Finally, after a few more subsequent comments posted to my original article (despite that blog being 'Closed'), I received a comment that actually has something intelligible to say—ironically, from Stephen Roberts himself! It has been quite a few years so it was a pleasant surprise to hear from him again. It's nice running into you again, Stephen!
Although he posted his comment to a different blog post ("No Theist Is An Atheist"), it nevertheless regarded my critique squarely and, quite refreshingly, had something intelligent to say. Stephen's comment (3/Jan/08) stated:
Hey David, Stephen here! After the quote came up in another forum I read, I ego-surfed across this post and figured I'd drop by and say hi!
Yes, I know the usage of "atheist" in the quote is incorrect since if a person believes in any kind of god they are a theist, not an atheist. But I think it still work because it helps them to think about the fact that they are also non-believers for other gods.
But the real "meat" of the quote is the second part about how if the theist really understood why they don't believe in the other gods they might understand why their god is hard to believe in too.
If I would have been writing a philosophy book, I probably would have come up with better wording or at least better phrasing. But even with its flaws, its kind of nice to see the quote still wander around and mean something to some people :-)
I appreciate his candor, and his concession that the "we are both atheists" clause is untenable. At least someone, finally, possessed enough sense to concede that this feature of the Quote is inherently faulty. Unfortunately, it was the author only. Everyone else that comments still tries to retain it, tenaciously blind to the contradiction. My hat's off to Stephen.
Nevertheless, the real 'meat' of the Quote is still faulty (but not as obviously). I can appreciate the point Stephen is trying to make, but I have to wonder if he is cognizant of the fact that the only people who will agree with him are those who already adhere to an epistemology similar to his. Unless I am mistaken, Stephen subscribes to a form of empiricism, i.e. the degree to which some proposition outside science can be given scientific support or can be reduced to science, to that degree the proposition becomes rationally acceptable. It is for this reason that theistic claims are said to shoulder an empirical burden of proof. (I invite Stephen to correct me if I am wrong.) From my understanding, that is why he rejects all possible gods, including the God of Christianity: because claims of their existence are bereft of empirical evidence to substantiate those claims.
If that is the case, then the question immediately presents itself: Is that the reason why Christians "dismiss all the other possible gods"? Is it because those other god-claims are without empirical evidence substantiating them? No, that is not their reason, because (a) they do not subscribe to any formulation of empiricism, for it is antithetical to orthodox Christian theology, and (b) they know that reasoning this way, for them, commits the Special Pleading fallacy. (This fallacy is committed when you reject all other gods because they lack substantiating empirical evidence, while making an exception, without good reason, for your own God who likewise lacks said evidence.)
Therefore, the only people who will agree with the second clause are necessarily those who already adhere to an epistemology similar to Stephen's. How so? Because he asserts that once "you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." It naturally follows that this clause requires its subject to hold a similar epistemology. Consider: we first discover the reason he dismisses all possible gods, and we then look to see whether or not that is the same reason Christians dismiss all other gods. So then what happens when Stephen encounters Christians, who do not subscribe to an epistemology similar to his? Suddenly this Quote is unsound, collapsing under the fact that it is untrue with respect to the subject it is addressing (Christians). It is true for only a specific segment of the human population: those who already share his epistemic views. With regard to everyone else, it is false.
To summarize in brief: (1) I look at Stephen's reason for dismissing all possible gods and I admit, "That's not my reason for dismissing them"; (2) and if Stephen considered my reason for rejecting all other gods, he would admit, "That's not my reason for dismissing them." In other words, this second clause—
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
—is false, when regarding all those who adhere to an epistemology different from Stephen's empiricism. The reason he rejects all possible gods and the reason I reject all other gods are, in fact, two very different reasons. Being informed of Stephen's reasoning does not inform anyone of my reasoning, nor vice versa.
You seem to completely miss the point that the quote is intended to be both ironic and funny and internally contradictory in a way intended to expose the inherent contradiction of blind monotheism in a polytheistic world. It was not an exercise in logic or semantics. In fact, a good part of the humor here is that you fail to understand it at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comment wholehartedly. It is the contridction of the tems in the quote that makes it stick with me.
ReplyDeleteI recently heard a much better quote on NPR that is less inflmmatory and more inclusive that, if taken to heart, I could see it changing the opinion of a more closed minded person.
"Religions are like lampshades. They can look very different from the outside but they all have the light of God within them."
I am an atheist mself but this is how I like to view the religions of the world. If more people realized that most of us have a similar goal, perhaps we would stop fighting about how to get there.
Hello there.
ReplyDeleteCame by this blog by chance.
I have to say, this anonymous person beat me to it ... I had the EXACT same opinion about the quote.
Anonymous and n30:
ReplyDeleteIf the intention of the quote (by whoever cites it) is nothing more substantive than a humorous self-contradicting remark, then I take no issue with it. In that respect it is devoid of any meaning, merely an insipid collection of unintelligible words.
If, on the other hand, the intention of the quote is to convey something intelligible and substantive about Christian theology in relation to the world, such as the original author of the quote intended, then it is a complete failure for the reasons I examined: (1) there is nothing at all intelligible about claiming that a Christian is an atheist, (2) nor is the Christian rejection of other gods based on anything similar to the reasons for the atheist rejection of God. The first clause is contradictory and therefore meaningless, and the second clause is simply false, failing to correspond with reality.
The Dawkinsian propaganda of atheist dogmatism notwithstanding, Christian theology is actually not a "blind monotheism." No one will be intellectually compelled by the force of dogmatic assertion, except those who already agree with you; i.e., mere ipse dixit or cheap slogans carry no rational currency.
Wesley:
I am not certain of your meaning when you affirm the idea that the religions of the world "all have the light of God within them." If by that you mean to say that we all, at the end of the day, "have a similar goal" about where we are going and how to get there, then it seems that perhaps you are affirming a pluralistic humanism which holds belief in deity/deities as ultimately gratuitous—which stands in stark contrast to the unabashedly exclusive truth claims of Christianity. Although such humanism is certainly an alternative worldview, it does not by itself engage Christianity's truth claims and, therefore, leaves them unrefuted.
I appreciate you contributing an alternative worldview but, since it fails to even engage, much less refute, any of Christianity's truth claims, I am presented with nothing to respond to.
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteI guess we should be agreeing, partially on the 1st PoV that you had on the quote. Read what 'Anonymous' has said about it.
I guess you are overlooking the words -
"....intended to be both ironic and funny and internally contradictory in a way intended to expose the inherent contradiction of blind monotheism in a polytheistic world. It was not an exercise in logic or semantics....".
Honestly, like again what anon said, a good part of the humor here is that you have failed to see the underlying idea in the quote.
Cheerio.
P.S - Not to divert the topic here: what did you mean by -
"The Dawkinsian propaganda of atheist dogmatism notwithstanding, Christian theology is actually not a "blind monotheism."?
Once again, if it is nothing more substantive than a humorous self-contradicting remark—as Anonymous suggested and you repeated again here—then it is an insipid collection of unintelligible words to which no response can be given. This is rather simple to understand. Think about it. If it is a funny self-contradiction, what response could be expected? It is amusing but incoherent. Great. A smile, a nod, and now let's move along to authentic, intelligible dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI can conceive of three possible contexts: it is intended to be (1) a funny self-contradiction, (2) a substantive critique of some monotheists but Christians are somehow exempt, or (3) a substantive critique of monotheists, perhaps Christians in particular (exempting the self-contradicting first clause, focusing instead on the second clause which Stephen Roberts feels is "the real 'meat' of the quote").
If the intention is either one of the first two, then no Christian response is expected or needed. And that would be the end of the story. If it is the third, then it is a dismal failure for the reasons I examined (i.e. the first clause being illogical and the second clause failing to correspond with reality).
(Re: "The Dawkinsian propaganda of atheist dogmatism notwithstanding, Christian theology is actually not a 'blind monotheism'.")
With this remark I was referring obviously to Anonymous' comment about "blind monotheism in a polytheistic world." It is atheist bigots of Richard Dawkins' ilk who dogmatically traffic such nonsensical rhetoric, that Christianity is "blind" or irrational or delusional, etc. Such Dawkinsian garbage can be wheeled out by the truckload but it is still nonsense and false. (Of course, Anonymous may not have been referring to Christianity, in which case he can ignore the criticism.)
I appreciate your comments. Thank you for participating in the conversation.
"The Quote" does not imply that your reasons for dismissing other gods are the same as Stephen's reasons for dismissing yours. It merely states that when you UNDERSTAND your own reasons for dismissing those other gods, you will UNDERSTAND his reasons. I suspect that since you do not even UNDERSTAND the quote, you will not make the mental effort to UNDERSTAND either his reasons or your own.
ReplyDeleteI believe the point of the quote is to illustrate the fact that any believer in a monotheistic religion can so readily dismiss all other gods as easily as any atheist, yet can cling so tightly to one slight variation from the others without providing an acceptable reasoning behind their choice. This seems illogical to an atheist who can easily take that extra step and eliminate all gods from their life and lead an equally, if not more, fulfilling life than any monotheistic believer.
ReplyDeleteTruthfully though the REAL point of the quote (I feel) is to make atheists smile and say "That's what I've been trying to say all along!"
I will give you that believing in a god is logical. However all the logical reasons to believe in a god are inherently demeaning to the believer (Fear of the unknown, gullible, ignorant, and other admittedly mean sounding words) which may be why it is difficult for some to see that it is in fact rather silly to say no other god exists except the one you have arbitrarily chosen from the myriad of other choices. Sort of like going to Baskin Robins and arguing with a stranger about why Chocholate Chip Cookie Dough is the only logical ice cream to choose, even though that person might be lactose intolerant and just looking for a bathroom.
Okay, perhaps it wasn't an arbitrary choice. Maybe it took a long time for you to find just the right God for you...wouldn't that mean that actively weighed the pros an cons of each God and chose the right one for you and called it the truth? How do you expect not to be ridiculed? You chose your God, perhaps by active choice, perhaps by geographic location, perhaps by tradition, perhaps by convenience (there's an episcopal church down the street)...regardless you actively chose one God that fits you and ignoring all other possibilities, called it truth. Sorry friend, but you don't get to choose truth.
The fact that the argument is moot is a prime reason why this atheist chose not to just pick a god that I agreed with. If one is absurd, it inevitably means they all are.
The lampshade quote further illustrates that point, but in a different way...but I'll leave you to think about that one.
This is all rather mean sounding, I know, and I do apologies a little, but under the guise of the internet I am safe from your e-god's scorn...regardless, I can take it as easily as I can dish it out, so feel free to bash my grammar and liberal use of ellipsis. I also fully realize that I'm just as ignorant as you and we're all in this thing together...I'm just able to admit and embrace it.