| « | Eternity Road On The Air |
»
|
|
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Fran’s Sunday Ruminations: The Enemies Of Faith
WASHINGTON, D.C. — You better watch out. There is a new combatant in the Christmas wars.Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday....
"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group. "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.1"...
Edwords said the purpose isn't to argue that God doesn't exist or change minds about a deity, although "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds.2"
The group defines humanism as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity."
Last month, the British Humanist Association caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message: "There's probably no God.3 Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
[Emphases and note-numbers added by FWP.]
Let's tackle the three emphasized assertions above in reverse order of appearance.
First, number 3: "There's probably no God." One aspect of the debate over the existence of a supernatural realm that enrages anti-theists is that there's no indisputable evidence either for or against the proposition. Their militancy is as unverifiable and unfalsifiable as any religious faith. Therefore, according to Porretto's Partition, it constitutes a faith of its own. (Beware: he who says that to an anti-theist had better have the number of the local ambulance service on speed-dial.)
So they fall back on the most fallacious of all pseudo-arguments: probability. But probability is a discipline of its own; it requires the ability, derived either from an analytical grasp of the phenomenon under study or a sufficient volume of experience with it, to estimate how often in a protracted series of trials the proposed event will occur. For example, we approach the question:
"How probable is it that this coin will come up 'heads' when flipped?"
...analytically by noting that the coin has two sides, that there's no measurable irregularity in the geometry or weight distribution of the coin, and that therefore, the probability is very near to 50 percent. He who doubts the analytical approach to the question -- perhaps our estimate of the coin's regularity doesn't satisfy him -- can perform a series of experiments: say a thousand coin-flips today, and a thousand tomorrow, and perhaps a thousand next Tuesday while eating lunch. His figures might vary from ours somewhat, in which case the argument will begin over whether his experimental series was consistently and accurately conducted, whether what's true of the coin he flipped might not be true of other coins flipped by other parties, and so forth.
In other words, assessments of probability worthy of respect require either analytical comprehension or substantial experience.
We have not the power to comprehend a proposed Being who, by postulate, stands outside Time and possesses complete control over the laws that govern our universe. Nor can we experiment on Him, nor sample His properties with the tools to hand. Therefore, the statement "There's probably no God" is completely inadmissible as a contribution to the debate. It has no substance, only form.
Now let's address number 2: "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds." This is pure arrogance. Many persons come to faith with the assistance of rational, critical thought. I am one such. I don't claim that one can reason one's way to God; by the arguments given above, that will forever be impossible. Rather, a combination of interior events -- inspirations, if you prefer -- and rational consideration of the objections to theism led me to decide that God exists, and that the Christian faith delineated in the Gospels is both rationally acceptable and ethically mandatory.
To question is human. God delights in our questions; that's why He made us what we are. Were His existence beyond all question, we would have no need for faith. Indeed, we would have no room for faith or doubt. But to question is not to deny, nor is an assertion that an untestable proposition must be false an intellectually respectable claim.
In this connection, it is particularly humorous to watch anti-theists preening themselves for their superior intellects. What they possess is superior arrogance, nothing more. They fail to distinguish among logic, evidence, assumption, and presumption, because to do so would compel them to grant respect to persons to whom they need to feel superior.
Finally, number 1: "there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion." This is both nonsensical on its face and a dissimulation about the campaign's obvious target. Christmas is the most secularized of all the originally Christian celebrations. To enjoy it imposes absolutely no requirement for faith. Indeed, Christmas is situated where it is because originally, the classical Romans celebrated Saturnalia on that date, while the druids and other animistic creeds made ritual obeisances to the forces they worshipped, pleading for the Sun to be allowed to return to the world. There's no reason in our hyper-tolerant age for a non-theist to feel excluded from the festivities.
Science fiction writer (and adult convert to Catholicism) John C. Wright poses the most pointed of questions in the most pointed of forms:
Are you an atheist because you want to be loved and smooched and patted on the head, Mr. Edword? Or are you an atheist because you think atheism is TRUE and REASON DEMANDS IT?If you are not willing to be loyal to the truth, no matter the cost, then do not take up arms for the truth. If you are loyal, why count the cost? You want to be a rebel against the vast Christian majority, and also want the victory to be free, without strain, without bloodshed?
