It’s certainly no challenge for a rationalist/atheist to dismiss out of hand those who believe in God.
The Christian, scoffs the rationalist, is weak-willed: superstitious, deaf to logic, incapable of independent thought, intellectually and even morally lazy.
Okay. We believers can take that sort of criticism. We can (or certainly should) even acknowledge the ways in which we too often facilitate non-believers reaching such conclusions about us.
But, to be fair, rationalists and atheists should consider the validity of the believer’s way. A clear context in which to understand the whole of one’s life, as opposed to just that realm of it apprehensible to the rational mind, is a beautiful thing.
The logical mind can do and cover a lot—but not all. Before love, for instance, it can only surrender in baffled awe.
The bottom line is that when the white knight of the rational mind reaches the dense forest of human emotion, it must pull its horse up short, turn around, and trot back home. It has no business inside that forest; a few trees in renders it lost and helpless.
Whatever his shortcomings might be, the believer possesses one thing the non-believer lacks: a clear, dependable context by which to understand, process, and experience all of his emotions. That’s not nothing.
On the other hand: Christians: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss Atheists/Rationalists.
Just out: UNFAIR: Why the “Christian” View of Gays Doesn’t Work (softcover edition; Kindle edition; NookBook edition). Like/join my Facebook page. Join the Unfundamentalist Christians.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
lol candace you never made one..
(grin)
I rest my case.
Candace, I can assure you, despite your paranoid, jaded mischaracterization of me or my intentions, that I "genuinely" want to hear the answer to my question, and do not wish to partake in your ad hominem attacks, or further derailment from my original blog-pertinent questions. John himself never addressed my simple question here within this blog. What's more, is neither have you for that matter. If you think he's done so elsewhere, I'm open to following any provided links. If you can't control your compulsion to pathologically sling mud however, I'll have to ignore our exchange. I'm here to talk about the blog, not your stereotypes or your subjective view of me.
Back to the topic at hand, and looking at another of John's statements:
–"I’m only saying that any God-based belief system that addresses the entirety of the human experience–including emotions, which are the most inexplicable part of the human experience–can be a comfort and even intellectual touchstone (or at any rate a very valuabe life tool) for the believer that the non-believer simply lacks."–
This is an argument for the utility of religion, which any educated secularist won't deny, but it says nothing about the evidence of a creator, or the credibility of monotheistic beliefs. Furthermore, it's unfounded conjecture to say that only "God-based belief systems" can address the entirety of the human experience. It presupposes that selective delusion, and adherence to restrictive iron age doctrine, is the pinnacle of the human experience. It also, assumes that the secularist is devoid the same fulfilling experiences that the religious facilitate by subconsciously ascribing feelings of tranquility, harmony, love, unity, bliss ect to a creator agent. Secularists with a good grounding in psychology, simply ascribe those feeling to themselves (or super-ego in this case). They don't need the supernatural god delusion to feel the same things. A more conspicuous example of this can be easily found on the beaming faces of Tony Robbins seminar attendees, and followers of other similar self-motivation speakers. Religion is useful for those that need it, but it's simply a psychological tool like any other that has utility. Guided Meditation, Behavioral Therapy, Buddhism, Hinduism, pharmacological means, Chakra mediation, nutrition and yoga, self-exile and introspection etc. etc. There are infinite ways to achieve elevated states of well being, self-transendence, and true harmony that can match and even exceed that of a church congregation, Sunday, full mass.
The claim that monotheism is the only path to these types of experiences, simply isn't true, and I think even the casual observer can see that when weighing all of their options, monotheism is more injurious comparatively because of the antiquated oppressive baggage of the doctrine that comes with it.
DarwinsGauntlet
I’m probably too late……but just in case……if you have a link to more of your thoughts on this subject, I would very much appreciate it. I may not agree with everything said by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Thomas Paine or even Albert J Nock but I do, very much, admire their way of saying it. I wish I had spent more of my life gaining the skills necessary to express a thought anywhere near as well as you have done here. I share your thoughts and thank you for taking the time to share them with us.
