An important year-and-a-bit in my journey from deeply Calvinist to... not that... was spent on the CARM forums. Someone special to me was Catholic, I had accrued a deep and wide knowledge of Catholic apologetics and theology, and so the part of the forums I spent my time on was debating Roman Catholics.
As I said then, and it's true now, the single most frustrating part of Catholicism is not any single bizarre dogma, it's their attitude to truth. If one is a dogmatic thinker, then that's the opposite of being open to new views, the opposite of being open to challenging one's own views. Nothing that is believed dogmatically has any right to be called "truth" because it's unfalsifiable, no standards have been applied at all to test the claim. It's merely dictated, and the sincere Catholics in the pews believe it. They genuinely believe that by being unswervingly committed to the claim that the believe without evidence that they are being virtuous and "putting truth first". But let me reiterate: truth is not dogmatic. It's the opposite of dogmatic.
But seeing the right-on-the-surface problems with Catholic epistemology provided cover for all the Protestants on the forum attacking them. After all, we Protestants don't swear blind featly to a Magisterium, we are not so blind. We think critically! But... reality is more complicated. My retired parents who read 365 Days With Calvin (no, wait, that was last year, this year it's 365 Days With Newton) as a devotional every day have no more thought critically about what they believe and why than the Catholic who is under the Magisterium. Religious belief itself is the thought-stopping technique. It doesn't require the overt dictatorship and authoritarianism of Roman Catholicism.
But in my Protestant apologetic days on the forum (from whence the title come from) I was fumbling around for the right words. It's much better expressed as "Truth is not dogmatic". And it doesn't take Catholic ecclesiology to be dogmatic; Protestants are too. But my choice of "dictated" is a reflection of where I was and who I was addressing. It's meant to be a critique of the Catholic attitude to truth which could never apply to me.
And that's a big part of what wore me down: realizing that it was hard to critique the other side with something that couldn't possibly apply to me. The more I cared about their shoddy attitude to dogmatic truth, and the more I wanted to be intellectually honest and take the high ground over them, the more apparent it was that the people on my side were just as uncritical and dogmatic and the things I was saying applied to my team too.
Truth is open to other views.
Saturday 3 November 2018
Thursday 1 November 2018
Off-topic Thursday #2
Derby! Another goal! This time in right net! They'll get this footballing thing sorted in no time. Being a Bbbritish team, they only scored own goals to give the other chaps a Sporting Chance. That's the Bbbritish way!
What's that? Do I hear the other team is also Bbbritish?! Why yes! But Derby nevertheless were playing the game like gentleman in giving away two goals! Sporting I tell you! There are no suggestions of Ineptness or lack of talent whatsoever. Such scurrilous rumours are dismissed magnificently. The Derby coach only looked Woebegone and sighed greatly because of the riot police protecting his highly skilled players from emotionally vexed members of the public who were not real Derby fans, because no real Derby fan could help but admire the expertise and Bbbritish precision of their gallant Own Goals!
Wednesday 31 October 2018
The underwhelming experiece of coming out atheist
This was news for most people who know me, today. October 31, 2018 a facebook post started with the words "I'm an atheist."
Mileage will vary.
I reckon families are going to be different on this, but my family are repressed and conservative and uncommunicative at the best of times, and nothing will change that now. I will no longer darken the door of their church, but do I fear a lynch mob? No. That said, maybe there are a few facebook posts of CS Lewis quotes from people I knew in my (church) school that are aimed at me by who are now too distant to comment, but in the sincerity and goodness of their hearts think that I might be confronted with their truth and repent. That's a big and common assumption: that the non-believer doesn't understand. It's not easy to think someone who disagrees with any view we hold, especially things as personal as religious views, has rejected it and fully understands it. If we see the other side as reasonable, then we can't treat them as an opponent quite so easily.
I didn't really ever fear a lynch mob -- not from my family who, as I said, aren't great at communicating at the best of times. (Maybe that's worse. People who are open and real - positive or negative - you know where you stand with them.) Still there's undeniably much tension. The fear prior to saying "I'm a non-believer, and I'm no longer part of the church" is overwhelming even though I knew there might not be any immediate tangible consequence. It's extraordinary hard to push through that, but truly, motivating quotes on Instagram or Pinterest can go a long way to convincing you that the plunge has to be taken at some point. Regardless of the lack of a proper confrontation, something changes in families I these moments. At a funeral -- and my grandmother in her 90s is growing ever more frail -- I won't be able to say "she's gone to be with the Lord". At a wedding I can't agree with the sentiment that a deity is going to "bless this union". And so there's this chasm, this unending tension between the people who think a supernatural being is listening to them when they mechanically say a prayer before a meal, and those who keep silent. And no one talks about it. It's uncomfortable.
There's a lot of good YouTubers and resources that atheists can use to point to religious believers and say "look! you're misunderstanding me! listen to this explanation of how you've got me all wrong!" but in my case... no one is going to talk about it. One conversation is enough to suggest that Stephen is too reliant on human understanding (wait... is there an alternative?) and can't be talked to, so that's that. And really, I'd love it if more people would ask good questions of what my reasons are, but they won't. Actually listening to the other side is not a religious trait. That's the hope and encouragement I'd give to many closeted non-believers. Look, religious friends and family might not prod you much about your loss of faith at all. They'll make assumption that y'all just wanna sin, or that you never really believed, and keep it to themselves. Wanting to understand you is not part of the deal. The Bible already tells them "the fool says in his heart there is no God" and to see you (or me) as not a fool means giving up the belief in the accuracy of the Bible. Psalm 10:4; Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1, Psalm 74:18 etc. Look those charming verses up if you want to be told you're wicked and foolish. And the opposite is Proverbs 3:5-6. Look that up if you want to be told that you shouldn't think for yourself. Which is obviously not foolish at all.
Mileage will vary.
