Neither I nor the well-known philosopher Philip Kitcher believes in the existence of God or in the claims of the major (or minor) religions. I don't know how he would describe himself, but I say I am an agnostic or skeptic. In truth, when it comes to the basic claims of Christianity and the others, I am an atheist.
Yet both Kitcher and I persist in trying to make a space for people who are religious, in the sense that we both want to accord them some kind of intellectual integrity and the justified possibility of holding to the beliefs that they do. It is not that we don't want to argue with religious people -- we do -- but that at the end of the day we want to be able to say that our differences are the differences of reasonable people rather than of one reasonable side faced with stupidity and worse on the other.
We differ in that whereas I am prepared to let people believe without much qualification in the truth of such claims as the creation, the resurrection and eternal life, Kitcher wants to restrict the grounds for such belief to the moral or ethical value that is conferred by belief in such claims. He thinks that modern science negates all of the normal truth claims of religion, whereas I think that it is possible for religion to make (potential) truth claims even given modern science.
Why do we bother? Why not simply join up with the New Atheists (Kitcher calls them the "militant modern atheists") and have done with it? Well, again I cannot speak for Kitcher, but I do so because I think New Atheism is somewhere socially between "not helpful" and "disastrous to the point of immorality." We all agree that today we face what we take to be a vile set of cultural claims about the immorality of homosexuality and women's equality and abortion and much more and that this is a set promoted by people who take a particular literalist reading of the Bible. The question is how we should fight this?
My argument is that we need all the friends we can get and that it is stupid to alienate the liberal Christians who may disagree with us about the true status of their religion but who share our cultural and social values. I do know that I speak for Kitcher in saying that neither of us could for a moment compromise what we think it is true for political ends, but if we can see a way legitimately to argue for a middle ground, we will do so even at the cost of alienating (or in my case particularly) earning the scorn of those who should be natural friends.
My last blog dealt in some detail with Philip Kitcher's stance, then explained why I don't think ultimately that it works. Kindly, he has commented on my piece, and I reproduce his words here:
I am grateful to Michael Ruse for his interest in my views, and in his conscientious attempt to present them accurately. In fact, I think his assimilation of my ideas to those of Steve Gould is likely to mislead. Gould (as I interpret him) thought religion had the right to pronounce on moral matters, a view that I, like most philosophers since Plato, reject. My thought is that religion can serve in amplifying and directing a commitment to previously accepted values: so, for example, if you are antecedently committed to relieving human suffering and to promoting equal opportunities, you may find particular parts of the Gospels inspiring. It's very important for me that an orientation begin from a commitment to values, and that these not be grounded in religious texts.Ruse concludes that my position won't be enough for most religious people. Since most religious people do believe things I take to be almost certainly false, he is probably right about this. If you think that a supernatural being made a covenant with certain people and their descendants at Mount Sinai, or that another being who took human form was crucified, died and then came to life again, or that an angel spoke to Muhammad in the desert near Mecca, you will think that my approach to religion subtracts something crucially important. In my view, you should come to terms with the very serious arguments about the diversity of religious belief and the history of such belief, articulated from the late eighteenth century to the present, arguments that seem to me to doom the hope that any of the substantive claims about supernatural beings made by any of the world's religions is literally true. If you do that, you may be attracted by the thought that there are important human values, and that stories in religious works, whether or not they are literally true, can play an important role in focusing and supporting those values. You may end up with the agnosticism I attribute to the doctrinally indefinite. Doctrinally indefinite people hold particular values and find inspiration for their values in particular religious texts: perhaps they think we should all do far more than we normally do to relieve human suffering, and are moved by the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan. If asked what they mean when they say that Jesus rose from the dead, they reject any simple interpretation -- "He was lying there dead in the tomb, and then he woke up, and came out" -- saying instead that, although the words are highly resonant for them, they cannot provide any translation into ordinary language of what those words mean. They are in the same kind of predicament I am in when I claim that a poem I love (Wordsworth's "Tintern Abbey", say) expresses something true and deep, and someone asks me to say, precisely and literally, just what that is.
Perhaps Ruse's prediction about religious believers' reactions to my approach is quite right. My aim, however, is to offer a more encompassing taxonomy of forms of the religious life, with the hope that positions which avoid false belief might become more popular.
You will note that Kitcher feels that I incorrectly linked him too closely with the thinking on these matters of the late Stephen Jay Gould. I am happy to accept the correction. You will note also that Kitcher agrees with me that he probably is not offering enough to attract most religious people. He simply doesn't feel he can do this. He reaffirms his conviction that the existence of different religions, making different claims, simply makes impossible (at least, untenable) claims that one particular religion uniquely has the truth.
This last is a very important point that he is making. I touched on it in my last blog but hardly adequately and I am reluctant now to end discussion here by raising it. Hence, in my next blog I will deal with it in detail. I am not sure I have an answer, but I do agree with Kitcher that without an answer attempts to reconcile science and religion are doomed.
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
More fuel for faith-vs.-science debate - Los Angeles Times
Michael Ruse: Accommodationism in the Religion-Science Debate: Why ...
Steve Paulson: Spiritual Science, Rational Morality: Rethinking ...
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Science And Religion Aren't Friends, But ...
The Huffington Post Launches Religion and Science: A Contemporary ...
http://bramin.wordpress.com/page/2/
Especially when it comes to the three abrahamic faiths literalism is a problem for my gender. This type of interpretation is very detrimental to our current society. The idea that slavery was ok and shrimp was bad at the very least shows little foresight on the part of a triple omni 'god.'
---
That really nails it. Most (not all) religious thinkers claim a special dispensation - the right to speak authoritatively about moral values because of what their particular sacred texts say.
Free-thinkers, whether atheist, agnostic, or enlightened religious, refuse to accord the religious that special status.
You've got values? Great. You want to share them in the public square? Great. You want to convince me that your values are the "right" values. Great.
But don't do that by claiming that your holy book is better than my holy book - or my dependence on philosophy and introspection. Your justification by claiming revelation is just not OK - and as long as the religious do it, whether they're liberal or not, they are pouring gasoline on the fire, at which point others will begin invoking the Flying Spaghetti Monster, praised be His Noodly Appendages.
And you want me to side with the other extreme Churches and a Science Club and not the Self Realization as taught by Christ, Buddha, Krishna and Mohammad
Such arrogance the 2 extreme views have of life, the case is closed. Belief systems are simply that whether in the name of science or religion
Christ taught the objective observation of nature, science in his symbolic stories, like the 3 little pigs and the wisdom of building a house of straw. The symbolism has been mis trued not only by Churches but science too. He never said GOD rose in body, but Spirit. Not a belief system as proposed, but a practical evolution using science to evolve the eqo self to the one SELF
Results are the same as you speak of the two belief systems and mine, but by righteousness or right action that Christ and the others taught is an experience and not a faith base system
Christ taught me that I fly in spirit of GOD that resides in me. The same flight I take in meditation daily
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding
---------
The mirror's existence, and the fact that astronomers can bounce lasers off it and detect the returning beam, has also provided Nasa and other scientists with compelling evidence to refute the claims of moon-landing deniers who claim the Apollo lunar mission were hoaxes filmed in an Earth-based studio.
-----------
A simple example:
The Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are having a huge problem deciding the morality of homosexuality. Psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, biologists, anthropologists, even geneticists agree with the consensus that homosexuality is natural, and probably inherited. It the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church accepted the scientific consensus; there would be no moral imperative to marginalize homosexuals. But, even these relatively non-literalist religions deny the science.
If I am to respect the religious, I must insist on two concessions: (1) science trumps the pope; and (2) morality is a part of the natural human condition, and not caused by religion. Without those, I will respect the beliefs of the religious, but I do not respect their analytical abilities.
I prefer to share my short life with smart people.
I'm the kind of person who always give the homeless person outside Circle K a buck. I don't care if he is saving up for another quart of wine or funding his 401K. It makes him feel good and it makes me feel good. I've can't say I have ever missed one of those dollars.
I liked your rekllplies in this thread.
When I was a small child, I asked my father to buy me a motorcycle like the one parked on the street in front of the store where we were. He asked me how old I was. I proudly responded "I'm six!" (and I hope held up the appropriate number of fingers). My father smiled and said "That's great, now you are old enough for your "Wants" - not to hurt you." Wanting an intelligent discussion regarding religious faith in the context of what is now known in the sciences is unrealistic and no matter how much you "want" it to happen - it won't change the absence of equivalent facts that religious faith is unable to bring to the table, they just aren't there to bring.
