The Compelling Sensibility
by Steve PetermannLately there has been a rash of anti-religion books by the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Stenger. The one thing that the New Atheists just don't seem to get is that most people on the planet have a compelling sensibility that there is an underlying ultimate purpose to the cosmos. This sensibility may not be "scientific" as traditionally defined but it is still extremely compelling. What is this sensibility? It can come in infinite varieties. The anecdotes abound. Many find it in their experience of nature. Or in the beauty of love, art, mathematics, music, reason, scientific discovery, etc. And even the horrors of life. When it comes, it comes with power. A power that is not easily dissuaded. Now the materialists will claim that this sensibility is just an adaptive feature or a coincidental byproduct of evolution, but for those who have it that doesn't convince.
As an example of how this sensibility can be in engendered, I would like to cite an experience of the famous Christian theologian, Paul Tillich:
"One Moment of Beauty" which originally appeared in Parade, Sunday Star Ledger, 25 September 1955:
Divine revelation comes to few men, but understanding of it came to me one moment 36 years ago. I looked, for the first time, at beauty revealed by a man who had been dead more than 400 years. As the son of a Protestant minister in eastern Germany in the days before World War I, I had grown up in the belief that visual beauty is unimportant. My father's parish houses as we moved from city to city were like all parish houses of the time - gloomy, unattractive and furnished in the bad taste of the later nineteenth century. Ministers' sons spent long hours learning to recite poetry, practicing music and memorizing church history. Neither at home nor at school was I taught that there is beauty we can see.
Strangely, I first found the existence of beauty in the trenches of World War I. At 28, I became a chaplain in the German army and served for five ugly years until the war ended. To take my mind off the mud, blood and death of the Western Front, I thumbed through the picture magazines at the field bookstores. In some of them I found reproductions of the great and moving paintings of the ages. At rest camps and in the lulls in the bitter battles, especially at Verdun, I huddled in dugouts studying this "new world" by candle and lantern light. But at the end of the war I still had never seen the original paintings in all their glory. Going to Berlin, I hurried to the Kaiser Friederich Museum. There on the wall was a picture that had comforted me in battle: Madonna with Singing Angels, painted by Sandro Botticelli in the fifteenth century.
Gazing up at it, I felt a state approaching ecstasy. In the beauty of the painting there was Beauty itself. It shone through the colors of the paint as the light of day shines through the stained-glass windows of a medieval church. As I stood there, bathed in the beauty its painter had envisioned so long ago, something of the divine source of all things came through to me. I turned away shaken.That moment has affected my whole life, giving me the keys for the interpretation of human existence, brought vital joy and spiritual truth. I compare it with what is usually called revelation in the language of religion. I know that no artistic experience can match the moments in which prophets were grasped in the power of the Divine Presence, but I believe there is an analogy between revelation and what I felt. In both cases, the experience goes beyond the way we encounter reality in our daily lives. It opens up depths experienced in no other way. I know now that the picture is not the greatest. I have seen greater since then. But that moment of ecstasy has never been repeated.
Now Tillich has been considered by many a dangerous revolutionary in theology because he embraced everything, including science, in his pursuit of a rigorous, systematic theology.
The point is that many people have experiences, perhaps not as dramatic, that are so compelling that the inferences of the New Atheists from scientific explorations do not persuade. This may, in fact, lead some who take very seriously what science tells us about our cosmos to adopt positions seemingly at odds with it or to create contrivances in their theology in an attempt to create compatibility. This should not come as a surprise because even in science challenges to current theory are often met with contrivances (called auxiliary hypotheses). Eventually inadequate theories fall by the wayside as they fail to find support. The same is true of theology. While the fundamental sensibility remains, the explication of that sensibility evolves. This is the history of theology going back to animism, polytheism, pantheism, monotheism, non-dual theologies, panentheism, etc. The current attacks on religion will not destroy what compels most people to be religious, but will instead foster a climate where religion can evolve further. While most of the criticisms of the New Atheists have already been lodged from within religion itself, their popularization in the media will only provide a continued impetus for religion to change and become even more compelling in this age of science. Not exactly what they had in mind, I'm sure.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Comment by Jehu — May 25, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
So you should be happy with the "New Atheists". In fact, atheists might well be angels sent by God to foster a better climate for religion. The atheists are of course fully aware of this, but must not reveal it. Oh wait, aaarggghh…
Comment by Raevmo — May 25, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Hi Raevmo,
I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I think religion needs to evolve and become more viable for people in the 3rd Millenium. Many of their criticisms are valid and have already been raised by liberal theologians, who have, for the most part, remained in obscurity outside academia. Most prominent theologians over the years have welcomed criticism from outside religion. It provides a helpful therapeutic to idolatry.
However, the tone and lack of depth in the New Atheists is not helpful for a number of reasons. First they offer such a nasty, superficial and empirically vacuous view of religion that they don't create the best climate for dialog. Secondly they give science a bad name. When prominent scientists put science at odds with religion without the normal rigor that science requires, they alienate many religious people and, in fact, create even more pronounced reactions of fundamentalism. As Scott Atran noted folks like Bertrand Russell also had strong criticisms of religion but lodged them in rigorous and constructive ways.
It seems clear to me that the New Atheists have some axes to grind. I don't know what they are but their over-the-top simplistic rhetoric doesn't look like a productive strategy to promote their ideas. Even many other atheists just don't get what they are trying to do.
