The Screwtape Letters — An Inside Review.
Ah! The play is over and a small part of my life has returned. Will I be able to handle coming home and actually having to make decisions on what to do for the evening? Will I be able to survive the stress of sitting in my favorite chair and actually reading a book? Will my daydreams consist of something other than crawling into bed and drifting off? I sure as hell hope so. Those neural circuits are a bit rusty but I’m looking forward to dusting them off and allowing them some freedom of action. That said, I must admit it’s sad when thoughts of sex or love or fellowship have been shoved to the ground by the simple overwhelming desire to lie down. Have you ever noticed that maturity strongly resembles simply being too damned tired to do anything naughty. Sigh! If I ever again talk about auditioning for two plays in a row while working, please just come over to my house and kick me square in the groin. I’m sure I won’t appreciate it at the time, but I’m equally certain that in the long run, I’ll realize it was for the best.
Truly, it has been very entertaining and fulfilling month, these volunteer actors have proved themselves a wonderful people whether atheist, agnostic or Christian. My chosen family, the family I have hand picked, has expanded greatly and that is always a good thing. A new world opened up and let me in. Watching these plays for years has left me with a deep appreciation for the quality of the talent pool in this town. I have watched as ordinary people have given a couple hundred hours of their time to put on a performance that often left me either emotionally shaken or sore from laughing so hard. And now I have worked with them, the very same people. It’s fascinating doing a scene onstage with a young woman who just the year before put on an emotional performance that left me unable to sleep that night. Too cool! Really!
I also love how the shows are made up of about half veterans and half acting virgins and how everyone just blended right together. There were few egos or personality disturbances and no cliques. It was an ideal situation. And as a small bit of personal swagger, I must say that I didn’t totally suck. Though I’m quite certain that Pacino remains safe in his career as yet, I didn’t embarrass myself. Whew!
Ah, now we must discuss the actual play and its content. Based on the Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, it more or less consisted of three demons conspiring to get a young man into the pit. Yes, it was religious through and through, but it was also funny, very very funny. The three people who were cast as the demons were a brilliant choice. The interactions and bumbling between Screwtape — an elder statesman of the demon world, Wormwood — his young nephew, and Slumtrimpet — Slut for short — the ever present temptress, were hilarious. Whether I was in the play or not, I’m quite certain I would have loved these performances. But…
But… Then there’s the religion. Sigh. Amber Bernhardt, the brilliant young director of Dakota Stage and the actress who played the part of Slut has been working hard at expanding the theater in Bismarck. Among her ideas to encourage people was to open both Friday performances to a discussion period afterward. This involved having three experts in drama, literature and religion take the stage after the play and initiate discussion in their specialities. I, of course, felt compelled to stay for both events, but in the interests of full disclosure, I must confess that I did not partake in the discussion more that rolling my eyes at every absurdity. Why not you ask? Well, I love Dakota Stage and feel it brings something to Bismarck that would be sorely missed, and I live in one of the most conservative cities in the United States. What people think of me is irrelevant, but I couldn’t risk harming Dakota Stage with my thoughts on the religious elements of this tale. So aside from a couple of muffled snorts and banging my head repeatably on the seat in front of me, I kept quiet.
But not here. Never here! Ok. The play focuses on personal demons who whisper in people’s ears trying to convince them go against God’s plan in order to drag them into hell to be devoured… as food. Yeah. Well, that’s the play’s version. The fundamentalist version is a bit more sinister involving personally adapted torture for each individual for all eternity. Hmmm. Does anyone else find this idea just a little bit absurd? There are invisible and, of course, undetectable and unprovable demons dashing about influencing your day to day decisions trying to lead you away from God? Then these same demons are going to delight in torturing you for the rest of your existence which we are assured will be forever? Um. If this isn’t a WTF moment, I don’t know what is. Can you say WTF? I knew you could.
In this hallucinogenic view, God creates a world that he knows will turn into a vast war involving creatures he created and whose job it is to get you into hell. These creatures then find some kind of reward in torturing everyone for all time. Why would they do this? What could be their motivation? Do they get some kind of sustenance, some nutritional value out of pain? If anyone truly believes that then please explain to me the mechanism involved. I’d love to hear it. If we are food and this is how demons are nourished, this hardly seems like a sustainable food system, and if the demons have another motivation, I’d love to hear it. Please! And please tell me how this is according to some kind of divine plan? Did he really mean for all this to happen or did his plan go awry? Perfection, anyone?
At these discussions many were arguing about the minutia of the theology involved such as whether it is possible to redeem a demon (Trust me! This was brought up more than once). The entire time I kept wanting to yell out that it’s not these tiny little points that are wrong but the entire damned idea. Instead of arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin, back up and look at the absurdity of angels altogether. Not only are they losing sight of the forest for the trees, they have lost sight of the trees for the twigs. For a lack of Christ’s sake, does evil and good really consist of supernatural intelligences battling for supremacy? Shit no! Back the hell up and actually look at what is being discussed.
One of the Priests, an otherwise seemingly intelligent man, explained the fiend’s objective thus, “The devil’s job is not to get you to sin. Their job is to get you to think about anything but God. It doesn’t matter what you are thinking about; as long as it’s not God you’re doomed.” Yeah, right… Because everything great about this world has been accomplished by those who always thought about God… Like the crusades or the witch burnings or the pogroms against the Jews or the conquest of aboriginal peoples around the world. History firmly proves that holding the image of God in your mind makes you incapable of screwing up.
And all that useless stuff humanity comes up with when not thinking about God? Trivial! Goddamned trivial! Mere distractions. In today’s world, who in the shit actually uses the Germ Theory of Disease? Atomic Theory? A heliocentric view of the world? Quantum Theory? Electromagnetism? The double helix? Gravity? Nuclear fission? No one! Useless! What good has any of this stuff ever done us? All we need is to keep God topmost in our minds and shake our prayer sticks, ring our spirit bells, sacrifice animals on a bloody altar and eat our sacred crackers, and if we just do these things, then God will take care of us. Just like he always has.
That’s why bad things never happen to good people.
Oh… Wait… Oh shit!
I read The Screwtape Letters waaay back–before I’d let go of religion. I was still in college and hadn’t read enough other stuff to be able to see where C.S. Lewis doesn’t make sense (which would have been hard anyway, since I already had a positive image of Lewis having grown up reading the Narnia books, which really are good, and which the movies seem to be proving over and over again that they don’t understand what was charming about those books…). I do remember, though, wondering whether C.S. Lewis (“Logic! Why don’t they teach Logic in these schools?”–Lewis) *really* believed that there were demons out there…battling for our souls. Really?
Anyway–will there be a YouTube footage up of this brilliant production? We want to see (at least a little!)…!
(p.s.–get some rest!)
Fantastic to have you back KK.
A comment and a question.
First, if you think that religious people think that only religious people have done great things in this world and that if you believe in God then you can’t screw up, then you’re hanging out with the wrong kind of “fundies.” Most religions, particularly Christianity, are based on the idea that we are most definitely NOT perfect and need some Ideal to bring us to that perfection, whether in this life or the next.
Second, to what do you attribute things that appear to have no explanation? This may seem like beating a dead horse, but I’m just not satisfied with the atheist’s answer of “there is an explanation, we just may not know what it is.” So what’s the real answer?
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . .” – Mere Christianity
First, that is an interesting take on religion. I don’t think I’ve ever heard it put quite that way before. However, I’m not sure why there needs to be a god in order to strive toward perfection, though, since there doesn’t seem to be a universal definition of what “perfect” is supposed to mean, anyway.
