Posted on 07/16/2007 4:13:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Years ago I had a series of debates with the literary scholar Stanley Fish. Our topic was political correctness. I portrayed Fish as the grand deconstructor of Western civilization, and he fired back in There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech, several chapters of which are an answer to my arguments. As I got to know Fish, however, I recognized that although he defended some of the practices being promoted in the name of multiculturalism and diversity, he was not himself a politically correct thinker. We became friends, and in 1992 he and his wife attended my wedding.
Fish has of late been demonstrating his political incorrectness by writing critically of separation of church and state, and also by challenging leading atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christoher Hitchens. Indeed Fish uses his detailed knowledge of Milton as well as his famous skills of literary deconstruction to show the emptiness of the atheist arguments.
In his New York Times blog, Fish takes up the argument advanced by Dawkins and company that belief in God is a kind of evasion. According to this argument, we avoid the responsibilities of this life by putting our hopes in another life. Religion makes us do crazy things.
Fish takes as an example of the Harris-Hitchens-Dawkins critique the behavior of Christian in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Christian becomes aware that he is carrying a huge burden on his back (Original Sin) and he wants to get rid of it. Another fellow named Evangelist tells him to "flee the wrath to come." Evangelist points Christian in the direction of a shining light. But Christian can't clearly see the light. Still, he begins to run in that direction. Bunyan describes his wife and children who "began to cry after him to return, but the man put his fingers in his ears and ran on, crying Life! Life! Eternal Life!"
For Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, this is precisely the kind of crazy behavior that religion produces. Here is a man abandoning his duties and chasing after something he isn't even sure about. Fish writes, "I have imagined this criticism coming from outside the narrative, but in fact it is right there on the inside." Bunyan not only has Christian's wife and children imploring him to return, he also has Christian's friends struggling to make sense of his actions.
Fish comments, "What this shows is that the objections Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens make to religious thinking are themselves part of religious thinking. Rather than being swept under the rug of a seamless discourse, they are the very motor of that discourse." Citing the atheists' portrait of religion as unquestioning obedienece, Fish writes, "I know of no religious framework that offers such a complacement picture of the life of faith, a life that is always presented as a minefield of difficulties, obstacles and temptations that must be negotiated by a limited creature in the effort to become aligned with the Infinite."
Fish observes that while religious people over the centuries have dug deeply into the questions of life, along come our shallow atheists who present arguments as if they first thought of them, arguments that Christians have long examined with a seriousness and care that is missing in contemporary atheist discourse.
In a follow-up article, Fish deepens his inquiry by looking at the kind of evidence that atheists like Hawkins and Harris present for their “scientific” outlook. Harris, for example, writes that “there will probably come a time when we will achieve a detailed understanding of human happiness and of ethical judgments themselves at the level of the brain.” Fish asks, what is this confidence based on? Not, he notes, on a record of progress. Science today can no more explain ethics or human happiness than it could a thousand years ago.
Still, Harris says that scientific research hasn’t panned out because the research is in the early stage and few of the facts are in. Fish comments, “Of course one conclusion that could be drawn is that the research will not pan out because moral intuitions are not reducible to phyhsical processes. That may be why so few of the facts are in.”
Fish draws on examples from John Milton to make the point is that unbelief, no less than belief, is based on a perspective. If you assume that material reality is all there is, then you are only going to look for material explanations, and any explanations that are not material will be rejected out of hand. Fish’s objection is not so much that this is dogmatism but that it is dogmatism that refuses to recognize itself as such. At least religious people like Milton have long recognized that their core beliefs are derived from faith.
Fish concludes that “the arguments Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens mostly rely on are just not good arguments.” We can expect our unbelieving trio to react with their trademark scorn, but Fish has scored some telling points.
The scientists you refer to are HUMAN, and as such, have a very human fear of death. Many delude themselves with religion in order to give meaning to their lives.
