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.
(Q)So when science doesn’t understand something, or refuses to investigate it makes stuff up?(/Q)
Where did you get a bizarre notion like this? Science is based on empirical evidence; until such evidence is found, the search will always continue. As I have laboriously stated before - theories are published with their supporting data for peer-review - and all who read them try to DISPROVE them to the best of their ability. When no data can be presented to disprove them, the theories become generally accepted in the scientific community. If new data is presented that requires alteration, or outright rejection of the theory, then that theory will be rejected -dispassionately - and a new one that fits the existing data will be developed. Science is an open, empirically based process. It is the exact opposite of religion, which is dogmatic, static and does not explain the natural world that we live in in terms that are based upon reason. Calling my statement of the incorrectness of the Genesis fable “unmitigated crap” does not make it so; please tell us WHY it is crap in empirically-provable terms. Is it “crap” because it does not agree with your worldview that is based on primitive, ignorant superstition? The more science learns, the more it DISAGREES with Biblical accounts. Your assertion that there was some supernatural light that was somehow different from light today, or that the Universal constants have changed since the “Creation”, is, frankly, ludicrous. There have been cases in the past where scientific data has been “fudged” - these are always uncovered and result in huge scandals and the complete destruction of the reputation of those involved. On the other hand, religion has no peer-review process and no need for verification, or, indeed, to make any sense at all in the modern world since it is faith-based. The first thing you need to do, in order to accept religion, is throw your intellect and skepticism out the window. Science, despite what you say, is the ONLY tool we have that gives us any clue about the actual workings of the Universe. If you understood the implications of the Double Slit Experiment and the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, you would understand why the photon changes its characteristics when observed. If God wanted to convince us of the truth in the Bible, maybe he should’ve sprinkled some little tidbits in there about science that could only be understood in modern terms. I guess God just wasn’t thinking ahead, was he?
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/guestwriters/tucker.html
The God of Classical Theism - why He can’t exist
There’s no point in attempting to prove or disprove the existence of a God. A strong case could be made that it’s impossible to prove or disprove a cabbage - merely touching, seeing or eating something doesn’t prove it’s existence, as we have to remember that we can only experience things through the faculties we possess. When we see a cabbage, we do not experience the Ultimate Reality of the Cabbage - it’s merely our brains interpreting eternal phenomena. I don’t know enough about neuroscience to know whether or not we have the knowledge to do this yet, but it’s theoretically possible to simulate the experience of eating a cabbage by applying the correct electrical impulses to the right parts of the brain (though why anyone would wish to is beyond me)
If the existence of something as solid as a cabbage is empirically unproveable - then trying to prove/falsify a deity, something usually represented as completely other, is an utterly futile gesture.
However, I’m not going to try and disprove the possible existence of A god, but rather that of THE God that I was brought up to believe in as a Catholic - the God of Classical Theism as theologians like to call Him.
This God is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnicogniscent, omnibenevolent and a variety of other things beginning in omni. Apparently, we draw all our knowledge of Him from the divine inspiration we read in scripture. As the Catholic Bible is a closed canon, for them at least the sum total of revealed theology must be contained within its pages.
So, from the Bible apparently we can derive these truths about His nature. So how is it that an all-seeing (omnivisual? omnioptical? anyone know the right word?) God didn’t see Adam and Eve eat the apple, and omnicogniscent God didn’t know they had or were going to do it, and an omnipresent God wasn’t there to observe?
So if all this theologians didn’t discover this nature in the Bible, where did they get it from? If the doctrine of him being completely other is true, it can’t come from natural theology.
Aside from all this, the terms themselves are mutually contradictory. Omnipotence - the power to do anything (with no exceptions) Omnibenevolence - being completely good
If someone is completely good, there isn’t even the tiniest bit of badness or wrongness in them - they would only be capable of being good. But if God is omnipotent, He is capable of anything, including horrific evil. But someone who is capable of evil and chooses not to do it is only benevolent, not omnibenevolent, for there would have to be something about them capable of being not good.
