Math Review Sessions and Studying!

Major Calc II test this Friday, so no post today.  I will be answering e-mails at brbailey@umd.edu and any comments left below!  Have a great day!

Matt Dillahunty's "Leprechaun in the Box" Skit

This skit was made by Matt Dillahunty and performed on "The Non-Prophets" Internet radio show by Matt Dillahunty and Thad Engling.  I heard this skit listening through the archives of shows for about the fourth time and decided that this had to posted!  You can listen to the skit at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuzFzwbi-Uw&feature=related (reproduced below) and following the audio is the script that Matt posted on a blog:

"I wrote the following little skit as part of an e-mail response and Thad and I read through it on an episode of The Non-Prophets. Several people have asked for a written version (and Martin keeps pestering me to post at the blog), so I thought I'd make a few quick edits and post it here.


This is very rough and I doubt I'll ever bother to update it to a proper 'final draft' - but, here it is...
NOTE: HUGE DISCLAIMER - the 'Agnostic' in this story represents a particular type of intellectual agnostic that makes assertions about the unknown and unknowable (and sends me countless e-mails) - this doesn't represent EVERY type of agnostic or everyone who uses the label. Many of us have used or currently use the word agnostic to describe ourselves without ever approaching the nonsense represented here.

A very sturdy looking box rests on a table as two men walk up to it…

Theist: That box has a leprechaun in it.

Atheist: I don't believe that...why do you?

Theist: I heard him talking.

Atheist: I don't believe that either...in fact, I have no evidence that leprechauns exist.

Theist: Well, either there's a leprechaun in the box or there isn't, right?

Atheist: Right.

Theist: So it's 50/50...and since I heard him talk, I'm sure that there's a leprechaun in there.

Atheist: Either there's a leprechaun in the box or not, but that doesn't mean the odds are 50/50.

Theist: Of course it does.

Atheist: Actually, it doesn’t, but could you offer some evide...

Theist: Hang on! He's just told me that if you don't believe he's in there, he'll chain you to a tree after you're dead and stick his shillelagh up your ass for 10,000 years!

Atheist: Um, wow, but I was asking if you could offer some additional evidence beyond your claim that you heard him. I didn't hear him say that, by the way.

Theist: Well, you're not listening hard enough.

Atheist: Ok (listens)...noth...

Theist: Give it TIME! You've got to sincerely WANT to hear him...

Atheist: If he's in there, I'd like to know it...I'll keep listening.

Theist: Did you hear that?

Atheist: Nope, nothing.

Theist: You're either lying or you're so closed minded that he's not letting you hear him.

Atheist: Not letting me? Leprechauns can choose who can hear them?

Theist: Of course! He could open this lid, show himself to me...and you'd never see it, you'd think the box was closed the whole time. They're MAGIC!

Atheist: Well, do you have any evidence for any of this? I mean, I've never seen a leprechaun...I have no reason to think they even exist and every time you tell me how to prove it, the tests fail.

Theist: No, YOU fail. It worked for me.

Atheist: (Motions toward a handful of people to one side) Well, there are other people here who have tried this...and it failed for them.

Theist: Yes, but these people (motions toward a huge group off to another side) heard it. In fact there are WAY more people over here who will tell you they heard it.

(The Atheist moves off to ask them a few questions.)

Atheist: I talked to some of them...they all have a slightly different take on this. Some say it's a leprechaun; others say it's a fairy; still others say it's a goblin. They don’t all describe the same voice and they apparently have conflicting messages that they claim came from inside the box. Most of them simply said that they knew other people who claimed to know what was in the box.

Theist: Ah, yes! There's actually a troll in the box with the leprechaun. He sometimes pretends to be the leprechaun, or a fairy, or a goblin in order to fool those other people - but you'll notice they STILL heard something.

Atheist: Yes, some say that, but others don't.

Theist: Well, that troll sometimes blocks the sounds so people can't hear it.

Atheist: So, how do you know, when you hear the leprechaun, that you aren't hearing the troll?

Theist: Don't be absurd! The leprechaun is my friend; he makes sure that I only hear him.

Atheist: But how can you be sure...if you think there's a troll there too, who pretends to be a leprechaun...how can you know? Maybe there's ONLY the troll and he's just fucking with you.

Theist: Now you're just being thick.Look, there's a box, right?

Atheist: Yup.

Theist: Now why would there be a box here unless there was something in it?? There MUST be something in it, right?

Atheist: No, the box could be empty.

Theist: No it couldn't, or there'd be no reason for the box to exist! Boxes are for holding things. We all know that.

Atheist: So you're claiming that the box could not possibly be empty?

Theist: Correct.

Atheist: And you don't see that as a flawed premise?

Theist: No, and it's confirmed by the fact that I heard a leprechaun.

