Re: The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary

"David Ewan Kahana" <dek@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Stanley Friesen wrote:
"David Ewan Kahana" <dek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You must pardon me, but your statement resembles
very closely in form the statement `Lake Victoria is the
*source* of the Nile.'

Probably more like "General Motors is a source of automobiles".

Well I personally wouldn't say that automobiles emanate from
General Motors or that they are an expression of its will,
and of course, automobiles could emanate from Ford as well.

Which is why I reworded it to use "source".

But there's no essential difference as far as I am
concerned.

I see at least one - a matter of *purpose*. GM may be a collective, but
it still has a corporate purpose, and its production of automobiles is
*intentional* in way that the origin of the Nile in Lake Victoria is
not.

Also, Lake Victoria is the direct physical source of the *material* that
makes up the Nile (water). GM's (or Ford's) production of automobiles
is more indirect - it is accomplished by means of manipulation or
processing.

You may substitute whatever nouns you like for God and
Nature. The form of your statement remains the same and the
fact remains that you are constructing a metaphor,

However it is a *different* metaphor - with different implications.

This seems to be a truth claim, without any basis
other than a certain appeal to human understanding.

It is a claim of truth, yes, and but does not appeal to *evidence* in
the scientific sense of the word.

But you pretend that there is evidence for it nevertheless.

Where? I do not remember ever having claimed there is any evidence in
any objective sense.

From my point of view, this merely constitutes a partial
statement of your definition of orthodox theologians. You
agree with all of these unnamed many, and all of them agree
with you, so you say, and all of you together claim that the
scriptures assert this.

So a theologian who claimed God was equivalent to nature
would not be `orthodox' according to you.

He would certainly not be Christian or Jewish, as a personal,
transcendent God is a core belief of those religions. He might be a
Buddhist, however.

Is there any reason why this should matter to me or to
anyone else?

Of course that wasn't my point. I am merely trying to establish the
*fallacy* of claiming science is contrary to religious faith. For that
purpose it is sufficient to show the *existence* of an internally
consistent world-view incorporating both. It is in no way part of my
goal to convince anyone of the *truth* of Christianity in this context.
Only to show that it is not, in itself, in contradiction to science.
Hence the emphasis on the orthodox position, since that is the most
widely believed form of Christianity.


But if, as you say, `God' acts only through and by
means of natural processes so that `his actions are
indistinguishable from any other natural process' then
I fail to see that there is any real distinction between
God and Nature.

The same distinction as between myself and my actions.

What distinction is that? Do you claim that your own
actions are distinguishable from natural processes? In what
way?

No, but I claim that I am *distinct* from my actions. My existence is
not generated by my actions. I exist *apart* from my actions. I would
still exist even if I did nothing (well at least for a time). My
actions flow *from* me, but they are *not* the *same* as me.

At a certain level I would also say there *are* no "other natural
processes".

At what level?

At the deepest level, if you want it defined.

You have said below that there is
part of God which is *outside* nature,

I though I said *all* of him was.

Sorry. I thought you said that Nature was a `partial
expression' of God.

Yes, but an expression is *not* a part of a being. "Starry, Starry
Night" is a partial expression of who Van Gogh was, but it is not, and
never was, *part* of Van Gogh. This Usenet post is an expression of my
self, but it is not part of me. You are running the implication
backwards.

It wasn't clear to me how you were using the word expression
at the time, and if expression were taken to mean something
that has been forced out of God, then a logical conclusion
that can be drawn from the language you used is that part of
God is outside of Nature while part is inside.

I am using it in the standard English sense of "making known,
manifesting, showing, communicating, represent". This "forced out of"
definition sounds like the etymologically original meaning of the word,
but it is rarely used any more (it is the next to last definition in my
dictionary - and one I had not even *heard* of until you brought it up).

However, now I'm a bit confused. Is it not orthodox theology
in Christianity that Christ is the Son of God, and that God
became incarnate in Christ the Son?

Yes, but that is a separate issue from what I was discussing. The
incarnation is, in some sense, secondary, or at least subsequent, to his
transcendent creative mode.

`(credo) ... Begotten not made, consubstantial to the
Father, by whom all things were made.

Please, NOT the Nicene. "Consubstantial" is a technical term of
Neo-platonic philosophy, and as such is not central to Christianity
(Christianity had existed for at least a century before the Neo-platonic
material was accreted).

How can it then also be said that *all* of God was outside
of nature?

In the same way it can be said the Christ Jesus was wholly God and
wholly man :-)

More seriously, see above.

