Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Andrew Sullivan: Embrace your Inner Atheist.


One of the blogs which I read is Andrew Sullivan. He often makes sense, though not always. While he has been a strong opponent of fundamentalist Christianism he is religious. And now and then he goes into his faith babble and when he does he often becomes totally incoherent. I heard him lecture in Amsterdam and remember some of the kind of comments he made.

One particularly incoherent comment of his was along these lines: “I believe because I doubt, I doubt because I believe.” It is the kind of rhetoric one can only get away with when talking theology. I suspect that is because most people assume theology isn’t supposed to be understandable anyway. After all we are talking about the “mysterious” and the “unknowable”. In others words it is about people saying incoherent things about topics which they know nothing about and deny the ability to know anything about. Yet one is always faced with them talking about it -- often endlessly.

Now if this makes no sense to the human mind, if it is unknowable then logically we can have nothing to say about it. In fact we can’t even claim that it is unknowable since that is to claim some knowledge about it.

Sullivan is having an on-line debate with Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith. And while I won’t report on the debate here is a section of what Sullivan said, and this is what I want to comment upon.

Sullivan talks about “truth” but what is his truth? First, can you have truth without a comprehending mind? Is there truth if there is only immaterial objects or lower order animals incapable of rational thought? I’m wondering if you can even speak of truth outside the existence of man. Otherwise what you have is just existence. But “truth” is not another word for existence. It is an evaluation about a theory of existence. When we say something is truth we are saying it is a theory that, in comparison with existence, is rationally shown to be valid.

So for truth to exist you need a human mind, developing a theory, comparing the theory to the reality of existence and then logically appraising it as valid. But for Sullivan “truth” is a vague term that can not be as I’ve describe it. For instance he says that there is no conflict between reason and faith “since both are reconciled by a Truth that may yet be beyond our understanding.”

What sort of truth is that? If it is beyond our understanding how does he know it is ‘truth”? He can’t. But he realizes there are problems between faith and reason so the invents an explanation that is not an explanation at all -- it is truth that is yet beyond our understanding.

Further theobabble from Andrew: “But just because that Truth may be beyond our human understanding does not mean it is therefore in a cosmic sense unreasonable.” This is what I mean about saying things that sound profound but lack any substantive meaning. There are facts we don’t know. But “true” is not an evaluation of existence. Existence simple is. It can neither be true nor false.

To say there is truth we don’t understand is an absurdity since truth is an evaluation of our estimation of existence. If we have no understanding we have no theory and we are saying nothing. You can not evaluate nothing as true or false.

More theobabble: “At some point faith has to abandon reason for mystery -- but that does not mean -- and need never mean -- abandoning reason altogether.” Here is how I see what this means: when we invent gods and the supernatural we are getting into things which by definition are invalid rationally, so we call them mysteries. Of course he has to say this a mystery because there is no reason or logic to it. The entire premise is false. Now they will attempt to smuggle in premises and then logically argue based on the false premises. But when you challenge the false premises they either try to smuggle in further false premises or appeal to mysteries, the unknowable, etc.

Always at the bottom of theology there is a foundation of emptiness. They may construct great edifices of logic but these are based on ultimate premises that are vacuums. You go down to the foundation and find a black hole staring back at you. Everything that is based on a nothing is itself nothing.

Andrew talks about “mystery as the core reality of any religious life.” Notice he smuggled in the idea that this mystery, this black hole, is somehow reality. The vacuum at the bottom of religion is not reality. It is the absence of reality. Andrew tells Harris that he finds religion troubling “purely because it upholds truths that cannot be proven empirically or even, in some respects, logically.”

Then by what standard does he call these things “truths”?

When we say that something is true we specifically mean that the statement that is made is consistent with reality and has been demonstrated as such. When Andrew speaks of true he speaks of things which are not demonstrated and which apparently can’t be demonstrated. Truth has no meaning in that sense. Any statement, no matter how absurd, could be true since truth no longer is tied to demonstrating the reasonableness of a theory.

What Sullivan does, whether it is his intention or not, is to chuck our reason and logic. But since he is not a fundamentalist he does this. He accepts reason and logic for most things. But there are things he wants to believe, things for which there is no evidence that can be verified. So for the things he feels emotionally attached to, but which for which there is no evidence, he then invents a second means of understanding which he calls faith. It is trotted out to justify beliefs that can not be justified in any other way.

