Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for president should come as no surprise to those who understand that the real culture war is not one between Westerners who yearn for a society structured around reason and those who fear the supposed unknowns of a post-mysticism world. To the contrary, the real culture war is between all of us in the West — rationalist and religionist alike — and the propagators of expansionist Islamism, to whom we are all infidels who must submit or be destroyed. Sadly, the defenders of Christendom seem to get this far better than my fellow children of the Enlightenment. Perhaps that’s because men of reason have a difficult time imagining that scores of middle class individuals would actually believe that killing dozens of civilians in a suicide bombing would result in the direct transportation of the culprit to an Elysium populated by several dozen delightful virgins. But that’s exactly what is happening on a daily basis in places like Israel and Iraq thanks in large part to wealthy, educated men who have been deceived by the power of myth. Perhaps religionists better understand this threat due to their own comprehension of the potency of faith, hence the disproportionate level of seriousness regarding the war against Islamist expansionism on the part of religious conservatives. As Kavon has often noted, and as Jonah Goldberg notes here, American so-cons now see the war as the primary social issue:
It’s not that pro-lifers are less pro-life or that social conservatives are suddenly OK with homosexuality, gun control and other issues where Giuliani’s dissent from mainstream conservative opinion would normally disqualify him. It’s that they really, really believe the war on terror is for real. At conservative conferences, on blogs and on talk radio, pro-life issues have faded in their passion and intensity compared with the war on terror. Taken together, terrorism, Iraq and Islam have become the No. 1 social issue for conservative base of the party.
Note: I didn’t say it’s become the No. 1 foreign-policy or national-security issue for social conservatives. It’s become the No. 1 social issue, at least for many of them.
Unambiguous polling data is hard to come by on this point, but the anecdotal data is enormous. From my e-mail alone, it’s obvious. Books that frontally challenge Islam as a religion have become mainstays of conservative publishing. Meanwhile, Dinesh D’Souza’s book, The Enemy at Home, a passionate, socially conservative polemic calling for the American right to align itself with traditional Muslims against the domestic left and Islamic extremists, has found itself almost entirely undefended on the right for its perceived effort to “blame America first.”
William Bennett, the famed “virtue czar,” emphasizes the civilizational struggle more than any other and gets an enormous response from social conservatives. Even before the war on terror, evangelicals embraced Israel for myriad reasons, among them a theological affinity for the Jewish state and a faith that it is an imperiled sister democracy. Such convictions are only multiplied and personalized for these Americans by events since 9/11. At the National Review Institute’s “conservative summit” last month, Romney talked at length about abortion but gave short shrift to the war, and the disappointment in the room was palpable.
Religious conservatives understand the relentlessness of men embarked upon a holy crusade. And they know what will become of Christendom if the Islamists are not stopped. We’re seeing this already in Europe, where a creeping sharia is taking hold and where freedom is surrendered with not a bang, but with a whimper. And that’s why America’s most religious conservatives are prepared to (heh) render unto Caesar, as it were.
Here is where I have a bone to pick with my fellow defenders of a reason-based society. There is a noticeable hesitation on the part of secularists to take the war on terror seriously. Aside from a few prominent voices, such as Dennis Miller, Christopher Hitchens, Camille Paglia, and the late Pym Fortuyn, the classically liberal, pro-individual, pro-Enlightenment segment of society seems strangely silent on this struggle, focusing instead on all of the things that Bush has done wrong on the war — and there are many — instead of taking on the Islamist fanatics who threaten the very freedoms that supporters of individualism care most about.
So, libertarians and libertines, it’s time for some straight talk on the war on terror. As naturalists, you support scrapping the ancient, repressive, irrational sexual mores of our society, yet you do not fear the Islamists, who will deny women their very nature by mutilating their bodies and forcing them to perpetually veil what’s left. As rationalists, you support the invitation of homosexuals out of the proverbial closet and into civil society, yet you do not fear the Islamists, who would execute homosexuals who reveal their nature. As empiricists, you believe in finding truth by applying logic and reason to facts and observations and thus drawing conclusions, yet you do not fear the Islamists, who dictate truth based first and foremost on their sectarian fundamentals. As secularists, you celebrate the sensory pleasures of the natural world, yet you do not fear those who would criminalize wine, women, and song. You call yourself realists, yet you rail against silliness like the notion of a 6,000-year-old universe while remaining silent when individuals are imprisoned a world away for crimes such as blasphemy. Perhaps it would be a good idea to first remove the plank of anti-reason from the rest of the world before dealing with the speck here at home, no?
What both religionists and secularists here in the States need to realize is that societal debates over culture are the result of a society that has moved beyond its most virulent security and economic problems. While America appeared to have reached that fat and happy status in the 1990s, the Islamist attack on the American mainland proved that we do not yet have the luxury of waxing philosophical over the direction of American culture while the Visigoths are at the gates. If there’s going to be a culture war at home to be had, the threat to our civilization from abroad must first be obliterated.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:30 am
As is well-known to those that frequent Race42008, I am a in the Republican Party and not the Libertarian Party because I am able to comprehend the terrorist threat. There’s a reason that I’m supporting Giuliani and not Ron Paul.
And sadly, as my fellow anti-terrorist atheists Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have pointed out, most atheists do indeed seem to be oblivious to the terrorist threat. They’re just, as you noted, unable to wrap their minds around the fact that people can honestly buy into religious dogma. The United States is a nation of false Christians. The Middle East is jam-packed with Muslims that are True Believers.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:31 am
“…frequent Race42008, I am a…” = minus the a.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am
“There is a noticeable hesitation on the part of secularists to take the war on terror seriously.”
I think it is more properly said, that secularists do not percieve the threat to be nearly as great as do the socons and neocons.
We were attacked, with devestating effect, by 19 men with boxcutters. Of course they had a somewhat larger support group, and of course, the movement was larger than just that cell. But nonetheless, there is nothing about the Islamic terrorists that in any way poses an existential threat to Western civilization.
The threat is orders of magnitude smaller than the one posed by communism, or the fascist movements of the thirties.
The conservative approach is to fear-monger the threat up to existential proportions, partly I believe, because it is only a threat of that magnitude that would motivate society to turn toward their solutions.
And their solutions are highly ineffective in this type of a struggle.
Military efforts play a small, but vital role in combatting this type of terrorism, but for the conservatives, and their conception of the threat, military means are the central focus.
‘…the classically liberal, pro-individual, pro-Enlightenment segment of society seems strangely silent on this struggle, focusing instead on all of the things that Bush has done wrong on the war —”
I think that is just wrong. The liberal critique of Bush’s approach is centrally focused on his failure to engage the actual terrorists, but rather to take up an invasion of one of the few countries in the middle east where these terrorist WERE NOT. When you think of the resources, in blood and treasure, that we have spent invading and trying to pacify Iraq, rather than fighting the actual terrorists who attacked us, it boggles the mind. The fact that some new terrorist recruits came to Iraq, took up the al-Q banner, and fought us there does not mean that we have been engaging the core enemy. Our invasion established an environment where new recruits were won to their cause, and we have been fighting some of them. And lots of Iraqis who simply oppose foreign invaders.
