posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mmoa_writes at 02:50pm on 14/03/2010 under arguments, atheism, debate, discussions, issues, philosophy, religion, theism
mmoa_writes at 02:50pm on 14/03/2010 under arguments, atheism, debate, discussions, issues, philosophy, religion, theismOne of my pet peeves in discussions about the Big Things - God, Ethics, Consciousness etc etc - is a lack of coherence. What I mean is that a person on a particular side will use every argument at her disposal rather than arguments that form a coherent viewpoint. The best example is seen in the online 'culture wars' (yes, the American cultural hegemony strikes again - another rant for another time) whenever religion is being discussed. An evangelical Christian will use proofs and arguments formulated by a variety of non-atheists (regardless of whether they were deists, adherents to a 'philosopher's' god or to completely different theology) and in response, the militant atheist will cut them down with a series of counter arguments (dreamt up by agnostics, atheists of a different philosophical stripe or even - and ironically all too often enough - theists of a completely different theology), that whilst alone may well work effectively, certainly don't form any sort of coherent view and often illustrate a self-contradictory one. This is not really the fault of either combatant - I suppose that's just what you get from several millenia's worth of dialogue. So much to say and in so little time.
It also doesn't help that you get a lot of she-said-he-said in these sort of discussions. An atheist might critisise a theistic argument only to be greeted with the usual chorus of 'not all theists believe that'; ad hominem attacks meant for the fallacies of a particular atheist are used by a theist to apply to a whole group of them, in spite of the fact that individually, each person might hold to a different philosophy.*
The final straw came more recently, with the issue of wrong done by religious institutions, particularly on the charge that the spectacular cruelty exhibited by the religious in, for example, pre-Christian sacrifices, the Inquisition and the Wars of Religion etc etc is one only religion can boast of.
Now let's say I disagree with this. Say I disagree with this because the cruelty most often quoted inflicted by religious institutions does not seem to have been beyond the cruelty inflicted by the 'secular' authorities; much like today where - for all their occasionally dangerous rhethoric - most religious institutions make at least some sort of gesturing to our cultural/ethical norms, said past cruelty was aided - if not encouraged - by the contemprorary social mores**.
It's because of this that I could say, as a general argument against religion, that the problem with religion is it's moral mediocrity. Whilst it can provide a framework for ethical standards above those held by the secular counterpart, it's power to create and - most importantly(?) - maintain it is all too often limited by other, quite commonplace and understandable factors. Therefore, it no more provides a genuinely objective framework of morality, legality and so on than it doesn't (EDIT: OK, please note this view is being hugely simplified to serve my overall point about coherence in debate. I know, I know - it's a bad physicists trick but I can't help it).
What I could not do - or I could but I would need some other caveats to make my case a coherent one - would be to then accuse religion of being the cause of, say, all social ills (again, this position is being hugely simplified for the sake of my general point) or - of all the social phenomena humans have created - alone being able to make 'good people do bad things'. Not because this isn't true, but because that wouldn't fit with the implications of my rejection of religion on the basis of it's moral irrelevance and powerlessness.
It might not seem so on the surface, but contradictory arguments/inferences can in fact support a single world view. It's only a particular brand of intellectual arrogance that refuses to acknowledge this (and another kind that feels like pointing this out as if no one else has realised before, I know, I know...!).
Forcefulness of language (or posturing) has no bearing on the strength of one's principle and it's sad that it's often treated as though it is. Whether I describe religion as the most heinous lie ever created or as an understandable but misguided notion does not make my reasons to leave/be against it any the more 'weak' or 'militant' and if one really thinks so to the point where one is sacrificing coherence for the sake of appearances, then, frankly, one has a problem. Furthermore, an argument that superficially (or even not as the case can be) agrees with your position on any matter has as much power to undermine your case as it can support it. One cannot just pull out a vast array of weaponry to defeat an enemy on the battlefield - some, depending on the enemy - can end up doing considerable damage to you. It's the same in debating, especially in the well-worn discussions about things like religion, whether concerning generalities - existence of God/s - or specifics - correctness of various dogmas. There is nothing wrong with abandoning even the most famous and popular proof or argument if it doesn't either follow from or establish one's particular line of reasoning and one should feel no need to think, even on the most subconscious level, that there is.***
*On this point, I will interject. My personal opinion is that I think this is fair enough. Some of these issues, as much as we might like to think we are the first to have ever considered them, have been discussed for a rather long time. I don't think it's unfair to demand that at some point in a debate we move on from generalities and, with what facts - even if they are very few - we have established, onto specifics. Even if that means we have to be more careful with our language and axioms because we end up in more dangerous waters. If you don't like it, or think it's somehow dodging the bullet, you'll just have to deal with it and hope that if there's such thing as reincarnation/wheels of Time you can somehow get yourself born at the very beginning or every end of human intellectualism.
**Knowing the sort of people posts like this attract, I'll just add that that does not mean one can't make moral judgements in such cases, especially when we are under the assumption that there is such thing as moral objectivity; that some things are wrong and have always been wrong even if they were commonly done at some point in time. Of course, if you don't believe this, then none of that matters.
***I know I'm always using an atheist perspective for thoughts like this but that's just because it's simpler. The common theistic fallacies are too numerous and complicated and frankly, boring (which is reflected every time I write about them). Besides, I have an actual degree to not fail.
Everyone please take note of the Medieval Review and the Classical Review. I am way lower in the rankings than even the most amateur of amateur historians but so far, thanks to these two services, I've learnt more about medieval women doctors, law-keeping (and making) in late Antiquity Russia, Political thought in Ancient Rome and acoustic science/philosophy in Classical Greece than I ever thought possible.
It also doesn't help that you get a lot of she-said-he-said in these sort of discussions. An atheist might critisise a theistic argument only to be greeted with the usual chorus of 'not all theists believe that'; ad hominem attacks meant for the fallacies of a particular atheist are used by a theist to apply to a whole group of them, in spite of the fact that individually, each person might hold to a different philosophy.*
The final straw came more recently, with the issue of wrong done by religious institutions, particularly on the charge that the spectacular cruelty exhibited by the religious in, for example, pre-Christian sacrifices, the Inquisition and the Wars of Religion etc etc is one only religion can boast of.
Now let's say I disagree with this. Say I disagree with this because the cruelty most often quoted inflicted by religious institutions does not seem to have been beyond the cruelty inflicted by the 'secular' authorities; much like today where - for all their occasionally dangerous rhethoric - most religious institutions make at least some sort of gesturing to our cultural/ethical norms, said past cruelty was aided - if not encouraged - by the contemprorary social mores**.
It's because of this that I could say, as a general argument against religion, that the problem with religion is it's moral mediocrity. Whilst it can provide a framework for ethical standards above those held by the secular counterpart, it's power to create and - most importantly(?) - maintain it is all too often limited by other, quite commonplace and understandable factors. Therefore, it no more provides a genuinely objective framework of morality, legality and so on than it doesn't (EDIT: OK, please note this view is being hugely simplified to serve my overall point about coherence in debate. I know, I know - it's a bad physicists trick but I can't help it).
What I could not do - or I could but I would need some other caveats to make my case a coherent one - would be to then accuse religion of being the cause of, say, all social ills (again, this position is being hugely simplified for the sake of my general point) or - of all the social phenomena humans have created - alone being able to make 'good people do bad things'. Not because this isn't true, but because that wouldn't fit with the implications of my rejection of religion on the basis of it's moral irrelevance and powerlessness.
It might not seem so on the surface, but contradictory arguments/inferences can in fact support a single world view. It's only a particular brand of intellectual arrogance that refuses to acknowledge this (and another kind that feels like pointing this out as if no one else has realised before, I know, I know...!).
Forcefulness of language (or posturing) has no bearing on the strength of one's principle and it's sad that it's often treated as though it is. Whether I describe religion as the most heinous lie ever created or as an understandable but misguided notion does not make my reasons to leave/be against it any the more 'weak' or 'militant' and if one really thinks so to the point where one is sacrificing coherence for the sake of appearances, then, frankly, one has a problem. Furthermore, an argument that superficially (or even not as the case can be) agrees with your position on any matter has as much power to undermine your case as it can support it. One cannot just pull out a vast array of weaponry to defeat an enemy on the battlefield - some, depending on the enemy - can end up doing considerable damage to you. It's the same in debating, especially in the well-worn discussions about things like religion, whether concerning generalities - existence of God/s - or specifics - correctness of various dogmas. There is nothing wrong with abandoning even the most famous and popular proof or argument if it doesn't either follow from or establish one's particular line of reasoning and one should feel no need to think, even on the most subconscious level, that there is.***
*On this point, I will interject. My personal opinion is that I think this is fair enough. Some of these issues, as much as we might like to think we are the first to have ever considered them, have been discussed for a rather long time. I don't think it's unfair to demand that at some point in a debate we move on from generalities and, with what facts - even if they are very few - we have established, onto specifics. Even if that means we have to be more careful with our language and axioms because we end up in more dangerous waters. If you don't like it, or think it's somehow dodging the bullet, you'll just have to deal with it and hope that if there's such thing as reincarnation/wheels of Time you can somehow get yourself born at the very beginning or every end of human intellectualism.
**Knowing the sort of people posts like this attract, I'll just add that that does not mean one can't make moral judgements in such cases, especially when we are under the assumption that there is such thing as moral objectivity; that some things are wrong and have always been wrong even if they were commonly done at some point in time. Of course, if you don't believe this, then none of that matters.
***I know I'm always using an atheist perspective for thoughts like this but that's just because it's simpler. The common theistic fallacies are too numerous and complicated and frankly, boring (which is reflected every time I write about them). Besides, I have an actual degree to not fail.
Everyone please take note of the Medieval Review and the Classical Review. I am way lower in the rankings than even the most amateur of amateur historians but so far, thanks to these two services, I've learnt more about medieval women doctors, law-keeping (and making) in late Antiquity Russia, Political thought in Ancient Rome and acoustic science/philosophy in Classical Greece than I ever thought possible.