I continue to get peevish emails from both believers and pastors who have taken exception to my argument in USA Today that morality cannot come from divine will. But there are some thoughtful emails too, and I’ve put one of them below, removing the name of the sender.
Hi Professor Coyne,
I did not see an email address on your website and hope that one of the address attempts above is correct. I have wanted to send a note along since reading your article entitled, “You can be good without God” in USA Today on Monday. In looking at your site it appears that the article has already generated the predictable range of divergent opinion. I write more privately here to try and suggest some reconsideration of the character of the debate you established by that article. I trust that writing in that particular paper suggests an effort to reach a wider audience, and that creating controversy was, at least in part, your intent. I truly hope that you are aware that the arguments you posed were directed at more fundamentalist religious beliefs but do an immense injustice to the full range of Judeo-Christian religious tradition (since you pose your arguments within that context). Much of the more progressive theology within that broad tradition is fully respectful of scientific evolutionary thought as well as full literary criticism of biblical texts. We may disagree about how compatible they remain, but I suspect you are aware that many educated religious believers would find your arguments disconcerting and even silly, evidencing as they do so little appreciation or understanding of the deeper philosophical and scientific tenets truly worth debating in their implications for continued evolution of thought and moral practice.
In my opinion, the more rabid fundamentalist theology apparently deepening in America is largely the product of the growing social and economic anxiety that is infecting our populace. As a mental health clinician, I have watched such anxiety increase across generations, especially in recent decades. But arguments posed by authors like Dawkins, Pinker, and yourself will do little to help those very emotionally insecure people. They also, I hope you know, have been historically debated in far more rigorous scientific and philosophical dialogues than any of you provide in your attempts within the popular media. I for one, like Darwin, remain open to theism, and as one who has spent almost sixty years observing human behavior, let me lend you one piece of anecdotal, but highly critical, summary that contrasts your own: genuine and open religious belief tends to be highly encouraging of personal and social morality, and I observe far more open-ended logic in genuinely debating issues of choice from religious ideological frameworks than from reasoned opinions like those in your article. To give only one example before closing, you ask the question, “Do actions become moral simply because they are dictated by God, or are they dictated by God because they are moral?” Those who truly study religious understanding as a developmental (evolutionary) awareness see in the unfolding perspectives of universal order the realization of a moral hierarchy of goodness, and the revealed presence of an originating Cause (as Darwin did). They no longer frame the debate by way of proof texts from the Bible, but see the biblical texts as the living embodiment of that process of discovery and history of success and failure in human response. That many fundamentalist Christians minimize or ignore the historicity of biblical passages is no more reason to debate and defame them than is ridiculing a child for lacking full moral comprehension of their actions. I respect that your quest for scientism is your own personal religious cause (in the sense of promoting meaning for human awareness/living), but please at least evidence the courage to debate those with arguments of genuine intellectual rigor. If you keep an open mind empirically, you might yet discover something in traditional religious ideologies worth respecting, and realize that there are far more important causes to champion as a scientist in our age than the one you’ve embraced in the media. Many progressive religious theologians and teachers are ready to join with you to face our monumental climatic danger.
With sincere best wishes, [Name redacted]
While this piece is well-written and thoughtful, I really don’t get it at all. The author implies that none of the New Atheists, including myself, have grappled with the more sophisticated theological arguments for deriving morality from faith, yet (as usual) none of these arguments are mentioned! What the author does say is this:
Much of the more progressive theology within that broad tradition is fully respectful of scientific evolutionary thought as well as full literary criticism of biblical texts. . . I suspect you are aware that many educated religious believers would find your arguments disconcerting and even silly, evidencing as they do so little appreciation or understanding of the deeper philosophical and scientific tenets truly worth debating in their implications for continued evolution of thought and moral practice.
But that’s the point: ethics moves forward from debating both philosophy and science (an example of the latter is Sam Harris’s notion that well being is the true currency of ethical judgment), not thinking about what God wants. And that was the argument of my piece.
As for the claim that “genuine and open religious belief tends to be highly encouraging of personal and social morality,” it’s either tautological (that is, only those religions that encourage morality are deemed “genuine and open”) or untested. Where is the evidence that the faithful are more moral than the faithless? I know of none. What we do know is that entire religious institutions, like Catholicism, continue to promulgate immoral behavior, and adherents of faiths like Islam continue to oppress women— and murder apostates and non-Muslims—on religious grounds.
This seem to be the crux of correspondent X’s argument:
Those who truly study religious understanding as a developmental (evolutionary) awareness see in the unfolding perspectives of universal order the realization of a moral hierarchy of goodness, and the revealed presence of an originating Cause (as Darwin did). They no longer frame the debate by way of proof texts from the Bible, but see the biblical texts as the living embodiment of that process of discovery and history of success and failure in human response.
I’ve read these sentences several times, and can’t discern in them any meaning at all, much less any notion of how God provides morality. What on earth are the “unfolding perspectives of universal order”? And how come the “originating Cause” hasn’t reveled itself to me? (The idea that Darwin was a theist in this way is palpable nonsense, of course.) Such is the obscurantism of theology.
And seeing biblical texts as the embodiment of “discovery and success in human response” is a failure on two counts: the morality of the Bible is in many ways not consonant with that of our own day, and even if it were, its embodiment of human moral thought at some time in history has no bearing whatsoever on whether that thought was based on religion. If the Bible is man made, as most of us think it is, then its morality would also be man made, and simply voiced through a fictitious sky daddy.
Last night I read a book by John Polkinghorne, who argues that God’s fiats must be good because God, as the Greatest Possible Being, is good by definition, and therefore incapable of mandating what is not moral. That, of course, contravenes God’s own dictates in the Old Testament. But it’s also circular, because there’s no independent evidence that God is good; in fact, the sad condition of our species leads me to believe that if he does exist, he’s either malicious or apathetic. Shakespeare knew this in King Lear, where he has Gloucester say,
As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods.
They kill us for their sport.
_______
I’m not going to deal with the many “refutations” of my piece that are appearing on Christian websites, but I do call your attention to the huffy lucubrations of Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian, who says that I willfully ignore an important “solution” to the Euthyphro dilemma. What is it? It’s William Lane Craig’s argument (similar to that of Polkinghorne given above) that God by definition can’t mandate anything immoral (see Eric MacDonald and Greta Christina’s takes on this). If God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites, then by golly they deserved it!
Or would, if they existed…
Then there’s Blackadder’s version, “As private parts to the gods are we, they play with us for their sport.”
Yes, our masters – bat us about, to and fro, churn us up and down.
“Those who truly study religious understanding as a developmental (evolutionary) awareness see in the unfolding perspectives of universal order the realization of a moral hierarchy of goodness, and the revealed presence of an originating Cause”
This sounds a lot like a long history of interpretation that rationalizes the Bible into agreeing with the morality of the moment. The Bible is “necessary” in the same way that the Wizard of Oz’s curtain was “necessary.”
Fortunately, “…developmental (evolutionary) awareness….” allows us to understand back door creationism and authoritarianism when we see it.
He wrote, “But arguments posed by authors like Dawkins, Pinker, and yourself will do little to help those very emotionally insecure people.”
Well, thats a tough one to call with any certainty over the long run, isnt it.. I would argue that such writers get some credit for speaking the truth. Surely we can call that helpful, unless the integrity of people’s beliefs is not considered important.
What does the ability to “help those very emotionally insecure people” have to do with the truth?
It sounds like he is suggesting the utilitarian, it’s ok to lie to ‘them” kind of argument. I guess his commitment to the truth is pretty shallow.
Yeah…I debated on whether or not I wanted to call him(?) out on the arrogance he expressed with that sentiment, but I tend to get quite excited and profane when I do, so I figured ’twas best to leave that for others lest I scare him(?) away….
b&
You also have to wonder how many of them are very emotionally insecure _because_ they’re religious. For them, frank atheism, coming from an upfront source, may be just the thing they need to begin letting go of their personal theistic demons.
