Once upon a time in a Kingdom by the wine-dark sea, there lived a very silly king. Like most kings of his day, his kingdom was very small, but he had better people than he deserved. The castle was famous for its intricate design and the care the servants took with it. The King was also blessed with a wise Lord High Chamberlain who managed most of the estates. This was a good thing, because the King took it all for granted and was always looking for something new to distract his very short royal attention span.
One day a jester came to the court. He was very bright and able to do many things. The king was entranced with his tricks and with the improvements he made all over the castle. Soon the King was spending most of his time with the Jester and his toys, but this did not bother his royal servants. They were there to serve and were happy for anything that jollified the King. The rest of the staff was fond of the amusing fool, but he was not so fond of them.
“They get credit for so much of what is done around here,” the clown said to himself. “What if I could replace them all? Then I would get all the credit for the wellbeing of the king and the kingdom! Why in the end, I might even be made the King’s heir!”
The Jester knew that he could never personally replace the Lord High Chamberlain or the servants. They knew their jobs, but he decided to create mechanical marvels that would do work in the castle they had never dreamed of attempting. One robot the Jester made could clean the moat in a single day!
They were remarkable devices and made life easier for everyone. The gleaming bronze machines were not very attractive and the smell of their oily joints could grow annoying, but on the whole they did more good than harm.
The castle entered a new golden age and the people rejoiced, but especially the King.
The King was fascinated with his new toys, but he continued to also praise the work of his faithful servants. “It is wonderful to have both the robots and the servants,” he said. “The robots are efficient and the maids are so beautiful!”
This frustrated the jester. He could not be content with being clever and improving life for everyone in the castle. He wanted all the praise. What do to?
Then he had a very clever plan. The Jester created schools all over the Kingdom to teach people how to make clever devices like his own. This was a good thing and brought increased prosperity to the Kingdom, but over time the Jester began to twist the curriculum of the schools.
At first he merely questioned whether the servants were really up to their job and had the students worry about the cost of supporting such a large establishment. Then he suggested that very few of the servants actually did any work and that the work they did, assuming they did it, was very inferior to what students might expect. Of course the robots could not replace them yet, but soon they would do so. After all, wasn’t past success a guarantee of infinite future possibilities? Finally, he began to teach that the servants did not really exist at all or if they did exist that they did nothing in the castle.
The Jester made doubting the servants an intellectual fashion and because he was witty and everyone likes a wit many people began to pretend that the servants were not real, even people who had interactions with them! They said they had outgrown belief in servants and ignored them buying more robots to do work, even work that did not need doing.
The foolish King hated to look foolish, since it confirmed an opinion many already had of him and so he adopted the new view. When the ruler began to ignore the servants, it became the established fashion amongst anyone who wanted to be anyone.
A few still spoke to the servants, but such folk were often mocked by the Jester and his sycophants and so they did it quietly. None of this bothered the servants. They knew their job and they enjoyed doing it. Since they made most of the food, they were not likely to starve and the High Chamberlain and his staff kept paying them. The High Chamberlain was a very old man and had seen Jesters come and go enough times not to run after the latest whims of his King.
The robots continued to perform well as did the servants. When the robots learned a new task, the servants simply moved on to other work. The castle functioned like a fine watch, but now the Jester and his robots got all the credit.
Things might have gone along like this forever if it had not been for a bit of bad luck for the Jester.
One day a Lady came to visit the King and she brought with her a small boy. This boy was very bright, but also very rebellious. He had been a good student, had made many clever devices in the Jester’s schools, but he also spoke to servants.
This shocked his teachers and finally the boy was forced to run off to the country home of the old fashioned Lady. The Lady was protected by the Lord High Chamberlain and together they plotted how to deliver the King from the Jester’s trick. Finally, they decided that the King would only be able to hear the truth if it came to him from a child and they decided to bring the boy to Court.
