views of the world from my worldview window

"If there was no God, there would be no atheists." G.K. Chesterton


SITES OF NOTE

Tektonics Apologetics Ministry
blogs4God
The Adarwinist reader
Bede's Library: the Alliance of Faith and Reason
A Christian Thinktank
Doxa:Christian theology and apologetics
He Lives
Mike Gene Teleologic
Errant Skeptics Research Institute
Stephen Jones' CreationEvolutionDesign
Touchstone: a journal of mere Christianity: mere comments
The Secularist Critique: Deconstructing secularism
Ex-atheist.com: I Wasn't Born Again Yesterday
imago veritatis by Alan Myatt
Solid Rock Ministries
The Internet Monk: a webjournal by Michael Spencer
The Sydney Line: the website of Keith Windschuttle
Miranda Devine's writings in the Sydney Morning Herald
David Horowitz frontpage magazine
Thoughts of a 21st century Christian Philosopher
one-eighty
Steven Lovell's philosophical themes from C.S.Lewis
Peter S. Williams Christian philosophy and apologetics
Shandon L. Guthrie
Clayton Cramer's Blog
Andrew Bolt columns
Ann Coulter columns

Mortgages

Blogroll Me!





"These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." G.K.Chesterton


"You cannot grow a beard in a moment of passion." G.K.Chesterton


"As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that."C. S. Lewis

"I blog, therefore I am." Anon

 
Then the Dodo marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, and all the party were placed along the course, here and there. There was no "One, two, three, and away," but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out, "The race is over!"

They all crowded round the Dodo, panting and asking all at once, "But who has won?"

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead... while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, "EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes."

Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

posted by tertius at 9:05:00 PM

 
Those advocating a purely subjective morality need to get real. Either they are solipsists completely lost in a sea of irrationality and emotivism or they are sophists merely intent on praising the razor for the fineness of the slash. Either way a good dose of moral realism would do them a world(view) of good.

So, let's get real.

If moral relativists were really sincere and logical in their beliefs, they could not condemn the following practices and would have to say...

Cannibalism is permitted if you think it is morally correct.

Child-adult sex is merely a "personal" option. No one should be punished for engaging in such behavior.

“Rape" is really in the eye of the beholder. What is rape to one person is making love to another. It's a matter of one's point of view.

Raping two-year olds is acceptable if that is part of your cultural tradition.

Brutalizing your wife is understandable if that is part of your ethical system.

Castrating young boys is permitted for the sake of your cultural heritage.

Torture is a morally accepted part of your criminal justice system.

Human sacrifice is allowed as part of your religious system.

Certain groups defined as unwanted by your society can be destroyed.

There is no such thing as a war crime; it's in the eye of the beholder.

Adolf Hitler should not be judged as morally reprehensible since he was acting lawfully.

Josef Stalin was not acting immorally when he killed millions of innocent people.

The suicide bombers of September 11, 2001 were acting properly in their own interests.

[This list is from an excellent article by Jonathan Dolhenty entilted The Myth of Moral Relativism]


A musical interlude: (Sing along if you wish)

Anything Goes
Cole Porter

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, heaven knows,
Anything goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words,
Writing prose,
Anything goes.

The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today,
When most guys today
That women prize today,
Are just silly gigolos;
...
Anything goes.

And who are we to judge?

I have made the point in a number of blog entries but it just does not seem to get through some very thick skulls: The affirmation of an objective morality that stands outside, over and above the individual is NOT the preserve only of theists. Any one who has read anything on philosophy or even done a simple search on Google will quickly be disabused of the notion that one has to be a Christian or a theist to uphold objective moral values and standards. One can find numerous articles, papers, books and webpages by atheists affirming objective morality. Have you never heard of Ayn Rand?! Many atheists espouse an objective morality and take a strong stand against subjectivism. But if one were to judge from the Internet Infidels on various forums most II foot soldiers are blissfully ignorant of this fact or conveniently sweep it under the carpet.

I would suggest that most philosophers hold to a version of objective moral realism. Noted historian and Marxist E.H. Carr, himself something of a relativist once sagely noted: “It does not follow that because a mountain appears to take on a different shape from different angles of vision, it has objectively either no shape at all or an infinity of shapes.”

The alternative, subjectivism, is a seriously flawed philosophy, despite its prevalence in contemporary western society and its popularity as the “undergraduate” level where it is usually finds expression as sophistry. Sophistry has been described as "mind-games, where all that matters is the wit shown in the word play." It is alive and well among atheist skeptics. In fact, I am tempted to proclaim that it is the chief feature of “debate” from the average skeptic. The sophist delights in "raising questions." But not in order to find genuine solutions. Rather his aim is to transforms real problems into abstract "puzzles," often wrenching ideas and verses out of context for the sake of rhetorical effect. The sophist is not interested in explanations; he doesn’t want to solve the puzzles. That spoils his mind-game.

Philosopher Michael Huemer calls this approach “The Idiot’s Veto”. The Idiot’s Veto is the thesis that “any individual has the power to block a fact from the realm of objectivity or knowledge, merely by persistently refusing to agree with it…” But it is not realistic for many mature and sophisticated thinkers - whatever their beliefs or worldviews - to proceed on the basis of denying objective moral standards that transcend individuals and cultures.

The real irony is that a number of the atheists who have argued against objective morality on various forums and websites on the Net actually are positing a form of objectivism with their arguments and don’t even realize it! Or do, and are just playing the usual semantic and rhetorical games…

There are many foundations used for positing objective morality and it certainly does not depend on the existence of God. Nature, natural law, conscience, reason, The Golden rule, self-evident principles, etc. are all invoked. What most Christians argue is that objective morals without God have no real basis - but that is a topic for another time...

