I'm interested in truth & what it means for individuals & humanity. This re-vamped blog is dedicated to truth and honest questions about faith in Jesus Christ. It is an effort to engage in authentic dialogue among Christians, Atheists and all points in between. Posts that do not honor legitimate discussion may be removed at my discretion. That doesn't mean that you can't disagree, but it DOES mean that you can't be a jerk. Welcome to the discussion.
I really don't see what the big deal is about interleaving responses, which is the standard I have come to expect in both the corporate world and online newsgroups. However, since you loathe that format so, I'll go along to get along and do my best to accomodate your preferences.
Your blog format does not seem to me to lend itself to traditional opening and closing remarks, so I will begin by posting my prefacing comments here. Then I will proceed to respond to each "blog post" individually, finally circling back here again to post my concluding remarks. I will ask that you hold your responses to each individual point until I have completed my response in full.
Despite your assurances yesterday that this is a fully private conversation, I am again troubled by the appearance of this forum which is hosted "on your turf," so to speak, and to all outward appearances seems to be set up for other people to read and respond to my comments. (Who are your instructions and overview comments addressed to? Certainly not to me?) To be absolutely clear, I am *NOT* interested in a public debate or in my private words to you, my brother, being made public, much less in being the sole atheist in a one sided debate with a bunch of like-minded theists in their church message system. If you want a public debate, I suggest you go to the talk.origins usenet group where there is a daily vigorous argument. All of my comments are confidential are intended solely for the addressee, Corbin Lambeth. Access to this electronic message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. All comments are copyright (C) Eric Lambeth and may not be reproduced without permission in any way whatosever. Apart from the legalese, I will be extremely upset with you if I have been misled about this.
Now then, with the formalities dispensed with, two opening points I would like to make:
1) I have often found it frustrating to be in a debate with a theist who, unable to explain or defend their position, will close the argument with something along the lines of "Well, just go read the bible and pray and the answer is there," or "My pastor can explain that to you, go ask him," etc. I find such intellectual laziness disappointing; I believe that if you don't have a rationale for why you believe in something, then you probably have no business belieivng it. If you think that Jesus is the son of god, you ought to have some coherent reason as to why, not dismiss any detailed inquiry on the basis that so-and-so told you so or you read it somewhere. Therefore, I want to avoid being hypocritical here and saying "Oh Corbin, for heaven's sake, just go read the Richard Dawkins book." And inasmuch as you're really interested in simply hearing *my* opinion and *my* rationale and what makes sense to *me*, that's fine. However, what Dawkins (among others) is and I am not is a trained scientist and technical writer with decades of experience in physical sciences, the scientific method, and logical proofs. So when it comes to the physics of the universe and evolution and the altruistic impulse and so forth, he will by nature (to use a pun) be better able to explain things to you. Imagine that you want to learn about the theory of relativity. Sure, I could probably give you a rudimentary, if inelegant, overview, and if you're just curious to hear my opinion, ok. But if your true goal is to learn about the theory itself and how it may impact you, why filter it through my untrained layman's lens when Einstein's original text is readily available for your consumption? So if you're really interested in making an inquiry into atheism and understanding the critiques of theistic belief, I cannot recommend Dawkins' book highly enough. The second chapter, entitled "Why there almost certainly is no god," is, as I believe I've said before, about the most damning logical critique of theism that I've seen. (Hitchens is a more entertaining writer but better at throwing verbal bombs than constucting solid arguments.) So to avoid being hypocritical, I'll answer your charges once more, but you may find more satisfying answers from people such as Dawkins who are more passionate and educated about this topic than I am. If you really want to study and appreciate the scientific basis for atheism, I'd suggest you go in that direction.
