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 difference is a “never” testable theory would not be science, in my opinion. It could be considered theology or some subset of knowledge or speculative philosophy, but it is no longer in the realm of science. It moves into mathmatics or logic or some such. When energies get so huge that solar systems are required to generate them, I’d say we’ve reached that limit.
I’m a big fan of sci-fi, but I know it’s fiction, not science.
Never is a long time. I see what you are saying, though. Some parts of M-theory may well border on the philosophical. I’m a big fan of Sci fi also - few of my favorite authors are Larry Niven and Orson Scott Card (who, interestingly enough, is very religious). And it’s science-based fiction - just because the word Fiction is there doesn’t mean that some real science and very clever theories aren’t presented. Did you ever read James Blish’s “A Case of Conscience”? I’m pretty sure you would enjoy that one - I did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Case_of_Conscience
Don’t be so doubtful of what humanity is capable of - look at what our imaginations have come up with (sci-fi is but one example) I can envision a day when we can harness the entire energy output of a sun (Dyson Sphere), or perhaps pull energies directly from higher dimensionalities. Maybe then we can test M-theory
This is one of my favorite passages in the Bible. It addresses knowledge:
1 Corinthians 13
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
The King James Version uses the famous phrase “through a mirror darkly” . . . but the end result remains. Imperfect knowledge, always, without God, and knowledge as inferior, in fact worth nothing, without love.
I’ve had the same argument with my physicist friend regarding human capabilities. He helped build the world’s fastest computer (at that time) to make a calculation for his physics. I have to concede that the greater practical knowledge of our limits is his though; he’s actually run up against the limits of testability while I just have a hazy idea that everything is possible and then don’t have to actually make it happen.
Just FYI- I was simply a stream of thought I had to get out.
Coming across as an atheist would be my LAST intention, as personally, I believe in God. My thought simply lead me to ask “what precedence do I have to make such an assertion?”
‘Twas merely a pondering I was hoping to entertain. You did well, but I think it’s something that would work better in a discussion.
Locke_2007,
With all due respect, I would assert that, yes, there are numerous errors of logic in your argument. First, let me be clear that I understand there are many who believe that suffering and evil in the world can be used to demonstrate that God does not exist, or at least, not the God described by believers (i.e., the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible). I do not agree with this position for several reasons.
First, because you do not understand something does not mean it cannot be understood. Moreover because you think something should not or cannot be so, it does not follow that you have discovered a fact or truth. I am sure you would agree with this.
In these cases, you could simply be suffering from a lack of understanding that is attainable and/or a misunderstanding of fact that can be corrected.
So, in the first place, you should at least entertain the proposition or hypothesis that there could be a God who is revealed as described in the Bible, and that there is a way to reconcile our pain and suffering on this earth with that revelation. (For the moment I’ll leave Hell and the hereafter aside, but will return to it, I promise.)
So, if you are willing to think clearly about any hypothesis involving concepts of infinity I think you’ll have to agree that your finite mind cannot, by definition, apprehend the Infinite. Yet, your arguments depend entirely on mixing the two. You treat the Infinite as though it is finite to make a point about the world you assert you know.
Let’s now talk about Hell, the ultimate eternal horrible fate. If God is infinite and eternal and omnipotent and omniscient, then His purposes may be whatever he decides they should be, and you have limited ability to understand that which you cannot possibly comprehend, since you are not God.
Ultimately, I would argue that you simply do not like the idea that there might be a loving God who exists while there also exists suffering and the possibility of eternal dmanation.
This gets to the central point associated with suffering and evil - free will. You do not want it to be so. You want, of you own will, to find that God does not exist. You are free to do so, but then you might not be free after all if the prospect of turning your back on God could account for the suffering and evil in the world. That would be too much to bear, like the thought of Hell is too much to bear.
But, if it is true, then it is true regardless of whether you like it or not. Thus, it would seem worth investigating whether your own feeble ability to think logically can really save you from the prospects of ultimate accountability, or whether True Love has felt the desire to let you know that there is A Way out of your dilemma.
