A while ago when I was writing my blog topic on divine foreknowledge, I knew I might have to defend my claims about my denial of God's timelessness from the consideration of relativistic physics which many have understandably taken to reflect an eternalist picture of the universe. In that event, I searched for a link to an article written by a philosopher of science which pointed out that there were alternatives to relativity in response to the conflict of relativity and quantum mechanics that are compatible with a presentist universe.
I looked for more by the author and found his blog. It turns out that the author, Bradley Monton, is an atheist who also defends Intelligent Design as serious science (though I'm not sure if he agrees with it).
I wanted to highlight his comments he made in an interview on his views of Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous."
Maher’s supposed doubt does not go both ways. While Monton acknowledges that though he is an atheist, he is not certain about his atheism, Maher is all too certain that the totems of twenty-first century scientific materialism are beyond question. Essentially, Maher is commending doubt, disbelief actually, to religious people, and for the most part, giving a pass to himself and his fellow “rationalists”. Luskin asks Monton: “What do you think happens when a person tries to pretend that there is no reason or room for any doubt or self-introspection in their worldview?” Monton replies:
“I think that leads to dogmatism, in part, and this sort of emotional reaction to the people who are on the other side. Because, if you think that the other side has nothing going for it, you’re going to dismiss them and react badly to them… Unfortunately what I’ve been encountering lately are more atheists who seem to be completely, incredibly dogmatic about their view, and then, at least in my personal experience, I’m encountering Christians who are more sympathetic.”
Source
20 comments:
I have no doubt there are dogmatic atheists, as well as irrational ones. I'm also convinced that there are many, many religious people who are extremely intelligent and rational.
We should always be ready to challenge our views and be willing to admit when we are wrong. This can be very difficult, however, as so much of our personal identity--and for some, their eternal salvation--is tied up in what we believe.
And Eternal Salvation is pretty important!!
I imagine for those who believe in it, yes, eternal salvation is very important. I don't happen to share that belief, so for me, it's purely academic.
Great post Rob! That's how I feel about dogmatic athiests and dogmatic christians. We all need to have open minds to accomodate new knowledge, whether scientific or theologic. I believe that ultimately, maybe 1000's of years from now, science and theology will validate one another and become congruent. The people of the old bible days did not have the scientific, or rational understanding to write about the physical world, so they attributed it to metaphore and supernatural. But by the same token, science can't rationally explain many things in the physical world, things that are marvelously mysterious. Just like MR wrote about in his Moral axis of the universe post, there's something afoot to all of this other than just random chance.
post 1 of 2
Great post Rob! That's how I feel about dogmatic athiests and dogmatic christians.
Thanks, I'm just highlighting what this philosopher said though. But I confess that from my perspective, I don't see the need for doubts. It's not that I don't have them on occasion and that I don't recognize that there will be times when they come, but rather, within Christianity, we have a personal relationship with God and doubt does not have a place within a mature relationship or at least, as maturity grows, doubt should fall away. Now should we be critical and inquisitive about the things we believe? absolutely. There is a difference between blind dogmatism and rational faith.
I think the experiences of several groups of Christians highlights the short sightedness of a dogma of necessary doubt (the idea that everyone who is thoughtful should have doubts). Those are the Christians who suffer great persecution in so many of the worlds oppressive nations today. These people face the dilemmas: of following Jesus, vs having basic rights and the ability to make a decent living for their family; following Jesus and going to prison (in a not so nice and cushy american prison... relatively speakaing) vs freedom; Abandoning Christ vs. harassment, beatings and outright torture, Abandoning their faith vs. losing their life and even the lives of their own family members. Doubts may threaten their faith at one point, but once they've gone through much of the worst of it and have come out victorious and stronger in faith, what room is left for doubt? Perhaps this is one of the reasons why in much of the persecuted underground church, leadership is not based upon how much formal theological training one has had but rather on how much one has suffered for Jesus.
post 2 of 2
So do I have a double standard to Agree with Monton that atheists should have a two way skepticism instead of the one? Atheism which alleges to be based in rationality is not epistemically equivalent to Christianity which isn't just concerned for rationality but also highlights that our knowing is to be a personal relational knowing, not a detached "neutral" assessment (the pursuit of which is in fact the failure of enlightenment to modernistic epistemology). Pure rationality cannot answer this question for us as logic itself does not tell us anything about the world without the assumption that the world is a logical place. And logic does not determine which interpretation of the world is necessary but rather demonstrates that there is more than one rational conclusion. These conclusions are not equivalent, but you have to go beyond pure rationality to understand that, and that doesn't mean that we consider the irrational (of which there is no such thing in existence, as that which is illogical is impossible).
