Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
Main Entry: sabotage
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: A deliberate and underhanded effort to defeat or do harm to an endeavor.
Synonyms: subversion, undermining
Synonym Collection v1.1
Main Entry: sabotage
Part of Speech: verb
Synonyms: block, damage, destroy, disable, disrupt, incapacitate, subvert, undermine, vandalize, wreck
Use in contemporary pop culture:
"Cause What You See You Might Not Get
And We Can Bet So Don't You Get Souped Yet
You're Scheming On A Thing That's A Mirage
I'm Trying To Tell You Now It's Sabotage
Why; Our Backs Are Now Against The Wall
Listen All Of Y'all This Is Sabotage
Listen All Of Y'all This Is Sabotage
Listen All Of Y'all This Is Sabotage
Listen All of Y'all This Is Sabotage"
--Beastie Boys
Use in “The New Atheism.”
"I was a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, I might add, for a reason that explains why very many people profess an outward allegiance. I joined it to please my Greek parents."
-- Christopher Hitchens, "god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," p.16, (emphasis mine).
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you sabotage your New Atheist case against religion. One thing those who employ the kinds of "arguments" the New Atheism use desperately need, above all else, is the premise that those perpetrating the violence and the abuse and all other poisonous filth are honest believers. But Given Hitchens's admission, how can he tell the dishonest from the honest professor? Perhaps some, "very many (?)", terrorists profess, say, Islam to impress their Iranian parents? Or, perhaps it is because, as Hitchens says, they profess belief over there because if you don't you could be punished with death. Sounds like a good reason to lie. As Michael Martin says, "If society were controlled by militant vindictive professed atheists, professing atheism might not be a foolish thing to do even for believers" (source).
I'll assume I also don't need to point out that Hitchens admits to being what is known as a "big fat liar," right? Apparently he has no problem lying to the Orthodox priest, straight to his face. I'd keep that in mind while reading his many bombastic assertions.
"Perhaps some, "very many (?)", terrorists profess, say, Islam to impress their Iranian parents? Or, perhaps it is because, as Hitchens says, they profess belief over there because if you don't you could be punished with death. "
ReplyDeleteHitchens doesn't pretend to claim that all so-called "believers" are sincere. However, in the case of a person who is not sincere in their faith, much of the blame must be placed on the intolerant culture that is itself a product of intolerant religion.
"I'll assume I also don't need to point out that Hitchens admits to being what is known as a "big fat liar," right? Apparently he has no problem lying to the Orthodox priest, straight to his face. I'd keep that in mind while reading his many bombastic assertions."
This is pure ad-homiem diatribe (btw, the same could be accused of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lied on her refugee application to Holland). Are you going to tell me that the defenders of Christianity do not lie (have you ever heard of Mr. Hovind)?
"Hitchens doesn't pretend to claim that all so-called "believers" are sincere. However, in the case of a person who is not sincere in their faith, much of the blame must be placed on the intolerant culture that is itself a product of intolerant religion."
ReplyDeleteActually, he does pretend that. He pretends that very thing. Read the book . . . or read it better. He claims that those who do evil are "true believers" who "think they have all the answers." This is why he goes to great lengths to show that M.L. King was not really religious, and he argues that Stalin, Hitler, Sadaam, et al. really were. He must do this because his book is predicated on the assumption that "true" religion and "true" religiosu adherents are the ones we need to watch out for.
And, I can push your question back. How do we know that those religious cultures, or those who "invented" religion really believed it?
If you cannot tie those abuses to the essence of my religion, then all you do is succeed in showing what happens when one *abuses* religion or does not *act consistent* with its tenants. That leaves the question of its truth wide open and unaffected.
"This is pure ad-homiem diatribe (btw, the same could be accused of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who lied on her refugee application to Holland). Are you going to tell me that the defenders of Christianity do not lie (have you ever heard of Mr. Hovind)?"
I did not suppose believers do not lie. That's an invalid inference. You do that quite a bit. Why so paranoid? So reactionary?
Moreover, of course it is ad hominem. I am a Greek to the Greek, a Jew to the Jew and a Hitchens to the Hitchens. I am debating the way he does. If you have a problem with me, you have one with him . . . of necessity.
On top of that, as I've demonstrated below, Hitchens lies quite frequently, this should make one cautious when reading his book.
The bottom line: the Christain can claim that some, many, of those who have claimed Christianity, acted horribly in its name, may very well be *false* professors. Thus it would *not* be our *religion* that causes it, but *something else*.
its also flat out false, as all the real scholars (most of who are atheists) point out, to point to one factor as "the" cause of the violence and evils. The scholars know better than to get carried away with sophomoric and simplistic reductions which characterize the New Atheism mind set. As the atheists tell us, the ones who make it their job to study and specialize in this area, the combination of man, politics, and religion are all intertwined. I've pointed this out below. To not engage that post of mine is to offer already refuted hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteI also would like for a New Atheist to tell me how religious *beliefs* cause anything. How does something immaterial cause anything else? Or, perhaps you think "beliefs" can be "reduced" to neurons firing in the brain? In that case there's no reason to expect that they are aimed at truth. What sense does it make to say that a bit of matter is "about" something, or aimed at truth?
