Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
In May of 2014, Robert Burton initiated a discussion that included the following persons, who like to call themselves the Unchurch:
Robert Burton Erica C. Thompson William Franklin Jack O’Connor Kevin Eubanks Franz Klutschkowski Keith Bailey Linda Franklin
The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Robert Burton You replied on 5/17/2014 9:40 PM. Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 8:36 PM To: Erica C. Thompson; William Franklin; Jack(John) OConnor; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Keith Bailey
Colleagues, I rather like this guy's position. Rwb ‘The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/the-‐case-‐for-‐soft-‐atheism/?_r=0 This is the sixth in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Philip Kitcher, a professor of philosophy at Columbia University and the author of the forthcoming book “Life After Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism.”
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 9:40 PM To: Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Keith Bailey
He left out Joseph Campbell in his list of the good guys: "God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought." ________________________________________
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Franz Klutschkowski Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 7:47 AM To: William Franklin; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Keith Bailey
If I had studied more philosophy, those would have been my words.
Dr. Franz Klutschkowski, Ed.D North Central Texas College Psychology Professor Flower Mound Campus
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Keith Bailey You replied on 5/22/2014 2:41 PM. Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:40 PM To: Franz Klutschkowski; William Franklin; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; Kevin Eubanks.DR
So it's all about what benefits humanity (according to Kitcher). While benefiting humanity is certainly a worthwhile thing, it doesn't seem particularly satisfying by itself. I rather like thinking of (or believing in) a "transcendent". Keith
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:41 PM To: Keith Bailey; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; Kevin Eubanks.DR
I like imagining a transcendent something that has to do with our minds and where they come from and where they go. I also really like thinking about how vast the scale is outside human experience. Here's a cool site to meditate to: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140112.html Bill
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 9:14 AM To: Franz Klutschkowski; William Franklin; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor
I find emergence more satisfying than transcendence. The concept of a transcendent God seems to raise all sorts of moral and philosophical questions. Kevin
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:35 AM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor
But what about God as emergent force? Transcendent from the perspective of humans, universal at every level? The "moral and philosophical" questions arise out of
anthropomorphizing the linguistic aspects of The Transcendent, not out of anything inherent in its non-‐anthropomorphic emergent qualities. Soft atheism simply [?!] asks that we shed the human face on whatever forces we see at work, whether they be transcendent or emergent or both or neither. Bill
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Erica C. Thompson Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 2:29 PM To: William Franklin Cc: Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor
Shed on? What does that mean? That we do humanize or don't? I've been thinking of this in terms of the historical vs Easter/resurrected Jesus and the myth making of the Johnian community and the transcendent making of language. If God and our discussion of God are metaphorical (allegorical?) what are we trying to express or teach? What is the radicalness of Jesus that we have to make him a god-‐-‐a transcendence? And in my head is something about a reflection, or better, a narrative, of the cognitive and emotional development of humans. Our Odyssey. As we become more community-‐minded, we change our understanding of God to reflect that. We refine the symbol from creator to judge to enforcer to protector to savior to community organizer to cosmic architect to, well, to what we need next? Now? To illuminate and guide? So that we fashion a transcendent deity/force to, I don't know, justify or explain or provide a safety net for our leaps?
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 3:56 PM To: William Franklin; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor
As I understand the terms, "emergent" and "transcendent" are mutually exclusive. To say that God is "transcendent from the perspective of humans" is saying something about epistemology, but nothing about the nature of God. On the other hand, a God who is "universal at every level" sounds more like an immanent God than a transcendent one. To define God as an non-‐anthropomorphic emergent force seems to stretch the word "God" beyond any meaningful definition. What's left of the concept except "something we don't understand"?
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 4:14 PM To: Erica C. Thompson; William Franklin Cc: Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor
We can't help but anthropomorphize, but I still think it's a tendency we should fight against.
Your idea that the changing concept of God reflects human development reminds me of a great book by Robert Wright, The Evolution of God. In answer to your question "What next?" Wright would give an answer similar to Kitcher's: a focus on the here-‐and-‐now and on making life better for all living things-‐-‐which Keith finds so unsatisfying. Kevin
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Erica C. Thompson Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 8:48 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR Cc: William Franklin; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor
I referenced this conversation in tonight's Socrates Cafe. So thanks, all!
