Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 - 19:54 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

- -
One Score And Six

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin,
would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
 - Annie Dillard


I'm twenty-six and an old man, and over the hill. And I realised that I can't quite bear sunsets.

I now carry on from the previous post, and note that the subheading may seem... obscure; Some reason for it could be revealed by the end, as a reward for those readers who manage to get there. Then again, perhaps not.


I'm Pregnant

Here, I return to Dawkins, whose works I have recently covered in more detail. That is not to say that I completely agree with all of his opinions, however. Take this extract from the preface of The Blind Watchmaker:

"A lawyer or a politician is paid to exercise his passion and his persuasion on behalf of a client or a cause in which he may not privately believe. I have never done this and I never shall. I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right."

So far so good, but...

"I was placed next to a young woman who had made a relatively powerful speech in favour of creationism. She clearly couldn't be a creationist, so I asked her to tell me honestly why she had done it. She freely admitted that she was simply practising her debating skills, and found it more challenging to advocate a position in which she did not believe.

Apparently it is common practice in university debating societies for speakers simply to be told on which side they are to speak. Their own beliefs don't come into it. I had come a long way to perform the disagreeable task of public speaking, because I believed in the truth of the motion that I had been asked to propose. When I discovered that members of the society were using the motion as a vehicle for playing arguing games, I resolved to decline future invitations from debating societies that encourage insincere advocacy on issues where scientific truth is at stake."

 I may not be a huge fan of formal debate, but in this I think that it is almost always useful to understand where both sides are coming from. It might be said that one cannot not seriously argue for, say, alchemy versus chemistry, but the thing is that there is nothing is particularly wrong with taking the side of medieval alchemy - any reasonable audience would presumably be convinced that alchemy does not have a leg to stand on, through no fault of its proponent; And if the audience is not reasonable, why hold a debate at all?

And of course, that young woman might very well be a lawyer-in-training, in which case it is her job after all.

In a fit of pique, I resolved to read some more religious apologists, among them Letter from a Christian Citizen, a riposte to Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. The first thirty-odd pages are available as a free preview, and in them Douglas Wilson argues that:
  • Christians are ashamed of badly-behaved Christians
  • But being a (nihilist) atheist, why is there a reason to be "nice" at all? If atheism is true, nobody should care, but clearly Harris cares
  • What gives Harris the right to state that his secular values ought to be imposed over religious ones?
  • Why, despite secular authorities controlling most of education for over 150 years, does religion still exist?
  • Why does Harris claim that glue is so difficult that it had to be invented, while complicated stuff like the ankle and great white sharks did not need an inventor (i.e. God)?
  • The argument that the way Christians and Muslims view each other is not the same as how atheists view each of them - Wilson argues that if the three of them saw a trout in a bowl of punch, the Christian and Muslim would at least agree that someone put it there, and differ at most on who and why; while the atheist would say that it happened naturally, which is ridiculous as bumping ice cubes together for very long makes nothing of the sort happen.
  • Harris brings up "laws and customs involving cultures thousands of years away from us, and use(s) the outlandish aspects of these customs to frighten... the (Biblical) law actually represents... an amelioration of an existing custom..."
  • Atheism does not have any basis for consistently condemning slavery, or in fact anything - and in fact the U.S. Constitution reads "...Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted...", showing that modern-day slavery still exists anyhow, as the two millions prisoners in the U.S. are essentially slaves
The final point here is an interesting angle on things, and the first point is well-received, but most of the rest cut little ice - the atheist-nihilist connection is a bit tired, the imposition of secular vs religious values is wholly reasonable where backed up by facts (the last I know, calling church elders to pray over a desperately sick kid and anoint him with oil [James 5:14] instead of taking him to a [possibly atheist] medical doctor is a child neglect offence, and rightly so), it is evident that Wilson doesn't quite understand evolution, and the ancient laws and customs are still in a book that is held up as inerrant, so...