"Actually, he does pretend that. He pretends that very thing. Read the book . . . or read it better. He claims that those who do evil are "true believers" who "think they have all the answers." "
ReplyDeleteSome basic (or, as you like to say, "elementary") points:
1) Saying that religious fanatics cause evil is not the same as saying that all people who profess religion are fanatical, or that every single professed person actually believes in that religion.
2) He does not say that every evil in the world is caused by religion, though much of it is.
"This is why he goes to great lengths to show that M.L. King was not really religious, and he argues that Stalin, Hitler, Sadaam, et al. really were. He must do this because his book is predicated on the assumption that "true" religion and "true" religiosu adherents are the ones we need to watch out for."
Some more "elemetary" errors on your part:
1) He doesn't actually go to any great lengths trying to prove that Hitler, Stalin, and Sadaam personally believed in theism. He does show how elements of religion influenced their rule and propaganda, and often made it quite easy for them to use the dominant religions as propaganda vehicles.
2) You ventured quite far away from the point that I was trying to point out. My point was that not all professed followers of a religion actually believe in that religion. I don't think you actually disagree, I just think that you are trying to put words in my mouth so you can demolish a straw men and score some rhetorical points.
"And, I can push your question back. How do we know that those religious cultures, or those who "invented" religion really believed it?
If you cannot tie those abuses to the essence of my religion, then all you do is succeed in showing what happens when one *abuses* religion or does not *act consistent* with its tenants. That leaves the question of its truth wide open and unaffected.
"
Your particular confessional stance and beliefs were used as a justification for censorship, violence, looting of churches, intolerance, and war (for example, Oliver Cromwell, the Salem witch trials, the burning of Servetus, the Geneva theocracy, the intolerance of early Massachussetts, Afrikaan society). Thankfully, the reformed has never held much political power, even when they constituted a large portion of the population (as in the Netherlands). In all of these cases, it can be shown that the relationship between evil and religion is not just coincidental; the religion caused the violence (particularly some horrid texts of Scripture).
"The bottom line: the Christain can claim that some, many, of those who have claimed Christianity, acted horribly in its name, may very well be *false* professors. Thus it would *not* be our *religion* that causes it, but *something else*."
That is a non-sequitur. Just because some (or many) people who have historically professed your faith may have been false professors does not mean that it wasn't your religion that caused it.
We can point to specific instances where religion has caused evil. For example, we can point to the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals in the Old Testament. Or we can point to the fact that inculcating children with religious drivel from the Bible is an evil-in-itself because it dulls their critical faculties and stunts their ability to succeed socially and economically in the modern world.
"its also flat out false, as all the real scholars (most of who are atheists) point out, to point to one factor as "the" cause of the violence and evils. The scholars know better than to get carried away with sophomoric and simplistic reductions which characterize the New Atheism mind set. As the atheists tell us, the ones who make it their job to study and specialize in this area, the combination of man, politics, and religion are all intertwined. I've pointed this out below. To not engage that post of mine is to offer already refuted hypothesis."
I do not deny that it is sophomoric and ridiculous to boil every fault down to religion. That is not my claim. I do, as a matter of fact, think that sometimes Hitchens does get carried away in his criticisms.
"In that case there's no reason to expect that they are aimed at truth.
From an evolutionary point of view, there is. However, putting that aside, I would be happy to argue with you about any of the commonly-used theistic arguments associated with this claim (EAAN, TAG, etc). Unless you can show that such arguments are sound (which they aren't, and can be refuted easily, and have been done so on numerous occasions), then you are subject to the same skepticism which you throw at the naturalist.
"1) Saying that religious fanatics cause evil is not the same as saying that all people who profess religion are fanatical, or that every single professed person actually believes in that religion.
ReplyDelete2) He does not say that every evil in the world is caused by religion, though much of it is."
1) I know. And if the argument were left at that, fine. But then you guys lose. The argument isn't how religious *fanaticism* poisons everything, it's about how *religion* poisons everything.
2) Religion poisons *everything.*
And, the book gives the impression that it is religion that is solely to blame for all the evils. He certainly never admits that it could be anything else. At best he's misleading, deceptive, and duplicitous.
"1) He doesn't actually go to any great lengths trying to prove that Hitler, Stalin, and Sadaam personally believed in theism. He does show how elements of religion influenced their rule and propaganda, and often made it quite easy for them to use the dominant religions as propaganda vehicles.
2) You ventured quite far away from the point that I was trying to point out. My point was that not all professed followers of a religion actually believe in that religion. I don't think you actually disagree, I just think that you are trying to put words in my mouth so you can demolish a straw men and score some rhetorical points."
1) Yes, he does go to those lengths. That's why almost every critic of the book as pointed that out. And, he never argues that "elements" of religion "influenced" their rule. That's ambiguous enough anyone could agree. How did it "influence" the regime? Good or bad? In fact, he argues that religion was the main/major/only cause. Show me where he says otherwise.
2) Yes, I agree that not all who are in religions actually believe what they profess.
So, it may well be "false professors poison everything." How would you know otherwise. In fact, if it is "false professors" who are doing the majority of damage, then since they *don't* believe in theism, atheists are causing the evil.
"Your particular confessional stance and beliefs were used as a justification for censorship, violence, looting of churches, intolerance, and war (for example, Oliver Cromwell, the Salem witch trials, the burning of Servetus, the Geneva theocracy, the intolerance of early Massachussetts, Afrikaan society)."
That's not a scholarly, scientific point. It's a bunch of garbled half-truths cut clear of any detailed scientific analysis - which marks the New Atheism - relying on the ignorance of the masses.
And, as I have made clear, I'll point to secular and atheistic regimes who did much worse. Read your history.
"In all of these cases, it can be shown that the relationship between evil and religion is not just coincidental; the religion caused the violence (particularly some horrid texts of Scripture).
Again, mere assertions lacking any substantive documentation.
Which "religion," what "evil" which "texts"?
Besides that, what is "evil"? Hitchens said "morality evolves." Well if that's true, then what business do you have imposing your evolved morals on others? Can you point to the mechanism that brought about various morals? Can I find them in the fossil record? Are there "transitional forms?" Why even invoke morals? Do they exist? What are they? What causal role do they play? Can't we "eliminate" moral talk? Can a naturalistic story be given that need not invoke ethical terminology? What does Ockham's razor say here? Didn't "ethics" come from our "ancient past" when men were "stupid?" Do we really have "need for that hypothesis?"
"That is a non-sequitur. Just because some (or many) people who have historically professed your faith may have been false professors does not mean that it wasn't your religion that caused it."
Another baseless assertion. My religion is taken from Scripture. So, you can start there. Show, in detail, how "my religion" *caused* "evils." Not only that, show that the evils were not needed for a greater justifying good. Not only that, show how you can account for "evil."
"We can point to specific instances where religion has caused evil. For example, we can point to the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals in the Old Testament."
Hmmm, where the argument? I might as well just say that NAMBLA can point to instances where secularism causes evil in punishing pedophiles. What's that? You say it's not evil to punish criminals? Good, so you admit to being an expert ad begging the question.
"Or we can point to the fact that inculcating children with religious drivel from the Bible is an evil-in-itself because it dulls their critical faculties and stunts their ability to succeed socially and economically in the modern world."
Again, this is simply a load of assertions.
If the Bible is true, how is it "drivel?" How does it "dull the critical faculties?" Car to have your 8 yr. old play chess with my 8 yr. old? Care to put your 8 yr. olds reading list up against mine? Care to show how it stunts are ability to succeed? care to put your bank account next to mine? Your assets? Care to see if my Hummer can drive over your Honda?
If evolution et al is false, then you teach your kids drivel.
And, on top of that, seeing how you (and Hitchens et al.) misrepresent religion, misrepresent our theology, then if you teach those representations to your children you are guilty of giving them a false picture of the world?
And look at how you argue? Do your question begging epithets and over-generalized statements reflect the careful, cautious mind of the new atheist? If it does, you can have it.
"I do not deny that it is sophomoric and ridiculous to boil every fault down to religion. That is not my claim. I do, as a matter of fact, think that sometimes Hitchens does get carried away in his criticisms."
Your above criticisms don't bode well for showing your anti-sophmoricism and your non-ridiculousness. And Hitchens gets carried away in each and every chapter.
"From an evolutionary point of view, there is. However, putting that aside, I would be happy to argue with you about any of the commonly-used theistic arguments associated with this claim (EAAN, TAG, etc)."
From an evolutionary viewpoint, no, there isn't.
Anyway, you can start with where I left off. How do *beliefs* cause things to happen in the world. What is your view on "beliefs" as a naturalistic-evolutionist?
1) do not cause behavior, epiphenomenalism.
2) beliefs do indeed cause behavior, but only by virtue of their electro-chemical properties, not by virtue of their content.
3) it could be that belief cause behavior by way of content but is maladaptive.
4) beliefs or our hypothetical creatures cause their behavior and also adaptive.
What is your view and how does it fit best with your nat-evo and why are the other views not better on a nat-evo worldview?
We can start there.
"But then you guys lose. The argument isn't how religious *fanaticism* poisons everything, it's about how *religion* poisons everything.