Good point. That religion is somehow a panacea for emotional distress is bandied about a lot, but I’m not so sure it’s true. And even if religion were proven to improve ones emotional well-being, it says nothing about the truth claims of religion, and could possibly be better explained by aspects of religion that are not unique to religion like having a preexisting social network available nearly anywhere one go in the US (assuming one is Christian) or simply being a member of the majority group in society.
So, I hope that the writer of this message comes here, because I have a question.
Since 40% of the US population believes in the “non-liberal” theology, where are the “liberal” theologian voices in all this?
That’s 40% of the US that literally believes that god poofed animals into existence whole and intact with magic words, and built man from clay and woman from rib. That’s not me pulling a figure out of a hat, that’s the Gallup organization, which has run the same poll with the same general results for decades.
Where ARE the liberal theologians fighting tooth and nail against the anti-science, anti-human agenda of the fundamentalists, who again represent 40% of the US population?
WHO are these people? What evidence is there they are engaging with that 40%? Why are you arguing with US when you should be arguing with THEM?
Why are we doing YOUR job? Shouldn’t YOU be doing better at engaging the “unsophisticated”?
Exactly — I’m baffled by this notion that taking on beliefs held by a non-trivial section of the public is somehow unfair just because there are other more reasonable people out there.
When someone writes an op-ed complaining about, say, conservatives, do they get patronizing emails pointing out that “you know, most Americans aren’t conservatives”?
How many people need to believe that atheists lack morality before we’re allowed to set them straight?
It’s remarkable that we keep seeing this argument that “sophisticated” christians don’t believe such fundamentalist nonsense. If it is true and there are so many such sophisticated folk, and they are so well educated, then why do they not wield much more influence in teaching religion to children? How many children who go to Bible school or church are told, right up front,, that few if any of the stories are real? Teachers don’t read Aesop’s fables to their young pupils and tell them that they are literally true, but I doubt many young children are first introduced to the Bible by christians of any stripe as a collection of fables.
It seems to me that there a few plausible explanations for the simultaneous existence of all these religious sophisticates and so many biblical literalists:
(1) Such sophisticated folks have highly diminished power in the promulgation of religious belief – a remarkable circumstance since they probably have much more power than the rubes in every other aspect of life in our society.
(2) When children are taught the truth from the beginning, they end up as atheists and no promulgation can occur.
(3) The sophisticates stand aside and let children be brainwashed by the fundies in their childhoods, and only later (when much of the young person’s identity is tied up in the irrational beliefs they’ve been fed) do they admit the truth: Ya know, little of this stuff actually ever happened, and yes, this part and that part are monstrous, but basically the Bible is the basis for morality.
Yes, and the sophisticates must not vote either or, they are so few in number that they don’t make any difference, as virtually every politician must toe the christian line or else take a hike.
Those sophisticated christians seem to be as full of god-excuse-shit as the rest of the christians are.
What you said.
You were respectful of this letter-writer, as I think you should be, and I appreciate that. And yet…I don’t see that there was anything in the letter that merited respect. But there was one thing that stabbed at me just a little: I know as a matter of subjective experience that I was in some ways more “moral” as a Christian than I am now as an atheist. I don’t mean more pious or less profane or anything that doesn’t actually relate to “real morality.” I mean I often treated people better. I was less judgmental, quicker to see the “image of god” in a broken person and try to be kind to him. I as also, for example, against the death penalty as a Christian…and now I am at least in favor of considering its use in some circumstances. But this is a separate issue from the one of whether Christianity is factual–and it simply is not. I liked the feeling of being a better person that my faith gave me, and I will continue to seek secular ways of growing into a kinder, better person. But having been tricked into believing lies, and having deluded myself into thinking I needed those lies in some way–ultimately did not serve either truth or morality. How could it?
Well, as I told a Christian just the yesterday, “there’s no secret ingredient in secret ingredient soup.” (Props to Kung Fu Panda).
Everything is already inside your head. If you need external (aka, a god) validation to make you “behave”, then you’re doing it wrong. Treating people kindly costs you nothing and gets you greater rewards than treating them poorly.
Of course, we could have a lengthy discourse about what “moral” means, since to fundamentalists, the word is more about enforcement of conservative behavioral norms than it is about being “moral”. I don’t think conservative behavioral norms are all that “moral” … frankly, some of them are clearly anti-human. So, that part of it you’re going to have to tease out for yourself.
The bottom line, as I’ve said before, is that morality to an atheist means being a good parent (including the ‘it takes a village’ type of parent), a valued member of the community, and careful steward of the Earth’s precious resources. Avoid doing things that harm yourself or others, and you’re pretty much good to go.
Of course, having online arguments with cretins who threaten you with imaginary pillow fights (aka, “hell”) may seem mean-spirited at times, but what is the greater moral imperative: to let people continue believing in unicorns and fairies, or to encourage them (sometimes directly and forcefully) to get off their knees and stop staring at the ceiling and start doing something useful?
Yeah, I figured this was probably way too personal and nuanced an issue to try to write about on a blog. It comes off confessiony, and I hate that sort of BS. I don’t disagree with what you’ve written at all, but it’s just hard to explain the kind of frame that Christianity (at least the kind I believed and practiced) provides, and what a frameshift atheism represents. I’m not saying that I’d trade or change anything–I think that in every way that really matters, atheism (again, as I accept and practice it) is vastly superior to Christianity or any other superstition. And I still practice the same sorts of kindnesses I did then–stopping to help a person whose car stalled, giving the clerk the dollar when the kid came up short, helping a homeless, dude, whatever. Really, I do, and I still enjoy doing it. But I have to say that the framing device of “whatever you do for the least of these, my siblings, it’s like you’re doing it for ME” (words put in the mouth of Jesus), is powerful. It’s just a story. I get that. But if you can convince someone to fall in love with an imaginary friend, and then further convince them that doing good deeds for the poor and needy is like giving love to your imaginary friend–it’s powerful. I much prefer reality, and doing the same sorts of good deeds just because they’re good and not because of an emotional reward…but it’d be dishonest to imply that the motivation FELT the same either way.
Think of it this way … instead of getting ‘props’ from an imaginary deity for an ultimately selfish purpose (ie, getting into heaven), you’re doing those things for a much-more directly moral purpose — because they’re the right things to do.
Ultimately, being “good” as an atheist is more unselfish, human, and moral than the same behaviors could possibly be as a Christianity (or any of the other religions that preach afterlife).
Kevin, honestly I would think of it that way if I could, but it’s not what I’m talking about. In the version of Christianity I believed and practiced, there was nothing I could do to earn God’s favor, and heaven was through faith alone and had nothing to do with my behavior. So as helpful as the framing device you suggest might be for me, I’m afraid it’s not going to work for me because as a Christian my “kind acts” (for lack of a term that doesn’t make me puke) were not selfishly motivated. They really were motivated by my love for Jesus and the penumbra of “the least of these, my siblings.” So I just need to frame it like, “We’re all actually related–cousins, really. So whatever I do to help that drunk guy, it’s like I’m doing it for my uncle.” Something like that. I suppose some people can be not merely rationally moral, but actually profoundly kind, without any kind of emotional motivation whatever. I find I am not one of those people.
Well, since you ARE related to the drunk guy, you don’t have give that up.
We’re all related to mitochondrial Eve. So the drunk guy really IS your cousin (about a hundred thousand times removed, but still).
Also, I’ve found that the “grace only” Christian denominations are the ones that most aggressively enforce anti-moral conservative behavioral norms.
Kevin – agreed. If your acts cannot get you into heaven, then it follows that your acts cannot keep you out 🙂
Greg
I think I understand your subtle point about framing and your personal feeling about it.
I may have misunderstood you and you will correct me if I am wrong but I think progressing to science from religion _does_ change a framework
I look at it this way:
When one things we are all an image of god one also implies that there is something of god’s “perfection” that robbs onto fellow humans. This frame of mind makes it easy to be forgiving of human stupidity and lack of desire to learn and act responsibly
When one explains human condition without invokation of god’s perfectness and treats people as soleless bio-machines that have reasoning abilities one cannot but feel how he is affected by decisions of all other humans on the planet. With this frame of mind it is harder to be forgiving of those who do not care to learn.
