Opskrifter:
Forumtråde:
Profiler:

"The problem I have with religion..."

 

Filosofi, Etik & Religion

Sider: << < 4 5 6 7
-Martin-
Forum-indlæg: 291
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Århus
Dato: 26/9 2013 16:49

Jeff,

Det er ligegyldigt, hvor emfasen ligger. Når man sammenligner, skal man have noget at sammenligne med. Og det var så personlige oplysninger fra min profil, du sammenlignede med. Det, synes jeg, er lidt creepy, og i konteksten kunne jeg kun forstå det således, at du delvist byggede dit argument på, hvornår jeg påbegyndte min uddannelse, og at det i parantes antydedes, at jeg skulle være begyndt flere gange.

I forhold til de ting, vi diskuterer, er det hamrende uvedkommende, hvor gammel jeg er, hvornår jeg begyndte mine studier, og hvordan forløbet har været, ligesom det er ligegyldigt, hvad jeg ellers har lavet og hvornår, uanset hvordan disse forhold er relative til dine egne erfaringer og dit CV (eller hvad og hvor meget, vi hver især har læst, og hvornår).

Angående Austin-teksten var mit anliggende bestemt ikke at belære dig om noget (du har jo selv læst den!), men jeg var usikker på, hvorfor du nævnte den; altså om eller hvordan det havde nogen forbindelse til de andre ting, vi diskuterere. Jeg har beskæftiget mig en smule med Austin (sammen med ting af Luhmann og Gofman) og har også henvist til ham i forbindelse med mine kommunikations- og retorikstudier. Så jeg var vel bare nysgerrig. Jeg tilskriver misforståelserne den måske i forvejen lidt ophidsede 'kung fu'-stemning, og jeg synes bare, vi skal glemme det.

As far as I'm concerned, we're cool.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 26/9 2013 19:08 | Indlæg redigeret den: 26/9 2013 19:09

Let's take this step by step. I will spare you the macaroni of many embellishments and über-juissance.

Det, synes jeg, er lidt creepy, og i konteksten kunne jeg kun forstå det således, at du delvist byggede dit argument på, hvornår jeg påbegyndte min uddannelse, og at det i parantes antydedes, at jeg skulle være begyndt flere gange.


I disagree that it is creepy the way you describe it - we choose to put what we put in our profile exactly to anchor some things in our myriad kinds of relationships here, be they debate, lobbyism, dating, whatever. It's up to you what you wish to include, but having done so, it is absolutely nothing unusual for some to synthesize these thing into their discussion. I won't give myriad examples, but I surely could.

I also think it is important to distinguish whether I was building any kind of argument at all. I was not. I was simply saying, "don't patronize it", therefore we cannot really talk about how anything was really importantly premised upon anything else. Yes, for the sentence to work it required me to take certain available facts into consideration, but I don't thinking of things as "an argument" is meaningful here. Not all discussions on VegKon are debates and not all statements that get made in a debate hall get made from the podium.

I also want to pay particular attention to the fact that pursuing various endeavors in life, be they education or anything else, was never the focus of my sentence, and I will add that I personally see this as a positive thing and not something that I would have ever approached with derision. Again, it was my own need to ensure precision that precipitated in that parenthetical.

I forhold til de ting, vi diskuterer, er det hamrende uvedkommende, hvor gammel jeg er, hvornår jeg begyndte mine studier, og hvordan forløbet har været, ligesom det er ligegyldigt, hvad jeg ellers har lavet og hvornår, uanset hvordan disse forhold er relative til dine egne erfaringer og dit CV (eller hvad og hvor meget, vi hver især har læst, og hvornår)


We we are nothing but in complete agreement, as you know, since I have written as much to you - you are essentially echoing what I have previously stated. However, also, as demonstrated this was not the nature of my comment at all and just because I used the pronoun "you" and the word "university" in the same sentence does not make it so. Of course, in theory, there exists some set of conversations in which these things may be relevant, but not any that we have had heretofore.