2) Which leads me to point number two. I'd like to tell you a true story about a former classmate of mine named Frank Zheng who went to grad school with me. As you may know, I'm a capitalist's capitalist and a conservative's conservative. I believe that democracy and free enterprise are pretty much the be-all end-all of political and economic systems. While some people may not be as opinionated or extreme as I, I think most Americans, and certainly you, Corbin, would probably generally agree that democracy and capitalism are preferable to totalitarianism and communism. But not Frank. Oh, no, *certainly* not Frank. Frank was a Chinese exchange student and, what's more, a rigid Communist ideologue. Having been raised in Mao's China, chosen as a benefactor of the local party, and sent on fill stipend to the United States, he firmly believed in strict Marxist doctrine, to a fault. He was a nice enough guy and a decent person as far as that goes, but he regarded it as his personal mission to spread the ideology of communism far and wide. I suspect he had envisioned that once he came to America and started spreading the good news, we would all quickly see the light and fall into line, discarding our foolish notions of capitalism and so forth. Consequently, Frank spent much of his time perplexed and frustrated that we Americans so stubbornly rejected his enlightened views. I, of course, being a hard core capitalist, was a particularly favorite target of Frank. He had limitless enthusiasm for debate, and I think he felt that if he could convert me, no job was too big. So Frank often invited me to debate, discuss, view websites, read articles, and so forth. I humored him for a bit, but before long it became clear that Frank both had more enthusiasm for the subject and was a better debator. For every point I would make, I would receive in return a dozen references to communist publications, chinese government studies, and extensive additional commentary by Frank pinpointing the many flaws of our system, such as slavery and the civil war, and on and on and on. Soon enough, I got tired of being Frank's pet project and tried to withdraw from the argument and tried to agree to disagree. However, far from interpreting this for what it actually was: General impatience on my part and lack of interest in the subject and desire to do things that were more fun, such as drinking beer, watching TV, or cleaning lint from my navel, Frank instead took this as a sign of weakness. Surely the only reason I wanted to withdraw was because I recognized the superiority of his arguments and that communism would triumph over capitalism! Frank was reinvigorated. "I can't understand why you are so averse to having your own perspective questioned and challenged!" he might have said. "You are always trying to withdraw and stop! It seems like you already have all the answers you need, the matter is totally settled and that you have nothing to learn from anyone who has different ideas!" perfectly captures his attitude. "I WANT you to challenge and question communism because I have this crazy thesis that my belief is the one that actually is best for the world! So far, I've encountered no argument that poses a significant challenge to my thesis from anyone!!! I thought you might have one!!!" and so on.
I've said this several different ways, and it just doesn't seem to register with you, so let me try one more time. I will be blunt not out of hostility but in the hope that the message gets through.
I am not an especially good debator, nor do I enjoy it. I have better things to do with my time than to endlessly try and refute every cockamamie theory that crosses my path. It is not in my list of top 100 goals in life to discredit various superstitions, economic systems, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, political doctrines, whether tastes great is better than less filling, etc. That is a thankless task; the more one proves the implausibility of an article of faith, the more defensive, angry, and stubborn the faithful become. And even if I argue with you for years and finally somehow convince you that I'm right, the next theist that comes along will demand to argue with me all over again, and when I politely refuse, he'll start in again with the "Aha! You're so insecure in your beliefs that you refuse to have them challenged" business. Some people love to argue this in return. Dawkins does. I do not.
Interpret my disinterest in your (and everyone else's) superstitions and in Frank's communism as evidence of the correctness of theism and communism if you prefer. What it actually is, though, is my lack of enthusiasm for discussing inanity. Don't take it personally; I can't keep Zeus straight from Cerberus, either, and if my local antiquities professor tried to engage me in a stirring conversation about them I'd have to turn the same weary eye on him. Your belief system requires you to care about this sort of thing and to go forth and try to convert people to your point of view. Mine does not. Moreover, since I am not trying to convert anyone, the fact that I have a sound and logical rationale for my beliefs in no way obligates me to have to justify or explain it to you or Frank or anyone else.
Again, I might as well try to logically argue a schizophrenic out of his various paranoias. I compare religion to a contagious virus, one which is passed person to person and overatkes the host mind, rendering it impervious to logic and cowing it with visions of hell or seducing it with heavenly rewards. I doubt any theist has ever been argued out of a faith-based belief. An awful lot of people, particularly in medieval times and before, were willingly tortured to death for their faith in unevidenced notions; I have no illusion that the persuasive power of my words will succeed where the rack and the iron maiden have failed. (Pity the Jews of the Inquisition and Nazi Germany, eh? All that suffering, and they're not even followers of Jesus, so their souls get to go straight from Auschwitz to hell. Bummer.)
You've already said a couple of times that you will not and can not support your faith on the basis of evidence. I've said that I will not indulge speculative and implausible faith in the supernatural on the basis of anything less. What, then, do we have to argue about? We're not even speaking the same language. I think you'd probably find a more satisfying debating partner if you sought out a fanatical Catholic, Jew, or Muslim. They'd share your zeal for these topics and would likely see as much value in converting you as you do in converting them. You could argue each other to your heart's content. I'd wager that neither of you would budge the other any more than you and I will, though.