Affably modest (Source: Wikipedia)
Full text available as a PDF file


Mindful that a preview sample might not be complete enough to draw conclusions on, I turned to Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, by reputation one of the most popular contemporary contentions for the creed.

It is here that I have to apologize to any Christian readers, if it appears that I have been unfairly picking on their religion - it is simply that I have found relevant material on Christianity easiest to access online, and thus consider myself more well-acquainted with it, than other religions. It is also the case that I have found Christians, as a whole, reasonably fair-minded folk, who are usually happy to agree to disagree, or in the very worst event simply cast asperations on my immortal soul, and are not known to threaten actual physical violence, a sentiment which I greatly appreciate.

Thus, while I deal with Christian apologetics here, it often occurs that much of the same applies to other religions, the recognizance of which is left as an exercise to the dedicated reader.

Before reading the book, it is instructive to read the man; Lewis was born into the faith, but became an atheist at fifteen (his freedom to do so speaks well of the faith, by the way). After a number of experiences, he converted to theism at about thirty-one years of age, and thereupon back to Christianity proper, two years later.

An Anglican, to be specific, Lewis states from the outset that his work would not steer towards any one denomination; This is a little suspicious if one considers the strife that has often arisen between different factions (notably Catholics and Protestants in recent times), but it would be ungenerous not to let Lewis continue on to his main thesis which concerns, as far as I can understand, the essential part of Christianity.

On this point, Lewis anticipates the question of "who is a Christian", and (not very helpfully I suppose) defines it for now as someone who "accepts the Christian doctrine". He then likens his basic, "mere", Christianity as a waiting-hall, from which one should proceed to an actual denomination; But why he downplays his welcoming hall thus, free of unclaimed baggage as it is, I never did figure out.

The next section, Book I, then argues for theism as opposed to going straight to Christianity, mirroring his own journey. The major argument is that from morality, in which he claims that a universal Law of Human Nature (later referred to as the conscience) exists.

It is telling that the very first quote used to illustrate this law is "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?", which is just one of the many possible restatements of the Golden Rule, which as its Wikipedia article shows, is honoured by all major religions (and likely the minor ones too). Lewis himself acknowledges as much, and states that the morals of ancient cultures are without exception remarkably similar to our modern ones, giving the example that vices like cowardice and ungratefulness were never prized. Therefore, Lewis says, there is a perfect and timeless Moral Law.

I have discussed objective morality briefly in the previous post, but here I will respond specifically to the examples Lewis employed. For a drowning man, he says, while a basal herd instinct might prompt us to want to save the man, and a selfish self-preservative instinct to ignore him, the Moral Law would compel us to save him (presumably if we actually have the ability to do so).

Simple enough, maybe. Now, on to another example, that of a man who claims the right to a seat because he was there first. First come first seated is probably quite universal - but consider if there is a lady standing by. Should the man do the chivalrous thing and offer the seat, and risk the lady taking the gesture as detestably patronizing, given that the man did not offer the seat to several men before her?

As Lewis would later say, this then might be a matter of custom, and not of immutable Moral Law, so either act might or might not turn out to be appropriate. Very well. Then on to yet another example: "Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked."

Firstly, it seems that Lewis agrees that having multiple wives, depending on the circumstances, would fall well within Moral Law. But if four (which seems like a calculated sop to some other religion), why not four hundred? Potentates in many cultures throughout history have had large harems, with King Solomon clocking in at seven hundred (though it did him no good, and might pour doubt on his judgement, or simply go to show that even God-gifted wisdom [Kings 3:9-12] is no match for 700 assorted women; Still a 700-fold improvement over Adam, though) In many of these cases, I see no material difference between a stupidly large number and more or less having any desired woman.


And at least, in the underworld, they don't spend two hours on make-up for each dinner reservation (Poster source: Costumzee.com)


Secondly, as a longstanding member of the male species, I find it slightly hard to believe that a significant proportion of men would actually agree on not having any particular woman one liked (and was in a position to take it from there, of course). True, there are exceptions - doing a mate's wife or girlfriend is universally considered bad form - but other than that, I would seriously doubt that the majority of men, especially if unattached, would pass up the chance to get to know an enthusiastic and attractive girl in the sack, unless they had iron-clad convictions (like Lewis, undoubtedly), or were convincingly gay.