Angående Austin-teksten var mit anliggende bestemt ikke at belære dig om noget (du har jo selv læst den!), men jeg var usikker på, hvorfor du nævnte den; altså om eller hvordan det havde nogen forbindelse til de andre ting, vi diskuterere. Jeg har beskæftiget mig en smule med Austin (sammen med ting af Luhmann og Gofman) og har også henvist til ham i forbindelse med mine kommunikations- og retorikstudier. Så jeg var vel bare nysgerrig. Jeg tilskriver misforståelserne den måske i forvejen lidt ophidsede 'kung fu'-stemning, og jeg synes bare, vi skal glemme det.


Yes, perhaps the vibe was just extremely bad (worse than its frequent version of bad).
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 27/9 2013 08:09 | Indlæg redigeret den: 28/9 2013 16:49

Now here is what I propose.

This thread was not one I ever really wanted to participate in, as I indicated at my entrance. I only did so because of a particular kind of argument that got made (by you) and I have given my reasons for my interest in it. We have spent a completely silly amount of time arguing about the use of a single word and then compounded that silliness with debate about the use of another term. I feel convinced that you never meant to find yourself defending the version of your position you current are defending. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I have tried several times to coax you into restating your position more robustly, primarily by vacating the strong version of your original wording. Those attempts have failed, for whatever reasons. So, I am going to try to circumvent the problem and also bring the thread back on track, maybe even a better one, since I am not fond of this particular strand of anti-religious apologetics.

I want to try to bring the discussion back to a clarifying statement that you made that perhaps illustrates part of the problem here.

Det er egentlig ret enkelt, og hensigten med min semantiske detour var at præcisere, hvad jeg mener, og hvorfor jeg ikke mener, Johns argumentation holder. No sorcery is necessary when a dollop of logic will do:

Præmis 1: Overtro er irrationel, tro på magi, tro på noget ikke-fysisk og tro på trods af beviser og logik.

Præmis 2: Overtro fører til ulykker.

Præmis 3: Religion er overtro.

Konklusion: Religion fører til ulykker.

Problemet er, at Præmis 3 (og konlusionen) selvsagt kun anerkendes af (nogle) ateister, hvorfor argumentationen ikke kan siges at være almengyldig. Det kan man så kalde relativistisk, men det bringer os ikke videre, når man jo ikke kan forcere en entydig konsensus om begreberne. Religiøse mennesker mener jo typisk ikke, at de er overtroiske.


At first glance, this seems to be a sturdy piece of analysis. I actually agree with nearly every word of it. However, I don't completely agree with the punctuation and most of I argue that it is not constructed with the requisite precision to address the problem - indeed, it is this imprecision that probably lies at the heart of all the rest of the debate. I don't mean that it is sloppy, I mean that it doesn't represent the form of the arguments precisely enough and causes a problem by conflating several different premises in the first premise, one of which must stand as a separate premise.

Here is the original premise again:

Præmis 1: Overtro er irrationel, tro på magi, tro på noget ikke-fysisk og tro på trods af beviser og logik.


As stated above, each of the parts of this premise is actually a premise onto itself. I am really hoping that it is not necessary for me to demonstrate how these statements are neither necessarily mutually exclusive nor coextensive. And this condition of only a dollop of mundane logic plagues such a compound argument that will then be used later in your argument, because when you say,

Religiøse mennesker mener jo typisk ikke, at de er overtroiske


we actually don't know whether you mean one, several or all parts of premise 1, and as I have already argued, it is almost absurd to say that religious people don't think that they believe in something non-physical (nowadays at least) and I would also argue that it is not correct that religious people do not, often quite blatantly, opine that they believe things despite of evidence or lack thereof*. On the other hand, I can see that religious people may not believe that they believe things despite logic or that they believe in magic, since they already make a categorical distinction between the things of their faith and anything else that might be called magic (casting spells, disappearing, etc.).

