A Conversation with Baden on the Existence of God

After reading the post below on defining religious positions, Baden emailed me. Our conversation took a lot of key-strokes to produce and it seems a waste not to post it here. Baden begins:

On your blog, you say:

This means that while many rationalists are also atheist or agnostic, there are also Christians who claim to be rationalists

- this includes the deists, right?

Also, I wanted to ask about this comment on the same blog entry:

I, too, use both terms when I think them more appropriate but tend to use "athiest" more often because there is a preponderance of evidence against the existence of gods and I like to give that some weight -- to use the term "agnostic" suggests to some people that the evidence is equal both ways, which is not what I believe. I think many Christians would agree when it's the Homeric gods that are being questioned ie they are (for all intents and purposes) athiests about those gods, not agnostic.

What scientific evidence does exist, really? Obviously evolution and origins of the universe type stuff, but before all this - what of where it all began? Is there even a theory on this yet? I have not heard of one myself, and read that a major deist argument relates to first cause argument, or cosmological argument.

Whilst I find it hard to justify the existence of God, per se, I personally acknowledge that there must be something "unknowable" (for want of a better term) going on, or that once went on. It sounds semi creationist, I know, though I certainly don't mean it to - I just can't fathom the automatic existence of matter by itself, personally, hence this belief. I guess I am fishing for something to prove me wrong. I really wish I tucked into those books you lent me more so now, depsite my teetering to-be-read piles...as I say, my current stance is that there are questions that will never really be solved. Is that too defeatist?

I reply:

Of course deists can be rationalists. (If a theist can be a rationalist, anyone can!) It just means that they base their belief in the deity on some sort of argument (preferable scientific or philosophical and not mystical) rather than blind faith.

I don't think I said scientific evidence to the contrary exists; what I had in mind is more common-sense evidence about what the world is like. What I mean is the argument from evil. Not sure if you're familiar so here it is: Christianity (and many other religions I know less-well) claim that God is Good, All-Knowing and All-Powerful. They also acknowledge that there is a lot of evil in the world. Therefore they believe that God is good, knows the evil exists, can stop the evil, but allows evil to continue. Allowing evil seems to conflict with the good claim.
The Christian Reply: Many things are good. Free-will is the greatest good. Free will leads to some evil. But God created a world with free will, knowing some evil would result, because, in His infinite wisdom, He saw that free will is more good than any evil could counter-balance. (They don't get this from the Bible and I'm not sure who thought of it first but it's a traditional response.)
When I first heard this argument I was in my first year at uni. A few weeks before there had been a landslide in South America that crushed a school, killing dozens of kiddies. So it occurred to me that some evils are not caused by free will nor could I believe that a good god would punish kids like that. (I'm not the first to think of this argument, the 1755 Lisbon earthquake was used too.)

As for more scientific pieces of evidence, people are right when they say you can't prove a negative, even if it's the Loch Ness Monster. If an interventionalist god existed (now I've got Nick Cave stuck in my head) you'd expect His creations to be a little more elegant than they actually are. I mean while creationists tout the eye as being such a great thing, it's really quite fragile. The number of people who need glasses as their eyes age and suffer from things like detached retinas make a mockery of the idea of a divine engineer. Various vestigial organs are very inefficient eg whale foetuses grow teeth that are then reabsorbed before birth! This all makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective (which may just as easily include a deist god) but god who made these things deliberately seems more a tinkerer than a deity.

That is what I meant by a preponderance of evidence. Of course I have to admit that this doesn't disprove the existence of gods or Loch Ness Monsters, but it makes it a lot less plausible. I would probably use the term "agnostic" more often than Russell had I not read NR Hanson, "The Agnostic's Dilemma" (can't find a net version, but it's in one of his collections of essays), which made me feel that the all-intents-and-purposes definition of atheism is more reasonable.

It sounds like you fancy yourself a deist. Well, it is the best way to believe in science and allow yourself a little mysticism. The Wikipedia page seems a good summary of the cosmological argument. The open question of whether the creator continued to exist is a good one, I've heard the example of the pyramids given to illustrate. The science here can get very complicated and difficult to grasp in a way that can sometimes obscure the logic of the situation. I prefer to stick to the simple "Who created God?" argument. Personally, when the Christian asks me "what caused the Big Bang?" I find it no more difficult to answer "nothing, that was the beginning of time" than the theist or deist does when asked what caused their god.

Baden responds:

I don't know about deism - perhaps it is an apt description, but it implies a belief of some sort whcih I cannot subscribe to without rational evidence presented to me. An unanswerable question about the birth of the universe is not rational evidence to me, simply a muddying of the waters. It is like being told that there is gold in a stream, which is muddied - simply because

(a) I have been told there is gold
(b) I can not prove there is no gold

is not rational argument to me. Rather, it is an argument based on speculation. I am sure this kind of argument has a technical term for philosophers, but I don't know it.

As I always say, if God, or some other mystical being appeared to me in a burning bush of course I would believe. If some ethereal power seized a mountain and presented itself to me through a prophet, of course I would believe. If I witnessed the death of a man and saw him three days later I would concede there is something remarkable about him. If he touched folks with cancer and cured them, I would be even more inclined to "follow [him]".