Atheist: How did you hear him?

Theist: He talks to me telepathically.

Atheist: Oh, so you didn't mean to listen with my ears, you meant listen with my mind?

Theist: Your heart.

Atheist: That doesn't listen...

Theist: Your metaphoric heart!

Atheist: Ok...but that guy says he heard it with his ears.

Theist: He's wrong...he's hearing the troll.

Atheist: But I don't even hear the troll.

Theist: He's blocking you.

Atheist: Ok...how do you know all of this?

Theist: The leprechaun told me.

Atheist: Ok, so you've made appeals to magic, telepathy, leprechauns, trolls and non-empty boxes....you've offered no evidence. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.

Theist: Don't forget the shillelagh!

Atheist: Right… and you've made threats about things that'll happen after I'm dead - when there's no evidence that there's any 'me' to experience anything after I'm dead. I just don't believe your claim.

Theist: What if you're wrong? Isn't that a lot to risk? He says he's got a pot of gold for you if you believe...isn't that worth believing?

Atheist: Look, even if I could make myself believe, which I can't, why would I want to do that? If there's no leprechaun in there, then I've wasted the opportunity find out what's really in the box. And if he wants me to follow his instructions...

Theist: Oh, he does...I've written them down for you, here...

Atheist: (Looks at the list) Then I'll have wasted time doing things that...does that say "Do not eat poo"?

Theist: Yup...great rule, isn't it?

Atheist: Yeah, but what about "Drop money in the box"

Theist: He's got needs too...pots of gold don't grow on trees.

Atheist: I thought he was magic.

Theist: He is...but, well, the money is so we can tell other people what the leprechaun wants.

Atheist: Why doesn't he tell them?

Theist: He could, but...well, he will, if they're open too it. Some, like you, are fooled by the troll.

Atheist: Why doesn't he get rid of the troll.

Theist: It's a mystery, but we're sure he will eventually.

Atheist: Anyway, if this isn't true, then I'll have wasted a lot of time and money on something false...only to avoid a threat that wasn't real.

Theist: Yeah...but what if you're wrong.

Atheist: Ok...look, I'm done. I do NOT believe there's a leprechaun in the box.

Theist: How can you be sure?

Atheist: I'm not, but I don't believe there is.

Theist: How can you say there's no leprechaun in the box!

Atheist: I didn't...I said I don't believe there is one.

Theist: Same thing.

Atheist: No it isn't...however, now that I've considered and rejected your claim...

Theist: Don't do it!

Atheist: I'm willing to say that I actually do believe there is no leprechaun in that box.

Theist: NO! You're making an irrational claim...you think you know everything?!??!

Atheist: No, I'm not claiming that I'm absolutely certain that there's no leprechaun in the box...but I actually believe, to some degree of certainty that there isn't...because if there were, I'd expect there to be some evidence to support it, and investigations keep coming up empty. I'll be back with some tools...we're going to open that box.

Theist: You can't open the box.

Atheist: Why not.

Theist: You just can't, it's impossible.

(Another person walks up)

Agnostic: He's right. Neither of you know what's in the box. You're both equally absurd to assert that you DO know.

Atheist: I didn't assert that I'm absolutely certain, I simply stated what my belief is...and it's based on the evidence, or lack thereof

Agnostic: Don't be silly...you're just as dogmatic as he is.

Atheist: I'm not dogmatic about this at all - I'd just like to open the box and find out.

Agnostic: The box is impervious.

Atheist: How do you know?

Agnostic: Um, well, I don't...it just seems impervious.

Atheist: Really, do you have other impervious things to compare it to?

Agnostic: Well, um, no...but I'm sure it's impervious.

Atheist: If you'll forgive me, as we're essentially on the same side in that we reject his assertion...

Agnostic: I don't reject it, I don't reject anything

Atheist: Do you accept his claim?

Agnostic: I don't know.

Atheist: You don't know whether you accept his claim?

Agnostic: No, I mean I don't know if he's right or not.

Atheist: Well, neither do I, but that's not what I asked.

Agnostic: The box is impervious

Atheist: Well, you sound just as dogmatic about our inability to know as he does about his private communications with the leprechaun

Agnostic: Now you're just being rude

Atheist: Look, I'm going to open this box

Agnostic: Silly atheist....

(The atheist manages to drill a tiny hole in the box...)

Atheist: Look, it's not impervious! I've got a hole here. We may eventually be able to investigate this in more detail.

Theist: You switched boxes!

Atheist: No, this is the box.

Agnostic: It's STILL impervious; your little hole doesn't give you enough information to support your claim.

Atheist: I can continue to investigate...and so far, there's no evidence to support the theist's claims.

Theist: You switched boxes!

