tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post1183971617013622035..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: Cherry Picking ProblemsEric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-45057543980921613962011-09-24T18:37:27.480-05:002011-09-24T18:37:27.480-05:00Hello Dianelos
yes, this business of what we mean...Hello Dianelos<br /><br />yes, this business of what we mean by facts is crucial, and I'm sure within the context of this discussion, many people mean different things, which may be where the disagreements start.<br /><br />For my part, I think your notion that the starting point is not a world of facts, but a world of perception, is valid, and I absolutely agree that whatever we mean by fact, we should not mean something that is indisputable, for if that were the definition, the set of facts would be empty.<br /><br />I try to think in terms of how people in a conversation are likely to interpret the word fact, and my assumption is that they will take it as contrasting with terms like opinion, or perhaps belief. I think, when we claim something is a fact, we are saying, 'not only do I think this is right, but if you think otherwise then I am asserting you are wrong'. So, level of confidence isn't the defining feature. I am dead confident Tom Waits is a musical genius, but don't consider this a fact. If somebody sees it otherwise, then they can be right about this too.<br /><br />I use facts to describe that subset of beliefs where a consensus can be reached as to what is the best current model/theory available. This consensus hinges upon public, rather than private, falsifiability. If the truthmaker or defeater is a personal experience/hunch, then when applied by another tester, the opposite result might be achieved. I exclude those statements for which their contradictory partner can also be true from the set of facts because I anticipate this is what people conversing with me expect when I use the term fact.<br /><br />Hence my insistence upon the public/private divide. It is a way, I think, of avoiding misleading people by using words like facts in ways that they will not intuitively anticipate.<br /><br />BernardBernard Beckettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-26443851875677375142011-09-24T17:53:27.554-05:002011-09-24T17:53:27.554-05:00Darrell,
You write: “[Myers] is telling a story....Darrell, <br /><br />You write: “<i>[Myers] is telling a story. The story may be true or false, but let us have none of this ridiculousness that he is just reporting the “facts.”</i>”<br /><br />I don’t think it’s up to us to assert what Myers is telling (a story or whatever), and it is quite clear that according to Myers himself he is reporting the “facts”. He clearly believes very confidently that the naturalistic interpretation of the theory of evolution is true and therefore thinks it’s a “fact”. So I think the appropriate response to what Myers intends to say is to point out and explain why his confidence is unwarranted. (To be fair, he is probably unaware that the physical event that comprises natural evolution is compatible with theism. As is often the case he probably ignores that on theism it is the will of God which causes all physical events, whether natural evolution or the natural falling of an apple.)<br /><br />In another post you write: “<i>Interpretations are narratives.</i>” <br /><br />Why not say “interpretations are theories”? I find that the concept of “theory” is clearer and carries less emotional associations than “narrative”.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-32510732482732876102011-09-24T17:16:35.496-05:002011-09-24T17:16:35.496-05:00JP,
My points in this thread and the point of Wal...JP,<br /><br />My points in this thread and the point of Wallace’s essay had little to with Myer. He simply used him as one small example. Knowing Myer or his writings shouldn’t prevent anyone from understanding my points or Wallace’s. So I’m not sure why that is even your focus here.<br /><br />“Perhaps you're reading too much in this. I can state the following without implying any larger doctrine: if we were able to follow back in time our ancestral line, from parent to parent, we would eventually reach fish-like animals. Sometimes a statement means just what it says.”<br /><br />If you really believe that people like Myer or Eric on this blog or anyone else in these types of conversations aren’t “implying” larger doctrines, then you are probably going to find yourself surprised rather often.<br /><br />Again, the point wasn’t that one can say our ancestors were fish-like as if a single assertion like 2+2=4 was somehow incorrect. Such misses the point entirely. Last time I checked there wasn’t a huge controversy over whether or not Alexander the Great existed and what that might mean in our lives. There is still a huge controversy, not over the “fact” of evolution, but over what it means and how we should interpret evolution in a more comprehensive way. Right? It matters little then if we can equate the two sentences you note. Are they both correct? Yes. Does such even matter given the context of this conversation? Nope. So I’m assuming you understand this difference.<br /><br />“Sometimes a statement means just what it says.”<br /><br />But what does it say? What does it mean? Right? It doesn’t “say” anything. Someone has to interpret statements. And a sentence only makes sense within a paragraph. A paragraph only makes sense within a chapter. A chapter only makes sense within a book. A book is telling a story. Your point? <br /><br />I think I understand what you are saying. If I say, “I’m going to the store.” Perhaps that is all I mean. Unfortunately, no one is saying things like that in a conversation like this one or as to any of Eric’s posts, so it’s a completely irrelevant distinction. <br /><br />Finally, I will let my final point here be a quote by Wallace which was the point of his essay, not Myer:<br /><br />“What I propose is that no one lives, or can live, or has ever lived, within the circle of empirical science. I propose that no matter who we are or what our beliefs might be, we have always had to deal with the question of interpretation. And that question is not whether to interpret, but how. No one fails to interpret. Interpreting is what human beings do.”<br /><br />So my hope, as you put it, is to understand what people are doing when they are telling you what “facts” should mean. They are interpreting. You are interpreting. Interpretations are narratives. Welcome to the club.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078435438689569728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-60599267873367283752011-09-24T15:38:17.972-05:002011-09-24T15:38:17.972-05:00Hi Darrell,
