What’s Wrong with the World

What I (not that I know anything) find especially frustrating in these types of arguments is that secularists often are under the impression that it is the responsibility of others to debunk their misconceptions about religion. Many of them seem to be unaware of the notion that you should actually attempt to understand a viewpoint yourself before simply dismissing it ad hominem. They demand explanations of Aquinas and others, instead of examining it themselves. In other words, they adopt a "guilty before proven innocent" attitude towards reason and religion.

As of this reading, she has failed to reply to your reply to her reply.

Ed:

Here's the email I sent to Jonah that he did not publish in the Corner.

Frank
---
Jonah:

You should also take into consideration the fact that secularism itself has a lot to answer for when it comes to its depiction of religious believers. Many of the beliefs embraced by Brooks, Parker, etc. have been shaped by cultural presentations of religious conservatives that do not correspond to reality. But if one is like Brooks, Parker, etc., someone who has no personal contact or interest in becoming intimately acquainted with the writings, institutions, and arguments of religious conservatives, the cultural presentations in the media do all the work. On virtually every culture war issue there are several socially conservative intellectuals doing serious work. I think, for example, of Robert George, Hadley Arkes, John Finnis, Gerard Bradley, J. P. Moreland, Jean Bethke Elshtain, George Gilder, etc. Instead of engaging the writings of these thinkers, Brooks, Parker, etc. go for the lightweights, the populists that fit the caricature. It would be like Robbie George going after Bill Maher and Barney Frank and declaring victory over secularism. No one would take that seriously. Thus, it is time for Brooks and Parker and their ilk to cowboy up and take on the heavies.

It is very difficult for people who fancy themselves as intellectuals to think that they may very well be the bigots in their own cultural narrative.

Keep up the good work.

Frank

I have to throw in support for the Irrational Atheist. I haven't had a chance to read your book, Ed, but TIA is an outstanding roast (that sometimes borders on a nuclear holocaust) of the New Atheists that is written in a way that the average college student could easily understand.

MacDonald's "response" about the reasonableness of families and self-discipline is accurate---but also incomplete and beside the point. Nobody of which I am aware, or at least with whom I would very much like to associate, claims that conservatism's claims about the well-ordered society are a-rational. On the contrary, the claim of the entire intellectual tradition we claim to maintain is that faith and virtue are rational, that right-reason, as well as revelation, require individuals and societies to pursue virtue and the common good. I know he's been dead a long time, but I was under the impression that St. Thomas Aquinas was still relatively well known among educated conservative folks. Thus, MacDonald's response is accurate.

It is incomplete because the things she values so highly make absolutely no sense if they are merely human constructions. If God did not exist, and if people are just highly improbable accidents in a great big chemistry lab, there is absolutely no reason to value tradition, limited government, personal liberty, etc. The compelling lesson of history is that institutions and success are ephemeral, nations will be destroyed despite their best efforts, and that infanticide is entirely compatible with empire. The most compelling logic in a strictly natural world is that of Peter Singer and Bentham, where public policy should be based on how it benefits raccoons and we have to worry that our lack of compassion for plants might be the result of the failures of an inadequate self-referential system of ethics amounting to "kingdomism." (Singer has not, to the best of my knowledge, expanded his concept of "speciesism" to include discrimination against plants in this manner, but it would be the next logical step.)

On a final note, it may be that the new criticisms of conservative religiosity are a result not so much of any new religious influence but of a shift in its articulation and spokesmen. We aren't seeing Buckley talking about Heinrich Rommen or Fr. Garrigou-Lagran and what virtues the law ought to compel​. We're seeing Sarah Palin talking about what God wants her to do. The GOP has gone low-church. That distresses religious conservatives with decidedly high-church intellectual preferences and sensibilities. It also deeply distresses secularists, who if they didn't agree with or even respect older religiously conservative rhetoric, at least took comfort in the fact that it came from respectable people and wasn't rabble rousing. The scene is much different now.

I posted on the same lines at Secular Right, but here goes:

This is a silly argument. The "New Atheists" are popularizers; that is, they are responding to the million-copy pop-apologetics of hacks like Lee Strobel. Can anyone seriously argue that Strobel's knowledge exceeds Harris's?

If you want academic atheists to respond to academic theists, they're not hard to find. But compare apples to apples; it's more informative that way.

"The `New Atheists' are popularizers; that is, they are responding to the million-copy pop-apologetics of hacks like Lee Strobel."

Then Harris should not have entitled his book, "The End of Faith." He should have entitled it, "The End of the Faith of Pop-Apologists."

BTW, Strobel's work is journalistic. He interviews the experts and communicates their ideas in an understandable fashion. He is good at what he does, and I respect that.

Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins don't claim to be responding to popular apologists. They are claiming to have decimated the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, including Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. And yet, it is evident from just cursory reading of their works that the New Atheists have not availed themselves to the strongest cases for theism. In addition, so much of their criticism depends on a cluster of beliefs that their atheism could not in-principle provide. Take, for example, Dawkins' assessment of the intellectual virtue of young-earth creationist, Kurt Wise: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=776

Secular Right is a new little village full of village atheists.

Yes, keep up the good work.

Heather is a rabble-rouser. granum salis.

Beckwith writes, "Brooks, Parker, etc. go for the lightweights"

It's a strong temptation we are all familiar with.

Francis Beckwith:

BTW, Strobel's work is journalistic. He interviews the experts and communicates their ideas in an understandable fashion. He is good at what he does, and I respect that.

Strobel is less of a journalist than Keith Olbermann, who at least occasionally interviews someone with whom he actually disagrees. Or, put another way: I cannot think of a single first-year journalism student who would have been as uncritical of Jerry Vardaman's "magic coin" as was Strobel. He's either a liar or a hack.

The problem with these 'Secular Right' folks is that they treat the New Atheists as if they are philosophical and theological experts, which they aren't. As Andrew says above, they are popularizers, but unfortunately they aren't being treated as such.

Dr. Feser, I'm intrigued by a quote in Dr. Beckwith's blurb of your book on Amazon: "what is knowable is larger than the set of that which is empirically detectable." This sounds somewhat like Michael Polanyi's "we know more than we can tell." I've just started studying Polanyi and was wondering if your book touches on his thought at all.

Heather has now officially responded to your response:

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=413#comments

Thanks for the link, Jeff.

It appears that for her the existence of evil is evidence that the idea of God is a sham.

KW: I don't expect you to agree with Heather's argument, but that simply isn't what she says. Instead, she writes:

Let’s look at the “rational” part. I am puzzled by the following logic:

Situation A: A mine collapses and the miners are trapped in terrifying blackness and waning oxygen for five days. Rescue efforts prove successful, however. Their rescue shows God’s love for humanity, that he cares for every one of us.

Situation B: A mine collapses and the miners are trapped in terrifying blackness and waning oxygen for five days. Rescue efforts prove unsuccessful, and the miners die. Their death shows God’s love for humanity, that he cares for every one of us.

X (miners live) = proof of God’s love (Y).
Not-X (miners don’t live) = proof of God’s love (Y). So X = not-X.

That's not simply "the existence of evil," nor is it an argument about God. Rather, it is a particularly cogent criticism of the way in which believers evaluate evidence that is contrary to reason. It is a serious argument and it deserves a serious response.

Which response has been made time and time and time again. Come on, there's a huge literature on this. It's not like, "Omigosh! The argument from evil! Never thought of that!" (Slaps forehead.) "What am I gonna dooooooo?"

Thank you for the criticism. Yes, the argument you cite is a particular argument that deserves a serious response.

Andrew T.

Your defense of this silliness undermines some of your more intelligent comments elsewhere. You would never tolerate someone who disagrees with you being so intellectually lazy and dishonest.

And the logic is very peculiar. Does it really follow from "Joe regards both X and ~X as evidence for H" that "Joe is committed to the self-contradictory proposition that X = ~X"? I agree that if Joe thinks that way, Joe has a problem with his probability distribution and can (as far as I can tell) be Dutch-booked. (I'm having trouble thinking of any proposition that is actually positively confirmed by all states of affairs.) But the link to "X = ~X" is a little obscure, to put it mildly.

"it is a particularly cogent criticism of the way in which believers evaluate evidence that is contrary to reason"

But it fails to take into consideration the fact that not all believers "evaluate evidence" in that way. In short, it assumes what believers think, when many of us may, in fact, think nothing of the kind. This is exactly the sort of thing Dr. Feser is on about. It demonstrates his point.

Heather Mac Donald has shown quite clearly that, to her, the existence of evil is the argument against the existence of God. However, a just, consistent Mac Donaldian God would generate an unbearable world, too.

Lawrence Auster has an extended discussion with Mac Donald on the tsunami of 2004:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006246.html

But it fails to take into consideration the fact that not all believers "evaluate evidence" in that way. In short, it assumes what believers think, when many of us may, in fact, think nothing of the kind. This is exactly the sort of thing Dr. Feser is on about. It demonstrates his point.

Yes, it does indeed. And she wants to restrict the evidence to particular beliefs and opinions: "Apologists like Mr. Feser want to turn our attention to Medieval metaphysics; I ask him to turn his attention to the actual practice of religion and defend its 'rational basis.'"

Is it Heather Mac Donald, or Ayn Rand? "But you arrre not beink rrrational!"

"He's either a liar or a hack."

The world is divided between those who divide the world into two groups and those who don't. :-)

All kidding aside, what precisely is wrong with being a hack? Perhaps people autonomously choose being hacks, believe they are born hacks, and/or enjoy the liberty of hack-like activity. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that people have an end that they can fail to accomplish as a consequence of a bad act or belief? Look, if there are no final causes in nature and I am part of nature, then it's not clear why being a hack is "wrong" in any meaningful way.

As for Lee Strobel's journalist credentials, they are head and shoulders about Keith Olbermann. Here's the skinny on Lee:http://www.leestrobel.com/LS_bio.htm He also did some important and groundbreaking reporting in the famous Pinto car cases of the late 1970s. See here: http://books.google.com/books?id=yU5ezbYpJcEC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=%22Lee+STrobel%22+%22Reckless+Homicide%3F%22&source=bl&ots=QaZLQrh7g3&sig=prFNUgbEIE4PCK-ddBYqc2UWZHk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

From MacDonald's latest response:

Apologists like Mr. Feser want to turn our attention to Medieval metaphysics; I ask him to turn his attention to the actual practice of religion and defend its “rational basis.”

How edifying.

What MacDonald does not understand is that she too relies on Medieval metaphysics, William of Ockham's.

Ed offers an argument. Heather replies with chronological snobbery. The guardians of reason ain't what they used to be.

What MacDonald does not understand is that she too relies on Medieval metaphysics, William of Ockham's.

Or, in other words, Ed took the good metaphysics and Heather took the crappy metaphysics, and isn't even cognizant of having chosen them.

I think comments like Rob G.'s are helpful, and that's precisely what I wanted to point out to KW and others. There's an idea that Mac Donald raises that (to me, at least) is worth discussing, and dismissing it as "oh, that's the problem of (natural) evil again, we're over that" doesn't strike me as useful.

However, I think Rob G. gives the starting point, and not the endpoint. I mean this very sincerely, and I am sincerely interested in his (and others') response. To me (and apparently, to Heather Mac Donald), it appears as though Christians interpret the evidence in the manner described by Heather. Rob G. responds:

But it fails to take into consideration the fact that not all believers "evaluate evidence" in that way. In short, it assumes what believers think, when many of us may, in fact, think nothing of the kind.

So the logical next point is: okay, Rob, what do you believe? When a tsunami kills 250,000 people, is that proof that God doesn't love us?

It seems to me that critics of theism who assume that "God," to the theist, is primarily some sort of explanatory hypothesis, are aiming their criticism in the wrong direction. Now, while it is true that there are some theories (Paleyism/ID, perhaps) that posit "God" as an explanation for some otherwise unexplainable physical phenomenon, the idea of God does not originate as an explanation to some problem, as if believers in God (or the gods) have always looked at the world with in a scientific, problem-hypothesis-experiment-theory sort of way. The story they feed you in HS English about "the gods" being dreamt up as a "solution" to scientific questions about the natural world always seemed to me a bit naive, and now I'm positively convinced of it. Ancient man knew the existence of the supernatural world by intuition. If they were wrong, than it was a wrong intuition. But it wasn't a naive, scientific error.