ReplyDelete2) Religion poisons *everything.*
And, the book gives the impression that it is religion that is solely to blame for all the evils. He certainly never admits that it could be anything else. At best he's misleading, deceptive, and duplicitous."
Actually, if you read more of Hitchens, you would know that he was very dissatisfied with the title that his publisher chose to give the book, for the very reason that people like you would distort his argument as you have just done.
The book does not deny some of the beneficial effects of religion, either. He praises religion for when it has done good things (such as provide an impetus for artistic creation). However, overwhelmingly religion has not had a positive effect on humanity, as he argues.
"That's not a scholarly, scientific point. It's a bunch of garbled half-truths cut clear of any detailed scientific analysis - which marks the New Atheism - relying on the ignorance of the masses.
And, as I have made clear, I'll point to secular and atheistic regimes who did much worse. Read your history."
1) Secular regimes generally do not commit murders on behalf of atheism per se. Neither do they commit murders in the name of free enquiry (I, like Hitchens, am a freethinker first and an atheist second).
2) Hitchens, and other more scholarly people than me, have documented the problems caused by specifically Biblical faith. Their material is out there for all to see. Hitchens presents two chapters for the Old and New Testaments in his book. Why don't you deal with that more?
"Again, mere assertions lacking any substantive documentation.
Which "religion," what "evil" which "texts"?"
Again, go to the people who make a name for themselves writing about this stuff or the scholars who write about the problems of X Puritan society or Y Church. Read more of Hitchens, whose book you have apparently had the courage to buy. In all probability, you won't do this research, and you will go through life ignoring the issues and believing that Jesus is the answer for the world.
more to come later
Guys, what do you think: The Logical Calvinism? Thanks.
ReplyDelete"Actually, if you read more of Hitchens, you would know that he was very dissatisfied with the title that his publisher chose to give the book, for the very reason that people like you would distort his argument as you have just done."
ReplyDeleteActually, if you would read the book, you would note that that phrase is in the text *numerous* times.
I can understand why he would want to backpedal, though.
"The book does not deny some of the beneficial effects of religion, either. He praises religion for when it has done good things (such as provide an impetus for artistic creation). However, overwhelmingly religion has not had a positive effect on humanity, as he argues."
No, Hitchens specifically states, "I can think of a *handful* of priests and bishops and rabbis and imams who have put humanity ahead of their own sect or creed. History gives us many other such examples, which I am going to discuss later on. **But this is a compliment to humanism, not religion**. p. 27
He claims that Darwin emancipated mankind more than Lincoln.
And in ch. 13 he points out that any time you cite a religion person who does good you must point out all the bad they did and the evil books they say they believe.
"Secular regimes generally do not commit murders on behalf of atheism per se. Neither do they commit murders in the name of free enquiry (I, like Hitchens, am a freethinker first and an atheist second)."
Its their atheism that causes it.
Hitchens makes the case from anyone who is even affiliated with religion. If they are a member of a religious organization, then crime was a religious one. Read the book.
"Hitchens, and other more scholarly people than me, have documented the problems caused by specifically Biblical faith. Their material is out there for all to see. Hitchens presents two chapters for the Old and New Testaments in his book. Why don't you deal with that more?
This is what's in dispute. I've read Hitchens. 3 times now. He documents hardly anything, as you would know if you read the book. No footnotes, no interaction with 'the other side" and a pathetic bibliography and index. he gives a bunch of first hand accounts of experiences he had while walking through, say, Beirut and then over generalizes from that. His case is a sloppy mess of garbled nonsense that refuses to be clear and scholarly.
Besides, if you really think what you said counts as a sufficient rejoinder to my request, then how 'bout dees apples: The refutations are out there. Go read them.
"Again, go to the people who make a name for themselves writing about this stuff or the scholars who write about the problems of X Puritan society or Y Church."
I have, and you're just plain ignorant if you think "The New Atheists" are the scholars.
I never, ever, have said that religion, or Christianity, has caused evil or that its professed adherents have not done evil.
But, *my worldview accounts for that* In fact, my worldview *tells me* that all men will continue to sin.
But the debate is much more complex than you and the new atheists want to make it. As the real scholars point out, there is too much of an interconnection to draw any one single causal connection to an institution. This is pointed out by atheist David Livingstone-Smith. He points out that *all* kinds of institutions and ideologies have been involved in horrible evils. His conclusion, man qua man is to blame.
In fact, Christianity has you beat on explanatory power. We posit original sin as the immediate cause of the worlds evils. Thus I can explain the secular governments, the religious fanatics, the atheistic murderers, school shooters, etc. I have a theory that explains al the relevant data.
I lived for a long time as an atheist. I loudly and explicitly rejected Christianity - and god belief. I committed horrible crimes, brutal acts of violence, and didn't give a crap. I was the king, and no god existed to judge me. I did what I wanted to do.
