Comments–Luke and Tom’s Debate
As explained in the “Ground Rules,” this is a different kind of blog, and the main blog posts are for discussion between the two main participants. We invite your comments and further discussion here on this page instead.
If you are commenting about a specific blog post, please try to provide a link to it in your comment.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Luke,
While I thought I had been specific in my posts to you, you seem to think I haven’t been specific enough. You wrote:
Specifically:
1) To merge two statements into one – equating the complaints about your perceived tone with your treatment (whether correct or incorrect) of Christian doctrine is intellectually sloppy or rhetorically suspect. It is called “conflation” and it indicates either a lack of understanding that the two parts are indeed not one and the same, or a specious rhetorical device.
There are three major inferences one could make from you choosing to conflate the two:
2) Also, as mentioned in my first comment to you, you didn’t bother to answer the thrust of Tom’s letter.
You claimed you didn’t understand the letter, but if that were the only subject of your response, one would have expected you to address only your lack of apprehension. There are several ways you could have done so: You could have stated something such as, “I’m sorry, Tom. I don’t understand what you’re getting at, and it makes it hard for me to respond. Could you please restate it?”
You could have even tried some “active listening” (as it were) and written, “What I think you’re stating is…” and asked for clarification, or after restating what you thought his position was from his letter, simply responded to what you thought he had stated.
I hope this is specific and clear enough for you: in your discussion with Tom stick only to the topic at hand. This indicates integrity and a commitment to the process. You chose not to do so. (Yeah, yeah, I hear ya, you just didn’t understand what that topic at hand was.) Most will infer less-than-honorable intent of you when you do not stick to the topic at hand, especially when…
3) You use words in your characterization of the Christian faith that I believe many in the Christian faith would consider offensive – again, I was specific earlier in comment 94, but I’ll repeat a couple of specific examples for you again here – “werewolves”; “party tricks” since you are still claiming that responses aren’t specific.
Furthermore, since you claim to have zealously practiced the faith Tom is representing and that it seems many in here follow, it is disingenuous of you to ask the readers to believe that you were clueless as to the potential offense to others and inflammatory nature language such as mentioned in these specific examples could have.
You could have chosen different language to represent your views; you chose to use language that was potentially disrespectful and dismissive of the one with whom you chose to debate, and other readers of this forum.
These are specific examples supporting the assertion that some could infer that you are being disingenuous.
To restate this again another way to ensure my meaning is clear to you, to ask me and others to believe that you are unaware of the impact of language on others, and especially the language you chose after your purported Christian history is disingenuous.
These specific examples also speak to tone.
As I’ve mentioned before, and as I believe others believe, too – I have a hard time believing you don’t get it. However, I may be wrong, as evinced by this bit of your reply:
4)
What I stated was an allowance for you – that I
I did not state that you could not “project” anything.
What this means is that perhaps I assumed that you knew how to construct and respond to an argument in a fashion that is rational and logical, without the obvious appearance of errors (e.g., conflation, red herrings, gross generalizations, putting words in others’ mouths, emotional baiting, etc.) and that perhaps I was wrong. The word “project” in this instance would have been an error of mine and others, not of yours.
I did not state that you lacked the ability to construct a sound argument, but only that perhaps I assumed too much of your ability to do so, which includes responding in a rational manner.
(By the way, yes, I expect that your response to an argument or lack thereof will be in the form of some sort of construction of an argument, so I considered your response to Tom in light of that expectation.)
I most certainly did I not state that you “projected” or didn’t “project” anything.
5) I did not “conclude” anything. (This is another specific example of you missing it, or twisting it for your purposes.)
The whole project/conclude/argument thing is another specific example either of your lack of understanding, or lack of integrity (at least enough to take care in the process to understand what was being stated).
I won’t even touch the Christian Doctrine thing. That discussion has “red herring” written all over it, and I just won’t buy your feigned naivete about your simplification and the differences in Christian doctrine that exist (but perhaps that’s the question you’re begging.)
The bottom line is this: people took exception to the way you responded to Tom’s letter, and you’re pretending not to understand why. That’s a load of crap on a few levels, and you’re perceptive enough to know so, and I’m perceptive enough to know it and to know you know it (yeah, I’m projecting again).
Luke, I had looked forward to your discussion with Tom, but your recent equivocation and quiddity (of which your last two posts seem to be specific examples) doesn’t augur well for the future of the discussion. I have little patience for sophistry.
Best wishes.
P.S. I’m a “seeker.” I have no dog in the fight other than my own enlightenment.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Justaguy,
(1) I wasn’t conflating the two at all – I was contrasting them! What I was saying is that people complained about my tone but I wanted them to respond to the substance of what I said about Christian theology INSTEAD. I think this was a simple misunderstanding…
(2) As already stated, I didn’t respond to the thrust of Tom’s letter because I couldn’t understand what argument he was making. I said that he SEEMED to be saying that Christianity was a good explanation for the human condition, and so I responded by explaining part of why I think Christianity is a very POOR explanation. But I also asked Tom to clarify what he really wanted to argue.
But again, Justaguy, your comment only complains about my TONE. You said nothing at all about the substance of my email.
When did I veer off topic? Will somebody please tell me? If you think Christian theology is off-topic, well, I already stated exactly why that was on-topic. I was giving examples of why Christianity is a very poor explanation. I gave examples of how Christianity is implausible and ad-hoc, which are NEGATIVE features of any proposed explanation.
Justaguy, you said:
__You use words in your characterization of the Christian faith that I believe many in the Christian faith would consider offensive__
That’s fine. It’s their decision whether or not to be offended by something. Muslims are offended by any depiction of Muhammed, but that’s not going to stop me from drawing a picture of Muhammed if I feel like it. The question should be “Is that true?” and not “Have I chosen to feel offended by this?”
(3) I responded to this in my latest letter.
(4) I have no idea why you would expect me to respond to an argument immediately with another argument. This is almost never done even in analytic philosophy, which is built around logical arguments. If you doubt my understanding of what makes a sound argument, you may want to see my in-progress Intro to Logic course.
(5) I know very well that people took exception to my letter to Tom. And I know quite well that Christian will be offended when I point out that they quite literally believe they have an invisible magical friend who grants them wishes. But that does not change the fact that Christians literally believe they have an invisible magical friend who grants them wishes. Perhaps when it is pointed out to you that you have an invisible magical friend who grants you wishes you should not say “Ugh! How dare you make me feel so uncomfortable and embarrassed by my own beliefs! You, sir, are being offensive!!
Maybe instead your response should be, “Huh, wow. I do call Jesus my friend, I do think he’s invisible, I do think he has magic powers, and I do think he sometimes grants me wishes. That’s pretty weird! Maybe I should take a closer look at this belief of mine.”
The latter is what I did as a believing Christian. The reason I sometimes use such inflammatory terminology (“magic” instead of “supernatural”, though they mean the same thing) is because I hope that SOMEBODY reading it – someone who is more dedicated to the pursuit of truth than to the defense of his own ego – will take option #2, not option #1. He will take the option of examining truth a bit more closely, rather than about protecting his own ego and complaining about other people’s lack of respect for their magical thinking.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Luke,
I think you are more clear in this comment, and I wish I would have seen it earlier.
Can I be honest on the tone and rhetoric issue? Truth is the goal, I think we all agree about that, but how we get to truth is a multi-layered thing. Some people won’t even open up to the truth because of other influences. Because of this, you start with an extreme disadvantage in this discussion:
1. Tom is middle-aged and well respected among atheists and theists. He’s known for being compassionate and respectful of those he disagrees with. Even his picture gives this impression, doesn’t it? He writes from a very humble perspective and comes across as a learner on his blog.
2. You’re college aged, use bombastic rhetoric and throw out names of scholars you’ve clearly never read, but loosely know what they’re about (for instance your recent string of theologians incl. Bultmann and Tillich…if you had read and understood these theologians then your critique would be much more precise). Your picture only reaffirms this view…you’re young and fun. You write a manual for desirism, think you can map out the Kalam and are writing an Intro to Logic. Ambitious? Heck yeah and I respect that. Presumptuous? Most definitely, because you simply don’t have the foundation to tackle these major issues in many people’s minds.
Like it or not, that starts you at a great disadvantage as people are expecting you to act immature. You may not ever intentionally act immature, but that’s what people are expecting from you because of your age and the vibe you give off at your site and in your picture.
Thus, when you parody people’s beliefs you should expect them to dismiss you or be offended by the tone (whether your critique is right or not). I’m not saying this to be a jerk, but simply to help you realize that this is where you start out with many people and they will quickly move on from anything you have to say when you play little word games to parody what they believe. Hopefully you can stick away from the rhetoric and bring the substance in the future before you lose more readers! Keep up the passion and argument, drop the rhetoric.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Ranger,
I do appreciate the nature of your replies.