There is a lot of typing here. Let's slow it down a bit. Why don't you pick one topic or question from above and we'll discuss that first? I hope that is acceptable.
I've narrowed it down to three topics (plus some introductory remarks) from the vast 30+ page document we started with; I think we can keep three issues on track. I'm really not comfortable paring it down anymore.
Feel free to separate the intro and 3 themes into four separate blogs if you prefer and we'll follow each thread separately.
By the way, this is a totally separate issue of very minor importance, but here's a potential fifth blog: Do you believe in angels and demons? The bible mentions angels in a couple of places and identifies at least one by name (Gabriel,) but it says tantalizingly little about where they come from or what they do or how their powers are any less than or different from a god; many modern Christians seem to think that humans who go to heaven get to *become* angels, but I don't think that's suppoted by the biblical text? Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than Satan, (I should capitalize His name too to be consistent, right?) I don't think the Bible actually names any specific demons at all, and that lesser demons are an extra-biblical creation.
I'm curious about whether you believe in all this angels and demons stuff because it certainly seems to me that Christianity is a monotheism in name only, but if you peel back the veil, there are all kinds of polytheistic deities running around. There's Gabriel of course, then all the lesser angels and demons, not to mention that there are at least four major gods, three of which are good (Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit,) and one of which is evil (Satan.) Although most Christians recoil at terms such as 'gods' or 'polytheism,' I see the main difference between Christian beliefs and, let's say, Hinduism or Greek mythology, as one of form rather than substance. The Greeks had the one big head honcho (Zeus) and a bunch of other lesser gods, some of which were good and some of which were evil; Christians have the three big positive head honchos, one chief negative god, and an infinite number of lesser deities in the middle. The only real difference seems to be that of terminology; 'god' versus 'devil' or 'demon' or 'angel.' Mercury sounds an awful lot like an angel to me.
We are posting in a public area, but the last time I advertised to those who I incorrectly assumed were interested parties was more than a year and a half ago, and I've not had any takers. People are busy. I get it. This blog has thus become mostly an on-line journal of sorts. I post on stuff that's interesting to me, but these things come a dime a dozen. You know how it works. Nevertheless, some people do stumble across it at times, and I welcome just about all input as long as it is not inappropriate. I'd like to thank you in particular, EL, for engaging with me thus far. I appreciate it.
I appreciate your candor and efforts at being restrained in your critique of my faith positions. If I can't explore these things with someone who already cares about me and who sincerely disagrees with me, then who can I really talk to for an outsider's perspective? The hateful atheist-rabble in on-line forums hardly qualifies. I'd bet you could say the same thing for some of the on-line religious forums that you may have encountered. Christians can be a rather unlikable lot at times. Unfortunately, I am not exempt from this in my weaker moments. I apologize for unfriendly moments.
Below are my responses to your two points as stated above:
1) Is your “frustration in debating a theist” remark aimed at me? Have I been unable to defend my position or defaulted to merely telling you to pray and read the Bible? I agree with your sentiment that “if you don't have a rationale for why you believe in something, then you probably have no business believing it.” I believe in Jesus for very good reasons. In fact, explaining those reasons has been a significant portion of my typing with you.
You’ve also said that “The more one proves the implausibility of an article of faith, the more defensive, angry, and stubborn the faithful become.”
But again I wonder if you intend this in my direction. Have you proved the implausibility of an article of my Christian faith? I think I missed it if you did. Would you mind repeating one or more of these proofs or at least redirecting me to the point in our conversation where they surfaced?
I recognize that tone is impossible to communicate in typed media, so I apologize if I’ve seemed angry, but I don’t intend to beat anybody in a shouting match. I’m just trying to discuss the issues with you. Yes, I have a vested interest in Christianity, but I think it’s fair to say the same about you and your atheism, even if you’re not trying to convert me per se. Furthermore, neither are you my “conversion project,” and I apologize if that’s how I have come off. We’ll still be friends and brothers even if you never see what I am describing to you. Does that mean we cannot talk about it?