The history of western philosophy can be thought of as a story of the escape from the natural deities and their irrational interactions with the world, a experiment in reductive materialism which was partially successful but ultimately unsatisfactory, and the subsequent return to a rational First Cause, or Deity, which allows for a materialistc reduction in a limited way, but gives an overall better account of the sum of the data. Irrational theism is disestablished, and rational theism established. I don't like bad arguments for the existence of God anymore than the next guy. But at some point you've got to deal with the best arguments. This business Mac Donald is carrying on with is embarrassingly ignorant. Every reason for belief in the existence of God doesn't amount to the sort of rational argument that analytic philosophers trade in. This fact doesn't mean that the reason is no good, even if the reasoning is logically unpersuasive. After all, your reasoning that your wife loves you is rather logically unpersuasive. Mac Donald tries to wave off the powerful arguments in which Dr. Feser trades with the pejorative "medieval metaphysics," and then goes on to attack straw men. If she can't argue on Feser's level, she ought to just say so, and remain silent.

When a tsunami kills 250,000 people, is that proof that God doesn't love us?

I'm not Rob, but since you asked for others' responses: No, it is not.

For me, the proof that God loves us is the Cross. Some events that have occurred since then (Lisbon Earthquake, tsunami, my health nut mother dying of cancer at 62, etc.) are difficult to reconcile with God's love, but ultimately, they don't negate my belief in the existence of God or His love for us.

"When a tsunami kills 250,000 people, is that proof that God doesn't love us?"

It is certainly not logically inconsistent to claim that God loves us and that a tsunami kills 250,000 people. After all, it is possible that no matter what possible world God created there would be evil and natural disasters and that every other possible world is worse. As long as that is logically possible, the presence of evil in this world, even great evil, is not a logical defeater to theism. Al Plantinga pretty much ended this debate in 1967.

Here's a question:

"When an atheist makes judgments about good and evil, is he or she relying on direct awareness of unchanging moral concepts or are they simply relative to human civilizations?"

If the latter, then they are merely parochial and thus cannot be employed in a binding universal sense. However, if they are unchanging laws of which one has direct awareness, what is their source? It cannot be a physical or material source, since moral laws do not have physical or material properties. And the moral law cannot be the consequence of will, either human or divine, since in that case the moral law would not unchanging.

You see where this is going.

The ground of the moral law must be the sort of being who could be the ground of a natural moral law. So, it could not be a contingent intelligence, one whose existence and moral authority is dependent upon something else outside itself. For in order to be the ground of morality, a being must not receive its existence and moral authority from another, for that other being, if it is not contingent, would then be the ground of the natural moral law. Therefore, the source of the moral law must be a self-existent, perfectly good being who has the juridical authority that requires that we owe him our duty to obey. It seems only fitting to call such a being "God." As Richard Taylor puts it, “A duty is something that is owed… but something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as a duty in isolation…. The concept of a moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but the meaning is gone.”

I must say that I at least appreciate the fact that Andrew T is not saying, "I insist on dealing only with people who have silly positions," which is rather what Heather Mac sounds like she's saying.

Zippy's "neener, neener, neener" is hilarious, by the way.

This is one answer that Michael Novak gives on this question of the problem of evil:

Yet even when she has eliminated God from the scheme of life as she [MacDonald] sees it, she has not diminished by one iota the same evils, sufferings, and injustices we both see around us. She does not explain how they fit into her fairly rosy
view of progress, reason, and the secular. A faith she dares not express seems to tell her that this progress is indefinitely upwards, ennobling, worth contributing to.

He concludes:

In my view, Heather’s own conscience and noble longings for the good—which seem foreign to most other things in the universe—are signals of the divine.

When a tsunami kills 250,000 people, is that proof that God doesn't love us?

Take it from Stalin who said:

"One death [let's say the man called Christ] is a tragedy; a million [or in this case a quarter of a million] is a statistic."

Yet, the best from another Great is: "God is Dead"

Period.

Perhaps, in a Wittgensteinian fashion, one may also insist that such a critique of the language of believers suffers from the condition of what Anscombe described as trying to make sense of the lives of believers by peering into a church through the stain glass windows. One has to, so to speak, enter the form of life in order to understand the meanings of such assertions. That is not to deny the truth-functionality of such assertions as MacDonald raises into question. It is merely a recognition that the meanings of such expressions only have their sense within a language-game of which MacDonald has no intimate acquaintance.

By the way, I am afflicted with a minor case of proof-reading-itis right now, so I can't do a lot here, but speaking as the village "modernist," (i.e., non-Thomist) I just want to say that there is rational evidence for the existence of God by way of explanatory inference. I realize that this sounds like a shot across Ed Feser's (and Byronicman's) bows which I am then in cowardly fashion going to refuse to follow up on plea of "I have to go check some proofs now." I say it only because the strongly anti-explanatory perspective has now been represented in the thread, and I want to point out that MacDonald's position (that Christianity is not well-supported rationally) can be entirely rejected from within a different Christian tradition as well.

So far, the responses I've gotten have ignored the distinction I drew between the problem of natural evil and Mac Donald's actual argument. Quite possibly, this is a problem on my part in asking -- so I want to be clear what I'm saying. To recap:

----------------------
A. The Distinction

(1) The problem of natural evil says that there is a necessary conflict between God's nature (omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent) and the existence of things like tsunamis.

(2) Mac Donald's argument says that some Christians are irrational by believing contradictory things. In other words, the key distinction is that Mac Donald is talking about what Christians believe, rather than what God is.

B. The Christian Response

Rob G. (and others) responded to (A2) by claiming that not all Christians believe contradictory things. I agreed that this, at least, recognized Mac Donald's argument and was a good jumping-off point for discussion.
----------------------

So, to be clear: I am not making the Argument From Natural Evil as a positive argument for atheism. The only thing I want to explore is whether the response (B) is an adequate response to Mac Donald's (A2). Therefore, what I asked what Rob G. (and those others) is what they actually do believe about natural evil -- and I picked as an example the 2004 tsunami.

I was therefore a little disappointed to see the following responses from CJ and Francis Beckwith. I'll quote Francis Beckwith's:

It is certainly not logically inconsistent to claim that God loves us and that a tsunami kills 250,000 people. After all, it is possible that no matter what possible world God created there would be evil and natural disasters and that every other possible world is worse. As long as that is logically possible, the presence of evil in this world, even great evil, is not a logical defeater to theism. Al Plantinga pretty much ended this debate in 1967.

Again, respectfully: that's not my question. My question -- slightly rephrased here, I hope for clarity -- is: as a Christian, do you think the 2004 tsunami shows (a) that God loves us or (b) that God doesn't love us?

(With respect to the rest of Mr. Beckwith's reply, posing questions about atheist morality: I would be very happy to engage in a discussion on the subject, although I think it is quite distinct from the question here. So, if I may be so presumptuous: if you'll create a separate blog entry on the subject, I will be happy to talk about the subject at length and answer all of your questions.)

Lydia: Thanks for the compliment; notwithstanding our first meeting, I hope we can go on to have an interesting exchange of ideas.

-Andrew

I'm not sure why the tsunami is supposed to be taken for evidence that God does or does not love us. I personally have never seen a Christian argue that a massive death toll proved the existence of a loving God, or at least that it should be taken for evidence of a loving God by non-believers.

Your dichotomy is obviously a false one.

My question -- slightly rephrased here, I hope for clarity -- is: as a Christian, do you think the 2004 tsunami shows (a) that God loves us or (b) that God doesn't love us?

I just love it when the last resort of a despot is often the ultimate reliance on the either/or fallacy.

How about this:

Given God's omniscience, does God having yet created Lucifer mean that God is, in fact, the Creator of Evil?

Here's what I wrote, little good it will do anyone:

Ms. MacDonald doesn't understand science or religion. All science is empirical. It is based on the experience of our senses through a brain that organizes (pun intended) sense experience.

The experience of God is a sensory experience which is then interpreted through organizing features of the human brain.

Reason is neither separate from the organization of sensory data that results in conclusions about nature, nor separate from the organization that results in the sensory data of "spiritual" experiences (like love or God) that result in conclusions about nature since everything we experience is by definition, natural.

Of course, reason frequently mismanages interpretations of experience (data) to result in false conclusions about nature. This is true in science and matters of faith.

MacDonald wants a scientific test for theism? Easy enough. All she has to do is perform an experiment in the same way and anthropologist or molecular biologist would. Go out and meet God by making the proper preparations that would induce God to approve a meeting, which would mean meeting God more on his terms, or rather in a manner that has proven successful for countless other humans.

An anthropologist doesn't insist that some aboriginal tribe journey to New York, take up residence in a nice house so he can study them at his convenience, does he?

Nor does a biologist demand that molecules he wishes to study first conform to his theory about their behavior in solution.

Andrew:

My own answer is 'no'. That is, the tsunami neither shows that God loves us nor does it show that God does not love us.

Though an admirable attempt, I find various things the matter with Mark Butterworth's comments. Among them being:

The experience of God is a sensory experience which is then interpreted through organizing features of the human brain.

So can the experience of such things as the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and E.T.

The mind is capable of fantasia, mind you. (pun intended)

Nor does a biologist demand that molecules he wishes to study first conform to his theory about their behavior in solution.

A scientist of the sort can actually impose such a demand by creating an environment within solution conducive to his end and such attempts can prove verfiable of the kind of evidence he wishes to obtain.

Even though I have been banned from Larry Auster's website, I don't want to be as churlish as Larry, so when he makes a good argument it is worth pointing out. Therefore, I suggest Andrew T check out Larry's back and forth with Heather which someone around here has already linked to. It directly answers the tsunami question.

Zippy: Thanks for answering! (I mean that seriously and sincerely.)

Everyone else: you're still trying to make what I've asked into an argument about God, rather than an inquiry into Christian beliefs. The question is: how do you interpret the evidence of a tsunami that kills 250,000 people? That's it. There's no trickery, there's no "false dichotomy" -- just a question. Zippy answered it; so can the rest of you!

you're still trying to make what I've asked into an argument about God

This coming from the person who asked:

My question -- slightly rephrased here, I hope for clarity -- is: as a Christian, do you think the 2004 tsunami shows (a) that God loves us or (b) that God doesn't love us?

Thus, my question becomes: How can such an inquiry about God not result in an argument about God?

It is the planted axiom of that inquiry that is the matter here.

I vote with Zippy. The deaths in the tsunami do not show that God loves us nor that God does not love us. They are compatible with either proposition.

Lydia either loves God or her husband -- either the one or other! Period.

"I vote with Zippy."

Zippy is either a Republican or an American.

"...I've asked...an inquiry into Christian beliefs. The question is: how do you interpret the evidence of a tsunami that kills 250,000 people?"

I interpret it as evidence that this life is a vale of tears, complete with suffering, heartache and unspeakable loss. The mystery of evil cannot be explained as much as accepted. I also, find joy, sacrifical love and sunrises hard to comprehend. You?

I vote with Kevin. Well done.

Andrew:

The iPhone (mercifully for readers) limits the verbosity of what I can say. But I would add that I think the problem of natural evil is Self-refuting. The capital S is deliberate: it isn't that the PONE argument refutes itself. Rather, he who asserts the PONE cocomitantly asserts the evil of his own existance and the existance of everyone and everything he loves, because we are all the product of, among other things, events we can categorize as natural evils. To assert the PONE is to assert that no good God would love me and create me.

Some object that an omnipotent God could create us without creating our individual pasts. It seems to me that this is akin to asserting that God can create a rock heavier than He can lift: that is, it depends strongly on a certain answer to a paradox of reason.

Anyway, the PONE is a big subject. Suffice to say that a particular tsunami is anything but prima facie proof either that God loves us or that He does not.

The question is: how do you interpret the evidence of a tsunami that kills 250,000 people? That's it.

Fair enough.

Straight out, I don't have a ready interpretation for such occurrences. As with any tragedy, those who experience it and survive have to interpret that experience for themselves, by the best lights that they possess. For some, I freely grant that recourse to atheism may be the only apparent light, and as personal experience, this may be the best argument for the non-existence of God that there is. The world is generally intelligible, but every fact of the world isn't intelligible in the same way, and some are likely not intelligible at all. I simply choose to deal with tragedy in the context of my faith. I am an intellectually convinced Christian. Period. There comes a time when you have to put certain questions away--you have to settle them so you can get on to other matters. To settle them in favor of God is to remain open to the world, in my view. To settle them as an atheist is to close oneself off to possibility. For me, this is unacceptable, both as a philosopher, and as a mere human being whose fundamental, intuitive response to the world and to life is that of joy, wonder, and gratitude.

