ChristianThinker.net Comments

mypolicy: Response to Uncle Skeptic on Dawkins

nospam@example.com (mypolicy) — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:39:33 -0400

*******"You have stated both the premise and the conclusion wrong. The correct premise is: “Most religious people received childhood indoctrination in their parents’ religion”—period! The correct conclusion is: “It works. Almost every religious person follows in the religion of their parents as evidenced by geographical distribution. Cold logic and reason apparently are not big factors.” No reference was made to whether such indoctrinations reflect reality, whether any religions are true or false, or whether religious or other beliefs so acquired should be rejected simply because they were the subjects of childhood indoctrination."*****

--hmmm....This doesn't sound right at all. It smells of back-peddling.

If none of this Dawkins-style rhetoric clearly intended to pass as a positive argument offered against belief in God found in a book titled "The God Delusion" is, in fact, NOT intended to undermine the rationality of religious belief, nor undermine its claim to truth --then what on earth is the purpose?? Emotional masturbation for angry atheists?

If Dawkins' conclusion is, in fact, as harmless as claiming "People follow in the religious footsteps of their parents and culture due (either in whole or in part) to social conditioning" then the argument as a whole is analytically (and trivially) true, since it follows by definition from the phenomenon of cultural instruction as a premise. So what? These points might be sociologically interesting, but have no consequences whatsoever for the questions of Justification and Truth of each of these religious claims. I find it strange you think that Dawkins would make such a benign anthropological observation about cultural patterns in a book titled "The God Delusion." But it is understandable someone might conjecture this, since Dawkins poorly-articulated quasi-arguments all lack the clarity and precision expected of carefully constructed arguments with clearly defined premises and a conclusion.

It is much more reasonable in the context of his personality and militant anger to suppose Dawkins means by "indoctrination" the conclusion that, "Most religious people are brainwashed," hence, unjustified, unwarranted, or credulous for holding the beliefs that they do by flaunting their epistemic duties to suspend belief before the demands of right reason. But in that case, his argument is grossly invalid, nor is it inductively well-supported.

For Dawkins in his amateurish way fails to understand the phenomenon of rationally justified FALSE belief. Justification and truth are not the same, and don't always correspond. Many can and do hold unjustified, but true, beliefs, and justified but false beliefs. Just look at the history of disagreements in science, not to mention all of the theories thus far abandoned! For instance: Steady State Theory, Luminiferous Ether, Newtonian Theory of Gravity, Caloric Theory of Heat, Bohr's Atomic Theory, etc, etc.

Was mass consensus relative to time-periods evidence that the scientists of old (and perhaps even today) brainwashed by the scientific academy within which they found themselves at the time, or were their beliefs still nevertheless justified, even though false (or not obviously true)? In their favor, I am inclined to opt for the latter explanation.

Strong correlations between religion and geography along with a lack of spatial consensus, or between scientific theory and time period with lack of temporal consensus, lend no (perhaps very little) support for the hypothesis of brainwashing over the hypothesis of rationally justified belief. For to conjecture widespread "brainwashing" is to presuppose the very thing Dawkins is trying to argue against, namely, the rationality of religious belief.

My question for Dawkins is: "What is appropriately justified, or warranted, belief"?....an epistemic question I've never heard him address in spite of his consistent appeal to the strictly empiricist criterion of justification--which is very probably false as the past 50 years work in philosophical epistemology has shown.

mypolicy: Dawkins on "childhood indoctrination"

nospam@example.com (mypolicy) — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:45:21 -0400

Uncle Skeptic,

But your remarks still beg the question on behalf of the hypothesis of widespread social conditioning ("brainwashing") against the hypothesis of rationally justified religious belief:

I only have to cite as a counterexample the widespread "coincidence" between time period and scientific consensus in the the past over theories later to be abandoned--Steady State Theory, Luminifeous Ether,Newtonian Theory of Gravity, Caloric Theory of Heat, Bohr's Atomic Theory, etc, etc.

Were the scientists of old (and perhaps even today) just brainwashed by the scientific academy within which they found themselves at the time, or were their beliefs still nevertheless justified, even though false (or not obviously true)? In their favor, I am inclined to opt for the latter explanation.

You seem to fail to understand the phenomenon of rationally justified false belief. Justification and truth are not the same, and don't always correspond. Many can and do hold unjustified, but true, beliefs, and justified but false beliefs.

So strong correlations between religion and geography, or between scientific theory and time period, lend no (perhaps very little) support for the hypothesis of brainwashing over the hypothesis of rationally justified belief. For to conjecture widespread "brainwashing" is to presuppose the very thing Dawkins is trying to "prove," namely, the falsity of ALL religions--a thesis without an argument.

Cheers.

Extrain: Dawkins on "childhood indoctrination"

nospam@example.com (Extrain) — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:32:03 -0400

@Uncle Skeptic:

So what? The problem is that Dawkins "argument" is completely inconsequential, even if we grant its cogency. One can enumerate hundreds of different beliefs--political, economic, philosophical, theological, psychological, sociological--probably most of which will be geographically/directly correlated with what a select majority of people will hold interculturally AND intraculturally (democrat/republican, pro-choice/pro-life, environmentalist/big-business, etc.)

