With all due apologies to the makers of Mary Poppins (and the song "A Spoonful of Sugar")... I think I've finally placed something.
People who are steeped in our modern culture (at least in the Western world) has damaged spiritual/moral taste buds. For whatever reason, illogic tastes good to them... and they'll swallow most anything, so long as you serve it with several heaping teaspoons of illogic (flashy food colouring is good, too). This explains a great many things:
1) Why is Oprah so rich through such popularity?
2) Why is Dan Brown so rich, and why has he sold so many books which contain provable nonsense, though he bills them as "based on fact"?
3) Why was the President of Death elected to the highest office in the United States, despite his miniscule experience, his open contempt for American patriotism, his radical pro-death stances, and his utter ineptitude with both foreign relations and domestic policy?
Got it. Understood, now! Just prepare with flair, garnish with several delectable spoonfuls of illogic, and serve at whatever temperature you wish... and my, just watch those little mouths gobble up every crumb! Iron chef, eat your heart out!
Case in point (h/t the extraordinary LifeSiteNews.com):
Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Shower Praise on Senate Bill's Phony Abortion Compromise
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The phony compromise language unveiled in the Senate health care bill Wednseday night has already won high praise from pro-abortion lawmakers on Capitol Hill; yet, it has not fared as well under the scrutiny of the National Right to Life Committee, who slammed the bill's abortion funding as "completely unacceptable."
[...]
Some pro-abortion Senators have already exalted Reid's abortion language, claiming that it accurately reflects the Hyde amendment.
"Senator Reid did an excellent job of crafting language that maintains the decades long compromise of no federal funds for abortion," gushed Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Boxer has a consistently 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL.
Late Wednedsay, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, who also votes largely pro-abortion, claimed to reporters that Reid's bill "extends the Hyde amendment to these programs so the status quo is maintained." Rep. Capps, another 100% NARAL-approved legislator and author of the House's phony compromise, praised Reid's language and noted that it "closely mirrors my language" in the original House bill.
The same legislators had lambasted the Stupak language as "illogical, discriminatory, and unnecessary" (Capps) and a "very radical amendment which would really tear apart compromise" (Boxer).
Did you follow that? Pro-abort legislators are praising this "new compromise bill" as "accurately reflecting the Hyde Amendment" (which they hate, by the way--Rule #1: if pro-aborts pretend to praise something for reflecting something they hate, look for additional hidden lies).
Perhaps the abortion-tolerant readers of this blog could help me out, here:
If the ersatz "Health Care Reform" bill doesn't fund abortions, then why are the pro-abortion groups (who, along with Moloch-in-Chief, ever insist that the bill has never been about abortion, and doesn't fund abortions in the least) all up in arms over efforts to remove abortion funding (such as the Stupak amendment), and why are they so thrilled with other "compromises"? From here, it seems that they just want to perpetuate abortion, and they'll say and do anything (no matter how dishonest or absurd) to further that goal. This implies that such people are immoral (or amoral, if you like) hacks who shouldn't be trusted with a sharpened pencil, much less domestic policy.
Seriously: aren't they embarrassed to make such obvious lies? I mean, we in the pro-life crowd appreciate the lack of strain in sniffing *out* those lies, but... still. No sense of shame, or at least artistic self-respect?
48 comments:
I concur, Brian. And I'd like to add:
1) Why do people drink coke or pepsi when they could just drink water?
2)) Why is Ann Coulter so rich? And why has she sold so many books which contain provable nonsense.
3) Why do people buy huge SUVs that are so uneconomical.
It's a strange old world full of crazy folk.
:) Hm...
1) I'm allergic to sodas, and I'm largely restricted to reverse osmosis water anyway, so I couldn't comment.
2) Ann's success may have something to do with the fact that she's smart, she's pretty, and she says things to the liberal elite and their media lapdogs that the typical person in flyover country wishes he/she could say to them. As for "provable nonsense", I'll bite: give me an example.
3) For those with the typical "contraceptive-induced" number of children (i.e. 0, 1, or possibly 2--if you "must have one of each gender"), no... you probably wouldn't need an SUV or large vehicle. Try driving a Yugo or Focus with 4+ kids, though, and you may get an answer to your question.
my questions were rhetorical but I think your responses illustrated my point perfectly.
...and that point was...?
that something isn't stupid just because you (or I) say it is. people usually have what they consider to be reasonable justifications for their choices.
There is a saying "everybody's entitled to their own opinions, nobody's entitled to their own facts". If the facts you have are different from the ones I do, we could both apply sound logic and reach different conclusions.
However, the world is so complex, and the facts within the knowledge base of humanity so numerous, that nobody can know more than a small subset of the facts. If the subset of facts you have is different from the subset of facts I do, then in practical terms we do have our own facts. If I have different facts, and I reach a different conclusion than you do, I appear illogical.
For example, is a 2000 page health care reform law a good idea, or a bad idea? We honestly don't have time to read it and think of the ramifications. Thus, we have to rely on opinions (which may be biased), or worry only about a particular point such as abortions.
