1

The bloggist:

[Materialism] explicitly claims that matter (or some other physical entity) is unconditionally, nondependently real and draws conclusions about nature and humanity based on that belief.

We all do that to some degree. So materialists are, to a degree, religious. And Christians and Hindus and Buddhists are, to a degree, materialists.

Given the amount of time we humans spend not worshipping or otherwise thinking about our relation to the divine, I propose that materialists are less religious than Christians are materialist.

2

Jesus de Larrenzio We all do that to some degree. So materialists are, to a degree, religious. And Christians and Hindus and Buddhists are, to a degree, materialists.

I can’t speak for Hindus or Buddhists but I don’t know any Christians who would say that matter unconditionally, nondependently real. Christians believe matter is completely nondivine and that the existence of all of creation is continually dependent on what we perceive to be divine – God.

Given the amount of time we humans spend not worshipping or otherwise thinking about our relation to the divine, I propose that materialists are less religious than Christians are materialist.

In many ways that is true. Materialists tend to have a minimal number of definitive religious beliefs while Christians have a great number of them. But the key difference, in my opinion, is that Christians are more likely to be aware of how their religious belief colors their theories about the world while materialists often cling to the false notion that they are “religiously neutral” and have almost no awareness how their religious beliefs affect their theorizing.

3

Ah, Joe:

Quite a thought-provoking post!

Now, plainly, you are a brave man. For, in your post you broach the vexed issues of definition by setting necessary and sufficient demarcation- lines, in the context of identifying the "ultimate reality beliefs" component of worldviews. This is compounded by the resulting psychology and sociology of personal identity. All of this is in turn multiplied by the context of an ongoing civilisational level conflict, the so-called culture war.

A real biggie.

++++++++

All:

I would like to make a few notes, that may help in the discussions to follow:

1] Definition by example vs by specification: Here, we are trying to identify the core characteristics of an existing reality, so Joe is testing proposed demarcation-lines against generally accepted examples of the phenomenon in view. Thus, we recognise the point that we form concepts from experiences on a case by case basis, then try to mark their borders through identifying necessary and sufficient conditions. But, in so doing, we implicitly recognise that the concept and the underlying examples come first, so even if a given definition attempt fails, the underlyuing concept is still a viable issue. And obvioiusly, the challenge here is that religions do not all fall under the ambit, theism. So, perhaps the point is that the issue is the concept of ultimate reality, our dependence on that reality as coneived, and how we should therefore live our life under the sway of that reality. Ultimate reality being God, or a God-substitute. [Cf. diccussion here.]

2] Worldviews and world-agendas: Religions and philosphies of life, as well as the associated characteristic psychologies, are actually examples of worldviews and their associated agendas; which implies that there can be clashes of both ideas and agendas for society. To address the former, it is wise to apply the three comparative difficulties tests: factual adequacy, logical coheence, and explanatory power. The latter, should bear in mind the issues of liberty and public decision-making first worked out in modern times in the context of the protestant reformation and its aftermath of liberation struggles and underlying biblical principles.

3] Evolutionary Materialism as a [quasi-]religion: When the core of the concept, "religion," is provisionally identified, evolutionary materialism turns out to be, functionally equivalent to a traditional religion, thougfh of course not a theistic one. This observation will be hotly contested, but it is plainly true and goes to the heart of the contradictory decisions and arguments that come from secularists, most recently as highlighted in the Dover decision. Thus, some serious soul-searching is in order for those who, through the fact that secularism is not a theistic religion, are in fact de facto establishing their quasi-religion as the state church of the united states, complete with the atheist's veto on public policy, censorship on education and what can be viewed in the public square, and a question-begging redefinition of science as, in effect, the best evolutionary materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans.

++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

4

Joe, the use of "divine" is, to my intuitions, more closely tied to some sort of theism than "religious belief." I don't see why you didn't just skip the term and use its definition for you instead. Now you have TWO terms commonly (though as you say not necessarily) associated with deities rather than one.

Good luck keeping y/our ducks in a row!

5

Joe, I am by no means well-versed in Post-Materialism, but I'm a little surprised you don't bring up Derrida's "différance," since it relates to your second paragraph. But perhaps that would have taken you a bit too far afield. (PG Epps should jump in here.)

I am also reminded of a keen observation I once heard, that the source of a culture's laws is that culture's god, i.e. that the heart of the matter is lordship. Indeed to the Christian mind, that issue was at the heart of Adam's rebellion.

Centering on the idea of religious impulse as being about lordship, or ultimate authority, I believe shows the materialist, atheist, even anarchist to be religious. A man is a worshiper, i.e., religious, even if he only worships himself. Hence I believe all men are religious.

I further believe that any consternation that follows in this discussion will be due to some commenters trying to insist that non-religion exists; they will try to make themselves out to be neutral, an impossibility.

It is a great irony that atheists do not exist. Advantage: God.

6

Ok...i ve been a silent reader here for a while,going through all the various back and forth but i hadent come across a discussusion i wanted to join until now so here goes.

Virtually everything Mr Carter said in the initial article is a con. Harsh but true. Whats more,its not even a new con but poorly recycled con. Its the same con i ve seen pop up every now and again whenever i either witness or participate to debates involding religion (mostly christian) appologists. It consists mainly of playing on words and redifining them on the fly to create a situation where the debate is moved in an arena they are well familiar with where the offending concept can be attacked with everything in their arsenal...namely,the arena of theology.

Thats why religionists do with everything they dont like...they force fit them into the framework of their theology instead of anylising and judging those concepts according to their own merits. In this case Mr Carter is attempting to equate/substitute religious beliefs and philosophy in an attempt to indict materialism and one of its offsprings,evolutionary science...let us examine his arguments for doing so...

"Religious beliefs require a belief in God or gods -- One of the most common misconceptions about religious belief is that it requires a belief in God or a supreme being. But such a feature would be too narrow because it would exclude polytheistic religions that do not recognize a supreme being. In fact, we cannot include the concept of god or gods at all since some religions (e.g., Brahmin Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism) are literally atheistic."

One the first count,Mr Carter i completely wrong. Religious beliefs come from religions and religion come from "gods"...there simply is no way around that. To claim otherwise is akin to stating that one can be a gourmet chef on a planet where there is no food. religious beliefs are the component parts of religions and neither can exist without the other. and there can be no religion without some supreme entity/concept revealing that religion and its precepts to its followers. If Brahmin Hinduism and Theravada Buddhism are essentially athiestic,then that clearly places them in the realm of philosophical world views.

"Religious beliefs are beliefs that induce worship or worship-related activities -- This feature is also defeated by the counterexamples of Brahmin Hinduism and Theravada Buddhism, neither of which practices worship. The same is true for the religious beliefs of some ancient Greeks such as Aristotle and later the Epicureans who thought the gods neither knew about nor cared about humans. They certainly felt no obligation to worship such apathetic beings."

On that point Mr Carter is essentially correct. Religious beliefs dont necessarely require one to perform rituals of worship in order the have them. Its entirely possible for say a christian to believe in God,in Jesus in Heaven and Hell,in the ten commandements,ect without ever going to church or giving praise to God. That might make him a bad christian but that does not negate his religious beliefs. But again here the appeal to Brahmin Hinduism and Theravada Buddhism as exemples do not help Mr Carter's case for reasons stated above. As for Aristotle and co,the fact that they chose not to worship the apathetic greek gods did not negate their beliefs in them nevertheless so again,no help to Mr Carter's case.

7

Mr. Ludwig is a classic example of the shallow thinking and defensiveness that will result from your post today, Joe. To accept that the Materialist belief is "religious" is just totally unacceptable to those who worship at its alter. If your point is accepted Joe, then Materialists can no longer look down their noses at others and feel above everyone elses beliefs. That will never happen!

This will be only the beginning of a near hysterical defense of this view that the cherished articles of faith of Materialists are religiously neutral.

I'm looking forward to more comments like those of Mr. Ludwig. They are very amusing and instructive. Keep exposing their weak arguments, Joe!

8

This is why the whole linguistic method of philosophy is useless. You inevitably end up quibbling over semantics.

