|
Man Of The World
Tuesday, 7 February 2006
God Is Morality (II)
Topic: All Is Permitted
In my post God is Morality is God is Morality I tried to illustrate
some of the dubious moral reasoning popular among Christians. In this post,
I'd like to clarify why the title of that post was appropriate - how it is that
Christians can appear dumbfounded at the prospect of considering morality
without God. Christians often have difficulty disentangling God from
morality similar to the way some have difficulty understanding how paper money
holds value if it's not "backed" by gold. Take away the gold and the money is
meaningless. But the reality is, just as money continues to exchange without gold, people
still seem to talk about right and wrong without God. And the analogy continues,
because just as the value of money has never stayed constant, with or without a
gold standard, what is considered right and wrong changes too, independent of
the supposition of an Almighty Deity. But the temptations to continue with the analogy will obscure what I believe to be
the key point. Because more important than what can be argued explicitly about
the connection between God and morality, is the tacit inseparability in the
minds of so many Christians between the very word "God" and the very word
"Morality." A lifetime of having a definition reinforced devoid of any kind of
abstract thinking about the principle is responsible. The effect is, that even
after what has appeared to be a somewhat productive conversation on morals, I'll
often leave a perfectly intelligent believer confused because whatever other
criteria I can offer in place of God which by the believer's own arguments should
account for morals to the same degree God does, doesn't yet find identity with
the string of phonemes G-o-d which just happens to trigger some kind of vague
but lifelong familiar thought-concept that gives a solidness to the idea of
morality. In other words, in the final analysis, for a vast sweep of
unreflective Christians, godless morality, in their minds, doesn't fail rationally, but because the
superglue which binds the word "God" and the word "morality" together
can't be dissolved, their minds are unable to even conceive of the question.
The following excerpt from Aldous Huxley's Crome Yellow is
instructive:
"Look at them, sir," he said, with a motion of his hand towards the wallowing
swine. "Rightly is they called pigs."
"Rightly indeed," Mr. Wimbush agreed.
"I am abashed by that man," said Mr. Scogan, as old
Rowley plodded off slowly and with dignity. "What wisdom, what judgment, what a
sense of values! 'Rightly are they called swine.' Yes. And I wish I could, with
as much justice, say, 'Rightly are we called men.'
Posted by gadianton2
at 7:22 PM
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
Faith is Bad
Topic: Lectures On Doubt
One of the things believers can't decide on is whether they have faith in their religious beliefs or if their beliefs are more or less an established fact. In the last Skeptic's Boot Camp installment we learned that believers love to take the position of radical skepticism, denying the possibility of knowing anything, apparently in order to make all knowledge appear as worthless as their own religious beliefs. But what I'd like to know is, what happened to the importance of faith? what happened to being blessed for not seeing yet believing? Why do believers feel they need to make arguments like this? Under the Christian-backed-into-a-corner problem of induction, since the existence of China "can't be proven either(!)" how can we criticize people who believe in Jesus? A very interesting situation as now not only do Christians admit the weak factual standing of their beliefs by lowering the bar down to about a millimeter above ground level but they also deny the potency of their faith as it's nothing more extraordinary than inferring the existence of China. Interesting indeed, because we also hear of "Evidence That Demands A Verdict," and Jesus "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" arguments intended to more or less establish the factual proof of Jesus. In Mormon apologetics you have the similar kind of arguments surrounding the credibility of the 11 witnesses. You'll often hear that the integrity and circumstance of those witnesses are so solid as to meet the highest judicial standards. But if that's true, then why are we also told that Moroni took back the Gold Plates because otherwise we wouldn't need faith? It's like God is up there scratching his beard, "Now let's see, we'll give them 11 of the most credible witnesses who could ever be asked to testify in a court room but it's going to be the difference between faith and absolute knowledge if we let them have the murder weapon!" Another way of looking at it would be, if we throw out the Bible or throw out the Book of Mormon witnesses, we might as well throw out our entire legal system. But provided we don't throw out our legal system, we still require faith! Because even the most open and shut court ruling doesn't give us absolute certainty! Nothing, of course, could be more absurd. That's the kind of faith that moves molehills not mountains. So what's exactly wrong with Faith anyway? It is in fact faith to a Christian, that is precisely what's wrong with the beliefs they are opposed to. Christians will accuse atheists of having greater faith than believers for holding positions they believe are dubious like evolution. They'll regularily point out that science is often wrong, rigid, and overconfident -- because it's just a religion too! There is little choice for Christians then. Either they have to allow all other religions and beliefs to be justified on grounds of faith as they are and secular knowledge to be more objectively established, or they have to appeal to evidence and try and make it look as if their religion offers the best evidential case amongst competitors. And when they go the latter route, they turn to a position of faith that makes faith at best, mundane, and at worst, the achillies heal that brings down everyone else.
Posted by gadianton2
at 6:10 PM
Updated: Wednesday, 1 February 2006 6:23 PM
Thursday, 26 January 2006
All or Nothing
Topic: Lectures On Doubt
One of the tactics of believers is to invoke, typically unwittingly, the
problem of induction in the favor of their favorite deity. The problem of
induction, to those skeptics out there new to the game, is the problem of making
general inferences from finite samples. It doesn't follow that if one only
observes white ducks throughout their life, then there exist only white ducks.
As opposed to deductive reasoning which provides certainty.1 If a black duck is
discovered, it follows deductively and immediately that the statement "All ducks
are white" is false. In a previous Skeptic's Boot Camp I gave the
example of Newtonian physics. It didn't matter how many observations seemed to
prove it, the problem of induction held that it could not be considered
ultimately true. There has never been a satisfactory solution to the
problem of induction.
Many times, when a believer is getting his time piece polished by an atheist,
the believer will reach down and revealing all he has left demand, "But how can
we know anything at all? Look how often science is wrong!" At that
instant, the atheist can raise his hands in the air victorious. Although,
further instruction should be provided for the sake of hoping to improve the
world just a little bit. The obvious route to go from here is to point out
that if this reasoning bolsters God, it also bolsters every heinous crime
imaginable. The believer should be requested not to object if a pedophile
justifies his actions on the same grounds.
Sometimes I'm surprised that even some of the more articulate religious
thinkers take this line of argument. Mormon Egyptologist John Gee has made
the point that since Egyptology is controversial, then the Book of Abraham just
might be vindicated one day.2 Of course, it would be interesting if he'd give
any other theory in his field of equal controversy more than five minutes of
thoughtful consideration.
Today, James Faulconer, a Mormon BYU philosopher who I respect quite a bit to
be honest, made this point on a blog:3
"If a person insists on a certain, rationalist and Enlightenment
understanding of intelligibility and reasonableness, then the gospel doesn’t
make sense. No religion can be reduced to a rational system with neither
remainder nor absence and without contradiction. But, as Godel proved, neither
can arithmetic, so that inability on the part of religion isn’t much of a strike
against it."
I was pretty surprised by that statement. It's probably the most
verbally sophisticated articulation of this fallacious reasoning I've ever seen.
While not invoking induction here, but rather a very obscure subject in logic,
the result is the same. While this isn't a strike against religion, it's
also not a strike against Time Cubeism, flat earthism, masochism, or any other
insane or destructive belief. I'd bet everything I own that no Enlightenment
thinker would have ever expected Mormonism or any other religion to be
demonstrated formally complete before it could be considered "reasonable."
If absolute metaphysical certitude isn't achievable, then who dares to
criticize any religion as irrational?
1. The problem of induction lurks behind deduction too when considered epistemically. 2. References to Kuhn in
Abracadabra, Isaac, and Jacob 3.
Times and Seasons
Posted by gadianton2
at 6:03 PM
Updated: Thursday, 26 January 2006 6:04 PM
Tuesday, 24 January 2006
Postmodernism
Topic: Postmodernism
Five Quick and Dirty points about Postmodernism
1) Postmodernism isn't naive relativism. Funny enough, this is a typical
characterization by both detractors and unimaginative defenders. Postmodernism often champions pluralism, but not necessarily so. Pluralism may or may not fall prey to relativism.
2) Postmodernism doesn't assert that the "real world," tables, chairs,
bullets, and clouds are social constructs. While the idea of a social
construction of the world is important, postmodernists are trying to answer
different questions than you likely are. It's all too easy to read a
postmodernist as answering your questions rather than their
questions. I think the Sokal Hoax is telling. I highly doubt any postmodernists
have held a view similar to Sokal's thesis that new perspectives in math will
one day actually defy gravity. Postmodernists aren't trying to
understanding the physical world as physicists are. The results of postmodernism don't typically have much of a commentary on physical reality.
3) Postmodernism isn't existentialism. Existentialism rebels against the Cartesian "knowing subject" while substituting other modes of existence for the individual such as "authenticity." But postmodernism leaves the individual far less empowered. Rather than the individual being the lens into the world with its choices and will, postmodernism takes a primary interest in reigning power structures such as language, culture, media,
and politics from which the subject is constructed.
4) Postmodernism isn't just a bunch of gibberish. Granted, pomo's
might take obscurity to a whole new level, but have those who so quickly accuse
it ever tried to read Kant, Hegel, Carnap or William of Ockham without a
commentary? Philosophy is often just, dense. But more importantly, the
western study of philosophy is widely acknowledged to have split a couple
hundred years or so ago into America and England's Analytic tradition and the
Continental tradition taken up by the rest of Europe from which postmodernism springs. Since we haven't
been studying the stuff here in America postmodernists are commenting on, why should we expect to pick up Simulacra and Simulations and
read it like Moby Dick? After a very basic introduction
to Marxism, structuralism, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, and semiology, virtually any
postmodernist text will become at least twice as clear. But make a note,
having studied Marx as part of an economics class at the local university
doesn't count. You have to understand Marx and Freud on their terms.
5) Postmodernism isn't just any single position or critique. As analytic
philosophers disagree all the time, so do postmodernists. Accusations of
"Postmodernism" and "Positivism" alike are generally made with a naivety shared
by certain youth in other countries who have asked me while I'm abroad, since I'm American, if I
personally know Michael Jordan.
Posted by gadianton2
at 5:01 PM
Updated: Wednesday, 25 January 2006 5:30 PM
Friday, 20 January 2006
Internet Mormons Will Believe Anything
Topic: I'm Sorry I believe
When I was a Mormon, I believed what the prophets taught. "The wisdom of men
is foolishness." Science could come up with whatever "theories" it wanted. But I
believed the word of God through his servants, "Whether it is by my own voice,
or the voice of my servants, it is the same." I didn't doubt, like Thomas S.
Monson taught, I lived by my faith. If God said there was an ark, there was an
ark. If he said there was a global flood, there was a global flood. If he said
he created Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then that's what he did and
evolution could take a hike. If God said the 10 tribes were lost, in one body,
and would bring their scriptures to exchange with the other tribes, then that's
what he meant. If that means the only place for them to live is under the arctic
ice or in the interior of the earth, than that's where they live. Let science
figure out where they went wrong after the earth has been burned and the
scientists are begging for mercy at the judgment bar of God, Jesus, and Joseph
Smith. If I was going to believe 'science' and 'reason' every time there was a
conflict with my faith, what's the point of being a believer? Why not just be
agnostic and believe things as 'science' figures them out?
It's after all, not out of any virtue that one in this situation remains true to
baptism by immersion or belief in the temple. Since those things are completely
outside the realm of investigation by reason, they are under no direct threat.
It's no challenge to believe them, if that's how you'd been brought up to
believe. It doesn't take FAITH to believe Jesus died for your sins if the idea
has been hammered into your head from the time you were two years old. If
somehow, the atonement was in any way refutable by reason or evidence, and if
there were as much evidence brought to bear against it as that against a global
flood, would you still believe it? It's easy to say "yes" when such a situation
is hypothetical only and under no threat of materializing. But my belief, is
that for a very large portion of Internet Mormons, all beliefs are negotiable.
The ones claimed otherwise, have nothing to do with -- in my opinion -- being
"central" to Mormonism or their faith, but rather, being completely outside the
realm of reason to investigate.
|