Oliverseeley: thanks for speaking for the Olivers of the world, but I think I'd prefer an answer from the Oliver to whom I was speaking.
Also: you are aware that the principle of non-contradiction still holds, even in your relativistic part of the world, aren't you? That was a core point of the original post...
I concur with oliverseeley and that was exactly my point.
I'm a fan of neither Oprah nor Dan Brown, but I think I know why people like them, and while I don't share their sentiments, I don't necessarily consider them illogical.
I looked over the theory of non-contradiction. It was interesting. I ended up reading about the 3 laws too (you'll know the ones I mean). Though you might need to explain the relevance for me.
Good point on Dan Brown's success. It's illogical but does serve to explain Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin being on the best seller lists.
oliverseeley wrote:
that something isn't stupid just because you (or I) say it is. people usually have what they consider to be reasonable justifications for their choices.
First, my main point was to highlight the absurdity of abortion-tolerant politicians (and a U.S. President!) claiming that the current "health care" bill "doesn't fund abortions", but then turning right around with screeching hysterics at (and eventually stripping) the Stupak amendment, which sought to prohibit any (allegedly nonexistent) abortion funding in the main bill. Either the bill expands taxpayer funding for abortions, or it doesn't; either the abortion-tolerant "screamers" were trying to protect a real abortion mandate, or they weren't... but it's insane for them to claim the following statements at the same time:
1) "The current health care bill, without the Stupak Amendment, does not provide for the federal funding of abortions."
2) "The Stupak Amendment is burdensome, discriminatory, and destroys compromise." (By removing a nonexistent thing??)
(BTW: There's the relevance of the "principle of non-contradiction" for you, Oliver. Claiming "no abortion in the bill", and then fighting tooth-and-nail against a bill that would prohibit abortions in the bill, is rather contradictory, don't you think?).
Second: a bland appeal to relativism ("my truth for me, your truth for you, everyone thinks he's right in his own mind") doesn't settle anything; there's such a thing as objective truth, and it can very often be found and checked against any claims which are made in the face of it.
Re: Oprah, are you seriously trying to propose the idea that her appeal and efforts are *logical*? She's made a career of "follow your heart", and she doesn't even *pretend* to appeal to the intellect! If you have specific counter-examples, we can certainly discuss them... but I think you'd have your work cut out for you.
Re: Dan Brown, I'll take only one of numerous examples. (Note: he claimed (quite freely) that his "DaVinci Code", while a work of fiction, was based on "fact", and he itemized several of those "facts" inside and outside of the book itself.) One claim of Brown's was that "Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, that she was the Holy Grail and embodied the "sacred feminine", and that she was meant to be the leader of the Church... until St. Peter "wrested power away from her", etc. He also appeals to the apocryphal Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas" to "prove" such things (and claims that the Church suppressed that "Gospel" in order to try to hide this truth). But read just a snippet from the actual text of the "Gospel of Thomas":
--- quote from Gospel of Thomas, 114 ---
Simon Peter said to [Jesus], "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of [eternal] Life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
--- end quote ---
Oops. Not much support for the "Sacred Feminine", in that. Dan Brown's errors like this are both numerous and downright childish; even a high-school student with internet access could refute most of his absurd claims.
Any other questions?
P.S. Oliver, I'm still curious how my post "illustrated your point perfectly"; did you find something illogical about it? If so, what?
you said people nowadays are illogical and accept things for illogical reasons. You cited the popularity of Oprah as an example.
Why is it illogical to like Oprah?
you said people nowadays are illogical and accept things for illogical reasons. You cited the popularity of Oprah as an example. Why is it illogical to like Oprah?
A few corrections:
1) I said (with some bitter irony, mind you) that people nowadays have a taste for illogic, and they'll swallow almost anything, so long as it's wrapped in the absurd.
2) I asked why Oprah was so rich through such popularity--not why people like her, per se. Note: it's neither logical nor illogical to "like" someone; that's a feeling/emotion, which has nothing especially to do with logic, and people are free to like or dislike whom they please (so long as they don't misjudge them through willful ignorance or distortion of their true nature/positions). What I find baffling is her immense *popularity*, which led to making her one the wealthiest women on Earth. (I *like* my boss, but she doesn't have a cult following numbering in the millions--nor does she want one, I'll add!) But this sort of Oprah-centered, frenzied adulation is something else altogether... and the reason seems to be the "good tasting, illogical pablum" that Oprah serves on a daily basis. Specific examples include her promotion of the New-Age mish-mash offered by Helen Schucman and Eckhart Tolle.
Summary: it's not illogical to "like" Oprah. Oprah spews illogic like Old Faithful spews hot water and steam, and her sycophantic hordes of fans gobble it up as quickly as it's thrown to them. *That's* illogical.
Now: fair's fair.
1) Why do you consider Coke/Pepsi consumption to be "strange and/or crazy"?
2) What examples can you give of "provable nonsense" in Ann Coulter's writings (that weren't *deliberate* hyperbole/satire)? I suspect that you named her because you hate her positions, and you find her manner irksome...