He likes the pageantry and ritual of Catholicism. Its theater for him. He doesn’t accept most the doctrines of Catholicism. He thinks them wrong on most such issues. In the film Jeffrey, the main character seeks out a priest for advice. But he finds a priest who is an atheist who find meaning instead in Broadway show tunes. I see Andrew as somewhat like that priest. He has abandoned most the doctrine, clings to a few ideas he finds comfort in (ideas that make him feel good) and then finds meaning in the theater of religion -- the show tunes, if you will.

Take away the theater of Catholicism and he’d lose the last thing about the church that really seems to inspire him. But then he’d cling to the “feel good” ideas about a deity just because they meet some emotional need. But find comfort in ideas does not make the ideas truth. And throwing out reason and logic so truth means nothing doesn’t solve the problem.

Here is my theory about Andrew Sullivan. At his core there is atheist screaming to come out. But there is a frightened individual fearful that meaning will vanish is his god dies. So he indulges in theobabble that sounds profound but which is an intellectual void. My advice: come out of the closet, embrace your inner atheist.

16 Comments:

Blogger David said...

“But just because that Truth may be beyond our human understanding does not mean it is therefore in a cosmic sense unreasonable.”

Sullivan is using the word "Truth" to define the entirety of existance. Which he is quite correct in saying is beyond our understanding, and most likely always will be, given that humans are limited beings. Sullivan Beleives in a god that has both a comprehending mind and complete omniscence, therefore he is using the word "Truth" as that being's knowledge. If we became all knowing entities ourselves it would be our "Truth" as well.

I consider myself an emotional liberalist. Liberalism to me is not representitive of the limitations of reality. We may be forced to pay taxes, obey the rules of society, and conform to certain ideals. However that does not make us any less free than the fact that we cannot sprout wings from our back and fly to the moon.

Freedom is an emotion, and sometimes that emotion can be attained by giving away control to other people. Like when two people marry for love. Sometimes you can get it by giving control to an invisible man that lives in the sky. It may be a life long commitment, or a ritual devoid of reason, but the emotional influence is what matters.

Now, this isn't always a good thing. That can be how evil dictators arise. Afterall, dictators do not rule by force, they rule by influence, one person cannot force the world to do their bidding alone. But if he is not harming others with his faith, I see no reason to oppose it.

He has not "Thrown out logic" as you suggest, since no logical argument can be made for or against the existance of god. I myself sit in the middle, I came to the conclusion that I am much happier not making the decision as to whether there is a god or not, and that is what this is all about. The only correct decision is one that leads to an emotional gain. If he finds comfort in beleiving in god, if it helps him acheive what he wants to achieve, assuming what he wants does not conflict with the rest of us, I fail to see why he should embrace atheism. Since the beleif that there is no god is just as illogical as the beleif that there is one.

For you, I assume, the burden of proof belongs to the beleivers to prove the existance of god. However, I've always found that part of critical thinking to be quite subjective in nature, especially when it comes to theology.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

David, I think you're out in left field with your emotional definitions. Freedom is a state of being, not an emotion.

NGZ, I think your problem lies in a personal misunderstanding of the definition of Truth. Of course, philosophers I suppose have debated since the beginning of time on the question of "what is Truth?" If we simply define "truth" as a synopsis of that which is True, and not False, we come closer to finding a useful answer. So how do we come to a realization of what is True? Well sometimes (many times rather) we lack the capability of discovering what is True, and so that leaves us theorizing about that which is true and that which is false.

And I think that's what Sullivan is saying, and I think he'd be right. It's not "theobabble" as you've labeled it, when you understand what he's saying in the context I've provided.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

David: I find your definition of freedom rather bizarre but consistent with your socialism -- sometimes freedom “can be attained by giving away control to other people”. Now if you want to give away control of your life to others then do so but the problem arises when the freedom of other people is taken from them in the process.

You say that being forced by the state makes no less free than the fact that we can’t sprout wings. That is uber irrational. I mean that is really going to new heights (or depths) of absurdity. You are saying that if we use force against others that this is no different than the other person not being able to do the impossible. Of course leaving people alone is possible and sprouting wings is not. Why is it that socialists find the need to play down the monstrous nature of using force against people? Is it because their system is inherently coercive? I think so. You have basically said that the lack of coercion is the same thing as sprouting wings -- just a fantasy that has no ability to be real. My morality doesn’t allow me to use force on others. Apparently yours does.

