This morning's Inside Higher Ed reports thatSouthwestern Community College, in Iowa, has reached a settlement with Steve Bitterman [I'm sure he's a man; do you suppose he's bitter, too?], an adjunct who lost his job after he offended some students by stating that the Bible is not literally true. The Des Moines Register reported that Bitterman is no longer teaching at the college and that details of the settlement have not been released.I guess this means that, according to Southwestern Community College, the Bible IS literally true.
My own view is that anyone who reads this troubled collection of writings as (always) intending to describe the "literal" truth has an implausible and outlandish theory. I mean, how plausible is it to suppose that everything that appears in the Bible is tacitly prefaced (by it's author[s]) with: "OK, I know this sounds unbelievable, but here's exactly what happened. No bullshit. You shoulda been there!"?
So they are obliged to justify their startling theory. Good luck. And I mean that.
It is possible, of course, that all of the Bible's statements not only are intended as the literal truth—they are the literal truth. —Well, not quite, since, notoriously, the "statements" and implied assumptions of the B appear to contradict each other, and, as you know, Logic is really down on contradictions. If there's one thing that philosophers and logicians agree on, it's that S can't be both T and F. That's because philosophers and logicians are not STUPID PEOPLE.But leaving aside the Bible's apparent contradictory ideas (good luck defending that move), the alleged "statements of fact" of the Bible could be true. But they could be true only if some of our most central and warranted beliefs about the world (based on careful observation, etc.) are false. (Think of the reasons that we believe that the Earth is billions of years old.) So, if "the Bible is literally true" were a theory, it would be one that fails to be "conservative," as some scientists might put it. That is, the theory fails to have the important theoretical virtue of comporting with what is well-established in our experience.
That's the big problem with the theory behind homeopathic medicine, too. According to H theory, when you dilute an active homeopathic medicinal substance (say, cat urine), it becomes more effective. (Indeed, homeopaths routinely dilute to the point that not one molecule of the original urine is left—and they acknowledge this.)
As I often tell my students, the problem with that is that everything in our experience tells us the opposite. Take consuming alcohol from, say, a huge stein. The more the alcohol in your stein, the more effect it will have on you when you empty it into your body, from incipient buzzage all the way to death. (Students always laugh when I say ""from buzzage to death." Not sure why.) So when homeopaths come along and tell us that their Cat Urine medicine (OK, I just made up that example) is very powerful because it was diluted—well, what are we supposed to make of all of our experiences—with beer, and aspirin, and everything else—to the contrary?Bible literalists and homeopaths are bold theorists. "That's OK," they say. "Contrary to appearances, beer has its greatest impact when its alcohol is diluted down to nothing."
Oh. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, OK, maybe they don't say that. But then what will they say? Maybe: "OK, I admit it, this doesn't add up. But that's OK. When a set of beliefs don't hang together, what you need to do is just go with it. Well, no, that would be irrational, so we don't recommend that for most things. We just recommend it for this case. In fact, we insist on it; we demand that you suspend your rational standards exactly and only here."
Wow. That's some pitch. Tell me how that isn't the pitch. If it is the pitch, then it's crap, and we need to walk away. If it isn't, then enlighten me. How is this supposed to go exactly? I'm waiting.
(Listen, like Fox Mulder, I want to believe. But you've got to give me a reason. You've got to make sense. Please start making sense.)
Penn and Teller's (typically irreverent and sometimes sloppy but way fun) approach to "contradictions in the Bible":
My quickie critique:
• Well, the video is entertaining.
• I'm not sure if P & T described this video as being specifically about "contradictions" in the Bible. (See "The Bible: Fact Or Fiction?") If so, they're a bit confused, since they only discuss one contradiction, namely, the distinctly different versions of the Adam & Eve story in Genesis. P & T are really discussing other kinds of problems with the Bible than "contradiction." Contradiction is when you say S and then you say or imply "not-S."