Second, things that appear to have no explanation are just that–things that don’t appear to have any explanation. It is impossible for a single individual to know everything that is within the sphere of human knowledge, and the sphere of human knowledge is expanding all the time, so I think the right way to answer your question is to say “we don’t know…yet. Let’s try to find out.” That last bit is important.
Thanks Alleyprowler, for your kind and well-thought-out response. Here’s what I say in response.
As to striving to perfection, I feel like there must be a God in order to strive for any type of perfection for two reasons. First, in a world with no God, there is no perfection to be attained, for we are imperfect humans, and I’m sure we would all agree with that point. Second, under the atheistic worldview there is no end that justifies the means toward striving for anything. The end is just…nothingness. There is no reason to strive for perfection if there is nowhere that it is leading you.
As to explaining things that have no explanation, I have a huge problem with your answer. Not in how it’s stated, but in what it implies. And it’s a problem with the atheistic worldview in general. First, what you’re saying is that it’s better to admit that you don’t know than to even try to take a guess. I think from elementary school we learn that when taking even the most basic of tests it is better to at least try to answer the question rather than put don’t know; any attempt at trying infinitely increases your odds of getting credit for a right answer. Now in potentially the biggest test of all, isn’t it better to at least attempt a guess rather than going with “don’t know”?
Secondly, and this is the bigger problem with the implication, is that the statement pre-supposes from the outcome on the atheistic worldview. More completely put, the statement is this: “We don’t know…yet. Let’s try to find out. BUT we DO know that it can’t be this one possibility, even though we don’t know what we don’t know.” The atheist can’t come up with a good explanation, but it CAN’T be a supernatural. That’s flawed logic. A position that claims ignorance of an answer but can discredit any possibilities is faulty. Science would reject this, philosophy would reject this, heck even history would reject this.
To be completely fair, to say one doesn’t know and wants to find out means one has to consider every possibility, and if God is a possibility, than your position is not one of atheism but of agnosticism. Otherwise you’re playing with a stacked deck, and that’s not a reasonable way to learn anything.
My answer to your first point would be that I don’t need god (the judeo-christian god in this context) to strive for perfection, because there is no possible way that he qualifies as perfect. In the course of this website’s bible study, we have seen god be petty, jealous, wrathful, and at times down-right genocidal. Later on in the bible, jesus, god’s split personality disorder, will preach the exact opposite while claiming that god hasn’t changed. So we can add deluded to god’s list of faults. Not exactly the standard of perfection anyone should be aiming for.
And secondly, “we don’t know… yet” is the only answer that can be deemed acceptable. Its the answer that has pulled mankind out of the bronze age. The search for answers has given us everything we take for granted in a modern society. And, if in the course of searching, we discover god, or God, or gods in a scientifically verifiable way, a way that is repeatable and testable, then we will renounce our atheism. That’s not to say we will worship this god, indeed if it turns out that the old testament god is real then I enthusiastically propose all-out war on the bastard. But without proof, without evidence, then the only response we have is “we don’t know…yet”, so we better keep looking damn it!
In response to your first paragraph, Dave, I’ll stick with the theme of the post and let C.S. Lewis do the talking:
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? – Mere Christianity
As to your second paragraph, I think my above explanation suffices. The reason that we were able to make such advances was that we sought in order to find, and that includes looking at every possible explanation for what we’ve seen and understood. Sorry, but that includes the supernatural as at least a possibility, which pushes us back to agnosticism. Atheism pre-supposes from the start, and that’s where it fails.
“First, in a world with no God, there is no perfection to be attained, for we are imperfect humans, and I’m sure we would all agree with that point.”
I agree that we are imperfect humans, in the sense that there is always room for improvement. I’m not convinced that there is any such state as “perfect”, though. “Perfect” implies that there is a point where you stop developing or adapting and never change from then on. Something tells me that this isn’t how the world works.
“Second, under the atheistic worldview there is no end that justifies the means toward striving for anything. The end is just…nothingness.”
I don’t think it’s right to stop striving toward improvement (I’m going to drop the word “perfection”, if you don’t mind), because there are always other people to consider. If I find a better way to do X or invent a better Y, or maybe just do a really good job doing Z, then other people can benefit from that and perhaps use them to improve on their own X and Y and Z and everyone’s lives get a tiny bit better. From my point of view, that justifies the means quite nicely.
As for your second sentence, I’m pretty sure that when we die, there will be nothing left but worm food and memories. Both will eventually disappear. It’s horribly, crushingly sad to lose a loved one and it would be comforting to think that one day, when I die, I could be reunited with them. I just don’t think it’s so. In spite of our best efforts to do so, we have thus far failed to detect any everlasting, eternal soul or spirit (see Mary Roach’s book, “Spook”, for an overview of that topic. She’s always an entertaining read.)
Does that make life meaningless? No way! That makes life all the more precious to me. I only have one shot at it, so I should live it with passion and help others to do so as well, if I can.
“First, what you’re saying is that it’s better to admit that you don’t know than to even try to take a guess.”
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with guessing. I do think that there’s something wrong with saying “I don’t know how to explain this, therefore I can explain it.” For example, I’ve been having a long-running argument with a friend of mine about crop circles—he remains convinced that some of them were created by aliens. He cannot explain how some of them were made, therefore it must be aliens. He doesn’t know, therefore he knows. I think you can see where I might have a problem with that.
“The atheist can’t come up with a good explanation, but it CAN’T be a supernatural. That’s flawed logic. A position that claims ignorance of an answer but can discredit any possibilities is faulty.”
I tend to discredit supernatural explanations because the supernatural is, by definition, something that cannot be observed, measured, or otherwise shown to be indistinguishable from something imaginary. I can’t speak for all atheists, of course, but I put more weight into something that can be observed or experienced by anyone over a subjective feeling . That doesn’t mean I’m discounting your feelings; I take those at face value. It just means that a feeling doesn’t equal a fact.
“We don’t know…yet. Let’s try to find out. BUT we DO know that it can’t be this one possibility, even though we don’t know what we don’t know.”
I agree that we don’t know what we don’t know. I also think we can rule some possibilities out when they don’t work. Ruling things out won’t necessarily get you an answer, but it brings you to a closer approximation to one. That’s how I got through some of my math tests when I was a kid
“To be completely fair, to say one doesn’t know and wants to find out means one has to consider every possibility, and if God is a possibility, than your position is not one of atheism but of agnosticism.”
Well, I’m agnostic in that I cannot prove that there are no gods, but then again, I can’t prove Russell’s Teapot doesn’t exist. I am an atheist because I do not believe there are any gods. (I am also an a-teapot-ist, but that’s neither here nor there.) Can’t I be both?
Already read Mere Christianity thanks, one of my father’s poorer attempts to “bring me back into the fold”. Your theme, as you put it, is flawed, your god is repulsive. I strive to better myself, but not by mimicking the monster in your book. Sorry if that wasn’t clear, god is not just, god is not the straight line. God is the animal that lurks inside all of us that must be restrained. God is the excuse used time and time again by people who slaughter and oppress others, who claim that they are in the right because some imaginary being is telling them what to do. Keep your god, I am much better off without him.
I apologize for the vehemence of that, but I needed to make my position clear.