Atheist: No I didn't.

Theist: Then, um...he's hiding. He needs you to believe without seeing him, so he's hiding.

Atheist: That makes no sense.

Theist: The troll has created an illusory hole that is providing you with false information about what's in the box!

Atheist: /sigh

Agnostic: That might be possible, I really couldn't say.

Atheist: No, I bet you couldn't.

The theist walks away, to tell other people about the leprechaun in the box.

The agnostic tries not to be anywhere near either of them, while secretly keeping an optimistic eye on the atheist's activities.
The atheist goes about his life, occasionally finding new ways to investigate the box, but he tries to enjoy his life while preventing the theist from ruining it by imposing the leprechaun's rules on everyone."

E-mail me at brbailey@umd.edu for any questions!  Also, feel free to leave a comment below!

Start of a New Week!

No lengthy post today!  Please, please, please e-mail me at brbailey@umd.edu so I may answer any questions you have!

It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist!

To start off this post, I have to recommend this video:

When I suggest videos to watch, which isn't that often, I am really expecting that you watch the video.  I only post videos that I find to be extremely informative or helpful in aiding my readers understand what I am trying to get across.

The aforementioned video is tangentially related to the topic for the post today, which is "It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist!".  This is is one of the most common statements I hear from theists because it falls into the category of arguments I like to call, "putting us on even footing".  The types arguments that attempt to put the theist and atheist on even footing include:  the "you have just as much faith as me!" arguments, the "your atheists groups are just like churches" arguments, and the "if we can't prove a god then you can't disprove it" arguments.  The purpose of these types of arguments from theists is to say that atheists and theists are equally irrational, have just as much evidence as the other, and have as much justification to believe as the other.

Many proponents of the "It takes more faith to be an atheist!" argument claim that for atheists to be absolutely certain that a god doesn't exist, in the face of the evidence that is this universe, takes an extraordinary amount of faith.  The first problem with this argument is that most atheists do not claim to be absolutely certain that a god doesn't exist, but rather they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt.  Using the phrase "absolutely certain" is utterly pointless when trying to sort out what we do and don't know.  We cannot be absolutely certain about anything and bringing up absolute certainty just ends the conversation.  Second, rejecting a claim that doesn't provide enough evidence isn't taking something on faith.  Recall that faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence.  Atheists are rejecting something for which there is no evidence for; the exact opposite of what faith is.  For more on this argument, see http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=It_takes_more_faith_to_disbelieve.

E-mail brbailey@umd.edu for any questions or to start a discussion with me, or leave a comment below! 

Rest Day!

I am taking today off, however I will still respond to comments and answer e-mails.  My week of three tests and two papers is finally complete and I deserve to relax!  E-mail me at brbailey@umd.edu or leave a comment below!  Have a great weekend!

My PHIL140 Short Paper

This is my completed short paper for my PHIL140 class on "Is Pornography Morally Problematic and Does Pornography Have Harmful Effects?"  If you have any questions, concerns, or just want to have a conversation, e-mail me at brbailey@umd.edu or leave a comment below!

Is Pornography Morally Problematic and Does Pornography Have Harmful Effects?

Many critics of pornography (e.g. feminists, Focus on the Family, and politically right-wing Conservatives) have argued that pornography is morally problematic because it has harmful effects. I do not believe that pornography has any significant effects (in fact, pornography may even be beneficial to society; a point I am unable to address in this paper) and I counter three arguments that the aforementioned critics may have about their perceived ways in which pornography is harmful to society. These arguments are (1) that human males, if exposed long enough to pornography, will eventually try to carry out the behavior they find in pornography to human females in a real context; (2) pornography distorts human males’ perception of female sexuality; and (3) viewing pornography is inherently immoral.

Longino defines pornography as:

“verbal or pictorial explicit representations of sexual behavior that… has as a distinguishing characteristic ‘the degrading and demeaning portrayal of the role and status of the human female… as a mere sexual object to be exploited and manipulated sexually.’” (Longino, 42)

I believe that Longino’s definition of pornography is a sufficient starting point in defining the types of pornography that most critics object to, however I believe this definition needs to be broadened to accommodate other reasons I would think people would object to pornography. In addition to defining pornography as depicting human females in a “degrading and demeaning” manner, I am explicitly adding that pornography must treat human females as inferior and must necessarily be submissive to human males.

Those critics of pornography that wish for the state to regulate pornography are often citing harmful effects that pornography has on society. This has been a popular strategy in arguing for state regulation of pornography because, I would argue, that a harm based argument is the only proverbial leg these critics have to stand on. Other than showing how pornography demonstrably harms society in a significant way, critics of pornography have little hope for changing or legislating laws to regulate pornography because of the high value the United States places on The First Amendment. This is not to say that the critics of pornography may have a decent case for states regulating pornography on the basis that it is obscene, however the United States has vague guidelines on determining what is obscene. Examine the United States Supreme Court’s holding of the Miller v. California (1973) in which Chief Justice Warren Burger attempts to establish a set of criterion that defines what obscene materials are.

