It all might be due to the easy trendiness of atheism these days, with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins recently dominating certain booklists with their seemingly trenchant criticisms of all things theological. How else to explain my sudden and shocking waking in the deep dark of last night with the following statement breaking sweet dreams' synapses in the core of my normally happy brain?
If there is no God, then I hate this universe.
What could the oracle mean?
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
[Addendum, 5.26.07: Since this post has inspired a decent discussion on atheism in the comments thread, I think it relevant to refer readers to my essay, "The Existence of God: A Letter To Christopher Hitchens," dated September 20, 2006. I believe it is essential reading for any serious inquiry into the existence of God. I am not suggesting that it is a prerequisite for joining the discussion here. ALSO, I think it should be noted that Luke Buckham, who comments frequently at Contratimes, is more than a mere internet friend. Luke and I know each other in the real world; we have had numerous face-to-face, heart-to-heart discussions, some over beer, some over burritos, and some while standing in a dry river bed. Hence, Luke and I might write here (and elsewhere) to each other differently than we might write to other correspondents. And, though I know we try to avoid doing so, we may occasionally make references to things NOT SAID in online conversations.
Lastly, I think it's only polite (and balanced) to refer readers to Luke's essay against theism posted at Luke's website, "O Machine." The title of his polemic is "SHARP WORDS, part 1: Are you an atheist?" Thanks. BG]
24 comments:
I think it means that you don't care much for cruel jokes.
Because if time, space and raw chance have "conspired" to produce creatures so complex that they are fated to eternally sit by the fire and ponder the enigma of their own existence, then that would be the epitome of a cruel joke.
And a Sisyphean task if there ever was one.
Bill--
I love this universe either way. And I'm sorry that you do not.
Eye the Mikeguy--
"Because if time, space and raw chance have "conspired" to produce creatures so complex that they are fated to eternally sit by the fire and ponder the enigma of their own existence, then that would be the epitome of a cruel joke."
What would be so cruel about that? Haven't you just contradicted yourelf? For how can indifferent "space and raw chance" make a cruel joke?
As for the "easy trendiness" of atheism, when was the last time either of you gentlemen received death threats? It happens to Dawkins & Hitchens all the time--in fact, Bill recently read Hitchens' musings (3 excerpts from 'god is not Great') on Slate magazine's website, and said "Hitchens rules with stuff like this" but worried aloud that Mr. Hitchens might be entering "fatwah-ville".
Apparently, Bill has since changed his mind; he has now decided that Hitchens is not risking anything at all. How curious. Did this revelation also happen in the depths of the night?
Anyone who has seen either of these guys appear on a television program or panel discussion knows that they are almost always the least popular guys in the room. The "easy trendiness" is actually found in statements like this--
"Islam is a religion of peace"
--George W. Bush
--and in the rest of the politically-correct, mushy views of religion promoted every day by our media. Just think about this for a sec: what do Michael Moore, Rudy Guliani, Stephen Colbert, and Bill O Reilly have in common? Well, for one thing, all four claim to be members of the Roman Catholic Church. When was the last time you saw any one of them being seriously grilled on their religious views? At least Htichens and Dawkins, whatever their flaws, take ideas seriously.
--Luke
Luke, I may be off, but I think I covered the irony of indifferent matter and chance pulling a "cruel joke" by enclosing "conspired" in quotes. But Bill's the wordsmith in these parts, and I will defer to his judgment.
Perhaps the cruelty would lie in this:
If God does not exist, then Cho Seung-Hui is as legitimate an artist as Michelangelo.
Particles in motion; one's as "good" and "beautiful" as another. Like Hume, we would all rather hit the tavern and indulge in a good game of checkers to avoid dealing with that one, but ultimately our obsessions, causes and indulgences won't remove the sting.
But don't get me wrong. I'm thankful for whatever existential leaps of faith that lead Dawkins and Hitchens away from the abyss and toward meaning and even joy. We're all the better for it.
