(no subject)

[nameandnature]

Stuff I found on the web, probably on andrewducker's del.icio.us feed or something.

Psychology Today on ex-Christian ex-ministers and on magical thinking

Psychology Today has a couple of interesting articles, one on ministers who lose their faith, and another on magical thinking. Quoteable quote:

"We tend to ignore how much cognitive effort is required to maintain extreme religious beliefs, which have no supporting evidence whatsoever," says the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson. He likens the process to a cell trying to maintain its osmotic pressure. "You're trying to pump out the mainstream influences all the time. You're trying to maintain this wall, and keep your beliefs inside, and all these other beliefs outside. That's hard work." In some ways, then, at least for fundamentalists, "growing out of it is the easiest thing in the world."

That sounds sort of familiar. I'm not sure I'd consider myself an ex-fundamentalist, but I did find that giving up removed the constant pressure to keep baling.

The stuff about moral contagion in the magical thinking article reminded me of Haggai 2:10-14, where it's clear that cleanness (in the Bible's sense of moral and ceremonial acceptability, rather then lack of dirt) is less contagious than uncleanness. There's possibly a link here to the tendency of some religions to sharply divide the world into non-believers and believers, and to be careful about how much you expose yourself to the non-believing world (q.v. the unequally yoked teaching you get in the more extreme variants of a lot of religions).

Old interview with Philip Pullman

Third Way interviewed Pullman years ago. It's the origin of one of his statements on whether he's an agnostic or an atheist, which I rather like:

Can I elucidate my own position as far as atheism is concerned? I don’t know whether I’m an atheist or an agnostic. I’m both, depending on where the standpoint is.

The totality of what I know is no more than the tiniest pinprick of light in an enormous encircling darkness of all the things I don’t know – which includes the number of atoms in the Atlantic Ocean, the thoughts going through the mind of my next-door neighbour at this moment and what is happening two miles above the surface of the planet Mars. In this illimitable darkness there may be God and I don’t know, because I don’t know.

But if we look at this pinprick of light and come closer to it, like a camera zooming in, so that it gradually expands until here we are, sitting in this room, surrounded by all the things we do know – such as what the time is and how to drive to London and all the other things that we know, what we’ve read about history and what we can find out about science – nowhere in this knowledge that’s available to me do I see the slightest evidence for God.

So, within this tiny circle of light I’m a convinced atheist; but when I step back I can see that the totality of what I know is very small compared to the totality of what I don’t know. So, that’s my position.

This isn't really a surprising statement, but, like Ruth Gledhill's discovery that Richard Dawkins is a liberal Anglican, some people seem surprised that atheists aren't ruling out things which some people would regard as gods. The point is that there's no decent evidence that anyone has met one. Deism is a respectable position, I think (although I'm not sure why you'd bother with it), but religions which claim God has spoken to them are implausible because of God's inability to keep his story straight.

The walls have Google

The thing about blogging is that you never know who's reading. Someone called Voyou makes a post ending with an aside which is critical of A.C. Grayling's response to Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion. Grayling turns up in the comments to argue with them.

(I keep turning up more conversations about the Eagleton review: see my bookmarks for the best of them).

"Compact of hypocrisy and secret vice"

Yellow wonders whether or not he should sign the UCCF doctrinal basis in this post and the followup. Signs point to "not". Si Hollett reminds me of myself in my foolish youth.

Comments

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

If you think that's an "appeal to common sense" then, well, perhaps it is but I'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with that.
I think I explained that here (http://pw201.livejournal.com/91140.html?thread=473604#t473604), and you said you were wary of 'obvious' things too.

1. (For utilitarians.) Eternal torment provides its victim with a huge (perhaps infinite) dollop of negative utility
But I'm not a utilitarian.

2. (For Christians.) According to the New Testament, Jesus repeatedly told his followers to forgive others any wrongs done to them, and to repay evil with good, and this appears to be intended as a moral imperative. The NT also claims in multiple places that goodness consists of emulating God.
But God does continue to dole out goodness on those who are his enemies, He 'causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:45%20&version=31). He sent his son to die for us, He has already done enormously more than we could ever reasonably expect.

emulating Jesus, who reveals the character of God
Exactly, and the supreme way Jesus revealed the character of God was by dying on the cross so that the punishment we deserve could be avoided.

3. (For anyone.) Punishment, according to every legal or moral system I've ever heard of, is required to be proportionate to the offence. Eternal torment is by definition not proportionate to finite offences.
I agree it's hard to understand from our perspective. Like I said, I think our perspective is so far removed that we can't work it all out logically.

(1) that if our nature (as humans) is really such that in practice none of us, even with intentions as good as humans are capable of without divine intervention, will behave in a particular way, then it is not reasonable to punish not-behaving-in-that-way;
When you use say 'in practice' you're removing our responsibility, which I just can't accept because I know that when I do bad things it is because I choose to do so. I've said this a lot in these threads and you've come back with arguments about how it's statistically improbable that anyone would not sin and so on - I agree, but that's not because they have to but because they choose to. Our choices will have consequences (as they should), and "Well everyone else did it too so it's not my fault" is not going to wash I don't think.

For example, if there was a town where everyone stole things, we'd rightly wonder why everyone in the town stole things, but we'd consider that they had done it of their own free will and so deserved to be punished - even if everyone in that town chose to steal.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

The question I'm addressing is whether it's reasonable to torture us for eternity for our sins, which is not the same question as whether they are our fault.
At the end of the day I think Christians have some answers to these questions (woodpijn has tried to give some of them), but none that are entirely convincing to people who lack trust in God or the witness of God's Holy Spirit. I think it's a terribly bad angle to investigate Christianity from. Far better, I think, to assess whether Christianity is true, get to know God, and then think about it. There are a whole bunch of questions that don't have good answers, such as why we weren't created perfect to begin with (which is kind of related to all this), why there was a snake / devil at all, etc... But because we don't know the answers to questions we should expect to be outside of our domain of understanding (we don't know if love requires free choice which entails sin for example, and how could we know for sure unless we were God?) doesn't mean Christianity falls down - there are other things about Christianity we can check, and we can ask God if he is real and get to know him before / without understanding these things fully.