Another example I borrow from Sam: in Days of Our Lives when Marlena was the devil incarnate, John Black cast the devil out and was congratulated for the strength of his faith in the Lord. Now I don't know about you, but put me in a room with the fallen archangel Satan and a faith in God would not be too difficult to find based on biblical teaching. Presented with conclusive evidence, I can believe - without it, I am left a little mystified, if nothing else.

Me again:

Certainly the Big Bang is the most coherent theory based on the evidence. I haven't heard of anyone trying to disprove it (well, no real scientists). But whereas it is normally thought incomprehensible that anything could have happened before that, I have heard of some people looking into it: M-Theory (based on string theory), whereby membranes of space occasionally touch and create universes. Can't say I understand it, though. Sounds to me a lot like CS Lewis, The Magician's Nephew. (Have you seen The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe? I have to say I was disappointed. It's been years since I read it and I'd forgotten how sickly sweet the story was.)

I'm not sure of the name for that logical error but there probably is one. I notice that it's the same form as Lisa Simpson's specious argument that a certain rock repels tigers (causing Homer to offer to buy the rock!).

Your point about burning bushes is a good one. So many modern apologists talk about the testimony of miracles by respectable men as though it were the same as Caesar's reports of winning battles, nothing out of the ordinary. When Akura Nitavilla tried this one on Joel he promptly confirmed my modest claim to have walked across the Nepean the previous day. (She did point out that, unlike Joel, many of the apostles willingly died for their beliefs, but so did the followers of David Koresh.)
Similarly, Tacitus, one of the most respected Roman historians, records that the Emperor Vespasian once cured a blind man with his spit (he records this only because it was witnessed by hundreds of people).

David Hume pretty much demolished this argument in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding back in 1748; but of course apologists still trot it out as often as possible. He says:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 114-16.

But I guess he never saw a miracle himself. However, a few years ago I was fortunate enough to witness the divine holiness of the Coogee Madonna!

A rose, be it any other name, would smell as sweet

A rant in today's SMH has touched upon one of my pet hates that is worth mentioning here:

12. Offspring of the rich and famous whose names are destined to send them into early therapy. As in: "Cinnamon! You've left the #*@* door open and the #*@!# paparazzi have got in again."

13. Offspring of the less-well-off whose names need a footnote to spell correctly. As in: "Shantelle, stop pulling Kodie's hair and share those cigarettes."

Not many people know it but, despite my far left political views, I have a thin streak of conservatism. My opinions about names is a good example. Just like this Heckler writer, I really can't see why people pick such ridiculous names or deliberately misspell sensible names. People no longer spell words with whatever combination of letters is close enough phonetically (the way they did before the printing press) -- no-one acutally spells "fish" as "ghoti" -- so why do they insist on giving their kids names that look like typos or make them seem illiterate?

Short names as the whole name also annoy me: Amy is short for Amelia; Jack for John; Kate for Katherine -- they are not names in themselves. Don't write the nickname on the birth certificate, write the full name and call them by the short one! Giving your child half a name is just short-changing them in the long run.

That being said, there is one trend in names that I've noticed and approve of. Chinese Australians usually give their children an English first name followed by a Chinese middle name. This seems very practical. The trend I've noticed is the sorts of English names they choose for their children -- they're very old-fashioned. Of course this is a generalisation but I have observed a far higher proportion of amusingly old-fashioned English names for Asians than in the Anglo-Celtic population. To prove my point, here is a short list of some of the more amusing names I've come across, all from relatively young people:

Alfred
Dorcas
Edith
Elaine
Esther
Eva
Everett
Irene
Iris
Janet
Judith
Lionel
Penny
Phyllis

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Anyway, I think this is great for two reasons. Firstly, there are far too many Matthews and Nicoles but I can guarantee that there won't be more than one Phyllis in any class! Secondly, some of these names would become extinct if it weren't for this sudden resurgence. A case in point is Dorcas (a student in one of my classes, as are most of the others). I thought the name was made-up til I read it in a book and realised it's a real name, albeit an endangered species.

More on Sydney's Racism

I'm still worried about the race riots back home. Every Xmas since 2001 I've wondered whether something will be bombed. If I were a Muslim terrorist I'd strike on Xmas. Not Easter because there's no rampant consumerism and it's meant to be a sombre holiday anyway (my mother says that if she's to die prematurely it should be on Good Friday, so as not to spoil a perfectly happy day!).

It seems the media aren't tired of the story yet. From SMH:

One look at this pics says a lot to any Sydney resident. Except that local government areas are the smallest units, which is far to large for the outer western suburbs eg Penrith should not be ranked as more tolerant than many parts of the Blue Mountains.

This (and Cameron's recent post) have reminded me that the older I get the more I see social issues in terms of class. I find this a little disturbing because I'm not a Marxist and I was raised to believe that we don't have a class system in Australia. But even without a Bunyip Aristocracy it's easy to see certain divisions. Which makes me feel a little guilty because class-language is difficult to use non-normatively.