I reckon families are going to be different on this, but my family are repressed and conservative and uncommunicative at the best of times, and nothing will change that now. I will no longer darken the door of their church, but do I fear a lynch mob? No. That said, maybe there are a few facebook posts of CS Lewis quotes from people I knew in my (church) school that are aimed at me by who are now too distant to comment, but in the sincerity and goodness of their hearts think that I might be confronted with their truth and repent. That's a big and common assumption: that the non-believer doesn't understand. It's not easy to think someone who disagrees with any view we hold, especially things as personal as religious views, has rejected it and fully understands it. If we see the other side as reasonable, then we can't treat them as an opponent quite so easily.
I didn't really ever fear a lynch mob -- not from my family who, as I said, aren't great at communicating at the best of times. (Maybe that's worse. People who are open and real - positive or negative - you know where you stand with them.) Still there's undeniably much tension. The fear prior to saying "I'm a non-believer, and I'm no longer part of the church" is overwhelming even though I knew there might not be any immediate tangible consequence. It's extraordinary hard to push through that, but truly, motivating quotes on Instagram or Pinterest can go a long way to convincing you that the plunge has to be taken at some point. Regardless of the lack of a proper confrontation, something changes in families I these moments. At a funeral -- and my grandmother in her 90s is growing ever more frail -- I won't be able to say "she's gone to be with the Lord". At a wedding I can't agree with the sentiment that a deity is going to "bless this union". And so there's this chasm, this unending tension between the people who think a supernatural being is listening to them when they mechanically say a prayer before a meal, and those who keep silent. And no one talks about it. It's uncomfortable.
There's a lot of good YouTubers and resources that atheists can use to point to religious believers and say "look! you're misunderstanding me! listen to this explanation of how you've got me all wrong!" but in my case... no one is going to talk about it. One conversation is enough to suggest that Stephen is too reliant on human understanding (wait... is there an alternative?) and can't be talked to, so that's that. And really, I'd love it if more people would ask good questions of what my reasons are, but they won't. Actually listening to the other side is not a religious trait. That's the hope and encouragement I'd give to many closeted non-believers. Look, religious friends and family might not prod you much about your loss of faith at all. They'll make assumption that y'all just wanna sin, or that you never really believed, and keep it to themselves. Wanting to understand you is not part of the deal. The Bible already tells them "the fool says in his heart there is no God" and to see you (or me) as not a fool means giving up the belief in the accuracy of the Bible. Psalm 10:4; Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1, Psalm 74:18 etc. Look those charming verses up if you want to be told you're wicked and foolish. And the opposite is Proverbs 3:5-6. Look that up if you want to be told that you shouldn't think for yourself. Which is obviously not foolish at all.
Monday 5 February 2018
Burden of proof
I'm going to respond to a claim made in this:
http://triablogue.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/suppose-all-protestants-thought-alike.html
So give us that evidence. How did you arrive at the conclusion Christianity was right. Perhaps it'll be convincing, perhaps you'll reach into the bag and grab another reason. But it's not for atheists to have to justify non-belief.
http://triablogue.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/suppose-all-protestants-thought-alike.html
To take a comparison, consider a typical debate with a village atheist. They lead with a particular reason for rejecting Christianity. If you shoot down their stated reason, it doesn't faze them at all. They just reach into the bag for another reason. You can go down the list, and it makes no difference.No. The village atheist has no burden of proof. All he needs do is say "convince me". Square one must be non-belief. That's the default. We don't need to give reasons for rejecting Christianity. That's not a belief that stands "until it can be proved wrong", it's a belief that can only exist in the first place if it can be proved right.
So give us that evidence. How did you arrive at the conclusion Christianity was right. Perhaps it'll be convincing, perhaps you'll reach into the bag and grab another reason. But it's not for atheists to have to justify non-belief.
Two (or more) Ways to Live
Sigh. Two Ways to Live (or 2wtl if you're fashionable) is doing the rounds in churches here in 2018. A quick google search brings one to the website, which seems to date to 2003.
Fallacy #1 is obvious, this is a false dilemma. Just ask a Muslim, or Mormon, or Buddhist if the two ways presented by Matthias Media, and Christians generally, are the only two ways. So for someone to believe this, to fall for the false dilemma, they basically have to already believe quite a lot of specifically Christian theology. So there's good old circular reasoning too.
In my google search, I went to "images" and one of them was totally brilliant in it's lack of self-awareness and irony. It had two little pictures, for living my way or God's way, and the text on the side says "Select by tapping one of the pictures. Or perhaps you feel you need more information before you can decide." It's hard not to laugh. More information? No kidding someone ought to ask for more information! Reason and evidence would be great. I'd love to know how many would tap "my way" just to see what judgmental Bible verse they have to scare you with. It's never okay to present two options as if they are the only two options when they're not. Why isn't there a picture to tap for "I'm not convinced you've met the burden of proof a God exists, let alone your specific God"?
-----
Fallacy #2 is closely related. The fallacy of presumption. Even within the dichotomy presented, which shouldn't be a dichotomy, there's obfuscation. The options are merely 1.) live my way - rejecting God, waving my rebellious fist in his face! or 2.) live God's way. So even when you don't live God's way, it's still framed as believing God exists but not wanting God to "control our lives". That's a loaded question.
The whole Two Ways to Live could be captured in the question, "have you rebelled against God?" This is like the question often used to illustrate the fallacy, "have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a yes / no question, providing only two options. The question presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as presupposing that you have a wife. If you have no wife, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. The Two Ways to Live presentation is likewise a loaded question for presupposing a god exists, that it's the Christian god, and that you believe in it. Whether the unlucky person evangelized by 2WTL chooses "my way" or "God's way", implicit in either answer is belief in God and the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. Those things need to be proved first.
Also look at the glaring assumption of a "loving creator God". This is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. The creation story in Genesis 1 is just describing the various components on the commonly held, not divinely revealed, "snow globe" cosmology. The waters above and the waters below? The firmament? The stars in the firmament? The fact a few days passed before the sun was created? There are unmissable clues that this isn't describing reality. Two Ways to Live falls at the first hurdle with the assumptions it makes. There's nothing special about Genesis 1 among the hundreds of creation myths we know about. Maybe the loving creator god is Aztec? Their myth is no worse. The Jewish view of the cosmology is no different from other cultures. There's no sign it's divinely inspired. Christians need firmer foundations for an evangelizing presentation that wants to rearrange someone else's life.
