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.
You SO missed it. No one is righteous (Rom 3:10). EVERYONE who espouses they are Extremely moral, is suspect especially those that say they believe because Christians should know where the bar is set and that they are nowhere near it. This is the last verse of what I sent you, what proceeds it will provide more clarity.
NASB Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Please explain to me why God would allow an innocent and otherwise perfectly healthy baby to be conceived, fully gestated to term, then die in birth, strangled by it own umbilical cord?
Sounds similar to the story of my first born, every time my wife pushed his little heart would slow. Listening to the slowing beep of his monitor was painful. He is 7 years old now, praise God. Regarding the why of it all, I don't think my answer would do it for you. Try the book of Job he lost all of his kids. The below link will get you there. A lot of what you say reminds me of the book of Ecclesiastes, you might be able to relate better with it and be surprised at what it says. Man has been man for an awfully long time. Now that we are mostly talking past each other I am going to call it a night.
Cheers
When all else fails, read the instructions (CCEL > Bibles and Commentaries)
I did not miss anything. If anyone can be claimed to be extremely righteous, in a traditional Christian moral sense, that would be my wife and I. As a matter of fact, I have known many Christians; perhaps 1% or less of them live as righteously as I do. Indeed, I have lived the life of Job, so there is no need for me to read it (again). It did not make me believe in fairy tales. Quite the opposite effect, actually. I guess I am not worthy of being “saved”. As has been noted previously, neither was Anne Frank. At least I’ll be in good company in Hell. You were lucky enough (praise statistics) that your son made it. There are many not so fortunate. You did not answer my question. Why would your all-merciful God allow an innocent baby to die at birth? Could it be because we, as humans, are subject to the same natural laws (being part of the natural world) as all the other animals are? And your mythical Supreme Being does not exist?
From my viewpoint it doesn’t take much to “deconstruct” theism - merely the simple observation that the various theisms all claim to be true, and have mutually exclusive beliefs.
It doesn’t matter HOW MANY children they had - they were all brothers and sisters. The deleterious effects of inbreeding in human populations are well known. The minimum scientifically-accepted human breeding population for restoring the amount of genetic diversity we see today is approximately 5000 (assuming they are not all brothers and sisters to begin with). To get the population even REMOTELY started, they would ALL have to marry brothers and sisters. Does this mean that incest is part of God’s plan for us all? I mean, if these mythical people at the beginning of time were “more perfect” and “nearer to God” than people of modern times - then shouldn’t we try to become closer to God by emulating them - and commit incest as often as possible? Don’t you people ever think these things through? Don’t you begin to see the danger of referring back to primitive superstition that was written in ignorance for one’s guide as to how to conduct one’s life? Has the lesson of Islam been lost upon you?
Can’t really agree with you there. I’ve never read Dawkins’ book (and don’t intend to), and I’ve only heard him speak once. He seemed reasonably intelligent and pretty much sane. But overall, I withhold judgment.
On the other hand, I think Robertson is probably certifiable. I’ve read one of his books and watched his TV show easily a dozen times, probably more, and while I would agree that he’s mostly harmless in the sense that nobody with an IQ of more than 80 could possibly take him seriously, he strikes me as having some pretty serious mental problems.
(Q)Do you really think that the Nazi were Christians with a saving faith in Christ?(/Q)
Yes, in fact they were. As were the Crusaders, and the members of the Inquisition.
http://www.theturning.org/folder/nazis.html
I’m not sure Robertson believes what he says anyway; he’s just in it for the money, like everyone else. I have no intention of reading Dawkins either.
Couldn’t God know all possible futures?
(Q)What kind of a loving God would He be if the wicked were never punished?(/Q)
What kind of a loving God designs an infinite torture chamber and then creates imperfect beings, which He knows will fail to live up to His standards, to fill it with? The very idea would cause the Marquis de Sade to retch in revulsion!
Yeah, the reality of illusion. The shear incomphensible lunacy of Chad's argument is simply he has no clue about the charater of God and his word. Why doesn't he follow his own arrogant advice and adhere to the biblical standard which say you can not know God unless you believe in him?
This article definately fits right in the "stuck on stupid" realm.
ping
How funny. You intentionally misinterpreted Schroedinger's intent with that thought experiment ^_^ Besides the point that it has nothing to do with Heisenberg's equation and everything to do with observation. Schroedinger like Einstein ultimately conceded defeat.
So he's a moron?
You seemed to have missed a salient little point. Even if God can work from future knowledge he still can't know where the particle is if he knows the momentum or vice versa. Half of the knowledge is forever out of his grasp.
It depends on your definition of God. An omnipotent or Omniscient God can't exist. A supremely powerful and knowledgeable God could theoretically exist.
Not really. New advances will refine our understanding, not invalidate them. F=MA is still valid, E=MCsquared is just more accurate. Heisenberg's equation is incredibly accurate. It is possible that new advances will refine it, but just like F=MA it will still be valid.
So when science doesn't understand something, or refuses to investigate it makes stuff up?
The verse being quoted shows clearly that the events as portrayed in Genesis are in contradiction to what Science would tell us.
What a load of unmitigated crap! The more science learns the more it jives with the biblical account. Also you have to remember in biblical terms "light" might not mean physical light as we know it. In Revelation there's a verse which describes an absent of the sun in heaven, but God's light will be suficient for all. Do you understand what this means, I don't.
When a photon changes it characteristic strickly based on it being observed, (it seems) science hasn't the slightest clue about the realm we live in and the biblical account has proven to be alot closer than any of sciences conjectures.
Was the speed of light much faster at Genesis than it is today?
I have some problems with such a conclusion. It seems to me that if you find yourself at such a point, it's time to review definitions.
On the other hand, it's not my place to argue with you here, so...as you like.
Ahh, but you don't have any evidence to support that assertion do you?
And the “fallacy” was making an assertion to or against the proof for God. Given the nature of the subject (and our lack of understanding) it is premature to assert such a thing. Thus- a fallacy.
Think of Schroedinger’s(I know that can’t be the right spelling) Cat. “That cat has no scientific proof of living!”
Schroedinger's cat thought experiment doesn't question Heisenberg's Uncertainty Equation. What it is questioning is the role of the observer. Heisenberg's Equation needs no outside observer. The particles position or momentum don't co-exist.
Here is poor example but maybe it will suffice. Blow up a balloon and let's call that a wave. Now, before you pop it with a needle, can you tell me where the deflated remnant is? You can't until you pop the balloon. Just like you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, but he couldn't know which future is the actual future before hand. When I roll a die I know that I am going to roll a 1-6 or an edge. I know all the possible futures too, but I don't know which one it will be.
That still doesn't eliminate the problem that God can't know both the momentum and the position at the same time. He can know one or the other.
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.