We recently (see previous blog) started a book discussion on the problem of evil, that is, on the issues surrounding the existence of so much suffering in this world. If God is both good and sovereign, how do we explain the presence of evil without jettisoning either his moral perfections or his power? This and similar questions have plagued mankind for millennia.In seeking to make sense of evil, it is useful to consider one’s starting point. The lenses through which we see the world greatly influence what we will “see.” Our worldview, in other words, shapes our expectations and evaluations and the basic manner in which we approach any subject.
Throughout history there have been different proposals as to the best way to make sense of the ugly features of life. Without being overly simplistic, here are some of the major contenders or approaches we might consider.
• Atheism is one option. This view says that the evil we encounter in this world is proof positive that there is no God, for an all-good and all-powerful deity would not permit such widespread maleficence. In evaluating this option, it is important to acknowledge that the atheist is at least honest enough to acknowledge the problem of evil. Likewise, he or she has certain expectations about what a good God might permit. These are potentially useful points. However, one wonders on what basis we human beings construct our versions of deity. From an atheist’s vantage point, how can we even know what God would or would not allow? But there is an even deeper and more obvious problem with atheism, which is that it is self-refuting. If there is no God, then why react against difficulties? How can we even define what is evil in the first place? Though there is an understandable aversion to evil, an aversion that makes us wonder what God could be up to, there really is no escaping the fact that a godless universe does too much, for it eliminates the very basis of our aversions. Without some type of universal truth and/or truth-giver, we are unable to even label anything truly good or evil. Again, atheism is self-refuting.
• Agnosticism is another option, which is to say that we remain uncommitted to any answer. A certain version of this (closed agnosticism) is probably not helpful, for it closes us off from potentially helpful answers and assumes that faith is never valid. Another type that we might term “apathetic agnosticism” says, “whether there are any answers available, I don’t really care.” While this might be the way we feel at times, it also doesn’t provide any helpful relief. A third option is “open agnosticism,” which can be a pathway to faith. So long as we remain open to the possibilities, open agnosticism is a potentially useful perspective.
• Of course there is also the faith option, which might make the most sense of all. In saying that we approach the subject of evil with faith, we are not (or, at least, we should not be!) claiming that believers have all of the solutions to this dilemma, for we certainly do not. Nor does a faith perspective imply that are we ever completely satisfied with the views to which we cling. Even faith “answers” (especially, faith answers?) are partial at best. This said, this view is commendable because it corresponds to the experiences of so many throughout human history, and it allows us to at least acknowledge that there is a basis for good and evil. What’s more, the faith approach provides both a reasonable expectation that evil might one day be banished from our lives and actual historical comforts through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, who–though not answering every inquiry–is the believer’s ultimate paradigm, strength, and hope.
Atheism may sometimes “feel” right, but it is self-defeating. Agnosticism, in its best form, may provide some impetus for thinking through the admittedly complicated and heart trenching realities that so dominate human existence. But it is faith that best emboldens and empowers us, providing the ultimate path through the maze of evil and toward that day when the good, sovereign, yet also mysterious Lord is more fully seen, his ways better understood, and our tears finally dried.
10 comments:
Carmen,
I have to say, I think this blog has taken a bad turn toward misrepresenting the views of people with different beliefs than yours.
For direct example, you describe Ignosticism as: "whether there are any answers available, I don’t really care."
That's completely false. The term 'ignosticism' was coined by the late Rabbi Sherwin Wine to mean that if you do not have a coherant definition of the word "God" the question of God's existence is meaningless before it has even been asked.
It is an important philosophical question, and I think it encourages believers and nonbelievers alike to ponder what they mean when they contemplate the almighty.
To name-check it and tie it to an expression of apathy is to take a cheap shot at the beliefs of others, including the late Rabbi Wine who was anything but apathetic, and clearly thought about these issues quite deeply.
I'm sad to say you've done no better work in representing the beliefs of atheists. Did you, in composing this piece, consult with any atheists and ask them what they believe, and how they think about these issues?
You seem very adept at arguing against your ventriloquist's marionette version of atheism.
If it is actual wisdom you seek, rather than cheap feelgood apologetics, you should seek honest understanding of others. There are wonderful dialogues to be had in this world of amazing diversity of thoughts and beliefs. Why cloister yourself in discussions of only the like-minded, and refer to "the other" only in absentia?
One thing I learn from coming here is what Christians think we think. It's like looking at yourself in a funhouse mirror.
Siamang,
First, thanks for writing.
Second, my intent was never to minimize the views of someone like, say, Wine, but merely to lay out a common view. I would guess that very few people even know who Wine was or what ignosticism means or does not mean. While some might argue for a different definition than the one I've porvided, the reality is that my definition (even if not technically tied to one person's use of the term) is quite common.
To answer one of your questions, I have, in fact, spoken to atheists and others on a number of occasions. I do not, however, need to consult with them every time I wish to give expression to this or that idea.
If you are an atheist, then you can of course provide access to whatever your beliefs happen to be. The fact is, however, that consistent atheism cuts off any sense of being able to claim or proclaim that anything is right and wrong; it eliminates any sense of "ought" (i.e., this is the way things ought to be). To take some type of governing force or supreme being out of the discussion is to deny the very "measuring stick" that is required to even evaluate such matters. Atheists borrow from theistic capital every time they react against perceived injustice or promote that which is noble.