I didn’t say Sullivan was harming others with his theobabble. I said it was irrational. I oppose his ideas because they are irrational thought I can understand why a socialist would not be opposed to irrationality either.

His arguments threw out logic. They were nonsense. What he did was throw out logic for an entire segment of his beliefs, in other words he holds them for no reason. And the idea that the “only correct decision is one that leads to an emotional gain” is really troublesome. There are many very sick people in the world who find emotional gain in doing very nasty things to others.
And you really go off the deep end. You say there is no proof there is a god and no proof there isn’t. Much as there is no proof you are not a murderer I guess. So therefore it is irrational to say that you are not a cold blooded killer!

The atheist typically argues that there is no reason to believe there is a god. And if there is no evidence for something one doesn’t accept it. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a god, not the assertion that there is no god. An atheist could say both but someone who asserts only the former is still an atheist.

There is never evidence for the negative. We have no proof there are NO aliens or that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Under your logic you would have to say that belief that there is no Santa is as illogical as the belief that there is one.

And the point I made to Mr. Sullivan is that he should embrace his inner atheist because I find him to be so close to being an atheist that it’s almost funny. What I am saying is that he ought to acknowledge what already seems to be the case. In other words he needs to come of the closet -- again.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

Interestingly enough, we have government sponsored programs as well as privately funded programs actively looking for aliens, and Santa Claus was a real person in history at one time.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Typical "clear head Calvinist thinking". I said we have there is never evidence for a negative "WE have no proof there are no aliens or that Santa Claus doesn't exist." That is still true in spite of the rejoinder by Publius that doesn't address that point at all. In fact he doesn't even come close. He merely notes that some people are looking for positive evidence of aliens (and not finding it). Why are they looking for positive evidence? Because you can't look for negative evidence. That supports what I said about proving a negative. And Santa Claus never existed. There was a man Nicholas in Turkey who gave away his inheritance (part of the Gospels claim that wealth is evil and will keep you from heaven). Later the Dutch invented a folk tale based on the Nicholas character, Saint Nicholas. That folk tale was later turned into the character of Santa Claus (with the help of Coca Cola). But there never was a man who flew around the world in a sleigh pulled by reindeer and jumped down chimneys to leave presents. And there is no evidence such a figure ever existed and by necessity no evidence one didn't. You can no more prove he didn't exist than you can prove any negative. You can prove there is no god, no tooth fairy, no Loch Ness monster, and as Dawkins puts it, no teapot floating around the sun.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

I was being glib there, NGZ. It would be a bit more fun with we could remember to laugh every once in a while in our weighty discussions. :)

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

There is no way to tell glibbness from a written post. And given some of the arguments you have presented in the past it is hard to sometimes tell when you are serious and when you aren't.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

Meh. I think we've taken each other too seriously. I'll try to keep it a little more light than it has been in the past.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger David said...

"Now if you want to give away control of your life to others then do so but the problem arises when the freedom of other people is taken from them in the process. "

Yes, and that is what I said in my original post.

"You say that being forced by the state makes no less free than the fact that we can’t sprout wings. That is uber irrational. "

I'm sure some people here might disagree with this, but for the sake of arguement, let's assume for a second that society cannot function without some kind of taxation. Reality has imposed a limitation on you, not simply the state, you have to pay taxes, not because the state tells you but because society could not function properly without it. Reality has also imposed the limitation that you cannot sprout wings from your back and fly to the moon. That is the comparison I am making. The issue is not about what either of us define as freedom, the issue is about what is possible and what is not.

Now, you may think that people do not need society, to which I say... bollocks. Society will exist in some form whether we define it ourselves or not. But it's form is way up in the air if we don't set rules for it.

You may also think that I am wrong about society needing some form of taxation, which you are entitled to beleive, fair enough. But don't think that all socialists are evil dictators for making you do something that we think is necessary. You just need to do a better job at convincing us that it won't lead to a complete breakdown of society. As the person challenging the status quo, The burden of proof belongs to you. If you're wrong, it will affect us just as much as you afterall.

"And the idea that the “only correct decision is one that leads to an emotional gain” is really troublesome. There are many very sick people in the world who find emotional gain in doing very nasty things to others. "

I was using that statement in this particular context. Sullivan isn't doing anything nasty to anyone.

"The atheist typically argues that there is no reason to believe there is a god. And if there is no evidence for something one doesn’t accept it. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a god, not the assertion that there is no god. An atheist could say both but someone who asserts only the former is still an atheist."