It's true that the main task of philosophy is to make our thought clear. And it's always a good thing if we can make our language clear. But it's a fundamental error to equate these two things. If you say they're the same, you reduce philosophy to a language game - you've abandoned actual philosophy (making thought clear) in favor of arguments over what words "really" mean.

9

Joe, as an adjunct professor of world religions at Mesa Community College I teach that a religious belief is simply the dominant worldview of a person, unconscious or conscious. And so, I force my students to think through the components that make up their worldview. Below, is the final paper outline that they must use in my class.

MY WORLDVIEW AND WHY
Final Paper Outline

A worldview is a comprehensive understanding of total reality. In your final paper you are to systematically and logically present your worldview or total belief system. You are required to provide appropriate footnote source support for your integrated belief system and statements, and also how your worldview compares or contrasts with the worldviews of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In other words, you are required to present not simply what you do or don’t believe, but why.

Use the following outline components, in the order provided below, to write your final paper. Your worldview should demonstrate internal logic and integration between each of these worldview components.

1. Ultimate Reality - Explain your view of ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is your big picture umbrella understanding from which your worldview emerges and can be explained. Is there a God or gods? Is your ultimate reality personal or impersonal? How did your ultimate reality originally come into being or existence?

2. History - Explain your view of human history, is it linear or cyclical? Does human history have a beginning and an end? Is there purpose and meaning to human history? How does your ultimate reality affect human history?

3. Spirit or Invisible World - Explain your view of the spirit, unseen, invisible world or realm. Are there angels, demons, Satan, principles or laws? Can humans interact or experience the spirit world? Can or does the spirit world affect humans?

4. The Physical or Seen World - Explain your view of the origin and nature of the physical world. Did God, gods, or a force create the world? Do physical things have souls or spirits? Is the physical world good or bad? Did the physical world have a beginning and does it have an end? How did the physical world with its ordered laws and function come into existence?

5. Humans – Explain your view of the origin and nature of humans. How and why do humans differ from animals? Are humans good or evil? Explain your view of the human soul, heart, and spirit. Explain the origin and nature of human consciousness and awareness of values.

6. Truth – Explain your view of truth? Is there universal objective truth relevant to all humans? Or is truth simply a subjective understanding created by each individual?

7. Ethics or Morality – Explain your view of right and wrong? Are ethics relative or are they universal requirements of behavior that all humans should follow?

8. The Human Problem – Explain your view of the origin, cause, and condition of human sin, injustice, evil, wrong doing, suffering, sickness, and death.

9. Human Salvation – Explain your view of how humans can experience ultimate salvation, liberation or freedom from the condition of the “human problem.”

10. Life After Death - Explain your view of what humans experience after they die, and how they live on earth will affect their existence in the afterlife.

10

Greg said, "This is why the whole linguistic method of philosophy is useless. You inevitably end up quibbling over semantics."

I don't necessarily disagree with this but isn't it necessary to have some concepts or ideas well defined or categorized? Should Joe not have defined religion in a way that includes materialism but instead created a new word whose definition is the idea he described in this post. What Joe outlined is logical and, I think, an accurate description. What should we call it?

11

The fact that Mr. Ludwig's arguments are less than compelling is almost as disturbing as his painful disregard for the rules (arbitrary though they may be) of English spelling and grammar, which makes his comment literally hard to read.

Joe, you've certainly made me think about this. I like your boundaries on what makes a good definition. I've recently been thinking about that in connection with the definition of the word "parasite"; you can probably guess why.

12

Ludwig,

You object to two of Joe's points -- his claim that religious belief does not entail belief in any kind of god, and his point about certain Greek thinkers believing in gods without worshiping them.

On the first point, you say that religion is inherently theistic, and that what we think of as atheistic religions are in fact philosophies. This is mainly a terminological point and not worth arguing over, although it's a little harsh to call Joe's point a "con" -- his extension of the term "religious" to cover certain strands of Buddhism and Hinduism is hardly out the mainstream. And for the more substantive point, I'd classify them as religions rather than philosophies because it seems clear that A Buddhist seeking enlightenment has a lot more in common with a Christian seeking salvation than he does with a philosopher seeking an account of what numbers are or what logical necessity is. (You could try to fuzz this point over by talking about "Eastern philosophy," but it seems to me that that would only show that Eastern philosophy is at its base a more spiritual enterprise than its modern Western counterpart. Some might say this makes it religious.)

As to your second objection, I think you misunderstood Joe's point. He was arguing against the claim that some sort of worship is essential to religion. As an example he called up a few Greeks, who believed in gods (and thus had beliefs that even by your definition would be religious) but did not worship them. He wasn't trying to use this case to bolster his first point, that religion is not inherently theistic. From what I can tell, that's what you took him to be doingl

13

Ludwig,

The dividing line between philosophy and religion is not nearly as clear as you seem to think. It's not clear historically when you consider pre-socratics like Paremenides. It's not clear in the case of Plato who believed in a demi-urge who created the universe from pre-existant materials. And it's not clear today when you look at the history of cosmology or the current debates over string theory.

As for dragging materialism into a theological framework, that's really the pot calling the kettle black. Materialists have been doing the opposite to theists since at least 500 BC. Am I prepared to argue about God from a strictly materialist framework? Of course not. Why would I cede the very ground we're arguing over? I see materialism as subject to a theological framework just as you see monotheism as subject to a materialist framework (evolutionary biology or whatever).

All you've offered is a rant about Christians reasoning from presuppositions that are, well...Christian.

14

In many ways that is true. Materialists tend to have a minimal number of definitive religious beliefs while Christians have a great number of them. But the key difference, in my opinion, is that Christians are more likely to be aware of how their religious belief colors their theories about the world while materialists often cling to the false notion that they are “religiously neutral” and have almost no awareness how their religious beliefs affect their theorizing.

Just as you explored a rigerous definition of religion I think you should materialist as well. Often the word is used here to describe one who 'studies matter'. Yet this leads to the error of assuming that just because a person thinks that matter is very important that he also believes matter is 'devine' (using your refined definition of devine).

Even someone like Dawkins would probably say that a devine element besides matter cannot be ruled out. Only that it cannot be proven by studying matter & any other 'intuition' of one cannot be trusted just as we have good reason not to trust the sincere claims of so-called UFO abductees...even though we cannot prove UFO's with unknown powers are not abducting people. So even many materialists are indeed 'religiously neutral'.

In fact, Joe, I'm curious as to what you would make of someone who said that we cannot assume that matter is independent from anything else for its existence but neither can we assume it isn't. Being made of matter ourselves, the best we can do is explore the nature of matter on the working assumption it is devine but even that we cannot say for sure.

I'm also a bit disturbed by Joe's comment about worldviews effecting theorizing. Its well established that our cultures and beliefs may effect our hypothesises. For example, scientists in a Christian country studying whether religion impacts health may conduct a study that compares how a certain disease behaves in a population of prayers versus non-prayers. They may error in assuming religious means Christian and miss the fact that many Eastern religions do not 'pray' in the Christian sense but do practice meditation and that should be studied as well.

But science should be objective about the results of testing the theory. The example above may be flawed because it only studies Christian style prayer but nonetheless scientists of any religious stripe should be able to repeat the experiment with a control group and test group and report the results objectively. In principle it should not matter if the scientist conducting the study is Christian or not. The results are what matters.

B4
Mr. Ludwig is a classic example of the shallow thinking and defensiveness that will result from your post today, Joe. To accept that the Materialist belief is "religious" is just totally unacceptable to those who worship at its alter. If your point is accepted Joe, then Materialists can no longer look down their noses at others and feel above everyone elses beliefs. That will never happen!

But you don't counter Ludwig's argument at all! He has a very good point. What's wrong with simply defining religion as 'belief about God(s)' and therefore pushing Brahmin Hinduism and Theravada Buddhism into the borderlands between religion and philosophy? This sort of thing happens all the time with definitions. For example, some definitions of planet would include Pluto, others won't. Remember Joe's argument is that any definition of religion *must* include Brahmin Hinduism & Theravada Buddhism. Therefore he rejects including 'god(s)' as a part of the definition. Why? Who wrote in stone that these two beliefs must be included in any attempt to define religion?

15

This definitional exercise really helps nothing. Is divinity itself nondependent? Which came first--divinity or language? In other words, do divine "things" exist or are they merely human constructs? Beats me, but isn't that what we all really want to know?

16

I'm pretty comfortable viewing those who hold materialist positions, or atheistic positions as really not religious in terms of how most think of religion in a conventional (every day) sense. However, as I have tried to say in other posts, these positions still require beliefs, and these beliefs seem to me just as incredible, and/or miraculous as any that I hold. Therefore, I don't accept any in those related camps trying to lay special claim on rational thought (which happens all to often in these threads)...

17

I see today’s post as progress.

In the Neism comments thread on Thursday, (post 23, January 5 at 4:17 pm), Joe wrote:
“Atheism is a religious belief and therefore qualifies as a religion (even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this fact).”

Today, Joe writes:
“Because it merely takes a position on a nonessential element of religious belief, it would be erroneous to claim that atheism is necessarily a religious belief.”

I also think is Joe has improved by distinguishing between religion and religious belief. On Thursday, he used these almost interchangeably.

Today he writes:
“Although it may be true that not everyone has a religion (a system of religious beliefs, practices, and rituals), it would be rather absurd to believe that there is anyone who does not have a religious belief.”

For myself, I will accept that under today’s definition of religious belief, “materialism,” aka metaphysical naturalism, qualifies as a “religious belief.”

Since we are being careful with our language, let’s also be clear that there is a significant difference between “metaphysical naturalism” and “methodological naturalism.”

18

I think it is important to understand why some materialists (myself included) are reluctant to see their worldviews characterized as a religion. When in the past a theist has attempted to portray an atheistic worldview as religious, it has always been designed to gain a rhetorical advantage (atheists beliefs are more improbable than Christian beliefs) or to muscle past church/state separation (Secular Humanism is being taught in our schools! We demand equal time!) No wonder we question Joe's motives when he uses a definition of religion so broad it encompasses philosophy, sociology, science, et cetera, to an unnecessary extent. We wonder if he is establishing a beachhead for claiming that the "religion of Materialism" is being taught in our public school science classes. Given the insidious attempts to incrementally undermine church/state separation (not to mention abortion rights) by the religious right, I think all semantic arguments of that group must be subjected to extreme scrutiny. Remember the Patriot Act? Free Speech zones? The Clean Air Act? Homicide Bombers? The culture wars are fought primarily with words. For this reason, I favor a somewhat narrower definition of religion that at least references the supernatural.

19

good points, if we are to say someone holds a religious belief shouldn't we also be able to articulate an alternative religious belief that is contradictory to the person's blief? For example, we can say that Joe has religious beliefs and they contradict a materialist's beliefs.

So far so good. Now what would be a contradictory belief of an atheist? How about simple belief that God exists beyond the ordinary universe? Not quite, a person wedded to materialism could hold this belief too. Only if they bothered to say that they believe no such thing exists beyond the world of ordinary matter could you say there's a contradiction.

But most people who Joe would call naturalists have never asserted that 'leap of faith' into 'religious materialism'. Mostly they tend to say there is no evidence in the material world for such assertions. But logically they have to hold open the possibility that a world can exist outside of materialism unless they specifically made the leap to 'relgious materialism'

20

Andrew Jackson's post points to something that is of value to this discussion. I suspect that one of Joe's interests in this question is to find a way of preventing any class of people from claiming not to be subject to the KINDS of commitments others have. What Andrew Jackson's post suggests is that we all have to answer some basic set of questions.

I salute this interest, for political reasons. I don't want anyone getting better or worse treatment under law (against my interpretation of John Rawls' position) because they are acting according to a "religious belief." Coherent or not, we all act in respect to some answer to those questions.

21

Actually, Rob, I think that it is fair to point out that the position of 'materialist' requires belief and faith to maintain. It certainly does not, I will grant, require formal practice or religious observance.

It is equally frustrating to those from most traditional religions, that the academic world has no trepidation in teaching that the universe and all that exists is just matter and humans just pieces of meat evolving from accidental, non-directed, random, purposeless events. Given that we don't know that, it seems reasonable that the debate and discussion of ideas could be widened.

Further, I have seen nothing to prove that holding atheistic/materialist positions would be any better for society. While the perversion of the practice of religion can prove to be abhorrent, and evil; the true expression of religion holds vast potential for good.

As for many believers upholding and defending traditional values, and opposing abortion; I would hope you would expect that. That's nothing I'd ever be ashamed to admit..

22

As one who lives and works in the secular academic world, I am a bit taken back by Rob B.'s statement that "the academic world has no trepidation in teaching that the universe and all that exists is just matter." Did I miss class the day that was taught? I have never heard that in class nor have I taught it.

Rob B. also writes: "Further, I have seen nothing to prove that holding atheistic/materialist positions would be any better for society. While the perversion of the practice of religion can prove to be abhorrent, and evil; the true expression of religion holds vast potential for good."

No one here is making the argument that we should hold to materialist views because that would be better for society. Our goal (or mine at least) is to search for what is true, not what feels best. But if we want to make the decision to believe only that which is "best for society" (tell me how you will measure this), we might do well to adopt the religious practices and beliefs of Japan and Finland.

The "true expression of religion"? I guess that would be your version.

23

Joe: When it comes out make sure you check out *Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith*, vol 58, Number 1, March 2006, pp. 2-27. This is a dialogue on Clouser's article *Prospects for Theistic Science* by 3 philosophers (with closing replies from Clouser), and it includes some discussion of the nature of his definition of religious belief.

24

ex-preacher, try and harken back to your biology class. What did you learn...what were you taught about origins? Please also try to realize that some statements are made to express the general jist of things, such as what is widely being put out by secular academy...certainly reading the quotes of the scholars Joe posted shows that this is the general direction..

And I would argue that if there is an expression of true religion, then it expressly involves the search for truth. Not only the search, but relating to that truth.

You played your true hand, though, when you state you just don't want to believe "what feels best." To place believers in that pigeon hole is insulting, dismissive, and not true. Since you are on your search for what is true, of course.. that is unless you can climb in each person's mind and tell me what each thinks feels best to believe.

I would think that some find the idea of no God, and no ultimate accountability very, very comforting..

25

Rob B. writes: "I would think that some find the idea of no God, and no ultimate accountability very, very comforting.."

This isn't the first, nor I suspect the last, time that I've encountered the slur that atheists become such so that they sin to their heart's content. I've had my own relatives tell me that. They're still waiting to see what great sin I was wanting to commit when I became an atheist 6 years ago. I think my Christian wife would tell you that I am no worse a person, and perhaps even a better person, than I was ten years ago.

I don't know many atheists who take great comfort in the belief that there is no afterlife, but almost every Christian I know takes comfort in the belief that they will be richly rewarded in the afterlife. One can argue that the Christian life is even less about ultimate accountability since one who has raped children, murdered innocent people, etc. can be forgiven and get into heaven if in the end he has faith in Christ.

I notice that you don't seem to want to defend your earlier implication that one shouldn't accept materialism because it is not good for society. Are you backing off that pragmatism? If not, I wonder if you are willing to abandon your beliefs in favor of the beliefs in countries with the lowest crime rates, best educational systems, and best health outcomes.

26

ex-preacher,
I guess you have firmly established the correlation between these countries' low crime rates, etc. due to the fact that they hold to materialistic and atheistic philosophy? Give me a break.

Secondly, you seem quite touchy. I never said the slur that you are accusing me of --in any way. It is not a stretch that some may see the abyss of nothingness and non-existence as a relief to existing at all. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Further, I don't see many in the atheistic camp here saying how much they'd really love to believe in God--- if they only could. No, the attitude is much more along the lines of a hatred for religious thought and its implications for society, and that if there were a God, a strong desire to tell Him where to go.

I take comfort in my hope and belief that I will see God and Christ. One can't deny the hugeness of Grace. But, to think that I am hoping to add to my list of embarrassing short falls simply because Grace exists is not very sound and not very sincere..

27

"Only if they bothered to say that they believe no such thing exists beyond the world of ordinary matter could you say there's a contradiction."

Joe's original post was cataloguing a group of recently published statements by some high profile scientists, most of whom seemed to have a materialist/atheistic bent. Saying the two things (materialism and atheism) aren't necessarily the same, while true, doesn't change the fact that people like Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Weinberg and others have already crossed this line explicitly many times. No one is saying you guys (ex-preacher, s9, Boonton) have to follow them over, but there views are on record.

In any case, it seems to me that while not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists (strict materialists), the vast majority are epistemological naturalists, i.e. they hold to the definition of agnosticism which not only says "I don't know" but which says "No one can know." There is a distinction of course, since the latter could at least in theory allow for the existence of God (albeit one we can't know) but for purposes of Joe's original post, it's a distinction without a difference.

28

"Further, I don't see many in the atheistic camp here saying how much they'd really love to believe in God--- if they only could."

That depends on the god, I suppose. I must admit I'm not too fond of the god(s) offered by the three great monotheistic faiths, because I consider them to be morally inferior. But I would love to see my dear departed sister again. I would love to live in happiness for eternity. Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter whether or not I want to believe; I simply do not.

29

Joe Carter writes: Ludwig Wittgenstein, considered by many to be the premier philosopher of the 20th century...

Already, I'm banging my head against the table. "One of the many influential" I wouldn't quibble. "The premier?" Somebody open a window.

I can see I'm going to have a lot to work with when I finish reading this latest entry.

30

KAM Joe, the use of "divine" is, to my intuitions, more closely tied to some sort of theism than "religious belief." I don't see why you didn't just skip the term and use its definition for you instead.

That was definitely something I considered. I’m a bit surprised that Clouser uses the term “divine” since it does, as you note, have theistic overtones. I can see how the word has become something of a synonym for “transcendent” (“…a divine experience…”) but I still wish he had used a less-loaded term. Still, it was his definition and I didn’t want to try to pass off a new and improved version as my own.

Ludwig In this case Mr Carter is attempting to equate/substitute religious beliefs and philosophy in an attempt to indict materialism…

Obviously I disagree, but I don’t want to dismiss your criticism out of hand. Perhaps you could provide us with a definition of philosophical belief that excludes all religious beliefs. In other words, can you list all of the features that are true of all religious beliefs and true only of religious beliefs?

…and one of its offsprings,evolutionary science...

Where do you get the idea that “evolutionary science” is an offspring of materialism?

One the first count,Mr Carter i completely wrong. Religious beliefs come from religions and religion come from "gods"

Because this flys in the face of thousands of years of human experience, I think you need to elaborate. Why must religion come from “gods?”

Matthew I've recently been thinking about that in connection with the definition of the word "parasite"; you can probably guess why.

I presume that you are referring to the line of argument that uses the metaphor of “fetus as parasite.” If so, then you might be interested in Gilbert Meilaender, “The fetus as parasite and mushroom: Judith Jarvis Thomson's defense of abortion.” I haven’t been able to find the article online but the PubMed index number is 11660920.

Just as you explored a rigerous definition of religion I think you should materialist as well. Often the word is used here to describe one who 'studies matter'.

Um, really? To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that used as a definition. I always thought that physicists were the ones who “study matter.”

Even someone like Dawkins would probably say that a devine element besides matter cannot be ruled out.

You obviously haven’t heard much from Dawkins. While he might say that some other physical substance or property (i.e., energy) is the “divine” element, he is quite clear that he rules out any possible that the divine could be non-physical.

In fact, Joe, I'm curious as to what you would make of someone who said that we cannot assume that matter is independent from anything else for its existence but neither can we assume it isn't.

My first assumption is that they would be laudably humble in the epistemic stance. But I would also think that they are like the person who claims to have no preference for manual dexterity. They may say one thing but we should look to see which hand they use to write with. Their actions, in other words, reveal their unconscious preferences.

In principle it should not matter if the scientist conducting the study is Christian or not. The results are what matters.

Agreed. But notice how the control belief determined what theory was initially tested. The conclusion may be the same for both Christian and non-Christian scientists. But would someone from an Eastern religion have been as likely to have run the experiment in the first place? Probably not. That is what I mean about worldviews effecting theorizing. Our religious beliefs set the parameters of our plausibility structure.

Steven This definitional exercise really helps nothing. Is divinity itself nondependent? Which came first--divinity or language? In other words, do divine "things" exist or are they merely human constructs? Beats me, but isn't that what we all really want to know?

We can’t really know with complete certainty and objectivity that anything is not a human construct so your question merely leads to hyper-skepticism.

ex-preacher I see today’s post as progress.

That was a rather rapid change of opinion, wasn’t it? I the learning process was always so rapid for me. ; )

I do need to nuance that a bit and say that while I don’t think that atheism is always a religious belief, it can be one if added with other beliefs. The problem with atheism is that it is a purely negative belief, expressing only what one doesn’t believe. While the courts have declared it a valid religion, I think it doesn’t really qualify to be considered as such.

Since we are being careful with our language, let’s also be clear that there is a significant difference between “metaphysical naturalism” and “methodological naturalism.”

True, but if you reject the former I’m not sure why you have to accept the latter. (Note: I don’t believe the opposite of methodological naturalism is an acceptance of “supernaturalism” in natural science theories. More on that later.)

Rob Ryan I think it is important to understand why some materialists (myself included) are reluctant to see their worldviews characterized as a religion.

While it might be damning you with faint praise, I find it refreshing that you are willing to admit that your reluctance has less to do with whether your worldview really is religious than how that would cause you to lose a rhetorical advantage.

Paul When it comes out make sure you check out…

Thanks, Paul. I’ll be looking for that.

S9 Already, I'm banging my head against the table. "One of the many influential" I wouldn't quibble. "The premier?" Somebody open a window.

While that is certainly not a claim that I agree with, I have heard it made a few (too many) times. Personally, I think that Alvin Plantinga was the “premier” philosopher of the 20th century. ; )

31

Rob B. writes: "Further, I don't see many in the atheistic camp here saying how much they'd really love to believe in God--- if they only could."

I for one really wish I still believed in God. If I did, I wouldn't have had to give up the great job I had at a Christian university. My mom wouldn't be so sad. My wife and kids would be much happier. Many friends and former colleagues wouldn't have turned away from me.

For me, and I think for most atheists, our views were arrived at honestly, not because we somehow didn't want to believe anymore. (I'm not speaking here of those who are atheists by default - apatheists.) It's very hard to make yourself believe something that you really don't think is true. I would love to believe in heaven, but as hard as I try I can't make myself. In the same way, you cannot make yourself stop believing something that you think is true. I can no more turn a switch and start believing in God than you could turn a switch and stop believing. Our beliefs are a complex product of the information we have been exposed to and conclusions we have reached, as well as our environment. As you know, most people believe what they were raised to believe. And even those who question their faith usually end up deciding that their parents' faith is the One True Faith after all.

One reason I hang around places like EO and read Christian apologetics and listen to Christian radio is that I keep hoping I missed something. Maybe I'm wrong. I would be so happy if I could wholeheartedly believe.

32

"...I find it refreshing that you are willing to admit that your reluctance has less to do with whether your worldview really is religious than how that would cause you to lose a rhetorical advantage."

Why shouldn't I admit it? The mere fact of what I perceive as your error is less material to me than its impact on me. That seems natural enough to me. What concerns me is your motive for this fresh foray into lexicography. Given your repeated attacks on materialism, it's hard to imagine you don't have some ulterior motive for classifying it as a religion.

Why do you want people to think of materialism as a religion, Joe?

33

Rob Why do you want people to think of materialism as a religion, Joe?

Why? Quite simply because I believe materialism is based on a religious belief. You're right that I continue to "attack" materialism, but there is no ulterior motive. None is needed. I take shots at materialism because (a) it needs to be done, (b) it is a fat, easy target, and (c) because it has inexplicably risen to a place of prominence in Western thought even though it is illogical and rooted in a weird form of mysticism.

The fact that materialism is rooted in a religious belief neither helps nor hurts it. It is merely an interesting fact. But acknowledging that fact could aid us in understanding how materialism effects the theories that are based upon it.

34

boonton, "Mostly they tend to say there is no evidence in the material world for such assertions. But logically they have to hold open the possibility that a world can exist outside of materialism unless they specifically made the leap to 'relgious materialism'"

Those who haven't made the leap to what you're calling "religious materialism" (good term!) still operate on the basis of their belief. And when they have to act on the basis of belief, the absence of evidence in this case is usually PRACTICALLY taken as the evidence of absence, no?

Is agnosticism practicable? We tend to act on the basis of what we (think we) KNOW, right? Somebody help me out here.

35

Perhaps I'm walking into a trap here, but pray tell, what theories are based on materialism?

36

Having just read Clouser's book I believe I am qualified to jump into this discussion.

ex-preacher
you need to read his book as he clearly explains why all theories are based on religious belief. All theories have to start with some assumption or another.

His book is:
The Myth of Religious Neutrality - An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories.
University of Notre Dame Press - London

The theory of evolution assumes materialism. If it started with the assumption of a Biblical God, you wouldn't even go there.

Since materialism assumes there is no supernatural it is a religious philosophy. It cannot be known or proven that there is no supernatual because you would have to be God to know that. Therefore it is a faith-based belief.

37

Rob Ryan wrote:
"When in the past a theist has attempted to portray an atheistic worldview as religious, it has always been designed to gain a rhetorical advantage (atheists beliefs are more improbable than Christian beliefs) or to muscle past church/state separation (Secular Humanism is being taught in our schools! We demand equal time!)

Few things anger me more than the statements made by secular humanists such as those in the recent trial in Dover. The elephant is the room is that there is no such thing as a non-religious person. The Judge accused the school board members of having the ulterior motive of injecting religion in the class room. How arrogant. Evolution is one of the basic statements of faith of secular humanism - just read their manifesto or pick up any National Geographic.

Since this is an Evangelical Blog I will actually use the Bible here.

The first two Commandments assume the religious nature of every human being. They also assume that you will worship something if you don't worship God.

Romans 1 tells us that atheism is a learned response. The default human condition is a knowlege of God. A very simple study of anthropology and human history show humans of all civilizations and all ages to be religious. Just because some think they are not does not make it so.

Coming back to the main point - Clouser shows how even how you view the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2 depends entirely on your religious beliefs.

So yes, that math teacher in the school has a religious belief as does the biology teacher and the Principal. As one person put it - "All schools are parochial schools." Why - all schools teach a value system based on a world view which is based on core religious beliefs.

And yes I'll throw in the obvious about evolution being based on religious assumptions.

1. Mathematical probability of one DNA sequence occuring by chance: ZERO
2. Number of actual fossils (that have not been proven to be hoaxes) indicating a cross between spiecies found in any of the worlds leading fossil museums: ZERO
3. Mathematical probablility of life springing from non-life: ZERO
4. Number of times the Second Law of Thermodynamics or any of its corralaries have failed to be true in any known scientific experiment: ZERO

To believe in evolution you must believe that the chance of any of the above occuring is greater than zero.

How does this fail to be a religious belief since it directly defies know scientific observation?

The answer: Evolution is a faith system and you can't argue matters of faith.

P.S. I have already started on the book "The Myth of Secularism." Clouser beat me to it but he deals mainly with theories and how they are affected by religious beliefs. However he does agree with my core theory and I will close with a quote from him:
"The heart's relation to God thus extends beyond created reality to the uncreated creator, and is that which most centrally characterizes humans: they are essentially religious beings."
The Myth of Religious Neutrality - page 241

38

It is at about this moment where I would look forward to the hot caustic knife of Larry Lord cutting swiftly through the flab of some of the above points.

But, alas, he's nowhere to be found.

Why?

Because Joe has banned Larry, a two-year regular, and substantive contributor to this list.

Hey-hey-heyyyyyy.... party at Eric and Lisa's!!! Terence, you bring the three coconut half shells and a peanut, Boonton, the sodium pentathol. After Gordon orates for an hour or two, our guest of honor pgepps will deliver his triumphant victory speech.

Man-o-man but this list just got a whole lot less interesting. Pity, that.

39

I'm a busy man. I don't have time to read vapidity. Some might question my wasting precious moments reading EO, but I'll tell you guys, it's comment threads like this that keep me coming back.

Excellent discussion, good thoughts here in abundance. My most sincere compliments.

Joe caught my attention with his reference to Wittgenstein. As any of you who have read his Philisophico-Logico Tractatus already know, Ludwig was very interested in the philosophy of language, as were Sasseure and Searle among many others. You could make the point that it is linguistic philosophy that generates the modern academic "heresy" of postmodernism.

I'd like to respond to Joe's post, but so many good points and contentious ideas have been posted already that I simply must pause to address a few of them. Please bear with me.

Ex-Preacher: For myself, I will accept that under today’s definition of religious belief, “materialism,” aka metaphysical naturalism, qualifies as a “religious belief.”

Agreed. We're making good progress here. But this is true only in that atheism allows that things are possible. For example, theism requires one to belive that we are privileged in some fashion, whereas atheism makes no such assumption. It doesn't overtly deny them, which is where you're quite correct.

Rob b:I don't know many atheists who take great comfort in the belief that there is no afterlife...

For God's sake, man, haven't you read anything that we atheists are writing here? At no time have any of us ever expressed such a view. Existentialism demands the creation of meaning and personally, I'd absolutely love to have a Big Daddy in the sky. Make things a lot easier.

Ex-Preacher: I can no more turn a switch and start believing in God than you could turn a switch and stop believing.

I like the idea, but I tend to hope that the religious person can eventually be reasoned with. I have no proof that such is possible, but I have more hope for the future if the Enlightenment can be sustained that if it should perish and we return to the Dark Ages.

Joe Carter The fact that materialism is rooted in a religious belief neither helps nor hurts it.

It hurts it. Materialism - granting that you define it as non-theism - only says "prove it." Everything that is known is provable, else it's speculative.

But to your question. Religious beliefs are distinct linguistically in that they conceive of words as having intrinsic value. Modern theory posits words as null placeholders for imbued definition.

In many ways we know more about the structure of the known universe, more about conditions miles beneath the surface of the sea, than we understand language. You have a concept you refer to as "god" yet cannot explain what you mean by the term. Since it is unexplainable, it falls into Russell's category of "God talk." Speculative, but unimportant.

40

Raven It hurts it. Materialism - granting that you define it as non-theism - only says "prove it." Everything that is known is provable, else it's speculative.

Materialism can’t say “prove it” because materialism can’t say anything. To speak requires thought and thought requires mind and materialism denies that mind is possible. Materialism, if true, means that nothing at all can be known; and we cannot speak of what we cannot know. As Wittgenstein said, “Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.”

41

Joe Carter

Materialism, if true, means that nothing at all can be known; and we cannot speak of what we cannot know.

What was it that the now-banned Larry Lord used to say in response to this sort of statement?

Oh yes: "Baby, I don't care."

42

Raven says:

"I have more hope for the future if the Enlightenment can be sustained that if it should perish and we return to the Dark Ages."

Given that this discussion began the other day with the idea that atheism/materialism is a religion, I find this sentence contains much that is relevant. Here, in just 25 words we have something approaching a materialist creed. It rests on a particular mythology (from religious darkness to reason's light) which clearly identifies an enemy (religion), suppors an eschatology (hope that reason will triumph in the future), and most importantly provides the unbeliever with a certain sense of...purpose.

Interesting.

43

Joe [and others]:

Most interesting!

You have plainly put the cat in among the pigeons, by asking for a clear definition, that:

i: is relevant to concrete and generally accepted examples of religion.

ii: so states necessary and sufficient conditions that it excludes all and only cases of non-religion and includes all and only cases of religion.

Ludwig's fulminations and the appropriately corrective responses are a telling illustration of the force of the matter. [And, please lay off us dyslexics out there . . . we right brainies gotta stand up for our rights to free access to spell and grammar checkers! Not to mention my present that Santa did not bring, alas:an after-post edit feature at EO . . .]

I especially welcome Prof Andrew Jackson's remarks and his essay assignment -- I hope his students did it justice! [BTW, those considering worldview options -- and not having a worldview is NOT an option -- should perhaps take a read here on some ofhte comparative difficulties issues.]

Going beyond that, Joe:

1] I think you need to factor in Prof Dawkins' remark that Darwin's theory made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and the often seen claim by atheists that they are "rationalists."

2] For, they are not simply asserting that they do not believe that one or more gods exists, but rather that they are able to rationalise their position on logically and factually warranted grounds. That is, as soon as atheism seeks to be more than a mere belief, it engages in a worldviews project that in our context enmeshes it with evolutionary materialism, to the point where in praxis the two are currently inextricable.

3] But, once that is done, immediately all the issues tied to the incoherence of evolutionary materialism [cf the parallel thread here, where this is coming out strongly] and to the fact that once this worldview is assessed by reasonable criteria of religion, it is seen as being well within any credible definition of religion that takes into account the well-documented and even notorious fact that there are non-theistic religions.

4] Thence, we see the manifestly unjust nature f judge Jones' ruling as has been discussed since actually just before it came out, here. It is well worth excerpting pp 63 - 4 ff. of the ruling, to see how the refusal to properly define religion has led thre judge into all sorts of inconsistencies:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. 64 Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 65 of 139 . . . . While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).

5] We hardly need to further discuss that in fact the definision of science as methodological naturalism massively begs the question and is contra-historical. But, it aptly illustrates how failing to adequagely define terms leads the judicial system in the US to conflate "religion" with "theistic religion" thence to infer that since there is a design argument to God, then an empirical inference to design "must" therefore be religion concealed as science. The end of it is the inadvertent establishment of the West's leading non-theistic religious system, evolutionary materialism, as in effect the church of th eUSA, complete with the atheist's veto on public and educational expression, not to mention attempted censorship on science and even career busting [here I am thinking od the Sternberg case].

6] I think that Ex needs to seriously reflect on the self-referential inconsistencies entailed in his resort to atheism, and reconsider his thinking. On the existence of God, I think the proper place to start is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and in the context where one does not exert selective hyperskepticism on the relevant records. This too, was recently discussed. Similarly, givent he issues brought out above, a sober assessment of what Rom 1 has to say on the roots of rejecting God fromt he province of our knowledge should be undertaken.

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

PS: I regret to observe that LL has had to be banned, but since I was the target of his repeated false accusations of being a Nazi, I can understand Joe's decision. Perhaps, Larry can serve a probation under his usual aliases, e.g. Windbag [as seen above -- we can take this as a plain confession at this point, of the use of multiple aliases], and show that he has come back into the fold of civil discourse.

44

"Because Joe has banned Larry, a two-year regular, and substantive contributor to this list."

This is a disturbing development.

"Man-o-man but this list just got a whole lot less interesting. Pity, that."

I second that emotion, windbag.

Larry, if you are reading this, I will miss your wit and irreverence. You provided me with laughs, moments of open-mouthed astonishment, and food for thought. You occasionally mildly offended me. Thank you for all that. I plan to honor your memory with an "Elegy for Larry", which I will post at ex-christian.net in the next day or so.

When all dissent has been silenced, the field will be clear for Christians to go back to what they do best: squabbling over the finer points of their dogma.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Grace close mouths,

Rob

45

Foyle:

Your remark on evolutionary materialism's creedal mythology of enlightenment is interesting:

I find this sentence contains much that is relevant. Here, in just 25 words we have something approaching a materialist creed. It rests on a particular mythology (from religious darkness to reason's light) which clearly identifies an enemy (religion), suppors an eschatology (hope that reason will triumph in the future), and most importantly provides the unbeliever with a certain sense of...purpose.

In particular, it raises a very interesting issue: the possibility of "endarkenment" in the name of enlightenment, as was ably discussed long ago by Plato, and Jesus and Paul:

1] Plato: cf his parable of the cave, in which a thinly disguised version of C5 BC Athens is portrayed. There, in brief summary:

men are held prisoner under a delusion, driven by projection of a shadow-world in a cave.,. then, one -- Socrates of course -- escapes his chains and sees the fire, parapert and stage show that is being confused for reality by his fellows. Thereafter, he is made to climb out of the cave and sees the outer, more real world. then, in pity, he returns to try to truly enlighten his people. But, instead, while still blinded by going back into the dark, he is pounced on . . .

--> The Matrix is of course a modern spin on Plato's tale.

2] Jesus is even more telling, for he specifically outlines the possibility of endarkenment in the name of enlightenment:

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is that darkness. [Mt 6:22 – 23]

No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eyes are bad, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light and no part of it dark, it will be completely lighted, as when the light of a lamp shines on you. [Lk 11:33 – 36]

3] Paul caps off well:

. . you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more. You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness . . . . For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. [Eph 4:17 – 24, 5:8 - 10.]

--------

Let us now see if at least some denizens are willing to climb out of the evolutionary materialist cave, and through a serious effort at comparative difficulties analysis, step into the light of a more factually adequate, more coherent, more unified but not simplistic system!

++++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

46

Rob
It is equally frustrating to those from most traditional religions, that the academic world has no trepidation in teaching that the universe and all that exists is just matter and humans just pieces of meat evolving from accidental, non-directed, random, purposeless events. Given that we don't know that, it seems reasonable that the debate and discussion of ideas could be widened.

I agree with you the above should not be taught. But is it? Can you show me an example of this being taught as if it was an established fact versus being taught as a philosophical argument? There's quite a difference.

Further, I have seen nothing to prove that holding atheistic/materialist positions would be any better for society. While the perversion of the practice of religion can prove to be abhorrent, and evil; the true expression of religion holds vast potential for good.

What's 'good for society' is irrelevant. What's relevant is truth. If atheism is true then I want to know that. Likewise if they uncover the Ark of the Covenant tomorrow & it's just like the Indiana Jones movie I'd like to know that too. I don't think we should censor an honest attempt to find truth based on what we think it might do 'for society'. Not to get all Ayn Rand here but society is nothing more than a fiction. It is individuals that count.

ex-preacher, try and harken back to your biology class. What did you learn...what were you taught about origins? Please also try to realize that some statements are made to express the general jist of things, such as what is widely being put out by secular academy...certainly reading the quotes of the scholars Joe posted shows that this is the general direction..

Rob, do you have an actual example or not? Scholars, like everyone else, have a right to publish their beliefs. What is critical is if a belief that is not (and probably cannot) established as fact is being taught as a fact rather than a belief. I doubt the philsophical argument you cited is given serious attention in most biology classes. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can.

You played your true hand, though, when you state you just don't want to believe "what feels best." To place believers in that pigeon hole is insulting, dismissive, and not true. Since you are on your search for what is true, of course.. that is unless you can climb in each person's mind and tell me what each thinks feels best to believe.

You played your hand when you speculated about whether or not athiestic beliefs would be 'good for society'. As ex correctly pointed out, what matters is truth not whether a particular belief would make society feel good or bad. The idea of society needing to be told a 'noble lie' died long ago with Plato, only to be revived in the X-files.

KAM
Those who haven't made the leap to what you're calling "religious materialism" (good term!) still operate on the basis of their belief. And when they have to act on the basis of belief, the absence of evidence in this case is usually PRACTICALLY taken as the evidence of absence, no?

Their belief in what exactly? That matter exists? Just about all religious people believe that as well as materialistic people. Likewise whatever we think about stuff outside of matter we can't really ignore matter itself unless you happen to believe that we can somehow transcend matter (which I suppose some Eastern religions hold to an extent). So to get down to the bottom of the barrel does the 'worldview' of the scientist really effect the science? Whether the scientist believes God is up there or not he has to look at his petri dish and observe whether the new antibiotic really killed the bacteria or not.

Phil
The theory of evolution assumes materialism. If it started with the assumption of a Biblical God, you wouldn't even go there.

Since materialism assumes there is no supernatural it is a religious philosophy. It cannot be known or proven that there is no supernatual because you would have to be God to know that. Therefore it is a faith-based belief.