There will always be a herd that is indoctrinated with some kind of poorly-reasoned thought-meme. It simply doesn't matter what the content of that meme is. Do you honestly think every non-religious secular-humanist, moral-relativist, or die-hard atheist arrived at his conclusions by cool-headed and calculating investigation? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I find just as many emotionally charged and ignorant self-proclaimed atheists as I do religious fanatics. Most people's views are ad hoc, or arrived at in lieu of some emotional wound from the past, or a resentful grudge against some kinds of people they enjoy hating and scapegoating (e.g. Dawkins amature rhetorical "philosophy," and his ignorant treatment of theology--most of which is ad hominem abusive, and almost entirely a straw man--is a perfect instance of poorly reasoned argument due to a misinformed malcontent against his treatment of what he mistakes as organized religion).

The real question for Dawkins is, "What does this argument have to do with the veracity and rationality of the content of a religious belief?" Nothing that I can I see...

matt: Dawkins on "childhood indoctrination"

nospam@example.com (matt) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:04:44 -0400

The underlying flaw with your argument Uncle is that Christianity is on the rise worldwide and therefore is not strictly related to where one grows up. Believing in Christ comes through encounter with Christ and this can happen anywhere. The chinese underground church is the fastest growing church in the world - some say that in China there are now more 'born again' than physically born each day. We're talking about a communist country here - yet Christianity is exploding!

Not to mention the explosion of Christianity in other parts of Asia such as Korea and India. In many countries of Africa church growth is happening at an incredible rate. For example, I went to hear a lady called Heidi Baker speak the other day. She started missionary work in Mozambique in 1995 and has since planted over 6,000 churches. What's that got to do with their 'cultural coup'? Nothing I would say. This is to do with people encountering the love of God.

It's happening in Asia, it's happening in Africa and it's happening MASSIVELY in South America too. Why is it not happening in the so called christian west? Because apparently we don't need God anymore - we've got science...woopee doo.

surfer: Socrates on partying

nospam@example.com (surfer) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:14:44 -0500

that photo is awesome...

David Ellis: Shafer-Landau on why believing in God isn't like believing in fairies

nospam@example.com (David Ellis) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:16:55 -0500

You seem to have ignored a rather important point---lack of explanatory power plays a rather minor role in the reasonable disbelief in most varieties of supernatural entity. Werewolves, for example, serve no particular explanatory purpose yet we consider ourselves to be quite reasonable in disbelieving in their existence.

Why? And are our reasons applicable to the Christian God as well?

Uncle Skeptic: Response to Uncle Skeptic, ver. 2.0

nospam@example.com (Uncle Skeptic) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:23:31 -0400

Brian, may I use your blog to introduce the world to a new word I've coined?

The word is: "Theanity" © Brad Hoot, August 6, 2009

Working Definition:
Theanity (thee-AN-eh-tee) n., behavior by religious people that is or appears to be impractical, odd, irrational, bizarre, and or lacking good judgment, based on their religious beliefs. (e.g., ordering a prayer cloth from a televangelist, paying reverence to an "image of Jesus" on a water-stained window, drowning your kids so Satan won't get them, arguing that the universe is only 10,000 years old, flying an airplane into a building full of people and expecting to get 70 dark-eyed virgins in paradise as a reward, etc.)

(The adjective form of this word is "theane".)

I coined the word(s) because when I tried to describe odd behavior by religious people whom I knew to be fully rational, the word "insanity" was definitely incorrect. I realized that such people are not insane at all. They are "theane".

Uncle Skeptic: Response to Uncle Skeptic, ver. 2.0

nospam@example.com (Uncle Skeptic) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:21:44 -0400

Brian, I re-read my last post and realized that we had misspelled Cogito ergo sum. Sorry about that! Unc

Uncle Skeptic: Response to Uncle Skeptic, ver. 2.0

nospam@example.com (Uncle Skeptic) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:17:51 -0400