I guess I'm an athiest then. However, you seemed to misunderstand my statement about, "Burden of proof". Burden of proof is usually assigned to whoever challenges the status quo. Innocent until proven guilty ETC. The concept of a devine being(s) has been around a lot longer than atheism. For some, the burden of proof would belong to you to prove god does not exist. Who the burden of proof belongs to in this instance however, is a matter of opinion.

January 18, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

I'm sure some people here might disagree with this, but for the sake of arguement, let's assume for a second that society cannot function without some kind of taxation.

Why would one ever assume such a thing? Certainly if this assumption could ever be true, then your line of reasoning may be worth pursuing, but the assumption itself is absurd. "Society" is simply 2 or more beings who interact in some form or another. The level of society that we have achieved is usually based on some sort of dominent power or individual or group of individuals, but this need not be. It simply is this way because we've made it this way. And in our current society, the dominent group has chosen to support itself on the backs of those they dominate, in the form of taxation.

When we're done with this conversation, I'd like to challenge NGZs definition of Atheism, vs. Agnosticism, and the variations in between.

January 19, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

It is not difficult to understand. The word atheist is means a=theist or "without god". It defines a lack of a position. The theist believes in a theos or god. The a-theist is one without a belief in a god. People who define themselves as agnostics typically do not hold a belief in a god. They are without a belief in a god and are thus atheists as well. They differ from the strong atheist only in the degree of their lack of belief. They hold no belief in a god but say they can't prove that. The strong atheist says firmly that god does not exist. George Smith covers this well in his book Atheism: The Case Against God.

In the same vein an anarchist is one who doesn't believe in government. Atheism is category to describe people who do not affirm the existence of a deity. Now the typical Christian tries to tell atheists that what the word really means is the belief that there is no god as opposed to the lack of a belief in a god. Most atheists don't fall for that. The word has a rather precise meaning as noted in the origins of it. And it merely is one who lacks a belief in a deity. Hence when it comes to Allah even Publius is technically an atheist as he is about Poseiden and Zeus as well.

January 19, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

I once heard Ravi Zacharias differentiate between various types of agnosticism and atheism. If I remember correctly, he said that the Atheist says that there is no god and he has not spoken because he does not exist, the hard agnostic says we do not know if there is a god, but he has not spoken regardless, and the soft agnostic says we don't know if there is a god and we don't know if he has spoken. I may be misquoting that though.

It doesn't really matter how you catagorize it, I suppose. Why do you take the stance of the "strong Atheist," instead of the softer stance of simply stating we don't know if there's a god? That's an honest question, so don't read condemnation into it or anything. I'm just curious about your personal opinion.

January 19, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

What a fundie minister said is not pertinent and nothing said there contradicts what I said.

January 19, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

I wasn't trying to contradict what you said. I was simply sharing his perspective on the matter, because I thought it was insightful. What about my question?

January 19, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

I will write essays on topics if and when I prefer to do so. That you wish me to discuss topics does not give me a sufficient reason to do so. I set my agenda here.

January 19, 2007

 
Blogger David said...

"Why would one ever assume such a thing? Certainly if this assumption could ever be true, then your line of reasoning may be worth pursuing, but the assumption itself is absurd."

My "assumption" is not an assumption on my part, I simply haven't seen an alternative, and I have looked.

"The level of society that we have achieved is usually based on some sort of dominent power or individual or group of individuals, but this need not be. It simply is this way because we've made it this way. And in our current society, the dominent group has chosen to support itself on the backs of those they dominate, in the form of taxation."

I agree, entirely, in some ways democracy is just another form of dictatorship. However, as dictatorship's go, it's not so bad. The level of coercion required is low, direct force is not usually required to enforce it's survival. People pay taxes because for the most part, they're quite reasonable (to the majority), and if they're not we can vote the government out in a few years. Everyone has a voice that they can use to influence change.

Like I said, taxation is the status quo, and therefore the assumption is that this is the way to do things, and it's up to people like yourself to challenge it if you beleive you can do things better.

I'm a centrist voter myself, I don't like either political or economic influences having too much power in society. One can lead to Communism while the other can lead to Fascism. When all is said and done however, I would prefer a more conceptual based system that eliminates the problems you describe without the risks involved with a leave-alone free market system.

PS: My apologies for going so far off-topic NGZ. I started out using it as an example but I guess it got a bit beyond that.

January 19, 2007

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites