Adventures of an Atheist
May. 19th, 2009 03:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blimixI recently caught up with Arianto, an acquaintance from a long ago martial arts class. He invited me to a Nooma viewing and discussion, and I accepted. "Nooma" is a series of Christian philosophy videos. As we five introduced ourselves, I told the group, "I am honored to be here, despite being a nonbeliever." (Best to get that out of the way quickly, in a dependent clause.)
All but one got the hint that I was not there to be converted. She said, "That's okay, we'll fix that. I can hope."
I would have held my tongue, but for the opportunity to quote "The Princess Bride". "Get used to disappointment," I smiled. Those were, I think, the only political slips of the night.
After some uplifting God music sing-along videos (with which I merely sang "Aaaah" in harmony), we watched "Nooma". The first half of the episode featured some entertaining storytelling about parenting a small child who begs for a toy that is not as great as it seems. The second half was spent explaining how God knows what's best for us better than we do, from every angle, just in case we missed the analogy the first twelve times.
During the discussion, the others showed no sign of recognition when I mentioned that the show had touched upon the argument from suffering (i.e., why does God allow it?) and the ineffability of God. (I thought that stuff was basic theistic philosophy, but maybe that's more so for a philosopher than for a theist.)
Reading questions from the pamphlet that accompanied the episode, Arianto asked us, "What do you really want? What would make you happy if you got it?" One of them (guess which) said that she wished her whole family would become Christian, because then they would stop fighting so terribly, and all get along.
I asked her, "Do all Christians get along with each other?"
This was shorthand for: "We just watched a twenty minute video about how getting what you want isn't always all it's cracked up to be. Consider applying that idea to your wish, in light of the obvious fact that being all Christian won't make your family stop fighting."
Unfortunately, I ask Socratic questions with a straight face. They took me literally.
After suffering ten minutes of earnest explanation from all sides, I managed to apologize for sidetracking the conversation, and to politely communicate what I had intended. She agreed.
The rest of the discussion went smoothly, and the differences of opinion between the others were handled amicably and then swallowed down (with apparent discomfort by the fundamentalist). I barely held my tongue when the phrase "not Christian enough" came up twice, regarding some of their relatives. They then conducted a Yankee swap of prayers: You say my prayer, I say his, she says yours, etc.
Once the others had left, Arianto and I expressed our pleasure at hanging out together after so long. He alluded, briefly and with slight embarrassment, to his friend's faux pas. I chuckled and nodded my acknowledgment and forgiveness, so that he didn't have to ask for it.
As we talked, he picked up one of many identical hardcovers: Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. I immediately divined its nature, which he confirmed: An attempt to apply logic to God. He said that the book made a whole lot of sense to him, but then, he was already coming at it from a Christian perspective, so he was very interested to know whether it would make sense to me, coming at it from an atheist's perspective.
I expressed my skepticism about the premise, having already seen depressingly many futile attempts to logic God into existence. Arianto sympathized but again requested my opinion of the book, and I accepted. I did not point out his secret hope that the book would convert me, because I like him. To question his expressed motives would have been an insult. (Also, his expressed motives were a bit flattering, and I'm as much a sucker for flattery as any philosopher is.)
So I took the book home, keeping an open mind and taking notes.
The jaded attitude had come from lengthy religion debates on the university message boards (which we called "bulletin boards" because it was the Stone Age before the Web). It started with some fundamentalists explaining in God terms that God existed and their religion was the One True Way, followed by the skeptics explaining in logical terms that the Christian god was unproven or even contradictory. Of course, neither side had a hope of getting through. But college kids have plenty of time on their hands, and someone was wrong on the Internet. So the fundamentalists carefully crafted (or plagiarized) logical proof for God, Jesus and the Bible, and congratulated themselves on presenting their views in our terms, so that we could not fail to understand. We skeptics carefully crafted biblical refutations of all of the fundamentalists' particular claims, and congratulated ourselves on presenting our views in their terms so that they could not fail to understand. We all failed to communicate a damn thing, of course. Their attempts at "logic" were awful, and they never understood or acknowledged the errors that we patiently tried to point out. This was as frustrating to us as (I imagine) our unwillingness to embrace Jesus was to them.
