Ah Christopher, step this way please. Welcome to Hades. You must be feeling a right plonker, all the atheists do at this point. Don’t worry you’ll be in good company.
Maybe. But I strongly feel that there are two kind of atheists:
a) those who don’t give a damn about the truth; those, indeed, will end up in your company.
b) those who cannot stand lies and see in atheism a form of “spiritual hygiene” to stay away from all the lies promoted by so many religions; those, I strongly believe, will not end up in your company, but will be received with honors, joy and much love in the Heavens.
But don’t worry – there will be plenty of other folks, including many putatively religious people, to keep you company: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:19).
If Hitchens does end up in Hades I don’t think it’ll be for being an atheist so much as his propagandising for the criminal Iraq war and helping the Empire cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Hitchens used to be a Trotskyist and never abandoned the idea of a revolutionary force changing the world. He just substituted the workers revolution for the fantasy of a benign secular Empire imposing what he saw as Enlightenment values on the Muslim world.
One of my favorite concise demolitions of the modern revolutionary ideology occurs in director Martin Scorsese’s film adaptation of The Last Temptation of Christ, where it’s latched onto the ideology of the Zealot movement in ancient Israel.
Jesus and Judas are talking privately at one point and they get into an argument over the necessary route to achieving a free and just society. Judas is a Zealot whose goal is freedom for the Jews via the military/political overthrow of the Romans. Jesus is mainly a religious reformer whose message is one of absolute love amongst all, for all.
JESUS: We both want the same thing.
JUDAS: We both want freedom for Israel.
JESUS: No. I want freedom for the soul.
JUDAS: That’s what I can’t accept. That’s not the same thing. First you free the body, then you free the spirit. The Romans come first. You don’t build a house from the roof down. You build it from the foundation up.
JESUS: The foundation is the soul.
JUDAS: The foundation is the body! That’s where you must begin.
JESUS: No. If you don’t replace the spirit first and change what’s inside, then you’re only going to replace the Romans with someone else and nothing ever changes. Even if you’re victorious you’ll still be filled with the poison. You’ve got to break the chain of evil.
@Everybody: wow, I posted this short thing (sent by Gilad Atzmon to his friends) mostly because it made me smile, and yet we are gradually having rather interesting comments. So let me add my own non-jocking comment here.
Revolutionary change is, I believe, in itself neutral or, rather, non-defined as such.
When revolutionary process is the result of a belief in the power of Man to make the world a just place, when it offers a hope for a paradise on Earth, an “achievable utopia”. then it is an ‘opium of the people’ way more toxic than what any religion has ever offered. From the Tower of Babel, to the WTC buildings, from secularists of the so-called “Enlightenment” to Marx, Hitler or Fukuyama, there has always been a type of man who wanted to “reach the heavens” and to declare to mankind that ye shall be as gods if you are without God. This type of revolution always begins with promises of paradise and ends in a hellish bloodbath.
But revolutionary change can also be a process which begins with the paradoxical realization that man can only free himself by submitting to God. This is the basic truth with most, if not all, religions share. This is what Christ meant when he said without me ye can do nothing. This is what Hassan Nasrallah refers to when he begins his speech with the words I take refuge in Allah from the stoned Satan or what Ahmadinejad referred to in his 2008 speech at the UN when he said God Almighty has tied their perfection and true freedom of humans to their devotion and obedience to Himself. True freedom and obedience to God are in balance and in fact are two sides of the same coin (…) Humans need to know God in order to realize a prosperous society in this world as well as to strive for a beautiful eternal life. This is what the Hindu tradition calls the doctrine of Prapatti (which Swami Siwananda defined as 1. the acquisition of virtues which would make one a fit offering to God; 2. avoidance of conduct not acceptable to God; 3. faith that the Lord will always protect him; 4. appeal to the Lord for protection and mercy; 5. a feeling of one’s own littleness; and 6. total surrender. The first five are the means to the attainment of absolute self-surrender.
In this latter case, the revolutionary process becomes filled with an internal dimension which can make the world better, even if only on the margins, and only for a while.
My 2cts on this.
I wish those of you who celebrate the Nativity of Christ this Sunday a peaceful, sober and joyful celebration.
As I myself passed from Marxism to Christianism, the subject of this discussion is very interesting to me. I would like to ask Saker to make clear two things about this paragraph: “In this latter case, the revolutionary process becomes filled with an internal dimension which can make the world better, even if only on the margins, and only for a while.” First, there was ever in history such a kind of “spiritual revolution”? And second, I didn’t understand the last sentence. Why would it make the world better and only on the margins? A transformation of men’ soul shouldn’t be more essential and lasting then a merely political revolution?
@Carlo: First, there was ever in history such a kind of “spiritual revolution”? Sure, the revival of Shia Islam following the Iranian Revolution comes to my mind as a recent example. The uprising of the Orthodox Russians under the spiritual leadership of Patriarch Germogen against the Poles and their “Semiboiarshchina” allies in the 17th century or the liberation movement against the British lead by Gandhi also come to my mind.
Why would it make the world better and only on the margins
Because of the fallen nature of man which cannot be modified or restored by any political, social ideological process. This is why the only REAL liberation can only be through a restoration of our original nature and our re-union with God, through theosis.
A transformation of men’ soul shouldn’t be more essential and lasting then a merely political revolution?
Of course, but these processes can run in parallel courses and the former can, sometimes, affect the latter. These are different levels which should not be opposed to each other. There is only ONE *real* liberation, the one which Christ refers to when He says If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free and that is the re-union with the Theandric Body of Christ – His Church – followed by theosis, what the Church hymns often call the “co-resurrection with Christ”. However, the process of standing up against evil, of deliberately submitting one’s will to God, can take many forms and, I believe, that it can also have the visible manifestation of a stance against oppression in a political process.
What I find interesting about this overused joke is the subtext: that God kills people he doesn’t like, and this is supposed to be amusing.
I suspect that if there is a God, he will welcome atheists with open arms for never engaging in the unpardonable sin of putting words in his mouth or presenting themselves as his appointed spokespersons. Everyone else may find themselves swimming in burning shit with Hitchens :)
But we’ll all get Kukulkan’s side of the story when the world ends in 2012. Until then, enjoy your Christmas, it may be your last :)
“that God kills people he doesn’t like, and this is supposed to be amusing.” No, Sean, you got it wrong. This joke is not about God killing the atheists, but rather a remembrance of our own mortality and of the eternity of God. No truly religious person would dare saying who went to hell and who to heaven, as this depends only on God. And read Saker’s first comment here. He said quite the same as you. Just like a religious person can’t generalize and criticize all atheists as if they were all equal, atheists should do the same regarding religious people.
I think it’s worth noting that Nietzsche’s point was more phenomenological than metaphysical. That is, Nietzsche was making a point about post-“Enlightenment” European consciousness rather than about the nature of the cosmos. And in the phenomenological sense Nietzsche was both right and prescient.
Hitchens, otoh, was not merely an atheist (and a pseudo-intellectual one at that) but a hate-monger and attention-junkie as well. The following is a good article by Chris Hedges ion the topic:
Let’s not be disingenuous. Many religious people make claims all the time about about who is and isn’t going to hell and indeed Saker does so here with atheists and certain religious people. I don’t know what a “truly religious person” is or does but if God exists then surely the judgment of that is up to God as well, assuming he cares.