“The basic guidelines for [obscenities] must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 354 U. S. 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” (Miller v. California (1973))

Take criteria (b) for instance, “…whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law…” I believe that a court would be more likely to start regulating pornography if there was demonstrable harm rather than arbitrarily deciding that pornography, as I have defined it, is “patently offensive”.

I am of the opinion that pornography has very few harmful effects (of those few effects, none are more than negligible) on society; much to the same extent as violent films and video games are insignificant in the harm they inflict on society. I am sure that critics of pornography may find this as a very strong and controversial statement to make, so I will take some time in dispelling counter-examples I find likely for my opposition to use against me.

The first counter-argument, relative to my position, I would like to dispel is that human males, if exposed to degrading, demeaning, male dominating pornography for long enough, will eventually try to carry out the behavior they find in pornography to human females in a real context. Cameron and Frazer address this fallacy by referring to this type of behavior as “[the] copycat model” or “…you see it, then (therefore?) you do it…” (Cameron, 242) Humans, being animals with the ability to rationalize and come to conclusions that may be contradictory to our natural instincts, have the self control to watch violent pornography and then not copy what they see. Cameron and Frazier believe (and I think they are correct) that:

“Humans are not like billiard balls – or indeed like animals, whose behavior can be described in terms of a stimulus-response model… [Human Behavior] is not deterministically ‘caused’. It needs to be explained in a different way, by interpretation of what it means and elucidation of the beliefs or understandings that make it possible and intelligible.” (Cameron, 249)

Human sexuality or the impulse to have sex is relatively easy to control and more easily controlled compared to animals, some of which show no reserve to act out sexually on the nearest potential mate.

The second counter-argument that is worth mentioning is from pornography critics that would assert that pornography distorts human males’ perception of female sexuality. Longino, among other critics about pornography, makes no reference to women who enjoy bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadomasochism (BDSM), to women who enjoy humiliating and compromising sexual positions, nor to women who enjoy degrading and demeaning behaviors from their male partners. I do not believe that pornography advocates indiscriminate sexual abuse with nonconsensual females, but rather, provides the same type of sexual gratification to those with BDSM/humiliation fetishes in the same way as sexually explicit material does with people who find sexual gratification in male/female consensual, respectful intercourse. I believe that most human males have no misconception of the fact that what they see in pornography is not necessarily what women enjoy. Pornography may be an outlet for which men, with fetishes that are impractical in the real world, may live out their fantasies. However, I do not find that these men with these particular fetishes are immoral. The men I would consider immoral are the men as a subset of these men with fetishes for pornography whom treat women as inferior “outside the bedroom” and sincerely hold sexist beliefs.

The third counter-argument in which a pornography critic would incorrectly find convincing is that viewing pornography is inherently immoral. I would contest the assertion that deriving pleasure from the viewing of two humans engaging in heterosexual or homosexual sexual intercourse, however demeaning, degrading, or dominating one sex or person is to another, is morally problematic. Consider this example, is it morally problematic if a human male or human female is sexually attracted to children that would be consider “underage” (under 18 years of age in the United States)? I believe that being sexually attracted to children is not morally problematic, but taking action upon real children to satisfy your sexual fantasies is, however, morally problematic (having sexual intercourse with someone who society deems unfit of making personal decisions and perhaps against their will). A person with a fetish for children may turn towards child pornography as a cathartic experience to prevent themselves from harming real children. I am not advocating child pornography to be produced for any reason (this would be immoral), but rather, I would advocate consuming computer generated child pornography (such as “lolicon” pornography). I cannot conceive anything immoral about human males and females being “turned onto” or having fetishes about having sex with children, so long as they never act out on this fetish.

Returning to the original counter-argument and relating it to people with fetishes for children, viewing pornography, for any reason one may choose to, cannot possibly be inherently immoral. I would assume that most people, including these critics of pornography, agree that playing first person shooters (FPSs) is not morally problematic. I have played and enjoyed FPSs in the past and, to be honest, never thought about the action of killing other persons via a video game. Mentally, FPSs are like engaging in laser tag. No matter how gruesome or disturbing the graphics used are, I am only thinking about the strategy similar to the one found in laser tag. Furthermore, I would never kill another human being and doubt that any of the other players in the game would kill another human being. Extending the analogy to the viewing of pornography, even if a person enjoys the degradation of women, demeaning treatment of women, and dominance over women in the context of pornography, I would not be able to make the claim that they are an immoral person.

In conclusion, although arguments that critics make against pornography that are harm based are the best arguments the critics have, these arguments alone still do not justify that states should regulate pornographic materials. I have attempted to counter three major arguments that critics of pornography may use as an attempt to demonstrate that pornography is harmful, namely that pornography is immoral, pornography distorts males’ views of female sexuality, and pornography encourages men to act on their sexual fetishes indiscriminately and with malice. 

Bibliography

Cameron, Deborah, and Elizabeth Frazer. "On the Question of Pornography and Sexual Violence: Moving    Beyond Cause and Effect." Pornography: Woman, Violence, and Civil Liberties (1994). P. 240-53. Electronic

Longino, Helen E.. “Pornography, Oppression, and Freedom: A Closer Look.” Take Back the Night: Women on Pornography. Lederer, Laura. p. 40-54. New York. William & Co. 1980. Electronic

Miller vs. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Full text of majority decision found at http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/15/case.html. I find this source to be reliable because supreme.justia.com has full text copies of Supreme Court decisions verbatim.

My E-mail Exchange with Dr. Gourley

Over the past two weeks or so, I have been in e-mail contact with Dr. Gourley after he submitted a comment on my blog (see post, "Defending the Rights of Christians").  Dr. Bruce Gourley has a Ph.D. from Auburn University, is the Executive Director of the Baptist History and Heritage Society (http://www.baptisthistory.org/), is the Online Editor for Baptists Today (http://www.baptiststoday.org/), owner of BaptistLife.com, and has authored three books (www.brucegourley.com/writings).  Today's post comes from our e-mail discussion and this particular exchange is on the nature of truth and the most accurate/reliable ways to discover it (shared below with explicit permission by Dr. Gourley).  I believe that this exchange is an excellent example of the kinds of intellectual discourse that atheists and theists should be having.  I hope you enjoy!

Bruce,

On the whole, I don't have any problems with someone following the teachings of Jesus if they believe that adhering to Jesus' teachings is the best way to live out their life. I would disagree, but that is a perfectly reasonable way to choose to live your life. However, Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha and is usually referred to as an atheistic religion (i.e. a religion which has no deity they worship). So my question is, are you following an atheistic version of Baptism where you subscribe to Baptist traditions, teachings, and culture while not believing in its supernatural claims? Furthermore, if you accept the supernatural aspects of Baptism, such as Jesus' divinity, an omnipotent God, miracles, etc., how do you justify your belief? Thanks!


Bryan

Bryan,

Baptists are all over the map; because Baptists have historically rejected religious creeds and hierarchy, there is no "official" Baptist position on ... anything. Truly, Baptists are among the most diverse religious groups in the world - perhaps the most diverse - representing some 250 distinct groupings worldwide, and within each grouping, a wide range of beliefs.

But, here's an interesting historical tidbit: in the ancient world, Jews were considered atheists because ... everyone else (read: animistic and other primitive, polytheistic type faiths) worshiped visible gods (or gods who took visible forms). Jews, on the other hand, worshiped a supposedly invisible God who did not manifest himself in nature's objects.

- Bruce

Bruce,


Similar to Jews being called atheists, Christians were also called atheists by the Romans because Christians didn't believe in the Pagan gods. You are correct in that I shouldn't make blanket statements about the beliefs of Baptists because their beliefs are diversified. Therefore, I would like to know more about your beliefs specifically. How do you define the supernatural entity that I assume you believe in, and why do you hold that belief?

Bryan

Bryan,


How do I define God? Something along the lines of: mysterious, experiential, all-encompassing, ever present, ungraspable, glimpsed in Christ, allied with the poor and down-trodden, emanating compassion and love in its best sense, so forth.  I don't know of anyone, including the men who penned the Jewish and Christian holy texts, who understands the fullness of that which I (and many others) call God. But I do know quite a few folks who worship a God crafted in their own image.

- Bruce

Bruce,


Do you care if your beliefs are true? Or are you just content with accepting some of your beliefs on faith?

Bryan

Bryan,

Truth is what I seek. Yet when it comes to God, no human or text can fully comprehend. So while truth I seek, I also know truth is only partially obtainable. We all see through a glass darkly, to paraphrase the NT's Apostle Paul.

- Bruce 

Bruce,


Well why do you believe the Bible has any type of authority on what is true or not? How is the Bible different than any other religious texts (i.e. the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.)? From my point of view, the Bible is not a credible source for the truth of the extravagant claims it makes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In fact, except for a few historical truths (about place names and rulers) there are claims in the Bible that directly contradict our understanding of science. If you attribute these inaccuracies to metaphors that are taken too literally, how do we discern what is metaphorical from what is supposed to be taken literally?

Bryan

Bryan,


Truth has many dimensions. The Bible is and never was a scientific textbook. Those who try to make it so are trying to force a modern mindset of truth upon an ancient text written at a time when truth (and knowledge) was far different than it is today.

- Bruce

Bruce,


How does truth have multiple dimensions? Sure, the Bible isn't supposed to be a science textbook, however when the Bible does try to make scientific claims (e.g. the Genesis story of creation) they are directly contradictory to our current scientific understandings. Although this would not dismiss all other claims found in the Bible, such as the supernatural, there should be some doubt cast on the truth that the Bible claims to have. I would agree with you that the knowledge possessed by the people who wrote the Bible was vastly inferior to ours, but that does not mean the truth has changed. Yes, their perception of what is true may be different and that is what science attempts to correct. However, the 'truth' about how our universe actually came to be is fixed. We can speculate as much as we like about how the universe came to be, but the 'truth' of how it happened does not change relative to when people are pondering the question. You referred to the Bible as an ancient text and that is exactly what it is. I have two questions for you:

1) Considering other ancient texts such as the Bhagavad Gita (came millennia before the Bible) and the Qur'an (came centuries after the Bible) along with the Bible, how do you determine (coming from my standpoint) which one is the most accurate and/or which religion I should subscribe to?

2) Suppose you are doing research and writing a scholarly paper on the history of the Middle East. After publishing this paper, a group of Muslim historians call you out and tell you that your work is very poor and obviously fallacious because there are things you talk about in the paper that directly contradict what is in the Qur'an. To me, you are perfectly justifiable in saying that the Qur'an's claims about history must be suspect because you have found contradictory evidence. How would you respond to these Muslim scholars? And how would your answer differ if a group of Christian scholars said your work contradicted the Bible?

Bryan

Bryan,


Genesis does not make scientific claims; modern Christians force Genesis to make scientific claims.  Not until modern times (post Reformation era) have some Christians insisted that Genesis must be literal to be true. The "days" of Genesis in Hebrew are infinite periods of time; "Adam" (in our English translations) is not an actual man in Hebrew; the word "adam" literally means "earthling," and if you put Genesis in its actual context, it is talking about God creating earthlings over a great but unknown period of time. The rib story is not presented as fact in the original context, but a story-telling explanation of how man and woman are to relate. In their own time and context, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two entirely different stories, non factual stories that harbor greater truths beyond mere facts.

In the larger context, and no offense meant, but you seem to be approaching the Bible the way religious fundamentalists do: that is, you want to make it an empirical, modern truth-based book.

Truth is far more than quantifiable fact, and is not confined to realm of science. It is found, just as readily, in poetry, ancient myths, other literary devices, emotion, experientialism, philosophy, the list goes on. Even in the discipline of history, truth has many (and often opposing) dimensions. Pick a recent historical event, such as: why did the recent revolution in Egypt happen? There is no one answer, no one truth. The truth is much more complicated, more multidimensional, and ultimately not fully known in this instance. There is not even a given truth for exactly how or when the universe came to be; if you follow current scientific thought, you are aware that there are various theories among scientists, including a theory that the universe has always been. In economics, the most learned economists disagree greatly over what is necessary for a healthy economy; there is no one truthful answer, and it is quite likely that shades of truth exist in the various economic theories of a nation's well-being.

I could even ask the simple question, "Who are you?", and you would only be able to partially answer the question, because you don't even know the full truth about who you are ... and you never will. (Nor will I as to who I am.)

Until one begins to grasp the fuller dimensions of truth - a difficult task for many modern, Western humans - he or she will have a stunted view of himself or herself, the world in which he or she lives, and the history (including the religious dimension) that has led us to this point in time.

- Bruce

Bruce,


Genesis does explain how the Earth was made. Animals weren't just placed on the Earth at one time, the Sun was formed before the Earth, a woman wasn't born from the rib of a man, do you think there is a talking snake?, where is the Garden of Eden now?, there was no global flood, there was no migration of species to the ark, and so forth. I know that I'm looking at empirical truths because that is the only thing that matters. Genesis, although perhaps you can argue is a particular elegant creation myth or piece of prose, is demonstrably false in a factual sense. Genesis was an attempt to explain the formation of the world we live in and how humans came to be. As I am sure you know, this is just one of thousands of creation myths throughout the world.

The reason most people don't look at the Bible as literal truth anymore is because they realize it is factually wrong. The Bible has taken a more metaphorical meaning. Again, I don't mind if someone picks out the good parts and decides to live their life based on the opinions of the writings of the Bible, however it is irrational to say that the Bible is entirely factual.

I am sorry, but I just cannot buy the, "Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are... stories that harbor truths beyond mere facts." What are these truths that you are talking about?