No, knowledge of him comes from spiritual guidance and inspiration -
that, too, is orthodox theology. Indeed learning about him from nature
is considered to be indirect, like learning about an artist from his
works of art.

Again, it seems that this notion of `orthodox theology'
intervenes, which I need in some way to deal with first, if
I am ever to have a hope of understanding what you mean by
what you say.

What I mean is that orthodox Christianity is 100% compatible with all of
modern science. That is all I have been getting at. It is not about
*my* beliefs, it is about the political relationships between science
and religion.

It seems to me that there is a very great deal of
*indirectness* both explicit and implicit in your attempts
at obtaining knowledge about this _somebody_, who I
understand now you say is *entirely* outside nature, but is
nevertheless its `source,' and who nature belongs to, and
of whom nature is a partial expression, and so on ...

Yep.

Would it be your claim that people reading `orthodox'
theology mostly obtain a similar picture of God to your own?

In many ways, but that is irrelevant to my point.

Now maybe you have investigated the questions more deeply
than some fundamentalists, and maybe your conclusions about
how to read scripture are very different, but both of you
agree that there is some definite kind of knowledge to be
gained about God by doing so, and by trusting some group of
authorities on theology, as well as possibly personal
revelations and inspirations and so on, as guides to the
understanding.

And, yet, it seems to me that you _do_ have serious
objections to what fundamentalists say, and to how they see
scriptures as talking about God.

Yep. They are mean-spirited and exclusionary, as shown by their
actions. This is so at variance with the sort of love that Jesus calls
for that I feel quite justified in concluding they have lost the way.

How can one use a natural means of expression, such as language, to
truly describe such a thing?

If one cannot even use natural means of expression such as
language to describe the thing in question, then I fail to
see how this notion of `orthodox' theology that you invoke
can possibly have a stable meaning.

Why should it be any more stable than science?

Theology makes use of
natural language, does it not?

Ergo all of what is said of God is a metaphor. So?

I suggest that if a thing cannot be described by natural
means of expression such as language, then this is quite
possibly because the thing either doesn't actually exist, or
is too ill-defined a notion to usefully talk about, at the
moment.

Or it is too large or too alien to human experience to be expressed in
concepts that fit in our limited brains.

At a basic level it means nature is a work
that he has assembled, it is in an archaic sense "artificial".

Well it seems to me that you are simply piling more words on
top of words. He has assembled it how?

How should I know? He is so great, and started so far in the past, that
such information simply not accessible to us mere humans.

What were the parts
out of which he has assembled it?

This is the problem with metaphors. They can be taken too far. The
traditional answer is that he created the Universe ex nihilo. While I
am not sure this is really supported sculpturally, it is certainly a
viable possibility. (The "the world was without form and void" could be
viewed as implying some sort of preexisting material - but that is
widely debated, and relatively unimportant anyhow).

So I have from you, now, another view of the relation
between `God' and `Nature' both of which I suppose you will
claim are `orthodox.'

(1) God is the source of Nature.
(2) Nature is an artifact, a work assembled by God.

I intended these to be two complementary metaphors expressing the *same*
concept. He is the source in the sense that he *made* it.

I see above that you say one can't even truly describe the
notion using natural language. But you did try to, anyway.

But apparently, you also say that the statement that God is
*outside* of Nature is a part of `orthodox' theology.

Yes, God is considered to be intrinsically transcendent by all major
Christian denominations and by all non-Reform Jews. I think that pretty
much makes it orthodox. I was just trying to express the *meaning* of
"transcendent" in less technical terminology.

Thus `Starry Night' is an expression of the nature
of Van Gogh, and `Nature' is an expression of the
nature of God.

So it seems that you suggest that Nature bears the same
relation to God as Starry Night bears to Van Gogh.

Well, approximately. Remember, even this is a metaphor. Though this
metaphor is perhaps more robust and deeper than most.

But surely we have far more information about the case of
Van Gogh than we do about the case of God. For we have many
examples of paintings from Van Gogh, but we have only one
example of Nature from God.

Well, it would be hard to view a separate Nature, since there would be
no causal connection between them.

And your claim is that God is *all* outside of nature, while
it appears Van Gogh's paintings are apparently *all* inside
of nature, and that *part* of Van Gogh, at least, was inside
of nature, no?

This is why it is only a *analogy*. It does not pay to delve too deeply
into the details of a metaphor or analogy. The key parts of the analogy
are the distinction between Van Gogh and his works, and the *creative*
relationship between Van Gosh and his works.

(Actually I would say the Van Gogh, like all humans, is entirely
natural).

Is this another case where ordinary language fails
to be able to describe the phenomenon adequately?

I did say *all* descriptions of God are metaphoric or analogical.

Not a room, more like a computer program or animated film. We are
characters in the film or Sims in the program. The author/producer is
outside of the program or film. [Note, like all *analogies*, this one
is incomplete and should not be taken too literally].

Sorry, but this analogy doesn't help me much more than the
one about Van Gogh and the paintings.

For the characters or sims in the program, pretending for
the sake of argument that they are self-conscious in the
same way that we use this term of ourselves, and not just
impressions on celluloid, or bits in solid state memory, how
can they possibly find out about or know that there is
anything outside of the film or program itself, much less
know that there is an author/producer of the program?

Exactly. They can't, except to the extent the author injects knowledge
of himself into the system. That is why science *cannot* *address* the
issue of the existence of God. That was indeed a large part of the
*point* of that analogy.

I take the word `intervene' here to mean
`to become involved in such a way as to
alter or hinder the natural development of.'
Not merely `to become involved in', but also
to alter or hinder, so that something else
happens than would have happened
without the intervention.

The problem with this is that is assumes he is bound by time in the same
sense we are.

Not at all, it assumes nothing of the sort.

A being unbound by time (which I think is actually a
paradoxical notion in and of itself, but let me pass over
that)

I actually suspect this may be right - but most Christians and Jews do
believe God is timeless, so I went with the standard version.

could perfectly well still intervene in nature. Since
it was unbound in time, it could intervene at any time and
any place I should think.

Go back to the film metaphor for a moment. Consider a well-made film
that is entirely internally consistent and without flaw. Where *within*
the film can one distinguish where the author intervenes versus where he
does not? It is *all* *the* *same*. The *entire* *film* flows from the
authors mind. Note, especially, that the author's time and the time
*within* the film are completely unrelated. The scenes are generally
not even filmed in the order they are presented in the final film.

What is "before" and "after" to us is not necessarily so
to him. And it assumes there are parts of history that he *does* *not*
influence.

No, I don't think so, under my conditions it could also be
involved everywhere and at every time.

The only condition I proposed is that its intervention would
alter what would otherwise be the natural development of
matters, had it not occurred, or have been occurring ...

But, again, this assumes a *distinction* between natural and divine
intervention. If, at the bottom, *all* is divine action, then the
distinction is meaningless.

It is the same as your distinction between when God "intervenes" versus
"other natural processes". The usual *definition* of "miracle" is a
deity intervening in the world - I suppose I assumed you knew the
equivalence between divine intervention and miracles.

Well, then, but it seems that what you are saying is just
that all of nature, and all of history is a miracle and a
divine intervention.

That is one way of putting it. Another way is to say the concept of
miracle expresses a false dichotomy.

That's fine, but this I think hardly adds much to anyone's
understanding, however poetically appealing it may be.

It shows why your question is not necessarily meaningful.

Well then, what are we talking about here? ;->

The fact as I see it is that lots of people who say the are
religious are perfectly happy to expound at length about
God.

So? Why should one conclude that those statements are *not* metaphors
and analogies?

Then, there are some religious people who are not always
happy when people raise difficult questions about what they
say about God.

Yep. That is their problem. If they had a deeper faith it would not
bother them so much.

But when people claim to be talking about our common
reality, and I think you are trying to claim to be talking
about that, then I recognize that there are limitations in
the usefulness of analogies, and I therefore make an effort
to look carefully at the precise language people use and to
question it. I am not going to be satisfied with analogies
and metaphors there, I'm afraid.

Then you are out of luck, as I have nothing else to offer.

Now, if I saw such a thing, I would first ask myself, how
much have I had to drink today?

As I said, you take things too literally.

No, I don't think so, not in this case.

How else should one take the statement that the bush burned
but was not consumed?

One can take it as a myth (a special type of metaphor). One can take it
as a subsequent representation of a spiritual rather than a physical
event. One can take it as a parable (another special type of metaphor).
It could be a poetic expression of a spiritual truth. Taking it as
literal history is only one approach, and one that is, IMO, dubious.

Personally, I suspect it might be the second - Moses had a moment of
epiphany and he, or his successors, could best describe it in those
words.

It is also pretty clear that YHVH chose at this point
to actively intervene in human history, and indeed
to change its whole course, by this means. That
at least is what it would appear that the person who
wrote the story down believed had happened.

Does it really appear that way?

Yes. It's my opinion that it really does appear
that way.