In the end you must entertain the possibility that your will decides your fate. After all, you believe your will can decide not to acknowledge God. Yet, others in the same boat metaphysically, obviously believe that there is a God.
Of course, you might claim your conclusion is based on your knowledge that God cannot exist, but it is your will in the end that determines what you believe.
Ultimately, I only ask whether you want to trust to yourself alone? Are you so convinced of the power of your own thoughts that you are willing to bet eternity on this? Or, perhaps, should you investigate for yourself whether those who you may think are ignorant, superstitious, or whatever, might have stuggled with (are struggling with) the very same questions and concerns with which you are also struggling?
You might find after all, that many of the things you think you know are actually attributable to things others have told you. In fact, I would submit that you are relying on other’s testimony. Funny, that is one of the objections to believing the Scripture.
“The origin though, is clearly explained by quantum Mechanics. Something can come from nothing, it’s all about the odds.”
I think you assume to much into the quatum. we have few examples of it’s workings that we could demonstrate, and even fewer solid theories as to why they work.
Something has never come from nothing. It has only come from what we do not yet know!
Think of Schrotinger’s(I know that can’t be the right spelling) Cat. “That cat has no scientific proof of living!”
Well... it has no proof of *not* living either, therefore the previous statement is moot.
The King James Version uses the famous phrase “through a mirror darkly” . . . but the end result remains. Imperfect knowledge, always, without God, and knowledge as inferior, in fact worth nothing, without love.
So, are you saying we (humanity) should give up in our quest for knowledge as no matter how much knowledge we attain it is useless without God’s love? Or something much more obvious like “life is not worth living without “love”? I must argue that knowledge is not nothing, but EVERYTHING! Do you have no idea what a hostile place the Universe is? Ignoring collisions with rogue planets, neutron stars, black holes, nearby hypernovas sterilizing the Earth down to bedrock with gamma rays, what of the abundant evidence of large-scale asteroid collisions on the history of the Earth? I realize that this is a hot subject for science fiction movies - but the danger that these movies (and books) portray is all too real. Would you have us abandon our quest for knowledge, turn aside from the abundant raw materials just waiting to be used throughout the Solar System, and go back to a 19th century Amish-style existence that turns its back on technology? What does humanity do then when the asteroid with Earth’s name on it shows up? Pray for divine intervention? Desperate people have done that throughout history - and no evidence exists for divine intervention.
“8Love never fails” - apparently God hasn’t taken a look at the current rates of divorce and infidelity. Not to mention child abuse.
“is that science makes PROGRESS. Religion already claims to know all the answers, and thus it is static. Furthermore, if religion changes, then doesn’t this render it untrue as it has strayed from the original ONE TRUE WORD of God? How many times have religions been updated or changed during history?”
Such a self-contradicting statement! And in both instances, incorrect.
Religion is not “static” for one very good reason- it has founded the principles even you adhere to to this day. “The Protestant Work Ethic” anyone? How about having a working knowledge and even semi-functional understanding of Latin? The Church brought us through the Dark Ages, not the Self.
Aside from that, it is neither simply a tool which contradicts itself, even though it is often the preserver and backdrop of knowledge (many would call this “wisdom”) it does not change it’s message. Jesus has always died for our Sins. And I am as of yet having trouble finding a passage that contradicts science (especially when read in a non-literal fashion, as many of the book’s chapters are writ).
Even the atheist sees the flaw in the Arminian paradigm.
If we correctly begin with God's sovereignty in all things, the world makes a lot more sense.
As God wills, for His glory and the joy of His children.
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." -- Matthew 10:26-34"Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
A reasonable argument. But ...
You can apply the same argument to an Islamic Suicide Bomber. He would claim that he, as well, was touched by his version of the Holy Spirit. And we believe that he is wrong don't we? Is there any doubt that his feelings about what he believes to be the truth are every bit as strong as the most devout Christian?
The bottom line for me is that any religion is based on faith and not proof of any kind. That's OK. What is not OK is to confuse strong belief and gut feel or whatever you want to call it with proof in any sense. It is not proof. It is simply a deep seated faith that you know what is right.
