in mere words) in the first place. For Eric, philosophy is just a form of obscurantism, a way to protect his cherished delusion, to surround his primordial magical thinking with a semblance of intelligent argument. But in the end, his conclusions were arrived at in exactly the same way as a cave man convinced the gods live in the heavens and send him the rain.Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:27 PM
I have no problem with Eric's god. None at all.
But for a non-specific entity, s/he/it sure does have some pretty specific guidelines for what fabrics we can and cannot wear, what arthropods we can and cannot eat, what days we can and cannot work, and what sexes we can and cannot fuck.
Or is the specific deity called YHWH also something no theologian believes in as well?
Whatever. Like I said, I'm fine with this amorphous, nebulous, god. But as I noted above, the rest of the believers in your god sure have gotten it wrong. Your time would be better spent clearing up their misconceptions than ours.
Posted by: Malcolm | June 19, 2009 11:28 PM
Eric @74
That's a pretty big "if" you have there Eric.
If we follow through with your argument, then we get to your ineffable irrelevant god, but you give us no reason to accept your definition of god in the first place.
Why is it that the theology of mental mastibators like Eric never in anyway resembles what the godbot-in-street believes, yet the same godbots argue that it is these arguments that atheists must disprove?
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:32 PM
No, that would be claiming the god Eric and Eagleton is the same one the majority of Abrahamic theists believe in.
Posted by: Anri | June 19, 2009 11:32 PM
Eirc sez: "Second, the relationship between god and the universe (existence): god is not a property of the universe, and god is not another being along with the universe, or inside the universe. Rather, the best way to think about it is the way you think about the relationship between an orchestra and the music it plays. God as the act of being sustains the universe, just as the orchestra's act of playing sustains the music."
Is it worth noting that the more we investigate music that is being played by an orchestra, the more evidence for the existence of the orchestra we tend to find?
Yet, the more we investigate what makes the universe tick, the *less* evidence for God we seem to find?
So, I'm thinking major analogy flaw right here.
Not to mention that it's quite possible to have music without an orchestra at all. A garage band will do, or a synthesizer.
Or a bird.
(Lastly, I seem to recall the fact the the Phantom of the Opera's given name was Erik. Should I be reading anything into that...?)
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:42 PM
We don't Malcolm. The godbots on the street don't buy their bullshit either. Does Eric and Eagleton's god hate homosexuality? 'Cause the godbot-on-the-street's sure seems to. And there sure as hell aren't any megachurches drawing in the big crowds with names like "First Church of Spinoza's God the _____ (We Haven't Figured Out That Part Yet)"
When you've got a semantic construct with no discernible properties, no testable predictions, all you can do to justify your academic existence is to draw others into evasive semantic games.
These two clowns can pretend their god is the one everybody's actually talking about, but they'd have to have heads full of chert to actually believe that's the case.
Posted by: Albigensian | June 19, 2009 11:48 PM
So, Eric, are you saying that those people who believe that Jesus is the Son of God who came to Earth to redeem mankind of original sin are wrong?
If so, you, sir, are no Christian. You're no better than the rest of the filthy atheists on this board.
Posted by: John Morales | June 19, 2009 11:54 PM
Eric,
Evidently, it was not beneath me! :)
Sigh. A chastisement with an appeal to my ego*; alas, I know full-well that I'm only an SD (or at best two) above the average, intellect-wise. I have seen those I consider to be my superiors in that particular attribute here.
Based on what I've seen, however, you are not one of them, so in that sense I accept your rebuke.
To respond to the post more charitably, then:
I consider that an useful definition for philosophic purposes should explicitly include its domain of applicability; in the case of 'existence', the relevant domain(s) would be, at minimum, categories of being.
Clearly, the existence of the concept of "God" and that of, say, "Sauron" are not in question. The reality of such conceptual entities, however, is categorically different to that of, say, "stars" and "planets" (which themselves have conceptual ideations separate from their physical reality).
So, here's a non-facetious question intended to advance the discussion: what is the ontological category of that which you refer to as "God"?
--
* Evidently, it was a successful move on your part.
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 20, 2009 12:03 AM
For those who can't or don't want to listen to the whole interview, here's a transcript:
Interviewer: So, is there a God?
Eagleton: Ha ha ha. The very fact that you feel the need to ask such a question in a discussion of religion,
shows how astoundingly ignorant you are.
Interviewer: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Eagleton: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Interviewer: The New Atheists?
Eagleton: Oh, yes. Have you ever heard of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris?
Interviewer: Yes.
Eagleton: Morons.
Interviewer: Do you pray?
Eagleton: Ha ha ha. You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You're a journalist, so clearly you like yes or no questions. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you think you have learned what prayer is...
Interviewer: It's a simple question.
Eagleton: You only think it's a simple question! That's what's so funny! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Marxist when semantics are on the line!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
June 20, 2009 12:12 AM
Thanks for that, Citizen Z. You made my Friday!
Posted by: windy | June 20, 2009 12:14 AM
As we go up to higher categories we may lose 'specificity' but we usually also gain something in ability to predict and to understand general principles. How 'precisely' would you be able to speak about your Abyssinian cat if you had no previous information about what a cat was, or about mammals, living beings, physical things, and so on?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 20, 2009 12:21 AM
I agree w/ Brownian, CZ...pretty funny.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 20, 2009 12:25 AM
Brownian, OM writes:
When you've got a semantic construct with no discernible properties, no testable predictions, all you can do to justify your academic existence is to draw others into evasive semantic games.
If you've got a semantic construct with no discernable properties, it's impossible to know anything about it.
...if god is the broadest possible concept,
If "god" is the broadest possible concept, it must encompass every other concept (i.e.: they are subsets) including concepts that are assumptions, wrong, and contadictory.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 20, 2009 12:25 AM
So we have determined that Eagleton's and Eric's god is so ineffable that it would be impossible to eff it.
Posted by: Sky
|
June 20, 2009 1:43 AM
I just made a good faith effort to listen to that recording, and could only get through the first half. I have a very clear, strong grasp of the English language but could not for the life of me discern any clear points that Eagleton was trying to make. I know he doesn't care for Hitchens or Dawkins, that's all I could really tell for sure. It just seems like the kind of pure white noise that one listens to in bed to fall asleep. At least with people like Lennox or McGrath one can get a reasonable picture of what they actually believe in, even with all their abject special pleading and twisted logic.
This made my IQ lower, I'm absolutely sure of it.
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 20, 2009 1:44 AM
Eric:
We know the specifics about the gods, thanks to their prophets Homer and Hesiod. Here are a few examples:
Zeus is the king, the strongest of all, the husband of Hera but lover of mortal women and father of a few Sons of God, and he smites evil-doers with his thunderbolts.
Apollo is the sun god, the healing god but also the disease giver to evil-doers, and a god of reason and moderation.
Aphrodite was a hot, hot, hot chick, the goddess of love and the goddess of sexuality.
Poseidon was the lord of the sea and creator of earthquakes.
Read the Prophets for many more examples. I know that Christians deny these gods, but Christians are vision impaired. Tens of millions of Greeks, Romans and others saw the gods clearly. So you and Eagleton need to get some spiritual glasses and start seeing the thousands of deities all around us, as described by their many worshipers.
Please stop saying we can't know the gods or grasp their nature. Billions of people around the world have grasped the gods, as they had their images in temples, shrines, groves, etc., just the way Christians know what Jesus and God look like, as they have been depicted many times (Sistine Chapel, for example). Just read your Bible for a description of Jesus, his hair color, height, physical build, uh ... uh ... uh, sorry, I can't seem to find that particular passage in my Bible.
I know it's there because it's the description artists use in drawing him. It's how we know that's Jesus when he projects in his image into drying paint or a taco or a rust spot on a bridge. Likewise, we have that vivid description in the Scriptures of the Virgin Mary, which is how we recognize her when she appears in visions or pops up on a cooked Pop-Tart or ... Sorry, can't find that passage either at the moment.
Anyway, we have the concrete evidence from many religions of what the gods are like, what they look like (just go to a Mayan temple, for Cthulhu's sake) and what they like to eat. Go read your "Iliad" and "Theogeny," and you will stop telling us we can't know what the gods are really like. Then send Eagleton your copies of the Prophets' works, so he can learn why he is so very very wrong!
Posted by: Eric | June 20, 2009 1:46 AM
"what is the ontological category of that which you refer to as "God"?"
As I'm sure you know, there are a variety of systems of categories, and in each of them you'll you'll find variations, but they're often variations on a similar theme. With that in mind, I'd say that god is a necessary immaterial substance. I should mention that contemporary theologians have moved away from the sort of ontological categories you're asking about in favor of a doxological approach to understanding god. While I see the benefits of this approach, and don't necessarily think it conflicts with the classical approach, I prefer the classical view. So, I'm fine with the notion that god is a substance.
Nerd of Redhead, I'll give you two moves from concepts to reality.
(1) From an analysis of the concept 'round square' alone, we can see that it's impossible for round squares to exist. We have no physical evidence that round squares don't exist, yet we can conclude that not only don't they exist, they cannot exist. Hence, we don't necessarily need physical evidence to conclude that X doesn't exist.
(2) Take the concept 'true proposition.' Now, there either are true propositions, or there are not. If there are no true propositions, then it's true that there are no true propositions, and hence there is at least one true proposition. If there are true propositions, then, obviously, there are true propositions. So, we can move from the *concept* 'true proposition' to the *fact* that necessarily, at least one true proposition exists. And again, we've done so without recourse to physical evidence.
Don't you see how your 'physical evidence' mantra limits you? Heck, don't you see that there's no physical evidence for your physical evidence mantra, and that it's thus self referentially inconsistent?
Re: the notion that the 'god of the philosophers' can't be an object of veneration or 'worship' (a loaded term indeed), I'll mention the example of Thomas Merton. Contrary to your claims, Merton found that he felt nothing for the idea of god at all until he encountered the notion of god as actus essendi subsistens when reading (almost by accident) Gilson's 'Spirit of Medieval Philosophy.' I'm no Merton, but I've found the same is true in my life. I find an anthropomorphic god, or the god of the ID crowd, almost as unappealing as Richard Dawkins does. (And no, to preempt your objections, Jesus isn't an anthropomorphic god; to claim that he is is to forget the essential concept of Jesus' humanity.)
Re: the relationship between Jesus and the god I've been talking about, let me first say that I know even less about Christology than I do about theology, so again, keep that in mind as you read the following. Christians do conceive of Jesus as god incarnate. It's paradoxical, to be sure, to think that the being I've been discussing assumed human form, but it's not necessarily contradictory. For example, if you take a set of propositions about the possible relationships among the members of the Christian trinity (S), you get at least twelve different construals of the verb 'to be,' so it's extremely difficult to show that S is contradictory.
I know that many of you will consider this all 'gibberish,' but don't confuse it for anti-science dogma. As I've said in the past, I get *all* the science you get (by which I mean, not that I understand science as well as anyone here, but that I have absolutely nothing stopping me from accepting any properly scientific conclusion except the same scientific data that limits all of us), and I understand it the same way you do qua science (by which I mean, for any X such that X is a purely scientific conclusion, my understanding of X will be no different from your understanding of X, except among such details as anyone considering the science alone might disagree); the only difference is how we see the relationship between science and various metaphysical notions (e.g. my rejection of metaphysical naturalism, your rejection of theism, etc.) that the science itself in no way determines. We're all doing metaphysics, folks, so we're all dealing with rather vague and, by comparison with science proper, rather fuzzy conceptions concerning the nature of the world -- even you, Nerd of Redhead!
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 20, 2009 2:24 AM
The problem is the you're trying to argue that because there are basic logical concepts -- identity, noncontradiction, equality, truth and falsehood: basic logical axioms, in other words -- that you can make further arguments about how the real world works. Sorry, presuppositionalism can start there, but any claims about empirical reality do have to be testable against physical reality. And yes, that's an axiom of science too. We have to start from somewhere. To argue about ineffable characteristics of the incoherent transcendence is pretty damn meaningless.
Lovely. You've decided to worship the ineffably incoherent.
I have no idea what this means, and I suspect that you don't either. It looks almost deliberately incoherent.
Lovely. Trinitarianism via semantic incoherence.
Well, at least you have that much self-awareness.
Hmph. It may not be anti-science in and of itself, but inasmuch as it rejects parsimony and coherence, it certainly is non-science.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 20, 2009 2:33 AM
Once again we're at the point where we're meant to accept that, because Eric's sophistry could support the argument that it's possible for some kind of god to possibly exist - more because of the flexibility of language and meaning than anything else - the specific god of the Christians must exist.
But it doesn't work because, in order to protect his god from logical counterarguments, eric has had to strip away any defining characteristics which link that god to Christianity, resulting in a nebulous, non-specific god that everyone - from Christians to Hindus to Pastafarians - are just as free to claim as their own as he is.