When I was eight, I asked my father if I could have a dog. He said. "Yes, but first you have tell me which end of the dog you can put in your mouth." It was a while longer before I got the dog. I think it will be a while longer before the bulk of mankind can give up superstition and learn which end of faith he should put in his mouth - and more importantly in his head.
but it is not dangerous because they beleiv in God but because they havnt got a clue about what it is they beleive in
similaryly atheists [ here i dont mean scientists only 9% of professors are atheists ; probably similar percentage for scientists ] and the peopel they influence are a unfortunate influence
its perfectly logical to be indifferent about God and religion but a virulent attitude of denial of existence and hatred of christians as they are TODAY [ with the exception noted above ] is simply like other types of negativity : not much happiness
this " modern science negates all of the normal truth claims of religion " is simply the polar opposite of vatican triumphalism; its negative maybe even psychotic triumphalism ;instead of the idealistic hopeful
"triumphalism "of christians
51.5 % of professors belief on God , according to a huffpost blog of a survey of 1447 among 630 000 professors
the percentage among scientists at large is probably higher
but neither a theist or atheist can really say what " science " does ; science is as nonexistent as God ; apart from what scientists do there is not a objective object one can point to and say that is science and it is clearly seperate from what scientists do and beleive ; there are disciplines of various and sundry sciences
Specifically, to quote from the piece: "9.8 percent of professors chose the statement, 'I don't believe in God,' while another 13.1 percent chose, 'I don't know whether there is a God.'"
Which should have left more than 51.5 percent in the believer category, but there must have been some middle ground between "I'm not sure" and "Yes." Polls are strange.
The poll included on the nations best and brightest scientists - those elected to the National Academy of Science (USA).
"Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."
Truly smart people are largely atheist or agnostic. Similar results derive from polls of MENSA members.
"GOD", as the arrow pierced his chest and heart, "Am I dying or am I dreaming I am dead. GOD said, "neither" , the waking state and dream state are both unreality. You are before, now and then, but SPIRIT.
You see it, don't you? Think of Gays in the 80's and 90's or blacks in the 60's and 70's. You have a small vocal minority of activitsts who are labelled as militant because they are sick of bowing to the majority culture. (Some of them embrace the "militant" label, others do not.) You have the reaction against them by the "let's just work within the system and try to get along" people who think that the "militant" people give the entire movement a "bad name." The parallels are striking.
Socio-culturally speaking, it is perfectly normal for there to be the group of militant "I don't want to pretend to get along" people, just as it is perfectly normal to have those (like the author above) who say, "Simmer down and try to work together."
You know what this means, right? If you follow the cultural projections....
...In 20 years or so, we'll be seeing all kinds of sit-coms on T.V. with openly atheist characters.
Woo hoo.
Change happens due to Rosa Parks and Harvey Milks who challenge the status quo, not people who try to work within the system and get along thereby maintaining the status quo.
Well, this is where you and I disagree. My view is much more holistic: I think both approaches have a role to play, and that neither would be as effective if they were the ONLY actions in a movement.
Society is a tapestry and changes through evolution. I tend to think that both "types" are necessary and neither is sufficient: they interact with one another to produce change.
...just my own opinion, of course.
In a slower paced past say 4000 years ago. What part of objective observation of nature or how the body functioned in physical, psychological and sociological changed since then.
Do you think MAN as you describe could possibly have changee to make the difference you propose?
What? The credit card, video game, automobile, LOL :)
Excuse me for pointing this out, but your wishes on the matter do not shape reality. I really couldn't care less if you WANT to be able to say this is a debate between two reasonable camps. I only care if it actually is.
And it's not.
I wil not call the other side stupid, because they're not stupid (as a group, don't get me started on certain members of that group) but I will not dishonestly proclaim them reasonable on this matter in the name of expediency and playing nice either. Proclaiming that you have a line on absolute truth through "faith" is not reasonable. Claiming you can explain things with unfalsifiable hypotheses is not reasonable. The basic fundamental manner in which religion deals with the world is not reasonable.
If you disagree, make an argument why. Don't just lecture at people that you wish that were the case so we should all act like it is because oh gosh, wouldn't things be better that way.
8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9
¶ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12
¶ Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
But I want to point out, to the people who say that "average believers take everything literally", that one can still get the moral insights and meditative benefits while one is a literal believer. When the Bible story portrays a miraculous event and the preacher or rabbi delivers a sermon about it, he spends his time drawing out the moral lessons, not insisting that the event really happened. Even the fundamentalist believes that the story has a literary character, because he thinks that the world is a big story thought up by God.
So when we accomodationists say that the real meaning of the stories is moral, we are pointing to the level of meaning that already exists, with a mythic overlay, for the believer. We hope that in time the believer will drop the literal aspect of the belief, and concentrate on the morality. In the mean time we reach whatever practical accords we can.
Atheists often berate those who, they say, only act morally out of fear of the supernatural. But they forget that all religionists already recognize the superiority of moral acts performed for their own sake.
And the majority of both camps that don't care whose helping out.
I'm sure there are a great number of hungry, needy, people in the world that wish we would just stop argueing and help them.