Same with all my non-Christian friends. I've been around criminal element. I used to hang out with white supremacist Tom Metzger’s son, John. The headquarters to W.A.R. was the next town up the freeway, right in Fallbrook. Used to party with them in Poway and Rancho Bernardo. They’re atheists. Race is religion. And almost all other white power guys are “Odinists.” But they don’t suppose there’s a real physical bearded dude in the sky. Religion doesn’t inform their life. It’s a non-factor, other than to pump people up with cries to “Odiiiiiin.”
Old friends of mine are in jail for shooting people with shotguns. I still see my old steroid dealers at the local gyms. I see my scars over both eyes reminding me of all the fights I got into. I still drive past landmarks where I jumped guys walking their dogs and left them for dead, for no reason. I can provide letters from my lawyers about drug cases, or the case where I split someone face open with a kick and was sued for the cost of reconstructive surgery.
Sure, me and my friends had Christian parents, and some of us lied to our parents and told would go to church every now and then, but non of us were religious or Christian., We laughed at Christians. I used to actually beat Christian up at my high school because I hated them and their stupid flag pole prayers. I know for a fact that me and my friends were non-believers. But if you saw us come out if church on Easter you'd think we were "religious" rather than trying to please our parents.
That's why Hitchens et al. can't get me. I know for a fact that the very reason I was "evil" and why my friends and I didn't give a "shit" was precisely because we didn’t believe in a god, and we didn't care about societies "rules." Call us consistent.
I know for a fact that surveys are bogus. The police made us fill out our "religion" when arrested so if we got shanked to death in jail they knew what kind of burial to give us. We put "Christian." But we weren't. Same with the Asian kids who put "Buddhist." The same kids who pulled a gun on me because I jumped their friends. They didn't give a crap about Buddhism.
Hitchens et al. are out of tough with the real world. The world I used to be in. They look at everything at surface level. "I saw him at church on Easter, then he snorted a fat rail and mugged an old lady. See what religion does!"
So you can't point to "religion" here. Can't fool me. You have no explanatory power. The only thing that can explain what philosophers like Livingstone-Smith point out in their books is the doctrine of sin. That cuts across all ideologies. All institutions.
The sooner mankind realizes this, if they ever do, the sooner the problems can be eradicated. But if not here, then the faithful Christian, the one who falls every day yet clings to the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ, who knows that he is not better than anyone but is still encouraged because he stand by Christ alone, that person and all like him will live in the land where the gun is beaten into the plowshare.
Your life, Lyosha, your war against religion and war, is only leading you to a place where you will be at war forever. That’s not an argument, it’s just a statement of what I take to be a fact.
Lyosha said: "more to come later"
ReplyDeleteTranslation: Don't know how to answer you, let me google around for a bit and then I'll get back to you.
"Translation: Don't know how to answer you, let me google around for a bit and then I'll get back to you."
ReplyDeleteAs hard as it is for you to believe, some people do have other things to do besides post on the internet. I work two jobs and most of my paycheck goes towards supporting my parents. What was that you said in the last thread?: "Maybe you better check yourself and look at how you have interacted with me. You have constanty [sic] been rude and arrogant." Right.
"Actually, if you would read the book, you would note that that phrase is in the text *numerous* times."
I have read the book, and I have read Christopher Hitchen's writings after the book came out. One of the chief distortions religious people have made concerning his book is that the phrase "religion poisons everything" can be interpreted to mean such things as "religion is the only source of evil" or "there is absolutely nothing religion has produced that is good." Hitchens does not deny that religion has produced some good things in its history - but that these "benefits" have always been contaminated or overwhelmed by the negative effects of religion. The slight positive effects of religion (for example, the fact that some people's lives, such as yours, have been improved by religion) do not justify religion because of the evils caused by it.
"Its their atheism that causes it."
What regime has ever committed human atrocities in the name of free thought and enlightenment values? The fact that the universe is a-theistic does not give any mandate to commit evils in the way that Divine command gives that mandate.
"Hitchens makes the case from anyone who is even affiliated with religion. If they are a member of a religious organization, then crime was a religious one. "
I think that sometimes Hitchens does go to far, especially when it comes to his treatment of child rape. Of course, correlation does not prove causation. But it is easy to see how religion has caused many evils in the world. An example I already mentioned is the command to stone homosexuals and adulterers in the Torah. That command had real-world implications for many people in the ancient world. Another such problem is the Catholic Church's prohibition of contraception, which had terrible consequences in Africa. Religion can be said to cause evil if its dogmas or its holy texts authorize and command evil acts, thus giving motivation for otherwise decent people to do evil acts.