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:46 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor
I'm reminded of an Emily Dickinson poem-‐-‐"At half past seven implement nor element be seen-‐-‐and place was where the presence was-‐-‐circumference between-‐-‐" We live within the circumference of our perception, and our perceptions of God include many things. Some are transcendent-‐-‐some are human-‐-‐some are purely philosophical or psychological or linguistic or cultural. It's all very complex, and it's all bound within the circumference of what is given to us as individuals and as members of our linguistic culture. We bounce all sorts of different ways, but always run into the circumference of human perception. So, Kevin, I would say that what we "understand" about "God" is only meaningful within this circumference of meaning. Here, it's very useful to have a "Lord," a "Father," a "Spirit" with whom we can talk in the language we exist within. But when I stand on the top of a West Texas mountain at midnight on a clear summer night and look up at our galaxy, pondering the vastness of my linguistic circumference against the minute limits of my vision, I think God is not just bigger than we think-‐-‐he's way beyond anything we can even begin to imagine. And I see only a contrived linguistic difference between emergent forces operating eternally at all levels throughout all of creation and the transcendence of my own very finite transparent eyeball. God resides at the center of my transparent eyeball, enjoying life through me. I see God when I look into other eyes, human, cat, mosquito-‐-‐and I wonder if I see God in the waving leaves of plants arrayed up the hillside in the bright sunlight. For me, it's all bound up in the perception of living things. When my presence moves out beyond circumference, and my body is simply the place where I used to be, I wonder what will emerge next? Will I become a galaxy? I doubt it. Will I fall into a Black Hole, eternally captured in a place where Light, and therefore Time, moves no more? Who can even guess. My job is here and now, within this linguistic context. I'm gonna play it for all it's worth while I can.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Jack(John) OConnor Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 9:23 AM To: William Franklin; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson
Well...that's a deep subject. It seems that we can all agree that "God" is a mystery, and beyond our capacity to fully know. There are many ways to know, many ways to feel good about how we have chosen to know. I think I am with Keirkagaard in this idea -‐ we ultimately choose how we conceive of God, and anything beyond our ability to know, based on aesthetic considerations. This seems especially true with you literary types! One linguistic system sticks out to us with greater beauty, and for us works as a better conduit to that which we attempt to understand. This sounds relativistic, but I don't think it has to be. If God is larger than our ability to know, then no one perspective can be true, so indeed, God has many faces I'd suppose. The deal is, I think, to situate ourselves into a larger plan of existence, in a way which provides for us the greatest meaning and beauty. I suppose that is akin to saying God is anything you want Him to be, but this can be understood on a high level. Skepticism might be helpful too (Sexuts Empiricus) in that it takes a great deal of effort and wisdom to know -‐ unemotionally -‐ that want we THINK to be true might not be. Especially in relation to something we cannot understand, skepticism acknowledges that we can't know and so are open to all possibilities...
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:27 AM To: William Franklin; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor
It's great to be able to have these deep discussions again. I really missed them during this past year. "We live within the circumference of our perception." I agree that a gap will always remain between our perceptions of reality and reality itself. But I believe that our perceptions are capable of more closely approximating reality, even if the relationship is ultimately asymptotic. For example, our current perception of the sun is more accurate than the view of the sun as an anthropomorphic god or as a glowing ball embedded in a crystalline sphere. To me, the concept of God no longer has any explanatory power, except as "something that I can't explain, but that is vaguely satisfying." But such a concept of God seems even less satisfying than a "God of the gaps"; it's essentially "God as the gap." ". . . our perceptions of God include many things. Some are transcendent-‐-‐some are human-‐-‐some are purely philosophical or psychological or linguistic or cultural." I believe that the concept of God can be fully explained by philosophical, psychological, linguistic, and cultural factors (though I might add an evolutionary level to explain those higher-‐order levels). Wouldn’t a truly transcendent God would be, by definition, beyond human perception? How such a transcendent God could have any discernible effect on our universe is one of the philosophical problems that I mentioned in my earlier email.