You’ve gone into a garden and claimed that pixies are making the plants grow, and assert that the fact that we don’t see the pixies is a failing on our part. We go into the garden assuming that the plants are growing on their own and investigate how they do that. We ask why, we experiment, we are figuring out for ourselves and you sit there and insist we are wrong for presupposing there are no pixies.
The absolute absurdity of your position is baffling. You are happy to see the man in the tin foil hat locked in a mental institution because he think aliens are reading his mind, but you put a man on a pedestal for wearing a tall silly white hat and claiming god hears the words he prays in his head. Do you not see the inconsistency here?
As for your semantic argument on gnosticism and atheism, it is dismissed out of hand as irrelevant. You can be an agnostic and an atheist, just as you can be an agnostic theist, the terms are not mutually exclusive.
Alleyprowler,
Thanks again for a well-reasoned response, and for your courteousness in doing so.
“Perfect” implies that there is a point where you stop developing or adapting and never change from then on. Something tells me that this isn’t how the world works.
I agree with you. Perfection is completely unattainable in this world. Where we differ is on whether any sort of perfection actually exists. Atheism believes there isn’t; belief in the supernatural believes there is. We can leave it at that, I think.
If I find a better way to do X or invent a better Y, or maybe just do a really good job doing Z, then other people can benefit from that and perhaps use them to improve on their own X and Y and Z and everyone’s lives get a tiny bit better.
The problem with this logic is KK’s (and I think most other atheist readers on here) belief that morality and improvement change and evolve over time. So while you may think you are benefiting someone in the here and now, those later generations may view you as the most sadistic and evil person, and be completely right. Why? Because morality evolves. Therefore there is no real reason to believe you will “improve” anything, and therefore no rational basis for doing it. “Improvement” requires a measuring stick with which to measure improvement from. See C.S. Lewis’ response to Dave above.
I do think that there’s something wrong with saying “I don’t know how to explain this, therefore I can explain it.”
But that’s not what I’m trying to do here, nor is any logical theist trying to do when discussing this predicament with atheists. As I’ve said on here before, theists don’t think they can explain for certainty anything by saying “God did it.” But the inference to the best explanation, when there is no other explanation, can point directly to God. I encourage you to go to my blog and read my post on “Nature of the Gaps.” It explains the differences fairly well, I think.
I tend to discredit supernatural explanations because the supernatural is, by definition, something that cannot be observed, measured, or otherwise shown to be indistinguishable from something imaginary.
Neither is history. Are you discrediting that?
Alleyproweler,
Sorry I hit “Post” before I finished. 2nd part below.
I also think we can rule some possibilities out when they don’t work.
But there is nothing that proves that the supernatural is a possibility that doesn’t work, unless you pre-suppose it from the outcome, like methodological naturalism does. And in order for it to be a possibility to be “ruled out” in the first place, it has to be considered an actual possibility. Atheism doesn’t allow for that. That’s what I mean about playing with a stacked deck.
I can’t prove Russell’s Teapot doesn’t exist. I am an atheist because I do not believe there are any gods. (I am also an a-teapot-ist, but that’s neither here nor there.)
Ah Dawkins makes an appearance. You’re phrasing of “I do not believe” gets right at the heart of the matter. Your position is based on the same thing that an atheist would criticize any other worldview for: BELIEF. There is no superior intelligence or logic, there is no proof. There is evidence, but unfortunately for the atheist there is evidence on both sides. So what is the atheist left with? Belief.
I would never begrudge you the right to believe whatever it is you want to believe. But believe it because you have looked at all of the evidence and only then drawn your conclusion, instead of believing something at the outset and only justifying the pieces that support your belief. I think that’s what most people would accuse theists of doing too, so you can see that we’re really not so different, eh?
Well Mr. Hubbo again we come down on two separate sides of an issue.
You have completely lost me on the necessity of God for striving to better oneself. I don’t see a God as adding to that idea at all. A perfect being creates us imperfectly and then desires us to “Get better” or strive for perfection? This seems ludicrous. There are many evolutionarily derived ideas on how this would work. Humans select the best mates. The classification of best is often judged by status. Status is raised by being better than others at something. The biggest and toughest gorilla gets the female. The gazelle who takes the most risks and survives get the doe. The bird of paradise who builds the coolest nest get the mate. Nature is full of animals seeking to be the best for if you are the best you get to pass your genes into the next generation.
And look around and tell me that this general principle is not everywhere. From rock stars to millionaires, from beautiful women to talented doctors, those who have a higher status have a much easier time finding dates. Evolutionarily, you’re not trying to better yourself. Your trying, without realizing it, to find the best mate possible. And in the case of many, the best and most mates possible.
That’s what it all is about. God?? What does he have to do with anything? Why would he create us so imperfect and then want us to try to achieve perfection? Is adultery really caused by demons trying to get us off God’s plan or by our genes trying to spread themselves into every “niche” (pardon the male centered pun) possible.
As to science not knowing… Sigh. Just because science doesn’t have an answer to a particular problem doesn’t mean you just get to fill in the spaces with whatever fantasy you find most appealing. Guessing about how the world works only leads to firm but foolish convictions about what is reality. Then since you have convinced yourself about what the real answer is, you have to go no further.
Admitting you don’t know encourages you to try and find the real answer. So yes, admitting you don’t know is not only superior to guessing but vastly superior! I’m a part time teacher. Should I just make shit up when someone asks me a question or should I say I don’t know and look for the real answer.
As for the last point, Science is based on evidence, tests, fossils, mathematical models, something. You can’t just fill in the gaps with ideas based on something you can’t even provide remote evidence for. And please don’t go with the whole improbability of life thing. Explaining improbabilities with infinite impossibilities so vast as to dwarf the original explanations is truly flawed logic. Prove through a mathematical model or solid evidence or repeatable experimental data that there is a God and then we can discuss rationally that he actually caused anything. Prove that there is a supernatural realm first, and then we can deal with your actual claims.
Until then your entire idea is based on our admission that we don’t know everything and since we don’t God is in the gaps.
If we all had stuck with the “God did it” explanation of the universe we’d still be desert sheep herders. This modern world is based on the people to whom the explanation of God wasn’t good enough. They are the ones who have brought us to where we are.
Wow I must say that I’m rather disappointed with how quickly the conversation turned vitriolic against me on this one. Usually KK and Daz will reasonably spar several times before breaking out the guns. This one degenerated rather quickly (with the notable exception of Alleyprowler — kudos to you!).
This response is to KK, because as author and keeper of the blog you deserve the respect afforded that.
However, it’s clear to me that you didn’t read all of the comments above before posting your own, particularly on the “God of the gaps” section. More on that later.
As to striving for perfection, your first point is that God made us imperfectly and then asks us to strive for perfection. I think since your Bible study has already taken you through Genesis, a read at face value of the first several chapters would show you that we were not, in fact, created imperfectly. So that argument holds no merit if you are arguing how God created.
Second, your evolutionary illustrations are fraught with “oftens” and “bests.” The problem is that perfection is not based on “often.” Perfection is an absolute. Perfection is a state of absolute correctness, which cannot be achieved evolutionarily because 1) the subjects involved are themselves imperfect, and 2) the means by which to get to “best” often are at the detriment of others. So I guess my question to you is twofold: 1) Do you believe perfection exists? and 2) If so, how does perfection become achieved by imperfect beings?