So I'm disillusioned with this debate. But someone has to be better at this, right? With over six billion people in the world, surely someone is fluent in both logic and Jesus. I can even hope, however briefly, that someone has crafted an argument for God that will be a challenge to refute. Sadly, that person is not Timothy Keller. He writes considerately, and shows insight into the communications barriers between the two sides. But a logician he is not.
Thirty-three pages in, continuing to find the book's errors constituted intellectual wankery somewhat less pleasurable than solving Japanese puzzles. So I stopped, with my opinion formed enough to satisfy my duty to Arianto.
However, I am as much a sucker for recognition as any human is, so if people out there are interested, let me know, and I will gladly continue my perusal of the book, and publish my notes here. (Note that this, despite being a public post, is not an invitation for a religion debate with strangers. Been there, done that, still jaded. (Discussion with friends is always welcome, if you think it's a good idea.))
All but one got the hint that I was not there to be converted. She said, "That's okay, we'll fix that. I can hope."
I would have held my tongue, but for the opportunity to quote "The Princess Bride". "Get used to disappointment," I smiled. Those were, I think, the only political slips of the night.
After some uplifting God music sing-along videos (with which I merely sang "Aaaah" in harmony), we watched "Nooma". The first half of the episode featured some entertaining storytelling about parenting a small child who begs for a toy that is not as great as it seems. The second half was spent explaining how God knows what's best for us better than we do, from every angle, just in case we missed the analogy the first twelve times.
During the discussion, the others showed no sign of recognition when I mentioned that the show had touched upon the argument from suffering (i.e., why does God allow it?) and the ineffability of God. (I thought that stuff was basic theistic philosophy, but maybe that's more so for a philosopher than for a theist.)
Reading questions from the pamphlet that accompanied the episode, Arianto asked us, "What do you really want? What would make you happy if you got it?" One of them (guess which) said that she wished her whole family would become Christian, because then they would stop fighting so terribly, and all get along.
I asked her, "Do all Christians get along with each other?"
This was shorthand for: "We just watched a twenty minute video about how getting what you want isn't always all it's cracked up to be. Consider applying that idea to your wish, in light of the obvious fact that being all Christian won't make your family stop fighting."
Unfortunately, I ask Socratic questions with a straight face. They took me literally.
After suffering ten minutes of earnest explanation from all sides, I managed to apologize for sidetracking the conversation, and to politely communicate what I had intended. She agreed.
The rest of the discussion went smoothly, and the differences of opinion between the others were handled amicably and then swallowed down (with apparent discomfort by the fundamentalist). I barely held my tongue when the phrase "not Christian enough" came up twice, regarding some of their relatives. They then conducted a Yankee swap of prayers: You say my prayer, I say his, she says yours, etc.
Once the others had left, Arianto and I expressed our pleasure at hanging out together after so long. He alluded, briefly and with slight embarrassment, to his friend's faux pas. I chuckled and nodded my acknowledgment and forgiveness, so that he didn't have to ask for it.
As we talked, he picked up one of many identical hardcovers: Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. I immediately divined its nature, which he confirmed: An attempt to apply logic to God. He said that the book made a whole lot of sense to him, but then, he was already coming at it from a Christian perspective, so he was very interested to know whether it would make sense to me, coming at it from an atheist's perspective.
I expressed my skepticism about the premise, having already seen depressingly many futile attempts to logic God into existence. Arianto sympathized but again requested my opinion of the book, and I accepted. I did not point out his secret hope that the book would convert me, because I like him. To question his expressed motives would have been an insult. (Also, his expressed motives were a bit flattering, and I'm as much a sucker for flattery as any philosopher is.)
So I took the book home, keeping an open mind and taking notes.
