On what your creator’s been thinking.
The idea was an interesting one: to write a children’s book for children that are raised atheist. – Afterall, there’s a wide range of more or less religious or religion-oriented, some educative, others affirmative books for children of all kinds of faiths, particularly for Jewish and Christian children. – It could have been a book that would positively encourage some morale or another, independent of any religion, maybe lay out the history of atheist thinking.
Michael Schmidt-Salomon (author) and Helge Nyncke (illustrator) set their hands to task and created the book Wo bitte geht’s zu Gott? fragte das kleine Ferkel (What way, please, is God? the little piglet asked). Style, spelling, punctuation and capitalization mistakes in the book’s title aside, the book has stirred quite some controversy over here and even had the Bundesfamilienministerium (federal office for families, women and social issues รขโฌโ I’m not kidding you) move for the book to be officially listed as not suitable for children, which would have made it illegal for any minor to obtain or be enabled to get access to the book.
So what was all the fussing about? In a nutshell, a piglet and a hedgehog try to find out where God lives and go to the Temple Mount and try to visit a synagogue, a church and a mosque. The piglet and the hedgehog are rudely turned from each doorstep with reference to their non-affiliation with the respective religion. The rabbi, the bishop and the mufti sending the two animals away are portrayed with unpleasant features in the text as well as in the illustrations. In the end, those three representatives of the three Abrahamite religions get into a violent fight; the accompanying illustration shows the rabbi trying to suffocate the bishop with a Torah scroll while the bishop is hitting the mufti in the head with a Bible while the mufti is apparently trying to break the rabbi’s ankle. In the meantime, the intimated piglet and the hedgehog are sneaking off.
I am pretty sure all readers are aware that even non-believers of or non-adherents to Judaism, Christianity and Islam may visit synagogues, churches and mosques as long as they behave respectfully. So does this fatal contextual error give us a solid idea of the quality of this book? I think it does.
It is not a positive book, not a book that would positively affirm a child’s atheism, but a book that encourages scorn towards religions. It is a book that, by its illustrations, seems fit to leave children with a scary visual of rabbis, bishops and muftis. And at that, in my humble opinion, the book is nothing but pathetic, generalizing and using the same scare-techniques its authors accuse the religions of.
Taken to task on what seem to be not only anti-religious but antisemitic tendencies throughout the book, the author claimed that he, because of his last name, had been a target of antisemitic propaganda for years and that he had only aimed at tackling the extreme forms of religious observance. The book’s publisher describes the author to be an author, philosopher and musician as well as a spokesperson of the Giordano-Bruno Foundation.
Eventually, the book did not make the index of abolished books as the examiners did not see any bias towards a specific religion. And if not for the self-sustaining demographic of those that confuse cultural ignorance with atheism, we could be safe to assume that the days of the book were counted. Being as fond of diversity as I am, I still hope to see a few quality atheist children’s books someday. If the atheists cannot write those themselves, what about having some religious folks do it? I’ve already got a suggestion for a title: So you will, Godforbid, be worm food someday?
No chance of that, Froylein. I’ve learned my lesson. ๐
Giyoret, glad if I can be of help. You’re a nice woman with a good sense of humour; don’t sell yourself below value just to get a Jewish mate, promise?
People, stop reading if you are not interested in personal revelation. I didnรขโฌโขt think it would come out like this but Froylein has some very interesting insights.
Ok, first what came to mind when I thought about this dream. I couldnรขโฌโขt really come to anything about the first part, even though of course it meant something. But the second part, since I had just posted and was thinking about atheism and religion, seemed to me to be about those two things. On the one hand thereรขโฌโขs our favorite atheist Muffti, ignoring me, having sex with a crazy girl (I didnรขโฌโขt know Juliette Lewisรขโฌโขs mom is Jewish, btw), then with drink in hand telling me to take off my clothes and engage in risky skydiving behavior. Then on the other side, Iรขโฌโขm with a bunch of Jews who are keeping me warm and are really attentive and although I was exposed I didnรขโฌโขt feel it.
(There must be something with the whiskey sour vs. champagne, on opposite ends of the building, but maybe that just highlights the opposites. Or maybe champagne is for weddingsรขโฌยฆ)
NOW what is very, very interesting, is looking at this from a relationship point of view, and the emotional abuse you mentioned. Recently I have had a past relationship on my mind a lot, because we broke up a year ago around this time, and it was easily the most screwed up relationship ever in my life. He was Jewish, was uncomfortable about it, and his ex wife was Catholic and was raising their son Catholic. We actually met as a missed connection on craigslist, so our first contact was by email and then on the phone, and we had out first date after two days. When I first saw him I figured he was Jewish, but when we talked his name didnรขโฌโขt sound it, and my first name is [name deleted by TM] (ha ha) so when we met it came out that here was a guy who could รขโฌลpassรขโฌย superficially as a non-Jew, with the ex-wife and kid to boot, and a girl who was superficially no way a Jew, who wanted to convert. Funny the people we meet up with, isnรขโฌโขt it? He was not emotionally healthy or giving (with addictive and risk-taking tendencies) , and I have always been lucky to be around stable, happy people (and am that way myself), so he was hard for me to relate to. He came up with a lot of excuses for being that way, and I tried to break up with him a few times, but I guess I felt I could help him. I thought that his ex-wife was a way to รขโฌลun-Jewรขโฌย himself, and since she was negative and ignorant about Judaism, I thought he would welcome all my warm fuzziness. (Uh, no.) Because he was not exposing his son to anything Jewish even culturally, I had them come over for Hannukah dinner and we made latkes together and we were talking about the holiday and history. That night he brought me, um..a big Christmas tree. (Symbols, anyone?) So the story continued for months, limped along, and I really suffered, and then it came to a point where I had to choose a direction, and I ended it.
So recently Iรขโฌโขve been wondering how I could have been involved with him and now with Froyleinรขโฌโขs interpretation itรขโฌโขs getting the wheels turning. Maybe I was the crazy Juliette Lewis and had to get away (in my car!) to something else.
I really have a lot to think about. I canรขโฌโขt thank you enough, Froylein!! And if this was all TMI for some of you–sorry, I had no idea when I brought this up.
Whoa, that is one crazy dream, G. Muffti knows nothing about dream interpretation. But Juliette Lewis is (was?) a hottie in her own cool way.
Froylein I really want to respond but am at workรขโฌโbut it is really interesting and I will post asap. Thanks!
froylein nails it. Wow.
Ok, here we go:
dreams aren’t ongoing films on our subconscious that take a while; they take (fractions of) seconds, so we’ve got a multitude of dreams during our sleep and then later, subconsciously, tend to link the images that appear in a way it makes sense to us (that’s why dreams often are considered mirrors of the soul – our subconscious interpretation and linking of the images represent supressed thoughts, fears, and hopes). So what we should interpret is Giyoret’s interpretation, so to speak. ๐
Giyoret, I don’t know you well enough to tell, but have you ever felt or been under the impression that your convert status makes it more difficult to meet Jewish men, even those of the secular type, as in that you have to go out of your way while creepster-like Jewettes seem to have it easier while they can barely positively and affirmatively be defined as Jewish? Have you experienced attempts of emotional or physical abuse or an imbalance in a growing relationship with a possible partner of Jewish affiliation that you nonetheless felt intrigued by or comfortable with? Your reference to whisky sours as something you knew as a girl that “every party and church event” had is pretty striking (note, shnapps is for funerals and men only on Purim in more traditional circles). Do you occasionally feel a need to ‘connect’ the cultural sphere you’re coming from or parts thereof with those that you’ve chosen to join to feel more comfortable?
That’ll require a bit of an explanation on what dreams are and what we do with them before I can take my stab at this particular one. Since it’s 5:28am by me now, mind if I get back to you on that after breakfast?
froylein has a background in Jungian analysis. I’ll be very interested to get her take.
Eww, Tom, she’s crazy looking. That would make me sad. can we get some serious dream interpretatin here??
I have my ideas, but I’ll wait a bit.
Ovulation-heehee. Been there, done that this month. Definitely influenced by reading this thread and the conversation I had with my sis in NY who went to a Jdate Purim party last night.
Your friends are right– you really are a dead ringer for Juliette Lewis.
Giyoret, my interpretation is that you’re ovulating. It’ll be over in a couple of days.
Here is my Muffti dream:
So Iรขโฌโขm at some house on a lake with Muffti and it has these big floor to ceiling windows, and I can see these groups of parachutists in the sky in the distance. So weรขโฌโขre chatting and this girl who looks like Juliette Lewis keeps interrupting and trying to lure Muffti away to have sex. One of the things I was saying is that people donรขโฌโขt drink whiskey sours anymore, and how when I was little it was something every party and dinner and church event had. This girl keeps interrupting and I say รขโฌลOk, Iรขโฌโขm leavingรขโฌย and they go in another room and I get into a mini Cooper that is on top of some truck or something and drive down like a Hot Wheels ramp.
So I go to this English pub sort of place and I see Muffti at the bar and he sees me, and in a second heรขโฌโขs there with two whiskey sours. Thereรขโฌโขs an open ceiling and more of these parachute people and Muffti says, why donรขโฌโขt you try it, Iรขโฌโขll go first. So he leaves for a minute and then lands in a courtyard thing with his parachute. So he tells me I have to do it naked, so I strip and am in this pub, and Iรขโฌโขm waiting for them to call me for my turn. The bar was at one end of the building, but it was big and open and there were vendors setting up tables, so I wandered down to the other end where there was a champagne vendor setting up. So people start coming in, and itรขโฌโขs a Purim party, and these really cute guys in groovy kippas are surrounding me and weรขโฌโขre chatting and drinking champagne. My back was to this wall where a heater was, and one of the guys, with dark hair and eyes and wearing a coat was in front of me and his presence was keeping the front of me warm, and we were talking and he smiles and says รขโฌลSee, you probably forgot you were still nakedรขโฌย and I had. Then he said he would stay with me and keep me warm and we started walking towards the other end of the building.
Anyone good at dream interpretation?
Hmmm, was somebody blowing?
Ach, such was my youth…
I swear I had the weirdest dream last night about Muffti and me and a Juliette Lewis looking girl and some parachuting people and whiskey sours. I’ll post when I get the chance.
That’s what I get for reading this before I go to bed..
Actually tho I’ve been thinking about it and it’s kind of fun to analyze, given the topic.
Is Muffti getting cheeky?
‘Incoherent’, eh? To quote my namesake, that joke isn’t funny anymore. Hey, you try to prove God exists after you’re up all night celebrating St. Patrick’s day by tossing eggs at British economic interests.
Does that mean you are baking hamantashen that look like sylvia plath? or is the Marathon named after her? Or is it a marathon in which you read as much SP while baking and the winner is the one who finished the most pages combined with the most Hamentaschen?
Muffti doesn’t privilege ‘analytic’ approaches for ‘knowing’ – he thinks vision is generally a way to know things. HE thinks so is hearing and he thinks those are neutral with respect to background philosophy or theology. Though Muffti thinks Morrissseey had something grander (and, with all due respect, more likely to be incoherent) in mind by approach to knowing.
Nah, Tom, not that part. Muffti’s and my friendship is strictly platonic.
Say no more, froylein, say no more….
Tom, Muffti’s still alive and kickin’, but part of the conversation has shifted to emails between him and me. ๐
What froylein and Giyoret are saying is that belief is not entirely a matter of analytic thought. In fact, it’s mostly not about that. Religion speaks to a variety of human needs, especially emotional ones. Does Muffti perhaps err in privileging an analytic approach over other ways of knowing?
Great job with this post, froylein. Obviously Muffti has had to limp off the field in defeat, but he’s been quite sporting about it, and I’m sure you’ll keep him in your prayers.
Bang-bang daddy you’re dead, eh, Ben-David?
Ben-David, you read Sylvia Plath?
BTW, I plan on doing more posts in the future that hardly anybody reads but that could be followed by some interesting exchange of concepts.
113 comments? About a children’s book?
So I opened the thread…
Oy Vey.
Proof of God’s existence, atheism….
While I’m in the middle of the Sylvia Plath Hamentaschen Baking Marathon….
Muffti need not worry; my bf will still rather use disposable plates than do the dishes…
Believing may be rational in philosophical terms, but in theological terms, it’s a no-go area. It’s considered a heartfelt conviction, not based on ratio.
That’s a lot of presupposed conclusions there, F’lein. Why isn’t believing rational? And what do ‘ratio’ and ’emotio’ mean exactly? Muffti is no latin scholar. But he thinks beliefs are not emotions. They are propositional attitudes and function essentially as representations of the world. So tehy most certainly have an object both grammatically and ontologically speaking.
and, yeah, Muffti was a rather poor cleaner (he still is but gives the bottom of the plate a quick wipe)
Would Muffti agree that humans’ mental activities could be categorized into ratio (including sensus) and emotio? So since believing isn’t rational (Catholicism has this tradition that before the reading of a portion from the torah / OT, believers make a little cross with their thumb on their foreheads, mouths and hearts, which stands for thinking, speaking / confessiong and believing), would it make believing a part of emotio? And, despite being transitive verbs (in most contexts), if contextually emotions require an object, would that object be taken for granted even if not named?
I’m trying to see whether Muffti sees an analogy between believing and other emotions.
ck, he seriously didn’t clean the bottoms of the plates?
You would have had way more success if you had said ‘Muffti, my faith in god sometimes lingers and I will strike down in a murderous rage anyone who has mildly pissed me off!’
If God saved Muffti’s, he saved your’s too!
But, yeah, that was pretty funny
ck: Thanks for doing the dishes Muffti, but these big pieces of gunk stuck to the bottom of the plate indicate to me that you didn’t clean the bottoms…
muffti: Why should I clean the bottoms? We don’t eat on the bottoms?
ck: Uhm… but we stack the plates one on top of the other.
muffti: Oooooh yeaaaah…
Believe me when I tell you muffti, that day, God saved your life.
Heh. Good times, good times…
๐
ck, the Big Guy really keeps you in line? I’m not joking here–you base your actions on what you think pleases him? Wow. I don’t think I do anything because it pleases God. I’m not concerned at all if he is satisfied or happy with what I do. I think it actually makes more sense to develop compassion for your fellow man and let that guide your actions than to “do it for God.” And I think that is much harder in many cases. It’s easier to think of God not only as a good guy who knows and likes you much more than your crabby neighbor, but who also happens to dangle a highly convincing sword over your head to remind you who’s in charge. So why concern yourself with your neighbor anyway? What does he matter?
It’s not that hard to enter a house of worship, or light some candles and feel peaceful. But go outside and mill around amongst humanity, and see if you can conjure up that same feeling. It just isn’t as easy. In that case, a religious perspective helps get you there–but is that, in the end, genuine? Some would say it’s superior if you do it even when you are not moved, but I disagree.
Froylein didn’t ask me, but I think you need an object to love. You love something for what it gives you, I think spurred by gratitude. Even things that seem self-sacrificing, like motherhood.
Jeezus. and to think Muffti was your roommate. It’s people like you that keep Muffti from being a proselytizer ๐
Froylein, Muffti really doesn’t understand the question. Do you mean can people feel love for nothing in particular, just love? Or just hate that is aimed at nothing? It sounds virtually incoherent to Muffti and in verbal form (at least in english) it seems to enforce a grammatical object (i.e. ‘adam loves’ is ungrammatical unless its taken to be a generic predication). But muffti doesn’t really have strong opinions on this either way. Why do you ask?
Of course there is no “proof” in the scientific sense of God’s existence!! But I feel God and I sense God in ways that cannot be measured by science. And yes Muffti, but for the existence of God I would be a total and complete douchebag. I’m not an innately nice guy, I am not innately good. What I am is a total shithead motherfucker and every day I struggle with my desire to throttle people that piss me off, take advantage of those that are weaker than me and generally conduct myself in a way that pays no heed to what’s good for anyone but me. The only thing that stops me from doing these things is the fear of worldly retribution from the law and the fear of divine retribution for those things I am reasonably certain I can get away with.
I still would like to know from Muffti whether he thinks that love or hate can exist without being directed at an object.
Believers do not prove the existence of God; we know what we can prove and we cannot believe what we know lest we drift off into cultism.
In reading all this, I am wondering: don’t you all agree with Muffti that there is really no proof, and doesn’t it come down to, for whatever reason, you LIKE to believe in God? You can make up a whole bunch of reasons for believing so it seems very logical and normal, but in the end it fulfills your needs (social, personal, etc)and that’s about it.
OK! Can you mail me my own packet of Kool-Aid?
Here’s still more depressing news. Religion’s the product of weakness. Ah, nothing works like a heavy dose of our own falliability, and foxhole-style reminders of our vulnerability and mortality. Maybe Nietzsche was right, and religion is for the weak…. An inversion of values in which the healthy and strong are rejected.
What if we can’t resolve the issue upfront– there’s no compelling “evidence” one way or another, but we’re asked to believe- now. What then? Faith at least allows us to continue the inquiry. As our experience of it unfolds, we’re better able to come to conclusions. Many folks in our culture find nothing to compel them to believe in God, so they roll over and fall back to sleep. They blithely ignore the questions that somehow still engage Muffti, our heresiarch.
Again, it’s faith, not science, that occupies the space between certainty and doubt. Faith is the space to explore this terrain. In this regard, it can be compared to….philosophy, peut-etre?
Strange is one way to put it, amigo…
Consider the following offer, then. If you are brave enough to overcome skepticism and send Muffti 10$ a day for the next 30 years, salvation shall be yours. Don’t ask how it will happen – the Muffti’s powers derive from a source you can nary understand at first pass. Muffti will send you a short book with a metaphorical history detailing the wonders that he has done and some general laws about how to live and pray (mostly which will consist in sending extra money on Muffti-Mondays). Naysayers will try to persuade you otherwise but keep on the path. You won’t really see Muffti intruding in your life, making things better, but know he is there watching and at the right time he will make every thing allright.
This is no easy task. To help you, Muffti will set up some representatives that you can consult with and discuss the metaphors in the aforementioned books. This is a kind ness from Muffti but they will require some living expenses in order to help you out…5$ a week to them will help them help you which ultimately helps Muffti.
Scoff now at your own peril. Muffti is not to be trifled with. Failure to act will lose your salvation. You may be skeptical but know ye that only many years of conformity and attempts to resonate with the Great Grandness of the Muffti will ultimately provide you with the comfort your so desperately need and seek.
Peace be with you.
Muffti, my apologies for failing to add an irony alert. (In fact, I kept the $10 bill the old lady with the walker dropped in front of me at the store…. But enough of that.) I agree that human behavior won’t cut it, one way or another.
In a perfect world, we’d be able to demand evidence “before [we] believe in stuff”. Sadly, though, if any faith has any shot at making sense we have to buy into it and live it out for a period of time. I don’t think anything short of hearing a voice in a burning bush, or tasting water turned into wine, will relieve us of this paradoxical requirement. We’re asked to accept, arguendo as it were, that this religion thing will resonate, make sense of the world on some deep level, despite (not because of) towers of Babel and the like. After years of this, we’re then qualified to make a decision about it.
Strange, eh?
Ummmn, Morrissey, that’s illegal!
Muffti doens’t really understand the question. He still hasn’t heard an argument for God’s existence or seen any evidence for it. He is unpersuaded by arguments for god’s existence. He thins that in general before you believe in stuff you should have SOME evidence for their existence. Muffti doesn’t think there are any green goblins under his bed that are invisible and undetectable by any human instruments. He can’t get any positive evidence that they aren’t there in that since, since they are undetectable, but he still doesn’t believe in them…
Muffti doesn’t understand how human behaviour could be a basis for their being a god. Maybe you could elaborate? It just seems like a non-sequitor to Muffti. so you sat down and burned 10 bucks because you thought it was wrong to keep other people’s money. That is certainly well explained by your believing that it iwrong to keep other people’s money. How does it show that there is a God?
Think of it this way. If everyone behaved in evil ways, you would NOT take that as confimation of their being no god. and if all societies had different laws you would also not take that as confimration fo their being no god. So why are you inclined to think that conformity and universality suggest that there IS a god?
That describes Muffti pretty well.
The most exotic, slender and fetching of orchids, surely.
Then rank me somewhere between daisy and dandelion.
As it says in Deuteronomy, froylein: let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend.
This whole thread has left me with an identity crisis: ck’s traditional, Middle’s agnostic, Muffti’s atheist. And I’m chopped liver?
I suppose Muffti is saying that all conclusions are on some level, albeit far-fetched ones in many cases, speculative. He’s curiously categorical, though, in finding “no evidence” that there is a god. Is this because you’re unpersuaded by the arguments religious folks make (having apparently assigned them the burden of proof) or because there is affirmative evidence showing there is no god? If the latter, what’s your evidence? Surely it’s not, say, human behavior (evil, etc.), since you seem to reject human behavior as a basis for asserting there is a god.
Hmmm, you don’t run off with miscounted change as it down the road will lead to rising prices (if such mistakes add up) or the unemployment of the cashier (if they does so more often; I once overheard cashiers at a NYC supermarket talk about that three incorrectly keyed in prices will get you fired), which will result in higher expenses for society, so it’ll get back at you in some way.
Once I found a ten dollar bill in a the gutter of one of my neighborhood streets. Mindful of my duties as a Christian, I went house to house, banging on doors, accosting neighbors, rapping on car windows, all in the hope of finding the owner. Alas, I failed. That evening, I considered keeping the bill; but to have even entertained such a thing sickened me and kept me from sleeping.
The next morning, I took a match to the bill, and as it burned, I reflected on the blessing of having been given the morals and values to have acted in such an exemplary manner. As this shows, God does indeed exist.
Muffti agrees…though he doens’t like the way you described his efforts and training! Muffti doesn’t want to make strong arguments seem weak. He’d like strong ones to be strong and weak ones to look weak so he knows what he should believe.
Muffti also is using ‘evidence’ in a way that is compatible with the falsity of what is evidence for. his atheism doesn’t rely on a proof of God’s non-existence: he’s pretty sure such a proof is either impossible or bound to be unpersuasive. He thinks just like you do: take in all the evidence and see what conclusion it warrants. and in the case of God, he sees next to no evidence for God and a great deal of evidence against (at least certain conceptions of God). So he’s led to think there isn’t a god, pending further evidence to the contrary. Muffti isn’t tryin to be stubborn – he once was a believer. But he has yet to find anyone who can give him any evidence for god. (the closest he has come is the so called fine tuning arguments which are at least attempts on general probabilistic grounds to argue for the probability of their being a god).
Does that make one agnostic? Muffti doesn’t think so – Muffti thinks that you are a human being rather than an alien with a strange interest in jewish blogs (you are a catholic with a strange interest!) He has no incontrovertable evidence that you aren’t an alien, just a lot of good reason to think that you are one. Nonetheless one could in theory bring Muffti evidence that would persuade him that Morrissey is really an alien, or a think tank of aliens, or maybe god himself amusing himself arguing on line. Taht doesn’t make Muffti an agnostic about your humanity, does it?
In general we have no ‘proof’ for the stuff we believe. Muffti believes that the woman he calls ‘mom’ actually gave birth to him, but maybe he was secretly hatched from an egg and no one has the heart to tell him sot hey came up with a clever story…maybe muffti isn’t writing these words but is dreaming (hat tip to Descrates) or stuck in a cave watching shadows on the wall that he mistakes for reality (his neck is a li’l sore this morn). Every amount of evidence is compatible with devious interpretations and hypotheses. If that makes one an agnostic in general then Muffti guesses he is an agnostic about the existence of God. but that can’t be the sense of agnostic peole are interested in…
Muffti agrees: presumably science isn’t in the business of telling people what to do with change or what is right and wrong. What isn’t clear to Muffti is that religion and the god are required to answer the question. Muffti doesn’t believe in God or religion but he typically doesn’t run off with people’s miscounted change. Most atheists don’t seem to either. When they are mad they typically don’t run around killing people. People have values and since functioning societies seem to have come before religion (organized religion after all requiring a stabel social circumstance) it looks like these values were first in people’s decision structure, not religion.
In fact, Muffti finds it hard to believe that deep down you are doing the right thing by giving back change simply because you are scared of the threat of otherworldly non-quantifiable divine retribution. Is that honestly why you give back change to people? If God gave you a free pass would you keep it? Coz if that is the reason you do it, you aren’t half the good dude that Muffti always has thought you are.
I’m quite curious about how Muffti would frame an argument for atheism. He’s adept at playing defense, and indeed he (and/or his beleaguered parents) have invested significant time and money in honing skills at making the stronger argument appear the weaker. So, let’s have it, dude. Or are you a Middle-style agnostic?
When you use the word “evidence”, you seem to mean data which incontrovertably leads to a conclusion. I don’t view “evidence” in the same way. If a suspect in a murder is the same race, height and weight as that reported by an eyewitness, such facts are evidence of guilt. They hardly mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The killer could be someone else.
Re the second of Muffti’s questions: religious people make a mistake if they think allegiance to the 10 C’s or the equivalent are needed for good, ethical living. This is a kind of test of faith. There are good people (e.g. most of my friends) who worship no god. The Catholic Church teaches that there have been saints in all cultures at all times. There are bad people who flourish. Kant was right that we must obey moral precepts without regard to any expectation of earthly reward.
I heard a priest once remark in a homily that the spiritual choice we face is usually not between good and bad– most people can identify evils and reject them– but between good and better.
In short, God does not make it obvious that His way is best. Hardly a surprise, eh, if one believes we are tasked with being faithful people. (All of this may be too Christian for some Jewish contributors, whose God is a God of world-historical intervention. Ours showed up, gave us some instructions, and left us largely to our own devices.)
So, nothing is certain if we’re to rely solely on reason. But isn’t this very uncertainty more appealing than atheism, which I understand (correct me if I’m mistaken) to posit that reason excludes the possibility of God– that God can be shown affirmatively and conclusively not to exist? Is such a position more attractive, more defensible, and more humane than the middle ground between certainty and doubt that is the life of faith?
I’m not remotely trying to prove the existence of God. I’m just saying how does science answer the question of whether or not you should return the change? In some cases it is in your interest to return the change and in some cases it isn’t. Religion however tells us that no matter what the empirically determined cost/benefit analysis is, you always return the change unless doing so would endanger your life or something. And what element in this equation is it that makes it so? God and the threat of otherworldly, non-quantifiable, divine retribution.
TM: It is weird! that’s why there a mystery about there being something rather than nothing. But Muffti’s point was saying that it just is is no weirder than saying that ‘god created it’. So you have equal weirdness which b muffti’s lights essentially means that positing a god doesn’t really explain anything here. On the one hand you have the mystery and unanswerable question: why is there something at all? On the other hand you have the question ‘there is something because god wanted there to be. Why did god want it to be that way and why is there a god rather than no god’.
Muffti is reminded of the ‘explanation’ of why the earth stay in place : it on the back of a turtle. A natural question is ‘what holds up the turtle’ and the answer is ‘turtles all the way down’.
CK, Muffti has no idea what you mean. How could it be scientifically determined to be better for you not to return the change? Better for you survival? Better for what? But even if we waive that, presumably what makes you return the change and not take it is a psychological explanation. Perhaps its because you have faith; perhaps because you were raised in such a way; perhaps you have a genetic predisposition to favouring certain action types in combination with the environment you were in. Whatever that is, Muffti doesn’t really see what this has to with the question at hand, i.e. whether or not there is a god and whether religion and its values are required in order for their to be ethics and values.
sigh – look Muffti dude, the point I was trying to make is that all these early codifications came from the same region, so it’s possible a certain amount of cross-cultural fertilization had occurred. More importantly though, while there are some similarities, the polytheist codes are mostly horrific.
In any case, we’re now officially going in circles. You’re a strict empiricist. OK great! I prefer a combination of reason and faith and TM is somewhere in between that. Ultimately, my perspective is a broad one and does not depend on any kind of empirical evidence at all for its sustenance. None. Zero. Any historical or scientific fact you can throw at me doesn’t change a thing. At the end of the day the quantifiable and the scientifically determinable do not answer all my questions.
If I go to a store and receive more change than I am owed and it can be scientifically determined that it’s better for me to not return the extra change, what in the realm of science would prevent me from stealing? See what I mean?
Why is everything in italics at the moment?
Anyhow, there are various influences on the decalogue (note its two versions, one in Exodus one in Deuteronomy, which critical exegesis can track back to certain periods of Israelite / Jewish history). Whether Abraham existed and in what way we cannot tell as there is only one source referring to him, and that one was codified millennia after his supposed time of living. I’m too lazy to type everything I’ve studied on Pentateuch editorial history, Genesis in particular, explanatory legends and the decalogue, but you can look the gist of it up at http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com. The fact that even the biblical accounts of Abraham do not state he was abiding by the later allegedly given laws tells us that even the editors working on the torah didn’t assume him to have known those laws.
Muffti doesnรขโฌโขt really see how any theory could be in conflict with what the bible says.
Thank you. My work is done.
Now, just as an aside, there are a couple of movements in Judaism that wouldn’t take offense to the manner in which you characterized the Tower of Babel story.
Again, this isn’t about me, so I don’t think I’m the right candidate for your question about the biology class. To the faithful person, however, the faith in the “Book” or in his religion’s explanations for God’s actions will certainly be enough. If the bible gives you a covenant between man and God or between Israel and God or tells you the story of how God created all and thought “it was good,” that’s plenty to go on. From there to cheeseburgers being unkosher is a mere skip and jump away.
And if you want to marshall some superiority by claiming that science gives you a better platform for understanding the universe, at the end of the day it doesn’t even give you something like “it was good.” It just “is” according to science. Isn’t that just a little weird? No less weird, say, than ascribing it all to god or gods?
TM, Muffti wasn’t trying to disprove God – He agrees that a divine story is perfectly consistent here. He waS answering CK who claimed that the universality of the 10 commandments derived from religion and faith rather than reason. HE agrees that an almighty fellow could have put that in our heads if he wanted to. He just thinks no such being did it and no such being is required to tell the story. In any case, Muffti has no idea how to argue against someone who thinks that a genetic story is really ‘just the same as’ a story about people building a big tower, just sort of rephrased and reshuffled around to be comprehensible. If that is the level of hermeneutics that is allowed, Muffti doesn’t really see how any theory could be in conflict with what the bible says.
As for the how and the why, Muffti doesn’t really understand the question but as he keeps saying, insofar as there is a question there religion doesn’t answer it either. You keep pretending that positing a god explains something. Let me ask you…say you had a biology class and the question came up ‘why do some people have blonde hair, and others brown’ and the answer was ‘because there are genes and that’s how they want things to turn out.’
Would anyone in their right mind take that as an explanation of anything whatsoever absent a theory of the gene, what it does, under what influences environmentally it was correlated with blonde or brown hair…no. You’d think that was labeling a mystery. Yet you do the exact same thing with religion and you call it a grand answer the wonders of the questions of why and how.
Muffti calls ‘bullshit’ and doesn’t see you doing anything to dispell the associate smell.
CK, Code of Ur-Nammur, 2050 BC. Abraham? At most liberal estimate 2000 BC. It don’t add up so you can make up all the fake history you like but it don’t mean shit. Muffti thought your point was that faith and revelation from God are required to make certain value universal which, as you are wont to do, you pretended weren’t universal beforehand. all signs point to them being universal (albeit with rather harsh punishment – not that stoning people isn’t sort of harsh itself but the torah happily lists occassions on which that may happen). Unless GOd came and reveled himself to ur-nammur, Muffti calls ‘bullshit’ once again.
What he is always tickled by in these sorts of conversations is the ad hoc manner in which people are willing to joyful engage in dispute. all of the sudden its the jews running around influencing the babylonians (during roughly the time they are supposed to be in Egypt as slaves by muffti’s calculations), or the way the tower of babel suddenly becomes universal grammar explained in a nice way that has the benefit of a quick homilie about why you shouldn’t build real estate on god’s sky-territory.
And Froylein, Muffti ain’t going to be telling no priest about his sexcapades. Let those guys get their jollies from their own flock ๐ as for pied piping…let the music be your master, will you heed the master’s call?
Muffti wrote: CK, Hmmurabi had a god? Good point. in fact he had many many gods so far as Muffti can tell. are you telling Muffti they came and told Hammurabi the laws? Coz otherwise one might think that hammurabi, using reason (and probably a common genetic predisposition towards certain preferences) came up with these laws using reasonรขโฌยฆthe very thing a little while ago you said was NOT responsible for making these things universal. You self contradicting shit weasle
Again muffti, if you’re going to use Wikipedia then read it. The section on Hammurabi is not that long. Do note that of the legal codes enumerated, “most … come from similar cultures and racial groups in a relatively small geographical area, and they have passages which resemble each other.” Now I know that the earliest code predates the 10 Commandments by 500 years, but they don’t predate Judaism or Abraham. It might be possible that the Jews, as they are wont to do, influenced the civilizations around them.
That having been said, some of these non-Jewish laws are retarded and a tad harsh (to say the least) with liberal use of capital punishment for what are relatively minor offenses, amongst other things.
So yeah… I’m tired. Zzzzzz…
I like it when Muffti’s spelling goes apeshit. It’s weasel, not weasle!
So if I get what you’re saying, ye Ol’ GrandMuffti, you’d like me to believe there’s some secular explanation for common ethics or “universality” like an “innate tendency” that comes to us from a “common genetic background and a survival tendency.” That’s really amazing and possibly even true. It is also exactly as possible that, you know, when god created creatures, he programmed them with survival tendencies and common innate mechanisms that lead them to the same conclusions. I mean, forgive me as the sole agnostic in this discussion but your explanation is no more satisfying than that of the believer who sees god behind everything. The problem is you don’t answer the Why or the How. Again.
It’s the Camus coming out of Muffti. Oh, we’re so alone and, oh gosh, there’s nothing out there that gives us meaning. It just all…is.
Oh, as for language, I seem to recall that somewhere in Genesis – that would be the book, not the band – God straightens out all the mixed up languages so people can communicate with one another. Sure, you could say that’s a myth, but then again, so is the notion that we’re all descended from one genetic pool and therefore we all possess, regardless of nation and geography, a similar lexical tendency. Even if you’re right, your claim still doesn’t disprove that of Genesis. That author just put things in a manner those folks could comprehend while you’re giving us 21st Century verbiage.
The thing is, and here is where I understand the scientist who remains religious, that anything you’ve said can be explained away as being designed by God. Genetic predisposition; 2 eyes and 2 arms; survival tendency; language commonality; etc. There is nothing there that a believer cannot explain in a manner that keeps true to the idea of some supernatural being or force guiding these things. Your idea that it is all entirely disengaged from the supernatural seems to be no more convincing or provable than that of the person of faith in God.
Unfortunately, for once, the truth isn’t somewhere in The Middle ™, it has to be one or the other, but after all this commentary, nobody has convinced me of the existence or absence of God.
You guys are a real piece of work ๐ First you tell muffti that its god’s revelation that made the laws universal. muffti pointed out that these laws were come by even by people who were thinking fo legal codes. Next you guys tell muffti that the universality actually gives evidence for God’s plan. apparently its pretty damned hard to bring evidence against god’s plan, isn’t it? We call that ‘unfalsifiable’ where Muffti is from and that ain’t not compliment.
Sigh. TM, Muffti doesn’t think universality shows that God’s plan isn’t at work; he just htinks that universality bears no evdience on there being a religious foundation for ethics. There may just be an innate tendency towards common a common ethic which is what you usually posit when you see universality amongst distinct groups. But why should innateness give any evidence whatsoever for there being a god?!? All it points to is a common genetic background and a survival tendency. Woop-dee-doo. You can see God in anything you like if you try hard enoguh but you don[‘t really have any particular reason to.
Language do have common syntactic structure – that’s the whole point of minimalist syntax. That suggests that we have a common genetic source for a commonly structured linguistic module. What does that have to do with there being a god? Nothing.
Similarly Morrissey, you can describe the commonality as a ‘strivng towards god’ but that is wishful interpretation at its more self confirming level. If you really think God is what and who put this common vision in all of us, then fine. The point is that faith didn’t seem to be necessary to come up with these ethics, a commonly structured values module in the head did – just like a commonly structured linguistic module allows us to explain teh incredible commonalities in syntax. Everyone also (on the whole) has 2 eyes adn 2 arms. Does that prove also there is a god? No. It proves that we are commonly genetically structured.
CK, Hmmurabi had a god? Good point. in fact he had many many gods so far as Muffti can tell. are you telling Muffti they came and told Hammurabi the laws? Coz otherwise one might think that hammurabi, using reason (and probably a common genetic predisposition towards certain preferences) came up with these laws using reason…the very thing a little while ago you said was NOT responsible for making these things universal. You self contradicting shit weasle ๐
Sigh, Muffti. Even Hammurabi had a God. The issue at hand is not me trying to posit one set of faith-based principles over another. It’s about faith and reason. Some people choose one over another and in that respect your position is merely the flip side of a coin with religious fundamentalists as heads and you as tails. The position I am advocating is one that combines reason and faith, acknowledging strengths and the weaknesses of both and trying to find a proper balance. Empiricism alone simply does not answer all my questions.
Muffti makes a lot of good points about religion. I don’t know that it neccessarily leads to no God, but it makes my brain buzz.
I feel like a little mouse, and he’s the Pied Piper…uh, oh……..
Oh, and indeed, I’m looking forward to my trip. I bought two memory cards for my new camera today as I plan on taking lots of pictures.
Not a sin per se, Tom, but the receiving of sacraments requires baptism as the initial step (cf. F.-J. Nocke, Sakramententheologie); so a priest would need to require that (cf. Codex Iuris Canonici) to fully go through with confession + absolution. Muffti could, however, confess his sins to a priest, and the priest would be tied to secrecy of confession, but it wouldn’t equal to the sacrament of penance.
froylein, not sure if that’s officially a sin, but I’ll look into it and get back. I know you need an answer, what with vacation coming up.
Some of those common values obviously have to do with proscribing obviously bad behavior. But Moses and Jesus and Lao tzu and Mohammed put forth a common, affirmative vision, too. If you’re a believer, it’s evidence that human beings commonly strive to do good, strive toward God, if you like. There’s a distinctive kind of seeking here– a drive to transcend limits. I think this is more than simply a “disposition to find certain actions to be valuable and others to be avoided”. My dog’s good at that.
Oh, and Muffti, you could only go to confession as in one of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church if you were a member of that church; but feel free to tell priests about anal sex. ๐
Oh boy, you guys ain’t going to convince each other. Each of your positions requires faith.
Hey Muffti, if different cultures and religions come up with more or less the same kind of laws, why do you think it’s not part of god’s plan? Wouldn’t that make more sense than different cultures randomly coming up with similar rules hundreds of years apart and thousands of miles apart? Or if it’s pre-configured into our DNA, why is that the case? I actually agree with Tom, that the commonality of many elements in our culture poses a bigger problem for your view than for his.
Not all languages share common grammatical structure. But yes, why wouldn’t that point to the divine?
And Muffti, “Why” are we here? Is it just an accident of fate and the universe? Is there no purpose to the universe at all – all those planets and solar systems gone to waste?
Muffti, frum people claim it does… Tell a Chasid there are more than seventy languages in this world and see his reaction…
How does other cultures positing the same moral and legal values provide evidence for god or anything like it as opposed to an innate disposition to find certain actions to be valuable and others to be avoided?!? Does common grammatical structure in all languages point to the divine as well?
Muffit, check out Toumani Diabate’s new album ‘Mande Variations’– he’s a Muslim from Mali, so it might not be half bad (actually, it’s sensational).
The fact that other cultures posit the same moral and legal values as Torah Judaism or Christianity is, if anything, further evidence that God or something like Him exists. Beyond the prohibited behaviors (theft etc.), it shows a broadly-shared, affirmative human desire for goodness and right conduct…. A common human aspiration to live with integrity. (It doesn’t prove anything, however.)
I probably part company with the more orthodox Jewish readers on this site in stressing the “mysteries” of creation. Catholicism having messed with my head, I don’t read the Bible literally. The Bible, including the NT, poses as many questions as it answers, for me anyway. But that may be a minority view, I don’t know.
Froylein asked:
It depends what you have in mind. Religion was partly responsible for producing the Vatican whcih Muffti thinks is a very beautiful part of the world. Does that mean that Muffti has to go to confession inorder to enjoy it? Pretty clearly no.
Morrissey said (admitted?)
You can proceed away to these questions. You basically gave Muffti all he was looking for – positing a ‘god’ who is omnipotent etc. does not explain jack shit. It raises tons of questions that you can then go on to ponder but it’s not an explanation. THat’s not to say its not a partial explanation – it renders the universe the product of intentional rather than unintentional means, but it doesn’t seem to do much more than that. essentially it leaves the universe just as mysterious with respect to why as the thought that hte universe is cold and impersonal.
CK claimed:
Muffti finds this awfully hard to believe, especially since there are plenty of law codes that predate any realistic date at which the mosaic law was ‘passed down from god’. Hammurabi and teh codex of Ur-Nammur both predate it by a good 500 years. A quick (granted Wikipedia’d) look at the latter reveals:
1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
…
28. . If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.
Let’s see, that accounts for ‘no murder, no stealing and no false witness bearing’.
Muffti loves it when religious people pretend values started with them and god passing down a bunch of unheard of laws. It’s bullshit so far as the empirical record goes, amigo.
So are they something like the smurfs? Are the women bloggers a collective Smurfette? Is Rabbi Yonah Papa Smurf? Who is Gargamel?
Bet the Crown Heights folks paid for a one-way ticket out of town for that atheist agitator.
Tom misrepresents the history of “the characters.” It’s well known I’m Finnish in origin, ck is Moroccan and Muffti did grow up in Canada but only after a difficult childhood in Crown Heights. I’m blond, ck is ck and Muffti looks like a Yemenite child kidnapped by Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Baffin Island was just a way-stop.
Watch out, froylein, this site is secretly dominated by a Canadian cabal. All of the characters you know and love, O’Middle et al., grew up together in a tiny, seaside Jewish community on Baffin Bay.
Not sure what they do for nook up there, but there aren’t many of ’em, so draw your own conclusions.
This is so apropos and yet so random…
Just Not from Their Government
Man: At least Canadian homosexuals take it up the ass.
Bar
New Jersey
via Overheard Everywhere, Mar 17, 2008
Muffti is not delicate as far as I can tell, but I’m not sure whether it’s fair to discuss his girlfriends if we could discuss…… him. ๐
The good thing about this thread is that by now, anybody who isn’t interested in atheism vs theism vs sexual practices vs corny country music by Belgians (!), has likely stopped reading and moved on to some other posts, so I can as well share that I’ve just baked 14 trays of cookies and that I’m going on vacation next week.
Muffti asked: But that just dodges the question: what is explained by invoking God? what deeper understandign do you have from being told that a source that is impenetrable to your understanding is responsible for the whole big shebang?
Well, on a very basic level, sometimes we are called upon to make a choice between good and evil. And yes, the notion of a social contract and the fear of worldly repercussions might make us choose to do good, but what happens when you know with absolute certainty that you can get away with it? What’s to stop you from not choosing evil if in doing so a significant benefit is conferred upon you? From the perspective of social cohesion, and in many cases, to protect the weak from the strong, the notion of divine consequences works quite well in keeping folks in line and defining a notion of morality, what is right and what is wrong, that goes beyond mere utility.
So to answer your question – “What is explained by invoking God?” – well, the difference between good and evil for one. Is this effective 100% of the time? No. But humans are imperfect by nature.
And I love how atheists say that they can arrive at a notion of morality and discern between right and wrong without God. Yeah, but then they ignore the religious foundations of these notions. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness etc. – these were not always universally accepted principles. That they are now is not a testament to human reason but rather to a faith in a God that introduced these values to mankind.
Is McMuffti involved in this discussion, or can we talk behind his back?
Hey, who said what I feel or don’t feel about anything sexual? We were discussing Muffti’s girlfriends.
Just a lil’ ol’ white lie, Giyoret, to make O’Middle feel less alone about them “unnatural” sexual practices….
What’s wrong with me? It’s 5 pm and I’m still sober.
Begosh and begorah, Tom, why er ye averse to oral sex? It gets the old peat fires bornin’, ye know…quicker than a nip of Jamesons, to be sure…