"Here, it's very useful to have a "Lord," a "Father," a "Spirit" with whom we can talk in the language we exist within." I agree that the concept of a human-‐like God is very useful. (In fact, in God's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson argues that religion is an evolutionary adaptation.) But, of course, the fact that a concept is useful says nothing about whether the concept is true. "But when I stand on the top of a West Texas mountain at midnight on a clear summer night and look up at our galaxy, pondering the vastness of my linguistic circumference against the minute limits of my vision, I think God is not just bigger than we think-‐-‐he's way beyond anything we can even begin to imagine." The concept of God seems necessary to explain or valorize this kind of "oceanic feeling," since it is experienced by believers and atheists alike (even by Richard Dawkins: http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/richard_dawkins_im_not_like_christopher_hitchens/ "And I see only a contrived linguistic difference between emergent forces operating eternally at all levels throughout all of creation and the transcendence of my own very finite transparent eyeball." This is my point is greatest disagreement with your argument. I think that the difference between an emergent phenomena and transcendent one is more than a "contrived linguistic difference." First of all, I can see no way that a truly emergent force could operate eternally; for something to emerge at a higher level means that it emerges from the inter-‐workings of lower levels, a process which requires time. The emergence of order through evolution, for example, required billions of years. Second, to say that an emergent phenomena operates "at all levels throughout all of creation" contradicts the very meaning of emergent. If a higher-‐level order emerges, then it exists at a higher level. "When my presence moves out beyond circumference, and my body is simply the place where I used to be, I wonder what will emerge next? Will I become a galaxy? I doubt it. Will I fall into a Black Hole, eternally captured in a place where Light, and therefore Time, moves no more?" My disagreement with your view of consciousness is a good example of the non-‐trivial distinction between transcendent and emergent phenomena. To me, consciousness is emergent; it arises in time through the interaction of the physical brain, the body, and the environment. Therefore, it is not eternal. Nor can it exist when those interactions cease. Without my body, there is no "I" to turn into a galaxy or to spend eternity in a black hole.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:29 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) Oconnor
The big disagreement between thee and me concerns the nature of "the very meaning of emergent." You wrote "for something to emerge at a higher level means that it emerges from the inter-‐workings of lower levels, a process which requires time. The emergence of order through evolution, for example, required billions of years. Second, to say that an emergent phenomena operates "at all levels throughout all of creation" contradicts the very meaning of emergent."
I don't think the concept of "higher level" has any real meaning in the cosmic scheme. I think that emergence, like evolution, can lead to a dead end, or extinction, or entropic spirals. I do not assume emergence only moves higher or better. I assume only that it moves from what it is now to something else over time. As an example, a flock of starlings comes together, starts flying in what appears to be a roiling black cloud, with many thousands of birds flying in formations that are constantly shifting-‐-‐and they do this for a period of time before everyone stops and goes home. From chaotic nothing a "body" emerged, with something that sort of approximates a single "mind," and then that "mind" emerges into something else that might look like nothingness-‐-‐except that it will emerge again some where and some when else. The nature of that "mind" seems to me to be transcendent. It is not an eternal being-‐-‐it emerges and then entropies into the chaos from which it emerged, but with all the power to emerge again in the bodies of a million different birds, some where and some when else. Maybe we need to nail down definitions-‐-‐or maybe we need to at least understand what we mean when we use such complex concepts. It would help if we were together, sharing a synchronous bottle of wine in the very same time zone. I'll be home in a week. Give me a few days to sleep off jet lag and I open the pool for the season.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Franz Klutschkowski Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:48 PM To: William Franklin; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor
Well, as the old saying goes, "everyone believes in something and I believe I'll have another beer." This is getting rather interesting. Dr. Franz Klutschkowski, Ed.D
RE: meeting today? William Franklin Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 12:08 PM To: Keith Bailey; Jack(John) OConnor; Franz Klutschkowski; James Page; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Leslie Kelley; Robert Burton
Damn, there's a lot of that going around. First Jack, now you guys, and my seventeen-‐year-‐old cat is on life support because daughter can't bring herself to shoot the poor beast. Guess what I get to do when I get home next week. I'm gonna need a brew then for sure. But this week? Still drinking red wine in Italy for the next five nights. Bill
From: Keith Bailey Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:16 AM To: Jack(John) OConnor; Franz Klutschkowski; James Page; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Leslie Kelley; Robert Burton; William Franklin Subject: RE: meeting today?
Marla & I are in. We're about to send our dog to the happy hunting grounds, so this is a good call. Time? Keith ________________________________
From: Jack(John) OConnor Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 6:45 AM To: Franz Klutschkowski; James Page; Keith Bailey; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Leslie Kelley; Robert Burton; William Franklin Subject: meeting today?