Every time anyone argues that a particular act is immoral, or a particular person is evil, etc. he is appealing to a universal objective standard, even if he claims to believe only in subjective morals. “Subjective morality” is a contradiction in terms (and “objective morality” is actually a tautology). Someone or something can only be “moral” or good” if “moral” or “good” transcend the individual mind. Morality has to be objective, it cannot be subjective. You might possess a subjective opinion about it but you intrinsically assume that your view has universal validity beyond yourself. Moral subjectivism is thus a "myth", one of the great myths of our age. Despite assertions to the contrary, no one really practices it. This is confirmed by looking at the "actions" of the moral subjectivist rather than focussing on the beliefs espoused. Let’s test it…

Consider an atheistic subjectivist such as Mr X [not his real pseudonym]. X has made an entire career on various forums moralising about the ethics of God, of Christians and the Bible (e.g. a favourite one being: “the God of the Old Testament is an immoral monster unworthy of belief or worship”). He is in fact positing a moral - i.e. objective - position. X is firmly convinced that his description of God as an immoral monster is not some personal prejudiced, jaundiced or biased emotional rant from inside his own head; he is convinced that he is expressing an objective, irrefutable fact, that only “jackasses” would not agree to. (For “jackasses” read “other people who don’t share his enlightened views”.)

X would not hold that view if he did not believe it to be an “objectively” true judgment. He may claim to be a moral subjectivist or relativist, but if he was consistent he could not rationally believe any moral judgment - not even one made by himself. He could not do so because in order to rationally believe something, the proposition must first be justified, and as a moral subjectivist he has been arguing, that no moral proposition has any intrinsic justifiable objective truth apart from or before one believes it. Therefore, he has no justification for accepting his own moral judgment about the immoral monster God. QED his view is completely irrational and emotional…

However, truth be known, Mr X is really a closet objectivist, or even, dare I say it, an absolutist. He really believes his opinion is objectively true, real and correct and that it is only the other guy - his opponent - who is espousing a lot of irrational and emotional subjective hot air. Now, X may indeed be correct in what he says about God being an immoral monster, but only if he drops the façade of subjectivism and recognizes his own absolutism for what it is, will he ever be able to consistently and logically make such an objective moral judgment. Otherwise he may as well just say “I don’t like God” or “I hate God” for that’s all his opinion amounts to. Oh, and he will have to defend and explain the basis upon which he makes that moral judgment…

I have quoted Michael Fleming before, but it bears repeating:
“In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone's behaviour (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel is right). This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions.”
Michael Fleming, Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia

Whatever is just is. In and of itself what “is” cannot be either moral or immoral. Moral judgments cannot be derived from what is. Morality involves “ought ness” or “should ness”, and by its very nature any moral ought statement appeals to a higher value - a standard of right or wrong, of good or evil that has an existence beyond the individual making any such statement. As soon as one starts talking about what ought or ought not to be, what is good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral, even if he claims to be only giving his “own” opinion, he has thus embraced moral realism. No human being can speak about the “ought ness” of something without appealing to a higher standard outside of himself that is thereby binding on himself and others. Try it!? What do you posit that is “immoral” for you, but “moral” for me? Private personal subjective morality isn’t worth a damn simply because unless one is appealing to or expressing some universally applicable and objectively recognised condition one is contradicting ones own statements and quickly heading for the la la land of solipsism.

A commitment to moral objectivity is simply commonsense - a quality in short supply today. I quote Shaun Nichols from the Department of Philosophy at the College of Charleston:
”Developmental evidence indicates that children are moral objectivists, and this evidence also might illuminate the origin of the commitment to objectivity. Many college students embrace nonobjectivist claims, but recent results suggest that such nonobjectivists otherwise have largely normal moral cognition.”

In other words despite the rhetoric, the semantics, the sophistry, unless he have a serious mental problem, even a self-professed subjectivist - a nonobjectivist - usually operates within a framework of moral realism or objectivity.

Which brings us back to Cole Porter. Unless there is an absolute, objective standard, principle, or proposition of morality or ethics upon which a system of moral philosophy can be built, then truly, “anything goes".

posted by tertius at 7:10:00 PM

 
"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"
Mark 9:24

posted by tertius at 5:21:00 PM

 
"Why is it that people argue interminably about religion but not about mathematics? It is not because numbers are objective and the existence of God and similar issues are subjective. It is, mainly, because ordinary people do not care about the properties of numbers. But they do care immensely about God, life after death, and the like. And they care at least as much about morality and values. And when people care very much about something, and have a vested interest in the answer, they are likely to develop strong, dogmatic opinions and to allow their emotions to prejudice their judgement."
Michael Huemer

posted by tertius at 11:19:00 PM

 
Timothy Garton Ash writes in The Guardian about the rising tide of Islam in secularist Europe:

European fundamentalist secularists think that all religion is blindness and stupidity, a kind of mental affliction, of which Islam is a particularly acute example. ...

The one form of evangelism that is still acceptable on the European left is evangelical Darwinism. Its fundamental belief is that all other forms of belief are symptoms of intellectual backwardness. Thus Martin Amis wrote on this page a couple of days ago "we are obliged to accept the fact that Bush is more religious than Saddam: of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive". By this logic, Archbishop Rowan Williams is more psychologically primitive than Stalin and Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is more psychologically primitive than Hitler.

Europe is the place where post-Darwinian secularisation is most advanced. It's now the most secular continent on earth. And it's precisely the fact that Europeans, especially on the left, have such a secular imagination that makes it so difficult for us to understand and accept the religious Muslims who have come among us in growing numbers. You need a religious imagination to respond to the music of other religions. Jonathan Sacks expressed this well in his account of a meeting with radical Muslims, including a senior Iranian Ayatollah. "We established within minutes a common language, because we take certain things very seriously: we take faith seriously, we take texts seriously. It's a particular language that believers share." ...

The leap of imaginative sympathy from Christianity or Judaism to Islam is much smaller than that from evangelical secularism to any of them. That's why America, which has preserved the religious imagination it imported from Europe, may actually be better placed to accept the Islamic other. That's not all. America has a rare combination of religious imagination and an inclusive, civic identity. Europe has a fateful combination of secular imagination and exclusive, ethnic identities. ...

posted by tertius at 8:14:00 PM

 
why we must remember the Gulag

A famous question was raised by Robert Conquest in his "Reflections on a Ravaged Century": Are the crimes of the Nazis worse than the crimes of the Stalinists? The usual and politically-correct answer has always been the Nazis, of course…

In her new book Gulag: A History, Anne Applebaum re-examines the question. Melana Zyla Vickers reviews the book here.

'Anne Applebaum, in the first and last chapters of her powerful "Gulag: A History," takes up the same question. My more elaborated answer, informed by her book, must be: If the Nazi record is worse because its perpetrators more deliberately and successfully murdered their targeted groups, then the Soviet record is worse because its perpetrators have managed to escape the kind of universal denunciation we level against the Nazis.

There's reason to expect they will continue to escape, according to Applebaum. She begins "Gulag" by wondering why, in the Hollywood imagination, in the writings of American scholars and journalists, and in the observations of regular travelers to the former Soviet Union, "the crimes of Stalin do not inspire the same visceral reaction as do the crimes of Hitler."

She blames the blind leftism of a majority of the intellectuals of our era, which has made them loath to condemn a system whose ideological principles they continue to hold dear.

She blames the fact that our society doesn't have a mental picture of Soviet atrocities, because "no television cameras ever filmed the Soviet camps or their victims, as they had done in Germany" at the end of World War II.

And she notes that people in the West generally hold "a firm conviction that the Second World War was a wholly just war" and that to admit "that by consigning millions of people to Soviet rule at Yalta, the Western allies might have helped others commit crimes against humanity would undermine the moral clarity of our memories of that era."

One might also add that the sheer longevity of the Soviet regime eroded outrage against it, and the implosion--as opposed to defeat--of its center of gravity meant there was never any Nuremberg-style victor's justice imposed on Moscow...'

posted by tertius at 7:01:00 PM

 
I think most sane and sensible people would agree that solipsism (subjectivism in logical extremis) is an irrational and unreasonable belief. Most subjectivists claim that THEY don’t follow the path of subjectivism down its logical destination in solipsism, that they hold to a limited form of subjectivism, that they “only” limit subjectivism to morals, values and ethics - “unimportant” things, that they opt for the more acceptable and intellectually respectable forms of subjectivism such as cultural relativism. Relativism is indeed a much milder form of subjectivism, but it is actually a less consistent subjectivism that seeks to have it both ways by universaling or even, dare it be said, absolutising, certain ethical values to a particular caste, group society or culture - but no further.

The fact remains: all skepticism is based upon a form of metaphysical solipsism, for the act of being skeptical is based upon a belief that we do not, or cannot, know certain things. For most of us our skepticism is usually reined in before we reach the point of being skeptical about reality itself and start entertaining the notion that nothing is real outside of our mental perception of it. For the sake of our psychological health at some point, whatever our worldview, we usually choose to rest upon certain unprovable, untestable, non-empirical assumptions about the way things are.

Nothing I have written denies that each person possesses a subjective point of view. I am making a case against claiming that ALL that exists are subjective personal “realities” that bear no relation to objective reality outside of the individual or group; and that to take this idea to its logical conclusion is an absurdist nightmare. The truism that we all see things through our own eyes is NOT an argument against the existence of objectivity reality or objective morality. To have a subjective point of view implies that there must be an objective reality able to be perceived. One may interpret or filter the objective reality through one’s own consciousness but that does not mean the objective reality is not really there. (Nor does this mean that in certain cases organic brain diseases or the effect of drugs etc. cannot induce hallucinatory experiences.) The committed metaphysical subjectivist has no reason to believe any hypothesis formulated on the basis of evidence perceived by his own senses. He believes that everything, whether it concerns metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics does not objectively exist. Of course, the inconsistent subjectivist frequently limits his skepticism only to ethics…

We all have "subjective" opinions - no one denies this - the issue is not what one’s opinions, prejudices, likes, dislikes, feelings or views are, the question is why do those who claim to possess a subjectivist outlook act so imperiously and authoritatively in denouncing a God whom they claim does not even exist? On what basis can one say all morality is only a relative social construct or personal subjective opinion and then seek to judge or condemn the opinions and views of those who take the opposite position. The failure to apply subjectivism consistently means that subjectivist skeptics have sawn off the very branch upon which they sit. One cannot express moral indignation about the morality of God if one does not have an objective standard by which one holds God accountable and cannot explain where such an absolute and objective standard originated.

For a subjectivist to express moral outrage about God can mean nothing more than "I don't like God and I don't like what God does". There are certainly no grounds for offering anything other than a personal opinion about God, and a personal opinion is just that, it has no overarching or binding significance on anyone else. However, the very act of condemning God as immoral implies logically that one is appealing to greater knowledge and a higher objective authority to which all sensible and sane men will agree. That of course is a fallacy according to the tenet of subjectivity. Subjectivists need to recognize this and to wake up from the sloppy thinking that leads them to conclude that any reality outside of ourselves is an illusion.

posted by tertius at 5:31:00 PM

 
The argument from moral outrage (or indignation) has become a cornerstone of most atheistic polemic against The God revealed in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. I have yet to see this argument employed against those popular gods of atheist rhetoric, the bloodthirsty and much approved “Norse Gods”, the capricious pantheon of Graeco-Roman gods, or against any of the other “gods” so frequently invoked in the ongoing war against Yahweh, such as the invisible pink unicorn, the Santa god, the tooth fairy, let alone against such blood lusting deities as Dagon or Baal.