The jaded attitude had come from lengthy religion debates on the university message boards (which we called "bulletin boards" because it was the Stone Age before the Web). It started with some fundamentalists explaining in God terms that God existed and their religion was the One True Way, followed by the skeptics explaining in logical terms that the Christian god was unproven or even contradictory. Of course, neither side had a hope of getting through. But college kids have plenty of time on their hands, and someone was wrong on the Internet. So the fundamentalists carefully crafted (or plagiarized) logical proof for God, Jesus and the Bible, and congratulated themselves on presenting their views in our terms, so that we could not fail to understand. We skeptics carefully crafted biblical refutations of all of the fundamentalists' particular claims, and congratulated ourselves on presenting our views in their terms so that they could not fail to understand. We all failed to communicate a damn thing, of course. Their attempts at "logic" were awful, and they never understood or acknowledged the errors that we patiently tried to point out. This was as frustrating to us as (I imagine) our unwillingness to embrace Jesus was to them.
So I'm disillusioned with this debate. But someone has to be better at this, right? With over six billion people in the world, surely someone is fluent in both logic and Jesus. I can even hope, however briefly, that someone has crafted an argument for God that will be a challenge to refute. Sadly, that person is not Timothy Keller. He writes considerately, and shows insight into the communications barriers between the two sides. But a logician he is not.
Thirty-three pages in, continuing to find the book's errors constituted intellectual wankery somewhat less pleasurable than solving Japanese puzzles. So I stopped, with my opinion formed enough to satisfy my duty to Arianto.
However, I am as much a sucker for recognition as any human is, so if people out there are interested, let me know, and I will gladly continue my perusal of the book, and publish my notes here. (Note that this, despite being a public post, is not an invitation for a religion debate with strangers. Been there, done that, still jaded. (Discussion with friends is always welcome, if you think it's a good idea.))
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-19 01:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-19 04:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-19 04:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-19 06:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-19 10:51 pm (UTC)One of my observations is that those who are good at logic AND spirituality often completely acknowledge the "illogical" nature of faith--and that you kind of have to come by it honestly.
I'm not sure if this is a good explanation or not, but maybe I'll use Allyson as an example. She is a Christian who also does psychic readings. She believes in these things, but that is because they mesh with her personal perception of the world. She knows that, even though she sees things like spirits, angels, and auras, not everyone else can, so she wouldn't dream of asking them to believe in them if they don't "feel" or "see" the things she does.
Maybe it's possible that Joe and I are blind somehow, and that explaining faith and God to us is like explaining the color blue to someone without eyesight. Maybe my faith-bearing friends have some switch flipped in their brains that we don't. Maybe they're delusional and they're not. I will admit, though, when I see someone professing a faith, I wonder if they are doing so because they think it's the right thing to do, or because they "feel" it?
I don't know.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-19 10:54 pm (UTC)If they want to convince us, they first need to clean up their disgusting messes and show that they're doing to because it's something they believe in, not because it gives them license to engage in sadism and subjugation.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-21 07:47 pm (UTC)I rather doubt it. Humans seem to naturally have a propensity for both faith and logic, or skepticism. Both would appear to be survival traits. So, I believe you and Joe do understand faith. In fact, by your statement "...acknowledge the 'illogical' nature of faith..." you appear to understand it better than those who let it dominate their thinking. That you are able to suppress your tendency to faith and sublimate your skeptical thought processes is what sets you apart from the majority of americans.
Don't get me wrong though, Faith, and it's sister Hope, are often necessary for the mental well-being of a person or society. But all things in moderation, right? I like to say of myself that I have not lost my faith (I'm a recovering Catholic), but have simply transformed it. Rather than simply not believing in a god, I have faith that there is not one. A subtle distinction, but one that many skeptics abhor because of the role of faith. Yet as long as I recognize that it is an illogical stance, encapsulate it as it were, it doesn't affect my overall skepticality. Still have to watch out for sloppy thinking elsewhere, but who doesn't?
Well, I think that's sufficiently tangential for now.
Q
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-21 08:30 pm (UTC)http://threekindsofcool.net/aetherltd/
(Joe, you might like it too)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-21 08:57 pm (UTC)A bit stuffy, and victorian but cool. Warrants reading.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-19 10:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-20 02:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-21 07:27 pm (UTC)