That's right the answer to the (sort of ) question "What the Pope’s popularity says about American culture" is the superficial nature of many Americans' understanding of theology. As I have commented before, the only real difference between the current Pope and the past few is a matter of style not of substance. Fawning over the current Pope doesn't really seem to be the main point of this recent post by Jonathan Merritt.
Like many of Merritt's post the piece is really just another opportunity to spread all sorts of deceitful and malicious bullshit. He repeats and promotes a variety of myths, stereotypes, and smears about nonbelievers.
Merritt's disingenuous post includes some of the most common misconceptions and misrepresentations. He provides a platform for such whoppers as the "anti-Christian bias in American news media" and that "Hollywood is rabidly anti-Christian." Conveniently he uses what others have said on such things as a cover for his own endorsement for these two idiotic tropes. Since it is still safe to outright attack atheists he doesn't bother to veil his hostility when directly commenting on us.
An excellent example comes towards the end of the post.
"Some secularists and atheists, of course, despise Christians just for being Christians. But the Richard Dawkins brand of adversary is the outlier and the exception."
Umm, no. Dawkins has family and friends who happen to be Christian. Dawkins, like many of us, has repeatedly pointed out that it is Christianity not Christians that is the topic of debate and criticism. Respecting individuals does not mean the ideas those individuals hold deserve to be respected. Ideas are not people. It is sad that intellectually dishonest twerps like Merritt so often get away with this type of sleight-of-hand trickery.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Sunday, September 22, 2013
"Not What God Intends"
Karyn Wieseman's HuffPo piece, "Not What God Intends", is another example of the innate contradictions and/or
self-delusions that exist within faith. Personally, I agree that society
and life should be more peaceful but the conclusion that violence and
conflict must be against God's intentions does not follow. There are a
number of problems with Wieseman's line of thinking.
One of the biggest problems, theologically and philosophically, with her primary assertion is that it is not compatible with one of the main traits of Christianity. If Christianity really is monotheistic then God has to be perfect and all-powerful.* It logically follows that if God is all-powerful we cannot possibly have free will. Every detail of the universe is exactly as it has to be. It would literally be impossible for things to occur that are not caused by God. In this sense everything is as God intends it to be.
There is also the question of whether it is even possible for God to have intentions. To have intent you first have to have a mind. Does God have a mind? How is that possible? Most contemporary theologians don't agree on much but most seem to agree that God does not have a physical body. Since the mind is a product of the brain it seems unlikely that God has a mind from which to form let alone project intentions.
Even for the sake of argument simply accepting God has intentions and that somehow we mere mortals can defy God's will there is still another problem with Wieseman's assertion. How the fuck can imperfect beings possibly know what the intentions of a perfect being are?
I find it hard to believe that most religious people either understand what they claim to believe or believe them to the extent they want to think they do. Most religious concepts are either incoherent or contradictory.
*I've previously written about this. Some previous posts in which I have talked about this include "Monotheism and Morality" (12/10/11), "Monotheism and Christianity" (12/31/11), and "The Same God" (9/8/13).
One of the biggest problems, theologically and philosophically, with her primary assertion is that it is not compatible with one of the main traits of Christianity. If Christianity really is monotheistic then God has to be perfect and all-powerful.* It logically follows that if God is all-powerful we cannot possibly have free will. Every detail of the universe is exactly as it has to be. It would literally be impossible for things to occur that are not caused by God. In this sense everything is as God intends it to be.
There is also the question of whether it is even possible for God to have intentions. To have intent you first have to have a mind. Does God have a mind? How is that possible? Most contemporary theologians don't agree on much but most seem to agree that God does not have a physical body. Since the mind is a product of the brain it seems unlikely that God has a mind from which to form let alone project intentions.
Even for the sake of argument simply accepting God has intentions and that somehow we mere mortals can defy God's will there is still another problem with Wieseman's assertion. How the fuck can imperfect beings possibly know what the intentions of a perfect being are?
I find it hard to believe that most religious people either understand what they claim to believe or believe them to the extent they want to think they do. Most religious concepts are either incoherent or contradictory.
*I've previously written about this. Some previous posts in which I have talked about this include "Monotheism and Morality" (12/10/11), "Monotheism and Christianity" (12/31/11), and "The Same God" (9/8/13).
Sunday, September 8, 2013
The Same God?
