Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Thor's Day: Verbicide

Aristotle (384–322 BC). Roman copy after
Greek bronze original by Lysippos from 330 BC
(alabaster mantle a modern addition)
A crime of rhetorical proportions

By Kyle Garza

The best defense against the whimsical rhetorical strategies of any good prosecuting attorney is a solid understanding of Aristotle’s three appeals of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. To Aristotle’s mind, these three are ultimately what lead to a listener’s persuasion in favor of a speaker’s position. While the ethos of a speaker rests entirely in his personal character, his pathos and logos are established through the words he employs in his rhetorical attempts to persuade his audience. In matters of persuasion, all winsome speakers must sway the hearts of their audience by using diction that will appeal to their emotions (pathos) and their logical thinking (logos).
    In contemporary dialectic surrounding matters of apologetics, much is lost on the average listener who cannot analyze the pathos and logos that are manipulated by a speaker’s diction. At times, speakers in a debate will speak past one another in their efforts to persuade each other or their listening audience. This is often a result of verbicide: the intentional (or sometimes accidental) misuse of words as a means of persuasion. In the postmodern age, when the meaning of words is rapidly evolving, it is paramount that the average layman understand the various uses of the standard “buzz words” that can easily be confused depending on who is speaking in the debate: the Christian or the atheist.

Take the Christian use of “faith” for example. “Faith” is etymologically founded on fides, or trust, though today it is all too often merely associated with belief. A word like this gets particularly confusing because it means something different for the first century Christians who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ miracles and Christians today who know Jesus through the Holy Spirit. What is most important about understanding this term in the Christian sense is its attachment to trust in persons: a trust that is first established by some degree of evidence that the other party can indefinitely remain “faithful” in the relationship. Faith understood like this summons the idea of a relationship of one to another.
    It is not faith in a law like gravity, as though one were to say how he “trusts” the law of gravity, hence is not afraid of flying into space when he jumps off the ground. It is, rather, the kind of trust one has in another person. Just as a husband and wife remain “faithful” to one another in their vows to love and cherish one another before all others, so does the Christian have faith in God, and rightly so considering the fact that God is likened to a husband to His beloved in Scripture. [Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 31:32, Hosea 2:16, 19, NIV]
Augustine of Hippo, Saint Augustine
(354–430)
    For this reason, the atheist skeptic does not speak of Christian “faith” in the same way, because scientists (not counting psychologists) who study empirical data are looking for uniformity in laws and principles; people and their relationships are simply outside their scope of study. The Christian God has “personhood” or “agency” at the core of His being, hence humans are made “in His image” and thus have unique personalities, and as Saint Augustine put it, “The image of the creator is to be found in the rational or intellectual soul of humanity” alone, which is capable of relationships beyond pure mammalian instinct [Augustine de Trinitate XVI. Iv. 6 quoted in Alister E. McGrath, Science & Religion (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2010), 112]. But to the atheist’s mind, “faith” is tantamount to “blind faith,” which is to believe something completely void of evidence. The Christian understanding is that “faith” and “belief” two different terms, but they are synonymous in atheist rhetoric.
    To have “faith” in anything (to the atheist’s mind) is to believe it without reason, which suggests a sense of irresponsibility in one’s intellect. It is commonly associated with the connotation of being mindless sheep to a shepherd [John 10:11, NIV], an association that many atheists find offensive. To the Christian, being called a sheep summons imagery of peace, tranquility, protection, and safety [Psalm 23, NIV]. To the atheist, the title of “sheep” is insulting because it diminishes the human capacity to autonomously think, since sheep are generally known as unintelligent creatures. The atheist has a sense of pride in being able to stand without God. This, however, is a foreign concept to the Christian, for at the heart of Christianity is the willingness to submit to the idea that humans are not God and that our understanding of anything is miniscule in comparison to God’s knowledge.
    So the conflict lies in a matter of pride. To the Christian, all associations with sheep and shepherds (common, understandable imagery for Jesus’ mass 1st century lower-class audience) summon imagery of a faithful follower. But this imagery is belittling to an atheist, for faith like this diminishes the human capacity to reason and understand the universe, something that every atheist acknowledges sets us apart from all other animals in the world.


The conversation surrounding sheep is often only a stone’s throw from the use of the word “sacrifice.” When Christians refer to sacrifice, they often immediately recall Christ’s death on the cross, the severity of the cost of human sin, and God’s payment to bridge that gap between Him and man; heartfelt thankfulness typically replaces those feelings of remorse and pain once the Christian fully grasps the implications of a God figure reaching out to mankind in pursuit of a relationship. The use of the word sacrifice here is associated with a sense of nobility and chivalry and heroism: the kind of noble sacrifice one might see today from a Marvel superhero or any venerable protagonist in a contemporary film or novel. It is the idea of “taking a bullet” for a victim in distress. It is exemplary behavior, something we idolize in American culture in the highest degree, with accolades like the Medal of Honor or the Purple Heart.
    Naturally, the atheist will want to discard this use of the word because it has an emotion attached to it, and the skeptic epistemology divides all understanding into emotional understanding and intellectual understanding, the former of which can seldom be trusted, and the latter of which should always be trusted. Thinking like this, however, discards the reality of what makes human experience and all epistemology distinctly human. C.S. Lewis distinguished between these two understandings by illustrating it through the analogy of a young man in love. He experiences love in the first person, within the experience itself, hence the import of the preposition “in” love. The psychologist observing his behavior, on the other hand, sees it externally as a series of hormonal chemical interactions. Lewis draws this distinction to focus on the fact that, in our modern thinking, we idolize the latter, more distanced observation as the more “correct” way of seeing all things, when in reality both perspectives must be taken into account in order to fully understand love. [C.S. Lewis, “Meditation in a Toolshed,” from God in the Dock, ed. Hooper, Walter, in The Collected Works of C.S. Lewis (New York: Inspirational Press, 1970), 442]
    This may seem good and well, but noteworthy neuroscientist and atheist author Sam Harris has himself said several times that Christianity is a religion of human sacrifice, and no amount of repainting it as a love story will do. It is centered on Christ’s sacrifice of His innocent life so that sinners might be made righteous. But when Harris and other skeptics like him use the word “sacrifice,” they do not want the word to carry with it those Christian connotations of heroism and chivalry. Rather, they will attempt to use the word to make Christianity seem barbaric and even pagan in its use of the word. Essentially, this is due to the fact that the common atheist sees Christianity as nothing more than “just another religion,” one of many in the world, all of which happen to be wrong. Richard Dawkins often employs the quip of saying that he is just as much an atheist as any other Christian: his atheism just includes one more God than every Christian (because no Christian believes in Zeus for instance). Of course, the average person is not so schooled in Roman culture and history to be privy to historical context, so calling Christ’s “sacrifice” barbaric seems easy enough. As it is, there are enough uses of the words “death” and “blood” floating around in Christian rhetoric to easily make it sound Scythian in its usage.

C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)
    The dissonance lies in dissociating the Christian use of the word “sacrifice” from the pagan practice of the word. This is particularly difficult, though, because Christianity does admittedly have elements within it that seem mythical in nature; that is why C.S. Lewis called Christianity the myth become fact due to Christianity’s interaction with actual ancient history. [C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), 66-67] Just as the word “force” means something entirely different to a physicist conducting research and a police officer answering a domestic abuse call, so “sacrifice” will be understood differently depending on the context.

Still, even if a modern historian were to say that we know the use of “sacrifice” was different to a first-century Christian, that sort of knowledge is yet another conflict that often arises in Christian-atheist polemics. The ideological realm of epistemology as a whole is difficult to engage in between atheists and Christians, for knowledge today is overwhelmingly abundant through the access of the internet and television, thus it is difficult to distinguish between different strata of information. Neil Postman found the words of Aldous Huxley particularly prophetic in describing the dilemma of America’s superfluous bank of information in the modern age: “Huxley feared those who would give us so much [information] that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism…[that] the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance….” [Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), foreword xix] As both atheists and Christians alike wade through the sea of information, the epistemological tension grows, particularly due to the fact that both parties have different views of what constitutes substantial grounds for belief in anything.
    Since we have already covered the distinction between “faith” and “blind faith,” it is here poignant to clarify that we are now referring to faith in its original sense: belief in a truth that one can trust to be true due to some sort of formerly observed evidence. The conflict arises when the Christian and the atheist disagree on what sort of source material counts as trustworthy.
    The source material in question often surrounds a debate between two different fields of study: the natural sciences and history. Christian apologists are ready and willing to invest their trust in knowledge and understanding that can be obtained from the liberal arts, that is to say history and literature. After all, the key medium of the transference of the gospels (the “good news” story of Jesus) has occurred through word of mouth and the written word. For some reason, however, this form of attestation, particularly the eye witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, has met all the more scrutiny because of contemporary chronological snobbery: essentially, we assume that because people lived in the past, they knew less about the world, were less informed, were more gullible, and so on. The odd thing is that, even today, we trust the words of scientific experts about a plethora of things without consciously acknowledging what we are truly investing our trust (faith) in: their words. Hence history is often viewed as a field subject to observational error because the account of history can alter depending on who writes the history and whose perspective is called upon for the narration. The same can occur within the physical sciences such as physics and chemistry; that is to say, different scientists may produce different observations of data. As Alister McGrath writes, “It is particularly important to note that scientific data are capable of being interpreted in many ways, each of which has evidential support.” Otherwise you would be a positivist, one who argues “that there [is] a single unambiguous interpretation of the evidence, which any right-minded observer would discover.” [Alister E. McGrath, Science & Religion (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 2010), 52]
    In spite of the academic pedantry inherent in positivism, the common atheist desires to siphon all knowledge down to empirical evidence that can be tested again and again, with results that can be reproduced repeatedly in a laboratory; naturally this definition of knowledge categorically exempts from human understanding all events that happened in the past. Thus, history is beyond the scope of “scientific” knowledge when defined this way, so the idea of C.S. Lewis’s “mythical” God entering into history is meaningless to the atheist scientist. But even the physical science of physics (which has taken leaps and bounds in the past few decades) attempts to explain or communicate ideas like black holes, quarks, and energy without fully knowing what they are.

Parmenides (born c. 515 BC)
    C.S. Lewis even reminds us that “Aristotle criticized thinkers like Parmenides because ‘they never conceived of anything other than the substance of things perceptible by the senses.’” [C.S. Lewis, Studies in Words (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 39] Lewis was also keen to note that there is one particularly primary element in the sciences that seems to owe itself to a supernatural creator: something that is inherently outside phusis (nature) itself—something that is unchangeable, but cannot exist on its own: the subject matter of mathematics, the heart of most physical sciences.
    Thus, for epistemological purposes, one must delve deeper into why there is a discrepancy between the domains of knowledge that Christian apologists and atheist scientists study. C.S. Lewis proves quite helpful once again in understanding the two primary mediums by which one comes to understand anything. Just as he referred analogically to the young man in love, he refers to a beam of light that creeps into a toolshed when a crack stands at the top of the shed’s closed doors. When one looks at the beam of light, it is an outside experience: one can see the beam directly and still be aware of the darkness that surrounds it. Lewis called this looking “at” the beam as an outside observer. However, if one allows one’s eyes to rest in the very beam of light itself, then the viewpoint completely changes: by looking “along” the beam of light in this way, one becomes unaware of the darkness that surrounds and instead has a perspective that is opened to all that lies outside the toolshed: green grassy hills and the sun itself. Lewis’s point, by means of several other analogies, is to draw out our modern inclination to trust only the outside “looking at” experience as opposed to the inside “looking along” experience.
    Thus we have the disparity between the atheist’s and the Christian’s epistemology. The Christian is willing to entertain and experience “evidence” that exists only “within” the beam itself, such as the writings of eyewitnesses of miraculous events or the joy of salvation prompted by the Holy Spirit. The average atheist, being skeptical by nature, only trusts the outside experience of the beam itself. The disparity lies in the distance of the experience to the experiencer. A skeptic thinks the evidence is more trustworthy the further one gets away from the experience or evidence itself; if one really wants to understand the composition of a painting, step away from it to take it all in. The Christian apologist, however, is willing to listen to experiences nearer the evidence itself, hence eyewitness accounts or personal testimonies of believers, the very “paint” that composes the picture being observed.


For some reason, it has become commonplace to place intense skepticism in matters of history and literature because they are purported by skeptics to be more privy to error due to the close proximity between what is communicated and who communicates it. But this perspective distorts the reality of all domains of knowledge. An expert gathers evidence and communicates it to non-experts, but no expert can completely divorce himself from his research: his findings will always run the risk of being tainted with human error.
    Interestingly enough, several skeptics temerariously challenge God Himself by admitting that, were He to simply appear to them and reveal Himself in person, they would willingly believe in Him and indeed invest their “faith” in Him. The obvious contradiction in this is that the skeptic himself does not trust the personal experience of others, but if he were to have the same experience they supposedly have had, he claims he would completely invest his trust (faith) in it. This may also be considered a kind of epistemological snobbery, because it assumes that the individual “knower” is himself the most reliable filter of information in the universe. This is no doubt a product of the American cultural championing of individualism and autonomy, but those notions have rooted themselves so deeply in the American subconscious that we naturally trust what we know ourselves far more than what others might tell us, especially when it comes to what we experience with our own two eyes. Likewise, experts in physics and chemistry give more credence to other experts in their own field and far less credit to experts in disparate fields such as history and literature. Will the two ever reconcile with mutual respect for their disparate realms of study? Only time and academic civility will tell.
    Without an actively attentive awareness of rhetorical manipulation through diction, “a fast one” can easily be pulled on the relaxed listener. In all dialectic matters where the atheist and the Christian worldviews clash, one must be prepared for a slow reading, a re-listening, and, granting amicable civility, re-conversing that can analyze what is happening behind any speaker’s words.


Copyright © 2015 by Kyle Garza

68 comments:

  1. Thanks, Kyle, for this stimulating contribution to our understanding of debate across the divide between diametrically opposed worldviews. I eagerly await comments from some of our readers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kyle, one common rhetorical strategy is to frame the debate in your own terms. In this case, you have framed it as an opposition between The Christian and The Atheist, each asserted as having a rather detailed list of beliefs and attitudes that you lay out above. It's one of the oldest tricks in politics. For those of us who insist that an understanding of the world must start with Logos, it also seems extremely irrational (or deceptive, depending on motives - I doubt this applies to you.)
    Framing the debate in this way automatically excludes all believers with ideas different from yours, including all Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus....as well as Christians of different flavors than your own. It also excludes all unbelievers who don't adhere to your description of The Atheist - for instance, it excludes me.
    So, a few points:
    - While I'm sure your etymology for "faith" is perfectly correct, both common usage and most dictionaries include simple "belief" as one of its meanings. This is also true among Christians; see, e.g., Strobel, "The Case for Faith".
    - "The atheist has a sense of pride in being able to stand without God." I can't speak for any particular atheist, much less all of them, but my common sense is that they share my view on this: the essence is not pride, but lack of choice. If there is no God, or if there is one that has no interest in humanity, standing on our own feet is the only actual choice we have.
    - Sacrifice. As I discussed here recently, in the Christian mythos God decided to sacrifice Jesus; that is, to permit his murder. The synoptic gospels seem quite explicit on this. What has long puzzled me is why forgiveness required this bloodshed. Presumably omnipotence includes freedom to forgive (or not) on any terms the deity chooses. So what, precisely, was the point of doing it that bloodthirsty way?
    - In the same context, you seem quite certain that all atheists reject emotion as a component of understanding. Those I know believe no such thing. As an agnostic, neither do I. Where do you come up with this strange belief?

    I'm out of time to continue this commentary. The rest, however, would revolve around the question, "what about the rest of us?" Very few real people actually believe as your stereotyped Christian or Atheist believes, so it isn't clear how far all this applies to most of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuck,

      Good points; I'll try to address them briefly as I'm between classes right now.

      - Yes, faith can be used to just mean "belief." Still, I think it necessary to remain cognizant of its full connotation in dialogues between Christians and atheists.
      - I was mainly leaning on Richard Dawkins for that statement. He seems a good spokesman for a lot of New Atheists today (Morris is a particularly big fan of his).
      - The idea you raise about "God sacrific[ing] Jesus" is to misunderstand the fundamental Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It's not as if Jesus wasn't complicit in the sacrifice, which should be better understood as laying down His own life rather than "God the Father" (as a separate Being somehow) laying Jesus' down without His permission. As it is worded in 1 John 3:16, "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters."

      But I want to take seriously your second point--why such a bloody means if any other way would do it? I've asked myself the same thing. I think the brutality of Christ's death captures the severity of what sin does to our relationship with God, and I say severity because it indeed severs (violently cuts off) ourselves from Him; we owe our existence to Him, so to be cut off from that Source can't be exaggerated. The excruciating pain (I'm sure you know the etymology of the word) is something that can easily speak to any human being: any listener from any culture could understand how serious a love is that is willing to endure torture for the beloved.
      - I apologize if I made it seem that I was writing off emotion in general. I think that most atheists write off the Christian "experience" of the Holy Spirit or the "presence of God" (or whatever you may call it) as an emotional experience, and thus not valid in any sense. Rather, I think it is valid on an individual level, but of course it doesn't do much for an outside observer (just as I could tell you how much I love my fiance, but you can't really know that as I do).

      I still think the categories of Christian and atheist that I have established thus far are mainstream. It would be quite daunting to try to tackle all the various denominations of Christians and atheists.

      Delete
    2. Kyle, when it comes to spokesmen for "the New Atheism," I am more a fan of Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens than I am of Richard Dawkins, although I am indeed a particular fan of his science writings, especially The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, Climbing Mount Improbable, and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. His book that you always seem to have in mind is The God Delusion, a lightweight among his substantial oeuvre. I assume that you limit your attention to that volume for rhetorical reasons.

      Delete
    3. I've actually just heard him speak on YouTube for the most part, and these are the kinds of things he often says.

      Delete
    4. And on a second point, Kyle, while you might not have said literally that "all atheists reject emotion as a component of understanding" (as Chuck interpreted you as "quite certainly" claiming), you did write that "the skeptic epistemology divides all understanding into emotional understanding and intellectual understanding, the former of which can seldom be trusted, and the latter of which should always be trusted," and there's clearly a huge, huge difference between "seldom trusting emotional understanding" and "always trusting intellectual understanding." Leaving aside whether there is any such thing as "skeptic epistemology" (what textbook did you read that in?), it seems to me that Chuck is right in characterizing emotion "as a component of understanding" rather than one type of understanding "divided" from another. Even in mathematics, there are beautiful proofs, which appeal to the mathematician's emotions, and ugly ones, which repel them, and the mathematician ignores his emotions to the detriment of the proof he is able to arrive at.
          You will probably find it interesting that the main thing about Christian studies (in my one term in divinity school in the University of Edinburgh) that turned me off and led to my withdrawing from that school was the emotional disgust I felt at the shallow intellectual rationalizations that had been mounted to establish Christian dogma – I was taking a course in "Christian Dogmatics." I was repelled to my spiritual foundations, and the feeling was visceral. It made me puke.
          Chuck rejected your doctrine that atheists denigrate emotion, and rejected it for himself, an agnostic, as well. When he asked, "Where do you come up with this strange belief?," you shifted to "most atheists' writing off the Christian 'experience' of the Holy Spirit or the 'presence of God'...as an emotional experience, and thus not valid in any sense." It's not a Christian's experience that I write off, but the dogmatic rationalization he indulges in to try to understand the experience in a way his priest or fellow parishioners approve.

      Delete
    5. Kyle, aren't the Youtube videos you refer to about theology or religion rather than about science?

      Delete
    6. Usually they are about the interactions between the studies of theology, philosophy, science, and the philosophy of science; the last one always gives me a chuckle because scientists used to just be called "natural philosophers."

      Delete
    7. Morris,

      I think I begin to see where I was unclear, and it is certainly my fault for being terse with words, so let me try to elaborate what I meant by the difference between emotional and intellectual understanding.

      When I speak of "skeptic epistemology," I refer to any individual's approach to knowledge that is defined by consistent reservation. I like how the OED calls a skeptic "one who is habitually inclined rather to doubt than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him; a person of skeptical temper."

      This definition, I think (and I could be wrong), captures the mentality of most modern atheists who frequently (or even sparingly) interact with Christian ideas. If they hear something from a Christian or it reeks in any way of Christianity, the default MO is one of skepticism. And I think this is natural; based on prior personal experiences or studied knowledge, one might have a disposition to doubt the veracity of anything with a Christian flavor to it.

      Note that my write-up specifically speaks of how Christians and atheists dialogue, so I don't think this manner of approach is natural to all subjects for an atheist. I think it's safe to say about the topic of Christianity though for the skeptic.

      Now when I speak of emotional and intellectual understanding, I tried referring to the demonstration of the young man in love (the example Lewis gives in his essay "Meditation in a Toolshed"). The emotional understanding is one that does not attempt to use typically "scientific" explanations of love, such as a study of hormones, pheromones, etc. Rather, if you asked the young man about love, he would say something about how spending 10 minutes with his beloved is more valuable than spending 10 years with anyone else. His "in love" experience is different from the psychologists "outside" experience, observing the relationship. The intellectual understanding, on the other hand, will give you a much different understanding, actually involving the hormones, pheromones, etc.

      Now I attempted (perhaps with poor execution) to explain that this is where Christians and atheists/skeptics do not see eye to eye in regards to knowing the love of God, hence the paragraph following is on the topic of Christ's sacrificial love for His beloved.

      Today, a Christian might say he or she "knows" the love of God because he or she feels it, often emotionally. The atheist often does not consider this form of "emotional knowing" valid; it doesn't count as "evidence" of love in the same way that an atheist would consider watching the Christian actually walk hand-in-hand, for instance, with God-in-the-flesh.

      I think that's about the best I can do to clarify. I'm not sure how to respond to the idea of a Christian's "dogmatic rationalization." What does that refer to, Morris? Rather, what do you think Christians dogmatically rationalize in order to understand their experience of God's love? (assuming you are referring to that experience and not some other one)

      Delete
    8. Kyle, thank you for elaborating so generously [in your comment beginning "I think I begin to see where I was unclear" and ending "What do you think Christians dogmatically rationalize?"]. In the course of reading your understanding of "skeptic epistemology," particularly that it is "defined [not just characterized] by consistent reservation," I realized that I may not be as skeptical as I have given myself credit for being. I do tend to give an "assertion or apparent fact that comes before [me]" an initial "benefit of the credence," to reverse the phrase, with the prudent response, "Please tell me more," to the asserter, or, "Let me investigate that," to the apparent fact (if it seems significant enough to warrant it rather than simply ignore it).
          But, then, you do grant that you "don't think this manner of approach is natural to all subjects for an atheist...[but] safe to say about the topic of Christianity."
          Well, of course! – at least for an atheist who has strugged long and frustratedly with Christianity and come to the conclusion, as I have done, that "there's no there, there." Why bother? The question, Can I believe as a Christian (or some other stripe of theistic believer) or must I believe as an atheist?, can be answered, after all. And Christians and other proselytizers put enough pressure on folks that they more or less have to ask themselves that question – unless they simply discount religion as being so trivial that it doesn't merit the waste of time to consider it. (Many do take that position, after all – even, I think, people who go to church but only because their family and friends do and they want to protect their solidarity with them.)
          I think your characterization of "intellectual understanding" as being essentially reductionistic (even though you don't spell that out or use that label) is simply wrong, and to help you remedy your view on that, I prescribe the reading of the pages cited in the index of Daniel C. Dennett's 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, under the entries "reductionism" and "greedy reductionism." Or, if you can't obtain a copy, you could consult Wikipedia's article, Greedy reductionism. Far be it from me, or anyone I know, to try to reduce a young (or old) man's love for a woman to "hormones, pheromones, etc."
          Finally, as far as "what [I] think Christians dogmatically rationalize in order to understand" whatever, I touched on this in the final paragraph of a reply to Chuck that I posted earlier this morning: [Kyle] seems so comfortable and content in his views that we would probably be wise to invest no hope in the possibility that we might eventually convince him that his world view is constructed atop a set of false understandings, most prominently the belief that true religion was revealed to men by some supernatural agent and not cadged together by certain of the men, then rationalized into a self-reinforcing system of dogmas further enforced by the dominant group's having sufficient power to impose it on other men.
          In other words, Christian dogmatics is all rationalization, which brings me back to what stimulated my spiritual vomiting in divinity school. The Christian network of self-reinforcing dogmas isn't subject to objective verification, but relies strictly on further rationalizations to counter any objection – as it was in the Beginning [of the Church], has been for over 1,900 years, and ever will be.

      Delete
    9. Kyle, one additional thought: What is so obvious to you (something like: God MUST exist because the world couldn't have come from nothing but must have been CREATED by some agency outside it) is opaque to me. I don't have a theory as to how the world as we know it came to exist. But the fairy tales promulgated by the world's religions don't do anything for me. I don't need them and wish to be free of the burden of believing any one of them. I believe that all of their fairy tales were made up by men – they were not truths "revealed by God."
          The "revealed by God" is just part of the fairy tale, inserted for self-validation. "Self-validation" is a reference to what I said above about "self-reinforcing dogmas."

      Delete
    10. So which is it that you are axiomatically denying to be possible?

      - The existence of God?
      - The possibility that, if God exists, He might have revealed Himself to people at some point in history?

      It sounds like you're saying the latter, but I just want to be clear.

      Delete
    11. And to be absolutely clear, the main reason you don't believe the assortment of Christian dogmas is because you believe a bunch of men just "made it up" just like so many other religions have in the past, correct?

      Do you think that about Christianity independently, or is that a conclusion you have drawn after surveying all the other "made-up" religions? Or is there perhaps some middle ground between the two?

      Delete
    12. Kyle, greetings of the morning! I just rendered tomorrow's music column (out of Salt Lake City, Utah), and now I'm ready to return to this clarifying conversation.
          First, as to "axiomatic" denials and affirmations. What is an axiom? As you may recall from an earlier conversation, I have some trouble with your liberal application of the term, as though we're discussing mathematical proofs. Merriam-Webster does, after all, define the term as "(2) a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference: postulate; (3) an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth." [I'm ignoring "(1) a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit."]
          I am not postulating that God doesn't exist or that men created religion, for the sake of argument. I am not interested in such argument, which smacks of what another commentator labels "medieval."
          I do not posit them as self-evident truths either.
          I have come to them through a jumble of experience, reading, conversing, comparing, thinking. If that renders them "established" (for me), then I have to go along with the "established" part of meaning (3), but "rule" and "principle" are off the mark. The phrase "established fact" seems appropriate.
          So, please allow me to rephrase your question two comments back: "Which is it that you are denying to be possible?"
          I am not denying that, in some sense, if may be possible for something someone might call "God" to exist. And, since that leaves a lot of latitude as to what "God" might mean, it seems meaningless to affirm or deny it in general. I do, however, deny the existence of the many gods of the religions I am familiar with, including Christianity.

      The either/or nature of your question "which" seems to preclude my denying your second option, "the possibility that, if God exists, He might have revealed Himself to people at some point in history?" But I would like to comment, if I may, that if something that someone might call "God" does exist, it could very well be possible for it to "reveal itself." For example, if God is Nature, then it has revealed quite a lot about itself – to people like Charles Darwin, say. Of course, I would demur and ask, "Why call Nature 'God'? What does that buy us?"

      Delete
    13. Kyle, as to your second recent comment above ("[Is] the main reason you don't believe the assortment of Christian dogmas because you believe a bunch of men just 'made it up'...?"), my answer to that question is no, that is not my main reason, or even a reason. I don't have any problem with people's making things up, so long as what they make up seems cogent and credible. Don't you allow that the laws and theories of science were "made up"? The key, obviously, is the process of "making up." Does it produce products that stand up, withstand testing? Or not?

      Your second question (in order to be "absolutely clear") was, "Do you think that about Christianity independently, or is that a conclusion you have drawn after surveying all the other 'made-up' religions? Or is there perhaps some middle ground between the two."
          I think it about Christianity and also about all of the other religions I have surveyed as well. Note that this doesn't prevent me from incorporating certain of their teachings into my own practices, like aspects of Jesus's love ethic, withholding judgment; like Gautama's eight-fold path; etc. Jesus and Gautama weren't simpletons; they had some useful insights.

      Delete
  3. “Do you remember that in classical times when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, "How well he spoke" but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, they said, ‘Let us march!’?” Adlai Stevenson.

    Demosthenes was able to so embody the Aristotelian rhetorical qualities of ethos, pathos, and logos so brilliantly that everyone forgot reputation, technique and argument but only got the message. This has always been the highest accomplishment of statesmen and demagogues, propagandists and poets.
    We must remember that the goal of rhetoric is not the pursuit of justice or discovery of truth but persuasion. In fact the rhetorical application of the first two techniques, appeal to authority and appeal to emotion, are technically logical fallacies.
    It is not so much a question of disputing the power and validity of these three aspects of Aristotle’s rhetoric but the extent to which we will allow them to influence our beliefs and faith for better or worse. A critical, discerning voter, juror, media consumer, and student will be on the lookout for ad homonym appeals on the part of a speaker. The first response I usually get from Liberals when I point out the President’s crimes is “You bastard!” To which I respond that my ancestry has nothing to do with it. The most unsuitable person who is capable of mounting a rational and empirical argument should be able to defeat the most qualified expert, historian, or scholar who cannot produce evidence or logic to support his position. Of course this rarely happens in our culture so dominated by politicians, lawyers and media pundits who, like the Sophists of old, are experts in “making the worse appear the better cause.” One observes every day advertisers’ employment of trusted branding to encourage confidence in shoddy products and pathos to sell us everything from underarm deodorant to political candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,

      Two notes:

      - The purpose of studying rhetoric is to be cognizant of what naturally happens in human communication, but yes, particularly on the persuasive level. Properly applied, it isn't the study of "how to deceive in order to persuade" (as you seem to be wording it), but the study of how to remain aware of the means of persuasion so that one can weigh whether the application of those appeals has been used with integrity or not (as I think you stated if I understood correctly).

      You also seem to be equivocating appeals to authority and appeals to emotion with ethos and pathos. In formal logic, the fallacious "appeal to emotion" occurs when a speaker employs emotion in a context that doesn't require it, and the "appeal to authority" when a speaker appeals to an authority that is not credible for the point being made. Just because something seems to follow the form of a fallacy doesn't mean the argument is invalid (especially when working in the formal syllogistic sense).

      The example I always give my students is one with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where one appears to change the terms of one's argument mid-rebuttal. Sometimes it is a legitimate manipulation of terms, but otherwise it is merely the first speaker clarifying what he meant by his original term.

      Delete

  4. I suspect I am just reiterating points you have already established. I will get to your first example of “verbacide.”

    faith: noun
    Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    or
    Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

    I would like to suggest that you are falsely equivocating the two definitions of the word. In the “real” world faith in people, behavior, and future outcomes, are based on belief in evidence. In most religious traditions faith is based on unsubstantiated beliefs based on revelation, dogma, a holy book, or tradition. Now I am not as hostile to non-materialistic evidence, like revelation, as you might think. Of course revelation is not really verifiable from one observer to another. My personal revelation of the unity of all consciousnesses in the universe akin to the non-locality of a perceptual grid analogous to a holographic array was the result of several LSD experiences. Who’s to say my revelation is more or less as valid as that of St. Paul’s experience on the Damascus Road? As far as faith based on dogma, a holy book, or tradition, it is pretty hard to define as being anything other than “blind faith.” And besides who is to say your faith in the veracity of a book of contradiction and intolerance is any better than some other books far older, less contradictory and better written?

    The equivocation of the two uses of the word “faith” is exemplified in your statement:

    “Just as a husband and wife remain “faithful” to one another in their vows to love and cherish one another before all others, so does the Christian have faith in God.”

    There is no equivalency here. A loving couple have an empirical and a rational basis for their faith in each other. This faith is based on a future prediction of behavior based on material past experience. A good synonym for faith of this type is confidence. Of course a madman like Don Quixote will find no problem having faith in a royal lady cleverly disguised as a bar maid. The Man of La Mancha is more analogous to the Christian’s faith in God, an entity he has neither seen or had verified by evidence, miraculous or otherwise.

    Now there is room for faith of sorts in spiritual practice. I meditate and continue to meditate because I have confidence in the beneficial results the practice affords me. I would also accept a Christian’s claims for the beneficial effects of prayer on his sense of well-being and his loving behavior towards others. That is fully in concert with the first definition of faith as “trust in someone or something.” My successful results of meditation are no more a proof of the existence of any supernatural being than is your beneficial results of prayer.

    The whole issue of faith being supported by reports of miracles and other sleights of hand is extremely problematic. Would you worship Messers Penn Gillette and his partner Teller because they seemingly are able to produce quite confounding miracles? BTW I am extremely interested in reading from non-Christian sources about the first century Christians who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ miracles. There seems to be a gap of several decades at least between the miracles and the Gospel accounts. None of these first century Christians took the trouble to write anything down as evidence that miracles even existed. I don’t have to remind you that miracles are a stock in trade of the mythology of every god, guru, and confidence man in the religion game. If you are looking for modern miracles, there is a guy at a New Delhi street corner across from the local branch of the Bank of India who levitates every day at promptly 3PM. If you are looking for a contemporary spiritual guide based with a pretty miraculous track record, you should look him up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,

      There are several conversations in this, so I'll just stick to the first one for now on the etymology and use of "faith."

      I'm hesitant to trust the dictionary.com definitions that often include that "belief without proof" idea. The Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative lexicon of the English language, doesn't accept an entry like that. The closest entry is the idiomatic use of "on faith": "without evidence or investigation; on the authority of another person; on trust." So even that definition admits that sometimes we have to rely on the authority of others.

      I would also note that you are axiomatically denying that "spiritual apprehension" is something invalid and not residing in the domain of "proof," which I would note you conspicuously have not defined. I would argue that the idea of "proof" can only truly exist in the realm of abstract math.

      Delete
  5. "To the Christian, being called a sheep summons imagery of peace, tranquility, protection, and safety."

    I have been resisting the temptation to comment on this passage. I can resist no longer.

    The metaphor of Christ the Good Shepherd has always amused me. Of course you know what the primary goal of the shepherd is: to deliver the sheep to the humiliation of shearing or the disaster of the meat processor's knife. I can understand why a lot of pastors love to propagate this image. Pastors regularly shear their own flock of their funds to run his bunco operation. "God don't give away no TV cameras and Hammond organs fer free!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob,

    Here again I think we have a good display of the effect of rhetoric on our understanding of our diction.

    - There is obviously no humiliation in shearing; it's not like the sheep are capable of being vain. Besides, there are health benefits to shearing.
    - Eating sheep is a disaster? Do you side with Morris that no animals should be eaten because it is immoral to do so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kyle, the eating of sheep is indeed a disaster...for the sheep. And that's the way Bob obviously intended "the disaster of the meat processor's knife." I sincerely doubt that you could possibly have failed to see that, and I am compelled to believe that you were being intentionally obtuse. Why?...Oh, right, for the sake of rhetoric.
          I am stunned, by the way, that you so blatantly reiterate that your Christianity has no room for compassion for animals other than your God's chosen ones, us humans, who are fouling the planet and hastening extinction on one species after another, if not quite yet our own.

      Delete
    2. Morris,

      I don't find that so obvious. It's possible that he meant the means of their termination is sometimes disastrous in that it is "inhumane" how some companies terminate the lives of their sheep, which still allows for the possibility that there are more ethical means of killing sheep for the purpose of consumption. Even I agree that there are some "disastrous" ways of killing animals commonly used for food. So I wanted to clarify where he stood on the subject.

      I wouldn't say there is no room for compassion for animals. There are just limits; I know you find that idea horrendous, but does your worldview, allowing for natural selection, expect anything different? Is there anything inherently immoral in your worldview about being at the top of the food chain? I know in the past you've said it's essentially immoral because we're the only animal capable of feeling bad about eating other animals (and because we could just be plant eaters).

      Fun tangent.

      Delete
    3. Kyle, so your reply to Bob – Eating sheep is a disaster? Do you side with Morris that no animals should be eaten because it is immoral to do so? – was an attempt "to clarify where he stood on the subject." It came off more as some sort of tangent.
          Limits? Do you restrict your meat-eating to the flesh of animals that have been "humanely" slaughtered?
          Being "at the top of the food chain" is one thing. Shooting animals for sport, removing their tusks for trinkets and piano keys, mounting their heads on a trophy wall, etc., are quite another.
          I am pretty sure you don't have any heads mounted in your domicile, but you often display your carnivorousness as though it were a trophy of your priveleged position at the top of the chain.

      Delete
    4. I'm tired of my right brain trying to communicate with Kyle's left brain. I have a proposal to break the stalemate. I'll stop calling Christ the sheep butcher if Kyle agrees to stop calling Him the Good Shepherd. How's that?

      Delete
    5. Morris,

      - It was tangential. I just like conversation wherever I can find it.
      - By "limits" I meant that there is a dividing line between killing an animal painlessly for the purpose of consumption (which seems compassionate enough to me, though I know you disagree) and killing it sadistically. I don't have any particular dietary restrictions based on how the animals were slaughtered. I don't know which brands provide meat from which suppliers. Do you, by chance?
      - I agree with you on trophy hunting. I don't see the point of it either. Carnivorousness in humans is, to me, just a matter of fact though, not necessarily a point of pride. It seems rational to me even if I had a naturalistic worldview.

      Delete
    6. Bob,

      Sorry for tiring you out :-). Morris has noted the same thing about having dialogues with me. I just think it's important to emphasize the necessity of using the left brain side (language, logic, critical thinking, reasoning) when discussing Biblical matters (since the text is an anthology of books interacting with history after all) in quite a spectrum of literary genres.

      There is indeed a danger of reading the Bible with too much right brain (reading emotions, images, creativity) because our modern perceptions often don't hold water to the mind of the original audience and culture. It's very easy to misread, especially if we try to read it eisegetically rather than exegetically.

      Morris, for instance, once wrote a paper (I think during his years at the University of Edinburgh) that asserted that Job was unimpressed and bitter with God by the end of his encounter with Him. This of course would be to ignore the onset of Job’s faith in God and how it carries him through his trial: “Though He slay me, yet will I hope in him; I will surely defend my ways to His face. Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance, for no godless person would dare come before Him!” (Job 13:15-16) Sure enough, it does turn out “for [his] deliverance” and blessing even. What follows (I’m not sure everyone knows this) is Job essentially lamenting to God his misfortune, and then God gives him an attitude/perspective adjustment with Who He is, and then Job responds humbly before the God he knew he should not doubt from the beginning: “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer—twice, but I will say no more… Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know… My ears had heard of you, but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 40:4-5, 42:3-6).


      I really don't mind you calling him the sheep butcher though; it's not a particularly historically sound idea, so I'm comfortable with sticking to the Good Shepherd image. What I find all the more interesting is that, before he even called himself the good shepherd, He claimed to be the "gate" or the "door" for the sheep in the same passage of John 10. Really, he was aiming for imagery that spoke of what sacrificing His life for us would do: provide a way in to Heavenly paradise ("pasture" He called it). It’s a simple image, one that is accessible on an emotional and intellectual level by anyone.

      Delete
    7. Kyle, on dietary restrictions based on how the animals were slaughtered, no, I haven't identified meat products to avoid so as not to subsidize inhumane treatment of animals. If you only eat vegetarians (as one our commentators put it) you don't have to decide which meat eaters to avoid eating, you just don't eat any of them.
          I agree that carnivorousness in humans is a matter of fact; humans have a long history of eating meat, and I believe that most humans eat meat today - certainly most Americans and Europeans do and probably Central and South Americans do. But is it right? Humans sit atop the food chain, but that does not give them moral permission to eat everything lower in the chain. Mankind commands the top position, not just by a tiny incremental advantage over the next highest species in a particular environment, but by an advantage so globally overwhelming that mankind could, if it chose, avoid preying on other animals and do fine...do better, in fact.
          Touting carnivorousness may not be a conscious trophy display; it may be only an unexamined, morally unaware one. There are rewards for being unconscious; humans have come to relish the taste of animal flesh, and there are so many fun recipes for preparing it for the table!

      Delete
    8. Morris,

      Whence do you think that moral permission comes? What enforces it? Is it just what we humans construct? Does the mechanism of natural selection, which has supposedly given us that "advantage so globally overwhelming," grant us it somehow? Again, just trying to be clear where you stand in that regard.

      I think getting at the root of your convictions might help to convince others to see things your way.

      Delete
    9. Good question, Kyle. I take the "that" to point to whatever permission was the focus of my comment you are asking about. I referred to "moral permission to eat [other animals]" in the context of its not being given.
          Of course, it generally is given – by the majority of humans who establish social customs and make their countries' laws. Enforcement works at both levels, through social pressure and prosecution in courts of law. At one or both levels, certain animals are protected. Humans are protected from being eaten by other humans; i.e., cannibalism is frowned on by possibly all contemporary societies, and laws generally prescribe severe punishments for it. Household pets are protected in a wide range of ways and extents in different jurisdictions. Endangered species are sometimes protected. I.e., customs, but primarily laws, exist to discourage killing members of those species, for whatever reason, including for food.
          So, yes, moral permission is a human construct (but growing out of biological patterns of community, altruism, and reciprocity found in "lower species" as well), and humans can and do construct it by virtue of the might that constitutes their overwhelming advantage.
          But the construct changes (improves) over time. What was once widely practiced (like slavery) comes to be scorned and prohibited. Laws against wiping out species entirely didn't always exist. Laws protecting animal rights generally are pretty new.
          I am among perhaps a small minority of people who believe they see a higher moral imperative for animal rights. As I have told you in previous conversations, my beliefs rest on a deep sense of identification with other animals, on the recognition that I am related to them. I am particularly fond of framing this view in terms of an extension of Jesus's love ethic. Jesus reportedly stood up for "the least among us," by which he is, I believe, generally taken to mean poor people, weak people, children, etc. I personally extend the concept of "least among us" to include the animals we now slaughter for human pleasure and nourishment.
          Who knows? Our voices may come to be heard more widely, and more and more other people may come to see things the same way.
          Are you personally drawn, at all, to the vision of a wider recognition of rights for animals?

      Delete
  7. Oh Kyle. stretch a bit for a counter metaphor please! I sought to question your positive idea of the Good Shepherd. Ancient shepherds didn't keep sheep as pampered pets. They were often abused, castrated, and used for the shepherd's sexual relief. There was nothing intended beyond a sincere questioning of a highly unrealistic, sentimental, and sappy metaphor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,

      I just don't see where your historical understanding of 1st century shepherds is coming from. Their sheep were their livelihood, so of course they would be treated well. I'm not sure what you're referring to as "abuse" (other than perhaps castration, which I can only guess would be for population control, and even that hardly makes sense to me because the more sheep, the better for the shepherd), and while I can certainly imagine the hypothetical situation of a shepherd using a sheep for sexual relief, I've never heard that posited by any historian as common practice.

      This is, again, why I think we need to be mindful of the connotations of our diction, especially when it comes to how these words (especially the metaphors) were historically understood in the context of the people who originally heard them; we ought not force our modern understanding to bend history to suit our purposes.

      Delete
    2. Not correct, Kyle. Your arguments are lacking common sense in a multitude of ways and are steeped in lack of experience - deeply so.

      Delete
    3. My apology, Kyle. My cell phone battery died as I was working on a more thorough response yesterday. Anyway, historians aren't necessarily going to cite bestiality as a common practice unless they have adequate sources willing to admit to such behaviors (can’t imagine this one). Historians are researchers, yes?
      Also, shearing sheep requires a particular amount of submission on part of the animal. When I castrate a 2 day old bull, I have to take him down, though I try to do this as gently as possible. The bull understands that there's a problem, thus adequate conscience on his part to try to ward me off with a tussle. He clearly was "thinking" and was "concerned" about my actions. So to say that an animal doesn't suffer humiliation at the hands of man during shearing is a bit much for me. When you shear or castrate an animal, please let me know of your experience in doing so. Animals don’t just lay on the ground and say, “Let’s go.”

      Delete
    4. I will address some other issues of concern over the course of time. I hope to be as gentle as possible with you as well.

      Delete
    5. A further quick note, I find it interesting that you find it possible to determine exactly what an animal feels as you state, "There is obviously no humiliation in shearing; it's not like the sheep are capable of being vain."
      How do you know this? In what way do you find it possible to speak of the experiences of an animal? Where's your data?

      Delete
    6. The biblical verse below should take care of the argument you pose, "I just don't see where your historical understanding of 1st century shepherds is coming from. Their sheep were their livelihood, so of course they would be treated well." As the verse points out, shepherds were hired hands - they were not owners, thus had limited concerns for the well being of the herd.

      John 10:11-21
      11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. 13 The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep.

      Delete
    7. Kyle, following in the footsteps of your own words, it will take me quite some time to work through the difficulties and problems I find with your thoughts in the article and responses. "Without an actively attentive awareness of rhetorical manipulation through diction, “a fast one” can easily be pulled on the relaxed listener. In all dialectic matters where the atheist and the Christian worldviews clash, one must be prepared for a slow reading, a re-listening, and, granting amicable civility, re-conversing that can analyze what is happening behind any speaker’s words."

      It will take much time to reflect on your words, especially from a Christian perspective, but not excluding an intellectual and emotional response as well. Because of the enormity of errors, and because of the shear amount work on my farm, my thoughts will come out in chunks and bits and pieces, so be patient with my approach in my response.

      Delete
    8. By the way, I'm not a relaxed listener (yes, sometimes a tired listener) though those unaware will readily assume the opposite and run amuck with their faulty reasoning and thinking skills - all in my presence.
      These statements are all nonsense:
      The Christian IS willing to entertain and experience “evidence” that exists only “within” the beam itself, such as the writings of eyewitnesses of miraculous events or the joy of salvation prompted by the Holy Spirit.
      “THE CHRISTIAN IS” is a faulty assumption. A better word usage would be SOME CHRISTIANS MAY CONSIDER ENTERTAINING... This provides room for error in your thinking. I’m a Christian, and thus trust God, but am not willing to trust the writings of eyewitnesses of miraculous events of OTHERS given what I know and have experienced with the thinking capabilities of OTHERS. That you can hold me to. There’s a lot of indolent thinking happening out there, and sometimes none at all. I would also have to first have to define what a miracle is. If you really believe God, then you know we are all humans with limitations of understanding. The bible does define that, in multitude efforts. I see that perspective hasn’t arrived to you yet.
      The average atheist, being skeptical by nature, only trusts the outside experience of the beam itself.
      Just WHAT is an AVERAGE ATHIEST?

      Delete
    9. And if I apply the language you use towards atheists to Christians, then please define an AVERAGE CHRISTIAN. The way you use your language towards atheists feels less than Christian.

      Delete
    10. Bettina,

      This website does not allow me to respond to individual messages, so it will be difficult to make a threaded response that is easy to follow. Which question do you feel is most important that you would like me to try to answer?

      Delete
    11. If you feel you need to respond, please respond from the perspective of a Christian and cite the bible to support your statements so that I can better understand the exact meaning of what you are trying to say. Your writing exhibits that of your final paragraph, perhaps practicing an exercise of pulling a fast one on an easy listener through the language you are using. If that's the case, then you've succeeded. You can start by explaining your total sum experience with farm animals to include a discussion of their feelings, awareness, and understanding of humiliation. Please cite specific experiences you have had and then cite the Bible to reference those experiences. After than you can explain your experience with being an atheist as you express great understanding of their perspectives and experiences, as well. Resolving these two issues may better help me understand the perspective from which you write.

      Delete
    12. And would you please also speak to the following:

      "It is, rather, the kind of trust one has in another person. Just as a husband and wife remain “faithful” to one another in their vows to love and cherish one another before all others, so does the Christian have faith in God, and rightly so considering the fact that God is likened to a husband to His beloved in Scripture. [Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 31:32, Hosea 2:16, 19, NIV]"

      Can you please explain, in the face of data that supports a high divorce rate among married couples and a high rate of unfaithfulness to one another during marriage, how you can compare this to the faithful devotion a Christian has to God. I do realize that a lot of individuals make this statement – comparing the two – but I am not convinced it is the correct thing to do, rather it seems steeped in romanticism, idealism, and lack of thinking about what is being said. God as a bridegroom I can live with. The concept of God as a bridegroom characteristic of that found in marriage today I am not so sure we want to blindly thrust about.

      Delete
    13. You also make the following statement: This is, again, why I think we need to be mindful of the connotations of our diction, especially when it comes to how these words (especially the metaphors) were historically understood in the context of the people who originally heard them; we ought not force our modern understanding to bend history to suit our purposes.
      Perhaps this same earlier reference below is being used to suit your needs, though you make the suggestion (above) that we not do this: "It is, rather, the kind of trust one has in another person. Just as a husband and wife remain “faithful” to one another in their vows to love and cherish one another before all others, so does the Christian have faith in God, and rightly so considering the fact that God is likened to a husband to His beloved in Scripture. [Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 31:32, Hosea 2:16, 19, NIV]"
      Marriage is different today than it was 30 years ago, and certainly different than it was during the historical context you refer to above.

      Delete
    14. Bettina,

      I have to admit that I am a bit confused as to exactly what sort of answer you are hoping to get from me. I'll try to address what I think you were asking about what we know about animal emotions since I think that was your first question.

      I would start by noting that my opinion that sheep are not capable of experiencing humiliation (as humans understand it) has nothing to do with theology. I don't think what I do about animal emotions because of Christianity or atheism. So I'm not sure what sort of "citations" you are looking for in my answer there.

      Next, I would note that the idea that "sheep have emotions and are capable of humiliation" intrinsically places the burden of proof on those making that claim. To my understanding, there is not sufficient evidence found by behaviorists nor neuroscientists that could assert with confidence that sheep are capable of feeling humiliation, and the converse (which I brought up for demonstrative effect) is that it would be equally difficult to support the claim that sheep are capable of feeling vain or prideful (or even have a sense of "ego") that can be hurt beyond the natural, instinctual reactions to stimuli in the sheep's brain.

      As far as my understanding of the works of behaviorists and neuroscientists goes (which I'll admit is a layman's understanding), we can't get evidence for humiliation in sheep, or most animals for that matter. We can observe natural biological reactions in them, but nothing in them that points to the human equivalence of humiliation. At best, the "experts" are divided over how we could even measure the presence of emotions in animals, especially because there is still disagreement today as to how emotions function in humans.

      To help me understand your position, do you assert that your personal experience with sheep has led you to conclude that sheep experience humilation beyond their instinctual aversions to actions that we would deem "humiliating" to a human?

      Delete
    15. Bettina,

      Just because I think this can be a quick and easy response, let me respond to your statements on human marriage as it illustrates God's relationship with mankind:

      My analogy did not depend on historical context or any particular cultural trend. I was merely speaking of marriage as a lifelong commitment "rightly understood." The illustration I provided is not dependent on what that looks like in the past or present. The faithful husband stays "faithful" to his wife and can be trusted. That was all I meant to communicate.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. The problem, as I see it, is that you work to escape your own lack of understanding of that of which you speak. You are not thorough in your writing, thus others have to spend much time seeking clarity, which never evolves. You change your stance with each argument put forth. They call this circular reasoning. You haven't answered my questions at all. You make statements without citing scholarly evidence or biblical evidence. When you can do that, we can discuss further. Biology is clearly well further ahead of your understanding of it. Do your research.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. Trying to help you understand the real issues in your articles and responses - regardless of the content. You make statements, but you can’t or won’t back them up biblically nor with scholarly research. It is not an issue whether or not sheep have humility (who really cares?), but it is an issue whether or not you can clearly cite research or biblical reference to that of which you speak, and I haven't seen the evidence.
      Example:
      These are your words: There is obviously no humiliation in shearing.
      These are your words, too: Next, I would note that the idea that "sheep have emotions and are capable of humiliation" intrinsically places the burden of proof on those making that claim.
      So, with this said, you can clearly see that the burden of proof as to whether there is obviously no humiliation in shearing rests with you, as you so state.
      However, rather than answer the question, you run from the burden of proof to then ask me to answer a question for you to help you better answer a question, which you did say, as well. “To help me understand your position, do you assert that your personal experience with sheep has led you to conclude that sheep experience humilation beyond their instinctual aversions to actions that we would deem "humiliating" to a human?”
      I am just simply asking you to state with accuracy sources to support many of the claims you make in your article, regardless of what field of content the fall within. It matters not the content, but whether you can support your statements with evidence. So, perhaps in your next article you can help all of us by supporting your statements with cited evidence from sources other than yourself. That would make your work more thorough and your perspective more understandable – again, regardless of the topic or content.

      Delete
    20. Kyle, it is good to be a thinker and writer, so I like that you participate in all of this activity. However, it is important to be able to support your claims, for or against what you are claiming. Maturation, time, experience will assist your thinking and writing, so continue to work on it.

      Delete
    21. Bettina,

      In all humility, I think I need to clarify for you how a burden of proof works.

      A burden of proof is logically placed on all positive statements. Positive statements are assertions that something "is," and thus require evidence. So if someone made a statement that there is water on the moon, they would have a burden of proof placed on their statement; they must provide evidence.

      A burden of proof does not apply to negative statements though: claims that assert something "is not."

      To demonstrate, I think we can easily turn to the simple atheist statement of "There is no God." The atheist has no burden of proof. You can't say to the atheist, "Prove it!" because he would respond, "I can't... He doesn't exist." The burden of proof is on the theist or deist who asserts there is a God.

      Likewise with an emotion like "humiliation" in sheep--if we make the positive statement that "humiliation" can happen in sheep, we have to prove it. The burden of proof does not lie on the negative statement that they do not have humiliation; proof doesn't work that way.

      Hence, the impasse I am now in is that I can't even send you a link to an article that provides evidence for humiliation in sheep; I don't know that anyone has found evidence of that.

      You did, however, state that biology is ahead of me in that field. Do you know of some research I can read about that indicates sheep can experience humiliation? You seem to be alluding to it but not providing it.

      And I would lastly add this caveat that I admittedly don't see how Biblical citation factors into this discussion. Are you asking me to provide some kind of verse that argues for or against the existence of the emotion of humiliation in sheep? That seems far out of the scope of anything I wrote about in my paper, so I'm not sure how you are tying all of my writing together with these statements of yours.

      I apologize if this response comes across as rude because I have no tone of voice or body language to communicate my genuine curiosity regarding your points. It feels like we are talking past each other, so I'd like to try to address exactly what you are after.

      Delete
    22. I understand burden of proof - no need to explain it to me. My attorneys make sure I understand it.

      Delete
    23. Kyle, you have still failed to respond appropriately. If you can't respond to my questions, then it is more becoming to simply admit that you can't, rather than provide me advice about a topic which more rightly serves me when coming from professionals, such as my attorneys . Humility isn't your thing I see, so at this point it is difficult for me to perceive you to be the Christian you so boast to be - of course unless you can address this with evidence.

      Delete
    24. Bettina, I think I am growing more confused by your responses, so I apologize for not being able to track with your train of thought. Are you saying your attorneys have provided you sufficient reason to believe that sheep can experience humiliation? Is what you mean when you say the topic [of sheep humiliation in shearing] serves you "coming from professionals"? Surely you don't expect me to respond to a claim that is buttressed on "what my attorneys tell me." I can't speak into that. I can speak to the fact though that no experts have offered up evidence that sheep can experience humiliation. You earlier alluded that the field of "biology" is ahead of me in that regard though, but I am still wanting to see the foundation of that opinion of yours. If such obvious evidence exists, may I read it? While I am confused in that regard, I suppose I should address some other confusions. For instance, I think we are confronting a reading comprehension issue with your analysis of John 10. You claimed it provided evidence that Biblical shepherds were not regarded for their care of the sheep they owned. You seem to be equating shepherds with hirelings, but the passage itself says quite blatantly that they are not the same thing: "The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. 12 But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd..." Was there some extraneous reason you equated the two individuals as the same person? Perhaps you were applying some hermeneutics that I have not. There was also an interesting (what seemed to me) category leap when you first brought up the issue of shearing and castration. For instance, the original issue I addressed was sheep shearing and how there is no humiliation to be had in that process (the sheep are somehow ashamed of getting the human equivalent of a haircut?) You then equated sheep shearing with the castration of young bulls. Again, I don't see how your thought process is considering these synonymous. Does the word “shearing” mean the same thing on your farm? I'm also now unsure as to where you now stand in my response to the marriage point; you seemed to be objecting to the idea of God as a faithful husband because people get divorced (I still don't see the connection there). I tried answering your objections that had something to do with divorce rates, which seemed irrelevant to the illustration I provided (since it did not involve nor need to involve an analysis of divorce rates at any point in history or present day). Can you perhaps pose that objection in different words if I have not addressed it adequately? Lastly, I recognize that you objected to my general use of the words "Christian" and "atheist." You are not the first to pose an objection like this; admittedly, it is difficult to equally represent all “sects” of both sides, so I try my best to represent both with the core beliefs of each. I apologize for not being specific as you would have liked; I was taking for granted that people would assume I meant Christians as those who believed in the God of the Bible who became incarnate in the form of Jesus, who died and was raised from the dead to demonstrate mankind's deliverance from death into eternal life with God in Heaven (is that not what people generally think when they think of Christians? if it is not, I would like to know what people do imagine). Likewise, when I spoke of atheists, I meant people who do not believe in any sort of transcendent Being that Christians do. What other aspects of atheism do you think needed to be clarified for the purposes of my writing, particularly on the subject of verbicide? Once again, I apologize if my responses have seemed prideful, as it seems to be the impression you received since you do not perceive me to be a Christian. Was your last sentence a request for me to provide evidence that I am a Christian? What sort of evidence would you be looking for if that is the case?

      Delete
    25. Whoops... that was in paragraphs when I saw it.

      Delete
  8. Kyle,
    You've taken some big heat here, including from me. Thanks for your calm and reasonable responses. Having recently exposed myself to a lot of climate denialist rhetoric, and a lot more from the Repugs, it is a breath of fresh air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuck, the air you have been standing in among the climate-change deniers and Repuglicans must have been foul indeed!

      Delete
    2. You have no idea. Those people are so poisonous it is hard to read them, even to know the enemy.

      Delete
    3. Chuck, I'm pretty sure that you already knew that about the people in question...so why did you "expose yourself" to them – or to their rhetoric, at any rate? What was the venue, the occasion? You didn't have to go visit some of your close in-laws, I hope – I mean, I hope your wife doesn't have any relatives like that whom she wishes you to visit with her.

      Delete
    4. A fair question. It was motivated by the recent scandal involving Dr. Willy Soon, a guy at the Smithsonian whose schtick is that solar variation is causing climate change (and of course, WE have nothing to do with it.) My first thought was that as a solar physicist, I could refute him off the top of my head. I've studied solar variation extensively. My second thought, though, was that I hadn't looked at that area in twenty years, so my knowledge was no longer up to date. So I spent a dull day waiting out pneumonia by catching up - and, while I was at it, reviewing some of the denialists' pseudoscience to sharpen my reasoning in the field. This last soon got me hip deep in arrogant slime...
      Alas, my wife does have a relative in that nest of vipers. Her only surviving cousin is married to Dennis Avery, one of the more nastily demagogic of the lot, and a frequent speaker at the Heartland Institute's pseudoscience conferences on climate. I haven't visited in many years, after explaining that if I ever talked to Dennis about his "work" again, I'd probably not be able to stop myself from accusing him to his face of deliberate scientific fraud. I couldn't do that to Esther, or to her cousin - who is a nice and very sharp lady. So she visits alone.

      Delete
    5. Chuck, thank you for that very interesting explanation of how you recently came to hazard suffocation. I think you deserve a medal for bravery and perseverance for undertaking to undermine Dr. Soon, and for doing so by first making the effort to bring yourself up to date rather than rely on somewhat out-of-date familiarity with the field of solar physics.
          The main challenge for me of having a conversation with Kyle about Christianity and its dogmas is that Kyle seems to be extremely up-to-date on a particular strain of conservative biblical scholarship and exegesis (he denies there's any eisegesis involved, of course, reserving that label for people who read the Bible differently from the way he does), and I no longer even read the Bible or have the least interest in doing so.
          We are indeed fortunate that Kyle is such a pleasant and likable young man for all that, and that he is willing to share his understandings with us and respond to our many objections with such patience and equanimity.
          He seems so comfortable and content in his views that we would probably be wise to invest no hope in the possibility that we might eventually convince him that his world view is constructed atop a set of false understandings, most prominently the belief that true religion was revealed to men by some supernatural agent and not cadged together by certain of the men, then rationalized into a self-reinforcing system of dogmas further enforced by the dominant group's having sufficient power to impose it on other men.

      Delete
    6. A minor correction; I'm not "familiar" with solar physics. My degree is in the field, as is roughly half of my published research.
      Funding eventually ran out, so I eventually moved on to work on the stratosphere, then to (of all things) river management. It is still my principle field, though, and my work yesterday was mainly seeing what new work has been publish in recent decades on solar/climate connections. (E.g. has anyone yet got a convincing mechanism by which the Maunder Minimum could have caused the Little Ice Age? Answer: no, and some recent papers argue that the LIA was caused by intense volcanism, and the disappearance of the sunspot cycle at the same time was probably a coincidence.)

      I think your attempts to talk Kyle out of Christianity are quixotic at best. Never going to happen. I tried to talk him out of caricaturing atheists, and perhaps that could happen. I think I'll withdraw, though. His verbosity on the subject, and yours, have exhausted me!

      Delete
    7. But hopefully it's an exhaustion resulting from long, deep thinking! Even if it is frustrating at times, continuously revisiting these esoteric subjects does the mind some good. At the very least, when Morris (and others) drifts into oblivion, perhaps his last conscious moments will reminisce nostalgically on how blithe it was to converse with someone so recalcitrant as I and still remain peacefully content with how he lived his breath of life.

      Delete
    8. Good show Kyle. I love your generosity of spirit even though we may disagree on other matters!

      Delete
    9. Ha, Kyle, I wish I could confidently believe that Chuck's exhaustion resulted from deep thinking inspired by your and my verbosity, but I doubt it. Chuck is a very deep thinker on his own, and a clear writer, so if he says it was our verbosity that exhausted him, I'm inclined to believe it and take what he said literally.
          I say, though, I might like the poetic picture you draw of my final moments if you didn't characterize them by an adjective ("blithe") whose first definition Merriam-Webster gives as "showing a lack of proper thought or care." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant the definition, "happy and without worry."

      Delete
  9. The only reasons I have engaged Kyle are:

    One (and most important) is his civility. I will engage anyone, on at least a limited basis, as long as they do not start ridiculing me. Ridiculing my argument and my ridiculing his argument are within the bounds of fair play IMHO.

    Second, is out of my regard for his powers of rational discourse which I appreciate and enjoy. Back in ancient times I was a Philosophy minor in college. My fellows and I used to enjoy vigorous debate on sometimes quite obscure assertions, not unlike the kind of conversations that might have transpired between Lewis, Tolkien and others over tea or stronger stuff at Oxford.

    I really have little interest in Christianity and ontological debate which, in the modern context, has become irrelevant and almost non-existent. I may have mentioned my writing classes at Lincoln University, here in Missouri. I love talking occasionally with the faculty members in the neighboring Philosophy Department. I would say most of them are in the C.S. Lewis camp like Kyle. That is why I am so familiar with Kyle's arguments. Sometimes in discussions like these, I feel that I am back at some medieval university disputing how many angelic personages can fit on the period at the end of this sentence. I know this represents some sort of logical fallacy, but I find the argument and the whole theology of my friends on the Lincoln University Philosophy Department and Kyle just hopelessly out of date. Many seemingly valid old ideas just die out as their advocates die out and are replaced by contradictory new ideas. This is, I think, what Kyle's hero, Max Plank intended when he said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

    ReplyDelete