Ms. Paglia is an atheist, but of the thoughtful and respectful variety. She has no trouble identifying the positive contributions that religion has made to society. As she says:
"I respect every religion deeply. All the great world religions contain a complex system of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and human life that is far more profound than anything that liberalism has produced. We have a whole generation of young people who are clinging to politics and to politicized visions of sexuality for their belief system. They see nothing but politics, but politics is tiny. Politics applies only to society. There is a huge metaphysical realm out there that involves the eternal principles of life and death."
She also has scant respect for atheists who never really did their homework. She was asked "what do you make of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the religion critics who seem not to have respect for religions for faith?"
She answered:
"I regard them as adolescents. I say in the introduction to my last book, “Glittering Images”, that “Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination.” It exposes a state of perpetual adolescence that has something to do with their parents– they’re still sneering at dad in some way. Richard Dawkins was the only high-profile atheist out there when I began publicly saying “I am an atheist,” on my book tours in the early 1990s. I started the fad for it in the U.S, because all of a sudden people, including leftist journalists, started coming out of the closet to publicly claim their atheist identities, which they weren’t bold enough to do before. But the point is that I felt it was perfectly legitimate for me to do that because of my great respect for religion in general–from the iconography to the sacred architecture and so forth. I was arguing that religion should be put at the center of any kind of multicultural curriculum."
Fair enough. But it seems to me that there are questions that atheists should struggle with - ones that I would think would challenge much of the fascinating world-view that Ms. Paglia has developed. If I could, I would ask her:
- As an atheist, you most likely don't believe in free will. Do you believe that people should be held accountable for their "wrong-doings?" If so, why? Clearly, they have no choice to act in any other manner.
- Do you believe in concepts like justice and morality which have no scientific or material basis? What do you view as the source of these concepts?
- What is the origin of matter, life and consciousness? Would our lack of explanatory ability in these matters cause you to suspend your judgement as to weather or not a creative intelligence could have brought them about? If not, are you accepting your atheism on the basis of faith?
- If you believe that life (and as an extension, thought) are the results of blind and impersonal forces, how do you know that your mental faculties are reliable? Do you have confidence that what your brain tells you (whoever "you" actually is) is coherent? How do you know?
- Are any ideas superior to any others? Given that, materially speaking, ideas are nothing more than haphazard firing of neurons, and that neurons have no actual worth or meaning, how could an idea be said to have any actual value? As such, should we refrain from all critique of ideas that we subjectively find displeasing?
That should do for now. Camille, if you happen to come across this, let's talk! I would truly be interested to hear what you have to say.
Rabbi, I enjoy reading your blog posts, because I think you do a good job of honestly explaining the religious point of view. You are respectful, and in your replies to the comments, you attempt to take on questions full on, rather than dodging them. This is refreshing.
ReplyDeleteI would like to consider myself an agnostic of the respectful variety as well. It is good to engage in these debates, not so much to change minds, but because it is fun and informative.
That being said, Camila may be respectful to religion in general, as she should be. Given that so many people define their ways of life by religion, it behooves the rest of us to at least be respectful. I do not agree that she is respectful generally. She calls atheists generally as adolescents, having issues with their fathers. This is not a good way to make sober arguments.
I do not know Camille, and have no idea about her home life. I do not know whether she wishes to sneer at her father or not. I view her opinions regarding theism and religion as independent from her relationship with her parents. She might have had a happy childhood or she might not have. For me to attack her views by criticizing her relationship with her parents would be childish. It is a juvenile way to argue.
Regarding the questions that you are asking, I am assuming that your questions are directed at atheists in general. So here are my answers:
Free will is a difficult question. I do not know whether we have free will or not, and suggest that this question is within the realm of science to answer - it's just that the answer is not yet available. If the rabbi is insinuating that Judaism knows whether there is or is not free will, I am happy to debate my understanding that Judaism is not clear on the existence of free will either.
Concepts such as justice, morality, similar to concepts of love and beauty are very difficult to characterize. It is hard to say why my wife is beautiful, but when I look at her, I am moved by her appearance. I would be hard pressed to explain why. I do not however, need to invoke the presence of God as I attempt an explanation. Concepts of justice are similarly difficult to define. Some issues are relatively easy: gratuitous killing of innocent children is immoral. Stealing because of greed is immoral. Killing for fun is wrong. But some concepts are hard. Is abortion moral or immoral? Is capital punishment as it is administered in our society right or wrong? I suggest that both the religious and the atheist grapple with these, regardless of what the Torah tells us.
Our lack of 'explanatory abilities' as you put it does not give us license to assume a higher power. This, as Camille puts it, shows our lack of imagination. We shouldn't think magically whenever we can't explain something.
And no materialist, certainly no scientist says that thoughts are 'haphazard' firing of neurons. Similarly, no rational religious person would deny that thoughts 'include' firing of neurons. What neurobiologists are saying at the moment is that you need a coherent firing of a group of neurons in order to formulate thoughts. If you disagree with that, say so. It is easy to muddle arguments.
Hi,
DeleteThanks for the nice feedback.
I'm pretty sure that she's respectful to respectful atheists (like herself)! She seems to have a lot less respect for the "New Atheists" who the Salon interviewer asked her about - Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc.
Free will.
It certainly could be that science will eventually explain it (a leniency that most atheists will not grant most theists) but it's certainly hard to say how it would. How could I ever know that I didn't just believe that I had free will as opposed to actually having it? Sam Harris teaches that there's no such thing as the "self" - a totally counter-intuitive notion but one required by the materialism that he embraces.
In the Book of Deuteronomy the Torah says "becharta b'chaim" (choose life) - obviously implying a belief in real choice. The whole Toraitic system would be rendered non-sensible by a disbelief in free-will. How could it hold us accountable for that which we are clearly unable to control?
The materialist is thus faced with a significant problem. If the material is all that there is then a human (also material) must also follow the deterministic rules of physics, etc. In the same way that we can predict how billiard balls will role based on speed, spin, etc, so too (in theory) we should be able to predict exactly what someone will choose - and why they must choose it. If that's truly the case, then I posit that there is no reason to use the terms "right and wrong" and no good reason to punish anyone for any crime.
Can you prove that gratuitous killing of innocent children is immoral? Don't we need to have some idea of what morality is first? What is immoral about one group of electrons (an adult killer) acting upon another (a child)? How is it any more meaningful than one grain of sand hitting another?
I think that science's lack of explanatory ability (in some areas) highlights the need to posit an non-physical (metaphysical) explanation to some phenomena - which actually solves a number of these conundrums. I actually believe it to be the more elegant solution.
Finally, yes, of course I agree that thinking includes the firing of neurons. I'm just wondering, from a materialists perspective, what value can be attached to these firings? How would the cascade of firing that produces "happiness" be superior to the one that produces "sad?" When you boil it down they are both just some electric blips - again, seemingly no more significant than plugging in a lamp. How is it different?
you may see how I respond to your questions here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/08/proof-of-god-from-free-will-justice.html FYI I stopped taking comments a long time ago, but when I did take comments I published all dialogue complete.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't seem so sporting of you to not take any comments on your blog. I also don't think it's in such good form to redirect people away from where the conversation is taking place to your own forum. Going forward I would appreciate it if you would take the time to comment on the actual piece and not just provide a link. TY
ReplyDeleteThat said, regarding what you posted:
I'm not asking these questions to demonstrate a proof of God but rather to highlight the incoherence of the atheist world-view. I find very few who are truly willing to live with the consequences of their beliefs. Rather, most seem content with pretending that there is meaning in life (a basic human need) and trying to wrap a kind of scientific window dressing around it.
These ideas have nothing to do with the overwrought God of the Gaps charge. They are not intended to plug a hole in our lack of scientific understanding in the way that Newton did with gravity. Rather, they are perfectly logical inferences from what science has discovered. The problem (for science) only compounds over time. We've come a very long way from Haeckel's belief that the cell is "nothing more than a shapeless, mobile, little lump of mucus or slime, consisting of albuminous combination of carbon." With each new layer of complexity that is discovered it becomes philosophically more and more reasonable to assert a designing force that caused the inexplicably voluminous complex and functional information required for life to exist. It's the simpler and more elegant solution.
