A challenge to Joe

This post follows that posted last Sunday, March 23

Dear Joe, I hope this finds you and your family well. My wife and I have been extra busy lately with our planned household move, and I'm neglected my blog. But today, while going through boxes from the attic (to decide what to throw away, what to donate to charity, what to try to sell, what to keep), I remembered my comment in last Sunday's post (made on Thursday, March 27) to Tom Sheepandgoats, in which I made a joke:

I forgot to ask Joe whether there really is a new book out titled The Dawkins Delusion. Have you heard of it? I guess I should amazon it....Yes, Amazon.com lists The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, by Alister E. McGrath and Joanna Collicutt Mcgrath...Oh, no! Joe'll probably start quoting it to me now.

I guess the italicized sentence wasn't a joke at the time, actually, although I meant it good-naturedly.

What I got to thinking today was that it need not be an annoyance for you to quote the McGrath & McGrath book to me (as it certainly is, generally, whenever anyone quotes the Bible to me). I am already on record (in a comment on Tom's blog) that my third reading of Dawkins's The God Delusion will be a critical reading, with me suspending my belief as much as I can and challenging his arguments.

The McGraths have presumably read Dawkins very critically indeed, so arguments they make against his position would be good for me to consider as a tool to assist my own critical reading....

So, if you read their book and feel inclined to quote one or more of their arguments against Dawkins, well, then feel free to do so! I'll consider what they (and you) say and do my best to respond in an intelligent and fair manner.

Thank you much, Joe. I appreciate it.

What we like to do for fun

This dialogue follows that posted Saturday, March 22

From Joe to Moristotle

You smiled...I thought at best you would roll your eyes.

I think we both think that each other's words are empty. Not really sure about your religious tracts comment. I could accuse you of reading atheist tracts. Fact is we both look at the same facts and interpret them differently.

As for Leviticus and Numbers, The Mosaic (Moses, Leviticus and stuff) Covenant was temporary. The New Covenant is a relationship with God, through Christ.

You said responsible parents can know how to raise their children...my question is how? What is your guide? Do you use past experience? Society norms?

I have started my quest reading your blog. Lot to read through. I do thank you for offering opportunities to strengthen my beliefs and study more about what I believe. I will try not to make you repeat yourself.


What else you like to do for fun? I know you like to read and watch movies. You have any other hobbies? Do you like sports...you are in a good area to like college sports. Are you a Tar Heels fan?

From Moristotle to Joe

First, thanks for asking what else I like to do for fun. I had been just about to ask you whether you planned to watch the basketball game between Arkansas and North Carolina this evening. While I do hope that Carolina wins, I wouldn't call myself a fan. I don't like to watch any sports events. I hope Carolina wins only because I work with a lot of people to whom it's important, and they would be in a better mood tomorrow if Carolina won. Plus, Carolina is "supposed" to be the best this year, and a lot of people would be really dejected if they didn't play in the championship game.

But bottom line is that I think collegiate athletics have gone way too far when it comes to money and fanaticism. Same for professional sports. All are emblems of a trivial popular culture. Actually, my attitude is not new. I felt roughly the same way when I was a high school student. At a basketball game I attended as a senior (I guess), I was struck by how mindless seemed the wild roaring of each side for its own team. I think I was then under the sway of some classical Greek ideal of competition not as defeating an opponent but as attempting to be the "best you can be," where you can as sincerely congratulate members of the "opposing" team as you can the members of "your own" team. And you can feel as sorry for any participant's failure as you can for that of another.

I don't know whether the way I do gardening qualifies as a hobby, but I generally enjoy messing about the yard, doing the things that are necessary to keep it looking good and so on. Also, although it isn't necessary, I very much enjoy taking out bird feed every morning and taking in the feeders at night that a raccoon or possum might otherwise attack. Of course, I enjoy watching birds visit the feeders. I even enjoy watching squirrels trying to get at the food. There was one the other day draped around the long thistle feeder, eating as much of the minute grains as it could. I don't begrudge these little creatures their food, however they can get it.