Yes it was not their fault that they have not grown up in the “right” environment to make them understand science.
But the fact that with each generations the proportiojn of people that “feed” religion is larger than proportion of people that “feed” science has very tangible effect on those who _understand_ science
They cannot afford being silent because being silent plays into overpopulation and historic irrationality behind “human condition”
This is how science progresses and your “feelings” can be easily explained by proper account of nature and course of human evolution as evolution of uniquly human deliberative capability
Nicely put. I have nothing to add to your excellent comment.
Permit me to offer two objective reasons to help that drunk guy.
First, is the obvious: if you want people to help you when you get in similarly dire straits, if behooves you to help others when you’re in a position to do so.
But, there’s also the fact that the drunk guy is currently a drain on society. By helping him, you might get him to become a productive member of society. And, in so doing, you’ll then benefit, albeit slightly and indirectly, from his contributions. As one small example: he’ll pay taxes as a healthy, sober worker, and some of those taxes will go to patching the potholes in the road in front of your house.
There’re other rewards, as well. For example, you might find it preferable to play a game of chess with him over a cup of coffee in the park, rather than have to step over his passed-out unwashed body on the way home from the theatre.
Cheers,
b&
I think an emotional motivation is still available to you. It may take some getting used to, mind you.
If as a Christian your acts of kindness to others was motivated by the love of Jesus and expressing that by benefiting “the least of these”, then you could hook that love directly onto “the least of these”. We’re all around you, people with fears and needs, pains and frustrations, affection, love, hopes and dreams. It’s not going to be an intimate, personal sort of love with everyone – I don’t think any human brain is wired for that – but there’s the recognition that there would be something to love in all of us, and that you can feel at least the edges of that in your personal contacts and actions.
If you felt that Jesus could care for each and every one of us, there’s no reason you can’t too, now and in reality.
I’m not sure that’s a great example, as a majority of Christians in the US favour the death penalty.
That’s a great point, Tulse–I sometimes forget how, as a Christian, I thought that vast majority of Americans were immoral hypocrits who are utterly full of shit. I conflate my morality as a Christian with Christian morality as it’s promoted by the majority of visible evangelical pitchmen, for example. Not sure what to do about that. I just know as a Christian I felt punishment was up to a god, and now I think, eh. Maybe that guy should hang.
By contrast, I think I have become far more opposed to the death penalty since I’ve become an atheist, since I figure this life is all any of us get.
Yes,studies show that god thinks what you think– or rather you think that god thinks what you think: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full
And atheists are more likely to oppose the death penalty (and be less judgmental) than their theistic peers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story_1.html#
Though people believe that belief is necessary for morality, the evidence shows otherwise. Like belief in gods, belief in belief is hard to deprogram people from– especially those who imagine themselves saved for their beliefs (and damned for doubt.)
But by being a Christian, one should be positively in favour of the death penalty!
Did you actually read your holy books?
There are multiple injunctions from the Jesus character that the death penalties of the OT still apply to Christians.
Such as the ludicrous one about wearing mixed fabrics should automatically invoke prompt and drawn-out painful execution.
Why on earth were you content to actively defy your religion on such an important issue, yet claim that your faith was the source of your defiance against it?
That makes no sense to me.
I suspect that a part of what happened to you was merely that you grew older and less naive. I have been an atheist all my life but my opinions on many subjects are less forgiving than they used to be.
Call it becoming “less naive” if you like, but there are objective differences of interest between a person/people at different stages of life that do not require one of them to be deluded.
E.g., what I presume is a really big factor in the unconscious moral calculus: “How likely is this encounter to be the start of an important ongoing relationship?” Other things being equal, this will be increasingly less likely with each decade of life.
Wait. I’m confused.
I thought it was the fundamentalists who held to the literal accuracy of the Bible and the liberals who considered it less historical and more allegorical.
And I hardly think it does the cause of religious morality any good to suggest that Numbers 31 was historical (which is almost certainly isn’t) or that the Rape of Jericho really happened (which it probably didn’t) or that the Plagues were historical (which they unquestionably were not). Or, for that matter, that Jesus’s sermons were historical (no chance whatsoever), what with all the constant damnation of pretty much everybody to eternal torment for the most trivial of non-infractions.
[Name redacted], if you’re reading this, perhaps you could offer some examples of Biblical passages you think really happened which are also good moral models?
Cheers,
b&
In particular, since the Christian commenter on the last thread on this subject refused to do so, I’d like to know what great moral truths were invented or “revealed” by the Jesus character in the biblical myths?
I’m still trying to get a straight answer on that one. The last person who tried (I’m too darn lazy to look it up) basically said, “well, Jesus didn’t reveal any new moral code, but he was a great teacher.”
Really? That’s the best the son of a GOD can do? Earn “Teacher of the Year” awards from the local community college?
As far as I’m concerned, Kevin, it comes down to pure mind-hack. That’s it. I know “framing” is kind of an–ambiguous–term, but that’s all it amounts to. It is subjective, it is irrational, and it FEELS like it’s doing something. On paper, not only did Jesus not bring any new morals, he brought worse ones; on paper, not only was Jesus not a great teacher, he was a crappy one (no one ever understood WTF he was trying to say!). But if you can get someone to misuse bonds of affection for “someone” who doesn’t exist, and then use that phony feeling of love as motivation–though it’s pure bullshit, top to bottom–it exerts a powerfully felt influence. That’s it. That’s the whole secret. It’s basically like a drug addiction.
Yep. That’s it exactly.
It works just as well to get the support of the christians to endorse bad behavior, as an example, the support given to Shrub Bush.
Yes, Jesus taught that thinking a bad thing was the same as doing it! I’d rather people think of doing awful things to me or others than actually doing it. Actions result in actual consequence, but thinking about rape doesn’t scar people, impregnate them, nor spread venereal disease the way actual action does.
I wonder if pedophile priests are using this passage to excuse their behavior– they’ve already thought about it… and as far as Jesus is concerned it’s the same as doing it… so may as well do it (you can confess later and it’s not like there’s a commandment against it.)
Fortunately most theists are more moral than the diving beings they worship– as are most atheists. They’ve been taught that the bible is a “good book” and they confirm their biases through cherry picking it seems.
Well, at the very least he didn’t explicitly endorse genocide, infanticide, and child rape like his Dad did…
But he seems to have tacitly supported sex without marriage (and adultery). Look at his two dads. I say tacitly since the passage of “throwing the stones” was a later addition, although we could ignore that fact depending on the argument.
He most certainly DID, though!
(Or at least the fictional character in the NT was said to have done)
See Matthew 5:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20-21, John 1:17,John 7:19, John 10:35, if you need ammo.
Let’s check off some fallacies and cliches in this grammatically correct gibberish:
– You ignored less fundamentalist “sophisticated” and “liberal” theology;
– Religion is “necessary” for those more emotionally and morally insecure than you or me;
– Darwin was “open to theism”;
– Let lecture you using the word “evolutionary”;
– “Universal order,” “moral hierarchy,” “originating Cause,” whatever those are;
– Science is a religion.
Anyone else want to try at this Religious Handwaving Bingo?
I think you win the toaster!
The shorter version:
“You wouldn’t have written that article if you shared my beliefs.”
Deepity, all is deepity.
Sheesh!
(sung to the tune of row your boat)
Push, push, push your woo* gently down the stream
deepity, deepity, deepity, life is but a dream…
*magical beliefs
Humans are stupid, ignorant and vicious. Why would their gods be any better?
In the case of the ancient Greeks, they weren’t any better.
In the case of the Christian gods (Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus) they were even worse.
Didn’t you mean the singular Eloha?
Those who truly study religious understanding as a developmental (evolutionary) awareness see in the unfolding perspectives of universal order the realization of a moral hierarchy of goodness, and the revealed presence of an originating Cause (as Darwin did). They no longer frame the debate by way of proof texts from the Bible, but see the biblical texts as the living embodiment of that process of discovery and history of success and failure in human response.