I disagree. The statements “Alexander...Hi Darrell,<br /><br />I disagree. The statements “Alexander the Great did exist” and “our ancestors were fish” are of the same kind (of course, one could make them more precise by defining the terms, and so on). Both are historical statements; they describe some state of affairs, something that actually happened – and both can be verified in numerous ways.<br /><br />Now, if you say that to conclude from the facts of evolution that God does not exist is unwarranted, I absolutely agree. But I didn't argued this at all (and neither did Myers in the paragraph in question although, for all I know, he may have done so elsewhere).<br /><br />Perhaps you're reading too much in this. I can state the following without implying any larger doctrine: if we were able to follow back in time our ancestral line, from parent to parent, we would eventually reach fish-like animals. Sometimes a statement means just what it says.<br /><br />A last point: you're obviously not a fan of Myers and you may have good reasons not to be. But, as you must realize, I cannot answer your criticism of his ideas. I know next to nothing of him and, as I can't read minds, I have no clue as to what he really thinks. I would only say that, as a general rule, I find it more useful to try to find out what others understand that I don't than to find out what they don't understand themselves.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609837930361362269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-36283333838612550902011-09-24T13:52:52.986-05:002011-09-24T13:52:52.986-05:00JP,
Your examples are not analogous; you are comp...JP,<br /><br />Your examples are not analogous; you are comparing apples to oranges as it were. Myers or no one else in this conversation is making simple assertions like, “I went to the store,” or, “I went outside this morning.” No one is disputing in this conversation a question like “Did Alexander the Great really exist?” Again, the question becomes what do we make of all the “facts” and “evidence” once we begin to place them into wider and more comprehensive contexts? Further, there is no escaping the “fact” that we do this through narratives or stories (read philosophies or faith). Such does nothing to make “fact” a dirty word. Rather, it makes “facts” become TRUE.<br /><br />The evolution story is obviously not like simply stating that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. This is clear just from the fact that there are many people including biologists who believe in both God and evolution (like myself), but people like Myers would have us believe that the “facts” of evolution should lead any rational person to become an atheist or at least agnostic. Further, he asserts such as if there were a one-to-one correspondence between knowing the “facts” of evolution and drawing the right (read his) conclusions. In other words, he is not interpreting the facts; he is simply reporting and drawing logical conclusions. Of course, such is utter nonsense. He is doing no such thing. He is telling a story. The story may be true or false, but let us have none of this ridiculousness that he is just reporting the “facts.” As Wallace noted, Myers seems oblivious to this critical difference and it is hardly an insubstantial one.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078435438689569728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-57318029222522754042011-09-24T12:40:07.300-05:002011-09-24T12:40:07.300-05:00Bernard,
I don’t think anyone is saying there is ...Bernard,<br /><br />I don’t think anyone is saying there is no distinction between a “fact” and their interpretation. What I did say is that the private/public dichotomy is probably false. Of course there is a distinction between a “fact” and its interpretation. It is a distinction that people like Myers and, it would appear JP and Burk, are unwilling to acknowledge. The distinction was my whole point. No one is simply noting “facts” and “evidence.” They are drawing conclusions as to what all those “facts” should mean.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078435438689569728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-68462198311588588062011-09-24T10:48:32.472-05:002011-09-24T10:48:32.472-05:00Eric,
Concerning disbelieving that [...] there mi...Eric,<br /><br />Concerning disbelieving that <i>[...] there might be more to reality than science discerns</i>.<br /><br />There are two issues here. The first concerns the existence of “more to reality” (in some sense) and the second whether we can know anything about it or not (and, if so, how).<br /><br />I suspect that very few naturalists would squarely claim that we can know everything about reality through the scientific method. What many might say is that whether there is “something more” or not, we have no access to it and must accept our ignorance. Which is to say they might deny the existence of any means of acquiring such knowledge. This is a much more defensible belief than the one you attribute to Myers. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was, in fact, what he believes (but I have no intention to ask).<br /><br />Strictly speaking, I am agnostic on this. However, I have seen no convincing argument to the effect that such knowledge is possible and I remain doubtful it can be done.<br /><br />This is why I think that the question of “how” is crucial: by what means can we know this “something more”? I would think that to know anything about this “other” realm of reality, some form of interaction with it is necessary. There must be some form of pathway linking it to our physical reality – and if there is it should be identified and investigated.<br /><br />If not, without a positive answer to this, wouldn't the whole edifice rests on nothing at all?JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609837930361362269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-11491650939857770992011-09-24T03:38:10.422-05:002011-09-24T03:38:10.422-05:00Bernard,