The consistent liberal critique has been to focus on Afghanistan and the Taliban / al-Q presence there – yeah, still there, along with binLaden, 6 years after the attack.
“yet you do not fear the Islamists, who will deny women their very nature by mutilating their bodies and forcing them to perpetually veil what’s left.”
No, I don’t particularly fear them. I oppose them as strongly as you do, but I dont fear them. They dont have a snowflakes chance in hell of expanding their ideology into the West (despite your nonsense about what is going on in Europe).
“you do not fear the Islamists, who dictate truth based first and foremost on their sectarian fundamentals. ”
Once again, I am confident in Western enlightenment. I do not fear these people, but I do oppose them, whether they be Islamic or Christian, whether abroad or here at home.
“Perhaps it would be a good idea to first remove the plank of anti-reason from the rest of the world before dealing with the speck here at home, no?”
Actually, no. And maybe this is another difference between us. I do not see the United States as dictators of the world. I do not think that we can force societies to accept the enlightenment. I do believe that we should argue for our values, to live them and offer them as examples. And sometimes it may be necessary to intervene in extreme cases where genocide is being practiced. I would use our soft power to shape the evolution of the rest of the world, and occasionally hard power to right blatant wrongs. But I do not believe that our mission is to rule the world. I am a democrat. I believe that governing authority only has legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If some countries are in a different place in their socio-political evolution, then, once again, barring some atrocity, they should be left to find their own way. Influenced by us, but not dictated to.
In any case, the struggle at home and abroad are not mutally exclusive. In fact, to the extent that we purge our own country of rule by superstition, we present a better example to hold up to the rest of the world.
Along these lines – it has been the socon / neocon inspired Bush administration, with their reliance on militarism, their erosion of liberal values (re. civil liberties, and torture) and their abject stupidity (none of these things being Enlightment values) that have done great harm to the struggle against Islamic terrorism.
“If there’s going to be a culture war at home to be had, the threat to our civilization from abroad must first be obliterated”
That aint the way it works. There will always be threats from outside the circle of light. To demand their obliteration before we work on our own continued evolution, is to abandon the effort entirely. The Enlightenment was in full force, in Europe, with all the internal conflicts that it generated, at the precise moment that the Islamists of another time wer literally at the gates. They even had an army then…
November 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am
I think the bigger news for today should be Sen.Brownback endorsing Sen.McCain, and Sen.McCain’s continued rise of support among the Evangelical community as well as his rise in the polls. And as a former Brownback supporter who now is with him with McCain, this endorsement carries alot of weight, unlike Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani i can assure you.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:49 am
I think it is more properly said, that secularists do not percieve the threat to be nearly as great as do the socons and neocons. We were attacked, with devestating effect, by 19 men with boxcutters. Of course they had a somewhat larger support group, and of course, the movement was larger than just that cell. But nonetheless, there is nothing about the Islamic terrorists that in any way poses an existential threat to Western civilization.
Have you not thought about what could potentially happen if radicals took over Pakistan — a nuclear country — or if Iran, with its lunatic leaders, gained a nuclear weapon? Don’t feed me any crap about its “reformist” tendencies. The citizens of Iran may indeed be more liberal than their leaders, but the citizens aren’t the ones in charge of nukes.
I think that is just wrong. The liberal critique of Bush’s approach is centrally focused on his failure to engage the actual terrorists, but rather to take up an invasion of one of the few countries in the middle east where these terrorist WERE NOT. When you think of the resources, in blood and treasure, that we have spent invading and trying to pacify Iraq, rather than fighting the actual terrorists who attacked us, it boggles the mind. The fact that some new terrorist recruits came to Iraq, took up the al-Q banner, and fought us there does not mean that we have been engaging the core enemy. Our invasion established an environment where new recruits were won to their cause, and we have been fighting some of them. And lots of Iraqis who simply oppose foreign invaders. The consistent liberal critique has been to focus on Afghanistan and the Taliban / al-Q presence there – yeah, still there, along with binLaden, 6 years after the attack.
Well, yes. Liberals like to pretend that they support the War on Terror and cast it as a revenge for 9/11. Conservatives prefer to get rid of the source of the problem — governments that allow Islamic terrorist networks to exist — so we never see another 9/11. Why does something have to be an existential threat to fight it, and why do countries have to be directly connected to 9/11 to attack? Bush can’t “engage with the actual terrorists” because they’ve laid out a set of ultimatums. You’re likely not aware of what they are. Not many people are, sadly. They want us to stop supporting Israel in word and deed, get rid of all of our troops and bases, force our oil companies to either withdraw from the Middle East or distribute profits amongst the umma, and stop supporting secular regimes in the Middle East.
Once again, I am confident in Western enlightenment. I do not fear these people, but I do oppose them, whether they be Islamic or Christian, whether abroad or here at home.
You “oppose” them in what way? By yelling at them, telling them that they’re mean and wrong, and hoping it will stop? We have to do something if we want it to stop. You don’t have to fear them on an intimate level, but you do have to understand that in hindsight after an attack, someone’s fear would be justified.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Actually, no. And maybe this is another difference between us. I do not see the United States as dictators of the world. I do not think that we can force societies to accept the enlightenment. I do believe that we should argue for our values, to live them and offer them as examples. And sometimes it may be necessary to intervene in extreme cases where genocide is being practiced. I would use our soft power to shape the evolution of the rest of the world, and occasionally hard power to right blatant wrongs. But I do not believe that our mission is to rule the world. I am a democrat. I believe that governing authority only has legitimacy through the consent of the governed. If some countries are in a different place in their socio-political evolution, then, once again, barring some atrocity, they should be left to find their own way. Influenced by us, but not dictated to.
I am a non-interventionist as long as other countries aren’t doing anything to us. I even disagree with you on intervening in the case of genocide. But if a foreign government actively supports our enemies, they become our problem and an invasion is justified. We can’t “argue for our values” and “live by example” because they don’t give a s–t, get it? They’re motivated by Islam. They can live that way if they want to, but they need to keep their ruinous delusions confined to their own countries. If they don’t have governments that will leave us alone, then it’s our business and our problem and it’s our job to go in there and get them to do so, yes, by force. They lost their moral protections when they allowed terrorist networks to exist, often endorsing them, and attack us.
That aint the way it works. There will always be threats from outside the circle of light. To demand their obliteration before we work on our own continued evolution, is to abandon the effort entirely. The Enlightenment was in full force, in Europe, with all the internal conflicts that it generated, at the precise moment that the Islamists of another time wer literally at the gates. They even had an army then…
In conclusion, I must make sure that you understand that Islam is what motivates terrorism. It’s not poverty, it’s not politics, it’s Islam. Read some of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri’s writings and learn why the War on Terror is just.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:54 am
You make some interesting points. You’re particularly on the mark discussing the perhaps unique ability of Christians to understand the power religion has to shape actions. But I think the necessary corrolary is far more interesting; secularists have difficulty understanding the implications of a perverted religious ideology. Or rather, they have difficulty implications of religious ideology beyond that which is immediately visible to them. They’ll gleefully criticize Christianity for some of it’s hypocrisies and excesses. But, that criticism comes not from an understanding of religion, but through a narrow and distorted realm of experience. They don’t actually “get” religion. I frankly think this is perhaps the fundamental difficulty of the entire modern liberal movement; it’s fatally detached from whole hosts of world experience and thought. You’ll hear them praise cosmopolitanism, open inquiry, and continual discussion and revision of truths. They’ll promote phrases like “we believe in fundamental truth, but we’re just not so sure we have it”.
And on these bases they’ll oppose interventionism, or spreading of ideolgies, or overtly attempting to influence societies. But, even if we assume that they’re fundamental values are indeed the right ones (open inquiry, skepticism, etc), and I have little wish to debunk the Enlightment, as it’s done the world tremendous good, they in no way lead to the conclusions they’re drawing. You can’t possibly get from “we, as an advanced society, realize that truth must be constantly questioned, and that our own values are hardly absolutely absolute” to “we musn’t intervene in world affairs, we musn’t impose our flawed values on others, etc”, without understanding what the sorts of people who DON’T live in advanced societies, and who don’t exist in the world of lofty intellectual ideas, think about the world. In other words, it doesn’t do to assume that the world holds your values, or that they’re even capable of understanding those values in the intellectual plane they inhabit.
When someone says that we ought to act humbly, “as though truth exists, but we can’t be sure we have it” I say “their are millions of people scattered throughtout the Middle East, who are quite sure of the truth, many of whom believe it demands pacification of the West and the elimination of human rights. Western Civilization and Christendom might well be a work in progress, but they’re a sunny picnic compared to salaffi whabbism. When you’re faced with lunatics, it does you little good to insist that lunacy is unreasonable. These people exist. They have a certain worldview. It’s fundamentally hostile to ours. It’s rooted in historical causes of which we’re all too often woefully informed, and it permeates the culture to it’s very marrow. It knows nothing of secular humanism, or the newly minted cosmopolitan materialism. And if you’re dogmatic support of those beliefs prevents you from seeing it, then those beliefs have done more harm then good.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:25 am
“Liberals like to pretend that they support the War on Terror and cast it as a revenge for 9/11. Conservatives prefer to get rid of the source of the problem — governments that allow Islamic terrorist networks to exist ‘
That is nonsense. All of a sudden, going to war against those who attacked us is written off as “revenge”????
And for all its horrors, Saddam’s Iraq was NOT one of the countries that allowed Islamist networkds to thrive. That would be Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, to name a couple.
Oh, and Afghanistan.
“Why does something have to be an existential threat to fight it, and why do countries have to be directly connected to 9/11 to attack? ”
Good question. It reveals the conservative love of militarism. The fact you even ask the queston supports my point. I guess you think we should attack any country that poses any theoretical threat to us, eh? Are you so in love with war, and so blind to all the other aspects of a great nation’s power, that you wish to make aggressive war the central tenet of American foreign policy?
Gee, maybe the next thing you will do is try to convince me that this is what Jesus would have done.
“But if a foreign government actively supports our enemies, they become our problem and an invasion is justified.”
No argument there. That is why I (and the unanimous Congress, btw) supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
“I must make sure that you understand that Islam is what motivates terrorism.”
I dont completely agree. Islam is used as a rationale, a moral source of justification, for terrorism. Just like slavers used Christianity, including specific biblical passages, to justify what they wanted to do for economic reasons. Many of these Islamists have been thrust into the modern world, totally unprepared. They lived their pastoral or nomadic lifestyles till well into the last century, in many cases. The Western world has greatly passed them by, and in some senses intruded into their world. There are many enlightened muslims who want their societies to catch up. Others want to just tear down the new modern world that threatens their ancient ways.
On a much smaller scale, and non-violently, it is similar to religous conservatives in backward parts of our own country who resent the modern urban world and its lifestyle, and wish to use the levers of democratic governmnet to control it, or to roll it back. Both groups use religion to justify their efforts, but the core motivation is to defend against the encroachments of the modern world.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:46 am
That is nonsense. All of a sudden, going to war against those who attacked us is written off as “revenge�??? And for all its horrors, Saddam’s Iraq was NOT one of the countries that allowed Islamist networkds to thrive. That would be Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, to name a couple.
Oh, and Afghanistan.
No, no — you misunderstand. Liberals see the War on Terror solely as an act of revenge, while conservatives view it as eliminating an entire problem, a la World War II.
If you don’t understand why we can’t invade Pakistan (nukes) or Saudi Arabia (oil), then there’s no hope for the left.
Good question. It reveals the conservative love of militarism. The fact you even ask the queston supports my point. I guess you think we should attack any country that poses any theoretical threat to us, eh? Are you so in love with war, and so blind to all the other aspects of a great nation’s power, that you wish to make aggressive war the central tenet of American foreign policy? Gee, maybe the next thing you will do is try to convince me that this is what Jesus would have done.
Tano, I’m surprised at you! I’m an atheist that abhors many of the teachings of Jesus. It’s not a “love of militarism” but a hatred of religious dogma that demands that people blow up buildings as a method of evangelizing. Your main attack upon me here is not to rebut any of my points, but to stupidly suggest that I’m in “love with war.” Yep, that’s it! And I’m racist because I support tough crackdowns on illegal immigrants, too, I’ll bet!
I dont completely agree. Islam is used as a rationale, a moral source of justification, for terrorism. Just like slavers used Christianity, including specific biblical passages, to justify what they wanted to do for economic reasons. Many of these Islamists have been thrust into the modern world, totally unprepared. They lived their pastoral or nomadic lifestyles till well into the last century, in many cases. The Western world has greatly passed them by, and in some senses intruded into their world. There are many enlightened muslims who want their societies to catch up. Others want to just tear down the new modern world that threatens their ancient ways.
Okay, so you answered my question for me: you haven’t read any of the writings of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri. Go back and read, at the very least, bin Laden’s essay “Why We Are Fighting You.” Let me put it this way: it’s not a coincidence that we don’t see terrorist networks attacking foreign countries in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa.
On a much smaller scale, and non-violently, it is similar to religous conservatives in backward parts of our own country who resent the modern urban world and its lifestyle, and wish to use the levers of democratic governmnet to control it, or to roll it back. Both groups use religion to justify their efforts, but the core motivation is to defend against the encroachments of the modern world.
I detest the religious right as much as you do, but I’m not even going to entertain the notion that they’re as much of a threat as Islamists, if that’s what you’re suggesting. Which it could be, because you don’t believe that Islamists are a threat.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Let me expound upon this: “No, no — you misunderstand. Liberals see the War on Terror solely as an act of revenge, while conservatives view it as eliminating an entire problem, a la World War II. ”
This isn’t “writing it off as revenge.” You think that we should only be going after countries directly responsible for 9/11. I think that it’s a broader war than that. It’s a difference of opinion. I’m not writing anything off. I’ll argue the point all day long, but it’s not some silly dismissal.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Good reply, Matthew E. Miller, except, again, for the grammar and spelling, so here comes the self-appointed Grammar Policeman:
+ “corrolary” is corollary
+ “And if you’re dogmatic support of those beliefs prevents you…” is “your,” which is possessive. “You’re” means “you are.”