It is fascinating that you can speak of wisdom, which you no doubt possess. In the real world, wisdom flows from the lives of many different people. But atheism can't provide an ultimate basis for wisdom or any lasting reason--outside of temporary ones--to pursue it. As one person put it, why not simply "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die"?
It's also interesting that you talk about stereotypes and the like, for you directly engage in such a practice. Perhaps, you don't know enough to realize that no one who knows me would label my style as "feel good." Again, it is ironic that you would attack me for supposedly misrepresenting a certain view when you do that very thing. You likewise assume some type of "cloister," which is light years removed from what I almost daily do.
Indeed, to take your broad description of what "Christians think we think," it is amazing that you would place me so comfortably in this category (Christian) without recognizing how diversely this term can be understood. Though I am indeed a Christian, I can assure you that I've had a ton of encounters with many Christians who would frown upon my version of faith.
In the end, the purpose of these writings is to produce various thoughts that come to mind about numerous issues. My writings are not "inspired" or flawless and, while they parallel some of the ideas of other Christians, they often fall outside the comfort zones of many traditional Christian types.
I believe Wine said something like this: "Sometimes the kindest thing you can say about God is that he does not exist."
While I'm not entirely clear of the context in which he made this statement, I surely agree that there are many things in this world that make no sense and so seem to say, "No God would would allow for what we observe in the world!" The problem with this view is that, taken too far, it makes all of our complaints or evaluations quite short-lived and ultimately meaningless. Though we might find some satisfaction or temporary relief in declaring God dead (or non-existent), the very notion of comfort is of little use if it is reduced to personal opinion alone, the arbitrary creation of rules because they make us feel good for a moment, and the smuggling in of absolutes by those who claim there are no universal standards. Misrepresenting people, making false statements, taking cheap shots at others--Why should it matter whether or not anyone engages in such activities? Speaking the truth, exuding wisdom, being honest--Why are these relevant in a world where either there are no ultimate rules or where everyone gets to make up their own?
On a related note, you mention the idea (drawn from Rabbi Wine) that "if you do not have a coherant definition of the word 'God' the question of God's existence is meaningless before it has even been asked." This is contrary to human experience in which it is quite common to accept the existence of those whom we have not defined, per se. We need not define our friends and neighbors to recognize that they are there. Much of a Christian worldview is built on this assumption, that the God who is with us can be experienced and known, and he enables us to make at least some sense out of life. As we experience him (in the broad sense), as we react to his "isness," we explore the possibilities related to a "definition" of him. When we meet human beings in one form or another, we get ideas about who and what they are, and so in this sense we (tentatively) define them. So it is with any potential deity.
If theism is wrong, it will still have had a long history in which, along with faulty ideas from faulty theists (myself included!), it yielded some pretty good fruit. If atheism is wrong, and most human beings throughout history would say that it is, then atheists are faced with the possibility that they are shaking their fists (so to speak) at a deity, whom they thought was absent but is in fact standing right in front of them.
Okay, I've said enough. Thanks for the thoughts, Siamang.
Carmen
Carmen,
Thanks for replying. What I've come here to say, and what your comments show me is that this blog has changed somewhat from a "let's listen" blog to a "I'll tell you what I believe and I'll tell you what you believe too" blog. It's done being contemplative and is now boldly on the march. Sadly, I think you've gone to a more hard-line type of dogma. If that's what the Emergent Church is becoming, it looks an awful lot to me like what it left.
You wrote:
"I would guess that very few people even know who Wine was or what ignosticism means or does not mean."
Which does not excuse reinventing it as philosophical apathy. That your readers may not know the definition of 'ignosticism' is all the more reason why you should properly present it, not misrepresent it. Properly presented, you can thereafter write your rebuttals. Improperly presented, you tilt at strawmen and you do a disservice to your readership.
The very heart of civil conversation is the acceptance of the notion that both sides are operating in good faith. That is, that folks who disagree on the topic at hand nevertheless share at least the working premise that the other side has a commitment to truth. To claim that ignostics say "whether there are any answers available, I don't care" is to poison the well of civil discourse. It is to claim that those who disagree with you have no regard for truth. Way to win an argument!
You wrote: "While some might argue for a different definition than the one I've porvided, the reality is that my definition (even if not technically tied to one person's use of the term) is quite common."
The "definition" you provided does not appear anywhere in the wikipedia article referencing ignosticism. Nor have I encountered that definition among anyone I've met online who holds that view. If it is quite common, can you please quote me a self-identified ignostic who holds this view?
You wrote:
"The fact is, however, that consistent atheism cuts off any sense of being able to claim or proclaim that anything is right and wrong; it eliminates any sense of "ought" (i.e., this is the way things ought to be). To take some type of governing force or supreme being out of the discussion is to deny the very "measuring stick" that is required to even evaluate such matters. "
Oh goody. Now we get to argue "atheists have no basis for morality"?
Way to poison the well of discussion further, Carmen. You can win every argument if you assert that your opponent can't even tell true from false or right from wrong.
What happened to you? Where did the listening Carmen DiCello go?
I know better than to get into an argument with someone who's mind is made up. I'll answer with a parable and leave it to you to stew on.