You write: “I would almost claim the op...Bernard, <br /><br />You write: “<i>I would almost claim the opposite. Because we must interpret facts in order to make meaning of them, the distinction between facts and interpretations is crucial.</i><br /><br />Perhaps the idea goes the other way. All we have are our basic subjective experiences and our cognitive interpretations of them. What we call “a fact” is itself an interpretation of experiences. Which is evidenced by the fact [!] that people disagree about facts. <br /><br />The more I think about it the more it seems to me that concepts such as “fact” and “knowledge” only refer to a psychological property of our cognitive state, namely they express how confident we feel about some belief we hold. Conversely concepts such as “story” or “narrative” only express our feelings of doubt. Incidentally, I am not saying that these concepts are useless, for in a discussion it helps to transmit how one feels about one’s beliefs.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-70048028818528293172011-09-24T02:58:38.708-05:002011-09-24T02:58:38.708-05:00Darrell
You appear to be making this leap: Becaus...Darrell<br /><br />You appear to be making this leap: Because we must interpret facts in order to make meaning of them, the distinction between facts and interpretations is a false one. I agree with the first part of that statement, but don't think the second follows from it. Perhaps you could expand upon your thinking here.<br /><br />I would almost claim the opposite. Because we must interpret facts in order to make meaning of them, the distinction between facts and interpretations is crucial.<br /><br />BernardBernard Beckettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-33163483686884512352011-09-24T02:55:37.923-05:002011-09-24T02:55:37.923-05:00Hi Dianelos
Absolutely, public beliefs are themse...Hi Dianelos<br /><br />Absolutely, public beliefs are themselves open to falsification, and so we can never be certain they will not in time be replaced by a better model. Indeed, this is their defining characteristic. <br /><br />With regard to a belief like 'women are clearly inferior to men', would I challenge it? Well, it depends what the person means, I suppose. If they mean something like women are not capable of certain levels of artistic or scientific achievement, then we're talking a potentially public belief, we could clearly define how they consider such things are measured and then see if there aren't some falsifying counter-examples. <br /><br />If they mean 'I just don't value women much, and am happy to treat them badly' then they would have a different opinion to me, and I do maintain the right to participate in the social shaping and constraining of the ways opinions are expressed, of course, and would get quite involved within this context. I wouldn't however think of them as being wrong in the way that I think of a person claiming stepping off the cliff will do them no harm, is wrong. One is publicly measurable, we will see what happens to the cliff walker's prediction in time, whereas the truthmaker in the case of the misogynist is less obvious.<br /><br />BernardBernard Beckettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-49189435283444985002011-09-23T16:20:43.849-05:002011-09-23T16:20:43.849-05:00Bernard,
A few additional comments.
You write:...Bernard, <br /><br />A few additional comments. <br /><br />You write: “<i>[Private beliefs] are more than that to us, sure, they fundamentally anchor our conception of reality, but they do not have this quality of public compulsion. It is why I might share my private beliefs with others, that they may appreciate them (or indeed critique them, as in this blog), but never insist them upon others.</i>”<br /><br />Are you sure about that? After all beliefs which anchor one’s conception of reality can be very influential beliefs, change one’s behavior and impact the world. For example, would you be more insistent with somebody who you think holds a false public belief (such as “there is a largest prime number”, or “the highest mountain on Earth is lies in Europe”, or “Jesus of Nazareth never existed”) than with somebody who you think holds a false private belief (such as “only dumb people lose sleep about exploiting others for profit”, or “women are clearly inferior to men”, or “the Second Coming is near so it makes no sense to worry about the environment”)?<br /><br />Or perhaps you mean that you feel vastly more confident about private beliefs than about public beliefs, and that’s why you’d never insist on the latter. But, once again, I can think of counterexamples. I take it that you consider scientific beliefs to be public beliefs, but beliefs literally all scientists once held to be true have later been proved wrong. (For example, the existence of gravitational force fields.) <br /><br />So it’s not quite clear to me why the difference between public and private beliefs is so relevant for you. Could it be that by “private beliefs” you really mean “religious beliefs”? And given how people disagree about religion that it is better not to insist on arguing about such beliefs like religious people often do? <br /><br />“<i>Because I believe (pure narrative here) that an essential part of my being human is the interaction I have with others, this distinction remains paramount for me, and hence any theology that does not make it clear is, for me, untenable.</i>”<br /><br />To my knowledge all great religions teach that our interaction with other people is of paramount importance. In Christianity we have Jesus in the Gospels defining the fundamental command in terms of loving other persons, there is the bit where Jesus says that wherever there are three people together He is among them, He sees children playing and says that heaven is like that, teaches that our duty of making up with another person comes before religious duties, etc. Indeed the entire moral teaching of Christianity is about how we should behave towards others. So, again, I don’t quite understand where you think theology comes short given your feeling about how essential the interaction with others is.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-26958355277917027102011-09-23T12:23:32.197-05:002011-09-23T12:23:32.197-05:00Hi Darrell,