He seems to say that for religious people who are “truly in the know” about such things, that silly bible is no longer used as any kind of proof of God’s existence, but as a kind of historical record of man’s fumbling “search” for God. It’s a book that records the “process of discovery” and not necessarily any kind of actual discovery. Imagine if the Keystone Cops had kept some kind of journal of the “process” of their law enforcement activities and detective work — that’s what the bible is.
This guy is doing extraordinary semantic gymnastics instead of just admitting that science has chased God into a corner like some kind of soon-to-be-swatted fly trapped in a brightly lit room. His kind of religion just piggy-backs on science, and then takes philosophical credit for its advances. If this guy watched somebody changing his transmission fluid for instance, and was asked about the experience later, he would say something like “those who truly know auto repair see in the unfolding cover plates and fasteners a kind of harmony of mechanistic and lubricative hierarchy, which reveals the presence of a large corporate entity whose aims are to transport us among the different and distinctive realms of goodness.”
Right, Sir. Will there be anything else for you today? Oil change? Rotate the tires, perhaps?
I’m not sure why religious apologists in this mold don’t just invent their own nonsensical language, like Lewis Carroll did, and write their essays in it. That would be the ultimate defense of God, because we couldn’t understand a damn word they’re saying.
Good grief, don’t go giving them any ideas!
(Although the Muslims already use this tactic, since the Koran can only be “truly” understood in the original Arabic.)
Clearly you are not familiar with Chris Langan. Irrefutable because nobody understands it, read this monstrosity of bizarre language at your own peril.
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf
This guy was mentioned on Atheist Experience so I looked him up, I quickly decided that life is too short, TLDR.
“I’m not sure why religious apologists in this mold don’t just invent their own nonsensical language, like Lewis Carroll did, and write their essays in it. That would be the ultimate defense of God, because we couldn’t understand a damn word they’re saying.”
They kind of have though, right? Theological essays are so full of jargon it’s nearly impossible to find the core message anywhere.
I guess that was also the Vatican’s reason for using Latin well into the 20th century, though no one really spoke it anymore. To obscure the nonsense in fancy, nice sounding words.
This has always been pretty standard for huff-puff style philosophers. Particularly those who managed to get a bunch of nice things from some king or other.
We know that most anti science persons do not understand that which they oppose. Maybe there is a certain symmetry to religionists’ claim that anti religionists don’t really understand religion, valid or not.
I don’t think religionists really understand religion or know exactly what they believe– they just have been told that it’s important to believe it and that bad things will happen if they don’t?
A 3-in-1 monotheistic god who was his own son and died to save those who believe this story? An entire universe created so 13.7 years later a certain primate could evolve enough to worship invisible beings? Who can make sense of that?! And that’s just the tip of the iceberg–
There is no reason to believe that any sort of consciousness can exist without a material brain. If such evidence existed, you can bet tons of scientists (and tons of money) would be going into testing, refining, and honing the evidence so that scientists (like Stephen Hawking) and everyone else could benefit.
Most atheists were once believers and tried the “sophisticated theology” approach before admitting to themselves that the emperor is naked. We understand why people believe, but we also understand why all supernatural beings (and claims) are unlikely to be true.
That would then be to ignore the recent study that shows atheists are more familiar with christianity than christians are.
Craig doesn’t have a solution to the Euthyphro dilemma, he simply (and idiotically) just says that ‘yeah, a thing is good by virtue of the fact that God commanded it, being as he is the source of all goodness.’ Craig doesn’t even grasp the problem.
Well, to be fair, Craig did a good job of illustrating what a man without a shred of decency or humanity looks like. Gotta give credit where credit is due.
Of course, this is not Craig’s idea. Craig hasn’t come up with an original thought yet.
Calvin offered much the same argument hundreds of years before Craig was born.
During the Krauss/Craig debate, they talked about the nature of “nothing”.
Krauss said something like: “Dr. Craig is an expert on nothing.”
“Nothing is unstable.” – Frank Wilczek.
“Nothing will come of nothing.” – King Lear
Mouldy bread is better than nothing.
I followed the link to Craig and he seemed to be offering the ontology argument of all things – if we define God as the greatest and believe that God and his nature is necessary, then god must be the best and doesn’t have any choice about his own nature. This argument seems to mean, among other things, that God has no control over his own nature, and perhaps lacks free-will.
I wonder how Craig would respond to Stephen Law’s God of Eth, a God which is maximally evil.
In fact, I think we can all agree that God would be even better if he were a sandwich. Which he is, btw. Clearly.
“If God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites, then by golly they deserved it!”
You bet they deserved it! It was natural selection at work. The Jewish social mores enabled the Jews to survive during those warring times and to pass on their genetic information, whereas the Canaanites social order was inimical to the Canaanites survival and facilitated their inevitable destruction.
Viva la evolucion! The strong survive and the weak die off!
Thing is, the slaughter of the Canaanities is fiction. The Cannaites fell because of social unrest due, primarily, to Sea People pressures/invasions, social issues and crop failures. After the Canaanites they re-emerged, and some of them were called ‘Jews.’
Also, Judaism as monotheistic from its origins is also a fiction. Judaism was a POLYTHESTIC religion until 600BCE. And remained, in many sects and areas, a polythestic religion until 1400AD.
God had a wife and kids. They were, in effect, written out (his wife) or ‘demonized’ (his children) by Josiah and his priest-clique in 600BCE as part of a religious/government unification of Judea and Israel under Josiah.
Further, the unification of religion/state story is even more complicated, because Josiah’s re-write of Judaism is not only becoming monothestic, it also the ombination of two religions. The polytheistic Israelite religion and the quasi-monthesitic Judean religion. (Note: Judeans believed in other gods, only that Jehovah was the baddest dude in Godland. Non-recognition of the existence of other gods came later…)
You can, in Genesis for example, the combition of religious creation stories. If you read it carefully, you’ll realize it’s actually two stories. The ‘make them in OUR image — man and woman’ creation story was the polythesitic Isrealite creation story. The Adam’s rib was the quasi-monothestic Judean story.
Anyway, I ramble and it’s time to finish dinner… But I’ll close with this, Judaism, which Christianity borrowed extensively (but not exclusively from) is a hodge-podge of stories that, like any evolved religionm borrowed liberally from many sources through out thousands of years and for anyone to act as if it was some sort of universal truth given directly on high from some dude in a cloud…
lolz.
Your readers are welcome to come and see for themselves what my “huffy lucubrations” were about, Dr. Cony. You missed most of it in your comment here.
It’s “Coyne”, Gilson. You can’t even get my damn name right. You hurtin’ for trafffic?
Ah the “curse of autocorrect” – right up there with Adam and Eve’s. 😉
I guess you missed the link that Jerry gave to your article.
But it isn’t big enough! It’s so unfair!
I’d love to come, Right Reverend Gilson, but unfortunately some laundry has piled up and I’m afraid I won’t be available this century.
Ahh, how sweet is that! I’ll give a shout out to jebus for you.
Well thought out letter. Full of platitudes nonetheless.
What these patronizing holier-than-thou people (like the author of the letter) have in common is the claim that their theology is “sophisticated”, that they know better than the benighted fundamentalists,and the gnus are “not helping”.
So…were Jesus and Paul idiotic fundies?
Luke
17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
17:32 Remember Lot’s wife.
John
3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21), even so must the son of man be lifted up.
Romans
5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned:
5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
there is no law.
5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
It seems to me that both Jesus and Paul took the “fall” story as literally as it gets.
Liberal Christian apologists have, of course, found a way around the conclusion that Jesus and Paul took those stories literally. According to the apologists, not only do Jesus and Paul not explicitly state that they take those stories literally, there’s also no reason to think that moral lessons can’t be derived from myths as well as actual, literal history. In other words, just because I reference the story of the Three Little Pigs to illustrate a lesson on selfishness doesn’t mean that I actually believe that those little porkers really existed.
