From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 09:45:47 MDT
[Hermit] Summary, a quasi apologist screed. Dissection follows.
[Fred] We live in a wantonly irreligious age-at least at the level of public discourse.
[Hermit] To be irreligious is not "wanton" it is rational. To introduce religion into public discourse is wanton, as any such introduction offends anyone who disagrees with the speaker. Given that this is an irreligious age, and growing more so (hooray) the offense is growing.
[Fred] In America the courts, the schools, and the government seek to cleanse the country of religion.
[Hermit] The American Founders said, for excellent reason, having more to do with stopping religious wars than supporting atheism, that government could have nothing to do with religion - and vice versa. As government has intruded into more and more areas, so these areas have had to divest themselves of religion, to remain constitutionally supportable.
[Fred] More accurately, they seek to cleanse it of Christianity.
[Hermit] I'm not sure where Fred obtained his data, but if it is accurate, perhaps it has something to do with the particularly virulent proselytizing engaged in by the tens-of thousands of religions in America which identify themselves with Christianity, but not with each other.
[Fred] We are told, never directly but by relentless implication, that religious faith is something one in decency ought to do behind closed doors-an embarrassment, worse than public bowling though not quite as bad as having a venereal disease.
[Hermit] Far worse than an STD, as it tends to infect all aspects of the lives of those infected with it.
[Fred] Which is odd.
[Hermit] Why?
[Fred] I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and those of Buddhists. I note however that over millennia people of extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not up to it.
[Hermit] And there is nothing to say that over the millenia, hundreds of millions of fools have been wrong. Given that we do not believe as the ancients did, and class their religions as myth, the question Fred should be asking himself as why we see our myths as being different? Is it not "remarkably arrogant" to assume that "Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis" were wiser in matters of religion than Salon, Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, Democrites, Diogenes, Epicurus, Zenon, Archimedes and many hundreds of others recognised for founding schools of science and philosophy? Or as Mark Twain, a far better author - and perhaps wiser man, than CS Lewis put it, "The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive ... but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced agains
t Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
[Hermit] And again, how about current scientists and philosophers? Some 90% of the senior scientists in the world today are undoubtedly "up to it", as almost all people with a scientific education reject the idea of Deism. If Fred actually had to defend the words of those he cites as wise, that I suspect that he might recognise the weakness of his arguments. Surely it doesn't take genius to reject religion, only common sense. Could he defend Augustine:
[*] Slavery is not penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance.
[*]The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of hell.
[*] Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men.
[*]It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word.
Or Aquinas:
[*]Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.
[*]If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.
[*]As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.
[*] That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.[/list]
Does he imagine that Newton, a mostly sane, though nasty, person, argued as an orthodox Christian or imagined that he knew all there was to know about the world through Genesis?:
[*]If the ancient churches, in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts[Hermit: "Old" & "New testaments"], I understand not why we should be so fond of them now the debate is over.
[*]I know not how I seem to others, but to myself I am but a small child wandering upon the vast shores of knowledge, every now and then finding a small bright pebble to content myself with while the vast ocean of undiscovered truth lay before me.
And CS Lewis too, wrote a few good books - and a whole lot of nonsense. In which category does Fred place the following?[/list]
[*]Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis, in "God in the Dock"[/list]
But seeing as Fred appears to respect authority, for an opposite view, consider Einstein:
[*]I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
[*]I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
[*]A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
[*]Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
[*]It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[list]
Or perhaps Sigmund Freud:[list]
[*]Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever.
[*]Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.
[*] Religion is an illusion ... it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires. [Religion is] "the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity," arising, "like the obsessional neuroses of children ... out of the Oedipus complex," Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.
(All quotations bar Augustine on Mathematicians [which is from "De genesi ad litteram, Book II"] are courtesy of Positive Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/))
[Fred] Of course arrogance comes in forms both personal and temporal. People tend to regard their own time as wiser and more knowing than all preceding times, and the people of earlier ages as quaint and vaguely primitive. Thus many who do not know how a television works will feel superior to Newton, because he didn't know how a television works. (Here is a fascinating concept: Arrogance by proximity to a television.)
[Hermit] Science tells us that it is through disproving of old fallacious ideas that we progress. And we have disporoved an awful lot of fallacious ideas in the last few hundred years. So yes. We are wiser and more knowing. Is Fred really arguing that ages when sick people went to see priests and then died, who believed women inferior, and considered slavery natural was somehow wiser and more knowing than today?
[Fred] It will be said that we have learned much since the time of Newton, and that this knowledge renders us wiser on matters spiritual. We do have better plastics. Yet still we die, and have no idea what it means.
[Hermit] Fred is, as usual, wrong. Death simply means that the illusion that we are intelligent self-conscious creatures, produced by our neurons, is over.
[Fred] We do not know where we came from, and no amount of pious mummery about Big Bangs and black holes changes that at all.
[Hermit] More proximally, my mother and father fucked. This lead to a long sequence of events, which culminated in my presence. Using genetic analysis, we are able to trace back the fact that our parents, and their parents, and their grandparents and so on, did the same for hundreds of thousands of generations. And before that, with other simpler creatures - drom the chimpanzee, with whom we share 99% of our DNA, to the cabbage, with whom we share 28% of our DNA the path is clear. And yes, we can go back to the Big Bang, one small step at a time. The fact that Fred seems to have missed out on some essential education is no reason for him to assert that others don't know things, because he didn't pay attention in class, or that his schooling was deficient.
[Fred] We do not know why we are here.
[Hermit] As above. Unless Fred imagines that he was left under a gooseberry bush by the fairies, I'd suggest that he is here because his parents fucked one another.
[Fred] We have intimations of what we should do, but no assurance.
[Hermit] I wonder if Fred knew what he meant here? Unless he is talking about "morality" - in which case we know exactly where it originates -
1. In the first stage, starting at about age ten, people avoid breaking moral rules to avoid punishment.
2. In the second stage, people follow moral rules only when it is to their advantage.
3. In the third stage, starting about age 17, people try to live up to what is expected of them in small social groups, such as families.
4. In the fourth stage, people fulfill the expectations of larger social groups, such as obeying laws that keep society together.
5. In the fifth and sixth stages, starting at about age 24, people are guided by both absolute and relative moral principles; they follow these for altruistic reasons, though, and not because of what they might gain individually (the final two stages are differentiated in that the fifth is based on adherence to democractic processes and rule of law, the sixth allows for the possibility of civil disobedience in the interests of changing laws). (From http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/KohlbergLawrence).
[Fred] These are the questions that religion addresses and that science pretends do not exist.
[Hermit] We know that Religion has made assertions about origins. All of which have been proven wrong by science. We know that Religion has made assertions about morality. All of which have been proven wrong by reason and research. We know which areas of the brain are active when people have "religious experiences", and we know how to invoke these artifacts of brain mechanics and how to prevent them and so, in some instances cure religious neurosis and hallucination. What is it that Fred imagines that religion addresses - and science says does not exist? We need more details.
[Fred] For all our transistors we know no more about these matters than did Heraclitus, and think about them less.
[Hermit] While Fred seems to be lamentably ignorant, why does he imagine that the rest of the world suffers from his disablities? Surely he can speak authoritatively only for himself? And is Fred unaware of the fact that Heraclitus would call him an infidel and an atheist? Would Fred agree with this assessment? If not, where does Fred get the arrogance to make assertions about his beliefs being superior to those of Heraclitus?
[Fred] Many today assuredly do know of the questions, and do think about them. One merely doesn't bring them up at a cocktail party, as they are held to be disreputable.
[Hermit] Perhaps the people who frequent cocktail parties are not the right teachers? After all, "Like other parties of the kind, it was first silent, then talky, then argumentative, then disputatious, then unintelligible, then altogether, then inarticulate, and then drunk. When we had reached the last step of this glorious ladder, it was difficult to get down again without stumbling." Lord Byron
[Fred] Yet I often meet a, to me, curious sort of fellow who simply cannot comprehend what religion might be about. He is puzzled as distinct from contemptuous or haughty.
[Hermit] A rare creature, I'm sure. As Twain put it, "Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." I think it can safely be said that this goes for most atheists.
[Fred] He genuinely sees no different between religious faith and believing that the earth is flat. He is like a congenitally deaf man watching a symphony orchestra: With all the good will in the world he doesn't see the profit in all that sawing with bows and blowing into things.
[Hermit] Perhaps Fred borrowed his diatribe from somebody else? Or perhaps he is not very different from those of Twain's day. Certainly, I cannot think of a better response than another Twain quotation. "One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat."
[Fred] This fellow is very different from the common atheist, who is bitter,proud of his advanced thinking, and inclined toward a (somewhat adolescent) hostility to a world that isn't up to his standard. This is tiresome and predictable, but doesn't offend me.
[Hermit] I wonder where Fred gets his idea of atheists as "bitter" people? No source is cited. Perhaps he met one at a cocktail party and started preaching to her. No, surely most atheists are sufficiently sensible not to bother with cocktail parties. Certainly all the humorists I have met with whom I have discussed religion, have been atheists. Perhaps Fred suspects that humorists are "bitter" people too.
[Fred] Less forgivably, he often wants to run on about logical positivism. (I'm reminded of Orwell's comment about "the sort of atheist who doesn't so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike him." Quote approximate.)
[Hermit] And given the character of the Judeo-Christian's gods and their followers, with whom most in America have the most experience, perhaps the dislike is readily understood by one less bigoted than Fred.
[Fred] Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism, anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of the thing.
[Hermit] Agreed. Then again, science (nor even "logical positivism") does not claim to make people and "better than they ought to be.
[Fred] The following seems to me to be true regarding religion and the sciences: Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one
believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one believes that there may be an afterlife.
[Hermit] Fred has the wrong end of the rope. The question is whether there is any truth in the idea that there is an afterlife. And to determine whether there is nay truth, one requires a means of judging it. Having seen a fair number of deaths, I can assure Fred that after brain activity ceases, there is no life. So on the one hand we have some evidence that dead-is-dead. I can accept that. On the other hand, we have Fred. Fred appears to think that he should disregard this evidence and "believe" that there is an "afterlife" or perhaps that we should disregard the evidence on the one hand, and the lack of any evidence on the other, and say we can't determine the matter. That may be fine and well for Fred. But he really should not try to argue that he is being rational - or that the person who prefers evidence over belief - is somehow a believer because Fred has the arrogance to assert that this is the case.
[Fred] If there is an afterlife, then there is an aspect of existence about which we know nothing and which may, or may not, influence this world. In this case the sciences, while interesting and useful, are merely a partial explanation of things. Thus to believe in the absolute explanatory power of the sciences one must be an atheist-to exclude competition. Note that atheists as much as the faithful believe what they cannot establish.
[Hermit] This is a poor restatement of Pascal's Wager, begs the question by ignorting the evidence that there is no afterlife (and that it takes belief in the face of the evidence against it to make this assumption) and is simply disproved by showing that if there is a "rational afterlife" which influences this world in such a way as to make this world purely rational, then the atheists are right, and the faithful wrong and Fred's if-then fails. And if there is no afterlife, then of course religion, uninteresting and totally unuseful, providing no explanation for anything is wrong. And it is only Fred's lack of logical competence, bigotted perspective and assertive arrogance which can lead him to make such statements about atheists as he does here.
[Fred] Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of geometry: No mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking: in practice they compartmentalize and are perfectly good people.)
[Hermit] Having asserted that scientists are "perfectly good people", I wonder what it is about Fred's strawman that is the "chief defect of scientists." Certainly, speaking as a scientist, I've never suggested that a "moral scientist" would be a sensible animal. A scientist, any scientist, merely applies the only process known to result in progress. To speak of a kind of scientist as if they were different from any other is a contradiction in terms. Rather like saying that "Christian Science" or "Creation Science" actually are some kind of science simply because they name themselves as such. Speaking from a rational perspective, the problem with the faithful is that are not generally competent to compartamentalize - and thus are not perfectly good people. Certainly, when your neighbor tells you that you are going to burn in hell forever because you actually use your senses to gather evidence and your brain to reject the irrational, there is a tendency to think that as the hell is your neighbor's invention,
that you want no part of it.