-----
Some false dilemmas are not as problematic. But this one is. In some churches, Christians are learning this Two Ways to Live by rote as an evangelizing tool. Somewhere, someone will be put on the spot with the expectation they'll change their whole life (because why would you choose eternal damnation?). This appalls me. Christianity ought to love honesty, but it doesn't. Christians: be ashamed of evangelizing with Two Ways to Live, and stay away from intellectual dishonesty in general. Pretty please.
The message at the heart of Christianity is really quite simple -- simple enough to be outlined in a few pages. It is a message from the Bible about God and his son, Jesus. It is about life and death, and the choice that we all face.
And it all starts with a loving creator God...
Fallacy #1 is obvious, this is a false dilemma. Just ask a Muslim, or Mormon, or Buddhist if the two ways presented by Matthias Media, and Christians generally, are the only two ways. So for someone to believe this, to fall for the false dilemma, they basically have to already believe quite a lot of specifically Christian theology. So there's good old circular reasoning too.
In my google search, I went to "images" and one of them was totally brilliant in it's lack of self-awareness and irony. It had two little pictures, for living my way or God's way, and the text on the side says "Select by tapping one of the pictures. Or perhaps you feel you need more information before you can decide." It's hard not to laugh. More information? No kidding someone ought to ask for more information! Reason and evidence would be great. I'd love to know how many would tap "my way" just to see what judgmental Bible verse they have to scare you with. It's never okay to present two options as if they are the only two options when they're not. Why isn't there a picture to tap for "I'm not convinced you've met the burden of proof a God exists, let alone your specific God"?
-----
Fallacy #2 is closely related. The fallacy of presumption. Even within the dichotomy presented, which shouldn't be a dichotomy, there's obfuscation. The options are merely 1.) live my way - rejecting God, waving my rebellious fist in his face! or 2.) live God's way. So even when you don't live God's way, it's still framed as believing God exists but not wanting God to "control our lives". That's a loaded question.
The whole Two Ways to Live could be captured in the question, "have you rebelled against God?" This is like the question often used to illustrate the fallacy, "have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a yes / no question, providing only two options. The question presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as presupposing that you have a wife. If you have no wife, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. The Two Ways to Live presentation is likewise a loaded question for presupposing a god exists, that it's the Christian god, and that you believe in it. Whether the unlucky person evangelized by 2WTL chooses "my way" or "God's way", implicit in either answer is belief in God and the accuracy and reliability of the Bible. Those things need to be proved first.
Also look at the glaring assumption of a "loving creator God". This is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst. The creation story in Genesis 1 is just describing the various components on the commonly held, not divinely revealed, "snow globe" cosmology. The waters above and the waters below? The firmament? The stars in the firmament? The fact a few days passed before the sun was created? There are unmissable clues that this isn't describing reality. Two Ways to Live falls at the first hurdle with the assumptions it makes. There's nothing special about Genesis 1 among the hundreds of creation myths we know about. Maybe the loving creator god is Aztec? Their myth is no worse. The Jewish view of the cosmology is no different from other cultures. There's no sign it's divinely inspired. Christians need firmer foundations for an evangelizing presentation that wants to rearrange someone else's life.
-----
Some false dilemmas are not as problematic. But this one is. In some churches, Christians are learning this Two Ways to Live by rote as an evangelizing tool. Somewhere, someone will be put on the spot with the expectation they'll change their whole life (because why would you choose eternal damnation?). This appalls me. Christianity ought to love honesty, but it doesn't. Christians: be ashamed of evangelizing with Two Ways to Live, and stay away from intellectual dishonesty in general. Pretty please.
Saturday 3 February 2018
Another Mel Gibson Christ movie?
The first one was a big hit at the box office. There was scarcely a Christian who didn't pay to see something they already believed in -- it certainly didn't contain any new information. There's good ol' confirmation bias, the consumption of something vapid because we already knw what it'll say. And a feeling of validation. A big budget Hollywood production that treats a pet belief of many as real history will make Christians feel they're not swivel-eyed lunatics; that they belong; that they're part of mainstream culture. That same dynamic will apply second time around about the alleged resurrection. It's sad because it'll be a thought terminating device. The cultural validation these films give Christians acts as a way to stave off doing any textual criticism. It'll definitely make money.
There are obviously contradictions in the resurrection stories. Other people have covered that well enough:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/
So we must wait with some curiosity to see which way the film leans on these contradictions. If it were me, I'd have second thoughts about making the resurrection seem like historical fact when it's more reasonable to conclude it isn't. Surely in trying to write a coherent script someone is going to lose their faith? Can we hope?
There are obviously contradictions in the resurrection stories. Other people have covered that well enough:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/04/contradictions-in-the-resurrection-account-2/
So we must wait with some curiosity to see which way the film leans on these contradictions. If it were me, I'd have second thoughts about making the resurrection seem like historical fact when it's more reasonable to conclude it isn't. Surely in trying to write a coherent script someone is going to lose their faith? Can we hope?
Thursday 1 February 2018
Off-topic Thursday #1
Yes, that's a Sims house. Yes, I built it. It has suffered though many renovations, and looks fairly interesting now. It's quite the departure from worrying about intellectual honesty in religion and etiological myths in the Bible. (I completely apologize to the one reader who didn't see this coming.)
Inescapably, the houses people build are going to be a reflection of their personality. That's the psychologically interesting part. I'm wondering to myself if some apologists would build an imaginary pixel Noah's Ark. I wonder if even in-game they'd never send the kids to school lest they learn about actual science, or never take medicine because of a Big Pharma conspiracy. My guess is that a lot of the psychological baggage we have in the real world carries over into an imaginary one.
Wednesday 31 January 2018
The best new theist book or argument?
I've seen a Catholic ask the reverse about new atheist books, so it's a fair question. Theists of course do so as a prelude to dismissing all new atheist books as not worth the time to read them. Confirmation bias.
