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.
Thank you.
Are you a parent? That should answer your question about how a God could do something that would hurt him because of others actions. I feel bad sometimes when I have to discipline a child, even though it needs to be done, and it’s right, it “hurts” someone I love.
You are assuming that it is impossible to change physical laws. Why assume that for God? And you cannot know what laws were changed; as I said I think that may have been what caused Newton’s interest in optics. He may have needed to look at meteorology or atmosphere or any of a host of other possibilities, including the human eye.
I think I agree with you, except for your view that it “nearly disproves” a perfect creator.
Instead of "God of the gaps" we now seem to have "Science of the gaps."
And I didn’t understand the implication that God would create only us. Think the Bible is silent on it; but it does not mention the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.
I’m saying that the logic used to accommodate the existence of evil in this world implies that anywhere else in the universe that there is life - there must be evil as well. If not, then are these creatures robots with no free-will? Do they not have the capacity to fully love God?
The idea that evil & sin are requirements before one is fully able to see God’s love is plausible from our good/evil perspective, but makes no sense if you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God. He could have created creatures much smarter than us, and without the capacity or desire to sin. He could have wiped out Adam & Eve and started over right away.
(Q)There a God, you will stand before Him one day, and you will not only give an account of your life,(/Q)
I have nothing to account for as I have led an exemplary life, except perhaps going a little over the speed limit on the highway like everybody else, perhaps. And it is not I who has something to account for - it is your putative “God” - who has stood by and watched billions of innocent human beings die and not lifted a finger (does God have fingers?) to stop it. If I did stand before him, I would demand first an accounting from HIM for my dead family, then an accounting for all the other innocents that have had to suffer and die throughout the ages. Just because you declaim yourself to be a deity, as Jesus did, does not make it so. I’ve heard all the claptrap before about how I don’t allow God into my life. After my family died - my atheism was shaken and I begged for God’s help and guidance. Know what I got? Nothing. Things became far worse, not better. I know the suffering of Job from personal experience. Want to know why I received nothing from God? Because there is nothing there save for blind nature. We are all alone, in a vast accidental Universe, and any help or guidance we receive must come from us. I can credibly state that you are the one with blinders on, because I see the Bible for what it is - superstitious fairy tales. Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy? You may as well, if you hold those other ridiculous beliefs. Any belief in a Higher, supernatural power that cares deeply about humanity is nothing but pitiful self-delusion.
In Christian theology he did create beings much smarter than we are (angels). He also did create creatures without the desire to sin in Adam and Eve; they chose to without any innate desire. I don’t think he could create creatures with free will and without the capacity to sin. I think that’s the logical catch, free will requires the ability to choose not to obey God or have a relationship with him. I think animals are creatures without the capacity to sin. They have no law, they have no salvation. The best they can hope for is that they come along for the ride with us because we love them, as any old woman with a chihuahua will tell you, she hopes Tippy is with her again . . .
And yes he could have wiped out Adam and Eve and started over. But he would have had to wipe out Adam and Eve to do that and he loved Adam and Eve specifically, just as he loves each of us specifically. I don’t believe in the assumption that God could have done better in terms of creation; I believe this creation is the best way to God’s purpose. Just a look around you shows the incredible, amazing glory of creation. Galaxies, stars, the veins in a leaf . . . all point to God.
Here’s some scripture that applies I think to evil in the world. I’m posting two full chapters of Romans, but I think it gives part of the sriptural basis for what I’m saying:
Romans 3
Romans 3
God’s Faithfulness
3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—”Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.
No One is Righteous
9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13”Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14”Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15”Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”
18”There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Romans 5
Peace and Joy
1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b] rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we[c] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Regarding growing in faith through trial and some of what God wishes of us:
2 Peter 1
5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Oh, dear. I assume you have standards you set for yourself? Do you always live up to even your own standards? If no, do you see the problem for yourself in having the standard of perfect justice applied by a perfectly just God?
1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
I have no children. Since I have no answer but yes for them when they ask me if they have to die someday, I felt I’d spare them that particular horror, as I love children too much to wish them any pain. As for disciplining children - you don’t kill them or beat them to discipline them. (or consign them to eternal torment if they don’t toe the line) I don’t think it is impossible to change physical laws. If you understood the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, you would know that an infinite number of parallel universes exist in other dimensions, many with different physical laws than ours.
If you want to play mental gymnastics with the abilities of an imaginary God, go right ahead. You have every right to live in whatever delusion you wish to and spend your time however you like. If you wish to not understand the truth about science and all the evidence that supports it, then knock yourself out. I choose to live in the real world, and base my beliefs on empirical evidence that can be proven and reproduced.
Your “perfectly just God” has been shown to be an anthropomorphized DELUSION, based on all the evidence that I have posted previously in this thread, and the mountains more that exist outside of it. Wishing a thing were true, when it is clearly not, and continuing to believe in it when it is obviously not true - is delusion at the very best and outright insanity at the worst.
Just remember that God created space and time, he is not limited by them.
Every time I’ve looked at the websites you post I’ve picked one or two items, looked at them, and they’ve been bogus, no contradictions/proof against Christ. You throw around “obviously” and “clearly” so I’ll ask again. Did “nothing” come to you in a vision and declare his nonexistence? If no, what makes you capable, as a logical matter, of saying that Newton, Galileo, Leibniz, Heisenberg, Pascal, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, John Paul II, many of whom you have to admit are your intellectual superiors, believed something so patently false? Look at the evidence and read them, see what you haven’t thought about before putting this in a box and leaving it on the shelf of your mind.