If my faith isn't deep enough to sustain me through tragedy, I pray for the grace to seek more depth. Job and the Psalmist, as well as the saints and martyrs, are our models for this. God can handle my miscomprehension of him. He is even great enough to handle any bout with atheism that I might experience as a result of tragedy. God is not diminished by my anger at him, my rebellion against him, my defiance of him, nor from my atheism (even convinced Christians can think and act as atheists). I am the one who is diminished. I can choose to give my sufferings to Christ, who, as Chesterton noticed, for a moment made God Himself out to be an atheist (Mt. 27:46, Cf. Psalm 22). Christ is God gone-to-that-depth-and deeper-still. Christ is God-who-has-suffered.

It is difficult to express this approach to religion in a chatty blog post. These are hints of the deepest truths of Christian faith, and one is loath (all due respect to non-believers present) to dole them out frivolously to those who are committed to mockery, logic-chopping, or supercilious know-nothing skepticism (present company hopefully excluded). But it is real. And it is most human.

I'm told that this true, but haven't established it myself as a fact (so grains of salt are in order). If true, what, if anything, ought one to make of it?

The greatest concentration of casualties from the tsunami was in Aceh. Aceh is also the locus of another "greatest concentration:" militant Islamicists -- more there than anywhere else in the world. If so, shall we say that God was, so to speak, killing the killers (past, present, and future), and that this was an event of love, justice, and the preservation of the innocent?

I don't know. Nor does anyone else.

But I do know personally of a Christian evangelism group that met daily on the beach in Aceh for prayer. But on the morning of the tsumani, one of the group members insisted that God was telling him that they ought to meet on higher ground. Because they did, they were spared, every one of them.

But I suspect that one could find illustrations that move in entirely the other direction.

In other words, I'm supporting Zippy's view that this event is susceptible to various interpretations, some even diametrically opposed to one another. We do not have all the necessary data needed to assess this event's significance. Nor do we know what use God has, or will, make of it. But, despite our ignorance -- and the ignorance of secularists -- on this this point, we continue to argue about things no one does know or can know.

But when did ignorance stop debate about God? I simply allude to what E. Jungel once said: We're not talking about something easy here, like quantum phyiscs. We're talking about God.

thebyronicman,

If my faith isn't deep enough to sustain me through tragedy, I pray for the grace to seek more depth. Job and the Psalmist, as well as the saints and martyrs, are our models for this. God can handle my miscomprehension of him. He is even great enough to handle any bout with atheism that I might experience as a result of tragedy. God is not diminished by my anger at him, my rebellion against him, my defiance of him, nor from my atheism (even convinced Christians can think and act as atheists). I am the one who is diminished. I can choose to give my sufferings to Christ, who, as Chesterton noticed, for a moment made God Himself out to be an atheist (Mt. 27:46, Cf. Psalm 22). Christ is God gone-to-that-depth-and deeper-still. Christ is God-who-has-suffered.

Another great comment!

You're so hip these days!

Some of the things you mentioned above reminds me of what JP II who said in Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

God is always on the side of the suffering. His omnipotence is manifested precisely in the fact that He freely accepted suffering. He could have chosen not to do so. He could have chosen to demonstrate His omnipotence even at the moment of the Crucifixion. In fact, it was proposed to Him:

"Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe" (Mk 15:32). But He did not accept that challenge. The fact that He stayed on the Cross until the end, the fact that on the Cross He could say, as do all who suffer: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34), has remained in human history the strongest argument. If the agony on the Cross had not happened, the truth that God is Love would have been unfounded.

Yes! God is Love and precisely for this He gave His Son, to reveal Himself completely as Love.

Christ is the One who "loved to the end" (Jn 13:1). "To the end" means to the last breath. "To the end" means accepting all the consequences of man's sin, taking it upon Himself. This happened exactly as prophet Isaiah affirmed: "It was our infirmities that he bore, /We had all gone astray like sheep, / each following his own way; / But the Lord laid upon him / the guilt of us all" (Is 53:4-6).

The Man of Suffering is the revelation of that Love which "endures all things" (1 Cor 13:7), of that Love which is the "greatest" (cf. 1 Cor 13:13). It is the revelation not only that God is Love but also the One who "pours out love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (cf. Rom 5:5). In the end, before Christ Crucified, the man who shares in redemption will have the advantage over the man who sets himself up as an unbending judge of God's actions in his own life as well as in that of all humanity.

There is more in that book, but this is the more substantial core of it for me.

With all due respect to Beckwith's Calvinist Pope (I mean that as a term of endearment), Alvin Platinga; for me, JPII was and continues to be the Man when it came to the answer.

"The question is: how do you interpret the evidence of a tsunami that kills 250,000 people?"

I agree with those above who deny that this event, or the Holocaust, or the fact that both my mother and her mother, both devout Christian women, died of Alzheimer's in their 70's, speaks at all to the question of whether God loves us or not. The tsunami was a natural evil, and a tragedy pure and simple. I reject the notion that God needed it to fulfill his will, just as I reject the idea that God needs any evil in order to fulfill his will. In that sense, there's nothing to 'reconcile.'

For more on this line of thought, I'd highly recommend David B. Hart's small but profound book, "The Doors of the Sea."

Ari,

Yes, JP II is so terribly good on this. I think perhaps the key theological insight he possessed, the one thing so central to his thought, is Christ's solidarity with man (B16 does very well with this too). It was perhaps his greatest strength as bishop, his ability to express that so well in its myriad facets, both in his writing, and also by making himself a physical symbol of that solidarity, in his world travels and especially in the last years of his illness.

With Lydia and Frank,

I think there are two different version of the argument from evil for the non-existence of God. It depends on who is making the argument. On the one hand, you have the disaffected academic (and his imitators) who sits ensconced in his study, putting forward re-formulations of PoE's vs. theodicies. These debates can be interesting and very stimulating. and helpful in clearing away intellectual obstacles and confusions--a very good deed. I really enjoy Plantinga and Quentin Smith (and Lydia McGrew and Francis Beckwith), and the whole lot of you.

On the other hand, you've the person who is actually suffering, does not understand the compatibility between his suffering--that which he is presently experiencing--and the existence of a good and loving God. This person professes atheism. You are an undergrad philosophy major doing summer aid work in Indonesia--I hardly think it's the time to introduce Plantinga's logical distinctions to a person who has just had their entire family wiped out in the Tsunami. You are looking around for a saint at that point, and if its just got to be you, you pray to be a witness for Christ's solidarity with that person at that moment. And you leave the rest to Divine Providence.

The life of Mother Theresa, to use just one glaring example, is incomprehensible if the Christian gospel is not true. Witness certain raving lunatics who have written entire books in the effort to deconstruct her. They are the intellectual equivalent of Chauvelin, who leaps to his death becasue his worldview has no place for Valjean. She is incomprehensible to them, and I confess, as a Christian and a Catholic she is practically incomprehensible to me. But she existed, and she did what she did, and I think there is an explanation: The Christian gospel is true. This argument does not get me a passing grade in Logic 214. But it is compelling to a person of, shall we say literary sensitivity.

Ok, how did this Ed Feser thread about Social Conservatism suddenly morph into Andrew T's thread about "How do Christians interpret the evidence of a tsunami that kills 250,000 people"?

Those who do not provide answer are either athiests or communists.

Those who do are either fideists or imbeciles.

MacDonald needs to get out more -- or maybe just read more widely. Neither I nor most of the Christians I know would take the death of a quarter of a million people in a tsunami, as such, as evidence either for or against the existence of God. And there is certainly no lack of intelligent, thoughtful work on what constitutes evidence there.

The tsunami is, of course, a crushing disproof of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being who unconditionally guarantees that a quarter of a million people will never die in a natural disaster. Everybody who held that view has now been refuted. But you will have a hard time finding a serious thinker in the Christian tradition over the past 2000 years who can even be plausibly misunderstood as endorsing anything like that view.

As Lydia has pointed out, even granting the false premise regarding how Christians reason, MacDonald's argument with X and ~X is hilariously confused. I think it's too generous of Lydia even to recast it in terms of probability theory; MacDonald is committing the more basic error confusing the 'is' of predication with the 'is' of identity.

I just want to say that there is rational evidence for the existence of God by way of explanatory inference.

I think so too. When LaPlace said "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse", I think he was wrong. I was only pointing out that the 7th century Greek wasn't trying to solve natural mysteries with a "God hypothesis." He just knew the gods were real. It was patently obvious to him. Now it wasn't so obvious to LaPlace, and Thomas Aquinas neither, to say nothing of Paley. They needed good arguments.

thebyronicman,

I was only pointing out that the 7th century Greek wasn't trying to solve natural mysteries with a "God hypothesis."

I'm open to correction here (as I am neither classicist nor philosopher), but didn't Greeks as Socrates himself deny the very existence of the gods and, in fact, believed in the omnipotence of the Logos?

Now it wasn't so obvious to LaPlace, and Thomas Aquinas neither, to say nothing of Paley. They needed good arguments.

It was as 'obvious' to Aquinas and the other scholastics, through Faith. The argumentation was for the medieval intellectual project.

It was as 'obvious' to Aquinas and the other scholastics, through Faith. The argumentation was for the medieval intellectual project.

I don't want to quibble over it, but Thomas does say that the existence of God is not self-evident to the human intellect. The educated man can know God exists by argument, and furthermore it is his Christian responsibility to attain this knowledge. The Catholic Church still teaches this today. For Thomas, it is certainly no shame for the uneducated man to know God's existence by faith alone (not that "faith alone"), by revelation. But the question itself is not merely a Medieval project. The point I really wanted to make is that for the pre-philosophical pagan, well, he's pre-philosophical. He doesn't have scientific explanandum that require scientific explanans. But he knows the gods exist intuitively. I suppose you could call this a sort of natural revelation, if you wish, but it's not the same thing as scholastic natural philosophy, of course. The pagan just sees the gods in the natural world. They are there. And he begins forms his language in relation to the gods he sees. These are the origins of the myths. I mean he pre-literary myths, not the ones we read in Homer or Ovid, although the clues to the more primitive consciousness are still there.

It's all in Owen Barfield. Ask Prof. Bauman, he knows.

I'm open to correction here (as I am neither classicist nor philosopher), but didn't Greeks as Socrates himself deny the very existence of the gods and, in fact, believed in the omnipotence of the Logos?

Yes, of course. Naturally there is the real Socrates (who seems to appear in Plato's earlier stuff) and the Platonic Socrates. The real Socrates was probably an atheist, but who knows for sure? He doesn't place any stock in the superstitious irrationalism of his Athenian interlocutors, that's one thing we know. Plato has hypostatized the Forms (eidos), but he's approaching a true notion of God, a conception of the divine that an early Christian theologian can enter into dialogue with (Cf. Augustine, Justin Martyr). The mythic gods were glimmers of truth distorted all out of proportion, and largely perverted. Their ways were chaotic, and the world was beginning to demand a rational, coherent explanation. These explanandum were starting to appear in the minds of a few visionaries, the Milesians, the Ionians. The philosophers had to leave the gods behind in order to set the world on a rational foundation. Only then, for the Greeks, could the One True God could make his appearance. And lo and behold, He did.

the minds of a few visionaries, the Milesians, the Ionians.

And don't forget those Eleatics! And I think "these explananda."

All of this is quite apart from the question of whether any movement which contemptuously dismisses and attacks one of the principle building blocks of a given society can reasonably be described as "conservative." Still more, can a movement whose entire raison d'etre is to purge the fundamental metaphysical (and therefore moral) foundation of a given society be said to be "conservative," within the context of that society? It seems self-evidently absurd. Unless by conservative one simply means "not explicitly leftist," which isn't really the same thing at all.

