I Smite Thee, Atheist Rogue!
Thanks, 3, for throwing down the gauntlet. We haven't had a good religion row in ages. I guess we were due. What's so wrong about ABC doing a story on Hell? If we can spend countless TV news hours on Paris Hilton and the justice system, we can surely extend our interest to the next level of punishment. Religion contributes to both intellectual and popular culture in America. It probably gets less attention from the news than it deserves.
I hate to agree with Gerson, but he's mostly right, and he's right for the right reasons. He doesn't deny that atheists can be moral people. Of course they can be, and often are. I'd go farther than he does here. It seems to me that atheism is often born of a longing for justice that turns its gaze upon the injustices arising from within religion and theism, making it spiritually more serious than most conventional religiosity, based as the latter often is in social conformity. Gerson just denies that atheism, as a world view, can finally justify the better angels of our nature against untrammeled self-assertion. At best you're left with tragedy and uncertainty, at worst, nihilism. Although I consider the former option a respectable one, I'm not so sure that it can be the foundation of a just social order (as opposed to individual ethic). Religion, by contrast, provides institutional supports and public justifications for other-regarding behavior and beliefs. Of course, since this is religion and not science, it means that theism is partly a projection of human hope, just as hell is a mystification of man's desire for justice. A news story that examines that issue with some seriousness should be welcomed.
posted by tenaciousmcd @ 11:40 AM
20 Comments:
"Gerson just denies that atheism, as a world view, can finally justify the better angels of our nature against untrammeled self-assertion."
But can this thing called "theism" Gerson talks about do any better? It seems to me that the "ultimate" answer of "theism" is that the "Deity" says so. What the "Deity" (I think that's the right form to use with "theism") says is moral, is moral.
That might mean not to eat shellfish, or to grow facial hair (of a certain kind), or to treat women as personal property. So long as the Deity says it, it's moral.
If I want to know why eating a certain kind of food, or shaving my beard, is wrong--is a kind of self-assertion--is there a good answer that justifies my "self-denial"?
Because the "Deity" said so.
Do you really find that answer satisfactory?
The idea that a just social order must be based on God is profoundly illiberal. Really, it's just theocracy. On such a basis anything is possible, including Bin Laden's caliphate. Thankfully, the American civil religion celebrates an easy-going, less demanding, more tolerant, fundamentally liberal God. But the basis is no different: "a just society is grounded in my vision of God."
Grounding your society in God just begs the question of what kind of God you've envisioned. Whose God? The ultraorthodox Jewish settlers? Bin Laden's? Pat Robertson's? Serbian nationalists'? The Wahabbi God? What a waste of time to debate such things. People believe what they grew up believing, by and large.
As a liberal, I believe that the only answers to questions of social justice available are those that begin by assuming individual equality and then asking what kind of social contract could best respect that fundamental equality.
But even if one isn't willing to go that far with liberalism, I still think it's necessary for anyone who wants to ground social justice in God to figure out how that is possible in a diverse country encompassing an enormous variety of religious beliefs.
I know that asking atheists to talk about religion with something resembling respect is a tall order, but is it too much to ask for a little reasoned discrimination? You two talk about religion the way George Wallace talked about black people. Excuse me if I don't find your minstrel show iconoclasm very convincing.
#3 seems to think that just because some religions call for odd rituals or peculiar expressions of communal belonging, they've forfeited their claim on morality. Sure, that shellfish thing is weird, given inherent yumminess issues, but I don't think this exactly ranks with human sacrifice on the injustice scale. Divine command may seem silly to you, but it certainly helps a lot of believers persevere in the face of selfish or worldy temptations. You may not recognize this, but there is no consensus among Xians or religious belivers generally that "divine command" is the final line of moral reasoning, as opposed to a heuristic device, although the evangelicals and jihadis certainly favor your view.
Meanwhile, Frances's entire comment is based on a (willful?) misreading of what I said above. Nowhere do I call for theocracy, as Frances would know if she had ever... I don't know... had ONE conversation about religion with me. I didn't say POLITICAL order, I said SOCIAL order. As a good pluralist when it comes to religion, I value diverse competition of religions in the social sphere, and I embrace their participation in politics as long as they don't seek to impose points of strictly religious doctrine on the public sphere. Which, of course, is why I often refer to "religion" or "theism" rather than ranting about how if you don't convert to Presbyterianism you're going to burn in Hell.
