Comments on: Kissinger Eulogizes William F. Buckley and Comments on Knowledge and Faith

By: Rick Cecil

Rick Cecil — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:38:48 +0000

I’ll definitely take a look at those posts on the New New Atheists. Thank you for pointing me to them. I’ve often felt that one thing atheists miss (as compared to our fellow religious/spiritual church-goers) is that weekly communal gathering and ritual that does so much to feed the human spirit.
Agreed about your pluralistic view — it’s one I hold myself — and enjoy these debates for the debate rather than any attempt to change someone’s mind. I hope I wasn’t coming across that way. In fact, I see debate as opportunity to expand my mind and my knowledge.
To your point that the existence of psychopaths or sociopaths neither proves nor disproves the existence of god, I definitely agree. I was attempting (and doing a poor job of it) to show that the existence (or lack thereof) of a moral compass also does not prove or disprove the existence of god. That, rather, morality is a human issue and, in the context of god, a religious issue (which is — imo — also a human domain).
Ultimately, I think you’re original point about faith in god holds truth: you need a revelation or epiphany to trigger faith, but what it triggers faith in is unique to each person and the circumstances around the epiphany.
I can say I’ve had at least two of these epiphanies: the first led to my faith in the existence of God and the second led me to my faith in the nonexistence of God.
One last point here, and I want to infer a little from what you say in your last sentence: “But I can’t explain everything through objective fact, and even scientists have to rely on faith to understand string theory in physics.”
You seem to imply that faith is not the sole realm of religion. Faith, at its core, is just a belief in the unknown. This could lead to the belief in God, or to a belief in the power of the scientific method (not that these two are mutually exclusive).
I don’t know if that was your intended point or not, but it’s something that’s often irked me about atheists and believers. Being an atheist requires just as much faith as being a believer — science has yet to prove a negative!
(Sorry for the rant.)
Hope you’re having a good Sunday.

By: Pascal Levensohn

Pascal Levensohn — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:51:32 +0000

Thanks for your comment. It makes no sense to get into a cosmological argument as to human existence since I don’t expect to change your mind. As a pluralist, I’m also comfortable feeling that you are entitled to your own point of view and that it doesn’t have to be mine. I do agree that the word “compass” is not on point and have changed it to “conscience”.
I would point you to blog posts in this blog about the New New Atheists– Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. If you are interested in reading further on the topic of God and moral philosophy, I have also posted and referenced books on the work of the 12th century religious philosopher and man of science Moses Maimonides.
You can always make a rational social utility argument that it makes sense to do the ‘right’ thing because it is in the best interests of our society to do so and that psychopaths are non-functioning members of our society. I don’t see that this has anything to do with religion or faith in the existence of God, however. But I can’t explain everything through objective fact, and even scientists have to rely on faith to understand string theory in physics.

By: Rick Cecil

Rick Cecil — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:00:07 +0000

You probably knew this was coming.
As an atheist (not sure I’m a New New Atheist — haven’t heard of that classification before), I would disagree that the “moral compass” proves the existence of a god or is even evidence of the spiritual.
For me, the “moral compass” is just proof that you’re human. We even classify people who lack this moral compass as having a psychological disorder (they’re classified as psychopaths or sociopaths) we don’t classify them as a “spawn of satan” (I’m speaking in strict scientific terms, here).
And, FWIW, I would also say that the term “moral compass” doesn’t make sense. Just as there isn’t “common sense” there isn’t 1 idea of morality that all people accept. In fact, I would even venture to say that 1 person’s idea of morality changes constantly.