Technically, we already arrive at a problem with premise 2, or that there can be a reliance on premise 2 when we discuss the religious person's take on this. For although a religious person may possibly agree that superstition qua magic or belief despite logic leads to bad things, they will not agree that belief despite evidence leads to bad things. So already here the conflation you make is highly problematic for making a coherent claim of the kind you try to make later, even before we mix in premise 3.

The largest part of our dispute has already focused on premise 3, but once again, we see that the dispute lies in the compound definition of "superstition", since premise 3 does work acceptably for at least a couple of the components from premise 1 - even for the religious person.

Now in the interest of brevity, I will not perform the analysis on premise 1 at this point to show that each of the components that you have distilled and put into a single statement all have their own premises, their logic of "because" and "given that", etc., but I will assert strongly that this alone is troublesome. Instead, I will move on to just one new assertion: in premise 1 you have mixed in statements of both positive and normative character.

I will expand on this now. Without needing to dwell on long discussions about context and practice, I will simply assert, as I believe you will concur, that statements of the kind "that is irrational" are essentially normative. I would very much love to expound on the topic and I have already alluded to it on another thread (also about religion) in a debate with John, but I feel that I am on safe ground here in terms of having your agreement. On the other hand, statements of the kind "that is despite evidence" is not really normative, and here it is does not matter what the evidence is, what it is evidence of, how credible the evidence is, or any other kind of attribute, the statement is of a positive nature just like "the book is on the table". The statement concerning magic will be left aside, since this is a strange animal here.

So, once again, we see that by the time we get to premise 3, we are already in trouble, since in this simple distillation, we are unable to determine whether it is meant as positive or normative.

However, John does not present his points this way. Even if he does use these kinds of statements in proximity, they don't necessarily interact in the way they are forced to do in your distillation. We can read them (and I do) in a particular meaningful logic, at the end of which is a judgment - this I wholly concede and always have.

I argue that your point should not be that the problem with the persuasive force of John's is that John says "religion is superstition" but rather that John says "religion qua superstition is irrational". From this can still proceed your point about the Protestant and the Hindu, etc.

More importantly, I believe this opens up for the more interesting conversation you intend to have which has to do with just what norms we are talking about.



*As I have already pointed out, the Pauline definition relies precisely on such logic and no argument about literal reading of scripture militates since I can bear witness to numerous sermons given by mainstream (= nonfundamentalist) clergy on exactly this topic, which encourage congregations to faith exactly under this definition. I will unabashedly assert that it is the mainstream Christian definition of faith. Similarly, any appeal to say that this definition did not operate in the preceding centuries before I was born will probably fail, since the definition from Hebrews is rehearsed by Aquinas in Summa Theologica:

Faith is a habit of the mind whereby eternal life is begun in us making the intellect assent to what is non-apparent.


And, of course, we know many fundamentalists believe things despite evidence to the contrary.





-Martin-
Forum-indlæg: 291
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Århus
Dato: 28/9 2013 11:12

Hej Jeff,

Jamen det er jo en helt anden snak! Jeg synes, dit meget fine indlæg fortjener et mere velovervejet svar, end jeg har mulighed for at producere i dag, men jeg vender tilbage, når jeg har bedre tid.

God weekend!
-Martin-
Forum-indlæg: 291
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Århus
Dato: 5/10 2013 12:15

Jeff,

At first glance, this seems to be a sturdy piece of analysis. I actually agree with nearly every word of it. However, I don't completely agree with the punctuation and most of I argue that it is not constructed with the requisite precision to address the problem - indeed, it is this imprecision that probably lies at the heart of all the rest of the debate. I don't mean that it is sloppy, I mean that it doesn't represent the form of the arguments precisely enough and causes a problem by conflating several different premises in the first premise, one of which must stand as a separate premise.