But this is only the overt thrust of the anti-God campaign. The covert purpose is to undermine the attachments of Christians. More specifically, it targets the efforts of Christian parents to school their children in the genesis of the holiday: the Incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh. Adult believers are relatively well armored against so crude a program, but young Americans, to whom the Gospel of Secular Humanism beckons in multifarious ways, are more susceptible.
Hypocrisy, arrogance, and self-pity rolled into one big, purulent ball doth not a cogent argument make.
But the Christian faith has more enemies than just the militant anti-theists. Most deplorably, some of those enemies are Christian clerics.
I've written before on this subject, but it's a bug-bear that refuses to die. These past few years we've had scandals of several varieties afflict the Catholic Church. In the years before that, there were a number of scandals pertaining to the high-profile "televangelists," several of whom were permanently disgraced by the revelations of their behavior. The Inquisitions were a particular blot upon Christendom, one which is still used to defame Christianity today. If you're willing to go back to the Renaissance Papacy, we can find a succession of popes whose behavior was so appalling as to compel the question of whether God Himself had turned His Face against the Church.
Today's specimen is the cleric who treats things sacred as of lesser importance than things secular. Clerics who use the pulpit to preach politics in preference to the Gospel. Clerics who downplay the absoluteness of the Commandments to keep from "frightening" their parishioners. Clerics who treat their own ethical preferences as inseparable from the teachings of Christ. In other words, clerics for whom the faith is merely a useful means to some other end:
Certainly we do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and birth new civilizations’. You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game. [C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters]
My parish is afflicted by one such priest. How many parishioners have flocked to his false banner, only God can know.
One more mini-rant and I'll close for today.
If you've been following these Sunday Ruminations, you might have noticed that they've not been as regular these past few weeks as they were before that. There are, of course, reasons.
First and least among them, I haven't been well. My health has concerned me for some years now, and recently it's taken a downturn. I speak not of some specific malady, but of my overall vitality, my ability to marshal my energies and attack large problems. As one's energies decline, one must adjust one's obligations and involvements, making certain always to put the former before the latter. Such adjustments come particularly hard to one used to being able to wrestle virtually any problem to the ground, and handle a prodigious amount of responsibility without strain. Among other things, the folks who've been leaning on you tend to resent the loss of their accustomed crutch.
Second, I've been in more doubt than ever about the suitability of my voice and my approach to religious topics. I'm a Christian -- "a serious Catholic," as Duyen recently put it -- and I prize my faith greatly, but that doesn't mean that I'm properly equipped to speak on its behalf. That's interfered with producing these Ruminations to an unknowable degree.
Third, and most important, I've been struck by the need to work on myself. A sincere Christian cannot speak of his faith or its dictates without simultaneously questioning how well he's been living it. In particular, this passage from Matthew has been much on my mind:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." [The Gospel According to Matthew, 5:43-45]
I have a very hard time with that. Intellectually I understand the force of it, for no man is irretrievable while he lives, and even the best of us can fail of our obligation of benevolence to one another. But it's harder to internalize it, and act on it, than it is to comprehend it.
One of the indicators of whether one is speaking necessary truths is whether one is being vilified for doing so. In the most dramatic Case, the Speaker was put to a torturous public death: excruciating in the exact sense of the word. By that standard, a Christian polemicist should rejoice at taking flak, as it means he's "over the target." But that doesn't guarantee that his response to denunciation and vilification will be in accordance with the teachings of the Redeemer, Granted, one must be superlatively strong to forgive one's torturers and executioners, as He did on the Cross. But forgiving the lesser barbs of the pretentious and malicious should be within human capability.
In closing: To all the foaming-at-the-mouth left-liberals, Obama worshippers, devotees of James Wolcott, and militant anti-theists who read these scribblings for their chuckle value:
- Merry Christmas, and may the miracle of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Redeemer of Mankind, fill you with joy and peace througout the holiday season and the year to come;
- In place of another electronic gadget, consider getting yourself a life.
May God bless and keep you all.