Thanks for this but, I'm sorry to...Hi Darrell,<br /><br />Thanks for this but, I'm sorry to say, the more I read you the less I understand.<br /><br />Let's say I tell you I went out this morning, walked around the block, saw a woman enter a red car and drove away and, by the way, saw no sign whatsoever indicating the presence of rabbits.<br /><br />This is a story – but why, I wonder, couldn't I say that this is how things happened? Of course, it's a partial story, nobody can tell everything, facts must be selected.<br /><br />Or consider this: historians have studied ancient texts, ruins, artefacts, and what have you, and they figured out that Julius Caesar really crossed the Rubicon on its way to Rome.<br /><br />Are you saying these things didn't happen? Or that they did or didn't depending on who is telling the story?<br /><br />The evolution story is just like these, although it may be argued that the evidence for it is in fact stronger than the evidence for the Caesar story. And, yes, as far as we know, our ancestors were fish, they really were. This is how a (very patient) observer would have seen events unfold.<br /><br />Since when has “fact” become a dirty word? I did go outside this morning, really, I did: why I couldn't say this is a fact is beyond me.<br /><br />Unless you're simply stating the obvious, that to understand a story one has to know something of the context, needs to know what the words mean, and so on. If so, fine. But let's move on to something more substantial.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609837930361362269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-51021804029863052552011-09-23T12:16:36.695-05:002011-09-23T12:16:36.695-05:00Wow. Here you tell us a one line story. You state ...<i>Wow. Here you tell us a one line story. You state it as a “fact” of some sort. It is, rather, your interpretation of the “evidence” or “facts.” </i><br /><br />This is exactly the intellectual defect that is at issue, and so central to our debate.<br /><br />We use the label of "fact" for concepts that have sufficient evidence by reliable methods to be taken as true- indeed, compellingly true- corresponding with reality, given the linguistic and conceptual context we are speaking in.<br /><br />While interpretation is always used, sometimes, interpretation results in a "fact". One such fact is that all life on earth used to be unicellular. It was unicellular for at least a billion years after its origin, with a pretty high level of certainty. Most life still is unicellular. Thus what Myers states is true- is a fact. No re-interpretation is required, nor complicated, unusual frames of reference. Only a recognition of what biology and geology have been telling us with mounting piles of evidence for decades.<br /><br />The false equivalence of this with the "interpretation" that some kind of god may exist, and be at the root of cosmology, or be at the root of biology, or at the root of our brains ... is egregious in the extreme. <i>This</i> interpretation is highly idiosyncratic, based on a story that, while apparently attractive to some, is not compelling- it has no element of logic or evidence that makes it inescapable. It is at best optional in its description, and at worst fictional. It is far, far, from being a fact.<br /><br />If one revels in free interpretation and story-telling, then one might not care so much about facts. But one might also be honest about it.<br /><br />##<br /><br />That said, there is formal correctness in saying that <i>".. not a trace of divine intervention has been found."</i> is a bit biased. On its own, it is completely correct, but it presumes that the speaker understands what form divine intervention is supposed to take. Since every form it has in the past been supposed to take it has turned out <i>not</i> to take, we are rather adrift on the subject. In short, no one knows what they are talking about on this point, neither the theists nor the anti-theists. <br /><br />All the observer can say is.. that by the conventional models of divine intervention, none has been observed in these early epochs of life. Of course none has been (reliably) observed in our own epoch either, so by the unformitarian hypothesis, one is within one's rights to conclude that the whole subject of divine intervention is speculative, not to say chimerical. It is, again, far, far, from being a fact.Burkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11158223475895530397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-53154077758853460542011-09-23T11:45:19.992-05:002011-09-23T11:45:19.992-05:00JP,