Of equal interest is the source of this moral outrage that self-described relativists and subjectivists unleash upon the supposed actions of Yahweh in certain incidents portrayed in the Old Testament. On what grounds can someone who espouses subjectivism sit in judgment over others let alone over the actions of the creator of the universe?

When queried on this many atheists seem to go off on a tangent often attempting to avoid answering this question by means of deflecting the burden of proof away form those to who it originally fell - themselves. I am sure atheists have some serious and valid matters to raise on a host of issuesI am often surprised by attempts to avoid explicating the basis for one’s moral outrage and absolutism concerning the actions of God in the OT.

One can spend a lot of time interacting with atheists without encountering any who espouse an objective morality. Subjectivism and relativism are the preferred positions vis a vis morality and ethics that one encounters from atheists in most Internet forums. However it is not accurate picture of the attitudes of all atheists regarding such matters.

“Objectivism (in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics) - the idea that reality exists outside of the mind and that existents retain their identity no matter what human beings or other conscious creatures think or feel about it… While the most fundamental objectivism is metaphysical (with important corollaries in epistemology), it is not uncommon to speak of moral objectivism (the idea that there are objective standards in ethical matters).” the Ism Book

Objectivism is a very respectable philosophical position that is held even by many non-theists. Many atheists fully accepted the notion of objective morality independent of the individual, a point that few of their fellow atheists on such forums see fit to address or to challenge, which speaks volumes for the specious nature of their own unexamined relativism/subjectivism. It is also a point that many Christians seem to be unaware of, when they claim that without God one has no basis for moral behaviour. There is even a particular objectivist and atheistic philosophical system founded by Ayn Rand known as Objectivism. All Objectivists are moral objectivists, but not all moral objectivists are Objectivists. Rand’s Objectivism boldly proclaims the truth that lurks behind all atheism, that it is a secular religion without God but with plenty of its own idols to worship.

But I also think that Christians have a legitimate point when they question the consistency and validity of arguing for objective morality when one denies the existence of a supreme Lawgiver. Even though reason and nature are appealed to as a basis for non-theistic objective moral standards, a lot of rank and file atheists avoid doing the hard yards on this issue and take the easy way out by opting for the dubious security of subjectivism - but these are topics for another blog…

Objectivist atheists are to be commended for there sensible and logical support for the concept of objective morality. Really, as sane and intelligent people, they have no other option. To refuse to recognise an objective reality - including an objective moral reality - is to subscribe to, what has been presciently characterised as “a sort of spoiled-brat individualism”, a form of irrationalism that ultimately degenerates into solipsism. The committed subjectivist cuts off his nose to spite his face and is in danger of losing touch with reality.

Subjectivists have to find a way out of this conundrum and they usually resort to the time-honoured and very human approach familiar to us all, that of holding their professed views inconsistently. Thus one can find examples of relativists/subjectivists on this thread, elsewhere in this forum, and across the Net making all sorts of absolutist moral pronouncements about the evils of slavery, the evils of the Holocaust and the bombing of Dresden, the evils of the Inquisition or the killing of Amakelites and so on and on, as if their personal opinions and feelings had some objective worth that others should be mindful of them.

Subjectivism, while it may be a populist position among a certain members of the chattering classes is really a non-position - a knee-jerk reactive “stance” rather than a considered and reflective position. Philosophically speaking the idea of subjectivism, while having a long tradition of advocates, has nevertheless had a troubled history because of its inherent negative connotations of emotionalism, irrationalism and solipsism. Many atheists rather foolishly seem to adopt postmodern relativism or subjectivism purely as a reaction against Christianity and what they perceive as its rigid absolutist objective morality. This is folly because more thoughtful and sensible atheists embrace concepts of objective reality and morality just as theists do. The reason is obvious if one stops and thinks about it. If subjectivist atheists were consistent and logical in their subjectivism then it would indeed entail a retreat to the cloud cuckoo land of solipsism, but because they retain some realization of the bankruptcy of this ideology they try the old smoke and mirrors tactic of claiming for themselves the high moral ground, while at the same time denying that any high moral ground actually exists outside of their own imaginations. In other words, they try to have it both ways simultaneously affirming and denying concepts as part of their polemic.

The problem is, if there was no objective morality, there can be no genuine and meaningful concern about human rights, about environmental protection, about law, about racial equality, about justice, about fairness, about equity, about truth and much more besides. Without an acceptance of objective values that stand outside, over and above the individual or the group, meaningful discourse lapses and life becomes fraught with unbearable complexity and difficulty. Human societies would descend into chaos and anarchy if all criteria for judgment, discernment, and critical evaluation become mired in conflicting personal opinions and feelings. Modern science itself could not exist in such a subjectivist universe for reality must exist “out there” for scientists to study. The notion of materialists espousing subjectivity as a worldview is thus particularly ironic. The image of “logical”, “reasonable”, “scientific rationalists” embracing politically correct postmodern notions of relativism and subjectivism is a surely a warning of trouble in the modernist scientific worldview.

Unless reality is objective, we could not communicate anything meaningful about it to anyone else. It follows that if one believes one can say something meaningful about God or morality, one way or the other, this necessarily implies that God or morality must have a meaningful objective reality. To say something meaningful about a non-existent, purely subjective God is an exercise in futility; it is to talk nonsense. Yet it is just such an exercise in futility that fires the polemic of scores of atheist debunkers. While it is more honest to argue the so-called “strong” stance against “the God who is not there” , to pursue the wishy-washy “weak” cop out about the “meaninglessness” and “irrelevancy” of a god concept is irrational. One cannot argue “meaningfully” about something that is “meaningless”, yet we have unlimited numbers of such atheists clamoring to do just that.

posted by tertius at 5:17:00 PM

 
Contemporary atheism in general labours under peculiar semantic strictures. Atheists delight in making up ridiculous words and terms to mock, debase and discredit theism - things like “biblegod”, “godunnit” “Santaism” etc. (In fact Santaism is a major obsession with Internet Infidels ranking right up there with invisible pink unicorns. Unfortunately, it highlights the lack of original thought amongst many of these foot soldiers in the war on God.). That many of them think this is terribly clever and profound only highlights that it would profit them to expend a little more energy on devising a better descriptive term for their belief system, one that clearly expresses its propositional content rather than disingenuously rejecting any content to one’s worldview for the sole purpose of gaining an unfair polemical advantage over one’s opponents.