• Some of the rest of the video zeroes in on things the Bible says that seem to be false or absurd. If something is false or absurd, it is not ipso facto "contradictory." Get it right. (The belief that "I am tormented by a green pumpkin" is absurd, but it is not contradictory. "I am tormented by a married bachelor" is both absurd and contradictory.)
• As P & T point out, there's no evidence for many of the events described in the Bible (the 40 years in the wilderness, the Resurrection, etc.). But, of course, that doesn't demonstrate the falsity of these stories. It only demonstrates that, as things stand, there's no reason to believe these stories. P & T should be more careful. On the other hand, if there's no reason to believe a story, why believe it? Belief-wise, doncha wanna do better than Shirley MacLaine? I sure hope so.
• Naturally, there is evidence for the falsity of some Biblical stories, e.g., the world-wide flood. If it occurred, then there should be evidence of its occurrence; there isn't any. So, probably, it didn't happen. (Same for Bigfoot. How come no bones? How come no scat? How come no nothin'? Thus, probably, no Bigfoot.)
• Respected skeptic Michael Shermer is interviewed, noting that "messiah" stories were pretty common at the time of the rise of Christianity. I suppose the point is that there's no reason to take the Christian messiah story any more seriously than any of the other messiah stories. Nobody, including the Christian Believer, has a reason to take all of them seriously. So he has no reason to take the Christian yarn seriously. (Again, we are given a reason to suppose that a story ought not to be believed, not a reason suppose that the story is false. Of course, an embrace of simple physics & biology is enough to give us the latter sort of reason with regard to some aspects of these stories—e.g., someone's coming to life after have been dead for some time.)
• P & T make a good point: some defenders of the Bible explain away stories by reinterpreting them as non-miracles. A believer might consistently take that tack in responding to critics/skeptics, but, if he does, hasn't he abandoned the supernatural in favor of a naturalistic story of how things went? Yawn.
• Less colorful approaches to "contradictions" and absurdities in the Bible are available. I've been meaning to read Baggini's Atheism: a Very Short Introduction. Is that good? The American Humanist Association offers this, a list of alleged contradictions and inconsistencies.
* * * * *
• Some Believers make a big point of "demonstrating" that the events described in the Bible — the opening of the sea, the Egyptian plagues, etc. — could have occurred. If by this they mean that the events are consistent with science, then they run the risk mentioned above (reinterpreting religious belief as naturalistic—and thus as non-supernatural—belief). But there's another problem: that something could have occurred is not an argument that it did occur. As I often tell my students, it is just barely possible that I am the Weasel King of the universe. (It is conceivable.) But only a lunatic would infer that I am in fact the Weasel King of the universe. Possibility does not imply actuality. Yes, on some interpretations of this word, there could be a God. It is conceivable. (I guess I'd have to say, too, that I hope it's true.) But it would be absurd to infer from this that such a being exists. And if one were to draw this inference, to be consistent, they'd have to acknowledge the existence of other "possible" Gods, including my Weasel King. BTW: I, the Weasel King, command you to send me all of your worldly possessions.
• The above point reminds me of a limitation of common responses to the "problem of evil" (these are usually called "theodicies"). Many theists struggle to show that the existence of the evils of this world could be consistent with the existence of a perfect and perfectly good God. Maybe they can succeed in this.
.....But the crucial question is: what is the most reasonable belief—that God exists or that God does not exist? The former sort of theodicy never seems to prevent the answer: "Well, sure, God could exist. But, given the existence of Dick Cheney (etc.), it's as unlikely as hell. It is more reasonable to deny the existence of God than to affirm the existence of God."
.....But seriously, folks, we can maybe understand how God might allow Cain to suffer some misfortune as a consequence of Abel's free will; but how are we to understand a good Creator's allowing thousands or tens of thousands to perish or suffer just so Mean Murray can be free?