“I don't want to defend him but, still, I...JP,<br /><br />“I don't want to defend him but, still, I puzzle at the level of criticism his little story gets.”<br /><br />His “little” story, is still just that—a story. Putting that aside, the criticism is based upon (using this one example) a similar pattern of argument in his larger writings.<br /><br />“He's writing about history: the history of life on Earth, about what actually happened, about what an observer would have witnessed had he been around for the last four billion years or so. History as it has been painstakingly figured out by generations of dedicated scientists, to the best of their abilities.”<br /><br />Here you simply make the same mistake he does. He doesn’t know what “actually” happened any more than a biologist or scientist who also believes in God knows what “actually” happened. You act (like he clearly believes) as if he is just noting the “facts.” In reality, what we have is people interpreting the “facts” and they do this through over-arching narratives or stories (read philosophies or faith). The problem, as noted by Wallace, is that Myers feels that everyone else is doing that but him. Like a news anchor—he would have us believe he is just reporting the “facts.” Nonsense.<br /><br />“And, moreover, in all this history, not a trace of divine intervention has been found.”<br /><br />Wow. Here you tell us a one line story. You state it as a “fact” of some sort. It is, rather, your interpretation of the “evidence” or “facts.” And your interpretation flows from the stories you are invested and believe in. All anyone is asking here is to keep this difference straight.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078435438689569728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-6649186580025788012011-09-23T11:19:30.727-05:002011-09-23T11:19:30.727-05:00Bernard,
“The pedant in me will continue to insis...Bernard,<br /><br />“The pedant in me will continue to insist that we name private beliefs private, and public beliefs public, to avoid the assertion that our stories are somehow something more than that.”<br /><br />I go back to my earlier point. Perhaps the private/public dichotomy is a false dualism—have you considered such? Perhaps the word “story” is confusing you. I do not mean by story something made up or inherently fictitious or merely a “take” on reality. Simply put, “facts” and what you take to be “public” truths are only TRUE in any meaningful sense when understood as INTERPRETED “facts” by which we mean understood through a narrative of a wider and more comprehensive nature. It is that narrative (read philosophy or faith) that is ultimately either true or false. The “facts” remain whatever they are, whether distance to the sun or that gravity exists—but so what? Unless the extent of your thinking or writing was to only ever assert or write down single one line sentences of “facts” like a numbered list (2+2=4; or “The sun is hot”)—without any commentary whatsoever or any thought as to what all these “facts” might mean comprehensively, then your public/private distinction is meaningless.<br /><br />Our stories are not only “more than that,” they are the only things that ultimately matter and they are the only things that make “facts” mean anything and, indeed, why some stories become “public” truths shared by many.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078435438689569728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-21693921211324211042011-09-23T10:34:09.870-05:002011-09-23T10:34:09.870-05:00Bernard:
With respect to the following: The prob...Bernard: <br /><br />With respect to the following: <i>The problem here is that in order to make your point, you have caricatured the Myers piece for your own purposes.</i><br /><br />It wasn't my intention to caricature the Myers quote but, rather, to explicate what I take to be the unstated narrative implicit in the formal and metaphorical features of the quoted passage. Your comment aims to offer an alternative explication of the quote and thereby highlight the fact that the kind of thing I was doing is prone to error. As such, you conclude that we shouldn't impute such an explication without (when possible) checking in with the person to whom it has been imputed to make sure one has got it right.<br /><br />In general terms, I concede that point. A couple of things, though. First, a fallible interpretation of someone else's view is not necessarily a caricature, since the latter implies a <i>deliberate</i> distortion for the sake of either calling attention to something that's there in a less obvious form(a legitimate use) or setting up a straw man argument (an illegitimate use). If I distorted Myers, it wasn't deliberate, and my intent wasn't the usual ones pursued by caricatures, but rather was to highlight how the formal and metaphorical features of a narrative can transform an uncontroversial series of facts into a controversial story (with the most controversial elements often implicit rather than asserted). I think this point can and should be supplemented by your point that we can get such story-interpretation wrong and so should check in with the storyteller when possible.<br /><br />That said (and here's my second comment), it is certainly possible that in the process of doing what I was consciously doing, I fell into some caricaturing subconsciously because of feelings of animosity that I have towards Myers. And based on reading his blog and his uncharitable attacks on me and others I admire, I certainly do harbor some such animosity even though I try not to. If so, mia culpa.<br /><br />Third, sometimes--in fact, I'd say often--people aren't really conscious of the underlying interpretive lenses through which they read the facts. Like a pair of glasses that we look <i>through</i> every day, we can easily forget that they're there. Sometimes it's only when others call attention to them--often by trying to explicate them based on the formal and metaphorical features of the stories we tell--that we become conscious of them. Such external probing can, sometimes, inspire the kind of internal probing that leads to greater self-awareness, even when the outsider's interpretation is mistaken. <br /><br />Finally, I'm not sure if you have any familiarity with Myers, but my guess is that based on what I've read of him, were we to ask him if my interpretation of the quote was accurate, he'd say, "Hell yeah," followed by a series of creative insults directed towards anyone who believes there might be more to reality than science discerns.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-24758866613670493352011-09-23T05:03:13.145-05:002011-09-23T05:03:13.145-05:00[2nd part, continues from above]
According to (my...[2nd part, continues from above]<br /><br />According to (my best understanding of) theism reality is fundamentally of a personal nature and is grounded in God, who is understood as the perfect being. God has created us experiencing reality for a loving purpose, a purpose which entails that we are not passive on-lookers of a fixed reality, but active participants and co-creators, which in turn is the reason why reality is experienced differently by different people. The idea is that God gives us the freedom and the power to build our own self and thus affect the corresponding experience of reality. The fixed mechanical order of the physical world in which we experience existing in our current condition serves as the scaffolding or the matrix or the foundation on which to build our personal character, and thus build our experience of reality. That experience in the one extreme is called “heaven” and in the other extreme is called “hell”. The direction of personal development or self-transformation which leads into the heavenly region is the direction in which our personal character grows in resemblance to the character of God. As God is a loving person who wants a close relationship with us, that direction is one where we too become loving persons and want a close relationship with others. God is not a passive onlooker either, but actively participates in forming all places of reality in such a way that we freely fall in love with Him/Her and come close to Him/Her. (“Close” in the personal sense of similarity of character and not in the sense of distance of course.) Indeed the love-struck God strives for our love in all places of reality; even in “hell” where our character is far from God’s character (and thus far from perfection) and where therefore one’s experience of reality is that of lacking the presence of God. <br /><br />As you see, theism does not oppose the reality of the physical order, but considers it only a part of a much larger order which infuses reality. Given that as we saw the physical part already explains all experiential facts (and thus all data we can use when we make a choice), the question then arises how to decide about which of the two theories is the true one. And here’s the beauty of the thing: In a sense the decision is ours alone, it’s we who may commit “on faith” to the one or the other, a sovereign decision which expresses an initial quality of character which in turn will affect our future development. And further, thank God, the weaker among us have philosophy, which is a discipline that helps one pick the more reasonable theory among various which fit the data equally well. And in my experience, when one compares one-to-one these two dominant theories using any epistemic principle which strikes one as being reasonable, one finds that the theistic understanding works better in every case. Thus, I say, reality is such that whether by affirming one’s sovereign choice and embracing the longing of one’s heart (i.e. by faith) or whether by thinking (i.e. by reasoning) one is attracted to theistic truth. Which is only natural considering that reality is grounded in God.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-26124149740848932392011-09-23T04:42:55.045-05:002011-09-23T04:42:55.045-05:00Hi Bernard,
I think you are saying that we all e...Hi Bernard, <br /><br />I think you are saying that we all experience the same reality but invent different narratives to make sense of it. In contrast I am saying that even though there is one reality, it is experienced differently by different people, which is one reason why we develop different theories to make sense of it. (I prefer the concept of “theory” to the concepts of “narrative” or “interpretation”, for the latter concepts are associated with the sense that one is adding something that is not already there – which begs the question.) I posit that the fact that different people experience reality differently is a major fact of the human condition. I have plenty of evidence for that, starting with my own life and how my experience has changed. The same sounds of a spoken language will be experienced completely differently depending on whether one has learned the language or not. A mathematician experiences an equation differently than a non-mathematician. A parent experiences the presence of her child differently than other people. Etc. There are many examples. <br /><br />To elucidate what I mean here’s an analogy: Reality is like an island with a big mountain at the center. Most people live near the shore and everybody agrees that the sea is flat, is made of water, contains fish that can be caught using X method of fishing, etc. Now some people try to climb the mountain in order to get a better view, but they come back saying contradictory things. Some say that the path to the peak goes to the right but others that it goes to the left, some that they managed to see the peak and it is round but others that it is sharp, some say that midway there is a fountain of water which gave them strength to continue but others that the path is bone dry and the whole project of climbing to the peak is hopeless - you get the idea. So what is one living near the shore to make of such claims? One possibility is to think that given the different stories they must all be imagining things. The correct response though is to take people at their word and believe that while trying to climb the mountain they have experienced the world differently. Especially if one also tries to climb the mountain and experiences first hand how different one’s experience of reality becomes. <br /> <br />So I am saying that the human condition is variable and that reality is experienced differently by different people. Perhaps we agree so far. Now I’d say that there are two dominant ways to deal with this fact: <br /><br />According to (my best understanding of) naturalism reality is fundamentally