Raining on the Brights

I too find the whole ‘bright’ thing a little trite. Not only does it reduce a 3000-year-old intellectual tradition to belief in magic, but it’s also reductionist the other way, in that it reduces the entirety of metaphysics (including non-Christian metaphysics) to ‘old-man-in-the-sky’ theology.

And I say this as an atheist.

[In full disclosure, I’m also often tritely dissmissive of the Judeo-Christian worldview. I like to call God an ‘invisible superhero from outer space’, which I stole from someone, I don’t know who. But I’m only joking when I do that. I’ve read the bible, I’ve taken courses in exegesis. I know what I’m refusing.]

I don’t see anything wrong with Dennett’s characterization.

Religions are about supernatural explanations. Yes, they have other knowledge too. But, most adherents are there because of the supernatural myths. They want answers, and they want them to be supernatural.

Riiiiiight, because those hundreds of millions of Christians on Earth are expert theologians who have deeply studied the 2,000-year history of Christianity and the exegetical method, and hence do not conceive of their belief primarily as a big man in the sky who tells them what to do and intervenes on their behalf.

Give me a break. Religion has barely advanced a whit since the first cavemen prayed to the spirits for a good hunt. All modernity has done is force the religions to construct an edifice of learned babbling round the holy fire, to insulate it from the winds of science. The reason holy men today back off from supernaturalism is that science has made supernaturalism largely obsolete; you can damn well bet that holy men a thousand years ago, before the rise of science, did not shrink from suggesting that God manifested himself in supernatural ways. But wherever science advances, religion retreats, leaving a smokescreen of bullshit in its wake to cover the fact that it is retreating rather than merely arriving at a better understanding of its true doctrine.

>>has barely advanced a whit since the first cavemen prayed to the spirits for a good hunt. All modernity has done is force the religions to construct an edifice of learned babbling round the holy fire, to insulate it from the winds of science

This just isn’t true. Even a passing knowledge of theology (gained from the excellent “introduction to” cartoon books) makes me aware that divines as far ago as about 400-500 AD were interpreting scripture in ways which did not imply supernatural intervention in natural events. It’s been an important part of Christian theology for as long as there’s been mysticism.

I’m amazed that the Brights are even able to start such a discussion and not be laughed out of anything resembling honest discourse. The reduction of religion of mysticism or supernaturalism or belief in spirits/the supernatural has been pretty clearly in disfavor since Durkheim’s writings, let alone recent scholarship in the History of Religions.

The difficulty that this field has had in even coming up with a valid and useful definition of its object of study (i.e. religion) is educational and should serve to caution those who try to make simplistic arguments about the nature of religion. And for those in the know, yes, even Clifford Geertz’s chapter-long definition has been shown to be fundamentally flawed. See Talal Asad’s work, “Genealogies of Religion.”

In particular, some scholars overemphasize the “supernatural gifts” aspect of religion, as many of those who have posted here have done. Others, however, overemphasize the social, this-worldly aspects of religion. It is extremely foolish to talk about religion without considering its social consequences; all permutations of the explanation of religion as a “supernatural panaecea” do just that.

One of the ideas currently in vogue in the historical study of religions is a serious attack upon the very concept of a catholic (NOT Catholic, mind you) or universal understanding of religion itself. Stated in a very brief fashion, the idea is that “Christianity,” “Islam,” “Judaism” or any other broad label which we would normally think of as a religion that exists in the world, actually is meaningless. When we look at how “religion” is practiced on the ground, we realize that historical accidents, cultural influences and other temporal and spatial forces destroy the notion of a universal faith. I don’t claim to have just made an argument for this view, mind you, so please don’t use this post as a sounding board for attacking this point. I can suggest a source or two that -will- offer something better than a straw man to attack:

David Chidester, “Savage Systems” (The introduction and conclusion are all you really need to read, but the rest will illustrate clearly what I was trying to describe above)

David Frankfurter, “Religion in Roman Egypt” (Good, among other things, for showing that during 400-600 C.E. in Egypt “Christians” can look a lot like “Pagan Egyptians” and vice versa, all depending on what criteria you use)

Hope this has been helpful,

Omeros

Omeros, Of course, social and cultural factors influence the evolution of religion. I doubt anyone, Dennett et al included, are denying that (particularly since what you have outlined could be very easily explained in terms of memetics).

I found a use of “bright” from a couple of years ago, apparently the term predates the recent Dennett essay. It is in Yann Martel’s (very nice) — cannot find the quote right now but I will try and look it up later on.

You have pretty much what you’ve got now.

jimmy doyle,
Can you give a good run down on the difference between the supernatural and magical?

Additionally, via what mechanism does the supernatural enter[interface, communicate with, etc.] the natural world

I think a failure to distinguish between:

(a) The intellectual tradition of Christianity

and

(b) The religious beliefs of ordinary, contemporary Christians

is to blame for much of the frustration here. I don’t think anyone (well, maybe Dawkins) wants to dismiss (a) as frivolous or unworthy of serious consideration. But (b) is another matter entirely. Both – whatever Hauerwas thinks – are inextricably bound up with supernaturalism.

Even if, as Omeros points out, it’s hard to isolate and study “Christianity” or “Islam” per se (which would be a problem related to (a) above), it’s not so hard to isolate and examine the particular beliefs that Dennett et al. have a beef with. These are the beliefs that would come up in an argument between a Christian and an atheist over, say, the causes of natural selection.

Jimmy Doyle’s point about the confusion of the “magical” and the “supernatural” is a good one, too. I’m no anthropologist, so I don’t know if there are traditional definitions of these concepts. I think of the “magical” as a subset of the “supernatural”, whereas the “religious” might straddle both the supernatural and the natural, and even include a bit of the magical, too. This complexity is what makes religion a more resiliant target than Dawkins thinks. But still, the individual beliefs brights attack – in the seven-day creation, in life after death, etc. – can’t be defended simply by saying they are part of an ancient and rich tradition.

Well, I want to dismiss the intellectual tradition of Christianity as, if not unworthy of serious consideration, at least unworthy of much serious consideration other than historical. I’m afraid I think it’s just a habit of piety and politeness that makes people talk so respectfully about it. It’s simply verboten to point out that religion deals with make-believe, but that’s what it does.

The coach: belief in magic involves the belief that one may influence the course of nature by invocation of spirits, devils or whatever. This kind of belief has long been condemned by Christianity. Belief in the supernatural is merely belief that the natural world — the world investigated by natural science — is not all there is.
Geoff Pynn: you are right that most naturalists would agree that “materialism is an essential component of naturalism”, and most supernaturalists would agree too. But they would all be wrong, as the case of Spinoza again illustrates. Spinoza was a naturalist in the sense that he denied the existence of anything ‘external’ to nature: he identified God with the whole of nature, rather than with a supernatural agency beyond the world investigated by science. Yet he was not a materialist, in that he did not think that the material descriptions of the one, unique substance (the whole of nature) had any special priority over other kinds of description, such as descriptions in terms of mentality. The case of Spinoza is particularly interesting, because it shows how utterly people like Dawkins misconceive the very naturalist tradition they claim as their own.

Oh come on.
Is is an essential part of the Christian religion that Jesus was conceived by a virgin? I suspect pretty much all “naive” Christians and most theologians would say yes.
Now, is such a thing possible via non-supernatural agency? Well, the simple fact is, no.

What exactly are people arguing about here?

Stepping back a bit from the detailed dispute it appears that various religious believers and evangelical atheists such as Dawkins and Dennet are much the same in that they believe in theoretical explanations for things that they can’t demonstrate empirically.

This leap of logic from sparse data to belief seems to be a fundamental human tendency only avoided with some pain and great effort. Some have argued that it is an aspect of the admirable pattern recognition capabilities of the human mind coupled with what for many is an emotional necessity to come to a decision, to resolve incomplete and sometimes contradictory observations so that they can stop worrying and get on with more important tasks such as feeding themselves or watching pro wrestling on TV.

It is difficult to hold the mark, to reserve judgement and wander well worn thought paths repeatedly whenever relevant information arises. It’s embarrassing to argue for an open mind in the face of ridicule from all sides, and pointless to debate those who believe what they cannot know since they are essentially immune to knowledge. It is also difficult to fully respect believers of any sort, difficult in the same sense as fully respecting someone with an addiction or some other deep psychological problem. They still deserve respect, they are still human and all, it’s just difficult. Everything about belief is difficult.

>>Is is an essential part of the Christian religion that Jesus was conceived by a virgin? I suspect pretty much all “naive” Christians and most theologians would say yes.

“Naive” materialists believe in a lot of things that physicists and biologists know to be untrue, and your statement is just not true about theologists. It’s certainly possible to rise to one of the best bishoprics in the land (Durham) while being decidedly and pointedly ambiguous for your entire career about the literal truth of the virgin brith, and the tradition of regarding it as basically metaphorical is as old as Christian theology.

>>Why belive in god when you know — if you’re honest — you’ve never heard him or seen him or touched him or had any other contact of any kind. All you have are the stories other people told you, like Santa Claus.

Stupidest argument ever. Why believe in any of the entities of fundamental physics? And note that your argument has no force at all against a theist who has experienced a divine revelation, of whom there are a surprising number.

Saying that Spinoza redeems Christian theologians is roughly like saying that Oscar Schindler redeems the Nazis. Spinoza wore the badge, but in practice his beliefs are remarkable precisely because they depart so radically from typical Christian theology; and in practice, where the rubber hits the road of dealing with life, a Spinozist behaves more like a typical Bright of modern times than a typical Christian.

You may all invoke Godwin’s Law on me now.

I’d just like to point out that the bright page doesn’t seem to have been written by either Dawkins or Dennett.

Maynard wrote:

“I don’t mean to be sarcastic here. I honestly don’t understand what the church considers itself, its beliefs and its values to be if it no longer even expects its leaders and members to have to state the Nicene creed.”

Renouncing the creed would make them Arians, and therefore heretics in the eyes of the Church… depending on how they disagree with the creed, of course.

I’ve got that cranial albedo. I was a seminarian. I’ve been hounded by Christian vigilantes. And embraced by welcoming agapists. I’ve knelt at the altar, and been driven from the steps of the church. I’m not a ‘bright’ but I’ll defend them when they’re attacked.
Take Dennet’s theory of non-localized consciousness, the brain’s little cloud of electromagnetic energy, and apply it to groups. It requires an acceptance of the idea of group ‘mind’, but that shouldn’t be too hard.
The core of ‘humanness’ that Christianity etc. has floated alongside all these centuries is the key. The illusion is that ‘human’ is a thing with constant essential attributes, and religion is peripheral to that. At first yes, but the truth is these attributes are developed and discarded constantly, as with any other animal’s evolving nature. The gambit is to control the selection. The group controls these processes, or attempts to. These are survival strategies. Characteristics are supported and encouraged and become traits of humanity. The actual metaphysics are unimportant. Angels wearing little numbered sports jerseys while they dance on the head of a pin. It’s the mutual assistance, the support. Over time the congregation grows and becomes the citizenry. From marginal to central. Belief in the divine right of kings, in the virgin birth, in immortality, are merely passwords for entry to the hall. Food and shelter are the issues. Biology. Galileo is condemned, smacked down, and then after a while embraced. Because ultimately it doesn’t matter. What matters is who lives and who dies, who breeds, who doesn’t.
Now take Dennet’s theory of consciousness and apply it to the stellar universe. Electromagnetic patterns mapped onto more energy than you can imagine. Big Cloud Guy.
For me, it’s the same old predicament. It’s not that I don’t believe in God, it’s that I don’t seem to believe in your God.

I will confess that I know very little about the most refined versions of theology now being worked out by clerics or scholars. I do know quite a bit more about the beliefs of Christians who are not theologians or scholars, and I can assure you that they believe, very strongly, that their God reveals His presence in day to day events. They lack the tools, and more importantly, the desire to rationalize the conflicts between what they believe and what science or observations of the materials world suggest.

Most important, and most characteristic in this regard is their denial of death’s finality. It is an old saw that there are no atheists in the foxholes – and it is not hard to guess why. We have had no reports from beyond the grave as yet, and Christian millenialism or the occasional spirit medium to the contrary, I do not expect we shall ever have any. This is a profoundly unsettling prospect, and how one handles it sets up the fundamental difference between the worldviews of real, practicing Christians and brights. Orthodox Christians (the faith in which I was trained as a youth) at every service will say these words as part of the Nicene Creed says: I await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come, Amen. No materialist can possibly mouth these words. (Nor, of course, could a materialist seriously recite most of the rest of that creed, e.g., references to Jesus as “light of light, true God of true God, consubstantial with the father, through whom all things were made.”; or other prayers, such as “Our father, who art in Heaven” (where’s heaven?) But perhaps, levels of belief in these formulas varies considerably by parishioner, and in any event is almost surely less fervent than belief in “God” as the being who created the universe and organizes life after death).

It’s all well and good to suggest that a scholar has cooked up some terribly sophisticated way to finesse or deny these conflicts. I submit however, that it is hard to see how these could be anything but tremendous obfuscations – on a par with the worst legalisms and loophole-seeking. Even if they were not, they would almost surely be rejected by the large majority of those who consider themselves religious.