----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
>
> Before I answer specific questions, I want to clarify something. When I
> described my "type 1" and "type 2" atheists, I didn't mean to assert that
> atheism is rational as such, or that having faith is irrational as such.
> My purpose was to show that opposing faith to reason as though they were
> mutually exclusive belief systems is an oversimplification of human
> nature.
>
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, there is a difference. Fairies and unicorns are empirical
objects.
> > God is a transcendent being. Much more akin to the existence of God is
the
> > existence of truth, good, human dignity, human rights, etc., as anything
> > more than arbitrary cultural constructs.
>
> I'm not sure that fairies and unicorns are just empirical objects. These
> two examples aren't very good because we're so accustomed to thinking of
> them as staples of fiction rather than genuine myth, so better examples
> might things like the Olympian or Celtic gods, nature spirits of animistic
> religions, and so on. What reason can be produced to show that I should
> worship Christ rather than Apollo? Better yet, what reason could I
> produce for a Greek living in 1000 BCE that he should worship Yahweh
> rather than Apollo or Zeus?
Well, I'll certainly agree that arguments about facts and the relative power
demonstrated by Yahweh vs. Apollo would not be the foundation of the
difference. But, I think that Christ vs. Zeus is a wonderful example,
because it actually happened. Historically, one can see the many good
reasons for Christianity overtaking a neo-Greek religion as the dominating
religion of the Roman Empire.
Two areas tend to stand out: ethics and an understanding of the meaning of
one's own life. If one looks to the Greek Gods, or the Romanized version of
them, one sees "its whatever you can get away with" in many of the myths.
One does not see the Greek and Roman gods acting morally. Many times there
are repercussions, but I have a hard time believing that the Greek and
Roman Gods were to be the source of ethics.
As far as personal meaning: it was defined in terms of the power and wealth
one had in society. In such a system, few people's lives meant much of
anything. The idea that the divine was personified in the present emperor
gives a feel for that viewpoint. Indeed, at the time, there was a great
deal of skepticism concerning the Greek and Roman gods. Look at Plato and
Aristotle, and see how often they refer to the gods in developing their
systems.
Contrast that with the message of early Christianity. Each and every one of
us is made in the image of the divine. "In Christ there is no male nor
female, Greek nor Jew, slave nor free." People had meaning that was so
important to them that they were willing to die before they would worship
the emperor in a perfunctory manner once a year. (BTW, the Jews were
exempted from this worship.).
>I'm not sure there are any reasons that wouldn't fall in the category of
artistic fancy rather than >argument by the "facts," all of which would
presumably be in dispute.
Its not a question of facts, its a question of how well
> I think that the language of fairies and elves and mythic beings probably
> points to a transcencance and a source of values in a manner very similar
> to the languages of Christianity and Hinduism, say. The latter may be
> more theologically sophisticated, but are no more "transcendent" in their
> function.
>
Have you read those stories? Think of the difference between the creation
story in Genesis and Gilgimesh (sp) for example. In one, the creation of
human beings is a conscious final act of creation, we are created in God's
image and likeness. In the other, humans came to exist as an accidental
byproduct of a war between the gods. What does each say about one's self
worth?
> But, where I feel no urge to believe in Apollo, I do feel an urge to
> believe in Christ thanks to my upbringing. I'd be very hard put, however,
> to better justify a belief in Christ than a belief in Apollo in anything
> approaching factual terms.
>
>
> I'm not sure my "type 1" or casual atheist really requires that
> presupposition. It may just be that the individual wasn't brought up in
> church and as a consequence feels no need to adopt the beliefs involved
> in religion. Having no need, he doesn't search for reasons, and the
> reasons presented by others may never be sufficient to persuade him.
So, the meaning of life is what? The historical dialectic, he who dies with
the most toys wins, nationalism? Does life have no meaning whatsoever?
What gives meaning to your life, and what do you base that on?
I'm sure that many would start off with family and friends. But, when
pushed, the atheists that I admire go on to talk about regard for other
human beings. As with the faith statement "the humanist manifesto", many go
on to discuss the importance of other human beings. The atheists I don't
respect talk about "looking out for number 1" and "I care for my immediate
family, but I have no obligation at all to the rest of the world. Altruism
is either evil or at best misguided."
Where do you weight in on this, if that's not too pointed a question? Is our
worth something we must prove every day? Are we only as good as what we've
done lately, or what we can do tomorrow? Or, do we each have an intrinsic
value that cannot be undone by a lost job, a divorce, a stroke, etc?
I would postulate that at some point in most people's lives the question
"what's it all about." comes up. Religion adresses that question, as do
other belief systems. Science does not.
> In other words, disbelieving in god(s) doesn't require the empirical
> presupposition. All it really requires is the assumption that the burden
> of proof is on the believer/persuader, just as it would be for the
> existence of fairies or for cold fusion.
>
Again, you are crossing the transcendental and empirical. Cold fusion has
absolutely no meaning outside of the world of phenomenon. The present day
meaning of fairies is from our understanding of a variety of literature,
from Shakespeare to the present day. I don't doubt that someone could point
out their origin in ancient religions, but that's not what one thinks of
now.
Let me try a simple rule for understanding what's transcendental.
Eliminate anything that has empirical content, and you will be left with
what is transcendental. Meaning, good, evil, right, wrong, are all
transcendental. There is no means to empirically deduce those.
There are those that argue that the empirical is all there is. If its not
proven by evidence of the senses, it is not real. My argument is that I
cannot disprove that, but anyone who states that needs to agree to chuck a
lot of stuff most atheists seem unwilling to chuck. Then, the question
becomes, why this understanding and faith instead of that.
> True enough. On the other hand, rationality does allow us to apply
> certain kinds of rules of thumb. If the world has a thousand religions,
> all proclaiming the others false, then it might be reasonable to conclude
> that none are true (or that all are true in a general sense, but none in
> their particulars).
Well, in reality, the world has a few great traditions: the people of the
book (Jewish, Christian, Islam), Hindu/Buddhist, and the Taoism. I'd agree
that it would be rather presumptuous of me to proclaim my particular version
of Christianity "God's own way" and all others false.
Indeed, if you look at the official teaching of the Catholic church, its not
really a matter of the other religions being false, but "lesser
understandings." Hindus worship the same God as Catholics, but the official
Catholic church questions their discernment on a number of theological
issues. No doubt, the reverse is true.
I'll agree that is impossible to devise an experiment to find the best
religion. Faith definately needs to be involved. But, that doesn't mean
there isn't a truth. That its just as good to choose Afganastan's
interpretation of Islam as it is to have Mother Theresa's view of
Catholicism. It means that all of our discernment is limited and that we
must all strive to improve our discernment.
So, from that standpoint, I can look at the old Babylonian religions and see
little that's appealing. I can look at Buddhist works and find things that
are inspiring.
Dan M.