I refer to the revisionist redefinition of atheism to empty it of any propositional meaning. This involves the novel notion of weak atheism (the term “weak” is itself an indicator of poor forethought with its implication of flabbiness and lack of focus) to indicate a position which merely lacks belief in god or finds the concept of god apparently meaningless.

The use of the suffix “ism” denotes a belief system, or a philosophical, political or moral doctrine. “A-theism” literally and traditionally means a belief system - an outlook, a worldview, a doctrine - that involves the negation of “god” Whether one wants to make a major issue of the subtle difference between its meanings as “no” or “without”, the preposition “a” in a word remains a preposition of negation. In order for there to be an “atheist” the concept of “god” must already exist, for atheism has no meaning unless “theos”- “god” - is an a priori meaningful concept. To deny or reject the notion of God one must first recognise that the concept “god” must possess reality beyond subjective wishful thinking.

In this I do not limit reality to the physical/material plane, for the most important realities to us as humans are non-material. Meaningful and real phenomena like courage, hatred, hope, love, honour, wisdom, truth, etc. really do exist. The subjectivist may choose to deny the “reality” of these non-physical, non-material phenomena or to claim they only exist in his own mind and have no meaningful reality to others. This is foolishness so most adopt the option that such non-material realities are mere epiphenomena of blind materialist and mechanistic forces.

Of course, in reality (sic) the inconsistent subjectivist usually believes his own subjective and relative views are based totally on reason, logic and rationality and are thus are actually objective and absolute, having the certainty of holy writ. It is always the other guy whose views are irrational and emotional and devoid of meaning. Many atheists also suffer under the delusion that we are more knowledgeable now and therefore inherently more moral than our predecessors. There is no evidence for such a bizarre claim yet it is often trotted out as if the bloodiest, most technologically advanced and most secular century in human history just slipped past without anyone noticing the massive body count.

The problematic attempt of contemporary atheism to redefine the traditional meaning of the word “atheism” is a classic example of postmodernist subjectivism in action. This amounts to a naked revisionist attempt by atheists to both avoid the burden of proof that rightly falls on any one who urges a particular proposition (i.e. There is No God”) and to shift that burden onto one’s opponents who actually represent the normative historical default position. . As one can see examples of self-professed weak atheists on numerous Internet forums aggressively attacking both God and Christianity, then one is more than entitled to dismiss their claims of “lack” as being a semantic smokescreen for a very real antipathy towards God, the Bible and Christianity… as well as confirming the essential disingenuity of “weak atheism”.

I do not dispute for one moment that there are many people who DO live their lives apathetically with regard to God. But if one is an atheist appearing on Christian forums you are not one of these people; the fact is such a one is a committed, dogmatic, militant atheist with a very real gripe with God. And some are bent on their own secular jihad against God.

The frequent claim on atheist websites is that theism means “a belief in God” therefore atheism means “no or without a belief in God” but this is subtly misleading. An “ism” is a doctrine or belief system based upon certain propositions. “Theos” is Greek word transliterated into English; its meaning and usage stem from the original Greek, not upon the English. The emphasis is upon “God” not upon “belief”. A theist who affirms theism affirms that God exists, thus he has a worldview and beliefs based upon the proposition that God exists. An atheist affirms that God does not exist, and thus has a worldview and beliefs based on this proposition that there is no God. Theists don’t affirm theism so much as they affirm the existence of “theos” - god; theism is but the worldview that flows from the affirmation of gods existence. Atheists likewise don’t affirm atheism they affirm “atheos” - no god. Atheism is the worldview that flows from the affirmation of the nonexistence of God. The “ism” is not substance but the container in which the essential substance is housed. For this reason the claim that one can affirm that one merely lacks belief in God and still call this atheism is specious.

If your claim is merely that you can only "weakly“ dismiss god as a meaningful concept then you are not really an “a-theist” at all. In which case I wonder why such folk flock to Christian forums in order to attack God, the Bible and Christians. Shouldn’t you be out getting on with your life instead of wasting time tilting at windmills? It is irrational and illogical to work oneself up into a lather of moral indignation about what is supposedly a myth, a fairy tale, or a nonsense inside other peoples’ heads. Such a position is absurd in the extreme. Yet an overwhelming percentage of atheists are obviously here on this forum to put the boot into - to really negate - the God of the Bible. In that case then what you must accept first is the nature of God as he is described therein. You cannot construct a god in the image of your own prejudices and then seek to tear that straw man down. This is more of the same irrationality and absurdity. The God of the Bible really “exists”. “Yahweh” literally means “I am who I am, the eternally existent one”, omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing, perfect and good, the creator and sustainer of all that exists, the supreme and sole sovereign Lord of the universe, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the source of all that is.

The atheist materialist is trapped in what Martin Buber calls an “I-It” attitude to the external world - that of subject-to-object, a relationship of separateness and detachment. While this reductionism is appropriate for dealing with “things” it is not appropriate for relating to other sentient beings. For this we need an “I-Thou” relationship, an awareness of the other not as a mere thing reducible to mere atoms and molecules but as “a unity of being”. In an I-Thou relationship, human beings do not perceive each other as consisting of specific, isolated qualities, but engage each other's whole being in a relationship of mutuality and reciprocity. On the other hand, consistent reductionist materialists must in the end see all their relationships as “I-It”, made up of “nothing but” material objects and material causes as part of a world of things. The subjectivity of the subjectivist is thus nothing more than an objectively determined result of mechanistic forces.