3) Why would you consider SUV's "uneconomical" for a large family? (Would you rather they buy three cars?)
so i think you're saying that it's not illogical for people to like Oprah, it's just illogical for her popularity to bring her such wealth.
Why is that illogical?
In answer to your questions:
1) I don't really think people who drink soft drinks are strange or crazy.
But, you could make the case that drinking coke is ill-advised given certain health and nutritional issues. Why not drink water? It's cheaper, better for you. You could eat sweets (candy) for dinner or you could eat vegetables.
2) The provable nonsense of Ann Coulter, eh? Well, I consider most of what she says to be nonsense.
But a quick search on google will reveal some factual inconsistencies in her book "godless". Here's a link to a video if you can bear watching Olberman.
http://godlessanncoulter.blogspot.com/
3) Again, I don't really think that SUV drivers are crazy or strange.
When I described SUVs as uneconomical I was referring to their fuel consumption.
For a large family an SUV may be their best option, though I would suggest they look into European-made multi-person-vehicle as a potentially more economical alternative.
Oliver wrote:
so i think you're saying that it's not illogical for people to like Oprah, it's just illogical for her popularity to bring her such wealth.
Not quite. I think it's illogical for people to be so fanatically adulatory toward her (in the first place) that Oprah *could* become a billionaire over their adulation... especially given the pablum that she offers. It's eerie... like watching millions upon millions of people sell their souls for a 2-week-old cheeseburger that's been sitting in someone's compost heap. It seems just a bit out of proportion, to me.
I don't really think people who drink soft drinks are strange or crazy. But, you could make the case that drinking coke is ill-advised given certain health and nutritional issues. Why not drink water? It's cheaper, better for you. You could eat sweets (candy) for dinner or you could eat vegetables.
Right... but you took "soda-drinking" as a "perfect illustration" of how "It's a strange old world full of crazy folk"; and I still don't see how it "illustrated" that so perfectly, in your mind.
The provable nonsense of Ann Coulter, eh? Well, I consider most of what she says to be nonsense.
Well... you're welcome to your opinion, of course; and I'd be the last to say that she's never said *anything* nonsensical, before (most everyone has, on occasion!). But you seem to regard her as a "clear example" of "nonsense" (paralleling my example of Dan Brown), as if that's somehow "par for the course" for her... and I'm still waiting for an explanation of that charge.
Here's a link to a video if you can bear watching Olberman.
Ugh. Sorry, no... not even in the line of duty! :)
Could you quote one such "inaccuracy" for me? Most gripes with Ann Coulter are about her opinions and style. If you have a concrete case of significant factual error, I'd be interested to hear it. *You* were the one who brought up Ann Coulter, after all... so I'm presuming you have examples in mind (and that you're not simply speaking from political prejudice, and/or following the rest of the lemmings over the cliff of the Mainstream Media)...
Again, I don't really think that SUV drivers are crazy or strange.
That's good to hear. But that leaves me baffled as to why you'd mention it while defending your thesis of "It's a strange old world full of crazy folk"...
my original post was supposed to be ironic. surely, you realise that.
If you would like a 'concrete case of significant factual error' please follow the link and watch the clip.
I hear what you're saying.. that it's illogical to be "fanatically adulatory" toward Oprah.
In what way is it illogical?
This might
might interest you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
Sorry about the delay; Thanksgiving Day preparations in the USA can be rather involved...
Oliver wrote:
my original post was supposed to be ironic. surely, you realise that.
:) I figured. However, I *was* curious whether it was complete whimsical nonsense (which is fine, so long as there's truth in advertising), or whether you believed your examples to have any basis in reality at all. Hence my continuing probes.
If you would like a 'concrete case of significant factual error' please follow the link and watch the clip.
If I were interested in addressing Mr. Olbermann's claims (and I think I'd rather eat raw eels, frankly), I might do that. But I'm much more interested in addressing *your* claims, especially since you were speaking directly to me when you made your claims (and Mr. Olbermann wasn't). Surely you had something more specific against Ms. Coulter than a vague antipathy given you by the media (or worse, parroting my words without having comparable facts to back them up)? What did she say or do that made *you* think she's talking "provable nonsense"? Surely you (and not Mr. Olbermann--whose opinions I wouldn't trust further than I could throw them) are able to prove that which you claim is provable?
I hear what you're saying.. that it's illogical to be "fanatically adulatory" toward Oprah. In what way is it illogical?
Surely you jest! That's a bit like saying, "You say that it's impolite to be rude. In what way is it impolite?" The absence of all recognizable logical thought, and the virtually complete reliance on frenzied emotions and sentiments, would certainly entail an illogical approach, would it not?
I think you want to know why I chose the examples I did: Soda, Ann Coulter and SUVs.
I chose these examples to mirror the examples you gave. Your gripes appeared to be what one would expect from a typical catholic and conservative. Mine, were chosen because they were typical of a liberal.
To be fair, I don't drink soda, drive an SUV or read Coulter. But I don't read Brown or watch Oprah either.
