I sent in a column to the Alligator, but they redacted it to a letter, published today. I want to put the whole column below the fold so that you can read it, because they kind of mangled some of my sentences. For example, Joey wrote me and asked, "You think I talk to you more than anyone else?" I obviously meant (and said in the column) only that he probably talks to me more than any other skeptic out in the Turlington Plaza while he's holding a sign. Anyway, read on to see for yourself:
I want to respond to Todd Portnowitz's column, and some of the reactions it provoked. Ask Joey Johnsen, the centerpiece campus preacher in Todd's column, which individual in Turlington he dialogues the most with, and he will likely answer an atheist who heads up a campus freethought group. Ask him if this individual was always respectful and polite, then see if he’ll concede that this individual appealed solely to logic, evidence and reason, in an attempt to get Joey to defend the assertions that he carries on his signs.
Ask him who that person is, and he'll tell you it was me.
Joey's defense never came; the end result of the conversations, after numerous email exchanges and hours of dialogue, was an incessant reversion to Prov. 3:5-6, a verse that tells us to abandon the pursuit of understanding and "lean on God" through faith. Just believe. You see, Joey cannot, in the end, defend his beliefs -- he can only assert them. He isn't interested in debating the veracity of his claims, only of having people accept them, under threat of damnation.
Is that what we came here for? Christine Miller admits, "If Johnsen is preaching Christianity through fear, in other words, then so is the Bible itself." Exactly. Bravo for your honesty. I wish more Christians were so bold as to admit this. And that is why Joey, Christine, and the rest of our community need to do some serious contemplation over the following quotation by R.G. Ingersoll: "Intellectual liberty is the air of the soul, the sunshine of the mind and without it, the world is a prison, the Universe is a dungeon."
That is why I came to UF -- not to be told I should fear using my mind, and shut it down in the service of invisible magic Beings (or at least how such priests tell me to serve Them), but to be helped in freeing it from fear and ignorance. Thomas Aquinas may be onto something, “If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections--if he has any--against faith.” He admits this directly after quoting Gregory the Great, “faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience.” The problem for Joey (and other religionists) is that human reason reaches far deeper than they would like to know, and gives us courage, rather than fear.
If Joey and those like him only have dogma to offer, let them continue to do so, because we now know that such empty motions are to be expected from a framework of fear based on ancient superstitions, myth and lore. If they (or anyone else) has more to offer, then “come, let us reason together.” (Isa 1:18)
(475 words)
See more on Joey Johnsen here.
I got a hard-on while reading that. HOOP YEAH!!!
ReplyDeleteI am interested in what you meant by those quotes by Thomas Aquinas and Gregory the Great. I'm not grasping the point entirely, so could you say more?
ReplyDeleteBoth of them are admitting that their ability to defend the Christian worldview is hinged upon the skeptics' acceptance of divine revelation, and that faith is all that is left to discuss. Gregory points out that we only need to invoke faith (of the sort that would substantiate divine revelation) when reason fails to be adequate. My point is that Joey wanted me to abandon reason and rely upon faith by referring to Prov 3:5-6 over and over. Thus, he hit the same wall that Aquinas and Gregory did.
ReplyDeleteI have no good reason to accept his assertions that the Bible is inspired, and that I ought to have faith in it.
Therefore, the discussion is over before it begins: "believe, or else".
The problem is, every religion can, and sometimes they do, take this same stance. It just doesn't equal argument. It doesn't equal defending your premises.
The premise Joey (and others) rely upon is the dogmatic acceptance of divine revelation, and in particular, that of the Bible. From there, their entire system is hinged on the veracity of that premise -- everything they think rises and falls with the strength (or weakness) of it.
I think you may be accusing Joey and others of trying to enforce "blind faith", (just believe because that's all I have to say about that..). Is that correct? I certainly wouldn't say that Thomas Aquinas was a propenent of blind faith. If you are familiar with him then you must be familiar with his arguments for the existence of God. He promoted reason and faith but a faith that comes from reason and experience. Not to say that he saw limitations in reason. In short he said it takes a lot of time and effort and sometimes its best to go on faith for the person who's not equipped to engage in philosophy. I'm sure that when I take the bus to campus I have faith it will get me there based on previous experience. So I can see how you're right that everyone believes things based on premises, but that can be said of any worldview. Perhaps what that preacher may have been trying to imply is that sometimes it's hard to accept things even when there is probable evidence to support it, and then they just need to take that step of blind faith. That might be where you're coming from.