Comments
According to my dictionary an agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. I fail to understand how such a position allows an adherent to be categorized as “anti-theist”. But then again, the LSO has recently asserted that I am descending into dementia.
Now where can she have hidden the car keys?
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 11/16/2008 at 02:06 PMObviously, Leo, you’re not one, but then, the diatribe above wasn’t aimed at agnostics. An honest agnostic is much like an honest Christian, except unattached to any specific creed.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/16/2008 at 03:27 PM>an agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. I fail to understand how such a position allows an adherent to be categorized as “anti-theist”.
Leonidas: who says it does? Anti-theists are a subset not of agnostics, but of atheists. They are the atheists who take offence at the fact that there are theists. Militant anti-theists go further and act to, as they see it, free the world from the grip of superstition.
On the subject of superstition, I have sometimes wondered at this paragraph:
When once Alexander had given way to fears of supernatural influence, his mind grew so disturbed and so easily alarmed that, if the least unusual or extraordinary thing happened, he thought it a prodigy or a presage, and his court was thronged with diviners and priests whose business was to sacrifice and purify and foretell the future. So miserable a thing is incredulity and contempt of divine power on the one hand, and so miserable, also, superstition on the other, which like water, where the level has been lowered, flowing in and never stopping, fills the mind with slavish fears and follies, as now in Alexander’s case.
Written by Plutarch. Who was a priest of Apollo. In Delphi.
Posted by Marzo on 11/16/2008 at 03:34 PM“We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you,” said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group. “Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."…
Why is it that, even though I’m not particularly religious myself, whenever I hear words like this from the self-avowed “humanists” I want to tell them to go do the biologically impossible?
Must be something about their arrogance and condescending attitude.
Posted by on 11/16/2008 at 04:07 PMOur Host has in fact written quite eloquently on the subject of agnosticism in the past. I’m surprised he didn’t link to that post in his response. I would do so, if I had it to hand (and perhaps the reason he did not is similar).
As for “properly equipped”...well, if Francis Porretto isn’t properly equipped to speak on behalf of Christian faith to an audience of intelligent and educated adults, especially ones who didn’t necessarily come to faith by an easy and straightforward path through childhood, I wonder whether anyone alive _is_ so equipped.
My return to the faith took place before I discovered the blogosphere, and indeed before Mr. Porretto was a member of same. But these Sunday Ruminations have been invaluable in helping me cope with my own issues therewith...and I can say that having shown them to third parties of my acquaintance _not_ previously Christians has demonstrably and measurably helped more than one such person along the road.
Yes, we must always struggle for self-improvement, to more perfectly live by the commandments of Christ. But perfection is not required of us before we are fit to speak what we know...if it were, we would surely all be forever lost.
Fran, you don’t owe us anything. I know that. But if you find yourself questioning your own fitness to speak, and that alone ever keeps you from speaking (as you imply it recently has), please put the thought out of your mind. It’s a very pernicious and destructive sort of doubt, not to mention just about the worst possible reason for silence, in your case.
Posted by Matt on 11/16/2008 at 04:22 PMMarzo,
My bad. I improperly inserted “anti” where it should have read “non-theist”. Probably caused by the dementia due to Fran’s use of “anti”. Chalk it up to the dementia.Just found the car keys. In my pocket!
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 11/16/2008 at 04:46 PMThis post was perhaps far more arrogant than any atheist ad that I have ever seen.
Militant? Please. Are you also criticizing those ‘militant’ Christians who put up “Jesus Loves You” ads? Or are such advertising campaigns only militant if created by atheists? What is ‘militant’ about peacefully cooperating with advertising agencies to run a few ads for other non-believers?
If God is an untestable proposition, as you say, then God’s existence is neither true nor false and your belief that He does is arbitrary and unfounded.
Posted by James on 11/16/2008 at 05:09 PM>If God is an untestable proposition, as you say, then God’s existence is neither true nor false
How so? “… then God’s existence cannot be tested to be true or false”, I would say.
>and your belief that He does is arbitrary and unfounded.