I get the impression that you see me as a Ann Coulter hating liberal cookie-cutter and you think that this is why I mentioned her.
some background:
The first i knew of her was when she released her book "godless". I was living in the US at the time and I followed her with interest in both US and UK news. I don't remember any specifics but I do remember being appalled by some of her comments (something about jews possibly). I also remember that her book "Godless" was criticised for its poor footnoting and misquotations. I laughed heartily when she appeared on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman.
So it was with this in mind that I chose Ann Coulter. I also considered Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of 'eat, pray love'.
I don't actually have in my possession or from my experience any evidence that you would accept to support my claim (that her book includes "provable nonsense"). But it is freely available on the internet.
If you are genuinely interested in this issue I recommend that you don't just take my word for it but source some info yourself. I'd be interested to see what you find. In fact, I'm a little surprised that you haven't done it already given your stated commitment to truth.
Paladin said:
"The absence of all recognizable logical thought, and the virtually complete reliance on frenzied emotions and sentiments, would certainly entail an illogical approach, would it not?"
So you're saying the above constitutes the decision making process of the people who love Oprah.
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like your opinion to me. Can you demonstrate that Oprah's fans are fanatical and illogical in the way you describe? Could you give some examples.
I think you want to know why I chose the examples I did: Soda, Ann Coulter and SUVs.
I do. I have guesses, of course, but it's more satisfying to have actual facts.
I chose these examples to mirror the examples you gave. Your gripes appeared to be what one would expect from a typical catholic and conservative. Mine, were chosen because they were typical of a liberal.
Fair enough... but, as you may've noted from reading my own comments/posts, I'm hardly what many people would call a "typical Catholic" or "typical conservative". I'm not sure there *are* such beasts, frankly...
To be fair, I don't drink soda, drive an SUV or read Coulter. But I don't read Brown or watch Oprah either.
:) We have a lot in common, actually! (I've nothing against Ann Coulter, but I usually don't read anything except Catholic non-fiction and what I consider "spiritually safe" fiction, such as J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, etc.) I do none of the above, either! (I drive a Pontiac which gets 30 MPH.)
I get the impression that you see me as a Ann Coulter hating liberal cookie-cutter and you think that this is why I mentioned her.
Well-lll... not quite. I guessed that your antipathy toward her was based more on sentimentalism and "secular osmosis" (from the MSM, etc.) than on hard facts.
[reflections on Ann Coulter snipped for space
I can certainly understand why, given your sensibilities, you wouldn't like her writing or comments.
I also remember that her book "Godless" was criticised for its poor footnoting and misquotations. I laughed heartily when she appeared on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman.
Sorry... can't comment on that one. (I don't have a TV, and I've no idea who Jeremy Paxman is.) I've read/skimmed some of her books in the bookstore; they're too brusque for my taste, but I've noted that "criticisms" of her work are almost always from liberal quarters (and laden with much more opinion than fact).
So it was with this in mind that I chose Ann Coulter. I also considered Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of 'eat, pray love'.
:) I had to look her up, too. Yeesh! If you'd stuck with her, you'd have gotten no objection from me!
I don't actually have in my possession or from my experience any evidence that you would accept to support my claim (that her book includes "provable nonsense"). But it is freely available on the internet.
I'm sure it is. I also couldn't care less, since everything--from garbage to gems--is available on the internet. I was merely curious as to whether you had specific data to back up your "parallelism" (as I had, with Dan Brown), and it seems that you don't. Not the end of the world (it really won't keep me up at night, honestly!)... but good to know.
To be continued...
Oliver wrote:
If you are genuinely interested in this issue I recommend that you don't just take my word for it but source some info yourself.
See above. You mentioned Ann Coulter, not I; that's why I asked about her.
I'd be interested to see what you find.
:) If you're *that* interested, perhaps you could be persuaded to do some digging yourself, and back up (or challenge) some of your sentiments with facts.
In fact, I'm a little surprised that you haven't done it already given your stated commitment to truth.
Oh, come now! Given that I don't read her books (though I have nothing against her personally, nor do I object to most of the general views she's put forth on the few articles, etc., which I *have* read/seen), and given that no human being is obligated--"in the name of commitment to truth"--to pursue every possible facet of every possible issue on earth, this is downright silly! It'd be a bit like me being "a little surprised" that you (who are also committed to truth--right?) haven't looked up the proof for the 1st Fundamental Theorem of Calculus!
To be clear: I couldn't care less about any given person's criticisms of Ann Coulter; I merely asked you for examples, because you made the original claim... and it's not exactly logical of you to propose such a thing, only to follow it with, "Well, prove that she *didn't* write nonsense!" The claimant accepts the burden of proof, you know...
[Paladin]
"The absence of all recognizable logical thought, and the virtually complete reliance on frenzied emotions and sentiments, would certainly entail an illogical approach, would it not?"
[Oliver]
So you're saying the above constitutes the decision making process of the people who love Oprah.