God’s love never fails, and your love is never a failure, but has eternal consequence and success. God is love and to the extent we imitate Christ we act in love and it has effect. I find the fact that love never fails an inspiration and something to think about deeply.
As far as knowledge being worthless, it is worthless without love. It puts the value of knowledge in context. Look at some of the horrible uses that technology has been put to and you’ll see the truth in what Paul wrote and it’s inspiration. He wrote long before the dark technological 20th century when part of it’s meaning became clear, in my view. Your view that knowledge is “everything” is not right; without love it is indeed worthless. With love, as with all things, it becomes good.
(Q)First, because you do not understand something does not mean it cannot be understood. Moreover because you think something should not or cannot be so, it does not follow that you have discovered a fact or truth. I am sure you would agree with this.(/Q)
Supposedly, God gave us the ability to reason. Therefore He created the Universe knowing that I would use the exact ability He gave me in order to turn away from him. This automatically consigns me to Hell for eternity. How is this not a deliberate act of sadism?
(Q)Let’s now talk about Hell, the ultimate eternal horrible fate. If God is infinite and eternal and omnipotent and omniscient, then His purposes may be whatever he decides they should be, and you have limited ability to understand that which you cannot possibly comprehend, since you are not God.(/Q)
You are arguing for a malign deity here. Supposedly, in the Bible he reveals his One True Path to us. On the other hand, you are stating that we cannot ever understand God, humans being limited beings. But, the same God built that limitation into us, right? So here you are arguing not only for a malign God, but for an incompetent God.
(Q)This gets to the central point associated with suffering and evil - free will. You do not want it to be so. You want, of you own will, to find that God does not exist.(/Q)
I want nothing other than to know the truth. The only source for verifiable truth I have found in my life is Science. I have no desire to prove that God does not exist – I began the whole process of discovery with an open mind; it is the evidence (or lack thereof) that has led me to my present philosophical position which can best be described as extreme agnosticism bordering on atheism. The only reason I don’t declaim myself as a confirmed atheist is because there is no reason why God couldn’t exist, but not care one whit about what happens to humanity. I admit that it is far more likely in a statistical sense that God doesn’t exist than the former assertion be true.
(Q)Of course, you might claim your conclusion is based on your knowledge that God cannot exist, but it is your will in the end that determines what you believe.(/Q)
I have no knowledge that God cannot exist. If I did, I would be perhaps the greatest philosophical mind that ever lived. My conclusion is based solely on all of the available evidence – and all of that evidence points to the complete absence of any Supreme Being.
(Q)Ultimately, I only ask whether you want to trust to yourself alone? Are you so convinced of the power of your own thoughts that you are willing to bet eternity on this?(/Q)
I am not trusting myself alone. I am trusting the sum total of all knowledge available to me, and to reason and logic, which if you are correct, your God built into me. I cannot be frightened into believing by some behavior-modification fairy tale. If God does exist, and He allows all the suffering in this world that I have been witness to; then I would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven (to quote Milton).
(Q)You might find after all, that many of the things you think you know are actually attributable to things others have told you. In fact, I would submit that you are relying on other’s testimony. Funny, that is one of the objections to believing the Scripture.(/Q)
I don’t live my life according to atavistic dogma written millennia ago by a bunch of superstitious, ignorant peasants. It should be obvious by now that I am very individualistic in my thinking. The testimony of others must be rational and provable before I believe it. Scientists are generally believable. Religionists are never believable.
Interesting analogy about the bombers.
One key thing though that looks to have been over-looked.
Just because a group of people have “evidence” it does not mean they will all reach the same conclusion. Some (possibly all?) WILL be wrong.
What on Earth are you smoking???? Are you kidding me? When, exactly, is the next chapter of the Bible, with God’s latest (updated) rules for out behavior, to be published? Did He tell you, personally? Scientific knowledge is exponentiating, and accelerating. Do you go to the Dr. when you are sick, or do you just pray?
You’ll have to stick with Christ if you want me to defend the truth.