What I do object to, however, is this radical secularism that pisses its pants if a TV network even takes a cross-confessional (or even social sci/historical) approach to a religious topic. God forbid you have to suffer through a 30 second commerical that mentions the word "Hell." And I'll stand by the claim that a culture that embraces religious faith in a pluralistic manner will be morally superior to one that denies any place for religious expression or investigation. Or maybe you'll just respond that your model worked pretty well for Stalin.
Um, my point is that divine command is not a satisfactory answer to the "why not?" question. Given that the argument was that atheism couldn't satisfactorily answer that question, I think that's a good point, and not more disrespectful than Gerson's op-ed.
As for divine command not being the ultimate answer . . . we're in the territory of the paradoxes caused by the belief in an omnipotent deity. (So it's fully possible that this is not the ultimate answer for those without a belief in a single omnipotent God, but let's stick with that tradition for right now.) It's possible that a few intellectuals, dissatisfied with the "because God said" ultimate answer, have found ways to cabin God's omnipotence with some moral principles, but that makes my head hurt.
And please don't misunderstand the tone of my Hell post--it was meant to be mocking, chiefly of the "journalists" involved and their "news values." I certainly respect the right of my fellow citizens to believe in Heaven, Hell, sacred undergarments, limbo, Paradise (with 72 virgins), guardian angels, the Earth Goddess, miracles, faith healing, infant baptism, lucky rabbits feet, danishes that look like Jesus, lucky socks, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I do reserve the right to mock, gently, beliefs that seem to me to be completely unfounded.
That mockery certainly doesn't pose a risk to a pluralistic society--a pluralistic society, I might add, in which those with beliefs like mine are basically disqualified for most elected and many appointed offices based purely on their beliefs. It's easy to be the defender of a pluralistic society when you are welcomed within the plurality.
"Radical secularism" is an O'Reilly term. Have you been watching The Factor?
You're right that I didn't know you meant to draw a strong distinction between the social and political orders. Though I'm not sure what you're including within the two spheres. But from my perspective God can't be the basis of either, given that people profoundly disagree on what God wants (and about 2% of us don't believe in God at all.)
I hate O'Reilly as much as the next guy, which is why it pisses me off when liberals make him look like he's actually on to something. You can bitch all you want about government-supported religion and I'm with you, but when you complain about a mere recognition of religion by a single TV program, you need to accept that you're acting like an atheist jihadist.
I know that militant destroy-all-religions atheism is really hip right now, what with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens running around hyping their books (gee, CH had brilliant things to say about Iraq, I wonder what he thinks about religion!?). Beware what you wish for. A social order without religion is likely to be more materialistic, more conformist, less just, and less diverse than one without it.
#3, as for your "divine command" argument, it's pretty pathetic and reductive. Gerson does not make the claims you attribute to him. He does not claim that "God told me to" answers every specific moral question, e.g., shellfish and beards. He simply suggests that theists have an answer to the larger macro-question of why choose ethics over self-interst, a question for which atheists have no answer beyond personal preference. Religion posits the moral order of human life as part of a larger whole that justifies and sustains it. You can mock that, but it is not a silly argument. But, of course, like Dawkins and Hitchens, you're content to argue that the vast majority of human beings are braying conformist morons, worshipping the logical equivalent of the Great Spaghetti Monster. Such arrogance puts the fundies to shame.
On the Gerson piece, I highly recommend Hilzoy's commentary at Obsidian Wings.
Sheesh, TMcD, I wish we could have a discussion without you impugning my motives: I'm not arrogant; I don't want to destroy religion; I'm not trying to be "hip" like Richard Dawkins, as if atheism could ever possibly be hip. (BTW: Christopher Hitchens is an embarrassment to atheism.) I'm just a nonbeliever. I'm not uncertain about whether I believe or not - I just don't believe.