When I say science, it is just shorthand. Allow me to clarify what I mean by science. Science, in this context, is the application of skepticism, the scientific method, and critical thinking in order to better understand reality. Under this definition (and the definition I am referring to when I say "science") history, philosophy, and other academia, as well as science, fall into this category. So yes, I agree with you that there are way outside of literal science to discover what is true.

Using your analogies for the recent revolution in Egypt, the scientific "theories" (used in the colloquial sense; a scientific theory is defined by scientists as a well established model of something that encompasses several laws, pieces of evidence, etc.), and economics, I think you are actually in agreement with me. I am not claiming we know everything; I am also not claiming finding specific causes or best ways of doing something is easy (or if it is possible at all). What I am claiming however, is the truth of the formation of the universe, the truth for the exact ways and reasons the revolution in Egypt happened, and the truth for the best economic model to follow exists. It is impossible or nearly impossible to reach this truth. You said that, "there is no one truthful answer, and it is quite likely that shades of truth exist in the various economic theories of a nation's well-being". I am sure that there are many models of economies, that if implemented properly, would achieve positive results. However, there must necessarily be a best option, depending on what quantifiers you would use to define "best". "Shades of truth" are probably in most, if not all, economic theories, but by saying this you admit there is a truth from which these shades come from.

Your paragraph on the "Who are you?" question, I'm in complete agreement with you.  I agree with the notion that we must study, "the world in which he or she lives, and the history (including the religious dimension) that has led us to this point in time" as well as "poetry, ancient myths, other literary devices, emotion, experientialism, [and] philosophy". I love to talk about religion; it is one of my favorite topics to discuss. However, although these things may stumble amongst truths. The best method of finding/discovering truths as accurately as possible is the scientific method by far. By studying emotion or poetry we may find truths, but the tool set we use to find out if they are true or not is the scientific method or some close variant.

You also mention that truth can be found in ancient myths. I would agree that can be found (however rare that is), but we need some way to determine if these claims are truthful or not. It is not as if an ancient myth is a carefully calculated masterpiece of truthful claims. They are stories that are ad hoc in nature and can be as simple as someone writing a stream of consciousness. How does ancient myths lead us to truths unless it's by accident (which we won't even know until it is verified by some other means)? Consider this situation, for example: Suppose the Qur'an gives a detailed and correct account of the exact science of the chemistry and biology that takes place in a mother's womb throughout a nine month pregnancy. Impressive right? How would the culture of the 7th century know that this is true? They wouldn't. They would have to accept this on faith (a problematic practice in general) to accept this as true. In fact, they should reject these claims as true because there is no evidence to believe in it at the time (although now we know it to be true). The point is, we need some else to discern what is true in ancient myths, poetry, etc. and this is what I call "science".

Bryan

Bryan,


If your contention that empirical truth is all that matters, is true ...then we live in a sad and hopeless world, it seems to me.

As to a literal understanding of the Bible: prior to the 16th century Protestant Reformation, few Christians interpreted the Bible (as a whole or largely) literally; allegory was the most common method of biblical interpretation prior to this time.

Not until the early days of the Scientific Revolution / Enlightenment did masses of Christians begin thinking in terms of the Bible as a literally-interpreted text. And only then did Christians begin forcing modern scientific truth/constructs upon the ancient scriptural texts. In short time, as modern science became the norm, believers began defending the Bible as science, or defending the Bible from science - the latter often utilizing scientific reasoning to prove the Bible's truth over science, ironically.

From that time forward, it has been very difficult for Western humans to allow the Bible to be what it is ... rather than re-shaping it by modern norms (of which many religious people, from fundamentalist to liberal, are prone to do).

- Bruce

Bruce,


When I say that empirical truth is all that matters, what I mean is that when we are talking about claims that people are trying to pass off as true, empirical evidence/skepticism/critical thinking is the most reliable way of discerning what is true from what is false. This is not to say that you cannot find beauty in things that are not 'true'. I find beauty in chess games, in nature, the girl that I love, in artwork, etc. I find hope in humankind, charitable acts, etc. These things (e.g. beauty and being hopeful) are wholly irrelevant when talking about truth. I am not sure how you can assert that if you accept that science is the most reliable way to discover what is true, then the world is sad and hopeless.

Perhaps I am incorrect in interpretations of the Bible over history (I am convinced that you know more about the history of the Bible than I do), but I would say that anyone who takes the Bible as literal truth is sorely mislead. I would even say that if your belief in God comes from the Bible you are mislead. There are good things about every religious text, however when looking at them outside the scope of being metaphorical, but still fictional, I would say that is harmful to an individual's understanding of reality.

Bryan

Bryan,


Firstly, methinks you draw too narrow a box around truth.

Secondly, I would say there are good and bad images of God in the Christian Bible. Different Christians focus on different aspects.

And finally, I would argue that no one (even the most fundamentalist fundamentalist) interprets everything in the Bible in a literal fashion.  Anyone who turns to the Bible as a book of faith does so selectively.

- Bruce

Bruce,


I think the box around truth needs to be fairly narrow. There are people who believe that homeopathy works (excluding placebo), that evolution is false, and some people believe they have been abducted by aliens. If truth is defined any more broad then there is going to be contradictions. A pet peeve of mine is when people try to argue that all religions are correct or your theory about how the universe is formed is just as good as mine. There are statements in religions that are mutually exclusive, dichotomies that would have to be held at the same time. There may be true elements in all of them, but all cannot be 100% true. Speaking in a objective sense, there has to be a religion or scientific theory that has the best representation of reality. Drawing the box around truth any wider than I am leaves room for interpretation and when determining what is true, interpretation should be removed as much as possible. This is not to say interpretation doesn't have its place.  For example, you can interpret artwork to mean whatever you want, even if the artist didn't intend for it to mean what you perceive it to mean.

I agree. God does some terrible things in the Bible and He does some good things as well. Christians (usually) focus on the good parts.

Again, I agree. I would be scared if somebody took everything in the Bible as literal truth and we never see this (at least simultaneously). For example, people refusing to eat shellfish, stoning their unruly children to death, not wearing polyester, advocating slavery, and so forth. What I don't understand is how people decide what parts of the Bible is ok to follow and which parts are not. If they truly believed that the Bible is divinely inspired by God shouldn't they accept everything? This is why I have a certain respect for the Westboro Baptist Church more than most others. Even though their beliefs are crazy and are taken to extremes, every view they publicly share is supported by textual evidence from the Bible.

Yes I realize nobody follows the Bible literally literally. I should qualify my statement more.

Bryan

Bryan,

And yet ... in most truth, there is some degree of interpretation. As professional historians know, history is interpretation. Historians strive for the best interpretation by trying to assemble as much evidence as possible, stitching it together (in a manner of speaking), and drawing a conclusion ... that will likely be revised later in light of new evidence ... and so on.

Conversely, historical interpretation detached from evidence is wishful thinking.

Science is a never-ending search for truth, because the more we explore our natural realm, the more dynamics and dimensions of reality open before us. We're always moving toward a greater understanding of truth, but not even science will ever unlock all truth.

In essence, the big question is this: since we humans are finite creatures with limited tools (natural and man-made) with which to examine the (essentially infinite) universe, will we ever really know the truth?

- Bruce

Bruce,


What I said was, "when determining what is true, interpretation should be removed as much as possible". I realize that some type of interpretation is absolutely necessary (for some fields of study) in many cases. I would just like to limit interpretation as much as possible. For example, suppose we find one piece of evidence for X during a certain time period for a location in history. Our first guesses about what X was during that time period for that location will inevitably be off the mark and require a lot of interpretation and educated guesswork. However, the more evidence we find for X, the less interpretation is necessary for X. Using a combination of critical thinking and research, we are narrowing the room for interpretation until we ultimately reach a sufficient amount of evidence that leaves room for no interpretation. We will then be able to fully and accurately describe X at that point. Granted, this is nearly impossible to accomplish and there will always be a need for some interpretation. Therefore, I agree with everything in your last e-mail! Just more to the point and eloquently then I have been saying it.

You asked "Will we ever really know the truth?" The answer is obviously no. However, that doesn't mean we should stop seeking it and it doesn't mean that some methods of finding truth are unreliable!

Bryan

Bryan,


I think we have much agreement on the nature of truth. And I do wonder, say 100 years from now as truth continues to unfold, if humans then will know that some methods of finding truth that we now consider reliable - are much less so.

- Bruce

Bruce,


That is a very good question. I would like to say that I can't think of a way of discovering truth than is better than science. However, because I recognize that this is fallacious (being an argumentum ad ignorantiam,) I have to say that there could be a way in the future of discovering truth more reliably or accurately. Although, I have no idea how likely this is.

Bryan

Bryan,


Actually, what I was thinking of is that scientific methods (broadly speaking) are constantly changing, and today's experts know that some of yesteryear's accepted methods of determining truth are not really reliable and/or are incomplete or fall short.

However, it is quite possible (as you indicate) that "science" (as we understand it) a hundred or two or three hundred years from now will be unacceptable in the search for truth, replaced by something that today we cannot imagine.

- Bruce

I hope you enjoyed this dialog because I know I sure did!  If you have any questions, suggestions, or you disagree with me, e-mail me at brbailey@umd.edu.  If you have a comment specific to the content in this post (by me or Dr. Gourley), feel free to leave a comment below!  Have a great day!