I know that the suicide bomber is wrong. I know it because Christ said that you shouldn’t hurt children, you should love, you should love your neighbor as yourself, you should keep the commandment not to murder, you should obey the authorities; practically every statement Christ made shows the suicide bomber to be acting for evil and not Christ and this is consonant with the Holy Spirit’s action on any Christian.
I also agree with you that any “feeling” should be tested against scripture, with your fellow Christians, and against reason itself (the Christian God cannot contradict himself, being unchanging). Just think of the women that drown thier children while the women are in a post-partum depression, claiming God told them to. It wasn’t God. We know that. They also should have known that is well, and should have known, if they lived their faith or even had faith.
I personally think that if Satan is active anywhere, he is most likely to be active in the area of religion; support for false religion and attacks on those living as Christians. So I agree wholeheartedly that anyone must test any “feeling” they have from the Holy Spirit.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
(Q)And I am as of yet having trouble finding a passage that contradicts science (especially when read in a non-literal fashion, as many of the book’s chapters are writ).(/Q)
Here’s a whole bunch; just in the spirit of helpfulness, you understand:
Scientific contradictions:
http://forum.cygnus-study.com/showthread.php?t=2632
General Errors:
http://atheism.about.com/od/errorsinthebibl/
http://www.1001errors.com/index.html
Sigh. As always, do you check into this stuff before you link to it? First comment on your first site:
1). Genesis 1: 11-19 According to this passage, plants appear on the THIRD DAY of creation although the sun is not made until the FOURTH! Now apart from the obvious problem this raises concerning photosynthesis, it actually raises an even bigger scientific dilemma involving the temperature of the planet at the time. With no sun to provide heat of any kind, I assume that the temperature of the atmosphere would be at or near Absolute Zero or –459 degrees Fahrenheit. Please explain what kinds of plants could hope to survive in those conditions.
Does this make sense with the first act of creation by God being “Let there be light” in Genesis? It doesn’t to me.
This fellow threw in all this nonsense about absolute zero and so forth without taking the Bible at its word that God created light, night and day, and so forth, first.
But, but, how could he create light without the sun? He’s God! If we humans can make light without the sun surely God can . . . It’s not a detailed description of creation, and if it was, do you think ancient Jews would have understood it or even have had the words to describe it? Do you think we could understand it today? I don’t.
The atheists you refer to are HUMAN, and as such, have a very human fear of judgment from a Holy God and delude themselves with atheism in order to sin without fear.
The believer’s fear is quite tame in comparison.
(Q)But, but, how could he create light without the sun? He’s God!(/Q)
Sigh. The verse being quoted shows clearly that the events as portrayed in Genesis are in contradiction to what Science would tell us. I did vet them before posting. What is the source of visible light, and the engine that drives all life on Earth? The Sun. How could God make such a mistake? Did he make light and heat by some supernatural means, then say to Himself. “Hmm. I think I just figured out a BETTER way to make light and heat for the Earth - I’ll make a Sun powered by thermonuclear fusion!” Then, he magically wished away His Magical light and wished the Sun into existence. (What held the planets in place before the Sun was there? Or did they exist yet?) If God did decide to create a new kind of light (the Sun), then this proves He is fallible and not omnipotent, to wit; why didn’t He create the Sun in the first place? Also, if He is all-powerful (i.e., Omnipotent), then why did He have to rest on the seventh day? Science dispels with having to cop out with statements like “He’s God! He can do anything he wants!” Science demands an explanation for physical phenomena and does not resort to highly unrealistic supernatural explanations. Without the Sun the temperature on the Earth would fall to close to absolute zero. That is not nonsense, it is a provable fact. One would assume an omnipotent God would know His laws of physics better than, well, anybody, and create things in the Universe in the correct order. In Genesis, this does not happen. If Genesis is not a “detailed” description of Creation, then are the rest of the Scriptures the “detailed” Word of God? If they are only as accurate as Genesis, do you see the problem here? Why didn’t God, a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent being, create humanity so that we COULD understand his Word, and cause the Bible to be written in a way that we could not possibly misinterpret? Instead of designing us to fail?
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.