Richard Dawkins had an excellent programme on Channel 4 last night. It was, simultaneously, troubling and hilarious.
He described the God of the Old Testament as the worst character in “all of fiction”. He pointed out the scripture’s inconsistencies and spoke with fundamentalists of all three Middle-Eastern religions.
But the most important point I think he made was his last. While the fundamentalists are reading, believing and accepting the religious writings as they were written and as truth; moderates and so-called liberals are cherry-picking. “Yes” they say “evolution is true and so, by implication, Genesis is not but I still believe Jesus died on the cross for all our sins”. “Yes” they say “God is good, and loves us all, so you cannot agree or condone what is said and done in the Old Testament”. It is neatly skated over that Jesus was Jewish and believed in the Old Testament…
And one final question for those of you who believe (no harm in that) in something that is no more proveable or likely than fairies in my garden:
Why did Jesus contradict the God of the Old Testament?
January 17th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
“no more proveable or likely than fairies in my garden”
…you really are unhappy about people calling your blog “gay politics” aren’t you?
January 18th, 2006 at 12:00 am
To be honest, no! It makes me smile a bit!
Oh, and nice spot!
January 19th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Gav, really… this is only a few steps up from a Harding post. Take this paragraph:
Now, I dare say gaining a good knowledge of Christian theology is not your main priority - and fair enough - but this is laughably simplistic in its treatment. I’ll go backwards because that probably works better:
(1) “Jesus was Jewish and believed in the Old Testament.”
(a) You might not be aware, but Judaism reads scripture through an interpretative tradition, the Talmud. To say that Jesus was, as a Jew, therefore a literalist believer in the Old Testament is silly.
(b) Jesus was, of course, not a close adherent of the Jewish faith. He heretically claimed to be the much-promised Messiah, denounced the Temple for its corruption and brought with him a new teaching (Gospel, anybody?) as an addition to the Jewish faith. Along the way, he repudiated much of the legal trappings of the Old Testament - which was good news for foreskins throughout Christianity, for example.
(2) ““Yes” they say “evolution is true and so, by implication, Genesis is not but I still believe Jesus died on the cross for all our sins”
You claim that “so-called liberals” say this, and it’s true. But it’s much, much worse than that - the Pope (no so-called liberal he) himself could go along with the gist of that statement. Hey, so could I.
Does that mean we’re all inconsistent loons? We might be, but it’s hardly demonstrated here. In Christian theology, the Bible is not the direct testimony of God, but his word as relayed by his Prophets and Apostles. It is accepted that their testimony takes place within history (i.e., in particular times and places) and will inevitably be garbled. That’s why we have theology, funnily enough. For this reason, since the Patristic period, the Old Testament especially has been accepted as often more metaphorical than literal. There is no conflict here at all, in the terms that you suggest.
To do this is not “cherry-picking”, in contrast to the misguided-but-faithful fundamentalists you point to. Within Judaism and Christianity, there is a long tradition of interpretation. In Christianity, Peter started what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church, which has developed doctrines in a continuing tradition to bring the often rather misty scripture into terms understandable today. All major Christian denominations, including evangelical Protestants, share at least eight centuries of that interpretative tradition, and most western ones (i.e., excluding the Orthodox Churches) share a further eight centuries after that.
“And one final question for those of you who believe (no harm in that) in something that is no more proveable or likely than fairies in my garden:”
First, to the fairies at the bottom of your garden. In philosophy, this is called a category mistake. Belief in God is (for most of us) a statement of metaphysics. Belief in fairies in the bottom of your garden is a statement of physics. Our ability to prove and disprove the latter is strong; our ability to prove and disprove the former is weak. Unless you’ve managed to create a metaphysical science, that is.
“Why did Jesus contradict the God of the Old Testament?”
I guess He had something to add, because times had changed. Pardon me, but I think He’s more qualified to make that judgement… (Even if the question couldn’t be satisfactorily answered, it simply means we should lapse back to Judaism, not become atheists.)
January 19th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
I’m sorry Blimplish but you’re missing the point entirely:
There’s no reason to expect there to be a God except because of some scriptures which, in your own sentiments, are dodgy. Something that requires interpretation is something that should absolutely cannot place your ‘faith’ in. Faith is absolute and theology not.
It is quite impossible, without resorting to scripture, to postulate the idea of a specific God. And yet, with scripture that must be, on one hand considered metaphorical, and on the other not the word of God, people are making life-changing decisions.
Quite why God (all knowing and so unanswerable to this question as He is) would allow people to live through 3,000 years of ignorance after the metaphorical beginning of the world until He sent His son is a mystery. Quite why, having sent a son, he left it so ambiguous that further interpretation is required, is a mystery that condemns some of the creatures in His image to damnation. That we assume we were made in God’s image suggests unbelievable arrogance on our part.
I do not see why my fairies could not be metaphysical but for their location in my garden. Okay, consider the teapot orbitting Mars (or not, so as to be metaphysical) that you cannot prove is not there (or everywhere if you prefer).