An early incarnation of Bob Dylan describes the ugly side of class very vividly. This song is so good, and such a great description of Australian politics at the moment that I'll quote it in full:

Only a Pawn in Their Game

A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers' blood.
A finger fired the trigger to his name.
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man's brain
But he can't be blamed
He's only a pawn in their game.

A South politician preaches to the poor white man,
"You got more than the blacks, don't complain.
You're better than them, you been born with white skin," they explain.
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid,
And the marshals and cops get the same,
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool.
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

From the poverty shacks, he looks from the cracks to the tracks,
And the hoof beats pound in his brain.
And he's taught how to walk in a pack
Shoot in the back
With his fist in a clinch
To hang and to lynch
To hide 'neath the hood
To kill with no pain
Like a dog on a chain
He ain't got no name
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught.
They lowered him down as a king.
But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
He'll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
Only a pawn in their game.

(Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music)

When I first heard this song it really got me thinking about how I judge others. I'm still not sure just how much the influence of others can excuse susceptible people but certainly it needs to be taken into account.

Condescending Carols

My other blog describes many of my experiences living as an ex-pat but there's something I really didn't expect now that Xmas is approaching -- I've got carols stuck in my head.

This is wierd because I hate carols. I don't mean I dislike that style of music, I mean I find many of the lyrics incredibly offensive. And the interesting bit is that the more musically beautiful carols are the more offensive the lyrics get. For example, "Jingle Bells" is has lyrics insipid enough not to offend anyone who doesn't mind Santa and "Good King Wenceslas" sends a terrific message of good will but both of these have really boring, repetitive melodies. Whereas a more elaborate choral tune like "O Holy Night" has the line, 'long lay the world in sin and error pining til he appeared'. Likewise, "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" leaves us in no uncertain terms as to Jesus' mission 'to save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray'. These really don't do much for inter-faith relations with the Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians and any other religions that predate Christianity (I wonder if there are any Graeco-Roman pagans left?). I'm sure that this correlation is coincidental, something more to do with the decreasing religiosity of western society vs historically changing musical styles. But it still bothers me.

So it really comes as a shock to me that I would actually enjoy hearing carols; but so it is. It must be some sort of primal instinct that, when far from home, I subconsciously yearn for the routines of my childhood. This despite the fact that I do consciously try to avoid anything with religious overtones and am reluctant to celebrate Xmas at all. I would love to do Festivus instead but most people would simply look at me blankly.

Don't you already have a blog?

Yes, I already have a blog. But that one is aimed at family as well as friends so I've tried to keep it purely descriptive (not normative) and have resisted posting more controversial opinions. (Actually, there was one post on the OzPolitics survey, which I have moved here.) The OzHoosier blog is about events, this blog shall be about opinions.

It was the Cronulla Race Riots that made me feel I had to say something for the record -- any blogger who had so much as heard of Australia was doing so!

So I've backdated the blog and posted some things I've already said as emails or comments on other blogs, just to bulk it out a bit.

Enjoy!

The Scouring of the Shire

An email that I sent after reading about the Cronulla events:

What is going on in Sutherland? I have heard "The Shire" described as a white enclave but never expected this. I really want to make jokes about Hobbits not trusting swarthy men but from the look of some of those photos this has really got scary! I really hope this is being blown out of proportion by the media - the top 10 SMH stories were all on this!

The Redfern and Green Valley riots were a worry but that was just a bunch of discontented people vs police. When race comes into it it becomes a lot worse. I don't mean their motives, just that most police can defend themselves but it sounds like they're going for a whole race here.

Just a few days ago I was bitching to Steve (the other Australian philosopher here) about how the Young Libs were acting like brownshirts last election; I thought I was exaggerating a little. Then there was the racist Macquarie academic. Now this. Normally I'd dismiss this as just a feud between rival gangs (they are as bad as each other) but then I read that they were singing Waltzing Matilda and saw the photos of all the Australian flags and the "Snags - no tabouli!" sign. Fascism has to start somewhere...

Now, anyone who knows any history can see that it's not really appropriate for Anglo-Celtic Australians to complain about immigrants, that's why I loved the quote from one of the injured who told the reporter he's only half-Lebanese, the other half is Aboriginal!

And my reply to Cameron's post:

When I first arrived here in Indiana I was meeting mainly other internationals. Like you [Cam] in Japan, I regaled them with stories of Sydney's cosmopolitan lifestyle and impressed them with with the fact that I did know a few snippets about their cultures.

This made reading about Cronulla literally a gut-wrenching experience. Reading about race-riots at home while chatting online to my more melanistic mates just made my stomach turn.

And, I agree, Wikipedia News is just the icing on the cake. I'm all for admitting the mistakes of the past - I've told foreign friends in Australia about the White Australia Policy quite matter-of-factly while other white Australians have looked on, horrified at my honesty. It's just so much harder to live with when it's happening currently.

There's something about living among foreigners that makes pride and shame in one's country more acute. When Howard got re-elected having led Australia into an unjust, imperialistic war, when Vivian Solon was deported (etc.) I see now that what I felt was only an intense disappointment. There's nothing better to make you feel real shame than the thought, "What would I - could I - say if someone asks me about what is going on in the country I call home?"