When, in order to protect your god, you have to redefine it as something so thin on the ground that it's verging on nothingness, why not go the whole way and dispense with it altogether?
Posted by: John Morales | June 20, 2009 2:36 AM
Eric:
Hm. I don't find that helpful or illuminating; your concept remains unclear to me.
"necessary" in respect to what? Hypostasis?
Necessity is ordinarily considered as a relation. If "God" is necessary, it must hence be an abstraction, rather than a concrete being. I don't really think this is your intent...
(Also, I remind you of Occam's Razor.)
"immaterial substance" is an oxymoron in ordinary English, and vacuous in philosophical English jargon (if you mean ousia by substance).
If you choose to provide an example of another exemplar of this putative category, it might clarify your meaning.
(Perhaps leave aside the "necessary" aspect, and merely give an example of something that is an "immaterial substance".)
Posted by: articulett | June 20, 2009 2:57 AM
Call me picky, but if an object exists it ought to have detectable qualities that distinguish it from non-existent objects. We call objects and entities with no detectable qualities "imaginary".
So what distinguishes a real god from an imaginary one?
Posted by: Hamilton Jacobi | June 20, 2009 2:58 AM
Citizen Z, you forgot the happy ending:
(OK, maybe it didn't happen that way in real life, but it should have.)
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | June 20, 2009 3:24 AM
Eric, may we have your definition of God, and your evidence for why it's reasonable to believe in it, please?
Posted by: articulett | June 20, 2009 3:33 AM
Yes, Eric, what do you mean when one says "god exists". By what measure does that statement have more validity then "the IPU exists"? Why should we take the former claim more seriously than the latter. Or should we?
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
June 20, 2009 3:41 AM
[H]e does claim that the idea of god as an entity is something that no theologian believes in — that there has been a long and sophisticated debate about something or other, which he can't define clearly, but that it sure hasn't been about whether god exists, and he acts as if the question doesn't even make sense.
When they begin to mutter things like that, I'd say we've got them on the run. Sure, they're ostensibly complaining that we're straw-manning them, but the implicit concession is, no, there is no good reason to believe in a god.
Posted by: articulett | June 20, 2009 3:48 AM
When the argument one is using to support a claim can be used just as readily to support a supernatural belief not shared by the claimant-- then the argument is flawed.
All theists are guilty of this as far as I can tell. They understand quite well that inquiry is a threat to their faith. It's never a threat to the truth, however.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
June 20, 2009 3:54 AM
Citizen Z @ 102,
Eagleton: Hey! Stop it! I mean it!
Citizen Z: Anybody want a peanut?
Posted by: H.H. | June 20, 2009 4:44 AM
articulett wrote:
Nothing. Eric hopes if he can define his imaginary god as "necessary"--and you know, necessary for a really important job, like making sure everything keeps existing--then he can turn his invisible friend into a very real god. Of course, he's not quite sure what that means or what properties his invisible friend now has, so don't ask him to get too specific on the details. All Eric knows is that his imaginary god now exists, but not materially, and he's made of something, but it's not like anything we can compare it to, and the whole thing would pretty much blow your mind if you thought about it too long.Posted by: articulett | June 20, 2009 5:12 AM
If thinking about this god fellow too much "blows your mind", then that would explain Eric's incoherence on the topic.
Even I wanted to believe in some god, how would I know that I'm "believing" in the RIGHT invisible guy with the proper degree of fervency? Is claiming to believe in an invisible non-entity the same as ACTUALLY believing in that non-entity? Does this non entity care what name you give it? Can it tell if you really believe? And how, pray tell, does this invisible being doing all these things without a material brain?
Posted by: Martin Baker | June 20, 2009 5:32 AM
I'd never heard of Terry Eagleton before and won't be wasting my time listening to him again. Jaw dropping...
There's one question that always pops into my head when I hear a theist try to provide the most obtuse rationalisations for their beliefs:
"You are WAY over thinking this. Have you EVER actually considered the simplest and most likely explanation that it's all made up?"
Blinded by faith indeed.
Posted by: co | June 20, 2009 5:36 AM
Translation: I'm allowed to believe in anything until something proves me wrong. And since my god is immaterial, you can't prove he doesn't exist. Certainly not through science, since saying something using science needs some higher, more encompassing meta-science to describe it . . ..
(I could have got this utterly wrong. I'm a scientist, so I'm not sure I'm allowed to think about things on such a highfalutin' level. Actually, I think I'll go back to bed, because the more I try to parse Eric's statements, the more I suspect they are utter crap. That's being as diplomatic as I can.)
Posted by: John Morales | June 20, 2009 6:07 AM
Eric:
Doxological approach, not ontological, eh?
I confess I know stuff-all about theology, but I cannot but think of Inigo Montoya's classic quote.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 7:25 AM
It's not 'gibberish'. It's gibberish.
Bullshit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 20, 2009 7:26 AM
No Eric, as usual, you the sophist, have it backwards. My requirement for physical evidence keeps me grounded in what is real. No imaginary friends. No beliefs in fairies, pixies, elves, gods, santa claus, bigfoot, and other fictions. Your desire for there to be a god has nothing to do with the reality of a god. But because of your desire for there to be a god without physical evidence makes god a delusion. Just because you are infect with that delusion, you feel the need to justify that delusion with sophist philosophical arguments. I have a couple of questions for you. Why are we atheists interested in your specious arguments about god? I know I'm not, but you shove those arguments at us every chance you get. So, why must you do so? What is your goal?Posted by: TheMissingLink | June 20, 2009 7:44 AM
'You don't know what I believe, and that makes you ignorant and bigoted. I don't know what I believe, and that makes me sophisticated.'
Reminds me of a comment a lecturer at UNSW made whilst studying a mechanical engineering subject. "I got the answer wrong because I'm smart, you got it wrong because you are stupid"
Please "The Missing Link" is actually a nickname (pun intended) based on my surname, before you guys jump down my throat.
Posted by: Jaygo | June 20, 2009 7:53 AM
Athiests have not a single nano shred of data to back up their stance.
Peple of faith , however have The Holy Bible.
QED
Posted by: Dan S. | June 20, 2009 7:56 AM
" theists believe that god is sustaining everything that exists at each and every moment"
Is this (ie, that theists in general believe that?) actually correct? I'd think there are a quite possibly rather small? number of theists familiar with this kind of fairly sophisticated theology, which only applies to certain specific (albeit well-populated) religions and traditions. I'm not sure how this relates to the various popular 'folk' religions practiced by the general population.
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 7:56 AM
Eric #110): "So, I'm fine with the notion that god is a substance."
Good for him. He's fine with it. The problem is that Eric has already DECIDED that God "is". (Of course, that little input into his logic tree is ignored. What is it? Why should that "IS" be based on "substance"?). Never mind that there is no evidence from material substance to inform him in his conclusion in the first place.
Seriously putting the cart before the horse. About a mile out in front of Mr. Ed. No matter how heavily he loads that cart with his sophistry, it won't budge. It just sinks deeper into the gook where it stands, and he's mighty proud of his ability to load it up with even more nonsense...because he doesn't notice where it's going. He doesn't NEED to notice. All that matters is that he's perceived to be a logical genius.
He's a dancer. Dancing straight out of the philosophical/humanities funny farm. And though he dances poorly, he thinks himself marvelous. A regular Fred Astaire.
He can't even match up why "round squares" that don't exist as CONCEPTS with that OTHER CONCEPT which doesn't exist, based on his very own penetrating logic: "We have no physical evidence that round squares don't exist, yet we can conclude that not only don't they exist, they cannot exist. Hence, we don't necessarily need physical evidence to conclude that X doesn't exist."
Does that order come with fries?
Somebody of note somewhere once famously mentioned that education for certain people is a potentially dangerous thing. (I can't recall off the top of my head now). I have always thought that sentiment a bit exaggerated - but I have to seriously wonder what parts of academe hoists bozos like this up for show and tell.
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 8:29 AM
Jaygo #129: "Athiests have not a single nano shred of data to back up their stance."
Oooh. A salvo of paper covers coming from drinking-straws.
We've got a whole friggin' universe of nature to consult, both near and far, in both time and space. (Remember? All that stuff that was supposed to be created by your God, and Who so comprehensively described it in the Book of Genesis? Isn't that to be considered a sacred resource for learning about your God's intentions?)
"Peple of faith , however have The Holy Bible. QED"
Well, "peple of faith" can't exactly get very far by learning more about their Creator God by consulting an old book written and rewritten and translated and retranslated by people who didn't even know that the Earth was a planet orbiting a star and that there are billions of each more out there in a universe so CHOCK FULL of mystery and excitement that it makes your little book (of whatever edition) a study in extreme claustrophophia.
In other words, you've got absolutely NOTHING to refer to except for a tired old lie. We still have an entire universe of wonder to explore, so you can shut up and listen to what the "REAL BOOK" says. Are you patient enough? The process does not suffer fools.
But do NOT tell anybody else you see clearly when you have your own eyes so thoroughly clamped shut. It isn't honest behavior amongst peple.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 20, 2009 8:39 AM
What a way to start out the, a good laugh at the foolish. As usual, the logic is backwards. Until you can show physical evidence for your imaginary deity, the holy babble is nothing but a collection of fables. The bible cannot be used to prove, god, but rather god must be used to prove the bible (it allegedly is the word of god, no god, no word of god). Don't they ever teach those of "faith" how to think? (/rhetorical)No evidence for a deity means, using Occam's razor, that god is unlikely to exist. Therefore, ignore the concept.
Posted by: Jaygo | June 20, 2009 8:40 AM
"so CHOCK FULL of mystery" your quote astrounit.
ie you don't understand it.
QED
ps calm down - why is it athiests are always so annoyed, a sense of insecurity and self doubt.
Go back to your lab and carry on mistreating babies (stem cells to you )
Posted by: Jaygo | June 20, 2009 8:44 AM
Nerd - another bitter atheist.
Look out of your window - there is the evidence.
QED
Posted by: Jaygo | June 20, 2009 8:46 AM
PS tell your god (small g) Mr. Myers my group are in the process of sueing him under the new hate laws.
Make the most of your rant site before he's in the slammer.
QED
Posted by: Jaygo | June 20, 2009 9:10 AM
Knew we'd got y'all stumped.
Scientist/atheists are such frauds - morons posing as intellectuals.
We'll pray for you nonetheless.
God Bless y'all.
Posted by: Eric | June 20, 2009 9:13 AM
"Eric #110): "So, I'm fine with the notion that god is a substance."
Good for him. He's fine with it. The problem is that Eric has already DECIDED that God "is"...All that matters is that he's perceived to be a logical genius."
Um, I was asked what ontological category I'd place god in. You see (caution: logical genius lingo ahead), that's the copula of identity relation, not of existence. I can say that a unicorn is such and such without committing myself to the notion that unicorns exist.
"He can't even match up why "round squares" that don't exist as CONCEPTS with that OTHER CONCEPT which doesn't exist, based on his very own penetrating logic:"
If you can point out the contradiction in the concept of god I've sketched, I'd be happy to hear it. I've certainly said nothing that is as obviously contradictory as a 'round square.'
"Your desire for there to be a god has nothing to do with the reality of a god."
I couldn't agree more (except for the part about my desiring there to be a god. I'm not so sure about that).
"But because of your desire for there to be a god without physical evidence makes god a delusion."
Now I'm sure everyone can see that that's a non sequitur. I could desire that there be a god, lack physical evidence for god's existence, and yet, god could still exist. Plenty of people desire there to be life on other planets; they also lack any physical evidence that there is life on other planets. Does it follow that their belief, 'there is life on other planets' is a delusion? Obviously not, since it could still be true that there is life on other planets.
"Why are we atheists interested in your specious arguments about god?"
Nerd of Redhead, everyone is free to ignore me. You see, you've misplaced your frustration here: don't get upset with me for responding to the questions others ask; if you don't want to hear from me, persuade everyone to stop asking me questions. Your problem is with them, not with me. Of course, you could also skip right over my posts. I only post occasionally, and I only post on specific threads where the issues that interest me are raised. I don't hijack threads that have nothing to do with the sorts of things we've been discussing.
""necessary" in respect to what? Hypostasis?"
By necessary, I mean that if god exists, god exists in all possible worlds (and, if god doesn't exist, then god exists in no possible world).
""immaterial substance" is an oxymoron in ordinary English, and vacuous in philosophical English jargon (if you mean ousia by substance).
If you choose to provide an example of another exemplar of this putative category, it might clarify your meaning."
Plausibly, minds are immaterial substances. I can provide two quick arguments for this: a possibility argument, and an impossibility argument.
