![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ajvaFeeling a bit under the weather today, so decided on a QNI (sorry ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
webcowgirl - hope you're having a blast!).
I've been amusing myself watching videos online, including some of my music and sporting faves. But I also came across this fascinating video of Sam Harris speaking at the AAI conference earlier this year. I thought some of you might find it interesting; I think it might have quite broad appeal, even perhaps to some of the people of faith on my friends list who may be interested in current trends in the debate. Obviously it is at the occasion of a - how shall we say - "atheistnormative" meeting, and so if you're thinking about clicking through you should of course bear that in mind, but you may find it quite engaging nevertheless. He expresses some very interesting ideas about the usefulness or otherwise of the term "atheist", his thoughts on how atheists are too even-handed in their treatments of different religions, and finishes with a very interesting section on the reported experiences of mystics and contemplatives down the ages, and how he thinks atheists can often dismiss these too readily for their own good.
The other section of this post is under a cut tag, because I am going to be freely atheist in it. I am not going to be rude about theists, and I promise no swearing or other brusque language :o) . However, I will be presenting an argument from a convinced atheists's perspective as to why Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are doomed to be ineffective as debating tools, and some of what I write may appear quite dismissive (perhaps even arrogantly so, although I hope not) to theist eyes. My technique will be to present a hypothetical interview by me now of my younger theist self.
Still here? OK, don't say you weren't warned. :o)
I have often found, since I came to the point where I became an atheist, that my youthful background as an evangelical Christian has been very useful in understanding where theists are coming from. Let me make clear that I do not for a minute believe that the insights thus gained are unavailable to people who have never been believers - we are all human beings and, if you have a facility for empathy and a little imagination, such insights can also be yours. I simply find that I have a useful, psychological short cut. I find it useful to think about how I, as a 16-year-old theist, might have met some of the 33-year-old me's anti-theist arguments.
To illustrate this, let me present a little hypothetical question-and-answer session: me now, putting arguments to my younger self.
Anne Now: I propose that religion is entirely human-made, and is an artefact of humanity and the way it has evolved, rather than describing something that exists outside of it. Let's start with this, then: how do you explain the sheer variety of human religions?
Anne Then: Well, each society understands God in its own way. Certainly any monotheistic religion is fundamentally the same, since all believe in a single God. The differences between each are merely the result of cultural developments in different areas of the world. I would also argue that the same is true of the polytheistic religions, the vast majority of which have a God at the top of a hierarchy of devine personae. But such a leader figure is not necessary: any service to God, via whatever cultural filter, will be received by God as to Him. I expect he's pretty understanding of imperfections in our interpretations. He is a loving and very understanding Chap. :o)
Anne Now: But if you ask a hundred different Christians what they think God wants, you will get a huge number of different answers. If you ask a million different theists of different faiths, even more. A liberal theist tends to believe in a liberal God, a conservative theist a conservative God, and a fundamentalist in a fundamentalist, bloodthirsty God. All believe they are right. I think this simply constitutes a reflection of the personalities of the different believers and implies no external Being. This diversity is not problematic within my philosophy, but it is very much so within yours. How can you be sure that *you* know what he wants?
Anne Then: Well, I don't. It would be arrogant to say otherwise. But I know that I have a very personal relationship with Him, and I can only hope that what I am taking out of that is vaguely congruent to His will. But you're right - there's no way I can know. I concede that.
Anne Now: I suppose it's true that there are many areas where it doesn't really matter. But I think I may be posing a slightly trickier question here_
Anne Then (laughs): Oh dear...
Anne Now (laughs): Indeed, sorry...
Anne Then: Ha! That's OK. Go on...?
Anne Now: OK a slightly trickier question, then: what about when basic doctrines are simply mutually exclusive? Let me give you an example. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong. In fact - why don't you tell me yourself? What do you believe will happen when you die? Some kind of afterlife?
Anne Then: Oh I see! Oh yes, I believe in an afterlife.
Anne Now: Eternal life in Heaven.
Anne Then: Yes. I don't know exactly how it will work, but yes.
Anne Now: What about reincarnation?
Anne Then: I don't believe in that, no.
Anne Now: Phew! I can ask my question then.
Anne Then (laughs): OK, glad to be of help. Go on then.
Anne Now: Some religions have reincarnation as a staple belief. Are they wrong?
Anne Then: I'd have to say yes to that.
Anne Now: But how can you be sure? What makes you so sure that your way is the right way? It's fair enough to say everyone can be vaguely right when it comes to things that easily overlap, but those two ideas plain disagree.
