Sophisticated theology: why we don’t find God

October 12, 2011 • 4:29 am

Why isn’t there more evidence for God in the world? Not to worry—sophisticated theologians have the answer.  Here’s John Haught, whom I‘ll “debate” this evening in Kentucky, explaining God’s absence in a videotaped conversation with, of all people, Robert Wright.  It all has to do with theology’s increasing recognition (based, of course, on tons of evidence) that God is humble:

A humble god would not overwhelm the world, would not stick out prominently as one object among others, which is what religion often looks for. And we’re disappointed because we don’t find that kind of God: we find a very unavailable kind of God. But the unavailability of God is a correlate of the fact that we find a universe which is constantly striving to become itself.

Are objects like glaciers and sand dunes are also constantly striving to become themselves?

This is another great example of theology’s ability to convert scientific necessities into religious virtues.  To paraphrase Delos McKown: “A very unavailable God and a nonexistent God look very much alike.”

______

If you’re near Lexington, Kentucky, come out and hear the debate tonight. I believe my book will be on sale and I’ll be signing it.

Day one of the religion debates in Kentucky

October 11, 2011 • 8:05 am

The KentuckyKernel (the daily student paper of the University of Kentucky) reports on the first day of the three-day series of debates about religion that I’m involved in at the University of Kentucky.

Last night’s debate featured Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman and David Hunter, a professor of literature, language, and culture, debating whether faith is compatible with history.  The paper reports:

Ehrman said three steps led him to his current position as an agnostic and away from being a fundamentalist Christian.

“I was a fundamentalist,” Ehrman said. “No ‘fun,’ too much ‘damn’ and not enough ‘mental.’”

The three steps were his study of the early manuscripts of the Bible, his historical investigation of the Bible itself and his historical critical study outside of the Bible.

“I could no longer believe that there was a loving, all-powerful God in control of this world,” Erhman said.

David G. Hunter, a professor at UK in the department of modern and classical languages, literatures and cultures, took the opposite side of the debate as person of Catholic faith.

He discussed faith as “a particular way of looking at the world,” saying faith and unfaith were “different interpretations of reality.”

Hunter began his discussion addressing the topic of whether faith and history are compatible.

“Faith and reason can never be in complete conflict,” Hunter said, giving the explanation that they were of different perspectives.

“Faith and unfaith are different interpretations of reality”? What doublespeak! They are conflicting and incompatible interpretations of reality.  Or rather, unfaith—I presume this means science and rationality—tells us what reality is, while faith tells us what people want reality to be.

As for the old canard “faith and reason can never be in complete conflict,” think about that for a minute. Why couldn’t they be in complete conflict—at least with respect to their philosophy, methodology, and what “truth” they tell us about the universe?

And they are in conflict in all these areas.  A worldview that relies on revelation, dogma, and acceptance of those things that you want to believe must necessarily be in complete conflict with a worldview that relies on evidence, doubt, empiricism, and acceptance of only those things for which there’s evidence, whether or not you want those things to be true.  What Scripture tells us is true (I’m not referring here to moral prescriptions) is almost wholly in conflict with what reason and science tells us is true.

Feynman, of course, best characterized the reason why science and faith are incompatible, giving perhaps the pithiest explanation I’ve seen of how science works:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.

In contrast, the first principle of religion is that you must fool yourself, finding in the universe only those things that support your beliefs, and harmonizing all possible observations with what you want to be true. Evolution?  That’s God’s way of bringing about His Creation! The Holocaust? Evil is simply an inexorable and unavoidable byproduct of God’s gift of free will.

Theology is merely an intellectual game of self-foolery. And many theologians are very good at it.

Mason Crumpacker and the Hitchens reading list

October 11, 2011 • 3:51 am

This is a longish post, but you will want to read it in its entirety. Trust me.

When Christopher Hitchens got the Dawkins Award in Houston, I posted the following report from Chron.com:

Though [Hitchens] was asked a variety of questions from the audience, none appeared to elicit more interest than the one asked by eight-year-old Mason Crumpacker, who wanted to know what books she should read. In response, Hitchens first asked where her mother was and the girl indicated that she was siting beside her. He then asked to see them once the presentation was over so that he could give her a list.

As the event drew to a close, Mason and her mom, Anne Crumpacker of Dallas, followed him out. Surrounded by attendees wanting a glance of the famed author, Hitchens sat on a table just outside of the ballroom and spent about 15 minutes recommending books to Mason.