Possibility argument: If my mind (M) can be identified with my brain (B) (or nervous system, etc.), then it cannot be the case that my mind can have a property that my brain lacks. Now, we can conceive that it is logically possible for one hemisphere of my brain (H1) to remain dormant while the other hemisphere (H2) performs all necessary functions. (So, M is composed of H1 and H2.) Suppose that while H1 remains dormant, it is removed and replaced with a functionally equivalent hemisphere H1'. After this (suppose this whole process takes a second), H1' takes over all the necessary functions while H2 is removed and replaced its functional equivalent H2'. Further suppose that H1 and H2 are reassembled and destroyed. Now, in this case M continues to exist although B -- which, remember, was composed of H1 and H2 -- has been destroyed and replaced; hence, M now has a number of properties B lacks, for the obvious reason that M exists and B does not. But, if M has properties B lacks, M and B can't be identified; hence, M is not a material brain. Note, it may be the case that minds need to be embodied, but the argument doesn't deal with that issue.
Impossibility argument: We can see that some things are impossible that are not simply matters of definition, e.g. no prime number can be President of the U.S. There's nothing in the definition of a prime number itself that tells us one can't be President (i.e. it's not the case, as with 'unmarried' in the definition of a bachelor, that 'cannot be President' is part of the definition of a prime number); rather, we simply see that one can't be President when we reflect on the kind of thing a prime number is. Now, beliefs have two properties that it seems impossible for brains (material objects) to have: first, they have a semantic content; and second, they have intentionality (i.e. 'aboutness'). But if we have beliefs (however understood, e.g. dispositionally), and if we attribute our having beliefs to the functioning of our minds, and if beliefs have the properties of having semantic content and intentionality -- properties that brains can't have -- then brains can't be identified with minds.
God is often thought about (analogously) as a mind. So if it's plausible (not certain, not probable, but merely plausible) that minds are immaterial substances, then we have an example that minimally provides us with a way of thinking about what an immaterial substance could be.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 20, 2009 9:15 AM
Eric,
I don't have a problem with the idea of God. I do have a problem with the idea that seems to be prevalent among many theologians that if they are vague enough about the concept of God that it cannot be disproven. Folks like Eagleton express outrage at the unfairness of atheists attacking his God when even he seems unsure what hes God is. There's a certain point where subtlety just becomes muddled thinking.
I have yet to see or experience anything in my life that the concept of God was essential to explaining. I have yet to hear anyone tell me of an experience in their life that could not be explained in terms of science--including psychology--without resort to the concept of God.
Of course, none of this says, necessarily, that God doesn't exist. There's no way to prove a negaative--especially in a Universe of 26 dimensions where we perceive only 3 and a half of them. Ultimately, however, I think Keirkegaard had it right. Belief in God is a personal choice. That choice may be right for some and wrong for others. I cannot deny that belief in God seems to give strength to some--Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Dietrich Bonnhoeffer... It's hard to imagine these men without faith. At the same time, George Tiller was murdered because of another man's faith. Faith causes some to strap on suicide vests and kill innocents.
As to my own position, I could never quite get to faith. It's just really difficult for me to form a belief about something I have no experience of. I've pretty much reached the point where I disbelieve in any concept of a deity who is actively driving the bus--if only because it would force me to believe in a God who was a lousy driver. A God who put the bus on autopilot and came back to talk to the passengers via a burning-bush intercom? Well, let's just say that my burning bush gives nothing but static.
Posted by: John Morales | June 20, 2009 9:15 AM
Jaygo = level 1 troll. And Poeing to boot.
Posted by: Eric | June 20, 2009 9:17 AM
Correction: (So, *B* is composed of H1 and H2.)
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 20, 2009 9:30 AM
Jaygo,
Christians have the Bible, which tells them that pi=3. Therefore they can't do math.
QED
Christians have the Bible, which tells them that bats are birds. Therefore they can't do biology.
QED
Christians have the Bible, which tells them Earth is only 6000 years old. Therefore they can't do biology, geology, cosmology...
Hey, thanks, Jaygo. That helps a lot.
Posted by: Eric | June 20, 2009 9:33 AM
a-ray-in-dilbert-space @#139, excellent post.
"I do have a problem with the idea that seems to be prevalent among many theologians that if they are vague enough about the concept of God that it cannot be disproven."
See my post #39 on why it seems to me that the concept of god is necessarily vague.
"Ultimately, however, I think Kierkegaard had it right. Belief in God is a personal choice."
I agree, but it need not be an irrational or a non-rational choice. (So, in that sense I disagree with Kierkegaard. However, as I'll say below, it's more complicated than that.)
"As to my own position, I could never quite get to faith. It's just really difficult for me to form a belief about something I have no experience of."
Actually, you have a lot in common here with what most Christian thinkers have considered to be the most mature experience of god -- the 'darkness' for lack of a better word. I believe that atheists and theists are in the dark together: to borrow a phrase from a book title, no one sees god. Some of us choose to respond to the darkness by denying that god exists, and others find in that darkness the best way to god. The idea in the tradition is that god takes away the somewhat childish pleasures of 'religious experience' so that we may respond to him by willing to do so alone, without all the bells and whistles. It also has the advantage of humbling us, and of helping us understand one another, and is thus a safeguard against self-righteousness. (Now, the darkness is existential, not intellectual, so it's not the case that it's inconsistent with providing reasons for god's existence.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 20, 2009 9:46 AM
Yawn Eric, more mental masturbation meaning nothing. Sounds intellectual, but no substance, like reality, behind it. Why do you wish to bore us with your meanderings?
Posted by: Prazzie | June 20, 2009 9:52 AM
Dan S.
I was first introduced to that "sophisticated theology" when I was a toddler. Back then it was called "He's got the whole world in His hands". Followed by a sermon about how God looks after the tiniest ant and the biggest elephant and for that, we ought to sing his praises. So I'd say it's a fairly common belief - regular folks just don't use all them fancy big words.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 20, 2009 9:54 AM
Belief in something that can't be detected in any way, that can be adequately explained as the product of wishful thinking and delusion, and whose main support is a collection of bronze age myths, can reasonably be considered irrational. Counter-rational might be a better term, because rationality says that given a choice between the imaginary and the real, the real is real and the imaginary isn't.
Posted by: Prazzie | June 20, 2009 10:09 AM
Nerd of Redhead: "Yawn Eric, more mental masturbation meaning nothing."
Or maybe all that "logical genius lingo" went over our heads.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 20, 2009 10:12 AM
Sounds like the management at my company. Piss-poor design of the product.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 10:18 AM
Oh, fuck off. I'm so sick of this. Ken Miller tried the same thing with Massimo Pigliucci. It's just stupid. I don't deny that any specific entities exist, your god or any other. I don't believe in the existence of anything for which there's no evidence, and you can't even describe or define your god in a way that makes it amenable to scientific investigation (the reasons you can't or won't do so being entirely irrelevant). Scientifically speaking, therefore, it can simply be dismissed, like any other ill-formed, untestable notion. Not denied - don't be so full of yourselves or project your silly notions onto others. Dismissed. In fact, doesn't even get past the grand jury.
(Somehow, I'm not expecting to see many immaterial mind articles appearing in neiroscience journals any time soon...)
Posted by: ForgotMyGingko | June 20, 2009 10:23 AM
When I had cancer in 2002 - my daughter was a precocious 6-year-old. A friend of ours took her to see a movie and "give [her] mom some quiet time to nap". The conversation turned to my condition to which the friend asked "are you helping your mom?"
Daughter: "No, I'm 6, the Doctors are helping her"
Friend: "Well, you just keep praying and asking God for help"
Daughter: "No, I don't think God can help either, its just the Doctors"
Friend: "Certainly God can help, he can do anything"
Daughter: "I don't believe in God. But I believe in Harry Potter!"
These days, at the tender age of mostly 14, she's given up on Harry Potter too (we're a real spectacle at the homeschool gatherings).
Posted by: Notkieran | June 20, 2009 10:28 AM
'Tis Himself @ # 107:
>...we have determined that Eagleton's and Eric's god is so ineffable that it would be impossible to eff it.
So _not_ the Christian god, then. Unless "Virgin" Mary was effing someone else.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 20, 2009 10:36 AM
Has Eric been taking lessons from the Archbishop of Cantebuty on the Nature of god ? Rowan Williams can talk for hours about god, and come the end you are no wiser as to what he thinks god is than when you started.
It is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, only if you get bored doing that at least you can eat the jelly.
Posted by: Obeah | June 20, 2009 10:45 AM
One has to say these with a British accent to gain the full effect.
Ditchkens:
Astoundingly ignorant
Extraordinary ignorance
Extraordinarily backward
Extraordinarily dangerous
Crude
Extraordinarily clichéd conservative enlightenment view
Smug frisson
Anemic rationalism
Hair-raising radicalism
Intellectual dishonesty of the first order
Crude and gross caricature
Rationalist fundamentalist
Rationalist nonsense (not reducible to reason)
Utter nonsense
Stridently identified
Intolerably smug
Militant triumphalist ideology
Trumphalist atheism
Smug western triumphalism
Ugly liberalism
Illiberal liberalism
And I’m not sure what this means:
Civilization and barbarism go together like Laurel and Hardy.
I eagerly await Hitchens' response next week.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 20, 2009 11:17 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
"Several thousand years ago, a small tribe of ignorant near-savages wrote various collections of myths, wild tales, lies, and gibberish. Over the centuries, these stories were embroidered, garbled, mutilated, and torn into small pieces that were then repeatedly shuffled. Finally, this material was badly translated into several languages successively.
"The resultant text, creationists feel, is the best guide to this complex and technical subject."
— Tom Weller
Posted by: Rick R | June 20, 2009 11:22 AM
Up with peple
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 11:23 AM
Jaygo #134, who TRIUMPHANTLY VOMITS that I don't understand the universe, therefore QED:
Look, mate, the moment you can demonstrate to me the origin of so much as a fucking hangnail, in scientific terms, I'll start listening to you. In the meantime, go get yourself thoroughly buggered.
Evidently you haven't had enough of that lately.
As for my understanding of the universe, I am easily willing to attest that it is terribly inadequate. Too bad you can't attest the same.
BTW: I look out my window all the time - and step outside to touch the evidence. YOUR goddamned (literally) problem is that you are a bitter asshole brat who needs to be "right" before obtaining any evidence of any kind to support that conceit.
You are an ass of impressive proportions. Sir.
Posted by: Obeah | June 20, 2009 11:25 AM
Hey Not Bruce? @21
Arva?
I can see Arva mill from here.
Posted by: Eric | June 20, 2009 11:36 AM
"I don't deny that any specific entities exist, your god or any other. I don't believe in the existence of anything for which there's no evidence"
SC, there's a reason that all the standard sources -- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Oxford Guide to Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- define atheism as the denial that god exists. That reason, simply put, is that the notion that atheism is the lack of belief in god is either ridiculous or trivial.
On the trivial level, it's merely a description of one's psychology: as a description it's true if and only if it accurately describes it's object, in which case atheism is true for S if and only if S in fact lacks the belief that god exists. As a description, however, it cannot be 'rational,' 'probable,' or whatever. We can meaningfully say of a belief, it's rational *to* hold it (in the sense of justification); we cannot say it's rational *that* one holds it (in the sense of description). If you want to speak about the rationality of atheism, you've moved beyond the notion of a merely descriptive lack of belief.
The definition becomes ridiculous once we begin to probe it. My chair shares the property, 'lacks the belief that god exists' with you; does that make my chair an atheist? Oh, only people can be atheists. Suppose we're taking a poll of atheists and theists. Do we count every newborn in the atheist column? That strikes one as silly; hence, an atheist must be someone who has heard of god but lacks belief. If the Pope were to suffer a severe head injury and become incapable of holding beliefs, could we speak about the Pope's new move to atheism? Oh, so atheism is the lack of belief in those who have heard of god and who have the capacity to believe or not believe. But notice what just happened: we've just posited 'has the capability of belief' as a necessary condition of 'lack of belief'; this, however, is obviously false. Hence, the popular internet definition cannot be sustained. The standard sources reject it with good reason.
Posted by: Ruggles | June 20, 2009 11:46 AM
I applaud Eagleton's lucid, witty and timely intervention in the pop. "Theism" / "Atheism" debate. I think it's the best written book in the field since Hitchens' God is not Great.
For Eagleton, Christ is a character like Hamlet. Perhaps you guys might continue to miss the point and post evidence showing that Hamlet never existed and some author dreamed him up, hence no inferences about the human condition can be drawn from him. Perhaps too, you might ask Shakespeare to stop writing in that pretentious, convoluted language (as you do the continental philosophers). After all, it's difficult for a lot of people to understand. It would be better, wouldn't it, if the first folio was reduced to simple plot summaries to save us the trouble of all that nebulous shit about interpretation?
Posted by: co | June 20, 2009 11:49 AM
Eric, your wankery at 158 would have got me a failing grade in a sophomore English class.
Definitions are often trivial. By definition, they're trivial. So?