It is tempting to speculate on why it is that skeptics' criticisms of Christian doctrines so often get transmogrified into sillier criticisms when Christians reply to them, but I shall manfully resist temptation.
Trust me, we could say the same about how people (perhaps not you) keep missing out that we actually make these choices that are sinful, or the (hopefully not deliberate) conflating of the two separate points of us doing wrong and so deserving punishment (point 1) and God providing an escape route (point 2).

I do think you've mistaken your own intuition as something more than an intuition, but I dare say you think the same about me.
No I don't. You haven't claimed to have an inner witness from the Holy Spirit.

My point was only this: I decline to give some people's intuitions extra credit because they describe them as "inner witness" or "revelation" or whatever, at least until such time as they give me evidence that it has some source more reliable than their own brains.
Fair enough. I'm not using it to score extra credit, I'm trying to explain why I am so solid in my position (about God's existence primarily - not all the details of the punishment).

I would, however, be interested to know more about the ways in which this whatever-it-is differs subjectively from (other) intuitions.
It's not like any other 'intuition' at all. I don't want to use the term intuition, but dictionary.com sez 'The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition' which I suppose means it falls under that banner. It's like having truth imparted to you by an external power more powerful than yourself. That's not a very good description really. Oh well.

[gjm11.livejournal.com]

I'm not *investigating Christianity* from this angle. I'm investigating (or, actually, criticizing, but if anyone finds anything new and worthwhile to say in defence then I'm all ears) *the doctrine of eternal torment*. And, guess what?, what I actually did is to first of all evaluate (almost entirely on other grounds) whether Christianity is true, just as you suggest. The outcome of that prevented me continuing along your recommended course.

I am not claiming that not knowing the answer to every question is a problem with Christianity, or indeed with belief-in-eternal-torment. I have said so absolutely clearly and explicitly. (I drew a distinction between "puzzles" and "problems", if I'm remembering my terminology correctly.) Enough with the straw men, already!

Yes, there are other things in Christianity that we can check. I checked. Christianity is wrong. Yes, we can ask God if he is real. I asked. If he is, he's not telling.

Sorry to be so blunt about that, but it seems you're suggesting that somehow it's improper for people who aren't Christians to make any comment on things like hell because the only right perspective to approach such things from is (1) that of having investigated Christianity carefully, and simultaneously (2) that of actually being a Christian, which for some reason you appear to take as equivalent. They are not equivalent. But, in any case, perhaps it hasn't escaped your notice that people who *are* Christians don't always find eternal torment credible, or compatible with the alleged goodness of God.

I am sure that people on all sides of this debate erect straw men, misunderstand one another's positions, etc. As you already remarked in another context, "other people do it too" isn't a very good justification for anything. So please don't.

Of course I haven't made the *same* claim about my intuitions (or whatever they are) as you have about yours. But I am claiming that my conviction that eternal torment is not a reasonable consequence for finite sins to have isn't *just* a matter of how I happen to feel. It seems that you disagree. This is pretty much parallel to my opinion of your belief that, all considered, the best thing is probably for me to be tortured for eternity.

I'm afraid I don't know with much confidence what it feels like to have truth imparted to you by an external power (unless you count things like university lectures). Did you have prior experience of that, to enable you to tell that whatever-it-was-you-experienced was that rather than something else?

[gjm11.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm wary of obvious things too. But if something you believe is contradicted by Very Obvious Things, then I think that's evidence against it; and if your defence is to say "well, the understandings that lead you to think that's obvious aren't reliable" but you don't have some specific account of why *that* evaluation of obviousness is more unreliable than other similar ones, then you've landed yourself with (in this case) a very far-reaching skepticism about our ability to tell what's right and what's wrong; and I've explained my reasons for thinking that such skepticism badly undermines Christianity, or any other revealed religion for that matter.

Of course I don't think you're a utilitarian. But, as I said, one of the things that makes me trust this particular bit of "common sense" is that a variety of different ethical systems seem to me to lead to the same conclusion. Also, it's widely (not universally) agreed by non-utilitarians that utilitarianism is at least often a good approximation to the truth.

Perhaps what you "reasonably expect" doesn't include "not being tortured for eternity". Expectations differ. But tell me, what would you think of someone who claimed to be obeying Jesus's instruction to "turn the other cheek" if when someone slapped him in the face he smiled sweetly, offered the other cheek ... and then, a few days later, burned his assailant's house down?

I am not, of course, removing your responsibility. (Go on, check it's still there. See?) I have said at least twice now, I think, that I am *not* claiming that "everyone else did it too so it's not my fault". In fact, I see that I made that clear in the very comment you're replying to. If you must argue with straw men, could you at least make them ones I haven't already explicitly said aren't my position?

If there were a town where everyone without exception stole, then actually I *wouldn't* conclude that everyone in the town should be punished. I would conclude that probably there's something in the water or the culture that somehow stops the people understanding what's wrong with stealing, or makes them unable to resist the temptation; I would regard punishing them as an exercise in futility; but I would try to figure out what was broken so as to make the town stop being a place where everyone steals.

And of course that's different from our actual situation, since in your hypothetical example I'd know (since it's not true that everyone everywhere steals) that the problem, whatever it was, wasn't so deeply ingrained as to be Part Of Human Nature; but here in the real world, we aren't in a position to draw any such conclusion.