November 8th, 2007 at 2:12 am
TLG,
Let me work backwards thru your points.
“I detest the religious right as much as you do, but I’m not even going to entertain the notion that they’re as much of a threat as Islamists, if that’s what you’re suggesting”
Instead of speculating as to what I was suggesting, why not read the words I wrote. I said, “on a much smaller scale”, and “non-violently”. So, duh,,that adds up to nothing near the threat-level from the Islamists.
Except it is my country.
“Go back and read, at the very least, bin Laden’s essay “Why We Are Fighting You.†”
My explanation was of their core motivation, not their conscious motivation, nor their PR. Obviously. The slavers didnt write that they wanted to enslave people for the financial gain, nor did they admit that they were only using Christianity merely as a rationalization. They probably convinced themselves that they were standing up for God’s eternal order. bin Laden is not going to write about how he is ashamed and enraged that his world is so backward. He has probably convinced himself that the religous justification is true.
And why would you think the lack of terrorist attacks in sub-Saharan Africa undermines my point. Last time I checked, subSaharan Africa was not exactly a representative of the modern, encroaching world.
“Your main attack upon me here is not to rebut any of my points, but to stupidly suggest that I’m in “love with war.†”
Sorry for aligning you with the religous types. As to your penchant for war, it was you who wrote that we should be attacking countries even if they pose no existential threat, and even if they had nothing to do with attacks on us. That seems pretty clear to me to be advocating the use of war against a far wider set of nations than has ever been accepted in our national ethic. So it is clearly war-mongering, militarism, and that seems to be an expression of a certain affection for the method.
“If you don’t understand why we can’t invade Pakistan (nukes) or Saudi Arabia (oil), then there’s no hope for the left.”
I was not advocating wars against those countries. Merely pointing out that they, at least, more closely fit the category of nations that YOU said that conservatives were willing to fight, than Iraq.
“Liberals see the War on Terror solely as an act of revenge, while conservatives view it as eliminating an entire problem, a la World War II. —
No. I see the war as being a defense against those who attacked us and may do so again. An elimination of the threat.
If you wish to take on some larger conception of the threat, then perhaps you should focus on a few preliminaries. Like understanding the larger context, and how particular nations fit into that context. Iraq may have been a problem for a fair number of reasons, but it was almost no problem at all in relation to Islamist terrorism. To the contrary, if you wanted to be coldly realpolitik about this WoT (like we were in WWII with Stalin), we could have used Saddam to help fight the Islamists. I am not proposing that we actually have done that, but merely to emphasize the point that he was NOT part of the Islamist problem, and invasion was an insane diversion from the “war” that we agree needs to be fought. (I put war in quotes, because actual war is, as I pointed out earlier, a small part of the effort).
November 8th, 2007 at 2:33 am
TLG,
I whole heartedly agree with most of what you say, except for the atheist outlook that is….Religion is capable of so much good as well.
Dave,
A worthy post.
Tano,
It makes me shudder to think about the lefties who don’t lurk around places like this. At least you have someone trying to enlighten you.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Oh and nice reply Matt.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Tano, I think you are exemplifying the point of the original post: many naturalists/atheists/whatever, even on the conservative side of the spectrum, simply have no understanding of the religious mindset. Often when I’m confronted with attitudes like yours (not always in a WoT context), I’m simply at a loss for words and choose to end the conversation. I’m not at a loss because I’ve run out of arguments, but because the person on the other side has clearly missed fundamental aspects of faith and belief that are extraordinarily difficult to express in terms he might understand. If it was just dressed-up economic despair, you couldn’t convince middle-class, educated, healthy young men to fly an airplane into a building.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Instead of speculating as to what I was suggesting, why not read the words I wrote. I said, “on a much smaller scaleâ€, and “non-violentlyâ€. So, duh,,that adds up to nothing near the threat-level from the Islamists.
Except it is my country.
Well, I figured that it had some relation to the topic. That’s why I speculated. I don’t think that the CHristian RIght is a serious threat in this country — just an annoyance keeping us from electing libertarian-leaners.
And why would you think the lack of terrorist attacks in sub-Saharan Africa undermines my point. Last time I checked, subSaharan Africa was not exactly a representative of the modern, encroaching world.
Well, duh. That’s my point. You said that one of the roots of terrorism is that the modern world passed by the Middle East. Well, it has passed by Africa and, on a smaller scale, South America as well, but we don’t see terrorist groups trying to kill Americans popping up there. Why? South America is Christian and Africa is dominated by many tribal religions.
Sorry for aligning you with the religous types. As to your penchant for war, it was you who wrote that we should be attacking countries even if they pose no existential threat, and even if they had nothing to do with attacks on us. That seems pretty clear to me to be advocating the use of war against a far wider set of nations than has ever been accepted in our national ethic. So it is clearly war-mongering, militarism, and that seems to be an expression of a certain affection for the method.
By your logic, you shouldn’t call the police if your neighbor is housing a hit man that you know to be after you. It’s not an affection for this particular method, really — war — but it’s the only one that works. That limits our options a little.
I was not advocating wars against those countries. Merely pointing out that they, at least, more closely fit the category of nations that YOU said that conservatives were willing to fight, than Iraq.
Right, but we have no self-interest in going after those countries right now. This is about the United States, here.
No. I see the war as being a defense against those who attacked us and may do so again. An elimination of the threat.
If you wish to take on some larger conception of the threat, then perhaps you should focus on a few preliminaries. Like understanding the larger context, and how particular nations fit into that context. Iraq may have been a problem for a fair number of reasons, but it was almost no problem at all in relation to Islamist terrorism.
Perhaps so, but we know that only in hindsight, and we don’t get to make decisions in hindsight. Currently, Iraq is the central front in the War on Terrorism — as indicated by both sides — and we have to fight and win that battle. Perhaps the war was a mistake. Too bad. We’re there now.
To the contrary, if you wanted to be coldly realpolitik about this WoT (like we were in WWII with Stalin), we could have used Saddam to help fight the Islamists. I am not proposing that we actually have done that, but merely to emphasize the point that he was NOT part of the Islamist problem, and invasion was an insane diversion from the “war†that we agree needs to be fought. (I put war in quotes, because actual war is, as I pointed out earlier, a small part of the effort).
Saddam agreed with many of the Islamists. He paid Palestinian suicide bombers for killing Israelis and his sons personally assisted al-Zarquawi at their personal hospitals. He gave safe haven to al-Qaeda members throughout its existence. If we could have used Saddam to help us, as we do Musharraf, that would have been fantastic, but it was just out of the question.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:05 am
TLG,
I whole heartedly agree with most of what you say, except for the atheist outlook that is….Religion is capable of so much good as well.
Sure it is. I agree. But this doesn’t make it true.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Terrorism is at best an example of self righteousness.
In history terrorism is not primarily the tactic of religious people. There are communist terrorism, Basque terrorism, Eco-terrorism and many other secular varieties.
The necessary element for terrorism is not the presence of fundamentalist religion. The necessary element is a population who feels so self righteous that murder becomes justified.
Communists, Atheists, Socialists, Environmentalists and many other leftist radicals felt the same self righteousness and committed acts of terrorism within America and the world.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:19 am
In history terrorism is not primarily the tactic of religious people. There are communist terrorism, Basque terrorism, Eco-terrorism and many other secular varieties.
Today, international-minded terrorism is the result of religious fundamentalism. This is not an opinion. Unless you think bin Laden is lying when he tells us his motives.
The necessary element for terrorism is not the presence of fundamentalist religion. The necessary element is a population who feels so self righteous that murder becomes justified.
The necessary element for Islamist terrorism is fundamentalist Islam.
Communists, Atheists, Socialists, Environmentalists and many other leftist radicals felt the same self righteousness and committed acts of terrorism within America and the world.
This is an important distinction. I mentioned Africa and South America above. Certainly there and all around the world, terrorism has existed, but it has been confined to the country of its origin. The Islamist threat is motivated by putting the entire world under Sharia Law, and the US — Islam’s greatest opponent in the world — is their prime target for the reasons I already outlined. It’s the only terrorist movement in existence that is internationally-minded. This is because of Islam. If you disagree, take it up with bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, not TLG.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Once again, anti-Religious Republicans trying to make it sound as though reason and religion are polar opposites. You act as though people of faith can not also be people of logic and intelligence. I will remind you, that, as much as many have tried in the last 2000 year, no scientist (or any other person for that matter) has been able to come even remotely close to disproving the existence of a higher power.
Basically, tone down on the cheap shots at christians – making them out to be uneducated, uncivilized cavemen.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Communist terrorism wasn’t confined to the country of its origin. Today Environmentalist terrorism isn’t confined to the country of its origin.
What’s important to remember is that this Islamic terrorist mentality is not because of fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims lived side-by-side with Christians for decades without terrorism.
Historical events led to terrorism not someone finally discovering what the Koran and the Hadiths said.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:07 am
My beef here, econ grad stud, is that you’re trying to imply that Islam has absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaeda’s acts of terrorism, which is the most ignorant proposition to come from anyone on this board that I’ve seen.
“What’s important to remember is that this Islamic terrorist mentality is not because of fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims lived side-by-side with Christians for decades without terrorism.”
Logical fallacy — you should be ashamed of yourself for using this fallacy. You’re saying that because SOME fundamentalist Muslims have lived peacefully with Christians, then it naturally follows that ALL of them do. This is just not the case. This is like saying that because some Republicans vote for Democrats in state elections, it narually follows that all Republicans are favorably disposed toward Democrats.
al-Qaeda has written a number of treatises — theologically sound — on why they’re fighting us, and it all has to do with Islam. Without Islam, we could negotiate. They won’t negotiate because it’s all about religiont o them.
Unless you mean to say that they’re liars.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
ACT Blog –
Once again, anti-Religious Republicans trying to make it sound as though reason and religion are polar opposites. You act as though people of faith can not also be people of logic and intelligence.
They can be, but it’s in spite of their religious faith, not because of it.
I will remind you, that, as much as many have tried in the last 2000 year, no scientist (or any other person for that matter) has been able to come even remotely close to disproving the existence of a higher power.
I have addressed this quite frankly idiotic point about 1,000,000 times. Disprove the existence of the invisible pink unicorns circling Saturn or I’ll continue to worship them.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
You don’t have to believe in God, or agree with those who do, TLG, the only thing I am saying, is don’t make them out to be bumbling idiots with no intelligence, logic, or reason – as I believe some of Dave’s article does.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:14 am
What’s ironic is that Christians are deeply involved in scientific inquiry.
The Human Genome Project was lead by Francis Collins a renowned Evangelical. The Big Bang Theory was created by a Roman Catholic priest.
It isn’t as if Christians have depended on the non-religious for science.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
The nation will not be taken over by the ‘Visigoths’ if we have internal integrity. No power on earth can overcome America’s ideals or values (which is why, by the way, so many on the left worldwide hate America–because America’s revolutionary ideas continue to change the world and prevent the spread of secularism/socialism).
That is why it isn’t all about foreign policy. Nobody can physically conquer America if we continue to enforce the truths that hold to be self-evident, internally. Those same truths of freedom will conquer our enemies, not by force of arms, but by America’s shining example.
Take a look at America’s public religion: it’s monuments to heroes past, it’s scripture (the constitution), it’s founding legends and myths (Washington and the cherry tree). America has set up a public religion that helps enforce it’s citizen’s civic duty. It is undeniable that America’s public religion is founded on Judeo-Christian moral principles in an enlightened secular organizational framework.
If we hold fast to the Judeo-Christian moral fundamentals of our nation, then we will not falter in the face of a dictatorial religious fundamentalism that enforces a religious organizational framework. That is the difference, and as a Latter-day Saint, I find it seriously troubling that we should either enforce the religious sectarian will upon civics (in not electing a man for his religion, as opposed to his moral founding principles), or allow us to neglect our Nation’s founding Judeo-Christian moral principles by overemphasizing the strength of our secular organizationl framework (e.g. the military). The house will not stand if we turn it into a political force that restricts the conscience of its adherants (by adopting a sectarian governmental framework) or by discarding the moral foundation (Life, Family, Service, Duty–which we must enforce sometimes to the chagrin of ‘Libertines’) in favor of a supposedly stronger framework.
That’s why I have mixed feelings about Robertson endorsing Giuliani. In the end, however, I don’t believe our biggest challenge is from islamic fundamentalism. It only takes a consistant, small, vocal libertarian humanism to wipe out any national identity America has, and that would be the end of America as we know it.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:34 am
“Disprove the existence of the invisible pink unicorns circling Saturn or I’ll continue to worship them.”
TLG, that’s just willful stupidity. Religious people don’t worship an object they can’t see. They worship the transcendent which is impossible for them to see even if true.
God is a rational answer to why the Universe exists. The other answers are no better. Unless a better answer can be offered, it is arrogance to attack those who believe in God.
Is the Universe eternal?
Impossible scientifically and rationally.
Did the Universe Create itself?
Impossible rationally.
Did something eternal cause the Universe to exist?
Absolutely.
So all people are left with are two rational options. Either there is an eternal Super-Nature that caused the Universe and just happened to produce one that could sustain life (odds less than 10^-400) or there existed an eternal God who created a Universe that could sustain life out of the near infinite other possible Universes.
Both beliefs are unprovable and indistinguishable by rational support.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:36 am
DaveG, some of us believe strongly in this admonition from Matt. 23: 25-26:
So sorry, your argument does not ring soundly with some of us. The cultural war is real within our own society, on whether we are permitted to seek the God first or not.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Even though I disagree with ThatLibertarianGuy on theology (his atheism), he still acknowledges moral principles (I think) and doesn’t seem to want to institutionalize the destruction of social/moral conscience through humanistic libertarianism. He may be an atheist by profession, but his heart doesn’t seem to be in it.