Our host’s belief that God exists is just as “arbitrary and unfounded” as mine (or, hypothetically, yours) that God does not exist. (You or I could say that his belief unnecesarily multiplies the entities; but Occam’s razor is a heuristical rule of thumb, rather than a last Court of Appeals. Moreover, I can’t deny that if (and only if) God exists, He is necessary; and I don’t think you can, either.)
I find that, in comparing atheist activism to theist activism of equal obtrusiveness, I tend to be more annoyed by the former. Likely because the desired end results of, say, Christian evangelism supposing Christianism is true strike me, on the whole, as more momentous than the ones of Atheist evangelism supposing Atheism is true. Even in the latter case, the this-side-of-death results of Atheism are not undebatably better.
Besides, if Atheism is true (which I think it is, and which would be its only advantage over an enlightened religious faith) and the only rational belief, I feel it would be best served by using only the coldest, most rational and rigorous arguments. Sloppy, emotional Atheist propaganda will annoy me as a treason to its highest possible purpose, in a way that equally sloppy, etc., Christian propaganda won’t. I would find here mitigating circumstances absent there.
Posted by Marzo on 11/16/2008 at 06:29 PMAn afterthought: this article by an Atheist (Steven den Beste) about the belief in atheism could be of interest to you (any of you).
Posted by Marzo on 11/16/2008 at 06:39 PMJames,
Haven’t seen any “Jesus Loves You” ads posted on public transit vehicles lately. I do however know of several similar and pro life ads REJECTED by various transit authorities i.e. NYC as being too “overtly religious”. How about you follow Fran’s advice: “In place of another electronic gadget, consider getting yourself a life.”Have a nice day.
Posted by Pogo on 11/16/2008 at 06:58 PMNote also that James has misstated what I wrote. I didn’t characterize the ad as arrogant, but the following statement:
“we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people’s minds.”
But of course, as a doctrinaire anti-theist, it was obligatory for James to “misunderstand.”
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/16/2008 at 07:54 PMMarzo,
I should have stated that “then God’s existence is neither epistemologically true nor false.” In other words, then we cannot know if God’s existence is true or false. If we cannot know if God exists, then believing that one does or that one does not are equally unfounded. That is assuming that the proposition is completely untestable. The question is not as simple as this, but anyway, even if it is, the rational position is to neither believe that God does or does not exist but refrain from belief.
Keep in mind that advertisements like these are not arguments. The either invite the viewer to consider a position or assist in helping other atheists be more aware of others who share their point of view.
Francis,
“Note also that James has misstated what I wrote. I didn’t characterize the ad as arrogant”
Fair enough. However, I don’t see what is “arrogant” about a statement promoting critical thinking and rational thought. I suppose it only becomes “arrogant” when aimed at your particular faith. Nonsense. If Christianity is true then thinking critically about it should pose no intellectual threat.
“But of course, as a doctrinaire anti-theist, it was obligatory for James to ‘misunderstand.’”
I recognize and apologize for my small misunderstanding, which hardly made much of a difference for my point (the ad itself, after all, invites the viewer to question why he or she believes in God) - which makes this remark all the more strange.
Posted by James on 11/16/2008 at 11:48 PMWhat’s arrogant about Mr. Edwords’s statement, “James,” is the implication that believers have not rationally, critically examined their faiths and their reasons for adhering to them. This attitude is nearly universal among anti-theists, and the principal reason for which I consider you unacceptable in polite company—especially in this hyper-rationalistic, hyper-critical age.
Now go away and reflect on what you’ve done here. You didn’t make any converts to your point of view, but you did succeed in angering me and, probably, several others among my readers. If you want to be more effective in the service of your chosen faith, I suggest you work on your humility. It obviously needs some attention.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/17/2008 at 05:44 AMMy parish priest is much as the one you described above.
As to the theists and anti-theists, whenever I’m proselytized by one or the other, I resent the theists much less. They’re trying to give me something. The anti-theists are trying to take something away.
Posted by on 11/17/2008 at 12:07 PMMy understanding of the dictum to love one’s enemies is not that one must submit to them and be a push-over, but rather that one must sincerely hope and pray that they stop being enemies.
Of course, one must retain sufficient humility to honestly examine why one considers them enemies. Could it be a simple personality conflict? Could it be some unjust injury they have suffered at your hands? Are they in fact evil-doers? Etc.