You do make a good point on the various brands of Catholic "truth" represented in the public square versus the gravitas of a Hitchens or Dawkins.
"If God does not exist, then Cho Seung-Hui is as legitimate an artist as Michelangelo."
I think it's safe to say that that's an utterly nonsensical statement. Since you, Mike the Eyeguy, cannot prove that "god" exists (and I suspect you will admit that you can't), does it also follow that you cannot "prove" that Michelangelo is a better artist than Cho Seung-Hui?
And furthermore, which "god" would you be referring to? If the Muslims are right and Islam is the final revelation, then would it follow that Allah's existence will re-assert Michelangelo's superiority over Cho Seung-Hui in the realm of art (I wasn't aware that they had been fiercely competing in that arena--why would that comparison occur to you in the first place? I am really curious)?
Thanks for the compliment, by the way. But I don't think I deserve it; it's pretty easy to see that a man of high culture like Hitchens is utterly superior to the charlatans I've just mentioned.
By the way, I've been thinking more about Bill's remark on "easy trendiness". There are many things that could be attacked on the ground of being easy and trendy; surely the 'Left Behind' series (the next installment of which will easily far outsell the latest atheist screeds) is one of them. Is this really about mocking ease and trendiness? Or is it about mocking atheism?
--Luke
I agree, Bill. When you get right down to it, either God is the foundation of everything, or he is not. If he's not, then it's all a cruel joke, worthy of contempt. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't thinking very deeply.
But praise God that he exists and is a rewarder of those who seek him.
Peace.
"either God is the foundation of everything, or he is not. If he's not, then it's all a cruel joke, worthy of contempt. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't thinking very deeply."
You're making me laugh. Isn't this universe interesting and worth enjoying whether it has a prime mover or not?
Again, which god are you referring to? If a "god" is so important to the task of enjoying life, why not believe in Ahura Mazda? Why is YOUR deity so much more important than the deities of others? If a prime mover is so crucial to the meaningfulness of the universe, what's the point of choosing one jealousy-crazed anthropomorthic idol over any other? Where is the "depth" in your theism? How can you prove your superiority to those who don't believe in your unprovable convictions? Why do you seem to believe that those of us who don't profess a theistic belief are lacking in depth?
I wonder, Bill, do you agree with this? Are you going to remain silent?
There are many people (myself among them, as you might have guessed) who find life exciting and worthwhile without professing belief in a deity. Why do we not feel despair? I suspect that some human brains are very different from other human brains, and that some people are simply, for reasons unknown to us, more needful of authority, or at least of the fantasy of authority.
Since those of you who are relying on that fantasy are asserting moral superiority (will you dare to claim that you are doing nothing of the sort?), you might want to at least back up your musings with the illusion of some kind of philosophical depth. In my view, you all appear to be quite soft-headed and silly. I hereby challenge all three of you a debate. I will allow any one of you to set the terms of that debate, if you wish: I feel quite capable of competing on any theological field you gentlemen may wish to enter. En garde!
--Luke
Greetings, Luke!
I see you are agitated that I should refer to atheism as an easy trend. I stand by my claim. Discussion boards and blogs and news panels and "The Colbert Report" have eased into debates on atheism in a fashion that can only be described as trendy. Not that it all has become faddish -- yet, nor have I suggested it is faddish. But there is no doubt that it is an easy trend, easy enough to invade my dreams.
I am disappointed that you should introduce pallid though popular works of fiction into the mix; your one argument (about trendiness) seems thoroughly irrelevant. Hitchens and Dawkins are ostensibly proffering fact and reason, while Jenkins and LaHaye are by admission proffering fantasy and speculation in their "Left Behind" series. If you feel it moves the discussion that I call the "Left Behind" series an easy trend, then let me comply: the "Left Behind" series is also an easy trend.