Note also that the Moral Law is in direct contradiction with Deu. 17:17 here, though in general the Bible can't be said to be too big on women's rights. Just one example, from Deu. 22:28 - although it might not be encouraged, it seems that one can lawfully take a virgin to wife by raping her and then paying her father fifty shekels of silver, which has been calculated to be about US$140 in today's money, and the unfortunate girl would have to suck it up whether she likes it or not. But who am I to question a holy book?

As one goes on, one suspects that Lewis is unconsciously extending his own brand of personal conscience, magnanimously and optimistically, to the entire world - going back to homosexuality, significant percentages of cultures either accepted or did not proscribe it, not least among the ancient Greeks and Romans, which Lewis was no doubt aware of (he had a First in Greats from Oxford). So then, is the act again possibly within the Moral Law?

Here lies an observation: If there is indeed a universal Moral Law, then it must by necessity be extremely watered-down and flexible to accommodate everybody, bar obvious psychopaths; We should then be left with something like the Golden Rule, despite the fact that it is obvious that humans have wildly differing preferences, many of which are somehow still strongly regarded as "immoral" to other peoples.

We may also note that very many "lesser" animals also almost never hurt or kill their own kind (especially when compared to humans), cooperate, and even sacrifice themselves for others, among a host of possible virtues. Does this then indicate that they all subscribe to a spiritual morality?

Otherwise, there is a need to draw boundaries and claim that the behaviours of some people are indisputably evil, and that they are either acting in defiance of their conscience, or have the wrong sort of conscience; But the more this is done, the harder it is to believe that the Moral Law is universal. One time-honoured solution is to define one's own tribe as the ones with the correct conscience, and regrettably set about eradicating other peoples with the wrong sort of conscience, which is straightforward but hardly too impressive.


There can be *no question at all* that the left is sinister
(Source: Bizarroartist)


And a few more objections to specific assertions:

"If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe..." - God was never especially shy about sending miraculous and material signals of fact, according to many religious traditions, including but hardly limited to parting seas, cloning food and levitation. N.B. One explanation is that God got tired of this, and now insists that only believing in things without solid proof makes for a sufficiently strong faith.

"And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back." - the part on humanity making a mistake is well understandable, given that the book was produced during the horror that was the Second World War.

But there are two objections. The first is that it is likely that very many of the soldiers and citizens on the Axis side sincerely thought that God was behind them, not much less than those on the Allied side did; It is clear that, as defined, war itself is not necessarily against Moral Law, and it is far from clear that a dearth of morality was what led to the war (and other ills of the time).

The second is, go back to where and what? The centuries immediately after the Protestant Reformation, which had its share of revolutions and internecine wars? The Dark Ages, when the Catholic church held sway over Western civilization instigating holy wars, and Lewis and his writings would have hardly been welcome? The time of Jesus, though it is well-documented in holy works and it is not as if many actually follow his deeds? The time of the Israelites, when Lewis and countless others would not even have been chosen, and which of course had war, war, war? All the way back to Eden?

Here I refer to a few more possible insights on Book I, and move on to Book II, which seeks to show that of all the known Gods, the Christian God is the only possible one. For my money, it is none too convincing and the book might well have been entitled Mere Divinity.

For instance, Lewis claims that the first big division between religions is between those that claim God is beyond good and evil (giving Hinduism as an example), and those that assert that God is definitely good (note no mention of godless Buddhists here). To show how ludicrous the Pantheist Hindu belief is, he poo-poohs their claim that a cancer, or a slum, is also part of God, as it is obviously ridiculous that things that are really bad can be a part of God, who must be really good.