Now on to the science part, and here’s where I got offended. I asked a simple question: How do you explain things that have no explanation? The immediate response from you (and unfortunately, your predecessors, which if you had read enough you would have seen we went down that road) is “just because we don’t know doesn’t mean God.” Now where did I say God in my question? I’m asking for how to explain the unexplainable, not for what can be excluded. I’m not pushing God of the gaps, because my question didn’t include a positive claim about God. But what you instead did was exclude God from the outset (the primary failure of atheism) and instead insert Nature of the gaps (please read the other posts for the full explanation).
So pot and kettle, shake hands.
All I’m asserting is that in order to explain the unexplainable, all possibilities have to be considered at the outset EVERY TIME, and by asserting that it can’t be God initially, atheism fails to meet this criteria. And that’s why atheism can’t claim to be based on the scientific, the logical, or the historical, because it doesn’t use the most basic of frameworks (consider everything) to establish method of reason. If you assume both God and nature from the beginning, the process will work itself out until you’re only left with one option. But first, you must assume both God and nature. You refuse to do that, so your position (and consequently the position of most of your readers) loses enormous amounts of credibility.
Theism allows for both the supernatural and natural possibilities as explanations; atheism does not. Until the playing field is level, don’t pretend you’re not playing with a stacked deck. (Now I’m beating a dead horse.)
‘Second, to what do you attribute things that appear to have no explanation? This may seem like beating a dead horse, but I’m just not satisfied with the atheist’s answer of “there is an explanation, we just may not know what it is.” So what’s the real answer?’
Discomforting as it may be, admitting we don’t know… yet is the honest answer. It’s also the answer that spurs us on to find a better explanation than the traditional “goddidit” placebo which short-circuits the need to look any further.
Oh look, Hubbo’s back.
“More completely put, the statement is this: “We don’t know…yet. Let’s try to find out. BUT we DO know that it can’t be this one possibility, even though we don’t know what we don’t know.” The atheist can’t come up with a good explanation, but it CAN’T be a supernatural. That’s flawed logic.”
It is not flawed logic. We know it wasn’t a god because there aren’t any gods. We know it wasn’t a leprechaun or the tooth fairy or Zeus either. You know how we know that? Because they don’t exist.
Flawed logic is when you think that if you don’t know everything about everything, there has to be a god. As if it’s impossible for a good honest scientific answer to exist without you, Hubbo, personally knowing about it. At one time people thought the world was flat, and yet, even though they didn’t know it was round, it was still round.
What a terrific non sequitur, Nancy, because you’ve just made a factual claim (“We know it wasn’t a god because there aren’t any gods), which necessitates a burden of proof. So I am ready to let you prove me to me the factual basis for that statement.
Positive claim + no proof or support = flawed logic. I think my math is pretty sound.
“Positive claim + no proof or support = flawed logic. I think my math is pretty sound.”
Although, I’d agree with you on that actual point, this is exactly what you have been doing here. Your math is only sound regarding other people ideas and becomes much more fuzzy when applies to your own.
Positive claim = God exists
Proof = 0
Logic = flawed
And yet I’m not making a positive claim as to God’s existence. I’m saying based on the evidence that I have, which includes lots of information from both sides of the coin, that the best explanation for how things are the way they are today is God. So no positive claim from me. So the math works like this:
Positive claim = N/A
Proof = N/A
Logic = reasonable
Try again, KK.
My mistake. It’s more begging the question than a non sequitur, but the same point applies.
Dave, my response to your comment.
Your theme, as you put it, is flawed, your god is repulsive.
And what, may I ask, is the factual and/or logical basis for such an inflammatory statement? You have fallen into doing what many an arguer before you has done: claimed to make a descriptive statement about a God you don’t actually know. If you say God doesn’t exist, then you’ve never actually met Him or know Him, let alone understand Him. So how then can you make a claim to His character that is superior to someone who may actually know and understand God? Your position is akin to me suggesting that I know your mom better than you do. That position, friend, is one of absurdity.
God is the excuse used time and time again by people who slaughter and oppress others, who claim that they are in the right because some imaginary being is telling them what to do.
So are you suggesting that I use God as an excuse to slaughter others? If not, you are attacking a straw man, and your argument is as irrelevant as it is old. And again, you are claiming to know my God better than me, even though you don’t actually believe He exists. Does anyone else see the fallacy of this argument?
You’ve gone into a garden and claimed that pixies are making the plants grow, and assert that the fact that we don’t see the pixies is a failing on our part. We go into the garden assuming that the plants are growing on their own and investigate how they do that. We ask why, we experiment, we are figuring out for ourselves and you sit there and insist we are wrong for presupposing there are no pixies.
You’re oversimplifying the argument, and your conclusion is where you argument loses weight. What I’m suggesting you’re presupposing is that one possibility doesn’t exist, and that you are wrong (and true science, not MN, would agree with me) for not at least allowing the possibility. Think about this for a moment. What I’m saying is that your position is akin to this: someone finds that many people in the same neighborhood are dying, and then attempts to find out why, but first states, “I know it can’t be the power lines.” How does that person know without some prior knowledge?
Now apply to your own argument. How can you know that the supernatural is not a possibility unless you possess prior knowledge? The problem is that with an unobserved singularity (which is the topic discussed in this post and the comments) there is no such thing as prior knowledge, so you really have no basis for a positive claim that the supernatural doesn’t exist and may be the cause of an unobserved singularity.
This is exactly the point I touched on in my blog post “Nature of the Gaps.” Let me attempt to summarize. There are two types of sciences: operation science (which consists of observable repeated occurrences) and origin science (which consists of unobservable singularities). Now if I were to look at operation science, I cannot look at a process and assume God. For example, watching water move from inertia to boiling, I can’t say, “God must have done that.” Why? Because through observed repeatable occurrences it has been shown that when water reaches a certain temperature, it begins to boil. We can test it, repeat it, measure it. You can’t just look at these kinds of processes and insert God as the cause. “God of the gaps” has no business in operation science.
But by contrast, in origin science, one can’t use “nature of the gaps.” In something that has not been observed, is not repeated, and therefore can’t be tested, it is invalid to insert nature as the cause. We can’t say “we don’t know what it is, but it must be natural.” That’s as absurd as doing the opposite with God of the gaps in operation science; it just doesn’t work.
The problem is that atheism deals in “nature of the gaps” when dealing in origin science. For some unobserved singularity (i.e. a supposed “miracle”), atheism inserts nature as the cause initially. They see the occurrence, say “It can’t be God. It must be natural,” before even starting the process of looking at the evidence. How ridiculous do you think it is when the tables are turned and theists use “God of the gaps,” yet are unwilling to concede that you are using the inverse argument “nature of the gaps” when it has no business in origin science? This is the danger of pre-supposing there is no God when looking for an explanation for ANYTHING. And yet that is the basis for the atheistic worldview. How is that logical in any sense of the word?
Understand that I am not attacking you as a person, but it’s your argument that’s full of holes.
Did Odin create the world from the blood, brains and bone of his father Ymir? Did Brahma create the world from a lotus flower that sprouted from Vishnu’s navel? Was mankind spawned from the souls of aliens killed by Xenu?
You dismiss all these gods out of hand because they don’t fit your viewpoint. You presuppose against hundreds, or thousands, of other beliefs deities, and then claim we are at fault for adding your silly little story to the pile.
Your god goes in the same place as Odin, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Allah, Cacoch, Waaq, Rod, Bathala, the great sky spirit, and every other fantastical mythological entity, that would be the fantasy section of your local bookstore.