I appreciate your not telling me to just go read Dawkins, but given the wide range of similar discussions in human history, I doubt that either of us is being particularly unique in our writings here, so don’t feel like you can’t include a bit of others’ ideas in our conversation. I certainly don’t intend to offer anything that is not connected to the message and details of the Bible.
2) I can appreciate your desire to avoid pointless and irrelevant conversations. Believe it or not, I share this desire. Which is why I take this sort of conversation so seriously, for we are not talking about matters only rooted in personal opinion, but of far-reaching truth claims as well. More on that later. But ultimately, I recognize that the foundation of my position is grounded in faith, not proof. Nevertheless, “proof” is not the same thing as evidence, and there IS plenty of evidence to support my faith. We can talk about that evidence if you’d like.
Conversely, it seems to me that your own positions are equally dependent upon faith, albeit in different things and people, but you can’t seem to see it or claim it. Tell me that you have faith in the accuracy of your various philosophical positions (for atheism or against Xianity), and our conversation is likely to take a drastic turn for the better (and be less cumbersome).
I think your example between advocates of capitalism and communism is helpful for my point. As economic and political systems, each intends to navigate the same reality, namely, how humans might best go about working and building trade, industry and power. They agree on this objective, but they disagree on how to get there and what it might look like if and when they do. I suggest that these are subjective means to get to an objective ideal.
But the fact is that statements such as, "I like communism; you like capitalism" are purely opinion and both can be true in the same way at the same time. But such is not the case with a truth claim like the belief that there is a god or no god. Person (A) believes that there is a god, but person (B) believes that there is no god. Since both beliefs are making claims to the nature of reality itself (what is beyond THE self) they cannot both be right in the same way at and the same time. I think I mentioned it elsewhere too, but this is the basic principle of non-contradiction, which says that (X) cannot be both (A) and (not A) at the same time in the same way.
This is an oversimplification of things, but if there are only two options (God exists & God does not exist), then they cannot both be accurate. One must be wrong and the other must be right. Of course, the reality is that there is a multiplex of options to pick from (not just two). But even so, adding more options does not negate the principle at all. It remains impossible for claims about broader reality to all be of equal truth value when they state contradictory terms. But, interestingly enough, they could all be wrong.
Individual political and economic system preferences are quite different than beliefs that describe all encompassing paradigms. Frank may think that communism is the best system and hence, it would be appropriate for us to recognize that “it’s true that Frank thinks communism is the best,” but this doesn’t connect with the truthfulness of the system itself. Faiths like Christianity and those arranged against it, have wide-ranging truth claims at their very core and intend to apply them cross categorically at all times and in all places. Postmodern thinkers would call these claims to objective reality “metanarratives” and they might contrast them with the micro-narratives, those that are mired in subjective opinions alone and true only on an individual basis.
I find it somewhat ironic that many of these postmodern thinkers are adamant that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Apparently they don’t mean for us to take their dictum as an absolute. But for purposes of our own conversation, the statement, “God exists” is never compatible with the counter claim that so-called “strong” atheism makes: “God does not exist,” and this holds no matter where or when the respective statements are made. Christians and atheists (as well as Muslims, Mormons, Jews and Hindus etc.) do not describe different paths to the same ultimate reality, they describe different realities altogether.
So while I hear (and mirror) your wish not to be endlessly challenged on your individual preferences, I think that we would do well to recognize the difference between opinions that are limited to the self, and those that attempt to describe reality beyond the self. I don’t want to aggravate you about anything per se, certainly not about what kind of economic or political system you prefer. If it’s true for you then it’s true for you. But when you make a bigger claim that implies that it’s true for you and everybody else too, then I think that is worthy of a legitimate discussion.
Lastly, even if we were to apply an opinion about the superiority of capitalism to the whole of creation, as in: “It’s the best for everybody whether they realize it or not.” This would still have to rely on the opinion-holder’s faith. Irrefutable proof for their assertion is not likely to be found, but this doesn’t mean that the faith is wrong (or right) or that it is formulated in the complete absence of evidence.
Can you admit that you have faith built upon evidence, even if not proof? This isn’t a problem for a Christian, and you shouldn’t be troubled by it either.
I am curious as to what you have to say regarding this.
Please keep in mind that comments which do not honor the spirit of legitimate dialogue may be removed at any time and without notification. You are free to disagree passionately, but not inappropriately. -CL
Corbin,
ReplyDeleteI really don't see what the big deal is about interleaving responses, which is the standard I have come to expect in both the corporate world and online newsgroups. However, since you loathe that format so, I'll go along to get along and do my best to accomodate your preferences.
Your blog format does not seem to me to lend itself to traditional opening and closing remarks, so I will begin by posting my prefacing comments here. Then I will proceed to respond to each "blog post" individually, finally circling back here again to post my concluding remarks. I will ask that you hold your responses to each individual point until I have completed my response in full.
Despite your assurances yesterday that this is a fully private conversation, I am again troubled by the appearance of this forum which is hosted "on your turf," so to speak, and to all outward appearances seems to be set up for other people to read and respond to my comments. (Who are your instructions and overview comments addressed to? Certainly not to me?) To be absolutely clear, I am *NOT* interested in a public debate or in my private words to you, my brother, being made public, much less in being the sole atheist in a one sided debate with a bunch of like-minded theists in their church message system. If you want a public debate, I suggest you go to the talk.origins usenet group where there is a daily vigorous argument. All of my comments are confidential are intended solely for the addressee, Corbin Lambeth. Access to this electronic message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. All comments are copyright (C) Eric Lambeth and may not be reproduced without permission in any way whatosever. Apart from the legalese, I will be extremely upset with you if I have been misled about this.
Now then, with the formalities dispensed with, two opening points I would like to make:
1) I have often found it frustrating to be in a debate with a theist who, unable to explain or defend their position, will close the argument with something along the lines of "Well, just go read the bible and pray and the answer is there," or "My pastor can explain that to you, go ask him," etc. I find such intellectual laziness disappointing; I believe that if you don't have a rationale for why you believe in something, then you probably have no business belieivng it. If you think that Jesus is the son of god, you ought to have some coherent reason as to why, not dismiss any detailed inquiry on the basis that so-and-so told you so or you read it somewhere. Therefore, I want to avoid being hypocritical here and saying "Oh Corbin, for heaven's sake, just go read the Richard Dawkins book." And inasmuch as you're really interested in simply hearing *my* opinion and *my* rationale and what makes sense to *me*, that's fine. However, what Dawkins (among others) is and I am not is a trained scientist and technical writer with decades of experience in physical sciences, the scientific method, and logical proofs. So when it comes to the physics of the universe and evolution and the altruistic impulse and so forth, he will by nature (to use a pun) be better able to explain things to you. Imagine that you want to learn about the theory of relativity. Sure, I could probably give you a rudimentary, if inelegant, overview, and if you're just curious to hear my opinion, ok. But if your true goal is to learn about the theory itself and how it may impact you, why filter it through my untrained layman's lens when Einstein's original text is readily available for your consumption? So if you're really interested in making an inquiry into atheism and understanding the critiques of theistic belief, I cannot recommend Dawkins' book highly enough. The second chapter, entitled "Why there almost certainly is no god," is, as I believe I've said before, about the most damning logical critique of theism that I've seen. (Hitchens is a more entertaining writer but better at throwing verbal bombs than constucting solid arguments.) So to avoid being hypocritical, I'll answer your charges once more, but you may find more satisfying answers from people such as Dawkins who are more passionate and educated about this topic than I am. If you really want to study and appreciate the scientific basis for atheism, I'd suggest you go in that direction.
2) Which leads me to point number two. I'd like to tell you a true story about a former classmate of mine named Frank Zheng who went to grad school with me. As you may know, I'm a capitalist's capitalist and a conservative's conservative. I believe that democracy and free enterprise are pretty much the be-all end-all of political and economic systems. While some people may not be as opinionated or extreme as I, I think most Americans, and certainly you, Corbin, would probably generally agree that democracy and capitalism are preferable to totalitarianism and communism. But not Frank. Oh, no, *certainly* not Frank. Frank was a Chinese exchange student and, what's more, a rigid Communist ideologue. Having been raised in Mao's China, chosen as a benefactor of the local party, and sent on fill stipend to the United States, he firmly believed in strict Marxist doctrine, to a fault. He was a nice enough guy and a decent person as far as that goes, but he regarded it as his personal mission to spread the ideology of communism far and wide. I suspect he had envisioned that once he came to America and started spreading the good news, we would all quickly see the light and fall into line, discarding our foolish notions of capitalism and so forth. Consequently, Frank spent much of his time perplexed and frustrated that we Americans so stubbornly rejected his enlightened views. I, of course, being a hard core capitalist, was a particularly favorite target of Frank. He had limitless enthusiasm for debate, and I think he felt that if he could convert me, no job was too big. So Frank often invited me to debate, discuss, view websites, read articles, and so forth. I humored him for a bit, but before long it became clear that Frank both had more enthusiasm for the subject and was a better debator. For every point I would make, I would receive in return a dozen references to communist publications, chinese government studies, and extensive additional commentary by Frank pinpointing the many flaws of our system, such as slavery and the civil war, and on and on and on. Soon enough, I got tired of being Frank's pet project and tried to withdraw from the argument and tried to agree to disagree. However, far from interpreting this for what it actually was: General impatience on my part and lack of interest in the subject and desire to do things that were more fun, such as drinking beer, watching TV, or cleaning lint from my navel, Frank instead took this as a sign of weakness. Surely the only reason I wanted to withdraw was because I recognized the superiority of his arguments and that communism would triumph over capitalism! Frank was reinvigorated. "I can't understand why you are so averse to having your own perspective questioned and challenged!" he might have said. "You are always trying to withdraw and stop! It seems like you already have all the answers you need, the matter is totally settled and that you have nothing to learn from anyone who has different ideas!" perfectly captures his attitude. "I WANT you to challenge and question communism because I have this crazy thesis that my belief is the one that actually is best for the world! So far, I've encountered no argument that poses a significant challenge to my thesis from anyone!!! I thought you might have one!!!" and so on.
I've said this several different ways, and it just doesn't seem to register with you, so let me try one more time. I will be blunt not out of hostility but in the hope that the message gets through.
I am not an especially good debator, nor do I enjoy it. I have better things to do with my time than to endlessly try and refute every cockamamie theory that crosses my path. It is not in my list of top 100 goals in life to discredit various superstitions, economic systems, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, political doctrines, whether tastes great is better than less filling, etc. That is a thankless task; the more one proves the implausibility of an article of faith, the more defensive, angry, and stubborn the faithful become. And even if I argue with you for years and finally somehow convince you that I'm right, the next theist that comes along will demand to argue with me all over again, and when I politely refuse, he'll start in again with the "Aha! You're so insecure in your beliefs that you refuse to have them challenged" business. Some people love to argue this in return. Dawkins does. I do not.
Interpret my disinterest in your (and everyone else's) superstitions and in Frank's communism as evidence of the correctness of theism and communism if you prefer. What it actually is, though, is my lack of enthusiasm for discussing inanity. Don't take it personally; I can't keep Zeus straight from Cerberus, either, and if my local antiquities professor tried to engage me in a stirring conversation about them I'd have to turn the same weary eye on him. Your belief system requires you to care about this sort of thing and to go forth and try to convert people to your point of view. Mine does not. Moreover, since I am not trying to convert anyone, the fact that I have a sound and logical rationale for my beliefs in no way obligates me to have to justify or explain it to you or Frank or anyone else.
Again, I might as well try to logically argue a schizophrenic out of his various paranoias. I compare religion to a contagious virus, one which is passed person to person and overatkes the host mind, rendering it impervious to logic and cowing it with visions of hell or seducing it with heavenly rewards. I doubt any theist has ever been argued out of a faith-based belief. An awful lot of people, particularly in medieval times and before, were willingly tortured to death for their faith in unevidenced notions; I have no illusion that the persuasive power of my words will succeed where the rack and the iron maiden have failed. (Pity the Jews of the Inquisition and Nazi Germany, eh? All that suffering, and they're not even followers of Jesus, so their souls get to go straight from Auschwitz to hell. Bummer.)
You've already said a couple of times that you will not and can not support your faith on the basis of evidence. I've said that I will not indulge speculative and implausible faith in the supernatural on the basis of anything less. What, then, do we have to argue about? We're not even speaking the same language. I think you'd probably find a more satisfying debating partner if you sought out a fanatical Catholic, Jew, or Muslim. They'd share your zeal for these topics and would likely see as much value in converting you as you do in converting them. You could argue each other to your heart's content. I'd wager that neither of you would budge the other any more than you and I will, though.
That said, I'm off to respond to your litany.
Regards,
Eric
EL,
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of typing here. Let's slow it down a bit. Why don't you pick one topic or question from above and we'll discuss that first? I hope that is acceptable.
-CL
I've narrowed it down to three topics (plus some introductory remarks) from the vast 30+ page document we started with; I think we can keep three issues on track. I'm really not comfortable paring it down anymore.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to separate the intro and 3 themes into four separate blogs if you prefer and we'll follow each thread separately.
By the way, this is a totally separate issue of very minor importance, but here's a potential fifth blog: Do you believe in angels and demons? The bible mentions angels in a couple of places and identifies at least one by name (Gabriel,) but it says tantalizingly little about where they come from or what they do or how their powers are any less than or different from a god; many modern Christians seem to think that humans who go to heaven get to *become* angels, but I don't think that's suppoted by the biblical text? Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than Satan, (I should capitalize His name too to be consistent, right?) I don't think the Bible actually names any specific demons at all, and that lesser demons are an extra-biblical creation.
I'm curious about whether you believe in all this angels and demons stuff because it certainly seems to me that Christianity is a monotheism in name only, but if you peel back the veil, there are all kinds of polytheistic deities running around. There's Gabriel of course, then all the lesser angels and demons, not to mention that there are at least four major gods, three of which are good (Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit,) and one of which is evil (Satan.) Although most Christians recoil at terms such as 'gods' or 'polytheism,' I see the main difference between Christian beliefs and, let's say, Hinduism or Greek mythology, as one of form rather than substance. The Greeks had the one big head honcho (Zeus) and a bunch of other lesser gods, some of which were good and some of which were evil; Christians have the three big positive head honchos, one chief negative god, and an infinite number of lesser deities in the middle. The only real difference seems to be that of terminology; 'god' versus 'devil' or 'demon' or 'angel.' Mercury sounds an awful lot like an angel to me.
Editorial Note:
ReplyDeleteAs per EL's permission, I have recast parts of our discussion into separate discussion threads.
They can be found at the following addresses:
"Challenging Xianity: Thesis #1":
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/challenging-xianity-thesis-1.html
"Challenging Xianity: Thesis #2"
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/challenging-xianity-thesis-2.html
"Challenging Xianity: Thesis #3"
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversing-with-postmodernism.html
"The Moral Argument":
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/moral-argument.html
-CL
We are posting in a public area, but the last time I advertised to those who I incorrectly assumed were interested parties was more than a year and a half ago, and I've not had any takers. People are busy. I get it. This blog has thus become mostly an on-line journal of sorts. I post on stuff that's interesting to me, but these things come a dime a dozen. You know how it works. Nevertheless, some people do stumble across it at times, and I welcome just about all input as long as it is not inappropriate. I'd like to thank you in particular, EL, for engaging with me thus far. I appreciate it.
ReplyDelete-CL
EL,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your candor and efforts at being restrained in your critique of my faith positions. If I can't explore these things with someone who already cares about me and who sincerely disagrees with me, then who can I really talk to for an outsider's perspective? The hateful atheist-rabble in on-line forums hardly qualifies. I'd bet you could say the same thing for some of the on-line religious forums that you may have encountered. Christians can be a rather unlikable lot at times. Unfortunately, I am not exempt from this in my weaker moments. I apologize for unfriendly moments.
Below are my responses to your two points as stated above:
1) Is your “frustration in debating a theist” remark aimed at me? Have I been unable to defend my position or defaulted to merely telling you to pray and read the Bible? I agree with your sentiment that “if you don't have a rationale for why you believe in something, then you probably have no business believing it.” I believe in Jesus for very good reasons. In fact, explaining those reasons has been a significant portion of my typing with you.
You’ve also said that “The more one proves the implausibility of an article of faith, the more defensive, angry, and stubborn the faithful become.”
But again I wonder if you intend this in my direction. Have you proved the implausibility of an article of my Christian faith? I think I missed it if you did. Would you mind repeating one or more of these proofs or at least redirecting me to the point in our conversation where they surfaced?
I recognize that tone is impossible to communicate in typed media, so I apologize if I’ve seemed angry, but I don’t intend to beat anybody in a shouting match. I’m just trying to discuss the issues with you. Yes, I have a vested interest in Christianity, but I think it’s fair to say the same about you and your atheism, even if you’re not trying to convert me per se. Furthermore, neither are you my “conversion project,” and I apologize if that’s how I have come off. We’ll still be friends and brothers even if you never see what I am describing to you. Does that mean we cannot talk about it?