Similarly, if he is omnicogniscent, he is incapable of not knowing something - he cannot forget. If there is anything you cannot do, you can’t be omnipotent.
The problem is in trying to define God. Nothing that actually exists is capable of being defined by words, because words must draw arbitrary lines that don’t exist in real life, or else mean a different thing to different people - either way they don’t accurately define a thing. Think of the word blue? Can you accurately point to where blue ends and turquoise or green begins? Would everyone agree with you? No, because blue isn’t a thing, it’s an abstract concept.
With objects we experience, it’s necessary to coin arbitrary terms such as blue, however inaccurate they may be, because we have no more efficient means of communicating. With God however, we don’t experience his omniscience, nor, when you think about it, do we have any evidence for it whatsoever, other than that some religious types decided it was true. Faith in things we experience through our faulty senses because it’s the only way we have is, to a certain extent, necessary. Faith in something it’s not actually possible to experience, like someone/thing else’s omnipotence isn’t.
“The particles position or momentum don’t co-exist.”
I fully understand what you are saying. I simply reject it. Position in space must also always account for time, especially in the “expanding universe” model. Therefore, stating an object’s position is always going to be relative to the observer. If it is moving in relation to the observer is unimportant, therefore it is equally plausible to assert that *only* a particle’s momentum may be known.
God has provided man a way of escape from bondage to sin, has provided man a way to have a relationship with Him, and has provided man a way to escape the hell that was made for Satan.
Man, in his natural, unredeemed state, loves sin, and wants sin with no consequences. The only problem with that is there is a God Who is righteous, Who will not tolerate sin and rebellion against Himself, and Who will, in His perfect justice, judge sin and punish it. It is incontrovertable proof of the love and mercy of God that He sacrificed His own Son; His Son who took on Himself the punishment and wrath of God against the sin of every human being that has ever existed, who exists now, and who will ever exist, so that those of us who actually commit the sin and rebellion against this holy, righeous God can escape the hell that God created for Satan and those human beings who spend their lives wanting nothing to do with God.
God knows that nobody can live up to His standards and so He, in His love and compassion towards a fallen, sick world, provided a way for us to be clean before Him.
Now whether or not people spend eternity in hell is up to them, not God. God doesn't want anybody to go to hell and has given man a way out of that fate.
Exactly right.
You seem to think that God is somehow limited by human limitations. It is not the case. It is the human inability that Heisenberg addressed, not a limitation on God. Experimental science not theology.
It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that you've proven such a God impossible. Hopefully you won't discover in the end that you've proven yourself impossible.
Don’t fret - you are in good company. Einstein rejected the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, too. Unfortunately, he was also wrong. Go look it up, and until you fully understand it, and how thoroughly it has been proved, then you probably shouldn’t post anything else about it. Here’s a couple of links to get you started:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Good luck on your quest for knowledge!
(Q)That would be true only if this God left men to their own devices.(/Q)
Sigh. They really got to you early. Too bad, you’ll live your whole life with the boat anchor of false religious beliefs around your neck. Your ability to think critically is in some serious need of improvement, I’m afraid. Your statements are in contravention to all the empirical evidence now in existence. I choose not to go through life wearing blinders. I’m not worried at all about some ugly surprise at the end, because the same thing that happens to me will happen to everyone else: death followed by oblivion. At least I won’t have to suffer for eternity at the hands of your inifinitely-compassionate God.
I agree, you can know either the momentum or the position and the position is relative.
Don't you think that knowing the position might be important? Especially if it is going to run into something, even if it is relative?
From what you posted regarding the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
We do not know if this indeterminism is actually the way the Universe works, because the theory of Quantum Mechanics is probably incomplete. That is, we do not know if the Universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (there are many possible paths a particle can follow and the observed path is chosen probabilistically) or if the Universe is deterministic in the sense that I could predict the path a particle will follow with 100 % certainty.