But what would a new book on creationism even look like? The memoirs of Ken Ham? It's been a while since any new philosophical argument for God was proposed, and even then, arguing the existence of "a deity" is not quite the same as a rigorous and scientific demonstration that the particularly Roman Catholic god is the true one. This is not even the same god as the Protestant one. --The Catholic one sent Jesus to die, but thousands of years later still isn't sure why that had to happen. After all justification isn't by faith, it's by baptism. Sanctifying grace is drip fed through the sacraments ex opere operato, and the perfect innocence of Jesus isn't imputed to Catholics either (and definitely not through faith), so they have to go through Purgatory. The substitutionary death of Christ (and that's clearly how the story is intended, fictional as it may be) has no place in Catholicism. This is an entirely different plan to the god of Protestants. So if a Catholic philosopher / theologian were to come up with a book that "proved" the existence of God... which god? If a Protestant philosopher / theologian had a book that proved the existence of God... which god?
None of these arguments for the plausibility of a deity gives us access to the mind and personality and objectives of that deity. The grounds for believing any particular religion is still zero.
But what would a new book on creationism even look like? The memoirs of Ken Ham? It's been a while since any new philosophical argument for God was proposed, and even then, arguing the existence of "a deity" is not quite the same as a rigorous and scientific demonstration that the particularly Roman Catholic god is the true one. This is not even the same god as the Protestant one. --The Catholic one sent Jesus to die, but thousands of years later still isn't sure why that had to happen. After all justification isn't by faith, it's by baptism. Sanctifying grace is drip fed through the sacraments ex opere operato, and the perfect innocence of Jesus isn't imputed to Catholics either (and definitely not through faith), so they have to go through Purgatory. The substitutionary death of Christ (and that's clearly how the story is intended, fictional as it may be) has no place in Catholicism. This is an entirely different plan to the god of Protestants. So if a Catholic philosopher / theologian were to come up with a book that "proved" the existence of God... which god? If a Protestant philosopher / theologian had a book that proved the existence of God... which god?
None of these arguments for the plausibility of a deity gives us access to the mind and personality and objectives of that deity. The grounds for believing any particular religion is still zero.
Monday 29 January 2018
Feser's double standards
Ed Feser is a name I've come across in the past, and out of curiosity I googled and found his blog. A post that mentioned "New Atheism" was catnip to me, and I could not but help wondering how a known polemicist like him would calmly deal with it.
In that post he links to a review of a book called Faith versus Fact by Jerry Coyne. As book reviews go it's little more than a hasty smear job. We know from the start that some readers of such books aren't saying in their minds "okay, convince me" but actively looking for things to complain about. I'm sure Feser has had atheists read his books like that too. A whole gaggle of cognitive biases are protecting us from questioning deeply held beliefs.
It's a case of dramatic irony that Feser titles his review "An Omnibus of Fallacies". I'm sure he means the book, not his own review of it.
Example 1.
Example 2.
So Feser might say faith is assent to dogmas like the Immaculate Conception, but believing the content of that proposition does nothing to address the epistemological question of how-do-you-know-it's-true? Any grain of intellectual honesty should be enough for him to admit there are many things, many of these supposed divine revelations, that he takes on faith - no more than an ipse dixit table thump from Rome. Which is of course ironic when he recoils at being painted with that brush by Coyne. "No!", says Feser. "Of course we agree we need evidence for what we believe! That is not in dispute!" Really? How far may I prod your beliefs before you run out of evidence and all you have is hearsay? This is exactly Coyne's point. As a Catholic, Feser must perforce believe in just the manner Coyne says.
This type of thinking is what chips away at the faith of rational, critical thinking people who observe quietly from a distance. Seeing theologians, and ministers, and bishops, and religious philosophers lack any self-awareness, seeing them defend the faith with double standards and lack of clarity.
In that post he links to a review of a book called Faith versus Fact by Jerry Coyne. As book reviews go it's little more than a hasty smear job. We know from the start that some readers of such books aren't saying in their minds "okay, convince me" but actively looking for things to complain about. I'm sure Feser has had atheists read his books like that too. A whole gaggle of cognitive biases are protecting us from questioning deeply held beliefs.
It's a case of dramatic irony that Feser titles his review "An Omnibus of Fallacies". I'm sure he means the book, not his own review of it.
Example 1.
When churchmen refuse to abandon some doctrine, Coyne tells us that this shows that religion is dogmatic and unwilling to adjust itself to modern knowledge. When churchmen do abandon some doctrine, Coyne tells us that this shows that religion is unfalsifiable and desperate to adjust itself to modern knowledge. It seems Coyne also missed that lecture in logic class about the fallacy of special pleading.No, Feser that's called a dilemma, not special pleading. And it's not a dilemma for Coyne, it's one for you. Religions are slow to adjust to modern knowledge. For centuries, geocentricism was believed - the cosmology in the Bible is a flat earth snow globe, stars were in the solid sky above earth and even the god of the Bible has that view - and when more and greater knowledge of how the cosmos was actually arranged there was some cognitive dissonance that took some time to reconcile. It undermined the religions that had "known" geocentricism was true because of what unreliable holy texts said. What is true, and even how we know what is true, became a live issue. Eventually the cognitive dissonance was resolved by reducing the importance of geocentricism to religion. Oh the churchmen may have rearranged their thoughts to their satisfaction, but outsiders have every right to call them out on that change in doctrine and ask why it doesn't falsify the religion. That's the dilemma. This is Sagan's "dragon in my garage" all over. We know, empirically, the visible institution that calls itself the Roman Catholic Church is neither unified, nor holy, nor demonstrably apostolic in it's doctrines. Yet no amount of disunity, of evil, of doctrinal accretions unknown in the first 1000 years of it's history counts against the magnificent Roman Catholic Church as one, holy, and apostolic. That's what unfalsifiable looks like. If your religion is true, then you can't have it both ways. Either dogmatically cling to geocentricism and flat earth nonsense and Noah's ark and die on that hill for that belief, or adjust to modern knowledge and accept that it falsifies your religion. Feser and believers like him want us to respect religion even as it vacillates in the face of actual empirical evidence, which at no point can call into question the impervious idealized religion he holds.
Example 2.