Posted by: pdferguson
|
June 20, 2009 11:54 AM
See, this is the problem with God belief. God is defined to be undefinable and unknowable, but this is strictly a defense mechanism to deflect critics and skeptics--although that doesn't prevent religionists from claiming to know what God wants when it suits their needs.
As mankind's knowledge has grown, the definition of God has become more and more amorphous in order to not be vanquished altogether. Gods used to live in the mountaintops until men conquered all the mountains. They moved to the clouds until that was no longer viable. Now, God exists "outside the universe", as ridiculous a claim as it sounds (and of course, somehow this God still knows if you've been naughty or nice...)
And above all, the most ridiculous claim is that Bronze Age goat herders somehow received special knowledge about this supposed God, and their knowledge supersedes everything mankind has learned in the intervening 2,000 years. The mythology of the sand religions has grown and grown, while the underlying claims about their gods have blown away like, well, like sand on the wind. All that's left now are the myths and superstitions. Powerful myths, yes, but as empty as the gods themselves. This phenomenon is evidence of what atheists have known for a long time, gods only exist in the human imagination, nowhere else.
Religions are institutions, enterprises. And the first priority of any organization is self preservation, a task that the major religions have been ruthlessly successful at. They have refined their methods over hundreds of years, using tactics other industries can only envy, for religions sell the one product all humans crave: eternal life. The fact they can't deliver is of little consequence, because the desire for it overwhelms all reason.
No, child, we have considered what we're complaining about.
It's just that our complaints makes believers uncomfortable, because deep down, many know that what they have been taught to believe is nothing but fairy tales. They know their religion doesn't have special knowledge about the universe, that it can't deliver eternal life, yet they cling to it with a child's hope because they desperately want it to be true.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 20, 2009 11:57 AM
Eric, thank you for at least acknowledging my prior posts, even if you do so obliquely and never really answer them at all. Plus, I got a nice chuckle out of the fact that you balk over the mundane earthy term "worship" while throwing out stuff like "the subsistent act of being" with such insouciance. It's hardly a problematic term, but I'm not surprised if you prefer to linger in the rarified air of the heaven of Platonic forms.
I've actually been where you are, a Christian (at least I'm assuming that you're a Christian based on how you talk about Jesus) in the midst of a philosophical journey, trying to reconcile your yearning for the divine with the myriad contradictions, "mysteries", and outright nonsensical inanities presented by the way that your religion has been historically framed and presented to you.
I hope that you continue your philosophical studies, and are capable of keeping your mind open as you move past the Medievals towards a more modern and analytical approach. You keep reducing your God to flashes of "intuition" or insight - of course you must, there's no other way to get to where you are desperate to go. But if you manage to make it all the way to to the 20th century in your philosophical journey, you might just find that there are more insights to be had, and they might just reveal to you what your prior insights and intuitions actually represent.
Eric, were you raised a Christian? I'm operating under the assumption here, which seems reasonable, that you met Jesus before you met Aquinas (in the same way that Aquinas met Jesus before he became acquainted with Aristotle). I get how you've managed make the intuitive leap in order to find your God - what I am very curious about (and clearly others here are as well) is how you manage to make the leap back to Jesus, as it were. I think that we can safely assume that Aquinas, your philosophical hero, had very little choice in the matter - but you, as a 21st century thinker, have no such excuses.
You've already said that you think that Jesus is a man. From whence comes the insight or intuition that this man's death redeemed your sins?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 20, 2009 12:06 PM
Thank you for the analogy. It ignores the fact that most Christians think that Hamlet is a real person who wants them to pass laws that affect us all.
We don't care that Eagleton has a vague and atypical view of Christianity. We're just laughing at his arrogance in thinking we should be debating his niche ideas instead of the ideas that affect us in the real world.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 12:11 PM
Eric,
That wasn't a response to what I said, which was a response to your use of "deny," which clearly connotes existence. I did not say that I "lack" belief. I said that the notion can be dismissed in rational, scientific (evidence-based) terms since you can't or won't specify its qualities clearly or put it in a form amenable to scientific investigation. It doesn't even rise to the level of rejectability. It can simply be dismissed. (To build on my earlier comparison, it's like bringing a case before a grand jury in which you can't or won't specify the crime that you claim has been committed or the evidence that would prove the defendant guilty and expecting it to go to trial.) It thus falls into the category of assorted notions or propositions which I dismiss for this reason; there's nothing at all special about it.
Get back to me when you can put forward a definition of your deity that renders it accessible to empirical investigation (for bonus points, describe the evidence that would support your claim of its existence and that which would falsify it). In the meantime, spare me your theological verbiage.
Posted by: Anri | June 20, 2009 12:13 PM
Hi again, Eric.
Maybe my first post was too small, or maybe it just didn't have enough of your own words in it to attract your attention, so:
"The definition becomes ridiculous once we begin to probe it. My chair shares the property, 'lacks the belief that god exists' with you; does that make my chair an atheist? Oh, only people can be atheists."
I suppose one could say that a chair is an atheist. This would be an exceedingly trivial definition of atheist as we don't generally hold that chairs hold any beliefs.
Here's maybe a better question: what god do things that think (cat, whales, etc) believe in? Is belief in god required for them as well?
"Suppose we're taking a poll of atheists and theists. Do we count every newborn in the atheist column?"
Yes, as has been noted on this blog many times, we are all born atheists. Unless you believe you were born with a god-belief. If so, please describe it, thanks.
"That strikes one as silly;"
Please, if you mean that it strikes *you* as silly, say so. It doesn't strike me as silly at all, merely accurate.
"hence, an atheist must be someone who has heard of god but lacks belief."
Nope, see above.
"If the Pope were to suffer a severe head injury and become incapable of holding beliefs, could we speak about the Pope's new move to atheism?"
Only in the extremely trivial definition of the chair, as noted above.
"Oh, so atheism is the lack of belief in those who have heard of god and who have the capacity to believe or not believe."
Nope, see above.
"But notice what just happened: we've just posited 'has the capability of belief' as a necessary condition of 'lack of belief'; this, however, is obviously false. Hence, the popular internet definition cannot be sustained. The standard sources reject it with good reason."
Wrong, as noted above. Chairs and brain-dead popes (are there other kinds? I kid...) are acceptable, but trivial examples of atheists.
Oddly enough, we're asking you what your belief in god means to you, and arguing it on those ground.
Please extend us the same courtesy when dealing with atheism.
In other words, if you don't accept that any given book on god can tell you what the definition of god is (looks like a human, for example), please don't try to impose the same restriction on us.
Thanks.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 20, 2009 12:14 PM
Okay, admittedly, we're also laughing at Eagleton's insistence that we debate his views of religion despite his inability to articulate what those views are and his refusal to answer basic questions about them.
Posted by: Ruggles | June 20, 2009 12:15 PM
"Thank you for the analogy. It ignores the fact that most Christians think that Hamlet is a real person who wants them to pass laws that affect us all."
I think you mean Christ, not Hamlet. As Eagleton said, though, there is no evidence that we should always privilege the public view. Should we take, for example, the public view of Charles Darwin and evolution to be representative of either?
Posted by: IainW | June 20, 2009 12:17 PM
Eric (#82):
So ... God is like a self-aware agent, but is not literally a self-aware agent, yet you decline to say in what way God is like a self-aware agent. Does God have certain properties in common with persons? Or does God behave in a manner similar to persons only without the attributes that we usually ascribe to persons in order to make sense of their behaviour (maybe God's a p-zombie)? Or does the "likeness" reside in some other relation? This is the problem with the "analogical" approach to God's attributes - an analogy is meaningless unless you can actually give an account of the similarities or points of comparison.
As for God being "not less than a personal being", this is as unintelligible as you can get, unless you can give some account of what "less than" or "more than" means in this context.
Setting aside the incoherence of the notion of an act of being (after all, something has to exist in order for it be able to act, so existence logically precedes the possibility of action), this whole notion of "sustaining" the universe needs some serious justification on your part, because it is far from obvious that the universe needs sustaining.
(#138):
Curious, because when theologians talk about God's existence being necessary, they more usually mean "ontologically necessary" rather than "logically necessary" (or else they don't seem to be sure what they mean, and end up equivocating between the two). For something to exist in an ontologically necessary sense is for its existence not to be contingent on anything else, such that if it doesn't exist it cannot be brought into existence and if it does exist it cannot be made not to exist (although technically it might be able to make itself cease to exist). That's not the same as existing in all possible worlds - ontologically necessary existence is a feature of an entity's status within a possible world (it it exists in that possible world then it has always existed and always will, if it doesn't exist in that possible world, then it never has and never will). Consequently, an entity that exists ontologically necessarily in one possible world might not exist at all in another.
To short, there are two possible senses in which it might be said that God exists necessarily. Are you sure you've picked the one you actually mean?
Setting aside the rather crude strawman version of the mind-brain identity theory you seem to be attacking, your argument is a cheat: what remains constant throughout the procedure is a functional central nervous system (and one with a high degree of built-in redundancy at that). One can still assert that mind and brain are identical, because one can describe the scenario as one in which parts of the brain are being sequentially replaced, and consequently parts of the mind are also being replaced, because if the mind is the brain, it must also share the same functional redundancy as the brain.
Of course, there's the question of whether or not you have the same (i.e., quantitatively identical) mind/brain at the end of the procedure as you did at the beginning, but that's a different philosophical problem (although by the sound of it you seem to be confusing the two). If it's not the same brain as before, then it doesn't follow that the mind-brain identity theory is false, unless you also assume that you've still got one and the same mind at the end as at the start. But if the mind-brain theory is true and it's not the same brain as before, then it follows that it's not the same mind either. So your argument really just begs the question - you show that mind and brain have different by assuming that they are different.
Sigh. Care to explain that analogy?
Posted by: co | June 20, 2009 12:18 PM
You're obviously a smart person. Naked Bunny is too, though, and used your analogy aptly.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 20, 2009 12:23 PM
No, which is why you'll also find those danged atheist/materialist/naturalists trying to educate people about what Darwin actually said, where he erred, and how evolution actually works. If we were to take the Eagleton approach, we'd instead try to pretend that Darwin was an intangible concept that could mean just about anything to anyone, and be defending the most vacuous, nebulous version of evolution that we could cobble up. And we'd be complaining that all the specific statements of the science were betrayals of its true nature.You really suck at analogies. So does Eagleton.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 20, 2009 12:24 PM
....No. I was continuing with your analogy.
There are practical reasons to privilege the "public view" when that "view" has immense political clout. Eagleton is welcome to remain in his ivory tower while people like Dawkins fight the hordes of his fellow believers who are smashing the gates.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 12:36 PM
Why? You're simply playing games with words here. In this context, the capability of belief/nonbelief and having heard of the alleged phenomenon are assumed. By your understanding, we would have to say people "deny" anything they've heard of whose existence they dismiss or reject. We're all in the darkness, Eric. You choose to respond by denying phlogiston, the Great Serpent, the ether,...
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 20, 2009 12:40 PM
Eric, I don't see how a choice that must of necessity be made without any sensible evidence can be anything but non-rational. I also do not see why it is necessary to make such a choice. Indeed, since there is no evidence favoring either position, I don't see why I should form a decision about this any more than I should for a decision about whether there are invisible pink elephants in the trunk of my car.
The only rational basis I can see for making such a decision is whether it makes you a better, kinder, stronger person. However, we also have to realize that we are not necessarily objective in or assessments even here. Eric Rudolph would probably say his faith made him a better person. His innocent victims would disagree.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 20, 2009 12:44 PM
No, but I also wouldn't make the leap from, "interesting insights about the human condition may be drawn from characters in Hamlet," to, "it must be true that at least some of the characters in Hamlet were real, even if Hamlet himself was not."
Posted by: Ruggles | June 20, 2009 12:46 PM
"No, which is why you'll also find those danged atheist/materialist/naturalists trying to educate people about what Darwin actually said, where he erred, and how evolution actually works. If we were to take the Eagleton approach, we'd instead try to pretend that Darwin was an intangible concept that could mean just about anything to anyone, and be defending the most vacuous, nebulous version of evolution that we could cobble up."
I disagree. To me it seems fairly easy to understand Eagleton's portrayal of Christ as a political radical who hung around with outcasts and, likewise, it isn't too hard to grasp why people would want to have faith in the idea that even when we reach the end of our tether and are mired in darkness, there is still the chance that an act of love can have a real, tranformative power of influence.
"And we'd be complaining that all the specific statements of the science were betrayals of its true nature."
Eagleton's point is that the Bible can and has been interpreted in a literary fashion. Prepositional truth statements are not the sum total of interpretation. Indeed, writing an essay on Hamlet where one merely describes the plot and recounts other factual details, such as listing the number of words he uses, lacks interpretive force, and arguments over whether such truths have a basis in reality are entirely inconsequential.
Most modern theologians are engaged in the practise of literary interpretation. An important book on this topic is Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method. I understand that you will not have read it because you a priori denounce such endeavours based on your confusion of assertion and interpretation but I invite you to try, if for nothing else than to decrease the transparency of your hypocrisy which accuses Eagleton's Christianity of making no effort to communicate while staunchly refusing to read any its publications.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 20, 2009 12:53 PM
I rather like the notion that my attitude towards (or, to be more accureate, relationship with) Eric's goddish abstract concept of an act of being is analogous to that of a chair. In both cases, God is necessarily insignificant and definitionally irrelevant.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 1:04 PM
I just want to point out that, more broadly, there is no such dichotomous choice or set of positions. The fact is that we don't know why anything exists, and there are many other cosmic mysteries we may never solve. When it comes to making up answers, the choices are infinite - we can choose to believe in any number of or combination of deities or other entities or processes. It's so annoying how theists present it like "We exist. Therefore you have two choices: believe in my God or reject Him." It's not so. Nor do we have to invent and defend our own explanations (though thousands from other cultures exist already) in order to dismiss or reject theirs. All we have to do is say that we don't have the knowledge to answer some questions and let scientists continue to study how things work.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 20, 2009 1:16 PM
Eric writes:
SC, there's a reason that all the standard sources -- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Oxford Guide to Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- define atheism as the denial that god exists.
Nice appeal to authority. Of course philosophers are going to come up with a stupid definition for "atheism" - the history of European philosophy has largely been a massive wank-fest of one sect of christians attempting to support their version against the others. About the only thing the vast majority of philosophy agrees upon is that skeptics and atheists suck, because, effectively, they take the philosophers' marbles away.
Definitions are all about language; it's not possible to define one word in a language without using other pieces of language to do so. It's a social construct, and it's highly likely that those eminent sources' definitions of "atheist" would have been quite different in the 15th century and would be quite different, again, in the 25th century. A 17th century philosopher could hardly say a thing without referring to "god" and it shouldn't shock you that 21st century ones are still trying.
It's a bad definition. How can you define someone as being a person who denies that something they don't even know exists? To "deny god" you need a definition of "god" for the atheists to "deny" and you'd need to get the atheists to agree on it, then deny it. Good luck.
Even if you were to say that atheists deny the existence of "popular notions of "god" then you're left with having to say what those popular notions are (so that one could deny them) and the whole definition clearly falls apart - especially when you consider that it overlaps with the "agnostics" who adopt so many positions on "god" that it's hard to say what "it" is, in that context.
Buncha philosophers are just trying to cook the books to make sure they still have something to talk about. Otherwise they'd have said "atheists are skeptical about god" and - oops - gurgle - blue water - there goes theology down the toilet with philosophy.
Posted by: articulett | June 20, 2009 2:48 PM
Jaygo,
The faithful have their bible and that is evidence?
The faithful also have the Koran,the Bhagawath Gita, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, Greek Myths, The Secret, and Linda Goodman's Love Signs. Why they have a whole heap of evidence for all sorts of unbelievable unintelligible things! Don't limit yourself in the "evidence" department-- your standards are so low, that it would be a shame to restrict your delusions to a single text. If delusion makes you happy, I say aim high!
I do find it interesting the way the meme-infected are drawn to skeptic sites-- as though repeating their brainwashing over and over somehow makes it true. And it does make it true-- not objectively-- but in their heads, and that's all that matters to them. If they get the last word then their "woo" wins another point in their eternal head game and they convince themselves that atheists are mean and they really truly do have mystical insight.
And PZ, I find most theists suck at analogies. I imagine that this comes from years of trying to wrap bullshit in pretty semantic packages and pass it off as "higher truths". Surely that affects ones ability to reason. (Or maybe the stupid are just particularly vulnerable to religious memes.) Unfortunately, the incompetent are too incompetent to realize they are the incompetent ones. They substitute confidence for competence in a frenzied effort to prove to themselves that their woo is true and we get to bear witness to the nuttery. (Perhaps their intelligent designer is sending them to us for our amusement.)
The more incompetent a person is in a given area (analogies, for example) the more confident they are in their own competence! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y&feature=email They are self-contained irony generators!
Posted by: H.H. | June 20, 2009 3:42 PM
IainW wrote:
One of the things I find most fascinating about theists like Eagleton and Eric, is that despite their enormous efforts to distance their theology from the crude and unsophisticated beliefs of creationists and fundamentalists, one will often find them making extremely similar arguments. For instance, I remember arguing with a creationist who asserted that God was the strong nuclear force (literally) that held matter and the Universe together. Of course he cited some vague bible verse or other as evidence for this assertion. But, like Eric, his main argument was that god is necessary for things to exist. God is the reason there is something rather than nothing. Also, in the last thread Eric frequented (and then abandoned), Plantinga's argument was essentially the same as one presented earlier by Kent Hovind.http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/alvin_plantinga_gives_philosop.php#comment-1673570
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 20, 2009 4:48 PM
Would a book from the Left Behind series count?
Posted by: CJColucci | June 20, 2009 5:03 PM
Eagleton's point is that the Bible can and has been interpreted in a literary fashion. Prepositional truth statements are not the sum total of interpretation
I think most of us knew that, and, if we are old enough, we knew that before Eagleton was out of diapers.
Most modern theologians are engaged in the practise of literary interpretation.
Unless you have some weasely definition by which the only persons who qualify as "modern theologians" are those who treat the allegedly sacred scriptures of their religions as if they were The Iliad, The Odyssey, and the plays of Shakespeare, to be mined for whatever wisdom they contain and whose literal truth values are irrelevant, I would be surprised if this were so. (I am, of course, open to evidence if you have it.) More to the point, whatever the current fads in the seminar room, the vasy bulk of the faithful would gape in astonishment at such stuff, and Dawkins, et al., are well within their rights to focus on beliefs with real-world consequence, not the vaporous flummery of the Eagletons of the world.
Posted by: articulett | June 20, 2009 6:07 PM
Eric, I suggest that if we told you that you cannot critique the teachings of Scientology because you have not read any of L. Ron Hubbards publications, you'd dismiss this assertion as readily as we dismiss your similar assertions about Eagleton and Christianity. (And, with good reason, I might add.)
You, too, can think clearly when you take off the faith blinders. Try it sometime.
Posted by: articulett | June 20, 2009 6:22 PM
Eagleton cannot coherently answer a simple yes or no question about whether he prays. Why in the world should anyone give a shit about "Eagleton's Christianity"? Are Eagleton and his lackeys aiming to understand the atheist viewpoint? (It's pretty easy-- just plug Scientology into all mentions of religion... substitute "non-Scientologist" for atheist... and thetans for any and all undetectable invisible non empircal beings. That ought to give you a clear idea of exactly how unintelligible and brainwashed you all sound to us. Though I bet even Scientologists could answer the "do you pray" question better than Eagleton did.)
Posted by: a non | June 20, 2009 8:09 PM
"Most modern theologians are engaged in the practise of literary interpretation."
In other words, they are spinning the words of ignorant goatherders who lived thousands of years ago to make them seem like orders from an invisible sky fairy. And you say we shouldn't a priori reject such an idiotic enterprise?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2009 8:49 PM
"Perhaps you guys might continue to miss the point and post evidence showing that Hamlet never existed and some author dreamed him up, hence no inferences about the human condition can be drawn from him."
Indeed no inferences about the human condition can be drawn from Hamlet, unless we have prior reason to think that Shakespeare was an expert on the human condition and so his implications about it warrant acceptance. (Of course, a better way to look at Shakespeare is that he illustrated aspects of the human condition, and we are free to judge the accuracy of his portrayals.)
Whatever we think of Shakespeare, there's certainly no reason to think that either the inventors or the theological interpreters of the god and Christ myths had any particular expertise in the human condition or anything else, and that goes double for Eagleton. There are good reasons to read Shakespeare; there are no good reasons to read Eagleton.
Finally, when there's a dispute about metaphysics, it can hardly be missing the point to provide evidence that putative supernatural entities were dreamed up.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2009 9:04 PM
"If there were a god, wouldn't you just expect something like this"
Sure, just as, if there were a finite number of primes, I would expect the largest one to be 42.
Rather than come up with various sorts of contorted specifications for what a god would be like if there were one, it's a lot simpler to simply discard the notion as ill-defined or downright incoherent and lacking any justification. The only reason not to do that is the immense cognitive dissonance suffered by people who were indoctrinated into belief in god and simply aren't brave enough accept that they were committed to an erroneous belief.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2009 9:12 PM
"On the trivial level, it's merely a description of one's psychology"
On a trivial level, you're a moron. You quoted someone's description of their psychology, but it wasn't merely that, as reasons for rational people to have that psychology were given.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2009 9:26 PM
"Now I'm sure everyone can see that that's a non sequitur. I could desire that there be a god, lack physical evidence for god's existence, and yet, god could still exist. Plenty of people desire there to be life on other planets; they also lack any physical evidence that there is life on other planets. Does it follow that their belief, 'there is life on other planets' is a delusion? Obviously not, since it could still be true that there is life on other planets."
Logic and semantic fail. People who think that there is life on other planets because they believe they've seen alien spaceships in the sky are deluded, regardless of whether there is life on other planets.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2009 9:32 PM
"Take the concept 'true proposition.' Now, there either are true propositions, or there are not. If there are no true propositions, then it's true that there are no true propositions, and hence there is at least one true proposition."
Massive logic fail in the form of circular argument. If there are no true propositions, then "there either are true propositions, or there are not" is not a true proposition, so nothing can be inferred from it.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 9:41 PM
*giggle*
Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2009 9:45 PM
"the notion that the 'god of the philosophers' can't be an object of veneration or 'worship' (a loaded term indeed), I'll mention the example of Thomas Merton."
Of course the 'god of the philosophers' can be worshipped, it's just immensely stupid to do so ... it makes more sense to venerate the complex plane than "the subsistent act of being".
And pointing out an example of someone stupid in that way does nothing to challenge the obvious point that the vast majority of people worshipping god believe that they are worshipping a concrete personal being with a mind, intentions, preferences, desires, friends, enemies, children, attendants, agents, etc. ... a big powerful daddy figure who "loves" them but can and will punish them severely -- infinitely -- if they don't worship them. It's wise to give up that notion of a personal god, and wiser still give up on any notion of god at all.
Posted by: Eric | June 20, 2009 10:03 PM
"Definitions are often trivial. By definition, they're trivial. So?"
Co, um, I think I went on to explain just why it's trivial in the following paragraph. If I had merely said, 'it's trivial,' you'd have a point; I didn't, hence...
"That wasn't a response to what I said, which was a response to your use of "deny," which clearly connotes existence. I did not say that I "lack" belief. I said that the notion can be dismissed in rational, scientific (evidence-based) terms since you can't or won't specify its qualities clearly or put it in a form amenable to scientific investigation. It doesn't even rise to the level of rejectability. It can simply be dismissed."
What's the distinction between 'dismissing in rational, scientific (evidence-based) terms' and rejection? What's the distinction between the sort of dismissal you're speaking about and a denial? If X doesn't even rise to the level of rejectability, then it's silly to say you're dismissing it in rational, scientific, evidence based terms.' The notion that the past is an illusion put into our minds by a universe that just popped into existence five minutes ago is easily dismissed, but it's ridiculous to say that it's dismissed in rational, scientific, evidence based terms (since there is no difference whatsoever concerning the scientific data and our rationality, including our intuitions aboout parsimony, elegance, etc. in either case).
"Please, if you mean that it strikes *you* as silly, say so. It doesn't strike me as silly at all, merely accurate."
I think you missed my point. Is it accurate and not at all silly to say that newborns lack belief in god? Certainly. However, is it accurate and silly to say that newborns are atheists? It seems to me that it is, for if this is so, and if a newborn is just as much an atheist as PZ Myers, then, (1) you must object to the fact that we don't count newborns in all those polls about the number of atheists/agnostics/theists; presumably, you're not upset about this; and (2) as I said, you cannot claim that atheism is 'rational.' In this case, atheism is merely a description of a fact about one's psychology. As a description, atheism cannot be rational, it can only be accurate to a greater or lesser degree.
"As for God being "not less than a personal being", this is as unintelligible as you can get, unless you can give some account of what "less than" or "more than" means in this context."
To stick with the 'personal being' example, to say that god is not less than a person is to say that if there's some property we can consistently attribute both to personhood and to god, then god possesses that property without limitations. (N.B. this presupposes quite a bit of argumentation concerning god's nature and attributes.)
"Setting aside the incoherence of the notion of an act of being (after all, something has to exist in order for it be able to act, so existence logically precedes the possibility of action), this whole notion of "sustaining" the universe needs some serious justification on your part, because it is far from obvious that the universe needs sustaining."
You're forgetting (1) that god's essence is to be, and (2) that terms such as 'act' can have technical definitions which differ from our everyday uses of the terms. In this case, 'act' means not 'acting,' but being purely actual. In other words, to call god the subsistent act of being is to say that god is that being with no admixture of actuality and potentiality, but that is purely actual, that sustains everything that exists. The argument for a sustaining cause concerns the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite series of changes in which an infinite number of potentialities are actualized simultaneously. We can arguably conceive of an accidentally ordered infinite series extending into the past, but not an infinite series of simultaneous events extending from one change we observe through an infinite series of simultaneous changes.
"Curious, because when theologians talk about God's existence being necessary, they more usually mean "ontologically necessary" rather than "logically necessary" (or else they don't seem to be sure what they mean, and end up equivocating between the two)."
You're confusing god's aseity with god's necessary existence. These are easily confused, however, since they concern similar properties ('is not dependent' and 'cannot be contingent'). Just as we can speak of god's aseity when reflecting on god's nature, which is to say we can reflect on the fact that if god exists, the cause for god's existence is not external to god (i.e. god is not dependent on anything else), we can also speak about the fact that god is a being such that, if god exists, he exists necessarily (i.e. in all possible worlds), not contingently. In other words, when we refer to god's aseity, we only refer to the fact that god **does not** depend on anything external, but when we refer to god's necessary existence, we refer to the fact that god **cannot** exist contingently.
"your argument is a cheat: what remains constant throughout the procedure is a functional central nervous system (and one with a high degree of built-in redundancy at that). One can still assert that mind and brain are identical, because one can describe the scenario as one in which parts of the brain are being sequentially replaced, and consequently parts of the mind are also being replaced, because if the mind is the brain, it must also share the same functional redundancy as the brain."
If I lose my arm, and my arm is replaced by an exact biological replica, I can still look at the arm I lost and say, 'That's my arm.' If someone came across my lost arm, and asked, 'Whose arm is that?' the answer would be, 'Eric's arm,' even if I have a new arm. In short, there's an 'I' that's remained constant throughout the change. Also, we can distinguish my old arm from my new arm, and no tertium quid remains to be distinguished from anything else. Now, in the argument I presented, S's brain is reassembled after it's replaced; at this point, the answer to the question, 'Whose brain is that?' is, 'That's S's brain.' But, if it's S's brain, and if S has had a mind throughout the transition, we cannot simply say that S's mind is identical with S's brain. Let me put it this way: we can discern S's new brain from his old brain, even if they are functional equivalents, since they have different properties -- one is embodied, functioning, etc. and the other is not. They are in different locations, and, in the thought experiment, one will soon be destroyed. Now, here's my question to you: If you're to say that S's mind has also been replaced, which you did say (quote: "and consequently parts of the mind are also being replaced"), then how can we discern S's old mind from his new mind? If they have identical properties, then, by the identity of indiscernibles, the two can be identified, and thus are not two but one. In short, your argument begs the question by presupposing that the mind is replaced when the brain is replaced; what you must do to defend your position is identify what properties distinguish the new mind from the new mind.
"Eric, I don't see how a choice that must of necessity be made without any sensible evidence can be anything but non-rational."
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sensible' here. If you're referring to NoR's 'physical evidence,' then I'd remind you that we make all sorts of mathematical choices for rational reasons without any reference to 'sensible' evidence at all.
"Of course philosophers are going to come up with a stupid definition for "atheism" - the history of European philosophy has largely been a massive wank-fest of one sect of christians attempting to support their version against the others."
Those are all contemporary sources. This may be news to you, but most philosophers today, by far, are atheists or unbelieving agnostics.
"Eric, I suggest that if we told you that you cannot critique the teachings of Scientology because you have not read any of L. Ron Hubbards publications, you'd dismiss this assertion as readily as we dismiss your similar assertions about Eagleton and Christianity."
If I'm speaking to some scientologists, of course I can critique their claims without having read Hubbard. However, assuming that they understand Hubbard properly, I'd better understand Hubbard's claims if I'm to present an intelligent critique. I need not have read Hubbard, but I sure as heck better understand him (i.e. know what he claims, why he claims it, etc.). I can get this information during the conversation, but the point is I'd better get it, or my critique will fail. I don't care if the New Atheists read this or that, but if they're going to critique Christianity, they'd better understand it, or the Eagletons and the Ruse's of the world will call them on it -- and rightly so. Honestly, this is simply common sense.
I'm sure I missed some questions, and I simply ignored others (H.H.). However, I did my best to respond (as succinctly as I could) to as many good questions as I could (including, especially, Ian's very penetrating, informed and intelligent questions, which I very much appreciate, though I suspect we'll continue to disagree).
Posted by: Eric | June 20, 2009 10:09 PM
Anonymous, after taking the time to respond to many of the intelligent comments on this thread, your posts aren't frustrating, they're a cause for sympathy. Somehow, you managed to get everything wrong, yet you evidently think rather highly of yourself. Actually, that's something of an achievement, in a perverse way.
Posted by: co | June 20, 2009 10:30 PM
We have a winner for one of the most vacuous statements I've seen in a long time.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 10:32 PM
What's the distinction between 'dismissing in rational, scientific (evidence-based) terms' and rejection?
Do you really not understand this? A notion that is not defined in any way that renders it susceptible to empirical investigation can and should simply be dismissed. Think again of my legal example.
What's the distinction between the sort of dismissal you're speaking about and a denial?
I've tried to explain to you that "denial" as commonly used connotes the established existence of the phenomenon in question. That's why "Holocaust denier" is justifiably used, and why anti-climate science credulists* so strongly oppose the name AGW denialists. They recognize, correctly, that this implies that AGW has been established scientifically (of course, it has, but they're not about to concede that). It also confers a sort of specialness on the alleged phenomenon in question, and as I've explained I dismiss it in exactly the same way I dismiss all other notions that fall into that category (homeopathy being slightly less easily dismissed).
If X doesn't even rise to the level of rejectability, then it's silly to say you're dismissing it in rational, scientific, evidence based terms.'
Nonresponsive. Any notions you dismiss? You've failed to respond to my questions/requests.
*Just learned that term on this wonderful thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future.php
(The whole Plimer discussion there has been entertaining and educational, btw.)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 20, 2009 10:42 PM
eric wrote:
You base this assertion on what, exactly? It, like every other supposed quality of your god that you've presented in your arguments, emanates from the same place - your imagination (to put it politely). It doesn't mesh with anything in the bible or what is believed by the overwhelming majority of Christians past or present.
Each redefinition of your god in such a way strips it of any identifiable religious affiliation, meaning that what you're actually doing is proving that deism is the only possible position.
Philosophically possible god ≠ specific Christian god.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 20, 2009 10:43 PM
Eric, To define being as an essential attribute of God and then turn around and say God exists is purely a tautology with zero information content. I have yet to come across any phenomenon for which the concept of God was essential as an explanation.
As to your brain surgery methaphor... well, let me know how your little attempts to replace "half a brain" work out. Remove half a person's brain and replace it with another half, and you will wind up with--at best--a severly brain-damaged patient. I ran across the same bullshit arguments at a meditation center in India. They don't make any more sense now. There is absolutely no reason based on any verifiable fact to posit a soul, self, identity independent of the 3 pounds of neurons inside our skull.
Again, belief in a soul, like belief in God, comes down to choice and choice independent of any evidence. The empirical world cannot help you narrow the leap you must make to faith. Nor can it give you a reason to make that jump.
Posted by: H.H. | June 20, 2009 10:44 PM
Eric wrote:
Nope, you didn't miss or ignore any of my questions, because I didn't ask any of you. I'm past the point of attempting dialogue. You don't answer honestly anyway. Now I just like making fun of your absurd responses. The fact that you obviously consider yourself to be a clear thinker is hilarious to me. Seeing others dismantle your fluffy nonsense is pretty fun too.Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 10:46 PM
[Apologies for forgetting to set off Eric's words in quotes in my previous post.]
Take that, Anonymous! Eric's blown apart your argu
...Oh, wait. He hasn't at all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 20, 2009 10:47 PM
*Munches popcorn while watching Eric's sophistry being exposed.*
Posted by: John Morales | June 20, 2009 10:52 PM
H.H., yeah. I just returned from squash practice and see Eric's contentions have all been
addresseddismantled. IainW's comment in particular is notable.Ah well, I'm not in the mood to gild the lily.
Posted by: John Morales | June 20, 2009 10:57 PM
[meta]
Um, I forgot where I was commenting, for a moment there, so to pre-empt quibbling, I note I used a colloquial misquotation that's widely understood, but I'm aware of the source:
Shakespeare, King John:
SALISBURY:
Therefore, to be possess'd with double pomp,
To guard a title that was rich before,
To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 20, 2009 11:32 PM
This is all fairly depressing. "Progress" in human affairs is such a tricky thing, but science is a realm in which we can legitimately speak of progress. But people with good minds (it seems...possibly...at times...) dedicate their lives to these ridiculous exercises in futility. There's no god on the head of that pin, Eric. There's no there there. If you love philosophy, study science or people and philosophize about those. Don't waste your life on this piffle.
Posted by: Anri | June 20, 2009 11:37 PM
Eric Sez:
"I think you missed my point. Is it accurate and not at all silly to say that newborns lack belief in god? Certainly. However, is it accurate and silly to say that newborns are atheists? It seems to me that it is, for if this is so, and if a newborn is just as much an atheist as PZ Myers, then, (1) you must object to the fact that we don't count newborns in all those polls about the number of atheists/agnostics/theists; presumably, you're not upset about this;"
Nope, I'm not, in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason that I'm not concerned that young children are not polled when determining demographics for things such as political parties. We don't value young children's thinking because we have reason to believe their thinking is not very deep, complex, or informative.
Or do you perhaps disagree, and believe that a child singing "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know" should be given equal philosophical weight as your arguments?
"and (2) as I said, you cannot claim that atheism is 'rational.' In this case, atheism is merely a description of a fact about one's psychology. As a description, atheism cannot be rational, it can only be accurate to a greater or lesser degree."
It seems that you are saying that because it is possible to arrive at atheism irrationally (ie, by default) it is impossible to arrive at it rationally.
This is, of course, wrong.
It's possible to arrive at atheism rationally or irrationally, just as it's possible to surmise (correctly) that the moon is made of rock without any evidence of any sort (irrationally).
Several of us here are trying to describe to you why atheism is a rational position, and, quite frankly, you don't seem to be doing a very good job refuting that.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 20, 2009 11:59 PM
Eric,
No, but we could use physical evidence to show that X does exist. If you could show physical evidence for God's existence then you would put the argument to rest.
We need to have to start by having appropriate methods of evidence. Otherwise we get an go on forever asking "why?" like a little child. Science uses the 'physical evidence' as a self-evident method of justification.
I, and many here, do use science as a basis for the rejection of theism. If there no theoretical or empirical justification to believe in a concept there is no good reason to believe it.
The difference is that we know there are billions and billions of stars. Many of these stars have planets. Even given extreme odds of life forming there could still be life on millions of planets. The hypothesis that there is life on other planets is very probable given the physical evidence.
If you don't restrict the "has the capability of belief" to God and just "has the capability of holding beliefs" in general I don't see the problem.
Yes, I agree that calling newborns atheists is silly. I've seen people do it here. I don't think anyone should be assigned a religion until they've reached the age of reason (if you really want to get technical, I'm not including cases of mental disabilities).
_ _ _ _
Way back in #82 you outlined your conception of God. Can you please explain your justification for this?
Also, presumably you are a Christian. Why do you accept Christianity and reject Islam, the polytheistic beliefs of the Greeks, Shintoism, etc.
Apologies for the lateness of my reply.
Posted by: articulett | June 21, 2009 4:12 AM
Contrary to Eric's opinion, I thought "anonymous" was spot on. I get lost in Eric's semantic miasma, and I'm not sure even he understands the point he is trying to make.
A belief that aliens might exist on other planets is rational in that we know much about life and how it evolved on this planet and that there are trillions of stars with potential planets out there. Plus, the elements that gave rise to life on this planet are fairly abundant in the universe AND we find extremophiles in every nook and cranny we examine on our own planet (not that any holy book thought to mention them.) So alien life is probable. We also know just how far away the nearest possible planet for intelligent life is and why it's scientifically improbable that any have been visiting our orb (Matter can't travel faster than the speed of light at the nearest star is more than 20 light years away.)
Can you really compare that to a belief in some unintelligible, undetectable, immaterial, conscious being that the some theists have managed to tap into in some non-empirical way? I think not. I think such claims are as readily dismissed as someone who believes that sound can travel in a vacuum. It's a "round square" from a logical perspective. The equivalent of believing in "magic" and/or "nonsense". There is no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a brain. And if this was possible,I think scientists would be refining their understanding on this subject through empirical evidence-- for their own benefit! Despite eons of such beliefs, the only evidence we have is that people are damn good at fooling themselves on this subject and very good at manipulating others by utilizing such beliefs.