First of all, I apologize for taking so long to reply to your March 6 ’09 comments. I could make a lot of excuses (some of them valid) but instead I’ll promise to do better in the future. Maybe with all you have going, you were glad to have the ball in my court for a while. Well, the wait is over. Here’s my return of service.
In the interest of moving our discussion toward the more substantial issues, I am going to try to avoid the temptation to respond in detail to points that seem peripheral and focus on what I hope you’ll agree are the substantial questions.
1) How subjective is knowledge?
2) Is skepticism depressing and self-defeating?
3) Is childhood religious indoctrination a form of child abuse?
4) Is supernatural stuff valid?
5) Why do you believe as you do?
Number 1: How subjective is knowledge?
On page 1 of your last post, you asked, “Why do you think there is only subjective knowledge of mores, aesthetics and religion?” My response is that I don’t know if there is only subjective knowledge of those topics (How’s that for being subjective?). But, when I look at the staggering variety of forms these topics take across different cultures and societies and across time, I naturally think that the “knowledge” behind these must be based on opinions, biases, personal beliefs, weather, traditions, prejudices, etc. And that’s the very definition of subjective.
If knowledge of these matters were not subjective but absolute, I don’t think there would be such dispersion. I’m not sure there is any knowledge that can be shown to be absolute. “Lansing is the capitol of Michigan” seems fairly absolute (at least nearly everyone agrees on it), but somewhere in the state archives, there could be an old document that assigns the capital to Mt. Pleasant. Probably not, but such stuff keeps even this harmless piece of knowledge from being absolute. Incidentally, a similar situation actually happened a few years ago. When the 1930’s era documents founding the TVA were reviewed, they specified the headquarters was supposed to be in Muscle Shoals, AL, not Knoxville, TN. There were even demands from Alabama officials for the headquarters to be moved. I don’t know what sort of legal stuff was done but, of course, the headquarters is still in Knoxville.
Anyway, this goes to the heart of why I classify all knowledge (not just mores, aesthetics, and religion) as at least a tiny bit subjective, i.e., There’s no way of knowing if any bit of knowledge is absolute. Apparently even math cannot be taken as absolute. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem says we can never know all about a discipline (like math) from within the discipline itself. And if we go outside the discipline, we introduce a whole new discipline that makes the problem worse ‘cause now we’ve got two disciplines to deal with and the interaction between them. I’ve heard it described as, “You cannot see your own eyes,” and if you look in a mirror, you introduce a new factor to the situation—the optics and physics of reflective surfaces.
However, not everyone agrees that Gödel’s theorem necessarily applies outside of mathematics so there’s still hope that out there somewhere is some absolute (not subjective) knowledge. So I’ll repeat my earlier question to you which you didn’t address: “If you’re talking about some sort of absolute truths here, what do you think they are and how do you know them?” I’ll even start by saying, “The only absolute knowledge is that there’s no absolute knowledge.” Whoa! That’s deep! Gödel would love it. But I’m sure you can do better. I await your response. In the meantime, I’ll continue to stick by my contention that currently knowledge is subjective and each society decides what it is.
Number 2: Is skepticism depressing and self-defeating?
Skepticism is neither depressing nor self-defeating—at least not for me. Neither is it cynical nor nihilistic. While I’m skeptical about a lot of stuff, to the point of not accepting it, there’s a lot of other stuff that I’m tentatively willing to go along with because it seems to work and gives good answers. I don’t mind following the crowd if I think the crowd is going in the right direction. I can accept knowledge on a tentative basis until some better knowledge comes along. I’m comfortable with a fair amount of ambiguity in my life and I can take a lot of stuff pretty much at face value. It depends on the situation. I’ve never been to Finland and maybe there is no such country, but I accept (at least for now) that it exists because I know people who’ve been there, there’s a broad consensus that it exists, and it doesn’t require me to make any bizarre mental constructs inconsistent with my everyday common sense. I’m pretty sure I could get on a plane and go to Finland and verify its existence, but I have virtually no skepticism about its existence. Plus, I don’t really care if it exists.
Atlantis? That’s another matter. Lots of people believe that there was a lost continent of Atlantis just like Plato described it. There are even some who claim to know where it is, but I’m very skeptical. So far at least, no one has produced any even marginally-credible evidence for it. The descriptions of it defy common sense and the historical context seems all out of whack. I think it would be great if there really were a lost continent of Atlantis, but it doesn’t seem very likely. Same for Bigfoot, Nessie, leprechauns, ancient aliens, and a lot of other things.
I’ll bet you’re skeptical of Atlantis and Bigfoot and Nessie too. Which brings me to an important point: We’re all skeptics to some degree—some more than others. We’re probably all skeptical of elves and fairies. And Baptists like yourself are skeptical of Islam or Hinduism or Mormonism or Roman Catholicism or Jehovah’s Witnessism. Well, I just go one step more and admit I’m skeptical of all of ‘em —for the same reasons. At least I’m consistent. I’m extremely skeptical that Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse from Jerusalem, that Joseph Smith found any gold tablets, and that Jesus (or Peter) walked on water. I use the same yardsticks to measure all the stuff from leprechauns to Jesus’ miracles and it all fails the test—badly. I’m not even saying none of this stuff couldn’t possibly exist; I’ve been wrong before, but it sure seems far-fetched.
The Greek word skeptikos means “inquirer” or “investigator” and I like that connection but I would add a bit of “doubt” to that. We skeptics try to have a bit of doubt about nearly everything and we try to resolve that doubt with Spock-like rational inquiry based pretty much on the scientific method. We don’t think much of visions, incantations, sweat lodges, fasting, tongue-talking and the like, but we don’t completely exclude such as these. We’re even skeptical of skepticism. Our unofficial motto is: “Try to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
Number 3: Is childhood religious indoctrination a form of child abuse?
I really don’t like saying this but yes, I believe it is. I think about youngsters at a Pentecostal meeting in East Kentucky where the adults are jumping up and down, talking in tongues, waving their arms over their heads and passing rattlesnakes and copperheads around and drinking strychnine. I think of Madrassas in Pakistan where little boys sit for hours on end bobbin’ forward and back while being forced to memorize long verses of the Koran in Arabic when they should be out playing and where little girls are taught to be totally subservient and to get ready to wear the burqua and all that goes with it.
Closer to home, I imagine the kids at John Hagee’s church in Texas listening to that self-righteous old ghoul rant on and on about sin and hell and Armageddon and eternal punishment from the worms that never die and the fire that never quits burning….Wierd and scary stuff for impressionable young minds to have to deal with.
While I’m against indoctrinating intellectually defenseless children in theological matters like blood sacrifice, eternal damnation, martyrdom, cannibalistic rites, scientific ignorance, genital mutilation and demonic possession, I certainly recognize the need to indoctrinate them in the moral values their society deems appropriate for it to be healthy and function productively. I think history shows that the healthiest and most productive societies have been democratic, tolerant, egalitarian, scientific, charitable, caring and stable. So I would support indoctrination in a moral structure consistent with those goals.
In answer to your question…NO, I don’t think you should take your daughter to a KKK rally so she can see both sides. Despite its long association with “white Christian values” and cadre of church leaders, the klan has too many unsavory doctrines to expose anyone to, much less impressionable youngsters. However, we both know that people do take their kids to klan rallies where they receive indoctrination they may never be able to overcome or even recognize. Richard Dawkins might refer to such a condition as “being trapped in their beliefs.” I say let’s not do anything to young minds that may make them feel “trapped” as adults.
Check out the documentary called Jesus Camp sometime and let me know if you’d ever send your kids there.
Number 4: Is supernatural stuff valid?
All that’s needed to answer this question is to take any supposed supernatural occurrence and let science have an unfettered go at it. To his credit, Benny Hinn did something like this a few years ago and the results were “no miracle cures.” The apparent “healings” that took place on stage were just temporary adrenalin overload. When people were checked weeks later, their conditions were back—sometimes worse due to Hinn’s side-show antics—some had even died. I have a documentary on this if you’d like to see it sometime.