However, I'm not really that concerned with these people or their books. They need to be responded to but I don't see them having any lasting impact. I don't really know where Dawkins and his ilk can go from here. They've done their simplistic diatribes so that's that. To do more they'd have to get into the weeds and deal with the complexities of religion and theology just like the anthropologists and sociologists of religion have to do. I just don't see them doing that so they'll become increasingly irrelevant.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 25, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
So you should be happy with the "New Atheists". In fact, atheists might well be angels sent by God to foster a better climate for religion. The atheists are of course fully aware of this, but must not reveal it. Oh wait, aaarggghh"¦
I sense the inconsistency between our rational ascetisism, and the presence of atheism. Atheism is not just the disbelief in God, but a disbelief in anything outside of nature. Thus, our ascetisism cannot be rational, but is simply the chemical reactions we feel in our brains when confronted with the profound.
Yes, I think we need atheists to help us think. If we did not have them, then our apologetic would be merely based on assumptions that everyone would pretty much agree on without having any evidence, and our apologetic would never be challenged outside of our own circles of thought. Atheism is a counter to any complacency we might have with faith as a blind leap. Faith is much more than that. Faith must have evidences beyond simply believing out of a desire to believe in something.
Comment by Randy — May 25, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I think the real achievement of the New Atheists has been to challenge the idea that religious beliefs ought to be exempt from the kind of rational criticism that political, economic, and scientific ideas are routinely subjected to.
The fact that we've seen five recent bestsellers challenging this taboo is heartening.
FYI:
God is not Great, by Christopher Hitchens, is at #4 on the NYT bestseller list.
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, is at #16 after 7 1/2 months on the list.
Comment by keiths — May 25, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Asceticism describes a life characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures (wiki). What's rational about that?
Comment by Raevmo — May 25, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Hi Raevmo,
I like it! LOL
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 25, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Hi Randy,
Criticism of religious sentiment can come from many sources both believers and nonbelievers. Since theology attempts to characterize the truth of reality as it ultimately is, it must embrace all serious criticisms. They all represent the existential situation and thus are part of reality as such. The atheist is not alien to theology but one element in the existential depth of life. The denial of God is always an aspect of theology because idolatry is always present. Idolatry is according to Tillich the raising of something preliminary to the ultimate. As such theology must join the atheist in rejecting idolatrous pictures of God. Many theologians would respond to the atheist that "I don't believe in the same god you don't believe in". Atheists must justify their disbelief justs as theists much justify their belief. This creates a dynamic enviroment for evaluation of claims and is healthy.
What often happens, however, is that theists count as evidence things the atheist won't, hasn't experienced, or interprets differently. This is where the dialog may come to an impasse but that's OK, in my view, as long as there remains a respect for each other's position.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 25, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Hi Randy,
You wrote…
Often it is hard to judge sincerity on Blogs, but I think you are being sincere.
I approve.
As an atheist, I do not fear religion, per say. I fear the mixture of religion and unquestioning obedience. If everyone would think for themselves, I believe the world would be a better place. Of course that would mean the end of my blogging persona, but it would be a good trade.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 25, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Hi TP,
I fear this of any ideology be it religion or non-religion. No need to single out the religious as blindly following some form of belief.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 25, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Hi Steve Petermann,
You wrote…
I agree that blind obedience is wrong no matter what. However, religion oftens ascribes to the virtues of being "faithful" and the sin of "pride".
It is difficult to believe your own thoughts have merit while simultaneously being humble. It's not impossible. I have been known to say "No one has ever been wiser than Socrates and no one every will be." or "I don't know the Truth, do you?"
I suspect people have felt my delivery was less than humble, but that shouldn't matter since I am thinking for myself.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 25, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Yes, that pretty much leaves advocates of reductionistic materialism as the last group of people who have exempted themselves from having their beliefs challenged. The vast majority have never read an empirical and substantial criticism of their position, such as Irreducible Mind, The Presence of the Past, or Entangled Minds. Such is the fate of the hegemons of every age, who so rarely are ever brought to question their base assumptions.
Comment by mcromer — May 25, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Hi keiths,
I take it that you haven't read any liberal theology from over several centuries because if you had you could not make that statement. There are probably no criticisms the New Atheists raise that haven't already been raised within theology itself. However, it seems that sensational controversy is what the media and publishing wants. Just to list a few, here are theologians who have grappled with these criticisms just in the last few decades:
Cobb, Griffin, Suchocki, Kaufman, McFague, Farley, Anderson, Borg, Burrow, Church, Clayton, Davaney, Johnson, Keller, Neville, Thandeka, Tracy, Rita Nakashima Brock, Lisa Cahill, Anna Case-Winters, Pam Couture, Mary Doak, Margaret Farley, Robert Franklin, Franklin Gamwell, David Hollenbach, Nancy Howell, Robin Lovin, Jennifer G. Jesse, Carol Johnston, Susan Nelson, June O'Connor, Samuel K. Roberts, Helene Russell, William Schweikert, Max Stackhouse, Linda Tessier, Emilie Townes, Pamela Dickey Young, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Neibur, Wolfgang Pannenburg, etc.
Apparently, however, their works don't get into the popular press because they are constructive criticisms.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 25, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
TP,
Okay that's your experience. I have known thousands of religious adherents over the years and very few were prideful and accepted things on blind faith. I also worked in a research lab for 10 years and I can attest that the sins of pride and blind faith are not exclusive to religion. Every realm of human endeavor is in need of reform. The question is whether to be destructive or constructive?
I don't see anything contradictory to being passionate about one's beliefs and still recognizing they may be wrong. Otherwise isn't that just the blind faith you criticize?