The world does look different from a nonbeliever's vantage point. And it simply does look like a crazy distortion of news priorities to do a big story on hell when there is so much more important stuff out there in the real world to be reporting on. It's not as though we have enough hard news coverage, in any case. And 20/20 is supposed to be a serious investigative news program! But I guess if news shows were aimed at an atheist audience, they'd get even poorer ratings than they already do.
#3, as for your "divine command" argument, it's pretty pathetic and reductive. Gerson does not make the claims you attribute to him. He does not claim that "God told me to" answers every specific moral question, e.g., shellfish and beards. He simply suggests that theists have an answer to the larger macro-question of why choose ethics over self-interst, a question for which atheists have no answer beyond personal preference.
Perhaps my argument is reductive, but I don't think it's "pathetic." To the extent that "theists" posit an answer to the "macro-question," it has to be divine command, no?
And the point of the shellfish and beards point is that "theists" like to claim that their religiously grounded morality is responsible for civil rights etc., but that religiously motivated beliefs often involve less grandiose aims, like making sure that women wear skirts (pants! on women!), or men wear their hair in a certain manner, or dietary laws, or infant baptism.
Religion posits the moral order of human life as part of a larger whole that justifies and sustains it. You can mock that, but it is not a silly argument.
Is there a persuasive argument for the "larger whole" that doesn't rest on the fear that the contrary is unthinkable (i.e., without a larger whole, human life is without cosmic significance)?
But, of course, like Dawkins and Hitchens, you're content to argue that the vast majority of human beings are braying conformist morons, worshipping the logical equivalent of the Great Spaghetti Monster. Such arrogance puts the fundies to shame.
Um, I will concur that "the vast majority of human beings are braying conformist morons." Gladly. Do I need to submit evidentiary exhibits? Because I can, you know.
The question of whether the gods worshipped by the "theists" are "the logical equivalent of the Great Spaghetti Monster" [sic]," I will defer to the "theists" to decide. I mean, you don't believe in the Muslim revelation, right? Or the Mormon revelation? And you don't believe that the Messiah is yet to return, as do (at least some) Jews? You don't believe that the Buddha unlocked the secret of human releasement from the cycle of reincarnation, or the Scientologist crap (whatever it is). There is no Asgard, or Olympus, or Happy Hunting Grounds, right?
Isn't belief in reincarnation "the logical equivalent" of Asgard, or Mormonism, in your view?
The whole idea of faith is that it's not logical.
This is where I'm with the German Shepherd--take that doctrine seriously. Don't act like there's such a thing as "theism." (Gerson!)
Boy am I sorry I missed out on THIS argument. I was in New Orleans - where, for the record, Bug and Frankus are locationally right - and just got back.
I can do very little to improve on TMcD's points and will only add this bit vis a vis the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I often meet people who think not believing in God ("I believe in science!") makes them smart. More than a few of them have brought up the FSM thing as an added little bonus to prove not only that they're smart but also that Christians are dumb. Since I actually am smart - and most of these people, as TMcD mentions, are the dumb blind followers - it takes me about thirty seconds to expose their ignorance (either of the Bible (almost none of them ever know the difference between the Old and New Testaments) or of "science" (it turns out they are usually shockingly deficient in actual non-Good Book learning, too)).
Since Bug is the smartest person I know, I hope he stops resorting to - or, really, just mentioning - such low and lame examples as the FSM. It really is very stupid, and designed only to make believers appear silly.
I am so mad I missed this stuff! This is pure gold. More of this on this blog, I demand it.
I originally wrote a post echoing Dawkins and Hitchens, but I'll just say that getting upset because Dawkins et al. insult your intelligence is not the same thing as responding to his arguments. The overwhelming likelihood is that God doesn't exist, and I've yet to hear a coherent argument to the contrary (this obviously doesn't mean that one does not exist). In addition, He is logically equivilant to Asgard, Thor, and the FSM--as far as I can tell. I'm not totally comfortable basing my whole social order on falsehoods, for many reasons.
Hey Wilson, I'll play. But this is going to be hard to do in the written word; it's a subject best talked about in person, I think, just cause there are so many ways to take people's words out of context (and as absolutes). Still, I'll give it a quick shot.