I use a variety of tones in my online dialogues, and I think that’s okay. And yes, I understand that some people will simply shut off if you don’t show “proper respect” to their outrageous beliefs.
There are many ways to be mature or immature. If I was more “mature” does that mean that I would treat the beliefs of UFO-believers and God-believers with more respect? If Tom was more mature does that mean he would stop believing in magic? Also note that respected, senior scholars have said almost exactly what I’ve said and almost exactly what Tom has said. Maturity is a tricky concept.
In what way did I parody Christian belief? Of course I know many Christians do not agree with the Christian theology I presented, but that is true of ANY Christian theology that could be presented. What I was trying to do was present a rough sketch of Christian theology as the modern Christian understands it in light of evolution and so on – and I still think I did that, with the slight exception of some phrases that can be interpreted different ways, such as “redeem himself.” (Of course I know Christians hold that it is God who does the redeeming, but my point was that man’s redemption depends on his choice to believe in God.)
Which part of my writing felt disrespectful to you? Was it the part where I talk about magic? Tom’s worldview is a thoroughly magical one. I don’t think it’s disrespectful to call a spade a spade.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Luke,
But that does not change the fact that Christians literally believe they have an invisible magical friend who grants them wishes.
And here we go again. Christians don’t believe they have “an invisible magical friend who grants them wishes”. This is again nothing more than a rather adolescent schoolboy mock. One of the many you have used and continue to use.
Christians believe that the creator of the universe is a personal God capable and interested in personal relationships with those he created. He is neither invisible nor magical nor does he grant them wishes. He is not present physically. Invisible is an inaccurate and ridiculous description for that. He doesn’t do magic, he created the universe ex nihilo. If that isn’t a valid distinction for you it’s certainly not something most would admit in public. He doesn’t grant wishes, that is more childish nonsense. He makes our prayers part of his eternal plan.
Really though, all of that is just more plagiarism from the Dawkins, Dennet crowd. What’s up with that Luke? Are you really not original enough to come up with your own adolescent schoolboy mocks?
November 20th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Luke, if I had seen your comment here that “Christians literally believe they have an invisible magical friend who grants them wishes,” I would not have gone so lightly on the way you used that phrase in Letter 12. You can represent your own beliefs however you want, but if you misrepresent others’, then surely you must expect to be corrected. Which Bill has done. Thanks, Bill.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Luke is trying to hide behind unconventional useage of terms and phrases while letting the conventional useage speak to most readers. It’s purposely duplicitous because Luke wants it that way. He can play both sides. “Invisible magical friend” is a pejorative, except when Luke says he doesn’t mean anything negative by it. It kind of reminds me of people who use offensive language in conversation and then try to say they didn’t mean to offend anyone.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Tom,
You’re welcome but I have to wonder how on one hand this is supposed to be a serious discussion and on the other hand Luke thinks that plagiarizing the “new atheists” is valid commentary.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Luke,
I am curious as to why you have chosen not to address the core of many of the issues I have raised, despite the use of specific examples to illustrate those issues (e.g., #4 was a specific example addressing your misunderstanding and/or misuse and/or twisting of “projection,” in response to your inquiry re: evidence for your disingenuous participation – you chose to address the term “argument” in a literal fashion instead.)
Perhaps this is simply due to the way you process information. Some are so concrete that they miss the big picture being communicated; they do not see the whole for their attention to the parts.
Perhaps you are choosing to use a rhetorical device once again: choosing to attend to minor details to distract from the validity of the point made.
In either case, I’ll likely not be responding to any more of your posts, nor will I likely be following the discussion any longer, as I believe it will be a waste of time to do so.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Bill and Tom,
Just to be clear on Christian theology, when speaking about God the Father, “invisible” is a fair, and Biblical, term. Colossians 1:15 makes that clear. John 1:18 agrees. Of course, God the Son was “visibly” incarnated in Jesus.
Personally, if I were going to argue with the language I would discuss “magical” and “friend.” One definition of magical (more obtuse and antiquated than the common usage) is supernatural. Of course, in our current world, it’s not used in that way, but in a context …but Luke is justified in falling back on that definition, although it’s clearly an obscure and imprecise definition when used in our current context.
Furthermore, I would want to discuss the relationship of the natural and supernatural in Christian theology. If supernatural is seen as the things of the gods and natural is everything else, then Christian theology has already been compromised. Everything is created and sustained by God to the Christian and thus the dichotomy of the 18th century rationalists between divine and non-divine aspects of Creation doesn’t apply to Christian theology.
I’d also want to clarify the term “friend,” because the Christian relationship to God the Son is covenantal and more than “friendship.” Furthermore, the only Biblical support for friendship would be the fact that God called Abraham “friend.” The problem is that the Greek implies a filial relationship (philia being the term used), which is more than a buddy-buddy relationship implied here and more representative of a father-child relationship, thus highlighting the covenant.
This whole discussion reminds me of whenever back in college we first started studying literary theory (and later in continental philosophy classes) whenever we studied deconstruction. After first reading Wittgenstein we all would try to think of fun ways to do this same thing. Of course, whenever you study deconstruction more you start to understand the sociological meanings behind why certain words are used and it kind of undercuts the whole game and forces you back to some sort of precise language that is reflective of the language used within the community. And then of course, you learn that deconstruction was a waste of time anyways, haha.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Good points, Ranger, I agree wholeheartedly.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
I’d like to second Ranger’s comment (I’m an atheist). Optics, Luke.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:34 am
On the topic of “explaining the human condition,” Steve Pinker writes (in The Blank Slate):
“paradoxically, poets and novelists have [greater power] to speak the truth about human nature [than any scientist].” A brilliantly honest and insightful expression!
Perhaps those “clear, logical” definitions of art, morality, language, consciousness, free will, etc… will have to wait.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Hi Lewism,
Thanks for asking about my comment!
You said:
“…if God created us perfect, we wouldn’t have sinned, if he created us with the ability to sin (free-choice) he must have known also in advance we would sin.”
I may be completely wrong about this, but I was trying to say that Christians claim that the reason that first humans sinned was not because of faulty design (imperfect nature) but because of human free choice (in spite of having a perfect nature). Maybe you think it’s not possible to have a perfect nature which has the capacity to freely choose sin. But I’m pretty sure that Christian doctrine says this is the case. Of course I could be wrong about Christian doctrine claiming this.
Then you said:
“So why punish us (for eternity) for something he made us to do?”
Well, this is an interesting question which I guess is trying to point out an inconsistency in Christian belief – an inconsistency between human free will and God’s foreknowledge. This may be a good point to pursue. However I was merely trying to point out where Luke misrepresented Christian doctrine, I was NOT trying to defend the plausibility of Christian doctrine.
I think my point still stands – that Christians believe that original sin was caused by human free choice and that humans are responsible for it. Christians do not believe that God’s imperfect design is the reason for original sin.
I think.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Roman,
Thanks for your considered reply to me and overall I take your point that you were correcting Luke rather than defending Christian doctrine.
You are also right that my question implied a critisism of the Christain Doctrine, however I really mainly want to check what that Doctrine is, I think this is a site where corrections and differences can be aired without too much point scoring at least at first!
Suppose for the sake of argument I accepted that man was created ‘perfect’ and that the fall was wholly his fault. What excatly did he do that was so wrong?
They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil right?
So how can their act of doing this constitute a wrong act if they didn’t know the difference between good and evil when they made that decision?
Following on from that isn’t the knowledge of good and evil one of the issues that divides Dan and Luke? That Dan and many Christians would say we can only have knowledge of good through God (he being the source of all good things) and that’s one of the things that sets us apart from the animals.
Why is Dans’ and standard Christain doctrine giving God credit for something we took forcefuly ourselves against God’s express wishes and for which we are all paying for?
Maybe I am reading this all too literally? I’ve just never really understood it.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:27 am
“nobody has yet told me precisely what was incorrect in my representation of Christian theology.”
Since I am one of those people let me be more specific. You stated: ”So why would God create such imperfect creatures by such a long, tinkering process and then punish them for following their design?”
Others have dealt with the “imperfect creatures” aspect of this so let me try to expound on the idea that God is somehow punishing people. It is a common assumption that hell is a place that God created and then sends people there to punish them. However, the reality is that hell is a place that we create and go to voluntarily.
We create hell by choosing to place things other than God at the center of our lives. We do this voluntarily. As a result, we put ourselves in a position where those things have great power over us. In fact, they have ultimate power over us. Turning things like money, personal freedom, safety, self-expression, power, etc., things that are by themselves good things, into ultimate things makes us slaves to them.