Jeg beklager mit lidt sene svar, men 'det virkelige liv' har krævet min opmærksomhed. Jeg skal prøve at udtrykke mig så klart som muligt.

Min indvending mod trådstarter har vel hele tiden været, at det ikke er så frugtbart at blande det hele sammen i én pærevælling; magi, profeter, varsler, 'det irrationelle' og religion. Jeg mener, af flere årsager, at der er en kvalitativ forskel på det, vi kender som hverdagsovertro, og fx Joseph Ratzingers Regensburg Lecture eller Karl Barths dogmatik, eller på Amos' socialkritik og kausale forestillinger om knuste spejle eller sorte katte.

Jeg forstår ikke religiøse argumenter som taget ud af den blå luft. Religion er tydninger af tilværelsen, hvor man forstår verden og sig selv som villet af en guddommelig magt, og villet på en bestemt måde. Man tolker tilværelsen ud fra (kulturelt betingede) betragtninger om verden og dens beskaffenhed, nationen, folket, kulturen, 'det sociale', familie et cetera.

Religion spiller afgjort en rolle i mange menneskers liv, og jeg vil argumentere for, at det bestemt ikke er nemt at adskille den religiøse sfære fra den verdslige eller politiske sfære, når man forsøger at analysere konflikter eller andre udviklingsprocesser. Jeg mener ikke, man kan tilskrive religion som sådan alverdens ulykker. Jeg mener ikke, troen på en guddommelig magt alene rummer det potentiale. Der skal mere til; penge, real estate eller magtens spil.

Når det er sagt, så finder jeg hele problemfeltet, der vedrører 'det rationelle vs 'det irrationelle' afsindig spændende. Jeg kan varmt anbefale at man læser The Shock of the Old af den britiske historiker David Edgerton.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 5/10 2013 13:42 | Indlæg redigeret den: 5/10 2013 13:47

-Martin-,

Ad
Min indvending mod trådstarter har vel hele tiden været, at det ikke er så frugtbart at blande det hele sammen i én pærevælling; magi, profeter, varsler, 'det irrationelle' og religion. Jeg mener, af flere årsager, at der er en kvalitativ forskel på det, vi kender som hverdagsovertro, og fx Joseph Ratzingers Regensburg Lecture eller Karl Barths dogmatik, eller på Amos' socialkritik og kausale forestillinger om knuste spejle eller sorte katte.


I don't think that we ever disagreed about this, but good that you state what you wish to state clearly.


Ad
Jeg forstår ikke religiøse argumenter som taget ud af den blå luft. Religion er tydninger af tilværelsen, hvor man forstår verden og sig selv som villet af en guddommelig magt, og villet på en bestemt måde.


Yes, and this is precisely what superstition is as well, as least under its "first" definition.

Indeed, I would probably argue that religion is more particular and manifests as a particular collection and organization of such "tydninger" in terms of practices, rituals, narratives, histories, etc. You have argued nearly the very same, I am just inserting "belief in supernatural causation" back into the equation a little more clearly where I have felt you have been quite willing to leave it out quite often.

Ad
Man tolker tilværelsen ud fra (kulturelt betingede) betragtninger om verden og dens beskaffenhed, nationen, folket, kulturen, 'det sociale', familie et cetera.


This speaks to the formation of such manifestations.

Ad
Religion spiller afgjort en rolle i mange menneskers liv, og jeg vil argumentere for, at det bestemt ikke er nemt at adskille den religiøse sfære fra den verdslige eller politiske sfære, når man forsøger at analysere konflikter eller andre udviklingsprocesser. Jeg mener ikke, man kan tilskrive religion som sådan alverdens ulykker. Jeg mener ikke, troen på en guddommelig magt alene rummer det potentiale. Der skal mere til; penge, real estate eller magtens spil.


