Next

T  7 Antony (Farrell, Sinott-Armstrong , Curley, Belzer, Tappenden

Read 'em all if you can, but at least read and post a comment on your group's essay and then look at the others. Group 3 in particular may need some backup, there were only three of them to begin with. Take a look at Brian's last post, he asks a very good question in response to Garber's essay that some may be able to speak to.


And be thinking about your midterm report, I'll be asking soon for a declaration of intent. You can do a presentation, an essay, or a series of related blog posts. More on that on Tuesday.


Also, be thinking about a possible addition to our reading list. We'll be voting on that before the month ends.


Following up on part of Thursday's discussion: Raisin' freethinkers...


And following up on Jamie's mention of the reformed Koran: Jefferson Koran...


Baggini reports on Atheism in America...


Alain de Botton follows up on his 'temple of atheism' (thanks for the link, David).... 


The Atheist's Guide to Reality: An interview with Alex Rosenberg...


WHO NEEDS GOD? Kenan Malik - he's an atheist but says it IS harder to be good without God...


Dawkins on Darwin in The Blind Watchmaker: "I said I could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859, when Darwin's Origin of Species was published." My thoughts...

Group 3 - Ch 3

I like the idea of evidence and reason being overrated. Despite how little it makes sense given what we currently know about nature, I have for as long as I can remember had this feeling deep within that there's something more to this world than meets the eye. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking. I'd be rather disappointed if this all really is just a meaningless lump of mass. I'm not against the notion of empiricism, I do think we'll figure it out someday, but it might be hard to classify it under what we call science now. Surely a thousand years ago people would have thought the idea of electricity to be mystical. We have grown too arrogant in our time, thinking that we are the pinnacle of scientific thought. I forget who said it but there's a great quote that sums this up, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Essay Three: Religio Philosophi

In this essay Daniel Garber explores Pascal's hucksterish wager, and how it appeals to him to a degree. Garber is "one so made that he can not believe"; however, he genuinely wants to believe. He sees the benefit of redemption as a particularly persuasive reason for being a person of faith. While he doesn't share the faith of the religious, he tries to experience the world as if he did. He can "visit it, explore it as a tourist, participate in some of it's pleasures but never live there." This essay really hit home for me. There was a time when i missed God, like he was a real person that had moved away. i wanted to hold onto some part of that world where everything was explained and would turn out alright in the end. For an atheist trying to answer the question that was posed at the beginning of the class "can one be good without god?' ;Is it more beneficial to have been a person of faith in one's youth, if only to better understand how genuine faith constucts a persons moral framework?
Factual Q: What is the title of Pascal's work that includes his infamous wager?
A: Pensées

Essay #1: Faith and Reason, the Perpetual War

Stewart Shapiro takes the first at-bat in Louise Antony's collection of essays. His ex-religious affiliation is Orthodox Jew, which a majority of his extended family still subscribe to.

He begins his essay with the Bubble Boy, a particularly poignant episode that he describes as "the straw that broke the back of his religious faith." Indeed, one wonders how the religious mind can square tragedies of this kind with a loving God. I would think that if one must believe in a deity, it would make much more sense to see him as a sonuvabitch, or at least completely indifferent. Perhaps capricious, like the mythical gods on Olympus. Regardless, the faithful seem to have an almost infinite (one might say miraculous) ability to reconcile horrors of this kind with the Divine plan of a mysterious deity. Shapiro, like many of us, seems to have exhausted his supply of incredulity.

I felt that he did a good of conveying the sense of deep belonging and purpose that an immercive religious upbringing can convey to the young and impressionable. When this rigid structure is imposed at an early age, it is rare that the grown believer can shed it's burden without a feeling of having lost something important. This, more than almost anything else, is the source of religion's enduring power over our species. We are infected before we have developed the proper tools with which to fight off the infection.

Shapiro then moves on to his perception of the current state of religion in the world, and how it relates/interacts with science and philosophy. He stakes out three positions that can be taken in the intersection between faith and reason: a state of war, a rationalist approach, and one of incommensurability (NOMA.) After some soul-searching, and a positively painful tangent into the Abraham/Isaac debacle, he comes to the conclusion that a state of zero-sum conflict between faith and reason is indeed the reality that exists in our time. I am, of course, in substantive agreement with him on this point. Let religion join alchemy, astrology, and magic on the ash heap of discarded human ideas.

One amusing aside: I found it interesting how his daughter referred to "cold, hard logic." I wonder how much of our modern perception of logic is owed to its championing by Mr. Spock? He often came across as cold and calculating, devoid of apparent emotion. Of course, as informed Star Trek fans, we know this to be false. But Spock's place in our cultural consciousness as a cold and logical being is secure. I just found it...fascinating.