... Nor is “religion” the only term Coyne uses in a tendentious way. The question-begging definition is perhaps his favorite debating trick. He characterizes “faith” as “belief without—or in the face of—evidence” and repeatedly uses the term as if this is what it generally means in religious contexts. Naturally, he has no trouble showing that faith so understood is irrational. But this simply is not how faith is understood historically in Christian theology. For example, for scholastic theologians, faith is assent to something that has been revealed by God. And how do we know that God exists and really has revealed it? Those are claims for which, the theologian agrees, evidence needs to be given.That's half a dozen fallacies. Feser is equivocating. So instead of saying as Coyne does that "faith is believing something [without evidence]", now faith is "assent to something [revealed by God]" -- those bracketed clauses are equivalent. Lets not kid ourselves, "revealed by God" is a faith claim for which there is probably no evidence. And if we take him at his word, presumably Feser doesn't give religiously assent to anything he can't prove was revealed by God. He must believe very little.
So Feser might say faith is assent to dogmas like the Immaculate Conception, but believing the content of that proposition does nothing to address the epistemological question of how-do-you-know-it's-true? Any grain of intellectual honesty should be enough for him to admit there are many things, many of these supposed divine revelations, that he takes on faith - no more than an ipse dixit table thump from Rome. Which is of course ironic when he recoils at being painted with that brush by Coyne. "No!", says Feser. "Of course we agree we need evidence for what we believe! That is not in dispute!" Really? How far may I prod your beliefs before you run out of evidence and all you have is hearsay? This is exactly Coyne's point. As a Catholic, Feser must perforce believe in just the manner Coyne says.
This type of thinking is what chips away at the faith of rational, critical thinking people who observe quietly from a distance. Seeing theologians, and ministers, and bishops, and religious philosophers lack any self-awareness, seeing them defend the faith with double standards and lack of clarity.
Friday 26 January 2018
To Alvin Plantinga, supernaturalism is self-refuting
So there are those people who think the physical world is all we know or all we have access to, and lets call that naturalism. Some folk are supernaturalists. This group would include you, Alvin. And among those who believe in the supernatural, a concomitant belief is creationism. After all, once you believe in a God, then pulling a "God did it" explanation out the hat with dizzying frequency is to be expected. Some believers grab this explanation in virtually every situation of life, but all can be expected to use it to fill in the blanks when answering the big questions of existence. Because God. This is just a long way of saying where you get supernaturalism, you get Creationism - that humans are specially made by God, every aspect of human physiology and psychology is designed and not the result of survival of the fittest. No scientific enquiry needed, just believe God made you.
Alvin Plantinga argues, and has done for many years, that our cognitive faculties can't be relied on if they are a consequences of evolution because evolution is only interested in selecting for preferred behavior -- there could be any number of ways our beliefs are wrong, but they produce behavior that aids survivability. And this disconnect ought to undermine our confidence in naturalism itself because that is also something concluded with the same flawed cognitive faculties.
It would be a shame if supernaturalism had a similar problem. And it does. Given God-breathed creation is not like evolution, our cognitive faculties in this scenario are far more reliable. 1.) God is not a deceiver. 2.) There is no 'millions of years' timeframe that suggests the traits that survive are simply those that produce survivability, not necessarily truth. 3.) God is Truth, with a capital T.
Therefore Plantinga's supernaturalism is self-defeating. Because if naturalism must be thrown out for dubious cognitive faculties (in my head I've got some replies to his concerns, but maybe that's for another day), supernaturalism -- which is what Plantinga thinks is truly the case -- with it's superior cognitive reliability (because God made us in his image!), ironically gives us the ability to understand the world without any reference to supernaturalism at all. God in Plantinga's theology is not a deceiver (that would be Satan) so we can trust our cognitive abilities; and God won't play hard-to-get, so the fact we have no concrete evidence for anything supernatural must be evidence against supernaturalism.
Given the extraordinary trust we can have in cognitive faculties if supernaturalism / creationism is true, and given how God would want us humans to have a "map that reflects the territory", we'd expect proportionally more scientists and philosophers - the women and men most trained and disciplined in rational thoughts - to use these amazing cognitive faculties to unmask God. In this scenario the supernatural is true and cognitive faculties are mostly reliable, so the best and brightest ought to believe the supernatural is true. The reality is the opposite. More scientists and philosophers are atheists. These are the exact people who don't take the conclusion for granted, who are inquisitive, who would accept evidence for God if it was there... but find nothing. There are many phenomena that have in past ages been seen as supernatural. Ancient Romans saw a comet and believed it was Julius Caesar. For anything strange the answer was always "the gods did it!". In our rational scientific world, we can look back and see the explanation was never supernatural. Thank you Alvin for shoring up our cognitive faculties, but it does too much. The conclusion that we come to using those beautiful minds is: the answer has never been magic.
In fact, in addition to asking whether supernaturalism is actually true, we see how merely the belief in the supernatural is a thought-stopping technique. Even Isaac Newton, in his understanding of planetary systems and stars and orbits and the cosmos generally, gets to a point where he takes the intellectual shortcut and says, "it's sustained by divine power". He had some very wrong ideas about space, but supernaturalism allowed him to say "God did it". That, and not atheism, to me looks like unreliable cognitive faculties. He had wrong beliefs about the world because of his belief. Newton's case can be demonstrated a hundred-fold among believers. It seems the surest way to hold a wrong belief is to be incurious about it, epitomized by those who appeal to a God and have no need to look further. -It would detract from God if they questioned the "God did it" explanation; it would demonstrate unbelief. Plantinga worries about a system that generates beliefs that can't be trusted to reflect the real world, and he needs to look in the mirror.
Alvin Plantinga argues, and has done for many years, that our cognitive faculties can't be relied on if they are a consequences of evolution because evolution is only interested in selecting for preferred behavior -- there could be any number of ways our beliefs are wrong, but they produce behavior that aids survivability. And this disconnect ought to undermine our confidence in naturalism itself because that is also something concluded with the same flawed cognitive faculties.