of a mechanical nature and basically consists of the physical universe (or maybe multiverse). Further, as the physical sciences have shown, 1) the physical universe is causally closed (i.e. can be modeled as being a mechanism), and 2) there is a perfect correlation between our experiences and our mechanical brain. The fact that different people experience life differently is explained by the fact that different people have different brains, and thus, unsurprisingly, tend to develop different theories to make sense of their experiences (whether similar or different). It is clear that naturalism is an internally coherent theory which accounts for all facts. And will continue to account for all facts as long as the physical closure of the universe and the perfect correlation between our experiences and our brain holds. After all, any feeling or thought or argument against naturalism anybody will entertain is itself explained by naturalism.<br /><br />[continues bellow]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-72667407474415011642011-09-22T16:12:32.779-05:002011-09-22T16:12:32.779-05:00Hi Dianelos
Thanks for that. I certainly apprecia...Hi Dianelos<br /><br />Thanks for that. I certainly appreciate the sincerity and beauty of this description of your reality. It's not one I could ever share, I don't imagine, because my narrative starting point is different, which is to go back to your landscape metaphor. We see, interpret and name things differently, depending upon our perspective. Such narratives, in the end, are private.<br /><br />The pedant in me will continue to insist that we name private beliefs private, and public beliefs public, to avoid the assertion that our stories are somehow something more than that. They are more than that to us, sure, they fundamentally anchor our conception of reality, but they do not have this quality of public compulsion. It is why I might share my private beliefs with others, that they may appreciate them (or indeed critique them, as in this blog), but never insist them upon others. Not so my public beliefs. If a child gets too close to the edge of the cliff, I insist they come back, for my belief in the physics is public and gives me warrant (and within the context of my job, legal obligation) to do so.<br /><br />Because I believe (pure narrative here) that an essential part of my being human is the interaction I have with others, this distinction remains paramount for me, and hence any theology that does not make it clear is, for me, untenable.<br /><br />Bernardbernard beckettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-49469545683136716162011-09-22T06:07:25.662-05:002011-09-22T06:07:25.662-05:00Hi Eric, Darrell,
In know in fact very little of ...Hi Eric, Darrell,<br /><br />In know in fact very little of Myers' writings and read that particular sample only through Darrell’s link. And, yes, the first paragraph (that I called provocative) may not be a fair description of the Christian doctrine. I don't want to defend him but, still, I puzzle at the level of criticism his little story gets.<br /><br />He tells it as he sees it. What, I wonder, is wrong with that? Even a scientist blogger is allowed this, I would think, metaphysical overtones or not.<br /><br />You seem to complain that he's making speculations about ultimate reality without realizing it. This is not how I read him.<br /><br />He's writing about history: the history of life on Earth, about what actually happened, about what an observer would have witnessed had he been around for the last four billion years or so. History as it has been painstakingly figured out by generations of dedicated scientists, to the best of their abilities.<br /><br />On this, he is certainly on target. (And yes, Dianelos, he may have taken a few liberties with precision for brevity and effect). And, moreover, in all this history, not a trace of divine intervention has been found.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609837930361362269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-57569341278003782272011-09-22T02:59:59.749-05:002011-09-22T02:59:59.749-05:00Hi Bernard,
Please consider what I write bellow ...Hi Bernard, <br /><br />Please consider what I write bellow not as an argument but as a factual description of my condition: <br /><br />God is in my life a present thing, a thing which helps me see the order and meaning of my life, in whose light all strike me as being more beautiful, a source of real strength and real joy. Could it all be an illusion? It could, but 1) the existence of the external world could be an illusion too – by which I mean that there is a point of consistency beyond which worrying about illusions becomes irrational, and 2) I have diligently studied the alternative view of naturalism and have found it both intellectually and experientially to be way inferior (not to mention to almost universally suffer from the delusion that the success of the physical sciences implies or requires naturalism). As there is only one reality in which we all exist, I must hold that the theistic reality in which I find myself existing and empirically interacting with is that one reality. <br /><br />I have considered the fact which you regard as being particularly relevant, namely that other honest and reasonable people disagree with me in the basic sense that they experience reality in a way that is clearly different from the way I experience it. But this fact is entirely compatible with my understanding of reality, so I find in this fact no grounds for a potential defeater. I think it is a fact that one’s experience of reality depends to a high degree on how one is as the result partly of chance and partly of the choices one has made in the past. So, to mention a trivial example, if by chance or by choice you have learned Chinese you will experience the sounds of spoken Chinese very differently than one who does not understand that language. More significantly, our moral choices will affect how we experience the intrinsic goodness on which reality rests. Finally, as