Sage you are quite right, although I'm sure you can follow the digression. At any rate, these terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are notoriously slippery. Due to the appalling devolution of political discourse and the polarization of the conversation into party alignments (either you are a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican and that's pretty much that), everything and everyone just gets forced down the same two pipes. You are a conservative if you support a majority of the same policies that other conservatives support--never mind the reasons why you support them. That doesn't much matter, because we have to get on with the business of supporting our candidates and winning elections! That someone like Heather Mac Donald (I don't really know her writing well, so I'm going on what I've seen lately) gets to be called a conservative, for the precise reasons you mention, makes not much sense. What's she for conserving? Is it simply because she is fond of certain policies currently endorsed by Republican party politicians or political philosophers branded "conservative?" ISTM that being a conservative is about preserving precisely those building blocks of society to which you obliquely refer. The policies are a means to that end, and the policies may have to change in service of that end. What then, once you've disassociated yourself from the end?

byronicman writes "Naturally there is the real Socrates (who seems to appear in Plato's earlier stuff) and the Platonic Socrates. The real Socrates was probably an atheist"

This is misinformation. Perhaps the difficulty lies in failing to distinguish between the traditional gods of the Greek religion from the piety that Socrates practiced. They prosecuted him for this--you should have read--claiming that he introduced theological innovations. Socrates' challenge against the traditional religion of the Greeks is often subverted into atheism by rationalists enamored with enlightenment and fond of irony.

Socrates' challenge against the traditional religion of the Greeks is often subverted into atheism by rationalists enamored with enlightenment and fond of irony.

I didn't intend to make too much of Socrates purported atheism, and I stated that poorly, you are right. He does, after all, claim a witness from the Oracle at Delphi, and seems to wear it as a badge, not to scorn it. If Socrates can definitely be called "atheist" it's probably in a similar sense that the early Christians were called so--they rejected the Roman pantheon.

As is so often the case on these issues, I think byronicman is spot on.

Conservatives are supposed to be about the business of conserving -- in our case, conserving the best of western tradition -- things like the good, the true, and the beautiful. They know that he who finds such things finds More -- and that More is God Himself, without Whom nothing. They also know that without God we can never find them. Indeed, without God we could not even convincingly define them. Conservatives are about conserving things like justice, the traditional family, even civilization itself -- which is always under siege. Because we are not born civilized, we are always one generation from barbarism. We have to domesticate each new generation, and that domestication is best produced by religion.

Conservatives know that among the things that give rise to -- and protect -- the richest blessings of life, nothing is more fundamental than religion. Conservatives know that no civilization can long endure without a public orthodoxy, and that any public orthodoxy worth having is religious at the root. Undermine that public orthodoxy, and you undermine the civilization itself, and help to bring it to an end. To their double embarrassment, secular conservatives serve precisely that function, and they don't know it.

For the record, the public orthodoxy upon which so much of American culture historically rests is explicitly stated in the Declaration: All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Undermine those basic tenets, and we bring about our own demise. We can, and should, debate vigorously about whether or not these are the wisest bits of public orthodoxy, but, whether we like it or not, they are ours. As a cultural conservative whose most important allegiance is to God in Christ, I am committed to preserve, protect, and conserve them. I think they are imperfect, but still very good. I intend to receive them with gratitude from my ancestors and to pass them on with fidelity to my descendants. Along the way, if possible, I'll try to add my little bit to them, in order to leave the world a better place than when I found it. Secularism is incapable of doing that.

Secularism is incapable of doing that.

Precisely, and no matter what policies you attach to your secularism that are so-called "conservative," secularism is at the heart the bad sort of thing I think of when I think of "liberalism." In that link posted to Lawrence Auster--his conversation with Mac Donald (Gintas, near the top of this thread)--he found her out right quick for the liberal she truly is.

"Instead of engaging the writings of these thinkers, Brooks, Parker, etc. go for the lightweights, the populists that fit the caricature."

Perhaps its because when push comes to shove even those who are serious intellectuals discussing other serious intellectuals will vote for the lightweights and populists regardless of how corrupt and incompetent they are.

Folks like Gingrich, DeLay, Bush, Cheney, Palin, to name but a few holding or who have held office, are the fruits of all that serious conservative intellectualizing.

I note with amusement how the conversation has veered off into discussions of God and big waves, ancient philosophy and everything but the reason for the concern that folks like Brooks actually have. The reality is that the conservative Christian base of the Republican Party has taken that party off a cliff while it has recently electly folks who have done the same to the nation.

Take a look at the counties that voted red in the last election. Ask a random sample and your likely answers will be that Finnis is a beer, George is a wrestler, and Beckwith, who?

Neal Gabler had an on point op ed in the L.A. Times this past weekend that explains much. In a sense the secular conservatives are being unfair in blaming the right's Christianist elements. The notion that any sort of conservatism could lead to coherent and competent governance is, of course, ridiculous.

On the other hand, given that absent the conservative Christian vote, conservatism would have remained an abstract intellectual exercise (and I might add that intellectuals of all stripes still get paid regardless) without a prayer of actually having to govern, perhaps Brooks,et al are right.

Al,
You obviously have little knowledge of the counties that voted Republican, or of the persons who live in them. For example, EVERY county in Oklahoma voted Republican, including counties that contained Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Stillwater -- counties with major universities and impressive levels of sophistication, if you need to be told -- and apparently you do.

That conservatism can, and has, produced competent governance is simply a matter of repeated historical fact, and goes back at least to Edmund Burke.

I used to be an atheist and a secular conservative myself, before purely rational philosophical arguments — not blind faith, not ignorance of science, nor any other such red herring — led me conclude that the naturalist or materialist view of the world is mistaken and that theism is true

And that is your failure. "Purely rational philosophical arguments" are worthless. If you want to discover what is most likely true, another extremely reliable method is available. Galileo exposed Aristotle's folly. Heed the lesson.

Bocce,
How can purely rational arguments be "worthless" if they lead a person to acknowledge the most important and fundamental of all truths?

Al,

If you want to blame the inherent populism in our current system, everyone shares that blame--and perhaps this is your point. The folks will always state things in a too-simple way, and tend to fundamentalism of one stripe or another, and have rather cloudy notions and be a little bit bigoted and angry and suspicious--or on the flip-side, they will make pretensions to high ideas that they don't really own and understand. Cynical political operators will always be able to exploit the folks, on either side of the party coin. If there was a time when our national politics was dominated by great thinkers and statesmen, hasn't that time been long past? When you extend the franchise (and I'm not saying it shouldn't have been extended, but...) you pay a bit of a price, don't you think? You don't get a small, educated and informed electorate, but a broad and uninformed one, and you get more interest groups competing for the primacy of their agendas. Populism is inevitable. But I don't blame the folks. You solve problems with more and better leadership and ideas, not by sniping at the folks for being ignorant and wrong-headed. Conservatives need to take their lumps and buck-up. I'm hard-pressed to see how Christian fundamentalism is ruining conservative politics. For my money, a lot more of the blame rests on Catholics. With brothers and sisters like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and their army of apologists from the Catholic intelligentsia, who needs a persecution?

"Purely rational philosophical arguments" are worthless.

Well, they certainly seemed to have worked for Mr. Feser.

"Purely rational philosophical arguments" are worthless...

Did you arrive at such a conclusion through reason and argument or some other method?

Michael, I think you know I wasn't referring to every person in those counties but you seem to have missed my point. Conservatism and the Republican Party have two problems:

1. A Christianist base that appears to be centered in one region that is increasing out of touch with the rest of the country.

2. An intellectual base that seems to have been driven quite mad over a couple of issues leading them to support some really bad people.

That you had to go back to Burke sort of makes my point. You could have mentioned Hoover, oh, spot on is that you didn't mention W. You have a conservative Christian president right now, you had a conservative Congress for twelve recent years and how well did that turn out? Michael, some conservatives are realizing that the recent round of conservatism didn't work out so well. Some realize that and are looking for reasons

Thebyronicman, one may disagree with the the folks you named and I have from time to time however there is no equivalence with the ones I named. That you don't see this is at the core of the present conservative problem.

One example. Save for Kennedy's present health issues, all four could function competently as president (There would obviously be policy problems but that is another matter). Considering any of the five I named as someone one would want in that position defines one as deeply unserious.

And that brings us to another problem with Christian conservatives. Had McCain picked Romney instead of Palin, he would have had a serious shot as would have Romney were he at the top of the ticket (that McCain apparently wanted Liberman and allowed himself to be talked into Caribou Barbie speaks to another set of problems personal to McCain). That which energized the base turned everyone else off.

As a side note I might point out that Christian conservatives are not the only problem. Recently Nate Silver over at his
FiveThirtyEight blog had some interesting thoughts on the role of talk radio in conservatism's problems. Michael, while I realize that red states have islands of rational thought (we hope), you may not realize that there are broad swaths of this country in which radio is only counrty music, christian programming, and conservative talk. Lots of Limbaugh, not so much for the Finnis.

Oh, and Michael, do you still believe that top executives actually earn the salaries they are paid?

All of this is quite apart from the question of whether any movement which contemptuously dismisses and attacks one of the principle building blocks of a given society can reasonably be described as "conservative."

The tiny sect of Secular conservatism seems to be made up of people too intelligent to accept Liberalism's self-destructive effects and inevitable decline into totalitarianism, while still accepting the premise behind Liberalism's decay; that God is dead and one can organize a just society around a spiritual void. Secular rightists are, like the neocons who view religion in terms of social utility, unwitting partners to our civilizational demise.

It cracks me up when people call George W Bush 'conservative'. The problem with the Republican party is not that it isn't secular enough. The problem with the Republican part is that it isn't conservative enough. Republican's nominated John freaking McCain, for Pete's sake. You can have any candidate you want, as long as he is a liberal.

Al,
(1) Simply by indiscriminately calling conservatism irrational and under-informed you have not proven a thing. All you've shown is that you deal in false generalities, stereotypes, and bigotries. You think you can reliably categorize entire counties, even entire states, who voted for McCain in the last election as backward fools, wallowing in ignorance -- Bible thumping rubes out of touch with reality. But you cannot. Apparently you are of the same school of lies and bigotry as the president-elect, who thinks that people in Pennsylvania are ignorant folks who cling blindly and fearfully to their guns and their religion. Your own experience here on W4 tells you that what you say about Christians and conservatives is flatly false, but you continue to say it anyway. If you think we are the exception, then you need to think again.

(2) The same holds true with your assertion regarding Christianity being out of touch with the rest of the country. The chasm you detect is imaginary. You mistakenly identify a very strong reaction to George Bush with a rejection of Christianity and of conservatism, forgetting that Bush is, on his very best days, a mere neo-con, and that he is, with regard to public education, the economy, and foreign intervention, as big-government as any Democrat ever was. No Democrat has ever been as socialistic in economic policy and effect as George Bush. He has poured billions, even trillions, of taxpayer dollars down a bailout rat-hole that will never work. He is not conservative, though you seem to think so. You also forget too that every state that ever raised the issue of the definition of marriage at law has voted to identify it as one man and one woman. We've run nearly 30 states in row on that point. Perhaps winning nearly thirty states in a row seems out of touch to you, but not to me.

(3) Which "really bad people" do you mean, Al? Impeached, disbarred, perjurers like Bill Clinton, perhaps? Or folks like Obama, who for decades pal around with domestic terrorists like Ayers and with hate mongering liars and racial bigots like Jeremiah Wright?

(4) I didn't have to "go back to Burke" to find a good conservative government, as you mistakenly insist. I went back hundreds of years to Burke as an indication that there were many conservative regimes that governed well. Mentioning Burke in this regard isn't even remotely what you say it is. Burke himself, if you must be told, did almost all his theorizing out of power. He rarely got the chance to rule, though he established the principles and prudence by which later conservative regimes do rule. Further, for half of the years we had a Republican congress, we had a Democratic president. But even then, dealing with Bill Clinton, the congress did a rather good job, from the Contract with America to welfare reform.

(5) And for God's sake, no -- no, Herbert Hoover was not a conservative. He was an economic interventionist of the very worst sort. He was a big government Republican, which is not at all the same as a conservative. But don't take my word on it, look at Ron Nash's book Poverty and Wealth, and at Murray Rothbard's analysis of the Great Depression. Honestly Al, for someone who criticizes conservatism, you seem to have precious little understanding of what you criticize. Big government Republicans and conservatives are not interchangeable.

(6) As for who deserves their salary and who doesn't, if your fact-free criticisms are any indication of the rest of your life, then I'm beginning to think that whatever you get is too much. If you can criticize CEOs from a distance and determine better what they deserve than can the boards of their respective organizations, then I suppose I can do the same with you.

If you want to know better what conservatism is, then read my post above, at Dec 3, 11:52 PM.

Thebyronicman, one may disagree with the the folks you named and I have from time to time however there is no equivalence with the ones I named. That you don't see this is at the core of the present conservative problem.