A man and his son were building a house. The blueprints said that they needed a piece of lumber seven feet long. They had ordered three lengths of lumber from the mill. One stack was boards that were four feet long. One stack was seven feet long and one stack was three feet long. They had no tape measure. The son said "father, we have no tape measure, how can we know which board is right and which board is wrong?"
The father said "by measuring it against the others, son. The longest board is the right board."
"But father," said the son, "how do we know what is long and what is short without a tape?"
"You will know by the action it causes," said the father. "Build with a short board, and the house will not stand."
The father and son built on, and had a heated discussion while they were building. The topic turned from architecture to theology. The son claimed that the father would have no way to know anything without an absolute to measure it by.
When the house was done, the father revealed that he had a tape measure all along. He instructed his son to inspect it. The son rolled out the tape measure.
"Keep rolling it out," said the father. The son rolled it out all the way. "Roll it farther," said the father.
"I can't. It ends here, "said the son.
"Ah," said the father "please find for me the absolute."
"What?"
"The number infinity. Please find it on the tape for me."
The son stood mute for a moment, then answered "There is no number infinity on the tape, father"
The father laughed, "What? There is no absolute that we measure things from? How will we know what's long or short unless we can compare it with infinity?"
"I guess we don't measure against infinity. We measure against zero."
And the house stood firm.
The son thought for a while and came back to his father and said "The tape is the absolute!"
"Is it?" asked the father. "Let's see." The father instructed to son to collect rulers and measuring tapes from all over the world. The son got a ruler from the lumber mill and noticed that it was just a tiny bit longer than theirs.
"Which one is correct?" asked the father.
"I do not know, I need to collect more."
So he collected rulers and measuring tapes. Some had roman numerals and some arabic. Some had as their standard the International Measure, and some had as their standard the US Survey Measure. Some had decimalized feet, and some had metric.
"Which one is correct?" asked the father again.
"I don't really know," said the son. "They're all slightly different. But one thing I know, is that they all follow an absolute rule."
"Do they?" asked the father. "Who set that absolute?"
"I don't know, the King of England or someone."
"So a man set it? Not a god?"
"Yes," answered the son, knowing what was coming.
"So man's not too bad at determining the difference between short and long, without help from absolutes?"
The son answered: "We know the value of a measurement not by who gives us the standard, but by its effects. Does the house stand? Yes."
Well, Siamang, I’m not exactly sure how to respond. I truly do not have the time to engage in constant ventures into minutia. Though I am interested in many things, I’m simply unable to follow every rabbit trail. That said–and at the risk of losing clarity due to the late hour :-) –I’ll say these words:
First, you consistently make judgments in the name of opposing my supposedly overly dogmatic stance. The fact is, we all judge, and so all we can hope for is to do so in areas that truly matter, according to truth, and with kindness and humility.
I do not claim to be Jesus or anything close to him, however I do believe that he demonstrates a pattern from which we can all learn. In the opinion of many, even those who reject his status as the Son of God, Jesus is the epitome of virtue and love. His compassion shines through on countless occasions. At the same time, this same Jesus was not afraid to speak of judgment, oppose arrogance, and demand consistency with God’s ways. Jesus, in other words, was able to be kind, gentle, and open to his Father’s plan, yet simultaneously bold and forthright and, dare I say it, dogmatic. He did, after all, claim to be “the way, the truth, and the life.” :-)
Of course, as I’ve said, I have no delusion of thinking that I parallel Jesus. But, I do hold him up as a pattern and seek to live with the same tension with which he lived. In other words openness and kindness can, in theory at least, coexist with straightforward dogmatism. This is my hope, that I can increasingly pursue and embody this tension. In my case, I openly admit that I do not have all of the answers, that I sometimes wonder about just about everything, that we must all learn to be humble and teachable. We must never be afraid to follow th truth . . . wherever it leads. This, I would argue, is the type of daring faith that is worth believing.
At the same time, there is also a part of me that believes and senses that there is such a thing as “right vs. wrong.” Likewise, there is truth to uphold and exude (as an expression of our love for God) and error to oppose. This is why injustice should be opposed and love embodied.
Now, regarding some the matters about which you wrote.
In my view, the ignosticism issue has become a stumbling block. I have seen the term "ignosticism" used both the way you used it and the way I've used it. If Wine's version is the “original,” that’s fine, but it misses the point entirely to treat my words as if I'm truly misrepresenting some large segment of the population. We all know full well–and this is my point--that many people are indeed of the opinion not only that we can’t know much of anything with confidence (agnostic types) but that the pursuit of truth is not that important in the first place. This is a real category of people. These are the truly apathetic, whatever label we apply to them. On a related not, Thomas Huxley is often the one given credit for coining the term agnostic. Still, there were no doubt people who adhered to similar principles long before he used the term, and there is some measure of disagreement as to what he actually intended by the term. While we want to get the facts straight historically, the important thing is to understand agnosticism in general. So it is with those who don’t care to search for truth. If Wine's view is the ONLY view and if I somehow misrepresented him, I apologize. But, as I've said, this is not the only way I've heard the term used even if Wine originated the term. And the big point here is not how “ignosticism” should be defined but rather the fact that many people don't care, however one defines this lack of concern. By the way–for what it’s worth–I just found a reference to ignosticism in a Brian McLaren book, and he uses it the way I did. Of course his use of the term may be inaccurate, as well, but again that’s not the real point.