Although he should ask himself what that little voice inside his head is if not a higher order energy/power that directs his moral philosophy (since all true-and-blue atheist inherently deny morality/conscience as a psychosocial construct).
Even people like T. Jefferson was forced to admit that there are certain things which we must admit are ’self-evident truths.’ Upon these self-evident truths, which our Nation is built, revealed by a true conscience, we must defend against attacks by megalomaniac islamist, socialist, and humanist libertines.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Econ Grad Student: I think you are being too hard on ThatLibertarianGuy. He has acknowledged that Christianity is not as much a threat to America as Radical Islam, and he has admitted moral authority exists (the Constitution as one that I suppose he ‘believes’ in as a conservative libertarian).
Such a person as that, will eventually realize–like Francis Collins and C.S. Lewis, that Reason cannot premise Moral Authority or any meaningful Moral Philosophy. Only Conscience (which my faith identifies as the ‘Light of Christ’) has the power to produce Moral Authority, and we shouldn’t fall into the trap that the Catholic Church fell into with Galileo. In the end, all Transcendence will be both seen and understood (rationally), but for now reason has little force to produce faith.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Joseph, I agree entirely. You have no idea how much I agree. I’m simply reacting to the arrogant attitude that theists are less justified than atheists in their beliefs. That’s hogwash.
Saving faith comes from an entirely different place than belief.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
31: I am guilty of that reaction as well sometimes.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Here’s to the hope that atheist stop ‘kicking against the pricks’ of their own conscience.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
egs — Everything here is inherently self-contradictory!
TLG, that’s just willful stupidity. Religious people don’t worship an object they can’t see. They worship the transcendent which is impossible for them to see even if true.
You simultaneously said that religious people don’t worship something they can’t see and that it is impossible to see it. Anyway, it’s not about whether we can “see” it — I’d just like some evidence for it.
God is a rational answer to why the Universe exists. The other answers are no better. Unless a better answer can be offered, it is arrogance to attack those who believe in God.
Absolutely not. I can respect agnosticism, which would say that we don’t know how the universe was created, but to say that you have a supernatural answer demands evidence. Naturalism is the default position inasmuch as the natural world exists. The burden of proof is on you to prove the supernatural.
Is the Universe eternal?
Impossible scientifically and rationally.
Did the Universe Create itself?
Impossible rationally.
Did something eternal cause the Universe to exist?
Absolutely.
So, like, did God create himself? Where’d he come from? If he was just “always there” and eternal, why can’t the universe be? “Time” and space?
November 8th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Joseph D. Walch —
Even though I disagree with ThatLibertarianGuy on theology (his atheism), he still acknowledges moral principles (I think) and doesn’t seem to want to institutionalize the destruction of social/moral conscience through humanistic libertarianism. He may be an atheist by profession, but his heart doesn’t seem to be in it.
Although he should ask himself what that little voice inside his head is if not a higher order energy/power that directs his moral philosophy (since all true-and-blue atheist inherently deny morality/conscience as a psychosocial construct).
Oh, believe me, my heart is in it, but I side with the fundamentalists on the War on Terror — albeit for different reasons. My morality stems from natural law and objective reasoning. The “little voice inside my head” is reason.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Interesting, too –
You so-cons see America as a religious country that needs saved from a terrorist threat of an opposite religious nature.
I see America as a secular country under siege by fundamentalism abroad — not the silly fundamentalists in this country that aren’t worth worrying about (any secularist that seriously believes that America is threatened by Christian fundamentalists on a fear-invoking level a la al-Qaeda is downright stupid), but ones that want to nuke entire countries, blow up buildings, and, worst of all, have governments behind them.
We both want to save America from all threats against it, but because we see it as different things.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Oops, I forgot to address this:
So all people are left with are two rational options. Either there is an eternal Super-Nature that caused the Universe and just happened to produce one that could sustain life (odds less than 10^-400) or there existed an eternal God who created a Universe that could sustain life out of the near infinite other possible Universes. Both beliefs are unprovable and indistinguishable by rational support.
10^-400 by some measures. And either way, it is nearly impossible, but not forbidden. I’m curious as to where this God came from and how he got the knowledge and powers to create such complex universes. Don’t you think I’m owed that explanation? At least we know that the natural world exists. If you’re going to say that there’s a God out there that suddenly existed and had the abilities and knowledge to will enormously complex universes into existence, shouldn’t there be like, you know, some evidence for that? Especially if you’re going to tell me that I need to revolve my life around worshiping him and his son (also unproven to be divine).
November 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Sorry to post so much, but I had to add this –
Even if we did prove that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, a deity — what does that have to do with Christianity? It could mean that Islam is correct. Or Hinduism. Or maybe polytheism. Or maybe competing gods, which could explain malevolence. How about that?
Even if your design argument holds up, it says nothing about the validity of the Bible!
November 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
TLG:
I still don’t believe you as long as you acknowledge Natural Law or any other extrinsic state of “Nature.” I find the atheist desperate attempt to fit Freud, Darwin, Newton, or Eistein into an atheist universal materialist paradigm just as comical as some of my brother’s and sisters attempts to reconcile religious faith with Science, History, etc.
You should read the epilogue of Crime and Punishment to see the consequence of ‘reason.’ If I were released from the bounds of morality and belief in God, I certainly would find the Machiavellian Will to Power very compelling rationally. And so did plenty of atheist throughout the ages (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein).
One thing you can’t deny is your own existance (that ‘inner voice’ confirms that). Once you get a grip on that, you may investigate the origin, purpose, and destiny of your existance. That little voice in you will help you on your way. If you are ever confused, that is you conscience (extrinsic reason and revelation) telling you that your path is in error. Plenty of smart people simply ignore that confusion; becomming mere ideologues and smart fools. Even if you refuse to acknowledge that the inner voice is extrinsic in its origin (i.e. God), at least know the danger of every man making himself a God by denying the existance of extrinsic wisdom (outside of one’s ‘Nature’ or what you may call an individual’s ‘Natual Law’). Such is the arrogance of man.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
TLG, ok I see you don’t have an understanding of cosmology.
Prior to the Big Bang there was no time or space as we know it.
The eternality of the Universe was disproven by science.
1) Matter decays at the quantum level into energy over time so if the Universe were eternal we’d have no matter.
2) The Universe is expanding and accelerating if it were eternal we’d have expanded until space relativistically ripped apart.
Whatever existed prior to the Big Bang was eternal.
This is necessary for at least two reasons:
1) Time began with the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang there was no time just a single point of existence.
2) One entity must be eternal and self-existent to explain everything else that requires causation.
Whether it was an eternal structure which caused the Universe or an eternal God there was no causation before time.