Ah, thanks for coming along to straighten me out. I'm afraid there's more to politics and governing than administrative competency. There is also the little matter of principles. Your idea of who is out of touch with whom drew a smile. What makes you think the people in OK give a damn about being "in touch" with the people in SF? Please. The rest of the country. Please.

"[Mother Teresa] is incomprehensible to them, and I confess, as a Christian and a Catholic she is practically incomprehensible to me. But she existed, and she did what she did, and I think there is an explanation: The Christian gospel is true."

This point by Byronicman echoes that of Hart in his book on the tsunami, following Dostoevsky's lead. The answer to Ivan Karamazov's rejection of God based on the POE, is ultimately not argument, ratiocination or logic, but the existence of Elder Zosima.

"Al, You obviously have little knowledge of the counties that voted Republican, or of the persons who live in them."

Al also seems to have little knowledge of what makes up contemporary conservatism if he considers Gingrich, DeLay, Bush, Cheney, and Palin "the fruits of all that serious conservative intellectualizing."

Michael,
Burke often opposed the designs of Empire and famously stated his animus towards the financiers of his day. In other words, he has little to do with an ideology promoting grand plans of democratic capitalist expansion abroad and the economic Whiggery of unlimited growth and “creative destruction” at home. Please leave him out of a silly dispute over disreputable political brands. Al is a Democrat fan boy. If you want to engage him over the virtues and vices of his favorite white-collar criminals and abortion enthusiasts, fine. But, do so without besmirching Edmund Burke by retroactively outfitting him as a commentator for Fox News.

Kevin,
On what possible basis do you suppose I have connected Burke to Fox News? I'd like chapter and verse.

In 15 hours or so (sheesh, when do you people sleep!??), the discussion has meandered a bit off of where it was, so my apologies if this seems untimely. I didn't want to throw an apple in the room, so to speak, and then wander off without at least concluding my point.

So here goes. I continue to think -- and in particular in light of Mr. Feser's new post -- that some here are giving short shrift to Heather Mac Donald's argument about the rationality of belief in light of the tendency of some Christians to interpret contradictory pieces of evidence as supporting the same proposition. (I do think the criticism that Heather was overbroad is correct.) In particular, I don't think Heather was making the argument from natural evil, and I think it's a mistake to dismiss her position on those grounds when her actual argument deals with the interpretations drawn by believers rather than the nature of God itself. That's why I asked the tsunami question.

I should say at the outset that Heather's argument strikes me as consistent with my experience. After 9/11, after the tsunami, after the mine collapse in West Virginia and so on, I received plenty of glurge spam emails (and so, I would guess, did most of you) talking about how people "found God" in those tragedies. I certainly think it's not unreasonable to conclude that many Christians interpret the tsunami as an indication of God's love.

But that was met with some strong disagreement here, so I wanted to see how the more analytical minds approached the subject. Basically, I got two sets of responses:

1. Zippy, Lydia, the linked discussion to Larry Auster (see, I do read what y'all ask of me!), and others have answered along these lines: "The tsunami neither shows that God loves us nor does it show that God does not love us." I assume -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the warrant for this position is something akin to the argument advanced by Auster:

I supposed we could say that the same hierarchical idea applies to nature. The earth is not God, it is not perfect and timeless, it is changeable, dynamic, has earthquakes and accidents. Some Christian theologians say that natural disasters, earthquakes, etc. are themselves the result of man's Fall. Either way (whether the earth is that way because it's a lesser order of being, or the earth is that way through the Fall), God does not will an earthquake. He does not will disease. God wills only good.

I find this a very difficult position to understand (although I concede that it avoids Mac Donald's argument). To use a crude analogy: if I crank a sportscar up to 80 mph, point it at a playground full of schoolchildren, and then bail out at the last moment, then it scarcely matters whether I am "actively" at the wheel when it mows down the kids, right? Similarly, I find the distinction between what God "orders into being but does not will" versus what God "actively wills" to be the proverbial one without a difference.

2. On the other hand, Kevin, Aristocles, and thebyronic man all gave a different answer. Quoting Kevin: "I interpret it as evidence that this life is a vale of tears, complete with suffering, heartache and unspeakable loss. The mystery of evil cannot be explained as much as accepted."

I think this is a concession of Mac Donald's basic argument. The only reason for this sort of suffering to be inexplicable is that it seems to contradict with the notion of a loving God. (Please note, again, that I am not arguing that it actually so contradicts.) And ultimately, that's all Mac Donald means -- or at least, it's all I mean -- by the words "not rational." Thus, I think Kevin hits the nail on the head when he concludes: "I also, find joy, sacrifical love and sunrises hard to comprehend. You?" I agree. I don't know that we can give a satisfactory, rational explanation for those things.

Michael,
Your support for Bush's foreign policy and knee-jerk defense of a nearly sacrosanct "market". All standard fare for mainstream conservatism as promulgated by organs like Fox and NR. I am quite certain Michael, Rudy Guiliani would have garnered your support in the general election under the rubric of "lesser evil and member in good standing of the Likud Party". But I'm confident you can be weaned from these proclivities and I will try to help you in that regard.

Andrew,
"I agree. I don't know that we can give a satisfactory, rational explanation for those things."

Right, we can't rely on reason alone, yet the athesist's ego is typically bruised by this truth. Mystery becomes an affront and life itself a disappointing journey along the flatlands of randomness. Suffering an unredeemed burden. Joy a chemical reaction. Sadly, a gulf remains between us Andrew.

Kevin:

Right, we can't rely on reason alone, yet the athesist's ego is typically bruised by this truth.

Ah, it's funny how where we stand is a function of where we sit. I find that smart Christians tend to bristle when you say, "that's not a rational argument." :) In any event, my ego suffers no injury conceding that the varieties of human experience include the irrational.

Kevin,
I never connected my support for the war on terror with the political thought of Edmund Burke. I do connect it with our moral obligation to resist colossal evil, both here and abroad. Regarding me and Burke, you are making things up.

I never once said or thought that the market is "sacrosanct." That is your inaccurate characterization. But I do say it is a better guide than government when it comes to deciding which corporations ought to win and and which ought to lose, and to deciding where resources ought to go. Nor did I connect Edmund Burke to any of that. Regarding me and Burke, you are making things up.

Standard fare for Fox News has little or nothing to do with Edmund Burke, nor have I ever said otherwise. Regarding me and Burke, you are making things up.

Rudy Giuliani would have been the lesser of two evils between himself and virtually any Democratic candidate, especially as regards national defense and Israel. Saying so is thoroughly Burkean. But Giuliani was never my candidate. If it were up to me, I'd have created a Rice/Santorum ticket. But it wasn't up to me. And if I were to identify the most Burkean political thinker in America, I'd say it was Alan Keyes, especially when it comes to our fundamental principles, as articulated in his book Masters of the Dream. That choice does reflect Edmund Burke, unlike the things you make up.

I have lectured on Burke for twenty-five years. I do know what he thinks and says. I do know when my views and his agree, and when they don't. I do know when I am invoking him, and when I am not.

Andrew,
"In any event, my ego suffers no injury conceding that the varieties of human experience include the irrational."

I'm happy to hear that in your case, but for most non-believers despair is the natural response to what they consider the meaninglessness of life. The internet is a poor forum for conversion, but I hope you continue your pursuit of Truth and remain open to answers that often come only in silence. Be well.

Andrew T,

If you want to continue a correspondence about Richard Carrier, you can reach me at jsinger008@gmail.com. I also think that one of the key ideas related to answering the POE question, which Novak gets at in his debate with Heather and which I think Lydia, Zippy and Larry Auster would agree with, is the notion that without free will and the ability to make moral choices, the world as it exists today (with natural disasters and all sorts of death and destruction) wouldn't make sense and notions like good versus evil wouldn't have any meaning. In other words, without contingency, how can anything be considered good?

Al,

You are wrong about social conservatives being toxic to the Republican party:

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YTk3NTUxY2IxYmJkNjhhZjMyYzhhYzg1YjU1ZTkwZTY=

“I never connected my support for the war on terror with the political thought of Edmund Burke. I do connect it with our moral obligation to resist colossal evil, both here and abroad.”

Michael, right you couldn’t possibly connect Burke to a vague, “global war on terror” that fails to either identify the enemy, clearly state the endgame of the enterprise, results in occupying far away places in order to “change the way they live” and leaves our nation at an enormous economic and strategic disadvantage. So the question is; why did you not heed Burke at the beginning of the Iraq War and also make it clear in your comments above that Burke has no connection with the foreign policy of the current GOP?

Kevin,
The war on terror does, indeed, identify an enemy: militant Islam, whose victims are found all around the world, including America. But because the enemy in our day is unlike the typical national enemies faced by Britain in Burke's day, one cannot invoke Burke directly on this issue. So I do not. But for that very reason, it is equally difficult for those who oppose the war on terrorism to invoke him.

I am persuaded that the war on terror is both necessary and moral, though it has sometimes been conducted in unwise or immoral ways. In that regard, it is like every other war ever conducted, or ever will be conducted. Would I myself support a war opposing terrorism? Yes. Would I myself endorse a war designed to create a democracy where none has existed, and where the necessary cultural institutions needed to give rise to, and to maintain, a democracy never existed? No.

Kevin,
Notice how your approach has changed: from asserting that I link my views to Edmund Burke to asking why I am not linking my views to Burke.

Michael, your views are largely in line with the current GOP and you did bandy Burke's name around in that context. I think you can see how it would mislead someone into believing Burke informs much of mainstream conservatism in general, and your foreign policy views in particular.

As an aside, I doubt Burke would have supported stationing our troops in Saudi Arabia since the early '90's and the effort to "secure" the Persian Gulf oil basin so we could maintain our lifestyle of consumption. He'd be aghast at the cultural assumptions that have led us to an abject state of public and private indebtedness and dependence as we flail recklessly around the globe looking for creditors and energy sources.

Kevin:

I'm happy to hear that in your case, but for most non-believers despair is the natural response to what they consider the meaninglessness of life.

Ah, but I don't consider life meaningless. Want to see a picture of my six-year-old? (And seriously: thanks for the well wishes.)

Jeff Singer:

I also think that one of the key ideas related to answering the POE question, which Novak gets at in his debate with Heather and which I think Lydia, Zippy and Larry Auster would agree with, is the notion that without free will and the ability to make moral choices, the world as it exists today (with natural disasters and all sorts of death and destruction) wouldn't make sense and notions like good versus evil wouldn't have any meaning. In other words, without contingency, how can anything be considered good?

Again, maybe it's my limitations, but I just don't understand that argument. My choices are already constrained in lots of ways by the natural world (e.g., I can't choose to jump out of my 24th-story office window and fly down to the street; I can't choose to teleport home, etc., etc.). Why would you think that constraints prevent one from making moral choices? And what does any of that have to do with "contingency"?

"The tsunami neither shows that God loves us nor does it show that God does not love us." I assume -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that the warrant for this position is something akin to the argument advanced by Auster:

At a certain level I partially agree with Wittgenstein (horrors!) that in reducing a real thing to language we necessarily have to set aside much of what is essential to it. This is true of all kinds of mundane day-to-day things -- consciousness, time, etc -- let alone God. And theodicy, as interesting an endeavor as it can be, is as subject to a reductionist or positivist fallacy as any discourse about real things. So while I might agree that there is some truth revealed by the Auster formula, by the same token I would object to taking the Auster formula as a deductively complete theodicy upon which the existence of God stands or falls.

In a nutshell, in order for the PONE to have any teeth a great many assumptions - non-obvious, even self-refuting assumptions - have to be made about the nature of God, man, and reality. The PONE as a rational exercise - distinct from the lived experience of suffering - isn't even coherent enough to be wrong.

Nothing has changed.

The fact that even early fathers as Augustine in De Civitate Dei had already addressed the matter that calamity befalls both good & bad alike and that adverse events as these do not disprove the existence of the benevolent Christian God; this debate continues even unto our present day.

Augustine even went futher to say as to their likely purpose:

There is, too, a very great difference in the purpose served both by those events which we call adverse and those called prosperous.