I am not aware of any miracles that have been truly verified. As you mentioned, the image of a face on a piece of toast or a bigger tax refund than expected are okay (especially the tax refund), but they’re hardly miraculous. Now a woman changed into sodium chloride…that’s a real candidate. Oh, I forgot that’s a tall tale from 3000 years ago…sort of hard to check.
What about non-Christian miracles? Are you okay with Muslim miracles or Hindu miracles or Paul Bunyon miracles, or are there just Christian miracles? I’m skeptical of all of ‘em.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to hearing about your own personal experiences with supernatural stuff. I’ll wait for it. While I’m waiting, I’ll stick to the scientific naturalism and the truly miraculous improvements it has brought to all of our lives, in medicine, space exploration, electronics, physics, engineering, agriculture, etc.
Number 5: Why do you believe as you do?
This is probably the most interesting question of all for me because I cannot relate to (much less understand) how any grown person could follow a religious path involving magical stuff, refutation of scientific principles, obedience to people like Rod Parsley or Ayatollah Khomeini, martyrdom, historical nonsense, demons and angels, and grossly errant sacred texts from the late Bronze Age. Even if one were inclined toward a religious following, how would you decide which one? They all seem to require the same sort of suspension of sensible thinking in favor of bizarre stuff. It’s just as easy to believe in Poseidon as it is to believe in Christianity and both make as much sense.
I know I said earlier that I was going to resist the temptation to comment on peripheral matters, but I’ve failed. Following are responses to some of your points in the general order they appear in your last post. Feel free to not comment on them if you don’t want to. I made them mostly to tie up some loose ends and for future reference.
1) Trapped in the religion of your upbringing” refers to someone who, upon reaching adulthood, begins to want grown-up answers for his beliefs based on thoughtful reflection, rational examination and reconciliation with observations and experiences. However, the old fear, guilt and unquestioning obedience drummed into him during childhood religious indoctrination won’t let go, especially if the indoctrination was thorough…so he feels “trapped”. Someone who wasn’t indoctrinated as a youngster, or has come to his beliefs through adult cognitive processes, is much less likely to feel trapped. So feeling trapped in a religion is very apt to be a symptom of childhood indoctrination and Dawkins is correct to make the connection.
2) I didn’t ask you for general examples of sociological questions versus epistemological questions…I know the difference. I asked you “Just what sociological questions do you think I am confusing with what epistemological questions?” I was looking for specific examples where I had confused sociological Question A with epistemological Question B, etc. Anyway, my contention here is that society dictates what is “true” or what is “knowledge.” This does not imply unanimity or absolutism although consensus is a huge factor. The scientific method transcends society somewhat, but you can see society’s influence on even this. Consider the current debates about global warming, evolution, genetic influences on homosexuality, church-state separation, and global flood geology, to name a few.
3) You mentioned more than once that subjective beliefs are unjustified, or that I think they are—as at the end of your proposition S. I don’t think that. I think subjective beliefs are all there are (as far as we know) and are fully justified until such time as society decides to replace them for whatever reason.
4) Speaking of proposition S, if you omit the last sentence, I pretty much agree with it. Yes, I’m “skeptical about skepticism”, but I see no problem. I just go with what’s working the best. I don’t need absolutes. I just need something that compliments my concepts of the world, keeps me comfortable and safe and happy.
5) In your defense of childhood indoctrination you begin by saying “a good church will offer the best arguments and evidence to its children for Christian belief.” I’m anxious to hear about those “best arguments and evidence” so I can compare them with those given to Islamic children and I’m really interested to know how you tell which are “best.” No doubt if any Muslims hear your arguments and evidence, they’ll immediately want to become Baptists. Later you say “…children are not ready for this type of teaching until they reach adolescence”—which sounds a lot like my point.
6) Except for the above, most of your lengthy defense of childhood indoctrination pertains to moral indoctrination. I (and probably Dawkins) have no problem with moral indoctrination of kids as long as it supports a healthy, productive society. However, the subject was religious indoctrination—not the same thing by a long shot.