God is not an “it” to be put under a microscope or examined through a telescope. He is the ultimate and eternal “Thou”. God’s being is both objective and subjective. He is really “there” but as a person and not a thing he is known in the deepest sense only through the personal interaction of “I-Thou”. He is the source of all objective reality while being the ultimate personal subjective being.

There is no other God recognized by Jews or Christians. Christians have not created God, they have not conjured up God out of thin air or projected him onto the screen of their own fears. God existed before they became Christians. He existed before there were people. Before there was a material “it”. No one woke up one morning and said, “I think today I will create an all powerful creator God and worship him. It beats sitting around the house watching TV.” God makes demands upon humans that no human would willingly make upon themselves. One does not create the God who holds every individual up to such piercing scrutiny; to whom every failing and foible, every thought and action, is laid bare; to whom no animal or human sacrifice, no ritual, no penance, no “good works” or charitable endeavours, no amount of sincerity or devotion can make him beholden to humans. Yet he is the God who because of his very nature of love and by his grace alone reconciles the rebel to himself. The rebel can only lay down his weapons and surrender with his open hands raised in faith. Or not…The rebel has a choice; but can rebels who won’t surrender really expect mercy from the King?

You may not believe this to be true. You may reject it outright. That’s fine; it is your right and privilege as a morally responsible and free human being to do so. It is a privilege and right given to you by none other that the sovereign creator himself. But to then posit an entire argument based on your moral outrage over a God who does not exist for actions he obviously could not have thus caused in history, or an argument of moral outrage because the nonexistent creator dares to punish those non -existent rebels by casting them out of his non-existent presence into a non-existent hell, is both psychologically revealing and plain dumb. So surely this is not really the argument of the reflective atheist? The only sensible argument is that, it’s not God that one is against - because he does not exist - it is the subjective concept of God that millions of people carry round with them in their heads that one opposes. But if you really are a subjectivist and a relativist you cannot sit in judgment on the personal subjective beliefs of another. They just are different from yours and no less appropriate for them than yours are for you. It’s just that all our beliefs and actions have consequences, and especially we all must accept that our moral choices will involve objective consequences.

posted by tertius at 4:42:00 PM

 
What is well planted cannot be uprooted.
What is well embraced cannot slip away...
Cultivate Virtue in your own person,
And it becomes a genuine part of you.
Cultivate it in the family,
And it will abide.
Cultivate it in the community,
And it will live and grow.
Cultivate it in the state,
And it will flourish abundantly.
Cultivate it in the world,
And it will become universal.
Hence, a person must be judged as person;
A family as family;
A community as community;
A state as state;
The world as world.
How do I know about the world?
By what is in me.
Tao Te Ching, Chapter 54

posted by tertius at 11:41:00 PM

 
At “the renewal of all things” when the kingdom comes in its fullness, the Lord “will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." The blind will receive their sight, the lame will walk, the deaf will hear; all things will be made new.

Does this mean that balding men will have full heads of hair? Flat chested women will have curves? Those with bad teeth will have rows of pearly whites? Those with pock-marked and acne-scarred skin will have cheeks as smooth as babies? Overweight and obese people will be slimmed down and sixty pound weaklings with hollow chests will emerge as Mr Atlases? Will timid and withdrawn wallflowers become the life of the heavenly party? Will loud and opinionated persons fall silent? Will old people be young again, and will children be full grown? Will ugly people be beautiful?

Just wondering…


posted by tertius at 11:30:00 PM

 
There is no crime he cannot commit
No murder too complex
His heart is filled with larceny
And violence and sex
His heart is filled with envy
And revenge and greed
His heart is filled with nothing
His heart is filled with need
He's capable of anything
Of any vicious act
This criminal is dangerous
The criminal under my own hat
T-Bone Burnett

posted by tertius at 8:54:00 PM

 
Don't the hours grow shorter as the days go by
You never get to stop and open your eyes
One day you're waiting for the sky to fall
And the next you're dazzled by the beauty of it all
Bruce Cockburn

posted by tertius at 8:49:00 PM

 
Jonathan Raunch, a self-described "unrepentantly atheistic Jewish homosexual" (his need to tell us this is revealing in itself), writes an interesting and provocative article in praise of what he dubs "apatheism" in this month's "The Atlantic" magazine. For what it's worth I think apatheism is a very clever and apt term to describe the (ir)religion that dominates throughout western societies. Some excerpts from Rauch's piece are given below:

Let It Be: The greatest development in modern religion is not a religion at all—it's an attitude best described as "apatheism"
by Jonathan Rauch (The Atlantic Monthly Vol. 291 N0. 4, May 2003)

"The modern flowering of 'apatheism'--a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's--is worth getting excited about, particularly in ostensibly pious America..."

"I believe that the rise of apatheism is to be celebrated as nothing less than a major civilizational advance. Religion, as the events of September 11 and after have so brutally underscored, remains the most divisive and volatile of social forces. To be in the grip of religious zeal is the natural state of human beings, or at least a great many human beings; that is how much of the species seems to be wired.

Apatheism, therefore, should not be assumed to represent a lazy recumbency, like my collapse into a soft chair after a long day. Just the opposite: it is the product of a determined cultural effort to discipline the religious mindset, and often of an equally determined personal effort to master the spiritual passions. It is not a lapse. It is an achievement.

"'A world of pragmatic atheists,' the philosopher Richard Rorty once wrote, 'would be a better, happier world than our present one.' Perhaps. But best of all would be a world generously leavened with apatheists: people who feel at ease with religion even if they are irreligious; people who may themselves be members of religious communities, but who are neither controlled by godly passions nor concerned about the (nonviolent, noncoercive) religious beliefs of others. In my lifetime America has taken great strides in this direction, and its example will be a source of strength, not weakness, in a world still beset by fanatical religiousity (al Qaeda) and tyrannical secularism (China)."

I agree wholeheartedly with Rauch's sentiments, if by them he means nothing more than that we should major on the matters that unite us and not on those that divide us, that we should seek reconciliation and co-operation rather than conflict and disputation, that we should respect other's beliefs and should uphold the right of freedom of religious belief for all even when those beliefs contradict the genral consensus - perhaps especially if they don't represent the consensus view. By all means we should master and control our passions, discipline our minds, and temper our zeal with compassion and wisdom. But if he means we should believe halfheartedly, with a grain of salt, even disbelievingly, thus indicating that belief doesn't really matter at all, he is way off the mark. Of course he is expressing the politically-correct, liberal-left elitist position. But truth is not democratic or tolerant; one cannot believe in something that one considers false or untrue; it is a contradiction in terms. But one can hold one's beliefs humbly. I can uphold your right to believe and express your own views, but I am under no obligation to accept them as true and correct. The former position is encumbent upon me, the latter is not.

Most people in the west are apathetic about religion. That's a given, especially outside of the USA. But is that really a virtue? And is the opposite of apathy really fanaticism? Fanatacism is a perversion of religion, not its purest and highest expression. The opposite of fence sitting apathy is serious reflective commitment. According to Socrates the unexamined life is not worth living. Rauch can hardly be advocating the unexamined life, and I don't believe he is. However Rauch betrays his own bias and presuppositions when he writes of the desire to "get excited" (sic) about apatheism. The practice of being apathetic about ultimate questions - which is the raison d'etre of both religion and philosophy - is a self-defeating and soul-destroying exercise. Most people in the secular west are already in this position. As arch-skeptic H L Mencken once said, "A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin." The triumph of pragmatism over hope, over spirit, over philosophy, over transcendence is the victory of cynicism. Is it any wonder then that cynicism is rampant in the contemporary west?

On one matter Mr Rauch is absolutely correct:
"Atheism, for instance, is not at all like apatheism; the hot-blooded atheist cares as much about religion as does the evangelical Christian, but in the opposite direction..."

Now, if only the atheists on the Net would admit it...and cease their prattle about how much they lack the need for the God hypothesis...

posted by tertius at 11:29:00 PM

 
Over at USS Clueless Steven Den Beste, a committed "mechanistic/materialistic" atheist, has written a very sensible, well-reasoned and non-inflammatory piece on why atheism is a belief like any other, and why, just like any other, it cannot be proven. Den Beste is a breath of fresh air among the vitriolic anti-Christian rantings and ravings of dogmatic atheists who dominate on the Net - and I take my hat off to him. As if in anticipation of my description of the stereotypical atheist he takes as the starting point for his piece a “manifesto” from the blog of a most obnoxious, and all too familiar Internet Infidel, who styles himself as "the Raving Atheist". (No understatement there!) Den Beste then critiques and deconstructs this fellow's metaphysical assumptions. He makes a very useful distinction between "proof atheists" who contend that atheism can be proved to be true, and "belief atheists" who think that atheism is a belief. He is of the latter kind. He summarises his own position thus:

"In broad terms, some atheists claim that atheism is actually a scientific fact and can be proved, thus demonstrating that atheism is different from any other religious belief. They contend that atheism is true where all religious beliefs are false delusions. Other atheists, myself among them, know that it isn't possible to prove that there are no deities. It might be possible to prove that some particular deity with certain characteristics doesn't exist but it isn't possible to produce a blanket proof that there are no deities whatever."

I wonder if Mr Den Beste realises just how prevalent the former style of atheism is!

While we must agree to disagree - as mature adults should - as to what each of us has come to understand as the best picture - and explanation - of ultimate reality, I could not agree more with his conclusion in this matter - a theme I have expressed in various jottings of my own. Another wise atheist I came across on the web also candidly recognised this point: "atheism is about belief, not about knowledge". Yet, since the arrival of the mass medium of the Internet a lot of atheists have suddenly taken to claiming that they are “weak” atheists” (a rather unfortunate term); that their only distinguishing mark is that they are “without” or “lack” a belief in God or gods. Methinks they doth protest too much, but leaving aside that issue, on one level this assertion is obviously accurate. At a deeper level it is profoundly mistaken, in that most such weak atheists disparage religion, belief and faith as irrelevant, unscientific and unworthy of any modern rational human being. But the hard fact is: nobody is without beliefs; nobody lives without “faith”, nobody is without religious impulses, rumours of transcendence or metaphysical underpinnings. Everyone believes in something; everyone takes certain things “on faith”. Indeed so very much of what is most deeply and profoundly held to be "true" and "real" and "meaningful" to the individual human being are matters of faith and belief and not of "knowledge". "Just the facts, ma'am", is well and good in its place but human beings want and need more than mere facts in order to makes sense of their own existence and purpose. Whether this takes the form of some traditional religious belief system or some alternative spirituality, or whether it is subsumed totally under a veneer of secularity is very much beside the point. When the rubber meets the road we are all believers.

As Den Beste also sagely notes:
“I believe that I am not wrong. I have faith that the choice I've made is the right one. I can't convince you that I'm right, but I don't need to. I make no claim that the process by which I came to that conclusion is universal or overwhelmingly convincing to anyone except myself, but I'm the only one I need to convince. I have thought deeply about the issues and I believe I have the right answer…”

To which I can only add “Hear, hear”, or is it “Amen”? As I have often noted the only people who don’t have “faith” are dead… Of course that doesn’t resolve the problem of two people adamantly believing in two diametrically opposed and contradictory worldviews. One or the other may be in for a big surprise! But that’s the glory and the tragedy of humanity. We are free to make choices. According to the Judeo-Christian worldview the God of the universe allows people the right and privilege to choose whom they will or will not serve. Unlike the caricature God that bedevils and haunts dogmatists like the Raving Atheist, my God doesn’t force anyone to “believe” or “do” anything they don’t want to.