For the good man is neither uplifted with the good things of time, nor broken by its ills; but the wicked man, because he is corrupted by this world's happiness, feels himself punished by its unhappiness. Yet often, even in the present distribution of temporal things, does God plainly evince His own interference. For if every sin were now visited with manifest punishment, nothing would seem to be reserved for the final judgment; on the other hand, if no sin received now a plainly divine punishment, it would be concluded that there is no divine providence at all. And so of the good things of this life: if God did not by a very visible liberality confer these on some of those persons who ask for them, we should say that these good things were not at His disposal; and if He gave them to all who sought them, we should suppose that such were the only rewards of His service; and such a service would make us not godly, but greedy rather, and covetous. Wherefore, though good and bad men suffer alike, we must not suppose that there is no difference between the men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both suffer.

For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked. And thus it is that in the same affliction the wicked detest God and blaspheme, while the good pray and praise.

So material a difference does it make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of man suffers them.

For, stirred up with the same movement, mud exhales a horrible stench, and ointment emits a fragrant odor.

Of course, who is Augustine compared to the secular giants of today, be they Christian or Atheist, as the moderns are the more enlightened of the bunch!

thebyronicman,

The real Socrates was probably an atheist

I don't think that just because Socrates didn't believe in the Greek gods, it automatically makes him an athiest; that is, it's not that he didn't believe in God -- he just didn't believe in the gods.

Want to see a picture of my six-year-old?

Oh, oh Andrew, then this is an especially dangerous time for you. Be very careful of what your child reads, hears, sees and feels during this Christmas season. The allegory of the gift can undo even the most rigorous instruction in unbelief.
You've been warned. One can't bury the Nativity deep enough under the glitzy trappings and materialist substitutes! He and his Family keep popping up when you least expect it.

Kevin,

I have the American right to prevent members of my family from being contaminated by your (and this world's) most popular superstitions.

Keep those commercialized trinkets of historical ignorance away from me and mine!

I prefer modernity's more sophisticated version of religion: science.

One day, we will prevail so as to finally obliterating all remnants of that superstition that are even espoused in our own nation's constitution!

The words "Creator", "God", etc. which serve only to perpetuate that abominable superstition will ultimately become obsoleted as it has, in some parts of American society, already been largely outmoded.

Perhaps in decades, if not, the centuries to come, the very ideas of The Good and The True will likewise suffer extinction of this kind until The Will to Power will be All.

AMEN.

By the way, Kevin, as aside regarding Burke and empire: He was on the side of placing India under parliamentary rule, and he was not opposed to British rule or power in either Ireland or America. He opposed bad government in those places, not the consolidation of the British empire in those places.

Zippy:

Well, again just speaking for myself, my warrant is more general: I just don't see any prima facie reason to see the tsunami as evidence either that God loves us or that He does not. People construct theories about what they think a good God would or would not do, of course, but those theories inevitably rest on non-obvious (to me) commitments to specific solutions to certain paradoxes of reason.

Again, I give you (admittedly facile) car analogy: if I crank a sportscar up to 80 mph, point it at a playground full of schoolchildren, and then bail out at the last moment, you probably would not conclude that I love those kids. I don't think you would be unable to "count the car as evidence either way" in terms of evaluating whether I love those kids just because I wasn't personally at the wheel.

Right? If I crank up the car and point it at a bunch of kids, I'm responsible -- legally and morally -- when the car hits them, whether I'm at the wheel or not. And similarly, when God cranks up the universe and points a tsunami at 250,000 people, isn't he responsible whether he's personally directing every last molecule of air or not? If not, why not?

Ari, classic! Though I doubt the parody applys to Andrew, it does to many of his allies. I was going to say "soul" mates, but don't want to offend any moderns.

Michael, what would the modern-day equivalent of the Emancipation Act be? Burke did his best to reform, restrain and prudently subvert the power of Empire. He lived at a time when empire seemed the natural end of statecraft. We are now learning the hard way, such is not the case today.

Kevin:

Oh, oh Andrew, then this is an especially dangerous time for you. Be very careful of what your child reads, hears, sees and feels during this Christmas season. The allegory of the gift can undo even the most rigorous instruction in unbelief.

Once again, Kevin, you keep making these very strange assumptions about me. I am not afraid of Christianity, nor am I 'rigorously' instructing my child in unbelief. Just last week, in fact, we read a bunch of different "creation stories," including your personal favorite. Sadly, his favorite was a Japanese creation myth (something like this one, only more prettily told); he's in a hydrophilic phase, I guess. (He loves sharks and aquatic dinosaurs too.) I'm also not really worried he's going to grow up to be an Izanami-worshipper.

You see -- if you can't tell from my posts here -- I'm not really interested in atheism as an end-state. I'm not an atheist because I think atheists are better people than Christians or that they have more fun, or whatever. I'm not (much of) an atheistic evangelist, either; if people (like my parents) are quietly happy being Christians, then bully for them. No: I'm an atheist because that's where the evidence leads me. I value critical thought and rational discussion, and that's what I'm passing on to my child.

Now, obviously, I think critical thought, rational discussion, and the available evidence leads one to atheism, and I would say that's the most likely course for my boy as well. But you know what? If my son grows up to be a critical thinker and a Christian I will certainly be a great deal more proud of him than if he grows up to be an unthinking atheist. And we'll have some fun dinner conversations, I'm sure. :)

No: I'm an atheist because that's where the evidence leads me.

And do note he has, as yet, to provide this convincing proof for Athiesm.

What, exactly, does atheism consist of, that there would be proof of it?

Gintas,

Kindly direct me to the incontrovertible evidence that God does not exist.

I have yet to discover such evidence.

That's what I'm asking! (Lou Costello voice).

No: I'm an atheist because that's where the evidence leads me.

But you've implicitly and narrowly circumscribed, a priori, what you'll count as evidence. By that standard, nothing of any consequence in life, as it is generally lived, may be proven: a mother's love, a hero's sacrifice, an opera's beauty, a proof's elegance, a liar's deceitfulness, a traitor's treachery. In short, a very closed, but ipso facto quite tidy, intellectual world.

Well, Andrew, if we both agree that the car analogy is facile, or at least incommensurable, I'm not sure of the point in belaboring it. If it is wheels on a fish, it is wheels on a fish. The capacity to cause a world to be or not be is just fundamentally different in kind from the capacity to drive a car. If I had the ability to make this world and everything in it either be or not be, what would be my best choice? To make this world not be?

"when God cranks up the universe and points a tsunami at 250,000 people, isn't he responsible whether he's personally directing every last molecule of air or not? If not, why not?"

Andrew, why do you assume that it's God who points the tsunami at the 250,000 people? Please, please, get a copy of David B. Hart's 'The Doors of the Sea' somewhere and give it a thorough going over. It's a hundred pages and it'll cost you about twelve bucks on Amazon. In a sense it's only a prolegomenon to the issue of the POE, but it looks at the question from a direction you're probably not used to seeing. I know I wasn't, and it really revolutionized my thinking on the whole thing.

Andrew T,

Zippy said it better than me: "If I had the ability to make this world and everything in it either be or not be, what would be my best choice? To make this world not be?" My sense is you want a perfect world, with no death, no pain, etc. But what would such a world be and how would we have free will in such a world?

I don't think that just because Socrates didn't believe in the Greek gods, it automatically makes him an athiest; that is, it's not that he didn't believe in God -- he just didn't believe in the gods.

Ari,

Of course you are absolutely right and I agree. I didn't state my view well on this point, as I noted to KM. Socrates was moving away from the irrational chaos of traditional Greek religion towards a more rational and virtuous approach to the world. This led to the charge of atheism, or at least theological innovation. It does not make Socrates an atheist as such. This goes for the early Christians as well, who were called "atheists" because they rejected the Roman pantheon.

thebyronicman,

I believe what you're referring to is not actually "atheist" as we have come to know the term today but that which refers, more properly, to those who upset the Pax Deorum, as it applied to the Christians in those Roman times since they defied the Greek gods by their belief in the Christian God -- which was a similar application of the term in the days of the Greek philosophers to refer to the latter as well for their skepticism of the traditional Greek gods.

At any rate, that's what I recall from those days in university.

Andrew;

Once again, Kevin, you keep making these very strange assumptions about me. I am not afraid of Christianity, nor am I 'rigorously' instructing my child in unbelief...I'm not really interested in atheism as an end-state...If my son grows up to be a critical thinker and a Christian I will certainly be a great deal more proud of him than if he grows up to be an unthinking atheist.

First, the basis for my assumption was simple; one must labor to pass on the faith with words and deeds. Maybe I'm myopic, but it can't be that difficult to pass on unbelief in a culture that is operationally atheistic. Sheer cultural osmosis should do the trick.

Second, you are spending a lot of time spreading the non-News, and preaching the anti-Word here at this site for someone not interested in an "end-state". You must have made some psychic investment in the conclusion you've arrived at.

Thirdly, I know as a dad you have greater aspirations for your son than that he simply turn-out as an exceptionally intelligent, presumably successful and independent man. If that was all that became of my kids, I think I'd spend the later years of life in a state of extreme self-recrimination and penance. The penance part doesn't apply to you, I know, but you get the point.

Finally, I sometimes wonder about 2 things. One, why are so many creation stories, scapegoat/sacrificial victim tales and resurrection myths found in so many different cultures throughout so many periods of history? I wonder if we've been hardwired in some way. The other is, why are anti-depressants, drugs, alcohol and host of other crutches in such wide use today. If I could describe our nation as if she were an individual, I'd say she's filled with dread, suffering from an extreme case of Peggy Lee's Is That All There Is syndrome. Do you see it that way too?

Aristocles:

And do note he has, as yet, to provide this convincing proof for Atheism.

Nor will I. Some of the better read Christians here will explain why.

----------

Steve Nicoloso:

But you've implicitly and narrowly circumscribed, a priori, what you'll count as evidence. By that standard, nothing of any consequence in life, as it is generally lived, may be proven: a mother's love, a hero's sacrifice, an opera's beauty, a proof's elegance, a liar's deceitfulness, a traitor's treachery. In short, a very closed, but ipso facto quite tidy, intellectual world.

I'm not really sure I understand the argument. Surely we have evidence of these things: my mom has me over for Thanksgiving; soldiers throw themselves on live grenades; people cry at operas, etc., etc. They're not pure metaphysics or abstractions; they manifest in the world.

Now if you're asking, can I prove with metaphysical certainty that my mom loves me in the same way that I can prove that the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees -- no. But that doesn't reduce the importance in my eyes. Does it for you?

----------

Zippy:

Well, Andrew, if we both agree that the car analogy is facile, or at least incommensurable, I'm not sure of the point in belaboring it. If it is wheels on a fish, it is wheels on a fish. The capacity to cause a world to be or not be is just fundamentally different in kind from the capacity to drive a car. If I had the ability to make this world and everything in it either be or not be, what would be my best choice? To make this world not be?

Well, we don't agree that the analogy is "incommensurable." (And that's not "at least" -- incommensurable means "bears no relationship," and I was conceding only that the relationship may bear some distinctions.) Seriously: I am responsible, morally and legally, for what I deliberately set into motion. I didn't think this was a controversial proposition.

-----------

Rob G:

Andrew, why do you assume that it's God who points the tsunami at the 250,000 people?

If there's a God who "created the heavens and the earth," I'm pretty sure tsunamis fall into one of those two things. Maybe you're choking over "at... people"; I don't mean that as deliberate intent, I mean it as "created something that could kill people."

-----------

Jeff Singer:

My sense is you want a perfect world, with no death, no pain, etc. But what would such a world be and how would we have free will in such a world?

That's not my argument. All I'm doing is trying to interpret the evidence as best as I can, and when I see a tsunami wipe out 250,000 people -- or thousands of little babies who die in their sleep for no reason each year in this country alone, all I can do is try and figure out if that's compatible with the gods that people talk about.

Kevin:

First, the basis for my assumption was simple; one must labor to pass on the faith with words and deeds. Maybe I'm myopic, but it can't be that difficult to pass on unbelief in a culture that is operationally atheistic. Sheer cultural osmosis should do the trick.

Kevin, I like you (really!), and I hope this doesn't come off too glib, but here goes: this is absolutely hilarious. I honestly can't begin to fathom how one could come to the idea that a culture in which ~90% of people identify as Christians is "operationally atheistic," and I doubt I could convince you of what it's like to be in my shoes. I guess I'll give you one hint: why is it that "Oh, what religion are you?" is a standard cocktail party question?

Anyway, I suggest we pass on from this, because I sense that I'll never be able to convince you to see it my way. But I would just humbly suggest to you that the proposition that the United States is "operationally atheistic" is, at best, highly debatable, and not a given.

