Another untrue Scot
And more again.
Consider the typical skirmish between secular and religious protagonists (AC Grayling provides a good case in point with his blog). They lead, at best, up a cul-de-sac because their arguments only go round and round in circles. They are, at worst, dangerous because in forcing people to take sides, they nurture extremes – whether religious or secular. This rides roughshod over the ground that is genuinely fascinating, humanly enriching, and socially essential: the places where science and religion reach the respective limits of their understanding and meet. The militant atheist and the fundamentalist believer alike try to rubbish such engagement because it offends their faith that science or religion can and should say it all.
One, I would say Theo Hobson provides a much better case in point, and that in any case it’s hard to see why Grayling provides a good case in point of both protagonists of that skirmish. Two, what places are there where science and religion reach the respective limits of their understanding and meet? And what’s so fascinating and enriching about them? Unless he just means subjects on which everyone’s understanding is incomplete so everyone can have a good indeterminate discussion? (But then how do discussions of that kind differ from arguments that ‘only go round and round in circles’? Don’t they have a good deal in common? But if so, that’s not particularly a place where science and religion meet, it’s just a place where humans don’t know much. You can meet anyone there. Lepidopterists, mountaineers, anyone.) And three (loud sigh) very few even militant atheists believe (let alone have ‘faith’) that science can and should say it all. I’ve never spoken to or read a single scientist who thinks science can and should say it all – I’d like to challenge all these enemies of militant atheism to cite one who does, with illustrative quotations. Meanwhile I’ll think that’s a canard, a straw man, a red herring, a magenta halibut. As is (loud sigh) the faith accusation. I wish Gordon Brown would make that illegal, if only on grounds of deep boredom.
For example, a typical atheistic line of attack is to accuse religious people of being inherently intolerant because they believe in a monotheistic God. The supposition here is that God is a divine monarch who admits no diversity of views and who legitimates a quasi-totalitarian approach to social and political issues. What the atheist misses is that monotheism, properly understood, makes everything that the believer tries to say of God provisional, since a monotheistic God is transcendent.
Ha! Another ‘no true Scotsman’ move. Monotheism properly understood – which, funnily enough, it so very seldom is. But since monotheism improperly understood is ubiquitous and noisy and demanding, why are atheists debarred from disputing it merely because it’s improperly understood? Since monotheism properly understood is vanishingly rare, especially in the public realm, what is the relevance of the properly understood kind? And who decides how it is properly understood anyway?
To be fair, Vernon goes on to say as much. But he had to get in the inaccurate shots at atheists along the way – atheists improperly understood, I would say.
Yet another reason why I’m not a Grauniad (sic)- if anyone needs the spelling explained, it’s a Private Eye thing from decades ago – reader. It seems to be packed full of this kind of pro-dinner-party-semi-informed-waffle-as-intellectual-masturbation
nonsense.
But then, apart from the truly excellent Bad Science column, who is the Groan almost entirely written by?
So the low quality threshold shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, I suppose.
Not that I’m anything more than a lowly “social science” grad – but I am a “true” Scotsman. For which assertion I have empirical evidence… :-)
Still – the book section is often very good, and so is the education section.
On the other hand they’re always cutting the Bad Science column, for space reasons. That’s not very impressive.
There’s a further point that’s worth emphasizing on this “the places where science and religion reach the respective limits of their understanding and meet” rubbish. They simply do not meet. When confronted with ignorance, science and religion go in completely opposite directions.
When scientists reach the boundaries of current knowledge, they recognize and respect their own ignorance, and seek to alleviate it. Confronted with something they do not know, scientists say, “I don’t know yet, but I’d like to find out more.” Rather than claiming to know what they do not know, they propose hypotheses and try to test them.
Religious thinkers typically respond to ignorance with claiming to know what they patently do not know. There are a few variations on this, but they don’t amount to much. Some turn ignorance into a virtue by calling it “mystery,” and claim profound importance for it – which is sneaky, because how do they know that the “mystery” in question is so bloody important and profound if it is unknowable? The more sophisticated theologians confront ignorance by inventing vague, incoherent, and often outright self-contradictory concepts like “transcendance” and “immanence” to describe their God, because the accurate word – imaginary – is far too unpalatable.
Here is a knowledge claim, a general proposition for which I have yet to encounter a single counter-example: Everyone who talks about science and religion meeting or blending or any such thing is a complete ninny.
Thank you, G. I wanted to go into that, but was rushing. Then thought about it later and wished I had. ‘Meet’ indeed – why would they meet, how could they? As if they pursue their different arcs which – somehow, inexplicably, end up in the same place.
It’s the mirror image of those ‘ah about that we must ask the chaplain’ answers to hard questions. What would we ask the chaplain for?! What does the chaplain know about it?
Personally, I liked this bit: “Anyone who has been to a good funeral, in a church, will appreciate this: it is at these climactic moments in life, when secular rationalism falls short, that religion comes into its own.”
How exactly does “religion come into its own” here? What exactly does this mean?
Perhaps the answer is this: “It knows that it is part and parcel of the human condition to live with doubt. And in its quest for God, its pastoral care and its great buildings and liturgies, it provides ways of nurturing the capacity to handle those fears – as opposed to indulging the desire to flee from them.”
Jolly good!
But who says atheism indulges the “desire to flee” from these fears?
It’s all just pretentious verbiage that sounds impressive (at first) but actually says nothing.
Capable of facing the “unknown unknowns”: really!
On the other hand…it’s the first time I’ve seen religion defended on the basis that they do a “good funeral”!
But ain’t it the truth? Just at those moments when pain and grief make us most unwilling to face up to reality, religion steps up and slathers over everything with consoling nonsense… In the short term, for the individual, there’s no doubt that can be a good thing.
Apart from agreeing wholeheartedly with Ophelia and “G”, there is also the point about monotheism that needs to be reiterated…
The “god” of the Roman CHristians, the “god” of the protestants, and that of the USA fundies and that imagined in Mahmoud’s fevered and overheated brain are completely incompatible with each other.
Certainly as described in their various “holy” works.
Therefore, a maximum of one of them can be true, and all the rest are wrong….
And BINGO! religious war ……
Of course, from a purely topological point of view, if we go round and round in circles we are bound to meet once per revolution…
OB “I’d like to challenge all these enemies of militant atheism to cite one who does, with illustrative quotations”
But that seems to be entirely the point… the whole theist position relies, implicitly, intrinsically on not ever having to provide proof or evidence. Irritating doesn’t cover it. The line of argument utilises the mechanics of blind faith. It’s smug and dishonest, it’s arrogant and it’s dumb. “I assert this, I don’t have to back it up, Amen.”
Yata. Yata. Sodding yata.
“Just at those moments when pain and grief make us most unwilling to face up to reality, religion steps up and slathers over everything with consoling nonsense… In the short term, for the individual, there’s no doubt that can be a good thing.”
No.
In my experience the effort required to believe that God has killed your unborn child for a good reason can be more and be far more damaging than the effort required to grieve over a pointless, heartbreaking tragedy.
“I assert this, I don’t have to back it up, Amen.”
My evidence ? There are posts all over CiF saying ‘how can you support this Theo?’
And do you know what ? Neither he nor his fans are bothering… the repetetiveness of this ploy is in itself knackering… I wonder if it’s in the training ?
I think you’re too quick to dismiss Vernon’s argument with the no true Scotsman move. Because that would assume that there are no rational, independent grounds to accept Vernon’s “proper understanding” of monotheism.
As it is, it would be possible to challenge you with the same. Seeing as you often dismiss the more abstract defenses of theism of liberal theology by arguing that that’s not what people really believe in – in other words, whatever it is, it’s not religion.
As it is, I would be unimpressed with either, though ;-) It may be true that most religionists have a less than sophisticated view of Deity – though I believe the relationship between the Deity of public religion and the more abstract one of theology to be quite complicated – both conceptions feeding off the other in various ways. At the same time, I believe that Vernon’s argument about monotheism is partially valid – that human fallibility and divine transcendence do place limits on the personal certainty of many believers. Just not all of them.
In my experience the effort required to believe that God has killed your unborn child for a good reason can be more and be far more damaging than the effort required to grieve over a pointless, heartbreaking tragedy.
I think you are wrong. In my experience the belief that the death of a child is neither meaningless nor final is a genuine consolation for many people and makes it possible for them to live on.
But it should be said that most religions have not offered this sort of consolation, or any consolations at all. The idea of dying was pretty terrifying for your average Roman be they ever so pious. So looking for the key to religious psychology in notions of ‘consolation’ or ‘reassurance’ leads you up a blind alley, I think.
left the italics on again…
I never said religious consolation was always a good thing, I said, in the short term, for the individual, it can be. I certainly wouldn’t use death of a child as my prime example of when it can be, but general experience shows that it can. Indeed there was an old couple on the TV last night still mourning their offspring lost in the 1986 ferry disaster, and still cheerfully adamant that they would be reunited in heaven. So for some people, it works even in the longer term.
John M.: good point. Quite a few religions are vague and less than consoling about the afterlife. There is not a single mention about it in the five books of Moses, and the notion that we are dust, and will return to it, sounds pretty bleak to me. And as you mentioned, the Greek/Roman Hades, or the Nordic Helheim were quite gloomy and unpleasant places (though nothing compared to some Christian versions of Hell).
In any event, I was thinking about the True Scotsman fallacy on the bus, and I must say I find the whole idea suspect. It seems to me to possibly expose a confusion between empirical and conceptual reasoning, but not a logical fallacy.
“All bachelors are unmarried men.”
“But I’m not male!”
“Well, then you are not a bachelor.”
No-one of course would call the No True Scotsman fallacy in the above case, as it is clearly a case of linguistic/conceptual reasoning. The definition of bachelor is an unmarried male.
“Let’s define crows. A crow is something with the following features:
– It is black
– It has wings, and a beak
– It caws
– It associates with other crows
…”
(A white crow is produced)
“Ah, but that can’t be a crow, seeing as all crows are black!”
Of course, if we define crows as having the feature of blackness, then there can be no white crows. That’s perfectly valid logical reasoning.
However, suppose that the properties of crows have been previously inductively established, and then crows have been defined in a deductive way on the basis of these properties, as above. The white crow would falsify part of the inductive reasoning. But it would not make the deductive reasoning above logically fallacious.
“No true Scotsman will committ mass murder”
(Ripper MacNasty from Stornoway coughs meaningfully, showing a bloodied knife)
“Ah, but you’re not a true Scotsman!”
The previous is, I think, much closer to the bachelor example than to the crow example. Because there seems to me to be a normative element to it: no true Scotsman should committ mass murder, in order to remain a “true” Scotsman. As normative reasoning, it is perfectly valid.
Of course, the reasoning can be also cast as to be closer to our white crow example. I.e. a Scotsman is defined as:
– born in Scotland
– eats haggis
– does not committ mass murder
And so forth. The definition can be challenged if the features it is based on are established inductively, by presenting a non-haggis-eating, mass-murdering Scotsman. But the deduction still does not seem logically fallacious to me.
It is only when the two are confused, when, for example, it is argued that the lack of mass-murdering True Scotsmen compares well to the presence of many mass-murdering True Englishmen, that there is a problem.
Vernon’s reasoning in my opinion is not guilty of this. I would propose that just about everyone except G. Tingey would agree that monotheistic religions, from Liberal Quackers and Alevi Shi’a to Wahhabi Sunni and Seventh-Day Adventists vary widely in their tolerance, their acceptance of a secular society, their attitude towards scripture, and so on. Vernon probably would. And I am quite sure that what he is not arguing is that all monotheistic religions are intolerant.
Because his reasoning does contain a normative element: any intolerant monotheistic religion misunderstands its own philosophical basis: namely, that we reach the limits of our understanding and reasoning when dealing with a transcendent Deity and therefore we cannot claim certainty of this Deity’s designs for us. This is conceptual, and normative, reasoning. I’m not entirely sure if I agree with it. But it is not fallacious.
It seems to me that if we take our Scotsman reasoning to be normative, then the only thing necessary for its possible validity is the existence of some Scotsmen who do not committ mass murder, and thereby are true Scotsmen. All the rest may be granted to be born in Scotland, speak Scots, but as they committ mass murder, they obviously cannot be true Scotsmen. If all of them would, the definition would be impractical as there would be no true Scotsmen.
Somewhat off-topic, but is anyone else struck by how similar the photos are of Theo Hobson and Mark Vernon on the Grauniad’s CiF site? Spooky!
I’m willing to accept that not all monotheists are of the violent, anti-science, fundamentalist stripe. What I want to know is why “monotheism properly understood” isn’t more prominent? Is it because the media find fundamentalism more sexy to report, or are the “proper understanders” too feeble in numbers or will or both to make an impact?
Because historically monotheistic religions have gotten intertwined with secular power – and we all know what all that led to.
Also, I believe it is true that both religious extremists are more easily reported, and that they generally tend to have bigger mouths. And I think moderate, liberal religionists – muslims as well as Christians – have a responsibility here in which they are failing. It’s time for the many Catholics who do not believe that people in Africa should be denied contraceptives to get rid of the Vatican, and for moderate muslims to get rid of their extremist spokesmen.
Dammit, either be careful with the italics or don’t use them. People are using them more and more, so I’m wasting more and more time on the slow tedious five-step process of closing the miserable italic. I have better things to do.
For possibly the first time, I heartyily agree with Merlijn … (!)
The “moderste, liberal” religionists have a duty to denounce and, as far as is possible to eject the autocrats/bigots and extremists from their ranks.
They are signally failing to do so.
Indeed, as I’ve said before, all they do is whinge that these extemists are not “PROPER” christians/muslims etc.
Which is why I’ve lost patince with them ,as much as the extremists, because they are, by their inaction allowing the extremiosts to get away with it.
“All that is necessary for evil to truimph, is for good men to do nothing.”
Merlijn writes:
It’s time for the many Catholics who do not believe that people in Africa should be denied contraceptives to get rid of the Vatican ..
As a rule, it’s the Vatican who get’s rid of them — it’s called excommunication.
The thing about reproduction-friendly moral norms is that they’re a winning streak for every religion. Asking the Vatican to support artificial contraception is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, so to speak. As Charles Galton Darwin pointed out some fifty years ago, homo progenitivus will always win out against homo contracipiens.
Natural selection sucks, donnit?
PS: Ophelia – ‘the hungry sheep look up and are not fed’. I mean that life without italics is not worth living. If I have to use caps instead I FEEL LIKE FRED PHELPS!!!! And what’s the big deal about installing ‘Preview’? I thought any PC anorak could get it up and running in 20 minutes. Is some sacred taboo at work? It’s not as though we ask for much … just a bit of consideration
Oh, you don’t ask for much – how kind. But considering that the whole thing is a gift, what makes you think you get to ask for anything?
This kind of thing used to get on my nerves when TPM Online had a discussion board that I used to talk (quite volubly) on and that Jerry S hosted, ran, moderated. People would simply bark out demands at him as if he were an incompetent waiter – quite forgetting that in fact he was providing them with a service for which they paid nothing whatsoever. So it doesn’t matter whether it’s a big deal or not, does it – nobody owes it to you.
On a less general level, look: the webmaster and host has no interest in B&W anymore, so I feel as if I’m here on sufferance; if I do ask him to do something, it will be something much more urgently necessary than a preview function. There’s the sacred taboo, if you like.
Having wasted too much of Ophelia’s time myself with bungled html tags, I have now taken a vow to compose off-line and check that it works before pasting and posting. I commend this procedure. I believe the other side call it “avoiding an occasion of sin”.
Plus you sweetly apologized instead of demanding additional services. Go thou and do likewise, Cathal!
rrrrrrrrr. Some people.
“Dammit, either be careful with the italics or don’t use them.”
I’m missing something here. My computer just brought everything up in italics without my consent.
Merlijn: “Because historically monotheistic religions have gotten intertwined with secular power – and we all know what all that led to.”
It can’t just be that. As Grayling points out on CiF links with secular power has made the C of E “latitudinarian”. It makes more sense for a religion in cahoots with the authorities to float along with the social mores of the time and trawl the lowest common denominator for converts.
Merlijn: “Because historically monotheistic religions have gotten intertwined with secular power – and we all know what all that led to.”
It can’t just be that. As Grayling points out on CiF links with secular power has made the C of E “latitudinarian”. It makes more sense for a religion in cahoots with the authorities to float along with the social mores of the time and trawl the lowest common denominator for converts.
Ophelia, I promise I will never again raise my porridge bowl and ask for more.
It’s a very good gift anyway – in fact it’s too damn good.
Just as well I’m a lifelong EU functionary with time to enjoy it.
Ah, so you have to use HTML tags to get italics, bold, a-set-of-words-that-hyperlinks etc …..
Right.
Now, how do I go about this – I don’t have a web-site, so I’ve never had to bother with HTML – where is the most readily available idiot’s guide, please?
“I think you are wrong.”
Since I am describing my own direct observation from personal experience I am right in the case I am describing. Your experience may differ but my point is that the consolations of faith in times of grief are not the universal they are held out to be, and that they can extract a high price.
“But it should be said that most religions have not offered this sort of consolation, or any consolations at all.”
The religions we currently have to deal with for real socially, rather than the abstract examples of past and other faiths, have consolation as one of their major selling points.
“So looking for the key to religious psychology in notions of ‘consolation’ or ‘reassurance’ leads you up a blind alley, I think.””
I’m not arguing that this is the entirity of religion. In the specific example of dealing with grief it is a way that Christianity tries to prey on the vulnerable, it is one of the values claimed by its public representatives, and it is something that if you can’t pull it off leaves you feeling worse than you would otherwise.
I believe, GT, that OB asked you NOT to do it. It is unecessary. Quotation-marks are a perfectly good way of indicating a quotation, or you can put >> before the passage if you prefer, as email does. *Asterisks* do perfectly well for emphasis. And a URL pasted in does not need to be tagged as a hyperlink, when one can copy and paste it to the address line of the browser in 2 clicks…
*ahem*, unNecessary, that is…
Bad GT.
Thank you, Dave. I did indeed ask you not to do that, GT. You make so many typos that it’s obvious we can count on you to get it wrong every time, thus making a complete dog’s dinner of the comments. You don’t need it; you’ve survived without it all this time; don’t use it.