In September, Philip Kitcher’s new book “The Ethical Project” will be published. I suspect it will prove to be most relevant to the topic under current discussion. I don’t know the contents, but it may discuss some of the points he raised in a short speech to the New York Society for Ethical Culture last year. You can see the speech at:
Thanks for the interesting video link. I picked up some ideas that are new to me, e.g. I hadn’t thought about how stressful it is to be a chimp & why that’s so. Kitcher is an atheist & I liked much of what he said, but I think the book will be about defining the problems – no more than that. I wonder if he will tackle the intractable culture of Islam ? The use of the word “diversity” below has my alarm bells ringing ~ is it the author or publisher who writes this nonsense ?
The Amazon blurb oversells the book [my bolded], but I might buy it if it drops to a reasonable price: Philip Kitcher is John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University.
“Principles of right and wrong guide the lives of almost all human beings, but we often see them as external to ourselves, outside our own control.
In a revolutionary approach to the problems of moral philosophy, Philip Kitcher makes a provocative proposal: Instead of conceiving ethical commands as divine revelations or as the discoveries of brilliant thinkers, we should see our ethical practices as evolving over tens of thousands of years, as members of our species have worked out how to live together and prosper. Elaborating this radical new vision, Kitcher shows how the limited altruistic tendencies of our ancestors enabled a fragile social life, how our forebears learned to regulate their interactions with one another, and how human societies eventually grew into forms of previously unimaginable complexity. The most successful of the many millennia-old experiments in how to live, he contends, survive in our values today.
Drawing on natural science, social science, and philosophy to develop an approach he calls “pragmatic naturalism,” Kitcher reveals the power of an evolving ethics built around a few core principles—including justice and cooperation, but leaving room for a diversity of communities and modes of self-expression. Ethics emerges as a beautifully human phenomenon—permanently unfinished, collectively refined and distorted generation by generation. Our human values, Kitcher shows, can be understood not as a final system but as a project—the ethical project—in which our species has engaged for most of its history, and which has been central to who we are”
I think that Kitcher is developing the ideas that John Dewey set down in A Common Faith, amongst other writings. I’m assuming and hoping that the book will contain in its 432 pages more than just a discussion of how to define the problems.
It’s funny that ethics and morality are things that should be talked about. Do we have to conjure up reasons to be good? Do we have to have an external barometer to guide us properly. Apparently.
Moral reasoning is hard because as we move from being little kids with the so called obvious right and wrong answers we encounter Abstract Thought and difficult situations that are beyond our immediate knowledge of how to act. A great site that is actually about Moral Theory is:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php?t=home
“The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot.”
Mark Twain
Thanks.
I hear the sound of bagpipes. Presumably the writer would try to exclude from the list of holders of “genuine and open religious belief”, say, the gay-bashing fundamentalists who drive young homosexuals to suicide.
And of course even such gay-bashing fundamentalists would themselves argue that their religious beliefs are both genuine and open, at least as far as is authorized by their god.
A (very) religious friend of mine and I recently exchanged some emails about Alex Jones. He (my friend) explained to me that the neo-cons are the enemy of the majority and that they are religious folks that don’t understand the Bible. I would argue they understand the Bible as well as anyone else, meaning they pick and choose what they get out of it, just like everyone else.
Jeff, I like it! Thanks. Excellently put.
Quick comment about what you said regarding people being emotionally insecure BECAUSE they are religious–YES, absolutely. Religion is crutch that first breaks your legs, convinces you that you cannot walk without it. We were told repeatedly that without Christianity, without our god, life would have no meaning and we would have no basis for morality. It is terrifying even to contemplate a life without morality and meaning (heaven gets all the press, but I think people are even more afraid of meaningless existence in the now than they sometimes are of no existence after death). So we were very specifically taught how not to contemplate any other source of morality and meaning. OF COURSE people are emotionally frail because of religion. That’s actually how it works.
The best discovery I made was that as my faith faded like a shadow upon reason’s dawning, very little of my sense of morality and meaning were touched in any significant way (I didn’t want to rape and murder, I still loved my kids and girlfriend and parents, I still wanted to have a good life that mattered to me and others). It’s almost shocking to formerly Christian just how litle Jesus actually matters. Which is why we are probably sometimes saddled with the epithet of god-haters. I don’t hate god–just as I don’t hate Hannibal Lecter.
I don’t hate any of those many gods. Life is too short, and I’m too nice.
“They no longer frame the debate by way of proof texts from the Bible, but see the biblical texts as the living embodiment of that process of discovery and history of success and failure in human response.”
Translation: Some have been smart enough to recognize that the Bible was written by humans and has all the flaws of contemporary human culture, but they just can’t let go of the false hope of eternal life.
I think you are far too generous in your characterization of this letter. It seems like a model of passive-aggressiveness to me.
All that “I’m sure you are aware of all the ways in which you are wrong and you probably just intended to stir up controversy but I hope that you’ll have the courage to admit that I’m right even though I know you’re just a fundamentalist who worships science. Oh and by the way Darwin would agree with me. Kthxbye.” Blech. The openly angry responses were at least honest.
Yes… it’s the ol’ “bad things will happen if you criticize faith”–
Everyone is supposed to pretend that the Emperor could be wearing magical clothing that only the chosen can see.
Well the religious don’t know anything other than an Appeal to Authority argument. Hey look you evolutionist… Darwin was on MY SIDE! Take that biotch!
This seems like a false choice. Are you claiming that there has been no progress in ethics other than from philosophy free of religious thought? Based upon historical changes to ideas about ethics, such a claim seems highly suspect.
It is my observation that, in recent history at least, it takes time – sometimes a long time – and some kicking and screaming before religious morality catches up with secular morality. I’m thinking slavery, gay rights and human rights in general. Sure there were religious people who helped turn the tide on these issues (although Christians try to rewrite history as though they were at the forefront the whole time; this is especially the case with the abolition movement), this was often in spite of, not because of, their religious beliefs, i.e., their religious tradition and holy books did not provide the framework for rethinking slavery and homosexuality, in fact quite the contrary.
Now in the distant past – a thousand rather than one or two hundred years ago – when nearly everyone was either religious or at least pretended to be there could be no discussion of ethics outside of religion. It was anathema. It no doubt was still discussed outside of a religious framework, but the threat of excommunication, imprisonment, or death kept these discussions from becoming mainstream ideas pre-enlightenment. Prior to the Christian era, though, there was plenty of ethical discourse that was not necessarily related to religion (I’m thinking Greek philosophers here).
And most American Christians are still behind the curve when it comes to gay rights and, in the case of the Catholic church, the rights of children are considered less important than church dogma, secrecy and whatever other bullshit they try to come up with to justify their crimes against humanity and the subsequent covering up of those crimes.
Funny, I got the impression the author of the above email was in your camp, just critical of your approach.
I would be interested in the definition of morality on which the discussion is founded. It sounds like most of the comments presuppose a single standard of what is moral. It seems to me, however, that morality is at best a semi-solid – defined as a culturally acceptable norm which benefits the whole of that particular society. For example, one people group or culture may consider treachery immoral where another regards it as not only moral, but desirable (as in the case of the Sawi people in the Amazon). Certainly, as mentioned in an earlier comment, every human has the capacity to observe and conform to the socially acceptable norm (moral code).
Though the details of morality may vary from one people group to another, it is interesting that some form of morality governs every culture. So I guess the question would be who’s version of morality is right? What standard do we use? What code then governs the consequences of violating the moral code. I love what C.S. Lewis had to say about what he calls the “Natural Moral Law” in the book Mere Christianity. Very interesting stuff. Consideration of the topic would be incomplete without it (in my opinion).
The sciences were not invented, they were discovered. All these laws and principles were here and at work and we discovered and labelled them. Could it at least be possible that the same is true of morality? That it existed before and we simply discover (and alter) it as we go? My experience (yes, I’m a Christian) is that God’s way works. When, out of love for and gratitude to God, I honor my parents, love my wife, love my neighbor, and even my enemy – trusting God to meet my needs so that I can consider the needs of others as more important than my own, those relationships prosper. I see a very different morality (and impact) when I look at Islam and even Buddhism, so not even all religions agree on a single morality.