Posted by on 11/17/2008 at 01:12 PMI never seem to be able to get the answer to this very simple question: What is more ridiculous, that a supreme being is responsible for everything, or that it all showed up by itself, unbidden?
Posted by og on 11/17/2008 at 01:26 PMJames, you said:
>the rational position is to neither believe that God does or does not exist but refrain from belief.
That is easier said than done. Men guess; it’s what we do. As Robert Heinlein made Lazarus Long put it:
“I asked for your opinion.”
“Sir, I refuse to form an opinion; I lack sufficient data.”
“Hrrumph! You’re getting old, Son. To get anywhere, or even to live a long time, a man has to guess, and guess right, over and over again, without enough data for a logical answer.”And the habit sort of sticks.
Og, I think “improbable” can be substituted for “ridiculous” in your question. Francis’ debunking of “there is probably no God” can then be applied to it.
Which means I think you won’t get an answer anytime soon.
Probably!
Posted by Marzo on 11/17/2008 at 06:26 PM"Just be good for goodness sake!”
Why?
If there is no God, then everything I can get away with is permitted.
Posted by on 11/18/2008 at 04:49 PMAkaky, even if there is no divine judgment and retribution for our evil actions in life, our actions nevertheless have an effect on the people around us. Furthermore, if there is indeed no afterlife then what happens to people in this world is all that there is for them, and someone who suffers will not be recompensed with an eternity of bliss. These considerations give most atheists and agnostics pause, and usually prevent them from giving free rein to their basest impulses.
I have heard on more than one occasion an argument made by believers (of various stripes) that “if God did not exist, I’d just do whatever I wanted no matter who got hurt.” I do not see this as an argument against atheism, but rather as an opportunity to be glad that those people have found a way to constrain their harmful choices. Also, I applaud their self-honesty.
Posted by on 11/18/2008 at 06:07 PMMy favorite part of the article is when they said humanism was progressive.
classic.
Posted by Kate on 11/18/2008 at 08:49 PMNow, this moment, is all we have, and it is Scripture that says, “The Kingdom of God is upon you!”. There is a lot of Scripture that presses on us to live fully, and one of the complaints about Jesus was that he was enjoying life, drinking and eating with his friends.
So, live fully, without regrets. If it turns out there is no God, then nothing has been lost.
Posted by ASM826 on 11/19/2008 at 01:11 PMI don’t know what to make of all of this. I wish to Christ that I did (and I did not intend for that to be a pun).
I’ve reasoned my way into and out of religious belief so many times that I am unsure, at this moment, where exactly I stand. I’ve gotten comfort from praying to God, but I don’t know if that was because He actually comforted me, or just the process and idea helped me to see that there are bigger things in this world than my petty problems (sort of like a placebo effect).
I wish I could be as sure as Francis, or James. It would be easier than always having that nagging little idiot light on the far back panel of the dashboard of my brain blinking away at me.
But seeing an f-ing ad on the inside of a metro bus is sure as anything not going to help me make up my mind, and in my opinion served no purpose whatsoever besides simply being a jab at people who believe .
Whether this is a result of perceived slights on the part of theists, and the anti-theists are simply trying to “get back” at them for it, I don’t know.
However, I do have to point out on thing to all of the sneering anti-theists out there:
When a person proselytizes to you about their religion, take a moment to see it from their point of view. They truly believe that they are trying to help you find an eternity of bliss, and save you from from an eternity of torment. It is out of altruism, not out of an attempt to cram anything down your throat.
In my personal experience, their attempts are the same to them as an attempt to save a drug addict from a deathly addiction. Don’t take offense. Their beliefs tell them that you need to be rescued. They are trying to help you, not hurt you. Take it in that light, and back off a bit.
Posted by on 11/19/2008 at 08:02 PMMy understanding of the dictum to love one’s enemies is not that one must submit to them and be a push-over, but rather that one must sincerely hope and pray that they stop being enemies.
That is also the understanding that I have. I was also taught that “turn the other cheek” was an act of defiance, rather than an act of submission. Sort of a Christian equivalent of “is that all you got?”
Posted by on 11/19/2008 at 08:08 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