DarwinsGauntlet:
This is also late, but I’ve been reading through the comment sections of some posts from this blog, and I agree. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer???
As an atheist, I have no problem with someone attacking my views — I have a case to back them up.
To me, the unwillingness to engage on the part of many Christians belies an underlying lack of confidence in their stated beliefs.
Answer the freakin’ question!!!
Oh, and after reading, appreciating, and fully comprehending your earlier point, I was highly amused by the dearth of reading comprehension skills that subsequently arose among some commenters…
Cheers,
Emma
What straight answers are you looking for, Emma? I answered your question about you and your boyfriend. It’s a vacation weekend so you know, people probably aren’t hanging out online too much. Would you point to something you didn’t get a response to?
One thing to consider: productive debates start with people acknowledging the premises from which they ask questions and offer specific points of view. The two people talking don’t need to “agree” on those premises but they do need to acknowledge them. Atheists and Christians sometimes don’t do this very well. For example, you don’t believe in Jesus in the same ways I might. That’s a premise so I’m not going to offer anything where you’d have to address that. Similarly, faith can’t be proven in the same ways that science proves things through analysis and successful repetition. That’s a faulty premise. Often atheists asks Christians to “prove it” using a scientific premise as the only exclusive acceptance of a “proof” of faith. Which is impossible. So when talking about this stuff with Christians, be aware of the expectations you have and what you ask of Christians to “back up”.
Emma: I can tell you that I didn’t answer your question because it was extremely clear that your only real desire in asking it was to provoke an argument. Your veneer of earnestness seemed as thin as you’ve since proved it to be.
I've arrived at it from seeing the near endless parade of your type through here, professing an openness to discussion and sincere interest, when the very names they give themselves, and their snide and condescending manner of expressing their thoughts and "questions", reveals so very plainly that their underlying attitude and motive is anything but genuine. Any time John or others DO engage, that becomes increasingly clear with each volley.
Not to mention the fact that if you had just bothered to read selections from the rest of the blog, you yourself would have noticed this very pattern, and seen that the questions you present here — yet again — are not original and have already been addressed. Repeatedly.
It almost leaves one wondering exactly who the smarter ones are, compared to those who incessently lay claim to that turf.
Candace, it's a curiosity how you arrived at that from anything I've written thus far. I won't argue that you used to "get high", or presume to know why you get offended by vocabulary, and I'm not sure how that's relevant to the questions I'm asking. It's curious too, the 'Christian' (presumably) would be the first one hurling invective here.
In the the interest of clarity, I'll simplify my question for the people that seem so confused:
Q: Because Science hasn't fully explained everything there is to know about the human brain, (the nature of certain emotions in this instance) why/how is that a compelling reason to adhere to bronze aged biblical doctrine, or believe in a creator agent?
Certainly even the most zealous among you can see the reasonableness in such a question. I can only assume that there is some desire for rational discussion here, and not everyone is content with posting inside of an echo chamber. If there's truth to be found in the author's blog, certainly a rigorous discourse could only reinforce your beliefs, and consequently most of what I'm espousing would be debunked. That is of course, if you really believe deep down, what you're all professing is tenable.
Well, personally, *I* think what we're seeing here are two (more) annoying boors who are hopelessly in love with their own vocabulary and ideas and have no interest whatsoever in doing anything but baiting our host.
Serena, what you both wrote reminds me of the stuff my intellectually snobby friends and I used to come up with when we were high. Rereading it the next morning, I could never quite recapture why I thought it was so special.
DarwinsGauntlet – Fortunately, I didn't have the same trouble reading your points as Mr. Shore ostensibly had. I think what we're seeing here is officially known as the 'red herring'. Mr. Shore is playing that the style and structure of your writing are why he can't face your question how it was he made the jump from a lack of answers from the scientific community, to the belief in an omnipotent superintelligence.