You also seem surprised that I should find Hitchens compelling: I do, and I find him interesting (and at his best when he sets aim to Islam), but there is no reason at all given that I should find Hitchens right when it comes to matters of God's existence. Hitchens is a fun and dynamic thinker; his writing is often dizzyingly delightful. And I admit that it is easy to be seduced by his skillful rhetoric and elocution. But that is not enough to agree with a person's argument, is it? Besides, I have long loved the work of Nietzsche without once agreeing with his most fundamental conclusions. So for me to be awed by Hitchens and yet in disagreement with him is not remotely inconsistent.
I notice that you take Mike to task for suggesting Seung-Hui Cho (or, anglicized, Cho Seung-Hui) thought himself an artist. You write:
If the Muslims are right and Islam is the final revelation, then would it follow that Allah's existence will re-assert Michelangelo's superiority over Cho Seung-Hui in the realm of art (I wasn't aware that they had been fiercely competing in that arena--why would that comparison occur to you in the first place? I am really curious)?
But, on April 27 you wrote on this blog the following:
I do think Mr. Cho was a humorless ass, as well as a lousy artist, but I can see how many religious people, and many alienated folks, will sympathize with his jeremaid. I certainly relate to his disgust (though I don't think I share it, not entirely). I also think his articulation of that disgust was utterly cliched, though I suppose that's beside the point, for most people.
So I applaud you for attempting to dive into his psyche, to elevate his sentiments to the level of a greater elegance.
You'll recall that you were applauding me for my prose poem, My Name Is ?, in which I describe Cho as an artist. One wonders how I merit your approval for considering Cho's (lame) artistic ambitions while Mike merits your incredulity.
Of course, I admit that this is mostly tangential to the discussion you want to sustain. But it is a point worth making. If you are interested in a debate, then I would offer as one of the first rules of engagement that you refrain from this sort of somewhat snide aside.
Lastly, I believe that in my initial post, and in the comments posted by Mike and Milton, the totality of our rebuttal to atheism is already evident, though it be latent or even dormant. Can you see it? In fact, I believe you have, in defending atheism, already given us our answer to atheism's claims. Perhaps what would be interesting is for you to tell us what our rebuttal to atheism is; perhaps you can do our position greater justice than we can ourselves.
What do you say? Why do I think that the proposition, "There is no God, god, or gods," is false? Or why might I think it meaningless? Why might I even deem it irrelevant, foolish, a waste of time? (I am already giving you hints here, no?)
Or, if you want, you can simply set for yourself a simple task: Prove your existence to Mike and Milton. That should be easy. I am sure they will not be too difficult to win over.
So, I leave with you two distinct choices. You can either prove your own existence to my other guests here, or you can tell us what you think I (and Mike and Milton) believe about atheism.
Of course, you can do whatever you wish. No?
Gnade
Mike and Milton,
Thank you for your contributions. I am grateful to you both for many, many reasons.
Mike, I dig the Hume reference. It is amazing what I can't recall from my philosophy classes back in college. But I truly dig the image of Hume tanking up in a pub over checkers. I imagine on most days he chose the black ones over the red: perhaps he painted all the checkers and squares the color of midnight.
Pertinent to our discussion, maybe, is the following Hume quote:
Amidst all this bustle, ‘tis not reason which carries the prize, but eloquence; and no man needs ever despair of gaining proselytes to the most extravagant hypothesis, who has art enough to represent it in any favourable colours.
No doubt it is a statement that cuts both ways, even many ways. Hume, I am sure, is not one who lacked eloquence or "favorable colors." But his point is well-taken.
I pulled this from an online discussion (1999) about Intelligent Design:
Science tries to figure out the details, but the basic assumption of design went without questioning. Of course, David Hume later comes along and says, ‘Listen, we can’t know anything for certain, this is the only universe we have, design isn’t knowledge,’ and he encourages a general skepticism. But his position never took root, because that degree of skepticism is too thoroughgoing. In particular, it undermines any kind of empirical science. In fact you end up not believing in your own existence. There’s nothing left to do but go to the tavern and play checkers. - Phillip Johnson
Peace to you both,
Gnade
Dear Luke,
Actually, I read your passage VERY carefully, and I read it several times. It is irrelevant that you said "fiercely competing." Mike said nothing about competition, you did. But your ultimate point was that Mike had no intellectual justification for comparing Cho to Michelangelo. But you yourself had already indirectly done so: you yourself called Cho a "lousy artist." Mike's position is one that begs of you a response: "lousy" according to whom, "lousy" according to what standard?
Moreover, you have shown Mike a discourtesy by being rather presumptuous. You see, you said that Mike cannot prove the existence of God. But Mike has not attempted to; he has merely made comments directed at my initial statement. In other words, YOU DO NOT KNOW he can NOT prove the existence of God. You have spoken without justification on this particular matter.
Peace,
Gnade
Bill, I never said that Mr. Cho didn't consider himself an artist; I also didn't retract my comment that he was a shitty one. My comment was meant to point up the silliness of assuming that he could be ranked with Michelangelo in the event that an overruling deity were assumed to be absent.
And I was not being sarcastic when I said that I was "really curious" as to what lead the honorable Eyeguy to lump them together in his fantasy of an atheistic universe. I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.
"Prove your existence to Mike and Milton. That should be easy. I am sure they will not be too difficult to win over."
They've never met me. For all they know, I could be a character created by you in order to make your blog more entertaining, though they might also think that you've failed in that goal by doing so.
"...I believe that in my initial post, and in the comments posted by Mike and Milton, the totality of our rebuttal to atheism is already evident, though it be latent or even dormant."
Please, don't bend over backwards in trying to insult yourself!
If either Mike or Milton wants to know the a bit about why I consider myself an atheist, they can read my (Sunday, April 29, 2007) post at my blog on the subject. They'll have to scroll down past a few other pieces, but there it is.
Other than that, you haven't given me much to grapple with here, so I only have one tidbit for you to chew on. Last night, a good friend of mine, who is also an infidel, told me that his experience of religious community was positive: he grew up at a lovely little easy-going Unprogrammed Quaker meeting school. I have visited the school myself, and I agree that it is a lovely place. Why then, did I think that the school was founded on immoral premises?
Well, the school is founded with the idea of "god" in mind. In other words, a being whose existence the teachers cannot prove to the students, no matter how much they might (gently, in this case) assert it. I asked my friend this question:
"So, you had a good experience. But as you know, others who sat next to you in class are to this day tormented by the idea of "god", that was introduced to them by their teachers."
He laughed, and said "well, kids are always going to be traumatized by SOMETHING."
I agreed, and told him that I wasn't suggesting that kids be overly coddled, or that they never be exposed to the beliefs of adults. But I still found the introduction of the concept to be immoral, and inexcusable. Why?
Well, since the concept of god is unprovable, the trauma caused by it could have been avoided by humbly resisting the urge to assert what cannot be asserted. Therefore, the damage to these people's pysches is very different from the damage that might have been inflicted by telling the children about the disasters in Bosnia, for example, which are provable. And it is that that I find morally inexcusable. Yes, children are going to be greeted by enough tangible difficulties, anyway. To attempt to add to that reality religious assertions, which can neither be proven or tested, is inexcusable if it hurts even one child's mind (and it often does). So the teachers were wrong, and should have kept their beliefs to themselves; more than that, they should not have founded a community based on irrational premises, no matter how nice those irrational premises might seem on the surface.
--Luke
Luke,
You are the one who wanted to engage in a debate -- HERE. Not at your website. But you are welcome to steer anyone over to your essay that you want. I am not going to stand in your way. This is all about autonomy.
Now, I am pleased that you believe it immoral that The Meeting School was founded on immoral principles, though I would love to know the moral principles upon which you're basing such a harsh judgment. What moral principles, Luke?
