I think you are a person and I like you

[Worldslaziestbusker]

He specifically mentioned the three volume treatise on Warrant, though why these rocking rockers, with their long hair, tight trousers, and anthems euphemising oral sex, are considered rallying points of the Christian faith is beyond me.




Glammetal: if you can remember the transition from the eighties to the nineties, you probably shouldn't.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by Worldslaziestbusker

He specifically mentioned the three volume treatise on Warrant, though why these rocking rockers, with their long hair, tight trousers, and anthems euphemising oral sex, are considered rallying points of the Christian faith is beyond me.

Glammetal: if you can remember the transition from the eighties to the nineties, you probably shouldn't.

My state is a happy one.


On warrant, putting together comments from RP, I doubt there will be progress in the short term. RP has referred to that and to the problem of induction, both being "problems" Plantinga "resolves" by adding god, although the resolution appears to me to be one entirely of removing the need to accept there is uncertainty, rather than adding information. Functionally, Plantinga says goddidit and all the christians go home happy, with nothing else having changed.

[wearestardust]

I admit that my knowledge of Plantinga is second-hand, albeit from sympathetic sources. The idea that, seemingly because we have a concept of god, it is somehow allowed to be a-priori knowledge that god is. It's circular, and/or special pleading, and/or various other fallacies, wrapped up in fancy writing. I haven't been moved to try and read the original.



I have towards the light and the case against the Pope on my very large pile of books to be read so unfortunately I can't provide a view as yet. I am a little cautious about Wallace based just on his table of costs of religion. I said why here. I would be willing to be convinced that I am drawing too much from too little information.

I think the idea of giving whomever evidence-based, practical and pragmatic discussion of how the world is is a nice counter to the proffered pseudophilosophical woo. It's also rather amusing.

What do you want to get out of Russell? Sidling up to my thinking, I first read this over 25 years ago, as a young xian. Moving house I recently came across my copy (in the collection of the same name) and was quite embarrassed by my marginal notes from when I last read it. For example, his comments on 'what is a Christian', specifically to the effect that it is somewhat meaningless and rarely observed in practice, made me quite cross at the time; but now I see that he was remarkably insightful. I should say that nonetheless I was in general very impressed with Russell from philosophy school; the reason I had the collection was that I was on a Russell kick (one of my other enduring favourites is his essay In praise of nice people). I've just re-read it to be reminded of what a good writer Russell was; what is especially impressive is that he deliberately adapted the style to be listened to, not read. Speaking from experience, not an easy thing to do.

I'm not entirely and completely convinced it is going to be a good thing to give an xian to read unless one has a plan to manage the responses. That said, I presume you have such a plan, and intend to use it as a springboard to discussion.

My thinking on this is partly formed by my own experience of reading Russell as an xian, and my experience of seeing current xians respond to eg Dawkins, is that the reader is likely to (i) obstusely and repeatedly grasp the bull by the wrong horns and (ii) be generally dismissive. Which, given it will happen whatever reading is offered, is something one just has to live with I guess (a sub-outcome which is the same in all outcomes is not a relevant factor in decision making). However at one or two points Russell comes across as a little dismissive and maybe even glib; perhaps that results from WIANAC being a speech, not a paper. It also does not quite address the arguments for god as they tend to be put forward now, or perhaps even as they were put forward then. In particular:

- design. I think this is the weakest part of the work, and where he appears most near to glibness (though it is very amusing to see, in a pre-WWII document, the reference to Churchill). The argument from design today is not that the world is wonderful, but that it is complex in a way that points to an intelligent designer. However that's not just the way it is understood now, it was the way the argument was formulated by Paley in 1802, perhaps superceding the Liebniz view. So, and it pains me to say this, it could be argued that Russell was attacking a straw man.

- first cause. Theists have of course since mutated this into the Kalam argument.

- argument from morals. One is more likely these days to see an argument along the lines that objective morals exist, therefore god. Though the 'you can't be good without god' remains current.

- the nastiness of hell. The likely response to this is "well, you may not like it, but you are not god, hell is just, blah blah blah".

None of which is a real problem and could be turned into an opportunity to explore these ideas (with first cause, for example, one could make the point that it didn't work then, and it still doesn't work now no matter what nonsensical additions are made to it).

I did wonder for a moment why, if one wants to provide a view that god is not, and religion is bad, why not just proffer Dawkins' TGD and Hitchens' GING. But on reflection I can guess why. That said, if one is suggesting the Pope, why not Hitchens' Missionary Position? Though in both cases one risks having them dismissed as being about Catholics ie not real xians.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Thanks for your thoughts, WAS.
The Bertrand Russell has become my go-to for Christians primarily because it is short. Besides being less daunting than bigger efforts, it allowed me to get more books about the outcomes of belief into the mix, which is where my interest lies. In addition to the other areas you mention, physics has come a long way since it was written and you can see the join because of such anachronisms, but the writing is, as you state, extremely good. There's also the plus that it's available all over the place free.

Robertson is not universally applicable but I would use it in this case as Robert is Catholic and can't Scotsman himself clear of the vortex of crapulence that is his chosen faith. I haven't read any of Hitchen's books, but would take your say so on including his work over my choice.

Wallace's book lays out the injustice of the current framework, and while it is heavy reading, he does a thorough job. The actual amounts in question receive only tangential attention, and he does not go overboard. Your comments the other day regarding services supplied were spot on, and Wallace does not begrudge money spent where money needs to be spent, but does question the efficiency and bemoans the lack of opportunity to audit to measure efficiency. The comparisons with other nations, where religious businesses are taxed and the sky has not fallen down are the kickers in this for my money, less PAYE and GST.

Grayling because I have a copy at hand, and because he is The Man With The Hair. Well researched and written. I learnt a lot from it and suspect anyone brought up thinking that religion has done a lot of good in the history of humanity would too.

Thanks again for writing your thoughts down, Was.

[wearestardust]

Well, if he's a Catholic he probably won't be familiar with a broad range of day to day arguments for god. I ever despair at the quality of knowledge of their own faith of my coreligionists that find their way here.

Hmm. If he's a Papist perhaps Missionary Position might be unhelpful in terms of diverting discussion - the Robinson will probably be enough. I recommend it as a general read; perhaps read it, see what you think, and add it to your future armamentarium.

[Xeno]

Watching the discussion on reasonable faith forum, as you can imagine I might have done, I see that Robert is keen on Hans Urs von Balthasar whom he describes as a great theologian. Well, a catholic would.

I looked up Hurbie and found he was notable for suggesting everyone might be saved, christian or otherwise, behaviour regardless. Hurbie could not say it would happen, but it was not excluded. If RP likes Hurbie then he is likely to take a generously christian view that you might not be tortured forever if you are lucky, and we might all get lucky, so he is not about to condemn you just yet.

The fact he seems keen on Plantinga is also interesting. Plantinga is interpretable as saying it is OK to believe in a god but he is not saying one exists, even though Alvin himself seems to believe one does. Again, this is not an extreme position to hold but one that says "you can't say I can't".

I noticed Oppy in a fairly recent book not only says there are no convincing arguments for a god but also that there are no convincing arguments to the contrary. He falls himself to the position that there is no evidence of gods hereabouts so whatever the theoretical feasibility of gods in philosophy, there aren't any. I have said before I take a fairly operational view of such things.

I might buy an Oppy and perhaps Sobel to add to the list of books Soon To Be Read [Soon I tell you, Soon].

[Xeno]

@WLB, did you get agreement on a book exchange?

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Originally Posted by Xeno

@WLB, did you get agreement on a book exchange?

No. And LionIRC didn't show any interest in borrowing my copy of "The Better Angels of Our Nature."

I am working at the library, today, so I might see if I can find some Plantinga to make the afternoon fly.

To keep him thinking, I transcribed my part of the debate 9191 started the thread about. I'm quite pleased with it as a collection of words but even more so with the improvement in delivery I made between the Troy Geri debate and the Adelaide event. Much thanks to those whose constructive criticism led to valuable changes in my preparation.



My part of the "Can there be good without God" debate at Flinders University. I was last cab off the affirmative rank, following Ian Robinson and Leigh Raymond.





I was less than thrilled with the topic chosen for the debate, as I feel that Epirucurs and Plato answered the question in the title some time ago, but as society has yet to take their arguments on board, it’s important to continue to discuss it. I set out to follow on from Ian’s argument that having god does not automatically equate with having goodness, and Leigh’s case that our ethical sensibilities are a result of our evolution, to show that not having god makes us less likely to be bad.
Dave Grossman, a psychologist with the US Army, has been researching killology: the pyshcology of getting people to kill. It’s surprisingly hard to do. During the Second World War only 25 % of front line soldiers were engaging in effective fire- that is, selecting a target, aiming a weapon and pulling a trigger with the ambition of killing a person. The other 75 % weren’t cowards. They didn’t run, but they didn’t try to kill the enemy. Some aimed wide, some didn’t aim. The key was they couldn’t bring themselves to take a human life, even when the other human was trying to take their own. There is something in the human psyche that prevents us from killing each other, an important survival trait in a communal organism. This mental block, thought to pre-date language in our development, makes us think killing is the wrong thing to do, even in extremely stressful circumstances. Religions that incorporate this deeply encoded instinct as doctrine are desperate for credibility. Writing down “Thou shalt not kill,” and pretending it’s a completely original idea is lame, but pointing to a mandate that agrees with us at a species level and claiming the rest of a holy book is therefore also credible is laughable.
A particularly useful mechanism for getting soldiers to kill an enemy is a process called dehumanizing: getting soldiers to think the enemy less than human and demoting the act of killing them to something less than murder. One dehumanizing mechanism found to be especially useful in soldiers drawn from a religious community is highlighting that the enemy is of a different religion. Apostates are fair game. Psychological prompts such as this have been used throughout history, but are not confined to history. It is still used by military leaders today, and the essence of the logic is on show at the website of William Lane Craig, prominent christian apologist, who states that god does no harm to innocent babies killed in his name because they will go to heaven. It would be interesting to see how he would incorporate that idea into an anti-abortion stance for pregnancies involving non-christians.
Some point to the pacific statements made by their religion to garner credibility for their faith, but I’ve yet to find a religion in which statements about peace and compassion are not coupled with loopholes through which oppression of minorities or heathens can be justified. Many contemporary theists are forced to ignore entire sections of their holy books to be good people. In christianity, the doctrine of mercy, the idea that you can be forgiven anything, so long as you find forgiveness through Jesus, is a particularly dangerous idea because some people interpret it as a get out of jail free card. Theologians will rail against this statement, crying that such people are misinterpreting the Christian message, but I can’t see the flaw in the logic. Flaw or none, some Christians are acting as though Jesus’ grace gives license to act poorly, so long as they don’t die before asking for forgiveness. Misinterpreted theology or not, christianity has allowed people to act very badly in ways a philosophy without a forgiveness clause may have prevented.
Turn the other cheek is another part of the Christian message that can lead us to ethically poor outcomes. Turning the other cheek when someone smites you ensures selective pressure will see a community ruled by bullies as altruism, that hard won evolutionary advantage which allows us to live in communities, will disappear.
Some Christians cite the perfection of Jesus as an example to inspire goodness in others, but I find Jesus imperfect. I am not being trite when I cite the example of the fig tree Jesus cursed and caused to wither when it wouldn’t give him a fig out of season. Harming a non-sentient entity for not working against its nature is an extremely petulant, spiteful act. There’s more, but even a single flaw is enough to ruin pretence at perfection.
Religious charity is cited as a benefit religions provide to societies, but the term is oxymoronic. Effort for reward is work. Effort in fear of punishment is slavery. As the only thing religions can offer that secular models can’t is talk of eternal life, the motivation behind all religious activity is to get into heaven or to avoid hell. I don’t think religious people are not charitable. I think they would perform charitable deeds regardless of their faith. I hope most of them are charitable and religious, rather than charitable because they are religious. Especially depressing is religious charity to make good problems caused by religion, such as the aids epidemic in Africa.
Totting up all the good things a religion has done to demonstrate its merit requires honest accounting and consideration of harm it has done as well. Citing Bach as the high point of divinely inspired humanity requires that Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army also be taken into account. Again, theologians rail and claim that such people are doing it wrong and misinterpret the christian message, but the size of the net you use to trawl for merit in your faith is the same size net you should expect will be used when people examine the harm your faith does. Pointing to schisms as nodes beyond which faiths diverged can distance a person from actions they’d not enjoy association with, but becoming interfaith inclusive when later seeking praise would be disingenuous.
Philosophers such as Kant have shown us that we can examine ethics from first principles. We don’t need divinely inspired moralities to be good and the flaws in the religious models humanity has devised for itself make it easier for people using them to be bad.



Looking forward to seeing what LionIRC makes of that, and to having it in another space where other Christians might come across it.