Den Beste then concludes: “…That's all that really matters.”

Is it? Here I will pause.
What we are not free to do is to avoid the ultimate consequences of our choices, a point I’m sure that Mr Den Beste would concur with. I must respect him when he comes to the considered opinion that the God I believe in does not exist. In this he is exercising his God-given privilege. Whether it is the right choice, is another matter, an important matter, perhaps the only thing that really matters.

posted by tertius at 7:04:00 PM

 
Of course it had to happen. You've seen the movies, now welcome to the deep thoughts and collected wisdom of the stars themselves on the Hollywood Halfwits website.

Included is our own Heath Ledger:
"It is not a fight for humanity. It is a fight for oil and screw it and screw them. I think we should all pull out and leave a peaceful existence down here."

And some of the usual suspects:

"I don't really view communism as a bad thing."
Whoopi Goldberg

"'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."
Janeanne Garofalo

“How will the bombing of Baghdad, a city of five million, accomplish a regime change?
Susan Sarandon

One could always Boycott Hollywood?

posted by tertius at 10:27:00 PM

 
An interesting article by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano over at Enter Stage Right. Some excerpts:

Over the last several months, many celebrities, stars, and famous others have spoken against Operation Iraqi Freedom. They, like all Americans, have a God-given, inalienable, constitutionally enumerated right to voice their opinion. What they did not expect was a response: harsh criticism to their opinions, excoriating commentary, or the public actively avoiding their movies, books, music, etc. They embrace the right to freedom of speech when it allows their sentiments to be expressed, but are stunned when they find themselves on the receiving end.

It's about time.

...with ever increasing regularity, Conservatives dropped out. They made conscious choices to avoid channeling funds through ticket sales, record sales, advertising dollars, etc., to those celebrities, stars, and famous others who used their notoriety to promote anti-conservative messages...

The celebrities, stars, and famous others want us to believe there are "hateful" forces afoot, (no doubt a massive, secret orchestration by those evil Republicans) looking to deprive people of their rights and use extreme tactics to silence the opposition. If it comforts them to believe that, let them...

...the plain, simple truth is Conservatives are dropping out. They are rejecting the destructive lies of the liberal culture that say it's okay to kill over a million children in a womb every year, but we should lie naked in the street to prevent the death of a single child in Iraq. They are rejecting the lie that it's okay for your child to grow up a dysfunctional, drug-dependent, sexually confused, foul-mouthed miscreant, but a child who draws a picture of his dad in his military uniform and carrying a firearm needs psychological counseling and suspension. They are rejecting the lie that it's alright for Saddam to allow thousands of his people to be tortured, imprisoned in dungeons, starved, raped, and brutalized, but we are the evil ones for liberating them.

So go ahead, celebrities, star, and famous others, say what you want. I will defend to the death your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I have to listen to it, agree with it, or even acknowledge it. More importantly, I don't even have to acknowledge you. I don't have to support you with my discretionary income.

Since you are crying about it so incessantly, it seems a great number of Americans have realized they are free to tune in, turn on, and drop out, too.

posted by tertius at 9:56:00 PM

 
Most antiquities found unharmed

By Christine Spolar CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Mon, May. 05, 2003

BAGHDAD - The vast majority of the Iraqi trove of antiquities feared stolen or broken have been found inside the National Museum in Baghdad, according to American investigators who compiled an inventory over the weekend of the ransacked galleries.

A total of 38 antiquities, not tens of thousands, are now believed to be missing. Among them is a single display of Babylonian cuneiform tablets that accounts for nine missing items.

The single most valuable missing piece is the Vase of Warka, a white limestone bowl dating from 3000 B.C.

The inventory, compiled by a military and civilian team headed by Marine Col. Matthew Bogdanos, refutes reports that Iraq's renowned treasures of civilization - as many as 170,000 individual artifacts - had been scattered or lost during the U.S.-led war against Iraq...

posted by tertius at 9:18:00 PM

 
Poems generated by machine? Somehow I don't think so. But, then again...You can try out Rob's Amazing Poetry Generator for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

Here's the Amazing Poetry Generator's ode to tertius' blog. Oh dear...

jottings from
an abiding social order
to cut the same Darwinian mandate to reproduce themselves
or have gone through Christian sites to be traced
to be increasingly
challenged in this is Any
language, In our lives… of a scornful
tone, “it is there something rather than likely
to follow in
a lack of facts. of
their “ position Why?
not believe in your income, unless you cannot
deny the reason for something God , or
a form of human
mind, to! kill a morally superior,
as more focussed
on hundreds of that Christians
and 2
That build a genetic
point out as Buddhism
or against philosophical
Concepts of belief.” in age, of a
complex while situations are the reality by
tertius at
you. two systems
of gods. to the primary usage of
the past.

posted by tertius at 8:17:00 PM

 
"I was born a 45 year old conservative. But you know what? Conservative isn't even 'conservative' anymore. It's a label for normal." Cartoonist Chris Muir.

(Hey, anyone who likes poking fun at "peace" protestors and the leftist Hollywood actor/activist types has already won me over!)

Chris Muir's Day by Day cartoon strip can be found here. Muir has been compared to Garry Trudeau whose Doonesbury strip was formerly the epitome of cool and hip but is becoming increasingly "Establishment". Muir notes:

I'm the last of the "boomers" in age, and it seems to me that the monolithic view presented of that generation (PC correctness, dried up old hippie platitudes that actually contradict themselves) are, thankfully, finally going.

Chris Muir is interviewed by Dean Esmay on his blog Dean's World. Included is a nice selction of his strips. Check it out.

posted by tertius at 12:34:00 PM