I see you have made an effort to explain what offends you in the school's founding:
...since the concept of god is unprovable, the trauma caused by it could have been avoided by humbly resisting the urge to assert what cannot be asserted.
I wonder what this even means. If you would just closely examine it, you will see that it is irrelevant to our discussion. Why? Because the concept of God is not what we are debating (not that we are in a debate yet). The concept of God is a priori provable: you prove it every time you write about it. It is almost tautologous in its power: You have a CONCEPT of God, and I have one, too. What's unprovable about a concept, Luke?
Thus far all I've heard from you is some bluster and some dogmatism: you are quite confident that you have decimated theological pretensions. But at best all you've done is debunked a few concepts of God. You'll recall that I wrote in haste to you last week that your April 29, 2007 essay merely succeeded in disproving the exactitude of chosen definitions. But you have not even remotely proven that the CONCEPT (see your original definition) of God does not exist: it surely does, a priori!
More importantly, what you have failed to do is to show that GOD cannot exist. You have only shown, rather weakly, that your chosen CONCEPTS of God are untenable: you find them self-contradictory or self-canceling.
Hopefully I have made myself clear. I don't think the distinction is too finely made; it seems like a fairly obvious one.
Now, I think you have to do better than "They've never met me" in response to my challenge: Come, prove your existence to Mike and Milton. It should be easy for you. But to appeal to whether these guys have met you is exactly what Christians (many? some?) do when it comes to God's existence: You have to meet Him to know Him. Is that your position about your own existence?
Let me ask you a simple question: Can you prove your existence to Mike and Milton?
Yes? No? Make a choice, and then explain.
Peace.
Gnade
PS. Please note that my comment just before this one is in response to a comment you deleted. I wish you hadn't done that. It diminishes the flow of the thread. But no major harm done.
PS--Hitchens has already admitted repeatedly that he can't prove the non-existence of a deity. So at least one straw man has already gone up in flames.
I'll re-visit this debate later when I have more time...right now I am heading out to have dinner with some beautiful young ladies...ah, spring, spring.
Luke,
I am glad to hear that Hitchens can neither prove nor disprove a thing he believes does not exist. But I am not really interested in his capacities or lack thereof. I am interested in something really straightforward.
I want you to prove your existence to Mike and Milton. Or you could prove Hitchens' existence to Mike and Milton. Your choice, literally and totally.
Peace.
Gnade
Luke,
I'm glad that my comment caused you some consternation--that was intentional.
I'm not sure you read, or took in, the next sentence, but that's the key. Here it is again:
Particles in motion; one's as "good" and "beautiful" as another.
Indifferent matter is, well, indifferent. Yet, we all--believer or atheist--live like there was more to all this than mere carbon and particles in motion and hope for something lasting and true--most especially the values that we hold dear, such as love and beauty.
That unquenchable desire to transcend is, to me, the Imago Dei. Some deny it, some follow wherever it leads them. I sincerely hope that you will be among the latter.
Peace, and enjoy the beautiful sights and sounds of yet another spring.
As interesting as the comments are in your discussion, Bill, I have a confession.
When I read "If there is no God, then I hate this universe", my first thought was how much that resonated with my own heart and mind. Existence is an abyss, utterly hopeless and without merit if it is without meaning. And without God there is no meaning worth grasping.
My second thought was that I want to steal it and put it in a song.
Bill,
There is already more evidence for my existence than for any of the gods that have so far been put forward by humanity.
I must say that I find the idea of Mike & Milton disbelieving in my existence far too charming and funny to resist it.
When god logs on to a blogger account and joins this conversation, THEN your challenge might have some validity to this debate. Until then, asking me to prove my existence is merely pathetic. Seriously.
Of course the concept of god exists; I never claimed it didn't. I simply pointed out that it is a self-defeating and self-contradictory concept. But those kind of botched concepts certainly exist.