PS: How do I know god enough to be repulsed by him? The only way one can “know god” would be through the words attributed to him and through the actions of his followers. You only have to read the bible to be repulsed by it. Blood, death, hate, slavery, oppression, its all in there and all ordered by god and willingly committed by his followers. A bit of back-pedaling in the middle, but right back into the blood and death theme at the end. The only real hero in the bible is Satan, knew god better than anyone and still had the guts to stand up to him. Too bad the book lacks a happy ending.
To Alleyprowler,
Thanks again for being open and honest, while not being rude or incendiary in your responses. Much appreciated.
To your point #1. I’m not saying necessarily that if you help in the ways listed you will be seen as evil. I’m just saying that in evolution there is nothing to rule it out as a distinct possibility. Slavery was considered a common practice, and even in medieval times people voluntarily placed themselves in slave-like positions, but we consider that abhorrent now. Soviets thought (and some still think) that Communism was the “perfect” system of government, but how many disagree with that globally? Under evolution, if things evolve and perceptions can move from one side of the coin to the other based on the tide of culture, then nothing can be clearly determined as “perfect,” and therefore does perfection even exist? Evolutionarily, the answer must be no. However, we do see evidence of perfection in the world (e.g. mathematics), so where does this perfection get its origin if not through evolution?
To your point #2. Feel free to peruse my blog on any subject, but I did try to summarize “Nature of the gaps” in one of my other comments. Check there too if you are inclined.
To your point #3. If you do not discredit history, then you cannot discredit the supernatural for the very same reasons, because according to theism there is evidence of the supernatural all around, not the least of which can be found in historical documents, medical cures that have no other scientific or logical explanation, etc. So if history’s in, supernaturalism’s in too, and that would bring us back to at worst agnosticism.
I do appreciate your perspective and for being reasonably objective in your responses. Hopefully we can continue in this vein.
Quote fail. My bad.
Atheism doesn’t rule anything out, the way I see it. Supernaturalism rules something in.”I don’t know” becomes “I don’t know, therefore it must be ______” (fill in the blank with the supernatural explanation of your choice).
The first answer leads to investigation: “I don’t know; let’s find out.” The second answer leads to stagnation: “I don’t know; let’s make something up that makes us feel good and call it the Truth.”
It was Bertrand Russell, actually. Hence the name “Russell’s Teapot”
Er…stating that I don’t believe in gods means that I believe? What, exactly? Also, as a semantic exercise, what do you think the difference is between “belief” and “faith”?
Alleyprowler,
To tackle more of your questions. I don’t think theism stops at just God by ruling it in. I think the distinction between origin science and operation science makes this point. I don’t call it God when water boils; I don’t immediately call it nature if I haven’t seen it before and can’t measure, test or repeat it.
But the issue is that in order to use the scientific method correctly, you must first rule EVERYTHING in, and then exclude. Atheism doesn’t meet this criteria, which is why I said it fails in that aspect.
I get the Russell reference, but it was Dawkins who made it mainstream, just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right? Ergo, Dawkins (and Russell, to be fair) make an appearance.
Saying the word “believe,” even with the words “do not” in front, still connotes belief. Belief in the idea that no gods exist is still belief. In response to your semantic exercise, I don’t think that “belief” and “faith” are mutually exclusive; I think with one comes the other. Even if you believe something is wrong, you are still acting on faith that your own belief is right until proven otherwise. Atheists have to use faith to hold firm to their worldview, just as theists, pantheists, deists, etc. have to use faith to hold firm to their worldview.
So to use KK and Daz’s favorite word–we are ALL “fundies.”
Have a blessed one,
Sabepashubbo
Excellent arguments all. Nancy, Dave, Good defense. Mr Hubbo, it’s good to see you back. Wasn’t sure who’d be left after my long pause. Now to writing.
Heh, thanks KK. Sorry for hijacking your comment section there. Now *whip crack* write dang it! I miss my blessed atheist bible study.
Count me in!
Whether you want to call it non sequitor or begging the question or Hubbo’s First Law of Fiction, the point KK made remains – you did it first.
The difference is that the burden of proof lies with the person who’s making the claim. You have to prove what you’re saying is true. I don’t have to prove the non-existence of anything.
So go ahead and prove that god exists. And make sure you do it according to your own rules, that absolutely EVERY SINGLE POSSIBILITY must be considered, no matter how ridiculous. Start with an experiment that proves that your god is not a leprechaun. Then prove he’s not a figment of your imagination. Then prove he’s not Osiris. Then prove he’s not an optical illusion. Pray to him to come show me how you’re right and I’m wrong – we’ll see how that turns out.
While we’re here… the christian bible says that you’re not supposed to debate. Says it in Romans 1:29. Romans 1:32 says if you debate, you should be put to death. Why are you going against the bible, Hubbo?
The only positive claim I’ve seen on here this whole time Nancy is this:
We know it wasn’t a god because there aren’t any gods. We know it wasn’t a leprechaun or the tooth fairy or Zeus either. You know how we know that? Because they don’t exist.
So in terms of whodunnitfirst, I think that honor falls to you, ma’am. I have made no claims as to God’s existence. I have made requests that the possibility simply be included, which is what atheism refuses to do. And until that happens, atheism is either playing with a stacked deck or an incomplete one, depending on how you would prefer to look at it.
So as the only person making a positive claim in this discussion, I leave it in your hands, Ms. Nancy.
Also, read Romans 1 again for the ACTUAL CONTEXT for those verses. Debating is nowhere in the passage. Cherrypickers unite!
You keep saying that you just want us to include your god as a possibility, but that, in and of itself, is impossible. Your god, and we are noting here that you have put forward no evidence for him, has all the validity of Allah, or Vishnu, or any other mythological or fantastical entity. To admit your god as a possibility without evidence is to admit every other deity, fantasy or delusion. So its either what you call a stacked deck, or a deck of infinite size.
How much progress could science maKe if it must eliminate an infinite number of unprovable entities before we can say with certainty that the natural cause is the true cause?
Your delusion, your god, doesn’t get special exemption until you can make a provable scientific case for his existence. That is all there is to it.
So, ball’s in your court, prove god exists. (And a subtle hint here, a book written by men, translated by men, and edited heavily by men isn’t proof of divinity, so you can skip the “Bible says” bit)
I’m saying use the inference to best explanation to determine the cause of these unobserved singularities. That simply means including all possibilities and then using the evidence and information you have to make the best inference possible.
If on an unobserved singularity science has nothing and supernaturalism has something, wouldn’t the best inference be to assume that maybe supernaturalism carries more merit to the explanation? Keep in mind we are not discriminating which God at this point–a common misnomer that atheists like yourself like to throw out to get the topic off-track and make yourself seem smarter.
I’m not asking science to eliminate things. That’s you. I’m asking science to include supernaturalism as a possibility. That’s all. The unwillingness for guys like you to relent on that subject shows more fear of what you might find out than intelligence on reasons for exclusion.
I can’t make a provable scientific case for history. Does that mean everything we’ve learned in the past is also excluded? Your logic suggests so. Play fair, please, or take your ball and go home.
Again you say the same damn thing over and over. You want us to invite in a realm so infinitely vast as to completely stifle all progress. If every single ridiculous possibility must first be excluded we will get nowhere, ever. Yes, science has expanded to include things that were previously thought impossible, but only because someone did work to provided an as yet unseen proof. Give us a testable theorem, a repeatable experiment, something scientifically valid. A crackpot who proves the impossible becomes a genius who opened our eyes to new realities. But proof must come first!