It would be a shame if supernaturalism had a similar problem. And it does. Given God-breathed creation is not like evolution, our cognitive faculties in this scenario are far more reliable. 1.) God is not a deceiver. 2.) There is no 'millions of years' timeframe that suggests the traits that survive are simply those that produce survivability, not necessarily truth. 3.) God is Truth, with a capital T.
Therefore Plantinga's supernaturalism is self-defeating. Because if naturalism must be thrown out for dubious cognitive faculties (in my head I've got some replies to his concerns, but maybe that's for another day), supernaturalism -- which is what Plantinga thinks is truly the case -- with it's superior cognitive reliability (because God made us in his image!), ironically gives us the ability to understand the world without any reference to supernaturalism at all. God in Plantinga's theology is not a deceiver (that would be Satan) so we can trust our cognitive abilities; and God won't play hard-to-get, so the fact we have no concrete evidence for anything supernatural must be evidence against supernaturalism.
Given the extraordinary trust we can have in cognitive faculties if supernaturalism / creationism is true, and given how God would want us humans to have a "map that reflects the territory", we'd expect proportionally more scientists and philosophers - the women and men most trained and disciplined in rational thoughts - to use these amazing cognitive faculties to unmask God. In this scenario the supernatural is true and cognitive faculties are mostly reliable, so the best and brightest ought to believe the supernatural is true. The reality is the opposite. More scientists and philosophers are atheists. These are the exact people who don't take the conclusion for granted, who are inquisitive, who would accept evidence for God if it was there... but find nothing. There are many phenomena that have in past ages been seen as supernatural. Ancient Romans saw a comet and believed it was Julius Caesar. For anything strange the answer was always "the gods did it!". In our rational scientific world, we can look back and see the explanation was never supernatural. Thank you Alvin for shoring up our cognitive faculties, but it does too much. The conclusion that we come to using those beautiful minds is: the answer has never been magic.
In fact, in addition to asking whether supernaturalism is actually true, we see how merely the belief in the supernatural is a thought-stopping technique. Even Isaac Newton, in his understanding of planetary systems and stars and orbits and the cosmos generally, gets to a point where he takes the intellectual shortcut and says, "it's sustained by divine power". He had some very wrong ideas about space, but supernaturalism allowed him to say "God did it". That, and not atheism, to me looks like unreliable cognitive faculties. He had wrong beliefs about the world because of his belief. Newton's case can be demonstrated a hundred-fold among believers. It seems the surest way to hold a wrong belief is to be incurious about it, epitomized by those who appeal to a God and have no need to look further. -It would detract from God if they questioned the "God did it" explanation; it would demonstrate unbelief. Plantinga worries about a system that generates beliefs that can't be trusted to reflect the real world, and he needs to look in the mirror.
Thursday 25 January 2018
Making the data fit the theory
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes in A Scandal in Bohemia
I'll respond to some problems of rational thought in this. He does nail the draw of Catholicism. The social stability is a huge part of it.
https://medium.com/@MatthewSchultz/why-stay-protestant-435b5e1006a0
But first it's worth saying why such a piece interests me.
I grew up Protestant. Specifically in the fairly liturgical Church of England in South Africa (lately renamed to REACH: Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of Southern Africa) that, when my father leads the service at least, still uses the Prayer Book - analogous to a Catholic missal. The type you'll find in the pews is the soft cover variety, but on a book shelf close by is my very own Prayer Book in hard cover form, probably signed by the bishop. (I'm guessing. I don't really care enough to look. These are my confessions.) It's still a pretty Thing, either way. My family at various times have wished I'd go into the ministry.
On the Catholic side, some of my constant friends through childhood (not that religion was ever discussed) were Catholics. Nay, even more: they are SSPX Catholics. Some years later, and through these friends, I got to know a girl who is also SSPX. With a crazy and beautiful sense of humour with whom I could share my latent interest in growing roses and Gilbert & Sullivan and everything else besides, without it being weird. So the Catholic question became important to me. By this time I had already completed my degree in philosophy, and despite that equipping me with good mental tools I was still naïve and uncritical of my religion and loyally Protestant. I literally didn't even know that Catholics think their church was founded on Peter. (As an aside, Catholics catastrophically fail to understand the concept of the Church as Protestants do. For what it's worth, the Protestant doctrine is more biblical. But that's a vacuous truth that amounts to no more than being right about Dickens' use of the Meagles family in Little Dorrit.)
The above link is therefore interesting to me. It's a debate I'm familiar with. I'm curious to see how other Protestants, though I no longer identify as one, deal with Catholicism; and how they rationalize being Christian.
------
From the link above, this is what intellectual dishonesty looks like:
... As a Protestant, I have two basic options when informing my study of the Bible. The first is consulting scholars who think the text is inspired and more or less inerrant. This comes with arguments or assumptions about the nature and quality of the Bible’s authorship: Matthew really did write Matthew, the disciples' memory of Jesus’s teachings is entirely or almost entirely accurate, Jesus really did make accurate prophecies, he really did miracles as described, and so forth.If we look at the comment on the authorship of Matthew, as one example, see how that just begs the question: how does anyone come to this view of the Bible absent any textual criticism? Is it rational to collect all the thousands of religious writings from all ages and all cultures, put a blindfold on, choose one, and then cling to it as "the Truth"? Surely not. So by what principle should anyone believe the authority of the Bible if not through the means here rejected? What if in the structure of the text we see telltale signs that it isn't real history? The mentality quoted above reminds me of Aquinas, and Bertrand Russell's critique of him:
The other option is consulting scholars who doubt or actively disbelieve all of the above propositions. They approach the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion. They doubt Matthew wrote Matthew. They doubt Jesus said and taught everything ascribed to him. Many claim that Jesus’s teachings were issued as a fallible man: given perhaps as a (mostly) good man, but certainly not as a divinely inspired God-man.
When it comes to Catholicism, most or all of the NT Catholic scholars I’m aware of fall somewhere in the second camp. Why would I follow a denomination that approves of or passes over scholars within its own ranks that seem to deny or doubt the reliability and authority of the Bible on such a regular basis? ...
He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance.Why listen to scholars who question the Bible? Because that's what curiosity is. Because that's the only way to know if you're throwing you life away believing a lie or not. Because if truth matters we don't presume we know everything and stick out fingers in our ears to block out anything that contradicts it. I can assure all believers that groups like the Branch Davidians or the Mormons also said and say among themselves "why would I follow anyone that questions the authority of what I know is true?" It's transparent confirmation bias: I'll only listen to those who agree with me. Yeah, but what if you're wrong?
If we want to believe more right things and fewer wrong things we don't start with the theory, we start with the data. And that's why scholars who don't presume the conclusion at the start are worth listening to.
Wednesday 24 January 2018
Just-so stories
Like Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories, but for adults.
The creation story in Genesis 1 is an etiological myth, and so is the Tower of Babel in explaining where languages come from, and so is Genesis' explanation of why some animals are striped and some are flecked. The paragraph starting at Genesis 30:37 is lightly terrifying. An etiological myth is that type of nonsense story that tells how something came about. From the Greek aitiología, "giving a reason for" (αἰτία, aitía, "cause"; and -λογία, -logía). As an aside, Toyota sell a device called the Etios here, for which we cannot give a reason either. They're not just nonsense stories, they're thought-terminating. They've investigative dead-ends. They're the antithesis of curiosity, of actually understanding the world. It amounts to: here is an explanation, believe it. That's it. Done. Of course Rudyard Kipling didn't expect anyone to actually believe his story about "How The Leopard Got His Spots". But the Bible version of that in Genesis 30 is "infallibly true"... apparently. Not sure in what way it can be true, but that's no longer mental gymnastics I need to do.
In South Africa right now - apart from the imminent departure of a desperately corrupt president - the big concern is the drought in Cape Town. It's going to become the first modern-day city to run out of water. The panic is real. One figure I've heard quotes is that 60% of Cape Town residents are not attempting to save water. Which is a little bizarre for non-believers, but sadly expected among Christians. There are many promises in the Bible, purportedly said by the son of God himself, that you'll get whatever you ask for in prayer.
John 15:16. "... whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." There's no condition attached.
John 14:14. "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." Again, no condition.
Matthew 21:22. "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
There is a slight theological difference in Matt 21:22 because it's a qualified statement: if you believe. But don't tell me none of the people who fasted and prayed for the marriage equality bill in Australia to fail last year were true believers, or Angus Buchan who prayed for rain here.
So there are these promises that we know don't square with reality. Yet they are believed and acted on. The just-so stories are not only those nonsense ones in the Old Testament, that style of thinking is in the way believers "give a reason for" what they think or do. In the water crisis, many Christians aren't saving any water. When Day Zero arrives they will turn on the taps and say "I believe", as if that'll do anything. And the etiology for this is "the Bible says so". Sure, I agree the Bible says God will supply all your needs, and not to worry, and that you'll get whatever you ask for in prayer. But we also know that you don't get everything you ask for. On a spectrum between truth an lie, what Jesus said is more of a lie by any standard definition. So is saying "the Bible says so" good enough?
And how did Jesus fail to realize what he said wasn't true?
The creation story in Genesis 1 is an etiological myth, and so is the Tower of Babel in explaining where languages come from, and so is Genesis' explanation of why some animals are striped and some are flecked. The paragraph starting at Genesis 30:37 is lightly terrifying. An etiological myth is that type of nonsense story that tells how something came about. From the Greek aitiología, "giving a reason for" (αἰτία, aitía, "cause"; and -λογία, -logía). As an aside, Toyota sell a device called the Etios here, for which we cannot give a reason either. They're not just nonsense stories, they're thought-terminating. They've investigative dead-ends. They're the antithesis of curiosity, of actually understanding the world. It amounts to: here is an explanation, believe it. That's it. Done. Of course Rudyard Kipling didn't expect anyone to actually believe his story about "How The Leopard Got His Spots". But the Bible version of that in Genesis 30 is "infallibly true"... apparently. Not sure in what way it can be true, but that's no longer mental gymnastics I need to do.
In South Africa right now - apart from the imminent departure of a desperately corrupt president - the big concern is the drought in Cape Town. It's going to become the first modern-day city to run out of water. The panic is real. One figure I've heard quotes is that 60% of Cape Town residents are not attempting to save water. Which is a little bizarre for non-believers, but sadly expected among Christians. There are many promises in the Bible, purportedly said by the son of God himself, that you'll get whatever you ask for in prayer.
John 15:16. "... whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you." There's no condition attached.
John 14:14. "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." Again, no condition.
Matthew 21:22. "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
There is a slight theological difference in Matt 21:22 because it's a qualified statement: if you believe. But don't tell me none of the people who fasted and prayed for the marriage equality bill in Australia to fail last year were true believers, or Angus Buchan who prayed for rain here.
So there are these promises that we know don't square with reality. Yet they are believed and acted on. The just-so stories are not only those nonsense ones in the Old Testament, that style of thinking is in the way believers "give a reason for" what they think or do. In the water crisis, many Christians aren't saving any water. When Day Zero arrives they will turn on the taps and say "I believe", as if that'll do anything. And the etiology for this is "the Bible says so". Sure, I agree the Bible says God will supply all your needs, and not to worry, and that you'll get whatever you ask for in prayer. But we also know that you don't get everything you ask for. On a spectrum between truth an lie, what Jesus said is more of a lie by any standard definition. So is saying "the Bible says so" good enough?
And how did Jesus fail to realize what he said wasn't true?
Tuesday 23 January 2018
Is Matthew 6:25-27 right?
That passage runs thusly:
25“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?Which I'm sure I took at face value when I heard that first. It seems reasonable at first blush. But I have vague memories, still from childhood, in the parking lot waiting for my sister to finish her ballet class, learning that neurotic stressed-out people can live longer. Perhaps from some radio talk show.
To move back to the present, some quick googling suggests that maybe Jesus didn't know what he was talking about.
http://time.com/4872545/neurotic-longer-life/
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/worry-more-live-longer-1668202.html
I know how Christians like to say "ah! But the Bible isn't meant to be a science text book!", but that misses the point. If we stretch credulity and take the gospels as accurately recording Jesus' direct speech -- a remarkable assumption given the space of time between the alleged events and when the gospels were written -- then simply put: why doesn't Jesus know better? This impinges on God's omniscience.