.....This picture strains for coherence. On the other hand, the picture of a world with Mean Murrays and no God doesn't strain at all. It offers no puzzles, no incoherences. So you've got to go with picture #2.
.....And I guess that's why God made atheists.
25 comments:
Why are the christians so easily offended, and want people fired and sued?
What happened to the little Chad fellow who hated thinking in his history class?
And I wonder how many of them eat shrimp, crab, lobster, or bacon and sequester their wives and daughters when they're menstruating.
--100 miles down the road
I brought up some of the points you are making a few years ago with my workmates. One of them just shook his head and told me "you're going to hell".
See ya there Chunk!
If i recall it is the atheists that are easily offended and keep hounding the board to change the prayer policy.
See ya in pergatory chunk
at least i'm giving you a chance
lol
"Why are the Christians so easily offended, and want people fired and sued?"
They are told that "the B" has all the answers, they go through life surrounded by people who love them, and tell them all things will be forgiven so long as they are good little creatures. So, they develop this ego that never gets challenged. Then, someone comes up and says "nope." Next thing you know, they are kicking and screaming because they have the emotional development of a 12 year old.
It's evident that a belief in god has to do with several factors. It's probably not right for me to just say "Oh, the whole lot is just emotionally underdeveloped!" But as Chunk has said, it seems that all of them have this idea that Truth is relative, or even not important. As a young person in Orange County, almost all of my friends are "believers." However, they aren't really religious. They just "have" a religion for the sake of having one. It's sort of a social badge; Facebook/MySpace, Twitter, a blog, and religion. I'm not even sure they've been to church before.
So, I have two now: emotionally undeveloped, and social status.
Regarding the emotionally undeveloped thing: I am under the impression that if a person grows up never having to explain their beliefs because they are unchallenged, the parts of the brain that teach them to deal with dispute go undeveloped. And depending on how highly you regard it, you may become quite belligerent when you your ideas are challenged because it is perceived as a very stressful thing. If this isn't right, then someone correct me already!
5:08:
Yeah? Not this atheist.
By the way: there is no "prayer" policy. There is merely the legal "fact" that, in engaging in public prayer, the trustees do not violate the Constitution. There's no prohibition against lying or belching either. So what?
You're giving me a chance? To do what? Relative to what? You write like a freshman. Make sense, man!
Are you God? That would explain a lot. Sure hope so. Could you please appear as a column of smoke in my refrigerator right now? Please? I'll go check right now.
My hopes are not high. Still, I will go check.
You people are fucked up!
5:32
Nice "argument." Now go away.
The chance to comment on these issues is really an answer to prayer!
To 100 Miles Down the Road at 4:15: Check _Acts_ (fifth book of the New Testament) Chapter 15, for an account of the Council of Jerusalem, in which the first church leaders decided not to require that new, non-Jewish converts keep the whole Jewish law. (Unless you weren't serious and just blowing off anti-religious steam.)
To Torabora:
Check out _Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions_ by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. In that book, the author, who is now the Pope, says that he doesn't know who in the world will be saved and who won't be. You and I probably don't know either. With all due respect to the religious hillbillies at your workplace, they probably don't either. You needn't take them as the best representatives of their tradition.
To 5:08: Any of us will be glad if we get into Purgatory. Remember that according to church dogma, everyone who goes to Purgatory will eventually make it into Heaven. Such souls just need to be purged (Purgatory--place where we are purged) of whatever makes us unworthy to come into God's presence, which for some of us will be quite a lot. But those of us who die as hard-core enemies of God will not even make it to Purgatory.
To Bohrstein: How easily offended can Christians be if they--en masse--tolerate artistic expressions like "Piss Christ" and see the Blessed Virgin shown covered with dung? Yeah, some complained, but that was about it. For comparison, try exhibiting a work called "Piss Muhammad" or "Qur'an in Dung" and see what happens. (Don't really do that. Just think about it to see the point.)
Your other views (about emotional immaturity and social status) seem to be ad hominem. I suggest Alvin Plantiga's _Warranted Christian Belief_, the sections on "the Freud and Marx" complaint, where he discusses views like yours.
To Chunk: I appreciate your somewhat reluctant remark that you hope that there is a God. Me too. You stand in contrast to a lot of other atheists in that regard. Christopher Hitchens, in his _God is Not Great_, makes it clear that he would hate for there to be a God. I do hope (and trust) that you will remain open to further considerations in favor of religious belief. Maybe you could read that new Antony Flew book and tell us what you think. Why do I presume to recommend something to read to you? Because Flew--or almost any intelligent theist--may be a more worthy interlocutor for you than some biblical literalist who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
Jesus said, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
He might say the same to you and us, the readers of DtB. But he wouldn't mean it literally.
"Your other views (about emotional immaturity and social status) seem to be ad hominem."
Honestly, I wasn't trying to attack them. I seriously mean it as a method of explanation! The question is "Why are they so easily offended?" My response "They are emotionally immature."
How easily offended can Christians be if they--en masse--tolerate artistic expressions like "Piss Christ" and see the Blessed Virgin shown covered with dung?
Easy... They're so immature they are immediately distracted and begin laughing at the words "piss christ", or the word "dung." Or maybe that's just me. But I suppose you might have a point... I mean, what other group has been as tolerant as the Christians? The Christians only have a crusade or two under their belts, and currently have their hand in the cookie jar that is anti-same-sex-marriage. Not to mention various advocates of ID and lately this "hubub" of firing a teacher for stating a reasonable assessment of a freakin' book.
But yeah, I suppose "piss christ" is definitely a worthy cherry for the bucket.
Thanks for a thoughtful, non-name-calling response, 8:03.
But if the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--is the absolute truth, the revealed word of God, how do you choose between contradictory passages? How can anyone claim that God really didn't mean THIS part, He meant THAT part?
What bothers me most about so-called Christian fundamentalists is that one third of the parables and one sixth of all the words Jesus is recorded to hav uttered have to do with our treatment of the poor, the distribution of wealth, and of the danger of wealth to our souls. Yet we dont hear the biblical literalists talking about that.
Sorry to take up your blog space, Chunk, but you started it.
--100 miles
100,
Yes, neglect of the poor can even be what Catholics call a "mortal sin." For Christians, the poor are Christ in disguise, so we indeed had better help them.
When you remind Christians of their obligation to the poor, or their hypocrisy, or any good thing that we are failing to do, or of any wrong we have done, or are doing, you motivate us to live up to our own standards. Such criticism is usually not easy to receive, but is still most welcome.
On the other hand, if the church had been perfect in the past or were perfect today, there wouldn't be any place in it for the likes of you or me. If you think the church is full of fools and hypocrites, you are quite correct, but there is always room for one more. Come on in.
As for "contradictions in the Bible," reconciling all the various passages of the Bible is the concern of Biblical Theology, a large and serious academic field. Thousands of scholars have studied deeply and written insightfully about those issues for about two thousand years. It's not as if Christians have never realized that there are problems, or have never thought about how to make sense of all of the biblical material. It's a little too simple to say, "Says this here, but this other thing there. Bible is stupid." (Not that anyone on this blog did just that today.)
Is it bad form to post long comments on Chunk's blog? If so, sorry. I can also repent of boorishness.
Keep in mind, friends, that my post discussed Bible literalists, not Christians or theists in general. Much of what I wrote does not apply to mainstream Christians that I know, though some of it does.
I think psychologizing theists (or atheists) is rhetorically counter-productive (even if it contains truth, which is always so hard to tell, isn't it?). Such points will always be taken as an ad hominem, a cheap shot, even when they aren't. So, especially since such theories are bound to paint with to broad a brush, I'd stay away from that territory. Share your psychological insights about theists with your dog, but look at him always with the aid of a mirror. (Dog backwards is...)
I haven't read Flew's "new" book, but I am familiar with his career, and I've read reviews. It seems clear that he's become addled in his old age. (For what it's worth, that seems to be the consensus among philosophers who've followed Flew's odd case.) Honestly, his deistic points and arguments--which seem to be authored more by his new Svengali than by him--are very inferior, philosophically, which is sad, given the man's reputation.
Philosophers are about theistic arguments like scientists are about "alternative" medicine: if something works, then they embrace it, and it ceases to be "alternative." Unfortunately, theistic innovations seem not to have improved, although broader deistic ideas seem interesting.
Re the tolerance of Christians: you (8:03) forget that Christians in this country are the majority, as they have been from the beginning. It's easy to "tolerate" a minority opinion when you are secure in knowing that your outlook is the standard, the norm.
Given their position as the majority--whose views are institutionalized in so much of our public lives--I think you'd have to give the Christian community low marks in tolerance. That shouldn't surprise us, given the marked intolerance of the "first Americans"--the Calvanistic Puritans, et al.
Many evangelicals tolerate "Piss Christ" and the like because they are unaware of such works, which do not impinge on their daily lives. I do know some tolerant theists (including Christians). But I also know many intolerant theists. Too many.
I encountered Alvin Plantinga in college and in grad school (I think he gave a colloquium). He does all right, given what little he has to work with, but his work, which essentially applies contemporary logic to Phil. of Religion, is not regarded as having broken any new ground (although I have not kept up with his career in recent years). I will look up the book that one of you mentioned, which I have not read.
8:03, surely you can see how odd it is for you to offer "scripture." It is, at the very least, question-begging. Using it, you reveal how unconscious you are of your comfortable "majority" perspective. --But now I'm psychologizing, I guess.
Thanks Chunk. I'll have to think about this for awhile, since it is something I find myself doing often. Habit!
Though, it is unusually satisfying...
I suppose that in the future I will keep it simple: argumentum ad argumentum!
One more thing though, what's up with some people being so self-concious of the long posts? I think I've even been ridiculed for sharing my own thoughts in long posts... I thought that is what a comment was? It's not like each of us is posting about some unrelated topic (However, Jupiter is looking mighty swell this evening).
You people are really fucked up!
OK, 6:05, when mom gets home have her take you out to McDonald's and get a hapy meal, then it's time for a nap.
Chunk, what say you about Lee Strobel's "The Case For..." books, namely, Creator and Christ? He seems to be pretty popular right now. What are your kind (work, not [non]beliefs) saying about this guy?
Chunk:
I am a faithful DtB reader and Christian who attempts to honestly grapple with the very issues you and others have raised in this thread. I just want to thank you for the shift I have perceived over the last few months on this blog away from just mocking the absurdities of the SOCCCD (admittedly a target rich environment) toward more substantive issues.
I enjoy thinking (not necessarily a common trait among my brethren) and I enjoy reading the words of thoughtful people - even when I don't agree with them.
God Bless!
I'll take any blessing I can get.
There is no right length for comments. Naturally, one should avoid such vices as deliberate (as opposed to foreseeable) offensiveness, self-indulgence, hogging cyberspace, gratuitous vulgarity, etc.
I do try to avoid such vices, but I've failed here and there (self-indulgence, maybe). So I don't expect everybody to get it right every time.
Speaking for myself, I always respond to good faith--i.e., sincerity and a willingness to attend to what others are saying, a certain openness to argument. I honestly don't care what somebody's position is, as long as they're in good faith.
I've not read Lee Strobel's work--indeed, I had never heard of him until Arellano wrote about him. If he's a journalist, it is unlikely that I would have been directed to his work by any academics, including philosophers, religious studies people, et al.
But I will look him up and get back to "you."
I perused what Amazon reveals of Lee Strobel's works, and I viewed a brief video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVD5-fF_VmA
I do not doubt that Strobel is sincere and, for all that I know, he is a fine writer. But he is a popular writer, and he approaches issues regarding God and religion in a manner that could be justified (I suppose) at a meeting at church, but that would never be taken seriously by philosophers.
One of his books devotes a brief chapter to, essentially, the problem of evil. I spend a week or two on that problem in my intro classes, and, as I tell students, we can only introduce the fundamental issues in that time, not settle them. I cannot imagine any treatment of that subject that touches on even the basics that could be that short.
In the video, Strobel offers a vague version of the "free will theodicy," without indicating that great difficulty that that theodicy encounters.
I recall reading Richard Swinburne's treatment of this subject: it, too, struck me as somewhat superficial, but at least he recognized the difficulties with each theodicy, including the free will theodicy.
Swinburne, as I recall, quite rightly acknowledges that the theodicy can at best reveal that it is possible that the great moral evils of this world can be reconciled with the existence of a good (and omnipotent and omniscient) God. He acknowledges that this will likely be unsatisfactory to an objective judge who is not also a theist.
This is how philosophers discuss the problem of evil. I think it is clear that Mr. Strobel has no clue of such problems and intricacies. There's no reason why he would, given his background.
That's not to say that his books are bad. But it seems clear that they do not deal with the real challenges to theism that any decently trained philosopher could easily rattle off. For that, one needs to read the likes of Swinburne, Plantinga (we touched on him earlier), Robert Adams, et al.
From a philosopher's perspective, one isn't really dealing with these issues until, for instance, one can understand the issues covered in, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phlosophy's entry:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
This raises an interesting problem. How can it be that one must master philosophical analysis and logic (including modal logic, etc.) in order to work through the problem of evil--a problem at the heart of the God question?
Let's put it simply, albeit crudely: how can it be that one must be very smart and highly trained in order to participate in this discussion? Where does that leave ordinary people who are either not very smart or not well-trained? How can it be that most people can never really grapple with this issue where the rubber meets the road?
Everyone has limitations, including intellectual limitations. I often look at myself, note my limitations, and then marvel (and despair) at the brute fact that I simply cannot achieve an understanding of certain pressing and apparently complex issues that some others can?
I think: "I'm smart, but no genius. I am in complete good faith relative to this issue. I only want to understand. But I know from the start that my thoughts will be inadequate and that I cannot trust them to arrive at anything more than a glimmering of the truth."
What kind of universe is it in which someone can ask such a question and be so stymied? Not a good one.
Oh, no, Chunk! You were going along so well in the above post, but then the wheels came off. Did you have to blame the whole universe? That move never strikes me as good faith.
10:18
I'm not "blaming the universe." I am only stating that it is not a good one, that it is easily imaginable that there could have been a better one.
About Chunk's fun little survey on the top right:
Who is stupider, people who quote scripture to atheists, or atheists who misunderstand the point of the quotation?
I am enough of a fool, admittedly, to try again.
The topic was biblical literalism. One point of quoting scripture was to illustrate that it's a far cry from taking scripture as revealed truth to taking scripture literally. I quoted the passage where Jesus expresses a desire to gather the children of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. Suppose one takes that as divine revelation, a particular expression of God's love and concern for the children of Jerusalem, as well as for us. The point is that taking that passage as revelatory doesn't mean that one has to believe that Jesus literally has wings, or is a bird.
Another point was that biblical literalists are not well representative of those who take scripture as revelation. Biblical literalists are Straw Men.
Also admittedly, I did try to work in an evangelical appeal to Chunk, trying to get him to consider Christ's care and concern for him, even though he does not yet (or no longer) believes in God. Maybe that was stupid of me. (Circular too? No, because at that point I was preaching, not arguing. Comfortable as a member of the majority? No, because most Americans don't quote scripture, and I knew in advance it would be embarrassing to myself to quote scripture in the context of an academic blog. I just did it anyway.) Point here is that I would rather be stupid than neglectful of my obligation to carry the message of God's love for Chunk to Chunk.
Let me make it worse, dig myself in even deeper.
Chunk,
Ever read the Song of Solomon? In that text, properly interpreted, you could learn (admittedly, with some minimal, required faith) that God's love for you is "as strong as death," and that "many waters cannot quench" it. I regard those claims as serious truths.
Note well, though, that those passages, regarded as expressing truth about God's love for Chunk, are obviously not to be taken literally. They wouldn't make sense taken literally. They would, taken literally, each involve what philosophers like Chunk call a "category mistake." So again, in order not to be understood: even though I am here trying to evangelize Chunk, and embarrassing myself by quoting scripture to an atheist Philosophy Professor, none of what I am doing involves biblical literalism. Biblical Literalists = Straw Men. Everyone get it now?
Last point: Chunk mentions that he read some of Richard Swinburne's work. For anyone interested, Swinburne will be the plenary speaker at a conference at UCR later this year, Oct.30-Nov. 1. The conference is sponsored by the Pacific Division of the Society of Christian Philosophers (very few of whom, I would guess, are biblical literalists). Contact the UCR Philosophy department for information.
Pace, my friend.
The poll is meant to be humorous, which is signaled by my use of the word "stupider." Stupider is a stupid word, I think. It's a funny word.
I'm sure you can appreciate that it would be overly literal to interpret our poll as asserting the proposition that you (or anyone who quotes Scripture to atheists) is stupid. I can see why it irks you, but I certainly am not asserting any such proposition. I'm teasing you, I suppose.
Did I say that it is embarrassing to quote Scripture to atheists? I'm not sure I'd want to make so general a statement.
College instructors who discuss matters that are of concern to Christians often encounter this phenomenon, and, there, it is often profoundly annoying and at times offensive. (Wait! I'm not saying that you have been offensive.) That is because, upon hearing a student quote Scripture (in the classroom), in most cases, one is warranted in thinking: "this student just assumes that he/she is of the special group of people who have God on their side. That he does not for a moment consider the possibility that others, with different beliefs, equally view themselves as thus privileged, suggests profound arrogance and disrespect of them. It bespeaks self-satisfaction and smugness."
--Something like that. It's hard to pin down exactly.
Further, in a typical philosophy course, students are taught a methodology according to which one is supposed to provide evidence and arguments. Simply quoting an alleged Authority, without first offering compelling argument why it should be thus regarded (sometimes, of course, there is no need to state the arguments, since they are obvious, as in the case of say, the Oxford English Dictionary), quickly communicates to a philosophy instructor that nothing that he has said to this student has had the slightest impact on him. Naturally, that is annoying.
You note that, in defending Scripture, you are not defending it as literal truth. Well, yes, and I've made it clear that my points on this post were directed only at literalists, not at Christians or theists generally.
It is, of course, fallacious to critique these literalists and then to declare victory over Christians generally. That, as you say, is the Straw Man fallacy.
But it is not a fallacy (Straw Man or otherwise) to discuss this subset of Christians, since they are a powerful force in our society and, especially, in our Republican-dominated era (I realize that era is rapidly coming to a close).
I am not offended by people preaching to me per se. Years ago, I recall be annoyed that one of my best friends, a Calvinist Christian, never sought to convert me. I was annoyed because I was aware that, according to his beliefs, I was destined to burn in hell. I thought: "What kind of guy would sit by and let a good friend burn in hell?"
So, again, I am not offended by good faith efforts to "give me religion" per se.
Be of good cheer.
P.S.:
I seem to recall attending some meetings of the Society of Christian Philosophers (I think that was the name) back in the early 80s. I knew some of its members, some of whom were good philosophers.
I do highly recommend that people attend the UCR event. SEE
http://pacificscp.org/
Gary Watson, who is in the UCR philosophy department (ethics), is an old friend of mind. If you see him, tell 'im that Roy says hi.
Post a Comment