And I don't think it's silly to call every child an atheist. Magical thinking is normal in all children, but you have to be indoctrinated to call that magical thinking "Santa" or "the tooth fairy" or "god". These are not concepts that kids come preprogrammed with. If you don't teach a kid about demons, they don't believe in them and don't get possessed with them. The same for gods.
Eric, your fight for your faith may be ennobling to those infected with the same meme, but don't you feel like your mental skills could be put to better use arguing for something that is true or useful or --at least-- intelligible? If god is real, he can fight his own battles, you know. The truth doesn't need cheerleaders, semantics,or mental manipulation. It just needs to be understood. As for literature, I've read the bible,and I find it less than stellar. With all the great writers in the world, I doubt I'd waste my time on Eagleton. I'm not sure I'll be wasting much more time on you, on fact. It just starts to sound nutty... I feel the way you might feel watching Tom Cruise go on about Scientology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
I mean, clearly he believes in Scientology and imagines it has helped him and he appears to have a Messiah complex. I have no interest in proving him wrong because I can barely make sense of what he says. But after a while it sounds--so sad--like he's trying to convince himself that his woo is true-- just like you do. Sure, he seems happy with his delusions of grandeur, but even you understand that he is delusional. How do you feel when you watch that tape, and why should we take your claims more seriously than you take his. Why should we consider you more coherent or less delusional? Do you really imagine you are being more "rational"-- that your claims have more validity than his?
You seem desperate to be understood without ever giving an iota of understanding to the skeptic's viewpoint. But surely you are a skeptic when it comes to Scientology, so this should be easy for you. You're as maddening as Eagleton when he was asked if he prays. By the way, Do YOU pray? Do you believe there is an invisible conscious entity that hears your prayers? Why should we dismiss that the way we dismiss Tom Cruise's rant or the claims of those who swear they've been probed by aliens? Honestly, it's just as wacky to me. But I guess you'll block out these questions and criticize me because these questions are a threat to the faith you feel "saved" and "special" for "believing in", eh? Look, I was there once myself, so I understand. But on this thread, I think the only person you are succeeding on fooling is yourself. You are not the moral, kind, wise, spokesmen for theism that you imagine yourself to be-- just another "woo" like Tom Cruise.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 21, 2009 4:37 AM
Eric,
Huh? Why can't an anthropomorphic god possess humanity? By definition one would expect an anthropomorphic god to have human qualities.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 4:46 AM
I guess when God made us in his own image, humanity wasn't part of it. Explains why God can drown all life on earth or slaughter an entire population of infants.... ;)Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 21, 2009 5:45 AM
I've pointed this out before but I'll mention it again - eric's argument is the last desperate move by the religulous to try and find a way their god can exist. For almost all of history it was assumed - based on the same 'evidence' for god's existence that allowed the religion to exist in the first place - that god was tangible and existed in a physical sense.
The only reason eric's god is now an intangible one only definable in enigmatic philosophical terms is because science has looked under every stone and found no sign of it. So, what was once real enough to speak to the Israelites on a regular basis has suddenly become something completely unrecognisable to those adhering to the religion it supposedly inspired.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 5:56 AM
Honestly, if eric would just demonstrate with evidence that such a god exists, then this pseudo-intellectual wankery can be over and done with. Apologetics truly is the pronouncement of the death of God. We know God's dead, they know God's dead, but they persist pretending that God is alive. At times it seems very Weekend at Bernie's, at times it seems like a gorilla clutching her dead baby. But either way, this whole debate could simply go away if God would show his face.
Posted by: astrounit | June 21, 2009 8:19 AM
Wowbagger #210: Oh yes, and quite true, but it's not a "final argument" of desperation for them. They've ALWAYS been scurrying for cover behind the ineffable and therefore "SUPERnatural" or "sacred" or "holy" or "spiritual phenomena" that just aren't there.
Their "evidence" IS plain: they simply INSIST that an entire alternate reality consisting of a collection of vague, ill-defined, ghostly and vacuous incommensurabilities exist, and they "KNOW" it.
Why? Because they they SAY SO. They "see" or "feel" it. (Even poor Eric "feels it", while he stacks his playpen "logic" building blocks that keep falling over when they get too high. Poor kid. He tries SO VERY VERY hard).
And then they lash back because of THEIR inadequacies, preferring to scuttle for refuge behind their foggy understanding of foggy concepts.
How DARE we exhibit the temerity to question their Word?
How DARE we disrespect their "faith" by constantly challenging them to provide evidence that would demonstrate the correctness of their claims?
Obviously this must mean that people who are made of real material stuff can't suffer from fallacy or delusion...or are absolutely immune to dishonesty and deceit.
No. They continue to whine like brats when their word isn't respected as "The Evidence" they claim for it.
(Flash to a favorite line from old westerns: "You callin' me a lahr?" Heck, yeah! What do you want, an invitation to a formal debate??? Draw and shoot me full of documented evidence, or shut the fuck up. But as Marlon Brando tells Ben Johnson who pretends to challenge him in Brando's "One Eyed Jacks": "You may be able to get 5 or 6 into me...before I get that one into you." - saying it with a smile of complete confidence).
The modern outburst of all this business has been a social coevolutionary phenomenon: as the faithful have found it increasingly difficult to answer the challenges posed by non-believers, the more they've been motivated to defend their belief-system with overtures they figure should APPEAR to RESEMBLE science - so that their precious supporters would hear barking very much like the dog of science.
The nation gets cockamamie tumorous growths such as The Discovery Institute out of THAT much. Religion never needed "science" before, in the '50's or '60's, say. Now it's so important to them. One must conclude - logically - that "faith" isn't quite enough after all.
But the initial reaction during the Raygun years was to build up a strong political base from which they could better DICTATE the political course of events in the country.
The hounds have long since been unleashed. Not by any centralized authority of boogeymen atheists, but just by a general trend of clear-headedness. It was inevitable and needed no guidance. Every hound knows a stink when they smell one. They can easily track the fake barking and smell out the infantile "logic" of an Eric any time. That schmuck is nothing more than an afterthought.
Posted by: antistokes | June 21, 2009 9:09 AM
Eric, is the word "god" a noun or a verb? Is god a Big Sky Daddy (a noun), or a process inherent to the universe (verb)? You seem to use it as both. To quote Calvin and Hobbes, "it's fun verbing nouns!"
My general strategy, derived from years and years of sunday school (and being a minister's daughter) followed by a few courses in quantum chemistry, is to tell the godbots that I have faith that there is no deity. Then I look them deeply in the eye and tell them that I am devout in my faith. It's fun!
Posted by: Tulse | June 21, 2009 9:23 AM
...and He really hates buttsex.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 9:36 AM
IndeedPosted by: IainW | June 21, 2009 9:42 AM
Eric (#193):
Which, given the conditional clause, is perfectly consistent with God not being like a person in any way shape for form. And since you originally stated that "to call god a personal being ... is to say that god is not less than a personal being" (#82), it would seem to follow that you can call anything an X without it actually being an X. Which frankly undermines the entire point of calling anything anything at all.
And you didn't answer my primary question: In what respect is God "like" a person?
Which would seem to suggest that if it is possible for God to realise any particular state, then he must realise all such possible states simultaneously (otherwise, his nature would entail unactualised potentialities). Which implies that God cannot be subject to change (since any change of state involves the actualisation of a previously unactualised state). Which in turn means that God is not an agent (since God cannot form intentions and act on them), in which case if God is like a person, then it's certainly not in respect of being able to think and do, or any of the other things by which we distinguish persons from non-persons. God, on this view, would seem to be the ultimate inanimate object.
But apart from that, thanks for clarifying the "act of being" thing.
Well, let's see the argument, then (which was kind of what I was asking in the first place).
Er, no. I was pointing out the distinction and asking you to clarify which you really meant (which at least you've done). In philosophy, there are two senses of necessary and contingent existence relevant here: (a) ontological necessity and contingency (as in the Argument from Contingency), where ontologically necessary existence corresponds to what you call aseity, and (b) logical necessity and contingency (which can be analysed in terms of possible worlds). And as I pointed out, ontologically necessary existence is compatible with existing contingently in the logical sense (i.e., in some possible worlds but not others).
You got an argument for this alleged "fact"?
Way to go missing the point, because I never presupposed anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out that a putative mind-brain identity theorist could consistently describe the scenario as one in which the mind is being replaced along with the brain, because if mind-brain identity is true, then a change in the sameness of the brain is a change in the sameness of the mind. Both positions are question-begging in one respect or another. Your argument fails not because the mind-brain identity theorist is right, but because you haven't shown him/her to be wrong - you've merely assumed it.
If I were a caricature mind-brain identity theorist, then I would discern them by saying that S's old mind is in the box containing S's old brain (because the two are identical), and S's new mind is in S's skull. Because if I were a caricature mind-brain identity theorist, my criteria for sameness or difference of minds would be the same as my criteria for sameness or difference of brains.
Yes we can (or rather, we could if we were so inclined), because the answer to the question "Whose brain is that?" is that it is S's old brain. S also happens to have a new brain which is no less his/hers than the old one. If we identify minds with brains, then we can describe the situation as one in which S also has an old mind (inactive, in a box) and a new one (active, in S's skull).
You're also forgetting that if S has a mind throughout the procedure, then S also has a brain (or at least enough of a brain to constitute a continuously functioning central nervous system) throughout the procedure too. There's never any point at which S doesn't have a brain with which S's mind (old, new or transitional) can be identified.
And furthermore, your assumption that there is a single subject S present both before and after the procedure is not obviously warranted. An equally plausible (and indeed, given mind-brain identity, a more plausible) reading of the situation would be that the original S has been replaced by a new subject S2 - e.g., as a two-stage transplant of S2 into S's (former) body.
Anyway, the point is moot, since nobody actually subscribes to such a crude theory of mind. But it's quite entertaining to watch someone set up a straw man and then fail to knock it down.
Posted by: Carlie | June 21, 2009 10:09 AM
Hm. Actually, Eric, as I'm sure you know, most denominations count children as memebers. Depending on the denomination, this can either be via infant baptism, confirmation at 1st grade, voluntary baptism at any age (generally above the age of 5 or so), and I'm sure a few others. If an 8 year-old is counted in total numbers of Christians, why couldn't a child who hasn't been thoroughly indoctrinated be counted as an atheist? If it counts one direction, it should certainly count in the other.
What is it that they don't understand, exactly? I keep hearing this criticism, and I don't see where it holds any water. I spent about 30 years as a hard-core fundamentalist, and I have yet to see where a 'new atheist' shows a misunderstanding of theology.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 10:35 AM
That may be so, but you take away the ability of the theist to dismiss all arguments because they didn't apply to how they see theology. I remember a couple of years ago, I was debating with Christians on an atheist group, and no matter what argument I used, I was told I misunderstood their position. Even when I used exact things theists said, I was told I didn't understand. Led me to the conclusion that no matter what I say, I'm going to be dismissed out of a lack of understanding.So fuck it, I'm going to write any critique without regard to the nuances that theists espouse I'm lacking. Because as soon as I take them on board, I'm only going to get accused of lacking something else, and thus the dead corpse that is God will continue to be carried around as if it were still alive.
Yet I've put the challenge out dozens of times that all God has to do is show me that he exists and I'll believe. Why not heal an amputee? Why not come down as a 200ft leviathan? Why not give a simple, clear, unambiguous instruction so the world can stop trying to kill itself in His name? Why isn't God showing the way for the middle-east peace process? Why doesn't God's love resonate into cooperation for mankind, and break us out of this nihilism whereby we are destroying the environment?
But no, we don't get so much as an inkling that God in-fact exists. We have apologists re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-interpreting a mouldy old book of mythology as if there's something hidden in there that will make sense of this universe as science flies in the face of everything that is written. God is definitely dead, and theology is the obituary to his demise. Why is theism so fucking vapid that the whole purpose of any serious scholarship is there to explain the absence of God?
"The universe still expands, mankind still can't understand how to define you. So hide your face and watch us exterminate ourselves over you" - Nevermore (This Godless Endeavor)
Posted by: IainW | June 21, 2009 11:04 AM
Eric (#193):
Missed this in my previous post:
Which is well and good, except you originally said in #82:
Consequently, your clarification ends up making your initial analogy less clear, since it's now apparent that you're using "act" in two very different senses here. Not exactly helpful or illuminating (and not helped by the misleading equivalent grammatical constructions of "act of being sustains" and "act of playing sustains").
So just how God's pure actuality sustains the universe is now unclear, since it's apparently not by any close analogy with an orchestra playing music.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 11:08 AM
Ahhh, the anthropic deist. Completely unfalsifiable, completely meaningless. Then again, what else can we expect from believers? Can't show a bit of evidence, they just descending into meaningless psycho babble.Posted by: Egnu Cledge | June 21, 2009 11:18 AM
I'm no philosopher, but Eric's mind/brain switching thought experiment seems all kinds of messed up.