7) For my money, proposition P should read “Passing on scary esoteric religious dogma to children while they are too young to understand or evaluate it is abusive.” Impressionable young minds thoroughly indoctrinated may never be able to break free of the fear and guilt associated with the blind adherence to certain dogmatic practices—some quite harmful (like suicide bombers).
“Presenting the other side of the [religious] issue”, just compounds the abuse. Now the 7-year-old kid has to decide between Jesus and Krishna, Heaven or Nirvana. I don’t advocate drowning the kids in multiple superstitions. I say provide them with good moral instruction and let them go out and play without worrying about some demon trying to possess them, or whether people go to heaven or hell as soon as they die or have to wait for judgment day, or whether baptism must be by full immersion.
9) I don’t think there’s some epistemically-neutral position from which you have to raise your children. Just don’t endanger their future ability to reason and think objectively by soaking them in religious fear and guilt and blind faith in religious dogma.
10) This is my last comment on the Plantinga definition of fundamentalism. Maybe he was just trying to be witty, but you said, “I can think of no better discussion of the subject…” so I guess I was looking for something with at least some substance and there was none. Enough said.
11) All concepts like the brain-in-a-vat, what constitutes existence, Cognito, ergo sum, if a tree falls in the woods, our universe may be just an atomistic particle in the toilet seat of a super universe, the world goes in and out of existence every time Shiva (or whoever) opens and closes his eyes, etc., go nowhere. I know philosophers get off on this sort of stuff, but it seems like the mental equivalent of working crossword puzzles—sort of fun and interesting, but what do you do with it? It has no application to anything. So since I can’t prove it or even give good logic for it, I’m taking as an axiom that there’s a reality outside of me that I can interact with and influence but that would go on very well without me. i.e., If a tree falls in the woods it does indeed make a sound regardless of whether I (or anyone else) am there to hear it.
12) I’m not sure I get the relationship between your proposition C and miracles. Seems to me a god could be part of the cosmos and still do miracles. Anyway, I would grant miracle status to most of what Jesus is supposed to have done if it could be verified as not a trick or an illusion or just a tall tale. If my lawn mower changes into a 1958 Chevy Impala convertible before my eyes THAT would certainly be a miracle. The rapture will definitely get my attention as when dead bodies start rising out of the ground and folks start floating up to meet Jesus in the sky. By the way, when Jesus comes back, will the Christians in North America float up say 2000 feet or so and then have to go nap-of-the-earth over 9000 miles to the Mount of Olives to meet him in the clouds? Now that will be some miracle to see all those folks whizzing along overhead, like a bunch of Captain Marvels.
13) I’m guessing the reason Dawkins’ discussion of the probability of the existence of god(s) didn’t deal with the issues of necessity and contingency is they are trivial. They are not arguments, they are blatant assumptions. Sort of like the necessity that “People born under the sign of Aries are outgoing, aggressive, ambitious, and like sports.
14) I wasn’t aware of any different versions of skepticism. Some people are more skeptical then others, I suppose, but basically it all goes back to, “Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” Maybe I’m overlooking something. Please describe some of the different versions of skepticism and how they compare with the incredible spectrum of religious beliefs. Recall there are like 1400 versions of Christianity alone.
15) I’m looking forward to how you use “nuance” to make the Bible inspired, inerrant and a true narrative. I looked up the Chicago Statement and it just seems like a long-winded way of saying, “We really believe the Bible and even though it seems to have errors and conflicts, it’s just because we don’t understand it. It’s still the perfect Word of God because we say it is.” Is this what you mean by “nuanced”?
Thank you for your patience and indulgence in what has turned out to be a much longer reply than I intended. Once I got to responding to some of your different points, I couldn’t find a good stopping point, so I just kept going until I ran out of points. Maybe at least I’ve identified the five most substantial issues which could shorten future exchanges—but I doubt it. Besides, it’s kind of fun to explore the full range of issues. I look forward to your next installment and I promise not to take so long responding to it.
Thanks again. Now I’ve got to go. There’s a documentary on Jonestown starting on the History Channel. Maybe there will be a few clues to help me understand why normally intelligent people would suspend rational thought and follow a suicidal religious nutbag to their own (and their children’s) destruction.

