Sam Harris. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. Daniel Dennett.
A surge of criticism of religion's role in society and the nature of religious belief itself has arisen in the last several years.
Many critics have derisively termed the authors of these criticisms and their supports as "New Atheists".
What is the "New Atheism"? And why does anyone care? Is it a category which actually is meaningful and significant, or a rhetorical device used to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes and to shut down conversation about religion and humanity's interactions with religion, especially conversation which condemns religion?
Most people would agree that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods.
However, this does not mean that there is not greater significance to the recent emphasis by atheists to increase visibility of our existence in the public sphere (of athiests) and also to increase exposure to religious criticism in the public sphere.
To determine why this is significant, let's examine what religion is. How do we define religion through the context of our own lives and in the context of our societies? How is this important, and why should anyone care?
Why should religion be criticized in public societies? Isn't religion just a personal choice, an expression of personal values? Why should atheists criticize other people's personal beliefs? Isn't this cruel and needless stigmatization?
Such an analysis of atheists' criticism of religion is sorely misguided and does not accurately characterize the intricate series of relationships between individuals, societies, and religions.
Religion is more than personal choice; it is more often a societal and even a political construct. Throughout human history, religion has been invoked as one of many ties which bind tribes, polities, and social categories of all kinds. With changes in leadership, have come changes in the religious practices encouraged and incentivized by the state.
As a belief, as a state (or states) of mind, and as a practice, religions are invariably linked with their respective cultures. Religion is not only a political experience, but a cultural one as well.
Without the context of our societies and the groups in which we associate, how would any of us resolve our identities as human beings in this modern age?
Some critics have charged that the "New Atheism" is overly politicized. Religion has always been politicized. Any criticism of religion is essentially a political criticism. Religion is just one more imagined community, constructed in the mold of the nation-state and the social club.
Religion is shot through with power and politicking. The Pope is elected. Ayatollahs control the nation of Iran. The ceremonial head of state in the United Kingdom is also the head of the Anglican church.
"New atheism" may not be a new message or a new strategy at all. However, the public campaign for increased critical thinking about religion and skepticism is a political fight.
Did the Ayatollahs descend from the heavens? Did Pope Benedict XVI come down from the Mount of Olives? Did Queen Elizabeth II's mother receive frankincense in the manger?
I personally believe that most atheists' criticism of religion is not a criticism of personal expression -- rather, I believe that it is a criticism of the social and political construct, the established order which is modern religion, which is in turn enabled by poor critical thinking and a deficit of skepticism.
Posts
A Major Discussion of the Virgin Birth of Jesus!
23 hours ago
21 comments:
The reason I believe religion needs to be analyzed (and criticized as a consequence) is for two broad reasons: first, as you've pointed out, religion is closely bound to politick in many regions of the world, and second, because religion also proclaims knowledge of certain kind of "truth"; let's call the second reason to criticisize the "individual philosophical" reasons. If my truth turns out to be incongruent with the next person's I'm bound to feel compelled to compare our beliefs and their respective bases. I'll give two examples.
1. My neighbor and I both buy a vacuum cleaner after surveying many models. He buys brand "A", and I, brand "B". Though, it's not binding on him to explain me the reasons for his choice, it'd not be very unusual to discuss one's reasons, especially if we know that both have put in a lot of thought before buying. The fact that both of us "surveyed, analyzed and thought", and yet came to different CONCLUSIONS, itself makes the issue worth discussing. In this matter, "it's my personal choice, how are you affected?" would not hold any appeal. Rather, it would sound childish. It'd definitely be of significance to discuss if one of us missed any of the features in either of the models, or surveyed some other models too superficially, or bought certain model only out of emotional appeal (like, my mom had also bought the machine manufactured by the same company), or for some relatively frivolous reason (say, color!). Comparing the choices is imminent because in the longer term, one of the choices (of vacuum cleaners) is going to proud better (because of better reasoning). Applying same analogy, if two people draw different conclusions about the nature of the world in spite of having the same "data" (personal experiences, logic, reasoning, education) to draw conclusions from, it would naturally create an anxiety to know the reasons for the differences in perception.
2. The second example is more simplistic: suppose, outside my residence there had been a tree, and it's chopped down. I definitely don't see it anymore, but my neighbor claims to still see it. How does the presence or absence of tree remain a matter of "personal choice"? How am I not going to be worried that I can't see something that my neighbor can?...
The presence or absence of tree per se won't have significant influence on our lives, but establishing the truth as objectively as possible would still be an urgent matter, for it'll decide how much could I trust my (or my neighbor's) sense organs (ability to understand the world).
I'd like to point out that in both the above examples, the incongruence between two people's opinions and conclusions are reasons enough for critical scrutiny of either people's thought processes, rather than the consequences of individual belief.
I understand that you're well aware of this (personal) aspect of the issue (reason for scrutinizing religion), but felt you'd missed it, so pointed out.
One way in which the "new atheists" are different from their predecessors, is their employment of various fields of knowledge (physics, psychology, neurology, economics, anthropology, etc) in arguing against theism as against using purely epistemological arguments (as was done in the past).
Nice post!
Hi again. I did have some thoughts to put forth regarding your post. I do appreciate your style of thought.
I think I share some of the concerns atheists have regarding religion. I agree that religion does affect culture in many ways and therefore needs to be analyzed to see if the particular religion adversely affects culture or if it is a good foundational support for culture.
We can both point to many examples of "religion" having adverse affects upon communities either through governments, politics, or actual religious practices.
At the same time atheism has the potential of an affect on culture at large through all these mediums as well save religious practices. It is also a cultural movement that can have adverse or positive affects on culture. I think any "ism" has this potential.
What we believe is not a private matter only affecting our own homes, for when a community believes a certain way it has an affect on culture.
So it is good to analyze these things. I would say that in all fairness it would be reasonable to look into the actual tenets of a system of belief and examine those tenets by logically following them in congruence with their resulting conclusion.
We have all encountered instances where people who say they are of a certain belief who don't live in congruence with it. A person may say they believe there is no morality and yet as soon as someone has stolen their car they are the first to cry for justice.
Or someone may say they are a follower of Jesus but they are treating people with hatred.
So when examining these cultural foundations of belief whether secular or religious it would be good to look at what kind of world is created if XYZ are true and compare that to what kind of world would result if ABC was true and so on.
Karla,
Thanks for taking the time to read and comments on my posts. I really do appreciate the feedback.
I think most of your points are quite fair, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
I agree that atheism is also a cultural practice or movement at times. I think the main difference between atheism and what has been labeled "new atheism" is that this "new atheism" (whatever it may or may not be) is supposedly a cultural practice or movement. I believe that it is a cultural movement, and I believe that it should be encouraged, which is why I wrote this post.
And yes, I agree than any "ism" that is a cultural practice can have adverse effects. That is a fair point.
However, I have a question about the following paragraph, in which you state:
"I would say that in all fairness it would be reasonable to look into the actual tenets of a system of belief and examine those tenets by logically following them in congruence with their resulting conclusion."
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. I agree with you that it is reasonable to examine the tenets of belief about religion, but I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by adding the phrase "logically following them in congruence with their resulting conclusion". What "resulting conclusion" which logically follows are you suggesting is a product of atheism as a cultural movement?
Be careful. Some of the world's most irreligious countries also happen to have high quality of life standards. Of course it'd be pretty ridiculous for me to claim causation (I'm not); I just want to suggest that a relatively strong society and a relatively irreligious society are entirely possible.
I agree, we should examine the conclusions of our belief systems, and keep our minds open to all the evidence, not just our initial predispositions and stereotypes.
"We have all encountered instances where people who say they are of a certain belief who don't live in congruence with it. A person may say they believe there is no morality and yet as soon as someone has stolen their car they are the first to cry for justice."
Who said that "there is no morality"? Most atheists I have read believe in the existence of some form of morality, either objective or subjective. There are a wide variety of ethical models proposed by non-religious people.
Personally, I am a fan of Alonzo Fyfe's blog "Atheist Ethicist". It's quality material, and really interesting, too.
"So when examining these cultural foundations of belief whether secular or religious it would be good to look at what kind of world is created if XYZ are true and compare that to what kind of world would result if ABC was true and so on."
I agree. What kind of world is a secular world? Let's look at some of the most secular countries on Earth: Sweden, Denmark, etc. Low crimes rate, long years of life, not too much poverty. Again, I am by no means arguing that secularism caused any of these things. I am just noting that these attributes can co-exist with a secular society.
Thanks for replying! I hope we can continue these discussions.
I meant that we have to look at the truth claims themselves and see what would result from actually living that out rather than looking at those who say they are a follower of a particular belief or religion and attribute their actions to the worldview itself.
The examples I gave were not directed at any particular "ism" but just an illustration.
There are people who live differently then what would logically follow their belief system. This could be in good differences or in bad differences, but still different.
I think we often judge a belief system by those who ascribe to it, and while there is some reason for doing so we need to make sure that those we take as an example of that way of living due in fact embody the core values or foundations of their beliefs.
"New Atheist" do seem more interested in moral values than say Nietzsche. I am not well researched in Nietzsche, but I don't think he was known for his moral values or the need for them. In fact, I believe on one hand he delighted in freedom from morality while at the same time was frightful about the cultural consequences.
Personally I do not see how objective morality could exist apart from an objective source of good. I think we loose our moral anchor when we dispense with the existence of a good God.
Einstein said that believed in moral relativity, but knew he would not get far in living life if he practiced his belief.
This is the kind of thing I am talking about when I say we need to look at the logical outworkings of our beliefs and whether or not our lives can be well lived in practice of those beliefs. I think that applies to religious and secular philosophies about life.
Karla,
Once again, thanks for taking the time to reply to my comments, and for contributing to this discussion.
This reply could be quite lengthy. I am going to attempt to carefully and precisely convey what I am trying to say, because I believe that these are critically important areas of discussion.
"Personally I do not see how objective morality could exist apart from an objective source of good. I think we lose our moral anchor when we dispense with the existence of a good God."
You do not see how objective morality could exist apart from an objective source of good. You also believe that we lose our moral anchor when we dispense with the existence of a god.
First, have you considered that there could be sources of objective morality other than a god?
Second, even if there were a god, would such a being really be a source of objective morality?
Third, are negative cultural outcomes a logical consequence of an abandonment of theism? Relatedly, does the abandonment of theism entail "freedom from morality" or from moral obligations? Could there realistically be moral obligations which are not tied to the existence of a god?
Fourth, even if negative cultural outcomes are a consequence of a lack of objective morality that does not mean that there is an objective morality. Be careful that you aren't making a fallacious argument from consequences. Just because you don't like the consequences of an outcome does not mean that it cannot be a legitimate conclusion. Even if there are negative consequences from a possible lack of objective morality, this does not necessitate that objective morality actually exists.
"Einstein said that he believed in moral relativity, but knew he would not get far in living life if he practiced his belief."
Does it really matter what Einstein thinks about this? This seems like an argument from false authority. If this were a discussion on physics, yes, I would see Einstein’s analysis as relevant. However, I still want to evaluate this claim later in my reply. This point is worth addressing.
"This is the kind of thing I am talking about when I say we need to look at the logical outworkings of our beliefs and whether or not our lives can be well lived in practice of those beliefs. I think that applies to religious and secular philosophies about life."
I respect that judgment. As individuals, I believe that all individuals should respect other individuals, as we would wish to be respected ourselves. If you believe that living your life in a certain way is the best thing for you, it is not my right to demand that you change your way of life. I respect your right to live in accordance with your desires and your beliefs.
As for me, I live my life in accordance with my beliefs and my desires. YouTube user ProfMTH ends all of his videos with the phrase “Veritas Vos Liberabit”, which means “the truth will set you free.” I know it’s cheesy because it’s also a Bible quote, but I ardently believe it, and I live by it.
I am currently trying to determine how to live my life. I was raised with Christian religious beliefs. Now I’ve come to a place in my life where I’ve asked myself, why do I have the particular beliefs that I have about religion?
During this process, I have come to the conclusion (for now) that naturalism is a better hypothesis than Christianity. This could easily change in the future, but for now, I believe that naturalism just has more explanatory power than Christianity.
How does this belief affect my sense of morality? I believe in desire utilitarianism, which is the ethical system suggested by Alonzo Fyfe, author of the blog “Atheist Ethicist”, which I mentioned earlier.
Essentially, this system suggests that an action is preferable if it fulfills more desires than a comparable action. Desires are the objective basis of this ethical system. So, I am not really a proponent of subjective morality at this point, though that could change in the future.
I thank you for engaging in this discussion, and I hope that this reply helps clarify my beliefs and some of the reasons I have for those beliefs.
If you want a further explanation for why I believe naturalism is a better hypothesis than Christianity, let me know. I may write a blog post about this decision summarizing the reasons for my conclusion in the future.
“First, have you considered that there could be sources of objective morality other than a god?”
I’ve explored many arguments I have heard for this, but I haven’t found any that truly works.
“Second, even if there were a god, would such a being really be a source of objective morality?”
If God as described as the greatest being possible to exist does indeed exist and is indeed the author of all life then it would logically follow that He is the measure of all good and is perfectly capable to be properly just and merciful.
“Third, are negative cultural outcomes a logical consequence of an abandonment of theism? Relatedly, does the abandonment of theism entail "freedom from morality" or from moral obligations? Could there realistically be moral obligations which are not tied to the existence of a god?”
That depends on if you mean “belief in God” because I think that moral knowledge is ingrained in us by design regardless of our belief in God. So we may attribute that reality to another source, but it still is ingrained in us. We still live in the real world even if our thoughts about that world don’t line up with reality.
However, I could see how a community of moral relativists could have adverse effects on society if they lived their beliefs out practically. I haven’t encountered many such people who think that way, and fewer that can live that way.
“Fourth, even if negative cultural outcomes are a consequence of a lack of objective morality that does not mean that there is an objective morality.”
Maybe not, but it is a very good indicator that ones philosophy isn’t in line with what is realistically able to be lived out in a community. If we all get to decide what’s right and wrong with nothing to measure that by I think we would be on a very destructive path. Can you think of any successful communities who have lived out moral relativism?
“Be careful that you aren't making a fallacious argument from consequences. Just because you don't like the consequences of an outcome does not mean that it cannot be a legitimate conclusion. Even if there are negative consequences from a possible lack of objective morality, this does not necessitate that objective morality actually exists.”
I still have yet to see anyone who lives as if there isn’t an objective morality.
“Does it really matter what Einstein thinks about this? This seems like an argument from false authority. If this were a discussion on physics, yes, I would see Einstein’s analysis as relevant. However, I still want to evaluate this claim later in my reply. This point is worth addressing.”
No he isn’t an authority on morality. I just used him as an illustration of someone that believed one thing philosophically but lived contrary because his philosophy didn’t line up with something he could live.
"This is the kind of thing I am talking about when I say we need to look at the logical outworkings of our beliefs and whether or not our lives can be well lived in practice of those beliefs. I think that applies to religious and secular philosophies about life."
“I respect that judgment. As individuals, I believe that all individuals should respect other individuals, as we would wish to be respected ourselves. If you believe that living your life in a certain way is the best thing for you, it is not my right to demand that you change your way of life. I respect your right to live in accordance with your desires and your beliefs.”
I don’t think anyone should force another in these things or use manipulative tactics to try and change someone’s thinking. But I do think it is beneficial to examine our fundamental beliefs from time to time to see if they line up with reality. We do that by comparing what we currently believe with what others believe and seeing if it still has strength in comparison or if the foundations are wobbly. If the foundations of our current understanding are not as sound as the truth claims we are encountering from another we have to slow down and consider why. Maybe parts are unsound and need a new sound brace, or maybe the foundation itself are not just in need of repair but are built on faulty presuppositions. Maybe the potential truth we are examining is correct and needs to be our new foundation, or maybe its not, but it has shown us our current foundation is still unstable and that helps us in our building of solid knowledge.
“As for me, I live my life in accordance with my beliefs and my desires . . . which means the truth will set you free. I know it’s cheesy because it’s also a Bible quote, but I ardently believe it, and I live by it.”
I agree. I don’t think it’s cheesey. The truth will set you free. Lies create bondage. Truth creates freedom. But beware of false freedom, something that seems liberating at the time, but in reality leads to greater bondage because it has an appeal of truth, but isn’t truth at all. Real truth, not only makes sense intellectually but can be apprehended experientially. “I am currently trying to determine how to live my life. I was raised with Christian religious beliefs. Now I’ve come to a place in my life where I’ve asked myself, why do I have the particular beliefs that I have about religion?”
“During this process, I have come to the conclusion (for now) that naturalism is a better hypothesis than Christianity. This could easily change in the future, but for now, I believe that naturalism just has more explanatory power than Christianity.”
Thank you for sharing some of your story with me. I am a Christian. I have grown up in the church, but I must say these last few years have taken my relationship with Christ to a whole new level. I’ve seen and experienced things that are just amazing. I’ve gone from believing based on my knowledge about God to believing because of my knowledge of God. Meaning I’ve gone from intellectual yet real life with Christ to a deeper intellectual and experiential relationship that confirms His reality to me frequently.
“How does this belief affect my sense of morality? I believe in desire utilitarianism, which is the ethical system suggested by Alonzo Fyfe, author of the blog Atheist Ethicist, which I mentioned earlier.
Essentially, this system suggests that an action is preferable if it fulfills more desires than a comparable action. Desires are the objective basis of this ethical system. So, I am not really a proponent of subjective morality at this point, though that could change in the future.”
Please explain further. Are you saying that our moral sense comes from our desire and that our desire gives it objectiveness? Would not our desires be subjective?
I have some thoughts about desire too, but I’ll hold them for now. It is a subject I like.
“I thank you for engaging in this discussion, and I hope that this reply helps clarify my beliefs and some of the reasons I have for those beliefs.”
Thank you as well. Sometimes atheists don’t believe me because I am confident in my relationship with Jesus, when I say that I do want to understand what you guys believe and why. Although, I do want to ask questions and give some things to consider from my perspective at the same time. I read a lot, and sometimes I read Christian authors tell me about what atheists believe but I think it only fair and right to learn from the people themselves. Because while there can be consistency within a philosophical construct of disbelief/belief people are all different and unique and have their own reasons for their belief choices. It’s just not fair to lump everyone in together. I appreciate your time in talking with me and other “theist” or Christians instead of assuming I think a particular way.
“If you want a further explanation for why I believe naturalism is a better hypothesis than Christianity, let me know. I may write a blog post about this decision summarizing the reasons for my conclusion in the future.”
I would be interested in this. Let me know if you write it.
Karla,
"If God as described as the greatest being possible to exist does indeed exist and is indeed the author of all life then it would logically follow that He is the measure of all good and is perfectly capable to be properly just and merciful."
Is this philosophers' god the same god as the one revealed in the scriptures of Judeo-Christian tradition? Sure, if such a god exists and is a greatest possible being, and is the measure of all good, and all of those other things...but how does the god of the Bible fit those parameters? I don't see the connection.
The god of the Bible, to me, does not display the attributes of a greatest possible being. The scriptures are inconsistent. Whatever divine plan may be in operation, honestly, seems quite incoherent and confusing to me.
The world, as it is, makes more sense to me, if the god of the Bible is a mythological construct, and not the divine author. I cannot believe that the author of an entire universe would honestly be appeased by burning goat flesh or take petty offense at my temporal actions on this small orb.
"That depends on if you mean “belief in God” because I think that moral knowledge is ingrained in us by design regardless of our belief in God. So we may attribute that reality to another source, but it still is ingrained in us. We still live in the real world even if our thoughts about that world don’t line up with reality."
I do not believe that moral knowledge is ingrained in us by design. What moral knowledge was ingrained in us, instilled in us, which informed our intuitions that slavery was permissible for thousands of years of human history? What moral knowledge delivered unto us informed us that slaughtering our tribal neighbors was acceptable, rather than love thy neighbor? Do we have the same morality that we had thousands of years ago? Hundreds of years ago? A few decades ago? Is there a morality instilled in us -- then why does it appear in every instance of history that it is we who are laboring to teach ourselves? For me, the theistic view does not line up with reality.
"Real truth, not only makes sense intellectually but can be apprehended experientially."
But how do we know that our experiences are real truth? Is it because we declare them to be so?
Muslims would declare their experiences to be real truth, and so would Hindus, and so would Buddhists, just as Christians do. What is the real truth? What separates one kind of experience from another? It seems that they all offer this sort of transcendance. It seems that all of them have roots in cultural beliefs and traditions. It seems that all of them can be accounted for naturalistically. Or does one religion have a better grasp of truth with a capital "T" than another? All of them depend on revelation, all of them depend on the same things. Why should one be better than another? If I dismiss some of these experiential hypotheses, why not dismiss all of them?
"I’ve seen and experienced things that are just amazing. I’ve gone from believing based on my knowledge about God to believing because of my knowledge of God. Meaning I’ve gone from intellectual yet real life with Christ to a deeper intellectual and experiential relationship that confirms His reality to me frequently."
I'm happy for you, but I have had no such success. For me, it seems that many of the things which believers tend to attribute to the supernatural, may be products of confirmation bias or the expectations of a predisposed worldview, subjecting all of their experiences to bias and defending them from further critical scrutiny. I have no idea about any of your experiences, and please do not interpret this statement to apply to them. This has just been my impression so far in general from other accounts I have heard.
Also, could you share some of your intellectual reasons for faith in the Christian belief system?
"Please explain further. Are you saying that our moral sense comes from our desire and that our desire gives it objectiveness? Would not our desires be subjective?"
No, I'm not saying that our moral sense comes from our desire. I am saying that morality is predicated upon the fulfillment of desires. The desires are not the source of morality, but they are the object of its fulfillment. In order for morality to be successful, according to desire utilitarianism, it must fulfill the greatest number of potential desires. What we desire is subjective, but desires themselves can be objective.
Here is a potentially gruesome, but perhaps instructive, example: Madman Jones desires to torture an adolescent for pleasure. An adolescent desires not to be tortured.
Now, you may ask, why is fulfillment of the adolescent's desire preferrable to the fulfillment of the desire of Madman Jones? How is one desire superior to the other?
Desire utilitarianism suggests that not torturing the adolescent fulfills more desires because many other desires are fulfilled if the adolescent is not tortured (the desires of the adolescent's family, the desires of society, the desires of Madman Jones' psychiatrist, etc.).
I am very much a novice in anything that has to do with ethical theory and that is probably a very rough example at best, and if you really want to learn more about desire utilitarianism, I strongly encourage you to go to "Atheist Ethicist" and learn from Alonzo Fyfe, who knows what he's talking about much better than I do, especially as he is the originator of this theory.
"Sometimes atheists don’t believe me because I am confident in my relationship with Jesus, when I say that I do want to understand what you guys believe and why."
I really do appreciate this sentiment, and I thank you for giving me the chance to convey some of my beliefs, and try to explain them to some degree. I hope I have not offended, though I largely tried to state clearly what I believe and why. As a former Christian and recent deconvert, I realize the value of developing amicable understandings between the religious and the secular, and I wish to act from a position of empathy in all discussions of religion, even though I may say things which sound harsh or unpleasant.
"I appreciate your time in talking with me and other “theist” or Christians instead of assuming I think a particular way."
Yes, I would much rather Christians and other theists talk to me instead of assuming that I think a particular way, just because I happen to be a non-theist. So I hope to extend the same courtesy to you.
"I would be interested in this. Let me know if you write it."
I will let you know. It will probably contain some of the things I have mentioned in this conversation, especially in this latest reply.
Tele: ”Is this philosophers' god the same god as the one revealed in the scriptures of Judeo-Christian tradition? Sure, if such a god exists and is a greatest possible being, and is the measure of all good, and all of those other things...but how does the god of the Bible fit those parameters? I don't see the connection.”
The God of the Bible is described as the author of all life. The eternal one, perfect in goodness, justice, mercy, compassion, and love, etc.
“The god of the Bible, to me, does not display the attributes of a greatest possible being. The scriptures are inconsistent. Whatever divine plan may be in operation, honestly, seems quite incoherent and confusing to me.”
I think maybe that’s looking at His acts of judgment from a place of not trusting His goodness. If He is perfectly good, He would be good even in His justice. If we want Him not to be just, we would be asking for Him not to be good.
If we try to understand only from a place of our thoughts apart from trust in Him, I am not sure we can comprehend, but when we let Him show us He helps unmuddle our thinking to see more clearly. Remember, if He is the author of all life, the greatest of all possible beings. .. If goodness is His nature and not some abstract thing of Platonian concepts, then it would be from Him that all true knowledge flows.
“The world, as it is, makes more sense to me, if the god of the Bible is a mythological construct, and not the divine author. I cannot believe that the author of an entire universe would honestly be appeased by burning goat flesh or take petty offense at my temporal actions on this small orb.”
He wasn’t appeased by that. He had us do that for our benefit not His. To show us the severity of sin and how sin needs to be paid for. You know of the account of Isaac and Jacob where Isaac was to sacrifice Jacob, but God didn’t really intend to allow Isaac to sacrifice His son, for He was showing Isaac and the rest of us through the written Scriptures that the lamb was provided in substitution. Just as one day the Lamb of God, the real Son of God, being God Himself, would be our substitution. That God would pay for our sins Himself to bring us everlasting life. The goats, lambs, and all that of that in the Old Testament were painting a picture of the fullness of what was coming. It was a shadow of the real. It was pointing to the coming ultimate sacrifice.
Also, if you read Hebrews 11 you will see that all those listed and many more who were in relationship with God and seen as righteous, did not gain that righteousness from sacrifices but from their faith in God, their steadfast trust in Him. It has always been about relationship from the beginning even in the midst of all the animal sacrifices. That is why when the religious leaders were upset at Jesus they were making religion out of the laws, instead of understanding the laws were a tool to point to something greater, the one who would set them free from laws and sins. Jesus was standing before them and they didn’t understand. The Bible isn’t as confusing when you being to see the heart of God and see it as something that points to Him and not as something that binds us to rules and religion.
Tele “I do not believe that moral knowledge is ingrained in us by design. What moral knowledge was ingrained in us, instilled in us, which informed our intuitions that slavery was permissible for thousands of years of human history? What moral knowledge delivered unto us informed us that slaughtering our tribal neighbors was acceptable, rather than love thy neighbor? Do we have the same morality that we had thousands of years ago? Hundreds of years ago? A few decades ago? Is there a morality instilled in us -- then why does it appear in every instance of history that it is we who are laboring to teach ourselves? For me, the theistic view does not line up with reality.”
I’m not talking about particulars, but the nature of measuring up to a standard of good. No matter what particulars we set up, we feel an obligation to do what is good and yet we struggle to do what we believe to be good. This is both evidence of an objective good to measure up to and the evidence of the Fall our inability to measure up on our own strength. The thing is, we were never designed to measure up on our own strength. We were designed to have God’s righteousness in us by relationship with Him. So the Fall separated us from that union and now we struggle to live as we were created without God and we fail, because we were never to live it alone. Through Jesus he paves the way to have that intimacy with Him again so that we have His righteousness and are freed from our attempts to live up to an external standard. We simply gain His life and strength to live like Him as we get to know Him.
So I’m not saying there is a codex of laws all humanity share, but there is a basic understanding of moral “ought” that we “ought” to do what’s right and we have some intuitive knowledge in our conscious of what right looks like, but we don’t always listen to what we know to be right. People allowed slavery for economic reasons, it was about money, and they subverted human life and rights for their own lively hood. That didn’t make it right; it was as wrong then as it is today. It still happens today.
Maybe I can help show how it just might line up with reality. A question on this topic to consider is where does human life gain intrinsic value? If there is no God, and we are not created with intrinsic value given to us by God because He values us and made us in His image, as is the Christian story, then where does that foundation come from that says we can’t abuse, kill, mistreat, a human being?
Karla said, "Real truth, not only makes sense intellectually but can be apprehended experientially."
Tele asked, ”But how do we know that our experiences are real truth? Is it because we declare them to be so?”
Something isn’t true because we say it is. It’s true because it lines up with what is. So if someone gives me a counterfeit hundred dollar bill, I experience being given a bill, but I can find that that bill isn’t authentic. No amount of declaring it authentic will make it so. But if there is a counterfeit, an inauthentic copy of something, there just might be a real. So if I learn an experience is counterfeit, I can search out the real. I think when we have found what’s true that it will make sense in our minds and be real in our hearts experientially.
”Muslims would declare their experiences to be real truth, and so would Hindus, and so would Buddhists, just as Christians do. What is the real truth? What separates one kind of experience from another? It seems that they all offer this sort of transcendance. It seems that all of them have roots in cultural beliefs and traditions. It seems that all of them can be accounted for naturalistically. Or does one religion have a better grasp of truth with a capital "T" than another? All of them depend on revelation, all of them depend on the same things. Why should one be better than another? If I dismiss some of these experiential hypotheses, why not dismiss all of them?”
I’ve done a few post on this topic, let me get you the links because it would take too long to respond in a comment and I’ve already been lengthy.
I’ll post responses to more of your statements and questions in a few minutes.
“I'm happy for you, but I have had no such success. For me, it seems that many of the things which believers tend to attribute to the supernatural, may be products of confirmation bias or the expectations of a predisposed worldview, subjecting all of their experiences to bias and defending them from further critical scrutiny. I have no idea about any of your experiences, and please do not interpret this statement to apply to them. This has just been my impression so far in general from other accounts I have heard.”
About six months ago or so, I saw my mother in laws arm grow an inch and half equal to the length of the other one. She has no wrist as it was surgically removed 30 years ago. She already has wrist movement from a previous miracle even though there is no wrist, and so her arm was shorter than the other arm. My husband and I prayed for her and we saw it grow. She has shown everyone she knows who knows of her accident and short arm showing them her arms are now even. I’ve seen other miracles and experienced them myself.
”Also, could you share some of your intellectual reasons for faith in the Christian belief system?”
I can, let me look back at my blog posts and see if I can refer you to some instead of posting here.
"Please explain further. Are you saying that our moral sense comes from our desire and that our desire gives it objectiveness? Would not our desires be subjective?"
”Desire utilitarianism suggests that not torturing the adolescent fulfills more desires because many other desires are fulfilled if the adolescent is not tortured (the desires of the adolescent's family, the desires of society, the desires of Madman Jones' psychiatrist, etc.).”
What if you have a tribe of cannibals who desire to cannibalize another tribe? Does the largest tribe gain the moral victory? Or what if a society thinks it is better served by enslaving a minority? Or by euthanizing the elderly? What would protect the minority or the defenseless? What protects the old woman who has no family who cares and is left in an old folks home with no one to love her? What if the bills she is incurring to the state along with others like her are hindering the economic growth of the city? Would her life then be expendable?
”I am very much a novice in anything that has to do with ethical theory and that is probably a very rough example at best, and if you really want to learn more about desire utilitarianism, I strongly encourage you to go to "Atheist Ethicist" and learn from Alonzo Fyfe, who knows what he's talking about much better than I do, especially as he is the originator of this theory.”
Okay. Maybe I’ll check that out.
”I really do appreciate this sentiment, and I thank you for giving me the chance to convey some of my beliefs, and try to explain them to some degree. I hope I have not offended, though I largely tried to state clearly what I believe and why. As a former Christian and recent deconvert, I realize the value of developing amicable understandings between the religious and the secular, and I wish to act from a position of empathy in all discussions of religion, even though I may say things which sound harsh or unpleasant.”
Me too.
”Yes, I would much rather Christians and other theists talk to me instead of assuming that I think a particular way, just because I happen to be a non-theist. So I hope to extend the same courtesy to you.”
The authors I admire greatly always submit their manuscripts to an legitimate representative of that worldview before putting their book to press to ensure that the utmost care and fairness was used in accurately representing a belief system.
Karla,
Though not in great details, I've explored the contrast between religion-backed morality and subjective morality in my blog-post "A few responses to criticism of atheism".
Plus, what do you and teleprompter think of reasons I've pointed out for discussing religion in my first comments (above) on this particular post?
Take care.
Ketan, I'll try and review that very soon.
Teleprompter, I'll look for some post that I have written and give you the links that discuss a few of these things from my perspective in more detail.
http://www.helium.com/items/1422516-the-ethical-valuation-of-truth
Here is one link. Regarding the truth claim question.
Karla,
I read your article about truth. I agree with your assertions about the necessary universality of truth.
Could you explain to me how and why you believe that Christianity fulfills these conditions?
"Could you explain to me how and why you believe that Christianity fulfills these conditions?"
The Christian God gives a foundation of truth being rooted in one absolute, God. Plato spoke of an abstract form of objective good, but he had nothing to root that in. There was no being, no entity, nothing except this abstract idea. However, the Christian God being eternally good and true gives an anchor for goodness and for truth.
Atheists propose no such entity and as such have nothing but finite humanity to root goodness and truth into and that does not provide a firm support for the existence of truth and goodness.
The Christian God provides such a framework, makes sense, and is livable.
That's the short answer.
Ketan, I tried to respond to you over on your blog but my comment would not post. I read through your post about morality and truth. I would recommend reading some of my post on the subject over at my blog to get an idea of my thoughts on the subject. I have addressed those matters.
Karla,
Thanks for responding. I apologize for the delay on my end in replying to your response. I have been quite busy lately over the past few days, and now I will try and continue this discussion. I do have a few more questions.
"The Christian God gives a foundation of truth being rooted in one absolute, God. Plato spoke of an abstract form of objective good, but he had nothing to root that in. There was no being, no entity, nothing except this abstract idea. However, the Christian God being eternally good and true gives an anchor for goodness and for truth."
But how do we know that any Christian God should be absolute? What does it even mean to be absolute? Wouldn't it entail an incredibly high burden of evidence to claim that any entity is absolute? And how do we know what an objective good is? Objective for whom? Also, if the Christian god being eternally good and true gives an anchor for goodness and truth, still -- how do we know that such a god is the epitome of goodness or truth? We can say that such a good is the foundation for goodness or truth, but what is our standard to evaluate the character of such a god to know that his or her actions are good and true? If we evaluate the goodness of God by his or her nature, then we would be saying that his or her nature is good because his or her nature said that it was good. Isn't this circular logic? To this, I am referring when I comment upon the difference between the god of the philosophers and the Judeo-Christian god of this tradition. Yes, we can posit the existence of a god that is the foundation for objective good and truth, but how do we know objectively that your god fits the bill? Can this be done without using circular logic?
"Atheists propose no such entity and as such have nothing but finite humanity to root goodness and truth into and that does not provide a firm support for the existence of truth and goodness."
What is truth without the existence of a mind? I believe that truth could not exist, but it would have no significance. I believe that there is a difference between truth and significance. Do the laws of logic need to be grounded in anything? I don't know. Could they be any different? I doubt that they could be. And what about goodness? Is it so impossible that human societies, developing over time, would come to understand that certain actions would be beneficial to them? I believe that the gradual development and refinement of moral intuition over many thousands of years in human societies is evidence that morality is rooted in the reasons for action which have confronted humanity for millennia, namely, desires.
"The Christian God provides such a framework, makes sense, and is livable.
That's the short answer."
For me, I do not see enough evidence to affirmatively answer that the Christian God makes sense as a foundation of goodness and truth. I need some coherent standard to determine whether or not the Christian god represents these things, and even that comes after I will need to establish that an objective source of goodness and truth is even necessary. Also, making sense and livability are nice, but cannot things be true without possessing these qualities? I don't understand gravity, but I know it is true (in an experiential sense). Of course, you could probably say the same thing for your beliefs...and then, I would acknowledge that the existence of gravity allows us to make certain predictions, and theistic beliefs have not really been verified in this manner. I am still trying to understand these questions, many of which are immensely difficult and complex, on a greater level of comprehension. Please pardon my vagueness and shooting-in-the-dark. I am only beginning. Thanks for continuing to participate in this discussion.
Hi, I have read your response, thank you. No problem on the delay. I will give it some thought myself before responding to it. I just wanted to let you know I see it and will be back to respond. I've got several things going on in my head right now that I want to write on and one of them may address some of this but it is still formulating. I'll get back with you soon.
Good questions. I am fleshing out the answers as I go and may amend or modify them as the conversation progresses for I am still learning myself. The questions and the answers are complex and yet I think we can bring them back to simplicity. I must say my favorite author that does an amazing job at clearly addressing these questions in my estimation is Francis Schaeffer. I highly recommend his books. I am reading one now that gets into this topic, but I am only in the first chapter. I like to be challenged to think deeply yet rightly.
One thing he wrote that I just read and am trying to get my head around is this, “The assumption of an impersonal beginning can never adequately explain the personal beings we see around us, and when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersonal, man soon disappears.”
Now I bring this up in the philosophical to address the question of truth and the good. I think the two go hand in hand; that which is the ultimate real, the correct, right, righteous, good, true, trustworthy, etc.
You mentioned a very good point about truth needing a mind when you ask, “What is truth without the existence of a mind?” I concur. What would it be indeed? It would seem logical would it not that truth needs a mind for formation. Would not truth need a perfect Mind; that which can know fully all that is real? We can see that we do not possess truth or create truth, we discover truth. We don’t inherently know that gravity exists, we discovered its existence. We discover the real as we apprehend it. However, the Mind of Truth would not be its discoverer, but its author, and not just its author, but the truth itself. Moreover, would not truth be unchanging, consistent, real, and thus absolute; the sure foundation for all that is. I think this is why God identified Himself to Moses, as I Am. Truth would need to be eternal and not rooted in the finite, but in the infinite, and because it is rooted in the eternal good being of God then the finite can experience that reality of truth.
To flesh this out a little further, a personality is required for truth to have meaning. I think your questions have brought you that far. That truth isn’t rooted in an abstract or in an impersonal object, but in a thinking personality.
So to continue, where would truth come from if there was no Personal Thinker/Mind before creation? How could a personal reality come into existence from an impersonal source?
I am separating the “good” from what is “beneficial.” The development of learning to do what is beneficial is one thing and I understand that one could argue for its natural development. But we enter something different when we transfer that to being what is “good” or “right” for that implies a moral imperative or an “ought.” There would need to be a moral good agent behind all that the personal good being would then be necessary for a structure of meeting a good standard or not meeting it.
Also, I think there is a difference between proving something absolutely and knowing that a particular framework makes sense of all else. C.S. Lewis wrote that we don’t need to see the sun to know it’s there, for it is by the sun that we see all else. So if accepting the reality of God’s existence makes the world come into focus in a way that makes sense and is in line with practical living in our daily life and not just relegated to the philosophical clouds then we can have great reason for trust that it is philosophically sound to accept God’s existence.
However, in Christianity we take that a step farther; because we go from believe He exists to experiencing His existence. So the intellectual merges with the experiential to create an even firmer apprehending of truth both in the mind and in the heart.
About needing a standard to judge God’s goodness. I am not sure that would work, since if what I am suggesting is true He would be the standard that makes all else have meaning. So we would see the truth of it not by an external standard from God by which we judge Him, for if such a standard existed that could judge Him, He would cease to be the Being of which we speak. The truth would then be evident by the full picture making sense in light of His real existence and real goodness.
Okay, sorry that’s a lot to think on. Take your time. I’m still thinking on it even though I just wrote it. Like I said I like to think things out.
Teleprompter. I just made a new post to my blog on the topic of morality, a topic I have visited many times on my blog, but felt the need to revisit it once again.
There continues to be an on-going conversation regarding the origin and truths of morality over on my blog that may interest you.
Post a Comment