Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

[Brad]

No, but I consult for the cancer genomics group where I work, so I'm familiar.

Science has done some wonderful stuff in the last five years, but it hasn't produced a novel that's superior to one by Dan Brown. (It's not like it's even difficult (given a little training and mentoring) for a typically literate person to write a superior novel to one by Dan Brown.) But you judge the greatness of science versus the greatness of a novel using different measures.

I’d like to ask the non-literalist believers here a theodicy question. Do you believe the Biblical God created the world?

I don't know what you mean by "the Biblical God", since the Bible does not give a single, consistent picture of "God".

Certainly, I agree that the entity that inspired the Biblical authors to write is the same entity that is the great creative force in the universe. But that can't be what you meant, since this is indistinguishable from deism.

I don't know that God "made" evolution any more than God "made" mathematics. Parasites are, surely, an inevitable consequence of evolution. I don't think it's possible to have evolution without them. So in that sense I'm not sure that God "made" them any more than he "made" any other kinds of parasites, such as grifters and derivatives traders.

Pseudonym,
Thanks as always for your thorough reply. (By the way, maybe you or someone else could send me a pm and 'splain to me how to break up a post into various little quotes for response like everyone does here? For some reason, I can't make that work.)

I'd love to hear about your work - maybe some time there will be an appropriate time and place for that.

I get your point that you think comparing science to religious faith is apples and oranges. Quite so, but I was simply commenting on my own experience of awe, wonder, and mystery, and how those feelings are far better stimulated - for me - by learning about the things revealed by science than by concentrating upon or imagining the sort of deity (or any other character) posited in the Bible. As you suggest, however, the God I was taught to conjure in my mind is surely different from your conception of a Creator. As Angela and Wonders have shown above also, that's a big subject.

For my part, if the same entity/deity who was the creative force behind the universe also inspired the writers of the Bible, I think there would be a single, consistent picture of God within the Bible's pages. If the deity was sufficiently powerful to have created the universe, his direct "inspiration" would be more than sufficient to produce a single coherent "picture" that his creations could understand.
And similarly, if he was going to the trouble to send a part of Himself down to our planet to "redeem" the "sins" of all humanity, that is, to create the single most important event in human history, it seems to me that He would subsequently see to it that the report of the events - the resurrection part in particular - would be coherent and consistent. Yet what we have is multiple accounts of the events that can't be reconciled with one another.
I'd be interested to know how you personally account for these things, but if you don't want to bother explaining, that's OK.
I've heard and read some of the apologetic explanations of Biblical vagaries, and coupled with all the other things that make belief impossible for me, those explanations just don't persuade.

However, I would like to ask you this: If the God you envision was the great creative force in the universe, wouldn't he have either "made" or at minimum "allowed" evolution to take place? If he was the "great creative force in the universe," he could have used other means, no? And he could have even made mathematics function differently, too, no?
I guess at bottom, I'm still trying to figure out what sort of deity it is in which you actually believe, as you put it once, is consistent with evidence and rationality.

Last, is there a difference between grifters and derivatives traders? I thought they were the same.

[Brad]

I finally got to hear the new episode today while on the road in my car.
At least three things about this podcast with Wonders caused me to think again of an article I’ve linked here on the forum a couple of times before. The article is actually a transcript of a talk I heard the author give very movingly in person several years ago.

1) Wonders mentioned the beauty we perceive in nature in the autumn as at least partially cementing his belief in a supernatural deity, who in his view must be responsible. Fritz Williams, the author of this article had essentially an exactly opposite, yet quite wonderful, epiphany about fall leaves – those on the ground.
The point he makes also echoes what Angela said on the first page of this thread.

2) Wonders mentions several times that he considers himself a humanist. Mr. Williams was long a leader in the Ethical Culture Society, which is a group of folk who consider themselves also “religious humanists.” I think the definition that Wonders likes and the definition used in Eth Culture (and also by secular humanists) are actually quite similar.

3) Most importantly, the podcast episode was titled, “Cardinal Virtues.” To me the cardinal virtue for an individual human being, before one even considers relationships with other beings and the exterior world, is a sincere and vigorous effort to be honest with oneself. Honesty with oneself, the willingness to look inwardly, and into mirrors, and also at the best evidence about where we truly stand relative to the outside world, and then to let the chips fall where they may, so to speak, takes great courage.
Wonders seems to be of the view that courage is somehow a consequence or benefit of god belief. I don’t suppose it would surprise anyone here that I have a contrasting view. In any event, I certainly think that the courage of self-honesty is often a hallmark of former believers – like, say, Mr. Williams and Emery and some of the other folk that populate this forum.