Monday 22 January 2018
In The Beginning...
The evolution vs creationism debate is a non-starter to me.
I come from a family -- this is South Africa -- where old Kent Hovind DVDs are shown at Bible studies. I was aghast, and pointed out that even within the Creationism movement others don't want to touch his arguments with a barge pole. Nevertheless, I was assured by people who have never taken the time to question their assumptions, who have never done any textual criticism the science was good. Of a Kent Hovind DVD. And that touches on various cognitive biases, which is for another day.
That literalist reading of Genesis is just par for the course. Yes, there are theistic evolutionists, and the day / age creationists, but they're all making a similar mistake. Usually the Christian who believes evolution doesn't pay attention to the detail of the text. And the Christian who says "ah, but a day might be an age for God, so we don't need to commit ourselves to young earth creationism". The mistake is similar in that neither of them are starting with what the text actually says, they're starting with the belief.
Having begun with the belief, everything after that -- all the creation "science" -- is ad hoc rationalization. It's a just-so story. And that's frustrating because it doesn't tell us anything about how they moved from the starting point of not-having-the-belief to the next stage of having-the-belief. The most important step is skipped over, and the current belief simply taken for granted. A big part of my journey out of believing nonsense was seeing how irrationally constructed beliefs were. It was disappointing to have no example of a Christian being able to "give a reason for the hope he / she has" (1 Peter 3:15) while being intellectually honest.
What Genesis 1 is (somehow the conflicting creation account in Genesis 2 isn't dealt with nearly as often, let alone explained why we have two; and if both are God breathed why are there also two genealogies of Seth, and two of Shem, and two covenants with Abraham, and two revelations to Jacob at Bethel, two calls to Moses to rescue the Israelites from Egypt, two sets of laws at Sinai, and two accounts of the Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting)... what Genesis 1 is, is unremarkable. Last year I
came across a trio of papers by Paul H Seely - The Firmament and the Waters Above in two parts (link to part 1 here), and The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10 - published in the Westminster Theological Journal.
Obviously Paul Seely is not like the Ken Hams of the world. He looks at the text and sees it as it is. The firmament is, beyond reasonable doubt, meant as a solid thing just like all the surrounding cultures believed. Put it this way: a writer not inspired by God would have believed and written the same thing. The waters above and waters below also map onto a typical ancient cosmology. We know Genesis 1 doesn't describe anything unique, and we know what it's describing isn't true. At that point, anyone's belief should collapse if they're intellectually honest. And that's where Seely runs out of courage. At the last, despite, and contrary to all the evidence he presents, he still insists that Genesis is infallibly true. Hey, it was in the WTJ -- did we expect it was going to end differently? That's grand, but now we're calling a text inspired that is no different from if it wasn't inspired. A distinction without a difference. Other ancient societies also believed in a solid sky without this amazing revelation from God - are they infallibly true? If anyone can call Genesis true with a straight face, then they've emptied "true" of all meaning.
You can only have the evolution / creation debate if you've not taken the time to understand the text on its on terms first. I fully expect that debate to continue.
I come from a family -- this is South Africa -- where old Kent Hovind DVDs are shown at Bible studies. I was aghast, and pointed out that even within the Creationism movement others don't want to touch his arguments with a barge pole. Nevertheless, I was assured by people who have never taken the time to question their assumptions, who have never done any textual criticism the science was good. Of a Kent Hovind DVD. And that touches on various cognitive biases, which is for another day.
That literalist reading of Genesis is just par for the course. Yes, there are theistic evolutionists, and the day / age creationists, but they're all making a similar mistake. Usually the Christian who believes evolution doesn't pay attention to the detail of the text. And the Christian who says "ah, but a day might be an age for God, so we don't need to commit ourselves to young earth creationism". The mistake is similar in that neither of them are starting with what the text actually says, they're starting with the belief.
Having begun with the belief, everything after that -- all the creation "science" -- is ad hoc rationalization. It's a just-so story. And that's frustrating because it doesn't tell us anything about how they moved from the starting point of not-having-the-belief to the next stage of having-the-belief. The most important step is skipped over, and the current belief simply taken for granted. A big part of my journey out of believing nonsense was seeing how irrationally constructed beliefs were. It was disappointing to have no example of a Christian being able to "give a reason for the hope he / she has" (1 Peter 3:15) while being intellectually honest.
What Genesis 1 is (somehow the conflicting creation account in Genesis 2 isn't dealt with nearly as often, let alone explained why we have two; and if both are God breathed why are there also two genealogies of Seth, and two of Shem, and two covenants with Abraham, and two revelations to Jacob at Bethel, two calls to Moses to rescue the Israelites from Egypt, two sets of laws at Sinai, and two accounts of the Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting)... what Genesis 1 is, is unremarkable. Last year I
came across a trio of papers by Paul H Seely - The Firmament and the Waters Above in two parts (link to part 1 here), and The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1:10 - published in the Westminster Theological Journal.
Obviously Paul Seely is not like the Ken Hams of the world. He looks at the text and sees it as it is. The firmament is, beyond reasonable doubt, meant as a solid thing just like all the surrounding cultures believed. Put it this way: a writer not inspired by God would have believed and written the same thing. The waters above and waters below also map onto a typical ancient cosmology. We know Genesis 1 doesn't describe anything unique, and we know what it's describing isn't true. At that point, anyone's belief should collapse if they're intellectually honest. And that's where Seely runs out of courage. At the last, despite, and contrary to all the evidence he presents, he still insists that Genesis is infallibly true. Hey, it was in the WTJ -- did we expect it was going to end differently? That's grand, but now we're calling a text inspired that is no different from if it wasn't inspired. A distinction without a difference. Other ancient societies also believed in a solid sky without this amazing revelation from God - are they infallibly true? If anyone can call Genesis true with a straight face, then they've emptied "true" of all meaning.
You can only have the evolution / creation debate if you've not taken the time to understand the text on its on terms first. I fully expect that debate to continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)