Now you say that the necessity of an eternal entity prior to the Universe’s beginning does not prove Christianity. You’re right. I’m simply making the point there is no better explanation that will ever be possible than God created. There are explanation that are equivilent (String Theory) but none is scientifically or logically provable or testable.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I still don’t believe you as long as you acknowledge Natural Law or any other extrinsic state of “Nature.†I find the atheist desperate attempt to fit Freud, Darwin, Newton, or Eistein into an atheist universal materialist paradigm just as comical as some of my brother’s and sisters attempts to reconcile religious faith with Science, History, etc.
Ew, don’t ever insult me by implying that I admire Sigmund Freud. Wacky little coot.
You should read the epilogue of Crime and Punishment to see the consequence of ‘reason.’ If I were released from the bounds of morality and belief in God, I certainly would find the Machiavellian Will to Power very compelling rationally. And so did plenty of atheist throughout the ages (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein).
Sam Harris is one perceptive little bastard. He said that atheists will never gain any traction because theists falsely believe that they have two trump cards — one is “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” and “Well, Stalin and Mao were atheists, and look at them!” Neither are valid complaints. The former is invalid as a logical argument and latter has nothing to do with whether God exists. And Hussein was no atheist!
Why on Earth would you find power rationally compelling? You might find it emotionally compelling, but you really can’t justify it objectively. You cannot objectively justify the right to initiate force; thus, you have no basis to act upon it.
One thing you can’t deny is your own existance (that ‘inner voice’ confirms that). Once you get a grip on that, you may investigate the origin, purpose, and destiny of your existance. That little voice in you will help you on your way. If you are ever confused, that is you conscience (extrinsic reason and revelation) telling you that your path is in error. Plenty of smart people simply ignore that confusion; becomming mere ideologues and smart fools. Even if you refuse to acknowledge that the inner voice is extrinsic in its origin (i.e. God), at least know the danger of every man making himself a God by denying the existance of extrinsic wisdom (outside of one’s ‘Nature’ or what you may call an individual’s ‘Natual Law’). Such is the arrogance of man.
This isn’t a journey. The journey’s over. I reached my destination, and its name is Reason. That “confusion” is a desire for God to exist, which has nothing to do with whether he actually exists or not. Only by examining evidence can we determine that — and no evidence exists.
“Such is the arrogance of man” is particularly striking. Man has every right to proclaim his superiority in the universe because of what he has done. There’s a reason that men have created civilizations and animals do nothing but roam in the wild: men have the ability to reason. I don’t know what sort of inferiority complex so makes mankind want to be humbled before an almighty God (I just want him to exist for the afterlife!) when we have this amazing Earth that we can work with, but leave me out of it.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
egs — I’ll pretend that I accept your hypothesis for the sake of argument (I don’t, and I have rebuttals to things that you said, but it’s a pointless argument). Let’s just say that we were designed and that the universe was made by a higher being –
So what? Now what? What are the implications of that?
Nothing. If we proved that the universe was designed, I’d immediately switch to deism, which is just functional atheism. I still would not have seen any proof for Jesus’ divinity or Mohammed’s visit by an archangel.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“God is a rational answer to why the Universe exists.”
No. God is an irrational answer. You dont seem to have much of a grasp on this “reason” thing.
All human knowledge begins with hypothesis generation. You could call it guessing – guessing at the anwer to whatever problem is in front of you. There are all kinds of guesses, off-the-top-of-ones-head guesses, educated guesses, complex and elaborate guess-structures, random, wild guesses etc.
What distinguishes reason, science, is not a question of how these hypotheses are generated. It is what you do with them once you have them. The standard in rationality is that hypotheses are completely valueless until they are tested, severely, and found to have some validity. There is NO REASON whatsoever to believe in any hypothesis unless it survives testing, in the real world – and that entails structuring a situation (like an experiment) in which pertinent evidence is generated and compared to the predictions deduced from the hypothesis.
No one knows what existed before the big bang, or how or why the universe exists. And obviously, we all would love to know. Its a question that humans have been guessing at since the first time that they could conceive of the universe. Most religions carry forth some of the guesses, made elaborate by scholars over time. But that is all that they are – guesses. Our own culture seems wrapped up in a particular guess, made originally by a bunch of nomadic desert tribesman a few thousand years ago.
There has been no testing of this guess, nor can there be. The scope of the question is simply on a completely larger scale than our minds can access. There are no relevant tests that can be run.
By any rational standard, these creation myths have NO VALUE WHATSOEVER as potential pieces of knowledge. There is no rational reason to believe them.
Religous people then bring out this notion of faith – the compulsion to believe things outside of the standards of rationality. Whether there is or is not any evidence. There is nothing that could be more contradictory to the standards of rationality and science than that.
Yes there are scientists who do good work, and who are also religous. But they achieve this by compartamentalizing their religion – by leaving it at home when they go to the lab. Francis Collins worked to discover the human genome – and his results are valid. But there is not one single base pair in the sequence that he developed that is there because of an act of faith. Either there was evidence for it, that stood up to scientific testing, or it was not included. His science work was totally non-religous.
I dont see how anyone could consider that to be an example of religion and science being compatable. They may exist together in one individual, so long as he can turn one on and the other off when he does different tasks. But they are fundamentally at odds. Any religous or faith input into the scientific work would have rendered it useless.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“All human knowledge begins with hypothesis generation.”
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem suggests all human knowledge starts with unprovable assumptions.
November 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
EGS,
Thats a strange way of looking at it. Goedel’s theorem refers to the unprovability of the consistency of formal logical systems, like mathematics. Mathematics is a tool for building knowledge. So maybe what sense exists in your statement derives only from the fact that our tools for knowledge aquisition contain unprovable assumptions.
That may undermine the cosmic truthiness factor of all human knowledge (which is something scientists accept – the absence of any ultimate certainty), but it hardly seems sensible to claim that all human knowledge BEGINS with unprovable assumptions.
I would rather say, all human knowledge is limited by the unprovable assumptions embedded in our rational tools.
I hope you are not trying to argue that therefore unprovable assumptions are somehow a valid source of knowledge.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I’m arguing that there are only three options for someone in reference to the origin of the Universe.
1) Admit Ignorance and live as if it doesn’t matter.
2) Take the tack that an eternal structure caused the Universe no matter how improbable.
3) God created it.
The first option says “we can’t even try to give an answer”. For most people that may be an appropriate position. If you actually try to assess the question of existence then you’re left with two scientifically equivalent positions.
The only thing that draws people towards one of the last two are non-scientific positions. So atheists arrogance against those who believe in God is unwarranted since they have no better alternative to God as an explanation for existence.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Wow, you guys are really informed. Great discussion.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Tano, I think you are missing the point. We are talking about ’self-evident’ truths. These truths stand on their own merit. God exists, humans are different from animals, it is wrong to murder somebody (e.g. for gain). Everybody knows these simple truths deep down, they simply ignore them for personal reasons. Somebody wants to be free from the restrictions that belief in God would impose so they pretend there is no God. People want to be free from the restrictions that killing others for gain would impose, so poof, they ignore self-evident truths and inalienable rights.