I am torn whether to mention the countless Christian murmurs of "it's God's will" and "God's ways are mysterious" at the very same cancer, since I am not sure of the distinction between a cancer that is part of God, and a cancer that God could assuredly prevent or cure without any difficulty, but chose not to; In any case, going back to the universal Moral Law, I am certainly unsure that to see God in every facet of Creation is necessarily naturally immoral. Ascribing earthquakes to not-God (since God is perfectly good, remember?) is also pretty far from my personal conscience (alright, so that was a low blow, if not an entirely unwarranted one).

Some of Lewis' other arguments for Christianity could likewise as well be for any other religion: one of them essentially goes, reality is complicated and odd; Christianity is also complicated and odd. Therefore, Christianity is more likely to be true.

Yet another penchant of Lewis is for striking questionable dilemmas - one of them goes, the universe has a lot that is obviously bad and apparently meaningless, but somehow has self-aware humans. Therefore, (pulls bunny out of hat) either Christianity or Dualism must be the case. This is an enormous leap that somehow passes right over Deists and materialist philosophers, to name but two entirely plausible options.

The more famous example would be the celebrated "Lunatic, Liar or Lord" trilemma (which incidentally is rejected by at least some modern Christian apologetics like William Lane Craig). Just one possible alternative: intuitively, under Moral Law, there is nothing especially wrong with doing good acts under sincerely believed premises that turn out to be false, or lying for a (much) greater good - so would Jesus not remain a great human teacher if he sincerely believed that he was begotten of God (lunatic), or saw the decay of his society and figured this was the only way to improve it (liar)?

[N.B. It can be noted that sincerely believing that one is begotten of God is actually not that far off from sincerely believing that one receives individual instruction from God, which is far from uncommon among the religious.]

Book III covers particular virtues, beginning with the four Cardinal virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude. To me, this does not lend particular support to any religion either - One might say that Christians are prudent, but it is hard to recognize that Buddhists are less so; One might say that the Jewish are temperate, but it is hard to claim that Hindus are less so; One might say that Muslims are just, but it is hard to be certain that Jains are less so; One might say that Sikhs have fortitude, but it is hard to justify that Pastafarians are less so, and so on.

In short, Lewis at no time makes a convincing case that any virtue is exclusive or manifests itself in any religion to a significantly greater degree than others, and thus does not quite qualify his initial assertion that Christianity is right, and the others wrong to a certain extent.

It seems that he does at least recognize this quandary, and later he ingeniously claims that "there are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it", using a merciful Buddhist for illustration. Wow.

Actually, this is an extremely enlightened realisation on Lewis' part, all the more pity that it is not emphasized more strongly by his supporters. (However, I would wonder what Lewis might think if a Buddhist apologist wrote kindly that there are people in other religions who happen to follow many of Buddha's precepts, and are therefore actually also Buddhists without realising it, and then cited Lewis as a shining example of a Buddhist)

A final curiosity on the book is the statement that "a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line", used to refute atheism, since a straight line (i.e. a absolute and perfect Moral Law) does not exist, but men nevertheless can point out crooked lines (i.e. bad deeds). Then, such a perfect Law could only have been planted by a perfect Being.

This did not sound completely convincing to me, and after some thought I came up with this analogy: Consider girls. Now, it is true that some girls are more beautiful than others (which does not have any connection to their character, of course). It is not very hard to find two girls who, when placed side by side, nearly all men (and women) would agree that one was clearly more beautiful than the other.

However, from this observation, one does not claim that a girl who is universally the most beautiful, for all time and space, should necessarily exist, in either fact or fiction; Also, it is far from impossible to find two girls who, when placed side by side, have half of the people preferring one and half the other, or to find a girl whom half of the people would rate as beautiful, and the other half as not. Now let each girl represent a moral imperative, and you may see where I am going here. Okay, this borrows slightly from Plato's Theory of Forms.


So now for the overall summary: Lewis argues passionately that conscience is universal, and that it must lead to Christianity. Diplomatically, he does not try to settle the differences between different denominations of Christianity, and moreover posits that some of the faithful of other religions are, to all intents and purposes, Christians.

On these points I find it hard to find fault, some logical leaps of faith notwithstanding. If a Christian quits his job and flies to Haiti to help the needy, I would salute him. If he is fair and judicious in his dealings I would respect him. If he is generous and joyful I would admire him. If he is kind and forgiving I would emulate him.

If a Christian feels that all who do good by his fellow men are in a way, Christian, I would support him. If he sincerely thinks that his way is the best of all ways, I would humour him. If he insists that his way is the only possible way, I would doubt him. If he questions the worth of other ways, I would question him.

If a Christian asserts that there is only for him or against him, I would disagree with him. If he would seek to impose his faith upon others, I would oppose him. If he maintains that those who do not believe as he does will go to hell, I would pity him. For it might well be that God, if He exists, is far more merciful than he thinks.


In the final section to come, I explore an alternative.



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (17) - trackback url


Next: A Knight of Infinite Resignation


Related Posts:
Takeoff Imminent
Increasing Muggosity
Free Awesomeness
Mega Bonus Post
Point and Counterpoint
Back to top




17 trackbacks

Trackback by Adderall side effects.
Adderall. - Adderall xr. Adderall abuse. Adderall and migraines. Adderall. Buy adderall no prescription. No pres...


September 16, 2010 - 21:33 SGT     
Trackback by Hydrocodone.
I can t quit taking hydrocodone while pregnant. - Hydrocodone. Hydrocodone apap. Hydrocodone no prescription. Buy hydrocodone without a prescription. ...


September 24, 2010 - 03:41 SGT     
Trackback by Adderall better than ritalin.
Ritalin abuse. - Articles in journals and magazines on ritalin.


September 24, 2010 - 12:06 SGT     
Trackback by Hydrocodone.
Hydrocodone side effects. - Hydrocodone. Hydrocodone international pharmacies. Buy hydrocodone online. Hydrocodone pics. Still t...


September 25, 2010 - 06:25 SGT     
Trackback by Side effects of adderall.
Adderall erowid. - Buy adderall online. Adderall without prescription. Adderall side effects. Adderall.


October 20, 2010 - 15:16 SGT     
Trackback by Tramadol soma zoloft prozac onlineprescription.md.
Soma prescription medicine. - Soma side effects. Pornstar soma. Soma in san diego. Soma san diego.


November 9, 2010 - 01:31 SGT     
Trackback by Fda soma 250 mg.
Buy soma online. - Soma. Soma without a prescription. Cheap soma.


November 15, 2010 - 12:31 SGT     
Trackback by Pure ephedrine purchase online.
Ephedrine alkaloids. - Ephedrine p57. Ephedrine. Ephedrine death. Ephedrine hcl. Cheap ephedrine.


December 24, 2010 - 02:30 SGT     
Trackback by Soma drug.
Order soma. - Soma. Soma san diego. Order soma carisoprodol.


May 4, 2011 - 08:52 SGT     
Trackback by Cheap tramadol.
Tramadol without prescription. - Tramadol.


May 26, 2011 - 12:21 SGT     
Trackback by Soma online next day.
Soma drug test. - Soma without prescription. Drug soma cause any sexual side effects. Soma in urine.


July 26, 2011 - 02:42 SGT     
Trackback by Phentermine.
Phentermine. - Phentermine.


July 29, 2011 - 05:44 SGT     
Trackback by Generic fioricet.
Online prescription fioricet. - Fioricet. Fioricet delivered onn saturday. Cheap fioricet w free shipping. Buy fioricet. Generic fio...


August 4, 2011 - 17:04 SGT     
Trackback by Buy percocet online.
Percocet addiction. - Percocet. Percocet addiction. Generic percocet.


August 17, 2011 - 04:54 SGT     
Trackback by Viagra.
Viagra. - Viagra.


August 29, 2011 - 09:56 SGT     
Trackback by Ritalin.
Ritalin. - Ritalin.


September 4, 2011 - 22:55 SGT     
Trackback by Tramadol.
Tramadol. - Tramadol.


September 5, 2011 - 03:54 SGT     

Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.