Second, you are spending a lot of time spreading the non-News, and preaching the anti-Word here at this site for someone not interested in an "end-state". You must have made some psychic investment in the conclusion you've arrived at.

Once again, all I can say is that I don't see it that way. I don't think that you can find a single post of mine in which I've suggested that any of the Christians on this site are stupid for what they believe in or that they ought to abandon their Christianity. I do think my own beliefs are correct, of course, or else I wouldn't have them. And I do enjoy discussion and debate. But I don't think it's correct to say I'm an atheist evangelist, and I would submit that to the other Christians on the site to judge.

Thirdly, I know as a dad you have greater aspirations for your son than that he simply turn-out as an exceptionally intelligent, presumably successful and independent man. If that was all that became of my kids, I think I'd spend the later years of life in a state of extreme self-recrimination and penance. The penance part doesn't apply to you, I know, but you get the point.

Oh, sure. Go back and read what I said. I wasn't saying that's my sole goal for my son -- just that I would value him growing up as a critical thinker more than I would value him growing up to be an atheist for poor reasons.

Did I mention he plays the guitar?

Finally, I sometimes wonder about 2 things. One, why are so many creation stories, scapegoat/sacrificial victim tales and resurrection myths found in so many different cultures throughout so many periods of history? I wonder if we've been hardwired in some way.

I think that's an exceptionally interesting question. There's some very interesting evolutionary psychology literature (some of it written for the layperson, too) that I would recommend if you haven't checked out before.

The other is, why are anti-depressants, drugs, alcohol and host of other crutches in such wide use today. If I could describe our nation as if she were an individual, I'd say she's filled with dread, suffering from an extreme case of Peggy Lee's Is That All There Is syndrome. Do you see it that way too?

Not really. I think we have reached a point where several technological advancements are obsoleting valuable social constructs without giving us fully-formed positive social structures in return, and I think that causes a lot of confusion and unhappiness. In particular, the revolution in communication is breaking down our senses of community and privacy without filling that void.

I believe what you're referring to is not actually "atheist" as we have come to know the term today

Certainly, the term has a new meaning in the context of the Christian world. But apparently it was used in such a way in the first century, as applied to Christians. It does seem strange to us, since Christians clearly believed in a deity.

I am responsible, morally and legally, for what I deliberately set into motion.

But to make a complete world viewed from eternity be is not the same kind of act - at all - as to deliberately set in motion each and every individual event in that world. The former isn't something we human beings know much about, or can even in principle know very much about, at all; though we can understand, through the experience of our own freely willed acts, that making worlds be and setting individual events in motion are not at all the same. That is, we know that God does not do our own acts in precisely the same sense that we ourselves do them, and therefore a simplistic billiard-ball theodicy does not apply to the reality in which we live.

In moral theology terms (which is to say, I am now using terms like 'formal' and 'material' in their technical sense as meant in moral theology), it is manifestly wrong to suggest that God formally cooperates with everything which occurs. We know this because of our own free will: we do not know whether the domain of God's material cooperation is restricted only to areas where we are free to act, but we know at least that God at most materially cooperates when we do evil. So the assumption that God formally cooperates with natural evil - a necessary assumption in order for the PONE to make any sense as a criticism of theism - is an unnecessary assumption, in fact carries with it a whole anthropology of God (a Deopology?) which is not at all obviously true, and which (again) is Self-refuting, that is, requires God to hate us unless we postulate that it is coherently possible for Him to make us without making us.

So I guess we do disagree about the commensurability of your self-characterized-as-facile analogy.

Andrew,

why is it that "Oh, what religion are you?" is a standard cocktail party question?

I live in the NYC area so the question is never asked. Its just assumed one worships the Golden Calf. Beyond some public proclamations - God Bless America - and the suburbanized Holy Trinity of Nice, Tolerant and Cozy, I'd say we've relegated God to the realm of private hobby. A cosmic stamp collection to pull out on rainy days.

I don't think that you can find a single post of mine in which I've suggested that any of the Christians on this site are stupid

I didn't say you did and wouldn't continue if I thought you a bigot. O.k. on the "love debating" answer.

I wasn't saying that's my sole goal for my son -- just that I would value him growing up as a critical thinker

Again, relax. I know you want more than that and said as much; I know as a dad you have greater aspirations for your son

There's some very interesting evolutionary psychology literature

I haven't read any. Pass it on when you can.

I think we have reached a point where several technological advancements are obsoleting valuable social constructs without giving us fully-formed positive social structures in return

Agreed. In fact, I think many of our technological "advancements" are a form of flight from some intimidating presence or truth. Maybe it is just the natural desire to participate in Creation gone awry. Certainly appears as if many want to completely start, place themselves at the beginning, and reprise the role of Creator. Not sure, but Max Picard planted thoughts like that in my head a long time ago. Whatever it is, the unhappiness out there is reaching very worrisome levels and I'm not sure what will fill the void. The economic whirlwind we're about to reap might provide a greater appreciation for interdependence and community.

I often ask myself what takes more courage; truly living out the Christian calling in a world gone cold, or being an atheist, staring into the abyss and believing there really is nothing else beyond here.

Good luck with the guitar lessons!

why is it that "Oh, what religion are you?" is a standard cocktail party question?

You prove too much, Andrew. Any society in which that could be a cocktail party question would be, by that very fact, operationally atheistic. It presupposes the irrelevance of religion? In saner times, those would be fighting words.

thebyronicman,

Certainly, the term has a new meaning in the context of the Christian world. But apparently it was used in such a way in the first century, as applied to Christians. It does seem strange to us, since Christians clearly believed in a deity.

I don't think think you quite understood what I was saying. Perhaps I was vague.

What I meant to communicate was that in Roman times, those who upset the Pax Deorum were branded as "atheist" since they defied the gods by their belief in the One Christian God.

This is not unlike the Greek philosophers long before who, too, were branded as "atheist" for likewise defying the gods by their unbelief in them as well (though, as I had said, it doesn't actually mean they didn't believe in a God altogether).

Thus, I had said that the term "athiest" as we have come to use it in modern times is not in the same manner as it was applied then.

Andrew T:

Nor will I. Some of the better read Christians here will explain why.

Call me when you want to talk about Bell's Paradox.

Zippy:

But to make a complete world viewed from eternity be is not the same kind of act - at all - as to deliberately set in motion each and every individual event in that world. The former isn't something we human beings know much about, or can even in principle know very much about, at all; though we can understand, through the experience of our own freely willed acts, that making worlds be and setting individual events in motion are not at all the same. That is, we know that God does not do our own acts in precisely the same sense that we ourselves do them, and therefore a simplistic billiard-ball theodicy does not apply to the reality in which we live.

I don't want to be glib here, but: how is this not special pleading?

Kevin:

Again, I apologize if my writing style conveys more irritation or less good cheer than I feel. I was serious in my post: you strike me as a nice guy, and I've enjoyed our chat.

Steve Nicoloso:

You prove too much, Andrew. Any society in which that could be a cocktail party question would be, by that very fact, operationally atheistic. It presupposes the irrelevance of religion? In saner times, those would be fighting words.

Only if by "operationally atheistic" you mean "religiously pluralistic."

I don't think think you quite understood what I was saying. Perhaps I was vague.

You were clear and I got it. I think I was the one being unclear.

Thus, I had said that the term "athiest" as we have come to use it in modern times is not in the same manner as it was applied then.

I was trying to agree with the above when I said

the term has a new meaning in the context of the Christian world. But apparently it was used in such a way in the first century, as applied to Christians. It does seem strange to us, since Christians clearly believed in a deity.

The above of mine seems a sentence much in need of revision. Suffice to say, "we're all in agreeance."

Aristocles:

Call me when you want to talk about Bell's Paradox.

Never heard of it. Google suggests that this is what you're talking about, and if so, I'll happily concede I am way out of my depth.

Only if by "operationally atheistic" you mean "religiously pluralistic."

Tomayto-tomahto... we were always told (weren't we?) to avoid conversations about religion and politics. Why? Because those are, so it was once thought, things that divide people, often fiercely. But if, mayhap, the question "What religion are you?" has become a perfectly fair and innocent question at cocktail parties, well then religion must, by that very fact, be seen, at least by certain inquirers among certain company, as no longer divisive. Religion, under such a regime, now takes on all the significance of where you plan to spend summer vacation, where you got that beautiful sweater, or I must have the recipe for this divine guacamole. Religion, in short, becomes little more than a fashion accessory, a personal choice or preference, devoid of any transforming power or cultural identity. That, to me, is "operationally atheistic"--religion fit only for children and old pious ladies, and certainly not for men.

...how is this not special pleading?

Jeff:

My sense is [Andrew T] want[s] a perfect world, with no death, no pain, etc. But what would such a world be and how would we have free will in such a world?

Contra Voltaire, it isn't that he who asserts the PONE concomitantly claims that this is not the best of all possible worlds. Who knows what other worlds do or do not exist, and what is the point in speculating about them? He who asserts the PONE necessarily asserts that this world - including the asserter himself - should not exist, and that a good omnipotent God would see to it that it does not.

Zippy:

1.

I'm baffled by the question. How is it special pleading to acknowledge a real, knowable distinction?

Sure. A "distinction" divides a universe of subjects into two categories on the basis of a relevant characteristic shared by members of one group but not the other.

"Special pleading" creates a second set with one member.

2. With respect to Jeff's point, recall that I am not arguing either the PONE as a deductive argument against God, or for a world without suffering. You can see my point to him above (which I don't think he's answered).

No real sets have one member?

I'm more or less staying out of this thread, but do I take it, Andrew, that you advocate what's sometimes called the "evidential PONE"? That is, that it provides non-deductive evidence against the existence of the Christian God?

If so, you probably know the problem that besets the evidential PONE: If _some_ evil is compatible with the existence of the Christian God, how does the skeptic decide how much is to be expected and how much, therefore, is "too much" and hence evidence against?

Lydia:

I'm more or less staying out of this thread, but do I take it, Andrew, that you advocate what's sometimes called the "evidential PONE"? That is, that it provides non-deductive evidence against the existence of the Christian God?

If so, you probably know the problem that besets the evidential PONE: If _some_ evil is compatible with the existence of the Christian God, how does the skeptic decide how much is to be expected and how much, therefore, is "too much" and hence evidence against?

Here's what I said to Jeff, above:

That's not my argument. All I'm doing is trying to interpret the evidence as best as I can, and when I see a tsunami wipe out 250,000 people -- or thousands of little babies who die in their sleep for no reason each year in this country alone, all I can do is try and figure out if that's compatible with the gods that people talk about.

In other words: my position is not an affirmative counter-apologetic; I'm not saying that the existence (or quantity) of natural hardships necessarily makes belief in God irrational. All I'm saying is that, on the balance of the observable evidence, there doesn't seem to be a good basis to me to conclude that some God exists.

That's why I pretty vigorously disputed something Kevin said to me earlier; I emphatically do not think my job is to "spread the Anti-Word" and convince Christians they're wrong. Obviously, I think I'm right in my beliefs (or else I wouldn't have them!), and I also enjoy these sorts of discussions. But there's a reason I'm not writing a book like The God Delusion.

That just sounds a little slippy and unclear to me. I mean, either you think the logical PONE works or you don't. Either you think the evidential PONE works or you don't. The difference is that for the evidential PONE to "work" would simply be for it to provide some unspecified degree of disconfirmation to Christian theism, which could in principle be overcome by evidence in favor of Christian theism.

Lydia:

It is not my intention to be "slippery!" I am trying to give you the reasons for my disbelief as best as I can -- my apologies if they don't necessarily fit a particular acronym. Again: on the basis of the observable evidence, it strikes me that belief in the types of Gods that have been offered to me is not warranted. The fact that horrendous natural disasters happen to believers and infidels, the guilty and the innocent alike, is certainly data in that evaluation.

He who asserts the PONE necessarily asserts that this world - including the asserter himself - should not exist, and that a good omnipotent God would see to it that it does not.

The trade-off behind that statement looks strange - I should exist therefore the world should not have any less suffering in it.

If this world is sufficiently good, not the best or the worst, why should a skeptic grant omnipotence to a perfectly good deity? Why would he not say that the evidence leads towards the view that God is sufficiently good and omnipotent or alternatively God is perfectly good and sufficiently potent?