You asked me "what moral principles?". Well, I thought I made that clear already, but here it is: since the things we express in this life will necessarily hurt some and help others, I don't want any of the things that I expresss to be beyond my ability to confirm. I don't want any help or harm to come from an assertion that it is in all honesty beyond my ability to make.
My atheism is essentially a rejection of belief, of faith. It is also a denial of the absurd and contradictory ideas of a "higher power" that humankind has so far put forth. I am an atheist with pantheistic suspicions (not convictions--I have no idea how one comes by pantheist convictions, but if I had them I would be a pantheist, not an atheist.).
I am of an incurably mystical frame of mind (I am a poet, after all), but I don't use my mystical musings to inform my morality, or my politics. Does this sound self-righteous?
Mike--
"we all--believer or atheist--live like there was more to all this than mere carbon and particles in motion and hope for something lasting and true"
Yes, we do, but some of us claim to know more than we can actually know, and some of us don't. Again, this probably sounds self-righteous, so I should reveal the following:
I don't think most of us have much choice in the matter. The only time I ever felt something like what Bill describes ("IF there is no god then I hate this universe") was when I felt the opposite: if there IS a god, then I hate this universe. I no longer feel that way, but there was a time in my life when I did. Now I'm quite comfortable with the idea of powers beyond my comprehension.
I suspect that neuroscience will continue to reveal that our brains are wired very differently, and that we have less free will than we think in the matter of belief and nonbelief. How else to explain such radically different feelings on the subject? When I talk about the "morality" of assertions that go beyond our abilities, I am thinking mostly of myself. I have no idea if the religious can help themselves. That may sound condescending, but I don't think it is. I acknowledge and respect the brilliance of many religious folks; but I don't think their religious convictions are brilliant, or worthy of respect.
"That unquenchable desire to transcend is, to me, the Imago Dei. Some deny it, some follow wherever it leads them. I sincerely hope that you will be among the latter."
Don't hold your breath. I am glad that you want me to experience the joys of belief. Strangely, I don't want you to experience the joys of unbelief; I don't think any joys are waiting for you there, though I could be wrong. I suspect we're both stuck with our positions, for good or ill.
And I think I'll let you guys have the last word here, unless you don't want it.
Luke
PS--Another note on Hitchens: he actually describes himself as an anti-theist, not an atheist.
"I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world." C.S. Lewis
To pick up another string, nothing is easier, from a conversational standpoint, than atheism. How hard is it to say, "I don't care what you say, I don't believe it"? Luke, religiously, you live in the simple world of saying to all, "Oh yeah! who says?" Your argument is not strong, but it is bullet proof.
May I suggest following this trail of Questions:
Is there a God or did we come from nothing?
If there is a God, is it possible to know Him?
If it is possible that He can be known, has He made himself known?
If so, what responsibilities does that put on me?
If not, how do I know this is so? What responsibilities does this put on me?
These are real questions that lead to more interesting discussions thoughts and discussions than simply attacking all Christians with, "Oh yeah? Says you!!"
By the way, if we all came from nothing, was there ever a time when nothing existed?
If so, if there was ever a time when there was nothing, why is there something now?
The true God's goodness is shining upon you, Luke.
Luke,
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with your response to my invitation to prove your existence to Mike and Milton (and everyone else here). You have suddenly become dismissive and faith-based: you dismiss my invitation as a charming idea, finding it funny that Mike and Milton might be wondering whether you are, indeed, nothing but a great fiction. And then you simply tell us that there is "more evidence for [your] existence" than there is for any god's. Of course, you refuse to elaborate: we merely must accept your statements on faith. What the evidence for your existence might look like is summarily ignored; thus, you purge this discussion of anything resembling reason, for reason thrives on statements of evidence. It also appears that you are conceding a proper point: You can't prove your existence. Is that fair of me to conclude? At best, your resistance to my query looks like evasion. At worst, it looks like a white flag.
I find it REALLY curious that you should make the following statement about your "moral principles," you know, those principles on which you base your judgments about theism. Remember, you called theism "immoral;" I asked you to elucidate the principles on which you could descry what is moral and what is immoral. Apparently, you have just done so; but I am more interested in the justification of these principles' existence rather than their quality. You have merely described them: I want to know whence they come. Where do I find your moral principles? Are they unique to you, or do they exist independent of you? Did you invent them, or are they found outside of you, existing somewhere in this universe?
THIS is what you wrote:
"...I don't want any of the things that I express to be beyond my ability to confirm. I don't want any help or harm to come from an assertion that it is in all honesty beyond my ability to make."
Your hope, I must say, is a very noble one; you set a very high standard. But if this is how you feel, then it seems clear you need to prove your existence. And if you will not do that, at least lay out the evidence for your existence, the great amounts of evidence that you say are already known. Surely you have made an assertion, at least tacitly: You exist. But you have said you will not make ANY assertion you cannot confirm. Help me reconcile these two seemingly disparate poles: on the one hand, you will not prove your existence though you claim there is ample evidence for it; on the other hand, you will not make any assertion you cannot confirm. Surely you must, by your own words, at least confirm the evidence.
But perhaps I am being too analytical. Forgive me if I am. There is nothing worse (sometimes) than wrangling over semantics. One wonders, though, what we would wrangle over if we disqualify semantics. I mean, your essay called "Sharp Words," the one in which you attempt to show the inherent contradictions of theism, is all about semantics.
What if I take a break from this for a moment and saunter over to your website and reply to "Sharp Words"? You have invited me a couple of times to reply to that argument. Shall I? I find this all too fun and interesting to stop at this point, so do you mind if I scoot away to address your argument?
But I must warn you: I will be very serious. Nothing facetious, evasive or flippant will I leave there. I am going to scrutinize it through my philosopher's monocle; and I will comment with all candor and bluntness. OK? Well, here goes.
Peace.
BG
Greetings, everyone. I am back.
I did indeed saunter over to Luke Buckham's website to comment on his critical essay on theism, "Sharp Words." My comment can be read here.
I am sorely disappointed that Luke should first invite us all to a thorough debate, urging us even to lay down the ground rules, and then he takes flight ("And I think I'll let you guys have the last word here, unless you don't want it") even before the discussion gets interesting. I expected some rigor and concentration. Instead I am left with nothing. Which, come to think of it, is exactly what atheism -- or a godless universe -- MUST LEAVE ME WITH.
Perhaps Luke will come back and finally get serious. And this is not a dig at Luke, really. It is merely to point out that he has found us 'funny' and 'pathetic' and 'soft-headed' and 'silly,' his words all, without once addressing some of the most challenging questions posted here. He may think he has reached a safe conclusion by appealing to the immutability of the human mind, or even the mind's inability to change or choose, but that is -- perhaps -- less a conclusion reached by vigorous argument and more one reached by anxiety. Or so it seems.
Seriously, I am disappointed that Luke has led us to that utterly faddish place: Let us agree to disagree/You can't change, I can't change/Your truth is not my truth.
Peace.
BG
Everyone. My apologies. But I swear I TESTED the link that has magically disappeared from the comment immediately preceding this one. How do these things happen?
Please go HERE to read my reply to Luke Buckham.
This marks the third time I have posted the link; hopefully it will remain a usable one.
Gnade
Luke: How can I be sure I'm not still asleep in Mrs. Hurst's ninth grade geometry class, and you're just a character I dreamed up?
Bill: You're a class act, brother.
Everyone,
Clearly this thread is played. Luke Buckham came here with great intent to debate those theists who would dare take him on. Luke then promptly left.
As I noted above, I did click over to Luke's site to engage him on his terms, on his turf. It was very a disappointing exchange, at least for me.
Sorry that things ended here so abruptly.
Peace,
Gnade
Post a Comment