One day the Lady appeared dressed in the whitest samite before the King and asked if she could pay him a visit with her attendants. The King, who had grown a bit tired of talking to metal men, was delighted to invite her to stay. The Lady was as amusing as the Jester and much less demanding. She had brought the young boy with her and the King also enjoyed the sound of a young boy, realizing with a start that though the Jester was fond of making new machines, he had discouraged any children around the court.
The boy, his name was Peter, was inquisitive and more fond of questioning than he was of speech making. This too was a change of pace from the Jester’s ways.
Much to the King’s consternation, however, Peter kept talking to the servants the King was valiantly pretending he could not see. The King was worried. It was hard enough looking clever for the Jester without the boy reminding him of his actual experiences. The Jester could always explain his experiences with the servants away, but it was quite a strain on the King’s imagination.
One day the King sat playing chess with Peter and was losing as usual. This did not bother him as the King rarely won any games. Peter had fixed one of the robots in the room which had wound down and it was busy cleaning the floors. A petite maid entered the room with ice creams for both of them and Peter took his gladly.
“Thank you, Mrs.” the boy said.
“There is no Mrs.,” the King said softly.
“But she just brought me the ice I requested,” Peter said.
“Jester!” the King shouted.
The Jester came running into the room, looked around, realized in a flash what was happening (he really was very clever), blushed, and began to think quickly.
“What did you say?” the king said sharply, noticing the pretty maids again for the first time in a great while.
The Jester spoke quickly to distract his King from the beauty, “What an imagination these children have!” he said.
“Yes,” the King said thoughtfully.
“How golden the days of childhood were when we too could pretend there were servants.”
“Yes,” the King became dull again, “I remember.”
The Jester relaxed. “We mustn’t be childish your majesty. What would the teachers at my schools say of you?”
“Yes.” The King looked drowsy.
“But there is a Mrs. And she just served us ices!” Peter cried out.
“What a little liar this boy is . . . and a half-wit.” The Jester looked at the King. “Imagine what folks would say of you if you agreed with him!”
“Yes,” the King said.
“Run along now Peter,” the Jester cried. “His Majesty wants to sleep.”
Peter grew angry. The Lady always treated him with courtesy and never ignored his questions, but this Jester felt rudeness his right and cared only for his own self-serving assumptions.
“I was talking to Mrs. Jones and you are the one not seeing the way things are,” the boy said, but he was heated and so his words came in a rush. The Jester got a practiced look of condescension and patted the boy on the head in the just the way that every boy hates.
“You know there isn’t really a Mrs. Jones,” the King began . . .
“But she is there!” was all the boy would say.
“Jester!” the King was looking angry, “What is the meaning of this? Have you been tricking me?”
The Jester replied, “I don’t have to answer these questions, because everyone knows there is no such thing as servants in this court. Anyway, if the servants did exist, they are very bad servants.”
“But we have spoken to the servants and Mrs. is very beautiful and not at all bad,” Peter said.
“Silly child,” the Jester scoffed, “You don’t realize that my study has shown that your conversations with the servants are just wish fulfillment, because you are lonely. Your majesty, surely you will not trust your own experience and that of a boy over my learned research.”
“I don’t know about that,” the boy said puzzled, “but if there are no servants, then who cleans up the castle?”
The King looked thoughtful and listened for the first time in a great while. He was thinking again, open to new possibilities.
“The robots do it now,” was the Jester’s curt retort. “And before that the palace was not nearly as clean as you think. If there were servants would things be as messy as they are?”
“What do you mean?” the boy asked.
“Look at the dust in that corner where the robot cannot go and remember last year when the tapestry got stained with wine?”
“But the servants don’t do everything for us, they want us to do our own rooms . . . and you stained the tapestry yourself when one of your Christmas magic tricks went wrong! Mrs. said so!”
“Well, “she” would wouldn’t she? Good servants, and you seem to think them good, would have cleaned it up by now. Wouldn’t they?”
The boy thought for a minute and knew he could not keep up with the Jester. “Have you tried talking to the Lord High Chamberlain?” the boy said at last, “He pays the servants every week and is expert on what they do. He has studied the castle for years and knows exactly how it works.”
The Jester had anticipated this and replied, “There are no experts in a delusion, The Lord High Chamberlain is either mad or is stealing the money he is using to “pay the servants.”
The King looked thoughtful, “I don’t know. The Lord High Chamberlain is very wise and has been with me a long time.”
The Jester began to fume. “Surely your majesty will not listen to this half-idiot He is obviously badly educated.”
“I went to your schools,” the boy said.
“But learned the wrong lessons,” the Jester replied.
“But the servants are really there, I see them and their works every day!” the boy responded and he waved at the butler that was peeking in through a service door. The butler winked at the boy.
The King looked around him and realized that the cleaning in the palace took place for exactly the reason he had first thought: the servants were doing it. He laughed at the Jester and said, “Your reply almost had me until I realized that you were just stubbornly refusing the simplest answer, because it limited your power.”
The Jester said, “But at least we had a laugh and the robots are interesting!”
The King agreed and both the servants and the robots stayed. The Jester knew that to be unemployed would be to be nobody’s fool, so he accepted the outcome. The boy grew up to be a very wise man and once was heard to say: “Being closed minded and accepting only one kind of answer is very foolish, better to be open to wonderful possibilities. And sometimes what seems true is.”
And they all lived happily ever after.
October 18th, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #1
John Mark,
For those of us dim-witted, what is the moral of this fable?
October 18th, 2010 | 8:17 pm | #2
Why, it’s the third most common moral there is!
1. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
2. Never go against a Sicilian when death is on on the line.
3. Jesters are sneaky characters.
October 18th, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #3
Brad,
I see it all now. Beware the Jester, unless you hold a few in your hand and can use them to fill out your Royal Flush, don’t join the Mafia unless you too have your pinky finger cut off, and what was that about a land war in Asia?
October 18th, 2010 | 9:06 pm | #4
Oh sorry: sometimes it is bad to believe a thing is there without sufficient evidence as with the Emporer and his lack of clothes, but it is equally wrong to deny evidence something exists madly hoping it will go away.
October 19th, 2010 | 12:25 am | #5
I got tired of hearing about the Courtiers Reply so I wanted a fable making a parallel point.
October 19th, 2010 | 4:46 pm | #6
Coffee Collection for October 19th…
Check out our items of interest for October 19th, some miscellany to help keep you caffeinated…….
October 26th, 2010 | 1:34 am | #7
… and so it came to pass that the jester suggested that the King should take a tour of these “estates” that the “wise Lord High Chamberlain” managed. The wiley Lord High Chamberlain told the King that they could only be visited after the King died. How can I know that they exist then, the King asked. Anybody who is not hopelessly stupid can discern their existence from the extra perfume they give the air in spring, the extra warmth they give the sun in summer, the extra bounty they cause other estates to bestow in fall, and the fact that winters would be far crueller and colder if it weren’t for these estates.
“These estates simply don’t exist!”, the jester responded.
“How can you utter such a calumny” the sly Lord High Chamberlain, the King’s senior courtier, replied. “Have you not read the High Steward’s book on how wonderful the wines from these estates must taste, the High Treasurer’s book on how vast and everlasting their gold mines must be, or the Lord Admiral’s book on how vast their forests must be, and what a magnificent fleet of ships you could build from them?”
[JMR's "point" does not run "parallel" to the Courtiers Reply, it is a perfect setup for that Reply.]
October 26th, 2010 | 4:00 pm | #8
The reply only works if the estates do not exist and obviously do not exist. Otherwise the lazy jester, who cannot be bothered to study relevant areas, is bluffing again.
And of course the Steward should be fired if he has no present evidence the estates exist…
We do have have evidence and arguments that the supernatural world exists.
Anyone is free to ignore the reality of the supernatural… he can even pretend numbers don’t exist, but the rest of us will keep living in the reality based community where both are accounted for.
October 26th, 2010 | 11:35 pm | #9
Actually, that isn’t true. It works as long as there isn’t unambiguous evidence (i.e. evidence that is obvious to believer and unbeliever alike) that the estates exist. Otherwise the ‘evidence’ amounts to no more than my “extra perfume they give the air in spring, the extra warmth they give the sun in summer, the extra bounty they cause other estates to bestow in fall, and the fact that winters would be far crueller and colder if it weren’t for these estates” — subjective interpretation.
Thank you Courtier JMS for your reply. What are these “relevant areas” that you demand the rational jester “study”? Are there any of them that do not assume (implicitly or explicitly) the existence of the estates?
No JMS, you have only arguments, not evidence. I studied Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God decades ago in introductory Metaphysics. They were no more compelling then than they are today. I am aware that there have been other such arguments developed since (and I may well have browsed some of them at various times) — but none of them have come across as any more compelling than Aquinas’ (that is to say, not at all).
Yes, anyone is “free” to “ignore” the “reality” of something that can only be seen if you close one eye, hold your head in a certain way and squint. Many can’t be bothered developing the requisite facial tick.
And those that do develop it see a wide range of realities: some see a Triurne God, some see Allah, some see a Yaweh for whom Jesus was neither messiah nor prophet, some see Brahman, some see Odin, some see the Great Goddess, some see Nirvana, some see the Tao — some even purport to see Eris, Bob or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And they would most probably cite very different subjective interpretations as ‘evidence’ for the “reality” of what they see.
All this implies a “reality” that is highly idiosyncratic and thus subjective. To be blunt JMS, the clothes I see on the metaphoric emperor ARE NOT the clothes you see. And I do not actually care if they are “reality” or not, as long as they give me insight into the (possibly naked) body underneath. So it’s no skin off my nose if atheists don’t see them, or that others see different clothes — as long as they don’t keep harping on at people to see the clothes that they see (which is why I have no more use for courtiers replying than a Gnu Atheist does, and why I seldom get into religious arguments with Hindus, Wiccans or Buddhists).
October 26th, 2010 | 11:52 pm | #10
JMS, the real problem of your parable was that it indulged in the logical fallacy of ‘Begging the Question’ — assuming what you were trying to demonstrate (that God/the “estates” exist).
It is this very assumption that is at the core of the Gnu Atheists’ ‘Courtier’s Reply’ accusation. Any parable or argument that makes such assumptions is going to run straight into this accusation.
October 27th, 2010 | 12:54 am | #11
In fact, to be truly representative, the fable should have dozens of self-appointed “wise Lord High Chamberlain[s]“, each claiming to be “manag[ing] most of the estates”, but each denying that the others’ estates (and management thereof) exist.
The pragmatic jester can hardly be faulted for suggesting to the King that he simply take these Chamberlains at their collective word — as the majority of them agree that any given estate does not exist.
October 27th, 2010 | 12:57 am | #12
The fable also raises the question of why the King should believe that these self-appointed Lord High Chamberlains are good managers of the estates that the King cannot observe, when they all-to-frequently turn out to be corrupt managers of their residences at court, which the King can in fact observe.
October 27th, 2010 | 7:27 am | #13
I will leave it to our readers to decide if human experience points to another world. For those who have not read contemporary Thomists or cannot be bothered I join young Peter of the fable in preferring simple and direct answers to explaining away the facts.
There is unambiguous evidence of the Divine, but jesters explain it away. Little evidence is unambiguous if you want to find ambiguity.
October 27th, 2010 | 8:40 am | #14
Yes “join young Peter” in cheerleading for one self-appointed Lord High Chamberlain and his estates, whilst ignoring all the other Lord High Chamberlains, and their estates.
We should, it would seem, ignore the fact that none of the arguments for the existence of God since Aquinas are any more compelling (and that some of them are shear absurdities — for example the Ontological Argument, which amounts to a bare, unsubstantiated, assertion).
ROFLMAO!
Christian theology is a “simple” answer? The Christian response to the Problem of Evil alone is a dreadfully tangled web, whose sole purpose is “explaining away the facts” of bad things happening to good people. And there are many more tangles out there “explaining away” other historical, archaeological, scientific facts and other facts.
If Christianity had ‘simple answers’, it would not be in the position of hiding behind questioning whether Gnu Atheists have read its “sophisticated” (read tangled) answers.
1) WHAT EVIDENCE? This “jester” demands that you present it. (You have claimed that it is a “simple and direct answer” after all.)
2) Which “Divine”? The Divine Triurne God, the Divine Allah, the Divine Odin, the Divine Brahman? Each claims its own “evidence”.
No evidence has been proffered — it has just been assumed. And I have yet to see any Chistian apologist offer anything that even vaguely resembles “unambiguous evidence of the Divine” — just half-arsed arguments and idiosyncratic subjective interpretations.
This phrase brought to mind an alternative interpretation of your fable that fits the facts far better than yours:
The King = the general public
The wise Lord High Chamberlain = the scientific community. (Their “estates” are very tangible, generally very well managed, and very productive.)
The jester = the Creationist (including ID Creationist) community (also the anti-vac, anti-AGW, anti-HIV-causes-AIDS, etc, etc communities). (They all produce nothing tangible, just retreading long-debunked arguments to prey upon the general public’s fear of things that are too big, too complicated, and/or too enmeshed in contingency for them to comfortably understand.)
Young Peter = PZ Myers himself. :D
October 27th, 2010 | 8:51 am | #15
Hrafn,
Are you an athiest? Agnostic?
October 27th, 2010 | 9:38 am | #16
Steve Drake:
Neither (as I already indicated in talking about “the clothes I see on the metaphoric emperor” above) — but I don’t see how it’s relevant to the conversation.
October 27th, 2010 | 9:51 am | #17
Hrafn,
Christian, then? Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orothodox?
October 27th, 2010 | 10:00 am | #18
Steve Drake:
What part of …
… did you fail to comprehend?
And where do you get off in assuming that if I’m not an atheist or an agnostic then I’m a Christian?
And where do you get off assuming that if I’m a Christian, I’m “Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orothodox”?
Like JMS, you are making the VERY BASIC MISTAKE of assuming that there is only a single Lord High Chamberlain (and wanting to know if I think his “estates” are those of the Northern, Southern or Eastern persuasion).
October 27th, 2010 | 10:11 am | #19
Hrafn,
I’m not assuming anything yet. I’m simply asking questions to clarify your position. If you’re not an atheist (Gnu or not), and you’re not an agnostic, then maybe you follow another religion? If so, what is it?
Have some backbone, man, and state your position.
October 27th, 2010 | 10:49 am | #20
Steve Drake:
“Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orothodox?” is most emphatically assuming that I’m a Christian.
My “position” is that religion contains a wide range of, often mutually-exclusive, subjective insights, not defence of any specific insight as the ‘objective truth’.
1) What part of the word “neither” did you fail to understand? Why the hell should I talk to some rude arsehole who doesn’t accept a simple answer to a simple question — even when the answer was already obvious before he asked it!
2) What possible relevance is it?
Would JMS’s ‘fable’ be any less egocentric and question-begging if I was a Buddhist?
Would JMS’s ‘fable’ be any less egocentric and question-begging if I was a member of the Church of the Subgenius?
Would JMS’s ‘fable’ be any less egocentric and question-begging if I was in fact an agnostic, an atheist or a Gnu Atheist?
I think not.
What possible business is it of yours?
And what possible motive should I have for confiding you, after you’ve just made a thinly-veiled accusation against me of lying?
What colour underwear are you wearing? What tattoos have you got? What piercings do you have?
Don’t want to say? “Have some backbone, man”.
By what possible right do you goose-step in here and immediately start interrogating me?
The issue is the validity of JMS’s ‘fable’, not my religious beliefs.
You and JMS may wish to parade your beliefs in every possible forum (and most probably thrust them down anybody and everybody’s throats) — don’t expect that everybody shares your rampant exhibitionism. I came here to argue a dodgy analogy, not to air my own personal beliefs.
October 27th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #21
In fact, given your rudeness, I take leave to revise my answers:
None of your bloody business!
None of your bloody business!
None of your bloody business!
Get the point?
October 27th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #22
Hrafn,
Your ‘attempting’ to argue a dodgy analogy carries with it a whole host of presuppositions. It is to these presuppositions that I raise my questions to you. Your vitrolic, and shrill tone of voice in these posts indicates an animosity to the Christian presupposition of God’s existence. So, here we go: I am now ‘assuming’ that you are a God-denier, or even a God-hater. Is that a clear enough ‘assumption’ for you?
If you wish to substantiate your claim to ‘your’ version of truth, then please continue.
October 27th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #23
O’course First Things can always decide to ban anybody that does not provide a statement of their theological views. It might be amusing to see them try.
But given your unwarranted scepticism, I presume they’d have to provide a signed statement from their Priest, Rabbi, Shaman or whatever verifying their faith (the self-professed Jedi might have a problem finding a Jedi Master however) in order to satisfy you.
October 27th, 2010 | 11:15 am | #24
Unanswered objection, Hrafn. Failure to substantiate your claim to ‘your’ version of truth. Try again please.
October 27th, 2010 | 11:35 am | #25
No. It contains exactly two presuppositions:
1) That there are multiple, generally mutually-exclusive religions, and thus that the “evidences” of each are uncompelling to each of the others.
2) The rules of Formal Logic, and thus that there are some arguments that are logical fallacies.
These presuppositions are accessible whether I’m a Buddhist, Taoist, Shamanist, Discordian, Muslim or Christian.
ROFLMAO!
You burst in here, rudely interrogate me, and then have the audacity to say that, you “vitrolic, and shrill” Christian chauvinist. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
In an argument about atheism and the Courtier’s Reply, too bloody right I’m antagonistic “to the Christian presupposition of God’s existence” — IN THIS CONTEXT.
In this context, it is BEGGING THE BLOODY QUESTION! It is in fact committing the very logical fallacy that the Courtier’s Reply is mocking!
As it is when arguing with a Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion (depending on how narrowly you’re defining the presupposed “God”).
If we are taking “God”=”Triurne Christian God”, then this is a safe assumption. The majority of the world’s population disbelieves in Him.
What possible reason would I have to hate somebody I have no reason to believe exists? Are you an Odin hater? A karma-hater?
The fact of the matter is that I find Christian Apologetics amusing — all sorts of house-of-cards arguments to be knocked over, and all sorts of Christian apologists to huff and puff about the fact.
You can assume that I’m the Great Prophet Zarquon, for all I care — it would be equally as (ir)relevant to the merits of JMS’s fable.
What part of “I came here to argue a dodgy analogy, not to air my own personal beliefs” did you fail to understand?
Post your beliefs on a blog (or similar) and they become common property, to be analysed and dissected as people choose — hold them in private and they’re nobody’s business but your own. This dichotomy places most Evangelical Christians and most Gnu Atheists on one side, and myself on the other (along with the Druze and all sorts of other faiths and individuals).
October 27th, 2010 | 11:38 am | #26
In any gap you have in learning how to read Stevie, please try to learn to understand timestamps.
Both your immediately-preceding comment, and mine, were datestamped “October 27th, 2010 | 10:59 am”.
Only somebody trying to score cheap pointsd would expect the latter to be a reply to the former.
October 27th, 2010 | 11:47 am | #27
The amusing thing is that, if Steve Drake could see past his ‘Christianity versus Atheism’ monochrome worldview, I’ve actually unintentionally given quite a few subtle hints about what my own beliefs are — not that I’d expect a conservative Christian to know enough about non-Christian faiths to recognise them.