Are you sure? We all find ourselves within a culture or subculture and a psychological history that can bias our opinions.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 25, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Hi Steve,
I said "I suspect people have felt my delivery was less than humble, but that shouldn't matter since I am thinking for myself."
You responded with…
No
That is why I count on my friends MikeGene, Joy, Bradford and even Stunney to keep my biases in check. I try to do the same for them.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 25, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
a few comments on some comments, take them as you will:
after postmodernism use of maximlism and play, harris and dawkins are trying to pass it off like they are trying to be simple so that we all can understand and come into the truth. however, i think their over the top simplicity is more an attempt at propaganda (trhough inaccuracy and vagueness, ex. the concrete definitions they DONT give for faith, religion, etc) than anything else.
as some others have said here, in america, it is not only religious beliefs that are said to be immune from criticism, i could rattle off many specific issues with believers and nonbelievers where they have pulled the its true for me card. in america, people of all stripes are rather inclined to the you cant criticize this or that of mine.
ill get to this in a moment
some of the "emerging" churches have a liberal philosophy that embraces the exploration of ALL questions, and set their services up to be nothing but a question session.
its amazing this needs to be said, but i fully agree.
i am always unsure, tp, what you mean by "thinking for ourselves", but perhaps as someone of the "new generation", i tend to view the "individual" as an extension of an institution.
im not sure why blind obedience no matter what would be wrong, though i dislike blind obedience myself due to personal experiences (emotionally hurt when i dissented in public situations). the hebrew word for faith encompases the future itself becoming as a form of evidence.
i may be wrong on the etymology of biblical humility and pride, but as an example id say….i know im a really fast typer, very fast. i say this statement with humility, because i desire to serve people with this skill, and not necessarily myself. i view the skill as a gift, and one to be distrubuted, not as something "that is mine alone". dawkins and harris seem prideful because its THEM who figured it out and them alone who hold the powerful flag of reason, it is themselves they serve in that they want ONLY their vision of the future to win in a black and white world.
im still not sure what you mean by thinking for oneself.
since, as others have noted, there is nothing new whatsover about what harris and dawkins are saying, i would say the fact that they are selling so well has more to do with their rudeness, their "accessibility", their desire to again take up the "is there a truth" sort of question after postmodernism, and the fear that america has after 911, fear of both terrorists and bush himself.
Comment by dantedanti — May 25, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
http://maverickphilosopher.pow...
just a blog i read once in awaile, saw he said something on harris. thought it was interesting and not vague philosophically like harris is (who by the way sounds like he got the degree he done got: a UNDERGRADUATE degree in philosophy).
Comment by dantedanti — May 25, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Randy said,
No, I don't think so. Strictly speaking, atheism is not an intellectual challenge.The God Delusion posits no intellectual problem. It poses a problem, but not an intellectual one. Atheism, Feminism, the drug trade, Marxism, Islamic fundamentalism, prostitution - sure enough these things are problems, and to deal with them requires intelligence, but intellectual problems they are not.
In his book Survivals and New Arrivals Hillaire Belloc grapples with a phenomenon for which he cannot even find a name. In the end, he calls it, with various reservations, The Modern Mind. The problem of the Modern Mind is a broad one, but it is clear enough, to anyone who has had extensive dealings with evangelical atheists, that today's sort of atheism is a perfected form of Belloc's Modern Mind.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 26, 2007 @ 12:31 am
May 26th, 2007 at 12:33 am
mcromer wrote:
Matthew,
The funny thing is that you've got it exactly backward. Practically everyone was a dualist until neuroscience began revealing the flaws in dualism. The materialist view was opposed at every step by dualists, and only the strength of the evidence has allowed it to reach its current dominant position among neuroscientists.
The historical transition is recapitulated, in miniature, in the life of almost every materialist. We intuitively believe, as children, that the mind is separate from the brain. Each of us has to be persuaded that the comfortable intuitive view is not correct. The fact that the evidence is strong enough to do so for the vast majority of neuroscientists is very impressive.
Comment by keiths — May 26, 2007 @ 12:33 am
May 26th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Keiths,
Of course when a field teaches a materialism dogmatically, when it refuses to engage any evidence for idealism (which you mistakenly labeled dualism) when it throws up canards like the influence of brain on mind as proof that brain equals mind (consider the difference between an ipod and a radio), when adherents of a field will never get their doctorate, much less hired, much less tenure if they hold a non-materialist position, it should not be a surprise that they hold to materialism. Even so, some of the most famous have abandoned it (ie Nobel laureates Sperry and Eccles).
The fact that materialist reductionists have almost never read books like Entangled Minds, the Presence of the Past, Irreducible Mind, Extraordinary Knowing (which I just began tonight) and the like does not indicate familiarity with evidence that contradicts their conceptual models. The fact that many of them show up to debate psi phenomena without reading the studies they are attacking is inexcusable.
I did throw a gauntlet to you earlier (you know what it is) and I hope you will pick it up and prove that my generalizations do not apply in your case.
Comment by mcromer — May 26, 2007 @ 1:48 am
May 26th, 2007 at 3:15 am
dantedanti asks,
You can be sure that this slogan does not imply independent creative thought, objective reasoning, or anything like that. What does it usually mean in the context of these sort of discussions? Almost invariably the charge, or request 'think for yourself' reduces down to this: it means that you must demonstrate disagreement with an disapproved authority, especially if you happen to agree with that authority. So if you say that you happen to agree with the Pope in matters of marriage, and you say this to someone who disapproves of the Pope, you will be asked to 'think for yourself'. No amount of protestation on your part of the form "but look, I thought this through and I must say my view is substantially the same as the Pope's" will be of avail: you are not thinking for yourself unless you disagree with the disapproved authority, be it the Pope, the Bible, Socrates, Newton, the telephone-book, the Constitution, or even your mother.
This 'method' (I can't call it a form of reasoning, because it's not) is a fine specimen of Modern Thought, as described by Belloc elsewhere in this thread.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 26, 2007 @ 3:15 am
May 26th, 2007 at 3:23 am
No, they understand that well. You're missing the point — they are not complaining about awe of natural things, nor even awe of supernatural things; they are saying there isn't evidence for the supernatural, and consequently, we should not do stupid things on the say-so of a supernatural entity.
It's the same thing the Enlightenment talked about.
It's the same stuff Jesus talked about, but most religionists are to caught up in the cult to see the writing on the wall, or even in the book.
Comment by edarrell — May 26, 2007 @ 3:23 am
May 26th, 2007 at 3:24 am
"per se"
Comment by edarrell — May 26, 2007 @ 3:24 am
May 26th, 2007 at 3:42 am
By displaying confusion between 'purpose' and 'awe', you are proving Petermann's point.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 26, 2007 @ 3:42 am
May 26th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Hi DanteDanti,
I thank you once again for your wonderfully independent and honest point of view.
There's a Yin and Yang type balance to everything. From our previous conversations I have noted you were surrounded by "anti-establishment" thinking looking out while I was surrounded by "establishment" thinking looking in (I was raised in a very blue-collar neighborhood where everyone had 2.4 kids).
I think we could use a little less "Us" verses "Them" mentality in today's political climate. However, I can understand how too much anarchy could also be bad. There is no simple answer but I feel comfortable pushing for independent thinking because I feel safe in the knowledge that I won't be completely successful.
I wrote…"I agree that blind obedience is wrong no matter what."
You responded with…
Here is an example of my slipping out of my independent thinking mode and shaking my head up and down in concert with Steve Petermann. Thank you for pointing that out by questioning my absolute pronouncement.
I'm not sure what to make of your Hebrew definition of "faith". It has been my personal experience that the Jewish faith tends to encourage questioning. You can question tradition all you want as long as you continue to practice it. I find it an interesting mindset.
This is gets into what I call the NOMA/OMA conflict coupled with a strong set of ethics. I believe Dawkins and Harris are reacting to what they see as a hypocritical attempt of religion to try and claim the one and only OMA truth. I believe they are calling it like they see it. It would be hard for them to justify to themselves the need for putting up faux humility by suggesting they might not fully believe what they fully believe. Others view that as the sin of pride.
Now I happen to believe the pendulum has swung too far in religion's favor especially in the United States of America. For 50 years the nation's motto has been "In God we trust" with our children being practically forced to say our nation is "under God". I think it is past time to restore a little more balance.
While I would not be surprised to find many may question my definition of "balance". Maybe even you, DanteDanti, but all I can do is my best to honestly and ethically think for myself.
For starters, I try to refrain from agreeing to other people's opinion or assumptions without thoroughly understanding it myself. Let's take a recent example. I believe I now understand Dembski's mathematical definition of Specified Complexity better that a lot people who make assumptions about what it is or is not.
I also purposely engulf myself in a contrary thinking environment for the purpose of forcing myself to think about why I think the way I do.
It is hard NOT to be biased by the data continually streaming into our senses. To me, the idea of "common sense" is the polar opposite of thinking for oneself.
In the Yin/Yang struggle I am pushing for rebellious thinking even it means rebelling against rebellious thinking. As long as no one thought holds sway I am comfortable we will achieve a natural balance.
And yes, I understand ID proponents accuse the "other side" of closing ranks and trying to force common thinking. To them, I ask "What are you doing here? Why aren't you provoking thought over at Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula?"
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 26, 2007 @ 10:40 am
May 26th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Hi Vladimir Krondan,
DanteDanti indicated to me "im still not sure what you mean by thinking for oneself."
You reacted to this with…
Is this your example of humility when rendering opinons?
I ask no one to disagree with anything. I provoking them into explaining their thinking to themselves by explaining it to me. I ask for models/proposals/outlines after showing them mine. I ask for evidence and equations they stand behind. I ask for SCIENCE.
Let's do Science.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 26, 2007 @ 10:58 am
May 26th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Hi edarrell,
You make the point of the thread. The New Atheists reject or discount as evidence the experiences that billions upon billions of people have worldwide. Dawkins, Harris et. al. would claim that Tillich's experience of Beauty Itself doesn't count as any evidence but is merely an adaptive response or coincidental byproduct of evolution. But for all those who have similar experiences they do count as overwhelming evidence for some utlimate reality.
Now according to Scott Atran in the "Beyond Belief" conference Dawkins' brain doesn't light up like those of religious folk. Perhaps he is just not wired for religious experiences or perhaps there is something else. Since that is apparently the case and Dawkins doesn't deny it, it is only natural that he would reject as evidence something he can't or hasn't experienced. As Rudolph Otto said in his famous "The Idea of the Holy" if someone hasn't had a numinous experience, no one can describe it to them. However, not having such an experience should not be a good reason to deny the evidentiary force to others. It's just a different and perhaps more profound type of evidence than what comes out of the laboratory.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 11:18 am
May 26th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
"What often happens, however, is that theists count as evidence things the atheist won't"
Exactly. I suspect that both look at the same data, and both have assumptions about that data. Both come to conclusions about the data based on those assumptions.
It's also important to understand that many atheists and theists alike are strong in their beliefs, because they desire to know truth. It is also true that there is a dogmatism on both sides that refuses to look at their own areas of weakness.
Theists count as evidence the peculiarity of the scriptures - prophecy, miracles, situations that show the guiding hand of God. Since atheists dismiss the supernatural, they are not likely to count such things as data or evidence. The question that I often ask myself is: "why not?" I'm really not certain.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
My theism is established upon the scriptures. I consider them the word of God. Thus, Paul stated that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then my faith is useless. So paul is establishing that Christianity stands upon the truth of a miracle, and an historical event at the same time. This is why Christianity is based upon rationality, and not blind faith. I can believe that Jesus rose from the dead all I want, it means nothing if not true. This is what the scriptures teach.
As such, I welcome others to challenge that truth.
Darwinists are strong in the understanding that truth must be falsifiable. I agree with that. It is true of science, and it ought to be true of religion. If something is not falsifiable, it is demonstrably false. It appears that the Apostle Paul understood this about religion as well. Paul was willing to stake the truthfulness of the resurrection on its falsifiability. That is clearly not faith by blind obedience.
So Paul invites questioning. Questioning establishes the truth or falsity of the resurrection - the foundation of the Christian faith.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
So even God can be a strawman.
The God I beleive in is not the God anyone disbelieves in - nor on the otherhand, exactly the God that anybody does believe in, simply because we only grasp those aspects of God's character and attributes such as are humanly possible to grasp.
If God is the God of the Bible then it is possible that all of our conceptions of Him are like strawmen. He is far beyond the scope of our ability to imagine.:razz:
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This is why I label myself as a "non-atheist" in these disputes.
Calling myself a theist would mean agreeing on a definition of God, and there is no definition of God I would ever agree to.
How can reason encompass the Reality that brings it into being?
Comment by mcromer — May 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
"Thinking for one's self" is rather rare. Otherwise, how would we get "secular religion"s, that atheist rail (less) about? It's also funny how the words "thinking for oneself" eventually become equated with "when a scientist tells you x, you are unreasonable to accept not-X on anything less than extraordinary evidence." Or, say, Harris' "You don't have a right to believe what you want (because we have the monopoly on social statements as purely positive representations of states)"
It's really bizarre that people can equate the two ideas of calling somebody irrational not because they don't evince rationality in some contexts, but because they don't always correspond with your idea of rationality with "thinking for oneself".
There are great restrictions that secular people want to put on thinking. For example, as stated above, the goal is to bring more ideas into the frame of social criticism. One can hardly wonder who would be critiquing ideas in a political realm except a majority of peers. And then what? It behooves the "rational" people to accept what the majority of peers have decided.
In the end the people who paste the bumper sticker "Think for yourself" really don't believe that if what you end up thinking disagrees on what they wanted it to accomplish on so many points.
But, let's leave this be. Let's go positive: We see a high correlation between humans and groupthink. We might argue that we get an indeterminate amount of social behavior from this capacity to look to others for confirmation. In some, we have a capacity or even a tendency to "think for oneself". Given this situation, the only way that you can have a society where everyone thinks "for themselves" is to have a socially-influenced that encourages "thinking for oneself". Which means that people are culturally influenced to do something as "thinking for oneself" (because it would lead to the rejection of religion and the embrace of a certain brand of "rational" thought–except where it doesn't.)
Sometimes I don't think the parrots of this "ethic" have even thought this through. And definitely, someone who holds up oneself as a "skeptic" can at least be somewhat dubious about just what comes about from such a (supposedly) unlimited, (apparently) untried structure.
Comment by Axeman — May 26, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Hi Randy,
Ok but how would you falsify the resurrection?
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Being faithful has several connotations in scripture - one is in being obedient because the object of obedience has shown him/herself trustworthy. It is not a blind obedience, but trusting in she/he who has demonstrated faithfulness.
As for pride - I often think of pride in light of the Psalms and Proverbs "pride comes before a fall." In other words, the humble person keeps him/herself from falling by not thinking themselves higher or better than another - by making oneself last rather than first, and respecting the views of others. This is what humility in the scriptures means, not simply denying one's value. Humility is an acceptance of one's value by God, the Creator of the universe, rendering any other notions of self-worth outside of this "paradigm?" useless and meaningless. If I am loved by God, then I don't need to demonstrate my worth to others through arrogance and prideful acts. I can be content with God's approval.
I think it is only difficult if you believe they are your own original and unique thoughts. One simply does not know if her/his thoughts are original or not. The reason we can have this dialog is because all share some thoughts in common - thus demonstrating that our own thoughts are not really original to us - someone else has thought of them before us. Not always, of course - otherwise there would be no human progress.
That's a sentiment that I have a hard time understanding : the virtue of thinking for oneself. I would say that a higher virtue is thinking truthfully, weather it is original thought or not; and giving credit where credit is due.
I think by the scriptures as my guide (though not always consistently), so I am guilty of not thinking for myself. But I believe that in many cases my thinking by the scriptures is truthful.:razz:
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Excellent question. I doubt that you could scientifically 2000 years after the event. However, it could have been falsified immediately after the first report, simply by producing the body of Jesus.
The historicity of the resurrection, however is based on testimony from eyewitnesses. That testimony can be falsified. So the resurrection today is falsifiable not by the actual event being shown false by producing the body of Jesus, but by the testimony of the supposed eyewitnesses.
It's not a scientific process, but an historical process. The historicity of the event hinges on eyewitness accounts. Those eyewitness accounts must stand up to historical scrutiny in the same way as any other historical event. It's not simply a matter of dismissing the event due to its miraculous nature. To do so is to beg the question as to the existence of the supernatural or of God. The question: "did the event occur?" can be answered through historical inquiry; thus, it is falsifiable.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I should add: in light of Paul's statement in (2nd Corinthians? - I don't have my Bible handy) that if the resurrection did not occur "Your faith is useless - you are still in your sins," Christianity is not based on esoteric notions of faith, but on history. Thus one person's faith can be more valid than another's in that context.
This is why I think that the new atheists (such as Dawkins) are actually closer to the truth than those who do not accept that Christianity ought to be falsifiable - those are the people who believe that one person's faith is as good as another's. Dawkins believes that if God exists, there ought to be physical evidence. It ought not to be simply a matter of blind faith. I agree with that sentiment. OTOH, I totally disagree with Dawkins' conclusions about religion.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Randy,
However, the gospels were produced years after the event. Not a viable means of falsification.
Also, in my opinion, very weak. That's like expecting one of the members of a conspiracy coming forward to dispute claims of the others. This is really all circular reasoning. It wouldn't carry any weight from someone outside the faith.
In my view, adherents of the resurrection shouldn't try to clothe their beliefs in empirical garments. It just doesn't work. After all any group of people can write a scripture and make claims. Scriptures around the world make similar claims to miraculous events. How would a seriously inquiring agnostic adjudicate those claims?
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Yes this is true. The fact that they were written after the events is to be expected. This fact is true of most ancient historical event. The fact remains, however, that there is more documentation surrounding the historicity of the resurrection than any other ancient historical event. There are over 50,000 New Testament manuscripts and fragments in existence today, that date from the 2nd to the 5th Century A.D. There are also extra-biblical documents that help to establish the historicity of the gospels - some of these documents are hostile witnesses to Jesus - such as some early 1st and 2nd Century Jewish writings.
Read Blomberg's "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels." There are several other good sources, which I shall have to give you later, as I am not at home, where my library is.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Excellent point. To dismiss events because of their miraculous nature while simultaneously contending there is no evidence for God's existence, is to eliminate in advance of its consideration signature evidence for God.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Well, for historical events, what we have to go by is testimony from contemporaries of those events. Paul writes from secondhand sources. That's almost unheard of in ancient historical documentation. Most ancient histories were written hundreds of years after the events. The gospels were written within one hundred years of the events by contemporaries of Jesus - people who were alive when Jesus lived, and people who knew Jesus. You can't say that their testimony is weak. The only way that you might get away with that is by holding a bias against the existence of miracles, but this would be begging the question.
I'm not certain what you mean by:"That's like expecting one of the members of a conspiracy coming forward to dispute claims of the others." It does not appear to be related to the situation at hand. Jesus' resurrection is anything but a conspiracy. It is quite obvious that those who wrote about it expected others to know about it plainly. What does that have to do with conspiracies? I'm confused.
You state:"This is really all circular reasoning." I fail to see how an event established by eyewitness contemporaries of Jesus is circular reasoning. I think you would have to show more evidence that they were lying, or that they were delusional, or that they had a particular incincere agenda before resorting to that argument. Most eyewitness accounts of history are accepted. We don't doubt the eyewitness accounts of the holocaust when many of them were given well after the events themselves. Why do we doubt the well documented events of the resurrection? I'll tell you the only reason that anyone could give: because miracles don't happen. but that is more circular than accepting the testimony. It is question begging.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
There is a science of intelligent design known as forensics which has standards and methodologies by which evidence is assessed for its veracity. Since the events are 2,000 years old, professional historic standards would also apply. One thing that all should agree on is that NT events should be judged by the same historic standards as all other events of ancient history.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Agreed. What do you suppose some of those standards are?
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
It's a good question Randy and I'll post a URL to an answer in the near future that will be more detailed than a TT comment.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Randy,
I wasn't incenuating that there was a conspiracy. To the contrary. I believe the scriptures were created by honest, believing individual. However, to cite adherents as a source of strong empirical evidence is circular. You still haven't answered my query about other scriptures that claim miraculous events. Clearly from an outside-the-faith perspective any claims by adherents would need to be supported in some fashion to convince. Just look at the Hindu scriptures. They are full of miraculous events not unlike those found in the Bible. Do their claims carry equal weight? If not, why not?
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Steve, I think that is one of the purposes of prophetic passages. A series of fulfilled predictions would constitute objective evidence.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Bradford,
I don't know what predictions you are refering to but many people throughout history have made sucessful predictions that have nothing to do with religion. Nostradamus , Jean Dickson are a couple of examples that adherents claim to be accurate. Insightful people can make predictions that come true but that does not validate anything metaphysical.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
OK, I see where you are going with this. The problem with the argument that there are other sources of miraculous events, is that they are not historically established nor credible. The writiers of the gospels did not embellish their accounts with spectacular "supernatural" events such as are found in other non-Christian writings. They established Jesus as a miracle worker because He was the "Word of God" made flesh. The theological implications are tied to the historical context. In fact, Luke begins his gospel by establishing an historical context, and then getting into the miraculous events. This is not so in Hindu or other writings, which are clearly mythical.
In other words, Luke establishes that the events occured at a certain time within the 1st century Palestine context - with the correct political figures - pontius Pilatus, Herod the Great, several religious figures of the first Century, etc.. All this can be verified by archeological and historical manuscript evidence. Luke intends that his readers understand them as historical events. Not so in extra-biblical accounts of the miraculous. Therefore the argument is another strawman. You see how Darwinists can use strawman arguments for establishing that ID cannot be scientific. It is the same way of arguing here. It is not relevant to the facts of the events described in the NT. But I sense that we have gone way off topic here.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I had a number in mind. Some include those surrounding the birth of Christ. Daniel's are well known and quite specific with reference to historic events. A prophecy cannot validate a metaphysical concept but it can lend credibility to an account, particularly when there are no false ones. I recall Dickson making a few clunkers.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Randy,
The Hindus would probably disagree with this. If they do what is your answer? Or the Buddhists who have historical verification of his life. The miraculous is also claimed in his life.
Not really. The religious sensibility is a just a fundamental instrument. It can form core intutions into the ultimate structure of reality that leads to further explications but there is a limit to speculation that can be supported. Just as ID cannot identify the designer, religious sensibility can only go so far.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Bradford,
Don't you see that this prediction could easily be construed as circular, referenced by adherents in order to validate their beliefs. From an outsider's perspective this offers nothing convincing.
As a theist myself, I want theism to be reasonable to the educated, scientific masses. I don't think offering circular arguments advances the cause.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Randy,
I'm not sure we are getting anywhere but remember that the gospels were written after the facts. This provides no evidence to the agnostic that predictions were actually made by Jesus. It is impossible to put our minds into the minds of those gospel writers who were trying to convince. After all they were humans in the first century.
These arguments has been hashed over, ad infinitum, for decades and I'm sure I'm won't make a dent. However, Christians live in a world today that doesn't find them convincing. The question for this type of Christianity is how to respond to the skepticism. One alterative is to continue to offer arguments that don't convince or the other is to forge new ground.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 26, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I had a number in mind. Some include those surrounding the birth of Christ. Daniel's are well known and quite specific with reference to historic events.
Yes, Steve, anyone can see how any prediction could easily be construed as circular, but Bradford did not provide you with all the detail regarding Daniel's predictions, or of others that are compelling enough to render your argument invalid. I'm sure he is aware of those arguments, but did not state them here, perhaps because we have gone beyond the discussion into areas that are unrelated to the initial discussion.
There are compelling arguments to show that Daniel was written in the 6th Century B.C. - long before the events he predicts. In fact, he predicted the precise date that Jesus would enter Jerusalem, some 600 years later. He even predicted many of the events surrounding the history of Asia Minor starting with Alexander the Great. They are very specific - much so, that before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most skeptics dated Daniel to the 2nd century, and some even to the 1st Century A.D. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, with Daniel intact, dating to the 2nd Century B.C., destroyed their argument.
But can you see that if the prophecies are accurate, and the arguments from detractors are unsound themselves, how this can contribute to the reasonableness of your theism?
Now the reason why prophecy is compelling to me is due to my conception of God. The scriptures describe God as eternal (alpha and omega, the I AM, the eternal one). "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Since this is God's nature, he is outside of time as we experience it. Thus it is not unreasonable to believe that he knows the events of the future as thought they have already passed, and can communicate such events to us in order for us to have faith in him. It is not unreasonable to believe this, and there is compelling evidence to show why we should believe this.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Yes the gospels were written after the facts. Most things that are written down are written after the facts. However, Jesus' prediction was written down before the facts. This is my point. He predicted - according to the gospels, which were written prior to A.D. 70, that the temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed in the time of his contemporaries. The temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 - after the recording of the facts of Jesus' prediction. That's my point. Even if we believe the writers of the New Testament did not know the facts of what Jesus stated, how did they know that the temple would be destroyed some 10-20 years after the writings of the gospels?
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I would expect the Hindus to reply. I believe that the Christian scriptures show Jesus to be who he claimed to be. Jesus said something revolutionary about himself to the extent that even the Jewish religious leaders were ready to stone him to death, when he stated "before Abraham was I AM," {John
thus, claiming to be God.
So I expect that Hindus would argue that their scriptures have some historical accuracy to them, and I'm sure that they would be able to demonstrate this, but that is neither here nor there. Jesus is claiming to be God - the authority over you and me. This is serious stuff. It is this claim that we have to contend with, and the event of the resurrection. If It occurred as the scriptures state it did, then Jesus is whom he claimed to be, and what the Hindu's beleive about that is irrelevant.
Well, I would agree with that. The religious sensibility as you call it is esoteric. It does not conform to issues of impiricism or historicity. But the claims of Christianity do conform to issues of historicity, which is what makes them falsifiable. You can't falsify a religious experience per se, but if religious experience does not conform to reality, then I believe that it is demonstrably false. If we base our faith on feelings or esoteric experience rather than on what is real, we can be led astray by any religious claims, and many are led astray.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Frankly, I do not see it as circular at all. I've mentioned this before but I was not raised in a theistic friendly atmosphere. I had a dominant parent who was an EA before it became fashionable to be one. Having had an academic bent I did some serious research into the authorship of different passages of scripture and attempted to evaluate them by standards applicable to other ancient sources. I found there was good reason to believe the Book of Daniel was authored prior to the invasion of Persia by Alexander the Great and thought a divine influence could easily be gleaned from this. I've come to realize that if someone does not want to believe something no amount of evidence can be persuasive but I also take with a grain of salt the objections raised by such individuals.
I do not think reason is the real basis for one's commitment to either religious or scientific beliefs. Take the case of life's origins according to standard scientific wisdom. It sounds more like modern alchemy than sound biochemistry. Imagine autocatalytic RNA leading a trail to a cell. Sounds more far fetched than some passages from religious books of scripture. Yet many believe it. Why? Based on reason? They would say so but what they really mean is it is preferable to something that allows a divine foot in the door.
Reason can eliminate obstacles to the reception of a message but IMO it rarely is the immediate cause for someone adopting a paradigm as one's own. First century Christians were very successful evangelists. The primary reason being their attractive personal demeanor as reflected by their behavoir. Note the self-less sharing detailed in the Book of Acts. So I too would like to present anything, in which I believe, in the most reasonable way possible; mindful that if the one with whom I am speaking is not listening because of a dislike of me or what I do, then all the reason and logic in the world will not prevail.
BTW, what specifically is it you think appeals to educated people?
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Keiths, from a strictly Judeo-Christian perspective I think it more accurate to state that the mind is viewed as part of the body (which includes the brain) during the life of a person. The separateness is distinguishable after death which imposes some obstacles to empirically analyzing the claim.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
May 27th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Hi Bradford,
I'm not talking about any particular ideology, but just what we all naturally and intuitively believe as children. The idea of disembodied minds comes naturally to us — witness the ubiquity of ghosts and spirits across cultures, and the ease with which we can imagine becoming ghosts ourselves after death.
Every materialist, in the process of becoming a materialist, has to wrestle with the evidence that there is no "ghost in the machine" — she is the machine.
Comment by keiths — May 27, 2007 @ 12:51 am
May 27th, 2007 at 1:55 am
That is what Popperism does to science. Science is no longer about truth, knowledge, demonstration, etc, but about falsification. How do we establish that Q falisfies P? We know it when enough of the right sort of scientists say that Q falsifies P. Yes, Popper actually meant this, and it reduces all propositions of science to sociological statements about scientists.
Perhaps you mean that Darwinians are attracted to Popperism. That is true. It is, of course, in the interest of irrational people to adopt an irrational philosophy of science: one that makes hodge-podge of truth, falsity, demonstration, etc. As for "truth must be falsifiable," it is doubtful if Popper said this, though with modern philosophers nothing is surprising. However, Popper did say that a 'something', P, is a 'scientific something' if there is a Q which, if true, falsifies P. But he did not say that P is demonstrably false if there is no such Q. At least I do not think he said so, though many of his more modern disciples gleefully do say so, along with even stranger things ('you can't prove a negative', 'science is not about truth', 'science cannot prove anything', 'things can only be proven false, nothing can be proven true', etc.)
Not everyone is a Popperite or a Kuhnian. Most sensible people are not, and place no credence in the patent nonsense of Popperism. Not everyone approves of the thesis that science is fundamentally irrational, although I am sure you can see, that those who peddle fundamentally irrational theories would be strongly drawn to such philosophies.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — May 27, 2007 @ 1:55 am
May 27th, 2007 at 2:17 am
I wrote:
Steve Petermann replied:
Hi Steve,
I'm talking about what goes on in the public square, not in isolated pockets of academia. This comic sums it up nicely.
Comment by keiths — May 27, 2007 @ 2:17 am
May 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Keiths, this is a false conception. Religion has always had its critcs. They existed in my grandfather's era and before that. What is different today is an increasing amount of mockery and disrespect marking all kinds of debates within our culture. It is easy to see when you surf the blogosphere that substantive rational criticism is far outnumbered by irreverent cheap shots. I'm not claiming the latter is the sole preserve of NAs. Unfortunately it is wider in scope.
Comment by Bradford — May 28, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
May 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Randy: [from an earlier post] Darwinists are strong in the understanding that truth must be falsifiable. I agree with that. It is true of science, and it ought to be true of religion. If something is not falsifiable, it is demonstrably false.
Vladimir Krondan replied:
My understanding of falsifiability is the difference between esotericism and impiricism. What is impirical can be demonstrated with evidence. What is esoteric does not concern itself with evidence, but is true to the individual - it is truth that is hidden from the uninitiated.
Christianity was not intended to be an esoteric faith. This is why the early church fought against Gnosticism. Christianity is based upon an historic event, and that historic event matters. The Gnostics did not necessarily believe in that historic event, and the early church condemned their philosophy.
When I say that Christianity is falsifiable, then, I mean that you can verify the veracity of the historical resurrection through rational inquiry. Sure, we cannot produce the body of Jesus to falsify the resurrection. But we can ask certain questions that are relevant to the resurrection and find answers in order to verify Christian claims.
Here is an example of some questions that can be asked in that regard:
Why did the early believers boldly claim the resurrection?
Why was no claim made as to finding the body of Christ?
Why did the writers of the synoptic gospels and John all write about the resurrection?
In my experience, the detractors from the Christian faith are often attempting to falsify Christianity. It is the faith that is most often under scrutiny. People make claims that the "Jesus myth" is based on earlier myths in order to falsify Christianity. People claim that Jesus as a person never existed. People claim that Mary Magdelain married Jesus, and they had descendants - all to falsify the claims of Christianity. It is quite expected that this sort of thing happens when you have a belief system that is falsifiable.
Hinduism, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. It is not based on an historic event that can be verified.
Comment by Randy — May 28, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Steve Peterman earlier said some thing that I wanted to respond to. First he said: