Interfaith Dialogue with Atheists

[cbayer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2014/06/interfaith-dialogue-with-atheists/

June 30, 2014 By Robert Hunt

Real dialogue is necessary, not over the important secondary matter of whether God exists, but over the primary question of what constitutes the basis for human knowing.

Two ads in the most recent edition of Scientific American caught my eye. On page 24 is an ad called “Leaving Truth.” It promotes a book designed to “call the theist’s bluff at this deepest accessible epistemic level.” See more at www.poppersinversion.org.

The second ad, larger, is entitled “In Reason We Trust” and comes from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It features a picture of Steven Pinker and a quote, “The biology of consciousness offers a sounder basis for morality that the unprovable dogma of an immortal soul. . . .The undeniable fact that we are all made of the same neural flesh makes it impossible to deny our common capacity to suffer.”

Even within the ads it is clear that those who placed them apparently do not understand either the basis for theism or a theistic understanding of morality. They appear to be directed against popular, ad hoc theology that still has currency in parts of the religious world but scarcely represent the mainstream of theological and philosophical thinking about God and ethics.

more at link

[edhopper]

1. Theologians

should be wary to write about science. They often get it wrong.
To not understand the difference between hypothesis speculation based on current understanding and belief in God is problematic for their argument.

[cbayer]

2. I also think that some scientists should be wary about

writing about religion because they often get it wrong as well. But that's a different topic. I don't see either of those things happening here. What are you responding to?

[edhopper]

3. his not understanding

how physicist speculate about multi-verses.
It is discussed in the comments.

It is vastly different than faith in God. He either knows that and is being deceptive, or writing about something he doesn't understand.

And most religious arguments for morality are "because God" ones. And all the philosophical theology doesn't change that.

[cbayer]

6. Are you aware that he is faculty member at Cambridge in the Dept of Applied Mathematics?

In light of that, I would guess that his understanding of multi-verses far exceed mine.

I think he is using it as an example of how one can "know" or understand something that can not be measured or observed. You may not agree with the analogy, but that doesn't invalidate.

As you know, I disagree with you about the "because God" argument that you continue to use. I think this writer comes much closer to describing it when he says:

With regard to morality I simply note that at least from the time of Aristotle serious Western philosophers (and certainly Confucius and his followers) have not believed that either ethical behavior or ethical systems were contingent upon belief in an immortal soul. Rather it is precisely our sense of commonality with our fellow humans – family first, then clan, then society – that gives rise to our ethics.

Clearly one does not need religion to have a set of morals and ethics. Since morals and ethics tend to be generally the same for both believers and non-believers, I think one can easily make the argument that the basis for these are not, in fact, religious.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Right here:

Given a complete lack of observable, repeatable, data upon which to reason neither the multi-verse not the theist hypothesis meets the standards of contemporary science.

Yet it is interesting that one appears regularly in journals and magazines devoted to science and the other does not. Which suggests that these journals, no less that Christianity Today for example, are based on what is essentially a faith commitment.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2014/06/interfaith-dialogue-with-atheists/#ixzz36JZbQsFb

If interfaith dialogue is what this guy's going for, he should probably avoid the "you have faith too" equivocation trope. That one tends to piss people off.

[cbayer]

7. I know that it pisses some people off, but that doesn't invalidate it.

It is the word faith and it's religious connotations that seem to push the buttons of some non-believers. Perhaps we need a different word to describe the similar mindset that is used in both cases.

[trotsky]

10. "I know that it pisses some people off, but that doesn't invalidate it."

The same could be said about people using the words "delusion" or "magic" to describe religious belief - and yet you strongly object to their use, even go so far as INSISTING that despite what the people using those terms tell you, you're just certain they intend for them to insult.

Consistency, cbayer. You really need to try it sometime. Perhaps people might take you more seriously.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. It is invalidated in that it is an equivocation

The colloquial "faith" (a strong belief in) does not convey the same meaning as "faith" when used in a religious sense (belief in the absence of evidence). This is especially true of Christianity, which includes in its authoritative text a rather clear definition of what "faith" should be considered to mean in the context of the religion.

If I were to say "I find the Theory of Multiple Universes plausible", it would not impart the same meaning as, say, a Christian saying, "I have faith in the redemptive power of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

[cbayer]

12. I understand that argument and agree that faith is not the best word in this context.

I don't fully reject the analogy, though.

There were things I was taught in the sciences that sometimes came down to something akin to faith. Although there was not evidence of way to test, it was often the explanation that just made the most sense. And if there was no evidence to contradict it, it was sometimes taken on faith in order to take the next step.

So, I see the difference that you point out, but still the similarities as well.

At any rate, I think the article makes some really good points. Many of the old, stale arguments that are used against religion and believers really should be dropped, particularly as some of them just don't hold up when data is taken into consideration.

But there seems to be a rather dogmatic drive to keep repeating them over and over in some quarters. This is also akin to some kind of faith it seems.

[trotsky]

13. Just as one might use a different set of arguments in a debate with George Will...

as opposed to one with Ted Cruz, there are different arguments one might use against a Sophisticated Theologian(R) versus those for an average, run-of-the-mill believer. Which even your author admits is much more common.

You do realize that, right?

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. But we don't accept ideas just because there's no evidence that contradicts them

There's no evidence to contradict the existence of a sentient, hyper-intelligent shade of blue orbiting the binary star Gamma Leonis. We don't give that much thought, though. Plausibility is one consideration. Past experience, another.

But let me give you a more concrete example:

Black holes were theorized to exist long before they were known to exist, as early as 1783. There was, at this point, no direct evidence for their existence. But there were, nevertheless, concrete reasons to believe black holes could, at the very least, exist. Chief among those reasons was that the relationship between mass and gravity had already been established. Using extant knowledge as a model, one could predict that if, were there sufficient mass in a sufficiently small location, that gravity would become so intense as entrap even light (which, at that time, was also known to behave like a particle).

Whether we're talking about black holes or multiple universes, we are talking about a prediction made after and based upon the results of repeated observation and testing. This is in no way, shape, or form analogous to what the religious mean by "faith".

At any rate, I think the article makes some really good points. Many of the old, stale arguments that are used against religion and believers really should be dropped, particularly as some of them just don't hold up when data is taken into consideration.

Personally, I think this is a statement to the author's disconnect from mainstream believers. Arguments against "popular ad hoc theology" are widely circulated because "popular ad hoc theology" is popular. Very Serious Theology, on the other hand, is not popular. The FFRF isn't going to waste their time trying to refute the Ontological Argument on a billboard when more than half of the people driving by won't even know what the hell the Ontological Argument is.

The ultimate irony, of course, is that he's doing exactly the same thing with his "atheists have faith, too" trope.

[trotsky]

5. Your "both sides are the same" shtick has worn so thin, cbayer, it's like wet tissue paper.

The author of this piece gets so many things wrong, and he's rightfully being picked apart in the comments at the site.

[Brettongarcia]

8. Some theologians are always claiming commonality or superiority to the theism Atheists critique

But even the more "advanced" theologies turn out to be just as bad as the fundamentalist ones - or worse.

For example? It was commonly thought that the heart of Liberal theology - Spirituality - offers a higher and better alternative to the Prosperity gospel that Fundies follow. But I've noted physically fatal problems even in spirituality itself (James 2.14-26).

This Patheos article moreover, is apparently getting more specific criticisms, regarding its own specific theology/metaphysics.

Some theologians are always claiming sympathy for science, atheism. Or they are claiming that there is some way they can co-opt science and atheism. By this or that sophistry. Finally though I feel there is only one theology that really matches science; and that specific theology simply calls for an "end" to traditional Christianity. Not endless continued defenses.

For 2,000 years theologians have been playing semantic word-twisting games to try to reconcile irreconcilable views. But today, people are tired of that. Today more and more feel that the time for cheesy, sophistical co-option efforts is historically, over. Today, in the era in which a Dawkins can gain much public acceptance, it is time for far more direct criticisms of traditional Christianity. Not cheesy co-options.

[Laochtine]

9. Faith

as a way of knowing? Knowing what? What you want to believe. That's really circular thinking.
I guess we really can't agree on knowledge.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. "Christians recognize miracles as such because they believe in God" - that's a damning indictment

of Christianity and how it makes things worse.

They appear to be directed against popular, ad hoc theology that still has currency in parts of the religious world but scarcely represent the mainstream of theological and philosophical thinking about God and ethics.

Bollocks. Mainstream theological thinking involves activist gods that do miracles (Christianity, Islam and many others) rather than the deist conception he's trying to get away with in the article. It's pathetic to start invoking invoking philosophers like Aristole when they're from a tradition that Hunt's own Christianity exterminated about 1700 years ago and replaced with miracle-invoking theologians who thought Jesus was a god. Why is a Christian trying to pretend he's not a Christian?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Interesting claim.

"They appear to be directed against popular, ad hoc theology that still has currency in parts of the religious world but scarcely represent the mainstream of theological and philosophical thinking about God and ethics."

Zero evidence to back it up.

"Given a complete lack of observable, repeatable, data upon which to reason neither the multi-verse not the theist hypothesis meets the standards of contemporary science. Yet it is interesting that one appears regularly in journals and magazines devoted to science and the other does not. Which suggests that these journals, no less that Christianity Today for example, are based on what is essentially a faith commitment."

Author is wholly ignorant of the current state of cosmology. See the Eridanus Supervoid. There is a fast-growing body of evidence for the “landscape multiverse” theory, and that the void/cold spot represents the contact point where a sister universe is tugging on, or pushing on, our universe.