Here's what I'm going to do instead of talking about Thor - I'm going to flip the tables on you. I'm going to ask you a very simple and fundamental question: Where did life on earth come from?
Since I know you don't know you have to either BELIEVE something that is most likely a falsehood ("It was a meteor skipping off of Mars!") or something that asks more questions than it answers ("It was lightning striking a pool of amino acids!") or you have to admit that you don't know.
So neither of us knows. But I'm comfortable believing something that I can't prove. You aren't, according to your post.
But actually, you are. I could ask you a million such questions that science hasn't (or can't) answer. Your answer will always be the same: we don't know yet, but science will let us know in the future.
So you have faith that science can and will answer your questions. But science has an amazingly poor track record of correctly answering hard, macro questions. You know, the sort that are incompatible with God.
Science is pretty good at the micro questions (explaining photosyntheis, killing bacteria) but those are not mutually exclusive of a deity.
Are you sure you're not totally comfortable basing your whole social order on falsehoods? Isn't it a short step from ignorance to falsehood?
Vis a vis the beginning of life: until you have your own explanation, please don't mock mine.
Hey Lex,
So is the creator a life form too? And is he/she more complex than the life forms he/she created? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then how did he/she get here before the other life forms?
Hey Paul,
Not only do I not know but I believe we can't know.
I would guess that, yes, God is a life form and is more complex than us. But, again, I don't know for sure. I have certainly given it a lot of thought and while I can't come up with a plausible scenario for how God was created, I also can't do that for how the universe was created.
I've heard a ton of people talk about the Big Bang but almost no one ever talks about what was before the BB. Except to speculate about a Big Crunch and that maybe we're in an endless crunch and bang cycle. But you're smart enough to see that's a sham, right? That's the same as saying it's turtles all the way down.
I hope that you don't think that science can explain the beginning of the universe. I mean, the beginning of life on earth was a softball question compared to that.
Lex,
The question isn't whether either of us can fully explain the beginning of the universe or life (you by some supernatural God and me by some natural physical process), the question is which type of explanation is more likely to be the right one -- a natural or supernatural explanation. It seems to me that having "faith" that someday there will be a natural explanation for the universe/life that will comport with known or testable physical laws/phenomena is a much more reasonable faith than faith in some supernatural explanation, particularly a supernatural explanation involving a particular deity or dieties who expect a particular set of beliefs and code of conduct.
Hey Paul,
The difference is - you believe that the human mind can comprehend the beginning of existence (and understand it as natural). I know that we can't; at some point, when we're talking about what came before the Big Bang, and what came before that (and what still lies outside those areas that the expanding universe hasn't gotten to yet) we just can't get our heads around it. It's impossible to comprehend. I don't even think we have a name for what it is that exists where the universe hasn't gotten to yet; but where does that stuff end? And then what's beyond that? And then?
Of course, there could very easily be a natural explanation for the origin of life on EARTH. But for the beginning of existence? There is no explanation that would be anything but supernatural to us and exist outside any natural laws that you care to quote. (Or, rather, force you to expand your definition of 'natural' until it comports with the explanation, even if it begins to look a lot like the supernatural.)
The best science has had to offer us about the universe for the past three decades is string theory. It sold a lot of books and got a bunch of people tenured positions and it turns out to all be a bunch of lies. You were sold a bill of goods by a bunch of smarty charlatans, Paul.
But don't stop believin.
Lex,
Hard to where to begin, but some quick points:
-I'm not sure the human mind will ever be able to comprehend or understand the beginning of existence, but I am interested in hearing how you could possibly "know that we can't".
-Now you're changing the definition of natural and supernatural. Let's be clear and narrow supernatural to a entity or life-force who can suspend known natural laws and demands worship and obedience of us for a certain code of conduct and is the one who created life - i.e., a deity as it is understood in all the major religions.
-The best science the last 3 decades is string theory? As of yet it can't properly be called science because as of yet none of it's advocates has found a way to test it.
-While Greene's Elegant Universe sold some books and got him a spot on Nova, I hardly think that string theory got a "bunch" of people tenure. Of course I'm not sure what you mean by bunch. A half dozen? A dozen? Two dozen? By the way, how do you know how many professors have received tenure for publishing on ST? Does anyone even keep such statistics? Where are they? At any rate ST is still very much a minory area of study. But the idea that our current model of physics might need a major readjustment because we can't uniformly explain the known natural forces is worth pursuing.