I could argue this in more detail, but I consider that the
Genesis-Exodus narrative does takes the form at some points
of a historical narrative,

I would all it more of a mythic narrative.

and that the form is not unknown,
as some historical narratives already are pre-existing in
Egyptian and Assyrian writing of the time.

I suppose it somewhat depends on what one means by the term. Most of
what I know of are government records and propaganda pieces. I am not
sure I would consider such to be *histories*, even if they are the
primary sources of subsequent historical narratives.

But for example, there are definitely some passages that
look exactly like records of military campaigns including
itineraries, complete with place names and travel times, as
you would see them recorded in Egyptian or Assyrian records
of such things at the time of writing or earlier.

Which some parts could well be copied from Judean/Israeli court records
(though I think these are more likely to be found in Chronicles). But
the main thrust is spiritual, and the authors freely adjusted the
narrative flow to make the stories illustrate the points they wished to
make. This makes them unreliable as a *historical* source.

That the concept of history did not exist I think is clearly
counterfactual. Actual verifiable and dateable history, such
as the military campaigns of Thutmose III, was recorded on
Egyptian stelae of the second millenium BCE.

Ah yes, publicity pieces erected to enhance his stature.

I believe that the whole basis of the scientific approach
to understanding nature, and of course history is
also part of nature, is that only natural processes exist

No, that is *philosophical* naturalism. The basis of science is
*methodological* naturalism. This is the same category error that most
Creationists make. Promulgating this misunderstanding is actually
*helping* them.

Fine. It was an error of omission. I should have completed
the sentence by saying that `only natural processes exist
for the purpose of making scientific investigations.'

I would not even put it that way. I would say only natural explanations
are considered in the scientific endeavor.

Actually as it is written it is a statement of ontological
or metaphysical naturalism, not of philosophical naturalism,
which is a more general notion. Ontological naturalism, the
position that the supernatural does not exist, I consider to
be the minimal default position, as long as methodological
naturalism continues to work,

Well, that is debatable. And it certainly does not belong in education
prior to college level, as it is rather a sophisticated bit of
philosophy.

and methodological naturalism
does continue to work for the moment.

I believe it will always continue to work. Any failure of it would
imply God is imperfect and could not create an internally consistent
world.

I don't mind saying that I'm having a good laugh at your
suggestion that I am *helping* creationists given the body
of writing I've contributed in this group.

To the extent you agree with them about the nature of science and its
relationship to religion, you are. Such a position not only strengthens
their position, but makes it easier for them to convince others they are
right.

Believe me, creationists don't give a damn what the likes of
me have to say in any case.

Wrong - they use such things as ammunition in convincing others that
science is opposed to religion. They *love* quoting from "atheists" to
establish their points.

You really do seem to be as much a fundamentalist about
`orthodox' theology and your preferred way of interpreting
scripture as any fundamentalist is about their literal
interpretation.

Who was it who told you that a literal interpretation is
never right, and that fundamentalists are always wrong about
the way in which they choose to interpret what scriptures
say?

I do not remember ever saying they are *always* wrong. I doubt anybody
is *always* wrong. And I am quite certain *nobody* is *always* right -
not even myself. But since this has not, strictly, been about my
beliefs, that may not have come through clearly. I have chosen to
present a more or less standard Judeo-Christian view in order to
disprove the assertion that science eliminates the possibility of
theism. That is all I was attempting.

When you don't like it that scripture can be read as
claiming that something happened that is considered by the
witnesses to the event to be a miracle and a violation of
natural law, and that I can then make the positive statement
that science denies that such things happen, I understand
that you may not like what I am saying. But it does not
follow from that that my view of scripture is `overly
simplistic.' That is a pure value judgement of yours.

It is certainly an approach to biblical understanding that is largely
restricted to Fundamentalists, and is considered naive by most educated
Jews and Christians.

You may as well say that you prefer Homer to Shakespeare as
far as I'm concerned.

It remains the case that I can say this with the weight of a
great deal of empirical evidence behind me: trees do not
burn without being consumed. Such a thing is so improbable
that were I to witness it and it were verified that it was
happening I would give up ontological naturalism in the
blink of an eye.

Except that, ironically, I actually think you would be unjustified in
doing so. *If* it occurred, and could be observed using modern
instrumentation, then I suspect it would end up appearing natural, even
if highly unusual.

The point *I* am trying to make is that this is a very narrow and naive
conception of God, and is certainly not a *necessary* one.

Sure it's not a necessary conception, but it is a *possible*
conception, and as such it has just about as much of a basis
for demanding belief from people as does any other concept of
God.

