The Rest of Sam Harris
by MikeGeneLet's analyze some other assertions in Sam Harris's opinion piece, God's dupes: Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics — and are every bit as delusional. Harris writes:
The truth is, there is not a person on Earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead or that Muhammad spoke to the angel Gabriel in a cave. And yet billions of people claim to be certain about such things.
Harris can not possibly know this is true.
Let's scale things down to a billion people and give each person a mere 10 minutes to provide their reasons for their beliefs. It would take about 1900 years for all these people to provide their reasons. Obviously, it is impossible for Sam Harris to have heard all this in order to make a conclusion about everyone on Earth. Thus, instead of making an observation, Harris is inflating his own personal perspective. What he can legitimately claim is that he, Sam Harris, has never heard a good reason for such belief. But the problem there is that while this tells us something about Sam Harris, it doesn't tell us much about the validity of such miracle beliefs.
In fact, it all hinges on what constitutes a "good reason." Take the resurrection belief about Jesus. In Harris's mind, what would such a "good reason" be? Does he need a team of scientists to travel back in time and videotape the resurrection? Does he need a philosopher to come along and turn this belief into certainty? Why think that we all share the same views about what makes for a "good reason?"
Harris also plays with the burden of proof. If someone wants Harris to accept the resurrection of Jesus, the burden is on them to convince him. But if Sam wants others to abandon their belief, he can't simply say "there is no good reason" to believe. Harris needs to prove that the resurrection, for example, did not happen. He needs to show they are wrong.
As a result, Iron Age ideas about everything high and low "” sex, cosmology, gender equality, immortal souls, the end of the world, the validity of prophecy, etc. "” continue to divide our world and subvert our national discourse. Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources.
As we know, Sam Harris's perspective is a reaction to 911, thus he is sensitized to cherry pick the bad things about religion. But division and subversion are "in our genes" and have always been part of human history. I sense in Harris some type of naïve longing for Utopia, as if we could only grasp it if we shed our religious nature. But there is no reason to think this. Atheists hobble science with terrorist attacks (the animal rights extremists), atheists inflame human conflict (The Blasphemy Challenge) and atheists squander scarce resources (China). It's all part of being human.
Besides, I'm not sure division and subversion are necessarily bad. The alternative is to live in a world where everyone thinks alike and no one questions this thinking. Is that the Utopia Harris has in mind?
Harris ends with this basic argument:
There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith "” but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical "” and even spiritual "” without pretending to know things they do not know.
But these are empty words. For example, is Harris (or Dawkins) recognized as someone who displays compassion? He can talk about it and write about it, but does he live it? What has the rich Sam Harris done to "help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak?" And while there are dozens of atheist organizations that bash religion, where are those that refrain from bashing religion, but instead devote most of their energy to "help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak?" For example, every Christmas, you can't miss the Salvation Army people collecting money to "help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak." Why don't we also see the "Army for Reason" doing the same thing every Darwin Day? And if we did, would it be a PR stunt or would the desire be genuine?
If Harris wants to claim there are "better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak," he needs more than rhetoric. He needs a rich tradition of action to draw from. As it stands, he would struggle to come up with examples.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
"I sense in Harris some type of naïve longing for Utopia, as if we could only grasp it if we shed our religious nature. But there is no reason to think this."
-MikeGene
Indeed. I suspect we'd only discover more sophisticated, empirically-grounded rationales for killing each other.
Comment by great_ape — April 1, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Sam Harris writes:
I knew a perfectly sane man in London who once saw Jesus Christ, risen, and received a profound awareness of how much Jesus knew him and loved him.
Regardless of what was the true nature of that experience, it would be ludicrous to assert that it didn't provide that man with a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
Would Harris claim that he, Harris himself, would not have had a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead even if he had been the subject of the same visual experience?
If Harris would claim that, then it's clear that his attack on religious belief has got nothing to do with a concern for evidence or rationality. What would be doing all the work is Harris's a priori belief that nothing could possibly count as evidence for, or a reason for, religious belief. Such an a priori belief, of course, is irrationally immune to any evidence that would tend to falsify it.
If, on the other hand, Harris would not make that claim, then his statement that no one has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead is straightforwardly false, because that man in London certainly has a good reason for holding that belief. London being a city on the planet Earth.
Comment by stunney — April 1, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Is Harris aware that his rational atheistic philosophy doesn't provide any reasonable basis for acts based on pure compassion?! "Compassion is deeper than religion" is an assertion simply based on faith not reason.
I wonder what Harris will have to say If some atheist groups come up with such idea that life is about evolutionary competition, only the fittest should be allowed to survive, the poor must be eliminated and the hungry should starve.
Comment by Farshad — April 1, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Harris and other atheists are, in effect, making the Argument from Divine Hiddenness. Here are the opening passages of a critique of that argument:
I'm not aware of Harris having refuted this counter-argument.
Comment by stunney — April 1, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Harris sez:
Wow. He's got a mighty strange way of displaying his overwhelming love and compassion for the world.
I think somebody slipped some bad acid into Sam's X [ecstasy] at one of those raves… §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 1, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
April 1st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
"Is Harris aware that his rational atheistic philosophy doesn't provide any reasonable basis for acts based on pure compassion?! 'Compassion is deeper than religion' is an assertion simply based on faith not reason."
Agree, but that does not matter as much as this additional statement from Harris himself:
"Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence."
His bar is set pretty high. How is he less certain of something that many of his cohorts don't think provable than a more skeptical portion of his gradient? He considers it without anything but sufficient evidence.
A big–repeated–problem with Harris is that he's too much a maverick to have much believability of "peer-review". I say this because he defines himself and those of his ilk as "rational", in comparison to the "irrational" "iron-age" people who believe stuff they can't make him believe.
But his definition of "rational" lacks any definable basis, because he so often disagrees with atheists about 1) how much more dangerous Islam is than other religions, 2) that TM is "rational", 3) that mysticism can be "scientific" and exploratory. If nobody in that group of "rational" people are going on less than sufficient evidence, then their disagreement is a problem for all hopes pinned on rationalism-as-saving-grace. Also, given that the bulk of his "Bright" peers feel a different way–and they all think scientifically, he should abandon his differences as curiously motivated anomalies where the most likely outcome is that the group is right.
How is it that Harris retains a sort of certainty in these things when millions of the "rational" are not convinced? Isn't that what Harris always resorts to? Peer pressure writ large? "Why you still believing those stupid beliefs? I don't believe them. None of the cool kids believe them. That's so Iron-age!!"
Harris has failed to convince a vast majority of "rational"s that his differences are valid, and yet he does not immediately drop them. But his argument is essentially that we cannot convince him that a reason for belief is sufficient, therefore we it cannot be sufficient for us. We should be like the cool kids.
Comment by Axeman — April 1, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 am
Atheism is not a religion. We derive our compassion from our humanity not from our lack of belief. There are plenty of charities that are not religious: Oxfam, Red Cross, Medecine sans Frontieres – and I am sure that many of their members are athiests making large sacrifices to help others. A charity that made a big deal about being atheist would do no more for the needy – it would just be trying to make atheists look good. That would be selfish.
To argue that Harris is wrong because he is not charitable is silly. For all we know he may make large sacrifices but it is irrelevant. Do Dembski and Meyer give their lives over to the poor? I have no idea and it is irrelevant to the truth of what they have to say.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 2, 2007 @ 2:23 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:40 am
Hi Mark Frank,
I agree that atheism is not a religion.
I have no doubt that most atheist have genuine compassion. But, would you care to define "our humanity" in terms of atheism and Darwinian Evolution, please.
Comment by inunison — April 2, 2007 @ 8:40 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:52 am
Harris, like most atheists, is not a nihilist. He believes in the normativity for human thought and action of reason and morality.
Theism is the view that the best explanation of the metaphysical basis of reason and morality is a transcendent mind. Theists typically hold that both of the main forms of naturalism—-materialism and impersonal Platonism——are rationally inadequate metaphysical theories when it comes to grounding the normativity of reason and morality for persons. Theists hold that since rationality and moral value are essentially potential attributes of conscious minds rather than of matter or abstract entities, inference to an ultimately mind-like reality is a much more probable metaphysical basis for these attributes than either a materialist or Platonist alternative.
Even if theists are ultimately mistaken about the metaphysical basis of reason and morality, what's so irrational about belief in a divine mind as their source and ground? From the theistic viewpoint, it's materialism and Platonism that look quite irrational as theories of reason and morality.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 8:52 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
Inunison, Stunney
Of course, these are issues which philosophers have debated for thousands of years. The main point I wanted to make was that you should not doubt the morality of atheists because there is no atheist equivalent of the Salvation Army.
However, I quite fancy a short philosophical ramble on this subject. I am convinced by a combination of Hume and Kant. Even though one was an atheist and the other a Christian they both held that morality has to be based on something other than instructions from a higher source. Otherwise you have the age old problem of "is it good because God says its good or vice versa". One thing that confuses the issue is muddling the biological cause of our moral sentiments with their justification. I believe that we are by and large compassionate because we evolved that way. But I don't justify morality because it is successful for the species. I justify it by appeal to our moral sensibility – period. This sounds subjective and in a sense it is – but the fact is that by appeal to Kantian logic we can usually find some common ground in moral discussion.
It may help to compare this to aesthetic judgements. I believe that our sense of what is beautiful and what is ugly is the product (or by-product) of how our minds have evolved plus culture. There is no external objective beauty – just a lot of commonality. We may disagree about what is beautiful, but we usually feel that by producing the right arguments we can get the other person to see our point of view. We suspend our subjectivity much as in theatre we suspend our disbelief. What we don't do in a debate over beauty is appeal to the evolutionary benefits of accepting that a certain picture is beautiful – even though our common feeling that it is beautiful may well have evolved.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 2, 2007 @ 9:43 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Charity work isn't a big atheist outreach, though individual atheists do donate to charity. They don't tithe like religious people do, but they like tax breaks and many are motivated to help relief efforts by humanistic sensibilities. As a whole, however, the philosophy seems to be that governments and sub-governmental or multi-governmental NGOs should do it with tax money and dues from member states.
There are lots of secular 'charities' that rent out speakers for atheist/secular causes, 'save the earth', 'save the animals', lobby for secular legislation in various countries, fight against religious initiatives, etc. NCSE is one of these PAC 'charities', Richard Dawkins' foundation (if he ever gets it approved) will be another. These are agenda-oriented political organizations, not people-oriented relief organizations. Giving depends entirely on what one wishes to promote in the world.
All legally designated charities that accept state money and most foundational grants (children's homes, medical providers, food groups, etc.) must demonstrate that they do not discriminate in hiring and such – they must jump through secular hoops – even if most of their operational support comes from churches. So there's no reason atheists shouldn't support them, and there's no good reason for atheists to multiply the choices by setting up separate charities to do the same work.
Many colleges and universities have graduation requirements of service, where all students have to donate x amount of time and energy to DOING charity work in recognized missions. My only advice for atheists who want to give or volunteer is to check out through a reputable philanthropic watchdog how much of funds raised go to the work, and how much of it goes to pay the 'overhead' (salaries to figureheads, boards, etc). Red Cross has been in trouble for being top-heavy several times, so it's worth doing the legwork.
If atheists just want to give money to someone else's pocketbook to make themselves look good, let me know and you can send it straight to me – no overhead!
Comment by Joy — April 2, 2007 @ 10:12 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Joy
I am not sure what lies behind your post but it appears to be US centric. The role of religion in charity is far smaller here in the UK. The government role is indeed larger – I don't think that is much to do with atheism – it is our political culture. I have no way of proving, it but I would guess the majority of charity and NGO workers over here are atheist, agnostic or "never really stop to think about it". Simply because they are mostly young, liberal and left-leaning.
Interesting about Red Cross. I have been advised they are the most effective of the large charities (but British Red Cross and US Red Cross are different organisations). I would think similar warnings apply to religious charities, any large organisation is prone to be top-heavy, and remember some the scandals around televangelism.
My advice to anyone, religious or otherwise, is to think about using a small charity that can help you understand where your money is going or even better, if you can, give directly to someone you know needs it and will spend it wisely.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 2, 2007 @ 10:47 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Hi Mike,
I think you're a bit confused on the 'burden of proof' issue.
You wrote:
So if I claim that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and Boxcar Willie are shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the constellation Draco who rule the world, the burden is on you to provide evidence that shows I am wrong?
If I'm a restaurant owner who won't let you in because I believe your skin is covered with thousands of invisible, swarming aphids faintly humming a high C, the burden is on you to drag out the audiometer, and to show that it is properly calibrated when I am skeptical of your negative findings?
I don't think so.
Comment by keiths — April 2, 2007 @ 11:29 am
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
I think most theists don't regard morality as an arbitrary set of instructions from God.
Theists see moral value as something that can only exist if there are sentient, conscious beings capable of rational free agency. I.e., morality presupposes consciousness and free agency.
Moral choices are those which promote the good of conscious beings; immoral choices are those which go against the good of conscious beings. Goodness cannot be logically derived from material or abstract being. Goodness is always logically dependent on rational consciousness. If morality is objective and independent of the muliplicity and variety of contingent human desires, dispositions, and behavior, then we must look elsewhere for the source and meaning of goodness. Evolutionary biology is very ill-equpped in this regard. As
I wrote elsewhere:
Theists hold that objective goodness is best understood by reference to, and in fact presupposes, a transcendent rational consciousness of, or rational grasp of, or rational apprehension of, goodness. It is conscious awareness of, and rational agency aimed at bringing about, the good of persons that morality promotes, by providing the normative principles and values which ought to guide the thinking and actions of persons. This is part what is meant by saying humans are made in the image and likeness of God. Neither matter nor Platonic abstractions are metaphysically the right kind of thing for generating moral value. Morality and reason cannot be naturalized; for moral value supervenes on rational consciousness which in turn cannot be explained by materialism or by impersonal Platonism.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Compassion, what do we mean by compassion? Here is a story that I think is a great example of true "˜I-expect-nothing-in-return' compassion:
In 1956, deep in the Amazon rain forest five Christian missionaries were murdered on a sand bar in the middle of a river by a group of Waodani Indians, a primitive tribe of hunter-gatherers. The missionaries had been trying to initiate peaceful contact with the Waodani who were not only suspicious and hostile towards outsiders but were destroying their own tribe from within through an endless cycle of violence and vendetta's. After their martyrdom, the sister of one of the five men along with a couple of the wives continued the work. Because of their teaching, as well as their example of compassion and forgiveness, the cycle of violence among the Waodani began to subside. Rachel Saint the unmarried sister of one of the martyred missionaries would spend the next 30 years of her life living among the tribe. When she died she was buried, as she had requested, in the rain forest, in a wooden crate, among the Waodani who had come to absolutely revere her.
At her funeral, the tribal elders approached her nephew Steve whose father Nate had been one on the five men who had been murdered 1956 when Steve was only five years old. They now begged him to move down to the Amazon to continue the work of his aunt. It was also at this time that Steve learned the full story of the 1956 attack including the identity of the man (still living) who had killed his father. Steve who was a successful business man living outside of Orlando Florida was understandably very reluctant. He had a fulfilling career, a comfortable income, a nice home, two children still in high school and a wife whom he described as totally non-adventurous. In the end, however, compassion won out. Steve sold his business and moved his family to work with a people whose actions had left him traumatized as a young boy.
These are the kind of stories that inspire me. I know dozens and dozens of these kinds of stories; this happens to be one of my favorites.
Now here are some questions I'd like to ask the atheists out there: Where are your inspirational stories? Why is all your talk about compassion and morality always so abstract? Why are you always preaching from the top of an ivory tower? Why can't you point to some real live atheists self-sacrificially helping some really disadvantaged people out there in the real world? Do you think real compassion doesn't require any real courage, commitment, self-sacrifice and forgiveness? Do you think that it is easy? How can one practice self sacrifice and forgiveness without believing that at the end of the day it doesn't really mean something? How can you have belief to act and live morally without faith? What do you find irrational about the actions the missionaries took in the above story? Is it irrational to try to stop destructive behavior among your fellow man? Finally if you are going to destroy other people's faith what are you going to replace it with? Give me some details and tell me why it is better.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 2, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Mark Frank:
Well, if you're looking for tax deductions you have to go with the recognized charities. Goodwill allows you to pad deductions for clothes and furniture you were going to throw out anyway, as does Salvation Army. Most cities have homeless shelters with soup kitchens, food banks and free clinics if you want to put your money to work locally. Children's homes are usually church-sponsored, though they take donations from anyone and jump secular hoops for personnel and operations.
Giving money away directly to people might be an interesting experiment in entreprenurial venture, but it wouldn't be deductible. As I said, you can always send it to me and I'll put it to good use! Been working for about a decade locally for a 'shares' program. This area is rural and most residents have yard gardens or larger plots. Collect seeds from various growers I know who save seed from heirloom varieties of vegetables, pass those out to all willing neighbors (door to door works great, and also helps directly with our organic co-op's efforts to keep GMOs out of production) who agree to "plant a row" for the shares.
At harvest for each crop the produce gets divvied into bags and boxes, then the local CoC, Ruritan and volunteer firefighters pass it out to "food challenged" people they either know or who come by the firehouse and just pick it up. No background checks or income verification necessary, nobody takes perishable charity if they can't use it.
And what doesn't get distributed goes to the regional food bank, where after-school and pre-school programs, certain inclusive schools, foster parents and various other programs get certified for x amount of free food per month. A big regional grocery chain bases locally, complete with distribution warehouse. They donate tons of staple foods (flour, rice, corn meal, canned fruit and veggies etc.) annually. Lots of Americans go without basic health care, but the only excuse to starve around here is pride or privacy (no one can find you).
In Britain government services may work more efficiently than they do here, where people are so worried by the thought that some destitute person might actually buy cigarettes or beer with change from their food stamps that they want to abandon the program. Government services are extremely top-heavy. There is not much secular interest in helping the poor in a nation where being poor is itself seen as a moral failing. Witness governmental non-response to the destruction of New Orleans.
So we do depend on individuals being motivated to support charity work the government won't bother with. Food, shelter, clothing, health care, child care… non-essentials like that. Mental health and rehab services are mostly provided for by our prison system.
Comment by Joy — April 2, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Here's some solid support for Harris's viewpoint…
American atheists campaign to end modern slavery.
Sorry, did I say atheists? I meant evangelicals.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Hello all,
I am new to this blog, but had seen how much interesting conversation was going on concerning harris, dennet, and dawkins, so i figured id throw in a few words, the best ones i can.
i may misunderstand, as it is not an arguement i am very familiar with formally, but when Harris (and dawkins) says, "the burden of proof is on you", i find it interesting that he then goes on to write an entire book that takes the burden of proof on himself. i suppose one would hear him saying in retort "im writing to save us", however in that regard he believes that any statements , either political or metaphysical, and the actions that follow them are thrusts into the social sphere and affect everyone else. i would say then, that the burden of proof simply falls on whomever disagrees, because they want to be convinced or they want to change my mind. if i said that i believed i had been on a ufo, the burden of proof does not fall on me, because i already believe it from whatever evidence i have found (as if, as harris thinks, someone could really believe something without some sort of evidence. silly. faith, in its unwestern linguistic roots, is even a type of evidence and proof). my nonviolent belief in being on a ufo is not a matter of the social sphere, because it hardly affects the social sphere in the way that harris thinks it does, even if some people who believe in aliens tried to assassinate key-people, i am not shielding them by my belief, i am unshielding them with my commitment to nonviolence. i would say that the burden of proof falls on those who want to move the social sphere in a particular direction (and also the burden of proof falls on those who want to convince others that their personal belief-statements largly affect the social sphere and even whether they should care about that particular social sphere at all). this is why sam harris writes, because he believes the burden of proof is on himself, because its a matter of politics, and not a matter of what actually is in reality. my "friend" does actually believe he was on a ufo, and does actually believe that some people are aliens that should be killed. His beliefs are then affecting the social sphere that i care about…in that regard the burden of proof falls on me to convince him otherwise, and to even care about the social sphere in the way that i do, because it is my desire to send the social sphere in a direction other than his. or should i do as harris tells me, if they dont speak our language, and cant understand our proof, bonk em on the head, thatll teach em (from the section where he explains he was in another country and should have done something more aggressive to show those "others" who didnt know his language and ways, how we really treat women). in this way i find that harris himself shields the terrorists by being a supporter of violence towards the "other" when they dont "get it". when a "terrorist" blows himself up on a crowded street, what belief can we know that they held? that violence is sometimes needed in the social sphere to get things going in our direction when others just dont "get it" or our proof.
on another side note: there is a sacred text for scientists, its called occam's razor and the scientific method. if we all suddenly forgot everything, would someone come up with these ideas again? yeah maybe, and someone would also come up with another religion. harris and dawkins would have us believe that they are not dogmatic, it is reality that is dogmatic. from my experience with hermeuetics and critical theory, this is the silliest thing ive ever heard.
sorry if none of that made any sense, im on mild painkillers right now and its a bit hard not to ramble. also, some of you might want to check out the Scott Atran comments on harris that can be found on this posting: link. i find his comments very interesting.
Comment by dantedanti — April 2, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Replace Jezus with Elvis in this quote. If the Elvis-experience would have happened to me, I'd start to question my sanity, even though the evidence that Elvis lived and died is considerably stronger than the evidence that Jezus ever did.
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
raevmo wrote:
If you had the Elvis experience, and had no symptoms of mental illness, would you say that you had no reason to believe that Elvis was alive in some afterlife?
Because that's the point at issue.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Well, that would be a symptom of mental illness. But assuming you meant to say no other symtoms of mental illness, I would certainly entertain the possibility of an afterlife more seriously, and I would consider the existence of an afterlife slightly more likely than before (almost zero), but not by much. There are just too many lunatics who believe they have seen Elvis after his death. Given this information (and my other beliefs) it would be more rational to conclude that I myself am a lunatic as well rather than to conclude that there is an afterlife. Bayes' theorem in action.
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
raevmo wrote:
As I suspected. You demand evidence of the supernatural. But you also stipulate in advance that if you ever had such evidence, directly and experientally, you would rather deem yourself a lunatic than accept the reality of the supernatural.
In other words, evidence does not matter to you. The only thing that matters to you is preserving your worldview at all costs, even if that means calling yourself a madman.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Crap. If you had read my response carefully, you would have noticed that I would update my estimate of the probability of an afterlife upwardly after the Elvis-experience:
And this is perfectly rational. It takes a lot of evidence to overturn a strongly held belief.
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Atheists often demand, as part of their complaint against a supposed lack of evidence for the truth of religious belief, that there be cases of miraculous limb re-growth among the amputee population. But this is an intellectually dishonest request; because if there were such cases, atheists immediately would liken them to spontaneous remission of cancer. They would dub them cases of spontaneous limb re-growth, and solemnly declare their faith that eventually science will be able to explain them as purely natural phenomena.
If millions of people saw Marian apparitions, which were also photographed, over a period of several years, would this sway the determined atheist? No, of course not. There would have to be a naturalistic explanation, because the atheist has already made an a priori judgement that there can never be any genuine supernatural reality.
If the determined atheist found a 3 million year old fossil which under microscopic inspection revealed the inscription, "Hi there! Jesus is my beloved Son, and I am his eternal Father", the atheist would conclude that this had a natural explanation (skilfull fraud, or sheer chance–there are after all billions of fossils, you know).
If the determined atheist saw the risen Christ, he would not start going to church, but would start going to a psychiatrist.
If a large sign appeared in some astronomically observed star cluster that read "Christianity is true", our determined atheist would put this down to some alien extra-terrestrial civilization playing a prank on us.
The request for evidence made by determined atheists is thus fundamentally disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
raevmo wrote:
Crap. Here's what you wrote:
First off, you say having such a vision would be—–not might be, but would be—a symptom of mental illness.
Second, you say it would increase your estimate of the probability of an afterlife from almost zero to slightly better than almost zero.
You are a dogmatic fundie, pal. No more. No less.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Funny you should mention this. I have often used exactly the same hypothetical scenario to tell my Christian friends what it would take to convert me. But I would be surprised if the message were in English (I am Dutch).
How does this follow from my admission that I would consider the afterlife more likely after a certain extraordinary experience?
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
stunney: seeing as I have admitted that I would be willing to convert to Christianty given the right evidence, let me ask you what it would take for you to give up your Christian believes.
Comment by Raevmo — April 2, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
stunney – I am trying to work through your lengthy post on the nature of theist morality.
If they are not arbitrary then there must be some criterion for making them non-arbitrary other than God gives them. So what is that criterion?
I agree with this. Consciousness and free agency are necessary but not sufficient for a species to be moral (cats have consciousness and free agency – but I don't believe they are moral). However, I have some different ideas about the nature of rational consciousness – see end of post.
Getting a bit circular here. How do you decide what is the good of conscious beings without a moral code to tell you? Or are you proposing some form of utilitarianism?
I don't really know what you mean by this sentence. Are you saying you can't deduce an "ought" from an "is" I agree with this. (On the other hand I have no idea what an "abstract being" might be.)
Yes – you already said that once and I agreed.
If morality is independent this might be true – but I don't agree that it is independent. Many of our desires, including moral ones, work through rational consciousness. I think we have a number of motivations some of which are moral others of which are not. The mother's urge to protect her offspring is highly moral. It is based on self-sacrifice for others. Our desire for fairness and justice is another. If it is somehow independent then you need to answer the question – why do we (sometimes) want to be moral?
This is the crux. What differentiates our moral motives (as described above) from other amoral motives? I would argue that just as we are hungry and therefore want to eat – we also are disturbed by the suffering of others and therefore want to help them. The distinguishing feature is this desire to accept pain or limit our pleasure in order to reduce the pain or increase the pleasure of others. There is also a layer of culture built on top of this where we want the approval of others. (Kant would say it is more logical than that. In order to be logical we must support rules of behaviour that are generally applicable to anyone i.e it is logical to treat others as I want to be treated. I don't agree with him.) All of this may be caused biologically.
I believe I just did.
Now you are getting muddled. Our desires to be moral are almost certainly the product or by-product of evolution. As are our desires to eat, drink and have sex. But no one is defining "moral" as "adaptive". Flirting is also a form of behaviour which is the product or by-product of evolution. But we don't define flirting in terms of behaviour which is adaptive. Flirting is – well flirting.
At this point I begin to fail understand you. How would I recognise a "rational, transcendental apprehension of goodness" Can you give me some examples of this apprehension in action?
This may be an important sentence. I don't think that "materialism" is a clear concept – but I believe rational consciousness can very well be explained as activity of the brain – which presumably counts as materialism.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 2, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Hi Mark,
It's a good thing that wasn't my argument.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Hi keiths,
I think Harris is the one who is confused. If we consider his basic message, it doesn't really follow in the tradition of Bertrand Russell. That is, he is not exactly arguing, "Why I am not a Christian." His message is more along the lines of "You Christians are dangerous and need to abandon your faith and become Atheists." No one is under any obligation to abandon their faith because Sam Harris doesn't think there is any evidence for it.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
Well, bully for you.
Jeepers. How about, God sets the criterion non-arbitrarily in accordance with God's rationality?
If God doesn't exist, and you set some moral criterion in accordance with your rationality, would you describe your moral criterion as arbitrary?
Do you not get embarrased by how fucking atrocious your 'arguments' are?
Cats have free agency? Wow. And, indeed, miaow.
How's that?
No, because the good of conscious beings doesn't reduce to a single commensurable dimension, such as utility or pleasure. The good for persons has several incommensurable components
Good.
Try the number 7.
You already said that.
Your failure to agree is irrelevant.
I don't have to answer that question. But we all need to answer the question, why should we be moral, not just sometimes, but all the time.
Yeah, that's what I asked in the passage you're referring to.
Would you argue that, now? What for? Is anyone denying that hungry humans want to eat?
How unfascinating and unenlightening.
Lots of people do nothing to alleviate the sufferings of other people. And don't want to either. But they should.
It may be, eh? It may be that there are objective morally binding duties too that do not at all depend on evolutionary biology. So all this may be caused biologically. Or not, as the case may be.
Did you fuck.
Hahahahaha. I'm muddled, eh?
This statement of yours about our desires is just bare unsupported assertion which ignores the central fact at issue, which is that human behavior is not at all completely moral. You've merely begged the question in the most blatant possible way.
How irrelevant can one person be?
Poor you.
Sure. God.
I see. So you believe that, eh?
Big fucking deal.
Comment by stunney — April 2, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 am
raevmo wrote:
The word is 'beliefs'.
The discovery of Jesus's corpse.
It's a rather striking fact, however, that in almost two millenia, no such discovery has been made.
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 12:41 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 am
stunney
You seem to have reverted to obscenity and abuse – I guess that ends the discussion.
Rgds
Comment by Mark Frank — April 3, 2007 @ 1:57 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 am
Mark Frank to stunney:
Hi Mark,
In case you're not a regular visitor to TT, this is typical behavior for stunney when his arguments don't succeed and his delicate ego gets bruised. I hope you won't let his puerile outburst deter you from continuing to comment here.
You have to feel sorry for the Christians visiting TT, who must cringe whenever stunney presumes to represent their side with a barrage of "Christian" vitriol and obscenity.
Comment by keiths — April 3, 2007 @ 3:09 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 am
Hi Mike
Well you wrote:
Surely this passage implies that Harris's perceived failure to display compassion is a reason for his words being "empty". Perhaps by "empty" you didn't mean to imply "untrue"
Comment by Mark Frank — April 3, 2007 @ 5:15 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:56 am
Hi Mark,
Harris is not responding to the fact that religious people come up with theological reasons for service. Harris is responding to the fact that they go out into the world and do serve (a massive problem for him, given his judgmental attitude toward the eevils of religion and his perceived need to eliminate religion). Thus, simply writing there are good non-religious reasons, or even listing the good reasons, is not good enough. You don't match/substitute service (action) with words and good intentions.
I am quite confident that Harris can come up with good secular reasons for feeding the hungry (after all, I could). So what? What matters is whether those good reasons stir people into action.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2007 @ 6:56 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 am
Mike Gene wrote:
Mike, do you really believe that Russell didn't think Christianity was dangerous and didn't think people should become atheists? Check out these quotes:
Mike again:
Of course they aren't, and Harris is not asking anyone to blindly change their beliefs to match his. He writes:
With that out of the way, back to our earlier disagreement over the "burden of proof". You wrote:
I responded with a couple of examples that showed the absurdity of this:
Harris no more "needs to prove" that the resurrection didn't happen than you need to prove that your skin is not covered with invisible aphids.
Comment by keiths — April 3, 2007 @ 6:59 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 am
This fact is also consistent with the theory that Jezus is a mythical figure.
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 7:07 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
stunney – You have a much richer vocabulary than a gangsta' rapper, and often use it to make excellent points. Please don't let the feigned cluelessness of our critics frustrate you into abandoning the high ground. That's one of their most tired tactics, not worth the trouble.
Just a thought. When I find myself becoming so frustrated I want to cuss I usually take a deep breath and go do something else for awhile. It works pretty well.
Comment by Joy — April 3, 2007 @ 9:11 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 am
keiths cites Russell:
Oddly enough, if indeed a god-concept arises naturally from despotism, what it really does is inform the put-upon masses that the despot isn't as omnipotent a being as he pretends to be. Of course, that inevitably descends into the pretense that despots ARE godlings, or have the unique permission of God to be as nasty as they want. People do seem to have a strong fondness for believing they are personally the highest, most powerful being in all of being. That pretense can work with or without god-blessings, depending entirely on the beliefs of the population the despot desires to abuse.
Obviously, "free men" have exactly the same problem.
keiths to Mike:
Harris can believe or disbelieve whatever he likes. What he can't do is insist that other people believe what he believes – abandon their own beliefs – just because he thinks he's got an exclusive franchise on Absolute Truth. IOW, "because I said so" doesn't work to accomplish his goals, if his goals are something greater than simply making money.
If he's just getting rich preaching to the hate-choir, his ridiculous hyperbolic rhetoric serves his purpose just fine. Nobody outside his fan club need pay any attention at all.
Comment by Joy — April 3, 2007 @ 9:49 am
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Keiths – thanks for your support. I have been posting on this blog sporadically for some time and definitely intend to continue. I think Mike et al do an excellent job. They are polite and reasonable even though I have very different views and for me that's ideal. I really like to be challenged. It is the best way to learn.
Joy – you write
I promise you there is no feigned cluelessness in what I write. I did philosophy as a first degree (35 years ago!) and one thing I learned was not to assume you understand what others mean, especially when they use long and abstract words. Let me take one example.
When I write
And the answer is
I get genuinely confused because "apprehension" is a word with several meanings (look it up in a dictionary). One meaning can presumably be ruled out – the use of apprehend to mean "arrest". The others are all states of mind with beginnings and ends e.g. a state of fearful expectation or a state of knowing about something. Is God a state of mind? Does he have a beginning and an end? And I haven't even begun to try to understand what the adjectives rational and transcendental add to the phrase.
Much better philosophers than me have pointed out the potential misunderstandings arising from abstract language. Wittgenstein famously said "philosophy is the bewitchment of intelligence by language".
I do find this type of discussion fascinating and sometimes enlightening. But please allow me to say "I don't understand" and mean it.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 3, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Raevmo:
No serious historian thinks Jesus is a mythical figure. His life is well documented by secular as well as Christian historians of antiquity. When anti-theists come out with "theories" like this they betray an anti-reason bias. BTW, you mispelled his name. Is that akin to using a small g when writing God; i.e. making a statement through incorrect spelling?
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Mark:
If it could be exclusively explained by its association with brain biochemistry you would have a point but even then you are only showing a relationship. You are not showing that cause flows in a sequential pattern of biochemical change always preceeding conscious thought.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Mark Frank,
I find many of your comments to be quite interesting. I'm curious how you would answer a question I've put to others. The question is: If every person lived their life like Mother Teresa, with her unselfish commitment to helping the poor and disadvantaged, would the world be a better place?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 3, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Bradford:
Not at all. Sorry if I offended you. That's how his name is spelled in my native language.
I'm no expert at all, but I've read many times (sorry, no sources off the top of my head) that there are no first-hand contemporary accounts of his life and works. I'm quite sure there are serious historians who doubt his very existencee (wikipedia has some refs to that effect), but I'm not sure why this betrays an anti-reason bias. Perhaps you care to explain.
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Mark Frank:
Case in point, my response to stunney. Deal is, I don't "know" stunney any better than I "know" you. So thanks for the bit of CV. I'll consider accordingly.
That said, those of us who have been here (in the debates, maybe not right here at TT) for awhile do tend to automatically write off in frustration reiterations of arguments we've seen a thousand times and dealt with. You'd think we never mentioned it at all for all the good it does.
Yeah, you'll have this. Definitions are a perennial point of issue, and even when people agree they go ahead and ignore anyway. That's part of the frustration quotient. I would not be entirely out of line for noticing that.
By all means, define your terms and seek consensus on it. You'll find it too often NOT agreed upon. Such is the way of things ideological.
Comment by Joy — April 3, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
raevmo wrote:
Here's the relevant wikipedia quote:
"Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority [2]argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes."
The footnote 2 reads:
"#2 ^ "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. … Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." – Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16."
Emphasis added.
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
stunney, in what wikipedia entry did you find that "effectively refuted" passage? I'm looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... and can't find that.
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Joy wrote:
My frustration with Mark Frank had little to do with reiterated arguments I've seen a thousand times. Here is what it had to do with. I had written:
"If evolutionary biology is to explain morality, it must show the link between morality and adaptive behavior…..
The trouble with this is that a very large range of human behavior is agreed to be immoral, while evolution has to hold that nearly all behavior derives from the adaptive features of our genetic makeup. From this it would follow that much, perhaps even all, immoral behavior is adaptive. But then adaptiveness cannot be that in terms of which moral (as against immoral) behavior is defined, or that from which specifically moral (as against immoral) behavior springs. " (Emphasis added)
To this Mark Frank responded:
"Now you are getting muddled. Our desires to be moral are almost certainly the product or by-product of evolution. As are our desires to eat, drink and have sex. But no one is defining "moral" as "adaptive". Flirting is also a form of behaviour which is the product or by-product of evolution. But we don't define flirting in terms of behaviour which is adaptive. Flirting is – well flirting.
[then]
I believe I just did."
I was dumbfounded by the irrelevance of this response, and then superdumbfounded by Frank's apparent belief that his response was entirely on the mark. Recall I had said evo-bio had to account for nearly all our behaviors as being adaptive, but that since both moral and immoral behaviors are routinely observed, adaptiveness per se could not be the thing that makes moral behaviors moral and immoral behaviors immoral, since immoral behaviors must be adaptive as well. (Both types could be neutral, but this would be an uninteresting, unexplanatory and unverifiable hypothesis.)
Rather than call Frank the person an idiot straight out, I used 'swearies' to characterize his position as being idiotic, which I think was quite magnanimous of me.
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
raevmo, it's this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Hello Raevmo,
A few comments back, you responded to:
"if a large sign appeared in some astronomically observed star cluster that read "Christianity is true", our determined atheist would put this down to some alien extra-terrestrial civilization playing a prank on us."
with …
If a star system was organized so that it spelled out "Christianity is true," why would that logically necessitate that Christianity actually be true?
Does your line of reasoning go something like the following? …
Linguistic informational phenomenon within nature necessarily arise from intelligence which understands [at least one] human language, therefore wherever there is written language, it is caused by intelligence.
Then, an intelligence that had the capability of manipulating natural laws so that the natural laws unfolded to produce an array of written language of astronomical magnitude (using stars) must be extremely knowledgeable of natural laws and may even transcend those very laws.
Thus we arive at a Being who may be referred to as God, and as long as we trust that His Creation is not an attempt in trickery, and if he is so powerful as to create the aforementioned phenomenon we should listen to any message that he sends us personally.
Am I mistaken as to your line of logic?
Now, can you tell me the major difference between linguistic information and computer information, and are you aware that the main similarity is that both informational systems must be processed by a compatible information processor to exist as information?
Comment by CJYman — April 3, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Raevmo:
I'll be glad to explore the historic documentation for Jesus' life by citing only secular (ie. non-Christian) sources if that is what you wish. If these historians cannot be trusted about this then all of our sources about ancient Roman history must be called into question. BTW, there is considerable secondary evidence in the form of documentation of facts as alleged by the Gospels. These include archeological discoveries and writings that confirm NT events. My purpose is not to persuade you because I know internet exchanges tend to involve those commited to polar opposites but it is only fair to point out that we should stick with facts as indicated by a consensus of experts. To argue that Christ was a mythical creation is to go beyond the pale of reasonable evidence and is therefore counter to reason.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
stunney, thanks for the link. I found the passage. That footnote #2 quotes the opinion of a single scholar – not quite convincing evidence that the non-historicity of Jesus has been effectively refuted. But since on balance most historians seem to believe in the historicity of Jesus, and not having studied the evidence myself, I have no reason to dispute their conclusions. Nevertheless, the fact that his corpse has never been discovered is weak evidence for his resurrection. It is also weak evidence that he never existed. It depends on your prior beliefs which direction the evidence takes you. Isn't it fascinating that two rational people with different priors can use the same data to reach opposite conclusions? You might want to check out Jaynes' great book on Bayesian logic to examine some interesting examples:
http://omega.albany.edu:8008/J...
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
The earliest extant papyri of the New Testament writings date to circa 110AD, which is about 50 years after the authors, and 80 years after the events.
Now let's go to Josephus, author of the _Jewish Antiquities_. He is dated as having lived from 37AD to 100AD. Earliest extant manuscript of _Jewish Antiquities_? The earliest mss date from circa 1050AD. Josephus was in no way an eyewitness to most of what he wrote about, any more than most historians today are.
Let's take Xenophon. He was the first author I studied in classical Greek class in high school. His dates are as having lived from circa 430 to 354BC. We have 3 extant papyri. They date from circa 50AD. Xenophon is our only source for many of the things he says, and events and people he portrays, and it is obvious that he was biased, and thought that Cyrus the Younger was the best thing since sliced bread. This might have had something to do with Xenophon being paid by Cyrus as a mercenary.
Now I mention Josephus and Xenophon because, as ancient historians go, they're often considered to be among the most 'objective' by today's standards.
The quantity of NT mss is greater, with shorter time intervals of events portrayed to –>author composition to—> earliest extant manuscript than ANY documentary evidence for ANYTHING in antiquity. And you have multiple authorship sources—Mark, Q, Matthaean special, Lukan special, Johannine, Paul, Peter, James, unknown Jewish
author of Letter to the Hebrews, tons and tons of apocrypha, and so on, as well as the corroboration in Roman sources of Pontius Pilate's governorship of Judaea, Josephus, Tacitus, and other bits and pieces, plus the obvious fact that Paul is writing letters to the Christians at Corinth, Rome, Galatia etc i.e. eyewitnesses to the events surrounding Jesus had within 30 years established communities from Judea to Asia Minor to Greece to Rome.
For comparison purposes let's take Homer as author and the Sack of Troy as event. They don't even begin to compare for historicity with the New Testament and Jesus! You really have allowed 'rosy-coloured dawn' to blind you, and plunge you into 'the wine-dark sea' if you believe otherwise.
"Ancient Greeks believed that the Trojan War was a historical event. They believed that this war took place in the 13th or 12th century BC, and that Troy was located in the vicinity of the Dardanelles in what is now north-western Turkey. By modern times both the war and the city were widely believed to be non-historical. In 1870, however, the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann excavated a site in this area which he believed to be the site of Troy, and at least some archaeologists agree. There remains no certain evidence that Homer's Troy ever existed, still less that any of the events of the Trojan War cycle ever took place. Many scholars would agree that there is a historical core to the tale, though this may simply mean that the Homeric stories are a fusion of various stories of sieges and expeditions by the Greeks of the Bronze Age or Mycenean period. Those
who think that the stories of the Trojan War derive from a specific historical conflict usually date it to between 1300 BC and 1200 BC, usually preferring the dates given by Eratosthenes (1194 BC "“ 1184 BC) which roughly corresponds with the burning of Troy VIIa."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
See also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
And,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
And,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
I can easily give you the time intervals for any major Western ancient author between the author's lifetime and the earliest extant mss evidence. The New Testament beats them all out of sight.
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
John_a_designer
You wote:
It is an interesting question. On a purely pragmatic level I suspect it would be disaster. My guess is that humanity needs a variety of different characters and skills including a tad of selfishness to prosper. But that is a question of economics and I am not an economist. What do you think?
I am guessing you are getting at something slightly different – something like: Is unselfish committment to helping the poor and disadvantaged laudable behaviour whoever practices it? Am I right?
I would say yes. I would even say that I think it would be a good thing whether it is derived from religious motives or non-religious ones. I am a complete atheist, but I recognise that many religions have done a lot of good and the good probably outweights the harm.
There is presumably something behind your question. What is it?
Comment by Mark Frank — April 3, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Bradford:
I agree.
I disagree. It seems you're saying that the view of a minority of experts must necessarily be unreasonable. That doesn't bode very well for the future of ID. Have you read the books that argue for Christ being a mythical creation? I haven't, because I don't really care. But I simply note there is some controversy.
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
stunney:
Really? I doubt it. How about Julius Ceasar? We have his writings, we have coins with his face on it, we have statues, we have numerous contemporary eyewitness accounts. What NT character or author can beat that?
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
raevmo wrote:
Hold on. You asked me what evidence would make me stop believing in Christianity. I answered, the discovery of Jesus's corpse.
I never said that the absence of Jesus's corpse proves the truth of Christianity. Merely that the presence of the corpse would falsify Christianity (as I understand it).
Christianity was being preached prior to the earliest NT writings (St Paul's). If the corpse of Jesus was still in the tomb, it would have been a simple matter for the Jerusalem opponents of that preaching to produce it.
The obvious conclusion that serious historians draw is that the corpse was missing from the tomb in which it had been laid.
The other obvious thing is that there were multiple attestations to visions of a risen Jesus. Without them, Christianity would never have been heard of since.
Now, historical research cannot prove that the empty tomb and the visual experiences must both be explained by the truth of the claim that Jesus was really resurrected.
But it's very hard to dispute that the tomb was empty and that not only Jesus's closest followers, but also a persecutor of those followers, Paul, had visions of the resurrected Jesus, by the ordinary standards of histgorical scholarship….
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
As an agnostic I accept these facts regarding Jesus.
1. He lived.
2. His tomb was empty at some point after his death
3. His early disciples had experiences that were unique regarding him after he died.
Whenever, I hear someone disputing the fact that Jesus lived, I know I am dealing with a person who is uninformed or willfully biased or both.
Comment by bj — April 3, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Strictly speaking it wouldn't. But I would count it as strong evidence in favor of christianity. OK, very advanced aliens could have pulled it off, but how would they know about christianity? They could have picked up some radio/TV signals from earth by now, but is it even possible to spell out a message in stars within a 100 light years radius? Are there enough stars within that radius? I doubt it. So I would take that kind of evidence very seriously. On the other hand, if the God of the Bible wanted to make sure that all people on earth were aware of his existence and that of Jesus his son, then I think he could have come up with a more efficient way to communicate his message. Given that there are so many languages, the entire sky would have to be filled with his star-messages. But still. I would be far less secure in my atheist opinions.
You are not entirely mistaken I think, but I'm not sure I can follow your logic. What is computer information? Are you saying that information does not exist if there is nobody around to process it? What if a nuclear war would wipe out humanity tomorrow, but a couple of CDs would survive the blasts? Would those CDs not contain information anymore?
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
stunney:
OK, I see your point. But how would you know it was really Jesus' corps? It seems to me it would be nearly impossible to verify that.
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 800 years later than Caesar's day.
We have over 80 papyri of New Testament writings that date to well under 100 years from date of composition.
Now, I'll be happy to give you the relevant dates for Cicero, Catullus, Lucretius, Sallust, Virgil, Seneca the Younger, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, Plutarch, Appian, etc, etc, etc.
But it wsould be boring and the end result would be the same: "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning … and if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt".
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Raevmo:
Thank you. There were recent reports of ossuaries obtained decades ago (no bones) that have been purported to be "the Jesus family." They claimed they can demonstrate their legitimacy via DNA testing of 'dust' in these ossuaries.
"They" being scientists desperate to prove what cannot be proved. As usual.
Comment by Joy — April 3, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
There is no controversy among scholars. You did make an allusion to mythology and now you claim you do not care. Why make an unreasonable assertion in the first place? The first century Roman historian Tacitus, who has a good reputation, thought Christ existed. So did the first century Jewish historian Josephus. These are the heavyweights of first century historians from whom we gather major blocks of data about ancient history. Seutonius wrote about some of the same incidents recorded in the NT. He was not Christian. In addition there are numerous writers, outside those who penned the Gospels, who wrote about NT events. I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe in the divinity of Christ but to claim he did not exist is like claiming bacterial adaptations do not exist. As an IDist I do not disavow confirmed experimental evidence but have a different interpretation of it than you do. Your ID reference falls short of the mark. If you and others wish to wrap yourselves in the mantel of reason then avoid making blatently inaccurate claims.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
stunney, I appreciated Habermas's summary of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. But he left out an important point: the people who claimed to be eyewitnesses were also willing to die, rather than change their story.
But I don't think this will prove to Raevmo that Jesus rose from the dead. And I don't think God wants to try to "prove" things to people, or He would make Himself much more obvious. I think He's looking for people who want something more than this world offers, and want an I-Thou relationship with God, if He exists. If that is what Raevmo wants, then he will find God. If not, then he won't.
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Bilbo, I'm sure Habermas would agree 100% with you about the disciples' willingness to die. I was merely sticking to the narrower question of quantity and quality of mss. evidence.
Earlier in this thread I linked to an article that aims at refuting the atheist Argument from Divine Hiddeness, and mentioned that I was unaware of Harris having refuted it.
Comment by stunney — April 3, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Interesting article, stunney. It looks like they're trying to put into an analytic form something that Kierkegaard wrote about long ago.
Comment by Bilbo — April 3, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Very interesting, I had no idea, even though I had to translate the Gallic War in school. I'm obviously no match for you and some other posters here regarding historical knowledge about Christianity. Still, at least in Caesar's case we have some contemporary evidence literally written in stone. And surely you must agree that the NT writers had an agenda. So even if their mss are the oldest, it's hardly proof of their accuracy. But I must get some sleep now. Thank you for your responses.
Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 2:12 am
.
Seems like they had a very poor agenda since all but one of them were killed in some very creative ways. Of course someone will say that a lot of people die for their faith..look at the 911 bombers. However there is a difference when one dies based on what they are told verses dying for something you witnessed yourself and were telling others. Who would die for something they knew to be false?
I would suggest you check out the book of Luke if you want verifiable accuracy. Only one who lived at the time of Christs life would have known the things he knew and put down in writing. I could base my faith on the book of Luke alone.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — April 4, 2007 @ 2:12 am
April 4th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Saint Bernadette wasn't a mythical figure and her preserved body is defying laws of nature for nearly 130 years after her death.
Comment by Farshad — April 4, 2007 @ 3:17 am
April 4th, 2007 at 4:25 am
It could be defying the laws of nature or it could be saponification. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.... Or even more likely it could be a certain amount of saponification mixed with wishful thinking on behalf of those who inspected the corpse.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 4, 2007 @ 4:25 am
April 4th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Saint Bernadette's case is unique among other cases. Her body still looks kinda fresh and medical examinations have shown that her viscera are preserved as well. I recommend you to look at pics of her preserved body and decide it for yourself. Saponification definitely is not the case for her body. Saponification does not occur when the amount fat in body is low. Her body was thin at the time she passed away.
The wishful thinking is common among those who try to find a naturalistic explanation for preserved dead bodies which are a few hundred years old.
Comment by Farshad — April 4, 2007 @ 5:01 am
April 4th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Raevmo,
If you think this is the reason New Testament mss are not accurate you are committing generic fallacy. In any case I would like to hear your reasons to why NT documents are not historically accurate.
Comment by inunison — April 4, 2007 @ 5:07 am
April 4th, 2007 at 5:37 am
Farshad wrote:
Farshad,
If it were a miracle, don't you think God could do better than keeping her body "kinda fresh" and preserving her guts? This is God we're talking about, after all.
Why would God bother with a half-hearted, inconclusive "miracle" which gives the appearance of being just a case of better than average preservation?
Comment by keiths — April 4, 2007 @ 5:37 am
April 4th, 2007 at 6:28 am
keiths,
I don't think it's relevant to ask why would God do this or that. The question is if this phenomena can be explained materialistically (I personally think it can) and if not how does it fit spiritually with other revelations.
But I think this is off topic in any case.
Comment by inunison — April 4, 2007 @ 6:28 am
April 4th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Keiths:
No one claims that God himself directly intervened and preserved her body. But again, I'm nor sure how your reasoning can make an argument against this supernatural phenomenon. Your statement seems to repeat the same old fallacy of "if it is God's work then it must be impeccable".
Like natural events supernatural events are subject to rules and laws. It does not work as if God raised his finger and wanted it to happen.
For Saint Bernadette, one explanation from an esoteric point of view is that her body and soul were tightly tuned with high vibration rates of higher realms and this made her body kinda immune to physical corruption. Though she is dead, her body still remains tuned and it significantly slows down the corruption.
Besides, I hope you can give us a naturalistic explanation of how billions of E-Coli's and other bacteria in her guts couldn't rot her body from inside.
Comment by Farshad — April 4, 2007 @ 6:37 am
April 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
Exactly, the point that I was trying to make by mentioning mother Teresa is that she was a real person living in the real world who did real good. I was not intentionally suggesting that everyone in the world needed to take vows of celibacy and poverty etc. like her. I don't think anyone doubts that Mother Teresa really lived was truly an unselfish and compassionate person and really did some good in her corner of the world. Mother Teresa, on the other hand, has readily admitted the she was motivated by a person who lived and taught 2000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth. I think if you take a look at the teachings of Jesus and the acts of compassion as practiced by committed Christians today you will find that there is very little difference. The moral truth that Jesus taught, loving your fellow man unselfishly, and if necessary, self sacrificially, is a universal moral truth. Do you agree? Furthermore, do you think it is something that is easy to put in practice? Or, do you agree with me that it is something that requires a deep sense of commitment, or what most people would call faith?
