The Dawkins Delusion?

Martin Cothran blogs an interesting review of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. A snippet:

Dawkins summarizes the argument of his book this way:

Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God...is a delusion; and, as later chapters show, a pernicious delusion.

There are several problems with his argument that ultimately make The God Delusion a great disappointment. The first is his tendency to avoid proving his own theses in favor of simply assuming them and hoping the reader will find the implications of them as attractive and self-evident as he does. The scientist in him wants to test the predictability of his theory, in this case with speculative theories of how things might have come about solely by virtue of material conditions. He uses this method in his discussion of the origin of religion and of morality, and it falls flat.

Flat indeed, judging by the quote above. He seems to assume the thing he and others set out to prove.

For a moment, let's pretend and ask: what if man were to evolve and perfect his intelligence to the point that, manipulating matter, anti-matter, black holes and time and space (having mastered the mechanics of it all--well, who would have thought man could split an atom and produce a terrifying release of energy destroying everything in its path?) --man could create some other universe that would actually be outside of ours? And then program it to "evolve" so it produces intelligence? Would an "intelligent" agent in that other universe be right in thinking that "creative intelligences" arrive late, and therefore his universe itself, and himself, couldn't possibly be the products of Intelligence?

I don't know, to be honest, whether Dawkins addresses this in his book somewhere, and such questions lead to infinite regressions; I still find his assumption a bit wobbly, not that I am as "bright" as he is.

What I want to know is does he view his own life in any sense as a gift? I do (his life, I mean). I hope people like him view my life and the lives of my grandchildren as gifts. Gifts are to be respected. But if "life happens" and nothing more, what is the basis for respect?

Maybe it's big and brave to face that you are a Nobody, but I don't see the need for it. Maybe I just need to evolve a bit more till I become a bit brighter.

Comments

[Ethan Cordray]

Sure, fine for Dawkins, if you go ahead and assume that this universe is all that exists. But what if it's the universe that "arrives late"?

[Little Gidding]

"Maybe I just need to evolve a bit more till I become a bit brighter."

Can't delay the revolution by just waiting for evolution. Usually, what's done is to send you and your ilk (including me) to a struggle session, then to a re-education camp, and then, if that doesn't work, eliminate us from the breeding population. Nothing's too drastic in order to make life easier for the Brights.

[GL]

I guess I was mistaken about Richard Dawkins. . . .

I thought he was a scientists who, as any good scientist would, lets the evidence speak for itself and would only construct theories based on what the evidence would support. I wonder what evidence he has to support his assertion that

Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God...is a delusion; and, as later chapters show, a pernicious delusion.

I would love to see it. Otherwise, I must conclude that he is doing what he accuses people of faith of doing: engaging in wishful thinking.

[Tim M.]

I haven't read the book, and won't. Still, he has made this argument -- i.e., "Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything..." -- before and it struck me then as now that he is painfully ignorant of actual religion. He argues against a god that no one believes in. The nature of God is be utterly simple and perfect (true not just in Christianity but also in Neoplatonism, say). Complexity is probably a necessary condition of material things that very remotely mimic divine attributes, but it is not a property of the divine.

[Gene Godbold]

Tim,
That's a good point. It's not unimportant that many of the arguments that nonbelievers find impressive are--as noted by NT Wright and David B. Hart (among others)--only telling against the god of the deists, a gross parody of the Christian Trinity, or a self-imagined god that no one has ever (or could ever) find plausible.

[Gintas]

Alvin Plantinga has a good discussion here of Dawkins' idea that belief in God is a kind of intellectual dysfunction.

[James A. Altena]

It is at best problematic to say that "the nature of God is to be utterly simple" when we profess belief in an essentially triune God. It it precisely belief that God is triune and not monadic that separates Christianity from Judaism, Islam, Deism, and other monotheistic religions.

One major point of silliness in Dawkins' argument is to assume gratuitously a universe that has no inception (in the sense of creatio ex nihilo), and is absolutely simple in its temporal beginning, and yet has the capacity to unfold and develop into ever-increasing complexity -- whereas if it is truly absolutely simple at its inception, it cannot have any such innate capacity, which would by definition be itself extraordinarily complex. Alternately, such an utterly simple universe would require an eternal, uncreated being apart from it to unfold and develop it. Of course, Dawkins cannot get around assuming such an initially simple universe, for then he is stuck both with trying to explain its initial complexity and with jettisoning his teleological assumption of increasing complexity (even though he is at pains elsewhere to deny any inherent teleology in evolution).

[Tim M.]

Hi James, Yes, indeed, God is triune, but there is a single divine nature which is identical for each of the three divine persons. That is why we are not polytheists.

[Brian John Schuettler]

It has been observed in many interviews of his book that Dawkins has essentially no knowledge of religion nor does he desire, based upon his interviews, want any. It is interesting that when he presents this evidentially unsupported and invalid "theory" of a developing complexity out of nothing (reminds me a bit of Spinoza) Dawkins is standing outside of science and in an ironic sense is creating a secular dogma to replace a theological dogma. At least if he were presenting himself as a philosopher who can articulate for us a logical framework for this "theory" then we could discuss it's merits. But to just throw these things about as if he were wearing a shirt that said AUTHORITY on it and we all must bow to his intuition, ala William of Ockham, is really rather intellectually immature.

[GL]

I have thought about this some more, especially in light of Brian's post. It seems to me that all science can say, at most*, is that we have no evidence proving there is a God. What Dawkins is saying is, in effect, that we have evidence proving there is no preexistent God. Those are two very different statements. If he intends the latter, he should produce the evidence. If he cannot, he should either retract his remarks and admit that he is mischaracterizing the known facts and what can be appropriately deduced therefrom or he should disclaim the designation of scientist.

*ID proponents might dispute this, but I believe that the most responsible of them would only say that they are working on establishing from the evidence now existing and from the evidence they hope to develop that there is an intelligent designer, which is different from saying that they now sufficient evidence to declare that there is a God.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Tim M.

"Essence" and "nature" are distinct. Unfortunately I don't have proper theological source books for this question handy, but I would like an informed person to address whether the patristic fathers said that:

a) The three persons of the Godhead have a single nature as well as a single essence, or whether they have one essence but three natures. My vague recollection is the latter, not the former. (Of course, this is an issue that Eastern and Western theologians treat rather differently.)

b) If the three person do share a single nature, whether that nature is perforce "simple" or not, and if so in what sense or senses. Cf. Aristotle's famous analysis of the four different senses of "one" in Book X of the Metaphysics.

In short, we need to be very careful of our terminology here.

[Brian John Schuettler]

GL, that was a superb synthesis of the Dawkins dilemma...kudos to you!

[t mahoney]

Hi James, Thanks for your reply. You and I are of one mind that we need to be very careful with our terminology here. Here is the English translation of the Second Edition of Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 202, quoting Lateran Council IV: "We firmly believe and confess...three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple." (I omit some for sake of space, but do look at the whole passage.) Also see St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica Pt. I, Q.3, Art. 7: "Whether God is altogether Simple?"

[T Mahoney]

Hi James, I realize now that I didn't actually respond to your request: I didn't provide patristic sources. Sorry! I will have to let someone else respond to that because I don't have the time or resources right at hand to do so. I do not, however, think this is an issue on which the Greeks and Latins differ.

[Bill R]

"...or he should disclaim the designation of scientist."

Agreed, GL, but Dawkins' real problem is that he's neither a philosopher nor a logician. Or, to be even more basic, he can't think clearly.

""Essence" and "nature" are distinct."

Ah, James, metaphysics--That's what we were missing here! ;-) I'm lost how essence and nature could differ, but perhaps that's what kept me out of seminary. But if T Mahoney's quote from the Catholic Catechism is correct, the catechists have the same problem I do!

[DDH]

Bill R,

What is the problem that the catechists and yourself share?

The quote from the Catholic Catechism uses essence, nature, and substance as synonyms.

I am not completely familiar with the Orthodox terminology when approaching the Divine Nature. But, I know from past conversations that they have different meanings from the Scholastic terms.

For St. Thomas, God is a wholly simple being, who's Essence (Nature) is identical to his Existence. I recommend examining Thomas's treatment of this matter in the Summa. Here is a link to the citation given above by T Mathoney: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#7

I also do not think that Greeks and Latins differ on Divine Simplicity, it is just an ambiguity in terminology. They also will also be in agreement on the Triune God, but will disagree about the relationship between the persons of the Godhead.

[Bill R]

DDH, I was simply ribbing my friend James, who sought earlier (above) to distinguish essence from nature, where the Catechism (as quoted by T Mahoney)makes no such distinction.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The quote from the Catholic Catechism uses essence, nature, and substance as synonyms<<<

So did Cyril of Alexandria, and look at the problems that caused.

[DDH]

Bill R.

Sorry I missed the ribbing.

Stuart Koehl

>>>>So did Cyril of Alexandria, and look at the problems that caused.<<<<<<

Your going to have to give me a history brief, I'm only vaguely familiar with the distinctions he was making in Christ's substance and his natures.

[t mahoney]

Hi all, It is not clear to me that "The quote from the Catholic Catechism uses essence, nature, and substance as synonyms." The quote merely indicates that God has "one essence, substance or nature entirely simple." The terms may not be synonyms, and even if they are not in God each one refers to what is one and entirely simple.

[James A. Altena]

T. Mahoney is correct. The Catechism does not use essence, nature, and substance as synonyms, and they are not such. It seems we need a little brush-up on Aristotle's metaphysics here (to which, incidentally, I devoted over 100 pages of an uncompleted Ph.D. dissertation).

Substance, essence, and being are closely linked; indeed, reading the secondary literature on Aristotle is a real challenge because the two key terms, "ousia" and "to ti en einai" [literally, "what is is to be"] are each translated by any one of these three English words, depending on the author. [Nowadays it's pretty well standardized to translate "ousia" as "substance" and "to ti en einai" as "essence" and/or "being".)

To give an overly simplistic explanation in order to be brief:

In the Aristotelian metaphsyics largely adopted by the Church, "substance" is not just a generic term for any sort of material "stuff." Rather, a substance is an autonomous unitary entity, which includes living beings. Essence is the fundamental, irreducible "thisness" ("quiddity" in medieval scholastic terminology) that makes a substance to be a substance, rather than a composite, mixture, or aggregate. [Cf. the application of this to the unity of divine and human natures in the Incarnation.]

A substance can be either a generic or class term (man) or a particular exemplar of that genus (Socrates). Aristotle's classic illustration is that man is the rational animal. Man is a substance; rationality is the essence that makes him a unique substance distinct from other animals. [For Christians, of course, the essence of man is to be in the image of God.] As the fundamental "thisness" of the substance, an essence is distinct from a property (e.g. male or female) or accident (e.g. red or black hair) that are not irreducibly fundamental to the "thisness" of being man.

Substances also form complex hierarchies, in which higher-level substances are synthetic unities of lower-level substances. E.g. blood and flesh are substances according to Aristotle; so are a hand and a foot; so is a man. [Cf. Christ as a particular substance, the unique God-man unity.]

"Nature" (physis) is harder to pin down, but it basically refers to the inherent patterns of activities (energeia) of a substance due to its essence. Thus it is the nature of man as the rational animal to think, or the nature of the fish to swim in water. It is distinct from essence and substance in that a substance can act (or be acted upon) contrary to its nature; the man can act irrationally, or the fish can be seized by the eagle and carried through the air instead of swimming in water.

Very importantly, substances are not static, but dynamic. A substance has an inherent potentiality (dynamis) or potentialities, which it "realizes" when it acts according to its nature. Such expression of substantial essence, or activity/actuality/realization (energeia), is directed toward fully realizing and expressing all the potentialities of the substance to their maximum degree. Thus the essence is a directive principle (arche) determining the nature of a substance toward a specific purpose or goal (telos) of maximal realization or expression of that essence.

[Thus the distinction in man between being in the image and likeness of God; the image is of the essence, but the likeness is not. The likeness is a potentiality that is realized to greater or lesser degrees by man acting in conformity or non-conformity to the activity of God. As Aquinas correctly understood, being is activity; God as uncreated is pure essence/being/act/acitivty/actuality/realization, and has no unrealized potentiality.]

[As a sidebar, I would note that the root of the disagreement between East and West over the nature of the Fall centers upon whether the Fall effected a fundamental change in human nature. The West says that it did, but that this does not signify a change in man's essence; the East objects that if man's nature did so change, then that necessarily signifies a change in man's essence, and thus man would no longer be man as originally created but a different substance (call it "schman"). Thus the real argument is one in Aristotelian metaphysics about the relation of nature to essence. And, no, I don't pretend to have an answer to that chestnut.]

[To paraphrase Prof. Kirk in the Narnia books, "It's all in Aristotle! What do they teach these children in school nowadays?"]

My original question was whether the referent for nature in discussing God is properly the essence of the Godhead, or whether each person of the Godhead has a distinct nature according to his specific personhood. The issue is complicated because Eastern theologians often object to the analytical Western method of beginning discussion of the being of God from a posited shared essential "Godhead" and then proceding to each of the three persons. Instead, they approach it synthetically, beginning with each of the three persons and move from there toward their complex unity as one God.

The quote from the 4th Lateran Council would seem to answer the question from the medieval Western position. (Though it may be possible to speak of both the nature of the Godhead and the respective natures of each of the persons of the Godhead.) But I would be interested in any documentation of the patristic and later Eastern positions.

The classic scholarly study of the Fathers' use of Greek philosphy in formulating theology is Harry A. Wolfson, "The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Vol. 1: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation" 3rd ed. (E.g., Wolfson shows how the Fathers examined five different ancient theories of material combination in order to find the right explanation for the union of divine and human natures in the Incarnation.)

Enough metaphsyics for you, Bill? :-)

[Bill Gnade]

I am late to this discussion and, I am afraid, surely in way over my head. But let me take a stab at something else that might be wrong with Mr. Dawkins' view of things.

He wrote (cited above):

Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God...is a delusion; and, as later chapters show, a pernicious delusion.

Dawkins' assumption, it seems, is that intelligence -- collective or individual hardly matters -- is becoming increasingly complex, over time, via processess such as natural selection. Hence, it is impossible for the universe to have emerged from, or to have been created by, any sort of pre-evolutionary [pre-existing] intelligence. In short, what we see is what we get: the smartest organism (Mr. Dawkins?) on the planet (or in the universe) at any given time, is identical with the most complex intelligence in the universe.

What bothers me is something rather rudimentary. Who says that things are actually becoming more complex; who says that intelligences are not only more complicated, but more intelligent?

I can't tell you all how many times I've heard scientifically-minded persons describe various human body parts as being vestigial: the coccyx, the appendix, my crooked front tooth, the sixth finger. Each of these are presented as leftovers, vestiges, of earlier genetic arrangements. But if we are getting more complex, then would there be a decline in complexity, or an increase? Why the loss of these alleged vestiges?

Is it not fair to say that a chimpanzee is actually more complex than a man? Is it not simpler to walk on two feet than it is to swing from trees? Is it not less complex NOT to have a prehensile tail, or is it more complex to have one?

Survival of the fittest, it seems to me, is predicated on one organism finding the simplest path over a competitor. One look at a saber-toothed tiger compared to the nearest lazy house cat and one sees that the house cat is where he is because he has simplified things: there is no way you're going to last long with giant incisors harpooning you to your prey, or to the nearest couch.

Mr. Dawkins will think me crazy if I aver that it is far more intelligent to walk from place to place than it is to ride about in a car. It is far more sophisticated to stand in Eden -- naked, nibbling succulents -- than it is to wear Gore-Tex on Everest while eating dehydrated prunes. I mean, if there is ever another great cataclysm on this planet, most people, or so I blindly believe, would suspect that the simplest organisms are the fittest ones to survive such a cataclysm. In fact, the simplest organisms, remaining simple since whenever, are the ones that indeed have been surviving the longest. Can I not conclude then that Darwinism is actually biased toward the survival of the simplest? If the ameoba on my palm is a direct descendant of an amoeba on the palm branches of Pangea, am I wrong to conclude that the most hearty and most intelligent survivors among us are the simplest, least complicated organisms? If so, why this foolish fascination with complexity? Can we not safely conclude that we are actually heading toward a less complex biosphere, and not a more complicated one? Egads, even if we consider human aptitude, the general consensus is, is it not, that we as a whole are becoming rather stupid, and not one whit more intelligent? Goodness gracious, how quickly we will discover our many incompetences should an Electro-magnetic Pulse bomb send us back to our roots! Our house pets will fare better than we.