There is a vast difference between God’s intent and what mankind has done with God’s intent. There is also a vast difference between God’s entitlements and ours. For example, if God is the author and giver of life, then is life not also his to take? For God, to reclaim a life is moral. It was His in the first place. But for you and me, since we had nothing to do with the miracle of life, have no right to take it.
When looking at the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, to judge God’s morality, historical context is as critical to consider as any other context. It is the “why” behind the “what.” Particularly when it comes to the question of morality, “why,” or motive, becomes just as important as the “what.” This is where, I believe, the evolutionist stumbles. Science explores “what” and “how,” but seems to struggle with “why.” “Why” denotes purpose and intent. If all that is is merely the product of random chance then there is no “why.” There is only “what” and “how.” True morality demands a “why.”
Many raised with religion know what they believe, they just don’t know why. They jump to defend their traditions because they are so deeply invested. Please do not confuse the religious with those who live in a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. When religion becomes an end, rather than a means, that moral code shifts again (i.e. the Crusades, the Inquisition…ugh). I do believe that God is the source of morality and that, as a gift, God also gave us the freedom to choose whether we will follow that morality or not. We will get it right sometimes, and frankly, there are atheists who, at least at times, do a better job than some who call themselves Christian. It seems we are all prone to immorality…at least someone’s version of immorality…
Thanks for your time,
michael
First, got any evidence that this “God” of yours exists outside your imagination and the imaginations of your coreligionists?
But, more pointedly:
And what possible context could justify genocide and mass child rape, as described in Numbers 31?
Further, if your position is that our morality comes from one or more of your gods, why were they such vicious sociopaths in Biblical times and why have they mellowed with age? Alternatively, how did the “historical context” of that era so overwhelm your gods that they were driven to incite genocide and mass child rape, as opposed to using their bully pulpits to tell the primitive savages in their charge to not kill and torture their playmates?
Most importantly, how do you know any of what you claim is true? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
Cheers,
b&
I read C.S. Lewis. Do you know what he’s determined to be the worst sin of all? Pedophilia? No. Rape? No. Torture? No. Slavery? No. War mongering? Not. Witch hunts? No.
It’s– pride! Yes, according to your mentor, pride is the worst sin of all.
What a great moral guide, eh?
Yes. Christianity is big on thought-crimes.
Hey, at least try to understand the man before you ridicule his thought. He is not saying that pride is the worst evil, only the sin (chosen alienaation from divine order) upon which evils like the ones you mention depend. In the sense that “pride comes before the fall” he means that he/she who regards self and personal wants as superior to others will act immorally.
“When, out of love for and gratitude to God, I honor my parents, love my wife, love my neighbor, and even my enemy – trusting God to meet my needs so that I can consider the needs of others as more important than my own, those relationships prosper.”
You need God to love other human beings? And if not for God you’d be doing what exactly? Hacking them to death with plastic knives just for the merry hell of it?
“For God, to reclaim a life is moral. It was His in the first place. But for you and me, since we had nothing to do with the miracle of life, have no right to take it.”
Why should God hold a claim on my life just because he made me? Your god sounds like a kid with a magnifying glass torching ants because He can. If that figure was real, and there’s no reason to believe He is, I would spend every ounce of energy I possess fighting Him, because He sounds like a sadistic tyrant to me.
“There is a vast difference between God’s intent and what mankind has done with God’s intent.”
What? You presume to know God’s intent? You presume even to know that “God” exists? What is your source of information? Better yet, what on earth do you mean by that word “God”? Put meaning to it if you can Michael.
“For example, if God is the author and giver of life, then is life not also his to take?”
Hitch – “It is incipiently at least and I think often explicitly totalitarian.” We repeatedly see, as we have just now, that Christians do not even try to deny this. They exalt in it in fact, desiring always to be slaves.
But Michael, by your logic then, would it not be morally permissible for parents to take the life of their children if they saw fit? After all, the children had nothing to do with bringing about their own existence.
But of course you premise is wrong. “God” is not the author and giver of life anymore than unicorns are the author and giver of Playdoe. What’s sad is that you will probably never realize that those two claims are exactly on a par. On second thought, the second claim is on much better footing because at least “unicorn” is a concept.
“Many raised with religion know what they believe, they just don’t know why.”
Do you know why you believe? I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that you inherited your religion by the sheerest accident of the time and place of your birth. Toss in a bit of a tendency to conform and a poor ability to think well on such matters and presto, we have Michael: another Christian. Society is better off, I’m sure.
Michael, is homosexuality a sin? And do think gay people should have the right to marry? If you say yes to the first, you’re intellectually dishonest (but of course you are, you’re a Christian). If you say no to the second, you’re a bigot.
Michael, I have immense contempt for people like you, as you can tell. I cannot wait for the day (should it ever dawn) when Christianity has perished. It probably won’t happen in my lifetime but it is clearly on its way out. It’s demise is well underway in the industrialized world, as you should know. Everything you have written is morally and intellectually revolting. How can you not see that?
“Science explores “what” and “how,” but seems to struggle with “why.” “Why” denotes purpose and intent. If all that is is merely the product of random chance then there is no “why.” There is only “what” and “how.” True morality demands a “why.””
I would like theists to extend their ‘why’s to their deity too. Why did he create all this suffering when he could have just kept himself to himself in his nothingness. The only reasonable answer to that, if He did, is that He’s evil. There’s your true morality.
That was a very convincing rebuttal of the Euthyphro Dilema… back when you could be burned at the stake for laughing at it.
Otherwise, no, not even a little convincing.
It’s the usual– he’s trying to make “sophisticated theology” (his brand) on par with science while lowering science so that it’s on par with religion (“scientism”).
Just show me the evidence that the immaterial entities you believe in(souls, gods, demons, whatever) are distinguishable from non-existent entities and all the other divine/immaterial beings you reject (fairies, Thetans, Thor)if you want me to give a damn about “sophisticated theology” has to say about anything.
Theists use so many words to say nothing at all in an everlasting effort to prop up their “woo” as true. In a way I feel sorry for them– they’ve been infected with a mind virus that tells them that their morality (as well as their salvation) hinges on believing a certain unbelievable story. And they really do think bad things will happen if people lose faith.
Word to theist X: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html
Religiosity is correlated with societal dysfunction, not morality: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Shorter letter:
Only look at the ‘right sort’ of Christians… The kind like me… Forget the rest of them, they don’t count…
“But arguments posed by authors like Dawkins, Pinker, and yourself will do little to help those very emotionally insecure people.”
Little people need faith to be good b/c they know no better. That’s not condescending at all.
“They also, I hope you know, have been historically debated in far more rigorous scientific and philosophical dialogues than any of you provide in your attempts within the popular media.”
Well what in the hell was Jerry Coyne supposed to do in an article for USA Today? Write a multi-volume historiographical analysis of arguments about morality?
” To give only one example before closing, you ask the question, “Do actions become moral simply because they are dictated by God, or are they dictated by God because they are moral?” ”
Author never really answered this question from a theist POV. I believe we call that a dodge.
“They no longer frame the debate by way of proof texts from the Bible, but see the biblical texts as the living embodiment of that process of discovery and history of success and failure in human response.”
So the Bible is no longer a legitimate way to understand Christianity and God? All metaphors and allegories and stuff then? Well, if that is so, then what reason is there to be a Christian? If not for the Gospels the Resurrection story would not be around, and that is kind of a big deal for the Christian faith. Toss the Bible, and what’s left?
I notice that this author also never actually lays out any persuasive arguments for God or his faith, merely claiming that behind a magical curtain there lies many brilliant truths. Color me unimpressed. I’ve looked behind that curtain and there is nothing but half-baked ideas, bad history and science, deepities, and woo-woo.
Well thank gods it’s not just me … This blather is better written than blather often is, but no more coherent. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of polishing.
I suppose believers in religions must think there is, somewhere, some good, solid arguments for their beliefs, even though they themselves have not seen them. To think otherwise means they’re believing in something without a good reason. This also means they’re likely to not go looking very hard, because if that search turned up shallow, inconsistent arguments their belief would be in big trouble.
I just wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed reading both your take on this email, Jerry, and the comments in response to this email.
