As someone who has been dealing with these issues for the past two decades, hearing the same, first-year undergraduate arguments about God's existence, about the nefarious social influence of religion, and about the possibility of a secular ethic is really quite tiresome. Yet, at "On Faith", Sally Quinn gives space to Herb Silverman, who founded and is President of something called the Secular Coalition of America. Wow, how counter-cultural.
As to the first, that is God's existence, my response anymore is, "Who cares?" God's existence is no more dependent upon some kind of argument deemed "rational" or "logical" than is the existence of gravity, evolution, or second law of thermodynamics. Whether or not an individual, or a whole planet for that matter, believes in God or not no more renders God non-existent than a refusal to accept the evidence for evolution somehow renders the theory invalid. Most first-year undergraduates who take some kind of survey class in western thought run up against the same arguments Silverman offers here. While they might be exhilarating to an 18-year-old who is hearing them for the first time, their novelty wore off a long time ago.
As to the question of "belief" and its social dimension, I cannot imagine an issue for which I care less than perhaps the previous one. All social phenomena have both good and bad aspects, religion among the rest. Since Silverman has no idea what he's talking about when he speaks of belief, as it operates for Christian believers at any rate; since Silverman seems to think that Christianity is the sum total of religious expression in the United States (odd, considering his surname), his argument is nonsensical from the get-go, because other religions define belief, and the content thereof in completely different ways, and live it out in ways that are alien to the Christian mind-set.
Finally, is it surprising to anyone, after nearly 200 years of doing so, that there are ethical codes that are quite successful that have nothing at all to do with God? It shouldn't be, at least to anyone who has been paying attention. Yet, to judge from the readers comments, as well as Silverman's, one finds the idea somehow fresh and new to some people. Again, it might be a good idea for them to return to undergraduate school and take a survey class in Enlightenment, Romantic, and modernist/post-modernist thought.
Like conservatives who spew out gobbledygook, the best way to treat nonsense like this is not to respond to it, but just point and laugh. When adults are carrying on a conversation, and a child interrupts, we usually stare for a moment then carry on as usual. Best way to treat garbage like this as well.
6 comments:
"Finally, is it surprising to anyone, after nearly 200 years of doing so, that there are ethical codes that are quite successful that have nothing at all to do with God?"
Such as? I mean besides support for abortion and homosex marriage?
"Like conservatives who spew out gobbledygook, the best way to treat nonsense like this is not to respond to it, but just point and laugh."
You aren't capable of arguing against conservatism, that's why you point and laugh. It's easier to posture one's self in the "well if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you" mode than to actually muster up the balls to engage in real debate. I doubt you're even truly fooling yourself, but instead just feel safe knowing that you don't have to justify your goofy liberal, what would you call it? gobbletygook.
(Snicker.)
Maybe if I ignore him he'll just go away.
Taxation without representation can be found right in Leviticus... no, I mean Ephesians... ah, no... I mean the Cyrus cylinder... no wait, that wasn't God... um....
Moving on to "presumption of innocence," that's right there in John 19... I mean, I mean Hebrews 10... no? Well...
Due process?
Freedom of Speech is God given, right? Right? Somewhere in Romans...?
Well, now, carrying a gun is surely God given. Paul probably carried a gun himself!
Humm, let's go to abortion.
________
For some crazy reason, MA thinks balls can be mustered. Boy, he really is trapped in the 1700s.
Welcome back, Feodor! I was getting concerned about you, as you no doubt have heard. Hope all is well with you and yours.
In any event, that's the really sad thing about your run of the mill "conservative" - even their errors aren't original, just their sin.
While I am quite sure that Marshall Art is sincere in his beliefs, that doesn't make them any less incoherent. Sincere incoherence is something many people have in common.
I've been concerned about Feodor from the first comment of his I'd read. Quite similar to the concern I have for you, Geoffrey, and you too, ER.
I understand your desire to hope those like myself just go away. Children often hope the folks will leave so they can carry on in their childishness. Indeed, to see yourselves as the adults is truly sad and pathetic considering so little of your beliefs truly deal with adult attitudes about life. Liberalism by nature is greatly lacking in maturity.
But I'm always here for you guys.
Post a Comment