Another point:
In one place you say this: "Your claim that my statement that in 'whether there are any answers available, I don't care' is to poison the well of civil discourse. It is to claim that those who disagree with you have no regard for truth. Way to win an argument!"
Aside from the fact that you are a bit mean-spirited here, you have completely missed my point. I never said (or at least never intended to say) that anyone who disagrees with me has no regard for truth. What I’m saying is that many people DESCRIBE THEMSELVES (in so many words) as not caring. Only if someone declared by word or obvious action that they didn’t care would I state it as such. In these cases, I’m not so much labeling anyone as I am “reporting” what they say about themselves. When it comes to matters of truth, epistemology, etc., some people take the approach that truth can’t be proven or disproved and, for them, it doesn’t matter one way or the other. This is a fact, not some major judgment on my part. The only “judgment” is in my saying that this is not a helpful position for it closes one off from the possibility of discovering and benefiting from truth.
In another place, you quote me as saying, “atheists have no basis for morality.” Then, you equate this with my (supposedly) saying that my opponents can’t tell true from false or right from wrong. You have confused the issues, however. It is one thing to say that atheism is a weak position, which I think it ultimately is, but it is entirely different to say that atheists and their arguments are therefore weak. When someone commits a horrific act, most atheists will rightly identify it as just that, horrific. They will sense that such and act is wrong and immoral. But, if push comes to shove, the atheists has no higher, what shall we call it, "court of appeal” than such responses as “it feels wrong,” “everyone knows it’s immoral,” or some such thing (and I’ve listened to these argument plenty of times). If you keep pushing the argument back, if you keep asking why such-and-such is actually wrong, I’m of the opinion that you need a large enough “why-stopper,” if I can coin such a term. Actually, the why’s never really stop (but that’s another topic), but at least with some type of deity, a creator, a personal, moral being who oversees the whole project, you locate a connection between the One creator and all of creation. Frankly, this does NOT answer all of my questions, but I do think it’s more consistent than atheism and yet is able to utilize the better features of agnosticism.
Let me be clear, all humans are–in my view–made in God’s image. If this is true, it seems likely that truth and morality and a whole host of other things would be manifest in God’s creatures, whatever their official views. So, no, I am not saying that atheists or anyone else are inferior. I’m only saying that atheism as a philosophy is inferior.
Now, to the parable:
I actually believe that there is some merit in it. At the same time, all parables–even those of Jesus–are limited in their applications. The fact that we have the capacity to measure with or without a ruler only means that we have an intuitive sense of such things. But, who put this sense there and why? My contention is that our Creator placed it within us. This is why, for instance, atheists assume the ability to identify morality. Atheists, along with everyone else, have a divinely given instinct. If you attribute this instinct to merely social or evolutionary factors (whatever role these may play), you abandon the “ought” of morality. Why ought we think that this is right and that is wrong? All of us–atheists and theists alike–recognize morality (though some atheists theoretically deny it and some theists claim too much), but morality is not merely a convenience or a habit, something that seems right and works. It is all of these things, but on theistic grounds it is also a reflection of the divine image. At any rate, the parable does not resolve these matters.
Regarding the ruler itself, it does not have to be “absolute” in the sense of being infinitely long. It merely has to be long enough, in this case, to assist us in measuring wood for the house. However, when it comes to moral and spiritual matters you require a larger measuring stick, so to speak. This said, I agree that we can come to conclusions without the perfect measuring stick or the perfect understanding of morality. But, again, what gives us this ability to measure and build houses? How do we account for the innate sense of right and wrong? I agree that the ability to build houses from the ground up is important. Likewise, the ability to know morality is something at which we can arrive without the assistance of a holy book or Bible. The cause of my confidence in truth is, at the core, God himself. While this view flows out of and is consistent with Scripture, I think the fundamental principle of morality and spirituality is God and our (conscious or subconscious) connection to him (some type of faith). The Bible fills in many of the pieces and directs us in profound (if not also sometimes strange) ways, but simple faith seems more central to me in thinking through these issues.
The ability to create a house without some perfect ruler simply indicates that we are equipped to do so; it does not and cannot answer why but rather compels us to look outside of ourselves in our questioning. Likewise, the ability to identify morality is not due to some human only (Godless) ability; rather, it comes from something before and above us.
Another thing to consider is the fact that we do need precision in some things, and so saying that there is no absolute measuring stick is a little too broad. If you need a certain sized bolt to attach wings to a plane or wheels to a car, precision can indeed matter. Or, if you’re going in for medical treatment and receiving certain medication, sometimes the precise dosages are the difference between health and sickness or even life and death. We had better be able to measure such things with consistency and accuracy, and we had better understand the meaning of various types of measurements. If, on the other hand, we didn’t, we’d all be in a lot of trouble. If this is true in the realm of human interactions, it is probably even more true with the divine human relationship. Just as we require some type of universal meaning for measurements and dosages, so we need some universal meaning for morality.
Back to the parable, a few things.