Prove your god, prove Odin, prove unicorns, prove Russell’s Teapot, and then it can be admitted to the realm of the scientific. We admit only those possibilities that have been proven, but we also admit that we can be wrong. That is the fundamental basis of all scientific advancement. But until someone provides that repeatable, testable proof we cannot allow your random figments to interfere with progress.
Again, if science is the basis, then discredit all of the history that has brought us to this point. Not measurable, observable, testable or repeatable. Give me your assurance that history means absolutely nothing to you in terms of knowledge and understanding, and then maybe we can start. Until then, leave the arguing to someone with a valid point.
Of course I can’t and won’t say that history means nothing. We have documented evidence of it. The study of history is the study of records left to us. It exists, it is documented, it has been studied and analyzed and debated at length by people far more qualified than you and I. Ruins, the written words, artifacts, the geologic record, the fossil record, cores from ice fields that are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years old, its all there for us to study. Not all of it can be taken at face value, because history was written by people, and people can lie or be wrong. But when all the evidence is studied as a whole, we can put together an accurate account of large portions of our history.
There are also sections of the historical record that are missing, destroyed either deliberately by the aforementioned victors, or accidentally by disasters. Should we assume that during those missing periods the earth was populated by elves simply because it can’t be ruled out? By insisting that the supernatural is valid without proof, that is exactly what you are telling us to do.
History is studied with the same adherence to the scientific method as all doctrines. And that is why we can trust it to the extent that we do. It can still be wrong, and it changes with new discovery, but it is still valid.
And I’m pretty much done with this comment thread. You deliberately ignore the points put forward in reasoned logical argument, and I have no more interest in beating my head against this particular wall. Enjoy your fantasy, just keep it out of the way of our progress.
I am insisting nothing of the sort that you listed in your second paragraph. I am not assuming anything. Again, YOU ARE.
You say history exists. How can you prove that? Can you prove history in any way better than I can prove supernaturalism? The answer is a resounding no. You can offer evidence that is reasonable once all possibilities are considered. That’s all I’m claiming to be able to do as well, and all I’m asking you to consider.
I’m not the one ignoring anything. I have responded to each of the valid points you have made. The only thing I will not respond to is the baseless claims you make that I am using God of the gaps, which is silly because I am not making any claims. I suggest you go to Google and look up the definition of logical arguments, because you might find yourself in there under “straw man argument.”
The only thing you’re beating your head against is the door of possibilities and reason that you yourself slammed shut. Good day, sir.
One important question that can only be answered by religion:
What makes otherwise intelligent-seeming people say such incredibly stupid shit?
Sometimes not going ad hominem is just soooo hard.
KK… As much as I love to see Mr Hubbo being made to look silly am I alone in finding reading reams and reams of his arguments a tad boring?
I get enough religious propaganda in my life. I come on here to read your excellent witty writings and to have a bit of friendly banter with like minded people.
I simply do not have the energy to waste on the Mr Hubbos of this world. Let alone the time to read his nonsense.
Oh and as has already been said… Get writing!! Haha.
To my knowledge, the two main branches of science are:
1) Natural sciences which deal with the natural world (astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, etc)
2) Social Sciences which deal with human behavior (politics, economics, history, linguistics, etc)
There are also formal sciences (mathematics, logic, computer programming) and the humanities (religion and philosophy)
Sorry, but you can’t just make up terms out of thin air to bolster your arguments.
Natural sciences fall into the two categories I mentioned.
Sorry, but you can’t just assume that the terms don’t exist based on your “knowledge.”
“So as the only person making a positive claim in this discussion, I leave it in your hands, Ms. Nancy.”
You’re right. My claim that there are no gods is positive; the world would be a better place without religion and the people who commit disastrous deeds in its name.
“I have made no claims as to God’s existence.”
This is not true: You’ve said, more than once, that you know him because you have a personal relationship with him.
“Also, read Romans 1 again for the ACTUAL CONTEXT for those verses. Debating is nowhere in the passage.”
This is not true:
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
“Cherrypickers unite!”
They’ll be joining you.
By the way, hubbo, your god still hasn’t come to me and told me how right and wonderful you are.
“If on an unobserved singularity science has nothing and supernaturalism has something, wouldn’t the best inference be to assume that maybe supernaturalism carries more merit to the explanation? ”
Science doesn’t require that we pretend we know the answer in order to find it. The guys who discovered the evidence for the Big Bang were not only NOT looking for the evidence, they didn’t even know what it was when they found it. If one of the 2800+ gods were the answer to a scientific question, it would have come up by now. And you either know this and are being deliberately obtuse, or else you don’t know enough about science to talk about it.
I’m going to repeat this in nice, rude capital letters, because Hubbo, you have a tendency to ignore when someone clearly proves you wrong in order to continue shoving your falsehoods down others’ throats:
SCIENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS IN ORDER TO FIND IT.
“Keep in mind we are not discriminating which God at this point–a common misnomer that atheists like yourself like to throw out to get the topic off-track and make yourself seem smarter.”
This is not true: In fact, you’ve been told many times by different people the exact opposite of this. But don’t let reality get in the way of your fantasy and your love of cutting down others.
“I am insisting nothing of the sort that you listed in your second paragraph.”
This is not true.
“Can you prove history in any way better than I can prove supernaturalism? The answer is a resounding no. You can offer evidence that is reasonable once all possibilities are considered.”
The absurdity of this statement should show you that your argument is wrong. But even if you were open minded enough to realize it, you’ll never admit it.
“The only thing you’re beating your head against is the door of possibilities and reason that you yourself slammed shut.”
I’m still waiting for your proof that god isn’t a figment of your imagination (or a leprechaun or whatever).
A Google search of “operation science” or “origin science” shows that these are ideas invented by the religion industry, and not terms used in actual, you know, science.
No, natural sciences fall into two subcategories:
1) Physical sciences (astronomy, chemistry, physics, earth, and environment)
2) Life Sciences (biology)
Natural Science
From Princeton.edu
-the sciences involved in the study of the physical world and its phenomena
From the Oxford Dictionary:
-a branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.
-the branch of knowledge which deals with the study of the physical world.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
- The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
From Merriam-Webster:
any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena
From Dictionary.com:
-a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature, as biology or physics, as distinguished from the abstract or theoretical sciences, as mathematics or philosophy.
Note the similarities. By definition, the natural sciences deal with the study NATURAL phenomena, which by necessity precludes dealing with the study of super-natural phenomena.
You’d might as well argue that NASA’s refusal to acknowledge the possibility of space travel via teleporting and out-of-body experiences is unscientific.
I’m jumping into this rather late, I’m afraid (lack of internet for a while), but what’s this ‘perfection’ that you speak of? We’ve already discussed ‘absolute’ morality. Are we now led to believe that there’s an absolute perfection that we’d all agree with? I think not. An example: This, to me, is pretty close to musical perfection. I’d venture to guess that to most people reading this, it’s a bleedin’ racket!
You really should be careful of these absolutes and infinities you toss around so carelessly. Strive for betterment, yes, but let’s drop this ‘perfection’ claptrap shall we?
Once again, Daz forgets to fill the form in. I have a perfect forgetory!
Good music Daz. I may contest the perfect part but damn good never-the-less.
This, however, is true perfection http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_luq3D92xbg especially the Sax. Damn, I love that sax!
Volume up. Lights off.
I’m with Paul in York. Hubbo has all the right in the world to spew his nonsense, but this isn’t the place.