The question of whether Jews, Christians, and
Muslims worship the same God is both revealing and foolish*. Though it is
true that each has their own interpretations and ways of worship their
is no logical way around the basic theology each claims to follow. Each
claims to be monotheistic therefore they must worship the same God. How
can they believe otherwise without inadvertently admitting to a false
belief. Accusing the other "monotheists" of following a false god is
incoherent. There can be no other god, false or otherwise, or even a
god-like being under monotheism since such a system of belief would
require the one true god to be all-powerful.
Basically, if each truly believes in monotheism then they must follow the same god. That they question routinely comes up seem to indicate that many theists aren't nearly as confident in their beliefs as they'd like to think.
*Jeffrey Weiss' CNN Belief blog post, "Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?", is recent example of this recurring question.
Basically, if each truly believes in monotheism then they must follow the same god. That they question routinely comes up seem to indicate that many theists aren't nearly as confident in their beliefs as they'd like to think.
*Jeffrey Weiss' CNN Belief blog post, "Do Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God?", is recent example of this recurring question.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Inadvertent Revelations from Concilium
"The new atheists have failed to refute God, for one cannot prove the falseness of belief in God based on any particular scientific result. Science is simply not about God, one way or another - this is the point that both the new atheists and Intelligent Design theorists have failed to appreciate This is why they are both appear as strangely symmetrical positions, warring fundamentalisms engaged in a carefully choreographed dance that is based, in the end, on false assumptions."
The above excerpt is from a piece by Philip Clayton that appeared in the 2010 4th quarter edition of Concilium: International Review of Theology. It is not only fairly representative of his entire piece but also of the contents of the whole issue. It is chock full of ignorance, bias, false equivalence, and plain old bull shit. Most of it is rehashed nonsense. The paragraph opens with the notion that the burden of proof should rest solely on atheists. Why? Personally, I think atheists should provide reasons but the main focus should not be on us. We are not the ones making exceptional claims. It should also be noted that Clayton, like so many others, uses the term "new atheist" as if it is a synonym for contemporary atheist and has any real validity as a label without ever explaining why it should be seen as such.
One of the most amusing implications is his inadvertent admission that God is not real. It is rather indirect but it is there. In trying to claim that "Science is simply not about God" he implies that God is not part of our reality. Science, after all, is all about studying what the universe contains and how it works. The only possible way God can be left out of that even indirectly is if God in fact does not exist. I've heard numerous other theologians and apologists make similar attempts at insulating the God concept from Science by claiming God is outside time and space or that God is beyond our sense of reality/existence. The result is the same. By definition such claims would have to mean God is not real. How can anything be outside "reality" and still be "real"? It can't.
He also makes a few false equivalents. The "new atheists" are not a mirror image of Intelligent Design proponents any more than they are of fundamentalists. Clayton never provides anything resemble proof of this comparison. He relies on numerous myths and stereotypes that are informed only by his own biases and those of like-minded faux-scholars. He also never clearly lays out or proves that atheists make "assumptions" at even the same level as theists. Throughout the piece Clayton makes use of a variety of assumptions without ever acknowledging that he has done so. His approach to the burden of proof is a good example but far from the only instance.
Concentrated bullshit is an apt description of his ludicrously named article, "Why Theism Must Evolve in the Age of Science." His view on theism are rather standard fare. Many of the ideas he puts forth have been around for at least a century. His grasp on even basic concepts and methods related to science is weak. If this is the best contemporary theistic scholars can do perhaps there is hope that religion will fade away.
The above excerpt is from a piece by Philip Clayton that appeared in the 2010 4th quarter edition of Concilium: International Review of Theology. It is not only fairly representative of his entire piece but also of the contents of the whole issue. It is chock full of ignorance, bias, false equivalence, and plain old bull shit. Most of it is rehashed nonsense. The paragraph opens with the notion that the burden of proof should rest solely on atheists. Why? Personally, I think atheists should provide reasons but the main focus should not be on us. We are not the ones making exceptional claims. It should also be noted that Clayton, like so many others, uses the term "new atheist" as if it is a synonym for contemporary atheist and has any real validity as a label without ever explaining why it should be seen as such.
One of the most amusing implications is his inadvertent admission that God is not real. It is rather indirect but it is there. In trying to claim that "Science is simply not about God" he implies that God is not part of our reality. Science, after all, is all about studying what the universe contains and how it works. The only possible way God can be left out of that even indirectly is if God in fact does not exist. I've heard numerous other theologians and apologists make similar attempts at insulating the God concept from Science by claiming God is outside time and space or that God is beyond our sense of reality/existence. The result is the same. By definition such claims would have to mean God is not real. How can anything be outside "reality" and still be "real"? It can't.
