Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…
Highlighted – I’ve read itAsterisked – a favourite.
Good list – glad to see A Wizard of Earthsea up there, but – no George R.R. Martin? No Robin Hobb?
Gelert, I have to confess that I’ve never even heard of Robin Hobb (ducks quickly). My only excuse is that by the time of her first major work (the Farseer Trilogy, published in 1995), I tended not to read much from the Fantasy genre. I’d got so fed up of wading through acres of dreck on the bookshops’ Fantasy bookshelves, trying to find a decent book, that I had all but given up trying. And while I might redeem myself in your eyes by the fact that I have heard of George R. R. Martin, I only have one book of his – and that’s a collection of short stories… I suppose that the author I was a little surprised not to see is Robert Silverberg – I would have thought that his books set on Majipoor would have been derserving of a mention.
Oh man, you HAVE to read this: http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-Song-Fire-Book/dp/0553573403. Really you do. It is a masterwork. Read number one, and I guarantee you will be reaching for the rest. Treat yourself.
The Farseer Trilogy is also well worth reading, at least I think so, and I recommended it to another ‘fussy’ s and f reader, who went on the read them all.
Gelert, OK, I’ll take your advice. A Game of Thrones has been ordered. We’ll see what I make of it/them. Er, "fussy"? – moi?
Ok. Make that ‘particular’. I know what you mean about trawling the shelves. Now I’m nervous about the book…… but hey, you can’t fail with it, what am I saying.
Tony Blair talks of ‘rebalancing between the rights of the suspect and the rights of the law-abiding majority’. John Reid declared to the Labour party conference , ‘It cannot be right that the rights of an individual suspected terrorist be placed above the rights, the life and limb of the rest of the British people. It cannot be right – it is wrong, no ifs, no buts, it’s just plain wrong.’ But these are false dichotomies: ‘suspects’ are members of the ‘majority’. They are innocent until proved guilty, their rights and those of the majority hang together. (It is a miserable fact, however, that thanks to its constant use, the word ‘suspect’ is now charged with the presumption of guilt – so much that the Guardian recently wrote of ‘alleged terrorist suspects’.) (p 42)
We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, so a simple lesson in semantics might help to clear the air for them on the meanings of "secular", "humanist" and "atheist". Once they have succeeded in understanding these terms they will grasp that none of them imply "faith" in anything, and that it is not possible to be a "fundamentalist" with respect to any of them.
People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a "faith" in "the non-existence of X" (where X is "fairies" or "goblins" or "gods"); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions. The views they take about things are proportional to the evidence supporting them, and are always subject to change in the light of new or better evidence.
"Faith" – specifically and precisely: the commitment to a belief in the absence of evidence supporting that belief, or even (to the greater merit of the believer) in the very teeth of evidence contrary to that belief – is a far different thing, which is why the phrase "religious thinktank" has a certain comic quality to it: for faith at its quickly-reached limit is the negation of thought.
I don’t agree that faith is the negation of thought, nor that it achieves a quickly reached limit. Faith, rather, is an imperative of thought as, given that faith has no ground in the empirical, it thus demands that we use reason as well as belief in its nurture and development. Religious ThinkTank thus suits faith down to the ground. Furthermore, because faith holds no certainty, it must be defended very rigorously against those very forces that claim it as an absolute and those who claim to have the last word of God. By its very nature, faith is a journey and is rendered impotent by those who claim absolutism in the name of God. If faith is to stay alive, it must always be researched, questioned, uncertain, argued, and inspected. There is no parameter to faith and to claim so risks apostacy.
Coboró, then I think you are selecting your definition of the word "faith". In particular, you seem to be ignoring the definition given by Grayling, which, as he says, he gives "specifically and precisely". It is the definition of faith as "spiritual apprehension or voluntary acceptance of divine revelation apart from absolute proof" – the definition used in my dictionary. It seems as though your answer to the question: "Do you draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith?" might be a "yes". My answer would be a "no".
I don’t see where Grayling’s definition differs greatly from mine, but then Grayling contradicts himself in his references to humanists, secularists and especially atheists. Our respective approaches to faith both involve embracing belief in the absence of proof. Atheists equally state their belief in the lack of a God whose existence they cannot disprove. Secularists and humanists likewhise choose and embrace paths laid by certain belief systems. Where Grayling does a disservice in his argument is to lump faeries, the Japanese Emperor, goblins and gods in the same bin and wouldn’t we all get along better if all that went away. In the first instance, he cites but ignores the impact of the cultural underpinning of belief systems because secondly, and he does this at the peril of his intellectual integrity, he deliberately conflates faith with religion and advocates throwing the baby out because he disagrees with the bathwater. I don’t think this is honest.
I have to say I find: ‘We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, ‘ to be rather sweeping and determinedly antagonistic. I suppose I, as a Christian, though by no means a ‘typical ‘ type, should be included in ‘the faithful’ yet I certainly do not live in a gloaming of either incense or obfuscation, inspissated or not. Nor do I take the idea that its only those who do not believe in a God that rely on reason and observation, since I certainly do require those two things on all levels. Where they seem to fly in the face of my experience, I deal with that experience on the same level, and I find that my reasons for belief are not ‘blind’ nor wishful, nor do I think that all ‘religious think tanks’ to be oxymoronic nor amusing, since I have had some of the deepest and most searching conversations with religious people. Like any other group, they contain all the elements. I suppose I’m just against sweeping generalisations or blanket dismissals.
…’proportional to the evidence supporting them, and are always subject to change in the light of new or better evidence. ‘ – yes, me too. I don’t claim to have empirical evidence that I can put before you or anyone else, yet my belief is not based on reasonless, proofless things, but on long standing and repeated ‘proofs’, which though it may seem ‘subjective’ is, I can assure you, sound, and subject to the above requirement. I have found during my life that there are many things that don’t fit neatly into all the boxes, but I am always utterly open to question. I did away with the goblins and fairies a long time ago, because I never found they showed me any teeth. I’ve not found that where spiritual matters are concerned – yet. I sometimes find that atheists of a certain flavour can be as determined and sweeping in their generalisations as any raving fundie of the religious order, and that both therefore run the risk of missing a great deal of interest from both sides.
Coboró,you say: "Atheists equally state their belief in the lack of a God whose existence they cannot disprove". There are two parts to your statement. The first is that atheists ‘believe’ there is no God, and the second is that they cannot disprove the existence of a God.
Let’s take them in turn. For the first, you may think it is merely semantics, but I assure you that, from where I stand, absence of belief is not the same thing of having a belief. Being bald is not a hair colour, to paraphrase Don Hirschberg.
For the second, as Dawkins says: "what matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t), but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of possibilities". Dawkins goes on to use this idea of a spectrum to place human judgements about the existence of God along it and chooses, for the sake of argument, to illustrate the continuous spectrum at seven points:
1 Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. C. G. Jung: ‘I do not believe, I know.’2 Very high probability, but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that her is there.’3 Higher than fifty percent, but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’4 Exactly 50 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’5 Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’7 Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.’
I’m in category 6, BTW.
I’m not clear as to why you feel Grayling is doing a disservice to his argument. I don’t think he’s conflating faith with religion, I think he’s arguing that (a) religion doesn’t own ethical systems, as some people believe, and that (b) religions have produced some pretty twisted aspects of humankind’s ethical systems. And along with that, I agree wholeheartedly with Grayling’s last paragraph. I’m not clear how you think that this position is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Gelert, I’m sorry that you didn’t see the humour in Grayling’s "inspissated gloaming" jibe, but I’m not going to apologise for him. It raised a wry smile with me, anyway. I’m curious, on the Dawkins spectrum that I mentioned in my reply to Coboró, where would you place yourself? And while it would probably take too long for you to explain your reasons for belief or your proofs, I am curious about them. While I can understand people’s need for religion as a mechanism to assist with aspects of life such as explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration, finding myself in category 6 because of the absence of any (to me) worthwhile proofs, I deal with life’s aspects without the use of religious belief.
Absence of belief is not, I feel the issue any more than belief is. If we wish to quantify the existence of God in mathematical terms (which is all probability is) then we may do that but it will not impinge on the certainty, or not, of God. There may well be life outside our solar system and indeed probability may play a role in the assertion but neither belief or probability will bring it into existence or negate same. The same is true of God. An atheist can no more believe God out of existence is he is there than a believer can will him to be if he isn’t. And that is the whole point of belief: it can not exist in certainty. An atheists believes, just as a theist does.
I don’t buy Dawkins’ arguments because I find them very facile and here I admit to only reading excerpts. But I do find that Grayling is disingenous if not a little arrogant when he implies that people of faith can not rely on reason without being inconsistent. Far greater minds than his have, Jung included. He rightly cites the damage done by religion to the well-being of society over the centuries but religion is not the same as belief and he would abandon belief in the same manner.
Coboró, either I’m sensing that you’re moving the goalposts, or we are playing on completely different fields, and probably completely different games. You define atheism as ‘belief in the lack of a god’, whereas I define atheism as ‘lack of belief in a god’. These are not the same thing. My definition is simply not-theism. Not "I don’t believe in a God". And I agree with you: the certainty of the existence or otherwise of a god or gods is irrelevant to my atheism. And I think that Grayling would also agree with you (he says "even some on my own side of the argument here make the mistake of thinking that the dispute about supernaturalistic beliefs is whether they are true or false").
I also get the feeling that you are looking at "faith" or "belief" in far broader contexts that Grayling is considering, i.e. religious faith or beliefs. The point is, as Grayling says, if someone chooses to believe in ‘X’, when evidence contrary to ‘X’ exists, then that is being irrational. In such a case, Grayling would claim it would be better to abandon that particular belief. I don’t see how you get from that to saying that Grayling is abandoning "belief" (the mental act or operation of accepting a fact or proposition as true) in general.
I can get the humour, perhaps its just that I find it a little irksome that, because I believe, so many times I’m assumed to be incapable of rational thought and so on, when I am not. I guess on the scale, I’d be a one – I’d say I know for sure, but I am sensible enough to allow a little two in there…. I am fascinated by studies of the brain and its reaches, so I’m open to examination and critical self examination.
This that you say: ‘While I can understand people’s need for religion as a mechanism to assist with aspects of life such as explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration’, I have to say are none of the reasons I believe. I can’t see the point of ‘feigning belief’ or of trying to believe, for those reasons, as the consolations would be empty ones. In fact, believing answers none of them for me. What I have experienced which makes me a believer has raised more questions (in the exploring further sense) than it has cosily replied to. I am considered a ‘heretic’ by a lot of the more fundamental believers, for my delight in the study of science, evolution, such things as my limited learning about string theory, multiverses etc. which to me illuminate rather than threaten what I believe. I think its so much bigger than some people make out. Great topic Geoff.
Gelert, when I used the example of the need for religion as a mechanism for coping, I didn’t mean to imply that people consciously adopt it in the sense of "feigning belief", or "trying to believe". I agree that that would be rather empty, simply acting, or going through the motions (though I have to wonder whether some parents in the UK are doing this in order to get their children in to a "good" school, which also happens to be a "faith-based" school). No, I do think that many people truly believe, and that then reflects back into those aspects of their lives that I mentioned. Why would it not?
Oh well, there’ll always be chocolate covered digestives, that’s the thing.
Hmmm. Why would it not? Why does it not. I think because that’s altogether too fluffy bunny. I have not found that my belief produces these effects. In many ways it makes life harder, more complicated, but also more fascinating. Life and the natural world is more fascinating the deeper you look into it, less animistically (is that a word?) cosy and safe. The same I have found with spirituality.
Interesting part about monotheists being atheists towards all other Gods. I don’t think I even fit there. I think that all understandings and expressions of ‘Gods’ perhaps only reflect an experience given clothes and references appropriate to the time. That its the same experience of that is behind them all.
Right now, I’d give anything for a chocolate biscuit and a nice cup of tea. That’s true comfort.
Gelert, hmm, I would have thought that Bach’s deep religious belief was a major source of his inspiration (to take but one example), or that many people take comfort from their belief that their loved ones will be waiting for them on the other side, but perhaps I’m barking up the wrong tree here.
I think that some monotheists are atheists towards other gods, but not all. After all "though shalt have no other god before me" seems to imply that there are other gods knocking about, and then there’s that rather troubling Psalm 82, which talks of God amongst the gods. But then, to offset that, I would expect that followers of the Christian God are atheists towards, for example, Thor, Wotan or Zeus…
Coboró, yup, I can accept that Chocolate Digestives are clear evidence of Intelligent Design. 🙂
Gaah – "thou" not "though"…
Oh, and while I don’t agree with much of what Mark Vernon has written today in the Guardian’s Comment is Free piece, I am very grateful to him for bringing to my attention a wonderful quote from the great Dennis Potter: "the genius of religion is that it is the wound and the bandage". And there, I think, was another great artist who used his religious upbringing to magnificent effect in his work. The "wound and the bandage" is so evident in everything that he wrote.
The wound and the bandage – I like that. I like Potters work too. Yep, I’m sure God inspires many, I can only speak for myself. Told you I was a crap example! I just think ‘God/s’ is/are so much other than what we try and squash ‘him’ into. And if you want intelligent design, it has to be the jaffa cake – how else did the orangy bit get into the middle?
I saw the Prestige, and thought it was a good film. I was disappointed that the ‘brilliant twist’ at the end was not a surprise to me, but it was to the people I went with, so maybe it was me. It made you think while watching, working out what was what, which is always fun, and the acting and atmosphere were great. I heard a radio interview with the book’s author, and he was pleased with the adaptation, even saying that he wished he’d begun the book the way the film had. That an author is pleased is always a good sign I think.
Gelert, thanks. I’ve tracked down a budget-priced copy of the book via Amazon Marketplace. I’m in two minds as to whether to read it after I’ve seen the film, or read it first. What would you do?
Geoff Coupe's Blog 
Leave a comment