ReplyDelete_J
I am quite familiar with Aquinas "five ways of knowing" that God exists, and etc., so I am not accusing him of being a fideist.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Aquinas understood that these "ways", or "proofs" as they're sometimes mistranslated, are very general, and might apply to any sort of God. Therefore, in order to arrive at the conclusion of the Christian's God, he knew (and others) that it required acceptance of divine revelation in the form of the Bible. That is the integral part of their ability to convince that Christianity, in the form of the doctrines that were held by Aquinas and others like him, followed from their premises -- one of those premises has to be the acceptance of the Bible as God's Word.
You said:
I'm sure that when I take the bus to campus I have faith it will get me there based on previous experience.
Ah, but see, you admit that you are justified in this belief (or faith) via induction. I am much more willing to grant you the premise that induction justifies belief than whatever excuses one gives that God spoke to all these ancient peoples (most of whom are anonymous and we've only gotten names attached to their books out of convention) in a "revelatory" way, when these messages are quite unreasonable in many respects.
The theist must substantiate such a claim. How do they know that the Bible is God's revelation to all of humanity?
How many points can I bring up to dismiss that as an unreasonable conclusion? Many. From the moral horrors recorded therein, the failed promises to the Jews, the absolute lack of evidence of Gen 1-11, the Exodus, the era of Solomon and David as recorded...and contrariwise evidence...
We can go on and on all day. The point is, I have many strong reasons to reject the premise that the Bible is God's Word.
Joey told me he takes it on faith, and that God has shown things to him to substantiate that. Perhaps. While I cannot disprove a subjective experience, I can only rely upon those things I know and have experienced personally -- all of which lead me to conclude that the premise he holds is false.
The Bible is an ancient book, of unknown origins, with unknown numbers of revisions, written by very human authors who themselves relied on legend and lore to compose the stories we find. Parts of the book are historically accurate. So are parts of Homer's Odyssey. So are parts of the Qur'an.
Parts of the book contain good moral teachings. Most of what they contain had already been elaborated at much further length by learned persons of the ancient world. When I read Confucius, I see "do unto others". When I read the Jewish version, it disregards "others" into the category of 1) neighbor (fellow Jew), and 2) stranger/alien (non-Jew). This is but one of many examples of the inferior morality taught in the Bible.
Balance the "good" against the obvious "bad" and what you find is absolutely no good reason to accept the assertion that the Bible is divinely inspired, and many good reasons to reject that premise.
You said:
Perhaps what that preacher may have been trying to imply is that sometimes it's hard to accept things even when there is probable evidence to support it, and then they just need to take that step of blind faith.
But if there was good evidence to justify this premise, I wouldn't have to take "a step of blind faith" at all.
Joey and others take on faith what I do not. My "faiths" are justified by induction and reason, down to my very most basic presuppositions, which are, admittedly, not justified at all. But, these include:
i) trusting my senses to reliably report the external world to me
ii) accepting the validity of logic
iii) accepting moral realism
These things are very basic, and no preacher I've encountered disagrees with my premises -- what they disagree with is how I justify rejecting theirs, or how I justify/explain my motivation to be moral, etc.
Again, as I said above:
The premise Joey (and others) rely upon is the dogmatic acceptance of divine revelation, and in particular, that of the Bible. From there, their entire system is hinged on the veracity of that premise -- everything they think rises and falls with the strength (or weakness) of it.
I like where this conversation is going and I'm hoping we can continue. I haven't been able to devote time to writing a response because of classes but hopefully I can get some more time to respond back soon. Just a few quick things to say Daniel, I'd have to say I find your criticisms of things in the Bible unwarranted. There are many different Christian camps that have justified the writings in Genesis with what good science has shown about the Earth. I'm not sure what you meant about David and Solomon, perhaps that their writings are anachronistic? If you could be more specific about those things and about failed promises to the Jews, as Lumbergh from Office Space would say, that would be great. While I agree with you that ultimately the Christian worldview rests on the Bible as a source of authority and revelation, I'd have to point out that most if not all Christians hold to the idea that divine revelation is also given through general revelation in things like logic, morality and the natural world. So even in antiquity when there was no Bible people still had the revelation that there existed a God. And using induction and logic people could determine that there existed more than just the material realm. I'm curious about that lecture on the evolution of morality. If you attended it would you mind giving me a brief overview about it?
ReplyDelete_Jake
Jake,
ReplyDeleteI like where this conversation is going and I'm hoping we can continue.
I felt I answered you adequately, but I will try to respond to further questions as time allows.
I haven't been able to devote time to writing a response because of classes but hopefully I can get some more time to respond back soon.
I know the feeling.
Just a few quick things to say Daniel, I'd have to say I find your criticisms of things in the Bible unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Perhaps you mean, "Ultimately false," but surely you don't mean there aren't some actual justifications for what I said?
There are many different Christian camps that have justified the writings in Genesis with what good science has shown about the Earth.
First, qualify "good".
I'd love to read them. I would love to read how science has justified Genesis 1:11-19, which claims that the sun and moon and stars were all created on Day 4 -- four days after the earth was created, and the day after plants were created. (Must've been pretty cold and dark on those poor plants, around -400F or so). I'd love to read that. Also, I suggest you look at this creationist document, which contrasts the order of events in Genesis to science, to see the disparity between a plain reading of Genesis and the conclusions of modern science.
I'm not sure what you meant about David and Solomon, perhaps that their writings are anachronistic?
See the review of counterfactual archeological evidence for the Davidic and Solmonic Kingdom. The authors are hardly "liberal".
If you could be more specific about those things and about failed promises to the Jews, as Lumbergh from Office Space would say, that would be great.
A few off the top of my head:
1) In Joshua, he said that God would, "without fail", drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). Didn't happen (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
2) Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezk. 29:10-14). Nada.
3) Ezekiel also said that Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (Ezk. 29:19-20). Nope.
If you want more, and there are lots more, I would probably start with these short examples, then go here and work my way through the long list.
While I agree with you that ultimately the Christian worldview rests on the Bible as a source of authority and revelation, I'd have to point out that most if not all Christians hold to the idea that divine revelation is also given through general revelation in things like logic, morality and the natural world.
Those sorts of arguments do nothing to support the Christian conception of God, nor the historical claims of Christianity. They would, at best, support the idea that a God existed. But the Christian God? I'd love to hear your argument(s).
So even in antiquity when there was no Bible people still had the revelation that there existed a God.
People believed in gods, actually, until much later in history, with the exception of Zoroastrianism...
But of course, they also believed the earth was flat and that monsters lived at the edge of the seas, etc. So what? People have always believed many things, that doesn't mean that they're true.
And using induction and logic people could determine that there existed more than just the material realm.
I would like to hear more along this vein.
Are you referring to transcendental arguments? Eg are you saying that logic and morality cannot be explained without God's existence? Perhaps you should see this recent talk by Prof. Witmer (note the comments section also).
I'm curious about that lecture on the evolution of morality. If you attended it would you mind giving me a brief overview about it?
I didn't get to attend it. However, I am sure that the mention of kin altruism/empathy as a survival feature came up, as it relates directly to socialization, and socialization confers higher survival rates and longer life expectancy among mammals.
Three very recent books I've heard are worth looking into:
1) Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved
2) Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong
3) The Altruism Equation: Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness
There is a plethora of literature on this topic. Here's a sampling. So the onus is on you to read more if you want to know more, I suppose.
Thanks for the comments.
Best regards,
D
Cool. I will take a look at this and get back to you later this week. Incidentally, there will be a lecture tomorrow at 8pm on the canon of the New Testament and how it came to be. In case you might be interested in hearing it it will be at the Christian Study Center which is across from Library West, on 2nd Ave and 16th Street I believe.
ReplyDelete-J