I know its short notice, and I have to bring my little guy, but anyone interested in a gathering? There is a new place right by me called the Drunken Donkey which has a rather large selection of draughts. Its in the neighborhood of BJ’s… RE: question about editing my spring 2014 course William Franklin Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:03 AM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR I see what you mean. I revise the fresh comps so much I can't really tweak an old course. Looking forward to sharing a bottle of wine with you when I get back. Lots to talk about. We're thinking about a pool party with Italian grill. Bill
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR You replied on 5/31/2014 12:35 AM. Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:50 PM To: William Franklin
We missed you at the get-‐together today. I agree that it's good to discuss such things over a drink or two. But I also like these written discussions because I have more time to think about what I want to say. Kevin
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:35 AM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR
That's why I really like asynchronous writing courses. F2F is more fun, but writing gets ideas worked out more carefully. Let's keep it up. You've forced me to think further and I'm about ready to tackle immanence. Home Wednesday. Bill
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Erica C. Thompson
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 11:06 PM To: William Franklin; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor
From Marcus Borg's _Speaking Christian_: "the foundational voices of the Bible and the Christian tradition have affirmed that the reality to which God refers is both transcendent and immanent. To say that God is transcendent means that God is more than the universe. Tho say that God is immanent means that God is everywhere. "To think that the word God refers to a personlike being separate from the universe speaks only of God's transcendence. In shorthand, this is commonly called supernatural theism. God is a supernatural being separate from the universe. "To affirm both-‐-‐that God is transcendent, more than the universe, even as God is also immanent, a presence pervading the universe-‐-‐is the ancient biblical and Christian referent of the word God. To use a modern term coined in the early 1800s, this way of thinking about God is called panentheism. The Greek roots of the word mean 'everything is in God.'" And, "to affirm God as creator means that the universe in every moment of time is dependent upon God for its existence. The universe is in God, moves within God, has its existence within God. If God ceased creating the world, everything would vanish. Creation is about the universe's dependence upon God, not primarily about its origin in the past." Erica C. Thompson
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Franz Klutschkowski You replied on 6/1/2014 8:42 PM. Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 2:17 PM To: Erica C. Thompson; William Franklin; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Robert Burton; Jack(John) Oconnor
Great quotes! But...what does that really mean? Dr. Franz Klutschkowski, Ed.D
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 8:42 PM To: Franz Klutschkowski; Erica C. Thompson; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor
Yeah! And if we accept all this, what do we do with all this useless old iconography? I went to the Uffizi in Florence and saw dozens of sad Jesus and dead Jesus pictures, and a bunch of Saint Steven of the Arrows, and hanging Peters, and who knows how many sad Mother Mary pictures. I've attached a photo of a Mary shrine I took in a chapel in Bergamo this afternoon.
It's easy to move away from the anthropomorphic ideas of God and gods and goddesses as frozen in Italian art. Even easier to move away from dangling penises on muscular warriors and the smiling swan-‐caressing rape victims in the brutal older dispensations. It's less easy to explain the feeling of walking into a numinous space. I've visited and enjoyed many such experiences in the beautiful churches and stone circles and caves of Italy, France, Spain, and Britain. Enter psychology and sociology and the understanding of long coaching, to say nothing of the framing that our language gives us when it gives us no other easy options. So, Erica, what does it really mean to realize that "Creation is about the universe's dependence upon God, not primarily about its origin in the past?" If God is immanent creation, or creation always in progress, or emergence, or whatever new word-‐code we agree to, what are we to do with the sacred spaces full of unhappy dead Jesus icons? Your daughter was recently confirmed in such a tradition of belief and practice-‐-‐how does she move on? Does she stay entrenched in the old language, because that's all anyone will have to offer her? Or do you offer her a Socratic list of questions to activate doubt at every turn? Or do you have a new frame of cogency? We evolved from cave arts to stone spaces to mega-‐churches because we love the numinous space full of glowing pictures and the big echoes! We humans love the feeling that emerges from music and shared song, just as we love the feeling that emerges from watching men struggling against each other for that hard-‐fought gooooooooal! Aren't we ultimately looking for communion and catharsis in shared emotional experiences, triggered by rituals that have a solid history of making it be? Given that we're human, and given that we already have such a rich tradition of icons, how do we construct the caverns of our future shared rituals? It's fun and fulfilling to get together, to share bread and wine, and I hope we'll do that soon. But I gotta say it's also very useful, when I awake in the night and need someone to talk to,
that I have this glowing screen and a tight little community with whom to share. It's a real privilege, my friends, to be part of this Unchurch experience. There's something real and useful in this form of telepathy, which seems to me to be of a similar nature with prayer and meditation.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 5:07 AM To: Franz Klutschkowski; Erica C. Thompson; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor; [email protected]
The wife has requested admission to our little club-‐-‐so say hello, Linda!