Almost. It constitutes the decision-making process of the people who "love" Oprah in such a way, and to such an extent, as to cast her as their "spiritual guide" (and make her quite wealthy, in the process). Some people may well "love" her show in the more sane way that some people "love" Mozart's Mass in C Minor; enjoyment, but not sycophancy.
I'm sorry, but this just sounds like your opinion to me. Can you demonstrate that Oprah's fans are fanatical and illogical in the way you describe? Could you give some examples.
If you like.
From a Miami blog entitled "Oprah's Fans":
One of the most interesting, richest, and influential women of the entire world is Oprah Winfrey. She has come from nothing to make a world for herself, and everything she touches turns to cold hard cash. She is a powerhouse and everyone who comes in contact with her will benefit in some way for meeting her. Her fans are fanatical about her. (Her fans don't seem to object to calling themselves "fanatical".)
From Cafe Press, a nice, tasteful long-sleeve t-shirt for those who "worship Oprah" and want to proclaim it...
...just for starters. But even if you write these people off as cranks, my main point stands: people watch Oprah (admittedly) for entertainment, for fashion and food advice, for hero-worship, for hearing what they want to hear (in a glamourous package), and the like; they don't watch her in order to bask in logic. Do you disagree? If so, why?
before I respond to your last comment i need some definition of logic as you mean it in this context.
In what way does one use logic in their day-to-day life, for example?
One colloquial definition of "logic" is: "an ordered way of thinking"; another might be "a right use of sane reason, applied to daily life". In day-to-day practice, it means having good reasons for doing what you do--rather than just "following your feelings", or being "swept away by whatever titillates you, excites you, or otherwise inflames your passions".
All normal humans have passions and things which could enthrall and excite them. But all normal humans also have a self-aware intellect and a radically free will, by which they can say "yes" to this thing, and "no" to that. The mere fact that something excites me (or you) is hardly a sufficient reason to follow or embrace *anything*. Or, as better put by Dr. T.G. Wayne: "[...] the mere appetite for pleasure [...] is not a sufficient motive for any action" ("Morals and Marriage", T.G. Wayne, 1936).
Paladin said:
"But even if you write these people off as cranks, my main point stands: people watch Oprah (admittedly) for entertainment, for fashion and food advice, for hero-worship, for hearing what they want to hear (in a glamourous package), and the like; they don't watch her in order to bask in logic. Do you disagree? If so, why?"
I do agree mostly. But, I don't necessarily expect people to be 100% rational all the time. We are not solely rational beings. And I grant people the freedom to indulge themselves with Oprah, Coulter, ice cream and or a big SUV on occasion. Though, I might find their choice absurd.
So, yeah, it's illogical to be fanatical about Oprah. But we both knew that already.
I'd say that if we were both logical we'd be agnostics; as opposed to a catholic and an atheist.
I do agree mostly. But, I don't necessarily expect people to be 100% rational all the time. We are not solely rational beings.
No argument, there, if meant properly (I'd say, rather, that we're rational beings who are entitled to enjoy ourselves, within reasonable moral and physical limits; and that we're not obliged to work out theorems and meditate on aphorisms, 24/7). Just remember that you'd asked the following:
I hear what you're saying.. that it's illogical to be "fanatically adulatory" toward Oprah. In what way is it illogical?
I trust that this is answered satisfactorily. In fact, I *don't* complain when people do something "passively illogical" in the "light" sense that you now mention (i.e. enjoying an ice-cream come without necessarily composing a 10,000-word logical treatise on why it's reasonable to do so); I only complain when the illogic becomes "active" and offends human dignity or violates the moral order in some other way. (I'd say that the pseudo-idolatry and adulation poured upon Oprah by her sycophants is definitely in that category.)
I'd say that if we were both logical we'd be agnostics; as opposed to a catholic and an atheist.
:) Now, you're ribbing me. But seriously: it's not "logical" (Gr. "logos" = "word, knowledge") or "scientific" (L. "sciens" = "he who knows") to be an "agnostic" (Gr. "a-gnosis" = "not to know"), nor is it any sort of "step up", in general; rather, it's a step backward. At least an atheist (illogical as he is) has the courage of his convictions...
I have a friend who claims to be Agnostic. It's not because he's ignorant, in fact, he's smart and well-informed. He just feels that the only logical/rational position on the existence of God(s) is one of agnosticism because it's not possible to prove that God does or doesn't exist.
He also calls me arrogant for being an atheist. However, he wouldn't ever call, and hasn't to my knowledge, a Christian arrogant. I find this a bit inconsistent.
I think that actually he does believe in God, but he's just embarrassed to say so because he is an otherwise perfect liberal secularist.
I wouldn't describe a belief in God as logical. But then, I suspect that it is possible to make a case for God using logic. I just don't think people usually come to believe in god through a process of logic.
what do you think?
I just don't think people usually come to believe in god through a process of logic.
I came to my present belief in God through a process of logic. But I'll grant you that that is not the usual way.
May I recommend C.S. Lewis' "Pilgrim's Regress" to you?
if you were able to reduce your the logical process you undertook to arrive at that decision into a comment on this blog I'd be interested to read it.
