by Steve Neumann
About Rationally Speaking
Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
S is for Satan... and Scalia
by Steve Neumann
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked the Master & Margarita reference! That was the first book I read in Russian, a long time ago. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you noticed that neither Scalia, nor most Americans who believe in the devil, actually alieve in the devil. This is both an indictment of their consistency and an exoneration of their (instrumental) rationality. I sort of cringe when atheists act as if the whole of society is genuinely crazy.
Scalia's comment about the interviewer's being out of touch is interesting. Although obviously I'm on the interviewer's side on the object level, Scalia has a point: intellectuals are very out of touch with how the majority lives & believes.
If you want more anecdotes about religious experiences, the classic is William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience". This is a fascinating book that is both psychology and philosophy, as James attempts to provide a sort of philosophical defense of the validity of conversion experiences. Ultimately it is not very convincing, but it is clever, and James is a fantastic writer.
It's quite arguable, what with Atwill in the air right now, that David is MORE likely to be mythical than Jesus. His name, after all, may be nothing other than a resyllabilization in the consonants-only Hebrew of the Canaanite god Dod.
ReplyDeleteOh, and to build on Master & Margherita? Walter Kaufman's Critique of Religion and Philosophy's a good read.
I offer a third option, not new to me, but updated, on both traditional ideas about a historic Jesus and mythicism: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/10/jesus-reality-and-jesus-mythicism-moved.html
DeleteExactly. Acts says that Christians were first called that in Antioch, and since I date its composition to about 115, as noted, I doubt Christianity was called that before 100. Simple enough. Given that some early Church fathers of the East came from this area, Antioch's a likely spot for the provenance of Luke-Acts.
DeleteHey Plato, shadows are real, and those shadows in your cave are real too. =
ReplyDeleteHe's an odd one, is Justice Scalia. As for the devil, though an interesting expositive device in fiction, he seems to me to be something we use as an excuse for God and for ourselves. He's God's alibi, as it were, for the fact that the universe is sometimes disagreeable and we are as well (he represents one of the ways to respond to the Problem of Evil. And he functions well as an excuse for our own misbehavior also; "the devil made me do it."
ReplyDeleteIn Soviet Russia, Devil goes to you!
ReplyDeleteMany liberals speak as if Scalia were the Devil.
ReplyDelete"just because there is a paucity of corroborating evidence outside the Bible for David’s existence doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, or even that the Bible doesn’t get the details of his life correct. But the lack of such external evidence certainly makes it doubtful."
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate on what you mean by doubtful, and how you arrive at it? Do you have a specific methodology in mind for evaluating the percentage likelihood that a historical figure existed? What are your estimates for David, Jesus, Socrates, Mohamed, Julius Caesar, or Napoleon? How far off from your estimate can someone be before you think they're being unreasonable?
"You may even know people who claim to have had this sort of experience. Many nonbelievers would likely call them “crazy.” I’ll respectfully call them “dubious at best.” "
Likewise, can you clarify what "dubious at best" means, and how you get there? If one were to experience a supernatural presence, there are a range of theories they could use to explain the experience: It could be the result of mental illness; it could be active imagination; it could be some mental process we don't really understand; it could be an elaborate hoax; or it could actually be caused by a supernatural being. It's not clear how to assign likelihoods between these explanations, but it seems reasonable to shift weight to the last one if the experiences continue over time, if there are no other signs of mental illness, and no signs of someone committing a prank. Do you have in mind a specific procedure for evaluating the theories that you are using to conclude that all these claims are all dubious? Is it unreasonable for someone to use a different evaluation procedure that yields a different result?
At least Scalia makes his position clear: He has no respect for natural humanity. But he does respect supernatural beings.
ReplyDeletethey don’t really live as if he exists.
ReplyDeleteHeh. You could say the same about most religious people and their God figures.
A useful exercise is to consider for which things in your life it is the case that you live as if they were false, even as you affirm their truth.
DeleteThis problem is not limited to religious believers, by any means.
This problem is not limited to religious believers, by any means.
DeleteAgreed.
A curious paradox is that some religious behavior we despise is usually a logical consequence of a belief . for e.g. I really dislike evangelicals like Jehovah's witnesses proselytizing me at bus stops or at my home - but if you really believe I'm going to hell , and you want to help me , proselytizing me is the logical outcome. On the other hand I usually have no problem with people who dont bug me or anyone else about their beliefs. But if they believe in a Hell they essentially don't care if I'm going to roast for eternity - sadists :)!