Either It Is, or It Is Not
Right, where was I, before things got so busy. Several places, one of which was a series of disagreements over theism and atheism. One of our readers, Ben Keen, emailed me a thought on the subject last week that suggested some further thoughts, or they may be just repeated restatements of the same thought, I’m not sure. My brain got a bit curdled over the last few days, and I’m not sure it’s back to normal yet. Whatever ‘normal’ may be in my case.
Ben’s comment, which he’s given me permission to quote, was this:
the topic of
religious claims being exempt from the same sort of scrutiny as other
sorts of truth-claims. Something people often say is that science
makes claims about the natural world and religion about things outside
the natural world. Well, it occured to me that if it’s claimed that
God can possibly have any effect at all on the natural world or if
religious precepts somehow are meant to engage in any way whatever in
how we think or act in the natural world, then indeed they must be part
of the natural world. There’s no way that something can have any
meaningful effect on us without somehow being part of the world we live
in – so the claim of privilege by separation is bogus.
I don’t think I’d thought of it in quite that way before. I’d thought of it in a slightly different way, which was to wonder in a sullen fashion why, if this God people are always saying is in another realm, is in another realm, they think they know so much about it and can talk about it with confidence? Huh? But that doesn’t make the point sharply enough, whereas Ben’s version does. Surely there are only two possibilities. Either the deity is part of nature, in which case it is accessible to human research and inquiry, or it is not, in which case it isn’t. Period. You can’t have a deity that is in some convenient ‘other realm’ inaccessible to atheists and scientists but accessible to ‘spiritual’ people. Or one who is in some other, non-natural realm, but nevertheless is in some way active or relevant in this, natural one. That’s just a flat contradiction, it makes no sense. So that particular argument just falls splat and becomes useless.
Mmm, interesting. I think George H. Smith makes a similar remark in “Atheism: The Case Against God”. Have you read it?
No, I haven’t.
As I mentioned to Ben, I also saw something similar on a blog (but can’t remember which one!) a day or two ago. I think it was a discussion triggered by some other blog discussion, possibly the one at Twisty Sticks. It must be a reasonably common idea – it’s so obvious once it’s pointed out. But clearly it’s not nearly common enough, since people make the argument it tips over all the time.
I haven’t read it either, but I’ll put it on my list. Thanks!
My argument is based on a dangerous move, tho: I’m setting up a dichotomy by starting with the proposition that either God’s doings are a part of nature or irrelevant.
I can’t think of any other alternatives but that doesn’t mean that nobody else can… and it’s a little close in structure to the ‘you have to admit that Jesus was either divine, insane or a liar’ argument. So I remain uneasy.
Hmm. But is that exactly the dichotomy you’re setting up? I would have thought it was more: God’s doings are either part of nature or not part of nature. Then it seems to follow that if they’re not part of nature, they at least can’t be relevant in nature. Now maybe someone can think of an alternative to the second one (though can anyone do it without special pleading, without defining things in some cute way? I truly doubt it!) but I don’t see how anyone can get an alternative to the first.
And as for the Jesus argument – surely not, because those three items don’t exhaust all the possibilities, to say the least, whereas ‘part of nature’ and ‘not part of nature’ do. By definition. Don’t they? P or not-P?
Yeah, that ‘Trilemma’ argument about Jesus is ridiculous to say the least. Ifind it mostly appeals to the kind of people that think C.S. Lewis was an important philosopher.
On the other ahnd, I think a popular approach to Atheism in the vein of “Mere Christianity” would be very helpful to promote rationality to your typical high school graduate. I hate to sound pompous, but the reason rationalism doesn’t have a larger impact is because most secularist literature demands an acquaintance with philosophy that goes way over the heads of our average Joe.
That’s not pompous.
There are some people working on that, I think – the popular atheism bit. Richard Dawkins for one, he who gets so much flack usually for what he hasn’t said rather than for what he has, and when for what he has, still for what seem to me to be perfectly reasonable statements and questions.
And Simon Blackburn for another – Think was a best-seller and it has a whole chapter (very funny) on the God thing. And I think Julian Baggini has recently written a book on atheism. Oh and there’s A.C. Grayling, too. I think they all aim to be pretty accessible.
I have read most of Dawkins and also Think by Blackburn, but still don’t believe they will appeal to anybody else but people who are already fairly interested in things like Biology and Philosophy.
I really can’t imagine a typical high school student showing an interest in reading something like “River out of Eden” which is probably the simplest of Dawkins’ books. I’m afraid we can’t make the same statement about Lewis’ readers, which seem to be many, specially people with no post-secondary education.
I guess what I’m getting at is that people like Blackburn, Dawkins, Dennett
and others are preaching to the choir. I am fairly pessimistic about most people’s capacity and even willingness to tackle anything more complicated than your standard Chick tract.
Yeah – fair point.
I think Robert Ingersoll used to do the kind of thing you have in mind. Manage to reach people outside the choir.
Well, and that was part of Daniel Dennett’s thinking in that Op Ed piece about the Brights. It was prompted by a talk he gave to a high school class. It’s too bad he pinned that piece to the Brights thing, which is near-universally considered a terrible idea, but he had the right idea.
I don’t think there are many jobs teaching atheism in US high schools. Alas.
Yes, part of nature or not part of nature seems fairly clear (apart from word-games and things like ‘uh, but you can’t say the electron goes through one slit or the other, man! It’s like that!). The part about not-part-of nature implies irrelevant isn’t quite as tight but should be okay considering the restrictive language I’m using.
See, the attacks I’m anticipating are those that would get traction by starting to say what I’m doing is saying x=0 or x=1 when in fact x lives between 0 and 1. But that’s not what I’m doing; I’m saying x is zero, or it ain’t.
Perhaps overly paranoid of me, all this, but being careful has paid off so far…
It seems I’m saying so very little, but little is all there is to be said; the ‘worst’ that happens if someone accepts this point is that while one might still be inclined to listen to the clergy on moral grounds because they’ve thought about them more (privilege of audience, maybe) there is no privilege of authority in evaluating what they say.
Jose’ has hit on something here that has bothered me about this whole thing, that being the tenacious adherence to supernaturalism. If it were merely a matter of rational discourse and best available information that informed our beliefs — then, in the words of Lou Reed — stick a fork in it’s a## and turn it over, it’s done.
But obviously it is not this simple of a matter. Also, as i have commented before, if these, whom adhere to supernaturalism, would keep out of public policy i would have no problem allowing them there little poison. In other words, i do not care one iota if anybody wants to believe in the Tooth Fairy, as long as they do not legislate what happens to lost teeth.
So, to lament the irrationality of supernaturalism is a rather moot point. It is here and going to continue to be here — forever, it seems. That being said there are two options: education to reduce their numbers and move public policy away from the grasp of supernaturalism, or some form of governmental control that frees us from the tyranny of the majority.
Either course is acceptable to me. But i weary of “preaching to the choir”. What is needed is a discussion of possible action plans, not another round of “how can “they” be so stupid, or there “they” go again using the same old imbecile tactic.
Does this make sense, or am i hopelessly lost in my despair and frustration?
Well…there are other reasons to think about these things though. Nobody is saying ‘how can they be so stupid,’ after all.
But do remember the stated goal of B&W (well, remember if you’ve seen it, at least), which is to attempt to separate truth-claims from ideological commitments. We do think an ability to think critically about these things is important. And that it’s all connected. It’s difficult to cling to the supernatural in one area of life and abandon it in the others. If one goes in for wishful thinking in one area, how is one to keep it from infecting the others?
And then there’s the way religion can shore up and even mandate various kinds of oppression and injustice. Of women, for example, or dalits (untouchables).
And as for the ‘here and going to be here’ aspect – well, but there are ebbs and flows. People change, cultures change. The US is far more god-ridden now than it was in my youth, for example.
So I just don’t see any particular need to shrug and give up.
Dawkins isn’t always preaching to the converted – if you’d asked me five years ago if I believed in god I’d have replied “Well, I don’t like organised religion, but I think there IS a god, just not the christian one,” or some such wishy washy answer. Then I read the Blind Watchmaker (after it was recommended by Douglas Adams in the Salmon of Doubt), followed by the Selfish Gene and Unweaving the Rainbow, and these days I’m in no doubt about my atheism.
Admittedly, I was halfway to atheism to begin with, so perhaps he was preaching to the half-converted.
Jamie Whytte’s “Bad Thoughts” is an excellant introduction to some areas of philosphy, or at least rational thought. He also points out that if you can’t understand philosophy you are probably reading French philosophy.
“Dawkins isn’t always preaching to the converted”
There, you see?
After all we’re not born with our ideas, are we. (Oh dear, don’t answer that, we don’t want to get into innate ideas, surely…) Something forms them. And they go on being formed.
That’s one of the problems with the religious way of thinking, really; that’s one reason it is worth discussing all this, pushing on ideas to see if they collapse, trying to make them better. Religious thinking does tend to decide the issue once and for all (or try to at least) and then simply defend it forever, come what may. Susan Haack talks about this in the religion chapter of her new book – religon is about commitment and science is not, she points out. I’ve been meaning to quote that; I will later if I have time.
Hey Chris – what about writing up Bad Thoughts for In the Library then? One to three paragraphs? Want to? Or a review if you want to go full length.
Excellent discussion. You’re managing to expose one of the more pervasive fallacies in religious thinking, AND to ocassionally make some well-needed fun of C.S. Lewis. So you’re batting a thousand in my book.
I’m not sure if anyone here has read Taner Edis’ recent book “The Ghost in the Universe,” published by Prometheus. It is, in my humble opinion, the best recent book written about science and religion. Edis utterly shreds all the common fallacies associated with theistic thinking, including the “separate spheres” fallacy. In the process, he also draws on a wealth of resources, from his own knowledge as a physicist to historical religious scholarship. The book is especially valuable because Edis discusses Islam at great length in addition to the usual suspects (Christian fundamentalists).
I reviewed the book for Skeptical Inquirer a couple of issues back, but unfortunately they don’t have the review online. However, you can listen to Edis’ appearance on the Milt Rosenberg show “Extension 720” last year, where Edis and Rosenberg discussed the relationship between science and religion with Christian Century editor James Wall. It’s a very, very interesting and entertaing program.
At one point, Wall makes a rather feeble attempt to criticize Edis by claiming that Edis’ model of religion boxes us into a model of God as “time-bound.” Edis promptly replies by saying “no, YOUR definition of God is timebound.” Because, as Edis points out, if we use an Augustinian model of God as being somehow “outside of time,” we still have the problem that we want to claim that this God interacts for our benefit in OUR world, and so MUST enter the time-bound world of physics. Which is another way of saying there cannot be “separate spheres,” because the kind of God anyone would want to believe in wouldn’t want to be separate from us. He would become a part of our world, subject to investigation like any other physical phenomena. So there.
For those interested, the Edis radio appearance is here:
http://archive.wgnradio.com:8080/ramgen/wgnam/shows/ex720/Audio/questionofgod020718mr1.rm
Or, go to the whradio.com site and look for it in Milt Rosenberg’s audio archives.
Edis’ book has been very well reviewed, but needs to be read much more widely tahn it currently is. It’s a masterpiece.
Phil
Yeah. I’ve heard about Edis’ book and it’s already on my reading list. Better move it to the front…
Thanks, Phil, I hadn’t heard of that one. (Where have I been?! It was widely reviewed, too!) Sounds terrific.
There’s another then – feel like writing something about it for us, either short or long? Or would Skeptical Inquirer object to that.
Interesting about Rosenberg. I’ve never heard his show (not being a Chicagoan) but he links to B&W now and then. I’ll have to listen sometime.
Ophelia:
Certainly, I can provide you with a review of Taner Edis. SI won’t mind, especially since I’ll be giving you with a different review than the one I did for them.
Regarding Milt Rosenberg: the audio archives are well worth exploring, because he’s spoken with many experts and scholars in many different fields over the years. I’m pretty sure you can find an audio interview with “Gnostic Gospels” author Elaine Pagels there too, for instance.
Rosenberg is a classic secular rationalist in many ways. In others, though, he’s an extremely knowledgeable guy who seems oddly incapable of subtlety of thought. He tows a rather strict neoconservative political line, and isn’t always, or even often, fair to differing political views. He still runs a pretty interesting interview program, though.
Phil
“He tows a rather strict neoconservative political line, and isn’t always, or even often, fair to differing political views.”
Ouch….so much for rationality. Seems odd, to find knowledge and rational views coupled with a stubborn commitment to supremacy and an evangelical zeal for the export of “american values”. But the right has become highly ideological, in ways that couldn’t have been predicted, say, 50 years ago.
Excellent, Phil, thanks.
Yes, I gathered that from Rosenberg’s site – the neoconservative thing. Made me feel a bit squirmy, as it always does – oh dear, we’re so attractive to conservatives! But when my colleague and I fret about this, we always de-fret by remembering and saying the left has only itself to blame, for being silly. A resolutely non-silly left wouldn’t leave all these holes for the right and us to mock and tease.