It’s quite possible that the writer of this email had the best of intentions, but it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t understand evolution, Christianity as it is practiced by most Americans, Darwin’s religious views (and even if Darwin did agree with him re:religion, it’s just a bad argument – as another commenter pointed out – the argument from authority), and perhaps even his own religious views, couched as it is in the at times impenetrable language he’s using. Seriously, does he even know what he means by this:
“Those who truly study religious understanding as a developmental (evolutionary) awareness see in the unfolding perspectives of universal order the realization of a moral hierarchy of goodness, and the revealed presence of an originating Cause (as Darwin did). They no longer frame the debate by way of proof texts from the Bible, but see the biblical texts as the living embodiment of that process of discovery and history of success and failure in human response.”
If he can’t explain it more directly and in simpler terms, I’m inclined to think that HE doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.
Assuming it’s a “he.” : )
The author seems to completely miss the point that morality does not come from god. I wonder how the author can get the impression that such a simple statement might be made to take a swipe at the “rabid fundamentalists” but the gentler faithful must be exempt from it. It’s simply more of the “my religion isn’t crazy – the other ones are!”
Jerry wrote: “Last night I read a book by John Polkinghorne, who argues that God’s fiats must be good because God, as the Greatest Possible Being, is good by definition, and therefore incapable of mandating what is not moral…. But it’s also circular, because there’s no independent evidence that God is good;”
I don’t think that’s the correct objection.
To say that God is good “by definition” is merely to make a semantic claim about the meaning of the word “God”. It tells us no substantive (non-semantic) fact. If it follows that “God’s fiats must be good”, then it follows (at best) only in the limited sense that, should the fiats of the deity currently known as “God” turn out not to be good, we would have to cease calling that deity “God”, so we couldn’t say “God’s fiats are not good”. But it doesn’t follow that the fiats of the deity in question must be good. (Perhaps he could adopt the name “the deity formerly known as God”.)
In fact the word “God” does not involve an irresistible commitment to goodness. The claim “God is not good” means something to listeners, and doesn’t come across as a vacuous contradiction in terms. We know roughly who the speaker is referring to.
I believe the chemical “elements” were originally so called because they were thought to be elementary, i.e. non-reducible. Now we know that’s not the case, but we haven’t ceased to call them “elements”, because they have enough of the other attributes already associated with elements for it to make sense to continue using that word. Similarly, if we discovered that there is indeed a creator of the universe, with all the attributes usually associated with God, except that he isn’t always good, we would very likely call him “God”.
Even before it was shown that the elements were reducible, it would have been meaningful for someone to claim, “the elements are reducible”. That needn’t have been considered a contradiction in terms, because we could understand that the speaker was using the word “elements” to refer to gold, silver, lead, etc, and was dropping the previous connotation of irreducibility. Similarly, we can use the word “God” without any connotation of goodness.
Polkinghorne’s argument (at least as you’ve presented it) is philosophically naive, as well as misguided.
P.S. I think this is a case of a general fallacy, where people think they can derive substantive facts about reality from mere semantic premises. They say that something is true “by definition”, but then proceed to treat it as true in fact. To put it another way, they conflate definitions with propositions.
I think what bothers me about [Name Redacted] is that s/he says Jerry/atheists(?) “might yet discover something in traditional religious ideologies worth respecting”, and so presumes they don’t. I think they all respect the ideas of do-unto-others, forgiving transgressions etc, just they aren’t respected as coming from divine sources.
How is that different from ‘God mandates things because they are good’?
Um…it’s been paraphrased in a novel manner, so obviously it constitutes some profound new insight that therefore invalidates all prior objections?
It’s kinda like how Jesus wasn’t a zombie, he was merely a reanimated corpse too much of a badass for even Hell to contain who still had gaping holes in his chest and limbs whose mission in the after-death is to reanimate all the other corpses so they can go to Hell themselves — but this zombie loves you!
…or something like that….
Cheers,
b&
Did I actually read my (then) holy books. Well, I have a degree in biblical studies from an evangelical college, helped work on a translation of the Greek NT for a gender-inclusive version of the New International Version of the Bible, and worked for Billy Graham for three years, among other things. You’re simply mistaken that all Christians interpret the “new covenant” of Christianity as requiring the death penalty (and most especially not for the purely ceremonial taboos such as mixing fabrics). But were, by implication, you are correct, is that people can find whatever in the Bible they want to support whatever position they wish to take on an issue. It is the ultimate Rorschach test.
Having come from a liberal, agnostic family and not converting until I was nearly 18 (not even having gone to a church, ever, until then–and I was not especially “naive,” with excellent grades, state championship debating skills, and a circle of friends interested in the sciences–one of my best friends literally became a rocket scientist at the Johnson Space Center in Houston), I was predisposed to finding the left-leaning social justice messages in the Bible. Hawks and haters can find their predilections adequately confirmed as well.
I got OUT of Christianity (and theism–my training had already done a good job of showing me that all the OTHER gods were bunk) because of two questions that just sort of came to me: 1)Does this book consistently read like something a god with the attributes I ascribe to him could have inspired? (NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO–it’s a fucking mess); and 2) If I can believe things without evidence, what would it be possible for me NOT to believe?
That’s it. My whole sordid story.
As the person who wrote the comment to Dr.Coyne that started this thread, I wanted to weigh in, as briefly as I can, on my apparently vague email. If I can just begin with this brief note of defense: the email was sent to Professor Coyne alone, and was not intended to be published on this site. Had I known it would be, I would never have put things in the way that I did, for in this forum it does sound arrogant, implying far too little respect for fundamentalist religious believers. I only intended that Prof. Coyne consider, from his own morality, that using USA Today as a forum for debating the necessity of belief in God for moral development was academically disingenuous to the topic. I know he intended to sway popular opinion on behalf of his atheist view, but my point is that he should seek to enter a more academically rigorous debate that has been ongoing since before the time of Darwin himself, who said in a reply to a letter from John Fordyce in 1879 that “man can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.” Although Darwin described himself as an agnostic, and attacked much in organized religious thought, he was also sympathetic to a theistic first cause.
My other main point was one personally felt, that the most angry and close-minded of fundamentalist religious thought is highly defensive and least prepared to enter into an open dialogue. I hope that such dialogue is what the majority of readers of this site would be looking for as well. For I must admit that I tend to find many on this site (certainly not all) speaking from a very charged emotional place, that might close off their perspective too, from the opposite vantage point.
Religious belief is so very broad, and can be studied or engaged scientifically. But Prof. Coyne has argued for an instinctive/evolutionary or secular morality by attacking only a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture or the historical inconsistency among believers. Literary biblical criticism (using such efforts such as Form, Textual, Source, Historical and Redactive criticisms) is its own science and, for most serious scholars, implies openness to human evolutionary views. It is with scholars such as these (which I am not), that Professor Coyne’s debate should occur, not with many whose faith is based more solely on personal experience and relationship with God.
Don’t get me wrong, I have the greatest respect for the faith of fundamentalist believers, while not necessarily their application of reason or informed understanding. What many atheists do not appear to fully grasp is how widespread and varied are religious experiences. From the ubiquitous encounters with “spirit entities” to the profound daily encounters of believers within prayer, to the mystical reveries of many people who never talk about it openly, people with authentic faith search for better clarity in understanding their experience. They sometimes make sense with inadequate use of reason, or hold onto unnecessary creationist presumptions that no longer are compatible with well-educated scholarship, but such has always been the case, and such is also the case in the history of people who deem themselves to be (solely) scientists or atheists. So it is for me, so it is for you.
We don’t need to have this antipathy against religion just because we have found cause to be hurt by believers or organized religious systems. The most universal definitions of “religion” involve the very search for meaning, truth, and righteous action as “religious”, with or without a developed theology. For those who are open to the ongoing debate between the opposing extremes, it can be found in much better places than USA today. A good book for atheists to explore initially, who wish to keep an open mind, is the classic by psychologist and philosopher William James entitled, “The Varieties of Religious Experience”.