The problem you face is you want it both ways. You want eternal truth and human rights without the messy responsibility that comes with having to believe in a God. It is true that there is much that we don’t understand about God, but if you sit down, think about it, and study it out–you will know.
Otherwise, the only other ‘rational’ position would be to say that you don’t know yet (unless you also have the hubris to say that you have the omniscience to definitively rule out God). As for me, I have read scripture, I have studied it deeply, and I have actually asked him. Through reason and revelation, I do know there is a God. All I can do is reflect the light of truth into the atheist cave–it is up to you guys to release yourselves from ignorance and find out for yourselves.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I love the Platonic (as in Plato’s The Cave) imagery there.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Why is God’s existence “self-evident”?!
November 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Because existence points to that which transcends, predates, and caused existence.
You can either accept God or something scientifically equivalent to God in testability (like String Theory). You also have the option of making no choice (philosophical bad faith).
This irrelevant to being a Christian however. Belief in God has little practical application to Christianity.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Why is the thought of cold-blooded murder repulsive? Why is the idea of slavery repugnant to all right-thinking human beings?
Some point to Freud, others to Darwin (which just as easily could be used to support murder or slavery). I point to God–the source of all truth.
You either have to admit–according to the prevailing theory de jeur, that that abhorrence of evil is nothing more than a mechanism to maximize your reproductive success, or else there is something more to man than flesh and tiny billard balls.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
egs writes,
“I’m arguing that there are only three options for someone in reference to the origin of the Universe.
…
The first option says “we can’t even try to give an answerâ€. For most people that may be an appropriate position. If you actually try to assess the question of existence then you’re left with two scientifically equivalent positions.”
I basically agree. So long as you realize that when you say “two scientifically equivalent positions” the quivalence is based on both of those positions have zero scientific validity.
“The only thing that draws people towards one of the last two are non-scientific positions.”
The last two ARE non-scientific positions.
“So atheists arrogance against those who believe in God is unwarranted since they have no better alternative to God as an explanation for existence.’
Why do you say that? Why can’t I be arrogant toward people who believe things based on irrational faith, and no evidence.
I try not to do that, so I arrogantly think I am at least making a good effort at being a better thinker.
I dont think these ultimate questions have any answer that we could ever accept on rational grounds. Everything about our knowledge, and our way of gaining knowledge, in fact everything about everything is all constrained within our present universe. We have no way of knowing what is outside it, whether there are other universes, whether they exhibit similar regularities as does ours, AND WE CANNOT EVER KNOW THIS. Moving backward through time, information is obliterated at the big bang.
I really dont understand the compulsion that so many have to glom onto some explanation when there is no explanation that can ever make rational sense.
Yeah, you just gotta learn to live with that.
“Because existence points to that which transcends, predates, and caused existence.”
“Existence” doesnt point. Your own desire for answers, irrespective if there is reason to hold them, is what is doing the pointing.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I can just as easily say, because I said so. Because I know.
How’s that for reason?
How are you sure that YOU really exist, or that your existance merits any consideration whatsoever? You must have faith in that fact, otherwise you would have committed suicide.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
You’re wrong about one thing; we can know, and I do know. I know what took place before the Big Band. I know what will happen after I die. Reason guided by conscience is the first step to knowledge. Once we gain an ‘educated conscience’ we will then have the opportunity to act on that knowledge. As we act in accordance with our conscience we receive the Holy Ghost which guides us with God’s wisdom. Very simple.
Some people make this simple process out to be more than it is–looking past the mark. Some adulterate this process by trying to be mystical or spiritualistic, but the way is simple and given to every person if they simply let their conscience guide their thoughts.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Correction: I don’t know for sure that there was a Big Bang (could have been–I don’t know), but I still know what happened before any kind of ‘Bang’ might have happend. It’s pretty plainly spelled out in scripture for those who want to know–and not for curiosities sake.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Joseph,
“Scripture” is the folk tales of a middle-eastern nomadic tribe.
Grow up.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Why is the thought of cold-blooded murder repulsive? Why is the idea of slavery repugnant to all right-thinking human beings?
Because they involve the use of force.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:44 am
I can just as easily say, because I said so. Because I know. How’s that for reason?
Crap.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:46 am
How are you sure that YOU really exist, or that your existance merits any consideration whatsoever? You must have faith in that fact, otherwise you would have committed suicide.
…Yeah, that’s logical.
“I think, therefore I am.” That’s actually a metaphysical statement, even though most people just think it’s some silly cultural catchphrase. The fact that I’m contemplating existence proves that I exist. I can think and perceive and respond to stimuli. I exist. The psuedo-philosophical “zomg r u sure u exist lol???22″ crowd is what turns average people off to philosophy. Don’t further that stupid bull.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Some point to Freud, others to Darwin (which just as easily could be used to support murder or slavery).
Yeah, that’s what evolution is all about. You nailed it!
Ignorant theists have taken evolution and killed its meaning and implications stupidly simplified it to “Survival of the Fittest” and “We evolved from apes.”
Speaking of anti-evolutionists…Mike Huckabee is the biggest damn idiot in this race: “If you want to believe that you’re the descendant of a monkey, you go ahead!” So not only does he reject evolution, but he doesn’t even understand what it is. I imagine he’d next say “If we evolved from apes, why haven’t all of those apes evolved yet?” Oh, Arkansas, your track record of electing wonderful governors is impeccable.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Correction: I don’t know for sure that there was a Big Bang (could have been–I don’t know), but I still know what happened before any kind of ‘Bang’ might have happend. It’s pretty plainly spelled out in scripture for those who want to know–and not for curiosities sake.
Christianity is the belief that when science and reason clash with a 2,000 year old book of myths, it’s clearly the science that has things mixed up, and it is only accurate when it’s run and re-run in order to line up with the ancient book.
November 9th, 2007 at 8:01 am
I’m Sorry, but TLG and Tano; you still haven’t dealt with the fundamental questions of the incongruent truths you hold. It seems to me that you believe in the idea of truth. You deny God because you seem to ‘know’ he doesn’t exist, and yet you ‘believe’ in certain truths (e.g. love, compassion, the correct use of force). You assert verities which your rejection of God and your atheology denies a Priori. That is inconsistent. Either throw all truth out or accept at least the possible existece of God (be agnostic). The former is the most dangerous and destructive idea that mankind has had to deal with.
I hope you realize that inconsistency and not waste you lives with such sillyness. I say that because I sincerely hope that you make the most of your lives before you are forced to concede the existence of God by being confronted by that reality after you die.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Joseph D. Walch: “Philosophy? What is this thing you call philosophy?”
I don’t deny God because I “seem to ‘know’ he doesn’t exist.” You’re using the “put words in your opponent’s mouth that he didn’t say and then act like he’s an idiot for saying that” technique. Don’t libel me with your stupid argument. You’re the one who says that you just ‘know’ God exists; that he’s self-evident and transcendent.
I don’t ‘just believe’ in truth and love and compassion, and none of them have anything to do with whether God exists or not, anyway, dammit. Come on!
November 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
DaveG – This is simply brilliant. The best essay I have read on this subject.