He also makes a few false equivalents. The "new atheists" are not a mirror image of Intelligent Design proponents any more than they are of fundamentalists. Clayton never provides anything resemble proof of this comparison. He relies on numerous myths and stereotypes that are informed only by his own biases and those of like-minded faux-scholars. He also never clearly lays out or proves that atheists make "assumptions" at even the same level as theists. Throughout the piece Clayton makes use of a variety of assumptions without ever acknowledging that he has done so. His approach to the burden of proof is a good example but far from the only instance.
Concentrated bullshit is an apt description of his ludicrously named article, "Why Theism Must Evolve in the Age of Science." His view on theism are rather standard fare. Many of the ideas he puts forth have been around for at least a century. His grasp on even basic concepts and methods related to science is weak. If this is the best contemporary theistic scholars can do perhaps there is hope that religion will fade away.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Misused and Abused: Ockham's Razor
Over the past decade or so more and more contemporary theologians and apologists have attempted to co-opt Ockham's Razor. Even though it is true that William Ockham was himself a theologian, the principle that carries his name is now being used in ways that pervert and undermine his important contribution to critical thinking. Many of these contemporary theists do not seem to grasp the basic premise of Ockham's Razor. Quite a few seem to have the impression that it amounts to the "simplest" explanation being the correct one. They then misapply even this false characterization.
It should be noted the the razor only comes into play when there are two or more potentially valid explanations or hypotheses. In other words, each idea or explanation should be supported before they can be seen as competing with each other. Once that is established the razor is meant to help weed out the lesser of the possible explanations. The principle is that the explanation that contains the fewest assumptions (unproven or unprovable elements) is more likely to be the correct one. It is not, in the end, about being the simplest. It has far more to do with being careful not to introduce unnecessary and unprovable components into an argument/explanation. Many fail to adhere to the various caveats contained within Ockham's Razor. They tend to start with a single explanation in mind not a set of potential ones and then dismiss that the razor is about what is likely to be correct not a definitive conclusion.
One of the most irritating misapplications that keeps cropping up is the notion that the God concept is supported by the razor as an explanation for existence. I will admit up front that I am simplifying this argument to some degree but the basics are accurate to what has been claimed by many apologists and theologians. It has been insisted that scientists have made more assumption about how the universe or existence (these are not actually the same thing but they don't seem to get that either) came to be. By their way of thinking that automatically means that since God's intervention is the simpler explanation then it must be correct. It is interesting to observe, by their own low standards they have essentially proven them selves wrong. If you "assume"* that the universe can self create it would be the explanation with the fewer assumptions. God would have to self-create then actively create the universe. That means an extra step. How would that qualify as fewer assumptions? I also don't see why it can be assumed by them that God can self-create but not even concede the possibility that the universe could do so.
*This does not really qualify as an assumption since a wide variety of observations, experiments, mathematical models, etc. demonstrate that it is quite possible for the universe to self-create
It should be noted the the razor only comes into play when there are two or more potentially valid explanations or hypotheses. In other words, each idea or explanation should be supported before they can be seen as competing with each other. Once that is established the razor is meant to help weed out the lesser of the possible explanations. The principle is that the explanation that contains the fewest assumptions (unproven or unprovable elements) is more likely to be the correct one. It is not, in the end, about being the simplest. It has far more to do with being careful not to introduce unnecessary and unprovable components into an argument/explanation. Many fail to adhere to the various caveats contained within Ockham's Razor. They tend to start with a single explanation in mind not a set of potential ones and then dismiss that the razor is about what is likely to be correct not a definitive conclusion.
One of the most irritating misapplications that keeps cropping up is the notion that the God concept is supported by the razor as an explanation for existence. I will admit up front that I am simplifying this argument to some degree but the basics are accurate to what has been claimed by many apologists and theologians. It has been insisted that scientists have made more assumption about how the universe or existence (these are not actually the same thing but they don't seem to get that either) came to be. By their way of thinking that automatically means that since God's intervention is the simpler explanation then it must be correct. It is interesting to observe, by their own low standards they have essentially proven them selves wrong. If you "assume"* that the universe can self create it would be the explanation with the fewer assumptions. God would have to self-create then actively create the universe. That means an extra step. How would that qualify as fewer assumptions? I also don't see why it can be assumed by them that God can self-create but not even concede the possibility that the universe could do so.