Your passion is a good thing.
“Be not afraid.”
You continue to think that science and Christ are incompatible. Test that. Think through scripture as carefully as you think through science. Recognize what is fact and what is theory and realize that scientific theories change radically, usually over the course of centuries, sometimes in decades, and the old theories most often look laughable and ridiculous. Did volcanoes make craters on the moon? It was in my 7th grade science textbook.
You hinge your belief system on science, knowing that current theories will in a century make people shake their heads and smirk.
God doesn’t change.
They are not bogus, except in your delusional mind.(furthermore none of the things I posted denied Christ’s existence, they were about contradictions in the Bible, specifically Genesis and other books, so may I respectfully ask what the hell you were reading? Obviously not what I posted.) I have pointed out, repeatedly, that any scientist, no matter how luminary in his time or how seminal his work is, is a flawed human being with human foibles. That some scientists shared your delusion of religion is not surprising at all, as they obviously understood their own mortality and didn’t want to live in a purposeless universe. What rational being would? It is little wonder that many of them responded to the siren call of religion. You keep accusing me of not having read the evidence as if I am as ignorant of religion as you are of science. That is not the case. You still haven’t told me WHY my evidence is wrong - you simply deny it and act as if you are morally superior. I’m afraid I’m in a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent. Not being delusional, as religionists are, I don’t have “visions”. I only come to conclusions that are based on empirical evidence. The most important thing to me in life is a search for the truth, and religion is easily dismissed very early on in that search, even by those with only sophomoric reasoning ability. You are entrenched in a belief system that has no proof, and no possibility of revision, that is static and closed, and claims to be ultimate knowledge provided by a mythical Supreme Being. I am entrenched in a belief system that has mountains of empirically-based, reproducible evidence and is ever-progressing as it discovers new ideas and information. The benefits of science have saved countless lives, made our lives vastly easier, and led us to discoveries from the tiniest quantum scale to the largest multi-universal scales. Indeed, Science gives us hope of one day in the perhaps not-too-distant future of finally uniting gravity with electromagnetism in a true Theory of Everything. Now, which of us is the wiser? Care to list the accomplishments of religion in the past 200 years?
I HAVE tested it - haven’t you been reading what I’ve posted? Not a single “Christian” here has even tried to refute what I’ve said - just denied it over and over again and PRESENTING NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS TO MY EVIDENCE AS TO WHY THEY ARE WRONG! And get your facts straight - there WAS volcanism on the moon:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/planet_volcano/lunar/Overview.html
You are illustrating perfectly what I have said previously: That scientific theories are presented, subject to peer-review and revision when new data are presented - as in the evidence of moon rocks being subject to scientific analysis when they were returned by the Apollo missions. This caused those old theories to be revised and made CLOSER to the truth, not further away from it! Science is all about the TRUTH, no matter what that truth may be! At least Science has the integrity to admit when it is wrong (and in your example it was only very slightly wrong, as some craters ARE the result of volcanism several billion years ago.) Religion, of course, has no standards at all to meet, being faith-based. Requiring no proof for your beliefs strikes me as not only delusional, but intellectually lazy as well. And in a century, people will NOT shake their heads and smirk at us, no more than we shake our heads and smirk about the theories for electricity and magnetism in the time before Maxwell published his theory of electromagnetism. They were brilliant, cogent theories that needed a genius to unite them and bring them to the next step. This conversation has degenerated into an enormous waste of time for me. I am really leaving for good this time. I just couldn’t stand it when sirchtruth posted his idiotic denials of everything I said, called ME ignorant with his extremely poor grammar, and, like you, presented no reason WHY I was wrong. Goodbye.
From what you posted: “Thus, the very flat and smooth mare surfaces imply that mare lavas were very fluid. They could both flow very easily and spread out over large areas. Also, the low gravity means that explosive eruptions can throw debris further on the Moon than on the Earth. Indeed, such eruptions on the Moon should spread lavas out into a broad flat layer and not into the cone-shaped features seen on the Earth. This gives one reason for why large volcanoes are not seen on the Moon. Second, the Moon has essentially no dissolved water. The lunar mare are all bone dry. In contrast, water is one of the most common gases in Earth lavas. Water also plays a major role in driving violent eruptions on the Earth. Thus, the lack of lunar water should strongly affect lunar volcanism. In particular, without water, violent explosive eruptions are much less likely on the Moon. Instead, lavas should just flow smoothly and quietly out onto the surface. “
Volcanoes didn’t make the craters on the moon, old theory. Meteor impact. Do you ever read the links that you post?
By what standard is he flawed and where do you get your standard?
I've responded to most of your links to sites or arguments, usually my response is ignored. Not an issue for me. The bottom line is that you think you react against God because you believe he is a fairy tale. I think you believe God is a fairy tale because you react against God.
Your belief system in science on the big matters, theology, is misplaced. Science, good science, carefully limits the scope of the theory. The science you "believe in" will surely change and you will surely be wrong. Just see the old theory that the craters on the moon were caused by volcanoes. See also the older theory that the canals on Mars were made by people.
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.