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Franz Klutschkowski Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 6:39 AM To: William Franklin; Erica C. Thompson; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor; [email protected]
Yes, hello Linda, my name is Franz, and I'm an....... Right, so, the cosmos gets started (maybe by a "hacker" via Andrei Linde's concept of "chaotic inflation"), we evolve to get more complex brains than other animals and then, by golly, we have to put these brains to work by making up all kinds of concepts. I am amused by Jim Holt's (Why does the World Exist, book) quote of a 'well known professor of philosophical theology' in response to the question of the possibility of a divine entity creating the world and who's essence is contained in this existence, "Are you kidding? God is so perfect, He doesn't have to exist!" Dr. Franz Klutschkowski, Ed.D
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Linda Franklin [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 11:46 AM To: Franz Klutschkowski Cc: William Franklin; Erica C. Thompson; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Robert Burton; Jack(John) OConnor
Hello Franz et al. I am here and reading, but too tired to think very deeply at the moment beyond the demands of supper and packing up as we move toward our flight home on Wednesday so forgive a bit of simplification. Thank you for letting me join the group verbally. A few random reactions: I need to separate religion and spirituality in all this. Religion is about community. This conversation is an attempt to establish a language in a community because we, well most of us, have trouble with the language of established religions and we'd like to converse about that, hopefully to find a better way of discussing such things. So perhaps Kevin and Bill aren't trying to hack the baby in half, but it seems a little that way to me. Where's Solomon when you need him? Spirituality is what I felt yesterday and today in the old Catholic spaces of Bergamo. I marvel at the force which inspired people of limited technology (compared to today) to
create such spaces that move my soul, but I felt that same force in a wooded space dedicated to the memory of 770 ordinary, stubborn Italians who were massacred by the Nazis becaused they refused to accept Hitler as a god. For me, that force, whether in nature or as part of our human modification of nature, is immanent, emergent, transcendant and can slap me sideways when I'm not looking. Putting it in words somehow diminishes the experience.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:05 PM To: Jack(John) OConnor; William Franklin; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton; Erica C. Thompson
(Now that I've got my online course up and running, I have time to rejoin the conversation again.) I agree that, to some extent, that our conception of God is tied up with our aesthetic sense, although I'm not sure it's a conscious choice. To me, it's bound up with a person's basic temperament. Even as a child, Erin would go around singing spontaneous praise songs to Jesus. On the other hand, in first grade, Ethan told his Liberty Christian classmates that his favorite bible verses were Judges 3:21-‐22: "21 Ehud stretched out his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into [the king's] belly. 22 The handle also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and the refuse came out." On the other hand, I worry about chalking up all differences in beliefs concerning God to differences of aesthetic opinion, or of linguistic systems. Such an approach seems to trivialize what are real differences with real-‐world consequences. When Michael Behe claims that God created a bacterial flagellum at a particular moment in time, by a special act of creation, outside of the process of evolution, and then placed that flagellum into the already existing bacterium, I think my disagreement with his conception of God is more than a different linguistic system. Likewise, when the leader of Boko Harum claims that God told him to sell kidnapped girls into slavery, I think my objection to his idea of God is based on something more than aesthetic considerations. I also agree that skepticism is very useful and necessary. (The Outlines of Skepticism by Sextus Empiricus is a great work.) But, sometimes, skepticism can be used as a way to avoid the hard search for knowledge. I'm unwilling to admit out of hand that there are things that are "beyond our capacity to fully know." Such things may very well exist, but any attempt to preemptively declare something an unknowable mystery seems troublesome. It can lead to a new-‐age-‐ish "I'm OK. You're OK" approach to religion. Or it can lead to a conservative fideism (which is why the arch-‐skeptic Montaigne was so beloved by the French Counter-‐Reformation). Many of my Baptist friends are more than happy to apply skepticism when it comes to the claims of modern science.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 1:30 PM To: William Franklin
I'm not using "higher" to mean "better"; I'm using it to mean "more organized." I think the concept of emergence is meaningless without some sense that what emerges is more ordered or complex than what came before it. Even the most basic definition of emergence-‐-‐the whole is greater than the sum of its parts-‐-‐includes the idea that what emerges is in some sense a more organized entity than what came before. A tornado emerges out of chaotic air movement; complex ant-‐colony behavior arises out of individual ants following simple instincts. (I got the ant-‐colony example from the book Emergence by Steven Johnson.) To use your example of the starlings-‐-‐I agree with you that it's correct to use the term "emerge" to describe the complexly coordinated "body" of starlings that arises from the actions of individual birds. But it's wrong to describe the dissolution of that body as "emergence." The word "emerge," rather than being just a fancy-‐sounding synonym for "change," says something rather specific about the relationship between what emerges and what came before. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that, after the starlings disband, some amorphous immaterial "mind" continues to exist, which will then re-‐emerge in some other way. That seems to return to the basic disagreement between us. I don't accept that some mysterious transcendent entity floats around variously inhabiting starling flocks, ant colonies, and human bodies. Order arises; order dissipates into entropy.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ William Franklin Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:56 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR
It's very late-‐-‐we're at the hotel after dinner and wine, trying to go to sleep before the ordeal of flying home tomorrow. We'll be up at 6 am (11 pm tonight for you) and we'll be in transit until the taxi gets us home around midnight-‐thirty tomorrow night. I'm already exhausted-‐-‐jet lag is going to be a bitch this time. But just a single example of emergence in the sense I'm using it. A sperm cell gets lucky-‐-‐finds an egg-‐-‐and a whole organism emerges. Most specifically, there's a brain-‐-‐millions of individual cells without a single physical leader, governed by a "mind." And for a while, it gets more complex, more ordered, and it is indeed a more organized and more complex entity than what came before. But then the organism deteriorates and dies. Every single time. Every one of the millions of brain cells dies. Every person who houses a brain dies. But what was it that called consciousness into being in the first place? And how is it that that force-‐-‐whatever it is-‐-‐only works so long as things get more complex, when in fact nothing remains at a constant state of complexity, but rather falls subject to the laws of entropy. Every single time. To me, the fact of death and re-‐emergence has got to be part of the discussion. There's a physical side of being that has to do with being and entropy-‐-‐and there's a "mind" side that has to do with whatever it is that takes the random remnants of entropy and emerges again into the light. I'm feeling more Buddhist all the time.
Linda and I went to a cathedral in Bergamo yesterday where there was a chapel dedicated to John XXIII. Very beautiful all around, but in the crypt below was a startling surprise. I've been below in many churches, and they are usually dark and tight, filled with stone coffins with saints and such. This one glowed. White marble with white stone coffins in a semi-‐circle. And coming out of the wall opposite from the door was what I thought at first was a crucifix. It was Jesus in the posture of crucifixion, but without the cross! Like he was flying. Like his arms were wings. And the lights cast shadows, and he had many arms. What an image for a room full of dead bodies. We have to use the images that populate our imagination, but sometimes, instead of the skulls and thigh bones of an ancient reliquary, we get an emergent imagination, taking what we already think is familiar, and forging out of our expectations something new and exciting. For a while, anyway.
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Erica C. Thompson Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 8:20 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR; Jack(John) OConnor; William Franklin; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton
When I was first emerging from the literalist, heaven or hell framework within which I was reared (and baptized not so much in belief as a way to get my mother off my back), I wandered around asking anyone who would humor me what she or he thought of grace, what grace meant. In my mind, the idea of grace was all tied up in some kind of exchange of faith for grace, but what if I didn't believe ... everything? What if my faith was shallow? What I was really asking, wondering, seeking, was, of course, some understanding of the relationship between God and humans. Grace was and remains for me, synonymous with God. Now, Bill asked me, "So, Erica, what does it really mean to realize that 'Creation is about the universe's dependence upon God, not primarily about its origin in the past'?" Electrons and all the unknowable subatomic and dark particles. The universe stuff. The immanence. That is God, yes? The spaces in between. God is not in this collection of atoms but God is them and through them and is the strings/strands/fractals/chaoses of theoretic physics. And this is grace, too, because it is given/shared/IS without being requested or asked. But because God is immanent, firmament, fluid, God is not in the sex slave traders or the subway bombers. God is there, but the bombing and the kidnapping and the killing? That's humanity. That's some awful quirk of evolution. The drive to survive-‐-‐no, to prosper and conquer. We create a god in our own image. Is that GOD, though? No. But neither is my experience of God the GOD. These boxes we call brains are so very, very small. Erica C. Thompson spirituality without supernatural
Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:01 PM To: William Franklin; Erica C. Thompson; Franz Klutschkowski; Keith Bailey; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
I find the spirituality this author expresses very satisfying (although “spirituality” might not be quite the right word): Cancer—Into the Wild Darkness. Kevin
RE: The Case for ‘Soft Atheism’ Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:45 PM To: Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; William Franklin; Franz Klutschkowski; Robert Burton
"God is not in this collection of atoms but God is them and through them and is the strings/strands/fractals/chaoses of theoretic physics." Do you mean that "God" is the sum total of what is? If so, then that's a definition of God that I can agree with. However, it sounds more like pantheism than panentheism. (It actually sounds like Spinoza's and Einstein's god.) Panentheism wants to retain some supernatural residuum in the concept of God, which seems superfluous to me. But why is God not in sex slave traders and subway bombers? It seems to let God off the hook too easily to give him credit for all of the good stuff but not to give him any blame for the bad stuff. The inadequacy of every theodicy has long bothered me. In fact, I think it's one of the reasons that I became a lapsed Baptist (although, luckily, since Baptists believe in once-‐saved-‐always-‐saved, I still have a get-‐out-‐of-‐hell-‐free card). Bart Ehrman's God's Problem is a really good exploration of the problem. The transcendent watchmaker-‐deist God can get off the hook somewhat, since he merely got things going and then sat back to watch it run. But an immanent God like the one Borg describes seems to be either inept or a monster. If, as Borg claims, he's continually got his hand in creation, then why is everything so screwed up? I've never been able to find a satisfactory response to the dilemma proposed by Hume: "Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" To me, the answer is simple: nature is completely amoral. Morality is the product of evolution, but evolution itself is amoral. Therefore, both subway bombers and our moral outrage at them are products of evolution. E.O. Wilson argues that humans (and other eusocial animals) are the products of natural selection on two levels: individual selection and group selection. Group-‐selection pressures correspond to our moral sense: not hurting other people, helping the helpless. Individual-‐selection pressures correspond to our sense of sin: selfishness, viewing other living creatures as means rather than as ends in themselves. That explanation seems more satisfactory to me than the kind of philosophical gerrymandering that one has to do to keep from implicating God in evil.
RE: spirituality without supernatural Keith Bailey Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 1:21 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR; William Franklin; Erica C. Thompson; Franz Klutschkowski; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
When Marla & I get back (moving June 13 – 14), we need to gather and discuss this – perhaps resurrect the unchurch. This article makes me feel like a skin cell in the body of Nature. I live a while, serve my purpose, then die and slough off while the body of Nature lives on. Not sure how satisfying that is to me. Keith
RE: spirituality without supernatural Franz Klutschkowski Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 2:51 PM To: Keith Bailey; Kevin Eubanks.DR; William Franklin; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
So, does a skin cell feel very spiritual? Happy moving. Dr. Franz Klutschkowski, Ed.D
RE: spirituality without supernatural William Franklin Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 3:16 PM To: Keith Bailey
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/us/harvard-‐book-‐human-‐skin/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Hmmmmm.
RE: spirituality without supernatural Franz Klutschkowski Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 4:43 PM To: William Franklin; Keith Bailey; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
Well, as I write, I am sitting in a beach chair, overlooking the beautiful waters of Great Exuma in the Bahamas and drinking "The Beer of the Bahamas" KALIK. So, can't make it anytime soon, but will be available after the 15th of June for Italian gathering. Dr. Franz Klutschkowski, Ed.D
RE: spirituality without supernatural Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 9:16 AM To: William Franklin; Robert Burton; Franz Klutschkowski; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor
I like the analogy. But at least we’re special skin cells, because we have the privilege (or is it a curse?) to be able to understand that we’re skin cells in the body of Nature.
RE: spirituality without supernatural Kevin Eubanks.DR
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 10:28 AM To: Keith Bailey; William Franklin; Erica C. Thompson; Franz Klutschkowski; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
To me, it’s the least unsatisfying alternative. What other options are there? A heaven that you can only get into by saying, or believing, or doing the right things? That seems unfair. A heaven that everyone can get into? Then what’s the point of this life? Reincarnation? That seems like the movie Groundhog day without the happy ending. To paraphrase Churchill: naturalism is the worst form of belief, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.
RE: spirituality without supernatural William Franklin Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 1:02 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR; Keith Bailey; Erica C. Thompson; Franz Klutschkowski; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
What gets sloughed off are the clothes that mask the mind. In my thinking of emergence, which I think of as cyclical rather than linear, the key missing element is what Coleridge calls "the eternal act of creation" by the "infinite "I AM." I think I am a reflection, in this life, of this creative force. I think it cannot be "proved," but it needs no proof. A small part of this universe, we're beginning to understand, comprises that which can be witnessed through our senses. Vastly more resides in the "dark energy and matter" outside our observation. I'm happy to live in faith and hope, not in linear Christianity or cyclical Buddhism, but in the emerging metaphor of active continuance implicit in our long-‐held childlike faith in life after life.
RE: spirituality without supernatural Franz Klutschkowski Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 4:16 PM To: William Franklin; Kevin Eubanks.DR; Keith Bailey; Erica C. Thompson; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
OK, so here is a little levity, I am in the Bahamas and listening to all the native island music, so here is a rough phrase of one of the songs "....so eyes wakes up in the mornin & the toght cums to my head, everbody wanna go to heavn, but nobody wanna be dead!" Dr. Franz Klutschkowski, Ed.D
RE: spirituality without supernatural Kevin Eubanks.DR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 10:47 PM To: William Franklin; Keith Bailey; Erica C. Thompson; Franz Klutschkowski; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
What you're saying seems very much like Hinduism, with Brahman being what you're calling "mind."
Do you believe in a way out of the cycle? To me, the idea of being eternally reconstituted as various suffering beings is horrific. I'm very grateful that I've led an amazingly easy and comfortable life. When I consider the nasty, brutish, short life of the vast majority of living things throughout history, I don't think the chances are very high of my having it so good next time.
RE: spirituality without supernatural William Franklin Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 11:52 PM To: Kevin Eubanks.DR; Keith Bailey; Erica C. Thompson; Franz Klutschkowski; Jack(John) OConnor; Robert Burton
The most brutal rule of nature is entropy. In a linear view, there's a clear way out, and if consciousness is a construct of the singular body, then there's an end to awareness. I think that's probably what happens-‐-‐this brain, when it shuts off, ceases to be a housing for "mind," which becomes unconscious and never comes back together again. But there's a story told me by a drug-‐crazed friend of mine-‐-‐I already shared this, but here goes again. He crashed his motorcycle into a tree and fell into a state of consciousness he could not explain, but was certain of. Beings he couldn't describe welcomed him without words, making him feel comfortable and at ease. When he was jerked back into this world, he was angry because he didn't want to leave-‐-‐it felt so good where he had been. If a preacher told me this, I'd silently scoff and write it off as a sermon. But Don was a singularly un-‐preacherly sort. Pot and quaaludes and lots of beer. His vision was far too coherent for a stoner. He didn't get it from a book, or from an un-‐church group of scholarly friends. We've all heard similar stories-‐-‐and while it may well come from the collective literary grab-‐bag of world-‐as-‐wished-‐for, I can't help but wonder about the concrete reality behind the near-‐universal body of metaphors for "mind" and "soul" and "the afterlife." I'm with you on this, though-‐-‐we live amazingly good lives, and the more we learn about the history of humankind, the more grateful we are for this place we find ourselves. The odds are highly against our finding our way into an existence this fine ever again, much less in an emerging series of increasingly better existences. My father used to say "I don't know if it's true or not-‐-‐but I'm not taking any chances." I find myself of a similar mindset. I don't know if my "mind" will emerge from this state to another, or whether it will take forty days in the Between before I reemerge, or whether I will crawl through a black hole/worm hole in the fabric of time and space, or leap, like Blake, into the abyss. I don't know if I can influence my future karma through mental and spiritual efforts in this life. But why not live as though the efforts of this life will effect/affect the succeeding state? If it be but a vain belief, so be it, but I think the world of humanity advances through such efforts. Tiny advances have brought us to a pretty wonderful place. A granddaughter sleeps upstairs-‐-‐my cat is dying. Somewhere between hope and despair, I sit in this darkness, thinking about A. E. Housman:
... malt does more than Milton can To justify God’s ways to man.
Ale, man, ale’s the stuff to drink For fellows whom it hurts to think: Look into the pewter pot To see the world as the world’s not. And faith, ’tis pleasant till ’tis past: The mischief is that ’twill not last. I haven't had a beer in over a month. I think it's time.
Bill
