The Strongest Argument For Christianity, by Keith Parsons
I like what he said at the end very much and agree wholeheartedly:
Christian depiction of the human condition seems to be spot-on. This is one thing Christianity gets exactly right. There is something deeply and seemingly irremediably wrong with us. We stain everything we touch. Even the citadel of reason is breached. As an academic, I long regarded intellect as a very high if not quite the highest good. Now I think it is grossly overrated. I have come to realize that I.Q. and rationality are hardly correlated at all. On the contrary, I have discovered the appalling extent to which very many of the smartest people employ their intellectual gifts and high-powered intellectual tools (like analytic philosophy) to create and defend pernicious ideologies and towering lunacies. Maybe worse are those who sell their intellects to the service of the highest bidders. “Reason is a whore,” said Luther, and, by God, he was at least 90% right.
Link
23 comments:
What a strange essay.
Much like we don't need religion to tell us "murder is bad, theft is bad, rape is bad", the insight that "people are horrible" is kind of obvious to anyone who has ever lived in the world. Figuring out why - either via allegorical storytelling or rational inquiry - is an interesting exercise, but the end goal of getting people to stop being so horrible is more important than the question of why (though insights into "why" can help us figure out how to accomplish the more difficult goal).
My personal problem with "Original Sin", btw, is not that it postulates that "people are horrible at their base" - I don't believe it is that simple, but that's not my problem with the doctrine. My problem with the doctrine is that it depends on there having once been some kind of Paradise where people weren't so horrible and that over time we're getting farther and farther from that wonderful Golden Age. Which is exactly the opposite of what history tells us - people actually are less horrible now then they were a century ago and are much, much less horrible now than they were 1000 years ago. Original Sin says we need to have God forgive us to be brought back to that Paradise - that some external force can save us from our biological natures. I don't think it's that easy - we need to overcome our horrible natures ourselves.
I think that's called pessimism, cherry picking, and confirmation bias, John. It's upsetting to see both Parsons and yourself take this route. It's only "spot on" if you are stuck in your own psychological rut. On behalf of the goodness of the human race where it can be found, please keep the insults to yourself.
thanks,
Ben
I agree with Jer. Parsons could as easily have said the it is one of the strongest arguments for Buddhism. How recognizing our human frailties can become an argument for religion is beyond me. The human condition is not something we fell in to, but something we must rise out of.
Of course, I think if this is the strongest argument for Christianity then it's pathetic, you see. ;-) And I think Parsons would agree.
But my point in the highlighted text is how pathetic we are with analytic philosophy. Our minds can use philosophy to defend lunacy.
This isn't a credit to Christianity though, since it can be known via psychological studies. It's just that believers seem to be persuaded that this is why people don't believe.
I had a chance to hear Dr. Parsons a couple of years ago; seemed to have his head on straight. I keep wanting to take one of his classes since I minister about 4 miles from Univ. of Houston - Clear Lake where he teaches.....maybe next semester.
Roger Sharp
http://www.confidentchristianity.com
"it can be known via psychological studies"
That all humans have something irremediably wrong with us?
War, maybe you can explain why intelligent people kill, maim and torture others. And maybe you can explain why human beings can be led to believe in lunacies. I saw a program where a Ph.D in psychology was duped by a con artist that he was a CIA operative and that the enemy was close to getting him, so he took her on a wild goose chase around Europe, taking every last penny she had before she wised up to him.
Why are we humans so easily misled? And if this is true of intelligent people then don't think you're immune from this either. Participants in the Holocaust were intelligent, educated people. I doubt whether many of us would have done differently, although if we had then we could've fallen for something else.
We're not that rational no matter what we pride ourselves on being. It's who we are no matter what words are used to describe us.
Agnosticism then becomes the default position in my opinion.
Agnosticism then becomes the default position in my opinion.
It just doesn't seem to me that the best defense against lunacy or gross error is a vaccuum of truth and the best place to start isn't nowhere.
Further, the history of atheism or agnosticism certainly wouldn't support that idea that it's a buffer against savagery and evil. The Nazi's and communists had their share of both. Well I geuss I'm not sure about agnostics, but the history of doubt and agnosticism has a place in their history. As Marx said "Doubt everything".
John,
Well I didn't say humans haven't done lots of bad things or that IQ is a guarantee of good behavior. That's such a simplistic view of human psychology as though what goes into making a stable moral agent with good character only has to do with something like their ability to pass an advanced placement math test. That's just plain silly. Just because the skeptical movement emphasizes reason as its primary virtue doesn't mean that a holistic lifestyle doesn't include healthy portions of a whole lot of other things working in conjunction with each other like a well oiled machine. Your view turns reason into an idol, and obviously with the wrong expectations of it, it will fail you. Reason is the slave of your emotions and if your emotions are screwed up, reason isn't necessarily going to save you.