I have absolutely no fear of such judgment; if you did not know I was an atheist (or very nearly so), and observed my life from a distance, you would reckon by my actions in both word and deed that I was the most devout of Christians. Christianity and a belief in a non-existent big ghost in the sky who somehow watches over us (but never intervenes) are NOT pre-requisites for decent, moral, civilized behavior. The threat of your so-called Judgment (or punishment) is not necessary in order for me to live my life in an extremely moral and decent way. How pathetic would I be if I only acted decently for fear of punishment? Why should a believer have any fear at all? Why would an infinitely-compassionate God want us to live in any kind of fear, at all?
Thanks. Here’s one you might enjoy by yet another physicist:
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist - Victor Stengler
I’m so terribly glad you opted to not grasp what I said.
As DS says- I can explain it for you, I can’t understand it for you.
I will give you one more chance though- The teachings within the Bible are still a solid and very valuble source of understanding in the world.
The Prodigal Son, the Good Samaratin. Do you mean to tell me these lessons have somehow become moot in today’s society?
As well, do you mean to tell me that the words of the Bible have made drastic changes over time?
Please, try harder and re-read the above if need be. Being told I’m “smoking something” while in uniform is rather a frustrating concept, being that I like serving, and would not jeopordize my career for such a base pleasure.
Regardless there is no contradiction, since the Bible states that God created light before he created plants. Query, is thermonuclear fusion the only source of light in the universe? If no, why do you even think it was “supernatural?” Not that I would have any problem with a supernatural light . . . I have no problem with a supernatural God . . .
Once again, I don’t think we have the understanding or the words even today to have God give us a description of creation. Much less one that would have made sense to the ancient Jews and stand the test of all time, and understanding, and inspiration for all readers.
Let there be light! First act of creation. No problem for plants there.
“non-literal”
It’s right in my words.
My friend, you have just put into words what I could not in my frazzled mind. And it is well done!
Thank you.
Prov 8:13 (NIV) To fear the Lord is to hate evil.
Psalm 111: 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
(Q)I’m so terribly glad you opted to not grasp what I said.(/Q)
Err... I don’t think you grasped what I said. Did you read the links I provided where the Bible does contradict science? Are those all wrong somehow?
(Q)The teachings within the Bible are still a solid and very valuble source of understanding in the world.(/Q)
If you are referring to a moral guide to live one’s life by, like the 10 Commandments, then yes I agree (although I don’t believe these were divinely-inspired). As for other advice in Scripture - there are a plethora of inconsistencies (listed in one of the other links I provided previously) that beggar explanation as to their contradiction. If you are referring to the Bible as an ultimate source of all knowledge that a person, or, collectively, humanity needs in order to understand the natural world, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
(Q)As well, do you mean to tell me that the words of the Bible have made drastic changes over time?(/Q)
Of course they have!! It all depends on which VERSION of the Bible you happen to be reading, right?
(Q)Being told I’m “smoking something” while in uniform is rather a frustrating concept, being that I like serving, and would not jeopordize my career for such a base pleasure.(/Q)
If you are serving in the US military now, and especially if you are in harm’s way, than you have my deepest heartfelt gratitude for your service.
With all due respect, I don’t think you understood my previous reply.
“If you are referring to the Bible as an ultimate source of all knowledge that a person, or, collectively, humanity needs in order to understand the natural world, then you are barking up the wrong tree.”
Of course, without said Bible having existed, you would most likely be speaking latin, and completely alien to the concepts of Freedom as you know it today.
Ah... and... which version was the first one to hold Proverbs? To mention the demon, Legion? To profess God’s Love for us? I mean... if there have been *drastic* changes, you would surely be able to produce them. Wouldn’t you?
Sometimes you just cant bridge some rivers.
But hey, Thompson/Hunter would be a kick-ass team!
Prov 8:13 (NIV) To fear the Lord is to hate evil.
Psalm 111: 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
I don’t fear anything that doesn’t exist. I do, however, hate evil.
Since fear of something that doesn’t exist is irrational, and I am rational, this renders that particular Psalm a non-sequitur. Furthermore, it is quoted from a book that I have demonstrated contradicts itself many times in many ways. Furthermore, it was written in antiquity by people ignorant of modern knowledge. Quoting Scripture at me only makes me less likely to believe what you say, not more. I fear I am wasting my time and intellect here. At any rate, you folks have a nice day. I’ve had enough of banging my head against the proverbial brick wall for one day.