A person who gives his life over to something other than God, puts himself in servitude to that thing and both now and forever. And that is the very definition of hell.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I don’t get the “nobody corrected me” comment from Luke. A few did. I was one of them. *shrug*
November 19th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Bill,
I understand that such explanations as this can be offered. The problem is that they are entirely “ad hoc.” You have no evidence that this is true whatsoever. The only reason you assert it is because it makes you feel better about the character of the invisible deity you are positing. Do you see what I’m saying? Such extreme leaps of ad-hoc assumption only hurt the Christian explanation for things, they do not strengthen it.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Luke,
The truth is you don’t have any more basis for calling my explanation “ad hoc” than the ability to type those words. The idea that people are enslaved by the things they place at the center of their lives is confirmed by psychology/psychiatry and anyone who is bright enough to look around and perceive the cause and effects of world they live in.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Luke,
I agree with those who found your tone unnecessary. You disagree with Christianity, we understand that. Most of us have read your site and knew before the discussion began that you do find Christianity implausible…why else would you be in this discussion? Therefore, using such rhetoric as you began using in Letter 10 does little outside of alienate your discussion partners.
For instance, the first few paragraphs never even discuss the doctrines that you find so contradictory and ad-hoc, they just restate with heightened rhetoric the most obvious fact of this discussion (and why you are discussing with Tom to begin with): You disagree with Christianity. Point taken, please don’t waste our time in the future restating that point unless you plan on arguing against it with more than mere statements of your finding it absurd.
Let me share a few points where you either misunderstand or mischaracterize Christian doctrine:
1. Your comments on a Christian doctrine of Creation (which is really the main thing you focused on) are incorrect. For instance, you keep saying that God did nothing more than “tweak” his Creation at a few points. This is incorrect from a Christian perspective. Christian theology has always contended that God not only created, but sustains Creation. Even a theologian as far removed from orthodox Christianity as Paul Tillich would disagree with such statements seeing God as the “ground of being” and therefore a sustaining part of Creation in a panentheistic relationship.
2. To state that Christians believe Creation carried on with “no purpose” goes against Christian doctrine as well. Even Ken Miller, Simon Conway Morris or the countless other theistic evolutionist Christians would say that evolution was teleological in the sense that it was purposive and directed toward an end.
3. A minor quibble would be that Christians believe that God created man at the point of some interjection of a soul. Of course, it could be argued that standard Christian doctrine is agnostic in regards to the existence of a “soul” at all (in the dualistic sense that you clearly intend…not in the psyche sense of the NT). The topic receives considerable debate among Christian theologians and philosophers throughout history, and ancient historians of Second Temple Judaism are not sure whether the neo-Platonic understanding would have even been intelligible to the world of Second Temple Judaism. Either way, the absence of the discussion in virtually all Christian creeds and confessions shows that its not an important part of Christian doctrine.
4. Christian doctrine is unanimous in rejecting your statement that man could “redeem himself” in any way and that man relies on God’s gift of salvation. Only a Pelagian (and thus non-Christian) anthropology would disagree.
These quibbles do not even begin to comment on your derogatory (and imprecise in this context) use of terms such as “magical,” or the mocking “party tricks” phrase that you used both here and in your pre-reading (and possibly even pre-purchasing) “review” of the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
At best your statements were a parody of Christian theology intending to speed up the discussion and prod it along. Therefore, I find those who are suggesting that your characterization of Christianity is imprecise are correct.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Ranger,
Congrats. You are the first to address the substance of my post. Allow me to respond, point by point:
1. Sure. Some Christians seem to go as far as to agree with Medieval Muslims in saying that God re-creates the universe at every instant in time. What I meant was that as far as God’s supernatural “interference” with the natural order, modern Christians who accept evolution tend to believe that God quite cleverly used evolution to evolve humans, but he just tweaked things along the way (for example to specially create the bacterial flagellar motor). Am I incorrect?
2. Oops, you’re right about that.
3. My purpose wasn’t to articulate basic Christian doctrine, but the implications for basic Christian doctrine in the modern age, for those believers who accept evolution and the age of the earth and the germ theory of disease and so on.
4. I think we’re just thinking of “redeem himself” in different terms. What I wrote I meant to be synonymous with “be saved.”
I have already explained my use of terms like “magical” and “party tricks”, in my latest post to Tom and my recent reply to Justaguy, so I’ll say no more here. (You are clearly choosing response #1.)
November 20th, 2009 at 5:19 am
Luke,
Don’t you live in the States? I’m impressed that you’re up so late (or early) responding to comments on this thread!
1. Just to clarify, only Christian Deism (which dropped the “Christian” part in the 18th century) would argue that God does not sustain Creation. This doctrine is based on Colossians 1:15-20 and Hebrews 1 (as well as a few other places). I’d hold that God sustaining Creation is a universal and normative Christian doctrine.
2. Glad we’re in agreement.
3. Yep, you clearly weren’t outlining basic Christian beliefs and this was secondary (thus my calling it a ‘minor quibble’)…I think we’re in agreement here as well. I just wanted to clarify Christian doctrine and how it’s historically varied on this topic (and its thus non-essential either way).
4. I think there is more than a simple disagreement here. In Christian theology, redemption is solely the act of God, regardless of whether or not you are Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theist or whatever. The believer may have more or less impact on acceptance of that redemption, but redemption in and of itself is solely the action of God in Christian theology.
While you were posting this I was posting a response to your response to Justaguy. I agree that you were much more clear in that response, but still would suggest that you try a different tact since the rhetoric is less effective than the argument.
I probably won’t come back to this discussion (it’s nighttime on this side of the world), but hope the discussion moves back to a more respectful discourse. I think your latest response was moving back in that direction.
Note from admin: for some inexplicable reason WordPress put this comment in a moderation queue. It was released at 6:30 am Eastern time. I did not check to see if the comment author tried again by writing another comment with similar comment.
November 20th, 2009 at 7:00 am
OH! I think I finally get it!! The substance of Luke’s disapproval of Christianity is bound up in the words “werewolf” and “party tricks”. What else could possibly explain his felt need to belabor those points — points which are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand and entirely misrepresentative of the opposing position?
Heads up! The rest of the world has words for these tactics: “red herring” and “strawman”. When they are used sparingly and subtly, they can be useful rhetorical devices. But when one insists on harping on such in spite of considerable opposition from the peanut gallery, you tend to lose credibility and sympathy really fast…
Just sayin’.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I tend to agree with the commenter that Tom referenced in Letter 12 that a supernatural hypothesis is always ad hoc. It requires several wholly arbitrary presuppositions about the supernatural source of the action.
For instance if we say that “God cured my sickness”, then why not say “God created the memory in me and others that I was sick, but I never really was.” Why is the first more plausible than the second? “God raised Jesus from the dead” or “Satan raised Jesus from the dead to mess with creation” or “God created the Bible five minutes ago and all our cultural memories of it”. Any criteria used to describe why one explanation is better than the other is based in naturalism. Predictability, reliability, a causal chain, etc. – all things which supernatural sources do not obey. If they did, they would be natural sources.
A conclusion from a recent blog:
“there could be supernatural elements of our existence, but we can never know it. It would lie outside the realm of evidence, so we cannot complain of a lack of evidence for it. However, to put forth specific ideas about supernatural explanations, and to insist they are right, makes even less sense.”
Thanks for an interesting discussion.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“we can never know it” would be the correct conclusion… except for one detail: a little thing we call revelation.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I love personal revelation and I take it seriously. But we cannot make “logical” claims completely based on it without grounding it somehow. The ground would be many pre-existing assumptions about the supernatural, not just its existence but its attributes – for instance assuming there is an evidence-granting God who speaks truth to certain prophets.
So we ground revelation in ideas of the supernatural, then use revelation to prove the supernatural. It’s a loop.
But who really knows?
November 20th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Steven writes:
So we ground revelation in ideas of the supernatural, then use revelation to prove the supernatural.
When your lover talks to you, you don’t “ground conversation in ideas of romantic love.” Nor do you “use conversation to prove romantic love”. Romance is bigger than conversation. And the conversation is not something that requires any such grounding. You simply take it as it is… at least if the relationship matters to you at all.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I somehow can’t shake the image of a child in a playroom insisting that nothing outside his playroom is real. And the words “clear”, “logical” and “specific” (meaning “manipulable”) are used as charms to bless his favorite toys, while the word “magical” is used to dismiss anything beyond.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
But whether there is anything outside of the playroom is irrelevant. The question is – Do we have any good reasons to believe there are specific things outside the playroom?