I appreciate your not telling me to just go read Dawkins, but given the wide range of similar discussions in human history, I doubt that either of us is being particularly unique in our writings here, so don’t feel like you can’t include a bit of others’ ideas in our conversation. I certainly don’t intend to offer anything that is not connected to the message and details of the Bible.
2) I can appreciate your desire to avoid pointless and irrelevant conversations. Believe it or not, I share this desire. Which is why I take this sort of conversation so seriously, for we are not talking about matters only rooted in personal opinion, but of far-reaching truth claims as well. More on that later. But ultimately, I recognize that the foundation of my position is grounded in faith, not proof. Nevertheless, “proof” is not the same thing as evidence, and there IS plenty of evidence to support my faith. We can talk about that evidence if you’d like.
Conversely, it seems to me that your own positions are equally dependent upon faith, albeit in different things and people, but you can’t seem to see it or claim it. Tell me that you have faith in the accuracy of your various philosophical positions (for atheism or against Xianity), and our conversation is likely to take a drastic turn for the better (and be less cumbersome).
I think your example between advocates of capitalism and communism is helpful for my point. As economic and political systems, each intends to navigate the same reality, namely, how humans might best go about working and building trade, industry and power. They agree on this objective, but they disagree on how to get there and what it might look like if and when they do. I suggest that these are subjective means to get to an objective ideal.
But the fact is that statements such as, "I like communism; you like capitalism" are purely opinion and both can be true in the same way at the same time. But such is not the case with a truth claim like the belief that there is a god or no god. Person (A) believes that there is a god, but person (B) believes that there is no god. Since both beliefs are making claims to the nature of reality itself (what is beyond THE self) they cannot both be right in the same way at and the same time. I think I mentioned it elsewhere too, but this is the basic principle of non-contradiction, which says that (X) cannot be both (A) and (not A) at the same time in the same way.
This is an oversimplification of things, but if there are only two options (God exists & God does not exist), then they cannot both be accurate. One must be wrong and the other must be right. Of course, the reality is that there is a multiplex of options to pick from (not just two). But even so, adding more options does not negate the principle at all. It remains impossible for claims about broader reality to all be of equal truth value when they state contradictory terms. But, interestingly enough, they could all be wrong.
Individual political and economic system preferences are quite different than beliefs that describe all encompassing paradigms. Frank may think that communism is the best system and hence, it would be appropriate for us to recognize that “it’s true that Frank thinks communism is the best,” but this doesn’t connect with the truthfulness of the system itself. Faiths like Christianity and those arranged against it, have wide-ranging truth claims at their very core and intend to apply them cross categorically at all times and in all places. Postmodern thinkers would call these claims to objective reality “metanarratives” and they might contrast them with the micro-narratives, those that are mired in subjective opinions alone and true only on an individual basis.
I find it somewhat ironic that many of these postmodern thinkers are adamant that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Apparently they don’t mean for us to take their dictum as an absolute. But for purposes of our own conversation, the statement, “God exists” is never compatible with the counter claim that so-called “strong” atheism makes: “God does not exist,” and this holds no matter where or when the respective statements are made. Christians and atheists (as well as Muslims, Mormons, Jews and Hindus etc.) do not describe different paths to the same ultimate reality, they describe different realities altogether.
So while I hear (and mirror) your wish not to be endlessly challenged on your individual preferences, I think that we would do well to recognize the difference between opinions that are limited to the self, and those that attempt to describe reality beyond the self. I don’t want to aggravate you about anything per se, certainly not about what kind of economic or political system you prefer. If it’s true for you then it’s true for you. But when you make a bigger claim that implies that it’s true for you and everybody else too, then I think that is worthy of a legitimate discussion.
Lastly, even if we were to apply an opinion about the superiority of capitalism to the whole of creation, as in: “It’s the best for everybody whether they realize it or not.” This would still have to rely on the opinion-holder’s faith. Irrefutable proof for their assertion is not likely to be found, but this doesn’t mean that the faith is wrong (or right) or that it is formulated in the complete absence of evidence.
Can you admit that you have faith built upon evidence, even if not proof? This isn’t a problem for a Christian, and you shouldn’t be troubled by it either.
I am curious as to what you have to say regarding this.
Sincerely,
-CL