Wakefield Tolbert: Response to Uncle Skeptic, ver. 2.0

nospam@example.com (Wakefield Tolbert) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:51:23 -0400

Hi Brian.

I realize this is slightly off topic (though, the one at hand on Dawkins is a great one that I fully intend on following more when I have more time--and my comment now is not quite as much as one might think at first sight!), but I was not able to locate an email for you and had a question.

Have you seen the latest (I think, he might have more) on what Christopher Hitchens seems to think is the ULTIMATE defense of atheism?

Now granted, this is NOT a disproof of God or an argument one way or another about the exclusive claims of Christ or the Church, so much as a retort regarding, say, Dinesh D'Souza's and some others' claims that atheism is not on moral par with Christianity.

Hitchens reminds the reader that atheists can and have and will continue to at LEAST be just as moral as the faithful of ANY religion. Even if NOT more so, the equal standing calls into question any distinction in moral claims for Christians. All in the news we hear of the atrocities and crimes (Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, others) in both modern times and throughout history. The Crusades, the purges and pograms, the Witch Hunts, fascism supported by the Catholic Church in Germany. Etc, Etc. all the way down to the petty dime store crimes of Christian school kids stealing candy bars from stores, and of course hypocritical politicians who're "Conservative Christians." Not to mention those, like Bush, who claimed this mantle but were opposed to science and seemed horridly ignorant of the world of science. (though that is really another claim from Hitchens and PZ Myers).

To wit: Can Christians behave in ANY--just one--moral way that either atheists cannot or have no access to...

http://rationalperspective.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/christopher-hitchens-tries-to-come-up-with-something-challenging/

Wakefield Tolbert: Response to Uncle Skeptic on Dawkins

nospam@example.com (Wakefield Tolbert) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:05:18 -0500

Very interesting.

The psychologist Thomas Szasz once said that words are actually weapons. His allegorical flourish was two gunslingers about to have a showdown at the OK Corral. They get into a fist fight first. One of them forgets his gun. The other's gun falls to the ground. They both jump and scramble for the gun, knowing that he who gets the gun first wins the fight quickly.

Rather, what Dr. Szasz meant was that the LAUNGUAGE we use can serve as weapons. We see this reality every day in personal life and the dreary crud from politics where handouts to those not even working or even citizens, for example, are "tax breaks." Etc. The rich are "evil" incarnate at the very chemical level. People who own guns are chaw-chewing redneck hicks who don't understand basic plumbing and hygiene, much less the magical world of our betters when dissecting economics.

The reality is somewhat more nuanced. Dawkins is a prime example of the slaughter of his King's English. His cartoonish understanding of God that would not beguile a small child is more worthy of crayons and coloring books, not books that hit the shelves at Borders or Amazon.

In showing why the blog author is correct that Dawkins is up to mischief, and his interlocutors are not correct in their spirited but misunderstood Hail Mary defense, I'd go back to the simple proposition of "facts in themselves", or philosophical insights and/or axioms being one of two things:

1) True---regardless of ultimate source, culture, or tendentiousness, or socio-biological input, culture, etc.

2) False---same parameters.

Yes--we are all influenced by something or another. No one denies that. Dawkins is not going to give up and throw in the towel and his (most likely) belief that is shared by most people, in that his defense of advanced secular cultures that can send men to the moon is at least in some way preferable for modern science and hygiene and comfort than those cultures whose main accomplishments are putting bones in their noses. But was Dawkins raised in the latter? No. And even in the day of rank PCism, he'll not back down either, for he, like us, would argue that regardless of any tendentiousness due to his being part of Western society from his days in diapers is only part of his liking and advocacy. The other is the logic that representative government and core freedoms and hierarchical authority is superior to tribal organization.

Betcher bottom dollar he'll not back down on that one.

In other words, Dawkins and his ilk paint themselves into a rather deterministic corner if they deign to think that THEY--and THEY alone--have the Truth cornered while they merrily critique the world's many other True Believers. This kind of nonsense jibe is common among both atheist and Marxian thought. Either we can stand metaphysically outside our own presumptions about all manner of things--or we can't. If we can, then Dawkins’ assumptions are merely that, and AT that assume that no thinking among the faithful ever goes on regarding the reasonableness of these ideas. Has Dawkins not heard of Peter Kreeft and other theologians who’ve answered about all the stock objections to faith?

Yes, Ww are all products of (pick on to your personal flavor of liking) the following on some personal or interpersonal level:

Culture, geography, patriarchy (for feminists), economics (the poor and rich have no real facts about economics, and can't understand one another, etc), philosophy, family life, potty training, and even whether or not you are right or left handed and the day you had your first kiss. It goes on and on and on.

BUT, either truth is ultimately something that can be held as a proposition for its OWN sake, or it is NOT.

It is actually that simple when you boil away the slush and fluff.

However, Dawkins and his ilk--like Dennett and the materialists--would have us take the lazy Skepty road and lock the human mind into a metaphysical impossibility where free choice does not even exist--all the while berating faith and religion. YET, in a mechanistic universe where ideas are pre-ordained from various environmental influences, the word "truth" is the weapon of the beholder, not truth per se. It is a blunt sociological instrument of power. Nothing more.