November 20th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
On the contrary: the inability of a child’s reason (imagination, actually — it is certainly the failing of a 21st century education to confuse the success of reason with the failure of imagination) to either perceive or intuit things outside the playroom is irrelevant — particularly when folk are coming and going from his playroom continually.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:10 am
How does this make sense? A person coming and going would be a good reason to believe in something outside the playroom. Who are these travelers?
November 27th, 2009 at 8:32 am
How does this make sense? A person coming and going would be a good reason to believe in something outside the playroom.
This is precisely the point: it makes no sense — from the perspective of the observer outside the playroom. Those caught up in the “cult of the playroom” are unable to observe or grasp the significance of the comings and goings.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
An all-in-one reply:
STEVEK
I am not being duplicitous. I quite openly say it is a negative thing that Christians literally have an invisible magical friend. It is also a negative thing that many schizophrenics have an invisible magical friend. But I’m going to call a spade a spade in both places.
Maybe the problem isn’t that I’m pointing out the truth about what you believe. Maybe the problem is with the person who literally has an invisible magical friend. Have you ever considered that?
BILL
“Plagiarizing” the new atheists? It’s not like Dawkins and Hitchens were the first people to make these same points. I’m repeating what atheists have said for centuries. And Tom is repeating what Christians have said for centuries. Is Tom plagiarizing? I don’t think so.
Luckily, we are getting to some recent material with regard to theories of explanation and their bearing on theism.
DOUG PETERS
Doug, naturalists would be quite happy to accept the existence of something outside “this playroom.” Indeed, a great many of them suspect there are alternate dimensions and a multiverse. They just don’t think there’s a supernatural realm outside the playroom. Why? Because there’s some mathematical consistency and maybe even some evidence for alternate dimensions and a multiverse. Whereas there is no consistency or evidence in favor of supernatural theories. Doug, we naturalists believe in all sorts of absurd things – quantum mechanics, for example. It’s just that we require EVIDENCE before we believe weird things.
JUSTAGUY
To which question/statement do you still wish a response? I don’t understand what you’re saying about projection. I thought I had already addressed the meat of your point about “argument.”
November 21st, 2009 at 7:18 am
I only wish what you say were true. Naturalists do not require EVIDENCE to believe in the supernatural. They require a certain kind of evidence that conveniently disallows the supernatural a priori.
I occasionally played “hide and seek” with my brothers decades ago. One of the players, to the bewilderment of the others, would simply close his eyes to hide.
“We see you.”
“No you don’t.”
Naturalists are no cleverer.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:13 am
Doug, why not wait until you see Luke’s response to Tom’s evidence before you jump to conclusions about what sort of evidence he will accept? I’ve seen no sign that Luke is going to refuse to consider Tom’s evidence.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:24 am
Hi Richard, I took this as a strong sign.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:01 am
Naturalistic phenomena is based on the idea of predictability, reliability and causal connectedness. Supernatural phenomena would be unpredictable and disconnected causally from other events (or else it would be natural). How could evidence, which is based in the naturalistic ideas of causality and predictability, be offered for specific supernatural hypotheses?
November 21st, 2009 at 10:29 am
I rest my case: if one defines evidence according to naturalism, it is not at all surprising that one is unable to find evidence for the supernatural.
The thing that the naturalists fail to grasp is that the very rationality that they employ to erect their playroom does not fit inside that playroom itself. That is, the box that naturalists make undercuts the very rationality that was required to construct it.
The trouble is simply that “reason is feeble if it does not realize that there are an infinite number of things that are beyond it.” But the human condition is that a robust self-concept trumps a feeble rationality every time.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:30 am
Doug,
Believers often ask, “What would it take for you to believe in God?”
I reply, “Exactly the same kind of evidence I require for everything else.”
There is a long list of things I would accept as evidence for God.
I should write a post on that some day.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:42 am
@Luke
I understand precisely. Your “requirement” has functionally closed your mind to the possibility of the supernatural. It is your right to do so. But please don’t pretend that such a requirement is at all normative, or that it somehow constrains the rest of us.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:35 am
” if one defines evidence according to naturalism”
I would like to read a definition of evidence that does not including naturalistic patterns of predictability and causal connectedness.
“The thing that the naturalists fail to grasp is that the very rationality that they employ to erect their playroom does not fit inside that playroom itself”
Any pursuit of knowledge requires some axiomatic beginnings such as “The physical world is ‘real’, etc. etc.” I think Tom and Luke realize this and are doing a great job of trying to start with the same reasonable assumptions.
“reason is feeble if it does not realize that there are an infinite number of things that are beyond it.”
I could not agree more. My point is simply that when putting forth SPECIFIC “explanations” that are beyond reason, it’s problematic to say that our reason got us there. Gut feelings, intuition, mystical experience etc. are great with me – as long as the conclusions reached do not willfully violate observation.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:41 am
I should add – mystical, gut feeling conclusions are OK as long as we are not dogmatic and retain a sense of humility – like a sincere belief that “I might be wrong.”
November 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
My point is simply that when putting forth SPECIFIC “explanations” that are beyond reason, it’s problematic to say that our reason got us there. Gut feelings, intuition, mystical experience etc. are great with me – as long as the conclusions reached do not willfully violate observation… as long as we are not dogmatic and retain a sense of humility – like a sincere belief that “I might be wrong.”
C’est tres cool. Thanks for that — we can wholeheartedly agree.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:08 am
Because there’s some mathematical consistency and maybe even some evidence for alternate dimensions and a multiverse.
Postulating a multiverse is metaphysically equivalent to postulating a creator God.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Doug, don’t assume that all atheists agree with Steve’s position. I think the natural/supernatural dichotomy is ill-defined and unhelpful. I reject the existence of the phenomena which are typically labelled “supernatural”, because I’ve yet to see evidence that justifies such beliefs. I don’t reject any evidence or claims a priori, but I do accept the principle that the evidence must be appropriate to the claim, so extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am
Might you ever consider as extraordinary evidence:
– the existence of the universe (something “beyond” science as we know it)
– the existence of life (surface-scratching theories of abiogenesis notwithstanding)
– the existence of language (the “best” theories claim that linguistic biology is an “accident”, because linguistic biology can confer no selective advantage without a linguistic community)
– the existence of rationality (hardly something that conforms to naturalism)
– the existence of morality (ditto)
– the existence of art (ditto)
One might legitimately claim that the human world is inundated with extraordinary evidence, if only one were willing to see it for what it is!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Luke,
How convienent for you to pick on the part of my post that didn’t deal with the repudiation of your charterizations of Christian thought. You’ve done that twice now. What, actually dealing with the content a bit much for you.
And for you to compare your simple mocks to Tom’s posts must truly be the ultimate in self aggrandizement. Where Tom offers thoughtful statements backed up by argumentation, reasoning and facts, you blurt out copied quotations without the slightest explanation.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Bill,
What is it you’d like me to respond to? Could you phrase them as a question, please?
November 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Luke,
In my first post a offered a understanding of hell from a theological perspective to counter your belief that hell was some sort of “punishment”. You claimed it was “ad hoc” (which is completely off point) wihthout so much of a word of explanation.
In my second post I offered a theological counter to your statement claiming Christians believe in a “invisible magical friend who grants them wishes“. You replied by comparing your statements to Tom’s without addressing the substance of that post either.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Luke,
So if you need that in a question it would be:
How about responding to the substance of my posts?
November 24th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Bill,
There are many theological positions on hell. The one that seems prevalent in scripture is that of hell as punishment, but of course we could debate that ad nauseum. It is also a longstanding doctrine of the Christian Church that hell is punishment for sin, that “the wages of sin is death.” If you have different theological perspective, that’s fine. In that case, I would make OTHER points about the objectionableness of YOUR doctrine. But I don’t really need to since there is no reason whatsoever to think it is TRUE. It’s completely ad hoc.
I said Christians believe in an invisible magical friend who grants them wishes.
Okay, just going to answers.com:
invisible = “impossible to see, not visible.” Is Jesus invisible? Yup.
magic = “art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.” Is Jesus magic in that way? Yup.
friend = “A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts.” Is Jesus a ‘friend’ to most Christians? Yup.
As for granting wishes, it is obvious that hundreds of millions have such a relationship to god. They are constantly asking Jesus (or God or Mary) to help them out by way of his magical powers.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Luke,
That you want desperately to misunderstand and misrepresent Christian theology is not lost on those who read you posts. However, more shallow thoughtless posts by you certainly do no harm to that idea.
No, there are not many valid theological positions on hell. You again, without explanation, call it “ad hoc” which is about as self referential as anything I’ve ever read. That you want to misunderstand it and not deal with the content I presented is not a surprise.
Also, simply repeating the rather childish descriptions and offering “dictionary” definitions of invisible, magic, friend and wishes offers little in real understanding. It does tell us a bit about you in that you would associate yourself with such drivel.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Is answers.com any better than Wikipedia as a source of philosophical/theological insight?
God is not an “invisible friend” in any sense comparable to the usual childhood understanding of the term: a playmate whose participation is under the control and at the whim of the child who invents this friend. You know this is true.
Surely you know that melding words into a phrase can change the words’ meanings compared to their meanings taken individually. Consider “Hopeful,” “monster,” and “hopeful monster,” for example. If one were to argue against that aspect of evolutionary theory by saying, “Hold on, you blithering idiot: those early creatures could never have understood hopefulness!” that arguer would himself or herself be the actual blithering idiot.
You insert “magical” between “invisible” and “friend,” but in my mind that does not erase the allusion to the imaginary childhood playmate, it only adds a touch of fantasy to the image. Maybe (taking a gracious view of it) you’re not making that allusion intentionally, and maybe if pressed on it you would even disavow that connection; but I’m quite sure that’s what many of your readers would take as your intent. If that allusion is not what you want to communicate, you would be well advised to quit saying things that do communicate it.
Again: God is invisible and a friend, but he is not an “invisible friend” as the term is generally understood. To suggest there’s a parallelism there is to do considerable violence to both “God” and “invisible friend” as concepts, and it is irresponsible argumentation. I’m calling you on it.
Now for “magical.” God is decidedly not “magical” in the sense stated in answers.com. He does not “invoke the supernatural.” He is himself the being behind all other being, and his essence is of course supernatural, but he does not use some “art” to “invoke” himself! And he certainly does not (definition 2) use “charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.” The term “magical” as applied to God is just wrong. God acts out of his own being, not out of some magical art.
And then, as for “granting wishes.” I thought you said you had a grip on Christian theology. Don’t you see how you have chopped off 98% of what it means to be in relationship with God? Don’t you see that our relationship with him is not one where he “grants wishes,” but where he builds character, molds our desires to be in tune with his good and ultimate moral nature (and thus molds our very wishes), calls on us to sacrifice ourselves and yield to him, calls on us to give him the worship that is due him?
An “invisible magical friend who grants wishes” is not what I believe in, and not what I’m arguing for. It is a red herring of amazing triviality. If integrity is your intention (and I believe it is), I would expect you would drop the term, both here and on your own blog.
Unless somewhere out there you find someone who really does have a religion based on an invisible magical friend who grants wishes. If you find such a person, then by all means argue them out of it. Let me know and I’ll come join you in the effort.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
By the way, Luke,
If you ever see me misrepresenting your views and arguing on the basis of that misrepresentation, I fully expect you to call me on it. If you ever see me misrepresenting your views by trivializing them to this extent, I fully expect you to be very emphatic about how you call me on it.
I don’t intend to debate with you by way of trivializing misrepresentations, and I hope you don’t intend to debate that way either
November 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Tom
I admire your graciousness and patience in dealing with Luke’s mockery, I’ve stopped taking him seriously since he’s decided to act the clown. On his blog he proudly proclaims that mockery is a useful mode of persuasion – even boasting that hearing his beliefs being mocked was a major factor in his deconversion. Maybe you should inject some mockery of your own, since that may suffice to re-convert him!
Anybody wanting to see just how much Luke understands Christian theology will enjoy reading this.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
This one is even better!! ROTFL!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Throwing around terms like “invisible friend” ,etc. is probably not that helpful. As everyone seems to acknowledge, while the term is literally true, it carries certain cultural baggage that some don’t like.
At the same time, Luke is not putting attributes on to the invisible friend, he’s just saying it at face value. At the same time, surely he recognizes the cultural baggage associated with childhood and that’s why he picked the term. Maybe not?
Luke is quite right that many people pray to God for things. To have their wishes granted. I have heard the term “it’s a God thing” to explain phenomena many times. And people constantly say that prayers are working, etc. However, many Christians do not see God as a divine despot who MIGHT change His mind if enough people are on their knees. Others see whatever God is as the force that helps us deal with whatever happens, rather than a force that changes external circumstances.
Another view however, concerning the term “imaginary friend.” I think that even Christians really think of God as imaginary in a sense. After all, how do we distinguish between what is imaginary and what is not imaginary? Is this thing physical? Can it be felt, tasted, smelled, seen or heard (in a literal sense)? If a parent has a child with a nightmare, what standard are they using when they tell the child that “it wasn’t real!”? Is it not similar to the “attributes” of God? He is invisible. He is spirit (not physical). He is in your heart (or head).
I think it’s difficult to see a difference. Perhaps the difference is in how seriously we take our individual and collective imagination. What do you think?
Of course, I tend to take imagination quite seriously myself……
November 25th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Steve
The relationship between Christians and Jesus is not one of friendship. That’s not the nature of that relationship. The fact that Luke insists that it is simply shows his ignorance. So no, it’s not literally true.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Steven, you say,
No, I do not acknowledge that the term is literally true. The term is not just “invisible” plus “friend,” it is “invisible friend.” See here, where I’ve already made clear that it is an entirely inaccurate depiction for the Christian God.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Also:
I think some do. But I don’t, and I don’t think most do. There is no sense in which God is imaginary in my view of him. You equate invisible with imaginary, but that’s a false equation.
I am quite thoroughly convinced of God’s real reality.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Tom,
I think we’re on the same page here. I just meant by “literal” that the term “invisible friend” at face value (invisible + friend) is correct as you said in your comment.
Can you describe how you presently experience God which is definitely different than products of the imagination?
Ebrian does not think of Jesus as a friend. I think many Christians do, however.
John 15:13-14 “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.”
November 27th, 2009 at 12:12 am
“Can you describe how you presently experience God which is definitely different than products of the imagination?”
Tom, I am still really interested in your answer here. Of course you’re busy, but I thought I would repost in case you might have missed it.
November 27th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Steven, that answer would be pretty long, so I don’t want to get into it here, but you could read where I answered it once before.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:48 am
This is a very important question, Steven. (Thanks for asking one with substance) I believe that the invisible represents something even more valuable than the visible. Imagine looking at a loved-one’s body in a casket at the funeral home. The visible is all there. But what is missing is critical.
But I also believe in a God who interacts with the imagination. This does, of course, open the door to those who claim that it is “nothin’ but” imagination. But I (with Tom) believe in a Holy Spirit, who is constantly ready, willing, and able to interact (yes, invisibly) with people to the extent that they permit Him to do so.*
Once again, there is also this little thing called “revelation”. That is to say: God also interacts with the world. And God, being God, can interact with the world in such a way that the ripples of those interactions have enormous influence. I believe that the person of Jesus represents the most profound such interaction resulting in the most profound consequences in the history of the world. An unbiased study of history indicates some interesting correlations related to that interaction.
Finally, let me get personal. God has graciously supported me in all manner of circumstances that were unimaginable (at least for me). My life so far has been a thread of miracles — typically not of the “wish-granting” variety, but certainly of the “prayer-responsive.” Details are too personal to make this public, but I’d be delighted to share a coffee or beer with you if you are ever in Montreal.
*Atheists inclined to dismiss this as ad hoc or “magical thinking” would do well to wait until they are better able to fully explain the human imagination before jumping to conclusions.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:07 am
“Atheists inclined to dismiss this as ad hoc or “magical thinking” would do well to wait until they are better able to fully explain the human imagination before jumping to conclusions.”
I’m sure that atheists would have a different idea about who is jumping to conclusions.
It seems that the mindset you have found has been very helpful to you and provides meaning. I think that is excellent.
Your view on the Holy Spirit seems to be that there is an objective truth to be had in your own intuitions and feelings. Once again, fair enough. However, I think the writers of Scripture believed the same thing, and that’s where Scripture came from. So the revelation as explanation of the Holy Spirit is a bit circular.
I think it can work if we really look to the Spirit rather than the specific details for a certain phenomena located in a certain time and culture – but we’re all good at worshipping the signpost instead of what it’s pointing at, at times.
In other words, is Jesus a name? a face we see in our minds? Or a spirit? If a spirit, what does that mean? The spirit of compassion? If the spirit of compassion, then what if that spirit is present without that specific name and mental image?
Good discussion, thanks!
November 28th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Thank you, too, Steven! If these comments weren’t so annoying to deal with, I’d love to respond to the meat of your “parting shot” — I wonder if you’d ever like to be involved in an on-line debate yourself some time?
November 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Thanks, Doug.
I would really enjoy an online debate sometime. Definitely! I think they should be viewed as a partnership seeking deeper thinking about the issues. Let me know.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:10 am
Re Luke’s definition of a potential explanation (letter #13):
This seems too restrictive. It ignores the role of contingency. Suppose we want to explain why person P won the lottery (E = “person P won the lottery”). We might offer the following explanation (H): “P bought a ticket, giving him the same chance of winning as anyone else, and somebody had to win.” Perhaps we might add details like, “the forces involved in the ball drawing process were neutral with respect to the numbers on the balls.” That seems like the best sort of explanation we can give. E doesn’t follow as a matter of course from H, and H doesn’t explain why P won the lottery as opposed to some other ticket-holder winning. But it does explain why P was in with a chance of winning, or why P won as opposed to a non-ticket-holder winning.
This issue could be significant if and when you come to argue in favour of an evolutionary explanation for the human condition. Specific human traits (and even the existence of anything like humans at all) do not follow as a matter of course from evolutionary theory. There is an element of contingency involved. We could have turned out differently, or not have evolved at all. To put it another way, evolutionary theory is an explanation of the origin of species, even though it doesn’t (in general) predict which species would evolve.
Perhaps it would be better to say that H is a potential explanation of E if E is more likely given H than in the absence of H. You might also add probability to your list of explanatory virtues: an explanation which confers a higher probability on E is preferred to one which confers a lower probability.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Richard,
An excellent comment! Let me think about that. Perhaps Tom will be able to suggest an improvement, too. Can you suggest an improvement?
November 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Another set of replies:
DOUG:
I think my discussion with Tom will ultimately reveal why I think theism is a very poor explanation for the existence of the universe, life, morality, art, rationality, etc. These things are evidence, but not for theism.
And again, I do not rule out the supernatural. I am a conservative naturalist but I could be persuaded of liberal naturalism or full-blown supernaturalism if the evidence was there for it. I just haven’t seen it yet.
I have changed my mind about VERY big issues before, in ways that made my life HARDER not EASIER. So I hope you can give me the benefit of the doubt that I can change my mind if the evidence persuades me.
RICHARD WEIN
I’m tempted to say that “One ticket holder had to win according to the rules of the lottery” simply is NOT an explanation for “Person P won the lottery.” No, it is an explanation for “A ticket-holder won the lottery.”
To explain why Person P won the lottery would have to offer a more proximate explanation in terms of physics and such.
Or perhaps we can fit chance in as a separate category of explanation. Some good reading material here and here.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
The theism that “is a very poor explanation for the existence of the universe, life, morality, art, rationality, etc.” isn’t one that I believe in either. It is a shame that you aren’t familiar with the theism that is a wonderful explanation of all of those things.
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 am
Luke,
You and Tom seem to have agreed on a list of explanatory virtues, and I think that’s sufficient for you to proceed with the argument over the merits of Tom’s explanation for the human condition (and any alternative explanation you may offer). The issues you’re dealing with in your latest post (#14) seem more concerned with the question of what constitutes an explanation, and I’m not sure that’s going to be an important issue (though I don’t think it can be completely separated from the question of explanatory virtue).
In any case, I doubt that any general account of explanation you might agree on is going to be completely satisfactory, and you’re probably going to have to revisit the subject as and when disputes arise. If I was involved in this discussion my assent to any account of explanation would be provisional: given the difficulty of the subject, I would reserve the right to change my mind later. I think you may as well deal with disputes as they arise, rather than trying to settle everything in advance.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I really don’t think that it is any accident that Luke is continually using words and phrases such as “werewolf,” “invisible friend,” and “magical.”
We’ve established that these phrases are almost entirely content-free, being both red herrings (i.e., not at all addressing anything that Tom has written) and strawmen (i.e., not at all representing Tom’s position, irrespective of the content of his letters). And yet they persist. This is truly remarkable.
One of the few possible explanations of this bizarre state of affairs is that this technique was, at some point, effective as an “argument” to bring Luke himself to “enlightenment.” Hence he imagines that it will be effective on his opponents.
If there are other explanations, I’d like to hear them. But if this guess is even remotely close to the mark, I have four words for Luke: “good luck with that.”
November 25th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Hi everyone,
For those of you who are unhappy with Luke’s tone, you might be interested that on his website he posted a potentially offensive summary of what HE believes:
“For example, someone could summarize my worldview by saying, “So, you believe the universe just is, that human consciousness is a random accident of evolution, that our experiences of moral knowledge and free will are delusions, and that we should build conscious super-robots and let humans die off?””
The full post is here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1961
November 25th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Roman,
Yeah, thanks for posting that. My point was this: Let’s say somebody asked if I “believe the universe just is, that human consciousness is a random accident of evolution, that our experiences of moral knowledge and free will are delusions, and that we should build conscious super-robots and let humans die off?”
My answer would not be “Well, technically that’s all true about what I believe, but I object to your tone and your use of those words.”
No, my answer would be “Yes, that’s what I believe. Now let me explain why I think that’s true.”
But if I ask a Christian: “Is it true that you believe Jesus is your magical, invisible, wish-granting friend?”
…I never, ever get a Christian who is willing to admit “Well, technically that’s all true about what I believe, but I object to your tone and your use of those words.”
And of course I never get a Christian who will say, “Yes, that’s what I believe. Now let me explain why I think that’s true.”
Yes, there are many theologies which say that Jesus is NOT your friend or that prayer does not affect God’s acts or even that Jesus was an entirely material being. But I am not talking to those people.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:06 am
Luke,
Are you being intentionally disingenuous, or did you just miss my extended explanation that “an invisible magical friend who grants wishes” is a thoroughly, technically, inaccurate description of what Christians believe in?
Roman,
In the post you linked to, Luke said that it is difficult to condense Christian belief into a short phrase (actually it’s been done many times much more successfully, but lets’s leave that aside); but he insists that
Then he presents his own condensed version of his own beliefs. It’s imperfect, but it’s not a complete distortion, and he congratulates himself for not reacting to it as if it were a complete distortion. You congratulate him too. Luke’s version of Christianity is indeed a complete distortion, and a tendentious one to boot.
Luke,
If you think you are debating against belief in an imaginary magical friend who grants wishes, then we have nothing to debate about. See the last paragraph of my comment here. As I said then, if you want to debate against that view, I’ll line up right beside you and dispute it too. Just recognize that it’s not my view that you’re disputing when you do that.
And please don’t ascribe it to me or other evangelical believers. It’s not just tendentious, it’s false.
November 26th, 2009 at 6:53 am
One interesting aspect of the human condition (from a Christian worldview, I grant) is the tendency toward idolatry. This tendency is not altogether toward physical idols (though that was the focus of early scripture). Indeed, Ezekiel and Paul write about idolatry of the heart.
That is, idolatry is nothing more or less than the act of supplanting God with either:
– a part of creation (e.g., attributing miracles to, say, “evolution”, when God Himself deserves credit for even that)
– a human representation of Him (e.g., insisting that our mental models of God are sufficient representations of Him)
If Luke is really puzzled about the reactions that he is getting to his strawmen depictions of Christian theology, perhaps this helps: Christians train themselves to be able to detect and reject idols. Not only are Luke’s misrepresentations of God idolatrous, they are insulting.
And the trouble is that they derive from Luke’s imagination. That is, Luke is essentially saying that God’s projection onto Luke’s imagination is preposterous. Hence God is preposterous. Newsflash: God is not at all concerned about the fact that He does not fit into Luke’s impoverished imagination.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:23 am
“…that this technique was, at some point, effective as an “argument” to bring Luke himself to “enlightenment.” Hence he imagines that it will be effective on his opponents”.
“On his blog he proudly proclaims that mockery is a useful mode of persuasion – even boasting that hearing his beliefs being mocked was a major factor in his deconversion.”
And there we have it about poor Luke. Yes, Luke’s friends mocked his beliefs and hurt his feelings. Being someone who, quite obviously, knew and knows little about Christianity, theology, or apologetics he was an easy mark for the self-important, pseudo-sophisticated, intellectual bullies that populate many walks of life here in America.
So Luke folded his tent and joined the self-important, pseudo-sophisticated throng. So enthralled to finally be a member of an “in-crowd” that accepts him, he now proudly expounds on the subject, even assigning to himself a self-important, pseudo-sophisticated moniker.
However, as a serious proponent of religious or anti-religious thought, Luke has shown over and over, here and elsewhere, he lacks even the basic tools to do so.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Hi Tom,
Thanks for reading my comment. I am enjoying this debate.
If you read my post more carefully you will notice that I didn’t actually congratulate Luke.
But I am happy to do so. Congratulations Luke!
November 26th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
As a professed former believer, you must know that these properties, even if true, are microscopic in importance relative to the properties of Jesus that believers care about (or at least ought to care about) – such as being their Creator, and their Savior. “Magical” is an ambiguous term requiring you to go to great lengths to clarify what you mean (I read your blog and I still don’t know what you mean). “Wish-granting” is a misrepresentation of supplication and intercession, again, if that is what you meant by using the term.
Your description here is analogous to the women who, when asked to describe her husband to the best of her ability, called him “someone who eats corn flakes”. Of course that’s technically true about him, but misses the much more important and fundamental aspects of his character. Most assuredly, this detail has no bearing on why she married him.
Quit explaining why you used these unorthodox terms, and focus on defending naturalism.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:29 am
C.S.Lewis has a great essay on using words to represent God (“Horrid Red Things” in First and Second Things). His point is that fundamentally, any metaphysics is stuck in the unenviable position of using abstract, metaphorical, and necessarily approximate language to proceed. He writes:
It is not surprising that an atheist should insist that we have literal words, “clear, logical” descriptions of God, etc. For when God is fit neatly into the box of our limited language and rationality, it is a simple matter to argue that that (i.e., the idol we now have in our box) is not a God worth believing in!
November 26th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I have to agree to some extent with Luke.
If I were raised in a faith that purported to be Christian and yet I grew to the age where I was debating atheists but still was unaware that I could not literally see God or that He loves me and wants the best for me, or that He has sovereign power over His Creation, then I, too, would walk away upon learning the shocking literal truth of the belief.
I’d hate to have been raised in a faith that somehow left me with the impression that I could literally see God with my physical eyes, that He had no interest in my well-being, or that He would never answer my prayers merely because my teachers left out the pejorative, mocking phrase, “invisible, wish-granting, magical, friend”.
On the other hand, I don’t know how long I would try to defend my use of inflammatory rhetoric in a civil, intellectual, debate.
November 26th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Funny: in this letter, Luke appears to be saying that the phrase “invisible friend” can be technically dislocated from its inaccurate connotations, and hence become an accurate description of what Christians believe. At the same time, he freely admits that the strength of the tactic depends entirely on those inaccurate connotations (whose elimination is required for the phrase to “stick” ). So which is it, Luke? Do you prefer a “neutered” phrase, accurate but soft and dull, or do you prefer the “difficult” phrase, sharp though inaccurate — that remains a strawman?
Since neither works, why persist in this path at all?
November 26th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Doug,
I think I’ve explained myself clearly. Using the phrase “invisible, magical, wish-granting friend” is sharp AND accurate. Using a phrase like “unseen, supernatural, prayer-responsive companion” is a bit duller and also accurate. I wonder, would you agree that you believe Jesus is your “unseen, supernatural, prayer-responsive companion?”
Luke
November 26th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Not at all. If we use the words “technically”, and free them from their connotations, then you could achieve some accuracy at the expense of any point. If we use them as they come, they remain sharp at the expense of any accuracy. You can’t have both.
Since you asked the personal question, I happen to use the word magic slightly differently from most people here. So I have always been comfortable in saying that I believe in an invisible, magical friend. “Wish-granting” not so much. “Prayer-responsive” certainly.
So now that I’ve permitted you to be accurate, feel free to demonstrate the point!
November 26th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Doug,
I don’t understand. What do you want me to demonstrate?
November 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I’m just not feeling it, Luke. Perhaps it would help if you call up a posse to taunt me…
Now that we’ve “sanitized” the terms “friend” “magic” and “invisible” so that an opponent can actually accept them as having some connection to what he believes, they suddenly have lost all impact! (i.e., please demonstrate that I have any reason at all to be uncomfortable with having an invisible magical friend).
But I have a prediction: you are going to change the rules… you are going to go back to using those very words in their non-technical, pejorative sense. Not because it is logical. Not because it is honest. But because you like the effect it has. Prove me wrong.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
-“Wish-granting” not so much. “Prayer-responsive” certainly.-
Doug, do you mean that God changes you rather than external circumstances during prayer? Or do you think that you are capable of changing God’s mind about something? I realize there are many theories of God’s “perfect will” and God’s “conditional will” and so forth, but those seem to be attempts at harmonization which are required by certain pre-existing views about the divinity of Scripture.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:03 am
I agree with you here, Doug. However, theists constantly put forth concrete attributes on to God or else there would be little to argue about.
I agree that atheists do the same thing. Often I point out that atheists and conservative Christians have a lot in common. They often agree on much of what God is – it’s just that one believes He exists and the other doesn’t!
If God is truly outside our language and rationality then there is not much point in being a Thinking Christian.
I think personal, mystical experience can be a worthwhile pursuit – and metaphor is our best attempt at describing something which we MAY be able to sense but not understand fully – but religious dogma is all about leaning on our own understanding of God.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:07 am
I think Luke’s critics are missing the point when they criticise his description for being an imperfect description of Christian theology. It was never intended as a neutral description merely for the purpose of explaining what Christians believe. It was always clear to me that what he was doing was drawing a parallel for the purpose of making a point (i.e. making an argument by analogy). He has now written:
Luke, I agree there is an appropriate parallel to be drawn here. But I think you need to clarify the purpose of the parallel. A parallel attempts to establish that two objects have some property in common, by pointing to other properties that they have in common. I suggest that the common property you are trying to establish is that both objects are implausible. To put it another way, I suggest that your description carries the implied argument that God has significant similarities with a child’s invisible friend and is implausible for similar reasons.
If this is indeed what Luke has in mind, then the argument can’t be countered simply by pointing out that the two objects are not the same. The two objects in a parallel are never exactly the same. The question is whether the differences are sufficient to undermine the parallel.
Now, I think when Tom wrote that “God is not an “invisible friend” in any sense comparable to the usual childhood understanding of the term”, he can be interpreted as meaning that the differences are sufficient to undermine the parallel. (I don’t know how else to interpret him.) That’s fine. He’s entitled to state his disagreement on that point. But on this interpretation he should not have added, as he did, “You know this is true.” Obviously, Luke does not think that’s true.
In short, this is not a matter of straightforward fact about Christian theology but a difference of opinion over the merits of a parallel.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Luke, in your latest letter you wrote:
Did he actually write that? I don’t have a copy of The God Delusion available to check, but I don’t remember reading that.
What I recall Dawkins saying is that you can’t explain the existence of organised complexity by invoking a cosmic designer, because that designer would have to have at least as much organised complexity as his design. Such an explanation would invoking organised complexity to explain organised complexity, so would be circular.
Having said that, I think Dawkins may have specified biological complexity as the explanandum, in which case you could invoke a complex non-biological designer without circularity.
Anyway, I’m not defending Dawkins’ argument overall. I’m just not sure he made quite the error that you’re attributing to him.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] magical friend who grants wishes.” Luke affirmed that in comments here, here, here, here, here, and here. I responded in my Letter 15 yesterday, and we have each added another letter [...]
November 27th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Richard,
I doubt Dawkins has ever made the algebraic statement I attributed to him, but he has many times stated that offering God as an explanation explains nothing because it leaves God himself unexplained.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
In Luke’s latest (#17), he suggests that he is starting to understand . Let me, perhaps, contribute to that understanding…
In Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl connects the human ability to survive (Nazi concentration camps, no less) with their derived meaning from relationships. While you might think that your incessant references to “invisible magical friend” are in some way beneficial, let me suggest that they are very much like one inmate saying to another: “you are looking forward to seeing your fiancee again — but don’t set yourself up for disappointment: she has either forgotten you, been killed herself, or become a Gestapo-whore.” Do you really think that the voluble inmate in this case is doing his fellow a favor?
It is, however, fascinating that while you claim to have left Christianity on intellectual grounds, the ONLY point you have made against Christianity after SEVENTEEN letters has been an entirely emotional one: i.e., you find the phrase “invisible magical friend” belittling. I’m sure I’m not the only one waiting for some intellectual substance.
November 27th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Luke continues to defend his use of the pejorative “invisible, wish-granting, magical, friend” on the grounds that there are Christians who don’t understand that they literally believe that they don’t literally see God with their physical eyes, that God is Spirit, that He is loving and personal, etc. . Interesting theology of these hypothetical Christians who need this emotional shock.
He says his point was not to give a full-fledged description of Christianity or Jesus. I think his point was much more straightforward; to be insulting.
He also says in his letter 17 that there is no more reason to accept Christianity than any other religion but then goes on to tell us why there actually is; Christianity’s rich intellectual history, its ongoing robust defence among modern philosophers and the rationality of its worldview.
He quotes James D. Strauss saying, “If you don’t start with God, you’ll never get to God” which may actually be true but it is also true of logic and reason. Interestingly he also cites Swinburne, who tells us that if you do start with God probability will get you to the Incarnation, substitutionary atonement and Resurrection.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
DOUG,
I will be quite happy to begin presenting my case against the existence of God when we get to that. Tom and I agreed to let Tom go first.
CHARLIE,
You’re right that I say that there is no more reason to accept Christianity than to accept other religions. You’re also right that I say Christianity has mounted a richer intellectual defense than any other religion.
I know this sounds contradictory, but not when I take the extra time to clarify what I mean in each case.
What I mean in the first case is that the case for Christianity fails for all the same reasons – and (roughly) just as badly as – the case for other religions.
Still, Christianity is the only religion that’s really trying anymore. They’re failing, but they’re trying.
But the only parts on which Christians have said anything plausible – in my view – is in defense of theism, NOT in defense of Christainity. So that’s why I say that Christianity is no better off than other religions. It’s just that Christians are the only intellectuals who are even trying anymore (for the most part).
Does that clarify things?
November 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Sorry Luke, with your Letter #18, you’ve lost me. Have fun making it really clear that you think that “invisible magical friend” is a good representation of Christian thought. Have fun ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Have fun listening to your own one-trick-strawman-pony voice. I’m off to look for a debate in which there is some substance to the materialist position.
You. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
November 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Hi Luke,
The clarification was not necessary as your point was obvious, and it was and is still wrong.
You gave warrant yourself for Christian belief that outweighs the other religions – by your own standards.
You may not find that warrant convincing, but all you are talking about is your subjective view while you state it like an objective fact and you provided your own evidence to counter it.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I am disappointed that the debate appears to be over. Luke finally gave definitions for the four properties he has been using. While they may be idiosyncratic (“magical” and “wish-granting” most certainly, to the point of being misleading), at least he has provided definitions with which a Christian can engage him. I hope Tom reconsiders, and that Luke is more clear on his terms and less obscure about his intentions.
Luke, thank you for stating that your initial intention was to jolt readers, even if it was at the expense of massively truncating (and distorting, until you clarified your terms today) the common understanding of who believers claim Christ to be and what He himself claimed to be. This was not clear to me initially.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Despite its effectiveness on you when you were a Christian, this rhetorical strategy does not work. It sidetracks the debate, make you looks like a jerk, and gets everyone in a big tizzy.
I say this as a big admirer of your blog and of yourself.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
DOUG,
I have repeatedly stressed that I do not think that saying “Jesus is an invisible, magical, wish-granting friend” is a good representation of Christianity. I said specifically that it would be ludicrous to represent Christianity that way! All I’m saying is that it’s a literally true subset of common Christian beliefs.
If it’s not a literally true subset of common Christian beliefs about Jesus, then please please please for the love of God explain to me which of those adjectives you deny of Jesus.
1. Do you think Jesus is normally visible?
2. Do you think Jesus is not magical; i.e. that he only acts by natural means?
3. Do you think that Jesus does not answer prayers?
4. Do you think Jesus is not a loving personal companion?
THOMAS,
Yeah, obviously I need to be clearer with this. I’ve asked Tom to answer my direct questions to him so that we can get clear on his concept of Jesus, but I suspect he will not reopen the debate. He thinks I’m being dishonest or disrespectful or something.
I thought the debate was progressing marvelously. We had come to so much agreement, and were staged to argue things out in a slow and careful manner from common ground we took pains to stake out. And then it’s just OVER, just like that. So sad!
November 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Adapted from an email I have just sent to Luke, in response to a query he sent me, asking me again to explain why I don’t accept his statement that Christians believe in an invisible magical friend who grants wishes:
Here’s another way to look at it, Luke. This has been the form the argument (if we can call it that) has taken:
I’m not sure how many rounds that went. It might be that the full formal recap of the argument would also include:
There’s something rather obviously wrong with that, isn’t there? Granted you don’t understand or accept reasons x, y, z. Is it not clear that this is still a thoroughly unproductive way to carry on a debate? Is it not clear to you that it was unreasonable for you to maintain such confidence that I literally believed P, and that we agreed that I believed P, just because you didn’t understand or accept my reasons x, y, z?
It was not our disagreement with respect to P that caused me to pull out. It was your continuing unwillingness to accept that I didn’t literally agree with P.
I don’t think recapitulating x, y, z is called for under these circumstances.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Also in response to yet another email from Luke, and relevant to his 9:40 pm comment here, I have written to him:
Luke, in answer to your questions about my position, please see my answers already stated in Letter 15, Letter 16, and its postscript.
If I do not formulate my answers directly in response to your questions, it is because I do not accept the premises of your questions. For example:
… implies a binary distinction between magic and natural means: what is not natural is magical. I have explained already how that binary distinction is false.
And this:
… implies an equivalence between answering prayers and your formula’s wording of “granting wishes,” which I have also explained is incorrect.
Since I do not accept the premises of your questions, I cannot see any good to come from answering them according to the way you have presented them here. I have, as I said, already answered them in previous posts, and in ways I think are far more appropriate.
It’s getting late here on the east coast, so I bid you a pleasant good evening, Luke.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
One final thought for the evening. Luke, you may want me to explain at greater length why the premises for those questions are unacceptable to me. Please realize that I have already done so in past postings, that it didn’t seem to connect with you to your satisfaction previously, that I do not intend to say it over again in spite of that, and that it is not my intention to move the debate from the main posts over to the comment page. I think I have said my peace on these things.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Count me disappointed that this debate has ended. I hope Luke understands how counter-productive this strategy is to meaningful dialogue. I think it thwarts more desires than it fulfills.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I’ve posted my concluding thoughts on the debate here.
Tom, you have said that you are done with the debate and I will not expect you to continue it here, on my blog, or at your blog. But these questions remain very interesting to me and others, so anyone who wants to clarify this common dispute between atheists and Christians is welcome to join the discussion at my blog.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:33 am
For what it’s worth, I put the primary blame for the premature end of the discussion on Luke.
I think it’s quite acceptable to describe Jesus as an “invisible friend”, if that’s taken as an implied argument from analogy (or parallel) of the sort I described above. But, if this was Luke’s intention, he should have made the argument more explicitly, especially after he was challenged on it. Moreover, if Luke intended his comment as an implied argument it was inappropriate at the time he made it, because it was not his turn to make an argument.
Luke keeps saying that his intention was to “jolt” believers into re-examining their position more objectively. But he doesn’t seem to have asked himself why such a description should have this effect. As far as I can see, the only rational reason for it to have this effect is if it’s taken as the sort of argument I’ve described. In any case, if it was not intended as an argument at all, then why persist with it when it had clearly failed to achieve its intended effect and was only serving to distract attention from the actual argument?
Luke justifies his description on the grounds that it’s “literally true”. First (and sorry for being pedantic but I want to be clear about this) I don’t think the word “literally” is the right one, as I don’t think anyone was in danger of taking Luke’s description figuratively. I think Luke really means “strictly true”. But natural language (as opposed to, say, mathematics) is not so straightforward as that. Words have connotations, and as Tom pointed out, the phrase “invisible friend” has additional connotations over and above those of the two individual words. In claiming that that his description is justified, Luke is implicitly claiming that the connotations are appropriate. And that’s a debatable question. (I happen to think they are appropriate in the right context, but I accept that there’s room for disagreement.)
The result of Luke’s lack of clarity was that Tom and others mistakenly took his words as being a summary of his understanding of their position, and continued to interpret them that way despite Luke’s insistence that they were not.
November 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
RICHARD WEIN,
I don’t think there’s a very good argument from analogy to be made in the way you describe.
I did not ask “why” my description of Jesus should have a jolting affect because it does not matter. The fact is that it DOES have a jolting effect in our culture, and that serves the useful purpose I described.
I was not the one who persisted with the “magic” stuff. I kept trying to move on and Tom kept bringing us back to “magic.”
“Literally” true, “strictly” true – yeah, that’s what I’m asking. I don’t know why I’m the one being accused of lack of clarity. I stated many, many times what definitions I was using, what I hoped to achieve with such a statement, and so on. Tom, in contrast, repeatedly avoided direct questions so that I could understand what he believed. I was trying very hard to understand what Tom believes and I still can’t get any straight answers. All I get is complaints about tone and approach and respect. Not clarity. Not straight answers.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Luke,
Those were not the complaints I made.
Other readers: please refer to my last several letters.
Thank you.
November 29th, 2009 at 2:25 am
Tom,
No, those were not the complaints YOU made. I was talking about others.
Your complaint was that it did not look hopeful that we could agree on the terms of debate, since as far as I could tell you believed in a magical wish-granter, but you denied this.
But I have now changed my mind: Jesus is not a magical wish-granter.
Anyway, thanks for the debate while it lasted.