So, you know, and you alone, that this principle disproves God’s omniscience. Meanwhile scientists, or at least those you link to, say that it is just a theory and probably an incomplete one, and that the universe may indeed be deterministic. It’s sort of like declaring that because you do not personally know God that no God exists . . . same logical fallacy.
I will try to reply to Locke’s longer post when I have a chance. However, I think most of the posters who think they trump the supernatural with the natural miss the point entirely.
The argument about eternity is ultimately an argument about orgins and destinations since eternity is continuous without begining or end. Locke fails to address origins which are meaphysical by nature and not subject to scientific inquiry. To assert otherwise is to confuse science with religion or metaphysics.
Ultimately faith and will are inextricably intertwined. This is the point that Locke and others seem unwiling to examine. I believe Locke willfully refuses to examine questions of origins since they cannot be answered empirically. Hence, he refuses to address his own will or his implicit faith. IMHO, until he removes this blindspot he cannot ever be pursuaded of anything outside his more narrow “will-space”, if I may coin a term.
The will is the key to seeing God. If you cannot “tame” your will,then you will see only what you will.
Oh, of course its relavent. It’s just not dealing with the argument about God’s abilities in the Universe.
Ok, I’ve had enough - you win - science is wrong and I am blowing smoke because secretly I want to believe - and repent my evil ways! OOOPS!! Just kidding! We are just spinning our wheel here, Greg, talking past each other. Your fervent wish to denigrate science by saying “It’s only a theory” just reinforces what I have been saying all along - you simply don’t comprehend science, or all the empirical evidence that backs up both science and everything I have said. Only a cruel, malign God would design such a Universe that we live in, then give us a book that is supposedly His One True Word to live by, and minds to analyze that knowledge with and the curiosity to seek it, and put both of these things in opposition to each other in order to confuse and confound us! I wish you good luck, and I am out of here for good. I’ve better tasks to perform than stay here and have otherwise-sensible people attempt to cram primitive superstition down my throat as if it had any merit at all.
PS – nuclear weapon design theory is just a theory too. Care to stand 100 yards from a 10Mt warhead while it goes off? I mean, after all, it’s just a little THEORY, right? How much harm could a little THEORY do?
It sounds like you think that Heisenberg's theory is a measuring problem, it isn't. You need to wrap your mind around the idea that it isn't both a wave and a particle at the same time. Your choice of experiment determines what it is.
Let me put it another way. Lets say that you have a container with an unknown substance. If you dip in a spoon you bring out water or if you dip in a fork you bring out ice. Now for the fun part, if you have identical containers it can be shown that your choice of tools, either the spoon or the fork determines what you get out of the containers, but not what is in the containers. We are not talking classical physics here!
Another way of looking at it is if an electron had both position and momentum at the same time it would invariably hit the nucleus and the atom would be destroyed. The universe as we know it is possible because of Heisenberg's theory.
Of course it is. If God can't know where everything is, he can hardly be omniscient. Therefore an Omniscient God can't exist.
I fail to see how our current understanding of the universe is somehow supposed to be used to define the possibilities of God’s workings.
I mean, the whole point is that God is above our human understandings. Isn’t it?
You still seem to think that you have to choose between science and God. You don’t; Newton didn’t, Copernicus didn’t, Heisenberg didn’t, Leibniz didn’t, etc. etc. God’s creation is what we study in science. They fit together perfectly. The mistake you make is to extrapolate a theories application to areas where they don’t apply at all and to see a theory as “true” even when scientists themselves carefully delimit the theory in their papers to a particular context.
Remember that it is your relationship with God that is important. You don’t have to follow anyone else’s path to that relationship.
That reminds me of a saying my Sunday School teacher first introduced me too-
The laws of Physics are simply the rules God gave the Universe upon Creation.
Or there is an undiscovered law that keeps the electron from hitting the nucleus.
The uncertainty principle seems to disprove the cocksure idea that we humans can know everything. Why does it make you so sure of the reverse?
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.