I mentioned before, the fact that some honest and reasonable people explain that the proposition “God does not exist” had a life enhancing effect in their lives fits with the premise that by “God” they mean something entirely different from what I mean, given that they sometimes describe God as a “heavenly dictator”, a “thought police”, a “moral monster”, a “magical puppeteer”, and such. Let me put it this way: God, the thing which is present in my life, may be an illusion but will never fail to be life enhancing. Quite on the contrary, the lack of God is life deadening. Thus, I conclude, those people who lead good lives do have God in their cognitive lives but without noticing it. Perhaps God is further away, or is only a vague presence, or perhaps it is a clear but mischaracterized presence, or perhaps they breath God without noticing the fact. But real *absence* of what I mean by God from the human condition would render the human condition literally inhuman. Indeed I believe that such a condition does not really exist. <br /><br />In short a fair description of my cognitive state is as follows: The existence of a spiritual order centered in God is as clear and consistent and pragmatically useful in my experience of life as is the mechanical order present in the physical space I now live. The idea that it is all “make believe”, while logically possible, stresses credulity beyond what I consider reasonable. (Nevertheless and for good measure I study alterative views.) Finally, the experience of atheists fits naturally with, indeed is entailed by, that spiritual order (for God loves freedom). As is the experience of people of other religions. It is more difficult but also brightly illuminating to see how the existence of evil fits in a reality grounded on a being of perfection.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-3905336503732780572011-09-22T01:42:21.425-05:002011-09-22T01:42:21.425-05:00Darrell,
You write: “ I don’t think any type of ...Darrell, <br /><br />You write: “<i> I don’t think any type of cost/benefit analysis can do justice to what it means to love God or our neighbor. Once we try and articulate such an analysis, something, it seems to me anyway, is always lost.</i>”<br /><br />I wonder about that. Please consider: <br /><br />I posit that we are made in such a way that we find it psychologically impossible to wish for something that hurts us. In the very few cases where I actually chose the right and hard thing to do, I did it because I realized that not choosing it would hurt me even more. <br /><br />Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly calls us to consider what profits us. <br /><br />Theism is a positive worldview in which all shall be well in the end. Thus while it is true that one’s desire to be well may mislead one to pick the wrong path, picking the right path is guaranteed to do us well. Therefore one should *not* pick a path which one thinks will not do one well. <br /><br />Helping others is empirically found to be one of the greatest joys in life anyway. I suspect that the greatest joy of all is to give oneself up. There are these hauntingly beautiful but paradoxical sounding bits in the Gospels where Jesus says things like: we must give in order to be filled, we must die in order to find life, we must not resist evil in order to conquer it, etc.<br /><br />And finally, consumerism is not really good for us. Consumerism is like a drug, a fleeting sense of pleasure which leads one into a sea of misery.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-3954678749167034222011-09-21T19:50:58.042-05:002011-09-21T19:50:58.042-05:00Hi Dianelos
I feel you may be missing the point I...Hi Dianelos<br /><br />I feel you may be missing the point I'm making here. In the finger case, only one conclusion is open to anybody who tests the proposition, whereas in the case of God's existence, the test you suggest is such that the result may vary depending upon the person carrying the test out. I may find, through living out the proposition that there is no God, that this is life enhancing,and you may find the opposite. There appears to be no room in your system for resolving this difference, whereas if we differ over the number of fingers you have, this difference can be resolved. Hence we can say the private/public divide is a clear one, and to my mind an important one worth highlighting.<br /><br />BernardBernard Beckettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-9220957920741250062011-09-21T18:57:03.843-05:002011-09-21T18:57:03.843-05:00Dianelos,
I think I understand your point and I g...Dianelos,<br /><br />I think I understand your point and I get what you are saying. It is probably just a difference of emphasis and sensibility. In our modern Western world of consumerism and extreme individualism, where everything is thought of in terms of “ME” and how something can be consumed or used by “ME,” I just don’t think pragmatism or the idea of God’s existence or Christianity being put forward as something “useful” is a good idea. I think it will then be seen in the light of just another thing we can consume or use.<br /><br />I don’t think any type of cost/benefit analysis can do justice to what it means to love God or our neighbor. Once we try and articulate such an analysis, something, it seems to me anyway, is always lost.Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14078435438689569728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-55359537920511441132011-09-21T16:49:46.338-05:002011-09-21T16:49:46.338-05:00JP,
You write: “Myers is certainly slightly prov...JP, <br /><br />You write: “<i>Myers is certainly slightly provocative in the first quoted paragraph but the second is a one-paragraph summary of four billion years of evolution. What part of the this one do you disagree with?</i>”<br /><br />What about “<i>We are apes and the descendants of apes</i>”? In just 8 words Myers manages to make 2 gross mistakes in his own field of professional expertise.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.com