PZ has a policy like you do of making all commenters welcome whatever their views, but after three or four posts by one of these born again nuts, when they clearly have nothing new to contribute, he bans them. I suggest you consider doing the same. Look how Hubbo has spoiled what was supposed to be a thread about your theater group. You have let him get away with taking a shit in your living room.
And Dave, I like your posts by and large, but please, Don’t Feed The Trolls.
What can I say Grumpy, I’m an optimist, I believe that deep down inside everyone there is a rational person waiting to be released. If no one had forced me to think critically about my beliefs, I might still be a “fundie” too. Also, I’m kinda bored at work these days, and for all its faults, troll-baiting does pass the time.
Sorry, I’ll stop now. KK give us something new to talk about!
PS: Daz, you call that noise music? I think my eardrums are bleeding.
Mr. Grumpy. Although much of what you say is true, I am such a believer in free speech that I could only ban someone who exhibited the most onerous of opinions and then only continually. Mr. Hubbo, while his opinions are the height of Christian/Young Earth Creationist apologetic fallacies, is always polite. Not to mention, he is even moderately coherent unlike some others who slam together ALLCAPS warnings of our impending descent into hell in posts filled with even more incoherent links “proving” their point. I don’t agree with a single thing he says and think he’s wrapped himself so tightly in a ball of circular logic that he’s become an actual argumentative black hole sucking up any argument in the area. Still, he’s the counter foil to all the rest of us, and frankly, I kind of admire his persistence. He comes back again and again in spite of the thrashings he gets. Let me be honest, I’d likely be crying myself to sleep at nights after the logical maulings we have given him. Truly, he’s the kind of person you’d want on your side as your lawyer for he will defend any position he takes to the death. He’s like a pit-bull, the dogs who won’t disengage their jaws until dead. If we could just recruit him to serve the side of light and logic, we could just sit back and watch him in action.
At any rate, I go with the philosophy that if someone doesn’t want to engage him, don’t. Don’t even read it. He may be impenetrable to logic, but he has done nothing to get banned for. I get tired of arguing with him too. That’s why I stop. He’s also good practice for when I have to do it in real life. BTW Daz, it’s damn good to see you brother!
Dave, your bleeding eardrums are proof of my point, methinks!
KK:
Good song. “A roadrunner engine in a ’32 ford”… I’m in lurve! For sax solos, I have to go with this, though, or number Summertime — #197 on the playlist at the bottom of my homepage, if you prefer up-tempo.
“number Summertime — #197″ Hmm, that’s what I get for hasty editing. Gives me an excuse to post again, anyway, ’cause I wanted to say its damn good to be back. mind you, the off-time’s certainly put a dent in the unread-books pile!
Great tunes, Daz. Something about a sax just draws me in. I especially love the dichotomy between the upbeat tempo and the smooth sax. Heaven man, pure heaven. I’m glad you’re back too. I’m over to your site to read what new books you’ve polished off.
I know what is meant by “Don’t Feed the Troll,” but I think an exception needs to be made with christian extremists. Hubbo may be a troll, but unfortunately there really are people out there who really believe that nonsense. For too long, non-christians in the US have been quiet and polite, and the fundies have been getting more and more absurd, getting away with it because there’s no one around to set them straight.
I know that Hubbo will never learn anything here, but first of all, I consider online “debates” to be practice for RL. Just recently someone I know said that the reason the word “god” is in the Pledge of Allegiance was because our rights (in the US) come from god. I was able to make him (and others around us) see that this was not true, and also that it was a bad idea to say something like this in a country with religious freedom. Some of the arguments I used I learned from reading online arguments or participating.
Second, one must remember that Hubbo isn’t the only one reading this. There are lurkers, possibly people who are on the fence. If they see Hubbo say something like “Scientists are wrong because they don’t consider god,” and they don’t see why that’s incorrect, lurkers may think to themselves, “Wow, it’s true, there *is* a god.”
And why do I think this is important? Because as long as there are people out there believing nonsense and repeating nonsense, we’re going to have people trying to take away our rights – people who force our children to study creationism in public schools, people who won’t let gays get married, people who try to make birth control illegal, who try to pass laws saying killing a gynecologist is “justifiable homicide,” who say it’s okay to let pregnant women die in hospitals.
So if someone doesn’t want to deal with Hubbo, I certainly understand. I don’t hold it against someone if they don’t want to read that fundie insanity or respond to it. But I hope others don’t think less of me when sometimes I’m in the mood for a little fundie target practice.
This comment shows the shortsightedness of your viewpoint, Nancy. For starters, when I have come on here I have been completely respectful of the atheistic and your right to have it. I just disagree and try to point out the errors in the logic. Using words like “nonsense” and “insanity” to describe my viewpoint shows a complete disrespect for my opinion, and I would hope that any fence-sitters that read this blog would be able to see it as so.
The attitude with which you treat dissenting opinions as they come in shows the height of the intolerance you decry when talking about “letting gays get married,” “trying to make birth control illegal,” etc. Tolerance is the answer, so long as it fits your idea of what’s right. That is a terrible way to live. Either be tolerant of all or tolerant of none, but don’t be wishy-washy.
Finally, the definition of “insane” implies a lack of logic or reason. So let me post verbatim the argument at hand and tell me how I’m being insane.
Nancy: We know it wasn’t a god because there aren’t any gods.
Hubbo: You’ve just made a factual claim which necessitates a burden of proof.
Nancy: The difference is that the burden of proof lies with the person who’s making the claim.
Nancy: You’re right. My claim that there are no gods is positive.
Nancy: I don’t have to prove the non-existence of anything.
Dear Hubbo,
I was defending you from people who thought you should be banned. I thought your debating was for real, no matter how silly and boring and illogical everyone thought it was.
I see now, from your post, that I was wrong.
Your personal attacks show you really are nothing but a troll, and since I wrote that it was worth it to talk to you, you figured you could bait me into a flame war.
I apologize to everyone else for having fallen for this crap. I will never take Hubbo’s side on anything ever again.
Thank you, Nancy. I was about to write a response to your defense of Hubbo.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who comes onto an atheist board to tell us that science is wrong and belief in magic sky fairies is right is ipso facto a troll. Even so, I’m willing to listen if they have something new to contribute to the debate. But they never do. It’s always the same shit that has been properly debunked over and over again.
Being an atheist is no guarantee of intelligence or manners, so I suppose there are atheists who go on woo boards and push atheism. They are tolls too. Being right is not an excuse to be rude.
Being pestered by an idiot who can’t think rationally, however, is. When someone demands respect for irrational and preposterous beliefs, it’s ok to blow them off. When someone declares that talking snakes and the fruit of magic trees should get the same serious treatment as DNA and natural selection, then uckfay imhay.
First, a little – non-theological – defense of Lewis. With all full respect to the original poster( TRIED to find your name, friend? ), this is definitely a work where proper context is essential to understand the author’s intent. Lewis himself writes explicitly, in an introduction to The Screwtape Letters, that whether one believes in ‘devils’, or Not, the point of the work was to prompt reflection in the reader about their OWN failings and susceptibility to the errors discussed therein – whatever the source to which one attributes them. It also must be noted, that the motivating initial motivating experience for Lewis’ writing of this work, was his initial response to an impassioned radio address by HITLER, none other, calling for alliance with Britian, an address by which Lewis – a veteran of the first World War, no less – to his later shock and revulsion found himself initially swayed, or nearly so. It is a response to this – even a sort of intellectual self-colonoscopy, if you would have it so – and as an examination of those parts of imperfect HUMAN nature that such manipulators so successfully leverage, for which The Screwtape Letters should be understood. And I would submit that such perspective puts the work in a far more human, universal, and literary perspective. To answer a specific example raised by the original post, I strongly suspect Lewis would be far less interested in the question of Crusade than in the personal virtue and conduct of the participants.