First of all, so many of these philosophic arguments seem to hinge on how you define your terms at the outset, and when what you're going on about has no connection back to reality, or is even concerned with verifying conclusions with evidence, then those definitions can be pretty much anything you please. And when what you're defining is something as (purposefully) nebulous as god, or even "mind" or what it means to be a person, well, then you're probably not going to logically prove much of anything other than your own question begging.
For example, what do you mean by mind or a specific person's mind being his, or having some sort of stasis that you could thoughtfully compare a before and after brain switch out? Forgetting transplantation, is my mind the same when I am having a migraine as when I am not? Before and after I take anti-depressants or hallucinogens? How about when I change my mind? These are all dependent on or functions of a material brain.
It may be logically possible, but it is in fact not actually possible. There are people who have had hemispherectomies, and, although they are able to cope and adapt, their other hemispheres do not take over every function such that half a brain is functionally equivalent to a whole brain. Similarly, if you remove an entire brain, there is no mind left to speak of, which would seem to quash the mind/brain duality argument.
Let's suppose you could replace half of a person's brain with an identical hemisphere instantaneously. What have you done? Effectively...nothing. You've replaced a brain with an identical brain, which is the same as not having done that. So I don't know what in the world you think you've proved.
Let's go back to your music analogy. Let's say I have an orchestra in which each member and instrument has an exact, precise duplicate. Set 1 of this orchestra begins playing Egnu Cledge's Victorian Squid Symphony in D Minor. At a precise point, Set 1 stops playing and Set 2 begins such that there is no interruption in the flow of the music. Are they still playing my song? Doesn't the music stop when I tell them all to lay their instruments down? What quality of music exists independent of the instruments playing it? What quality of mind exists independent of the brain embodying it?
Because it's a pointless argument.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2009 1:18 PM
"God as the act of being sustains the universe, just as the orchestra's act of playing sustains the music."
Massive analogy fail. If God is an act of being that sustains the universe, then God is an act of being that sustains the music that the orchestra plays. But of course it's the orchestra that sustains the music -- the notion of God is unnecessary to explain music, or anything else in the universe.
"Anonymous, after taking the time to respond to many of the intelligent comments on this thread, your posts aren't frustrating, they're a cause for sympathy. Somehow, you managed to get everything wrong, yet you evidently think rather highly of yourself. Actually, that's something of an achievement, in a perverse way."
Irony meter explosion. Eric is a prime example of a practitioner of cargo cult logic -- he's familiar with the form, but has no grasp of how the damn thing works.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 21, 2009 1:52 PM
"Ian's very penetrating, informed and intelligent questions, which I very much appreciate"
But not enough to get his name right, or to acknowledge how completely he has demolished your moronic blather.
"though I suspect we'll continue to disagree"
Only because you're deeply committed to a fundamentally irrational belief.
Posted by: Eric | June 21, 2009 2:09 PM
"Consequently, your clarification ends up making your initial analogy less clear, since it's now apparent that you're using "act" in two very different senses here.
Um, I think it was apparent in the initial analogy. Note the definite article in front of the term 'act' in the former use, which always indicates a noun form, and the verb form of the term 'act' in the latter use.
"Not exactly helpful or illuminating (and not helped by the misleading equivalent grammatical constructions of "act of being sustains" and "act of playing sustains")."
Note how you rather misleadingly left out the article here.
The point of the analogy, as I said, is to suggest a way to think about the *relationship* between the orchestra and the music, and god as sustaining the universe.
"Let's go back to your music analogy. Let's say I have an orchestra in which each member and instrument has an exact, precise duplicate. Set 1 of this orchestra begins playing Egnu Cledge's Victorian Squid Symphony in D Minor. At a precise point, Set 1 stops playing and Set 2 begins such that there is no interruption in the flow of the music. Are they still playing my song?"
The obvious disanalogy here is that the music from set 2 has different properties from the music from set 1, even if the music is played in exactly the same manner on the structurally identical instruments. Since I only need to show one property difference, I'll limit myself to pointing out the different locations at which the music from set 1 begins and from which set 2 begins. The interesting question is, if we were to replace, within a pause of a second in the composition, each musician and each instrument with functional equivalents, and (the following is extremely important, and I think was missed earlier by previous comments which, unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to now) within that same second annihilate the initial musicians and instruments, could we distinguish *by an appeal to any properties of the music itself* the music being played now to the music played before the replacement?
Posted by: antistokes | June 21, 2009 2:30 PM
Eric, honey, regardless of who plays the music, you can still write down the score. And that written down version is the same, when it's read (not played).
Yes, you get variations when it's played; but the writing remains, unchanged. This brings to my mind the argument of what is human and what is robot-- replace an arm with a robotic arm, is it still my arm? Well, yes, so long as you control it.
But what is "you"? Am "I" still "me" with mechanized synapses? Psyche, honestly, has yet to answer some of these questions (but I am doing a postdoc in chemometrics and analytical neurobio, and we'll get there). However I strongly believe that humans are their neurochemistry and neurogeometry. I'd have no hope or faith otherwise.
Also, quite frankly, I'd rather believe in no god than have a god that believes in hell (which is a prereq for the judeo-christian conception of god).
Posted by: articulett | June 21, 2009 3:19 PM
"Irony meter explosion. Eric is a prime example of a practitioner of cargo cult logic -- he's familiar with the form, but has no grasp of how the damn thing works."--anonymous
--Yep, he's building those runways in the everlasting hope that his god will be flying in on a jet plane to save his sorry argument.
Posted by: Eric | June 21, 2009 3:39 PM
Iain, I noticed a huge error on my part in my response in #224. In the analogy I used, I did not use 'act' as a verb when discussing the orchestra, so I now grant your point about the formulation of the analogy. Rather, you had earlier spoken of 'act' in the sense of a verb with respect to god, while I spoke of it, with respect to god, as a noun. I erroneously transferred the sense in which you were using the term to the grammar in which I used it when referring to the orchestra. I would reformulate the analogy, which is only meant to illustrate the nature of god's sustaining the universe (as opposed to, e.g. god understood as a 'first cause' in the kalam argument), in this way:
God, as the act of being, sustains the universe just as the orchestra's playing sustains the music.
This removes any possible confusion concerning the nature of the term 'act.' The relevant comparison is one of 'sustaining.' That said, my earlier points about the technical use of the term 'act' when referred to god are not now affected by my poor formulation. As I indicated earlier, I have little time at the moment, but I'll respond to your earlier points when I get a chance.
Posted by: antistokes | June 21, 2009 3:42 PM
God, as the act of being,
Again: god = verb or noun??
Just curious...cause i ain't gonna worship a verb...
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 21, 2009 3:45 PM
Alright Eric you told us what you believe God to be like. Now can you please give us justification for that belief?
Posted by: antistokes | June 21, 2009 4:00 PM
Also, on the "do you pray issue", I always turn to my beloved Sir Terry for these matters; "prayer is just hope with a beat to it". And all of us that live, hope (usually, we hope for control, a separate subject entirely).
Posted by: Anri | June 21, 2009 4:51 PM
Quoting Eric at #227:
"God, as the act of being, sustains the universe just as the orchestra's playing sustains the music."
Quoting myself waaaay back up at #98:
"Is it worth noting that the more we investigate music that is being played by an orchestra, the more evidence for the existence of the orchestra we tend to find?
Yet, the more we investigate what makes the universe tick, the *less* evidence for God we seem to find?
So, I'm thinking major analogy flaw right here.
Not to mention that it's quite possible to have music without an orchestra at all. A garage band will do, or a synthesizer.
Or a bird."
Just sayin'.
Posted by: IainW | June 21, 2009 4:54 PM
Eric (#224):
Firstly, I'd just like to point out in advance that as far as the previous mind-brain argument is concerned, this analogy is irrelevant. The relationship between mind and brain envisaged in your imaginary version of the mind-brain identity theory was one of, well, identity, but in this analogy the relationship is one in which the mind (music) is something distinct from the brain (orchestra) but nevertheless exists only as a consequence of the latter's activity.
But, to answer your question. If the substituted musicians and instruments are exactly functionally equivalent (same tunings, same sense of rhythm, same playing styles etc), then the music before and after will be indistinguishable - one could indeed say that it's the same music before and after (although see below). However, at the risk of pre-empting an argument you weren't actually planning on making, you can't then argue that by this analogy you've found a difference in property between mind and brain, and therefore that mind and brain cannot be identical, because if we accept this analogy then we've already accepted that mind and brain are not identical.
I also don't think you're making a very clear type-token distinction here. The same music-as-type (i.e., the sequence of notes) may still be playing before and after, but one could make a case that it is no longer the same music-as-token (i.e., the performance or instance of the piece being played). If we're interested in whether or not we have the same mind after replacing the brain bit by bit, then this distinction is crucially important. The person with the new brain may have the same memories and exhibit the same behavioural traits as before, but that's quite plausibly interpretable as a new instance or token of the mind-as-type.
Indeed, one could modify your original thought-experiment so that the removed brain hemispheres are transplanted into a second body, so that you now have two individuals with the same memories and traits (at least to begin with). They might be said to have the same mind-as-type (again, to begin with), but they have different minds-as-tokens, distinguishable by being related to two distinct brains. But in that case, by the same criteria (identifying minds with reference to brains), the person with the new brain has a different mind even if the old brain is destroyed.
(#227):
OK, no problem. It's a fairly minor stylistic point, anyway.
Less potential for confusion, yes. More informative ... not so much. I suppose that if all you're trying to do is to establish a very general parallel in terms of ongoing causal dependence in each case, then fair enough. To that somewhat limited extent it does the job. It's just that with any analogy of this type it's not always clear where the parallel is meant to end. I mean, I assume that you don't want us to think that the means or mechanism by which God sustains the universe is likewise similar to the way an orchestra produces music?
Cheers. Unfortunately, whether I'll be able to respond in turn is a little uncertain, since I was kind of meant to be finishing up some work over the weekend before I let this thread distract me. If I'm inadequately responsive, it'll be because I'm playing catch-up.
Posted by: Tulse | June 21, 2009 5:09 PM
And gets pissed if you eat shellfish.
Seriously, Eric, how does this oh-so-sophisticated view of Being relate to the guy people pray to on Sunday? Your fancy abstraction looks like nothing that people would bother to worship, much less start wars over and stone raped women for. The "god" you present seems more like some vague principle of the universe, something that would make no more sense to worship than the strong nuclear force or the Planck constant. People do not establish complex social groupings with elaborate rules regarding participation and ingroup/outgroup dynamics over the act of being -- the do so for what they believe to be an anthropomorphic supernatural personality that can provide them with direct personal benefit.
Your game is the classic theist bait-and-switch -- for the faithful you promote a personal god of love with personal interest in believers' lives, but when challenged you retreat to a vague handwaving abstraction that no one actually worships. Even if all your pretty theological handwaving were itself valid, it's still nothing more than a cheat, and completely irrelevant to the actual beliefs and practices and political interests of the religious. Your entire argument is nothing more than misdirection.
Posted by: truthspeaker | June 21, 2009 5:16 PM
Worse, they seem to think there's something profound about it.
Posted by: co | June 21, 2009 5:28 PM
It does? It raises all sorts of confusions in my poor brain, ones which I didn't know were there.
Are you saying that "god", as some nebulous, Platonic ideal, exists because someone has a vague concept of his existence? If so, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is gonna kick his ass.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 6:28 PM
Why do the laws of physics need to be "sustained"? Surely it's been demonstrated enough times that the laws of nature get by fine on their own...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 21, 2009 7:16 PM
Sounds reasonable to me; I'm now a Planck Constantologist - and trust me, it's the only true religion!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
June 21, 2009 7:26 PM
Heretic! Blasphemer! Speed-of-lightism (Cism for short) is true. All hail 3 x 108 m/sec!
Besides, you're just thinking small.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 21, 2009 7:35 PM
The smaller the god the easier it is it cram it into gaps - I learned that from eric!
Posted by: Don Rowe | June 21, 2009 9:22 PM
I try really hard to listen to 'the other side of story' from time to time, just in the vain hope that someone will say something that will make me stop and have to think.
Unfortunately, Eagleton is just painful. I was listening with headphones, while working and I kept flicking back to the podcast page to see how much longer the interview was going to go on.
That derisive little laugh that screams, "Ooohh, Evan, you poor, simplistic little man. If only life were as straight forward as your black and white viewpoint." It was taxing to listen through to the end.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2009 9:29 PM
Ahhh, the maintainer of the laws of physics. Theism is truly dead, the age of anthropic deism is at hand.Posted by: Anonymous | June 22, 2009 3:52 AM
God, as the act of being, sustains the universe just as the orchestra's playing sustains the music.
Wins a prize for highest category mistake / word ratio.
Posted by: windy | June 22, 2009 8:39 AM
Kel:
Poetically put!