The Only Response Possible

Altruist80 wrote: What if it all came to pass? Picture this. You are sitting at the television, watching the news one day. You see headlines erupting about a Russian (or other northern force) launching a surprise attack on Israel, with no real opposition. But somehow they are forced to turn back with major losses due to command confusion, friendly fire, and natural events. The world enters a time of war. Some months later, a second assault is launched from the north. A large naval fleet decimates this force with fierce bombardments from the Mediterranean (ships of Kittim). Again they are forced to turn back. Still, some time later, the southern forces muster a counter-attack. But the northern force smashes this army and overthrows all of Europe and Asia Minor, including Israel. The leader of the prevailing force declares world rule and outlaws Judaism and Christianity, citing them as the cause for the war, and sets up his command headquarters in Israel. People start disappearing. Unnatural events occur, which defy all reason. You are now a subject of a world police power. Would you believe the book of Daniel, or would you cite these events as inevitable and resulting from the demand of a new solution in a volatile world? Don't answer with, "It's not going to happen." Treat it as hypothetical. What if?

themadfiddler wrote: I would realize I was in a horrible alternate reality that was a result of Hal Lindsey's engrams being imprinted on the world, where real biblical scholarship was replaced by gullible idiocy, where the trailer park had become the cultural center of the world, and reality was now, Matrix-like, being run by a horrible super-computer with Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins at the helm, spewing out a cliched mess of hackneyed plagiarized plot.

"I Contend We Are Both Atheists" - Response to Comments 2

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.

Carl Sagan & Scientistic Nonsense

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?

Thus wrote Carl Sagan, in the first chapter of The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark (Random House, 1996), one of his more popular books which sets out to "explain the scientific method to laymen, and to encourage people to learn critical or skeptical thinking." It is ironic, therefore, to find him here thrusting science into areas unrelated to it and making a fine display of very poor reasoning. Sagan, although he loved science, was certainly not a philosopher, yet both skepticism and critical thinking are philosophical subjects, not scientific ones. As much as I loved Sagan, he really ought to have avoided the folly Dawkins persists in, by keeping aware of his limitations: stick to what he knows, and avoid speaking on things which he clearly was not adequately versed.

It is categorically impossible for science to deflate our conceits (as he put it) when it comes to the issue of whether or not we are the reason there is a Universe. The scientific method empowers us to discover the structure and evolution of the Universe, on the whole as well as its parts, but it has nothing to say about teleology or the reason why the Universe exists. Science simply has nothing to say about the purpose or meaning of any thing; such comes from a different discipline: philosophy, that discipline which is the very foundation upon which science itself is based and from which it is enabled to operate in the first place. Affirming science consistently as the ultimate paradigm of rationality leads inexorably to rank self-stultification whose end is nihilism and the abdication of knowledge and reason altogether.

Science cannot "do us a disservice in deflating our conceits," sir, when it comes to the purpose of the Universe's existence, because science does not do business with purpose or meaning; it can examine certain properties of the Universe but it cannot tell you why the Universe exists, much less rule mankind out as the reason. One can discuss the purpose or meaning of the Universe but to do so is to engage metaphysics, not science.

"I Contend We Are Both Atheists" - Response to Comments

For a brief time I had a blog called Apologia over at WordPress.com, but since I was unhappy with the limited customization available to free accounts (and do not have the time to play with CSS), I eventually opened my blog here. Having said that, I had written a post there (23/Oct/06) on the now-famous quote originally authored by Stephen Roberts, a former acquaintance of mine from my days in #Atheism on the Dalnet IRC network. The quote is: "I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" (The History of 'The Quote'). That article has generated a few comments from readers that happened upon it, but I am trying to divert traffic away from that inactive blog so I am going to start responding to comments here. The most recent comments are from two visitors, named "Kerin" and "DM."

Kerin writes:

How can you talk about rationality when… argh forget it, I’m over the whole debating about the existence of god, you don’t know, I don’t know there that settles it! happy?

It is a good thing she did not finish that first sentence, because in all likelihood she was about to make a complete fool of herself. And an unfinished sentence leaves nothing to respond to, so I am going to look at her agnostic assertion at the end. The fact of the matter is, the assertion that "you don't know, I don't know" is settled ONLY under an agnostic view. I am certainly not an agnostic, so she has no basis other than her own agnosticism to assert that I don't know—and I could really do without her shoving her beliefs down my throat. She is entitled to her agnosticism; she is not entitled to impose her views upon me. She can tell me about the things she doesn't know, but she cannot assert anything about what I know.

DM writes:

You describe Mr Roberts as "a good-natured fellow with a fantastic sense of humour who seemed to enjoy debate," then disregard that his comment is valid because it is clearly of a mocking nature. That you’ve read so deeply into it makes me believe that you’re terrified it is true. Then you (ironically) set yourself up against a religion (pantheism) that admits no god and accuse Mr Roberts of using a “straw man” tactic. Also, quoting Scripture as proof of your God is circular logic and you should be burned at the stake for such heresy (note: that’s humor…)

There are quite a few problems with DM's comments.