The issue is not in finding one ruler that is the “gold standard” against which we measure all rulers. Given that rulers are human inventions, no ruler has been dropped from heaven, and we should not expect to locate the perfect ruler. However, given that we accept the same rules of logic and meaning for terms, we do uphold “perfect” standards of a sort, for an inch is an inch anywhere in the world. We, as humans, have decided that an inch is the same everywhere. While some people don’t know the meaning of inch, preferring to measure using other segments, and though we as imperfect human being lack the ability to make literally perfectly identical rulers, it is still a fact that the inch remains, for all practical purposes, unchanged. Though there will always be the human element in these matters, God–himself considered–does not have the limitations, and so his “inches” are always cut precisely alike.:-)
With the reference to the King of England, the father fails to recognize that you don’t need a god for human measurements. The ruler illustration, after all, is just that, a human illustration of a larger truth. What is required for the parable to work is not a ruler made by a god but a general acknowledgment that there is such a thing as a universally agreed upon measurement (inches, feet, etc.) in the first place, which (human error aside) there is.
Regarding the son’s answer that “the value of a measurement is not by who gives us the standard, but by its effects” this is both correct and incorrect. It is correct and consistent with a Christian worldview in that you can tell a tree by its fruit (as Jesus mentioned). Theory aside, what matters from a Christians perspective is faith, hope, and love. On the other hand, the identity of the truth giver is no small matter. This is true in human relationships, as well as divine-human ones. Often it is the case, for instance, that children will act in good and honorable ways precisely because they sense the love of their parents and trust that their ways are right. The “who” does matter. If there is a loving supreme being and if this being has graciously showed us the way, the best thing we can do is reflect on the “who.” If, for example, Jesus truly loved us enough to rescue and open a pathway to life, our awareness of the “who,” the person who calls us to follow, is an essential feature of our morality/spirituality.
In the parable, the effects certainly matter, just as it matters supremely that the effects of our views are expressed in the real world and not just hypothesized. In the parable the ability to trace one’s measurements back to, say, the King of England is not the point. But in some things the ability to trace it back does matter. If some irrelevant person tells you to do some job, you will probably have the right to refuse, and it may not much matter if you do. But if the president or some high ranking official or the local police chief calls you in to do something, the “who” might just matter.
Let’s continue the parable (sort of).
A short time later the man and his son are summoned to appear before the king. They, along with everyone else, are given instructions for building a boat that will become a part of the king’s new fleet. It just so happens that a neighboring country is threatening to attack the king and his subjects, taking all of them off to prison.
"But there is a way out," declares the king. "We can defeat the other country’s navy if we build the right kind of ships. But it will be necessary to build vessels that meet certain specifications. They cannot be too small, or else they won’t be able to sustain the weight of our families or the weapons we will need to carry. And they also cannot be too large, or the boats will be too slow to evade the enemy's fire. What we need, then, are ships that are 24-28 feet in length and 14-18 feet in width."
The son responds, saying: “But king, we don’t have enough wood.”
Indeed, added the father, “We don’t have the right type of wood that would be required to build ships that are both this large and yet fast.”
“This is true,” responded the king. “But in my kingdom there are trees that are sufficiently durable and light, which would suffice for constructing this type of ship.”
At that point, the son recognized that the king’s contributions were indeed necessary to their success and survival.
As the father pondered, he also realized that only if his system of measuring closely followed that of the king would his 28 by 18 ship match that of the king.
When the father spoke again, he said these words: “Son, in some things we can get along just fine without the king. But in certain matters, we truly need his assistance.” :-)
Tired,
Carmen
"First, you consistently make judgments in the name of opposing my supposedly overly dogmatic stance. The fact is, we all judge, and so all we can hope for is to do so in areas that truly matter, according to truth, and with kindness and humility. "
I only point out that you do not do well when representing the beliefs of others. I did not say that we shouldn't be judgemental, just that we shouldn't be dogmatic. What I do say is that we should be honest with ourselves and treat our ideological counterparts with the respect that they deserve. I don't think you've done that with respect to ignostics.
You wrote:
"This is a real category of people. These are the truly apathetic, whatever label we apply to them. "
I think the label "apathetic" would suffice. If you wish to speak about apathetic people, that is fine. But to label ignostics as people who say "whether there are any answers available, I don’t really care" is no less dishonest than if I said Christians are people who say "whether there are any answers available, I don’t really care."
I see a sentence of apology, finally for this. But sadly I also see a good deal of excuses and rationalization here. Can you not be honest and just say "I wasn't really aware of ignosticism, and I mistook it for a different stance"? Instead I hear a lot of rationalization:
"I never said (or at least never intended to say) that anyone who disagrees with me has no regard for truth."
Just 'ignostics'?
"What I’m saying is that many people DESCRIBE THEMSELVES (in so many words) as not caring."
I have no doubt that there are people who have no desire for philosophy or religion. These people would most likely not be aware of the word ignostic, or describe themselves using that label. If that is not your experience, however, I do invite you to show me self-labeled ignostics who hold that position.
"And the big point here is not how “ignosticism” should be defined but rather the fact that many people don't care, however one defines this lack of concern."
Are you able to see what I'm confronting you with? You've performed a little shell-game with definitions. You've confused ignosticism with an expression of philosophical apathy. When I called you on it, you've merely said that the label is proper, whether we hurl it at ignostics or not.
What if I said "the Christian philosophical stance is 'give me all your money, greed is good'." Rightly, you'd say, 'hey, that's not a Christian stance.' Then I said "This is a real category of people. These are the truly greedy, whatever label we apply to them. If I used the term 'Christian' wrong, I apologize. I've heard it used before to mean greedy. But anyway, there are really greedy people in the world, and that's really the point."
This is what you're doing here. I realize that it's a normal human psychological response to get defensive and rationalize oneself, but just take a breath, have a little bit of humility and you know, it's no big deal.
"Only if someone declared by word or obvious action that they didn’t care would I state it as such. In these cases, I’m not so much labeling anyone as I am “reporting” what they say about themselves. When it comes to matters of truth, epistemology, etc., some people take the approach that truth can’t be proven or disproved and, for them, it doesn’t matter one way or the other."
Hmm.... that sounds positively post-modern of them. ;-)
"By the way–for what it’s worth–I just found a reference to ignosticism in a Brian McLaren book, and he uses it the way I did."
Were you able to, as I asked, find a self-described ignostic use it that way? You said before that the definition you used was "quite common". If it is quite common but only among people who do not hold the philosophical stance, that only speaks to my main concern: you do not do well when expressing the viewpoints of people you disagree with.
On the question of morality, let me just sum up my "agree to disagree" thoughts like this:
Christian: Jesus gave us a moral code.
Atheist: My moral code is internal and shared societally. I do fine without the bible, which is tricky to interpret, and sometimes would have us going backwards re treatment of women, etc.
Christian: Your internal moral code is not as good as our handy book form.
Atheist: but you admit I have an internal moral code? Great. I B ok then.
Christian: God made moral code, so even when you're good, it's cuzza us.
Atheist: No, is in my head.
Christian: God made u hed. So we win.
Atheist: no evolution make me hed.
Christian: God made universe. So we win infinity.
Atheist: whatevr.
Christian: apathetic atheist!
Atheist: do not want!
;-)
Peace, Carmen.
Siamang
A few quick things:
(1) To be dogmatic is to claim or assume that one’s view is unquestionably right. It is, as one dictionary puts it, "the stubborn assertion of opinion or belief." You do this all of the time, so you can’t pretend that you have escaped by switching words. We all run the risk of doing this, and one of the disadvantages of the internet is that this whole process becomes a bit difficult to decipher, for we are not sitting face to face (and even then it’s not always easy). :-)
(2) I’m glad that you will accept the category of apathetic, which is perhaps a more accurate version of what I was saying. Those who claim not to care are indeed unwilling to pursue the truth and have closed themselves off from discovery.
(3) Again, if I am using "ignostic" in a loose and inaccurate way, I am sorry! While I have seen it used the way I have, I am not an expert on the terminology. Though I admit that I have only come across discussions of ignosticism only rarely, I believe you are technically correct about the term. While McLaren and others have used the term as I have, they may be technically inaccurate, so again, I apologize.
(4) When it comes to the church, there are (unfortunately) too many whose moto almost sounds as you’ve described (i.e., “give me all your money, greed is good.”). One helpful thing for Christians is that this is exactly what is to be expected on a Christian worldview. While it is never an excuse for silliness and error, an awareness of the biblical view of the fall (and human, including Christian, flaws) at least helps to make some sense of the stupidity.
(5) The bible is tricky, but that’s not the point. We both agree that there is morality, but theists trace this back to God. The atheist's cognitive abilities and sincerity are as valid as anyone’s, but in my view their theoretical approach (that there is no God) provides no ultimate and universally applicable reason why it’s wrong to do or not do anything. Though you would probably agree with theists on many practical points of morality, if pushed the theist can say that his or her sense of right and wrong is applicable to everyone precisely because it flows from the One creator who fashioned us all. While there are plenty of disagreements among theists over these very matters, the complexity of these discussions does not make atheism a better choice.
(6) There appears to be an internal “code” of morality or at least a desire to locate morality, but difficult issues abound. What do we do when our codes conflict? What keeps those whose code says “slavery is okay” from getting an equal hearing with those who rightly oppose such evil practices? I believe God placed the moral code within us. Atheists say it is simply a part of us that resulted from evolution and/or social conditioning, etc. But if this code is only a biological thing, if there is no ultimate way of distinguishing the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a given choice, what basis do we have for distinguishing between genocide and gentleness? If we can only say “this is the way we are programmed,” we are still left without any cause, any reason, for saying this thing over here is noble and that thing over there is ignoble . . . and everyone ought to agree on these facts. Evolution is not the issue; the issue is whether we are truly special, whether we possess genuine dignity, whether morality flows out of something more than arbitrary evolutionary processes, and whether a 100 or a 1000 years from now it will matter. Is there ever a time when we ought to exclaim, “I don’t care if you sincerely disagree, for you are wrong”?
(7) Atheism may be true, and I am not entirely opposed to the thought process, for we must be honest about whatever is out there. The problem of evil, especially, causes us to question many things. However, I find it extremely difficult (as do most human beings throughout history) connecting any sense of justice, love, truth, conviction, honor, and hope with atheism. I am NOT saying that atheists do not possess these qualities. I’m simply saying that I don’t think atheism–when pushed to its logical end–is as valid or useful as theism. Theism, of course, has its own problems, which I regularly encounter and discuss with others. Yet, I think it also provides a more stable intellectual and moral guide than anything else I’ve seen.