*This does not really qualify as an assumption since a wide variety of observations, experiments, mathematical models, etc. demonstrate that it is quite possible for the universe to self-create
Saturday, September 8, 2012
"Death of God"
The "Death of God" both as a phrase and as theological movement has always baffled me. It's complete nonsense whether you are a believer or a non-believer. If God, defined as the supreme being who is both perfect and all powerful, exists such an entity cannot die. An incarnation of perfection would in theory be eternal by definition. If you don't believe in God then death is also not a possibility. You cannot die if you never existed in the first place. And, yes, I have heard numerous individuals comment along the same lines and be criticized for it. Most critiques are along the lines that that way of thinking is too literal. Is it really? Even symbolically the phrase has no real meaning and it still translates poorly into a theological movement.
The moment you moved towards a more symbolic frame you are essentially conceding, whether you admit it or not, that God is purely conceptual. From this perspective I would argue that "death" is not possible. Once introduced, concepts are virtually impossible to completely eliminate. Concepts can be modified and altered but are rarely eradicated. The fact that people still think and talk about God proves that the concept is still "alive." So long as even a tiny fraction of the population are aware of a version of the concept it will not cease to exist.
I have routinely come across references or pieces on the topic over the past few decades and expect that I will continue to run into them for the foreseeable future. The most recent piece that prompted me to comment was a Edges of Faith post on Patheos, "The Foolish Death of God"
The moment you moved towards a more symbolic frame you are essentially conceding, whether you admit it or not, that God is purely conceptual. From this perspective I would argue that "death" is not possible. Once introduced, concepts are virtually impossible to completely eliminate. Concepts can be modified and altered but are rarely eradicated. The fact that people still think and talk about God proves that the concept is still "alive." So long as even a tiny fraction of the population are aware of a version of the concept it will not cease to exist.
I have routinely come across references or pieces on the topic over the past few decades and expect that I will continue to run into them for the foreseeable future. The most recent piece that prompted me to comment was a Edges of Faith post on Patheos, "The Foolish Death of God"
Saturday, January 7, 2012
John Shelby Spong
Even though I disagree with John Shelby Spong on a wide variety of topics I genuinely like him. In terms of modern theologians and Christian apologists his is certainly one of the more thoughtful and even somewhat original theists. Most of what he believes is just as delusional and loaded with nonsense but he does a far better job supporting them than most. He also comes across as just a really nice person. When he disagrees he tends to focus on the issue or concept at hand rather than resort to personal attacks. It would be great if his fellow theologians and apologists would follow his example.
Any non-religious person, atheist or not, who has an interest in religion/theology I would strongly recommend becoming familiar with Spong's work. He has written numerous articles and books. Despite the failure of his ideas to stand up to any deep scrutiny they are none the less very interesting and worth exploring.
A few of the pieces on or by Spong from around the internet:
CNN Belief Blog post: "My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions"
Culture Shocks podcast: Interview with Barry Lynn
John Shelby Spong website
He also has a Facebook page and there are numerous clips of him on YouTube.
I encourage everyone to read as widely as possible on as many topics/issues as possible. I intend to regularly post on individuals I find interesting whether I agree with them or not. Opinionated or not, I truly believe that we should constantly question and challenge ourselves.
Any non-religious person, atheist or not, who has an interest in religion/theology I would strongly recommend becoming familiar with Spong's work. He has written numerous articles and books. Despite the failure of his ideas to stand up to any deep scrutiny they are none the less very interesting and worth exploring.
A few of the pieces on or by Spong from around the internet:
CNN Belief Blog post: "My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions"
Culture Shocks podcast: Interview with Barry Lynn
John Shelby Spong website
He also has a Facebook page and there are numerous clips of him on YouTube.
I encourage everyone to read as widely as possible on as many topics/issues as possible. I intend to regularly post on individuals I find interesting whether I agree with them or not. Opinionated or not, I truly believe that we should constantly question and challenge ourselves.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
One Conclusion from Two Versions
One of the criticisms frequently leveled at Atheists is that we simply don't understand who/what God is. I say this assessment is bullshit for two reasons. I would argue that atheists in general have spent far more time and effort analyzing the God concept than the average theist. I also have observed that even those theists who have come to realize there are two main versions of the God concept tend to mix them together without realizing they are doing so. Two recent articles on Huffington Post seem to have had this unacknowledged amalgamation at their center. Both "Killing the Church by Denigrating the Immediacy of God" and "'God Is': From Biblical Literalism To A Mystical Understanding of God" seem to imply that one of the biggest problems in religion today is that not enough people think in terms of an abstract version of God.
Personally, I would love to see theists move in that direction. It would put people one step closer to giving up the absurd concept entirely. When you exam the more abstract version it becomes clear that it is just as contradictory and is even more irrelevant to our lives. Once you move away from the personal/scripture based God the question should arise; what are you worshiping and why? It can no longer be a who. The most common construct of this abstract God is easier to define in terms of what it is not rather than what it is. For that reason the simplified definition is the most useful. If God is accepted as Perfection and the Eternal you immediately run into all manner of difficulty with virtually every other religiously based concepts. If God is an abstraction it can not be a Being. All entities have a mind. Since all minds are generated by a physical brain it is not an abstraction. In this way God can not consciously do anything. God can not have intentions and did not actively or knowing create anything. It is also impossible to see rationally how an abstract can physically intervene in our reality.
Critics who insist they are following a more sophisticated abstract God are really mixing different versions. They refuse to reevaluate the possible roles/functions of God in light of what a purely abstract concept entails.
It is clear that they are doing so since most of these "modern" theologians still endorse the standard rites and rituals of their chosen religion. Why? Even if you assumed God has a mind, as an abstract that is highly unlikely, God being perfection itself leaves no room such notions as free will. Everything is exactly as it has to be or else perfection is a myth. No mistakes or corrections/alterations can be tolerated. It is also, for argument sake, not likely that religious practices have any bearing on anything. How could they? Such practices can not have an impact on anything since everything is exactly as it has to be. Also, assuming God has a mind and is perfect and all powerful God would have to be aware of precisely what an individual's thoughts, feelings, and intentions are which makes such actions redundant at best.
Critics of atheists have always projected their own misunderstandings on us. This is nothing new. It is to some degree amusing that when they talk about our lack of insight that they then get angry (another accusation falsely projected on us) when we challenge them to demonstrate their own insights. They have a tendency to quickly shift definitions and rationalize the inevitable inconsistencies and contradictions. The truth is that the level of thought involved in analyzing the God concept among theists has never gone beyond the superficial. I have yet to encounter any philosopher or theologian among theists willing to follow the God concept in either of its two main versions to its logical conclusion: a construct that ultimately has no relevance to reality.
Personally, I would love to see theists move in that direction. It would put people one step closer to giving up the absurd concept entirely. When you exam the more abstract version it becomes clear that it is just as contradictory and is even more irrelevant to our lives. Once you move away from the personal/scripture based God the question should arise; what are you worshiping and why? It can no longer be a who. The most common construct of this abstract God is easier to define in terms of what it is not rather than what it is. For that reason the simplified definition is the most useful. If God is accepted as Perfection and the Eternal you immediately run into all manner of difficulty with virtually every other religiously based concepts. If God is an abstraction it can not be a Being. All entities have a mind. Since all minds are generated by a physical brain it is not an abstraction. In this way God can not consciously do anything. God can not have intentions and did not actively or knowing create anything. It is also impossible to see rationally how an abstract can physically intervene in our reality.
Critics who insist they are following a more sophisticated abstract God are really mixing different versions. They refuse to reevaluate the possible roles/functions of God in light of what a purely abstract concept entails.
It is clear that they are doing so since most of these "modern" theologians still endorse the standard rites and rituals of their chosen religion. Why? Even if you assumed God has a mind, as an abstract that is highly unlikely, God being perfection itself leaves no room such notions as free will. Everything is exactly as it has to be or else perfection is a myth. No mistakes or corrections/alterations can be tolerated. It is also, for argument sake, not likely that religious practices have any bearing on anything. How could they? Such practices can not have an impact on anything since everything is exactly as it has to be. Also, assuming God has a mind and is perfect and all powerful God would have to be aware of precisely what an individual's thoughts, feelings, and intentions are which makes such actions redundant at best.
Critics of atheists have always projected their own misunderstandings on us. This is nothing new. It is to some degree amusing that when they talk about our lack of insight that they then get angry (another accusation falsely projected on us) when we challenge them to demonstrate their own insights. They have a tendency to quickly shift definitions and rationalize the inevitable inconsistencies and contradictions. The truth is that the level of thought involved in analyzing the God concept among theists has never gone beyond the superficial. I have yet to encounter any philosopher or theologian among theists willing to follow the God concept in either of its two main versions to its logical conclusion: a construct that ultimately has no relevance to reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)