Each of us knows what a hammer is and what it looks like; we know about matches and fire and knives and plywood and ohms and fulcrums. But how many of us could survive -- knowing all we do about basic hand tools -- if we were sent out into the woods naked, with nothing but our VERY COMPLEX INTELLIGENCES? Most of us could not survive at all and yet WE KNOW about hammers, nails, and matches. But our ancestors apparently discovered these things -- by chance -- and managed to make it through the millennia without a single anti-biotic.

Are we really caught up in a bio-dynamism that is moving toward complexity? I doubt it. My sense is that the most intelligent Thing is behind us. Seriously, we're lost compared to Adam.

Just some musings. Peace to you all,

Gnade

[DDH]

Thank you James for the correction, synonym was far from precise. And thank you for your explanation on substance, it was very informative. I do have one question.

>>>>Substances also form complex hierarchies, in which higher-level substances are synthetic unities of lower-level substances. E.g. blood and flesh are substances according to Aristotle; so are a hand and a foot; so is a man. [Cf. Christ as a particular substance, the unique God-man unity.]<<<<<

I have never thought of blood and flesh or hand and feet as "lower-level substances." I thought substances had to subsist/exist per se, or in virtue of themselves. Hands and Feet cannot exist without a animal, which is a corporeal substance that the hands can exist upon or in.

I still say many foolish things as I am at the beginning of the Thomisitic pedagogy and reading the metaphysics is still far off in the distance.

Thanks again for all your clarifications.

[Bill R]

James! (Gasp!!) I give up--you win!! ;-)

[Christopher]

Mr. Gnade,

Good point. Simplicity is a built in prejudice in the neo-Epicurean thought of Dawkins and his modernist followers. It follows then that when confronted with the facts of complexity, they don't successfully account for it...

[Brian John Schuettler]

Dawkins doesn't have a neo-Epicurean thought in his entire head because he is neither a theologian nor a philosopher. The point of the matter is that he has unknowingly developed a completely new form of nihilism without any formal foundation for discussion. I guess we can say that Dawkins sees himself as the complex completion of Ubermensch!

[Ethan Cordray]

And another problem: what exactly is complexity, anyway, speaking in an absolute, objective sense? I don't think any purely materialist account can explain complexity as anything more than the product of human perception and language use. I wish we had an atheist materialist in this thread to dispute these things. Otherwise, I feel like we're just piling on Dawkins.

Thanks, James, for the metaphysics. You've reminded me how much I like Aristotle.

[James A. Altena]

Dear DDH,

I appreciate your thoughtful question. It's not self-evident why Aristotle would consider e.g. a hand or foot to be a substance. The basic answer lies in what I (not Aristotle) would term essential functionality. I.e., if something acts as a unitary entity, is of uniform constitution, and had an inherent directive design and principle to a specific end, then it comes into consideration as a substance. (Aristotle's "Metaphysics", his work devoted to the theory of substance, contains an extensive discussion of what he terms "parts" and "wholes" in this regard.) For Aristotle, a hand has a specific design and purpose evincing an essential nature (to be prehensile -- admitedly, this sound as circular as Moliere's "dormitive virtue") and a unitary structure and composition (with respect to its purpose or telos) and is therfore a substance. Aristotle's theory of substance is notorious for its thorny unresolved problems, and the relation of higher and lower substances pinpointed by your question is one of those.

[Martin Cothran]

It is interesting that my review of Dawkin's book has ended up spawning a discussion on metaphysics. I love it!

James, in your description of substance, you said, "In the Aristotelian metaphysics largely adopted by the Church, "substance" is not just a generic term for any sort of material "stuff." I had always understood that substance could include non-material "stuff" as well. An angel, for example, is classified as substance, although an angel is not material. In other words, an angel is a non-material substance.

In fact, the classical division of substance was that of Porphyry, (the "Porphyrian Tree"). The first level of division of substance is that between material and non-material substances.

This also bears on DDH's point. Under Porphyrys's division there is substance (anything that exists, materially or immaterially), bodies(material substances), organisms (living material substances), animals (sentient, living material substances), and man (a rational, sentient, living, material substance).

I guess where I am having trouble is trying to see where the part of a man (e.g. a hand or foot) would fit in Porphyry's division of substance. Is Porphyry not representative of Aristotle here, or is his division incomplete or inadequate, or perhaps something else?

Thanks for discussing this.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Martin,

I'm not familiar with Porphyry, but his schema you cite suggests that he would place hands and feet in the first and lowest category -- though that is a category Aristotle himself subdivides into further level of complexity (e.g. blood, flesh, hand). Again, Aristotle's distinction (which perhaps Porphyry does not use -- at least, you don't mention it) is based on an analysis of relations between "wholes" or entire complex substantial entities, and "parts" or constituent subdivisions of them.

In the last 20-30 years a major debate has erupted among philosophers as to whether the four fundamental Aristotelian terrestrial elements -- fire, air, water, and earth -- were truly classified by Aristotle as the most basic substances. The traditional view says "yes," and certainly that was the belief of later antiquity which was passed on to the scholastics, but an increasing number of scholars have argued that on this point at least the Aristotelianism of late antiquity was a fusion of Aristotle and Plato that departed from Aristotle's own views. Aristotle's own writngs are ambiguous here; in the Metaphsyics he seems to deny that the elements are substances, but in the Physics appears to confirm it, while the interpretation of relevant passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione hinges on which passages from the first two works one gives more weight. (Of course, Aristotle could have changed his mind at some point, but the dating of his writings is speculative -- not to mention the issue of whether many of them are actually student notes of his lectures rather than his own texts. Most scholars believe the Physics to be relatively early and the Metaphysics rather late; if so, Aristotle may have rethought the issue and decided that the elements were not substances after all.)

I myself am inclined to think that the elements are not true substances after all. My 2/3 completed but aborted dissertation was devoted to studying this issue in relation to philosophical anti-atomistic theories in the history of chemistry, stretching from Aristotle through Leibniz, Kant, and Schelling, down to the Nobel-Prize winning chemist Wilhelm Ostwald (the last-named actually being for many years the primary focus of my work). Outside of Aristotle's metaphysics of substance and its relation to matter theory, I claim no expertise concerning the Stagyrite.

[DDH]

James,

I'm in my senior year as an undergrad philosophy major, and I'm just starting to get interested in Natural Philosophy and your aborted dissertation sounds really fascinating. So I was curious about this:

>>>I myself am inclined to think that the elements are not true substances after all.<<<

So are they accidents? Or maybe something close to Prime Matter? (that last question might be ridiculous, because elements are pretty intelligible)

I have other questions about anti-atomistic theories, but this might not be the appropriate place.

Thanks again for all your explanations.

[James A. Altena]

Dear DDH,

Please feel free to contact me off-line to pursue this discussion. I'll be pleased to lend you whatever help I can.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

I started to read these posts and I noticed how many of you seemed to reject Dawkins without even having read his book. Not right it seems to me.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I started to read these posts and I noticed how many of you seemed to reject Dawkins without even having read his book. Not right it seems to me.<<<

One doesn't need to read "Mein Kampf", "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or "Das Kapital" to reject its central premises out of hand.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

'One doesn't need to read "Mein Kampf", "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or "Das Kapital" to reject its central premises out of hand.'

sorry I thought this was a site without prejudices
if you take that attitude no discussion is possible
to put Dawkins on an equal plane as Hitler and the protocols is insulting
you are aware that although not on the same side as those who flew the planes in the buildings you are in essence taking the same attitude
again, sorry to have disturbed you in your alknowing righteousness
I hope not all of you are of this opinion

[Judy Warner]

Do we need to read the book about how George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks in order to disagree with it?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>sorry I thought this was a site without prejudices<<<

Anyone who is without prejudice has no values. Do I really need to understand the Aztecs or the Phoenicians to know that human sacrifice is wrong? Do I really have to get inside the mind of Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx to know that their ideas are not only wrong, but lethally dangerous? Do I have really to read every work Richard Dawkins has written to know that his basic premise, aside from being epistemologically narrow and solipsistic, is also fundamentally wrong on the most intuitive level, to say nothing of internally inconsistent?

>>>again, sorry to have disturbed you in your alknowing righteousness<<<

Quite all right. I've gotten used to people interrupting my "alknowing righteousness" with their own self-righteous drivel.