Another reason why atheists should see more reason for doubt for their views is because all claims of knowledge require faith. All assertions of knowledge rest upon unprovable assumptions, and this is absolutely true of science which cannot validate itself on its own terms. There is no scientific way for example to demonstrate that the universe is a logical place or that the human mind is really geared for the comprehension of truth. AGain, one could say that I have a double standard since obviously our personal faith requires this epistemic sort of faith. But again, our faith goes beyond the recognition that there are unprovable assumptions as a part of our faith.
Just like MR wrote about in his Moral axis of the universe post, there's something afoot to all of this other than just random chance.
I'm glad he recognizes the inadequacy of materialism, but to bad he insists that he knows that the reality of this transcendence couldn't be personal and couldn't have acted in history in very explicit ways. The idea that there is a non-personal moral axis is dubious since morality itself is primarily a feature of persons. Of course it highlights that Christianity is indeed the most humanistic approach to the transcendence of the world since the most profound entity within our immediate and most accessible experience, ourselves is patterned after the divine. There is nothing more profound than this and nothing more fitting though it must be tempered with the realization that something has gone very wrong, which again is highlighted in the Christian narrative.
Thank you for your thoughts.
The post that Steve referenced is here.
There are some things about which to be a bit dogmatic, I think. Good vs. evil. There may be some things in a gray area --but situational ethics is not where the Christian's dogma leads him.
Rob R.,
You wrote:
But I confess that from my perspective, I don't see the need for doubts.It's not that I don't have them on occasion and that I don't recognize that there will be times when they come, but rather, within Christianity, we have a personal relationship with God and doubt does not have a place within a mature relationship or at least, as maturity grows, doubt should fall away.
My response:
The irrationality and, honestly, arrogance of this statement is truly breathtaking. In essense, you are asserting that you are not subject to human fallibility and limitations because you have a self-described personal relationship with your god. You happily dismiss the possibility that you could be mistaken and that this so-called relationship is a delusion or has some other source or explanation.
For people like me, doubt is something to be embraced. It forces one to confront his beliefs, which may lead to one recognizing and correcting error. For people like you, however, doubt is the enemy; it is something to be withstood and overcome--or dismissed completely-- because you believe you have found the "truth."
This is the very definition of dogmatism and is antithetical to honest inquiry.
AndThenSome,
"The irrationality and, honestly, arrogance of this statement is truly breathtaking"
You sound very smart and objective and I can't understand why you waste your time with people like Barb and her son Rob R.
Greetings from Paris,
Val�rie
Andthensome, you didn't read my statement carefully enough. I wasn't making a claim about myself. I said that I have had doubts on occasion. Not only did I say that, I suggested that there is a level of Christian maturity where doubt is not necessary nor does it play a role. Thus I admit that I have not obtained a full measure of maturity in my faith. Where's the arrogance in that?
But don't you see the irony of your own statements? You are dogmatic about the necessity of doubt. I believe that this is part of our western heritage, that the default attitude for a rational person is doubt. I disagree. The default attitude of rationality is belief. AFter all, what is their to doubt if you don't believe anything?
But seriously, are you willing to submit absolutely every belief to doubt including the belief that rationality requires doubt? I do believe that rationality often provides grounds for doubt, but not in every situation.
I'm willing to doubt all sorts of beliefs that I hold, but not unless I am given good reason to do so. I know there are reasons to doubt the essential things that I believe, but I have reaasons in response to those reasons.
The opposite of doubt here is confidence and a rational faith, not a blind faith that closes it's eyes at the risks of being wrong and does not stick it's neck out.
Valerie,
Bonjour to you, too, from California, USA.
Why do I comment here? Good question. I used to think that by commenting on blogs like these, I could challenge people to think about things from a different perspective, and maybe even get them to change their minds. Needless to say, this rarely, if ever, happens: most of the time, both sides just dig their heels in deeper and little is resolved.
Rob R.,
There is nothing dogmatic in recognizing that we are imperfect and fallible, and that it is reasonable, therefore, to consider that our views and beliefs can be wrong. This is what is means to be human, and to say that there is "no room for doubt" in "mature" Christianity--and Christians like you--is, as I mentioned, irrational.
post 1 of 2
I used to think that by commenting on blogs like these, I could challenge people to think about things from a different perspective, and maybe even get them to change their minds.
Oh? is this the only reason for dialogue? Is there not at least a benefit in understanding where people are coming from? How about understanding your own view better. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that my own views have been refined and have deepened from internet discussions.
Coming to agreement is a very good goal, but it doesn't reduce the other benefits of discussion.
As a matter of fact, I have altered my own terminology to better reflect what I believe in response to this discussion with you. I will highlight that below. Thank you.
There is nothing dogmatic in recognizing that we are imperfect and fallible, and that it is reasonable, therefore, to consider that our views and beliefs can be wrong.
Have I suggested otherwise? Christian doctrine of course has been developing for 2000 years, and the history of development goes further back. I don't pretend that we don't have new things to learn. Though I suggest that we need not doubt that God exists even though I confess that there are times in my life when I have entertained the idea. But it just isn't the great struggle of faith as we westerners have painted it. Christian faith, religious faith is not simply a willingness to grant that certain propositions are true, but it is an emotive relational thing that involves our actions.
At the same time, I grant that much of what we believe cannot be proven and is conceivably wrong. Thus what we have here is reason for what I call epistemic faith to distinguish it from the religious faith that involves so much more (much of which is still epistemically relevant, but it can't all be reduced to a claim about knowledge and a willingness to believe the unprovable). To help highlight just what epistemic faith is, my usage of the term is synonymous with epistemic risk. What the past several hundred years of philosophy and even the philosophy of science has shown is that virtually everything that we believe has a feature that it cannot be absolutely proven and/or it is concievably wrong.
post 2 of 2
Even the most reliable of knowledge that we have, the basic rules of logic, entails some epistemic risk. There is no exterior method by which we can prove that our rules of logic are true (albeit, it is arguable that it is not thoroughly concievable that they are false). All we can do is show that they are consistent with each other.
So andthensome, I do not have doubts on the reliability of logic. I recognize that my belief in logic requires me to embrace epistemic risk and yet I just don't buy that they can be wrong even though there is no objective demonstration that they can't be wrong. Do you insist that I am wrong not to have my doubts in logic? It would be ironic for an atheist to tell a Christian that he should doubt logic.
Granted, I do not place the Christian faith and logic on the same epistemic footing as Christianity, and yet it nevertheless demonstrates that our view is not naive to insist on faith.
Lets put it this way. (and as I'm too lazy to rewrite what I've just written, here's my readjustment of my terminology). Epistemic risk is an unavoidable reality. We can respond to it with doubt or with epistemic faith. Epistemic faith, the confidence in what we believe as instances of knowledge is the opposite of doubt, the lack of confidence in the face of epistemic risk.
This is what is means to be human, and to say that there is "no room for doubt" in "mature" Christianity--and Christians like you--is, as I mentioned, irrational.
As I have tried to express 3 times now, I do not include myself amongst those mature Christians on this issue (not that I think this issue is the only one that is relevent to Christian maturity).
And I think you really misunderestemate the relational nature and it's relevance here. A loving relationship is not complete and at it's fullest if either of the parties have doubts about the love of the other.
post 3 of 2
I just thought I'd add a bit of clarification of my adjustment here.
Epistemic risk is the state where a belief cannot be proven absolutely and/or it is somehow conceivably false. Epistemic faith is embracing that risk and the confidence that belief is an item of knowledge inspite of the risk. It should be noted that holding epistemic faith is not a blank check, because there are beliefs that could have too great of a risk, though the degree risk entailed is not the only consideration for whether it is reasonable to hold as an item of knowledge.
I have to admit, Rob R., that I really have no idea what the point is to your last 3 comments, and I would be surprised if anyone else does, either.
You are free to write whatever and however you like, of course, but if your goal is to truly communicate your ideas, it isn't happening, at least in my case. If you will allow this criticism, and it is no small one, you have a tendency to draw out discussions with long-winded explanations involving extremely abstract or esoteric philosphical and theological constructs. I suggest you bring these ideas "down to Earth," make them accessible to the general public in basic, day-to-day terms.
If you will humor me, try to answer the following questions as simply as you can:
1. Do you think it's possible that your personal relationship with God is a delusion or has a natural cause or explanation? Why or why not?
2. What evidence or reasons would convince you your relationship is, in fact, a delusion or has a natural cause or explanation?
To make sure I understand your answers, I will explain them in my own words in a subsequent comment, and then ask you to evaluate how close I came to truly comprehending (although not likely agreeing with) your responses. The goal is to make your posts more succinct and intelligible.
What do you say?
post 1 of 2
You are free to write whatever and however you like, of course, but if your goal is to truly communicate your ideas, it isn't happening, at least in my case. If you will allow this criticism, and it is no small one, you have a tendency to draw out discussions with long-winded explanations involving extremely abstract or esoteric philosphical and theological constructs. I suggest you bring these ideas "down to Earth," make them accessible to the general public in basic, day-to-day terms.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to say that what I write couldn't be stated more clearly, but I'll admit that it doesn't always occur to me how to do so. But surely as we can't bring all scientific concepts to full explanation in laymen's terms it is also true of almost any other field be it literature, philosophy and theology.
I understand the need for better clarity, but while I hope to grow as a communicator, that will not change over night.
But as long as you are willing to interact with what I write, it is always possible for better clarity to come through in the dialogue.
If you will humor me, try to answer the following questions as simply as you can:
Well, I will compromise. I will try to be clear but I also intend to attempt some level of thoroughness and I don't see the need for technical terminology here.
1. Do you think it's possible that your personal relationship with God is a delusion or has a natural cause or explanation? Why or why not?
Yes, I think this is possible. But my relationship with God has an obvious weak point if I don't choose to have confidence in the genuine nature of that relationship even while I recognize this possibility. And of course as I do wish to communicate to people who do not believe as I do, I am often aware of this possibility. I don't believe that recognizing this possibility is the same thing as doubt.
Why do I think this is possible. Besides the really far out possibilities such as solipsism (the idea that only one mind exists, and this we judge to be far out and unlikely on subjective grounds), I agree that materialists do have some means to explain away this relationship on the grounds of mental features that we have obtained via natural selection that have nevertheless resulted in delusional spirituality.
I suppose a better possibility that does not result in what I feel is a highly impoverished and dissappointing view of our spirituality is that some other religion is true. But that some other religion is true would not mean that my relationship with God (or ultimate reality since not all religions are God centered) as other religions often have ways of validating to some degree other religious traditions (Christianity too has this feature, though it should be noted that that degree of validation is not complete)
post 2 of 2
2. What evidence or reasons would convince you your relationship is, in fact, a delusion or has a natural cause or explanation?
I find this a difficult question because world views are flexible and adaptable. This is true of just about any view including materialism.
But it is a good question.
I don't know if there is any one thing that would convince me of the falseness of the Christian faith. It would have to be a combination of things. But I say this on the intellectual grounds.
It is important to note that because Christianity is first and foremost a relationship and secondly a world view (and not a completely detailed one at that since it continues to develop) I could flounder and fail to persevere for a variety of reasons (See for example Jesus' parable of the sower).
But that is the most important thing, that if I give into sin and never grow past it or if I do not persevere in the face of persecution (which I have not suffered yet), then my faith could die. Even if my faith doesn't die, I could be like the pharisees with theistic worldview, beliefs and all, but still an effectively dead faith.
But more directly, on an intellectual level, again, it may not be any one thing, but here are some things that might convince me otherwise. Show me that the church has done no good in the world. Show me that there are too many problems in scripture that are absolutely unsolvable.
If you'd asked me that earlier in my life, I might've had a different set of potential faith killers (like prove to me that common descent is true... something that I still don't believe in but I no longer find it threatening to my faith).
But I have come through at least one major crisis of faith that almost convinced me that the Judeo-Christian view was false. It was the whole free will- vs. predestination issue. I felt (and still feel) that the idea that God had predestined people to hell was unspeakably grievous and I dare say immoral, but there were passages of scripture that I could not figure out how to read without coming to the conclusion that individuals were predestinted to heaven or hell. It took a lot of prayer and personal research to find out why there was more than met the eyes with these scriptures and why there are many powerful scriptural considerations that are against the deterministic interpretation.
I want to commend you, Rob, for indulging me. You could very easily have dismissed me, but you chose to take up my challenge. For what it's worth, I'm impressed.
I have to say that your response was not only clear, but personal in a way I have not seen before, which I find much more compelling than abstract or complicated arguments. I'm not saying that such arguments are never warranted, but I think they should be kept at a minimum whenever possible.
To make sure I have understood your answers, then, you think there is a possibility that your personal relationship with God may be a delusion, and that there are naturalistic explanations for it (but you don't think this is, in fact, the case). This possibility is not the same as doubt.
Evidence that would convince you that this relationship isn't "true" would include believing that the Church hasn't done any good in the world, there are numerous unresolveable Biblical contradictions or inaccuracies, and/or that God has predestined certain people to hell.
Is this an accurate summary of your answers? How'd I do?
For me, the universe, earth's wonders, life, our bodies ---require intelligent design behind them. No way are we just "accidents" of uncontrolled, non-designed, naturalistic processes. The beautiful side of existance spells love from someone/somewhere. The constancy of earth --the rotation that produces a day and night cycle, each with its respective light. The bounty and beauty of the earth. No mere accident in the universe.
Also, there is "spiritual experience," --the experience of being "born again," or "spirit-filled." We can be "transformed by the renewing of our minds." We who've experienced it, don't doubt it --at least, not typically. We see where people have changed because they have believed.
And I just believe the historicity of JEsus' life, death, resurrection--his ministry and miracles. That's where I'm hangin' my hat!
I believe there IS this battle for good over evil --a battle of light over darkness --a battle for spiritual sight over blindness -- that there is this Kingdom of God to which we may belong in exchange for faith in it --in Him.
I believe that man has this moral sense from a moral Creator --who expects us to choose good over evil.
Salvation is a great offer --over the alternative of death.
Is this an accurate summary of your answers? How'd I do?
I'd say you understand.
Actually, I did intend to say a few more things and in the process of writing, I simply forgot to add a consideration that I would think was very important.
Really it's not enough to simply point out that what I believe is delusional. If it's the best answer that I've got for the problems that it answers, then for that in itself is an indicator that it's at least not purely delusional. So the negative considerations are only part of what is necessary. There needs to be a positive answer that replaces what Christianity offers. What's that? A strong basis for human dignity and worth (which in Christianity is derived from our status as creatures created in the image of God), a strong basis for morality, a good explanation and utilization of our apparently spiritual nature (an aspect that is important to the vast majority of humans around the world with the exception of a minority of atheists in the west), a good reason to believe that we are capable of knowing truth (contrast Christianity here which implies that we are designed to have significant understanding about God, the world (even the natural world) and humanity with purely naturalistic evolution which indicates that our minds were shaped by selective forces geared primarily towards survival and not necessarily a comprehension of truth), and a satisfactory explanation and/or solution to the problem of death which an aspect of existence that we generally grieve the most. This constitutes only some of the major issues that a replacement should effectively deal with. For these considerations and others, I don't have confidence in atheistic materialism though materialists do speak to some of these issues from the vantage point of humanism. If I had to leave the Christian faith, I would more likely search for a another religious approach.
I noted that on the basis of the naturalistic explanation of Christianity provided a possibility as to why our relationship with God could be delusional, but I suppose I'd still think that another religion may provide a better option.
It's also important to note though that although a naturalistic explanation may be given of religion, that doesn't mean that it has to be purely naturalistic. I don't grind a big axe against a naturalistic explanation of creation as Francis Collins proposes which is still within the bounds of orthodoxy. I don't buy it, but I'm not going to say that it isn't an option. And again, even on consideration of leaving Orthodox faith, there are theisms that are even more naturalistic that What Collins proposes, such as process theism. Course I would note that while Francis Collins offers an option for Orthodox Christians, I'd consider this other theism almost a different religion.
Post a Comment