: Response to Uncle Skeptic on Dawkins

nospam@example.com () — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:20:52 -0500

For Uncle Skeptic (one more time)..
Yes, "illogical" was a typo (as if you didn't know!)...did not proof carefully.And, of course, I did not mean to sound 'holier than thou' by referring to MY GOFE as something YOU have not had. That is just plain old fact. My having had an encounter with the living God that irreversibly changed my life in 1966 does not make me better than ANYONE...only a humble recipient of His grace.

So, one more entry for you, that sums it up pretty well..for 40 years you have continuously brought this passage to my mind during every useless and pointless argument (which is why it is completely futile to try to 'argue' or rationally 'defend' Christianity to you..here is the quote, never truer:

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not GOD made FOOLISH the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God the world, through ITS wisdom did not know Him [in other words, God has deliberately made it impossible to find Him through what the world calls 'intelligence' or 'science' or whatever; He has deliberately hidden Himself from that crowd], God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs [as does Uncle Skeptic, via, 'levitating'] and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach CHRIST CRUCIFIED: a STUMBLING BLOCK to Jews and FOOLISHNESS to Gentiles, but to those WHOM GOD HAS CALLED, both Jews, and Greeks, Christ...the Power of God and the Wisdom of God. FOR THE FOOLISHNESS of God is wiser than man's [or Uncle Skeptic's] wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength........GOD CHOSE the FOOLISH things of this world to shame the wise. GOD CHOSE the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He CHOSE the lowly things of this world and the despised things..to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before Him."
(I Corinthians 1:20-25,27-29)

Jesus referred to this same truth when,in one of the gospels, after his disciples had declared their confidence that he was indeed the Messiah, He looked up to heaven and prayed, "I thank you, Father, that you have CHOSEN to hide these things from the 'wise and intelligent' and reveal them unto little children".

GOD CHOOSES....not you, and not me. GOD CHOOSES to make Himself known to who He will. And God has always chosen to reveal himself to the 'lowly ones'..those who humble themselves....the proud and intelligent can only gnash their teeth at us ignorant believers in disgust, while trying their best to rationalize Him away. He reveals Himself to those who come humbly.

And yes...the true STUMBLING BLOCK in all of this is 'Christ crucified." Proud people will never admit their need of a Savior for they do not believe they have done anything to warrant such severity. They do not have a concept of the pure Holiness of the Being they have offended, or the seriousness of their pride and independence from their Creator. So, bluster and storm they will, trying to stamp out the light.
The only way to freedom and peace, my friend, is the low way. It involves what you told Bill so many years ago you would never do: SURRENDER.
The pure WONDER of it all is that, though I owed a debt I could not pay, HE CHOSE to pay it for me and for 'whosoever will." THIS is the offense of the Cross.

Uncle Skeptic: Tech savvy atheists and head-in-the-sand theists

nospam@example.com (Uncle Skeptic) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:50:50 -0500

I just finished reading more of your many Dawkins-obsessed posts (Tech-Savvy Atheists and Head-in-the-sand Theists, etc.) and was surprised to learn that after all these years and money spent at SBTS, that, at the time of your posts in the "Contra-Dawkins" section, you were thinking of making your doctoral dissertation simply an argument against Dawkins’ anti-theist position. (Isn’t a doctoral dissertation supposed to be based on original research and new data?) Not only would such a philosophical/absolutist critique of an empirical/relativistic position miss the core issue—as it always does—but it’s been done countless times since Paul first stayed at the Holiday Inn at Corinth. The very best you could likely produce in this area would be a heavily footnoted opinion piece. But hey, maybe that’s all a philosophy dissertation has to be.
Here’s a different idea. Since your main claim for God’s existence is based on good-old-fashioned-God encounters (GOFGE’s) which you say are at least sometimes valid and which Dawkins says are almost certainly bogus, why not interview a whole bunch of folks who’ve had valid GOFGE’s (I’m sure there are plenty of such folks there at SBTS) and generate actual data to support your philosophical argument. Maybe you could title it, “How GOFGE’s Constitute Genuine Evidence for God’s Existence.”
Questions you could address:
1) Is Jehovah the only source of valid GOFGE’s or can they also derive from Zeus or Pele’?
2) What are the most common settings of GOFGE’s? (prayer, meditation, chanting, fasting, tent revival, etc.)
3) What are GOFGE’s like? (peaceful feelings, trance-like states, weeping, bright lights, talking in tongues, Charlton Heston-like voices, visions, etc.)
4) Has anything truly special been verified during someone’s GOFGE? (levitation episode on film, photographs of ghostly figures, ethereal voices recorded, verifiable predictions made, etc.)
5) Are there commonalities among GOFGE’s?
6) How have GOFGE’s affected the GOFGEers in the near term and in later years?
7) How do you tell a valid GOFGE from a false one or from a delusion?

If you don’t like researching GOFGE’s. . . how about faith healing? Is it real or just a temporary adrenalin rush? How do healed people fare after two weeks or two years? If faith healing is real, let’s get the word out.