Here’s a photo from Chron.com of Hitchens speaking to Mason (note the person behind her holding a cat):

If you read the comments after that original post, you’ll know that Anne Crumpacker, apparently a reader here, added a few observations.  She’s now sent me a scan of the reading list that Hitchens recommended to Mason, as well as a beautiful thank-you note that Mason wrote to Hitchens. I’ve had it forwarded to Christopher via Richard, and post it here with Mason’s permission. Finally, at my request Anne wrote her own account of the incident:

First, the reading list, about which Anne says, “Most of the notes were written by me, but he took my pen to write ‘Tale of Two Cities’ and ‘Sunset at Blandings’.”

And here is Mason’s wonderful thank-you letter, which, unless you’re made of stone, will make you tear up:

Dear Mr. Hitchens,

Thank you for your kindness to me and all of the wonderful books you recommended to help me think for myself. Thank you also for taking my question very seriously. When I was talking to you I felt important because you treated me like a grown up.  I feel very fortunate to have met you.  I think more children should read books.   I also think that all adults should be honest to children like you to me.  For the rest of my life I will remember and cherish our meeting and will try to continue to ask questions.

Sincerely,
Mason

P.S. I would like to start with “The Myths” by Robert Graves.

What a wonderful and grounded child! Richard told me this about her: “By the way, Mason was one of the children who sat at the front of my lecture on the following day, and one of the children whom I called up on stage, ‘Christmas Lectures’-style, to help me demonstrate the App of The Magic of Reality.”

Here’s a picture of Mason, used with her permission:

Finally, Mason’s mom Anne sends the following account of the episode:

“Mommy, I want to ask a question.”

I looked up from my cheesecake, “Yes?”

“No, I want to ask a question on the microphone.  Can I?”

“I suppose.” Sip of coffee.“Is it a good question?”

“Yes, I think so.”

“Is it respectful?”

“Yes.”

“Fine.”

“Well, how do I do it?”

I’m back to the cheesecake, “You’ll need to find the man with the microphone.”

And then, in one of my more embarrassing parenting moments, my eight-year-old daughter trotted off into the darkened ballroom of approximately one thousand hardcore atheists in pursuit of an answer.  Meanwhile, I was smugly back to dessert, confident that there was no way in hell that she could work her way to “the man with the microphone.”  Now I could listen to the question and answers in peace.  Until a little voice said,

“What books should I read?”

Now, anyone who thinks that a loving mother from Texas would plant her child to ask a question at an atheist convention would either have to be half-crazy or have never been to Texas.

Rick Perry at the Response  (this is where we live).

That is why Christopher Hitchens, asked, “Where’s your mother?’  Because, unlike the blog that broke the story, I was on the other side of that darkened ballroom choking on cheesecake.

But, that is what it is like to be Mason’s mom.

So, where did the question come from?  I know all too well where she got the idea.  Earlier that day she had been in line with me while Mr. Hitchens and Dr. Richard Dawkins were signing books.  Mason is rather impressed with Richard Dawkins for his Growing Up in the Universe series.  She figures he gets “about a million dollars a word for talking.”  However, Christopher Hitchens hadn’t hit her radar yet, but she overheard me praising his closing remarks (04:36) at the Hitchens/ Dembski debate held in the Dallas area in November 2010, “It was just brilliant when you encourage the students to ask questions and read for themselves, “ I sputtered.   Little pitchers have big ears….

The banquet had not been billed as an open Q&A, but I was as excited as everyone else in the room to have “Hitch” answering questions and donning out “Hitchslaps” to absent adversaries, which he resumed after her little question.   Although he offered to talk to Mason alone after the program, I thought this would be forgotten in the hubbub.  However, he didn’t forget and what happen next has sparked such interest that you can actually Google my eight-year-old’s name.  For the record, her father and I never gave our permission for her name, her image, my name, or our hometown to be published.  It just happened and we can only hope that we will be supported by the freethought community and left alone by everyone else.  So far, so good.

The reading list has gone viral over various atheist blogs.  Mason is even been given an alternate Christian reading list in a Calvinist YouTube video from Manchester, England.  We allowed her to respond in the comments. Frankly, she is loving the attention.

[JAC note: I asked Anne if Mason had seen this odious video. Anne responded: “And yes, she has seen the video.  She rolled her eyes and said,  ‘Will you listen to this guy!  He must go to Baylor!’  We let her respond in the comments to the video.  She loved it.”

Here is what Mason wrote on YouTube in response to the video:

“This is why I did not ask YOU!!! All you ever talked about in this vid was Christianity!!!!!! I’ve read the Bible and frankly it’s ALL scary!!! You have to learn that sometimes kids need to boost their intellectual capability and look beyond God! P.S. Mr Hitchens has a WAY, WAY better taste in books ! At least he asked me what I wanted to read!! >:P.] Now back to Anne’s tale:

As for me, I am grateful for this opportunity to respond and clear up a few misconceptions.

The conversation took place on an exhibit table just outside the ballroom as the banquet was coming to a close.  Mr. Hitchens and Mason were eye-to-eye.   I didn’t have a camera,  since I was so surprised by the spontaneity of the whole thing that I had left in my purse under the table in the ballroom, but I grabbed a program and took notes.  There is a perception that Christopher Hitchens gave Mason a list, but it wasn’t like that.  It was far more special and interesting.

I’ll paraphrase as best as I can from memory.  I’ll mess up the details, but I’ll capture the spirit….

“Well, so you like to read?’

“Yes.”

“What are you reading now?”

“Harry Potter”

“Good. Which one are you on? Which number?”

“Oh, well, really the Subtle Knife by Philip Pullman.  I like it a lot.”

“Good.  So, is this your first meeting like this?”

“Yes.”

“Why did you come?  Curiosity?  Wait, I won’t answer my own question.”

Pause…. “I wanted to hear other great freethinkers because that is what I want to be when I grow up.”

(I jumped in and explained that we are trying to convince Mason that she is a child and can make up her mind later.  We just want her to be a critical thinker for now.)

“Well then, you should better start with some science books.  I hear Richard has written quite a good one.  What is it called?’  Laughter from the small crowd forming…“The Magic of Reality,” someone offered. “and then some Greek and Roman myths.  A man named Robert Graves has a nice collection . I like them for the beauty of the language.”

“I’ve already read those.”

“Really?”

“Yes.”  (Well, no, not really.  She has read many Greek and Roman myths, but not Robert Graves.  She recognized his name because she adores Derek Jacobi in I, Claudius.  Number one fan in the eight-year-old set.  Would love a photo.)

“Do you know your history?  Are you learning it in school?”

“I go to a French school, so it is mostly French history.  Last year we did le Prehistoire.  This year we are doing le Moyen Age.”

“Impressive.  Well, I think you have that covered then.  French?  Any Montesquieu?  No, that probably comes later.” A glance at me,  “Satirical works are good.  Any Shakespeare?“

“Oh, yes!”

“Yes, he’s good…. hmm. Well, let’s add Chaucer then.  So, tell me, do you know how other little girls are treated in the world?”

“Yes.”

“How?”

“Sometimes they are hurt… abused.”

“That’s right.  You may enjoy reading a book by a young lady I know where she talks about that.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali, maybe just the first part where she talks about growing up.”

“Oh, yes.  I know.  My mom is half-way through the Qur’an,”  (I am indeed.  Hopelessly stuck.  Unable to go on.)

“ What else… You’re doing better than I did at your age (ah, flattery!).  How old was I when I first read A Tale of Two Cities?  Yes, that’s good.  Any Dickens really.  Dickens teaches children to love to read.”

“Ok, how about something for a bit of fun.  Any PG. Wodehouse?  No?”

A crowd member offers, “Sunset at Blandings.”

A smile of recognition from Hitchens, “Yes, excellent.”

We get notice that the banquet is about to break up and Hitchens is being helped to his feet.  He looked tired, but was smiling.  I can’t remember what he said to Mason or me in parting, but not wishing  the meeting to end I quickly asked, “Any philosophers?”

“Hume. David Hume, yes, but you’ll have to help her with the language. Good-bye.  Good luck.”

“Could you email me the list?  I have a little girl and we would really love the list.”

“Of course,” and I started collecting emails.  People were taking about my horrible little notes and someone from the Houston Chronicle interviewed me quickly using a cellphone camera.

The next morning Mason and I were “outed” as non-believers.  Me really—Mason is too young to decide.

I’m not a professional writer, just a mom, but if I get to make only one comment it would be this:  There isn’t a magic reading list.  Never was.  Never will be.  The reason what transpired that night was memorable was the wondrous Socratic feel of the exchange.  Here was a man, a great thinker of our time who has spent his life developing and honing his intellect, challenging the next generation to pick up the mantle.  What all these books have in common is they demand us to question, search and engage.  They don’t preach, patronize or indoctrinate.  They are joyful expression of the whole of the human experience.  The very best examples of a life fully lived.

We are about to lose a giant among us, but we, as atheists know there can be no greater Valhalla then to join the great conversation of the philosophers.  We can honor Christopher Hitchens’ life by teaching our children his best virtues: to study broadly, to laugh heartily, to fight ardently, and to question relentlessly.  Books are timeless companions and friends.  Mason will surely spend her life in the company of illustrious authors gone before.  Naturally, she was introduced to many of them that night by a kind man, with flashing eyes, sitting at a table who is about to join their company. 

