philalethes
New Member
(An excerpt from James Cutsinger's The Sound of a Lecture Undelivered)
In responding to the opening question tonight, I began by pointing out that it actually included a trinity of related issues all rolled into one, and unless Im mistaken thats true as well of the challenge youve posed. Your three questions might be expressed in a more or less rhetorical formthough unlike you Im far from thinking them rhetorical questions. First, isnt it obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, something weak or childish people use to cope with a world thats otherwise too harsh to bear? Second, isnt it true theres no evidence for the claims of religion? Third, doesnt it follow that atheism is a more intelligent position than theism?
Let me assure you I can understand where youre coming from, and frankly I admire your chutzpah in speaking out as you have, though your question is a bit of a tangent to my main theme tonight. In an academic climate that is in many quarters growing less and less hospitable to religious conviction, its inevitable that thoughtful people, including believers themselves, would be asking such questions. Obviously a book might be written in answer to each. About all I can do here tonight is provide just a hintjust the briefest of intimations, reallyas to where I might start were I authoring these books. My answers, as you probably expected in any case, are no, no, and no.
First of all, no, its not obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, or at least its not obvious that its necessarily so. I add this qualification because I agree that certain forms or levels of belief can be rather childish, as is the faith of the grownup who still thinks God has a beard, or sits on a throne, or exists for the sole purpose of dispensing chocolate. But theres also such a thing as childish disbelief. In my experience, many atheists havent been given all the chocolate they want and are therefore mad at God for not existing. William Jamess distinction between the tough- and tender-minded applies to both theists and atheists. In both groups we find people whose perspective on life is based on what they regard as objective facts and good reasons (those are the tough- minded in Jamess terms) as well as other people whose perspective is based on purely subjective desires (those are the tender-minded). In any case, its important to realize that the sophistical dismissiveness skeptics often employ in debate, which takes the form of saying, Oh, you just think that because youre immature, or uneducated, or depressed, or had a dysfunctional family, or are subject to some sort of chemical imbalance, is a game two can play. Perhaps the atheist is just afraid of commitment or responsibility or being thought a fool by his friends. According to Freud, religion is really just repressed sexuality, but theres nothing to stop us from countering that sexuality is really just repressed religion.
No again, it isnt true that theres no evidence for the claims of religion. The crucial word here, of course, is evidence. Im pretty sure when you use the term youre thinking exclusively of empirical evidence, and thus buying into the assumptions I was critiquing earlier in responding to my first two interlocutors. Like many people on todays college campuses, youre assuming the only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence forand for which we might apply for some grant money!things we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, either directly through one or more of these five natural senses or indirectly through the mediation of an instrument, like a microscope, thats been designed to magnify or amplify the reach of those senses. What Im not sure youve noticed, however, is that the statement The only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for is not something there is, or could be, any physical evidence for. The claim of the empiricist or positivist is therefore just as metaphysical as the claims of the worlds religions, which he means to deprecate. For he asserts a truth, or in this case a falsehood, about the way things ultimately are, and he does so in a way presupposing some non-empirical, or supersensible, intuition or insight.
Finally, no, atheism is not the more intelligent position. On the contrary, atheism is self-contradictory. Think about it. The atheist says, There is no God. Now anyone who says, There is no _____, is giving voice to what a logician would call a universal negative proposition, whatever might be placed in that blank. Its negative because it says no and denies something, and its universal because the field it encompasses is unlimited. If I said, There is no platypus in this chapel, I would also be uttering a negative statement, but it wouldnt be universal because the context would be restricted to this building, and we could verify, or disconfirm, the truth of my statement by arming everyone in the room with a flashlight, fanning out throughout the building, and engaging in a systematic platypus-hunting exercise. Notice, however, that when atheists say, There is no God, theyre not saying, Theres no God in this chapel, or Theres no God in Greenville, or Theres no God in our galaxy. Theyre saying, There is no God anywhere in the entire universe, no God at all wherever one might look throughout the full extent of reality. But in doing so theyre implying that theyve done the looking. Theyve carefully inspected all the nooks and crannies of existence, even as wed need to inspect all the nooks and crannies of this building to know theres no platypus in it. If however theyve truly looked everywhere there is to lookif they can honestly say theyre personally acquainted with the full extent of realityit follows that they must be omniscient. But omniscience is an attribute of God. Therefore, in saying There is no God, atheists are implicitly claiming to be God, and thus inevitably contradicting themselves.