As I recall, I originally pointed to cherry picking and confirmation bias as though the things you've listed necessarily characterize *everyone.* Would *every* psychologist be misled in such a way as you've described? Hardly. One Christian once told me that the reason his psychosomatic healing story couldn't possibly be a cookie cutter psychosomatic healing story was because the person who had their subjective symptoms prayed away was a registered nurse. Yes, because all nurses are created equally objective. Why are you aping Christian logic, John?
How do you explain all the people who have never done any of the things you've listed and never will? To even ask this sounds silly, and yet here I am. Surely you've thought about it before, right? What gives? It's called disconfirmation. Do I need to tell you that what they show on the nightly news doesn't actually characterize the entire world? Surely not.
Do you like have any arguments against the Christian doctrine of total depravity or are you totally on the same page with the ideological self-deprecaters? This post basically says, "Christians, they got psychology right!" And that's just plainly ridiculous on so many levels. I'm assuming you would claim to have grown up a bit emotionally since your apostasy, right? So I'm a little perplexed here.
If I've misunderstood your point of view in some way I apologize. Feel free to bring me up to speed.
Ben
Ben, my view is that I am dreadfully like other people. I am not much different than they are. If they can be led to believe false things then so can I. And if we can be led astray then we will commit atrocities. Of course, this makes me wise as Socrates said, precisely because I know this and am skeptical of ideas until tested.
Christians got psychology right for the wrong reasons though. Salvation for them is in Jesus whereas salvation for me is recognizing the limitations of knowledge.
John,
I agree, we shouldn't feel like we are immune from all manner of failures. However, that seems beside the point.
I was questioning your meta-analysis of the human condition. There are people who are more well adjusted than I am, who are more moral than I am, who are more happy than I am, who are prone to less mistakes than I am, and who have a lot more experience than I do navigating life's difficulties. And there are plenty of people who aren't as good as I happen to be at those things. There is definitely a way to make a distinction between sociopaths and the best person ever (whoever that was) with a wide enough spectrum in between. You can make a list of all the characteristics and values that you think make up a decent human being, and someone out there majors in just about all of them and someone minors in just about all of them. Why wouldn't that be true?
Perhaps you might disagree about how practically wide the spectrum is. People who have clinical depression for example could try to tell themselves that people without it aren't doing much better than they are. And they're probably wrong. They are wrong enough to say there's good reason to desire to not be depressed all the time. And there are people out there who aren't depressed all the time. And yes, it sucks that such things are unevenly distributed, but that doesn't change reality.
Sure we're all imperfect, but that doesn't justify the level of indictment you seem to have applied in such broad strokes and that's what I don't think is fair to humanity. If you don't mind me saying so, your view appears to be more about you getting in touch with your own sense of humility rather than being dispassionately realistic with the evidence the world presents.
You say you are dreadfully like other people, but why can't you be *delightfully* like other people in other ways? Have you no positive qualities? Does no one respect anything about you? I find that hard to believe.
Ben
Ben, nothing I said indicates human beings don't have positive qualities. We do. But humanity as a whole is a mess. We need to figure out why. How about this: Humanity is a mess. Science, skepticism and humility are the answers.
I think I can agree to that, but it doesn't seem like that's where we started out. We've gone from "irremediably wrong" to "has a mess it can sort out." Humanity needs to get its act together for sure, and I think it has the qualities to do it over time. I doubt we'd even be having this conversation if that wasn't the case.
As to the why question, that doesn't seem terribly mysterious to me. The engine of human character isn't perfect and requires genuine care and informed maintenance to run at peak efficiency that kind of thing simply isn't evenly distributed amongst the world (on top of genetic problems) and we're living in the wake of inherited collective cultural prejudices, biases, and various other errors and systemic cultural difficulties that were never planned out in the first place. It's like asking why all the modern roads are so screwed up.
I can't say that I'm really looking for another answer. Do you think I'm missing something?
Ben
John, the idea that humanity is one of those things that aren't scientifically verifiable. It's wishful thinking from the extrapolation of our survival induced desire to live peacably. But it is what it is. There is no trajectory of oughtness that any scientific experiment can support.
All you can do scientifically with the claim that humans are a mess is observe that many if not most people believe it. Course, once you decide what a trajectory of an appropriate response looks like (apart from science) science may work out some of the details of how that trajectory might be put in place. But otherwise, science underdetermines this thing.
As for skepticism, why can't one even be a skeptic of the claim that humanity is a mess instead of just concluding it is what it is and that's all that it is and the idea of a mess is nothing more than a subjective illusion.
oops, I left a word out.
John, the idea that humanity is one of those things that aren't scientifically verifiable.
I meant to refer to the idea that humanity is a mess.
Any opinions on this article I just stumbled upon?
"God not so dead: Atheism in decline worldwide"
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/atheism-in-decline-worldwide/
Hi ismellarat hows it going.
You said :"Any opinions on this article I just stumbled upon?"
My first thought was its from "Judism online".Second seems Munich "theologian" Wolfhart Pannenberg had someting to do with the survey
His friend Oxford colleague Alister McGrath who agree with him ,is "Professor of "Theology", Ministry and Education, and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture at King's College, London" ...http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/
Turkish philosopher Harun Yahya it seem is another: "an idealist person who devoted his entire life to share his views on the existence and unity of God and the graces of the Quranic morals with other people" http://www.famousmuslims.com/harunyahya.htm
And the report you give suggests this:"The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe makes Yahya’s prediction sound probable"
Like he was some former non believer.
Yet the famous muslim site suggests "he devoted his entire life to share his belief of god".
So somebodies telling some porkies.
Im more inclined to think maybe other polls that are most likely to be atleast a little less biased, not being produced by religion itself,might likely show statistics that might actually be more honest and factual.
Did you notice it seems this supposed consensus seems to add re-paganization also into the decline of atheism mix.And im sure folks claiming to have faith cause they know it brings more aid are added amongst those of the growing faith numbers too.
ismellarat, the more i get to know about many folks of faith the more often im sceptical of them.I have never ever found so many of them to be all that honest.Lying for god has always often seemed to me like, maybe god must have thought it a good thing or something??
But hey im just being honest,its got nothing about me painting everyone with the same brush....Im talking more about (my own experience and majorities) ...Not saying they all cant be trusted.
"And the report you give suggests this:"The stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe makes Yahya’s prediction sound probable"
Opps ..Sorry Ismellarat...Just reread that again ..And see that part was discussing about British philosopher Anthony Flew who went from humanist to deist.
Yahya it seems was always a devote muslim.
I apologize for any deceit i inferred by misreading what was actually written.My bad.My mistake.
But im still sceptic of faith and men that "guessed" about god/s.Even if evolution was proved wrong how does that then prove "a god". Or prove which god "a god" actually was/is, or what was the deal he wanted or whatever etc.
Somebodies still bullcrapping somewhere.We still have just so many ideas of god/s.
I can understand why some folks might be returning pagan in that sense,because as far as all guesses go its maybe as good a "guess" as any.
Sorry too about making your blog untidy John.
But im still sceptic of faith and men that "guessed" about god/s.Even if evolution was proved wrong how does that then prove "a god". Or prove which god "a god" actually was/is, or what was the deal he wanted or whatever etc.
If I remember correctly the article I read, the people mentioned aren't all on the anti-evolution crew but the intellegent design one. The idea their isn't that evolution (specifically common descent) is wrong, but that it isn't sufficient in and of itself to explain some of the types of complexity that we see. So an ID person may or may not believe in common descent (in the case of Michael Behe or William Dembske, they believe it).
If they are right, does it prove that God exists? Of course not and they don't claim it does. They just believe it's gosh darn good evidence for God which fits some conceptions of God really well. It doesn't really commend other religious claims really because not all religions assert a creator God. Take for example the pagan myths where creation is really just a result of a divine soap opera. So many of the eastern religions don't really benefit from ID claims either.
I just don't see the problem that just because you can't derive a complete theology and specific religion from ID that it isn't thus highly useful towards the end of religions that do benefit from the claim. So it's beneficial to several religions with the common ground of a creator God. The other differences will just have to be (and absolutely can be) sorted out on other grounds.
Course, while I find the issue interesting, I generally haven't participated in this because I don't put many eggs in this basket. There are far more important and humanly relevant reasons to believe not just in a creator, but in Yahweh and Jesus as well. And I don't have an axe to Grind against the like of Francis Collins, or other virtual Christian naturalists.
Dr. Parsons can write!
(JH)
They just believe it's gosh darn good evidence for God which fits some conceptions of God really well.
How? Why?
This is what the ID people never, ever answer.
They don't explain any mechanism for how this is done. They don't provide any evidence.
Zero.
Zip.
Nada.
It's all sophistry, distortion, and nit-picking at science and the scientific method.
The ID brigade does no research of its own, asserts nothing other than "you can't explain X (a, b, c, etc), therefore Goddidit!"
That's not good enough. It's like saying, "you can't fill in this gap, therefore...Santa Claus!" How patently ridiculous. What steps led to that assertion? What methodology? How can other people test/verify the claim?
Funny, the ID people never provide that data. They can't. Goddidit is simply the rote answer that they always pull out of their hat. It's all they have, and it's both dishonest to make such a baseless assertion, and insulting to expect anyone to accept it at face value, just because it makes somebody feel better about himself.
Ultmately, the "unfilled gap = Goddit" is a non sequitur. Do you not understand that much?
We evolved from predators, okay? Hector Avolas in his book "Fighting Words" shows how we as humans degenerate into predators whenever we don't get what we want. His argument is that if we take religion out of the picture then this is just one more issue we won't kill each over. But we will kill when we are threatened.
Post a Comment