My son and I sometimes play Boggle, and I used to play Scrabble and chess quite a bit, but it's been a long time. Sometimes I'll try to sneak a few pieces in on my wife's jigsaw puzzle.

I actually enjoy just doing the daily chores, making the bed, preparing breakfast, making the dinner salads, keeping the place looking tidy. I don't believe in life after death. I see that the present life, whatever its condition, is precious and ultimate. That includes the present life of others, human or otherwise. Thus, I try to do good. My sense of authentic self demands it. I suppose that my attitude is that such life is holy.


Now back to the beginning. Did you really think that I would "roll my eyes"? Please tell me a little more about what you were thinking when you wrote the original sentence about "uncaused First Cause"; that is, why did you (apparently) think even at the time that I would not be impressed by it?

I don't agree that we both think that each other's words are empty (in general). I was commenting only on one particular phrase you used. Please don't overgeneralize. That's rather like hurling rocks back at me. Try to be more responsible.

Joe, it's almost impossible for me to believe that you're serious when you ask how can responsible parents know how to raise their children. Are you that unread? If you don't know the answer, then I certainly don't have the time to explain it to you.

My "religious tract" comment came from my own experience with such literature, in which highfallutin, philosophical-sounding phrases are bandied about in a display of presumed wisdom, and it's hard to tell whether the author really believes it or is just trying to console the readers of such publications. I can't be sure from your response, but you seem to be implying (or trying to give the impression) that you have never read such things.

The recent books of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, as well as Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason and Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian—all of which I have read and am fairly certain you have not—are not "tracts." Your tossing "tract" back to me (as though it were a ball and you hoped I'd fumble it and it would bounce up and fall through the hoop to score you a point) does not flatter you. (Do you own a dictionary? The American Heritage Dictionary defines "tract" this way: "A distributed paper or pamphlet containing a declaration or appeal, especially one put out by a religious or political group.") If you can't rise above that sort of playground brawling style, then I really don't wish to participate, and you should go find someone else to work off your testosterone with.

Reading opposing points of view (such as my blog) for the purpose of strengthening your own beliefs....Please, if you would, do let us know how it goes. If you want to note progress in comments on particular posts, go ahead, as I'll be automatically notified that you've done so and will see your comment.

From Joe to Moristotle

Wow, I have asked you twice now about how you raised your kids. How did you teach them right and wrong and you still have not answered. You could have easily said: Joe, I read this book or that book, or I raised them based off my experience of how I was raised. No, I am not asking for your advice on how to raise my kid...just curious on how an atheist knows right from wrong, and how that translates to raising their kids.

Uncaused First Caused relates to the explanation that the universe just didn't happen, that an Intelligent Creator started it. I assumed tone from your email...because it seems like you are getting frustrated, or at best you feel I am wasting your time. I know tone is really impossible to deduce from email, so please forgive me for making an assumption on your tone. I am not really in the business of impressing you. I am just trying to figure out more about what you believe. It seems our emails always turn into this...me saying something, you telling me I am wrong and I don't read enough, me stating something I did read, you telling me how that it's ridiculous, etc.

I am not trying to win points with you or beat you at a game. I do not own a dictionary...I just go to dictionary.com.

From Moristotle to Joe

Joe, the way I'm feeling at the moment is that I don't see any future in our continuing to try to discuss this. We seem to rub each other the wrong way. Or at least you sure rub me the wrong way; I can't tolerate your taunting, take-no-prisoners style of debate. (That's what I had in mind by referring to your testosterone. You strike me as a particularly "alpha" male, and I've never liked the type.)

But, since you are insisting so, I'll say that we raised our kids many years ago and I don't remember very well what we did. I don't believe we read them Bible stories. We probably read some Dr. Spock. We had moral sensibility (humans have it as an evolved species; evolutionary biologists are studying it now) and we tried to reinforce it in our children. We were also educated people. Our daughter (as she revealed to me a month or two ago in a comment on one of my posts) decided "as a kid" (probably fifth or sixth grade) that there was no god, but I know few people more considerate and good than she is. My son seems to be agnostic; he likes to "believe in the possibility of God" and appreciates some wonderful music that its composers' attributed to their sense of "God." He, too, is a fine, upstanding, sensitive, considerate person. So, Joe, try to lose your parochial, self-serving opinion that atheists have to be bad people.