-I was sold a bill of goods by a bunch of smarty charlatans? Given that this sentence follows directly on your assertion that ST is a "bunch of lies", I have to assume you mean that somehow I believe in ST. How do you know that? Because guess what, Lex, the jury's still out on ST and if those who work on it never come up with any way to test it, then it will properly become a branch of religion, and then and only then will its advocates properly be called charlatans.
Hey Paul,
I've actually been following this ST charade quite closely in the past year or two. Here's a good explanation of what people are now saying on the subject. It's a book review published in Physics World and written by a Stanford professor (so, you know, members of the right-wing ID cabal).
I can't believe you haven't heard this. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the argument and have only recently come around the fact that ST is bunk (or, as one author I read put it, "worse than wrong.")
This article doesn't mention the insidious tenure debacle but I'm sure you can make the connections. Young scholars whose data and theories tend to completely disprove and make a mockery of the tenured faculty who have based careers on such data and theories tend not to be popular.
I don't know you personally or whether you're tenured, but I bet you're very popular.
Do you have a theory?
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/8/1
Lex scripsit,
"I can't believe you haven't heard this. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're familiar with the argument and have only recently come around the fact that ST is bunk (or, as one author I read put it, "worse than wrong.")"
Well, Lex, once again you're just full of assumptions. Actually I haven't been following the ST argument closely at all. My biggest source of information came from having watched Greene shill the theory on Nova. And since I personally don't trust academics, politicians or anyone else who resorts to TV histrionics to sell their ideas, I was a bit suspicious of his claims and quite attentive to the arguments of the critics of the theory presented on the Nova program. That's the sum total of my involvement or knowlege of ST.
You also write:
"This article doesn't mention the insidious tenure debacle but I'm sure you can make the connections."
Well, actually I can't, because I have no idea what you're talking about. You claimed that a bunch of professors received tenure for pushing ST. I'd like to see the data that justifies the word "bunch." Given the large number of physics departments around the country, the word "bunch" in my opinion ought to be quite substantial.
You also write,
"Young scholars whose data and theories tend to completely disprove and make a mockery of the tenured faculty who have based careers on such data and theories tend not to be popular."
Now here I'm just plain confused. Are you talking about the String Theorists (who defied previous generations of physicists), or are you now claiming that ST has become the standard model and anyone who challenges it in most physics departments around the country today is not "popular", i.e., is refused tenure or is not hired? Again, a few high profile cases (assuming these exist) does not a system-wide problem make.
Me, popular? Where do you come up with these ideas? Let me let you in on a little secret, Lex. I study Classics, which hasn't been popular since the early 20th century when it was (rightly) knocked off of its high, romantic perch by science. And I like it that way.
O yes, my latest theories involve detailing the evidence for the cult of Hera at Plataiai and offering new explanations for the frequency and evolution of her festivals there, the Small and Great Daidala, the latter festival which entailed an elaborate sacrificial procession of several Boiotian cities to Mount Kithairon that culminated with a great conflagration of 14 wooden statues (called daidala) that had been collected at the previous 14 Small Daidala (source: Pausanias 9.3.4-9).
My new "theories" include:
(1) The Heraion (= sanctuary of Hera) and new stone temple for Hera mentioned by Thukydides (3.68.3) are two different structures.
(2) The manuscript reading of Thebaioi at Thukydides 3.68.3 line 1 should be retained (rather than the textus receptus reading which removes it), and thus the Thebans are solely responsible for sacking Plataiai in 426 BC, leasing Plataian land to their own farmers, and building the new stone temple and inn for the Heraion Sanctuary complex in 426/5 BC.
(3) The building of this new stone temple and inn may have been part of a Theban initiative to return the Daidala festival (later known as the Small Daidala) to the more pan-Boiotian character that possibly obtained before Plataiai defected from the Boiotian Confederacy in 519 BC.
(4) The Thebans commissioned the sculptor Kallimakhos to fashion the Hera Nympheumene statue (Paus. 9.2.7) at the time they built the new stone temple in 426/5.