Except I am not demanding belief - what I am doing is strongly
recommending you *not* denigrate or ridicule people who *do* have a
reasonable faith just because some fools do not.

Who said that a sophisticated and broad concept of God is
necessarily more correct than a naive and narrow one?

Well, most Jewish and Chrisitan leaders say so. But that is irrelevant
to my point, which is that the mere *existence* of such a possibility is
enough to show science cannot, *in* *general*, address the issue of the
existence of an immanent (active) God.

Now I think you already said that you don't expect me as a
non-believer to accept your notion of God, and I will say
right now, that I consider that kind of tolerance to be of
benefit to society, and this kind of tolerance is something
that fundamentalists and creationists very often seem to
lack. So I consider that to be a point in your favour.

My point is it needs to be practiced *both* ways. Dawkins saying that
atheism is the only possibility allowed by science is exactly as
intolerant and demanding as Fundamentalist religion. That is my
objection to Dawkins.

The point I'm trying to make is that science can and it does
address the existence of certain kinds of God.

I would rather say it addresses the truth of some claims about God.

No, there is actually considerable agreement on orthodoxy between all
mainline denominations. Most of the differences are over matter of
church governance or relatively minor peripheral issues.
Fundamentalists have thrown out all prior understanding, and have often
even declared all non-Fundamentalists to be "atheists".

There is also very considerable disagreement and certainly
not all who call themselves Christians would agree with you,
I think, that all of the differences are minor.

They may not like my choice of words in all cases, but the words they
choose usually mean pretty much the same things - except among
Fundamentalist groups. [Mind, unlike some Fundamentalists, I am not
quick to say anther in unchristian, so I am perfectly willing to accept
that they are Christians, even if mistaken ones]

And in any
case, when you speak this way you ignore all other religions
besides Christianity.

Well, most of what I said above also applies to orthodox Judaism.

And who is to say that all prior understanding about
theology has been correct and how might that be practically
testable in any case?

I do not say all prior theology is correct. Indeed what I actually
believe is that *no* theology is *entirely* correct, because God is too
vast for humans to understand. [We cannot even *truly* understand
perfectly natural, measurable things, like interstellar distance - such
things are merely abstract numbers to us, we have no intuitive concept
of such things].

Fundamentalists already claim to possess both of those I
believe, and they reject your `orthodox' theology.

Well, they do not have any good historical claim to orthodoxy, nor do I
think they even try to claim it. [AFAICT, they claim correctness, but
not orthodoxy, even if that sounds like a contradiction in terms].

Does your whole complaint against them reduce to the issue
that they call you an atheist, and that they reject your
orthodox theology?

No, it is that they try to violate the US constitution and inject
religion into schools, and that they treat people who do not believe as
themselves as enemies, contrary to Jesus teaching ("Love your enemies",
"turn the other cheek", "Zachaeus, I am eating at your house today").

You do, I take it, disbelieve in their God?

No! I believe they are *wrong* about what God wants and how he acts.
But I believe it is the same God [as is the God of Judaism].

So that I think would make you an atheist with respect to
their God. Isn't it correct?

No.

Maybe you mean to say that in _your_ theology, God is outside of
nature.

No, it is the theology of the Pope, and of the Lutheran Church, and the
Anglican Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and so on. (Actually
on *this* issue even the Fundamentalists agree).

And of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism,
Jainism ... ?

No, but they are irrelevant to my point, and I know little about them.

--
The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary
    ... But then what distinguishes such a God from Nature itself? ... He is the *source* of nature, according to orthodox theology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Nature of Disbelief
    ... The Nature of Disbelief ... recognise his Lord and Creator and misuses his freedom of choice by ... Kufr literally means 'to cover' or 'to conceal'. ... God is called Kafir because he conceals by his disbelief' ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • The Nature of Disbelief
    ... The Nature of Disbelief ... recognise his Lord and Creator and misuses his freedom of choice by ... Kufr literally means 'to cover' or 'to conceal'. ... God is called Kafir because he conceals by his disbelief' ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Gods Revelation
    ... as presented in the Word of God. ... higher spiritual nature all the time: it was not that he merely put on ... freezing causes contraction: but how fortunate it is for humanity that ... minerals is an exception to this law of nature also: ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: Thoughts . . .
    ... I personally prefer a more thorough eclectic education to the very narrow catholic. ... 'Don't despair of my failings; God ... ready logic of mind, purity of heart and zeal; ... betokens an inexhaustible wealth in the nature which can invent, learn, ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)
Loading