The “Nietzsche is Dead” meme is a joke, not a philosophy dissertation. Like all jokes it has a simple, easy to understand punchline. Nietzsche arrogantly asserts God is dead and God proves him wrong by smiting him. The punchline couldn’t be more clear. Here’s a variation of the joke with “Nietzsche” as a troublesome computer terminal:
Nowhere did I make a generalization about religious people, so let’s not overstate the case. Saker’s definition of atheists is hardly flattering, and is wrong for the majority of atheists. Defining atheists by the assertion that you have some “truth” that they refuse to accept is rather self-serving. Atheists do give a damn about the truth, which is why they are atheists.They see religion as a lie and reject it accordingly, but this is not the basis for lack of God belief. Plenty of people reject religion but still believe in God. Atheists lack belief in God due to a lack of evidence for his existence. It’s a simple as that.
=============== Atheists lack belief in God due to a lack of evidence for his existence. ===============
More precisely: Atheists lack belief in God due to either 1) a lack of grasping of the evidence for his existence; or 2) a rejection of the evidence that they do grasp. Again, phenomenological versus metaphysical.
Being unable to see evidence =! no evidence. Anyway, intellectual atheists will acknowledge that there is evidence; otoh they don’t see that evidence as conclusive or sufficient for one reason or other.
=============== Atheists do give a damn about the truth, which is why they are atheists. ===============
Not true for all atheists, anymore than it’s true for those who carry any other label. OTOH this a persistent myth peddled by pseudo-intellectuals of the likes of Hitchens, Dennett et al. And there are atheists — some of them my own teachers — who will call them out for their sophistry.
================ Nietzsche arrogantly asserts God is dead and God proves him wrong by smiting him. ================
Honestly, I never thought of it that way. I always understood the joke as referring to the endurance and persistence of God beyond the mortality of those who deny him. People can deny all they want, but it does not affect the reality of God in the least.
OTOH, I think the original joke does not appreciate the phenomenological intent of Nietzsche, as I explained in an earlier post.
=============== There is no evidence for the existence of God. ===============
Fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple. There is nothing more to say.
=============== belief in God requires faith while belief in the sunrise merely requires observation. ===============
In epistemology there is a spectrum from faith to knowledge. Faith is a stepping-stone to knowledge whether the subject matter is science or theology.
It is not the eyes that are blind, but rather the hearts within the breasts of men: Quran.
Otherwise one can observe God as plainly as the sunrise. If one is not willing to cultivate the objective vision of the heart, then one will remain blind to God, whether or not one is atheist. Anyway, the empirical data confirming the mystical observation of God is too overwhelming to deny except on the grounds of pure fundamentalist and superstitious scientism. It’s like a blind man denying that others see the Sun just because he can’t do it.
If one starts with denial and rejection, then knowledge is forever impossible.
Sean: “….There is no evidence for the existence of God. You can’t reject what doesn’t exist. This is why
belief in God requires faith while belief in the sunrise merely requires observation. You can’t
randomly assign this or that object or phenomenon to “God” without proof, otherwise you are just
making an argument from faith.”
If there is no God than there should be no concept of Faith, or even Hope; these real concepts should not even exist as you believe God does not exist…
Fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple. There is nothing more to say.
Incontrovertible fact. There has never been an iota of evidence for the existence of any god in the entirety of human history that would withstand scrutiny in a 4th grade science class. You can call that fact “fundamentalist dogma” if you like, but if you had any evidence you’d present it here instead of sophistry.
In epistemology there is a spectrum from faith to knowledge. Faith is a stepping-stone to knowledge whether the subject matter is science or theology.
Nonsense. In science, the only path to “knowledge” is through the rejection of faith and the acceptance of evidence.
Otherwise one can observe God as plainly as the sunrise. If one is not willing to cultivate the objective vision of the heart, then one will remain blind to God, whether or not one is atheist.
The vision of the heart is anything but objective. Billions of people have worshiped tens of thousands of gods throughout history as “wholeheartedly” as you worship yours. The Hindus alone have over 30,000 gods. Millions of children believe in Santa Claus and there are large numbers of people who claim to have encountered or been abducted by aliens. All these people sincerely believe in the message of their hearts. They can’t all be right.
Anyway, the empirical data confirming the mystical observation of God is too overwhelming to deny except on the grounds of pure fundamentalist and superstitious scientism.
Can you give me some examples of this “empirical data” or are you just making this up? There is nothing “superstitious” about rejecting unproven claims. I suspect you will ignore this call for evidence just like you did my first.
Sean maybe you can tell us where Hitchen’s life(soul) went after he died? I mean it is observable that his body remained, yet his actual life left him…So where did it go? And where did it come from?
And how do you explain feelings since you really cannot see, hear, taste, or touch them; yet we know they exist don’t we? I mean you do have feelings don’t you Sean? You do feel emotions like the rest of us don’t you? Do atheists feel love? And where do they think that feeling came from? And what is the physical proof of it’s existence?
And have the atheists actually proven without a doubt how everything was created from nothing, since they reject a God but seem to accept a nothing of a beginning?
I mean if we are just trying to be completely logical here, while not relying whatsoever on faith or hope of an actual Creator….
================ Nonsense. In science, the only path to “knowledge” is through the rejection of faith and the acceptance of evidence. ================
That sentence shows a profound ignorance of basic epistemology and scientific method, combined with a crude scientism. If you want to believe scientistic superstition, it’s up to you. Not recognizing the faith-knowledge spectrum — and its independence of subject-matter — is a major defect of both modern fideism and pseudo-intellectual atheism alike. [I was a practicing physicist once by the way]
Sean, if you believe in scientism, an unproven dogma and superstition, then there is no difference between your position and that of any other extreme fideism. On the other hand, if you are open to a path to knowledge and reasonable belief beyond the scientistic, then we can have a serious discussion sometime.
There is a difference between the objective heart and the subjective heart. Note what I said earlier:
========== If one is not willing to cultivate the objective vision of the heart, then one will remain blind to God, whether or not one is atheist. ==========
Believers in God with subjective feelings of the heart abound, but that does not produce knowledge of God per se. A fortiori for atheism of course.
If you truly want evidence, first you have to bracket your own attitude of utter rejection and denial and take a fresh approach in your epistemology, one open to new horizons and vistas. If you remain in a closed box — “I’ll only accept something as evidence if it fits my preconceived principle” — then you will no different than the Venusian who denies the existence of the Sun because of the permanence of the clouds on Venus. Sharing the evidence I have with you is useless if you maintain a closed box.
Ask yourself: Do you think Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Whitehead, Descartes, Newton, Einstein, Donald Knuth, and other great scientists would believe in God without any evidence whatsoever? This is not an attempt at proof from authority, but rather an urge to reflect on the possibility that you just might be missing something in your epistemological framework.
Also, keep in mind the distinction between evidence per se and conclusive evidence. A real intellectual atheist will at least acknowledge that there is evidence, even while denying or doubting its conclusivity. But denying all evidence on the basis of unproven dogma is lazy and pseudo-intellectual at best. Even Hume recognized this.
One must also distinguish between knowledge and reasonable belief. In science there are many principles which are not known — in the strict sense of the word ‘knowledge’ — but which are reasonably believed to be true up to some degree of scientific certainty. With respect to God one may ask: To what degree is it reasonable to believe that God exists? To what degree is it possible to know that God exists?
Knowledge is not a precondition of reasonable belief. Scientistic absolutism — like its fideistic counterpart — blinds us to these kinds of nuances. The difficulty in knowing that God is there is often confused by pseudo-intellectual atheists with reasonable belief that God is there. That is one place where the sophistry lies, the other being the absolutization of the faith-knowledge distinction as I mentioned earlier.
So, with an open mind and objective heart — using the word ‘heart’ in the classical sense as the seat of objective intelligence and reflection, not the modern sense of the seat of subjective emotion — I can only challenge you to open up — or at least loosen — your own epistemological space for reflection, meditation, and reasoning.
A closed epistemological space leads to reductionism which leads only to ignorance. Absent an open — or at least loosened — epistemological space, any and all evidence that I or anyone else may provide will fall on the mind and heart like light on a black rock on the darkest of nights. The Consciousness of an open epistemological space will reflect the light of evidence, while the Ignorance of a closed one will reflect nothing.
If someone were to demand of me: Give me conclusive evidence of the Pythagorean Theorem without using any mathematical reason whatsoever, I would tell him to first open his epistemological space and rethink his attitude towards mathematical reason. You want evidence for the existence of God? Open or at least loosen your epistemological space, then we can talk about the evidence. Absent that, the conversation will go nowhere.
Peace
PS If you are sincerely interested in this — beyond us wasting each other’s time with polemics –, I can provide you a couple of places to start on a neutral epistemological foundation for research.
Look Ishamid, I asked a simple question, so spare me the ad-hominems, pseudo-intellectual sophistry and insinuations about what I do and don’t believe. Any atheist is 100 times more willing to accept the possibility that God exists than you are to except the possibility your religion might be a lie, so don’t talk to me about being open-minded. I once believed in God and am quite capable of doing so again given the right evidence.
Like most theists I have debated, you immediately go for the cheap shot and try to make this issue about me, because you lack a meaningful argument to back your claims. If there is anything as rare as evidence for God’s existence, it’s a theist willing to have an honest debate on the issue without name-calling, strawmen and questioning my sincerity.
I have asked repeatedly for evidence and you have repeatedly refuse to deliver. Whether there is evidence for God’s existence or not has absolutely zero to do with me and whether I am willing to consider that evidence with an open mind or not, so stop making your failure to present your “overwhelming” evidence as being about me.
Anon, you have to acknowledge Hitchens was a soulless motherfucker, even if you think everyone else has a soul.I have no idea what happens when you die. I’ll let you know when my turn comes up. I also have no idea how the world came into existence. If you wish to claim that God made the universe, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that, not on me to come up with an alternative explanation. There are 5,000 different religions over the years that all have their own version of creation. Maybe it was the Great Turtle?
That most people have emotions is obvious. Emotions produce physiological changes in the body that can be measured, and so does cognition. I think and feel therefore thinking and feeling exist is a logical conclusion. I think and feel therefore God exists is not.
============== Whether there is evidence for God’s existence or not has absolutely zero to do with me ===============
With all due respect, that’s your big mistake, Sean. It has everything to do with you. A proof is only a proof to the one who recognizes it. Evidence is only evidence to the one with the epistemological space to recognize it. Proof and evidence are not metaphysically independent of the observer.
Implication between propositions is an ontic matter, viz, metaphysically independent of the observer. The same is not true for proof, evidence and deduction. Proof and evidence are epistemic matters, viz, not metaphysically independent of the observer; their epistemic function is dependent on one’s epistemological space and receptivity. This is basic logic, a topic I’ve taught for many years and also do research in. So if your epistemological space is closed — whether fideist or scientistic or other — that limits the kind of evidence you will be willing to consider with an open mind and heart.
I wish you the best in what I hope is your continued search for truth and reality. And that’s the last I have to say on the matter.
In other words, you don’t have any evidence. But we both knew that.
You don’t know whether someone’s “epistemological space” is open to evidence or not until you present it. To imagine you do based on nothing more than my being an atheist is bigotry, though I shouldn’t expect that someone comfortable with jumping to conclusions about God would do any less with an atheist.
You claim to know “truth and reality,” but if God exists, his reality would be vastly beyond the ridiculous caricatures of your man-made superstitions, and his totality would not be constrained neatly within the parameters or your “faith,” dogmas, or poorly-written, misanthropic and factually deficient holy books. I suspect his reality would be beyond all human comprehension, thus any claims to “know” him or the “truth” based on religion are little more than ego and arrogance, qualities not wanting in the typical holy roller from my experience.
Contrary to your strawman atheist caricature, I do not “utterly” reject or deny God. I simply do not claim to know him or see any evidence for his existence and therefore do not presume to know who or what “he” is or whether “he” exists or not. In the absence of knowledge I remain in disbelief for to do otherwise is arrogant presumption. I’ll save that particular conceit for you know-it-all theists and remain genuinely open to the truth should it ever reveal itself to me.
Sean, you made it abundantly clear in this thread that scientistic dogma is your criterion for evidence — “4th-grade science class”, “in science, the only path to “knowledge” (my emphasis) etc. My comments about your closed epistemological space were based on your own proclamations. And it simply makes no sense to present evidence if the epistemological space to receive that evidence is already closed.
God is not a physical object. So reducing evidence for God to instrumental physical, chemical, or biological modes of investigation is an example of what in logic is called a “category mistake”. Every area of inquiry has a mode of investigation appropriate to it. One does not prove the Pythagorean Theorem through natural science, one proves it through mathematical reason. One does not prove the existence of other planets through mathematical reason, one uses astronomical instruments. Etc.
You seem to refuse to grasp this point, and use that refusal to accuse me of not presenting evidence. But that’s putting the cart before the horse. Mutual consideration of evidence only makes sense if we can share some epistemological space. I would suggest deconstructing scientistic dogma first. I said a while back that I’m willing to share some resources with you on that topic if you’re interested. But you ignored that. No problem, but it is your decision to maintain your scientistic dogma without looking at the alternatives. Screaming “show me the evidence” and at the same time refusing to reexamine your own scientism is inconsistent and an example of pseudo-intellectual fish-baiting. And I’m not biting.
Fideists tend to argue the same way, and it makes no sense trying to show a fideist evidence that the Earth is more than 6000 years old because of their own closed epistemological space. The problem with scientism is in some ways worse because scientistic thinkers delude themselves into believing that they are actually doing science when they are just as fundamentalist as the fideists. Chris Hedges and even other atheists have pointed this out.
As I said earlier
=========== Open or at least loosen your epistemological space, then we can talk about the evidence. Absent that, the conversation will go nowhere. ===========
As I predicted, we appear to be going nowhere. This is my last post on this topic, and there is enough meat in my earlier comments — if read carefully and precisely — to make my point clear enough. And other readers can judge for themselves.
The whole “Enligthenment” scientism behind the New Atheists fails to understand that science of itself does not, and never can, establish a particular view of the ultimate nature of reality. To many working scientists, science seems very obviously to suggest an ultimate explanation, namely a materialist one, but a materialist view of total reality is a metaphysics not a scientific theory. Science is compatible with metaphysical outlooks of widely differing and mutually incompattible kinds. Some of the most path breaking of 20C scientists including Einstein appear to have believed in God. The founder of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger, was attracted by Buddhism. For the individual there is not and never has been a conflict between fully accepting the claims of science and holding non materialist beliefs.
All you do here is redefine terminology. Reason, logic and the request for evidence is “superstition” “scientism” and “fundamentalist dogma” but faith and naked assertion without evidence is “science.”
Let me jump to the chase: your claims about atheists “rejecting evidence” for God are self-serving bullshit, as are your claims that you have any such evidence. Your transparent evasions fool no one. If the religions of the world had any such evidence, I doubt they would be as reticent as you are in presenting it. It is a fundamental principle of intellectual honesty to provide evidence upon request.
You claim that God is not a physical object, but how do you know that? In either case religions make all manner of claims about the physical world and God’s effects upon it, hundreds of which have been disproven by science. When confronted with this fact, religious apologists like you try to confine God to the metaphysical realm, where he cannot be touched by science, but that is denying the reality of what religion is and how it is preached and practiced by billions.
Religion and science are not compatible. In science, doubt is the highest virtue and unquestioned faith the worst sin. In religion, it is exactly the opposite. If there were any overlap between religion and science than religion would have contributed something to our scientific knowledge by now. It has contributed nothing. Science on the other hand has contributed much to our religious understanding by pointing out just how many religious claims are bogus.
You might be surprised to learn that I have actually had what might be described as metaphysical, mystical and supernatural experiences, some of which occurred amongst other people who experienced the same thing or similar at the same time. So to accuse me of being “closed minded” to something I have actually experienced and thus recognize as a real phenomenon is presumptious and absurd.
The difference is, I do not choose to define these experiences within the narrow confines of a particular religious orthodoxy, but am open to the fact that there may be a scientific explanation for these “mystical” experiences. Studies with the “God Helmet” have shown that experiences of a religious or metaphysical nature can be induced by stimulating the frontal lobes with electrical impulses. “Mystical” experiences and the perception that one has seen or felt God may be little more than an aberration of brain function.
The fact that some scientists are also religious does not mean science is compatible with religion. It only means that religious people can be scientists.
We cannot know whether science can discern “ultimate reality” or not or even if such a thing as “ultimate reality” even exists until we prove that ultimate reality exists.
Science is not compatible with metaphysical outlooks “of different kinds” as metaphysical claims cannot be tested, and the fact that there as so many thousands of these “different kinds” of metaphysical claims calls their validity into question.
We can certainly examine metaphysical claims and ask why they usually conform to a culturally or individually-centered framework. Muslims don’t typically have mystical experiences involving Gitche Manitou, but American Indians do. Christians don’t typically receive visitations from Ahura Mazda, but Zoroastrians do. This suggests that these experiences may be nothing but projections of the psyche based on the individual’s cultural context or psychological needs.
The primary difference between science and religion is that science can be demonstrated to work. Airplanes fly, Krazy Glue bonds instantly, and a shot of morphine will do more to relieve physical pain than all the prayer in the world. Religion may provide people with a sense of comfort and meaning, but beyond that it cannot be demonstrated to actually alter anything in the physical world.
[i]We can certainly examine metaphysical claims and ask why they usually conform to a culturally or individually-centered framework. Muslims don’t typically have mystical experiences involving Gitche Manitou, but American Indians do. Christians don’t typically receive visitations from Ahura Mazda, but Zoroastrians do. This suggests that these experiences may be nothing but projections of the psyche based on the individual’s cultural context or psychological needs.[/i]
That’s possible certainly and would make sense but it also might be that the divine choses to reveal itself in the form that the subject finds easiest to relate to and that’s why individuals have visions from within their own tradition.
For the record I’m agnostic but closer to the atheist end of the spectrum. I think it’s most likely that there is no God and that materialism is true. But I don’t think we can simply assume this is the case.
I’m very suspicious of any ideology such as that of Hitchens that claims that its view of reality is 100% certain. There should always be that element of doubt. Any ideology that attempts to banish doubt and claims to have the one true version of reality is liable to desecend into fundamentalism and start demonising its opponents as inferior or wicked. Hitchens demonsrated a Manichean view that divided the world into good and evil with himself in the star role. Whether it’s apologetics for the Iraq war or justifications for torture from Sam Harris or the history of Marxism there’s abundant evidence that secular ideologies can be every bit as dangerous as any religion.
The Christian right claim that God is on their side and godless secularists are wicked. “Enlightenment” apologists for Empire claim that Muslims are backward and barbaric and there is nothing good in Islam. Both are equally arrogant and have more in common with each other than they realise.
That’s possible certainly and would make sense but it also might be that the divine choses to reveal itself in the form that the subject finds easiest to relate to and that’s why individuals have visions from within their own tradition.
If that’s the case then no one religion’s view of divinity should be considered authoritative, since the gods seem to want radically different things from different people, and there seems to be no consensus amongst themselves whether they are one or many. Then again if we are making assumptions all this mysiticism stuff may the work of evil demons or good drugs.
I’m very suspicious of any ideology such as that of Hitchens that claims that its view of reality is 100% certain.
I’m very suspicious of anyone who claims Hitchens represents anybody but himself. What “ideology” are you talking about?
There should always be that element of doubt. Any ideology that attempts to banish doubt and claims to have the one true version of reality is liable to desecend into fundamentalism and start demonising its opponents as inferior or wicked.
Here you are talking about religion. Religion is the one ideology that preaches absolute certainty, and that to doubt that certainty is the vilest sin punishable by eternity in Hell if not imprisonment, murder or ostracism in this world.
Hitchens demonsrated a Manichean view that divided the world into good and evil with himself in the star role. Whether it’s apologetics for the Iraq war or justifications for torture from Sam Harris or the history of Marxism there’s abundant evidence that secular ideologies can be every bit as dangerous as any religion.
Key word there being “ideology” not “secular.” Unblinking faith in a particular ideology and the belief that you have the right to impose your ideology by force on others is what makes ideology dangerous, whether religious or secular. This, coupled with the hierarchical authority structures of governments, corporations and religions which enable this coercion to occur, is the true source of evil in this world. The religions of the world are the primary salesman of this kind of thinking, which hold that blind faith and obedience are the highest virtues, and to question or resist authority the gravest sins. How convenient for the tyrants of the world for whose benefit these fake belief systems were invented. Enlightenment philosophers were among the first in human history to question this mode of thinking. Sicne you put the word “Enlightenment” in scare quotes I am curious exactly which Enlightenment values you have a problem with?
Hitchens and Harris are two people who represent no one but themselves. They are not the Popes of Atheism. You’re falling into the trap set by religious ideologues like Chris Hedges who like to lump all atheists into the same basket with Hitchens and Harris. Harris and Hitchens are neocons. There is a helluva lot more support for neoconservatism, the War of Terror, the police state, corporate rule and authoritarianism in general among Christians than there is among atheists. Nearly every poll I have ever seen shows atheists to be the most progressive people in our society and the most firmly opposed to the growing religio-fascist state we have in this country.
“Enlightenment” apologists for Empire
Yeah, all two of them. Can you seriously deny that most of the hatred towards Islam comes from religious leaders, or from neocons and Zionists and their paid lackies?
Well Chris Hedges wrote a book castigating the Christian right so he’s hardly an apologist for fundamentalism. I think it’s fair to say that Harris and Hitchens are leading figures in the “new atheism” movement so it’s fair enough to be concerned when they defend torture or proslytize for the Iraq war. Dawkins himself was dead against the war so yes they don’t represent all atheists but then the right wing fundamentalists don’t represent all Christians.
I doubt whether dark impulses or fundamentalist ideologies would disappear if religion were to vanish. The impulse to see the world in binary form as a Manichean battle between good and evil would still exist. The problem is not religion but human nature. Market fundamentalism claims to be rational and objective. Stalinism claimed to be scientific.
Ah Christopher, step this way please. Welcome to Hades. You must be feeling a right plonker, all the atheists do at this point. Don’t worry you’ll be in good company.
@Satan himself:
Maybe. But I strongly feel that there are two kind of atheists:
a) those who don’t give a damn about the truth; those, indeed, will end up in your company.
b) those who cannot stand lies and see in atheism a form of “spiritual hygiene” to stay away from all the lies promoted by so many religions; those, I strongly believe, will not end up in your company, but will be received with honors, joy and much love in the Heavens.
But don’t worry – there will be plenty of other folks, including many putatively religious people, to keep you company: Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble (James 2:19).
HTH
If Hitchens does end up in Hades I don’t think it’ll be for being an atheist so much as his propagandising for the criminal Iraq war and helping the Empire cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Hitchens used to be a Trotskyist and never abandoned the idea of a revolutionary force changing the world. He just substituted the workers revolution for the fantasy of a benign secular Empire imposing what he saw as Enlightenment values on the Muslim world.
One of my favorite concise demolitions of the modern revolutionary ideology occurs in director Martin Scorsese’s film adaptation of The Last Temptation of Christ, where it’s latched onto the ideology of the Zealot movement in ancient Israel.
Jesus and Judas are talking privately at one point and they get into an argument over the necessary route to achieving a free and just society. Judas is a Zealot whose goal is freedom for the Jews via the military/political overthrow of the Romans. Jesus is mainly a religious reformer whose message is one of absolute love amongst all, for all.
JESUS: We both want the same thing.
JUDAS: We both want freedom for Israel.
JESUS: No. I want freedom for the soul.
JUDAS: That’s what I can’t accept. That’s not the same thing. First you free the body, then you free the spirit. The Romans come first. You don’t build a house from the roof down. You build it from the foundation up.
JESUS: The foundation is the soul.
JUDAS: The foundation is the body! That’s where you must begin.
JESUS: No. If you don’t replace the spirit first and change what’s inside, then you’re only going to replace the Romans with someone else and nothing ever changes. Even if you’re victorious you’ll still be filled with the poison. You’ve got to break the chain of evil.
@Everybody: wow, I posted this short thing (sent by Gilad Atzmon to his friends) mostly because it made me smile, and yet we are gradually having rather interesting comments. So let me add my own non-jocking comment here.
Revolutionary change is, I believe, in itself neutral or, rather, non-defined as such.
When revolutionary process is the result of a belief in the power of Man to make the world a just place, when it offers a hope for a paradise on Earth, an “achievable utopia”. then it is an ‘opium of the people’ way more toxic than what any religion has ever offered. From the Tower of Babel, to the WTC buildings, from secularists of the so-called “Enlightenment” to Marx, Hitler or Fukuyama, there has always been a type of man who wanted to “reach the heavens” and to declare to mankind that ye shall be as gods if you are without God. This type of revolution always begins with promises of paradise and ends in a hellish bloodbath.
But revolutionary change can also be a process which begins with the paradoxical realization that man can only free himself by submitting to God. This is the basic truth with most, if not all, religions share. This is what Christ meant when he said without me ye can do nothing. This is what Hassan Nasrallah refers to when he begins his speech with the words I take refuge in Allah from the stoned Satan or what Ahmadinejad referred to in his 2008 speech at the UN when he said God Almighty has tied their perfection and true freedom of humans to their devotion and obedience to Himself. True freedom and obedience to God are in balance and in fact are two sides of the same coin (…) Humans need to know God in order to realize a prosperous society in this world as well as to strive for a beautiful eternal life. This is what the Hindu tradition calls the doctrine of Prapatti (which Swami Siwananda defined as 1. the acquisition of virtues which would make one a fit offering to God; 2. avoidance of conduct not acceptable to God; 3. faith that the Lord will always protect him; 4. appeal to the Lord for protection and mercy; 5. a feeling of one’s own littleness; and 6. total surrender. The first five are the means to the attainment of absolute self-surrender.
In this latter case, the revolutionary process becomes filled with an internal dimension which can make the world better, even if only on the margins, and only for a while.
My 2cts on this.
I wish those of you who celebrate the Nativity of Christ this Sunday a peaceful, sober and joyful celebration.
The Saker
As I myself passed from Marxism to Christianism, the subject of this discussion is very interesting to me. I would like to ask Saker to make clear two things about this paragraph:
“In this latter case, the revolutionary process becomes filled with an internal dimension which can make the world better, even if only on the margins, and only for a while.”
First, there was ever in history such a kind of “spiritual revolution”? And second, I didn’t understand the last sentence. Why would it make the world better and only on the margins? A transformation of men’ soul shouldn’t be more essential and lasting then a merely political revolution?
@Carlo: First, there was ever in history such a kind of “spiritual revolution”? Sure, the revival of Shia Islam following the Iranian Revolution comes to my mind as a recent example. The uprising of the Orthodox Russians under the spiritual leadership of Patriarch Germogen against the Poles and their “Semiboiarshchina” allies in the 17th century or the liberation movement against the British lead by Gandhi also come to my mind.
Why would it make the world better and only on the margins
Because of the fallen nature of man which cannot be modified or restored by any political, social ideological process. This is why the only REAL liberation can only be through a restoration of our original nature and our re-union with God, through theosis.
A transformation of men’ soul shouldn’t be more essential and lasting then a merely political revolution?
Of course, but these processes can run in parallel courses and the former can, sometimes, affect the latter. These are different levels which should not be opposed to each other. There is only ONE *real* liberation, the one which Christ refers to when He says If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free and that is the re-union with the Theandric Body of Christ – His Church – followed by theosis, what the Church hymns often call the “co-resurrection with Christ”. However, the process of standing up against evil, of deliberately submitting one’s will to God, can take many forms and, I believe, that it can also have the visible manifestation of a stance against oppression in a political process.
Does this make sense?
That makes 3 dead frauds.
What I find interesting about this overused joke is the subtext: that God kills people he doesn’t like, and this is supposed to be amusing.
I suspect that if there is a God, he will welcome atheists with open arms for never engaging in the unpardonable sin of putting words in his mouth or presenting themselves as his appointed spokespersons. Everyone else may find themselves swimming in burning shit with Hitchens :)
But we’ll all get Kukulkan’s side of the story when the world ends in 2012. Until then, enjoy your Christmas, it may be your last :)
“that God kills people he doesn’t like, and this is supposed to be amusing.”
No, Sean, you got it wrong. This joke is not about God killing the atheists, but rather a remembrance of our own mortality and of the eternity of God. No truly religious person would dare saying who went to hell and who to heaven, as this depends only on God.
And read Saker’s first comment here. He said quite the same as you. Just like a religious person can’t generalize and criticize all atheists as if they were all equal, atheists should do the same regarding religious people.
I think it’s worth noting that Nietzsche’s point was more phenomenological than metaphysical. That is, Nietzsche was making a point about post-“Enlightenment” European consciousness rather than about the nature of the cosmos. And in the phenomenological sense Nietzsche was both right and prescient.
Hitchens, otoh, was not merely an atheist (and a pseudo-intellectual one at that) but a hate-monger and attention-junkie as well. The following is a good article by Chris Hedges ion the topic:
http://www.truth-out.org/fundamentalism-kills/1311686025
Peace to all on this special day.
Let’s not be disingenuous. Many religious people make claims all the time about about who is and isn’t going to hell and indeed Saker does so here with atheists and certain religious people. I don’t know what a “truly religious person” is or does but if God exists then surely the judgment of that is up to God as well, assuming he cares.
The “Nietzsche is Dead” meme is a joke, not a philosophy dissertation. Like all jokes it has a simple, easy to understand punchline. Nietzsche arrogantly asserts God is dead and God proves him wrong by smiting him. The punchline couldn’t be more clear. Here’s a variation of the joke with “Nietzsche” as a troublesome computer terminal:
http://www.peterzale.com/helen/408.html
Nowhere did I make a generalization about religious people, so let’s not overstate the case. Saker’s definition of atheists is hardly flattering, and is wrong for the majority of atheists. Defining atheists by the assertion that you have some “truth” that they refuse to accept is rather self-serving. Atheists do give a damn about the truth, which is why they are atheists.They see religion as a lie and reject it accordingly, but this is not the basis for lack of God belief. Plenty of people reject religion but still believe in God. Atheists lack belief in God due to a lack of evidence for his existence. It’s a simple as that.
@Sean:
===============
Atheists lack belief in God due to a lack of evidence for his existence.
===============
More precisely: Atheists lack belief in God due to either 1) a lack of grasping of the evidence for his existence; or 2) a rejection of the evidence that they do grasp. Again, phenomenological versus metaphysical.
Being unable to see evidence =! no evidence. Anyway, intellectual atheists will acknowledge that there is evidence; otoh they don’t see that evidence as conclusive or sufficient for one reason or other.
===============
Atheists do give a damn about the truth, which is why they are atheists.
===============
Not true for all atheists, anymore than it’s true for those who carry any other label. OTOH this a persistent myth peddled by pseudo-intellectuals of the likes of Hitchens, Dennett et al. And there are atheists — some of them my own teachers — who will call them out for their sophistry.
Peace
================
Nietzsche arrogantly asserts God is dead and God proves him wrong by smiting him.
================
Honestly, I never thought of it that way. I always understood the joke as referring to the endurance and persistence of God beyond the mortality of those who deny him. People can deny all they want, but it does not affect the reality of God in the least.
OTOH, I think the original joke does not appreciate the phenomenological intent of Nietzsche, as I explained in an earlier post.
Peace
More precisely: Atheists lack belief in God due to either 1) a lack of grasping of the
evidence for his existence; or 2) a rejection of the evidence that they do grasp.
There is no evidence for the existence of God. You can’t reject what doesn’t exist. This is why
belief in God requires faith while belief in the sunrise merely requires observation. You can’t
randomly assign this or that object or phenomenon to “God” without proof, otherwise you are just
making an argument from faith. I would love to see your evidence for the existence of God,
especially the specific god or gods of a particular religion.
Unlike with religion, there is no social, political or even existential advantage to calling
yourself an atheist, except for a minority of people like Hitchens who can cash in on it. The
stigma against atheists is tremendous in most societies and it can result in your being
ostracized or even killed. So people willing to take the step of proclaiming themselves atheists
generally have a very profound respect for the truth, as it would be far more advantageous to live
the lie and pretend to believe as everyone else, or just stay in the closet.
===============
There is no evidence for the existence of God.
===============
Fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple. There is nothing more to say.
===============
belief in God requires faith while belief in the sunrise merely requires observation.
===============
In epistemology there is a spectrum from faith to knowledge. Faith is a stepping-stone to knowledge whether the subject matter is science or theology.
It is not the eyes that are blind, but rather the hearts within the breasts of men: Quran.
Otherwise one can observe God as plainly as the sunrise. If one is not willing to cultivate the objective vision of the heart, then one will remain blind to God, whether or not one is atheist. Anyway, the empirical data confirming the mystical observation of God is too overwhelming to deny except on the grounds of pure fundamentalist and superstitious scientism. It’s like a blind man denying that others see the Sun just because he can’t do it.
If one starts with denial and rejection, then knowledge is forever impossible.
Peace
Sean: “….There is no evidence for the existence of God. You can’t reject what doesn’t exist. This is why
belief in God requires faith while belief in the sunrise merely requires observation. You can’t
randomly assign this or that object or phenomenon to “God” without proof, otherwise you are just
making an argument from faith.”
If there is no God than there should be no concept of Faith, or even Hope; these real concepts should not even exist as you believe God does not exist…
Fundamentalist dogmatism, pure and simple. There is nothing more to say.
Incontrovertible fact. There has never been an iota of evidence for the existence of any god in the entirety of human history that would withstand scrutiny in a 4th grade science class. You can call that fact “fundamentalist dogma” if you like, but if you had any evidence you’d present it here instead of sophistry.
In epistemology there is a spectrum from faith to knowledge. Faith is a stepping-stone to knowledge whether the subject matter is science or theology.
Nonsense. In science, the only path to “knowledge” is through the rejection of faith and the acceptance of evidence.
Otherwise one can observe God as plainly as the sunrise. If one is not willing to cultivate the objective vision of the heart, then one will remain blind to God, whether or not one is atheist.
The vision of the heart is anything but objective. Billions of people have worshiped tens of thousands of gods throughout history as “wholeheartedly” as you worship yours. The Hindus alone have over 30,000 gods. Millions of children believe in Santa Claus and there are large numbers of people who claim to have encountered or been abducted by aliens. All these people sincerely believe in the message of their hearts. They can’t all be right.
Anyway, the empirical data confirming the mystical observation of God is too overwhelming to deny except on the grounds of pure fundamentalist and superstitious scientism.
Can you give me some examples of this “empirical data” or are you just making this up? There is nothing “superstitious” about rejecting unproven claims. I suspect you will ignore this call for evidence just like you did my first.
I like to keep things simple…..
Sean maybe you can tell us where Hitchen’s life(soul) went after he died? I mean it is observable that his body remained, yet his actual life left him…So where did it go? And where did it come from?
And how do you explain feelings since you really cannot see, hear, taste, or touch them; yet we know they exist don’t we? I mean you do have feelings don’t you Sean? You do feel emotions like the rest of us don’t you? Do atheists feel love? And where do they think that feeling came from? And what is the physical proof of it’s existence?
And have the atheists actually proven without a doubt how everything was created from nothing, since they reject a God but seem to accept a nothing of a beginning?
I mean if we are just trying to be completely logical here, while not relying whatsoever on faith or hope of an actual Creator….
================
Nonsense. In science, the only path to “knowledge” is through the rejection of faith and the acceptance of evidence.
================
That sentence shows a profound ignorance of basic epistemology and scientific method, combined with a crude scientism. If you want to believe scientistic superstition, it’s up to you. Not recognizing the faith-knowledge spectrum — and its independence of subject-matter — is a major defect of both modern fideism and pseudo-intellectual atheism alike. [I was a practicing physicist once by the way]
Sean, if you believe in scientism, an unproven dogma and superstition, then there is no difference between your position and that of any other extreme fideism. On the other hand, if you are open to a path to knowledge and reasonable belief beyond the scientistic, then we can have a serious discussion sometime.
There is a difference between the objective heart and the subjective heart. Note what I said earlier:
==========
If one is not willing to cultivate the objective vision of the heart, then one will remain blind to God, whether or not one is atheist.
==========
Believers in God with subjective feelings of the heart abound, but that does not produce knowledge of God per se. A fortiori for atheism of course.
If you truly want evidence, first you have to bracket your own attitude of utter rejection and denial and take a fresh approach in your epistemology, one open to new horizons and vistas. If you remain in a closed box — “I’ll only accept something as evidence if it fits my preconceived principle” — then you will no different than the Venusian who denies the existence of the Sun because of the permanence of the clouds on Venus. Sharing the evidence I have with you is useless if you maintain a closed box.
Ask yourself: Do you think Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Whitehead, Descartes, Newton, Einstein, Donald Knuth, and other great scientists would believe in God without any evidence whatsoever? This is not an attempt at proof from authority, but rather an urge to reflect on the possibility that you just might be missing something in your epistemological framework.
Also, keep in mind the distinction between evidence per se and conclusive evidence. A real intellectual atheist will at least acknowledge that there is evidence, even while denying or doubting its conclusivity. But denying all evidence on the basis of unproven dogma is lazy and pseudo-intellectual at best. Even Hume recognized this.
[to be contd]
One must also distinguish between knowledge and reasonable belief. In science there are many principles which are not known — in the strict sense of the word ‘knowledge’ — but which are reasonably believed to be true up to some degree of scientific certainty. With respect to God one may ask: To what degree is it reasonable to believe that God exists? To what degree is it possible to know that God exists?
Knowledge is not a precondition of reasonable belief. Scientistic absolutism — like its fideistic counterpart — blinds us to these kinds of nuances. The difficulty in knowing that God is there is often confused by pseudo-intellectual atheists with reasonable belief that God is there. That is one place where the sophistry lies, the other being the absolutization of the faith-knowledge distinction as I mentioned earlier.
So, with an open mind and objective heart — using the word ‘heart’ in the classical sense as the seat of objective intelligence and reflection, not the modern sense of the seat of subjective emotion — I can only challenge you to open up — or at least loosen — your own epistemological space for reflection, meditation, and reasoning.
A closed epistemological space leads to reductionism which leads only to ignorance. Absent an open — or at least loosened — epistemological space, any and all evidence that I or anyone else may provide will fall on the mind and heart like light on a black rock on the darkest of nights. The Consciousness of an open epistemological space will reflect the light of evidence, while the Ignorance of a closed one will reflect nothing.
If someone were to demand of me: Give me conclusive evidence of the Pythagorean Theorem without using any mathematical reason whatsoever, I would tell him to first open his epistemological space and rethink his attitude towards mathematical reason. You want evidence for the existence of God? Open or at least loosen your epistemological space, then we can talk about the evidence. Absent that, the conversation will go nowhere.
Peace
PS If you are sincerely interested in this — beyond us wasting each other’s time with polemics –, I can provide you a couple of places to start on a neutral epistemological foundation for research.
Look Ishamid, I asked a simple question, so spare me the ad-hominems, pseudo-intellectual sophistry and insinuations about what I do and don’t believe. Any atheist is 100 times more willing to accept the possibility that God exists than you are to except the possibility your religion might be a lie, so don’t talk to me about being open-minded. I once believed in God and am quite capable of doing so again given the right evidence.
Like most theists I have debated, you immediately go for the cheap shot and try to make this issue about me, because you lack a meaningful argument to back your claims. If there is anything as rare as evidence for God’s existence, it’s a theist willing to have an honest debate on the issue without name-calling, strawmen and questioning my sincerity.
I have asked repeatedly for evidence and you have repeatedly refuse to deliver. Whether there is evidence for God’s existence or not has absolutely zero to do with me and whether I am willing to consider that evidence with an open mind or not, so stop making your failure to present your “overwhelming” evidence as being about me.
Anon, you have to acknowledge Hitchens was a soulless motherfucker, even if you think everyone else has a soul.I have no idea what happens when you die. I’ll let you know when my turn comes up. I also have no idea how the world came into existence. If you wish to claim that God made the universe, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that, not on me to come up with an alternative explanation. There are 5,000 different religions over the years that all have their own version of creation. Maybe it was the Great Turtle?
That most people have emotions is obvious. Emotions produce physiological changes in the body that can be measured, and so does cognition. I think and feel therefore thinking and feeling exist is a logical conclusion. I think and feel therefore God exists is not.
==============
Whether there is evidence for God’s existence or not has absolutely zero to do with me
===============
With all due respect, that’s your big mistake, Sean. It has everything to do with you. A proof is only a proof to the one who recognizes it. Evidence is only evidence to the one with the epistemological space to recognize it. Proof and evidence are not metaphysically independent of the observer.
Implication between propositions is an ontic matter, viz, metaphysically independent of the observer. The same is not true for proof, evidence and deduction. Proof and evidence are epistemic matters, viz, not metaphysically independent of the observer; their epistemic function is dependent on one’s epistemological space and receptivity. This is basic logic, a topic I’ve taught for many years and also do research in. So if your epistemological space is closed — whether fideist or scientistic or other — that limits the kind of evidence you will be willing to consider with an open mind and heart.
I wish you the best in what I hope is your continued search for truth and reality. And that’s the last I have to say on the matter.
Peace
In other words, you don’t have any evidence. But we both knew that.
You don’t know whether someone’s “epistemological space” is open to evidence or not until you present it. To imagine you do based on nothing more than my being an atheist is bigotry, though I shouldn’t expect that someone comfortable with jumping to conclusions about God would do any less with an atheist.
You claim to know “truth and reality,” but if God exists, his reality would be vastly beyond the ridiculous caricatures of your man-made superstitions, and his totality would not be constrained neatly within the parameters or your “faith,” dogmas, or poorly-written, misanthropic and factually deficient holy books. I suspect his reality would be beyond all human comprehension, thus any claims to “know” him or the “truth” based on religion are little more than ego and arrogance, qualities not wanting in the typical holy roller from my experience.
Contrary to your strawman atheist caricature, I do not “utterly” reject or deny God. I simply do not claim to know him or see any evidence for his existence and therefore do not presume to know who or what “he” is or whether “he” exists or not. In the absence of knowledge I remain in disbelief for to do otherwise is arrogant presumption. I’ll save that particular conceit for you know-it-all theists and remain genuinely open to the truth should it ever reveal itself to me.
Sean, you made it abundantly clear in this thread that scientistic dogma is your criterion for evidence — “4th-grade science class”, “in science, the only path to “knowledge” (my emphasis) etc. My comments about your closed epistemological space were based on your own proclamations. And it simply makes no sense to present evidence if the epistemological space to receive that evidence is already closed.
God is not a physical object. So reducing evidence for God to instrumental physical, chemical, or biological modes of investigation is an example of what in logic is called a “category mistake”. Every area of inquiry has a mode of investigation appropriate to it. One does not prove the Pythagorean Theorem through natural science, one proves it through mathematical reason. One does not prove the existence of other planets through mathematical reason, one uses astronomical instruments. Etc.
You seem to refuse to grasp this point, and use that refusal to accuse me of not presenting evidence. But that’s putting the cart before the horse. Mutual consideration of evidence only makes sense if we can share some epistemological space. I would suggest deconstructing scientistic dogma first. I said a while back that I’m willing to share some resources with you on that topic if you’re interested. But you ignored that. No problem, but it is your decision to maintain your scientistic dogma without looking at the alternatives. Screaming “show me the evidence” and at the same time refusing to reexamine your own scientism is inconsistent and an example of pseudo-intellectual fish-baiting. And I’m not biting.
Fideists tend to argue the same way, and it makes no sense trying to show a fideist evidence that the Earth is more than 6000 years old because of their own closed epistemological space. The problem with scientism is in some ways worse because scientistic thinkers delude themselves into believing that they are actually doing science when they are just as fundamentalist as the fideists. Chris Hedges and even other atheists have pointed this out.
As I said earlier
===========
Open or at least loosen your epistemological space, then we can talk about the evidence. Absent that, the conversation will go nowhere.
===========
As I predicted, we appear to be going nowhere. This is my last post on this topic, and there is enough meat in my earlier comments — if read carefully and precisely — to make my point clear enough. And other readers can judge for themselves.
Peace
The whole “Enligthenment” scientism behind the New Atheists fails to understand that science of itself does not, and never can, establish a particular view of the ultimate nature of reality. To many working scientists, science seems very obviously to suggest an ultimate explanation, namely a materialist one, but a materialist view of total reality is a metaphysics not a scientific theory. Science is compatible with metaphysical outlooks of widely differing
and mutually incompattible kinds. Some of the most path breaking of 20C scientists including Einstein appear to have believed in God. The founder of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger, was attracted by Buddhism. For the individual there is not and never has been a conflict between fully accepting the claims of science and holding non materialist beliefs.
All you do here is redefine terminology. Reason, logic and the request for evidence is “superstition” “scientism” and “fundamentalist dogma” but faith and naked assertion without evidence is “science.”
Let me jump to the chase: your claims about atheists “rejecting evidence” for God are self-serving bullshit, as are your claims that you have any such evidence. Your transparent evasions fool no one. If the religions of the world had any such evidence, I doubt they would be as reticent as you are in presenting it. It is a fundamental principle of intellectual honesty to provide evidence upon request.
You claim that God is not a physical object, but how do you know that? In either case religions make all manner of claims about the physical world and God’s effects upon it, hundreds of which have been disproven by science. When confronted with this fact, religious apologists like you try to confine God to the metaphysical realm, where he cannot be touched by science, but that is denying the reality of what religion is and how it is preached and practiced by billions.
Religion and science are not compatible. In science, doubt is the highest virtue and unquestioned faith the worst sin. In religion, it is exactly the opposite. If there were any overlap between religion and science than religion would have contributed something to our scientific knowledge by now. It has contributed nothing. Science on the other hand has contributed much to our religious understanding by pointing out just how many religious claims are bogus.
You might be surprised to learn that I have actually had what might be described as metaphysical, mystical and supernatural experiences, some of which occurred amongst other people who experienced the same thing or similar at the same time. So to accuse me of being “closed minded” to something I have actually experienced and thus recognize as a real phenomenon is presumptious and absurd.
The difference is, I do not choose to define these experiences within the narrow confines of a particular religious orthodoxy, but am open to the fact that there may be a scientific explanation for these “mystical” experiences. Studies with the “God Helmet” have shown that experiences of a religious or metaphysical nature can be induced by stimulating the frontal lobes with electrical impulses. “Mystical” experiences and the perception that one has seen or felt God may be little more than an aberration of brain function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
@Robert.
The fact that some scientists are also religious does not mean science is compatible with religion. It only means that religious people can be scientists.
We cannot know whether science can discern “ultimate reality” or not or even if such a thing as “ultimate reality” even exists until we prove that ultimate reality exists.
Science is not compatible with metaphysical outlooks “of different kinds” as metaphysical claims cannot be tested, and the fact that there as so many thousands of these “different kinds” of metaphysical claims calls their validity into question.
We can certainly examine metaphysical claims and ask why they usually conform to a culturally or individually-centered framework. Muslims don’t typically have mystical experiences involving Gitche Manitou, but American Indians do. Christians don’t typically receive visitations from Ahura Mazda, but Zoroastrians do. This suggests that these experiences may be nothing but projections of the psyche based on the individual’s cultural context or psychological needs.
The primary difference between science and religion is that science can be demonstrated to work. Airplanes fly, Krazy Glue bonds instantly, and a shot of morphine will do more to relieve physical pain than all the prayer in the world. Religion may provide people with a sense of comfort and meaning, but beyond that it cannot be demonstrated to actually alter anything in the physical world.
[i]We can certainly examine metaphysical claims and ask why they usually conform to a culturally or individually-centered framework. Muslims don’t typically have mystical experiences involving Gitche Manitou, but American Indians do. Christians don’t typically receive visitations from Ahura Mazda, but Zoroastrians do. This suggests that these experiences may be nothing but projections of the psyche based on the individual’s cultural context or psychological needs.[/i]
That’s possible certainly and would make sense but it also might be that the divine choses to reveal itself in the form that the subject finds easiest to relate to and that’s why individuals have visions from within their own tradition.
For the record I’m agnostic but closer to the atheist end of the spectrum. I think it’s most likely that there is no God and that materialism is true. But I don’t think we can simply assume this is the case.
I’m very suspicious of any ideology such as that of Hitchens that claims that its view of reality is 100% certain. There should always be that element of doubt. Any ideology that attempts to banish doubt and claims to have the one true version of reality is liable to desecend into fundamentalism and start demonising its opponents as inferior or wicked. Hitchens demonsrated a Manichean view that divided the world into good and evil with himself in the star role. Whether it’s apologetics for the Iraq war or justifications for torture from Sam Harris or the history of Marxism there’s abundant evidence that secular ideologies can be every bit as dangerous as any religion.
The Christian right claim that God is on their side and godless secularists are wicked. “Enlightenment” apologists for Empire claim that Muslims are backward and barbaric and there is nothing good in Islam. Both are equally arrogant and have more in common with each other than they realise.
That’s possible certainly and would make sense but it also might be that the divine choses to reveal itself in the form that the subject finds easiest to relate to and that’s why individuals have visions from within their own tradition.
If that’s the case then no one religion’s view of divinity should be considered authoritative, since the gods seem to want radically different things from different people, and there seems to be no consensus amongst themselves whether they are one or many. Then again if we are making assumptions all this mysiticism stuff may the work of evil demons or good drugs.
I’m very suspicious of any ideology such as that of Hitchens that claims that its view of reality is 100% certain.
I’m very suspicious of anyone who claims Hitchens represents anybody but himself. What “ideology” are you talking about?
There should always be that element of doubt. Any ideology that attempts to banish doubt and claims to have the one true version of reality is liable to desecend into fundamentalism and start demonising its opponents as inferior or wicked.
Here you are talking about religion. Religion is the one ideology that preaches absolute certainty, and that to doubt that certainty is the vilest sin punishable by eternity in Hell if not imprisonment, murder or ostracism in this world.
Hitchens demonsrated a Manichean view that divided the world into good and evil with himself in the star role. Whether it’s apologetics for the Iraq war or justifications for torture from Sam Harris or the history of Marxism there’s abundant evidence that secular ideologies can be every bit as dangerous as any religion.
Key word there being “ideology” not “secular.” Unblinking faith in a particular ideology and the belief that you have the right to impose your ideology by force on others is what makes ideology dangerous, whether religious or secular. This, coupled with the hierarchical authority structures of governments, corporations and religions which enable this coercion to occur, is the true source of evil in this world. The religions of the world are the primary salesman of this kind of thinking, which hold that blind faith and obedience are the highest virtues, and to question or resist authority the gravest sins. How convenient for the tyrants of the world for whose benefit these fake belief systems were invented. Enlightenment philosophers were among the first in human history to question this mode of thinking. Sicne you put the word “Enlightenment” in scare quotes I am curious exactly which Enlightenment values you have a problem with?
Hitchens and Harris are two people who represent no one but themselves. They are not the Popes of Atheism. You’re falling into the trap set by religious ideologues like Chris Hedges who like to lump all atheists into the same basket with Hitchens and Harris. Harris and Hitchens are neocons. There is a helluva lot more support for neoconservatism, the War of Terror, the police state, corporate rule and authoritarianism in general among Christians than there is among atheists. Nearly every poll I have ever seen shows atheists to be the most progressive people in our society and the most firmly opposed to the growing religio-fascist state we have in this country.
“Enlightenment” apologists for Empire
Yeah, all two of them. Can you seriously deny that most of the hatred towards Islam comes from religious leaders, or from neocons and Zionists and their paid lackies?
Well Chris Hedges wrote a book castigating the Christian right so he’s hardly an apologist for fundamentalism. I think it’s fair to say that Harris and Hitchens are leading figures in the “new atheism” movement so it’s fair enough to be concerned when they defend torture or proslytize for the Iraq war. Dawkins himself was dead against the war so yes they don’t represent all atheists but then the right wing fundamentalists don’t represent all Christians.
I doubt whether dark impulses or fundamentalist ideologies would disappear if religion were to vanish. The impulse to see the world in binary form as a Manichean battle between good and evil would still exist. The problem is not religion but human nature. Market fundamentalism claims to be rational and objective. Stalinism claimed to be scientific.