If you had simply meant that evolution assumes matter exists and it matters then you'd be correct. Sadly you couldn't leave it alone and now made a foolish assertion. Evolution makes no such assumption & as such it could not be part of evolutionary theory because it is untestable. Even if a million experiments showed no evidence of God one could not conclude he didn't exist since by definition a beign of infinite power could easily elude any attempt to capture him in a 'test tube' so to speak.

Needless to say your latter jibberish about 'probabilities' that supposedly prove evolution false have been debunked here numerous times over.

Gordon & Joe

"Because Joe has banned Larry, a two-year regular, and substantive contributor to this list."

This is a disturbing development.

* Note the second quoted sentence is Rob Ryan's reaction to Gordon's statement, not Gordon's.

This is indeed very disturbing. If anyone has 'crossed the line' here it would be Gordon with his spurious spammy charges of being called a Nazi and Tereance with his own intellectual honestly problems. I, however, don't think even these bottem of the comment dwellers should be banned. If Joe has banned Larry he should tell us & explain himself, especially since Joe has not been much of a participant in the comment portion of his blog.

True the suck up party here Joe can do what he wants. Sure that goes without saying. Joe could put up a bunch of affiliate links to porn sites if he wants. But then the suck ups would say EO would cease to be a site about evangelicalism. If Joe wants to play Stalin here he is free to silence critics, but then the price he pays is losing intellectual credibility.

47

ex preacher,

This is the attitude to which I refer:

When all dissent has been silenced, the field will be clear for Christians to go back to what they do best: squabbling over the finer points of their dogma.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Grace close mouths,

Rob

But, I'll take your position as an honest expression of where you are. Having said that, would you take the position that our will is not involved in what we believe?

As for your circumstance of moving from one belief to another, I just find it highly ironic that what you are left with at the end of the day is a universe full of incredible life and creation, love, beauty, art, expression, language, etc.. ---and all of this the result of random, spontaneous developments of a self existent ball of material that just accidentally exploded into what we now observe (please allow me the illustration). Is it hard to believe in God at times---yes. Is it any more difficult than the alternative; I'd say not. I thought about that when the physician last night on the news cast I was watching discussed the thumb as "not being designed" for all of the activities modern technology, such as Blackberrys are placing on them. hmmm. Design; interesting.

You also have to then deny that all of these people on earth experiencing God in some way have anything real to say---in fact, they are basically crazy. That would be the majority of us.

Rob Ryan: You find the God of the monotheistic religions morally inferior? Please describe a superior moral being. And, please defend this from the point of having an eternal perspective? And, make sure you allow free will into the picture...

Also, please explain how brutal name calling and vile language qualifies as legitimate dissent. Do you really think Joe will ban you? I see no fear of dissent present in these strings... wow.

48

Boonton,
I commend your search and desire for the truth. Personally, I don't think all of the ultimate truths are knowable, or that we possess the capacity to know them in the sense that you wish (in a "scientific/concrete way). I applaud all efforts of science to discover and innovate. (when ethical, of course)

Given that, we are then left with our beliefs; and your beliefs and my beliefs affect our attitudes and response to society. Therefore, what we believe does matter, and is important to society, not just what we know.

On the matter of what is taught in class, I have no desire to form a long defense. It is fairly established that the secular academy is far more friendly to materialistic/atheistic thought than the opposite. However, I agree with you, all theories should be on the table and discussed---as such---theories.

49

ex-preacher,

You wrote:

It's very hard to make yourself believe something that you really don't think is true. I would love to believe in heaven, but as hard as I try I can't make myself. In the same way, you cannot make yourself stop believing something that you think is true. I can no more turn a switch and start believing in God than you could turn a switch and stop believing. Our beliefs are a complex product of the information we have been exposed to and conclusions we have reached, as well as our environment. As you know, most people believe what they were raised to believe. And even those who question their faith usually end up deciding that their parents' faith is the One True Faith after all.

One reason I hang around places like EO and read Christian apologetics and listen to Christian radio is that I keep hoping I missed something. Maybe I'm wrong. I would be so happy if I could wholeheartedly believe.

I kept thinking last night about what I would do if I were in the situation that you say you're in: Wanting to believe but unable to. I think there is a step you can take.

Pray every day that God will give you belief and increase your faith. You may object that it's impossible to pray to a God you don't believe in, but actually it's not: you simply close your eyes (if you're not driving) and say, "God, you know that I no longer believe you exist. But if you do exist, please show me I'm wrong. Please provide my mind with your light, touch my heart with your love, and make me aware of the presence of your Spirit every moment of every day. Please increase my faith. In the name of your son Jesus Christ I ask these things. Amen."

What you have lost is not just an intellectual belief in God; what you've lost is a sense of relationship to the One who made you and loves you. Since what you've lost is not merely intellectual, it can't be restored by merely intellectual pursuits such as apologetics; instead, it requires relational activities such as talking and listening.

50

Rob B:

I find it most interesting that, in a context where a judge just ruled that it cannot be mentioned in a classroom that NDT is a controversial theory, and that there are alternatives [precisely due to the confusion this thread discusses] -- and that ruling being based on frankly (and necessarily knowingly) misleading testimony by identifiable professors -- e.g. Ms Forrest, B should be pretending that there are no instances of professors pushing evolutionary materialism and its associated agendas as if it were "the Truth" to the exclusion of alternatives.

I think David Horowitz has started an initiative to identify and highlight cases of the biased and unfair imposition of world-views and world-agendas in the College classroom; so take a look at some that he names.

Further to this, there is a whole movement, called Political Correctness, that has serious challenges along said lines.

Moreover, it is notorious that a lot of professors in fields where evolutionary ideas are prominent, gloss over questions and issues. [Indeed, a look at the parallel thread on the Dover issues will show up some interactions that bring this out -- take the Physicist who writes in Pandas Thumb as if the 2nd law of thermodynamics issue is a non-issue. Look also on how A presented the case on so-called artificial life. Not to mention the pretence that there is no peer reviewed scientific literature that is ID-supportive - a key plank in judge Jones' ruling. And the like.]

Rather, it seems to me that the problem Joe highlights and implies in this post is a notorious one, one that should be faced frankly and dealt with fairly and honestly.

It's time to get real

+++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

51

Boonton Their belief in what exactly? That matter exists?

The belief that matter is all that exists, and therefore is the foundation for understanding everything.

Whether the scientist believes God is up there or not he has to look at his petri dish and observe whether the new antibiotic really killed the bacteria or not.

But if he doesn't believe in God, then he has to come up with things like the 'infinite universes' theory that Dicke-Carter proposed because this (particular) universe was created under circumstances that would otherwise defy probability. In other words, his response to what he sees in the petri dish is fundamentally shaped by his religious or ontological beliefs.

52

Phil writes: "The theory of evolution assumes materialism. If it started with the assumption of a Biblical God, you wouldn't even go there."

So what do you do with all the Christians who accept evolution?

53

Ed Jordan writes: "Pray every day that God will give you belief and increase your faith. You may object that it's impossible to pray to a God you don't believe in, but actually it's not: you simply close your eyes (if you're not driving) and say, "God, you know that I no longer believe you exist. But if you do exist, please show me I'm wrong."

I tried that. How about you do the same experiment for 30 days praying to Zeus.

54

ex-preacher - is your skepticism limited by the probability that God exists or the probability that God would operate in this way?

55

ex preacher,

Can you please produce a book inspired by Zuess and passed on through the centuries (which details legitimate prophetic revelations of the future messiah), and further point to a historical figure that he dwelled within and whom rose from the dead and transformed the world? Then the experiment might be worth the time..

56

Joe writes: "Materialism can’t say “prove it” because materialism can’t say anything. To speak requires thought and thought requires mind and materialism denies that mind is possible. Materialism, if true, means that nothing at all can be known; and we cannot speak of what we cannot know. As Wittgenstein said, “Whereof one cannot speak, therefore one must be silent.”"

I would argue that a materialist need not deny that mind is possible. I would say that the mind is wholly dependent upon the brain.

From wikipedia:
"Both philosophers and psychologists remain divided about the nature of the mind. Some take what is known as the substantial view, and argue that the mind is a single entity, perhaps having its base in the brain but distinct from it and having an autonomous existence. This view ultimately derives from Plato, and was absorbed from him into Christian thought. In its most extreme form, the substantial view merges with the theological view that the mind is an entity wholly separate from the body, in fact a manifestation of the soul, which will survive the body's death and return to God, its creator.

"Others take what is known as the functional view, ultimately derived from Aristotle, which holds that the mind is a term of convenience for a variety of mental functions which have little in common except that humans are conscious of their existence. Functionalists tend to argue that the attributes which we collectively call the mind are closely related to the functions of the brain and can have no autonomous existence beyond the brain - nor can they survive its death. In this view mind is a subjective manifestation of consciousness: the human brain's ability to be aware of its own existence. The concept of the mind is therefore a means by which the conscious brain understands its own operations."

57

Rob B.,

You must have more faith. Just try it.

58

Matt, I don't understand your question. Could you re-phrase?

59

Given that, we are then left with our beliefs; and your beliefs and my beliefs affect our attitudes and response to society. Therefore, what we believe does matter, and is important to society, not just what we know.

True our beliefs matter but this is in the context of assertions made by Joe that neutrality does not matter. In fact, Joe even went so far as to one post a plea for a 'Christian Research Program' but fell apart when questioned exactly what that would look like (Joe clearly enjoys philosophy but doesn't like the nitty gritty of actual science).

On the matter of what is taught in class, I have no desire to form a long defense. It is fairly established that the secular academy is far more friendly to materialistic/atheistic thought than the opposite. However, I agree with you, all theories should be on the table and discussed---as such---theories.

Which is a retreat from what you first asserted. Sure there will be various theories, schools of thought etc. that are more popular at any given moment. What is a concern, though, is your accusation that 'religious materialism' was being taught as a fact rather than a philsophical argument/belief. On the academic level students should and in fact need to cut their teeth challenging the conventional schools of thought so I'm not really concerned if philsophical materialism is more popular in philsophy departments than philosophical theism.

Matt:
But if he doesn't believe in God, then he has to come up with things like the 'infinite universes' theory that Dicke-Carter proposed because this (particular) universe was created under circumstances that would otherwise defy probability. In other words, his response to what he sees in the petri dish is fundamentally shaped by his religious or ontological beliefs.

1. 'Infinite universes' is a hypothesis more used to reconcile quantum theory to Einstein's sense that randomness should not be a fundamantal part of physics. Whether or not it is a true hypothesis (and whether or not tests will ever be developed for it) it says nothing about God's existence or nonexistence.

2. The fundamental question when he looks at the petri dish is whether the bacteria were killed or not. Whatever his beliefs his mental mindset does not alter what is in the petri dish unless you are willing to assert a very extreme form of subjective relativism. The questions of does the antibiotic work, how does it work and so on are scientific and religiously neutral. Questions such as "how should this knowledge be applied" or "what does it say about humanity that a lowly bacteria can kill us" are not scientific.

3. Many here like you and Joe seem to have some sort of bizaar science envy. You are pretending your philsophical questions and arguments are scientific ones. Why? Granted few people major in philosophy these days & it's a pretty difficult subject but it is still a very large and respectable field. Shouldn't it leave the scientist studying earthworms alone & stand on its own two feet?

The belief that matter is all that exists, and therefore is the foundation for understanding everything.

Which is a belief of a philsophical materialist but is not required for evolutionary theory. All that's required as a 'worldview assumption' for evolutionary theory is that matter exists and it matters to some degree. I know of few serious religions that challenge that assumption.

60

All:

I think some further points require a comment or two, though I have no desire to allow this thread to run off on a tangent -- indeed, red herrings are a well-known evasive tactic when an issue is not being faced on its merits:

A] ED:

Right on target. I thank you too, for the important reminder that we need to deal with God personally.

B] Joe et al, re Boonton, Dr Lord, & Mumon:

I observe that B now wishes to turn about the point that LL in fact resorted to false accusations of nazism, in a context where first B raised an invidious set of comparisons including Nazism, which I protested.

Onlookers, please be informed of the following:

1] I invite participants to go to the Dover aftermath thread, and examine the sequence that starts with post # 204, Dec 24, in which I took up Boonton on his remarks about teaching children critical thinking, noting that I have in fact done just this over the years. In response, in 205 that same day, B resorted to comparisons -- without proper substantiation [cf wider context] with Farrakhan's white men are the result of a failed experiment, astrology and nazi-style "jewish science claims." [NB here: 500 years ago, astronomy was not extracted from astrology, and indeed, it took some time to work out the distinctions. the same, for Chemistry and alchemy. Just in case someone wants to go down that fruitless rabbit-trail.]

2] I called him on it in 207, that same day, and pointed out the underlying principle that likes are compared with likes, leading to the invidiousness of the comparison. (Note this is in a context where B has called me a liar without proper justification, and has several times otherwise slandered me in previous threads.) Cf. 210 [Dec 25], and 213, Dec 26. Notice, B has never retracted the slanders and accusations, which he now compounds. In this regard, e.g. cf 218, also Dec 26. That is sad. This pattern continues, e.g. cf my further response Dec 27, post 225 & 227.

3] In post 220, Dec 26 again, Dr Lord joins the fray, with accusations of lying, here echoing B. [Notice in between all of this I was pointing out to Mr McFaul, a lawyer evidently, that judge Jones' ruling notoriously runs counter to public facts that remove its factual foundation. Specifically, there IS a peer reviewed ID-supportive scientific literature. On this, notice how Dr Lord never came back to my call for him to critically review the WEL paper which I cited and linked as a case in point.] i respond in 225, to Dr Lord.

4] In post 230, the afternoon of Dec 27, Dr Lord first uses "nazi-esque" in reference to me, specifically using "Herr Mullins" and linking me to the holocaust. This of course bears out the precise force ofht einvidious comparison B had made, and as well it is equally without factual foundation or merit. He then proceeds to use the terms: "Gordon Mullins Goebbels, Jr. Minister of propaganda for the Evangelical Outpost." This is not wit, this is abuse.

5] In post 231, Cheesehead rebukes both B and Dr Lord for their abuse. In 235, the next day, I raised the issue that banning might be warranted for Dr Lord. (Notice as well that he was not only being abusive to me but others in this thread and, sadly, has a long track record in that line. this is not just someone blowing his head once and posting a few intemperate remarks.) in 235 as well, I dealt with Mr McFaul's turnabout attempt, by contrasting the limited way in which i adverted to the two most notorious cases of miscarriage of justice in western culture.

6] In post 237, on the same Dec 28th, Dr Lord then follows the assertions of Mr McFaul, with the remark: "Hey Gordon: Goebbels called and he wants his rhetorical tricks back." In immerdiate rebuttal, someone else using Windbag [a known LL alter-ego, ever since JCHF exposed it] spoke in rebuke in 238. In 239, that same day, I responded further to the pattern of ad hominems, especially those made by Mr McFaul. By 241, the next day, Dr Lord addresses me -- he excerpts a point I made -- as "Goebbels." By 244, Mumon joins the chorus, calling my Christian commitment into question, to which I responded in 246 the next day. 247 and 248 are illustrative of the refusal to engage merits but resort to abuse.

7] In post 250, Jan 1, I wished all a happy new year, and asked Dr Lord and Mumon to go back to the merits, by engaging the WEL paper: Why not do something productive instead: review the WEL paper? (I think you may find the updated web page linked above helpful for that.) I also further responded to the accusations.

8] in 253, also that Jan 1, Mumon joins the "nazi" name-calling chorus, addressing me as: "Herr Mullings" and stating: "I prefer the term "Christo-fascism" rather than "Nazi," but the fact that you have to repeat the "big lies" of "judaeo-christian historical roots of the civil liberties they enjoy" gives it away." [In fact, cf. here and here on just what I have had to say on the contribution of reformation and evangelical christianity to liberty as we enjoy it today. I have yet to see a refutation of the facts claimed. My remarks on "fundamentalism" are also relevant.) I responded to Mumon on points in 254. By 258 Joe intervenes. in 259 on Jan 2, Eric and Lisa advise me to now ignore the abusive commenters, and I respond in 260, setting out some balancing remarks.

--> By now it should be plain that the underlying i