In closing let me say, as some of the comments have implied, that morality eventually does become a purely subjective phenomenon if left to reason alone. Even B.F. Skinner was eventually forced to (scientifically) admit that what one values has no objective meaning because free choice (in his view) is only an illusion. For those who wish to put their faith in science alone, the “objective natural order,” studied and perceived within our limited human capacity for “truth”, can become its own external god. For those of us who can and do experience something perceived as spiritually self-transcendent, the reality felt is its own proof. Either way, we have something in common. God bless.
Why on Earth should he refrain from engaging with the general public, and in as widely-distrubted a forum with as loud a megaphone as is available to him?
I’m trying to think of charitable motives to attribute to your repeated exhortations that he just shut the hell up, already, but I’m failing miserably.
Cheers,
b&
Urb, my antipathy toward religion is mostly (but not entirely) predicated on the damage it does to believers. We only exist for a short period, and all of us should be able to see and experience and be fully emersed in that reality, but theism in general and religions in general create a thick fog bank of unsupportable nonsense that prevents the devout from really entering into their own existence. It’s like wearing a condom made of tractor tire innertubing. I’m not saying atheism is exactly “safe sex” (it has its scary side), but at least you get to fully feel what reality consists of.
Greg, your described antipathy due to damage caused in the name of religion gets no argument here. I would only suggest that we may have a different personal experience with regard to how extensive the other side of that reality is as well. In one of your earlier comments you acknowledged some heightened moral sensibility for yourself while Christian. I would call that a positive dimension of lived faith. In this ol’ timer’s experience to date, which has not been the most exhaustive admittedly, but has included living within seven different states or Canadian provinces, I have witnessed repeatedly how maturely open religious outlook has demonstrated a model of sacrificial love that deeply inspires, motivates, and liberates. I know that my experience alone cannot legitimize much of organized religion. I only suggest looking beyond that surface dimension of the evils caused by people who profess faith, to find some of the profound writings, life stories,and fascinating brushes with mystery found in religious traditions. The Beatles in my generation went searching for it. So did William James, C.S. Lewis, and countless others who weren’t made a celebrity other than to the children they raised and the people who loved them. I would never deny the capacity to love and live a moral life if one professes atheism, only that in my own forays into doubt, science alone or philosophy held no riches of spirit to match. We are simply more than our heads can hold. If I am wrong (as I can always entertain purely by reason), I will never know. But if believers are correct that we as beings transcend what we see, touch, taste, hear, and smell, the possibilities are simply glorious — not only in some afterlife, where I trust moral atheists will be just as welcome as I am, but in the here and now as well. I only suggest in regard to this thread that inspired religious experience is not the intellectual folly some would hold it to be. Best regards.
Urb. I came across THIS over at the Dawkins site about how some Dutch people are rethinking “Christianity for a doubtful world”
It’s not a coherent idea, but at least it shows that people today from all walks of life care passionately about what is TRUE.
Mark Jones’ comment above & the embedded Billy Connolly video are important ~ Asking “Why” is usually the wrong question. Better to ask is it TRUE ? At least that forces one to define terms & check the consistency of ones axioms regarding first causes etc.
Thanks, Michael. It was an interesting article. While I personally think that the anecdotal evidence for some kind of afterlife is tremendous, if not rigorously scientific, the opinions otherwise put forth are not unusual in today’s Christianity, especially for the Dutch. America’s fundamentalism is regarded as quite extreme across much of Europe. I agree that it is about TRUTH (capitalized, to be sure).
This bit
is opaque to me. What ever do you mean ?
Just that honest and open dialogue about traditional tenets of faith goes on more widely than many would be aware. As a mental health therapist, I have regularly met these questions, doubts, and opinions voiced, though I never solicit them. People struggle to find or give lasting meaning to their lives, and the opinions voiced in the article have been put forth more openly since the 19th century (especially) in various mediums by people who still find their identity as “Christian” important. And, to my knowledge since the 1960’s, the Netherlands has been a center of such challenging Christian thought. That is not to say that all of this has been without reaction, but that is to be expected and is desirable as long as it is not stifling of enquiry (which has also occurred). I observe, Michael, that many reject religion more absolutely from their doubts because those doubts have not been validated by religious leaders — who are more fearful than faithful. Best regards, Michael.
Well, for what it’s worth, Urb, I was (and to some extent remain) a huge Lewis fan and have read everything he wrote, many things more than once. My also atheist girlfriend finds my quotes from Mere Christianity and The Screwtape letters amusing. I do think that at its best, religion, and perhaps particular some versions of Christianity, can inspire many of the worthy acts and sensibilities you list, and yes, I did find that to be true for me. Having the same capacity as an atheist does require more work, because we do not yet have, and may never have, a comparably inspiring narrative to draw on (though I do think that Philip Pullman’s notion of a Republic of Heaven comes close). But having ceded all that, I am still struck that Christianity, for any good thing I might be able to say for it, is still MISTAKEN when it comes to reality. Further, it has features that I just find absurd. I realize that the sophisticated, modern theist has devised no end of clever work-arounds for some of these issues, but to me they are transparent attempts to avoid the truth that the emperor, no matter how kindly or wise, is still buck naked. I wish you the best and appreciate your thoughtful and respectful comments, but I can’t shake the feeling that your position dodges the real issue–and that is how to live well in a universe that has no god. That is the actual task before us. The success of Christianity at its best, and the insights of some of its luminaries, can no doubt contribute to that answer. But a wholesale acceptance of Christian doctrine will probably do more harm than good, based as it is on contortions and misinformation. A prime example is belief in an afterlife. I think that one error may be responsible for more mischief than any other. This is it. We are not in dress rehearsal, and this is not a dry run. If we do not work for justice, kindness, harmless pleasures, and a sense of accomplishment in the here and now, we should expect to lose our opportunity for them completely. We have less than no reason to think there is any life beyond this one, because everything we know about the loss of the physical brain corresponds to a loss of the metaphysical mind. Rather than going on now, however, let me just reiterate that I enjoyed reading your comments, though I find them to rest on mistakes of reasoning. But nowhere would I fault your motivation for clinging to those errors.
I have to give you huge props for the “Republic of Heaven” reference. I love His Dark Materials on a ton of different levels.
Thanks, Greg. I appreciate the respect and serious critique of your comment. While your conclusion about a “universe that has no god” sounds very final (it is, I would add, the great Western experiment of our time), I hope you are one whose sense of mystery in the world remains open to debating that outcome and listening to contrary opinions. Your example of the nonexistent afterlife is a good one for understanding how rigid a worldview can become on your side of the divide. The experiential, but still empirical, evidence for the reality of some form of afterlife is truly immense, crossing all ages and cultures, and is attested to by staggering numbers of sane and reliable witnesses, including atheists (rarely documented well on TV). Yet it has been so summarily dismissed by the mainstream scientific community as delusion. Not only religious leadership can be rigidly blind to reality. Any worldview that denies experience wholesale is at risk for self-delusion.
Anyway, while we may disagree on what constitutes particular errors of that sort, I’m glad we have mutual respect for motive, desire for justice and kindness in the here and now — and Lewis — in common. Best wishes.
I must question your comment you gave that many nonbeliever won’t accept new ideas and acknowledge the mystery in the the world. We accept that the world is filled with mystery but it is not our burden to prove that god does not live in this mystery. It is the burden of the believer to show evidence that proves god’s existence. At least at present we just don’t see real proof.
With Respect,
Jim
Nonsense.
“Nonsense”
On that dismissive reply from Tulse I will leave this thread and site with a sigh. It has been an interesting part of my day off. I wish to all who contributed openly and thoughtfully to this discussion my thanks and best regards.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
These things are empirically nonsense, and if you don’t get that there is no discussion to be had.
Oh, and the point with Hamlet’s dialog is that speaking with “ghosts” (and brothers murdering, and wives remarrying) may be out of touch with common morality, but that these things occur in the real world.
The letter seems to questions why Dr. Coyne would write an article like he did in USA Today; a paper that has never been accused of being a scholarly journal. I commend Dr. Coyne for what he has done. The uninformed public needs to hear this. It is time that we question whether it is right that we should frame every debate in society as the right opinion ordained by God or the other opinion representing evil.