At the end of the day, Siamang, I try to apply the tension I wrote about earlier to just about everything. For instance in our book discussion the other night, I highlighted (and not merely for show!) the extreme problems resulting from the presence of evil. Some theists are very, very uncomfortable with this, thinking that the notion of raising doubts or squarely facing problems is contrary to faith. In my view, however, it is quite the opposite. There are avenues of belief that can only be located when we travel the road that is labeled “Why?” The mystery of it all, the sheer willingness to lay it all on the table, the dilemmas that ensue when we discuss difficult issues–all of these force us to view faith in a much less dogmatic, much less cocky, much more humble and open manner. Along the way, truth remains, as does a measure of confidence and dogmatism, but some of these things are best accessed by means of simple faith. Intellectual depth and childlike belief meet at the top of the mountain, where–I and many others believe–God is. :-)
Peace . . . and Hope. :-)
Carmen
Carmen,
Here's what I found disappointing with the post... You aren't exclusively sharing your beliefs about God and the "problem of evil". Rather you're using the occasion of the PoE to say your criticism of beliefs of others.
Like THAT isn't a full-time pastime of most believers and nonbelievers online. What can I say, but I think that the spiritual development of religion bloggers, and the entire discussion of belief, faith and spirituality is just stunted. STUNTED by being forever stuck in the frigging first millenium and everyone's wearing sackcloth and shouting "heretic" at anyone with a different belief. Can it stop? Can it stop with us?
Take for example your assertion that atheists have no base moral guide. First off, way to preach without listening. But just stylistically, you state "atheism is self-refuting." That should be a bumpersticker, but I don't think it means what you think it means. I'd like a dollar for every theist who asserted that some aspect of a belief system they didn't understand was "self-refuting" when it really meant that they didn't have a logically-structured evidentially-supported argument against it. They just declare victory and then go to the next reason that atheists have it all wrong.
Because it's not self-refuting. Atheists have just as much morality as you do. If atheists had a problem with morality, we should see atheists in prison at higher rates than Christians (we don't), we should see atheists leading the ranks of unwed, underadge mothers (we don't)... hell, we should see atheists leading the warmongering in this world and believers of all faiths, worldwide, turning their swords into plowshares. We don't.
But the real truth of the matter is, you didn't show that atheism was self-refuting. You CLAIMED it was, based on your unsupported assertion that you've got a better source for morality than I do.
In your last post, ironically, you mentioned two evils, slavery and genocide. Two evils explicitly condoned and even commanded by God in the Old Testament.
So dude... TOTALLY not self-refuted. What you have not shown is why, against all evidence to the contrary, why you think that atheists can't tell right from wrong just the same way atheists can tell tall from short, hot from cold or green from red. My four year old child knows why petting the cat is preferable to kicking the cat... are atheists brains just too puny to figure something so simple as that out without a bible?
So why am I standing up and giving you grief for this? Well, because I think there's a better way.
I want to make a plea to you for opening the ears. I want to ask you to stop and consider that your God put me in your life too, and maybe you should stop and listen. Rather than being the seven-millionth website where you talk about people who believe differently from you, and you point out exactly where they go wrong (because somehow you've got it all figured out. Those other people just think they've got it all figured out are wrong, you've REALLY got it all figured out... you know it all!) Chuck that. Be something different.
Be a place where you ask people of different beliefs what their meditations, thoughts, insights,etc on the PoE are, rather than telling them what they are and why they fail. Be a person who has some humility and asks, rather than a person who has all the answers and tells. Be a listener, and a sharer, and a person who takes away more from a conversation than just what they brought to it at the outset.
Carmen, I've posted here before, almost a year ago. I've been reading your site this whole time... I come here to listen and learn, not to tell you why your beliefs are wrong. I posted thoughts of encouragement in the past, when a co-believer was quick to post condemnation of you for being not rah-rah as you should be. Anyway, I've been here, and I've been listening.
Let's rejoice in the wonderful world we find ourselves in. Hurrah, we don't believe the same things! Eureka! We both have things to learn from each other! Life is an adventure, but only if you let it be. Do not cage your heart within the walls of dogma, or at least do not condemn me for setting mine free! What wonder... NEW DISCOVERIES AWAIT! Yes, even in terms of theology and morality and love and agape! Can you say you truely have nothing to learn? Then wear the shroud today, or toss it away, open up the ear, ask a question of someone different from you and listen to the answer.
What music!
Sorry to disappoint you, Siamang. :-)
It is true that I don’t talk simply about the problem of evil, but all of life is wedded together, as it were, and certainly the beliefs of others and the general way they approach the problem of evil are relevant.
I’m not entirely clear on all that you’re trying to convey about those “stunted” individuals to whom you refer, and I’m not sure what your experience has been with these folks. All I can say is that I generally agree with you about those who hold to an attack mentality, have anti-intellectual tendencies, and maintain an “I pretty much have it figured out” attitude. I was an “insider” for many years and still have quite a few traditional/typical believer friends, but I don’t “hang out” with most of them because, frankly, I am quite different. It’s kind of a weird place to be. On the one hand, I share some fundamental beliefs with them (orthodox belief in the trinity, soteriological ideas about Jesus, etc.), but on the other hand I have so little practically in common with most of them. Their brand of spirituality turns me off, generally. I think a portion of this has to do with things that are not directly related to their theological beliefs, and I believe a part of it is a result of the church’s captivity to a modern-only brand of faith. At the same time, I know I can’t be constantly or overly critical, and I certainly try to guard against “throwing out the baby with the bath water.” If you knew anything about me, you would realize that I am not generally a “heretic” chaser, and I truly don’t know the final destiny of individuals. You ask if “it” can stop, and of course it can. However, I don’t “stop” because it’s the “in” thing to do. I stop because it’s right and honorable and proper, not simply because postmoderns (with whom I more often agree) have fallen into this pattern. Thus, I also maintain the freedom, indeed the duty, to speak the truth even when it might sound contrary to the views of others, even when it might appear too “dogmatic” to some. :-) All I can say is that this is what I think is proper and in keeping with the Jesus-pattern. I’m not very good at it, I admit, but this is my goal.