Anne Then: Yes, that's true, they do. But I do believe in an eternal afterlife rather than reincarnation, so you can't expect me to say differently.
Anne Now: So you think it's possible for cultural development following the revelation of God's word to stray so far that it leads to quite serious untruths that - say - mug Hindus are doomed to believing?
Anne Then: I suppose that's true. But I don't believe that it's possible for human beings to know what God's plan is, by and large, so I don't know why that might be. I don't think that a belief in reincarnation will exclude Hindus from Heaven. Or the reverse, if I'm wrong. Whatever happens, happens.
Anne Now: Isn't that a cop-out? And isn't my view simpler? That human beings evolved a tendency to seek meaning and believe in things even if they're not there? That would easily explain why religions vary so much from culture to culture, and why they have doctrines that are mutually exclusive in parts. And why so many people even within the same religion can believe very very different things. Your way has to fall back on you not possibly being expected to know the answer to what seems like an impossible quandary. In fact, let's take my thesis that human beings have a tendency to believe in things that might not be there. What would we expect that to look like? Well, we *might* expect people to say things like "I don't know what's there, but I know there must be *something*", or indeed "I know God is there because I can *feel* him beside me". Isn't that simply an expression of what I'm talking about?
Anne Then: It's possible, but how can you be sure you're right?
Anne Now: Let's take another tack. Why don't dogs go to church? Why don't sparrows stop mid-flight five times a day and reorientate themselves towards Mecca? Dolphins are intelligent: why don't they sing dolphin hymns?
Anne Then: Ha! How do you know they don't? But I take your point. I just think human beings are lucky enough to be able to have some understanding of the devine. I just think myself lucky to be able to do that.
Anne Now: Isn't it more likely that it's because there is no God, and that religions of all kinds are simply an artefact of how our species has evolved?
Anne Then: Theoretically your idea is attractive, but in practice my own personal experience of God makes me think that it is unlikely to be true. Let me ask you a question: you cannot disprove the existence of God, I think we'd both agree, so how can you be so sure you're right?
Anne Now: Well, you cannot disprove the existence of the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it doesn't mean they exist.
Anne Then: Oh come on. Those notions are quite clearly human inventions. A teapot is clearly made by people for people. Spaghetti, whatever its wheaty roots, is quite clearly shaped by people for human consumption. And crucially, they are both physical objects, though hypothetical - and God is very much not. I cannot prove the existence of God, and you cannot disprove it. That makes us even.
Anne Now: Hmmm. No, I respectfully suggest it doesn't. Probability doesn't have to split 50/50. I suggest you take up university-level maths one day...
FIN
OK, a trite treatment, perhaps, but you get my point. There are two problems:
1) Teapots and spaghetti monsters are quite clearly invented by human beings, and so the rhetorical use to which they are put will only ever be accepted by people who already believe that religion is invented by human beings too viz. atheists. People who do not believe that religion is human-made will find the comparison facile, and non-analogous.
2) And though hypothetical, they are also theoretically material constructs, and the vast majority of theists see God as being non-material. Although philosophically and logically this is irrelevant, it will not seem that way to most theists.
And therefore I submit to the jury that Russell's Teapot, along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, are doomed to be forever useless in debate with theists. The prosecution rests.
:o)
webcowgirl - hope you're having a blast!).I've been amusing myself watching videos online, including some of my music and sporting faves. But I also came across this fascinating video of Sam Harris speaking at the AAI conference earlier this year. I thought some of you might find it interesting; I think it might have quite broad appeal, even perhaps to some of the people of faith on my friends list who may be interested in current trends in the debate. Obviously it is at the occasion of a - how shall we say - "atheistnormative" meeting, and so if you're thinking about clicking through you should of course bear that in mind, but you may find it quite engaging nevertheless. He expresses some very interesting ideas about the usefulness or otherwise of the term "atheist", his thoughts on how atheists are too even-handed in their treatments of different religions, and finishes with a very interesting section on the reported experiences of mystics and contemplatives down the ages, and how he thinks atheists can often dismiss these too readily for their own good.
The other section of this post is under a cut tag, because I am going to be freely atheist in it. I am not going to be rude about theists, and I promise no swearing or other brusque language :o) . However, I will be presenting an argument from a convinced atheists's perspective as to why Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are doomed to be ineffective as debating tools, and some of what I write may appear quite dismissive (perhaps even arrogantly so, although I hope not) to theist eyes. My technique will be to present a hypothetical interview by me now of my younger theist self.
Still here? OK, don't say you weren't warned. :o)
I have often found, since I came to the point where I became an atheist, that my youthful background as an evangelical Christian has been very useful in understanding where theists are coming from. Let me make clear that I do not for a minute believe that the insights thus gained are unavailable to people who have never been believers - we are all human beings and, if you have a facility for empathy and a little imagination, such insights can also be yours. I simply find that I have a useful, psychological short cut. I find it useful to think about how I, as a 16-year-old theist, might have met some of the 33-year-old me's anti-theist arguments.
To illustrate this, let me present a little hypothetical question-and-answer session: me now, putting arguments to my younger self.
Anne Now: I propose that religion is entirely human-made, and is an artefact of humanity and the way it has evolved, rather than describing something that exists outside of it. Let's start with this, then: how do you explain the sheer variety of human religions?
Anne Then: Well, each society understands God in its own way. Certainly any monotheistic religion is fundamentally the same, since all believe in a single God. The differences between each are merely the result of cultural developments in different areas of the world. I would also argue that the same is true of the polytheistic religions, the vast majority of which have a God at the top of a hierarchy of devine personae. But such a leader figure is not necessary: any service to God, via whatever cultural filter, will be received by God as to Him. I expect he's pretty understanding of imperfections in our interpretations. He is a loving and very understanding Chap. :o)
Anne Now: But if you ask a hundred different Christians what they think God wants, you will get a huge number of different answers. If you ask a million different theists of different faiths, even more. A liberal theist tends to believe in a liberal God, a conservative theist a conservative God, and a fundamentalist in a fundamentalist, bloodthirsty God. All believe they are right. I think this simply constitutes a reflection of the personalities of the different believers and implies no external Being. This diversity is not problematic within my philosophy, but it is very much so within yours. How can you be sure that *you* know what he wants?
Anne Then: Well, I don't. It would be arrogant to say otherwise. But I know that I have a very personal relationship with Him, and I can only hope that what I am taking out of that is vaguely congruent to His will. But you're right - there's no way I can know. I concede that.
Anne Now: I suppose it's true that there are many areas where it doesn't really matter. But I think I may be posing a slightly trickier question here_
Anne Then (laughs): Oh dear...
Anne Now (laughs): Indeed, sorry...
Anne Then: Ha! That's OK. Go on...?
Anne Now: OK a slightly trickier question, then: what about when basic doctrines are simply mutually exclusive? Let me give you an example. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong. In fact - why don't you tell me yourself? What do you believe will happen when you die? Some kind of afterlife?
Anne Then: Oh I see! Oh yes, I believe in an afterlife.
Anne Now: Eternal life in Heaven.
Anne Then: Yes. I don't know exactly how it will work, but yes.
Anne Now: What about reincarnation?
Anne Then: I don't believe in that, no.
Anne Now: Phew! I can ask my question then.
Anne Then (laughs): OK, glad to be of help. Go on then.
Anne Now: Some religions have reincarnation as a staple belief. Are they wrong?
Anne Then: I'd have to say yes to that.
Anne Now: But how can you be sure? What makes you so sure that your way is the right way? It's fair enough to say everyone can be vaguely right when it comes to things that easily overlap, but those two ideas plain disagree.
Anne Then: Yes, that's true, they do. But I do believe in an eternal afterlife rather than reincarnation, so you can't expect me to say differently.
Anne Now: So you think it's possible for cultural development following the revelation of God's word to stray so far that it leads to quite serious untruths that - say - mug Hindus are doomed to believing?
Anne Then: I suppose that's true. But I don't believe that it's possible for human beings to know what God's plan is, by and large, so I don't know why that might be. I don't think that a belief in reincarnation will exclude Hindus from Heaven. Or the reverse, if I'm wrong. Whatever happens, happens.
Anne Now: Isn't that a cop-out? And isn't my view simpler? That human beings evolved a tendency to seek meaning and believe in things even if they're not there? That would easily explain why religions vary so much from culture to culture, and why they have doctrines that are mutually exclusive in parts. And why so many people even within the same religion can believe very very different things. Your way has to fall back on you not possibly being expected to know the answer to what seems like an impossible quandary. In fact, let's take my thesis that human beings have a tendency to believe in things that might not be there. What would we expect that to look like? Well, we *might* expect people to say things like "I don't know what's there, but I know there must be *something*", or indeed "I know God is there because I can *feel* him beside me". Isn't that simply an expression of what I'm talking about?
Anne Then: It's possible, but how can you be sure you're right?
Anne Now: Let's take another tack. Why don't dogs go to church? Why don't sparrows stop mid-flight five times a day and reorientate themselves towards Mecca? Dolphins are intelligent: why don't they sing dolphin hymns?
Anne Then: Ha! How do you know they don't? But I take your point. I just think human beings are lucky enough to be able to have some understanding of the devine. I just think myself lucky to be able to do that.
Anne Now: Isn't it more likely that it's because there is no God, and that religions of all kinds are simply an artefact of how our species has evolved?
Anne Then: Theoretically your idea is attractive, but in practice my own personal experience of God makes me think that it is unlikely to be true. Let me ask you a question: you cannot disprove the existence of God, I think we'd both agree, so how can you be so sure you're right?
Anne Now: Well, you cannot disprove the existence of the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; it doesn't mean they exist.
Anne Then: Oh come on. Those notions are quite clearly human inventions. A teapot is clearly made by people for people. Spaghetti, whatever its wheaty roots, is quite clearly shaped by people for human consumption. And crucially, they are both physical objects, though hypothetical - and God is very much not. I cannot prove the existence of God, and you cannot disprove it. That makes us even.
Anne Now: Hmmm. No, I respectfully suggest it doesn't. Probability doesn't have to split 50/50. I suggest you take up university-level maths one day...
FIN
OK, a trite treatment, perhaps, but you get my point. There are two problems:
1) Teapots and spaghetti monsters are quite clearly invented by human beings, and so the rhetorical use to which they are put will only ever be accepted by people who already believe that religion is invented by human beings too viz. atheists. People who do not believe that religion is human-made will find the comparison facile, and non-analogous.
2) And though hypothetical, they are also theoretically material constructs, and the vast majority of theists see God as being non-material. Although philosophically and logically this is irrelevant, it will not seem that way to most theists.
And therefore I submit to the jury that Russell's Teapot, along with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, are doomed to be forever useless in debate with theists. The prosecution rests.
:o)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-27 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 12:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 12:43 am (UTC)I agree with your misgivings about teapot/FSM/IPU. The discussion leading up to it is fascinating - thanks for the insights. Re your discussion of an afterlife - a rhetorical device I've found useful in discussion with
no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 12:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 10:00 am (UTC)Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 10:17 am (UTC)I'm not totally sold on describing myself as a theist, for a variety of reasons (not least, the fact that my understandings of deities are probably quite a long way away from yours, and from many other people's, both believers and non-believers), but I'll go with it for the specifics of this discussion. Thing is, as a "theist", I agree very very strongly with several things you posited above;
"I propose that religion is entirely human-made, and is an artefact of humanity and the way it has evolved, rather than describing something that exists outside of it."
Hell yes. Anyone claiming that religions have *not* evolved with humans is frankly crazy or wilfully ignorant about history or even about present-day discussions within various religions on how to deal with modern phenomena for which there is no historical precedent - not just women priests, video games and iPods spring to mind! Even those people who do believe that their faith was handed down entire in one act of communion with the divine (and there really can't be that many people who could hold such an extreme view, not least because what they will have been told about the development of their religion flies in its face) would generally still have to admit that the religion itself will alter the way it does things to encompass and cope with the ways in which the world changes, they would just take the view that these changes are commensurate with the spirit of the thing (I generalise wildly about these imaginary people to make my point here, I admit!).
"But if you ask a hundred different Christians what they think God wants, you will get a huge number of different answers. If you ask a million different theists of different faiths, even more. A liberal theist tends to believe in a liberal God, a conservative theist a conservative God, and a fundamentalist in a fundamentalist, bloodthirsty God. All believe they are right. I think this simply constitutes a reflection of the personalities of the different believers and implies no external Being."
Again, big old yes. Of course people see their deities as they see themselves - I believe firmly that one chooses one's faith based on one's existing morality and politics, not the other way round. And again, I think it'd be odd to argue that the *complete* opposite of this was true, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary (a partial argument, which admits to some influence but also to some underlying absolute, is probably more reasonable - I'd have to take my views on such an argument as I came to it).
I love the FSM, by the way. It entertains the hell out of me, and I think it is a lovely tool for debating with ridiculously close-minded individuals. My latterly-atheist mother (she described herself as an agnostic all through my childhood, which boggled me because she is *totally* an atheist - she seems happier to use the term now) also really likes the FSM and has asked me to lend her the book. It may just have something to do with the pirates, mind you ;¬)
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 10:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 10:24 am (UTC)If true, I guess that would mean that even if you could go back in time and observe Jesus on the Cross, you would not be able to observe events before his death as he himself did, because the past would already have been changed. Maybe, as a non-Anglican, I haven't really understood either the theology or the physics of it properly.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 10:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 10:49 am (UTC)William Hill would not be taking bets.
(I would hazard a guess that we spend at least 30% of our total conversation time discussing religion/theology/magic/the nature of the universe/etc, so it's bound to come up in company from time to time.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 10:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 11:09 am (UTC)Glad you enjoyed my little dialogue. Interestingly, I was only aiming for conlusion 1 at the start. Conclusion 2 didn't even occur to me until I started thinking like my 16-year-old self. I must have been really getting into it. :o)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 11:12 am (UTC)Whoops! LOL! :oD
no subject
Date: 2007-10-28 11:12 am (UTC)http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=25667
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/letter_to_a_nonatheist_new_ath.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/sam_harris_seems_like_a_nice_f.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/cult_is_the_new_fundamentalist.php
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 11:17 am (UTC)I thought you might find this interesting too: I have to say I found debating my younger self quite enjoyable, because at least I knew what she believed, and therefore what I was debating. I often find it really difficult to debate theists/deists and so on, because beliefs vary so widely, by creed and by individual. And then if it so happens that the person I'm debating has an unusually-held or minority view on one particular area of doctrine, I'll be accused of straw-manning if I debate them assuming the majority-held one! It really does feel like having a fencing match with a maple syrup man sometimes. :o)
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 11:33 am (UTC)By the end of my discussion with
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 11:50 am (UTC)I did disagree with his specific interpretations of, say, the struggle against racism - there have been large numbers of people who identified as anti-racists! An interesting comparison might be drawn with the anti-fascist movement, particularly the way it developed in Britain and western Europe in the late '70 and early '80s, and the kind of dialogue it continues to have today (very pertinent, as I came from the Anarchist Bookfair yesterday!)
I also disagree with his understanding of Islam, and with his political analyses - specifically, with what appears to be a failure to take politics into account. IMHO, current Islamic extremism is almost entirely a product of post-WWII realpolitik and is connected to traditional understanding of Islam tangentially at best. This is not to excuse other forms of oppression in Islamic states, but to try and distinguish them - the modern expression doesn't necessarily follow from them. I must plug Ziauddin Sarkar's "Desperately Seeking Paradise" as a fascinating book about a faithful but sceptical modern Muslim examining various aspects of his religion (past and present) to try and discern his own spiritual path. It's extremely informative from a historical and cultural perspective, even if you think the religious stuff is utter bunk (indeed, he sometimes does himself!). I have generally found it to be a disheartening truth that most American and European non-Muslims have quite firm views about Islam with little actual knowledge about its history or expressions, and I find it bitterly amusing that Harris could talk about the problem of racism with one breath, and the wrongness of Islam with the next, and yet fail to make any obvious connection between them...
There
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 11:52 am (UTC)Is there such a thing as a Freudian typo? *blushes*
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 11:57 am (UTC)Yes, it is a direct rip-off in fact, cunningly disguised. :o)
Hitchens opens by saying that he's debated McGrath many times but he finds it impossible to get McGrath to make it clear what he actually believes.
It's absolutely true. Sometimes I wonder if the theists/deists/other who are unclear like this really appreciate how frustrating that can be for the rest of us. But I also think that it's a question of a qualitatively different way of holding and developing beliefs.
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 11:59 am (UTC)I certainly don't regard
I'm not going to suggest you stop trying to convert him, mind you. I think it would be hilarious if I were the most religious person in the house! *falls over laughing at the very idea*
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 12:05 pm (UTC)You're spot-on there. Personally, and I speak only for myself here, I find it an essential part of my beliefs that they deal with things with *are* unclear, complex and difficult to explain (not least since I am very much orientated towards a personal spiritual path in which the communal aspect is at best optional, at worst unnecessary). I think it would be rather scary if I thought I *could* explain some concepts as clearly as, say, one could explain photosynthesis. These are different things entirely.
People who believe they can demonstrate opinions as facts worry me, whether they're doing it from a religious perspective or not. Cf evolutionary psychology.........(OT: did you see
Re: Dialogue between the anti-priest and the dying Anne (I know, I'm evil...)
Date: 2007-10-28 12:11 pm (UTC)