The thankful natives of America

This dialogue follows that posted Thursday, March 20

From Joe to Moristotle

"How does God explain anything?" God is the uncaused First Cause. I don't see how science can explain the beginning of the universe. In fact, the law of cause an effect and the law of entropy seem to point to a creator showing the universe has a definite beginning and something caused it. I of course believe that God caused it.

Science cannot explain the irreducible complexity of the human eye. Darwin himself said: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible. – Origin of Species [p. 155]

Fanatic religionists just show that the world is full of hate. Hateful people operate under the guise of a religion. Religion is also responsible for good causes: Salvation Army helps millions of people; City Union Mission in Kansas City helps homeless people and is run by local churches; countless other services including shelters, food pantries, home building, etc. are led by religious groups. You cannot lump religious people in with all the people doing bad things in the name of religion.

"And morality doesn't depend on God either." What does morality depend on, then? Society? If it feels good, do it? What is right for you may not be right for me?....this doesn't work. How did you discipline your children when they were growing up? Wouldn't you just say, sure, kid do whatever you want?

From Moristotle to Joe

Joe, forgive me, but I had to smile at "the uncaused First Cause," for those are just empty words, signifying no meaningful intellectual content. The "law of cause and effect and the law of entropy" certainly point to no such thing as a creator! I suspect you've been reading too many religious tracts.

Your passage from Darwin was quoted out of context. That was a rhetorical passage to emphasize how marvelous indeed it is that natural selection did bring about the marvelous mechanism of the human eye.

Yes, not all religious people are bad, of course not. And churches, synagogues, and mosques do provide useful charitable services. Unfortunately, these activities are used as evidence that religious dogmas are true, and that is invalid. And neither, of course, do evil religious activities prove that religious dogmas are false.

But here's what I said: "We'd all be much better off without the magical thinking and parochial arrogance characteristic of religion." That arrogance leads to something that even "good" religionists think is beneficial: evangelical proseletyizing, going out to be "missionaries." The natives of North, Central, and South America, were just tickled pink for the Europeans to come over and slaughter them if they didn't let themselves be baptized....

Here's the kind of answer to your morality challenge that I think you (as a Bible believer) can appreciate: You don't agree with some of the moral rules of, say, Leviticus 20 or Numbers 15. On what basis do you disagree? I agree with you that, of course, responsibile parents don't tell (or let) their children to do whatever they want. But responsible parents can know that without having had anything whatsoever to do with religion.

Have you made much of a study yet (if you intend to) of the many personal disclosures I've made on this blog that bear on my now being an atheist? I don't intend to repeat myself unnecessarily. I say as much as I have here because our interchange will make a good sequel on my blog to the interchange I posted on Thursday. Friday's post, by the way (a quotation from Bertrand Russell), seemed pertinent to your challenges to this particular sceptic me. Thanks for providing the occasion for that one of Lord Russell's observations.

How did this all start?

From: Joe
To: Moristotle

Just so I have a better understanding of what you believe. How did this all start? How did we get here? How did the universe begin? You believe that there is no God. How do you explain some of the complexities of how the universe works?

I start this conversation realizing that we have different beliefs...I am just trying to understand your position better.

From: Moristotle
To: Joe

If you really want to know, I ask you to please read from the past year's entries on my blog. You can do that selectively, ignoring entries on other subjects.

But I can ask you one simple counter-question: How does God explain anything? How do you explain God? Positing God as an explanation for anything is not helpful. God is simply unnecessary. And morality doesn't depend on God either, anymore than explanation does.

And, of course, fanatic religionists have been (and still are) responsible for much murder and pillage (including pogroms against Jews, the Inquisition, murders of abortion-clinic staff members, and not just bombings and beheadings by Islamic jihadists). We'd all be much better off without the magical thinking and parochial arrogance characteristic of religion.