I emphatically do not think my job is to "spread the Anti-Word" and convince Christians they're wrong. Obviously, I think I'm right in my beliefs (or else I wouldn't have them!), and I also enjoy these sorts of discussions.

Andrew, curious. You simultaneously hold atheism to be true, post a considerable amount in support of that position, but you're not hoping to persuade others. For the record; I think your aim is not convincing others, as much as it is yourself. Frankly, it appears you are starting to have doubts about your own...doubt; I am trying to give you the reasons for my disbelief as best as I can.

My hunch tells me you're ambivalent about the few remaining vestiges of the Christian faith disappearing from the public square, primarily due to the track records of two officially "godless" governments during the mid-20th Century. True?

The trade-off behind that statement looks strange - I should exist therefore the world should not have any less suffering in it.

As is so often the case, it seems to me that the PONE is only 'coherent' - in appearance at least - when we equivocate between abstractions and particulars. But I'm not an abstraction: I'm a real person, with a real history, and real friends and family, etc; all of whom God loves as particular persons. Sure, God might make better worlds - and might indeed have done so. But none of those worlds are my world, with me in them. The answer to the question "Why would God will into Being a world with so much suffering in it?" is "me".

Kevin:

Andrew, curious. You simultaneously hold atheism to be true, post a considerable amount in support of that position, but you're not hoping to persuade others. For the record; I think your aim is not convincing others, as much as it is yourself. Frankly, it appears you are starting to have doubts about your own...doubt; I am trying to give you the reasons for my disbelief as best as I can.

Perhaps. In any event, I am gratified that you consider me a consistent skeptic!

My hunch tells me you're ambivalent about the few remaining vestiges of the Christian faith disappearing from the public square, primarily due to the track records of two officially "godless" governments during the mid-20th Century. True?

It depends on what you're asking. I certainly think that the best way to avoid an oppressive, totalitarian state like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China is to deprive the state of the power to control religion (while simultaneously depriving religion of the power to control the state). Amusingly, this strict separationist position was favored by many religious groups (especially Catholics) before about 1950.

As a strict separationist, I find the Supreme Court's Lemon test to be insane. Without going into the intricacies of that decision here, the Lemon test essentially allows a local government to rectify the evil of spending public dollars spent on religion by spending more taxpayer dollars on other religions (or irreligion) -- a position that can find no support among our Founding Fathers or in any case prior to the Lemon decision itself.

So how does this play out in practicality? Well, let's take the current dispute in Washington State. Washington State has no business using public funds to erect creches, menorahs, or atheist talking points. So in the alternate universe in which 90% of the U.S. is atheist, I would be equally opposed to having government dollars spent on "Beneficent Solstice" decorations, have copies of bits of The God Delusion carved on monuments, and the like. That's what "strict separation" means.

On the other hand, as a personal and cultural matter, I am not the slightest bit offended by private sector displays of religion. I want no part of the nitwit atheists who sue over Christian bumper stickers or who get their panties in a bunch when some Wal-Mart greeter says "Merry Christmas." If you don't like it, don't shop at Wal-Mart.

I certainly think that the best way to avoid an oppressive, totalitarian state like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China is to deprive the state of the power to control religion (while simultaneously depriving religion of the power to control the state.

Andrew,
You're claiming a humane polity can exist without a comprehensive doctrine, unifying myth or cult shaping the ends, means, morals and mores of the general culture. Can you give an example of an atheistic state respecting things like property rights, freedom of religion - oops you may be wobbly on that one given your comments on another thread - and a minimalist state?

The two most prominent examples in Western history, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were based on a godless political religion that required much violence and intimidation in order to subjugate the traditional doctrines that formed those societies. Troubling?

Kevin:

You're claiming a humane polity can exist without a comprehensive doctrine, unifying myth or cult shaping the ends, means, morals and mores of the general culture.

I don't know that I'm claiming that. I'm claiming that individuals can derive "humane-ness" without adhering to a comprehensive doctrine. I concede that it may be a problem to put into practice. I didn't realize we were talking politics on this thread.

Can you give an example of an atheistic state

No. I don't consider a country with a large, religious population being actively suppressed by a controlling statist ideology to be secular. I set forth my notion of a secular society here.

respecting things like property rights, freedom of religion - oops you may be wobbly on that one given your comments on another thread - and a minimalist state?

I don't think I'm wobbly on the freedom of religion, I just don't believe in the hard-leftist concept that you have an affirmative right to have the government give you special privileges to the exercise of a right in order to have the right itself. You can and should be free to believe whatever you want, free of government coercion, and to practice it as you see fit so long as (a) you haven't promised someone else that you wouldn't and (b) it doesn't hurt anyone.

The two most prominent examples in Western history, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were based on a godless political religion that required much violence and intimidation in order to subjugate the traditional doctrines that formed those societies. Troubling?

I find it very troubling that anyone could seriously consider Nazi Germany to be "godless." Gott mit uns, anyone? Stick with Mao's China (it's still pretty horrifying and all).

"You can and should be free to believe whatever you want, free of government coercion, and to practice it as you see fit so long as (a) you haven't promised someone else that you wouldn't and (b) it doesn't hurt anyone."

That's nice. But the real debates are about what counts as a promise, a practice, a someone, a hurt, and freedom. If you're Burke, they're one thing. If you're Rothbard, they're another. For example, under the sort of regime you suggest, there is no way a community can impede the proliferation of the ideals and practices of a pornotopia. That means that families that believe that such a scenario harms their community's moral ecology are restricted on how they can bring up their children, what is taught in their schools, what is inflicted upon them by the media and culture-forming institutions, etc. In such a scenario, these families are not really "free," since they cannot practice what they believe, for this requires by its very nature the cooperation of the rest of the community.

Some of my best friends are libertarians, but it always seems to be just the sort of philosophy that would be concocted by horny 20-something single white males living in their parents' basement.

Andrew,

I'm claiming that individuals can derive "humane-ness" without adhering to a comprehensive doctrine. I concede that it may be a problem to put into practice.

Before disorder appears in the commonwealth it emerges within the soul of the person. If an atheistic system is impossible to erect as a societal model, wouldn't that force you to question its validity in your personal life?

I just don't believe in the hard-leftist concept that you have an affirmative right to have the government give you special privileges to the exercise of a right in order to have the right itself

It is the statist who cannot tolerate voluntary exchanges in the marketplace, or conflates the the personal with the political, leaving the latter as the dominant form. Note the irony; you are proposing the compulsion of small businesses to provide goods and services against their will .Sounds hard-core leftist to me.

I find it very troubling that anyone could seriously consider Nazi Germany to be "godless."

A bizarre blend of Teutonic mythology, Nietzschian ethics and heterodox strains of Christianity anxious for earthly power and protection from the Bolshevik threat, gathered under a gang of explicitly neo-pagan leaders. Hitler banned the issuance of Pastoral Letters, the existence of independent Church-run Youth Groups, the Catholic Centre Party, and established his own parallel entities to usurp the role of Churches. The religious nationalism that was receptive to National Socialism and grew under it direction, results when orthodoxy is abandoned in favor of other idols. Thor or the Superman had replaced Christ as the emanating force in Germany. And we see this same phenomenon today in world immanent heresies such as Christian Zionism and Liberation Theology.

I'm sticking with godless as the accurate description of the Third Reich. But yes, Mao's regime is another good example and if you want to join us in combating diluted derivatives, clever parodies or explicit enemies to the Gospels, more than happy to have you!

Francis Beckwith:

That's nice. But the real debates are about what counts as a promise, a practice, a someone, a hurt, and freedom. If you're Burke, they're one thing. If you're Rothbard, they're another.

Sure! And when there are political issue threads, I'll be happy to have those debates. I'm not sure why that invalidates the overall methodology, though (if you're claiming that it does).

For example, under the sort of regime you suggest, there is no way a community can impede the proliferation of the ideals and practices of a pornotopia. That means that families that believe that such a scenario harms their community's moral ecology are restricted on how they can bring up their children, what is taught in their schools, what is inflicted upon them by the media and culture-forming institutions, etc. In such a scenario, these families are not really "free," since they cannot practice what they believe, for this requires by its very nature the cooperation of the rest of the community.

Actually, I think this example is a pretty good indictment of statism and endorsement of my approach -- to date, government efforts to "protect us from a pornotopia" have only made things much, much worse. On the other hand, the free market (e.g., filters, key-logging software, etc.) and social attitudes (e.g., having the computer out in the open as opposed to behind closed doors) have had comparatively more success.

Would you disagree?

Some of my best friends are libertarians, but it always seems to be just the sort of philosophy that would be concocted by horny 20-something single white males living in their parents' basement.

I think you're thinking of the Randians, and I was never particularly welcome at the Objectivist society parties.

Kevin:

Note the irony; you are proposing the compulsion of small businesses to provide goods and services against their will .Sounds hard-core leftist to me.

No, no, no, not at all. I emphatically support the right of any business to provide whatever service they want, or not, so long as those businesses aren't suckling at the federal teat.

A bizarre blend of Teutonic mythology, Nietzschian ethics and heterodox strains of Christianity anxious for earthly power and protection from the Bolshevik threat, gathered under a gang of explicitly neo-pagan leaders. ... And we see this same phenomenon today in world immanent heresies such as Christian Zionism and Liberation Theology.

Sounds like a problem of too many gods to me, rather than not enough.

I emphatically support the right of any business to provide whatever service they want, or not, so long as those businesses aren't suckling at the federal teat.

Sounds like a problem of too many gods to me,

Same as it always was. Next week, we talk about some of yours. Don't worry, we'll be gentle, we've all paid homage to some real monsters at one time or another.

It may be rational to think of the suffering in this world as my fault, though only in an existential way not in the sense of being an act of mine; but it isn't rational to think of the suffering in this world as God's fault, except to the extent that He permits it out of love for me.

That means God can and should permit suffering to you to the extent that He loves other persons. It is a framework in which human suffering isn't based on the debt of original sin that can be absolved with devoted faith; it is instead a necessary consequence of God's love. Since the core message of Christianity is the sacrifice God took upon himself in order to redeem the world, I have a very difficult time reconciling that with your justification.

That means God can and should permit suffering to you to the extent that He loves other persons.

It is a framework in which human suffering isn't based on the debt of original sin that can be absolved with devoted faith; it is instead a necessary consequence of God's love.

Since the core message of Christianity is the sacrifice God took upon himself in order to redeem the world, I have a very difficult time reconciling that with your justification.

Kevin:

Andrew, Well, unless they get in on Bailout IV or V, pharmacists don't receive federal funding. As for Catholic hospitals, I never think it wise to accept anything from Ceasar, but if Obama wants to force the issue, he's welcome to it. Trying to imagine the West Village on a Saturday night and the E.R. at St. Vincent's closed.

I'm obviously opposed to government bailouts.

I also think when a pharmacy dispenses RU-486 and they hire you as a pharmacist, you've contracted away your right to object on religious grounds. On the other hand, if you want to start a freelance pharmacy or a Christian pharmacy that does not dispense RU-486 or contraceptives, I support that, too.

(Incidentally, most pharmacies do indeed receive federal funds from Medicare.)

(Incidentally, most pharmacies do indeed receive federal funds from Medicare.)

Andrew, the next step in our descent into dystopia will be ensured by this logic; any business receiving federal funds by way of food stamps, Social Security and welfare payments, federal, state and local employee paychecks must comply with State mandates. Again, social contract theory is not only powerless to prevent the slide towards soft tyranny, it is the very rubric under which it advances. The only culture capable of protecting the atheistic libertarian is a Christian one.

Andrew,
Since Marcello Pera shares much of your philosophy, I thought you might find his comments below and new book - "Perché Dobbiamo Dirci Cristiani" (Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians) of interest;

"My position is that of an atheist and a liberal who asks Christianity about the reason for hope..."we must ask ourselves "who we are, what do we believe in, what is my identity, our identity; if I do not ask these questions, I do not know how to defend myself from those who attack me and I do not even know what to teach." "

"Pera noted that Christianity's concept of the human person as created in the image of God is not something found in other cultures, and said that this exists "prior to the state's intervention."

If we prescind from these Christian principles, he warned, we will have destroyed our constitutional heritage.

On a continent with such cultural diversity as Europe, the senator concluded, it is necessary to find a common patrimony that says: "This is Europe."
http://www.zenit.org/phprint.php

Interesting!!!! I know you want more than that and said as much; I know as a dad you have greater aspirations for your son...