The first part of the paragraph is a statement of fact. I also do not dispute this, indeed, to a certain degree I have argued the very same: many people really do allow religious beliefs, including those that cover how the physical world works, to influence their views, decisions and behaviors. The statement comes perilously close to proxying for some tacit argument that because so many people belief superstitious things (= supernatural causation of natural events) that we must tread carefully and give it some credence - this is not only a kind of tautology and a logical fallacy, but it is in downright conflict with the scientific and technological advance of civilization (not that I argue that there is any transcendent principle that compels us to such an advance). However, I can see that this is not the force you mean for this sentence, but rather you are giving a kind of empirical background for the complexities of examining conflicts, etc.

I realize that you are not referring to me, but I will also make clear that I have never asserted that religion or belief alone leads to - well, let's call it "evil", just for the fun of it, although I will suggest that religion could very well stand in the way of very viable solutions and resolutions to many of the things that make human lives miserable. In the end, this is exactly what John was arguing in the sentence that started our whole debate and the reason for my entering there: that superstition is in many cases extremely inhibitive and even prohibitive of reasoning that would otherwise be beneficial, and in no case does it enhance such reasoning (by definition), except where it arbitrarily captures a useful heuristic or encapsulates some former bit of reasoning in some ritualized form with added supernatural embellishments.


Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 15/10 2013 22:58 | Indlæg redigeret den: 15/10 2013 22:58

Re: "superstition is in many cases extremely inhibitive and even prohibitive of reasoning that would otherwise be beneficial, and in no case does it enhance such reasoning (by definition),"


The latest research on Aids/HIV might challenge that somewhat, I think... ;)

Good News on AIDS in Africa - Deaths are down, and the heroes of the story aren’t who you think.
Pharmacological treatments in particular are transforming HIV from a death sentence into a manageable, chronic condition, at least for those with access to antiretrovirals. But most of the measured improvements in AIDS in Africa are actually the result of cumulative, widespread behavior change that has led to a reduction in new HIV infections. In other words, the standard narrative is wrong.

The narrative is wrong because it ignores local African responses to AIDS and characterizes religion and religious leaders as part of the problem. We have systematically studied the role of religious leaders in sub-Saharan Africa for about a decade. As a single class of people, local religious leaders sit at the very top of our list of who should receive credit for the behavior changes that have curbed the spread of HIV in Africa.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/03/good_news_on_aids_in_africa_religious_leaders_help_fight_disease.single.html



Religion and AIDS in Africa offers the first comprehensive empirical account of the impact of religion on the AIDS epidemic. Jenny Trinitapoli and Alexander Weinreb draw upon extensive fieldwork in Malawi, including hundreds of interviews with religious leaders and lay people, and survey data from more than 30 other sub-Saharan African countries. Their research confirms the importance of religious narratives and institutions in everything related to AIDS in Africa. Among other key findings, Trinitapoli and Weinreb show that a combination of religious and biomedical approaches to prevention reduces risk most effectively; that a significant minority of religious leaders encourage condom use; that Christian congregations in particular play a crucial role in easing suffering among the sick and their dependents; and that religious spaces in general are vital for disseminating information and developing new strategies for HIV prevention and AIDS mitigation.

Religion and Aids in Africa - Jenny Trinitapoli, Alexander Weinreb
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-AIDS-Africa-Jenny-Trinitapoli/dp/0195335945




Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 16/10 2013 08:57 | Indlæg redigeret den: 16/10 2013 08:58

Earthling*,

What does any of that have to do with superstition, which I have very clearly and repeatedly over many posts given the definition for? I have argued until blue in the face about what can be found in a dictionary, on Wikipedia, and how the word just gets used in secular discussions, and endless stream of examples of which in text and video/audio I could supply rather effortlessly

The article and book you cite refer to religious groups, religious activity and religious narratives, none of which I have ever subsumed into my arguments (about John's argument) concerning superstition. Indeed, I have been more than just a little careful in separating out each distinct thing in its own right and if these things have ever ended up being conflated, then only by confusion in others' posts to which I have then responded (although, I actually do not think it has happened).