(5) The Theban ambush of Plataiai in 431 which was the opening salvo of the Peloponnesian War, was timed to coincide with the opening ceremony of the Daidala celebrations (hieromenia, Thuk. 3.56.2; 3.65.2), which had to be cancelled, and this is why the Plataians later marked the time of their exiles by the number (14) of Daidala festivals missed.
(6) The hieromenia of the Daidala commenced the day after spotting the first crescent moon after, or nearest to, the vernal equinox.
(7) The Plataians’ first exile should be regarded as beginning with the Theban attack of 431, after which most of the Plataians left the city (Thuk. 2.6.4; 2.71-78), not the traditional date of 427 after the fall of the city.
(8) Contra the opinion of Pausanias and all subsequent scholars, the Small Daidala were celebrated every six years, as Pausanias’ (9.2.7) local exegete reported.
(9) Once the date of 431 and a periodicity of 6 years are accepted for the Small Daidala, we can confirm that the Plataians would have indeed missed 14 "Small" Daidala festivals during their two exiles (431-387 and 373-338 BC). This means that the number 14 is not tied to a Boiotian Confederacy organizational system, as some have argued.
(10) With this new information, we can also identify the likely years of the other Small and Great Daidala, and in so doing we can tie this festival to other significant historical events, including the Persian sack of Plataiai in 480 and the Battle of Plataiai one year later in 479 (Herodotus 9.52; 9.61; 9.69).
(11) Going forward in time, we can posit that the first Daidala celebration by the Plataians after their second exile ended should have been in 335 BC, which is the most likely date of the first Great Daidala.
(12) Subsequent celebrations of the Great Daidala should have occurred every 90 years, not every 59 years as Pausanias’ guide and some modern studies have claimed.
There. Those are my latest theories, which will soon be published in the fashionable and widely read rag Historia: Zeitscrift für alte Geschichte. Undoubtedly they will make me as popular as a rock star.
Any other questions?
Paul,
I make a point of valuing what each working member of society brings to the table. So, from the person washing sweaty towels at the gym to the lady who changes the light bulbs in university sockets to the Chemistry doc noticing small changes in stuff I can't pronounce, I'm glad that they all contribute a little something to making life better.
But you've convinced me, sir, to except you from this. I agree with you: what you do is truly useless and unimportant and I can't in any way think of how it makes you anything but a net draw on society.
Maybe the Germans will enjoy hearing about Pausanias' insignificant mistake, but I bet even they ignore it as too mundane by half.
Don't try to have me on, Paul. Reading Greek and being at the forefront of ancient insignifica doesn't make you smart. It makes you at the forefront of ancient insignifica.
Lex,
The point is that you make a lot of assumptions in just about every sentence you write. Here are 6 you've made about me in this one thread:
1. Out of nowhere you assumed that somehow I followed and supported ST. You completely imagined this and it was a wrong assumption.
2. Out of nowhere you then assumed I believed ST but when it was recently debunked I then switched my position. You completely imagined this and it was a wrong assumption.
3. Out of nowhere you then appeared to assume that I somehow knew or cared about the fact that some professor was, or professors were, given tenure for working on ST and this was controversial . You completely imagined this and it was a wrong assumption.
4. Out of nowhere you then accused me of being an ass-licking professor who seeks popularity and is afraid to buck the establishement. You completely imagined this and it was a wrong assumption.
5. Out of nowhere you then took a contrary tack and accused me of essentially being an elitist and not valuing what each working member of society brings to the table. You imagined this and it was a wrong assumption.
6. Out of nowhere you then claimed that somehow I claimed, or even implied, that what I do is truly useless and unimportant (to criticize me for this you relied upon the idea that popularity = importance, but of course "popularlity" was the very thing you condemned me for seeking in #5!). You imagined this and it was a wrong assumption.
I'll give you credit for one thing, Lex. You have an active imagination and apparently because you don't like some of my politics or you don't know me, rather than engage me on the substance of what I've written, you let your imagination run wild so you can justify disagreeing or disliking me from just about any angle, even if the second angle of condemnation contradicts your first.
Post a Comment
<< Home