Theology is yet more thinking about the unthinkable in order to justify the fact that we are all discussing something that no-one has any evidence to suggest exists or has any bearing on our life even if it does. Religion, whether it is true or not, does no-one anything but psychological good and certainly does tangible harm.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:10 am
With respect, Gav, no.
You assume that scripture alone must be the basis of faith. That’s an odd position. For a start, somebody wrote the scripture. It could be that it was all a work of fiction from the start. Or it could be that it was sincerely believed. Given that religions as social groups formed alongside the scripture (normally before it), for the most part it seems logical to assume the former. But where did they get their belief from, if not from scripture?
Before you even think it, that isn’t to suggest that scriptures must be divinely ordained. All that it means is that people had faith before there was scripture. So, the idea that all faith can only derive from scripture is logically as well as historically incorrect.
“It is quite impossible, without resorting to scripture, to postulate the idea of a specific God.” Tell that to Plato (the Form of the Good?) or Aristotle (the uncaused cause?) or any number of Enlightenment Deists (“endowed by their Creator..”). Outside of hardcore protestantism, most forms of Christianity accept human reason as a vital competent to divine revelation. If one wants to be historical about it, one could point to the obvious influence of Greek philosophy (cf. John 1). Again, if it was not possible to postulate the idea of a specific God without scripture, then how the hell did it get into scripture? (In fact, to hold to your view, there must be some divine or extra-terrestrial intervention to account for the scripture. Crikey.)
“And yet, with scripture that must be, on one hand considered metaphorical, and on the other not the word of God, people are making life-changing decisions.”
But that isn’t what I said (or what I believe, or what Christian faith rests upon). What I said was that scripture is the word of God reported in the accounts of by human (all too human) beings. The word of an infinite being is pretty difficult to articulate, strangely enough, and so we have to work hard to understand it.
At any rate, one doesn’t even have to have faith to respect the authority of scripture, especially with the interpretative tradition. I have conservative and atheist friends who happily do so. Our civilisation is founded on that body of knowledge, and thousands of years of evolution should speak to a conservative.
“Quite why God (all knowing and so unanswerable to this question as He is) would allow people to live through 3,000 years of ignorance after the metaphorical beginning of the world until He sent His son is a mystery.”
Not that I know divine intent, but this seems to me a bit of a no-brainer - times had changed. The time of Moses was a radically different place to the time of Jesus - the Jewish civilisation had been formed and cemented, had matured and perhaps decayed, too; the world too had become a smaller place, because of Rome. On the latter point, given that a central feature of the Incarnation was to universalise the Hebraic revelation - it was for Gentile as well as Jew - there was no point doing it when Israel was an isolated, defensive society. Seems reasonable to me.
“Quite why, having sent a son, he left it so ambiguous that further interpretation is required, is a mystery that condemns some of the creatures in His image to damnation.”
On the latter, I’m glad you’re so knowledgeable on St Peter’s door policy! Myself, I know no such things. Christianity is a religion rooted in a teaching and not in a law; it does not posit that non-believers all burn in Hell, or that people who fail to live up to every dot and comma do. It asks that we do our best to live right, by certain principles (many of which you probably live by too… because you were raised in a Christian culture). If we knowingly do wrong, then we have every reason to expect damnation - but there’s no reason to think that a right-intentioned misinterpretation would condemn us to damnation.
“That we assume we were made in God’s image suggests unbelievable arrogance on our part.”
Gav, you don’t believe in God, so you can’t really comment on this. For those of us that believe in a Christian God, the human person is substantially different from all else in nature, so it isn’t arrogant. (Incidentally, I’ve never met an naturalist-atheist who was wholly consistent - one cannot be both a materialist and a moralist.)
“I do not see why my fairies could not be metaphysical but for their location in my garden.”
Indeed. But if we’re positing the existence of fairies outside of the physical world, then it’s wholly possible. In fact, if I were still an atheist, the best explanation for the metaphysical seems to be that our universe exists as part of a multiverse, and that it is possible that fairies (however so defined) exist in one of a potentially infinite number of other universes. Personally, I don’t believe in ‘fairies’ metaphysically because there is no revelation that might support them, and (more importantly) no reason to think they might be so. Ditto a teapot orbiting metaphysically nowhere in particular.
I assume from this line of question that you think you don’t believe in unprovable metaphysical things? It’s a nice thought, but rubbish. If you’ve ever been in love, was that really just a bunch of hormones that you could choose against simply as a matter of will, or was there something more to it? Do you believe in morality as such, or is it simply a set of rules for convenience? And if the latter, would you criticise an intelligent person for defrauding people of their money if they can do so in a way that damages society as a whole little? Surely not - you seem like a good chap, and so you believe in all kinds of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ things that have no evidence for them. (Don’t try and come back with ethical naturalism as an argument - it’s natural for us to hurt as well as to co-operate.)
“Theology is yet more thinking about the unthinkable in order to justify the fact that we are all discussing something that no-one has any evidence to suggest exists or has any bearing on our life even if it does. Religion, whether it is true or not, does no-one anything but psychological good and certainly does tangible harm.”
? If God exists and Christianity is, as such, true - then it has a huge bearing on how we live our life. If we could prove the matter (and this won’t happen before the Apocalypse, so hopefully not soon…), then you’d become a believer and start taking a much bigger interest in what Christianity actually involves. If Christianity is true, then it does us not only psychological good but allows us to secure a future for an eternal soul - pretty bloody important.
As for the “tangible harm,” there was blood, poverty and anarchy long before Christianity. There remains blood, poverty and anarchy outside of Christianity. True enough, there has been blood, poverty and anarchy within Christianity. But on the other hand, it was only from Christianity that the Western world alone inspired modernity that created the relative peace and prosperity, let alone freedom, that we know today.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
there was no point doing it when Israel was an isolated, defensive society. Seems reasonable to me.
Then why not use Rome?
Tell that to Plato (the Form of the Good?) or Aristotle (the uncaused cause?) or any number of Enlightenment Deists (“endowed by their Creator..”).
These people are not deferring to a specific God, just to the notion. Without these sacred scriptures, which you’re happy to describe as human invention, we cannot know God even if He does exist.
On the latter, I’m glad you’re so knowledgeable on St Peter’s door policy!
It makes debate quite difficult if you’re not willing to accept the bible’s wording on such things. Suffice to say, if you do not have faith according to Christian tradition, you will burn in hell. I’ve accepted that, though I am a good person, I will burn if I have made a mistake!
the human person is substantially different from all else in nature, so it isn’t arrogant.
That is oxymoronic — It is arrogant to think that we are different. Scientifically we are no different, psychologically, we are only slightly different. Christians cannot deny that their belief requires an arrogant anthrophilia.
I don’t believe in ‘fairies’ metaphysically because there is no revelation that might support them; and I assume from this line of question that you think you don’t believe in unprovable metaphysical things? It’s a nice thought, but rubbish. If you’ve ever been in love, was that really just a bunch of hormones that you could choose against simply as a matter of will, or was there something more to it?
Yes. If I was injected, while under the influence of love, with a chemical that damaged the hormonal effects in my brain (and transmitted elsewhere) I am quite sure the apparently metaphysical feeling of love would be stopped. There are also good evolutional reasons for love existing in some species.
I do not believe in unprovable metaphysical things and that makes my argument much stronger.
If God exists and Christianity is, as such, true
How can we debate the existence of something with no evidence if you posit your argument on the assumption He exists?
But on the other hand, it was only from Christianity that the Western world alone inspired modernity that created the relative peace and prosperity, let alone freedom, that we know today.
I would suggest the Galileo, Newton, Copernicus and Einstein flourished despite Christianity. There’s no way we can argue that Roman-God Rome was better than Christian Rome. Advanced civilisations were also destroyed in the Americas by the Christian armies of Spain. Was their desire to spread their ideas to a country that God deemed unnecessary to communicate to Himself morally acceptable? No. An atheistic civilisation would have done a better job of communicating with the Incas and, despite the inevitable greed for Incan gold (which the Spanish justified using the ‘heathen’ label), may not have felt compelled to destroy their society.
I won’t get drawn into your general ideas about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. I have a political philosophy linked to doing no harm. If you can find me an example of something that is genuinely ‘wrong’ that causes no harm and does not rely on bigotted religious teachings (homosexuality for example) then I will be willing to involve myself in that.
:-)
January 20th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Why not Rome? Because the Jews already had the Old Testament. They were like the shock troops of the Christian revelation or sumtin’.
” Without these sacred scriptures, which you’re happy to describe as human invention, we cannot know God even if He does exist.”
They were written by people, yes. This is hardly news - most have their authors’ names on them. That doesn’t mean they’re not divinely inspired, does it? If I write a poem to describe a girl (and I wouldn’t, being shit at poetry), rather than the girl describing herself, and you only see the poem, does that mean she doesn’t exist? Furthermore, how I describe the girl will not be how she would describe herself, so you would take it with a pinch of salt - but again, you it doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth in there, does it?
“It makes debate quite difficult if you’re not willing to accept the bible’s wording on such things… Suffice to say, if you do not have faith according to Christian tradition, you will burn in hell.”
Not according to the Pope, it doesn’t. It might help your case to be a Christian, but as far as Christian thinking goes it’s neither necessary nor sufficient. When you say I’m “not willing to accept the Bible’s wording on such things,” that’s because, like most Christians throughout the last 2,000 years, I don’t hold to sola scriptura (nor do most Protestants in practice).
“That is oxymoronic — It is arrogant to think that we are different. Scientifically we are no different, psychologically, we are only slightly different. Christians cannot deny that their belief requires an arrogant anthrophilia.”
I’m not clear where the oxymoron was, but to your statement.
Scientifically, we are no different: agree completely.
Psychologically, we are only slightly different: so, erm, we are different then?
As for “anthrophilia,” assuming you’re not guilty of such an appalling sin, is it animals you treat like humans or humans you treat like animals?
“Yes. If I was injected, while under the influence of love, with a chemical that damaged the hormonal effects in my brain (and transmitted elsewhere) I am quite sure the apparently metaphysical feeling of love would be stopped. There are also good evolutional reasons for love existing in some species.”
So love is just a reaction? Like hay fever? I do feel genuinely sorry for you if you think that the most profound human experiences are simply deviations from a neurochemical norm - but more on that below. I would advise, though, that you don’t share your lack of belief in love as a first-date strategy - not exactly a winner, I think…
“Love existing in some species” is great, I must say. Sod Romeo and Juliet, eh?
“I do not believe in unprovable metaphysical things and that makes my argument much stronger.”
Ah, you talk the talk but you don’t walk the walk (again, more below). It doesn’t incidentally make your argument stronger - it just means that you’re not able to discuss the most fundamental things about what it means to be a man (or a woman) for that matter. It also means that your range of discussion is limited to areas over which we would primarily agree (the physical world) but are just plain uncurious about the causes of the universe as such. This isn’t an argument for theism, but for, erm, thinking.
“How can we debate the existence of something with no evidence if you posit your argument on the assumption He exists?”
Hang on - that’s a silly accusation, because it takes the line out of context. You’d said:
“Religion, whether it is true or not, does no-one anything but psychological good and certainly does tangible harm.”
I said back:
“? If God exists and Christianity is, as such, true - then it has a huge bearing on how we live our life.”
You’d stated that religion’s truth was immaterial to its consequences. I’d said that if it was true, then it mattered a whole lot more. You’ll note the “If” at the start of the sentence? There was no assumption, no attempt to frame - just identifying a logical error (of the sort we can all make, to be fair).
“I would suggest the Galileo, Newton, Copernicus and Einstein flourished despite Christianity.”
Newton being, of course, what most of us (me included) would call a religious nutjob. Einstein being the man who said “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Copernicus was a Church canon. Galileo was, for some time, friends with the Pope. All of them existed in advanced societies based on Christianity. None of them existed in a desert. Doubtless, the Church obstructed them at times, but then so did other scientists. And so to do other, legitimate goals. We could, for example, stop feeding poor and disabled people and use the resource to support scientific research, but we don’t.
“There’s no way we can argue that Roman-God Rome was better than Christian Rome.”
? I’m not sure if you misspoke here; surely that’s my point.
“Advanced civilisations were also destroyed in the Americas by the Christian armies of Spain.”
‘Advanced’? They certainly weren’t as advanced as European civilisations were, for the most part. Discuss, with reference to cultural, economic, military, and intellectual indices of civilisation.
“An atheistic civilisation would have done a better job of communicating with the Incas and, despite the inevitable greed for Incan gold (which the Spanish justified using the ‘heathen’ label), may not have felt compelled to destroy their society.”
Not at all. A genuinely atheistic society would’ve seen the great plundering advantages and just got on with the job, without all the hassle of finding missionaries to try and convert the survivor. An atheistic evolutionary society might well have seen the benefits of killing off their society to create room for expansion in its own, without having to contort itself to find justifications as Spanish Christians unfortunately did.
Now, we get to the big payoff. Compare:
“I won’t get drawn into your general ideas about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.”
with
“Was [the Spanish Empire’s] desire to spread their ideas to a country that God deemed unnecessary to communicate to Himself morally acceptable? No.”
Contradiction? Small one? Maybe? Ah, but, you say also:
“I have a political philosophy linked to doing no harm.”
Ok, fair enough. So, given that you attack Christians for our “arrogant anthrophilia,” one assumes that this “doing no harm” must apply to animals, too? Are you a vegan, Gav? Do you wear a mask, like pious Jains do, to avoid inhaling tiny insects? How do you reconcile your treatment of cleaning products with the harm they do to beings equal to yourself?
You see, here’s your problem - you can combine modern liberalism (i.e., J S Mill Harm principle stuff) with a belief in absolute, materialist sociobiology. That liberalism depends upon certain metaphysical beliefs to which, by your own statements, you simply cannot subscribe in good conscience - not that good conscience can mean anything, either.
If you are a true materialist as you say, then - quite right - you shouldn’t just be an “anthrophile” (natural selection depending on preference for our own), but a tribalist and an extremely selfish individual, beyond Ayn Rand into the realms of the Nietzschean superman. Worrying about harming others with whom you have no connection is of no use - you should support things that maximise the reproductive flourishing of your species. In which, homosexuality’s a bit of a loser, while religion (religious people tending to be more prolific child-bearers, especially in contemporary societies) can be a winner.
But you don’t do all this - and rightly so. That’s because you believe, even though you have yet to face it, in metaphysical abstractions. I imagine you believe, for example, that all human beings are fundamentally equal (if blessed with different talents, etc.), not just for convenience, but because it is right - but that only makes sense if you believe in a certain human essence, what used to be called a soul.
Have a good weekend.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
I like your final argument. It is neat and it seems to make sense. Until you get down to the basic confusion. There is no need to accept a metaphysical being or belief structure in order to know that hurting others is wrong. That said, evolution requires species to endeavour to survive, but why would I survive despite my peers? Enjoying life is not something that we must do, but it is something I would prefer to do.
Biological evolution is not something that people (or animals) set out to assist. Evolution is a natural consequence of the struggle to survive and reproduce that all animals experience, including ourselves.
And this answers your question about harming animals. We must accept that life survives by consuming other life. You betray your Christian bias when you ask whether I am a vegan. In a purely materialistic sense why is an animal’s life more valuable than a plant’s? I must, as must all humans, accept that I will have an impact on those around me. Ideally, the negative impact of my existence will be as little as possible but I shouldn’t alter my life (by becoming vegan/vegetarian) to suit some ideal.
An atheistic Spain would not have felt the need to plunder or expand its empire — treating others with less respect is a trait that we can level at religion, not at nontheists. If the Conquistadors had visited South America without a religious zeal that led them to try to convert, why would they automatically have no morals and be compelled to destroy? They wouldn’t.
On Christian Rome vs. Roman-God Rome, I mispoke… Clearly, though, non-Christian Rome was as, if not more, successful and civilised.
On scientists, yes they were not anomalies of their time and believed in God, but that does not change the fact that Galileo’s efforts were draconianly dealt with by the Pope. Religion (except Hinduism/Buddhism) does not like dealing with truth when it contradicts what they have decided to believe.
On whether I find joy and care about how the universe works, that is a quite ridiculous comment. I study science for fun and like to understand the workings of the universe. No Christian can really care how the universe works because they are always allowing an unprovable to be their basis for existence.
Arthur C Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (or words to that affect). Would it be unfair to extrapolate the same suggestion for the supposed miracles of God? It would seem the epitomy of low-brow to compare God to a Stargate character, but what would be the difference between a creature actually capable of creating the universe and God?
On the assumption of existence, it is a common theme that theists start a line of argument with “If God exists…”. That is the wrong way to look at it no matter what your point. A Christian God does not have any impact on your life, my life or anyone elses unless He exists. And there’s no reason to assume that unless you have a revelation of your own.
On love. I have been in love and I don’t think it is unfair to describe it as a magical and moving experience. That doesn’t stop it, though, from being anything but chemical/biological. It may seem sad to you, but not for me — it is more wonderous, surely, that biology created such exciting feelings and emotions for us.
The oxymoron about the superiority of humanity is to suggest that your arrogance about being a better animal than a pig or gorilla is not arrogance! We know that we are more intelligent than any other animal on Earth due to brain-size to body-size ratio — that doesn’t make humans better or any more deserving of God’s attention and/or love.
January 21st, 2006 at 1:41 pm
give up blimpish!…he only likes to hear himself talk and show off how smart he thinks he is.
If he really wanted answers to his questions he would look for them himself instead of arguing againts them.
I really like what you have written and it seems you have studied a great deal yourself, now realize in Christianity we call him a fool…and you are only throwing away your pearls.
Gavin I think you should stay out of religon, Its obvious you dont care. Go back to politics and concentrate on your fast growing tree Idea……..maybe this will help you…here in the US we have used this principle as energy for centuries……we call it a fireplace dude.
January 21st, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Oh Leanne — you hurt me! I don’t think I’m clever…
President Bush is funding (though I cannot find any online evidence right now) a 100% clean wood-burning power station experiment. It burns at such extreme temperatures that no carbon monoxide emissions are created.
January 21st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I dont think you are clever either.
January 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Ouch!
January 21st, 2006 at 6:12 pm
sorry, but you really piss me off! and sice this is the one quility I am lacking in…. I wonder sometimes if It would be better to stop talking to you all together or ask you to marry me.
and this comment is an apology - a confession and a joke.
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Apology accepted, confession unnecessary and joke taken seriously
And I’m really sorry for harping on about religion. I shall write less about it because, re-reading the above, I am obviously not open to debate!
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:09 pm
well glad that is out of the way then, and really I do think you are very smart..thats why I ask for your help alot and I do thank you for that…..I hope you are being sincere here….cause I am!
when Gavin the person talks he can be very sweet and helpfull….maybe you should try adding him alittle more to Gavin the politician.
You do come off as alittle arrogant at times maybe its cultural….and hey…. I do come off as crazy maybe in person both of us are actually neither or maybe we are……….
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Weekend over, he returns.
“I like your final argument.”
Me too, ‘though it’s hardly original.
“It is neat and it seems to make sense.”
Not only does it seem to, it does!
“Until you get down to the basic confusion. There is no need to accept a metaphysical being or belief structure in order to know that hurting others is wrong.”
Really? Please, Gav, explain how hurting others is ‘wrong’. Wrong for whom? Wrong for those hurting people, or wrong for those that get hurt? Why should we care, if there is no metaphysical basis? If all there is is survival, and we know that resources are always scarce, then surely some will survive and some will not? (Is it because you know it in your heart that to harm other people is wrong? If it is, please tell me how this doesn’t mark a substantive difference between species?) Please, continue…
“That said, evolution requires species to endeavour to survive, but why would I survive despite my peers? Enjoying life is not something that we must do, but it is something I would prefer to do.”
First, discuss ‘peers’ with reference to your previous assertion that humans have no superiority to other species… You say later on that we need to consume other life, but isn’t that surviving “despite [your] peers,” given your own logic?
Second, your distinction between ‘enjoying life’ and ’surviving’ is so stark as to miss the logic of the evolutionary goal. Your evolutionary purpose is to maximise your genetic reproduction - which means getting the edge in terms of mating and access to material resources.
Third, going back to your initial assertion that ‘hurting others’ is ‘wrong’. You’ve made no rationalisation of this point. If you believe (as you assert you do) in a purely material worldview, then the only basis for this imperative is that it serves your purposes as a being.
Now, on a very simple level, we know that ‘hurting others’ isn’t always ‘wrong’, if ‘wrong’ means irrational in Gav’s-genes’-promoting terms. If somebody is going to kill you, hurting them seems pretty ‘right’ at that point. So ‘hurting others’ isn’t always ‘wrong’ - one can act to the detriment of others sometimes.
What happens if (say) somebody is controlling a resource (say, oil) greatly necessary to your prosperity and therefore to the success of your future generations - as a consequence, they will be able to restrict your future for their advantage? Would you be willing to harm them then?
You could attempt an evolutinary social psychologist’s defence here - that we observe in monkey groups the possibility of altruism. But then we also observe extreme violence to external intrusion to the group, even if that intrusion is peaceful. It is natural to co-operate and it is also natural to hurt. So, no luck there.
And here is the problem: moral statements about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ rest on metaphysical grounds. And human beings are equipped, uniquely among species (as far as we know), to wonder after the metaphysical, and strive for ideals that go beyond themselves. We have been given, again as far as we know, unique powers of language to allow not only for co-operate but to wonder after the metaphysical and how that structures our place in the universe. No other animal, no matter how intelligent, has all of these traits.
“An atheistic Spain would not have felt the need to plunder or expand its empire — treating others with less respect is a trait that we can level at religion, not at nontheists.”
Consider, with reference to officially, ideologically nontheist Soviet Russia and its treatment of anybody ranging from Kulaks to Chechens to Jews.
“If the Conquistadors had visited South America without a religious zeal that led them to try to convert, why would they automatically have no morals and be compelled to destroy? They wouldn’t.”
As their morality was a Christian one, and the thought experiment is simply that they were shorn of their Christianity, then it seems fairly logical that they would be left with their earthly goals which, let’s face it, was to rip off the Incas.
You seem to think that a lack of culture (however derived; some forms of Greek culture weren’t theistic, but did entail faith in metaphysical assertions) will always result in human nature bursting through in a festival of peace, love, and understanding. After the century of Perm Camp 36, Belsen, and Brother No.1, a little scepticism might perhaps be in order.
“On Christian Rome vs. Roman-God Rome, I mispoke… Clearly, though, non-Christian Rome was as, if not more, successful and civilised.”
More successful? Depends on what period, has to be said, and even more what criteria. The life of the average Roman is somewhat happier today than it was 2,000 years ago, I’d guess.
More civilised? This was a city that rested on thousands of slaves living in utter squalor, that prospered by invading all neighbouring lands and seeking to run them dry of wealth (check out how many tens of thousands of slaves died in Spanish mines), and in which parents would leave babies to perish on doorsteps if they were surplus to requirements.
“On scientists, yes they were not anomalies of their time and believed in God, but that does not change the fact that Galileo’s efforts were draconianly dealt with by the Pope. Religion (except Hinduism/Buddhism) does not like dealing with truth when it contradicts what they have decided to believe.”
Ah, I thought we’d get to Galileo’s trial. It’s a great story, but the full history tells us far more about the way established wisdom becomes institutionalised and scientists become invested in it, and so defend it when challenged. The role of the Church is accurate, but should be seen in the context that pretty much all science, especially in Italy, took place under the Church’s auspices (no one else cared, but obviously the Church was the most evil and reactionary body, because that fits our prejudices, doesn’t it?). But it was the other scientists that knifed him, to protect their own work. Just as a University might fire a controversial academic today, or the media hung him out to dry, so too did the Church with Galileo. (cf. the philosophy of science work of Kuhn, on paradigms)
Obviously though, Eastern religions are much better at accomodating science. That’s why the Industrial Revolution happened in England.
“No Christian can really care how the universe works because they are always allowing an unprovable to be their basis for existence.”
If I were a PC type of person, I’d call this a horrifically Christophobic generalisation, not to mention completely bleedin’ daft, given the preceding paragraph accepted that some of the great scientists were believing Christians. Surely they, erm, cared about how the universe works?
“Arthur C Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (or words to that affect). Would it be unfair to extrapolate the same suggestion for the supposed miracles of God? It would seem the epitomy of low-brow to compare God to a Stargate character, but what would be the difference between a creature actually capable of creating the universe and God?”
As you don’t believe the miracles could have happened, it’s rather a moot point. In order to discuss this question (fair though it is), I’d have to posit that the miracles happened - and you objected to that kind of discussion last time.
“On the assumption of existence, it is a common theme that theists start a line of argument with “If God exists…”. That is the wrong way to look at it no matter what your point. A Christian God does not have any impact on your life, my life or anyone elses unless He exists. And there’s no reason to assume that unless you have a revelation of your own.”
Not to be any more tedious than I already am (which would be no small feat), but you did say there was no impact “whether true or not” - I was simply pointing out (as you now state) that His existence/truth would be quite important.
I won’t go over the fallacy of this need-for-personal-revelation stuff again - there are limits even to my tedium.
“On love. I have been in love and I don’t think it is unfair to describe it as a magical and moving experience. That doesn’t stop it, though, from being anything but chemical/biological. It may seem sad to you, but not for me — it is more wonderous, surely, that biology created such exciting feelings and emotions for us.”
Strangely, I think it rather underestimates love to consider it as another plain ole’ chemical/biological function - I don’t find urination magical or moving (well, maybe if you’re really desperate).
I guess a question back here would be: do you think that other animals can experience love in the same way that humans can? (Myself, I think love is a natural aspect of our consciousness of our morality, which in itself is a unique feature of humanity. In that sense, I don’t think it can ever be truly extinguished without our losing our humanity - we might numb the pain it can bring, but the underlying anxiety will remain. Our having these features is what sets us apart from all other creation so far encountered.)
“The oxymoron about the superiority of humanity is to suggest that your arrogance about being a better animal than a pig or gorilla is not arrogance! We know that we are more intelligent than any other animal on Earth due to brain-size to body-size ratio — that doesn’t make humans better or any more deserving of God’s attention and/or love.”
Sorry to nit-pick, but that isn’t an oxymoron. An oxymoron would be “brief Blimpish comment.” You’re suggestion is that I’m wrong.
Now, obviously I’m not: you’ve accepted that we are different in psychology and intellegence. I’d go further and say that that intelligence has allowed us to develop functions that are categorically more advanced than any other species - the ability to have this discussion, for a start, let alone the inclination to do so.
Now, difference does not necessarily make for ’superior’, but you again have accepted that it is justified for us to consume other animals (let alone harvest them for that purpose) for our own survival and development. So, your practical view assumes that we have a prior right to grow than others. I assume that you would not be content to see people in an African village be eaten every night by a lion (say)? Why not, if the lion is simply exercising the same right as we have?
If you accept the right of humans to live off other animals (with whom, let it not be forgotten, we are equals), then I assume you would be content to let some humans eat other humans if that is what they find the most effective means of their survival?
And as you don’t believe in Him and think those of us who do are ignoramuses, I rather think that you should pass over in silence the question of who is or is not deserving of God’s love. This brings me neatly to a paragraph I skipped earlier:
“And this answers your question about harming animals. We must accept that life survives by consuming other life. You betray your Christian bias when you ask whether I am a vegan. In a purely materialistic sense why is an animal’s life more valuable than a plant’s? I must, as must all humans, accept that I will have an impact on those around me. Ideally, the negative impact of my existence will be as little as possible but I shouldn’t alter my life (by becoming vegan/vegetarian) to suit some ideal.”
“I betray my Christian bias,” eh? And so do you, when you talk up harm-principle liberalism - like love and marriage, you can’t have one without the other. I just acknowledge mine.
“In a purely materialistic sense why is an animal’s life more valuable than a plant’s?” It depends which plant or animal you are. If you’re a rosebush, bees are probably more important than other plants are. If you’re an aardvark, ants and termites are a winner. If you’re a rabbit, lettuces are pretty cool. Shock horror, we find that there’s a hierarchy in the universe even in materialism - or especially in materialism. Now, other species have their hierarchy, just as we have ours. But here’s the thing - in materialistic terms, my animals might be worth more to me than people I don’t know - because, as you allude, evolution is not something we consciously do; but we’re just like animals, we achieve it by looking after our own.
“Ideally, the negative impact of my existence will be as little as possible but I shouldn’t alter my life (by becoming vegan/vegetarian) to suit some ideal.” Again, for somebody who doesn’t do metaphysics, you’re big on setting out moral statements - what other animal lives its life by seeking no impact on the world? Have you ever seen what impact termites have? (At any rate, if there is no God and no metaphysical existence, and if the ‘ideal’ is to have minimal impact, the logical life path is suicide.)
So, again, we’re left with some horrific contradictions - trying to combine being a strict-materialist Darwinian with being a harm-principle liberal is tough at the best of times, but to then thrown in a radical-speciesist aspect makes your job all the harder. Good luck.
January 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Leanne: “he only likes to hear himself talk.”
As might be plain, I’m hardly innocent on that score.
January 23rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Okay, I can end this argument now. There is no God - Gav wins!!!
Personally I think religion was created through story telling and myths. In the days before writing, stories must have been told throughout the generations. Many of these myths went on to become our Gods. They were constants in peoples lives and its much easier to work together if you share the same culture. And in the days before police stations a priest/king figure would have made communal living run a lot easier.
But today there is no need for those old myths. We have government and finance and laws. We have order. We don’t live in fear.
We also have the situation where Bush and Bin Laden both believe in the same God, and yet are at war with each other over their own interpretation of that same God.
Anyway, there’s a good program on BBC2 this Thursday with Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins (Horizon 9PM) both talking about Intelligent Design.
“Horizon tells the story of how one of science’s greatest theories is facing one of its greatest threats. The theory of evolution is under attack from a controversial new idea called intelligent design, an idea that claims to give an alternative explanation for the origin of life on earth. This new movement claims to be scientific but to many it threatens to replace science with God. Now some of its most high profile critics - Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins amongst them - are speaking out in an attempt to halt the movement’s rise and keep religion out of science.”
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:42 pm
John, great. I’m impressed. No, really. I’m sure Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus will all now be questioning their theism thanks to your ability to see past, into the unknowable.
Re Bush and bin Laden: it might’ve escaped your notice that one’s a Methodist and one’s a Wahhabist, but other than that…
Re Intelligent Design: it’s highly unlikely that most theists have even heard of ID, let alone believe in it. It’s perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe in Darwinian evolution - ask the Pope.
January 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pm
>
No problems! Its a free service.
What’s your theory? Is it the Adam and Eve/Big Flood/Moses gets the ten commandments thing?
>
They both have the same God don’t they?
January 23rd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
To be fair Hinduism is far more pragmatic and a lot of Hindus (and Buddhists and Sikhs) would not like to be grouped with the theistic traditions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al.
And John’s right about Bin Laden — not matter what your subtle variations, they agree that the God of Moses and Abraham is the God of Jesus… They only differ over Mohammed and, as John says, interpretation.
I only wish to take issue with one point in your response: “… trying to combine being a strict-materialist Darwinian with being a harm-principle liberal is tough at the best of times…”
I absolutely and fundamentally disagree. People have a conscience whether that is part of nurture or pragmatic evolutionary nature. Liberalism is the belief in ultimate freedom — that sits uncomfortably with the idea that it’s freedom within constraints set out by theology. The rule of law is not a product of religion and that is why you think it is metaphysical. Rules aren’t there because they are some ethereal ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Christians do not have a monopoly on “do unto others”. Darwin’s theory (in the scientific sense) is not set within any arbitrary rules and describes what has, and is, happening. True freedom within the constraints set out by the free majority is what society has developed over time. Darwin’s freedom and libertarianism are absolutely compatible.
The end!
I also think Leanne and John are both right that the conversation has reached its natural end.
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Ok to leave the main thing, but to avoid sloppy errors, re John’s bin Laden point about ‘the same God’…
Somewhat more than ’subtle variations’. Romans 9:7 sets the stakes - Christians trace their lineage from Isaac and not Abraham. Ishmael (the other son) was the first Islamic prophet, and so the line starts with a different path. Even more fundamental is the difference with regard to Jesus - for Christians, He is Jesus Christ, i.e., the promised Messiah and God made flesh. For Muslims, he is simply another Prophet; the Christian view is idolatory. The difference is massive, as to are the differences in worldviews that flow from them.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
ok blimpish now you started a new debate here.
In my recent look into Islam I learned they DO concider jesus the messiah, Mohommad is the prophet, which gets confusing to me. also with Issac and ishmael…both were abrahams sons…which makes them both Jewish…and god promised to bless them both. and both were offered the same messiah (as was the world) the thing is - one “tribe” did not accept jesus as the christ, one did…yet they worship the profit instead? who then put them back under law.
now they are both waiting for a savior who has already come. Makes you wonder……if they didn’t like the one God sent from heaven….where does the one they wait for come from?
January 24th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Leanne: not to stoke the debate, but to clarify…
Islam sees Jesus (Isa) as a Prophet and do use the idea of a Messiah about him, but the term isn’t used in a way that coincides with Judaic and/or Christian usage. For one thing, the Messiah didn’t succeed as saviour of the Jews. For another, as much as Muslims might see him as having succeeded, they posit the Mahdi as another Messiah still to come, to save us all - obviously, Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and that he came to save us all. So, Muslims are waiting for their saviour, but it’s a different one to the one, just as it is between Jews and Christians.
Most important here, Muslims regard any view of Jesus as the Son of God as blasphemy - Trinity is heresy, and therefore Islam and Christianity start from very different philosophical bases, even if they have vague consensus over some historical points.
Re Isaac and Ishmael - the issue here is a Christian one. Romans 9:7 makes clear that it is through Isaac that God made His promise, and not Ishmael. They were only both Jewish to the extent that there was Judaism which, being before Moses, is a stretch; so Jews won’t accept commonality as such either.
In terms of your last question, that comes back to the question of whether Jesus was God Incarnate - for Christians, this is possible and true, but for Muslims, this is blasphemy because it offends against their conception of God.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:25 am
I’m not sure what you mean by clarify….but I do hate those right wrong debates. I always wonder how everyone reads the same thing and comes up with different answers.
A few things I would say are….
I am a christian and dont believe either thing you say in your comment regaurding what christians think.
Because when I look at things I try to see them as pieces in a puzzle, if something doesnt fit I dont force it just because someone said to.
In my studies I arrange the pices to make a picture that starts to make sense.
Your view is just a bunch of random unclear parts that make a mess.