As far as “declaring victory” and then running, I have no intention of misrepresenting anyone. I am far too busy to get into detailed debates about everything. I try to deal with generalizations and matters about which I am relatively familiar. I have outlined in other places at least some of my rational for atheism’s weakness, things like no transcendent basis, no “ought” that can be confidently applied across the board, no personal accountability to a personal morality-Maker, no consequences than endure time and eternity, etc. You obviously don’t have to agree, but I have stated these things in the past. Keep in mind, however, that I am not trying to simply wave the theist’s flag. Instead, I’m attempting to reflect what both experience and Scripture indicate.
I agree that atheists have just as much morality as I do, perhaps more in some cases. But I also think the system, the general idea of no-God, strikes the vast majority of people as morality defeating. There is a lot of, shall we say, bad theism in the world, and I reject it and try to prevent it from invading my heart. But, in my view, the best response to bad theism is not no-theism but a more humble, open brand of faith. This includes some measure of certainty (as I’ve said), but it also entails an openness to discovery, etc. Atheists can indeed lead the way in many areas, but–from the cases I’ve observed– I honestly don’t think it’s because they are motivated by a godless universe and a hope that stops at the grave. According to a biblical worldview, atheists are bearers of the divine image and so as apt as anyone to give expression to this reality (whether they know it or acknowledge it as such :-) ).
Rather than spending time in such endless spirals of controversy (which has it’s place but not the only place), it is also important to highlight reasons why theism can be beneficial. It connects us all to a common source (a deity), and this deity (on a Christian reading) is a benevolent creator who desires our good. Our worst enemy will one day be defeated. At least some of our questions will be answered. Bad will be put down and good rewarded. Purpose will extend into eternity. Our greatest aspirations and desires will be fulfilled. Our worst habits will be overcome. Our ultimate delight will not only be the completion and perfection of our best impulses but a re-connection with the person who gave us these impulses in the first place. It will be a relational fulfillment. Of course these may simply be a pipe dream, but I tend to think that they are more and that they fit well with what we know about humanity.
I agree that there are “difficulties” located in the Bible, but I also believe that Christianity offers a strong impetus for morality. While this is sometimes portrayed in ways that make it sound like bondage to some arbitrary rules, in reality it entails simply a connection with our created purpose. Far from encouraging some sort of moral bondage, spiritual truth actually gives us wings to fly. Unfortunately, though, a fairly large number of Christians adhere to principles that I think conflict with these basic ideas. The truth itself, however, and the One to whom we are to connect spiritually, is meant to set us free. Okay, enough of that for now.
You are correct that God put you in my life and, for what it’s worth, me in yours, as well. :-) Concerning these many matters, my intent has never been to mimic the traditional sites. I appreciate your interest and the fact that you’ve offered words of encouragement. I am also okay with people being different. :-)
At the same time, you clearly misunderstand at least some of what I’ve written. I do not apologize for having (and declaring) convictions, but I certainly have always and often been a person of openness, an individual who questions at least some things, and someone who is willing to wonder, to ponder, and even to doubt. I think this is reflected in a number of my posts. Of course I’m not counting the posts, nor trying to meet some quota (e.g., X % of posts ought to reflect openness). I’m just attempting to be honest and open . . . to be me. These are, after all, notions, and since I am a teacher it’s natural that many of them take that tone. I hope and pray that I’m not overly dogmatic on everything, but I do desire to share what I think about and discover along the way.
The irony of this whole thing is that it began with words on our “problem of evil” discussion group. In that group, the best I can tell, there are people (good and kind people, but those of a more traditional bent) who look at me with what seems suspicion. The impression I get (and I’ve gotten this a lot from traditional believers) is that I’m bordering on compromise, faithlessness, or other similar “heresies.” Indeed, when discussing the problem of evil it is often difficult to get traditional types to even admit that there is a problem at all. Too many are unthinking, overly simplistic, and just plain dogmatic. Though they mean well, and while they have something to contribute, there is a hesitancy to, shall we say, “go too far into the dark” lest they get lost and can’t find there way back to the light. In my thinking, there are certain “lights” that can only be found by entering the tunnel of questioning and uncertainty. My point, though, is that you think I’m too dogmatic, and most people think I’m too loose. I suppose I can only hope to live rightly and properly with the tension. Perhaps, you can pray for me to that end. Who knows, maybe someone is listening! :-) Again, thanks for writing, Siamang.
I see by your response that I've had some success in getting you to understand where I'm coming from. And your sharing allows me to take away some understanding of where you are right now in your journey as well. Thanks!
Post a Comment