But I have to ask: did you really expect a forum run by and for commited Christian believers to give the time of day to a man who insists that our worldview is not only wrong, but delusional and perhaps even a sign of mental illness?

[dirk van glabeke]

if the existence or non-existence of God is of major importance to your life
it seems to me that a major book on the subject by an important author would interest you
it is my opinion that being a committed christian is not opposed to being rational and critical, and trying to base opinion on facts and arguments not
intuitions

[dirk van glabeke]

I have not read the book but I intend to. Before reading it I wanted to read a few comments on it. That's how I happened to visit this site. Going through the first posts I noticed the way in which it was rejected, which led to my comment.
Stuart:
- 'Anyone who is without prejudice has no values'
there is a difference between prejudice and value. I hope there is no need to explain.
rejecting whatever thesis on mere prejudices is wrong. Again, I hope no need to explain.

- 'fundamentally wrong on the most intuitive level'
if you base your argument on intuitions you can not claim superiority to other arguments based on different intuitions (hinduism, islam, judaism,atheism based on intuition,...)
So this is not a good ground to reject the argument from others (Dawkins)
From the reviews I red, Dawkins treats the 'existence' thesis as an scientific hypothesis, so you should try to reject it on the same grounds

- 'internally inconsistent'
please explain?

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

got he book. More later

[Bobby Winters]

>>>if the existence or non-existence of God is of major importance to your life
it seems to me that a major book on the subject by an important author would interest you
it is my opinion that being a committed christian is not opposed to being rational and critical, and trying to base opinion on facts and arguments not
intuitions <<<

I usually read reviews from folks on both sides of the issue before I read a book. I try not to read books that appear to a 95% level of confidence to be crap. Nevertheless, I sometimes give in when the pressure is great to read books I had suspected of being crap. I did this on The DaVinci Code, and lo and behold--it was crap, page-turning crap, but crap nevertheless.

++++++++++++++++

>>>>From the reviews I red, Dawkins treats the 'existence' thesis as an scientific hypothesis, so you should try to reject it on the same grounds

- 'internally inconsistent' <<<<

Supernatural by definition means not part of the natural world. Science, by most definitions (including Dawkins, i believe ((might have to read the book)) ) is limited to the natural world. This means Dawkins can't really even start talking about God other than to say he's postulated him out of existance.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>if the existence or non-existence of God is of major importance to your life
it seems to me that a major book on the subject by an important author would interest you<<<

Not really. My faith in the existence of God is not going to be overturned by the arguments of a man who started out from the position that God does not exist and shapes his argument to fit his hypothesis. If Dawkins approached his scientific research in the same mind as he does his theological speculations, he would be laughed out of the Academy.

Frankly, the existence of God is not subject to scientific proof. Science deals only with things it can observe and measure. A God liable to circumscription in that manner would by definition be smaller than the being doing the observation and measurement. In other words, the Creator would be less than his creature--and thus not God. The Greek Fathers fully understood that God was "ineffable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever existing yet ever the same". Thus, they knew they could never ascribe a positive definition to God, but chose instead to use the apophatic approach, describing God by describing what He is not. Works for me.

Ultimately, though, the existence of God is experiential--you know God by encountering Him. "I know that my Redeemer liveth". And that's where it ends--I KNOW. Thus, whatever Dawkins says, he's backically preaching to the choir: people who know God know He exists. People who don't know God are either desperately seeking Him, or seeking reasons why they should stop looking. Dawkins appeals to the latter.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I try not to read books that appear to a 95% level of confidence to be crap.<<<

That does save an awful lot of time, but you're even more discriminating that Thedore Sturgeon, whose Law postulates that "90% of science fiction is crap--but then, 90% of EVERYTHING is crap".

[Gene Godbold]

Yeah, Sturgeon was an optimist.

(He also must have stayed out of "Books-a-million")

[dirk van glabeke]

Bobby,
didn't red Da Vinci code but a good book in the same vein (conspiracy that is) is Umberto Eco's Foucault's pendulum.

As to the split supernatural - natural world: science is all bout rationality, critical thinking, proof and disproof. If you put God in a totally different domain, if that exists at all, then you put him beyond proof and disproof. In such a domain one can state anything, anything at all. And there is no way to know who is right, if anyone is right.
(see also my answer to Stuart)

[dirk van glabeke]

Stuart,

'shapes his argument to fit his hypothesis'
how do you know without reading the book? or do you just KNOW (joke)

'Ultimately, though, the existence of God is experiential--you know God by encountering Him --I KNOW'
suppose that you were to sit at a table (hypothetically) with Mohammed, an Aztec priest, a worshipper of Kali, a buddhist, an African shaman, ...
each sincere, utterly convinced believers in their ultimate thruth just as you are, each convinced they KNOW. How does one really know where the thruth lies? The answers they have can't all be true at the same time. So there are several possibilities: one of them has it right but who,or none has it right, God being nonexistant or if existing not yet having found a worshipper.
What I try to explain is that this kind of intuitive thinking is no argument. Even worse, history teaches us that this kind of thinking (with all respect for your convictions),can lead to the worst atrocities. National socialism was based on such intuitive opinions. And this very day we see the consequences in the actions of Islamic fundamentalists. They also think they KNOW.

Intuition as such is not wrong when it is guided by a critical rational way of thinking. which can compare intuitions against the real world.

Just thinking you KNOW is not the answer. There is no way to separate it from illusion.

a little anecdote: when a medieval saint reported the superior of her cloister that she had visions of Maria, the superior answered to ignore this, these visions were just illusions to keep her from reaching the deeper thruth.

happy to see you know your Heinlein and Sturgeon. Do you also know your Zelazny, Lem and Simmons?

[Bobby Winters]

>>>As to the split supernatural - natural world: science is all bout rationality, critical thinking, proof and disproof. If you put God in a totally different domain, if that exists at all, then you put him beyond proof and disproof. In such a domain one can state anything, anything at all. And there is no way to know who is right, if anyone is right.<<<

Dirk,
Read what I said again. Science is about the natural world. True, it is rational and all those other things you said, but there is more to reality than matter, energy, and information. God is beyond that realm.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>That does save an awful lot of time, but you're even more discriminating that Thedore Sturgeon, whose Law postulates that "90% of science fiction is crap--but then, 90% of EVERYTHING is crap".<<<

He must've been a faster reader than I am.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dear Dirk,

You seem to have a very keen interest in this issue. I'm glad to hear that you're willing to hear the viewpoints of those in disagreement with Dawkins before you read his book. Honestly, I think one reason why threads like this one tend to not be very logically rigorous is that we don't often get to hear from those still undecided about the issue. I thank you for posting here, and I hope you'll find at least some of our answers helpful.

As nearly any philosopher will tell you (aside from the logical positivists, of course), there is much more that is addressable by reason and logic than natural phenomena. Natural science (in its true nature) is indeed an exercise in reason and logic. However, it is a mistake to identify reason solely with natural science. Ethics, metaphysics, linguistics, and artistic study are all areas in which reason can be rightly exercised but which fall beyond the range of natural science.

Science is the use of reason to look at one narrow set of objects: the physical phenomena of the natural world. It is, by its nature and by the intentional design of its founders, incapable of properly examining anything else. This is its strength, that by narrowing its focus to an exclusive and well-defined area it can powerfully explore and study that area.

There is nothing in the method or principles of scientific practice that requires the assumption that the natural world is all that exists. It is this jump that Dawkins makes and has made systematically throughout his career. Because he presupposes that the objects of scientific thought are all that exist, he assumes that his scientific knowledge makes him competent to hold forth wisely on all things. But this is a rather obvious and silly epistemological leap.

There are wise and respectable atheists who make proper rational arguments against the existence of God. These should be listened to thoughtfully and carefully (though I cannot say I have ever heard a truly persuasive one). I can see no reason to accord Dawkins the same respect merely on the basis of his fame.

I think it is also a philosophical mistake to think that we can only know things through reason, and that no "irrational" forms of knowledge exist. But that is a separate (though connected) issue.

Peace.

[Bobby Winters]

Ethan,
Nicely put.

[David R.]

threadjack
...a good book in the same vein (conspiracy that is) is Umberto Eco's Foucault's pendulum.

I realize this has nothing to do with the thread, but I feel the need to post a warning against Foucault's Pendulum. It has nothing to do with faith or things 'mere comment-ish', but rather that this book will make you want to pluck your eyes out so you never have to read anything ever again (IMO). Maybe it loses something in the translation but after wading through that debacle and The Name of the Rose I simply cannot understand why Eco is so highly regarded. Eco fans feel free to point your arrows this way!

/threadjack

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

Bobby,
in my post I don't attack your view that God is beyond the realm of the natural world. I just point out in my ' In such a domain one can state anything, anything at all. And there is no way to know who is right, if anyone is right'

the difficulty facing people who believe in such a realm, of knowing that what they believe in, is
right. (again see also my post for Stuart)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>the difficulty facing people who believe in such a realm, of knowing that what they believe in, is
right. (again see also my post for Stuart) <<<

There is no difficulty whatsoever, provided you do not constrain yourself to a narrow epistemology in which only the measurable and material count.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

Stuart,

if you have red my answer to your post, you should realize that all the people round the table are also believers in the supernatural realm. So the question remains, how to prove that you are right and they are wrong?

[Gene Godbold]

Dirk,
What do you mean "prove"? If God is far, far beyond us, it stands to reason that the only way humans can know about Him is if He tells us something about Himself. Jews, Christians, and Muslims say that He has, in fact, done that. (Of course, the Muslim account conflicts with the earlier ones.) One can investigate such claims using various analytical methods--the same that we use for studying any historical event and/or text.

If you mean "prove" in some sort of philosophical sense, you will always have arguments about these. When I read Anselm's ontological argument, I saw that it "must" be true. But it obviously does not have that effect on everybody.

If you mean "prove" in some sort of scientific fashion, God can't be investigated in this manner. (I'm a scientist--biochemist-- professionally.)

Incidentally, Dirk, are you Dutch?

[dirk van glabeke]

Gene,
if I read your post correctly, one kind of proof will always leave people in doubt while the other (according to you) will never be able to give an answer.
So, must the conclusion then not be that there is no reason to make a choice for one God or another, or for a God altogether?
Or are you a follower of Pascal? When in doubt choose the safe option. But even then which God to choose?
I'm not Dutch, whatever gave you that idea? LOL

Ethan,

You point to different forms of knowledge and to (as others on this thread)
different domains of reality (the natural and the supernatural)
My view on these things is as follows:
There are several sources of ideas. Intuition, creativity, rational thinking,... Of all of these the best is rational thinking. It is the only one
which has produced a vast amount of knowledge that still grows everyday. It's results are all around you and overwhelming. The reason for it's strenght lies in it's critical method: new theories are measured against each other and against the facts.
None of the other sources has this power. The results of ideas spawned by these sources,unchecked by reason, have created some of the most atrocious facts in history. National socialism, the Taliban,...

Science, which is a part of rational thinking, has formed a number of very reliable laws and theories about reality.
A supernatural world would be in direct conflict with these laws and is therefore impossible.

Some of you claim that Dawkins is inconsistent in trying to talk about the supernatural in scientific terms, but in fact believing in the laws of science and at the same time in the supernatural is inconsistent.

I guess you could claim that by some mysterious fact these two domains although inconsistent can occupy the same universe. But then firstly, you claim something that you can't justify and secondly, once you allow inconsistencies, well you can say anything, anything at all.

Peace

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So the question remains, how to prove that you are right and they are wrong?<<<

I don't NEED to prove anything. Truth is self-authenticating: it remains true, whether everyone believes it, only a few believe it, or even if nobody believes it. What has been revealed has been revealed.

[Stuart Koehl]

For those who care, Dawkins buddy Daniel Dennett gets slammed big time by David Hart in this month's edition of First Things. Everything that Hart says about Dennett could be applied with equal validity to Dawkins.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>
the difficulty facing people who believe in such a realm, of knowing that what they believe in, is
right. (again see also my post for Stuart) <<<

I have Genesis confirmed for me on a daily basis.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have Genesis confirmed for me on a daily basis.<<<

Every evening, at Vespers.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have Genesis confirmed for me on a daily basis.<<<

An old monk on Athos was assigned a novice to take under his wing. Every evening at sunset, the old monk would go to a cliff overlooking the sea and face westward. He would remain still and silent until the sun went down, then he would return to the monastery.

"Abba", the novice asked him, "Why do you come here every evening? What are you doing?"

And the old monk responded, "I am collecting material".

[Bobby Winters]

:)

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

Stuart and Bobby,

you are just repeating yourself without trying to reject my argument
even if you repeat 'personal revelation' a hundred times it doesn't change a bit of the fact that:

1) every religion can claim the same, so as an argument this carries no weight, has no meaning
except maybe to yourself in making you feel good

2) personal insight has proven to be notoriuosly unreliable. This is why, although as you say, you don't need to prove anything, the only way to know if it's not an illusion is to take the critical rational stand towards your revelation.

to think that of all different personal revelations throughout history yours is the real one is, ... well lets put it this way: rather close to the sin of vanity :)

please stop repeating yourself, this is meaning less, unless it's your aim just to have the last word

if you have other arguments or if others have anything to add, I'll be more than happy to reply

but till then my conclusion is that my arguments still stand

And Stuart as to your story, one could as well replace the words 'old monk on Athos' by 'religious atheist' :)

Peace

[dirk van glabeke]

Gene,

'When I read Anselm's ontological argument, I saw that it "must" be true. But it obviously does not have that effect on everybody.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

this page contains a number of rejections of the argument. Some people tried to revive it, but is telling that even Plantinga's attempt only gives God 1/2 chance of existence.

Stuart,

'Daniel Dennett gets slammed big time '

somehow I detect a lack of christian brotherly love in that statement : )

Peace

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>somehow I detect a lack of christian brotherly love in that statement : )<<<

It is the acme of Christian charity to wish those in grave error that imperils their immortal souls be reproached and enlightened regarding their errors.

>>>And Stuart as to your story, one could as well replace the words 'old monk on Athos' by 'religious atheist' :)<<<

The religious atheist, being a scientific materialist at heart, would look at the sunset and complain about the high levels of particulant pollution in the upper atmosphere.

[Gene Godbold]

Dirk,
I've read some refutations of Anselm's argument when I took a class on "Faith, Doubt, God" (1987, I think). They just didn't seem that compelling to me while the argument did. What can I say? :-)

I think if you investigate the life and history of Jesus using (as I noted above) standard analytical methods of archeologists, historians and textual critics, you would come to the conclusion that there is something to that.

Paul says that faith "comes through hearing". Hearing what? The good news of Jesus, the Messiah. What's so good about it? In short, that:
1) the universe is screwed up because it's under the influence of powers hostile to God and his (originally) good creation
2) but this situation will not obtain forever because
3) God has decisively dealt with those powers through the person of His Son, Jesus through whom
4) the world will be remade in a state of perfection and we'll live with him

How'd all that happen? Well...that takes some time.

If you're wondering why there is no decisive proof either for or against this? What sort of "proof" would be sufficient? The sort that compels belief? What if God is the sort of being who doesn't compel? What if he's the sort of being that relies on a free appeal to a free mind? What if he likes to woo, not overpower?

The reason I thought you might be Dutch was twofold:
1) your name
2) I thought you used an idiomatic expression that I had only heard in the mouth of a Dutch student who did a rotation in the lab where I did my graduate work (in ~1992).

[Gene Godbold]

Dirk,
I went through Roger Zelazny when I was an adolescent and young adult. I liked the Nine Princes in Amber chronicles (the former more than the latter) and also "Lord of..." the remainder of the title of which escapes me. I also read his "successor" (in many ways) Stephen Brust. I ultimately didn't find the works of either author satisfying because they were only superficially "knowing" (and ultimately shallow).

[Brian John Schuettler]

I think Dirk is teasing you, Gene. He is definitely Dutch. BTW, you can intellectually engage someone til the cows come home but never forgot that faith precedes reason. Sometimes prayer is the only answer...by which I mean... "humble" prayer.

[Bobby Winters]

Dirk Van Glabeke,

I quit arguing ages ago. I write positive pieces now on things I choose, at times I choose. If you are curious about Christ, I will only say what he did: "Come and see."

Peace also to you.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>He is definitely Dutch.<<<

Possibly even Double Dutch.

[dirk van glabeke]

ok let's start:
'The religious atheist, being a scientific materialist at heart, would look at the sunset and complain about the high levels of particulant pollution in the upper atmosphere.'

no, well,... a ecologically minded person maybe would, atheist or christian, but besides that I think from your statement you find it hard to believe that something as an religious atheist can exist. Believe me it can. Religious which has as it's origin 'religiare' meaning 'connecting' doesn't necessary have to entail a worship of God(s). A religious atheist can feel a deep, intense bond with the world and it's occupants, there are a number of mental practices that can heighten and deepen that feeling. Buddhism, Spinoza, Einstein come to mind
as examples in various ways.

also the underlying thought that scientific materialism sort of makes the world a cold place is wrong. One can still experience the beauty of a rainbow if one knows how it comes into existence. Maybe even more so.

In some of your posts I feel that you somehow think I'm not knowledgeable in christian thought and ways. That is not so, I was raised a catholic. So I already heard 'the good news'. And besides that, I don't doubt the existence of a historic Jezus. Even though being an atheist, two years ago I visited Assisi
and was greatly moved, but not shaken in my conviction.

'If you're wondering why there is no decisive proof either for or against this'
I think I already presented a number of logical inconsistencies and problems that were not refuted. But if you can live with logical inconsistencies I am not surprised that you believe there is no decisive proof against.
If I take you at your word 'no decisive proof for or against' the problem of making this choice among other good choices remains.

' He is definitely Dutch'
No, I'm Flemish : ). Which is a great difference. Kind of like the difference between the English and the Americans or the Australians.

' an idiomatic expression '
I'm curious what expression that was?

'What if God is the sort of being who doesn't compel'
if there would be a rational argument for God, it would still not be compelling, man would still be free too choose for or against

'The good news of Jesus, '
there are several other religions that bring what one could call 'good news'
christianity doesn't have the monopoly of good. Atheists too can live a morally good life you know. : ) But maybe you mean the resurrection. That's another matter. But other religions have their afterlifes too, and some not so bad.

' faith precedes reason'
in a way yes, but even so, it is not a bad thing to look into ones hart and
scrutinize ones ways

'I quit arguing ages ago.I write positive pieces now'
I placed one, I thought, innocent remark, and from that this exchange resulted. I did not came here with an attack in mind. Exchanging opinions can be enlightning and has it's positive aspects, as long as it can happen with an open mind and mutual respect. With all respect I suspect that for some it's quite easy to feel smug about atheism and maybe a bit harder when confronted with a live one : ).
Altough in some of the other threads, I saw many post to which I could react, I'm not going to, live is just to short. But if you are interested in exchanging more views, feel free.

about Zelazny: in comparison to the older generation of SF writers his generation was more literary. He in particular was also more poetic, but I grant you he's no Stanislav Lem or Delaney, although I suspect the latter is not quite your taste : ).

Peace

[dirk van glabeke]

'Double Dutch.'

just ask and it will be explained to you

[Ethan Cordray]

Dear Dirk,

I don't feel that you've properly addressed the argument I made in my response to you. What I said was that there are more forms of rational knowledge than those addressed by natural science. I think you are in general right to value rationality preeminently over other forms of knowing; as the medieval scholastic philosophers held, reason is the judge of the other faculties, whether sense, imagination, or intuition.

Yet I sense in your arguments that you wish to limit rationality to merely the knowledge of external natural objects, that is, the realm of science. This seems to me to be one of the most common impulses in contemporary thought, the idea that only science can be said to be truly rational.

So let us suppose that you are right, that no other forms of thought are rational besides scientific knowledge, and that only rationality can give us sure and certain knowledge. It seems, then, that an awful lot that we call knowledge is in fact not so, it is in fact pure ignorance and superstition masquerading as knowledge.

For example, science may be able to tell me what killing is, but it cannot tell me whether killing a person is a good or bad thing. The categories of good and bad are beyond the purview of science. Indeed, any statement of what I "ought" to do is inherently unknowable. There can be no basis for morality in knowledge if only science counts as true knowledge. You decry the evils of National Socialism and the Taliban, but science cannot tell us any reason to condemn such regimes

Furthermore, and here I think is where your argumentation becomes internally inconsistent, scientific rational knowledge cannot tell me whether or not other forms of knowledge are legitimate. If I subject my every impulse and intuition to the rigor of scientific investigation, what can I learn? I can learn whether or not I truly have those intuitions and impulses, but I cannot learn whether or not those feelings have any resemblance to truth. Say I have a visceral reaction to the sight of dead human bodies, or cats, or chocolate ice cream. Scientific reasoning cannot tell me whether my feeling is a good or a bad thing, whether it is rightly ordered or aberrant. It can tell me how many other people react like I do, but not whether we are right or wrong to do so.

I do so hope that if you do decide to remain an atheist, you will investigate fully the implications of your position. One philosopher I would recommend to you most highly is the atheist Friedrich Nietzsche. I think he saw the honest results of complete atheism more than anyone else.

[Rob Grano]

Dirk: to follow up on what Ethan said (and I think he's exactly right) you may want to read these two Touchstone articles by editor Patrick Henry Reardon. He goes in depth into some of the things that Ethan brings up.

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-07-028-f

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-085-f

[dirk van glabeke]

I have the feeling you are trying to back me up in a corner where I don't want to be : )
But a corner which in your way of seeing filosophy is probably marked 'DOOM', the abyss of the atheists : )

To quote myself: 'Science, which is a part of rational thinking'
in my post of Dec 13, 2006 6:04:22 PM

So I don't see rational thinking as limited to only science.

The idea of rationality which I adhere to is one about the question if decisions can be justified. I mean decisions to act or decisions to believe.
Justification means questioning. It means comparison of alternatives, choosing the most justified. Investigation based on parts that are more certain. Trying to compare with the facts,with experiences, applying methodological rules.
Investigating the internal consitency, critical examination of the knowledge system.

And of course you come up with the old problem of 'is' and 'ought'
as if there is only the choice between science which can't decide and God.
Firstly as pointed out above, I don't limit myself to science
Secondly, this is as much a problem for you, in sofar it gives you the difficult choice between the many 'oughts' that are in this world, and in which way to choose between them. If you don't believe in rationality, you don't have a method to choose. On the problems of other methods, see my posts above.

The concrete examples of National Socialism and the Taliban:
of which you say: 'but science cannot tell us any reason to condemn such regimes'
It is not so difficult for me to choose another alternative based on rationality:
- National socialism is based on an inaccurate image of man which led to the concentration camps
- the Taliban: they base their morality on an absolute based on the supernatural, which can be rejected (see my posts above)
besides that there is also their inaccurate image of man and women,...

Many times when I read comments of christians, it is as if to them it's impossible to imagine how a non believer can live a moral life. But in reality
most atheists don't have a problem with this. It's almost as if without God to look over your shoulder man can't wait to live a life of crime. That gives a
strange view of christians. : )

Let this be a first part of an answer, I'll read the articles by Reardon and get back to you later.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>National socialism is based on an inaccurate image of man which led to the concentration camps<<<

How do you know? What if they had won?

>>>the Taliban: they base their morality on an absolute based on the supernatural, which can be rejected (see my posts above)<<<

But the Taliban are intensely rational--you merely reject their baseline premises.

>>>besides that there is also their inaccurate image of man and women,...<<<

On what a prioris do you make that assessment?

>>>Many times when I read comments of christians, it is as if to them it's impossible to imagine how a non believer can live a moral life.<<<

The answer to that is simple: atheists today are living off the moral capital accrued over the previous 1900 years of Christian civilization. But when it's gone, it's gone.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>The answer to that is simple: atheists today are living off the moral capital accrued over the previous 1900 years of Christian civilization. But when it's gone, it's gone.<<<

But Stuart, there could alway be another morality field discovered in the Alaska Wildlife refuge... ;)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But Stuart, there could alway be another morality field discovered in the Alaska Wildlife refuge... ;)<<<

Unfortunately, a lot of people simply reject non-fossil sources of morality.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dear Dirk,

I very strongly wish to agree with you about the importance of rational thinking. I honestly believe that truly rational thinking, fully understood, must be the ruling faculty in the human soul. I am far from the only Christian who believes this. The most notable example is St. Thomas Aquinas, the great medieval philosopher and theologian upon whose thought much of current Roman Catholic theology is now based. Benedict XVI, the current pope, is also very much committed to the centrality of rational discourse and philosophical rigor.

Philosophically speaking, then, there are two important questions that follow from this:

First, what is rational thinking? How can it be distinguished, what are its subtypes, and what essential nature is shared by all such thought? This is where I am concerned that you are not opening yourself up to all the possibilities of what is rational knowledge, though I applaud your willingness to admit non-scientific reasoning as nonetheless rational.

I very much hope that you will submit the biblical account of Jesus' life and ministry to as rigorous a rational examination as you can muster. Many atheists have taken this approach and found the gospel accounts to be historically and philosophically reasonable to the highest degree. Of particular note are Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, both Americans who investigated the Christian accounts through the lens of legal principle. While I believe neither's work to be without certain flaws, both would be good references for you to examine if you really want to fully judge the reasonableness of our faith in Jesus.

Second, even if rational thinking is the surest form of knowledge, upon what is it based? All philosophers who have closely examined rationality, from Aristotle on down to the contemporary analytic philosophers, have noticed that all our rational thinking must be based on pre-rational axioms that we accept as true without requiring logical proof of them. Indeed, such proof is impossible due to their axiomatic nature, but this does not mean that we cannot know them to be true. Rather, for rationality itself to be reliable, we must know its axioms to be true in an even deeper and more certain way than even the results of our later rational thinking. Axioms are the basis for all rational conclusions, and I think their existence proves that rationality is not the only path to true and certain knowledge.

I think this is what Stuart is getting at when he talks of the Taliban being rational. It is not that their premises that are rational, but then again neither are yours. Neither are anyone's. The axioms of our thought, be they religious belief, atheism, or simply acceptance of certain metaphysical categories, are never entirely rational. You and I and the Taliban all then proceed to reason based on those axioms. But again, they are axioms, not hypotheses; no amount of strictly rational thinking that derives from those axioms can ever drive us back to reconsider them.

And finally, on the subject of ethics, which you assert is a red herring: On what both purely rational and atheistic basis can you condemn the actions of the Taliban or the Nazis? Please make sure to make no appeals to tradition, experience, cultural authority, widely held ethical norms (these are all empirical bases, not rational ones), human spirituality, inherent human dignity, political rights, or human ontological equality (these all rely on a conception of immateriality not discoverable by pure reason alone).

And have you read Nietzsche yet? If you'd like a more contemporary atheist ethicist (and one certainly a lot more confident in rationality than Nietzsche), I can also recommend Peter Singer. See if you can find in his thought a rational justification for condemning either regime.

[dirk van glabeke]

quote: >>>National socialism is based on an inaccurate image of man which led to the concentration camps<<<

How do you know? What if they had won?

On what both purely rational and atheistic basis can you condemn the actions of the Taliban or the Nazis? Please make sure to make no appeals to tradition, experience, cultural authority, widely held ethical norms (these are all empirical bases, not rational ones), human spirituality, inherent human dignity, political rights, or human ontological equality (these all rely on a conception of immateriality not discoverable by pure reason alone).
end quote

Nazi ideology states that men are not equal based on biological inferiority
Jews,... were seen as inferior races.

Rational thinking (science) quite disproved this.
If they had won, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference. Disproved is disproved.

More reactions later, a bit short on time.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Nazi ideology states that men are not equal based on biological inferiority
Jews,... were seen as inferior races.

Rational thinking (science) quite disproved this.
If they had won, it wouldn't have made the slightest difference. Disproved is disproved.
<<<

So would I be correct in surmising that their extermination would have been justified had it been scientifically provable they were an inferior race?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Rational thinking (science) quite disproved this.<<<

Actually, because of the Nazis, because of the Holocaust, because the Nazis lost, it has become de rigeur to point to nurture not nature with regard to human characteristics. But in fact, as evolutionary biology advances, we begin to see just how much is really nature. And, depending upon what traits you value, you could easily end up saying that some racially derived characteristics make one group of humans superior to another. In any case, building your castle on a foundation of scientific consensus is as bad as building on a foundation of sand: by its very definition, science is transient, the permanence of its consensus extending only as far as the next theory.

>>>So would I be correct in surmising that their extermination would have been justified had it been scientifically provable they were an inferior race?<<<

My point, exactly.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Jews,... were seen as inferior races.

Rational thinking (science) quite disproved this.<<

Using what metrics, exactly? Why should a Semitic nose, dark kinky hair, or a certain Y chromosome haplotype not be considered "inferior"?

And from a Darwinian perspective, the very fact that the Germans could exterminate six million Jews rather than the other way around ought to indicate that one group possessed a survival advantage over the other.

It is only by my Christian understanding of the true trans-material roots of morality that I can say that there can be no inferiority in certain groups of people. DNA distinctions do not affect a person's ontological status and inherent value; I can only say this because I believe in a non-material source of our human worth. A materialist cannot reasonably say the same thing. Again, Peter Singer understands this quite well.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is only by my Christian understanding of the true trans-material roots of morality that I can say that there can be no inferiority in certain groups of people. DNA distinctions do not affect a person's ontological status and inherent value; I can only say this because I believe in a non-material source of our human worth. A materialist cannot reasonably say the same thing. Again, Peter Singer understands this quite well.<<<

C.S. Lewis was more succinct: "A man who does not acknowledge God as his Father cannot acknowledge every man as his brother".

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>So would I be correct in surmising that their extermination would have been justified had it been scientifically provable they were an inferior race?<<<

whatever gives you that idea? You surprise me even suggesting such a thing. I merely stated that inferiority was disproved nothing more. All else is in your own mind.

>>>In any case, building your castle on a foundation of scientific consensus is as bad as building on a foundation of sand: by its very definition, science is transient, the permanence of its consensus extending only as far as the next theory.<<<

There is a very well establihed core of scientific theory. I don't say there is no chance that it will once be altered, (there are no absolutes), but is is strong enough. At least strong enough for you to put your trust into it whenever you build a house, start a car or board an airplane.

I know that if I turn the key of my car, that it will start (even exceptions are explained by science). While praying,... I don't know if you have heard of the attempt to test the power of prayer? It failed. Which is quite satisfactorily explained,... by science.

>>>I can only say this because I believe in a non-material source of our human worth.<<<

You can say it but not prove it's existence. You may all try to attack my worldview, but it is significant you don't succeed in rejecting my arguments against the supernatural. I guess it's easier to attack than to evaluate one's own position.

To avoid a possible misunderstanding:
my view of a relative rationality (see posts above) is not = to my views on ethics. I see rationality as a means of choosing between different (ethical, ... ) alternatives. This based on the justification (scientific proof being a form of justification)of these alternatives. You can of course reject such a method but you won't find a better one.

In this method science of course has a very prominent place, being the most certain way of knowing. And so, justification of the supernatural goes out the window.

In this method there is no absolute.

I also don't see the divide between is and ought as being so sharp. The abhorrence of Hitler is not a matter of taste. There are experiments that show a certain grammar of morality shared between very different populations (religious and non-religious, Western and non-Western). In theory one can choose for a life of pure evil, but in practice, among sane people this is very rare. Well there will always be some satanists.

Oh, yes I'm still reading Reardon's articles. Hope you will do the same if I suggest some literature.
Peace

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I know that if I turn the key of my car, that it will start (even exceptions are explained by science). <<<

Unless you own a Fiat.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>whatever gives you that idea? You surprise me even suggesting such a thing. I merely stated that inferiority was disproved nothing more. All else is in your own mind. <<<

Excuse me, but this flows from your argument.

In any case, there wouldn't've been any Jews around to celebrate the victory of science.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

Bobby,

why would inferiority necessarily imply extermination? One could say animals are in a number of ways inferior to humans. Does that imply we should exterminate them? Certainly not.

[dirk van glabeke]

Dominic,

I reacted to the sentence 'the good news of Jezus', wondering what was exactly meant by this. A possible answer could be: the morality of brotherly love, another could be: the news of resurrection. There could be others. When I checked the original post, I saw what was meant.
So it was not my intention to make some kind of special statement about resurrection or pasted Christianity.

Peace

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>And from a Darwinian perspective, the very fact that the Germans could exterminate six million Jews rather than the other way around ought to indicate that one group possessed a survival advantage over the other.<<<

This is social Darwinism, which Darwin himself rejected. It doesn't take into account the cultural, geographical,historical,... factors.

>>>It is only by my Christian understanding of the true trans-material roots of morality that I can say that there can be no inferiority in certain groups of people. DNA distinctions do not affect a person's ontological status and inherent value; I can only say this because I believe in a non-material source of our human worth. A materialist cannot reasonably say the same thing. Again, Peter Singer understands this quite well.<<<

as physical beings living in a real world we are all faced with the same reality. Solidarity and individualism are both built into us by evolution. How do you explain solidarity in non-religious people? Let me cite as an example the strong cohesive powers of confucianism, an ethical system without God.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>why would inferiority necessarily imply extermination<<<

I dunno. Ask the Neanderthals.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I reacted to the sentence 'the good news of Jezus', wondering what was exactly meant by this. A possible answer could be: the morality of brotherly love, another could be: the news of resurrection. There could be others. When I checked the original post, I saw what was meant.<<<

Why not go back to the source?

Euangelion is a technical term from Hellenistic culture. It means a "Royal Proclamation of Good News"--in secular terms, usually applied to stuff like a military victory, a royal wedding, birth of an heir, etc.

As used by Paul and the Christian Evangelists, it is precisely that: a Royal Proclamation of Good News. In this case, the Proclamation is made in the name of Christ the King, and the Good News is that which Orthodox Christians proclaim joyously every Pascha: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down Death by death, and to those in the tomb bestowing life. in other words, the Good News is that Christ by his death and resurrection, has won an irrevocable victory over death, freed man from its bondage, and begun the process of resotring the Cosmos to its intended configuration.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dear Dirk,

A number of points, in no particular order:

1. The claim that Darwin rejected social Darwinism is simply untrue. His book The Descent of Man contains an entire section devoted to the social application of his theory. A sample quotation:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168]

2. "Why would inferiority necessarily imply extermination?"

As Darwin understood, it does if the inferior group competes for survival resources with the superior group. Resources like lebensraum, or gold, or breeding with pure-blooded Nordic women. Of course the Nazis may have been wrong in perceiving this competition, but how can you blame them for acting on the best scientific information available to them to safeguard their survival?

3. Perhaps I've not responded to your argument against the supernatural because I'm not sure where you've presented one. Would you care to restate it little more clearly?

4. I'd also be very interested to hear more about your ethical theory. What exactly do you raise as an alternative to the selfish nihilism of Nietzsche and the brutal utilitarianism of Singer? In an entirely materialist metaphysical structure, these seem to me to be the most persuasive ethical systems.

5. As to the resurrection: As St. Paul himself says, "If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we [Christians]are of all men most to be pitied." It's difficult to see how any of the unique claims of Christianity (apart from the more general moral principles it shares with other faiths) confer any significant survival benefit upon us. For the early Christians, it was in fact dramatically the opposite. They were quite likely to be killed merely for those beliefs.

None of this proves the resurrection true, but it is undeniably a central and nonnegotiable tenet of our faith. It is the gospel. If it isn't true, then there is no good news of Jesus, only a poisonous and destructive lie. Again, I agree with Nietzsche on this. If Christianity is false, then it is the worst evil ever perpetrated upon the human race. But if it is true, then it is the greatest message ever given to us, the news that we are infinitely loved by the creator of the entire cosmos, that we can become His children, and that we will live eternally in perfect happiness, peace and bliss, our every good hope and desire fulfilled.

We here are discussing this all with you, not to try to prove our intelligence or to feel good about ourselves, but in the hope that you will come to share this beautiful faith with us. I'm not interested in simply giving you some ethical system to act morally upon. Moral action isn't our ultimate goal; it's only a means to our goal, which is perfect and eternal life.

I do hope you'll see the futility of acting morally in a materialistic world; you cannot change your final fate, and with all of us you will crumble into dust at the end of your days. How we spend our lives, in good or in evil, makes no final difference one way or another.

Now that I've made my position and desire clear, I hope we can continue to discuss these matters deeply and with the seriousness they deserve.

Peace.

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>3. Perhaps I've not responded to your argument against the supernatural because I'm not sure where you've presented one. Would you care to restate it little more clearly?<<<

my argument was this:

Science, which is a part of rational thinking, has formed a number of very reliable laws and theories about reality.
A supernatural world would be in direct conflict with these laws and is therefore impossible.

some more explanation:

the act of a supernatural being on the natural world would entail, for instance: reading of mind, levitation, spontaneous combustion, rising from the dead, seeing into the future,... all of these are in conflict with the laws of physics. These last laws are shown to work everyday over the whole world.
So if one works, the other cannot.

To this I could still add an specific and already very old argument against the christian idea of God:
the contradiction between a God defined as infinite good and infinite powerfull
and the existence of suffering
I know most of the until now unsuccessfull counterarguments to this argument, so to avoid these we could take as an example the case of a child that is born with the disease of Tay Sachs. This child will at first develop normally so that loving relationship can develop between parents and child. Very quickly a progressive deterioration of the whole nervoussystem will emerge wich will amount in
the growing painfullness of seeing, hearing and feeling. The child will undergo a horrible degeneration process and will die round the age of three.
As you see this suffering has nothing to do with free will or sin and could of course easily be stopped by God.
The only conclusion to draw is hat the christian God as defined does not exist.

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>I do hope you'll see the futility of acting morally in a materialistic world; you cannot change your final fate, and with all of us you will crumble into dust at the end of your days. How we spend our lives, in good or in evil, makes no final difference one way or another.<<<

Ethan, what a sad picture you paint. Reading this it is almost incomprehensible that all atheists don't just jump out of the window!
Reality is of course very different. Most atheists life very satisfying lives.
How can this be? If we men, as a species wouldn't have built into us, by evolution, a strong urge to survive, we would have ceased to exist a long time ago. This coupled with a need for positive experiences and the possibility for socialisation are what keeps us far from your gloomy picture.

[dirk van glabeke]

>>>What exactly do you raise as an alternative to the selfish nihilism of Nietzsche and the brutal utilitarianism of Singer? In an entirely materialist metaphysical structure, these seem to me to be the most persuasive ethical systems.<<<

when confronted with an ethical problem I try to weigh the different solutions and their justifications, as I described in my posts about relative rationality

as to what kind of ethical rules, systems I feel most closely to:
- right of man, of course. In a multicultural world such a system is a necessary minimum to be able to agree.
- Spinoza's ethics
- social contract theory as worked out by Rawls, and now modified by Martha Nussbaum, seems interesting

[Judy Warner]

Dirk, I recommend you read C.S. Lewis's book, Miracles. He addresses your concerns about the supernatural, as well as a great many other things.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dear Dirk,

I cannot possibly give a better answer to you objection that scientific laws rule out the miraculously supernatural than C.S. Lewis and others have. Like Judy, I can recommend Miracles most highly.

As to your objection to my ethical challenge:

>>Reality is of course very different. Most atheists life very satisfying lives. How can this be?<<

Certainly many atheists live relatively normal lives, undisturbed by any ethical crises. In the same way, most people in general live their lives without giving a second thought to the demands of reason or trying to live a consistently ethical life. It's very easy to muddle through with all one's convictions and prejudices unchallenged by deep contemplation. It is only the truly strong and wise man who can gaze into the depths of truth and confront despair.

>>If we men, as a species wouldn't have built into us, by evolution, a strong urge to survive, we would have ceased to exist a long time ago. This coupled with a need for positive experiences and the possibility for socialisation are what keeps us far from your gloomy picture.<<

Well, that's a nice consistent Darwinian explanation, but I can't see how any of that involves rationality. Are our so-called "positive" experiences only valuable for their survival benefit? And is there something rational about desiring survival? If we are merely the products of random chance or inexorable physical laws, then what is rationality, anyway, besides a certain incidental arrangement of brain cell molecules and electrical impulses? And as to results, is it really possible to say in this age of thermonuclear weaponry and mechanized war that reason has been beneficial to our species' survival prospects? I don't see bacteria or plants or lower primates developing technology capable of wiping themselves out.

[dirk van glabeke]

Ethan,

Citing book titles is not really discussing.
Strongly doubt if I will ever find that book over here. So I looked up a review of the book. From that I gained the impression Lewis is mostly attacking naturalism. In my argument I spoke of laws of physics. For instance physics shows that there is always a carrier to get information/energy from one point to another. In the supernatural there is no carrier. I probably repeat myself but as a knowledge system about the world physics shows it's speriority and correctness in simply working in practice.
I also seem to understand that Lewis sees rationality as a supernatural phenomenon. Kind of presupposing what has to be proven.

[dirk van glabeke]

I notice you don't react to
- my argument from the existence of evil
- nor mention your atttude towards Spinoza, Rawls or Nussbaum