1. The Universe exists.
2. Both science and reason teaches us that the universe has not always existed.
Ergo, the universe had a beginning.
1. Nothing comes from nothing.
2. The universe had a beginning.
Ergo, the universe came from something else, outside itself.
That "something else," we call God.
1. Life exists.
2. Life has not always existed.
Ergo, life had a beginning.
1. Nothing alive comes from non-alive matter.
2. The beginning of life is an exception to this rule.
Ergo Therefore the beginning of life in an event that must have been perpetrated by something outside of the universe.
We call this "something." God.
1. Humans are highly limited in their perceptions and cognition.
2. If God exists, outside the universe, humans cannot perceive him by our own power.
Ergo, if God wishes humans to know Him, it is up to God to reveal Himself to us.
Query: in human history, has God ever revealed Himself to humanity?
More later...
Has God ever revealed himself to humanity? Not that I'm aware of.
Your logic rests on the idea of a regress and invokes God to terminate it. You make the highly-unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if I allow you the dubious luxury of conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with the qualities usually ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity in design and so on.
So, Oliver, which of my numbered points do you dispute?
Oliver wrote:
I wouldn't describe a belief in God as logical. But then, I suspect that it is possible to make a case for God using logic. I just don't think people usually come to believe in god through a process of logic. What do you think?
In general, a belief in God is "logical" in the sense that it doesn't violate sane reason, and sane reason insists (as Paul mentioned) upon an uncaused cause to explain a universe full of contingent objects which do not, and cannot, "explain" their own existence. In individual cases, an individual might believe in God because of mostly emotional/sentimental reasons, I suppose.
Re: your comments about infinite regress and the like: does that mean you're willing to take a swing at my attempt at a proof for the existence of God?
Paul,
My point is that I could just substitute 'god' for 'highly-evolved alien' or 'big bang' in your numbered points.
And then what?
Paladin,
Surely you are aware that I have already commented on your 'attempt at a proof for the existence of God?'.
It would be very illogical of me to conclude that God exists. It would violate what I consider to be sane reason.
Having said that, I would also consider it unreasonable to say that it is impossible for God to exist.
So whilst I accept the possibility of a god, I find it very improbable indeed.
Not at all, Oliver; what is the origin of your "big bang" or your "highly evolved alien"?
God, by definition, is outside the universe. Your examples, by definition are inside it, and therefore require an origin.
My super-evolved alien is outside of time and space. He comes from another, separate, universe.
And the 'big bang' isn't beholden to the normal parameters of existence as we know them. It is not possible for us to understand this because we are limited.
Like I said in my first comment:
Your logic rests on the idea of a regress and invokes God to terminate it. You make the highly-unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if I allow you the dubious luxury of conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with the qualities usually ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity in design and so on.
Sorry about the delay; real life interrupts at the most curious times...
Oliver wrote:
Surely you are aware that I have already commented on your 'attempt at a proof for the existence of God?'
Well... yes, up to a point. It broke off after a bit, and you lost me when you said the following:
A supreme being is of different significance to the atheist because if you posit a "supreme being" you could be describing a highly-evolved and advanced species. This supreme being wouldn't be as improbable as a god because it wouldn't have had to "always have been, eternal, omnipotent etc".
Couple that with your recent replies about "probable" (and such) to Paul, and you have a series of comments that makes this particular mathematician rather puzzled--because the word "probable" actually means something above and beyond the personal tastes of an observer/opiner.
It would be very illogical of me to conclude that God exists.
Perhaps... if you hadn't yet examined all the salient evidence.
It would violate what I consider to be sane reason.
(*sigh*) The beast called "relativism" rears its ugly head, again. May I gently remind you that "sane reason", while slightly coloured by personal view, also has solid objective basis? What you "consider" needs to line up with what actually is, in order to be true.
Having said that, I would also consider it unreasonable to say that it is impossible for God to exist.
That's very handsome of you. But you still speak as if there's *no* evidence whatsoever for God's existence, and that Christians made up the idea yesterday, out of thin air, on a mere whim (much like the "pink unicorn" that Mike mentioned, on that thread on my blog).
So whilst I accept the possibility of a god, I find it very improbable indeed.
You've said that many times... and I must not insist on your mathematical reasoning. If something has strong evidence to support it, we say that it's "probable"; if something has strong evidence against it, we say that it's "improbable"; but if (as you say) there's no evidence one way or the other, then it's rather premature to say that it's "improbable". Rather, you should (at very best--and this is *before* you examine the actual evidence) say that the probability is unknown, or undefined.
For now, I'll direct you back to Paul's argument, with three additional caveats:
a) You shouldn't call infinite regressions "dubious" an "highly unwarranted" (cf. your comment of 12/04/2009, 4:13 AM) without at least some reasoning for why that would be so; as it is, it seems merely to be your raw personal opinion.
b) You've not touched the idea of "when life began". Care to try?
c) You've not touched the idea of modern miracles happening (which have passed exacting scrutiny). It's rather easy to keep saying "no evidence, no evidence", if you don't bother to do even a 30-second Google search for it, sir!