Here’s the article linky.

Finallly, as a note to Emery and Scott (pardon if I’ve suggested this before – seems like I have), Fritz Williams would be a tremendous guest on the podcast if he’s available. I’m sure he could be reached through the Baltimore Ethical Society.
And if not, I’m inspired, you might say, by the example of Wonders, and I hereby volunteer to offer my nickel’s worth on the podcast from the side of non-belief. I’ll even appear in drag if that would help.

And by the way, Wonders, I scribbled some notes as I drove and listened – not a great idea. (Amazingly, my car and road-side fences / livestock are all still intact.) I hope to write a direct response to you within the next couple of days, for whatever that might be worth.

[Pseudonym]

Thanks as always for your thorough reply. (By the way, maybe you or someone else could send me a pm and 'splain to me how to break up a post into various little quotes for response like everyone does here? For some reason, I can't make that work.)

You're welcome.

Breaking quotes is easy. You just duplicate the quote marks. So this:

Code: Select all

[quote="Foo"]Quote 1[/quote]
[quote="Bar"]Quote 2[/quote]

Looks like this:

Quote 1

Quote 2

To continue...

I get your point that you think comparing science to religious faith is apples and oranges. Quite so, but I was simply commenting on my own experience of awe, wonder, and mystery, and how those feelings are far better stimulated - for me - by learning about the things revealed by science than by concentrating upon or imagining the sort of deity (or any other character) posited in the Bible.

That's not how I see the Bible, obviously. The Bible doesn't postulate a deity, it was written by people who were (or, if it helps you, believed they were) inspired by that deity. I don't think that the Bible actually counts as evidence of anything in and of itself.

For my part, if the same entity/deity who was the creative force behind the universe also inspired the writers of the Bible, I think there would be a single, consistent picture of God within the Bible's pages.

I think that this conclusion depends on a lot of assumptions, including what you mean by "creation" and "inspiration". As Walt Disney famously noted, if you get four artists to paint the same object, you get four completely different paintings, because each artist sees something different.

However, I would like to ask you this: If the God you envision was the great creative force in the universe, wouldn't he have either "made" or at minimum "allowed" evolution to take place? If he was the "great creative force in the universe," he could have used other means, no?

One of the most important ideas behind 20th Century Protestant theology is that God is what God does. It's possible to ask "what could God possibly do", but in the end, what we have to go on is what God does do.

If you assume that God exists, then you have the inevitable conclusion that God exists, and that evolution took place (and, of course, continues to take place). It may be theoretically possible for something else to have happened instead, but that's what did happen.

And he could have even made mathematics function differently, too, no?

As for that, I don't see how. Phil Wadler pointed out that when it comes to logic and mathematics, the word "universal" is too limiting. We can imagine a universe where energy wasn't conserved, or the speed of light was different, but we can't even begin to imagine one where 1+1 does not equal 2 (given an appropriate notation in which to express that).

I guess what you could have is a universe where mathematics isn't a good model for the laws of nature. The details are left as an exercise to the reader.

[humanguy]

The idea requires the assumption that there is another realm besides the physical one.

Do you require the assumption that there is nothing but physical forms of energy?

There is no objective evidence for spiritual forms of energy because that is impossible. And yet people all over the world believe in a spiritual aspect to reality -- many of them believe so with far more conviction than anything in science. That is not possible for me, but I do see reason to judge that there is a subjective aspect to reality whether there can be any objective evidence for it or not.

A subjective aspect to reality whether there can be any objective evidence for it or not. Okay. Then who's to say thay my special god that nobody knows about isn't the real god, and the god you worship is just a made-up fantasy?

[Rian]

Brad - also hit "quote" for someone's post that you want to look at how they did the quotes - you'll see how they did it, plus there will be an open quote at the very beginning and a close quote at the end for YOUR quoting of their post.

ps - Angela, Pseudo and humanguy - have you thought of getting avatars? I really enjoy the diversity of people's avatars, and they make people's posts a lot easier to spot! If you need help, there are plenty of people here who can help you.

[mitchellmckain]

Then who's to say thay my special god that nobody knows about isn't the real god, and the god you worship is just a made-up fantasy?

Well I know that the God that I talk about is not a made up fantasy and you know whether the god you talk about is a made up fantasy. I really don't care what you think about the God I believe in and if you want to make up some fantasy god to talk about and/or fantasies about other people and their beliefs, then knock yourself out. Hope that works well for you there.

[Angela]

But I don't see that introducing God into the matter illuminates anything.

Ah ha! And there we see the crux of the problem on this issue. Your bad associations. For you the word "faith" is inevitably linked to the religion in which you were raised. There was no religion in which I was raised and my understanding of the word "faith" preceeds my understanding of the word "God" and so the meaning of the word faith in my mind has NOTHING a-priori to do with God. I in fact believe that ALL knowledge is based on faith -- and necessarily so because nearly nothing outside of mathematics can be proven. Therefore, for me to say that the assertion "Life is worth living" is a matter of faith, has nothing to do with God. It is only after that, when I sought a meaning for the word God that I found it in an equivalence between a faith that life is worth living and a faith in God. But oh well, I frankly don't think that is going to make any sense to you because the meanings you have for the words "faith" and "God" just are not reconcilable with mine.

MY GOD Mitchell, Did I not just demonstrate the very passage you are responding to here that I understand the meaning of faith outside of religion??? Your paragraph above makes COMPLETE sense to me. For the most part, I was already THERE. I am beginning to think you aren't even READING what I write, rather you are just skimming it and coming up with quick superficial comebacks. The rest of your post shows similar signs of non-engagement. In case you would like to READ what I wrote, I'll quote it here:

I'm sorry, I don't find your analogy helpful. But anyway I didn't and wouldn't argue that faith is not ever involvedin the belief that life is worthwhile (I am certain that it is), just that it needn't be involved. Faith has nothing to do with my belief that my life is worthwhile, and from my observations I don't think I am unique in this. Really for me I wouldn't describe it as belief exactly. I experience meaning in my life.

Yes, I agree about experiences affecting our beliefs. Interestingly, I too have a sister who has attempted suicide. She's struggled since adolescence with depression and bi-polar type issues, and is doing well at the moment. Thinking of her (funny how the closer things are to you, the more real they seem), I can see where at certain times in peoples' lives (some lives more than others), something you might call faith would be needed to believe that life is meaningful and worth living. For me I think it would be faith in myself, or faith that the future will be better than the present. And for many, it would be their faith in God. I guess the difference in my perspective and yours is that I think what these people are actually having faith in would be the same as me, faith in themselves or in the future; whereas you would say my faith is really in God? In any event, I recognize that it is a decision, a choice to believe, to have faith, not a belief based on reason. Optimism is a kind of faith, I suppose, and I consider myself an optimist. But I don't see that introducing God into the matter illuminates anything.

And I wasn't actually "raised Christian." My dad was brought up Catholic and wanted nothing to do with any of it, and my mom had spiritual leanings which were expressed in varying ways as I grew up. There were some brief periods in my childhood when we attended church (and I was in a private Christian school for a couple of years), so I was certainly exposed to Christianity, but not at all raised in it. Like you, I came to it on my own (the work of C.S. Lewis played a part), just at a younger age than you did (15).

As for the meaning I have for the word God being irreconcilable with yours, that is ridiculous. First of all, I don't have "a meaning" for God. Not believing that any particular God exists, my understanding of the term is quite flexible. My understanding of what you mean by God is growing as I read what you write. I have faith (lol) that I am capable of comprehending your definition of God, because you are good at communicating about it and I am good at understanding theological ideas. Also because I'm an optimist.

I see that you post quite prolifically here. Perhaps you should limit the discussions you participate in to those to which you can devote enough time to do them justice.

p.s. sorry for the CAPS, but I'm hoping they might help you PAY ATTENTION, which I don't think you have been doing that much of.

p.s.s. See, probably my most important reason for engaging in discussion with you is that I think I might learn something in the process (and I've already learned a few things). I find your ideas intriguing. I am noticing you don't seem to have any such notion that you might learn anything from me. Which is unfortunate, mostly for you, but also for me, because I imagine it contributes to your lack of authentic engagement with my ideas, which limits what I can learn from you.

p.s.s.s. Now please go back to the top and read this entire post again, thoughtfully, before responding. If you aren't willing to do that, let me know, and we can end our discussion here, no hard feelings. I imagine we both have other things we could be spending our time on.

[wondersforoyarsa]

Hi Angela,

As to your summary of me - well, real life is never that simple. I don't think that the "God of the gaps" mentality was ever the center of my faith, but it was the bulwark against the challenges of secularism. The examples I gave were touchstones for me, but if the experiences don't help communicate the general idea, I'm fine to drop them. The contrast was with, on the one hand, a group of people attributing every little explainable bit of emotion they had to the supernatural and the whole thing looking terribly contrived and fake and self-deceiving, and then on the other hand the world itself being totally reductionalistically explainable and yet full of meaning and beauty. Maybe I'm continuing to communicate badly, but it's a matter of God being in the gaps verses God being all in all.

The point of my story that I'm trying to feebly make here, is that I went from a dualistic faith to an integrated one; from a fearful faith terrified of closing gaps to a courageous faith constantly willing to embrace my doubts. For me, trusting my doubts has led me to a deeper and more historic faith, rather than away from it.

You can take this discussion wherever seems most interesting to you.

[wondersforoyarsa]

Wonders mentioned the beauty we perceive in nature in the autumn as at least partially cementing his belief in a supernatural deity, who in his view must be responsible.

Brad, you've simply got to stop looking at it this way, or you aren't going to understand what I'm trying to communicate. This is talking about "Guy" rather than "Love". It is so not about a "diety" who must be "responsible". It's about what it means for there to be intrinsic meaning in the universe.

[Brad]

If you assume that God exists, then you have the inevitable conclusion that God exists...

Well, this is the nub of just about everything asserted by lay believers, all of apologetics, and theologians of all stripes.

It's also why, respectfully, Pseudonym, I don't think it's really possible to have a deity belief of any sort that truly comports with evidence and reason. You have to make the deity existence assumption up front and then whittle all the pegs of life to fit the shape of that comforting god hole. Someone with your knowledge and education has to compartmentalize the god belief and treat it differently from the way you evaluate all other phenomena, then deny - even to yourself - that this is taking place in order to hold the dissonance together.

I'm just being honest here, and I apologize if my remarks infuriate you. If I didn't know you're a particularly intelligent fellow, I'd either add some sugar-coating or not write at all.

I know how strongly you identify with the tenets of science and with the scientific method, and for all I know you're the Francis Collins of the Southern Hemisphere.
But if one starts not from an assumption or need to conclude that God exists, but instead from a position of true neutrality and a scientific willingness to have your conclusions tested and falsified, I have to agree not with you or, say, Collins, but with Dawkins and Einstein and Steven Weinberg and the majority of other elite scientists throughout the world that the notion of a creator god is a human invention.

In this particular regard, I think fundamentalists are actually more honest than "liberal" believers. Fundamentalists generally (there are always shades and exceptions) say that their faith is based on well, faith, and they reject outright the need to justify their faith with the "human constructs" of evidence and reason. But then, comically, ala Turek, they like to call evidence and reason "subjective" because they're communicated by humans, and their god-beliefs "objective" because they say there is a God, period. The Bible say so!
Of course, that's entirely nonsensical or circular at best. It's the sort of thing I call "the shell game of belief."

By the way, thanks very much (and to you, Rian) for the tips on how to use the quote framework. No doubt I'll be using that technique in the near future.

[Brad]

Wonders mentioned the beauty we perceive in nature in the autumn as at least partially cementing his belief in a supernatural deity, who in his view must be responsible.

Brad, you've simply got to stop looking at it this way, or you aren't going to understand what I'm trying to communicate. This is talking about "Guy" rather than "Love". It is so not about a "diety" who must be "responsible". It's about what it means for there to be intrinsic meaning in the universe.

Well, Wonders, I'm not so sure about that. In the podcast you discussed your belief in a Creator God with Emery.
Wouldn't a Creator God, surely a specific sort of being with intentions and powers to make things happen, be more along the lines of Guy rather than something so amorphous as "love" or "intrinsic meaning?

Or do you think you can have it both ways?

By the way, I hope to write about the podcast more fully tonight. I did appreciate your forthrightness and sincerity in the program.

(OOOHHHH ! I think I'm learning from Emery and Angela. Doesn't what I just wrote sound sorta like how they would speak?)

[wondersforoyarsa]

Well, Wonders, I'm not so sure about that. In the podcast you discussed your belief in a Creator God with Emery.
Wouldn't a Creator God, surely a specific sort of being with intentions and powers to make things happen, be more along the lines of Guy rather than something so amorphous as "love" or "intrinsic meaning?

Or do you think you can have it both ways?

Of course I can have it both ways.

Thinking of God as a being with intentions and powers to make things happen can be a dangerous anthropomorphism. Obviously the scriptures speak of God in this way, and I don't deny that we need to do this at times to gain some important insights - especially because of the imago dei and the incarnation. But ultimately we need to realize that such metaphors for God are only that, and aren't particularly helpful when taken as photographs rather than icon - definitions rather than metaphor.

I welcome your comments of course, but I'd like the satisfaction of a discussion that really does engage my points, rather than responding to a misunderstanding. Discussing God isn't something to be done trivially. We are talking about the nature of being and existence itself, not just another object we can categorize alongside other objects.

[Angela]

To me the cardinal virtue for an individual human being, before one even considers relationships with other beings and the exterior world, is a sincere and vigorous effort to be honest with oneself. Honesty with oneself, the willingness to look inwardly, and into mirrors, and also at the best evidence about where we truly stand relative to the outside world, and then to let the chips fall where they may, so to speak, takes great courage.
Wonders seems to be of the view that courage is somehow a consequence or benefit of god belief. I don’t suppose it would surprise anyone here that I have a contrasting view. In any event, I certainly think that the courage of self-honesty is often a hallmark of former believers – like, say, Mr. Williams and Emery and some of the other folk that populate this forum.

Here’s the article linky.

Brad, I agree with you that honesty with oneself may be the primary virtue. So much of the evil we do is rooted in attempts to fend off the hard truths about ourselves.

Thanks so much for the link. It's a wonderful essay. I can relate personally to so much of his experience. Williams says:

Having faced the pain of unbelief, I began to experience new feelings of liberation and joy. I read books and articles in science, philosophy, and psychology I had only pretended to read before. Suddenly they were filled with excitement and meaning. I entered into conversations that had not been possible when I was so sure I understood what life was all about. The pain and loss I'd gone through led to surprising growth and joy.

This excerpt expresses part of what I wanted to say to Wonders about the "more" I found after leaving Christianity, but couldn't think how to say it. The whole world, in all its beauty and ugliness was opened up to me. Nothing was "off limits." I could have real relationships with people with whom previously there had always been a distance. It really is hard to explain.

I would love to hear Fritz Williams on the podcast.

[wondersforoyarsa]

This excerpt expresses part of what I wanted to say to Wonders about the "more" I found after leaving Christianity, but couldn't think how to say it. The whole world, in all its beauty and ugliness was opened up to me. Nothing was "off limits." I could have real relationships with people with whom previously there had always been a distance. It really is hard to explain.

I would love to hear Fritz Williams on the podcast.

I can certainly accept this - for the transition seems to be one of fear and self deception toward one of honesty and openness to reality. In my experience, the Christian faith at its best enables a person to engage more fully with people and the world, such that these things are free to be what they are. But if someone is trapped in a suffocating and truncated form of Christianity that brainwashes rather than cultivates wisdom, surely the atheist has gone nearer and not farther from truth in abandoning it.

Of course, your experience was less black-and-white than that, but still...

[Brad]

... I always have to ask what's wrong with sex being just a fun thing that consenting adults engage in?

Humanguy,
Given recent discussion, I'm glad you identify as humanguy rather than just "GUY."
The simpler designation might have created confusion.

Your remark above stuck in my mind however since I read it last night, and here's my dos pesos on what's wrong with sex being "just" as you describe. Of course, sometimes sex can be, and is, nothing more than fun between consenting adults.

BUT:
Human sexuality and sexual behavior is way, way, too important in our lives (even when it isn't engaged in with procreation in mind and/or loins) and way, way, too powerful, physically, emotionally, and psychologically, and way, way, too potentially dangerous in the same three ways, for it to be characterized or described in general as mere fun or entertainment.

And even when "fun between consenting adults" is the basic idea - I'm in my fifties so I'm happy to report that I have my share of experience with this - you'd agree, wouldn't you, that it's a hell of lot more fun if the adults in question care deeply about each other above the waist, too?

On the other hand, I was right with Robin Williams when he said, "Intelligent Design? The waste treatment plant is next door to the recreation center! You call that Intelligent Design?"


P.S. - Wonders, I'll be back with you later, my friend.