First, validity is not determined by the tone of a comment ("a mocking nature"); validity falls under the jurisdiction of logic. And as anyone can see (assuming they have a basic grasp of reading comprehension), my post critiqued the comment using logic, showing how it invalidated itself, under its own terms (with zero regard to tone). The comment utterly contradicts itself, intrinsically; it is a contradiction to "contend we are both atheists" in the context of a participant believing in "one fewer god" than another: (a) If Steve believes in one god while Mike believes in two or more, it is valid to say that Steve believes in "one fewer god" than Mike but contradictory to assert that either of them are atheists; (b) If Steve believes in no gods while Mike believes in at least one, it is valid to say that Steve believes in "one fewer god" than Mike but contradictory to assert that Mike is an atheist. The comment graphically impales itself on logic, regardless of its tone.

Second, I am not terrified of any truth. I love truth, passionately assert truth, constantly seek out truth. If you have something you contend as true, bring it forward; I would absolutely love to examine it. When one has a firm commitment to logic as I do, truth claims have no terrifying capacity (especially self-contradictory ones) because one is not operating emotionally but, rather, logically. Now, having invoked logic, I should like to identify your remark as an ad hominem fallacy, i.e. your comment regards the arguer (me), not the argument, and therefore fails the test of relevancy. Congratulations.

Third, to say that pantheism admits no god is false, displaying a lack of familiarity with pantheism. It does admit a god: the universe. Pantheists deify the cosmos (which atheists and myself deem a peculiar and impractical sentimentality).

Fourth, I argued that Roberts' comment is in danger of committing the Straw Man fallacy. How? Roberts said that "when you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." One reason I dismiss the god of pantheism is because replacing "the term 'nature' with the term 'god' is superfluous and obfuscating outside the scope of sentimentality." If Roberts is consistent, he has to admit that he rejects the God of Christianity for the same reason. But it would be fallacious for Roberts to do so because Christianity is not a pantheistic religion.

And finally, I never use Scripture to prove the existence of God, so your criticism is irrelevant and vacuous.

Neale Donald Walsh and his New Revelations

The following excerpts are from The New Revelations by Neale Donald Walsch (published in the UK by Hodder Mobius), author of Conversations With God. The thesis behind these five statements, Walsh proposes, is that "there are five things you can choose now, if changing your world and the self-destructive direction in which it is moving is what you wish to achieve."

1. You can choose to acknowledge that some of your old beliefs about God and about Life are no longer working.

First of all, the issue should be less about what "works" and more about what is "true"—with a focus on the former being shaped by the latter. Concern for what "works" is more emotional and subjective, and good luck achieving a functioning consensus on that. Concern for what is "true" is more rational and objective, and has very little to do with our emotional proclivities. Secondly, the 'age' of a belief has no relevance; a belief is not better just because it is 'new'. We should critically examine our beliefs and convictions about mankind and the world, and observe whether those beliefs correspond to the world in which we live; e.g. someone might believe that mankind is generally 'good' and will have reasons for this belief, but when we examine the real world, is that really what we find? If our beliefs do not correspond with the real world (what's true), they will be of little use (what works).

2. You can choose to acknowledge that there is something you do not understand about God and about Life, the understanding of which will change everything.

This is a call for an end to bigotry. If only this were achievable! But alas, you merely need to propose a worldview which invokes the name of God to observe prevalent bigotry from those committed to atheistic views, for example. I fear there is no end to bigotry. (But my worldview continues to produce beliefs which consistently correspond to the world in which we live.)

3. You can choose to be willing for a new understanding of God and Life to now be brought forth, an understanding that could produce a new way of life on your planet.

Same as above. Such an end to bigotry is a pipe dream; sad, but true. It is an unrealistic hope because it inherently fails to account for the real obstacle against its ultimate realization. That is, the realization of this hope is a road upon which sits a massive brick wall, and as long as we ram into that brick wall, ignoring its existence, we'll never travel that road. We can propose to travel it and desire to, but until our view acknowledges and accounts for that brick wall, it will never be anything more than a desired proposal. We need a worldview that will predict the building of such a brick wall, who builds it and why, and how to dismantle it. Unfortunately, mankind is not that bright.

(The source Walsh is channelling is not very careful with its language, providing us apophatic conclusions about its identity, i.e. inadvertently informs us who it's not, by referring to "your planet"—something God would not say.)

4. You can choose to be courageous enough to explore and examine this new understanding, and, if it aligns with your inner truth and knowing, to enlarge your belief system to include it.

Again, my "inner truth" is of no use to anyone, not even me, if it is not actually true. I want real solutions that account for the real world we live in. I don't need another channelled spirit blowing sunshine up my ass. Unless it is proposing a commitment to truth, it's just offering more impractical noise; I want something that corresponds to the world we live in, not something that appeals to my precious sensitivities.

(The source Walsh is channelling contradicts itself here, basically saying, "If the 'new' understanding fits your 'old' understanding, incorporate it." But if bigotry was the problem, then expanding and propagating that bigotry is not much of a solution. Why call for a 'new' understanding, if fitness with the 'old' understanding is the test it must pass? If our 'old' way of understanding is not working, why retain it and ensure 'new' ways of understanding are consistent with it? Walsh should try channelling intelligent spirits.)

5. You can choose to live your lives as demonstrations of your highest and grandest beliefs, rather than as denials of them.

Ah, but he avoids the salient point, which is: What's the criteria for "highest and grandest"?