Crusaders pillaged, murdered and laid waste to cities…There was also once a teenage, inspired/deluded/both peasant girl, who rode weaponless in front of armies, repeatedly risked all one can risk to carry out the mission given her(she believed)from on high, held the hand, weeping, of dying enemy soldiers while saying final prayers with them before inspiring her own armies to the next battle, somehow matched wit for wit the best theologians her enemies could throw after her under extreme duress, at last was executed for her defiance, and whose cause was later won by those who followed after her, who was just as much a fully, unceasingly ‘God-centered crusader’ in her own right.(Aaand…-…She’s Joan of Arc; Come on, people!:P ) So; define ‘God-centered’. Define ‘crusader’. *shrugs*
The central, EXPLICITLY and repeatedly spelled out, points of the work, as regards ‘social’ matters at least, are that what we are, what we do, what we build and leave behind, every work and product of Man, is fruit and flower of WHO we are; that( for Lewis )virtue = God/image of, vice/sin = perverted virtue( Hell creates nothing, resents the pleasure of mortals’ sin ) That the twisting of one to the other is NOT obvious to oneself, but subtle, cumulative, and EASY( Not that the skeptics community has much personal experience with the persistent unreason of Man, I know….*snort*
). So you’re an Atheist – no God, no objective, inchoate ‘Devine Virtue’, whatever. So? The work’s about HUMAN failings, and the insights hit uncomfortably close regardless, as the testimony of and reviews of countless readers of their uncomfortable experience with the work attest. Blurring ‘MY shoe/MY master/MY God’? Nah, no insight there. The gluttony of ‘prudence’? Selfish vs. Selfless love? C’mon; Nothing – at all? It’s a pretty simple and self-consistent set of philosophies, really. Why make a hard thing of this? :/
In any case, I’d strongly argue that one must look to a much later date than Lewis’ more ‘popular’ works( and Screwtape is among his earliest post conversion) to see the man’s true philosophical pedigree. Specifically, during and after his courtship, marriage, and tragic loss of Joy Davidson, you see at last WHAT he’s been getting at. He sought the marriage of passion and reason from the time of his conversion; Found it at last through his relationship and loss of Joy – shown in a final handful of – in my judgment – remarkable works( ‘Till We Have Faces, A Grief Observed, Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer[I hear], etc. ), and then, having found at last his full literary voice – died! It’s maddening. Read at least the wrenching ‘grief journal’ that is A Grief Observed, or don’t really understand the man. Simple as that.
As for a few more general topical thoughts for this blog. May I politely suggest for consideration that in my opinion from experience, both ‘believers’ and ‘rationalists’ often fail one important principle in equal measure: Argumentative passion must be the handmaid of argumentative clarity. Example of what I’m criticizing from the rationalist camp(by way of paraphrase?)
‘What we can say with confidence, of course, is that the cause is not supernatural; to propose otherwise is foolish, muddled thinking.’ (Again, a paraphrase, but not mis-representative in my personal experience.)
Really? Is that so? ‘Define supernatural’. That which is not? Of course nothing unreal exists! That not permitted by current physical law? Again, nothing unreal exists. Also, what of pre-Big Bang? Parallel dimensions? Obviously, it is not inherently unscientific to speculate of existences contrary to current physical law. I might fairly say ‘Natural is all phenomena not logically excluded by the truism ‘Nothing unreal exists’(*shrug* Hey, seems as good a definition as any to me!
), but I hope in reading the preceding, a central question forces itself to the fore: What in the name of Darwin’s ghost(Hah!)does any of that have to do with scientific process, or standards of evidence, or Occam’s Razor, or, effectively, ANY reference to which one might appeal regarding the ‘manifest truth of a sound reason’? To my eyes? NOTHING. Simply put, the questions of ‘scientific process’, of what assumptions, requiring what standards of proof of disproof, with which one should first approach a scientific mystery, of the relationship between skepticism, faith, and logic, are COMPLEX. One’s full position, rigorously defined, WON’T fit on a sticky-pad nor, I promise you, summarily end all reasonable argument with your stance. Whatever your position on the matter, it. Is. NOT. Manifest. Ditto for most of the relevant areas of contention on this forum. Please remember – we’re all imperfect, passionate, flesh and blood beings. Leave politics to the polls! 
So that’s my little bit of musing, ‘submitted for your consideration’; However ‘right’ you feel when debating, however manifest the ‘bloody common sense’ of your position and however, truly, important the issue at hand, PLEASE let’s strive to keep our passion handmaid to our reason. Fair game, first – clarity, of argument – THEN by all means, as much passion as you please!
Ah, yes – I nearly forgot: As regards the ‘divine genocides’ of the Old Testament? See ‘Pain, Problem of’. That is after all, what the matter falls under on reflection. And with apologies: Nope, not even close to the patience to tackle( well )at the present moment….
*Looks at wrist* Eeek! In fact, I need to hit the sack – like, an hour ago. Do share your thoughts; don’t be shy, y’all!
Hope I’ve given some useful food for thought, anyway. Look back in, later. Till then. 
_
Thank you for the article. I was initially wondering if an atheist or agnostic could enjoy this play (as I’m taking my parents to see it with me), and it’s good to see that it has aesthetically pleasing points that appeal to the non-religious. I hope they won’t take it literally (demons who eat souls? I’m a little skeptical), since I don’t think it was meant to be taken literally.
Anyway, I urge you to respond to Joel (posted 3/7/11) since I think he had some good points, and refuting them could only solidify your position. I enjoy learning and finding the truth, and you seem like a firm truth-seeker as well. Personally, I’d like to see what arguments could be made against Joel’s response. I don’t know the atheist side as well as I know Joel’s, and I’d like to see it.
KK’s been very quiet of late, so I think he’ll forgive me thanking you for the comment on his behalf.
To be honest, I’m struggling to see what Joel is getting at.
Regarding the play: he appears to be reminding us that the religion in the play is mostly meant as metaphor. Fair enough, but KK’s discussion of religion in the OP was aimed, it seemed to me, at what was brought up in the after-performance discussions, rather than the play itself—so who, exactly, was Joel addressing? If he wants to upbraid people for taking fable (in the Æsop sense) and metaphor too literally, I’d suggest he’d do better to aim at fundamentalist religious folk.
As to his more general, second, point, I’m having real trouble working out just what his point actually is.
‘Define supernatural”? I’ve been asking religious apologists to do that, for years, and I’ve never yet been given a definition which made sense. What tends to happen is that they start off by claiming that there is evidence for the existence of the object of their faith (thus making a mockery of the idea of ‘faith’), and then, as the various points are refuted, they retreat to “supernatural” or “outside space and time” or other such terms.
As a atheist, if I state that something isn’t explained by the term “supernatural,” I merely mean that I’m objecting to apologists’ use of a nonsense term to make a non-explanation*. For Joel, an apologist, to then turn around and upbraid me for making that statement, by actually agreeing with me that the word is nonsense, strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Surely he should be upbraiding those who forced the term into the discussion, not those who’re refuting it?
*From the same school of thought that gave us the word ‘notpology’, I offer ‘nonsplanation’.