Note by JAC:  Texas is a hard place to live for atheists and agnostics, so perhaps readers would like to post a brief message to Mason, her mom, or both. If one little girl can be taught to think for herself, so can a million young people.

____________

Many thanks to Anne and Mason for sharing their experience. Oh, and here’s the reading list from Chron.com:

Hitchens’ list of books and authors: Dawkins’ Magic of Reality, Greek and Roman myths, particularly those compiled by Robert Graves, anything satirical, all of  Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (author of Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations), PG Wodehouse (“for fun”), David Hume, and Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.

The Atlantic equates criticism of religion to racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism

October 11, 2011 • 3:31 am

In Sunday’s Atlantic, James Fallows “Just for the record: anti-Mormonism is bigotry, too.

 To be against Mitt Romney (or Jon Huntsman or Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch) because of his religion is just plain bigotry. Exactly as it would have been to oppose Barack Obama because of his race or Joe Lieberman because of his faith or Hillary Clinton or Michele Bachmann because of their gender or Mario Rubio or Nikki Haley because of their ethnicity. . .

But for people to come out and say that they won’t back a candidate because he’s Mormon and therefore a “cult” member is no better than saying “I’d never trust a Jew” or “a black could never do the job” or “women should stay in their place” or “Latinos? Let ’em go back home.” Maybe it makes things more “honest” for people to be open about their anti-Mormonism and discreet about other prejudices. The only two biases people aren’t embarrassed expressing publicly are anti-Southern (the “Bubba factor”) and anti-Mormon. Still, it’s bigotry.

No it’s not.  Doesn’t Fallows realize that someone’s embrace of a superstition like Mormonism is not the same as their being a black, a Latino, or a woman? You have no choice about your ethnicity or gender, but you do have a choice about your religion.  True, saying “never trust a Jew” is bigotry, but when voting for a political candidate, especially in these times when we often seem to be verging on theocracy, we can surely weigh whether or not that candidate embraces untenable and unevidenced views.

And highly religious political candidates are in a particularly dangerous position, for they might be tempted to impose their religious views on the rest of us.  I wasn’t particularly opposed to Francis Collins’s being named as director of the National Institutes of Health (though I was worried about what he might do with stuff like stem-cell research), for it’s hard to impose religious views on science itself.  Politics is a different kettle of fish.

And yes, embracing religion, except, perhaps of the most innocuous form (e.g., the Unitarian Universalists), is a character flaw, and should be weighed before you pull that lever in the voting booth.

h/t: Grania Spingies

Unbelievable: Dawkins event banned in Michigan

October 10, 2011 • 4:11 pm

The Center for Inquiry reports that because of Richard Dawkins’s atheism, a country club in Michigan banned an event at which he was going to talk about his new children’s book:

Prejudice against atheists manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by th eCenter for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
The Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

I posted the O’Reilly video a while back, and the person who should be shunned (not banned) is the odious O’Reilly himself, who accused Richard of using his book to propagandize children with atheism.

The CfI also reports that “Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions.” That means that they’re not allowed to discriminate against such events based on issues of gender, race, or religion.

This is a job for the Freedom from Religion Foundation—or the ACLU.  Stay tuned.

h/t: The Rev. El Mundo

“I’m not going to quit until I absolutely have to“: videos of Hitchens in Texas

October 10, 2011 • 7:48 am

As you know, Christopher Hitchens took time off from his chemotherapy to attend the Atheist Alliance of America convention in Houston, Texas to receive the Richard Dawkins Award for promoting freethought and atheism.  Here, hot off YouTube, are the three videos of Richard announcing the award and Hitchens’s response. Together they’re about 25 minutes long.

Hitch’s speech will move you; that I guarantee.

Richard’s announcement:

Hitchens’s response:

Hitchens answers audience questions:

And here’s a reader’s comment on a previous post about Hitchens, which I thought I’d put up here as a tribute:

I was in the audience when he received that award. Me and my SSA group were all in tears as he spoke – with his recognition of his ‘time’ approaching, of his wanting his children to know his tenderest life moments, and his immense humility, and the moments where he paused because he needed to cough and have a drink (but apologized as though he were inconveniencing us through his illness). I freely confess I haven’t cried so hard in a very long time… nor have I felt so sad for the death of another person outside of my family. I will miss Christopher Hitchens, and I feel like I knew him, even if he never knew me. We all know him. I am glad that I saw him at this convention, because I recognize that it might be the last.

h/t: Michael

UPDATE: New Statesman covered it too.