I think that it's false that punishment has any effect in the absence of free will. The punishers have as little ability to not punish as the wrong-doer does to not do wrong. It's all a futile charade and has about as much meaning as covalent bonding. Again, this is not offered as a proof of God as much as a demonstration of atheistic incoherence.
That the "God Hypothesis" has failed is an entirely subjective viewpoint and one that, in my opinion, is largely based on emotionality and not due to a lack of valid arguments for theism.
“Doesn't seem so sporting of you to not take any comments on your blog.”
ReplyDeleteRabbi have a little emunah in me and not think so negative. Have you considered there are very good for my actions. Also ACJA blog Intro states I no longer take comments. When I did they were published in full without any editing.
“ I also don't think it's in such good form to redirect people away from where the conversation is taking place to your own forum.
Sometimes publish comments and sometimes do not. That is not sporting of you since you do not explain in your blog your policy. Also, just publishing comments is difficult - size limits, spam checks. Then I forgot what I wrote and it becomes a waste of my time and frustrating. My forum is non commercial and I get no revenue, compensation, expenses at all. Nor do I direct conversation to my blog since I don’t take comments. But read on for more reasons.
“Going forward I would appreciate it if you would take the time to comment on the actual piece and not just provide a link”
My post was not meant to be personal, nor to denigrate you, nor an exact formulation of your argument hence in my blog your name/blog is never mentioned. If you like I can do so. Besides, I am discussing a sort proof used not just by you since I have heard similar things from others. Did you see I added material that are not in your blog ? Also I wrote a long post and did not want to clog up your blog with ACJA comments.
“I'm not asking these questions to demonstrate a proof of God but rather to highlight the incoherence of the atheist world-view.”
I thought that was your position. But, some people use it as a sort of proof. My post is directed at that view and to some extent yours.
I don’t think you need religions to give life meaning.
“With each new layer of complexity that is discovered it becomes philosophically more and more reasonable to assert a designing force that caused the inexplicably voluminous complex and functional information required for life to exist. It's the simpler and more elegant solution.”
ReplyDeleteSee my posts Proof of God from Design and Proof of God from Origin of Life. http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-through-design.html http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/09/proof-of-god-from-origin-of-life.html I don’t think it is simpler and elegant to invent Supernatural beings with special powers. It adds an additional level of complexity and creates more problems than it solves. It almost a useless solution. Consider - Why does it Rain ? Because God provides it when we are good otherwise he withholds it (sound Familiar ?)
“I think that it's false that punishment has any effect in the absence of free will”
Punishment is a way to control behavior the same way it would work on a chimp, dog, dolphin etc: and it works regardless if there is free will or not. In any event, if you claim punishment only works if there is free will, then do you think those sort of animals have free will ?
“The punishers have as little ability to not punish as the wrong-doer does to not do wrong. “
There is not one punisher but a multitude called Society at Large. As a group depending on a multitude of factors Society has decided to punish. I am not sure we can discuss free will of an entire society. I don't see the relevance of 'ability' or 'free will' regarding the issue.
“It's all a futile charade and has about as much meaning as covalent bonding. Again, this is not offered as a proof of God as much as a demonstration of atheistic incoherence.”
See Proof of God from Morality http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/05/proof-of-god-from-morality.html . But let us say your are correct - everything has as much meaning as covalent bonds. Why is that incoherence ? It is just how things are. Maybe the Universe and everything in it has no meaning at all. It is humans that give meaning to their lives. Meaning need not come from Supernatural beings. I do admit religion can give life meaning for some people and that is one reason they persist see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-tenacity-of-unreasonable-beliefs.html
“That the "God Hypothesis" has failed is an entirely subjective viewpoint and one that, in my opinion, is largely based on emotionality and not due to a lack of valid arguments for theism.”
My entire blog explores Proofs of God and repudiates them based on science, logic, reason - never emotions. As a scientific hypothesis, Supernatural beings are not supportable. No philosophical proofs for Supernatural survives close scrutiny. Thanks for reading and writing a response.