[Fred] Thus we have the spectacle of the scientist who is horrified by the latest hatchet murder but can give no scientific reason why. A murder after all is merely the dislocation of certain physical masses (the victim's head, for example) followed by elaborate chemical reactions. Horror cannot be derived from physics. It comes from somewhere else.
[Hermit] Really? Who appointed Fred to speak for "scientists"? Or did he take a survey? I think he should provide the evidence for this assertion. I'd suggest that science is not limited to "physics", that I don't think that just because Fred seems to imagine that it is is any reason to do so, and that I'd suggest that evolutionary psychology readily provides all of the explanation needed to explain "horror" at a rather gruesome murder. Far more to the point, the question in my mind is whether Fred is suggesting that there is any explanation for this phenomena outside of evolutionary psychology. After all, he makes an assertion, presumably intending for it to support whatever it is he is attempting to say, but his failure to address "compared to what" simply leaves this paragraph dangling without visible means of support.
[Fred] Similarly, those who believe in religions often do not really quite believe. Interesting to me is the extent to which those who think themselves Christians have subordinated God to physics. For example, I have often read some timid theologian saying that manna was actually a sticky secretion deriving from certain insects, and that the crossing of the Red Sea was really done in a shallow place when the wind blew the water out.
[Hermit] And there are archeologists who take the consensus position that Moses was purely a mythical invention and that the bronze age Jews and their rather unpleasant hill gods were not particularly significant on a regional basis until far later - and thus there is no more need to attempt to "explain away" these writings than there is to explain the legends about Perseus.
[Hermit] Against this, there are bible sometime-literalists who assert that rabbits eat the cud, bats are birds and grasshoppers walk around on four legs. I recommend The Skeptic's Annotated Bible[url] as a source of more fascinating information about this rather putrid collection of rather poorly written nonsense. I'd go so far as to suggest that the reason that the babble is respected at all is because so few of those advocating it have actually read it.
[Fred] Perhaps so; I wasn't there. Yet these arguments amount to saying that God is all-powerful, provided that he behaves consistently with physical principles and the prevailing weather. The sciences take precedence.
[Hermit] Yes, well. If Fred wishes to take a non-scientific perspective and assert that back when the bible was written that the Sun did rotate around the flat stationary Earth, and that it could be shifted around in the sky to suit Jewish convenience, by a god who was defeated by something as trivial as iron wheels, then I'm sure that no amount of argument is going to make Fred change his mind. But I do have a bridge to sell him. (Joshua, Kings, Chronicles, Job, Psalms, Isaiah etc).
[Fred] Now, people who seek (and therefore find) an overarching explanation of everything always avoid looking at the logical warts and lacunae in their systems. This is equally true of Christians, liberals, conservatives, Marxists, evolutionists, and believers in the universal explanatory power of the sciences. Any ideology can probably be described as a systematic way of misunderstanding the world.
[Hermit] It seems fairly evident that Fred believes (in the face of the evidence) that science is an ideology, rather than an evolving methodology. But then, it seems that Fred may believe rather a lot of strange things, for which we should likely blame his society or his parents. Not least that it is apparently important to him to repeatedly assert that following the sciences requires belief. I recommend our FAQ, [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=11535]"Faith and truth in science " (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) to his attention.
[Fred] That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the masses.
[Hermit] Was Fred under the impression that this was a conclusion? While I can understand that his confusion of "hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile" with "the sciences", I can't understand how he gets from there to "bad answers." Indeed, rather like religion, Fred doesn't appear to provide any answers at all - and thinking on it, while he made a lot of stumbling assertions, I'm not sure he asked any questions at all. Perhaps he is on another kind of opiate altogether?
[Hermit] But why, oh why, did Jonathan Davis see fit to post this lacunic frothing here?
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29183> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 09:46:04 MDT