My super-evolved alien is outside of time and space. He comes from another, separate, universe.
:) Mm-hmm. And the mere fact that he "evolved" proves that he is not the uncaused cause, Who cannot change. You also contradict yourself, I'm afraid, when you say that he is "outside of time (which would prohibit evolution, yes?) and space (which would prevent him coming from 'another separate universe')." Care to try again, now that the parameters are a bit more clear?
And the 'big bang' isn't beholden to the normal parameters of existence as we know them. It is not possible for us to understand this because we are limited.
Right. But that which has a beginning, needs a cause. We can't know *everything* there is to know about the "Big Bang" of your example, but we can know *something* of it.
Your logic rests on the idea of a regress and invokes God to terminate it. You make the highly-unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.
You really make me blink (and smile, despite myself) when you say that; next, you'll be saying that, when standing on the top of a 300 meter building, it is a "highly-unwarranted assumption" that the first meter of the building (from 0m to 1m off the ground) exists!
Even if I allow you the dubious luxury of conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress
Why "dubious", save for the fact that it doesn't recommend itself to your preferences?
and giving it a name,
Horrors! :) I'd gently interject that it's far easier to speak of things when they have names...
simply because we need one,
:) If I didn't know better, I'd say that you typed this purely for humour value! "Why believe in anything, solely on the dubious basis that it's logically necessary?" Too funny...
there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with the qualities usually ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity in design and so on.
You mean, aside from the fact that--in addition to the a priori necessity of such a Being--we also have a posteriori evidence which supports the existence (and self-revelation) of a Being Who apparently fits the definition? (See my post immediately prior to this, for one example.)
I clearly haven't explained myself because I don't think you've understood me correctly.
My point was that even if we accept Paul's algorithm, then just calling "the thing which started life" or "created the universe" 'God' doesn't really tell us anything. It's just a label. Names are useful but they don't necessarily give us information about the nature of that thing.
So, you call it 'God', I call it 'super-alien'. Where is the logical algorithm that defines the nature of that thing, that makes you think it's God and not Zeus, or not a super-evolved-alien from a different dimension which began the universe and all it's life here?
If I have misunderstood the algorithm I apologise.
Paladin said:
if something has strong evidence against it, we say that it's "improbable"; but if (as you say) there's no evidence one way or the other, then it's rather premature to say that it's "improbable".
I didn't say there wasn't any evidence either way. I said: "it's not possible to prove that God does or doesn't exist."
Thanks for the link you provided. Is this the evidence that convinced you?
Jean-Pierre Bély
Visited Lourdes: 9 October 1987.
Age 51, French. Multiple sclerosis. His cure was recognised on 9 February 1999.
My point was that even if we accept Paul's algorithm, then just calling "the thing which started life" or "created the universe" 'God' doesn't really tell us anything.
Part of my point was this: if it's proven that an "uncaused cause" must exist (both in the sense of "that which caused all contingent objects" and "that which caused life"), and if it's proven that this "uncaused cause" must necessarily be one, eternal, unlimited and unchanging (among other possible things), and if theists of many different stripes claim that such a Being has revealed Himself to man (which is the only way we could know His Personhood), then doesn't it seem that the theists are more on-track with their beliefs than are atheists or agnostics? It's one thing (and somewhat understandable) to be "partially agnostic" and say "I'm not convinced that God is the God of Islam (or whatever)", but it's quite another thing to say, "I'm not convinced that an uncaused cause exists at all, and I'll assume one doesn't, until further notice". The latter flies in the face of logical necessity; the first, at least, is a quest for specific details.
So, you call it 'God', I call it 'super-alien'. Where is the logical algorithm that defines the nature of that thing, that makes you think it's God and not Zeus,
I think I understand your main point... but do remember that the uncaused cause is one, eternal, unlimited and unchanging--which hardly describes the changeable and limited Zeus.
or not a super-evolved-alien from a different dimension which began the universe and all it's life here?
Again: "super-evolved" simply doesn't describe an infinite, unchanging, eternal First Cause, since the first Cause cannot evolve.
[Paladin]
if something has strong evidence against it, we say that it's "improbable"; but if (as you say) there's no evidence one way or the other, then it's rather premature to say that it's "improbable".
[Oliver]
I didn't say there wasn't any evidence either way. I said: "it's not possible to prove that God does or doesn't exist."
You said that the existence of God was "highly improbable", "dubious", etc.; and I countered that you were using mathematical terms without regard for their true meaning... since you offered no evidence at all as to how you calculated your probabilities (save for personal tastes--which aren't mathematical).
Thanks for the link you provided. Is this the evidence that convinced you?
Jean-Pierre Bély
Visited Lourdes: 9 October 1987.
Age 51, French. Multiple sclerosis. His cure was recognised on 9 February 1999.
No, and yes. No, in the sense that this is only one example of thousands (if not millions). Do a quick Google search on the number of thoroughly-vetted miracles certified by the Lourdes Academy/Organization (whatever its name is), and check. Also, every Saint in "modern" times (i.e. at least the past few hundred years) needs to have attributed to him/her at least one certified miracle for canonization (or two, if he/she was not a martyr). Yes, in the sense that M. Bely's case, along with the multitudes of similar cases, along with the coherence of Christian revelation, etc., etc., convinces me that God has, in fact, revealed Himself to us... and that a denial or doubt of His existence is based either foolishness, or ignorance, or ill-will, or a mixture of all of these.
Thanks for taking the time to understand my position and to clarify yours.
You said:
"if it's proven that this "uncaused cause" must necessarily be one, eternal, unlimited and unchanging (among other possible things)"
I accept this. If indeed it's proven that what began life and started the universe is itself uncaused, is eternal, unlimited and unchanging then I accept that a 'super-evolved alien' wouldn't meet this criteria.
I guess my thought is why must it be unchanging, eternal, uncaused and unlimited? Why not a super-evolved alien from a place outside this universe? Humans have reached a level of sophistication whereby we can create things such as skyscrapers or genetically engineered/altered forms of life. But, as evidence suggests, we are indeed limited and have changed over time. Maybe a species more advanced than us was able to create us and our universe. You say it's logically necessary to have the uncaused, eternal and unchanging terminator. I don't agree. And I can't see why it's not logical to push the terminator back one place and posit a super-alien that was created by a god.
The reason I described the existence of God as "highly improbable" is because nothing in this world is eternal, unchanging or unlimited. At least, nothing that I can think of and not in the way I think you mean it. So, based on what I consider to be the natural laws of this world, and by extension the universe, it seems more probable that a more 'natural' hypothesis is the better explanation.
The theory of evolution - changes by small degree over a very long period of time leading to increasingly complex forms of life seems a more plausible, and dare I say it, more logical, theory than positing a complex, omnipotent, eternal and unchanging god.
For example, if I hear during the night what sounds like footsteps in my living room I can make many different conclusions as to its cause. I could think it's a ghost but then there isn't any credible evidence for ghosts so it would seem like a less probable explanation. I could conclude that it's my flatmate, or the people in the flat below, or my daughter who is sleepwalking around. I would ultimate conclude upon further listening which of the last 3 it is, based on various factors. My flatmate is out and the footsteps and are quick and soft. It's Lily!
...a place outside this universe...
This is where I have a problem with what you're saying.
As any physicist will tell you, both time and space are phenomenon associated with the universe. The universe is the entire set of places, by definition. Places are not divided between those within the universe, and those without. The set of places outside the universe is a null set. If there are places outside it, it's not the universe; it's just a part of the universe.
Let's just say he comes form the same place as where god was before he created the universe.
I guess my thought is why must it be unchanging, eternal, uncaused and unlimited?
The Uncaused Cause of all contingent things must be unchanging, eternal, uncaused and unlimited; see proposition #4a, #6 and #9, in my attempt at a proof, which you've already read.
and Why not a super-evolved alien from a place outside this universe?
Paul addressed this point already.
You say it's logically necessary to have the uncaused, eternal and unchanging terminator. I don't agree. And I can't see why it's not logical to push the terminator back one place and posit a super-alien that was created by a god.
Half a moment, here. First, you say that you don't agree with the necessity of such a "terminator"; but them you claim that your super-alien was created by "a god". Do you not see that, unless your "god" is finite and in need of his own cause, He must be the Uncaused Cause? Ironically enough, you're violating your own principle, now: inserting an extraneous and unnecessary step in the explanation of things, with no evidence whatsoever to support your supposition of a "super-alien", who wouldn't serve as an uncaused cause anyway, even by your account.
The reason I described the existence of God as "highly improbable" is because nothing in this world is eternal, unchanging or unlimited.
If meant correctly, I agree with you that nothing "in" this world is eternal, etc.; and you'll note that I said as much, when I insisted that such a collection of "existing finite things" needed a Cause which was quite beyond them all, and Uncaused. But this *requires* an uncaused cause; it doesn't at all militate *against* it!
At least, nothing that I can think of and not in the way I think you mean it.
As a brain-teaser: if something *were* eternal, etc., how would you know/recognize it?
So, based on what I consider to be the natural laws of this world, and by extension the universe, it seems more probable that a more 'natural' hypothesis is the better explanation.
This simply doesn't follow; in fact, it disproves the very point you seek to prove! How can a "limited" thing be the source of all things? If it's limited, it needs its own cause, and you've merely pushed the problem back, one step, without answering it.
The theory of evolution - changes by small degree over a very long period of time leading to increasingly complex forms of life seems a more plausible, and dare I say it, more logical, theory than positing a complex, omnipotent, eternal and unchanging god.
I'm afraid it's anything *but* logical, if you try to co-opt it as an explanation for the origins of all of creation, and all of life. Evolution is a plausible explanation for the apparent changes which may have taken place among *existing* things... but it's helpless to do more than that. Evolution can change what exists; it cannot create from nothing.
Bit busy at the moment will get back to you both shortly.
Post a Comment