Then would you agree that atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others are wrong when they make blanket condemnations of religious faith of all kinds?
If you scroll up and read what I wrote earlier on this thread you'll see that I gave another example of selfless compassion and that I asked a number of other pertinent questions. (Questions all the atheists conveniently ignored.) I guess it all boils down to this: Are good intentions the only thing that is required of atheists (just to think theoretically correct moral thoughts), or does true morality require everyone (Christians as well as atheists) to do real good in the real world?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 4, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
John A. Designer:
I imagine one of the reasons you haven't received direct answers is the circulating meme among atheists that Mother Teresa was actually very evil and did horrible things. I've encountered that unexplained (unexplainable?) brush-off many times.
Looks to me like some atheists really believe it's enough to pontificate about morality (their own and other people's), while refraining from doing much of anything overtly 'good' or 'evil' in the world. Many atheists do donate money to various causes, often religious missions. Because the missions that they can support are religious sponsorships for the most part – people are already out there doing the 'good' works, and supporting it with money is a 'good' deed.
It may seem strange, but this sort of thing is quite common. Back before the Rainbow Warrior got blown up by the French SS, it was at a shipyard next door to the shrimp dock we were caretaking in north Florida, getting outfitted with masts and sails. Greenpeace opened a regional office in the city due to so much interest and so many offers of support, in a town notable as being more redneck than Georgia, and hosting a huge Navy presence.
One of the Greenpeace wigs told me at a crab boil we hosted one night before they left for New Zealand that she was learning a lot – the vast majority of monetary contributions (those $10 and $20 donations that don't seem like much but add up quickly) were coming from sailors and their dependents in Navy housing complexes. Turns out the Big Bad Navy that was portrayed as such a threat to all life in the seas was actually full of people who like whales and dolphins and other sea life a lot. Enough to donate what may have been a pittance to the Miami Chic set, but was a chunk out of sub-poverty level wages.
And donations went up significantly after the bombing, as well as to the GP testing project that identified dioxin being released into rivers by paper mills as the cause of rampant fish disease and disappearing shrimp. Greenpeace has since set up shop in several other notoriously Navy areas, and is still being supported strongly by those lonely sailors who would sorely miss the whale songs they go to sleep with at night.
I've heard the tapes made during patrol under the north pole on my hubby's boomer – they're hauntingly beautiful, as if the whales are really singing to the sub. He said the sound comes right through the metal hull. He even had a little trouble learning how to sleep without it when crews changed. And the dolphins (porpoises, actually) are the sailor's best friends. I'll never forget watching the Sara come into port after the first Gulf war, a solid line of crispy white sailors on the edge of the deck all around, and a whole pod of dolphin escorts jumping and laughing the big carrier right to the dock.
Some people do the doing, some people support the doing because they know it needs doing. This works out rather well if one understands that not everyone can do, and not everyone's got money to give. Problems arise when people try to pretend their personal position in the give-and-do system is better and more 'moral' than anybody else's.
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Joy:
I suspect this is largely due to Christopher Hitchens' hatchet job of a book on Mother Teresa from a few years back. Penn Gillette has done his share of promoting the meme too, if I remember correctly.
Comment by Varenius — April 4, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Sort of amazing how they'll believe anything their shepherds tell 'em, about anything. Often makes me wonder if any of these parrots have two brain cells to rub together. [sheesh!]
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Here's Hitchen's take on Mother Teresa:
http://tinyurl.com/ysvzs6
Comment by Raevmo — April 4, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Joy wrote:
This reminds me of a biography that I read several years ago. The bio was about a prominent atheist who was in charge of one of the major atheist organizations who began thinking that atheists were never going succeed unless they became more humanitarian and more involved in charitable work. His idea was that atheists needed to be at least as compassionate as the religious organizations that they regularly criticized. His proposal, however, was only received with skepticism and indifference from his fellow atheists. As a result, to make a long story short, he had a change of heart and ended up converting to Christianity"¦ I remember reading the book but because it was so long ago, mid to late 80's, I think, I can't remember the man's name. Does anyone out there remember the same story, and the name? It has momentarily slipped my mind.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 4, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Not familiar with it, John. But do what I do to work around my 'old-timer's disease'… input the query, it'll come to you eventually. Probably in the middle of the night when you're least expecting it! §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Thanks for the link, Raevmo. I think. Sort of looks to me like Hitchens decided to personify his personal existential angst and hatred of the church onto a person universally revered as a "living saint." Because she was universally revered as a "living saint," which is a whole lot more human reverence than Hitchens will ever receive for his devotion to alleviation of suffering.
Some people are just born bad. I don't think Teresa was one of them, even if she did find herself playing a too-political role in her later years. I used to wonder when the heck the faithful would finally let this poor woman die… as if their prayers served to keep her alive when she'd just as soon have gone.
I don't care what the Catholic hierarchy does about her. I hope they DO declare her a saint. This poor world could use some good role models, and I don't consider Hitchens blatant egotism to be in the running. He likes abortion, he likes divorce and he apparently really likes unattended death. Conversely, he hates anyone who notably stands against his favorite pastimes, and isn't shy of libel to make his nefarious point.
Not impressive, but that's just me. I'm sure the 'New Atheists' think of him as a saint, since so many nameless, faceless evangelical atheists parrot this tripe as if it's the final judgment on a humble human being's long lifetime of service.
Pitiful. I mean, really pitiful. Maybe a way more saintly person than me could translate that pity into something inspiring. Maybe it's just pitiful and is doomed to be thus forever. What a waste of a human life.
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
John_a_designer (can I call you John for short?)
You write
I very much concur with most of the New Testament ideas on morality and that would include loving your fellow man unselfishly, and if necessary, self sacrificially. So would most of my atheist friends and family. On balance I believe Jesus was very influential in speading these ideas and I think that's great.
"Universal moral truth" is one of those blanket phrases using abstract words that I have learned to distrust. I would need to write an essay to a answer your question as it would depend on the many meanings you can give this phrase.
Does it require a deep sense of committment? It depends on the degree of self-sacrifice. Mother Theresa clearly had a very deep sense of committment. My wife (who is an atheist) will always go out of her way and to talk to the old and infirm and visit them in hospital. Is it a much smaller sacrifice but still a sacrifice. Time is precious. She does it because she thinks it is the right thing to do. Can atheists show a similar sense of committment to religious folk? I think so, but not because they are atheists. It is hard to be inspired by an absence. They will be something else – patriots or humanitarians or simply people doing what they believe to be right – who happen to be atheists.
Would most people call this type of committment "faith" I don't see that at all. Faith is a specific sort of committment – a committment to believe even though the evidence is absent or pointing the other way. But it is not the only type of committment and it is not the only committment that leads people to make sacrifices for others. The atheist graduate who decides to forsake a career in the city to join a charity is showing a similar committment – but it is not faith. Almost any mother makes immense sacrifices for her children whatever her beliefs. It is because she is human.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 4, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Mark Frank:
That is an EA meme. Christ did not ask anyone to believe in something about which evidence would indicate a contrary conclusion. "Blind faith" is an invention that does not correspond to faith as defined by the writers of scripture.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Mark Frank:
You know, I have met some very 'good', selfless, committed people in my life. Of all varieties, including atheist/agnostic. I don't think any of them poured so much of themselves into their often quiet, unpublicized giving of themselves (or, as my son used to say about his cancer kids – giving of unconditional love) just because they were scared of a big bad sky-demon who would torture them forever if they didn't do more than their share.
IOW, they did it because they felt it the right thing to do – something they could do. Something they would do. This is that whole "do unto others" thing that seems to be a universal translation of moral edict in all the mystical traditions. Something human, not invented by anybody's particular ghosts, gods or fairies.
And there are a lot of humans – maybe most – who don't do anything for anybody without an ego-payoff. They were usually like that as kids too. Maybe they're missing some pieces-parts, we can call "empathy." That is a normal component of the human being's conscious psyche.
Met someone on the 'net years ago who had twin boys. One was normal and very outgoing, the other was semi-autistic and had a notable lack of empathy. Both well above average in intelligence. The troubled boy was getting older and was beginning to be a disruption in school and a real threat to classmates, siblings, pets and neighbors. I don't know how that worked out for her (she was Buddhist), but I do know she was suffering over it. Almost as if she was reading her own future and knowing this kid was going to end up locked away as a threat to society unless she could convince him it was in his own best interests not to act out his proclivities.
So. There's an in-house dichotomy that couldn't possibly get any more graphic. The 'good' son and the 'evil' twin. And a mother's struggle to raise them both, from a level of existential awareness that made it look pretty hopeless. In real life there's a whole distributional bell curve in between these archetypes. It's all in how we deal with each other that makes a difference, for better or for worse.
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I don't think that a person who favors the invasion of Iraq as stridently as the former Trotskyist Hitchens does, has sufficient moral authority to stand in moral judgment over Mother Teresa of Calcutta.
Comment by stunney — April 4, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
I don't define faith that way at all. Faith is a response to revelation. Without revelation, a religious believer would have no reason to believe in, say, the doctrine of the Trinity.
Similarly, the atheist may believe that one ought to show compassion to the unfortunate.
But neither proposition, "God is a Trinity" nor "One ought to be compassionate to the unfortunate", can be proved. Yet it is not irrational to believe that either proposition is true.
What may be irrational is to believe that the proposition about compassion is true or valid or beliefworthy and also believe that human beings and moral concepts are the result of purposeless accidents of a wholly material universe. But even if that isn't irrational, it is the case that the typical atheist believes the moral proposition by faith, since its correctness, truth, or normativity is undemonstrable starting from premises yielded by materialist ontology.
Comment by stunney — April 4, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Hi Keiths,
I think I have a decent grasp on BurdenOfProof 101. In this case, I brought up Russell in order to bring up the title of his popular essay, "Why I am Not a Christian." The title is actually quite significant, because it frames the debate. If someone is not happy with Russell being a non-christian and wants him to become a Christian, it is their burden to a) deal with his reasons and b) explain why he should be a Christian.
Yet Harris's gig is not about justifying his own skepticism or atheism. He wants others to change their minds and positions. And I'm sorry, but I view his talk about dogmaticism as mostly a smokescreen, so let's cut to the chase. When it comes to the issue of God-belief and religion, Harris wants people to be like Sam Harris. He wants them to abandon their God-belief and religion. He wants them to become atheists. But, as you agree, no one is under any obligation to abandon their faith because Sam Harris doesn't think there is any evidence for it. The burden of proof is indeed on Harris because he is expecting others to abandon their beliefs and adopt his point of view.
Maybe I am not understanding you, but you seem to think that people need to justify themselves before Sam Harris (or someone like him). You ask me to consider the following example:
If you want me to share in your belief, and are trying to get me to adopt your beliefs, then the burden is on you. But if I insisted that you abandon your belief about the shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the constellation Draco who rule the world, then claiming you have no evidence for this belief doesn't cut it. I would indeed need to find ways to convince you that you are wrong. Of course, this doesn't mean I need to come up with such reasons to justify my own non-belief. The "no evidence" claim works fine as such a justification and as a means to turn back your attempts to convert me. But again, the moment I seek to change your opinions/views is the moment the "no evidence" claim is not enough.
Of course, at this point, Harris could argue it's not about adopting or abandoning certain beliefs; it's about making sure your beliefs are supported by evidence. But this appeal fails. First, "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder and there is no reason to make Sam Harris the judge of what counts as "evidence." Second, as I have shown, Sam himself cannot live up to this standard. So it's rather silly to have Sam demanding others live to a standard he himself cannot meet.
Comment by MikeGene — April 4, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Morality is to some extent innate and evolved (read some of Frans de Waal's books on morality in primates and other animals), but also to a large extent what our parents taught us. There is no objective morality. Even among religious people morality evolves. Not all of what was considered moral by religious folks a couple centuries ago is still considred moral by adherents to the same religion. Slavery comes to mind.
Comment by Raevmo — April 4, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
raevmo writes:
People's beliefs about what is morally right change. That observation per se doesn't entail that what is morally right changes.
You claim that there is no objective morality. I think that if that is so, then Harris's moral criticisms of religion are without real rational substance. The view of atheists like J. L. Mackie is that that is essentially the case for all moral claims.
Of course I disagree with you and Mackie about the nature of morality. But that is a large topic…
Comment by stunney — April 4, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
April 4th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Raevmo:
Obviously, human morality is a progressive paradigm (hate that word!) – social evolution. Just as democracy is a radical departure from previous totalitarian forms of government. A "Grand Experiment." People naturally appeal to authority. It makes life easy, so long as your authorities are the ones those authorities want them to be.
It takes real courage to go against the current. Maybe that's a brain parasite, but who's preying on us? Maybe it's the next wave of understanding meeting the tide-dike of the old wave of understanding. Maybe it's just haters hating. I don't know, am trying to figure it out.
Comment by Joy — April 4, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
April 5th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Joy
I pretty much agree with you – except I think it can be simplified to.
"The whole "do unto others" thing is something human, not invented by anybody's particular ghosts, gods or fairies."
Bradford
You wrote:
I don't really want to get into this. Clearly I don't believe the evidence is there or I wouldn't be an atheist. Stunney defines "faith" as a response to revelation. I have never had a revelation and I can't imagine what it would be like – so I really can't comment – clearly it is a bit different in nature from a randomised controlled trial which is they kind of thing I consider evidence.
When we use "faith" in a more prosaic way (e.g. have faith in your soccer team even though it's 3-0 down at half-time) then I think it pretty much corresponds to my definition.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 5, 2007 @ 1:47 am
April 5th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Joy:
And thus as evolution, from an outside perspective each ethic is co-equal until one dies out, right? Now, add to that the "tolerant" progressives (minus Harris) are all about trying to integrate Sharia law as best as possible and elsewhere Muslims are chopping off heads and limbs. There once was a time in Europe where the Romans called the Goths "barbaric" and the Goths said "Damn right!" Guess what terrible fate befell the Germanic tribes for their "barbarism"
We have a historical pattern for this: sometimes civilization goes away.
But besides that, the 20th century is one of the most bloodiest centuries in human history, much of it caused by atheists Stalin and Mao, and quasi-New-ager Hitler. People who believed that their reason put them at the cutting edge of humanity. Had we not stormed the beach at Normandy (a bloody, bloody bravado act — just throwing bodies at them, pretty much) Von Braunn just might have had enough time to make atomic fire drop out of the skies.
Call it ethical genetic drift–if you will–ethical diversity.
Comment by Axeman — April 5, 2007 @ 2:52 am
April 5th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Something totally unrelated just hit me: If there ever comes a time to paint our knees green, Science will provide much more rational reasons for painting our knees green than any frat boy prank. We will have better paint, and a better marketed green that fits the needs of painting our knees green.
This can not be disputed!
Comment by Axeman — April 5, 2007 @ 3:02 am
April 5th, 2007 at 3:49 am
There we go again with the bad-atheist-mass-murderer meme. For some fairness and balancedness, next time you might add the lower-tech 19th century Taiping Rebellion, the second-bloodiest conflict ever (after WWII), "…conducted by an army and civil administration inspired by Hakka self-proclaimed mystics named Hong Xiuquan and Yang Xiuqing. Hong was an unorthodox Christian convert who declared himself the new Messiah and younger brother of Jesus Christ. Yang Xiuqing was a former salesman of firewood in Guangxi, who frequently claimed to be able to act as a mouthpiece of God to direct the people and gain himself a large amount of political power." (wikipedia)
Comment by Raevmo — April 5, 2007 @ 3:49 am
April 5th, 2007 at 6:52 am
That is an EA meme. Christ did not ask anyone to believe in something about which evidence would indicate a contrary conclusion. "Blind faith" is an invention that does not correspond to faith as defined by the writers of scripture.
Mark Frank:
Take a second look at what you wrote:
This is an extreme statement. You are not even stating that there is some evidence for x but that you are not convinced. You go beyond this and claim, in effect, there is a moon out tonight but because I have faith that the moon does not exist I discount what I see in the sky. I argue against even those who come to the same conclusions as me when I see this stance because it usually betrays an underlying emotional reaction against a concept. There are those who disbelieve the current reigning paradigm about the origin and diversity of life i.e. OOL + Evolution explains what we observe on planet earth. Some go as far as to say there is no evidence for it. Some people hate Bush so much they claim there was no evidence for WMDs despite those stricken thousands of Kurds whose bodies testified otherwise. I'm not claiming you cannot object to the level of evidence for Christianity but where is the rational case that faith is based on non-existent or contrary evidence? How is that not a loaded definition?
Comment by Bradford — April 5, 2007 @ 6:52 am
April 5th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Bradford
I am sorry. I didn't write exactly what I meant. I will try to be more precise. To me having faith in someone or some ideal implies not just a objective assessment of the balance of probabilities but a committment to sustain that belief. It would be strange for someone to say "I have faith that there is a 80% chance that Jesus was divine". I am not saying that faith entails a lack of evidence – just that it includes a committment to believe over and above simply assessing the evidence.
Comment by Mark Frank — April 5, 2007 @ 8:20 am
April 5th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Mark Frank:
No, "do unto others…" is a translation of a higher moral edict that people can rationalize and put into practice if they care to, but it tends to be limited to immediate sociopolitical formalities and sometimes can't be made to apply even in one's own family. There's a distributional bell curve in the midrange, some exceptionally 'good' and exceptionally 'evil' people on the wings.
It's a simple enough command by all indications of the many 'Holy men' who have brought it back with them from their seeking and translated it for their times and circumstances. It isn't so simple a practice that it's ever actually ruled human relationships.
Axeman:
No, people may eventually start thinking for themselves beyond authoritarian edicts, and if enough of them understand that an expansion of principles is warranted (humans should not own other humans, humans as property isn't a very moral/ethical thing to do) they can eventually change a long tradition. Like slavery.
Pretty soon the kind of discrimination and bigotry that views the slave class as 'less than' human is the minority, and over time that too may change if that view is not tolerated by the broader society.
Now, from an outside perspective it might appear that the slave class itself has been broadened to include more people, and the slave-owner class shrinks to become much richer than they ever were when they were responsible for slave food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. Now the slaves can be made responsible for their own upkeep, but paid too little to accomplish that. Result: bad for slaves, good for the owners of production: Laissez faire.
And it can of course happen again. Sometimes, it may be the best thing that could happen. Given the amoral propensities of scientists and politicians.
But we did, and got von Braun all for ourselves, and managed to drop atomic fire on the Japanese without his help. §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 5, 2007 @ 9:33 am
April 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Mark Frank asked:
If you wish, yes. Just make sure that it is clear from the context. There is, at least one other John, Johnny B. who regularly posts here as well. BTW there are also a Doug and a Douglas who are regulars. One of them, for some reason, insisted a few weeks ago that he not be confused with his namesake. Just keep that in mind.
I have to disagree with you about how you define (or maybe don't define) faith. Jesus himself always linked faith with moral action and good deeds. That is what he was talking about when he talked about the mustard seed: "If you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move a mountain." He wasn't talking about mere intellectual assent, believing in Gods existence, for example, he was talking about doing something, performing some great deed or act. It could be a miracle, or it could be some great act of love and compassion. The implication is that more faith one has then greater the resulting act or deed, and the greater the good. Most Christians and theologians I know, or know about, I believe would define faith this way.
Earlier on this thread (the 15th post from the beginning) I talked about Steve Saint who sold his business, outside of Orlando, Fla. and moved his family (his wife and two teenage children) down to one of the most isolated corners of the Amazon Rain Forest to help the Waodani Indians, a tribe of traditional hunter and gatherers, who needed to learn how to deal with the outside world that had started to encroach on their domain. Just think of the challenges he faced: he moved his family from a very nice upper middle class American home to a rough hewn lumber home with a simple plastic tarp for a roof, and no running water, no modern sanitation, no stores, and no way to communicate with outside word except short wave radio. You don't think doing something like that requires faith? For me, like a lot of people I know, doing something like that would be like stepping out boating and trying to walk on water.
In his book, The End of the Spear, he certainly makes it clear that thought it was an act of faith. By the way, Hollywood recently (2006) did a movie also called, The End of the Spear, which is based on incidents that took place earlier in Steve's life (see my original post above.) Steve's book is actually a kind of a sequel to the movie.
Mark, you seem to be arguing for the Sam Harris' idea about faith: faith is superstition and dangerous to both society and individuals. Great acts of compassion and moral courage– well that will somehow all take care of itself. I don't see it that way. I think if we want a better world it will require more faith.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 5, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
April 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Joy, Yesterday I wrote:
You responded:
I now remember the name: William Murray (not to be confused with Bill Murray the comedian). He was the son of the well known atheist Madelyn Murray O'Hair (now deceased) and for a while helped his mom head up her organization. At the time I read his book, My Life With Out God, I remember thinking that it was ironic that none the standard apologetic arguments seemed to have any effect on his thinking. Evidently he found the moral argument so compelling the he just skipped over all the other supposed philosophical and intellectual problems that Christianity presents to "modern scientific thought". The bottom line was that he converted to Christianity because he found atheism (at least his and his mother's version of it) to be morally bankrupt.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 5, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
April 5th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Glad it worked for you, John! I hadn't heard about Murray's conversion. While atheists no doubt contribute to various NGO relief organizations like the rest of us do (many are tax supported as well), as a group they're not particularly known for being charitable with their time, expertise or money. Then again, as a group they're not organized enough to front any sort of real charity effort, so must support those already in place (or claim, like Josh Rosenau does, that his choice of career is itself a charitable act).
Perhaps the Richard Dawkins Foundation will launch some projects (if it ever gets itself certified *as* a charity). But let's face it… we'd all be surprised if its projects weren't just more evangelization of their belief system and denigration of other belief systems. Quite the narcissistic bunch, from all I'm able to tell. It's the whole "I am God's gift to mankind" thing, only without the God.
Comment by Joy — April 5, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
April 5th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
Which randomized controlled trials constitute evidence for the proposition that evidence is solely comprised of randomized controlled trials?
It seems your notion of what constitutes evidence is self-referentially incoherent.
As I've pointed ou before before, Harris, like most atheists, believes in the normativity for human thought and action of reason and morality. But no randomized controlled trial proves that Harris's beliefs in reason or morality are true or warranted.
Mark Frank previously said in response:
Well, this is, by Frank's own definition, a faith statement. It goes beyond what can be established by evidence garnered from any randomized controlled trials. Moreover, the validity of 'Kantian logic' cannot be established by such trials, and any logical theorems presuppose and do not prove the axioms from which they derive; likewise, rules of inference are presupposed and not proved by any given logic.
One must start with epistemic faith in something which is not itsef provable logically (axioms), or justifiable empirically (sense-perceptions). Otherwise one ends up with a merely circular argument. Logic cannot justify belief in the validity of logic; and sense-perception cannot justify belief in sense-perception. In short, reason cannot demonstrate that belief in reason is rational without cicularity.
So much for faith in reason. Hence, when it comes to morality, reason can't justify moral beliefs without assuming its own validity which, as we just saw, is something that cannot be demonstrated without circularity.
Hence belief in reason and morality ultimately is based on faith. What is even more to the point, evolutionary naturalism holds that both are the results of unintentional material forces—-the same mechanisms that generated all life-forms on the planet. We thus have no rational basis, given EN, that our belief in reason and morality is any more warranted than a 'belief in', say, the 'cognitive states' of bats or bees or snakes or plankton or fruitflies or whatever may happen to be the most reproductively successful species to date since life first began on our planet.
Here's some reflections of mine about the non-provable-but-still-rational character of subjective experience:
Comment by stunney — April 5, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
April 5th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
stunney wrote:
Sane people in Riyadh, Varanasi, Beijing and Kinshasa have also had vivid religious experiences. Yet collect all these "revelations" and compare them, and you'll find that they are contradictory.
What gives the London man's vision epistemic priority over the others?
Comment by keiths — April 5, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
April 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Suppose one person has a vivid experience of Jesus as resurrected. Suppose also that, whether unbeknownst to that person or not, other people have vivid experiences of Muhammad flying on a magic carpet, Yogi emanating from Krishna, and Queen Victoria peeing on the whole of the British Empire apart from England.
Since none of the latter vivid experiences indicate that Jesus is not resurrected, the first person still has no reason to disbelieve that Jesus is risen.
Now suppose that someone has a vision of some supernatural being saying Jesus is not risen. Even if the person who has the Jesus-as-risen vision were to become aware that someone else had had this latter vision, it would not logically follow that the Jesus-as-risen vision provided no reason to the person who had it to believe that Jesus was risen. On the contrary, the person who had the vision of Jesus as risen would still have a reason to believe that Jesus is risen.
Since I know someone who had such a vision, Harris's claim that no-one on this planet has any reason to believe in Chrisianity is straightforwardly false.
Comment by stunney — April 5, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
April 6th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Stunney
You wrote
I am going to have a go at responding. But please can we do this on the basis of mutual respect? Also "“ I apologise for the length. It is a complex subject and I don't have the time to write it concisely.
You are talking about the justification for statements about right and wrong (and statements about other minds "“ but this is long enough without getting those). You are right that whatever basis we choose to justify these statements, someone can always insist that the justification needs justifying and eventually you will come to a point where you can go no further. For example, suppose I say "slavery is wrong because it is wrong to restrict someone's freedom". Someone could reply "yes but why is it wrong to restrict someone's freedom?" And eventually you are going to come to a point where one person says "well I am sorry I just think that's wrong". In fact you can use this technique on any statement – not just the difficult ones like moral statements and other minds. Imagine this short dialogue:
A: The sun is shining
B: How do you justify that assertion?
A: I can see it is shining
B: How do you know that what you think you see is actually happening?
A: In the past on almost every occasion I think I see something it has turned out to be true
B: But just because that is happened in the past why should it happen in the future?
And you are rapidly into the problem of induction.
So the problem you raise is not peculiar to moral statements or statements about other minds. And, of course, it has been confusing philosophers for centuries.
But how does faith solve it? All it does it add one more couplet to the dialogue above.
A: Because I have faith that what has happened in the past will happen in the future
B: But how do you know that it will happen just because you have faith in it?
You use the word rational a lot. I think you are looking for a rational justification of logic and evidence which, to avoid circularity, is not itself logic and evidence (if this is twisting your words please say so – I am trying my best). However, to me rational means in accord with the rules of logic and evidence. So any other sort of justification could not be rational. Maybe you can help me here?
There is one school of philosophical thought that says that logical statements (e.g. the square root of 4 is 2) and fundamental laws of evidence (e.g. if something has always happened before that is a good reason for supposing it will happen again) are fundamental and need no further justification. I belong to that school. Logic and evidence are what we mean by a justification for a statement.
So where does evolutionary naturalism fit into this? Nowhere. The rules of logic and evidence would hold even if there were no living creature in the universe.
Having said all that, there are some specific problems with moral statements. There is a fact/value distinction. You can't deduce an "ought" from an "is". If someone says "torturing babies is a good thing" then you can't disprove it by logical deduction from the facts about babies, nor can you disprove it by saying "well torturing babies in the past has always turned out to be wrong so it is probably wrong this time". It is a different type of argument. You have to win it by appealing to the compassion of the speaker or by pointing out inconsistencies in the speakers approach – e.g. "so would it have been OK to torture your own baby?"
Moral statements are logically tied to action. It would be a very odd to say "I know I ought to do this – but that's not a reason for doing it". Someone who says that, doesn't know what "ought" means. It is reasonable to say "I know I ought to do this but I am too tired" i.e. the moral imperative is outweighed by another. But to deny that "ought" is any kind of reason for doing something would be madness.
So when you make a moral statement what is happening? Is it true or false in the sense that "the sun is shining" is true or false? And what counts as a justification? That's where I turn to Wittgenstein and language games. He makes the point that our language is not just a map of reality but is more of a tool in set of "games" we play. For example, the simple statement "Queen takes rook" in a chess game makes no sense without the entire rules of chess including the objectives of the game. It is not just a linguistic map of the movement of a piece of wood or plastic. In the same way there is an ethics game. We have a whole set of behaviours where there are some things we find morally reprehensible and others we find morally laudable. This is partly built-in and partly cultural. The language of "good" and "bad" and of "right" and "wrong" is built on those behaviours. That's why they have a logical tie to action. "Good" expresses a certain set of things we luckily mostly approve of and it expresses the desire to promote or continue those things. The built-in part of those behaviours evolved and was probably adaptive under the circumstances under which they evolved. However, that does not mean
* these moral behaviours are always adaptive under all circumstances
* they are adaptive under current circumstances
* there aren't other, more selfish, behaviour patterns which also evolved which sometimes result in conflicting motives and sometimes prevail
Wow "“ that was virtually an essay. My objective is simply to illustrate
* faith does not help explain some of these problems
* there is an alternative explanation which is not irrational
Cheers
Comment by Mark Frank — April 6, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
April 6th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Mark Frank wrote:
Oh, I don't think faith does 'solve' it; nor do I think it's something that needs 'solving'. Which is why I never said faith 'solved' it.
That, indeed, is the point I was making: faith is epistemically unavoidable; but that fact does not entail irrationality.
Harris was claiming that beliefs based ultimately on faith are ipso facto irrational. I argued against Harris by saying that Harris's own belief in the normativity for human thought and action of reason and morality ultimately is not provably true or provably warranted either logically or empirically. And given how he and you were defining faith, such a belief would ultimately rest on faith.
If you think 'willingness to play certain Wittgensteinian language-games' is a preferable term to 'faith', that's fine. Go ahead and call it that. But the substance is really the same. We used to call it Wittgensteinian fideism.
What the rules of logic and evidence are is a matter of great dispute among humans.
But even if there were a solid human consensus on such matters, this consensus would be species-specific. We would, given evolutionary naturalism, have no rational ground for believing that human cognition, and hence human conceptions of logic and evidence, was the best, or even especially good, as forms of cognition go.
Given EN, we have no reason to think that in the nearest 100 million galaxies, there aren't, say, 64,189 species of life that are as superior from a cognitive point of view to us, as we take ourselves to be in comparison with, say, cats.
Indeed, just the last 200 years of human civilization has brought about (so we believe) astonishing advances in human knowledge. But given EN, we would have no warrant for thinking that the last 200 years of human civilization was particularly special as regards the development of cognitive power in our local galaxy cluster. In fact, given EN (and basic biological and cosmological science), we'd have reason to suppose that it wasn't special at all.
Of course, deep down, physicists don't really believe any such thing. Deep down, they really believe in the cognitive 'specialness' of the last 200 years or so of human scientific findings, no matter how improbable it is, on an EN perspective, that human science since 1807 is particularly good, cognitively speaking.
Comment by stunney — April 6, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Quite right. Which is one reason why a scientific study of evolution can never draw a moral conclusion, and is therefore morally sterile. You cannot pull "ought" into the conclusion where it did not exist in any of the premises.
This also shows why it is pointless to suggest reason as an alternative to replace faith. There is no line of applicable reasoning that can stand without axioms — propositions accepted without proof. In particular, to draw moral conclusions, there must exist moral axioms.
The book "The Abolition of Man" by C.S.Lewis touches on all these matters. Highly recommended to anyone interested in this topic.
Regarding evolution, since evolution is obligated to account for all manner of behaviors of the creatures it produces, it can hardly say that any of those behaviors produced and sustained over the centuries is "wrong". They are (supposedly) all the product of the same unguided process. Even extinction is not the same thing as saying something was morally "wrong". Evolution is mute with regard to the question of morality.
Comment by eric — April 11, 2007 @ 10:02 pm