Antony-Good minus God

In this article, Antony brings up many of the same points we have discussed in class or read in Baggini. The main point she is trying to make is very similar, I think, to the one Baggini makes about morality and God. She brings up the Euthyprho argument once again, and I feel like we have throughly beaten that horse at this point. However, I think she brings some new things to the table in this discussion. So, I will quote directly the parts of the article which I personally think the most worth reading.

Think now about our personal relations — how we love our parents, our children, our life partners, our friends. To say that the moral worth of these individuals depends on the existence of God is to say that these people are, in themselves, worth nothing — that the concern we feel for their well being has no more ethical significance than the concern some people feel for their boats or their cars. It is to say that the historical connections we value, the traits of character and personality that we love — all count for nothing in themselves. Other people warrant our concern only because they are valued by someone else — in this case, God. (Imagine telling a child: “You are not inherently lovable. I love you only because I love your father, and it is my duty to love anything he loves.”)

What could make anyone think such things? Ironically, I think the answer is: the same picture of morality that lies behind atheistic nihilism. It’s the view that the only kind of “obligation” there could possibly be is the kind that is disciplined by promise of reward or threat of punishment. Such a view cannot find or comprehend any value inherent in the nature of things, value that could warrant particular attitudes and behavior on the part of anyone who can apprehend it. For someone who thinks that another being’s pain is not in itself a reason to give aid, or that the welfare of a loved one is not on its own enough to justify sacrifice, it is only the Divine Sovereign that stands between us and — as Hobbes put it — the war of “all against all.”

I want to close by conceding that there are things one loses in giving up God, and they are not insignificant. Most importantly, you lose the guarantee of redemption. Suppose that you do something morally terrible, something for which you cannot make amends, something, perhaps, for which no human being could ever be expected to forgive you. I imagine that the promise made by many religions, that God will forgive you if you are truly sorry, is a thought would that bring enormous comfort and relief. You cannot have that if you are an atheist. In consequence, you must live your life, and make your choices with the knowledge that every choice you make contributes, in one way or another, to the only value your life can have.

Some people think that if atheism were true, human choices would be insignificant. I think just the opposite — they would become surpassingly important.

Louise Antony

Anybody have the patience to sit through an entire William Lane Craig debate with Louise Antony, and report to us on it?

Thoughts: Class Debate Rules

This idea was started under the “Next” post but I thought I would give it its own little space for critique or approval. Several have chimed in about how the class debate should be structured and I thought I would offer my two cents as well as including what I thought were good ideas from others that were noted in their comments.

Most everyone in class is making an effort to be courteous polite but there seems to be a bit of uncertainty or confusion in the air about how and when to speak. Hopefully this post and following comments will invite some clarification to that matter.

First, I think we definitely need a moderator. This format seems to work well in professional political debates, courtrooms, and jury rooms so there is no need to reinvent the wheel. The moderator should be Dr. Oliver and, when he is speaking, we should focus our attention on him. I would consider speaking amongst ourselves during lecture or during moderating points rude behavior.

Secondly, as Steven pointed out, hand-raising does seem disrupt the flow during debate but it does allow some structure to new issues. Sometimes, blurting out a quick quip or comment (i.e., calling bullshit as bullshit is being presented) adds to the debate and really forces someone to clarify their thought. I think we could split the difference here though so here’s my idea. Those making major points or new arguments should raise their hand and wait to be chosen by the moderator. Then, as David noted, roughly 60 seconds will be given to make the point (subject to summarization by the moderator). From there we should take Steven’s cue and let the floor be open to everyone (no hand raising necessary) and let the usual social rules of conversation apply. Dr. Oliver can interject here as well (as a debater) under the same social rules.

Then, when the conversation is exhausted or is off track (to be determined by the moderator) the cue could be “OK, let’s move on or let’s wrap this up.” At that point Dr. Oliver could make a wrap up comment and then choose another student with their hand raised for a new debate point (we should all stop debating at this point and pay attention). Then we could start the process all over again on a new point or argument.

So here’s how it would go.

1.     Dr. Oliver—opening lecture or comments then cue to open the floor.

2.     Hands up for first argument. Dr. Oliver chooses first student.

3.     Student makes first argument in 60 seconds.

4.     Floor is open to civil debate until exhausted or derailing occurs.

5.     “OK, lets move on.” Dr. Oliver offers final thoughts or introduces another subject then chooses another student.

6.     Repeat.

This is roughly how it sort of goes now but I think this would clarify the structure a bit more so everyone would be clear on when to jump in.

Any critique, improvements or comments are always invited and encouraged.