For instance, I would even attempt a distinction between a religious narrative and a superstitious narrative, although I do see some difficulty of purging questions of supernatural causation from a lot of religious narratives. Let us take the question of an afterlife and narratives about Heaven, etc. I do not regard these texts as necessarily superstitious since they do not explain the causes of things in the physical Universe, but yet they are highly religious.

I have to say, it seems that the nuance was lost on you. Or else, you are just looking for every occasion to beat the same horse...
Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 16/10 2013 17:16 | Indlæg redigeret den: 16/10 2013 17:23

"beating the same horse..." LOL! Yeah, there is a streak of devilment in me, I guess!!! ;)

I would even attempt a distinction between a religious narrative and a superstitious narrative, although I do see some difficulty of purging questions of supernatural causation from a lot of religious narratives. Let us take the question of an afterlife and narratives about Heaven, etc. I do not regard these texts as necessarily superstitious since they do not explain the causes of things in the physical Universe, but yet they are highly religious.


Fair enough. I understand your general argument on the definition of superstition. Still, the nuance was lost on me somehow here, My post is mostly with regard to sweeping claims about religion(s) to be found on this thread...

It would be interesting to hear your take on the distinction you make between a religious narrative and a superstitious narrative sometime.








Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 16/10 2013 18:19 | Indlæg redigeret den: 16/10 2013 19:17

Well, I thought my take was clear in the explanation I gave in my last post.

I superstitious narrative might be one like we find in the ninth chapter of Genesis:

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”


(New International Version)

Whereas a religious narrative that is not necessarily superstitious might be something like those famous verses from Corinthians I, 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud..."


To be clear, I do not distinguish between these religious and superstitious categories as mutually exclusive. The point is that not all religious texts and beliefs are directly superstitious, although many that are not so are still premised upon superstition or a superstitious point of view. For instance, a very common place process of belief is argued as following some part of a religion simply premised upon a requirement for a cause or purpose for the Universe external to what is described by any understanding of nature - by definition, this is also superstitious. "Since we need to explain what caused the Universe, there must be a god, and if there is a god, then that god is the one described in the New and Old Testaments and worshipped every Sunday...".

Yes, in the end, I also tend to believe what recent theories suggest, that the origin of religions was in superstition. [Deleted some complicated stuff]

However, again, this does not mean that I categorize every religious statement or belief as explicitly superstitious, as I have explained above.
Earthling 2
Forum-indlæg: 633
Område: Andet
Dato: 17/10 2013 18:26 | Indlæg redigeret den: 18/10 2013 16:56

Thanks. I see where you´re coming from now. Interesting examples.

Of course, I would say that while the former example may be called "superstition", and is at least, part-myth, it is also rooted in some event(s), written from the perspective of a primitive people. I consider that it contains a theological message relevant to all people at all times. The other example is not necessarily "superstition", being part of a letter written to a concrete group of people in specific circumstances (ie. early Christians in Corinth). I also consider that it contains a message (though not necessarily theological) relevant to all people at all times.

I understand your distinction and the overlap which you mention. I would also say the "literary gendre" distinctions are important. Are we dealing with "myth"? What do we mean by myth? Are we dealing with letters? Poetry? Laws? Prayers? Imagery? Eye-witness accounts? Whatever... I would also say we need to put those texts in their proper context... To whom were they being written? In what context? Why? What was the intent?

Is that your "god-of-the-gaps" hobby-horse again making an entrance though the back door??? I actually begin the other way around. I think the quote below offers some very sound advice in that regard. I have a very specific starting point from which I work. I can elaborate, if you wish, at the risk of boring you... ;)





Yeah, I´m aware of what "recent theories" suggest about the origins of religion (they have to come up with something to explain God away ;)). I can go along with the role of religion in binding communities together, etc. and even explaining the unknown, up to a point. I know some (eg. Dawkins) talk about religion as evolutionary misfiring. Personally, I don´t think any of these "theories" fully explain religion, or why it should be such a strong feature in humanity. Neither do they explain the development of unprecedented revelations/concepts. I can also elaborate more on that topic but I´m out of time now, and you´re probably not interested anyway...



-Martin-
Forum-indlæg: 291
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Århus
Dato: 20/10 2013 15:00

I must confess I find the notion of any type of steed entering through the back door slightly intimidating. Not that this should be taken as a hippophobic statement in any way. In fact yours truly used to be a somewhat (if not proficient then at least) experienced equestrian.

As much as I admire Bonhoeffer for his intellect and courage, I think one should be very careful not to get dragged into ye merry olde epistemological games of sustained umming and arring that tend to entangle even the greatest of minds in sticky webs of obscurity and confusion. What we know or don't know does not affect the size of the divine compound the way 'the-god-of-the-gabs'-theorists claim. With the 'progress' of science ever new questions arise and we're challenged by the advent of new uncertainties. However, I think most believers as well as most sensible non-believers agree that it would be equally absurd to assert that as a consequence God gets more real estate.

Or perhaps God will soon inhabit our laptops, consoles and phones where He will generate hordes of completely unpredictably shaped Tetriminos for us to organise. Who knows?

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/418445/first-evidence-that-quantum-processes-generate-truly-random-numbers/

BTW, here's an interesting read on science, uncertainty and democracy:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/acting-uncertain-world

Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 20/10 2013 15:35 | Indlæg redigeret den: 20/10 2013 15:51

-Martin-,

Would you explain this sentence here:

What we know or don't know does not affect the size of the divine compound the way 'the-god-of-the-gabs'-theorists claim


I don't quite know of any "theory" that quantifies the size of a divine entity based on some equation over the sum of knowledge.


Please don't cite back any metaphors as if they are meant literally as quantitative statements - that would be embarrassingly inconsistent.

-Martin-
Forum-indlæg: 291
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Århus
Dato: 21/10 2013 14:56

Jeff,

Why would I let you or anyone else dictate how I'm supposed to express my thoughts and opinions? I communicate in any way that I find appropriate and reasonable, thank you very much, and obviously I was discussing beliefs/disbeliefs in spatial terms; sphere, territory, magisteria, property, compound, et cetera, et cetera, and of course you're perfectly aware of this.

I chose my own wording and metaphors, and this particular one isn't at all new. Here it is in reverse:

"The Lord the God is the invisible stranger at the gate of the night, knocking. He is the mysterious life-suggestion, tapping for admission. And the wondrous Victorian age managed to fasten the door so tight, and light up the compound so brilliantly with electric light, that really, there was no outside, it was all in. The unknown became a joke: is still a joke." (author's emphasis).

From Kangaroo by D.H. Lawrence, 1923.

About the whole 'god-of-the-gabs'-thing, I feel I must warn against excessive scientific optimism claiming such a divine retreat. It doesn't work that way. Facts are produced. That's why they're called facts (from Latin: facio - do, make). There's no predetermined, finite quantity of knowledge out there for us to discover. Consequently, what we know or don't know will not seriously affect this uncanny guest, because with each step we take there will always remain other options and other paths that we don't pick, and thus the tapping will continue night after night.

Anyway, this is not a game I really wish to engage in as all this highbrow stuff isn't that relevant in the context of faith. The Christ event redefines the meaning of 'God' and places it in the light of love, or grace, if one is into that sort of thing, and what we have is a narrative of creation and redemption, understood as acts of grace. And that is a completely different story. It's a story that is told and made known, understood and interpreted in the context of the lives people live. Ultimately the source is the known and not the unknown.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 21/10 2013 15:17 | Indlæg redigeret den: 21/10 2013 15:31

First of all, your immediately contentious reply instantly undermined what I was exactly trying to avoid by asking you to avoid turning things that are clearly meant as metaphors into quantitative terms, so that I would not be compelled to force your own previous positions on literal readings, etc. down your throat.

I guess you just wanted to waste a few lines with aggressive verbosity. Oh well...It's up to you what dynamic you want to perpetuate.

You didn't really reply to my question. You have made a statement about what so-called "God-of-the-gaps" theorists "claim".

Just what is it you are saying they claim - where have any truly quantitative claims been made?

Again, what I got back was sermonizing.

-Martin-
Forum-indlæg: 291
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Århus
Dato: 22/10 2013 12:53

Jeff,

Aggressive? Nah, not really, passionate maybe, but of course you can't see me smiling and you can't hear me humming as I type. I'm a mirthful fellow, actually!

I did attempt to answer your question in the paragraph following the quote. The trouble is, I think, that our metaphors are incompatible. There's no 'cognitive retreat' as far as I'm concerned. There's change, absolutely, but as I see it, much Christian theology is perfectly capable of coping with changes in society, politics, science, whatever. However, much stays the same. Like I said, we're still human beings (so far).

So, to put it somewhat bluntly, the god of the disbelievers isn't the God of the believers; the god of the 'god-of-the-gaps'-thinking, the god that many (new) atheists object to, isn't the Christian God. In other words the 'god-of-the-gaps'-god is a straw god. So, my point is that perhaps you and I are simply not discussing the same thing. Have a look at this article:

http://www.aarhus-domkirke.dk/Ateismens_elendighed-147.aspx#888

I predict you'll object to most of the content, and when you do, you'll finally be objecting to the type of theology I (largely) subscribe to and not to some, from my perspective, gullible, unrecognisable and uncanny ghost from the past that we can file under 'superstition'.
Jeff
Forum-indlæg: 1943
Område: Sjælland
Denne bruger har i år '14 doneret penge til at holde Vegetarkontakt.dk kørende.
Dato: 22/10 2013 13:36 | Indlæg redigeret den: 22/10 2013 19:12

-Martin-,

Actually, although I don't agree with most of the content you linked to, I think we are not so far from each other in what you write in the last paragraphs of your post in some ways.

I don't think the "god-of-the-gaps" description is invalid since I think that it very adequately describes a lot of the kinds of apologetics used by various forms of Creationism (including Intelligent Design) and some mainstream apologetics, the most famous of which is probably Anselm's.

What I will agree with is that "explaining a god away" is not the meaningful course for proponents (or more reasonably stated, defenders) of atheism. The problem for me is belief in supernatural causes, etc., per se, including for the moral state of human beings and it real effects. This is where we should focus our attention and not trying to tell believers how much folly a theory of a god is. Put another way, a theist who behaves like a deist will never be of any concern for me and I have no reason to disabuse him of his beliefs in how personal that deity is.

Let me also make a more affirmative statement: I accept that "the god of the 'god-of-the-gaps'-thinking, the god that many (new) atheists object to, isn't the Christian God". However, "god-of-the-gaps" polemic is a modern Christian polemic, of which there are many. And it is one of the most malignant for what I think are very obvious reasons, if only because it literally perpetuates rather lousy and lazy reasoning, but also because of how it keeps many believers of the more heinous strands in sway.

As to the content, I think that some of what Niels Grønkjær writes deserves consideration, however, it is similarly fraught due to how objectionable one might find the theology he describes. Whether you believe it or not, I know Christian theology very well, in a very nuanced fashion and I find various premises objectionable, even when distilled into the "mildest" mysticism. However, we are not going to get very far with the discussion on this thread, so I think we should stick with the big headlines.



-Martin-
Forum-indlæg: 291
Opskrifter: 1
Område: Århus
Dato: 22/10 2013 18:46

Jeff,

Cool!

:)
Sider: << < 4 5 6 7