I'd also like to hear him try to answer that (assuming he hasn't completely lost his ability to understand plain English by now by now).
You don't know me very well. If you'd spent any time at all reading this blog, you'd know I never "skirt" content.
I'm saying your form is so bad I can't even access your content. I mean, I'm sure I could if I spent a lot of time parsing out exactly what you're trying to say, but A. I know you're not saying anything I haven't already answered on this blog a million times (though of course I understand that you have no reason to know that); and B. It's hard to take seriously any thought so poorly articulated. I'm not just saying that to be an asshole; I'm really trying to help you better make your own case. To a degree you can't possibly know unless you're much more familar with my writing, I'm on your side.
John, you're attacking form, but skirting content.
caveat/edit of last post: That should have been written as "bandwagon of delusional, and primitive superstition."
Dude, I'm sure that at the heart of what you've said here lie some trenchant, penetrating thoughts. But if you ever want anyone to really hear what you're saying, you've GOT to ratchet back the density of your sentences about 25%. You're trying to cram too much into each sentence, and you lack the technical writing skills to do it without your stuff coming out too near gibberish for comfort. As an atheist, I'm sure you greatly value logic. Learn to write as if you do. Less is more. Simplify.
There's an awesome disparity between the real estate of the mind yet to be claimed by Science, and making a case to believe in a divine creator. How do you justify that jump?
You can't conclusively explain The Taos Hum for example, so does that mean you should believe in Thor, or Zombies? As a rule of thumb, it's unnecessary to "go native" because you don't understand something, when you can actively seek the answers along with Science, and accept the question is still open. The notion that an answer is required for you to comfortably function is as fatuous as the faith belief itself.
Science has progressively over time, taken ownership of a whole host of religious claims of the once believed unanswerable. Science has battered divine creation and theological claims to the point of obsoleteness century after century with its eyes fixed on the future. Neuroscientists have been charting the map of the human mind piece by piece, revealing more and more each decade that passes. There's no reason to believe we won't have all the answers some day. Isn't it an exciting and noble pursuit to realize the end of that, and wouldn't you want to revel in the glory of its truth when we do arrive there? Do you really want to be in on the delusional bandwagon of primitive superstition when progress bears its fruit?
John, I heard you speak today. Your words and this blog remind me of many conversations and of daily news that show how disconnected humans, largely same, are and have ever been. Conversations mired in assertions, explanations, and right/wrong headedness have always served as cautions to me about Religion, Atheism, Science, and all the other constructs seeking to explain, and box, and comfort us with certitudes we choose in a world where there are none.
I admire the teachings of the New Testament, but do not recognize them in the assertions made by people who preach intolerance in the name of Religion. Science and Atheism seem no less dogmatic and inscrutable than Religions, and at their core seem still to require some leap of faith. All seem to have an element of arrogance in their certitude. We argue for arguments sake and offer our proofs and faiths. Our minds, thoughts, and words seem a poverty to me compared to what we seek to perceive.
I am still interested in these conversations, in how they represent facets of understanding, and how we find common ground because I find truth here and there, now and then. Not the absolute sort; I tend to be suspicious of absolutes as singular, incomplete perspectives. I admit that, despite the condescending looks from friends that suggest they think I am naive and that they may have overestimated my IQ, I believe in God and my heart is broken open with faith. And with my faith I also have doubts, and I think in these I am simply, humbly human.
“A Christian experiences love, and understands it as reflective of God’s love. A Christian grieves, and is comforted by God. He faces death himself, and is assured of God’s presence with him. In all those sorts of hyper-dense emotions, the atheist is on his own, while the believer is not.”
What evidence do you have that believers aren’t on their own? The way I see it, both the believer and the atheist are on their own, but the atheist realizes that this is the case. You are at best dangerously close to an argument from personal comfort.
“Hence the old saying about there being no atheists in foxholes.”
Except that this statement isn’t true, and is rather insulting to atheists serving in the military, to boot.
← Older Comments
{ 2 trackbacks }