There’s already been a study on intercessory prayer, but much more could be done.

You could also examine some incidents where people claim to have gotten back 10 times their “seed” money when they’ve given to a television ministry. Is this common?

How about whether people who tithe do better than those who don’t?

There is a world of topics that could support a philosophical argument better than an anti-Dawkins thing which is neither new nor likely to generate much original thought. However, if you’re required to sign a statement of faith there at SBTS, I suppose that may limit what subjects you can address and how objective you can be.

Chris Taylor: Chesterton on worship of the "Inner Light"

nospam@example.com (Chris Taylor) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:42:31 -0500

So there is no good in humanity? None?

Uncle Skeptic: Response to Uncle Skeptic on Dawkins

nospam@example.com (Uncle Skeptic) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:40:15 -0500

Brian, I’ve re-read Dawkins’ Ultimate Boeing 747 argument and your 18-page invective on it several times and while it might be an interesting exercise to comment on the two viewpoints in detail, it would still be just an exercise in philosophical minutiae. I’d rather cut to the core issue and skip all the spidermen and trebuchets and Dr. Frankensteins, etc.
The core view from the Dawkins’ camp is “Why believe in supernatural stuff as an explanatory agent when we don’t need to, especially supernatural stuff that contravenes all common sense, objective observation and experience. We don’t need God or fairies to explain how eyes came about or why wind blows. We have good natural explanations for such things, why invoke demonic forces when your Nissan Pathfinder fails to start? A dead battery is a much more likely cause. Strictly speaking, I suppose it could be a demon, but if I were you, I’d go get some jumper cables or you’ll be late getting to the library and won’t have time for a coke while reading Frederick Copleston—whoever he is.
Also, God, as the proponents of the many theistic religions describe him, seems much more like fiction than fact. In the utter absence of substantive evidence it’s very hard to accept a being that can track all the electrons in the universe, answer millions of prayers per second, arrange for supernovae in distant galaxies and still have time to help the Crimson Tide win football games. If you subscribe to the Jehovah version of God, you also have to accept resurrection of dead people, talking snakes and donkeys, a woman turned into sodium chloride, a person who stops the sun “for about a day,” and lots of other really far out stuff. And the other theistic religions make similar heavy demands on common sense reality. I’m only being a little bit facetious when I say that acceptance of Santa Claus or Paul Bunyan or Joseph Smith’s golden tablets would make about as much sense.
The view from the Brian camp seems to be best summarized by your two statements on pages 7, 8 and 9. To wit: “the religious believer needs no other justification for his God-beliefs than her [sic] own personal encounter with God” [doesn’t say which god], and “There are literally millions of people on the planet who can point to a similar encounter with God [again, doesn’t say which God] and this gives the theist a good reason to feel justified that her experience with God was veridical.” As near as I can tell, that’s it. (i.e., If you’ve had a God encounter then God exists—in whatever version you encountered Him, I guess.) This seems like a really weak argument for God, especially from a philosophy major. It doesn’t even have any consistent inductive support let alone evidence. People in different cultures have different God encounters. Some God encounters are very destructive; some are directly conflictive of other God encounters. All sorts of different gods are encountered. How can you tell a God encounter from a delusional episode? What role might psychology (state of mind) or physiology (endorphins) play? How valid can god encounters be when they can be induced with drugs or electrodes under laboratory conditions? How valid might they be when some woman in Texas drowns her five kids based on a God encounter she had. There may be such a thing as a genuine God encounter, but it sounds like a fish story and unless someone levitates or does something really unusual during one, I shall remain very very skeptical that they are anything other than delusions.
Your only other argument for the existence of God really comes from the bottom of the polemical barrel, i.e., even though there is no evidence for God’s existence, and even though the claims for what he can do far exceed the bounds of sensible experience and observation, and even though the only case for His existence is so-called God encounters (which are virtually indistinguishable from delusions), then just haul off and declare that He’s “necessary”. Frankly, I can’t see where anything is “necessary”. Your example of 2 + 3 = 5 may not be “necessary” in the space-time warp near a black hole, or in the quantam world, or the 7th dimension of string theory, or in an Einsteinian relativistic paradox. Plus it seems to me that what you call “necessary” (forgetting that your example is probably just a tautology) would have been different if the Big Bang had been a zillionth of a degree hotter or the inflationary period had lasted a zillionth of a second longer, or the branes that caused the Big Bang had been a zillionth of a percent larger or more dense. And even if 2 + 3 = 5 is “necessary” somehow, that still doesn’t make God [in any of his many forms] “necessary”. And even if He is “necessary”, that doesn’t have to apply to any of the theistic versions. Along these lines, would you argue that the zodiac is the “necessary” element behind astrology?
What the case for God [in whatever form you specify] needs is a “good old-fashioned evidence encounter”. Had any? Has anyone had any? I would like to hear about them.
Lastly, are you arguing for God in general or Jehovah in particular? Please define God for me and if it is Jehovah, please define your personal degree of fundamentalism/biblical literalism. And let’s get down to some meat instead of fussing over whether complex things can create things more complex than themselves or whether 2+3=5 is “necessary”.