If you dont mind, Id like to ask you a couple quick questions before moving on. Just nod or shake your head. In my lecture I referred to a number of key authorities on what might be called the technology of the spiritual life, and Im wondering whether youd ever heard of them. How about Patanjali? No, I didnt think so. Nicephorus the Solitary? No, again. Maybe Jalal al-Din Rumi? Youre cautiously nodding on this one, so I guess the name rings a bell, probably because of the popularity of his poetry. But have you actually studied his teachings? No. Well, let me ask you this: have you ever tried to concentrate on only one thought, and have you noticed that its almost impossible to do so for more than three or four seconds? Yes, good, so thats a familiar experience. Youre familiar with the fact that your ordinary, day-to-day consciousness is highly undisciplinedin fact, almost completely out of control.
Heres my point: each of the three sages I mentionedthe first, Patanjali, was the most renowned of all Hindu teachers of yoga; the second, Nicephorus the Solitary, was a Hesychast master of the Christian East; and the third, Jalal al-Din Rumi, was a great Sufi shaykheach of them taught his students a method for gaining control of their consciousness, for bringing it into a state of stillness or stability that could in turn serve as a portal (Im tempted to say as a launching pad!) to levels, modalities, or dimensions of consciousness ordinarily hidden or dormant, dimensions through which and in which they might come to experience directly the Ultimate Source of All Things.
You wish to have evidence. You want somebody to show you God, you said. Very well, these and other great masters, both past and present, are fully prepared to assist. But theyre going to require what any serious, scientific person like yourself already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until youve done that, Im sorry to say its just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the worlds religions are not verifiablean ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until youve done that, Im sorry to say its just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the worlds religions are not verifiablean ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites!
In responding to the opening question tonight, I began by pointing out that it actually included a trinity of related issues all rolled into one, and unless Im mistaken thats true as well of the challenge youve posed. Your three questions might be expressed in a more or less rhetorical formthough unlike you Im far from thinking them rhetorical questions. First, isnt it obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, something weak or childish people use to cope with a world thats otherwise too harsh to bear? Second, isnt it true theres no evidence for the claims of religion? Third, doesnt it follow that atheism is a more intelligent position than theism?
Let me assure you I can understand where youre coming from, and frankly I admire your chutzpah in speaking out as you have, though your question is a bit of a tangent to my main theme tonight. In an academic climate that is in many quarters growing less and less hospitable to religious conviction, its inevitable that thoughtful people, including believers themselves, would be asking such questions. Obviously a book might be written in answer to each. About all I can do here tonight is provide just a hintjust the briefest of intimations, reallyas to where I might start were I authoring these books. My answers, as you probably expected in any case, are no, no, and no.
First of all, no, its not obvious that faith is just wishful thinking, or at least its not obvious that its necessarily so. I add this qualification because I agree that certain forms or levels of belief can be rather childish, as is the faith of the grownup who still thinks God has a beard, or sits on a throne, or exists for the sole purpose of dispensing chocolate. But theres also such a thing as childish disbelief. In my experience, many atheists havent been given all the chocolate they want and are therefore mad at God for not existing. William Jamess distinction between the tough- and tender-minded applies to both theists and atheists. In both groups we find people whose perspective on life is based on what they regard as objective facts and good reasons (those are the tough- minded in Jamess terms) as well as other people whose perspective is based on purely subjective desires (those are the tender-minded). In any case, its important to realize that the sophistical dismissiveness skeptics often employ in debate, which takes the form of saying, Oh, you just think that because youre immature, or uneducated, or depressed, or had a dysfunctional family, or are subject to some sort of chemical imbalance, is a game two can play. Perhaps the atheist is just afraid of commitment or responsibility or being thought a fool by his friends. According to Freud, religion is really just repressed sexuality, but theres nothing to stop us from countering that sexuality is really just repressed religion.
No again, it isnt true that theres no evidence for the claims of religion. The crucial word here, of course, is evidence. Im pretty sure when you use the term youre thinking exclusively of empirical evidence, and thus buying into the assumptions I was critiquing earlier in responding to my first two interlocutors. Like many people on todays college campuses, youre assuming the only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence forand for which we might apply for some grant money!things we can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell, either directly through one or more of these five natural senses or indirectly through the mediation of an instrument, like a microscope, thats been designed to magnify or amplify the reach of those senses. What Im not sure youve noticed, however, is that the statement The only things we can truly know are things we have some sort of physical evidence for is not something there is, or could be, any physical evidence for. The claim of the empiricist or positivist is therefore just as metaphysical as the claims of the worlds religions, which he means to deprecate. For he asserts a truth, or in this case a falsehood, about the way things ultimately are, and he does so in a way presupposing some non-empirical, or supersensible, intuition or insight.
Finally, no, atheism is not the more intelligent position. On the contrary, atheism is self-contradictory. Think about it. The atheist says, There is no God. Now anyone who says, There is no _____, is giving voice to what a logician would call a universal negative proposition, whatever might be placed in that blank. Its negative because it says no and denies something, and its universal because the field it encompasses is unlimited. If I said, There is no platypus in this chapel, I would also be uttering a negative statement, but it wouldnt be universal because the context would be restricted to this building, and we could verify, or disconfirm, the truth of my statement by arming everyone in the room with a flashlight, fanning out throughout the building, and engaging in a systematic platypus-hunting exercise. Notice, however, that when atheists say, There is no God, theyre not saying, Theres no God in this chapel, or Theres no God in Greenville, or Theres no God in our galaxy. Theyre saying, There is no God anywhere in the entire universe, no God at all wherever one might look throughout the full extent of reality. But in doing so theyre implying that theyve done the looking. Theyve carefully inspected all the nooks and crannies of existence, even as wed need to inspect all the nooks and crannies of this building to know theres no platypus in it. If however theyve truly looked everywhere there is to lookif they can honestly say theyre personally acquainted with the full extent of realityit follows that they must be omniscient. But omniscience is an attribute of God. Therefore, in saying There is no God, atheists are implicitly claiming to be God, and thus inevitably contradicting themselves.
If you dont mind, Id like to ask you a couple quick questions before moving on. Just nod or shake your head. In my lecture I referred to a number of key authorities on what might be called the technology of the spiritual life, and Im wondering whether youd ever heard of them. How about Patanjali? No, I didnt think so. Nicephorus the Solitary? No, again. Maybe Jalal al-Din Rumi? Youre cautiously nodding on this one, so I guess the name rings a bell, probably because of the popularity of his poetry. But have you actually studied his teachings? No. Well, let me ask you this: have you ever tried to concentrate on only one thought, and have you noticed that its almost impossible to do so for more than three or four seconds? Yes, good, so thats a familiar experience. Youre familiar with the fact that your ordinary, day-to-day consciousness is highly undisciplinedin fact, almost completely out of control.
Heres my point: each of the three sages I mentionedthe first, Patanjali, was the most renowned of all Hindu teachers of yoga; the second, Nicephorus the Solitary, was a Hesychast master of the Christian East; and the third, Jalal al-Din Rumi, was a great Sufi shaykheach of them taught his students a method for gaining control of their consciousness, for bringing it into a state of stillness or stability that could in turn serve as a portal (Im tempted to say as a launching pad!) to levels, modalities, or dimensions of consciousness ordinarily hidden or dormant, dimensions through which and in which they might come to experience directly the Ultimate Source of All Things.
You wish to have evidence. You want somebody to show you God, you said. Very well, these and other great masters, both past and present, are fully prepared to assist. But theyre going to require what any serious, scientific person like yourself already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until youve done that, Im sorry to say its just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the worlds religions are not verifiablean ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites already knows is essential when testing some theory: namely, that she enter into the laboratory, which is in this case her mind, carefully following the procedures and making use of the equipment these spiritual scientists have given her. Until youve done that, Im sorry to say its just a sign of ignorance to think the claims of the worlds religions are not verifiablean ignorance, let me add at once, which is far more understandable and forgivable in someone your age than in the compilers of writing protocols for university websites!
opcorn:
