Campus for Christ is all over campus advertising for their upcoming debate. Of course, I ended up having a run in with one of their members.
Their members tend to try to strike up conversation with anyone who passes by or shows a faint interest in their event. The person I ended up talking to quickly realized I was an atheist (I don't exactly hide it), and started arguing that there must be a god... because the earth can't be more than a few thousand years old.
I was amazed to find out that I was speaking with a young earth creationist. He seemed convinced that it was a tenable scientific position that more and more scientists are taking (when I asked where the peer reviewed journal articles are, he claimed there was a hidden agenda in the review committees of all scientific journals).
The entire encounter left me wondering - how common are young earth creationists in Canada? The only statistic I could find (from http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24747) claims "26 percent of Canadians believe 'that God created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so'".
The irony of all of this is that, under my sweater, I was wearing this shirt. If 26% of Canadians are young earth creationists, maybe the satire isn't as obvious as I had hoped (Poe's Law in action?).
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Soul Cravings - Book Review
Campus For Christ gives out a number of books free around campus. One of them is Soul Cravings, by Erwin McManus, which I took the time to read recently.
Before I get into the actual book, I want to give a warning. The book for some reason doesn't number its pages (despite having 200-300 pages), so in order to reference any part of the book, I am going to have to cite the section of the book (the sections being Intimacy, Destiny, Meaning and Seek, in that order), and then the entry number - quite a cumbersome way to cite anything, and not as accurate as a page number since the entries span 2-5 pages.
The theme of this book is that we all have "cravings of the soul", things we can't deny and which are just part of life. Of course, the only way to satisfy these cravings is to accept God and Jesus Christ. The very fact that we have these cravings is (according to the book) evidence of God's existence and that evolution doesn't work. I will quickly overview each section, then go back and look at all of the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist bullshit that is found throughout the book.
The first section of the book is Intimacy. It argues we all crave and need love. And (here it comes), we need God in order to have love: "When we are disconnected from God, we find ourselves increasingly empty of love" (Intimacy, Entry 14). The section seems to be claiming something like this: Some people have abandonment issues which makes it hard for them to love God, God is needed to feel love, we all need love, so those poor little atheists are all just sad, loveless people that have been hurt at some point in their lives.
Second section: Destiny. This section is supposed to be an uplifting section about how we can all reach our dreams if we want. Our dreams are cravings of our soul, which of course can't be explained by evolution. Life is meaningless if there is no God (Entry 17) and our souls long for god when we are "hiding in a cave" even if we are atheists (Entry 12).
The third section is entitled Meaning. It's about the soul's craving for truth. We seek truth in different ways, for example faith or reason, which are both pretty much the same thing. Philosophy apparently tells us we can't believe in an objective reality, science tells us we must believe in nothing except the material world, and so they are opposed to one another. Atheists claim they can't believe in what they can't see, yet they believe in oxygen (Entry 9).
The final section, Seek, is really just the summary of the other sections.
Now that we have a quick summary of the book, let's look a bit more closely at it, particularly the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist stuff. I will just be picking quotes from the books that convey the overall message.
"[B]y all theories of aerodynamics and physics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly, but it can. No scientific reason why it should; it just does" (Destiny, Entry 4) which is of course, completely false (see Wikipedia on bumblebee flight).
Randy, who suffers from a form of dwarfism and was not expected to live long past birth, is quoted approvingly as saying: "'I am living proof that Darwin was wrong - or at least had a poor definition of who was the most fit to survive'" (Destiny, Entry 4). Note that Darwin didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", and the phrase refers to reproductive fitness, not necessarily physical fitness; this quote simply betrays a profound ignorance about evolution. This is one of the many, many quotes that take shots at evolution while simultaneously showing a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.
"If there were no God, it would be inane for us to search for significance or to be ambitious for success" (Destiny, Entry 18). No reason is given for this, except in the previous chapter where it is claimed that if we have to die, life is meaningless for some reason.
"Somehow we know it's not supposed to be a dog-eat-dog world. If it's all evolutionary, then we should be motivated only by survival of the fittest" (Destiny, Entry 19). What would it mean to be motivated "only by survival of the fittest"? I don't even know where his thinking has gone wrong, since I don't even know what he thinks that would mean.
"If you step back and extract the emotion and look at it objectively, you begin to realize that faith and reason have a lot in common. Oh, they come to different conclusions, but they're both trying to do the same thing" (Meaning, Entry 4). He admits that faith and reason come to different conclusions. Too easy?
"We live in a time when philosophers question even the existence of reality" (Meaning, Entry 5). No names, philosophical movements, or anything is given to back up this claim. So who are these philosophers? How is this new, considering Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, etc. all questioned the existence of reality in some way or other and lived centuries ago? It certainly isn't the case that most philosophers doubt the existence of reality, if that is what he is trying to say here...
"Our philosophers went searching for truth, and when they returned, they told us that there is no truth to be known, that nothing is true, and that all we can do is create our own truth and hope for the best" (Meaning, Entry 8). See comments about the preceding quote.
"For some, to believe in God is way too much of a stretch. They consider it an insult to their intelligence. For them believing in something they cannot see is absurd. And if you talk about the effect of God on people's lives, they will insist that secondary evidence is not good enough. It has to be primary, or it's not real. So then there is love. Some people who do not believe in God are consistent and don't believe in love either" (Seek). The implication is, if you don't believe in God but believe in love, you are inconsistent, since you can't see either! There are huge disanalogies here, plus the implication is built on a straw-man (I believe in plenty of things I can't see, and not being able to see them isn't the reason I don't believe in any gods - though if I COULD see a god, it would probably cause me to believe in it).
"[M]y nonscientific research has found a direct correlation between losing faith in love and losing faith in God" (Seek). Keyword: nonscientific.
So, overall, this book is an anti-intellectual screed that, if nothing else, helps to perpetuate silly misconceptions about atheists and anti-scientific views among Christians.
Before I get into the actual book, I want to give a warning. The book for some reason doesn't number its pages (despite having 200-300 pages), so in order to reference any part of the book, I am going to have to cite the section of the book (the sections being Intimacy, Destiny, Meaning and Seek, in that order), and then the entry number - quite a cumbersome way to cite anything, and not as accurate as a page number since the entries span 2-5 pages.
The theme of this book is that we all have "cravings of the soul", things we can't deny and which are just part of life. Of course, the only way to satisfy these cravings is to accept God and Jesus Christ. The very fact that we have these cravings is (according to the book) evidence of God's existence and that evolution doesn't work. I will quickly overview each section, then go back and look at all of the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist bullshit that is found throughout the book.
The first section of the book is Intimacy. It argues we all crave and need love. And (here it comes), we need God in order to have love: "When we are disconnected from God, we find ourselves increasingly empty of love" (Intimacy, Entry 14). The section seems to be claiming something like this: Some people have abandonment issues which makes it hard for them to love God, God is needed to feel love, we all need love, so those poor little atheists are all just sad, loveless people that have been hurt at some point in their lives.
Second section: Destiny. This section is supposed to be an uplifting section about how we can all reach our dreams if we want. Our dreams are cravings of our soul, which of course can't be explained by evolution. Life is meaningless if there is no God (Entry 17) and our souls long for god when we are "hiding in a cave" even if we are atheists (Entry 12).
The third section is entitled Meaning. It's about the soul's craving for truth. We seek truth in different ways, for example faith or reason, which are both pretty much the same thing. Philosophy apparently tells us we can't believe in an objective reality, science tells us we must believe in nothing except the material world, and so they are opposed to one another. Atheists claim they can't believe in what they can't see, yet they believe in oxygen (Entry 9).
The final section, Seek, is really just the summary of the other sections.
Now that we have a quick summary of the book, let's look a bit more closely at it, particularly the anti-intellectualism and anti-atheist stuff. I will just be picking quotes from the books that convey the overall message.
"[B]y all theories of aerodynamics and physics, the bumblebee should not be able to fly, but it can. No scientific reason why it should; it just does" (Destiny, Entry 4) which is of course, completely false (see Wikipedia on bumblebee flight).
Randy, who suffers from a form of dwarfism and was not expected to live long past birth, is quoted approvingly as saying: "'I am living proof that Darwin was wrong - or at least had a poor definition of who was the most fit to survive'" (Destiny, Entry 4). Note that Darwin didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", and the phrase refers to reproductive fitness, not necessarily physical fitness; this quote simply betrays a profound ignorance about evolution. This is one of the many, many quotes that take shots at evolution while simultaneously showing a complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.
"If there were no God, it would be inane for us to search for significance or to be ambitious for success" (Destiny, Entry 18). No reason is given for this, except in the previous chapter where it is claimed that if we have to die, life is meaningless for some reason.
"Somehow we know it's not supposed to be a dog-eat-dog world. If it's all evolutionary, then we should be motivated only by survival of the fittest" (Destiny, Entry 19). What would it mean to be motivated "only by survival of the fittest"? I don't even know where his thinking has gone wrong, since I don't even know what he thinks that would mean.
"If you step back and extract the emotion and look at it objectively, you begin to realize that faith and reason have a lot in common. Oh, they come to different conclusions, but they're both trying to do the same thing" (Meaning, Entry 4). He admits that faith and reason come to different conclusions. Too easy?
"We live in a time when philosophers question even the existence of reality" (Meaning, Entry 5). No names, philosophical movements, or anything is given to back up this claim. So who are these philosophers? How is this new, considering Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, etc. all questioned the existence of reality in some way or other and lived centuries ago? It certainly isn't the case that most philosophers doubt the existence of reality, if that is what he is trying to say here...
"Our philosophers went searching for truth, and when they returned, they told us that there is no truth to be known, that nothing is true, and that all we can do is create our own truth and hope for the best" (Meaning, Entry 8). See comments about the preceding quote.
"For some, to believe in God is way too much of a stretch. They consider it an insult to their intelligence. For them believing in something they cannot see is absurd. And if you talk about the effect of God on people's lives, they will insist that secondary evidence is not good enough. It has to be primary, or it's not real. So then there is love. Some people who do not believe in God are consistent and don't believe in love either" (Seek). The implication is, if you don't believe in God but believe in love, you are inconsistent, since you can't see either! There are huge disanalogies here, plus the implication is built on a straw-man (I believe in plenty of things I can't see, and not being able to see them isn't the reason I don't believe in any gods - though if I COULD see a god, it would probably cause me to believe in it).
"[M]y nonscientific research has found a direct correlation between losing faith in love and losing faith in God" (Seek). Keyword: nonscientific.
So, overall, this book is an anti-intellectual screed that, if nothing else, helps to perpetuate silly misconceptions about atheists and anti-scientific views among Christians.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
"What Does It Matter?"
First, let me apologize for my long absence from blogging. I will be making more of an effort, now that I am back in classes, to write blog posts fairly regularly (no promises on this).
Onto this post: while strolling down the halls of my school, I happened upon a poster asking the question "DNA: DESIGN OR CHANCE?" Of course, immediately I knew this was an advertisement for some sort of religious organization - who but a creationist would pose this false dichotomy (natural selection works on chance mutations, but of course this means there is selection involved as well, which is the very opposite of chance)? In the bottom left of the poster, there was the logo for Campus for Christ, possibly the biggest and best funded Christian club on campus (out of the dozen or so that there are). The only other information on the poster was a website: ultimatequestions.org
Apparently William Craig is going to be coming to the University of Waterloo, and debating Christopher diCarlo. I had heard months ago that William Craig was going to be in Waterloo, and that Campus for Christ was interested in hosting a debate with him against an atheist. Someone had left an email address with one of the members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers of Waterloo. I emailed the address, showing an interest in co-hosting this event. I never got any information about what was going on, and no one else attempted to contact me, so I didn't know that the debate was still going to happen. Apparently it is, and quite soon, too (for those interested, see the "Ultimate Questions" site and click the "Events" tab).
While browsing the Ultimate Questions site, I checked out the articles they had. While two of the three articles seemed to just be a rehash of the same old design argument garbage, one, by William Craig, was entitled "What Does It Matter?" This is the article that made me decide I need to finally write another blog post.
The article is extremely short, so I will just quote it in full here (if you want to read it without my commentary, go to the Ultimate Questions site and click "articles"). The article outlines three reasons why it makes a difference whether God exists or not. While I don't think I would disagree that it matters whether God exists or not (if a Christian god exists, for example, I would be much more concerned about making sure I get into heaven), Craig's article is actually just an attack on atheism:
Finally, Craig's last point (quoted more for completion than anything else):
Onto this post: while strolling down the halls of my school, I happened upon a poster asking the question "DNA: DESIGN OR CHANCE?" Of course, immediately I knew this was an advertisement for some sort of religious organization - who but a creationist would pose this false dichotomy (natural selection works on chance mutations, but of course this means there is selection involved as well, which is the very opposite of chance)? In the bottom left of the poster, there was the logo for Campus for Christ, possibly the biggest and best funded Christian club on campus (out of the dozen or so that there are). The only other information on the poster was a website: ultimatequestions.org
Apparently William Craig is going to be coming to the University of Waterloo, and debating Christopher diCarlo. I had heard months ago that William Craig was going to be in Waterloo, and that Campus for Christ was interested in hosting a debate with him against an atheist. Someone had left an email address with one of the members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers of Waterloo. I emailed the address, showing an interest in co-hosting this event. I never got any information about what was going on, and no one else attempted to contact me, so I didn't know that the debate was still going to happen. Apparently it is, and quite soon, too (for those interested, see the "Ultimate Questions" site and click the "Events" tab).
While browsing the Ultimate Questions site, I checked out the articles they had. While two of the three articles seemed to just be a rehash of the same old design argument garbage, one, by William Craig, was entitled "What Does It Matter?" This is the article that made me decide I need to finally write another blog post.
The article is extremely short, so I will just quote it in full here (if you want to read it without my commentary, go to the Ultimate Questions site and click "articles"). The article outlines three reasons why it makes a difference whether God exists or not. While I don't think I would disagree that it matters whether God exists or not (if a Christian god exists, for example, I would be much more concerned about making sure I get into heaven), Craig's article is actually just an attack on atheism:
The following are three reasons why it makes a big difference whether God exists:This is his first reason. I read this and am shocked. Is he actually saying that alleviating suffering doesn't matter? If we have finite lives, doesn't alleviating suffering and promoting the good just become more meaningful? I have trouble even understanding what he is trying to say here. Simply, he is not seeing people as ends in themselves. I fail to see how, if no one is an end in themselves, any meaning is added if we live forever.
1. If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If there is no God, then it makes no ultimate difference whether you ever existed or not. True, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.
Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing.
Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.
2. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. First, there is no hope of deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man’s own inhumanity to man.Craig seems to be very confused here - he seems to think that God is the only possible thing that can save us from any evils. This is one of the things which worry me about theism - the idea that we don't have to work to try to achieve justice, since in the end God just tips the scales and makes everything right again anyways. A simple quote from the Humanist Manifesto II is sufficient to rebut Craig's "point": "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."
The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century’s naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.
Moreover, if there is no God, there is no hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and death. Given atheism, there is no afterlife beyond the grave. Atheism is thus a philosophy without hope.
Finally, Craig's last point (quoted more for completion than anything else):
3. On the other hand, if God does exist, then there is meaning and hope, and the possibility of coming to know God and His love personally. Think of it! That the infinite God should love you and want you to be His personal friend. This would be the highest status a human being could enjoy! Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for you as well.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Bands I Like
Most of the bands I like are very outspoken punk bands that write music with a message. I want to share some of these bands and their messages.
My all-time favourite band. They started out in 1980 (7 years before I was born) and are still active today. They began as a classic 80's punk band, and their older songs reflect this. Their sound has changed significantly over the years. The lead singer, Greg Graffin, is an outspoken atheist and humanist (he recently received the Harvard Secular Society's "Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism"), and also happens to have a Ph.D in zoology and lectures at the University of California, Los Angelas.
Notable songs/lyrics:
Let Them Eat War (from The Empire Strikes First)
Let them eat war
That's how to ration the poor
Don't Pray On Me (from Recipe For Hate)
Now I don't know what stopped Jesus Christ
From turning every hungry stone into bread
And I don't remember hearing how Moses reacted
When the innocent first born sons lay dead
Well, I guess God was a lot more demonstrative
Back when he flamboyantly parted the sea
Now everybody's praying
Don't pray on me
Before You Die (from New Maps of Hell)
As you ruminate the hopeless sands of time,
Do you wonder how your life has been defined?
You know eternity can't ever change your mind.
So think! Think before you die!
Another great punk rock band, Anti-Flag's message embodies what I think of when I think about punk rock. They are against war, violence, greed, sexism, nationalism, and homophobia. All of the band members are vegan.
Notable songs/lyrics:
Right to Choose (from Mobilize)
Judged by parents and the public
The fingers pointed at them
Well I'll point mine right back
They must realize
You can't change whom you love
And gender is not the issue
911 For Peace (from Mobilize)
This is a plea for peace (world peace)
To the oppressors of the world and to
To the leaders of nations, corporate profit takers, to the every day citizen Greed, envy, fear, hate, the competition has to stop.
When you see someone down, now's the time to pick them up
Set our differences aside and never look back, again
Emigre (from For Blood and Empire)
First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out.
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out.
Next they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out.
AND THEN THEY CAME FOR ME
Although not well known, Intro5pect is an amazing band. They blend electronic music with their punk sound, giving them an original sound.
Notable songs/lyrics
No More Time (from Intro5pect)
No more time
For petty insecurity
No more time
For social inequality
Crooked Lies (Make Baby Jesus Cry) (from Realpolitik!)
I'm a fucking anti-Christ
I believe in no god and don't need your advice
You make lists and rules for you
I'm not going to change your perception of truth
I am the enemy
'cause I believe in science over hypocrisy
Let reason and tolerance be the catalyst
We fight these battles to survive and exist
Don't try to tell us what to think
The War At Home (from Realpolitik!)
To live without a heart
Another migrant family is torn apart
The xenophobia's here
But life inside a bubble that is full of fear
Will crush your soul inside
Another empty shell full of national pride
To live inside a cage
Cutting grass or washing dishes for a slavery wage
Bad Religion
My all-time favourite band. They started out in 1980 (7 years before I was born) and are still active today. They began as a classic 80's punk band, and their older songs reflect this. Their sound has changed significantly over the years. The lead singer, Greg Graffin, is an outspoken atheist and humanist (he recently received the Harvard Secular Society's "Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism"), and also happens to have a Ph.D in zoology and lectures at the University of California, Los Angelas.
Notable songs/lyrics:
Let Them Eat War (from The Empire Strikes First)
Let them eat war
That's how to ration the poor
Don't Pray On Me (from Recipe For Hate)
Now I don't know what stopped Jesus Christ
From turning every hungry stone into bread
And I don't remember hearing how Moses reacted
When the innocent first born sons lay dead
Well, I guess God was a lot more demonstrative
Back when he flamboyantly parted the sea
Now everybody's praying
Don't pray on me
Before You Die (from New Maps of Hell)
As you ruminate the hopeless sands of time,
Do you wonder how your life has been defined?
You know eternity can't ever change your mind.
So think! Think before you die!
Anti-Flag
Another great punk rock band, Anti-Flag's message embodies what I think of when I think about punk rock. They are against war, violence, greed, sexism, nationalism, and homophobia. All of the band members are vegan.
Notable songs/lyrics:
Right to Choose (from Mobilize)
Judged by parents and the public
The fingers pointed at them
Well I'll point mine right back
They must realize
You can't change whom you love
And gender is not the issue
911 For Peace (from Mobilize)
This is a plea for peace (world peace)
To the oppressors of the world and to
To the leaders of nations, corporate profit takers, to the every day citizen Greed, envy, fear, hate, the competition has to stop.
When you see someone down, now's the time to pick them up
Set our differences aside and never look back, again
Emigre (from For Blood and Empire)
First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out.
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out.
Next they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out.
AND THEN THEY CAME FOR ME
Intro5pect
Although not well known, Intro5pect is an amazing band. They blend electronic music with their punk sound, giving them an original sound.
Notable songs/lyrics
No More Time (from Intro5pect)
No more time
For petty insecurity
No more time
For social inequality
Crooked Lies (Make Baby Jesus Cry) (from Realpolitik!)
I'm a fucking anti-Christ
I believe in no god and don't need your advice
You make lists and rules for you
I'm not going to change your perception of truth
I am the enemy
'cause I believe in science over hypocrisy
Let reason and tolerance be the catalyst
We fight these battles to survive and exist
Don't try to tell us what to think
The War At Home (from Realpolitik!)
To live without a heart
Another migrant family is torn apart
The xenophobia's here
But life inside a bubble that is full of fear
Will crush your soul inside
Another empty shell full of national pride
To live inside a cage
Cutting grass or washing dishes for a slavery wage
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
False Dilemma and C.S. Lewis
(click image to go to original comic location)
Most people are familiar with the false dichotomy (or false dilemma) - the fallacy of presenting two possibilities and claiming they are exhaustive when they are not. The first panel of the comic above provides an example.
The last panel in the comic demonstrates a false trichotomy - the presentation of three possibilities as if they form an exhaustive list ("What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?").
Although this fallacy should be easy to spot and recognize, I am amazed at how many Christian websites still use a text-book example of a false tri/dichotomy used in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (an explicit example can be found here and here, though I have also seen sites that don't credit - let alone quote - Lewis, though they use his "argument"). Here it is, from Mere Christianity:
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.This leaves out obvious possibilities. One that immediately springs to mind is that we don't accurately know the sayings of Jesus, so it is completely conceivable that Jesus was a great moral teacher and was misquoted on a few things. Perhaps Jesus was just mistaken - you don't have to be a liar or a lunatic to be mistaken - even about your own identity (especially when you have a group of dedicated followers). A case can be made that Jesus never existed, giving us yet another possibility.
As an aside, let's for a second accept the false trichotomy that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or a god. To me, the first two options are still far superior explanations. The fact that Lewis thought the latter was the best, and put this forward as his only argument in Mere Christianity of Jesus' divinity, really shows the depth of his bias. It's regrettable that so many Christian sites use this argument as if it holds any merit - no non-believer would be the least bit swayed by it.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Introductory Philosophy - A Student's Perspective
Anyone who knows me knows I love philosophy. I am currently getting a minor in philosophy along with my bachelor's degree, and plan on continuing my education with a graduate degree in philosophy. The following is my take on how introductory philosophy courses should be taught. Of course, I have absolutely no expertise in either education or philosophy, but this is my opinion as a student (I do have some expertise in being a student, at least!).
There is a stigma about philosophy - people often say it is boring or pointless or bullshit. I find this very odd. Most of the very same people have strong philosophical positions and will use philosophical argumentation to defend those positions (a friend I had who called philosophy bullshit but would use the argument from design to defend his belief in god comes to mind). There are very few people who don't find philosophical discussions of some kind at least a bit interesting. So why is there this stigma?
As a student, I've taken a number of philosophy courses. There is a definite trend in the way any introductory course to a subject in philosophy is taught. They are almost always taught historically. Knowing some history of philosophy is great, and I am not trying to say it isn't of any use. However, historical philosophy isn't the way to hook people new to the subject!
Much of what Socrates said is only really historically important - his theory of forms is sort of interesting, but pretty much any modern reader being introduced to philosophy would just scoff at it. Before we had developed scientific methods and a rich scientific understanding of the universe, much of philosophy was arm-chair philosophy. Philosophers would make grand claims about the way the world was from their proverbial arm-chairs without having these claims substantiated with a rich understanding of the world. This was fine for those times - they were doing the best they could for their time. But taken as a hypothesis nowadays, many philosophical theories that were put forth at some time seem naive and rest on strange assumptions about the way the world works. When put into context with all the scientific knowledge we now have, they just don't seem to cohere well with what we know now. It's hard to describe exactly why the ideas seem stupid because much of the time there isn't anything that directly contradicts them, it's just that much of our understanding makes the theory unlikely and it is hard to articulate (especially for someone new to philosophy) exactly why a theory seems ridiculous.
This makes philosophy seem pointless - all these philosophers just seem to be sitting around making stupid claims! It gives the impression that this is what philosophy is about. The frustrating claims made suck the fun out of philosophical argumentation. To top things off, all the theories seem to be bullshit.
Talking about old philosophical theories isn't always bad, though. Much ancient philosophy is quite good and can still be enlightening now - to take one example out of many, the problem of evil which was first articulated by Epicurus over two thousand years ago (I don't know if he was the first to put forward this argument, but if not that just further shows that really really old philosophy can be good). This argument is still essential in any philosophical discussion of gods. However, another problem in many introductory philosophy courses is to force students to read a translation of the original author. Even the best of translations are often hard to understand, vague to the point that the professor doesn't know exactly what the author is saying, and use strange analogies and examples that make little sense to the modern reader.
This just compounds the frustration. It's one thing to teach frustrating theories, but to make students read hard-to-understand writings just makes it annoying and boring to study philosophy.
When I first got into philosophy, the book I read was The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law. This book, I think, takes the perfect approach to teaching philosophy. It starts out with the sort of question that would intrigue anyone - the sort of question you and your buddies might argue about sometime (like "Is time travel possible?" "Does god exist?" "Is homosexuality wrong?" "Can robots feel?" etc). It then goes on in a playful dialogue-style, with 2 people each taking side in the issue. It goes through different arguments in an easy to read way, sometimes using historical arguments, sometimes using modern arguments. This makes it very engaging and thought-stimulating.
The interest in philosophy is in every student. Teachers and professors need to take advantage of this, engage the students in a way that will interest them. Concise, engaging readings will encourage students far more than boring historical ones. Topics should be chosen that would actually be interesting for students to discuss. I think this can all be done in an engaging way while still teaching students critical thinking and good argumentation.
So maybe I am just naive about the process of educating students, but this is my opinion as a student. I'm sure things are much more complicated than I make them out to be (it must be hard to make structured lectures with a lot of student participation, and even harder to decide how to mark students if the lectures lacked many facts), but ideally, I think this is how an introductory philosophy course should be taught.
There is a stigma about philosophy - people often say it is boring or pointless or bullshit. I find this very odd. Most of the very same people have strong philosophical positions and will use philosophical argumentation to defend those positions (a friend I had who called philosophy bullshit but would use the argument from design to defend his belief in god comes to mind). There are very few people who don't find philosophical discussions of some kind at least a bit interesting. So why is there this stigma?
As a student, I've taken a number of philosophy courses. There is a definite trend in the way any introductory course to a subject in philosophy is taught. They are almost always taught historically. Knowing some history of philosophy is great, and I am not trying to say it isn't of any use. However, historical philosophy isn't the way to hook people new to the subject!
Much of what Socrates said is only really historically important - his theory of forms is sort of interesting, but pretty much any modern reader being introduced to philosophy would just scoff at it. Before we had developed scientific methods and a rich scientific understanding of the universe, much of philosophy was arm-chair philosophy. Philosophers would make grand claims about the way the world was from their proverbial arm-chairs without having these claims substantiated with a rich understanding of the world. This was fine for those times - they were doing the best they could for their time. But taken as a hypothesis nowadays, many philosophical theories that were put forth at some time seem naive and rest on strange assumptions about the way the world works. When put into context with all the scientific knowledge we now have, they just don't seem to cohere well with what we know now. It's hard to describe exactly why the ideas seem stupid because much of the time there isn't anything that directly contradicts them, it's just that much of our understanding makes the theory unlikely and it is hard to articulate (especially for someone new to philosophy) exactly why a theory seems ridiculous.
This makes philosophy seem pointless - all these philosophers just seem to be sitting around making stupid claims! It gives the impression that this is what philosophy is about. The frustrating claims made suck the fun out of philosophical argumentation. To top things off, all the theories seem to be bullshit.
Talking about old philosophical theories isn't always bad, though. Much ancient philosophy is quite good and can still be enlightening now - to take one example out of many, the problem of evil which was first articulated by Epicurus over two thousand years ago (I don't know if he was the first to put forward this argument, but if not that just further shows that really really old philosophy can be good). This argument is still essential in any philosophical discussion of gods. However, another problem in many introductory philosophy courses is to force students to read a translation of the original author. Even the best of translations are often hard to understand, vague to the point that the professor doesn't know exactly what the author is saying, and use strange analogies and examples that make little sense to the modern reader.
This just compounds the frustration. It's one thing to teach frustrating theories, but to make students read hard-to-understand writings just makes it annoying and boring to study philosophy.
When I first got into philosophy, the book I read was The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law. This book, I think, takes the perfect approach to teaching philosophy. It starts out with the sort of question that would intrigue anyone - the sort of question you and your buddies might argue about sometime (like "Is time travel possible?" "Does god exist?" "Is homosexuality wrong?" "Can robots feel?" etc). It then goes on in a playful dialogue-style, with 2 people each taking side in the issue. It goes through different arguments in an easy to read way, sometimes using historical arguments, sometimes using modern arguments. This makes it very engaging and thought-stimulating.
The interest in philosophy is in every student. Teachers and professors need to take advantage of this, engage the students in a way that will interest them. Concise, engaging readings will encourage students far more than boring historical ones. Topics should be chosen that would actually be interesting for students to discuss. I think this can all be done in an engaging way while still teaching students critical thinking and good argumentation.
So maybe I am just naive about the process of educating students, but this is my opinion as a student. I'm sure things are much more complicated than I make them out to be (it must be hard to make structured lectures with a lot of student participation, and even harder to decide how to mark students if the lectures lacked many facts), but ideally, I think this is how an introductory philosophy course should be taught.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Religulous - A review of a review, and a review
Bill Maher's new documentary on religion, Religulous, is out. I went to see it on Friday, and I found it hilarious. Maher goes around asking religious folks questions. Now, if you're going to see it for a serious criticism of religion, you're going to the wrong place. Maher is a comedian, and this movie shows that. It's funny and engaging, but much less than philosophical. I recommend it to anyone who likes to have a good laugh at the expense of fundamentalist religious belief. If you want to see a much better and more in depth review, see this review on Pascal's Bookie (a new blog I hope you check out by a friend of mine).
I didn't really want to write a blog post reviewing the movie, though - I thought it was funny, and that's about it. Then I found a review of Religulous on the Catholic League's website. Well, I can't turn down an opportunity to criticize that.
What I find very interesting about this statement about Religulous is more about what is left out than what is in it. The only criticism Maher levels specifically at Catholicism is that the grandeur of the Vatican seems contrary to Jesus' message about the rich and poor. The Catholic League's statement conveniently leaves this out. They seem much more bent on attacking the criticisms that weren't even directed at them.
I didn't really want to write a blog post reviewing the movie, though - I thought it was funny, and that's about it. Then I found a review of Religulous on the Catholic League's website. Well, I can't turn down an opportunity to criticize that.
[....]it is pure nonsense to play Catholicism off against science. After all, were it not for the role of the Catholic Church, there would have been no Scientific Revolution and no early breakthroughs in astronomy.Did I miss the part of the movie where Maher "played Catholicism off against science"? If anything, Maher shows that Catholics are much more reasonable when it comes to science - he mentions that they believe in evolution and interviews an astronomer/reverend who works for the Vatican (one of the few interviews in the movie where the interviewee comes off sounding quite reasonable).
Equally dumb is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are flawed because they don’t speak to child abuse, rape and torture. Had Maher gone to more religion classes, he would have learned that the central taboos listed are umbrella strictures that cover a host of subsidiary sins.It's true that, under Catholic theology, the ten commandments are seen as just the general structure of their ethical system. However, this misses the point - Maher was pointing out the absurdity of the commonly held beliefs about what the 10 commandments say (that they literally just restrict 10 different things). Even taken to be a criticism of Catholic theology (which I don't think it was ever meant to be) , I think Maher still has a point. Most of the commandments are irrelevant to modern law - commandments 1 through 4 can't be construed to be used in modern law (the fourth commandment, in the most charitable interpretation, tells you to follow the state's law - not exactly useful, it wouldn't make sense to make a law that says you have to follow the law).
More important, if Jesus is not the Son of God, as Maher contends, then why does he waste time—and make himself look silly in the process—by invoking Jesus’ name to give homosexuality a pass? In the flick, Maher argues that homosexuality couldn’t be so bad if Jesus never mentioned it.Maher was making a point - assume, for a moment, that Christianity is true. Then why care so much about homosexuality? Jesus didn't seem so concerned about it. It was a reductio ad absurdum.
And, of course, Maher’s contention that religion kills looks rather feeble given that the 20th century was the most violent in history.Recent history doesn't change earlier history, does it? Religion continues to kill today, and the fact that there are some other causes of death and war doesn't change that (although perhaps a valid argument may be made that Maher exaggerates the dangers of religion).
What I find very interesting about this statement about Religulous is more about what is left out than what is in it. The only criticism Maher levels specifically at Catholicism is that the grandeur of the Vatican seems contrary to Jesus' message about the rich and poor. The Catholic League's statement conveniently leaves this out. They seem much more bent on attacking the criticisms that weren't even directed at them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
