Hello Canute,
Thank you for your considered reply. Yes, of course we probably agree on far more than that which we disagree, but without a disagreement what on earth would we have left to talk about? Our job? The weather? Sports?
Earlier, I wrote: "Canute, you're correct in thinking that despite our best philosophical and scientific efforts there will always remain unanswerable mysteries." To that you replied:
I didn't say that, and I don't believe it.
But earlier in this very thread you wrote:
Science, religion and western philosophy all have unanswerable mysteries at their heart.
Why did you say that there are "unanswerable mysteries" at the heart of philosophy and science, yet now you deny both saying and believing that there are such unanswerable mysteries? Why did you give that quote by Planck if you didn't agree with it? You appear to be saying that there are unanswerable mysteries that will eventually be answered. What strange sort of unanswerable mystery is this that eventually gets answered? I can't make sense of what you're saying here. Would you kindly explain?
...But it is a mistake to make such sweeping generalizations about religion and philosophy.
Sweeping generalizations? That's what philosophers do. Philosophy is the very place where one integrates the multitude of details and distinctions of the world into grand generalizations. Would you have similarly objected to Schopenhauer's
"Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung? Talk of sweeping generalizations!
Where do you place Spinoza and other religious philosophers?
Spinoza and Kierkegaard were brilliant. In fact, my all-time favorite quote about the "self" comes from Kierkegaard. Buber, Tillich, Marcel, et. al. were no slackers either. Like every other thinker I've come across, I glean from them what resonates and leave the rest for others. I also might as well confess that my favorite vocal piece of all-time is J.S. Bach's
Erbarme dich mein Gott from the
St. Matthew Passion. The lyrics are dreadful, but the music is wonderful beyond words.
I wrote: "Religions never get beyond the slavish adulation of their vaguely presented mysteries." And then you wrote:
This is simply not true. People do not generally adulate mysteries. They adulate entities.
Given that I endured 12 years of Catholic education, I can still hear these words from the Mass in my head, "Let us celebrate the mystery of faith. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." They said, "Let us
celebrate the mystery," they didn't say, "Let us explain the mystery," or, "Let us discuss the mystery." Here's what the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia says about the "Mystery of Faith" or "Mysterium Fidei";
"The existence of theological mysteries is a doctrine of Catholic faith defined by the Vatican Council, which declares: "If any one say that in Divine Revelation there are contained no mysteries properly so called, but that through reason rightly developed all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles: let him be anathema"
In other words, explain their mysteries and you’ll find yourself cursed by the ecclesiastical authorities. Is it just me, or do they seem a bit touchy on the subject? In any case, they aren't much interested in figuring out their mysteries; they’re forever content to celebrate them. What are these mysteries that they so venerate? Well, at least for the Catholics, it’s certainly not the sort I pause to wonder about. The “mysteries” of the Trinity, the virgin birth and the Eucharist have yet to keep me awake at 3AM.
Aristotle said that the starting point of philosophy is wonder. A philosopher is routinely amazed by what most people regard as obvious and certain. But we don't celebrate our ignorance of the mystery, instead we get on with trying to sort it out. Karl Popper wrote in his
The Philosophy of Science:
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths."
You wrote:
Re: The Cathars. The persecution of the Cathars was much more about politics and power than about religion.
That's seems to me a bit like saying that the lynchings in the Jim Crow South were more about politics and power than they were about race. Would it only be a coincidence that the forces of politics and power just so happened to converge on black men? And in the case of the Cathars, was it only a coincidence that those people massacred just so happened to be from a distinct heretical sect? I suggest that had you had asked a 14th century crusader why he was marching against the Cathers he would not have replied, "It's primarily for reasons of politics and power." I think instead, he would have spoken of his duty as a good Christian to eradicate heresy. Were there political overtones involved in the crusades against the Cathars and the lynching of blacks in the American South? There probably were; when doesn't later examination reveal a multitude of factors for any given phenomenon? This brings me to your next assertion:
It's easy to blame that terrorist act on religion, but it had nothing to do with religion. It had to do preventing the whole world becoming American.
I mentioned the religious connection to the September 11 terrorist attack. Did I say that religion
alone was to blame? Do you think that my longwinded posts on a given topic exhaust everything I could say on that topic? Most people probably find my posts too long already without my trying to leave no stone unturned. So Canute, I respectfully implore you not to append my phrases with the words "and only" unless I specifically write them. I’m familiar with the various arguments about the motives behind the September 11 attack. I’d no more suggest that religion was the only factor than I would say the sole reason was to prevent the Americanization of the world. There must be a litany of factors involved with each terrorist’s decision to martyr himself in that despicable way. I will say, however, that had each attacker believed that his actions was an irrefutable and strident violation of the Muslim code of behavior, then my wife would not have cried out to me as I dug potatoes on that sunny autumn morning. It would have just been another quiet, pleasant day here in the Northeast.
Without religion good, bad and evil are just socially relative terms.
I'm still taken aback when I hear someone try to derive moral principles out of a belief in god. Surely, you've heard of the so-called
Euthyphro Dilemma from Plato's dialogue in the
Euthyphro? I've always thought it to be as near a "knock-down" argument as one can find in philosophy:
What is good is defined by the fact that it is god's will.
If God were the standard of goodness then it would make no sense to say that God is good. To say as much would be to utter the uninformative tautology that God is God. If God were the standard of goodness, how could we tell that we were not the slaves of some evil demon, rather than say, children of a loving God? One could never say, "An evil being might command this, but a benevolent God never would." If good is only what God says is good, then whatever God commands will have to do. If God commands Abraham to sink a knife into his son's chest, then Abe better find his knife. If God were the standard of morality we'd have no other reference by which to judge the goodness of God's commandments. The only immorality would be disobedience and the only good men would be those who adhere to their God's capricious edicts with a blind obedience.
If God only enforces what is otherwise good, then God is not the standard of goodness.
But if this were true, then where does the standard of goodness come from? Suppose one of these standards displeased God. He’d be powerless to change it. But what sort of omnipotent God is powerless to change what displeases him? Besides, if God were not the source, then why would we need him to act as an intermediary between the code and us? This places God in the subordinate role of a "middleman,” which again is not very Godlike.
A theist must admit that either he has no way to judge God's benevolence (God could be a supremely evil bastard and we'd be none the wiser), or else he must admit that God is not the source of morality (in which case; who or what created the source?).
I'd like to comment on your characterization that my view is too "black and white," that my criticisms of religion are "too sweeping," and I'm letting my "anti-religious feelings get out of hand": Do you suppose the truth of any two opposite assertions must lie midway between the two assertions? Is a fair-minded person always compelled to choose the middle-ground between the two? In fact, the truth can rest at either extreme, or it can rest anywhere in between the two.
Fair-minded people need not feel restrained from calling astrology nonsense. Fair-minded people don't have to point out that Heinrich Himmler wasn't entirely a bad guy given that he regularly took off his jack-boots when he came home late, so as not to wake-up his pet canary. When we mention the serial rapist/ murderer, Ted Bundy, ought we, in fairness, to temper our revulsion of him with the observation that at times he could be charming? Of course not, absolute tolerance is the death of tolerance. Reasonably tolerant people ought not to tolerate injustice or outright nonsense.
Consider how Germany's ghastly experience with Fascism prompted modern Germans to outlaw outright any avowed Fascist political organization. Is this a case of political intolerance? Are the Germans being unfair to the Fascists? My father-in-law, growing up as an orphan in Italy was only properly taken care of after Mussolini came to power. The Nazi's, likewise, did a number of good things for Germany; a vastly improved healthcare system comes to mind, along with their building a better infrastructure. Given this, was it fair-minded of the Germans to outlaw the Fascist party once and for all? Neo-Fascists might argue that they've since excoriated their party of the those ideas that didn't work. Are the Germans unfair in their treatment of the Fascists? Again, I say no. Tolerant Germans are not required to tolerate Fascist political organizations. When we consider that the religious inspired Thirty-Years War brought nearly the same tragic devastation to the Germanic peoples, it’s amazing that they never outlawed Lutheranism and Catholicism.
Is an atheist radically intolerant when compared with a monotheist? M. Jordan's
Encyclopedia of Gods is said to list over 2,500 of the world's various deities. For the sake of argument let's round off this number to 2,500 deities. Now by definition, a monotheist (z.b. Christian or Muslim) is atheistic about 2,499 of these gods. Meanwhile, I am atheistic about 2,500 gods. The monotheist, using the argument that I cannot prove that his god does not exist, has no compunction in ignoring his own argument for each of these other 2,499 gods. Would you think the monotheist acceptably tolerant in denying 2,499 gods, yet me unacceptably intolerant for denying 2,500 gods?
Despite the countless ills inflicted upon mankind by way of our religious superstition, I still don't think we ought to outlaw religion. I think people ought to have the right to practice their nutty religion, their nutty astrology and their nutty witchcraft. Unless they pull virgins off the street for the purpose of human sacrifice, they ought to be left in peace. Meanwhile, the rest of us have the right to critic their nonsense wherever the question arises. We have the right to expect, as Carl Sagen so aptly noted, that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Given that I've seen it so often, I'm suprised you've not seen the epistemological notion that I referred to in my last post. In a nutshell, the argument says there is no knowledge without metaphysical certainty (I've wondered at times if it might be attributable to the Socratic, "All I know is that I know nothing" quip). Of course I disagree, as I've already said. I agree with John Stuart Mill's assessment:
”There is no such thing as an absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life.”
It's late and I've droned on far too long.
Regards,
Michael
