REPLY #25d TO|
Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).
This is the fourth of a five-part reply. Select the "Go to next reply" link at the end of each part to read the next part of the reply.
Your position seems to be that you have no position.
You say that it "fills your needs", but can't say how. One
might legitimately wonder if you really believe what you're
saying or if you're just being the Devil's Advocate in this
(R) I'll go ahead and state my position one more time. Maybe
you ought to write it down on a 3x5 card and keep it handy.
(MB) I need no such card. Your position has been stated dozens of times
previously and all are still posted in previous replies. Continuing to repeat
it without offering anything additional (or, indeed, anything at all) in its
defense does not answer any of my questions.
(R) "It is impossible to either prove or disprove whether or not God
exists, there is no conclusive evidence to indicate one way or the
other whether or not He does, it is equally reasonable and logical to
conclude He does as it is to conclude He does not, and neither
belief has any inherent superiority over the other."
(MB) I have already dissected this statement of belief at length and have no
need to change anything here.
(R) I think it's pretty obvious how this fills an intellectual need, but
if I need to explain it, let me know and I will.
(MB) If a meaningless statement fills your intellectual needs, I am at a loss to
understand how. Yes, please explain it to me. Please feel free to be
exhaustive and specific. Please detail the facts which support your belief.
Please refer me to philosophical works which express the same belief in the way
you have stated it or which support any of your arguments -- such as how neither
side bears any burden of proof, how unsupportable views can be considered to
be reasonable or logical, or how contradictory viewpoints are equal.
I'm only pursuing a point that you made to me by
following up on a statement that your beliefs fulfill your
intellectual needs. Was that statement in error? If not, then
how are they fulfilled? (It doesn't have to be through Genesis
or anything else in the Bible.)
(R) When I said my beliefs fill my intellectual needs, I said
nothing about the Bible or the creation stories in Genesis.
(MB) I was merely suggesting a way that is commonly used to supposed to support
such views. If your views find no support through the Bible and they find no
support through facts or evidence, then just where do you find support for them?
(R) I'm not sure what your purpose was in bringing them up, perhaps as evidence
that my intellectual needs are slim, but yeah, I guess you could say such a
statement is in error.
(MB) Are you now saying that your beliefs do not fulfill your intellectual
needs and are exclusively emotional in nature? I can accept that.
(R) As long as you stick to your statement you don't believe in
God, you are an atheist.
(MB) Incorrect. I don't believe in the theistic version of God that you are
defending. There are numerous other potential entities that could be referred
to as "God" and each possesses its own qualities. One of these may well exist
and might be compatible with a scientific view of the universe. Of course,
there is no evidence for any of them, but the fact that the possibility exists
and that it is not possible to refute all of the various permutations involved
means that I cannot consider myself to be anything but an agnostic. I tend
towards atheism and could rightly be considered an atheist if you narrowly
defined the term as "one who does not believe in the theistic version of God".
But, since that definition is too limiting to fit my views, I am more accurately
described as agnostic.
(R) Yes, I have called you an atheist a number
of times (sorry, it's because you are) but I've never protested I
haven't, as a matter of fact, I have no qualms whatsoever about
(MB) Initially, you did protest it, but now you've come to embrace it. No
matter. You can call me whatever pleases you -- I know what I am. It will make
no difference to the course of our discussion.
(R) I believe in calling a spade a spade.
(MB) Or, in calling a shovel a spade if it suits the particular attempted
argument. Again, no amount of name-calling will change any of the facts,
evidence, logic or reasoning which will ultimately decide the question.
(R) What I've protested
is your statement that religious believers always call anyone who
doesn't believe as they do an atheist, which is absolutely untrue.
(MB) You have provided no evidence to support that claim and your own statements
(especially in the immediately preceding paragraphs) have shown that I am most
(R) You're right, the contradictions and errors in the Bible don't
prove Christianity to be bunk, which makes one wonder why some
people are so hard over on the question of inerrancy.
(MB) Because so many proselytizers hold up the Bible and refer to it as "the
inerrant and inspired word of God" in order to give their claims whatever
credibility they might have. One needs only to read some of the popular "Bible
study" texts to see glossed-over apologies for the errors. For example, I once
read in a Catholic Concordance that "...seeming errors and contradictions should
present no problems for believers. Since we all know that the Bible cannot be
wrong since it is the inspired Word of God, there is always a sufficient
explanation." Of course, the Concordance doesn't bother to say what those
explanations might be.
(R) I view the inerrancy of the Bible as a moot point. Even if it is inerrant,
it is open to such wide interpretation as to make any such inerrancy irrelevant.
(MB) All that inerrancy proves is that the Bible was neither inspired nor
written by God. If it was, it would be consistent throughout. But, if the
Bible is not the inspired Word of God, then what is it? Simple, it is a
collection of traditions, histories, and literature of the Jews (the Old
Testament) along with the philosophy of Christianity (the New Testament). It is
neither proof of God nor support for the existence of God. That leaves even
less upon which to support such a belief.
Even if that was true, science is a self-correcting
discipline. Religion is fixed and does not permit questioning
and correction. It will continue to magnify its own errors in the
course of defending itself.
(R) So your saying religion never changes? That modern
Christianity is no different than Christianity in Luther's time, or in
the 1st Century? That modern Catholics don't have different beliefs
than Catholics did in 1850? Yeah, right.
(MB) Don't confuse core beliefs with changes in ceremonies used to express such
beliefs or changes in the political leadership of the Church. What core beliefs
of Christianity have changed in the last 2000 years?
(R) Here's a quote from Sir William Henry Bragg, an English physicist
and Nobel Prize winner, which presents a much more intelligent
opinion than yours:
(MB) "More intelligent" in the respect that it disagrees (or seemingly
disagrees) with me, I assume. OK, let's see what Sir William has to say:
(R) "Science is experimental, moving forward
step-by-step, making trials and learning through success and failure.
Is not this also the way of religion, and especially of the Christian
(MB) I ask again, what core beliefs of Christianity have changed in the last
2000 years? For example, has the Gospel story of Jesus' birth been changed
despite all of the evidence which shows that the story is dubious, at best?
(R) He goes on, "The writings of those who preach the
religion have from the very beginning insisted that it is to be proved
by experience. If a man is drawn towards honour and courage and
endurance, justice, mercy, and charity, let him follow the way of
Christ and find out for himself. No findings in science hinder him in
(MB) Sir William is correct if one understands what he is referring to. He is
speaking of the tenets of behavior and morality that are espoused in
Christianity. However, all non-Christian belief systems also have codes of
morality -- most of which promote much the same ideals. Secular humanism, for
example, holds that moral standards are judged by their consequences. The only
difference is that religions use their central figure as a definitive rallying
point for the believers.
Don't Christianity and the Bible go hand-in-hand? If we
were discussing Islam, wouldn't it be relevant to mention the
Qu'ran? If we were discussing any other religion, wouldn't it
be relevant to mention their holy books?
(R) Who said we were discussing Christianity? I thought we
were merely discussing the existence of God, without drawing any
conclusions about His nature.
(MB) Your previous statements about God have made it quite clear what we are
discussing (as if there was ever any doubt). Since that is the case, it is
valid to bring along all of the baggage that is associated with that subject.
To disavow your God -- even to suggest the possibility that there might be
another version of him -- is to break the most important of his commandments and
risk his judgment. Is this what you are doing?
(R) I have to say I do get the feeling you'd like to be discussing Christianity,
so you could attack it specifically. Why is that?
(MB) We *are* discussing Christianity in particular in the midst of a more
general discussion of religion. To date, you have not introduced a single
specific statement that suggests anything other than Christian beliefs on your
part. We are playing on a clearly-defined field.
Few who worry about their own position are
concerned over whether or not their views are aired
publicly. They're not likely to change their minds no matter
what the response might be. If the heat gets too high for them,
they'll just move on to the next forum and start again.
(R) So you're saying you think that after I lose this argument, I'll
simply quit and find someone else to rant at, eh? Well, time will
tell. But don't hold your breath.
(MB) I'd only need to hold my breath if there's any doubt. At this point, I am
breathing rather vigorously and see no reason for that to change. You've
already intimated that you've engaged in these sorts of discussions before. I
have no reason to believe that this one will be the last one.
Joe has responded, my friend. This is part of the reason
for my new "Kudos and Flames" section. Also, this is not the
only forum in which these questions are being debated. The
general verdicts don't seem to be too favorable for the
(R) The dozen or so responses you've posted so far don't qualify
as neutral, unbiased Joes, certainly not the way you defined him
earlier. Each of them display their own preconceived notions, with
a couple frankly stating they are atheists or Christians.
(MB) I have made no claims to the contrary for those responses. All I have said
is that others are reading our discussions and are responding to them. How do
you know that all respondents are simply displaying preconceived notions? It is
possible that one or more have been convinced by our respective arguments and
have taken the time to congratulate or castigate, as the case may be. Also,
this is certainly not the only forum where these issues are being debated and
where readers are registering their opinions. Perhaps you should check some of
these out and see for yourself.
(R) While we're on the subject, let me make a few remarks of my own
about certain of these comments. Here's what one of the Kudos
said: "There are too few of us to 'wake-up' too many of them.
They are just too programmed, too brainwashed, too selfish, too
ignorant, to escapest (sic) to 'get real'."
Let me ask you, doesn't it make you a bit nervous to hear this
kind of statement?
(MB) Not at all -- especially since you are engaging in the underhanded tactic
of taking comments out of context. You drew two sentences out of the middle of
a longer message and are attempting to use them to paint the respondent the
color of your own interpretation of them while they are isolated from the rest
of the message.
Certainly, it is clear that there are many more credulous
people than there are skeptics. This should hardly be a surprise since
credulity requires no effort of education or rational thought. It only requires
a willingness to believe something that sounds or feels "good". Credulity is
emotional while skepticism is intellectual. Are you going to argue that we are
better off for having the masses uphold all sorts of unsupportable beliefs? Is
it A Good Thing to shift one's brain into neutral and let others push it around
wherever they see fit?
(R) Every demagogue and tyrant in history has said this sort of thing.
(MB) Anybody -- including religious leaders -- who attempts to gain control over
the general population tends to think along those lines.
Let's look at the respondent's immediately preceding paragraph:
"The thing that apalls me most is that we each possess the greatest miracle
known to exist... a human brain. We have the potential to maintain this sacred
planet as a Natural paradise and yet, we seem determined to self-destruct."
Is this the statement of a demagogue or tyrant?
(R) Basically, they think that only they know what's best, that the great,
unwashed masses are too stupid to know what's good for them.
(MB) Basically, their opinion of the masses has a basis in truth. Would a
population devoid of credulity permit themselves to be dominated by any
unsupported dogma? The Roman historian Polybius wrote:
"Since the masses of people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate,
and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in
order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in
punishment after death."
There is no evidence to suggest that Polybius was wrong (or is wrong today).
(R) Well, let me just point out that you and I are the great, unwashed masses,
and as soon as Stalin here gets control of things, our rights won't be worth a
plug nickel -- unless of course, you happen to exactly agree with him/her on
(MB) This is begging the question. How would eliminating credulity in society
cause that society to lose their rights?
The respondent's comment about the "great unwashed masses" was:
"It is their superficial, immature, compliancy that enables the few to amass so
much self-destructive greed and power. The horror is that we are entering a new
millenium that could be a magnificent golden age and we the people will allow it
to become a catastrophy of unimaginable consequence."
Is that "Stalin" speaking or somebody who is genuinely and rightly concerned? I
think you need to read the entire message instead of looking for specific parts
that you can mangle into some sort of criticism. I also think that an apology
might be in order.
(R) Here's one of the Flames: "Your views are disgusting and
offending. I am a Christian and I don't appreciate your atheist
views. People like you don't even deserve the equipment to spread
your trash throughout the world. My GOD will deal with you at the
judgement. Till then, pray hard. A concerned Christian."
Yeah, this qualifies as a flame. This individual damages the image
of Christianity, and I pray that he/she will somehow realize it and
stop doing such things. However, the fact this single Christian is
intolerant and vindictive doesn't mean all, or even very many,
Christians are, too. I will say, you gave him/her a fine answer on
the subject of free speech.
(MB) This individual displays the sort of behavior that is widely found in the
other forums where these questions are being discussed. In no cases in these
forums do we find Christian respondents who praise non-theistic views as being
intellectually well-founded and worthy of equal consideration even though they
may personally disagree with them. Such views are simply dismissed as being
"wrong" -- and generally not in unemotional or rational terms.
(R) Here's another flame: "The only problem I've had with some of
your writings are usually when you are responding to a respondent.
Occasionally, you respond sarcastically or simply, defensively.... I
"listen" more to the clear, direct responses without the sarcasm; and
I think most other people would, too."
This is one of the most thoughtful comments in the entire section
and you would do well to listen to it. This is the type of creative
criticism all of us need.
(MB) Constructive criticism is always welcome. I make no claims to being
infallible or to being the ultimate authority on this (or any other) issue. I
do have a wealth of material from which to consult during the course of
presenting my arguments. The style of presentation, however, is unique to me.
I would be surprised if all readers found it amenable. However, it is the
substance of the presentation rather than the style that is primarily important.
(R) Of couse, you just basically blew him off.
(MB) Blew him off? Au contraire. I addressed his specific points and explained
the rationale for my style. How did that "blow him off"?
(R) Why am I not surprised?
(MB) Because you failed to notice that the respondent said "I have found many of
your essays to be very interesting, insightful; and knowledgeable". Or, did you
just basically blow that part off in a search for criticisms?
(R) Finally, I have to mention the person who said, "Your really give
it to that guy. He probably walks away scatching (sic) his head and
mumbling to himself. By the time you get through with him, he has
got to question many things. That is if he has half a brain. Nice
going." I got a pretty good laugh out of that. Seems to be
referring to me, don't you think?
(MB) Since he didn't say who he was referring to, how should we know for sure?
(R) I hate to disappoint him, but no, I
don't go away mumbling or scratching my head, because so far,
you haven't made any arguments which I haven't heard and dealt
with many times previously.
(MB) That's not true. A prime example is the distinction between positive and
negative existential claims and the burden of proof. The first time I
introduced that argument, your response was "Vroom! And a hand passes over my
head." You've also said on other occasions that you had "never heard" of the
particular argument I was using. Finally, during a previous attempt to ask
questions for which science might have no answers, you said that you had no
knowledge of Heisenberg indeterminacy and were unfamiliar with quantum
mechanics, subatomic particles, superstring theory and chaotic inflation.
Therefore, you have not "heard and dealt with these things many times
(R) And yes, I do have half a brain. My
I.Q. is below genius level, but still, I'm a pretty above-average guy.
Don't want to brag, but I'm quite intelligent, extremely
well-educated and well-read, and exceptionally successful in my
chosen profession -- which is a difficult and demanding one.
(MB) I have no evidence either to support or to deny your claims so I will
accept them at face value. I could make all sorts of similar statements on my
own behalf, but what's the point? This debate will be decided by the arguments
that each of us advances, not by any rosy self-descriptions. The relative worth
of any argument is to be found within the argument itself, not within the person
who advances it.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 04 Jun 98
Earthlink Network Home Page
Go to next reply
Return to "Religion" essay
Back to Philosophy page