*grin*
You’ll get a sore head banging it against God. Think of plate tectonics for an example of light and heat without nuclear fusion. Melted ice as well . . .
I think Purgatory is for those people-- a second chance in the afterlife.
The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.
No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.
I always thought it interesting that Mary Magdalene, Peter, Thomas, James, Paul, "more than five hundred of the brothers [NIV]", etc. all got the benefit of actual proof of Jesus' resurrection, but God didn't see fit for anyone else in the following nearly 2000 years to get that proof. Why offer proof to anyone?
The Omniscient is Surprised
That's one of the strongest arguments and suggests that anthropomorphizing of God is misplaced.
Atheists don’t view the existence of God as proven fact— just that it’s so improbable, so unknowable, so unprovable, that it’s not at all worth considering. It’s not provable either way, which is the point. If it’s not provable, the default position is “unproven.” No proof of unicorns and they are improbable, therefore it’s unproven and not worth serious consideration.
(Q)Ah... and... which version was the first one to hold Proverbs? To mention the demon, Legion? To profess God’s Love for us? I mean... if there have been *drastic* changes, you would surely be able to produce them. Wouldn’t you?(/Q)
Here are some to look through:
*ANY* changes in the Bible introduce a HUGE problem: Which one really IS the correct version of God’s True Word? It is my understanding that there are over 50 versions of the Bible available. It is not possible for me to read through 50 versions of a lengthy book in the next 5 minutes and give you the salient differences. All I need to do to prove my argument is to point out that there are over 50 different, contradictory versions, all of which purport to be the One True Word of God. It is up to YOU to demonstrate to ME why this is not a profoundly serious contradiction. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and all that. Now, I am really going away for today.
PS (Q)Thompson/Hunter would be a kick-ass team!(/Q)
I agree!
Satan - not humans - brought imperfection into this world.God created angels [Lucifer/Satan, included], too, so you can substitute that word and still keep the argument intact.
Not that I agree with the argument, but the argument doesn't hinge upon using the word humans vs. angels (unless angels were created imperfect while humans were created perfect).
Country music doesn't have to be politically correct. We sing about God because we believe in Him. We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists.
Life (as it continues to adhere to Biblical truths) has taught me never to make that assumption and that I am to be even more suspicious of those who would make such a claim. Once upon a time I was one to make and believe such claims and sometimes in my moral failings still do.
Your argument of delusion cuts both ways and that was my original point. I have “absolutely” no fear of death you have “absolutely” no fear of judgment.
Why would an infinitely-compassionate God want us to live in any kind of fear, at all?
God is also Holy, this trait of God in scripture is raised to a higher level than any of the others. If God were to strike me dead on the way to work it would be a just action based solely on the sins of this morning. “Extremely moral” is not good enough, a passing grade only goes to the perfectly moral and perfectly Holy. Once you understand this, you will understand why all of us need Christ. Start with Matthew 5:20 – 5:48 the Scribes and Pharisees would be the ones that we would think outwardly are “extremely moral” )
When all else fails, read the instructions (CCEL > Bibles and Commentaries)
The Omniscient is Surprised
That’s one of the strongest arguments and suggests that anthropomorphizing of God is misplaced.
___________________________________________________________
Then again, if God stands outside of time, which he himself created, his love and anger is not defined within time. It is, he is, and the fact that you can’t bend your mind around what it is to be outside of time doesn’t alter or define God’s nature. That’s the big problem I see in the athiest attacks on Christian belief; none posit God as a premise in their argument. The athiest thinks of existence without God and can’t seem to view it from the Christian angle even long enough to make an argument that makes sense to a Christian. Assume God and assume God’s word in the Bible is true. Then God feels love and righteous anger and it makes no sense at all to say he can’t. He does. That’s how the Christian thinks of him.
Why would love be created only by “surprise?” I love my daughter even when she doesn’t surprise me. I hate evil even when it is not at all surprising.
Technically, God created Hell to store the rebellious angels and their ringmaster Lucifer. The question is "Why didn't God make a new place of punishment for humans?" The existence of Hell doesn't necessitate its use for unrepentant humans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.