"
This is what's in dispute. I've read Hitchens. 3 times now. He documents hardly anything, as you would know if you read the book. No footnotes, no interaction with 'the other side" and a pathetic bibliography and index. he gives a bunch of first hand accounts of experiences he had while walking through, say, Beirut and then over generalizes from that. His case is a sloppy mess of garbled nonsense that refuses to be clear and scholarly.
Besides, if you really think what you said counts as a sufficient rejoinder to my request, then how 'bout dees apples: The refutations are out there. Go read them."
I would do that, but then I would also ask you to read some rebuttals of those refutations (and I would guess that there are more atheistic criticisms of theistic works than theistic criticisms of atheistic works on the market, simply most atheists are freethinkers and have reached their beliefs through critical thinking). But I agree with you that such an exercise is pointless. Lets argue on the basis of the common text which we have both read, which is the subject of this thread. I mentioned that Hitchens has devoted two chapters in his book to the Old and New Testaments (and you can't accuse an attack on the Bible as not touching the essence of your beliefs). You said that "His case is a sloppy mess of garbled nonsense that refuses to be clear and scholarly." I find that to be an incredible statement to be coming from you, considering that you don't document any of this "nonsense" yourself. There are definitely far more thorough critiques of the Bible in existence, but you can't just dismiss everything Hitchens has to say in just a few sentences. Even if Hitchen's work was garbled (which it really isn't), it requires a more thorough treatment than the cursory attention you have given it.
"But, *my worldview accounts for that* In fact, my worldview *tells me* that all men will continue to sin."
I never claimed that you cannot explain human evil according to your worldview. I have criticisms with the Christian idea of original sin, but I never said that it doesn't explain anything. However, it is not true that Christianity has us beat on explanatory power. As an atheist, I don't need to situate human evil or goodness in a metaphysical worldview that goes beyond the purely material. If human beings commit actions that we have, by consensus, agreed to designate as "evil", there is no reason to go beyond the fact that man is a material creature (a mere mammal) in order to explain that.
"But the debate is much more complex than you and the new atheists want to make it. As the real scholars point out, there is too much of an interconnection to draw any one single causal connection to an institution. This is pointed out by atheist David Livingstone-Smith. He points out that *all* kinds of institutions and ideologies have been involved in horrible evils. His conclusion, man qua man is to blame."
Could you give a citation for this statement?
I do not disagree that man qua man is to blame for human evil. But evil men can also generate twisted systems of thought that have the power to suppress morality. Ideologies have consequences in the real world, and bad ideas generally have bad consequences.
I am thankful and humbled that you have chosen to share a portion of your life with me. I cannot deny that religion sometimes has positive effects in the real world. Being an unabashed atheist does not mean that one uncritically accuses religion of very evil that one can think of. I do not always agree with Hitchens. I have read book like Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason, Thomas Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, and David Brooks' Who Really Cares. I know that religious people are generous contributors to charities. I know that at times Christianity helped the aided the advancement of science and private property.
But that does not justify belief in the Christian God. As Paul said, "when I became a man, I put away childish things." Belief in the Christian God is just such a childish thing. Thus, when you say,
"That's why Hitchens et al. can't get me. I know for a fact that the very reason I was "evil" and why my friends and I didn't give a "shit" was precisely because we didn’t believe in a god, and we didn't care about societies "rules." Call us consistent."
Children, for their own welfare, often need parents to make decisions for them. However, there is a point when the teenager becomes a man and must be able to make his own decisions - and accept the consequences that follow from those decisions. For some people, the fact that there is no God may seem to be sufficient justification to lead a hedonistic lifestyle. However, they must also accept the consequences of their decision.
As far as I can tell, my reconversion has had positive moral benefits in my life. I have never felt the need to act like a delinquent, perhaps because my parents impressed upon me the importance of hard work, honesty, and critical thinking. I studied hard in school. I never felt the need to prove my masculinity by joining a gang. My own character has been shaped my many different factors, and religion has had only a negligible effect. Some people are so made that they neither need nor can believe in God.
In the case of your situation, I think that a more sober analysis would uncover faults with your childhood than the fact that you were godless. Perhaps if you had grown up in a Blue State, where to be opposed to everything that skinheads stand for does not entail being a Christian believer, you may have turned out differently. The dichotomy between being a Christian fundamentalist and a skinhead thug is a false one. There are other ways of living life and different types of people in the world.
The only question that is relevant now is: If you, Paul Manata, would become an atheist tomorrow, would you suddenly jump back into your old ways? I think that there have been more secular factors at work in your "conversion" from a hedonistic lifestyle than your conversion to evangelical Christianity, including perhaps your advancing age and the fact that you are a parent. Despite the slights that I have gotten from you on this blog, I think that you probably have the strength of character required to continue being a moral person. And despite the fact that you are oftentimes an obnoxious jerk, you do not seem to be extremely immoral. Do you think that if you suddenly came to the conclusion that Christianity is not true, that you would become a racist and a hedonist again?
Correction:
ReplyDelete"reconversion" should read "deconversion"
"How does it "dull the critical faculties?" Car to have your 8 yr. old play chess with my 8 yr. old? Care to put your 8 yr. olds reading blist up against mine? Care to show how it stunts are ability to succeed? care to put your bank account next to mine? Your assets? Care to see if my Hummer can drive over your Honda?"
ReplyDeleteGiven that I am a poor college student, I am not really in a position to compare my assets to yours just yet. I also do not have a child. But I can explain how reading the Bible in a believing (i.e., non-critical) context dulls the critical faculties. Teaching your child that the Bible is infallible stunts their abilities to critically evaluate the text and to form evidence-based theories about the natural world if it contradicts the "sacred" text. It closes off a huge body of scientific knowledge from the young mind. A child who has been indoctrinated with the book of Genesis will never be able to fully enjoy the delights of reading Stephen Hawking's wonderful book A Brief History of Time or be able to read a good book about dinosaurs (as I often did when I was young) without being presented with claims about the natural world that run contrary to their parent's religious beliefs.
"
And, on top of that, seeing how you (and Hitchens et al.) misrepresent religion, misrepresent our theology, then if you teach those representations to your children you are guilty of giving them a false picture of the world?"
My philosophy is that every child should be free to form his own world view. I would never discourage my child from reading theology (indeed, one of the primary inducements to my deconversion was reading theology). I would be disappointed (not outraged) if my child became a believer, but only because I would consider it a failure of his ability to think critically.
---
"From an evolutionary viewpoint, no, there isn't."
Yes, there is. If an animal is presented with a hungry tiger, then he needs to run away in order to survive. In order to run away he must recognize the tiger for what it is (=form a true belief) and then run away from it.
"Anyway, you can start with where I left off. How do *beliefs* cause things to happen in the world. What is your view on "beliefs" as a naturalistic-evolutionist?"
"Beliefs" are functions of our brains. They contain information which the organism thinks are representative of the real world. One could ask the same thing of how computers "know" information and how the information on hard drives affect the real world. They affect the real world because there is hardware around this information which decodes it and translate it into a program for action. Human "beliefs" are ultimately explainable in terms of information stored in neurons.
Lyosha07 writes:
ReplyDelete"As hard as it is for you to believe, some people do have other things to do besides post on the internet. I work two jobs and most of my paycheck goes towards supporting my parents. What was that you said in the last thread?: 'Maybe you better check yourself and look at how you have interacted with me. You have constanty [sic] been rude and arrogant.' Right....Despite the slights that I have gotten from you on this blog, I think that you probably have the strength of character required to continue being a moral person. And despite the fact that you are oftentimes an obnoxious jerk, you do not seem to be extremely immoral."
Lyosha refers to "working two jobs" and "supporting his parents". He often complains that people are mistreating him. Before accepting his characterization of himself and his participation on this blog, I recommend reading some of his previous posts. Notice how he behaves in threads such as the following:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/competition-in-religion.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/loftus-on-skids.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/go-with-your-evolved-sense-of-right-and.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/book-recommendations-for-unbelievers.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/darwins-lap-dog.html
Notice how often Lyosha:
- enters discussions in which nobody had mentioned him
- makes unargued assertions when argumentation would be expected
- makes claims that Steve Hays, Paul Manata, Peter Pike, and others on this blog have addressed, without any acknowledgment of those previous discussions and without any attempt to interact with what was said
- demands evidence when evidence has already been provided in previous threads that are easily accessible, including evidence that's been posted here many times, in many places
- uses vulgarity, refers to how unthinking Christians are, refers to his opponents as "loonies", refers to Christian scholars as "crackpot theologians", refers to the God of Christianity as a "tribal deity", etc.
If Lyosha has so little time to spend online (with working two jobs, supporting his parents, etc.), and he's going to make comments about this blog such as...
"If I was looking for a rational discussion, I would look elsewhere on the internet." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/darwins-lap-dog.html)
...then why does he post here? Why does he post so often? Why does he keep entering discussions in which nobody had mentioned him or had compelled his involvement in any other way? Why does he have time to post so many assertions, but doesn't have time to provide much supporting argumentation or citations of books or other sources that would support his claims?
As an example of his irresponsible behavior, here's something he just wrote in response to Paul Manata:
"If an animal is presented with a hungry tiger, then he needs to run away in order to survive. In order to run away he must recognize the tiger for what it is (=form a true belief) and then run away from it."
How many times has Paul addressed this issue? Why is Lyosha ignorant of what Paul is getting at and ignorant of how he would respond to what Lyosha has said? It's not just that Lyosha doesn't understand the issue being discussed. He's misunderstanding an issue that's been discussed on this blog many times, in many places. Yet, he's been posting here for months, and he acts as if he knows this blog well enough to make dismissive comments about us like the ones I've cited above.
The problem with Lyosha's participation in these discussions isn't so much that he has to work two jobs, that he has to support his parents, or that he's being mistreated by other posters. It's more a matter of Lyosha's ignorance, his carelessness, his dishonesty, and his mistreatment of other posters, often before they've ever written anything in response to him.
Jason, you guys have been dealing with this guy for weeks now. I think you've done your duty. Ban this clown.
ReplyDeleteLyosha,
ReplyDeleteI'm confused as to whether you even understand EAAN or have read at all deeply or widely, even shallowly in your case, the positive explications of the argument. You intimated that you'd be prepared to debate it yet and so I took that as an indication that you understood some of the implications and terminology and rebuttals to various views so that you could anticipate and overcome them in an answer. At any rate, I'll stick it out a tad bit loner, if it doesn't get any better, you'll get the axe.
It's unclear to me how you tried to show how materialism is consistent with asserting that the *propositional content* of a belief is causally efficacious. How *content* enters into the causal nexus. I'm not sure if you think propositions *themselves* are actually "in" your neurons? That would seem odd especially since if a proposition were materially located in neurons one would be able to say "the proposition that elephants are heavy weighs .00002 oz." (or something). Or, "the proposition that apples are red is (say) grey in color." I also have no clue what it means to call a but of matter "true" as in "such and such neuron is 'true' while that neuron is 'false.'"
Now, of course, if you mean that the, to use common language, *syntax* is what enters into the causal nexus, then that makes more sense. That is, such and such neuronic pathway, firing at such and such rate, composed of this and that molecules, etc., caused such and such adaptive behavior. That is to say, all reference to *semantics* are out and we only refer to *syntactical* properties. So then this would be a form of epiphenomenalism, call it *semantical epiphenomenalism*.
But now surely it is obvious to see that *truth* doesn't enter into the causal nexus here. The *same* output or effect could be achieved *no matter* the *propositional content* of the cause. For example, a soprano could shatter a glass with a high C singing 2+2=4 *or* singing 2+2=5.
But then given this view, semantic epiphenomenalism, it seems rather low that our cognitive faculties should be assumed *reliable* (where 'reliable' means mostly true). Among other reasons for this is the fact that the *truth* of the belief would be *invisible* (so to speak) to natural selection. Remember, we are assuming syntactical causal efficaciousness. Since *truth* would be invisible to natural selection, and since if just the proper, say, material structure of the neuron must be achieved, then it seems that adaptive behavior could be achieved regardless of the truth or falsity of the attendant non-causal *propositional content* of the belief - semantic epiphenomenalism.
Thus the probability of our cognitive faculties given the conjunction of naturalism & evolution seems low (i.e., P(R|N&E) = low).
Thus you'd have a defeater for *all* your beliefs seeing as the probability that the cognitive faculties would be reliable given semantic epiphenomenalism (call it ~C) is low: Thus P(R|N&E&~C) = (say) .2
But perhaps we just don't know the probability. Then it would be inscrutable. This also provides a defeater. We would have no idea as to the purpose or function or reason for our cognitive faculties. We would be agnostic as to R.
You also seem to assume that survival value requires true beliefs - cf. your running from the tiger example.
But surely there are a number of ways "things could have gone" (e.g., cf. Hitchens and Gould on the Burgess Shale). What's more, it's not beliefs *all by themselves* that get the job done, but a whole bunch of other things, like *desires* for instance.
So, say the man in your example very much likes the idea of getting eaten, when he sees the tiger he runs away, looking for another option since he thinks it unlikely that our tiger will eat him. Or, say that he believes the tiger is a the starting signal to a marathon race. He wants to win very bad, and so when he sees the "signal" he takes off running. Or say that he desires to keep his mid-section down to size. He thinks tiger sightings are illusions yet pragmatically vows to run a mile in the opposite direction every time he sees one. Or say he thinks himself in a virtual reality world. A giant video game. He "scores points" by "staying alive." Thus he obviously runs from the tiger, accumulating, he thinks, 10,000 points. Or . . . It just seems, then, that there are so many options given the multitudinous ways things could have gone given undirected evolution. All that matters would be survival. "Truth," as Pat Churchland says, "takes the hindmost."
Thus we should assign a low or inscrutable answer to the probability calculus. Therefore we have a defeater for all our beliefs given naturalism + evolution.
But surely you would have something to say in response. I have read almost everything in print on this subject and am aware of all the various responses to EAAN. So I'll await your response.
P.S. For reference to atheist Livingstone-Smith's work I cited above, see the below post of mine No Wars . . . No Religion Too, or see his book _The Most Dangerous Animal_.
ReplyDeleteP.P.S. Glad we're agreed that many (most?) of the "evil" things done by "religious adherents" might very well have been done by atheists who tried to impress their in-laws.