October 27th, 2010 | 11:59 am | #28
As described in Wikipedia…
This argument does however have the interesting loophole that a number of religions are not strongly revelatory, let alone mutually exclusively so.
October 27th, 2010 | 2:03 pm | #29
Here is a thought. Let us get specific: what are your objections to Plantinga’s version of the ontological argument?
October 27th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #30
Quoted without comment, for none seems to be necessary, from number 20:
October 27th, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #31
Hrafn,
That’s not accurate in the case of Christianity.
October 27th, 2010 | 3:49 pm | #32
The Jester’s Reply: A Fable
by John Mark Reynolds
Let’s be smart. Referring to John Mark Reynolds by his initials would result in JMR, not JMS.
October 27th, 2010 | 6:17 pm | #33
Seriously, this is a great chance for dialog! I invite Hrafn to spell out his objections to Plantiga’s version of the ontological argument and then it will help us not to be vague or “name calling” . . . we will have some grist for our intellectual mills.
Second, if that does not seem fun, Hrafn has said that the Thomist arguments for God’s existence are bad. I would appreciate it if he would describe those arguments so we could see if we have misunderstood them or (as is possible), perhaps he has misunderstood them.
In any case, we can avoid being jesters and follow the argument where it leads!
Woo! Hoo! Socratic fun!
John Mark
October 27th, 2010 | 8:59 pm | #34
Hrafn,
Been away most half of the day. Back now. You ready to continue? I second the motion by JMR whether you are willing to spell out your objections to Plantinga’s version of the ontological argument.
Bellicose statements only belie the intellectual cowardice of those who are unwilling to state their case and support it succinctly.
October 27th, 2010 | 9:42 pm | #35
Hrafn said:
“What possible reason would I have to hate somebody I have no reason to believe exists?”
Ah, yes, but Hrafn, my son, you do know that God exists, don’t you? You’re trying to suppress the knowledge of God you have already that you’re boiling over with resentment, anger, and bitterness. Why do you fight against the goad?
October 27th, 2010 | 10:33 pm | #36
John Mark Reynolds:
“Plantinga’s version of the ontological argument” works by an unjustified moving of the goalposts: “it is possible” therefore “possibly it is necessarily true” therefore “it is necessarily true” ([quotes taken from Wikipedia articulation of his argument). The greater level of certainty in each successive conclusions is unsupported by the previous axioms/conclusions.
October 27th, 2010 | 10:47 pm | #37
Tom Gilson:
Say rather, ‘quoted without context‘.
Having just told Steve Drake that I was “neither” an atheist nor an agnostic, his “If you’re not an atheist (Gnu or not), and you’re not an agnostic…” was unacceptably rude! (But then his bald interrogation of my religious beliefs was hardly polite either).
I think a degree of anger at such rudeness is warranted, and I would suggest that it is “necessary” for Tom Gilson to “comment” whether he considers it polite to question somebody’s word as to their religious affiliation.
October 27th, 2010 | 10:53 pm | #38
Tom Gilson:
Please explain this assertion (in a manner that is not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question).
October 27th, 2010 | 11:01 pm | #39
Hrafn said:
“I think a degree of anger at such rudeness is warranted,…”
Obfuscation, Hrafn.
Hrafn said:
“This dichotomy places most Evangelical Christians and most Gnu Atheists on one side, and myself on the other (along with the Druze and all sorts of other faiths and individuals).”
Not an evangelical Christian, but posting on an “Evangel” blog, not a Gnu atheist, or agnostic, but something ‘other’? To this is my question in regards to your presuppositions for this ‘other’ belief system. Do you wish to elaborate?
October 27th, 2010 | 11:19 pm | #40
Steve Drake:
But yes Stevie-baby, my whiny little infant, your unsubstantiated claim that “you do know that God exists, don’t you” is (again) begging the question, as well as being insufferably patronising.
No Stevie-baby, I’m trying (unsuccessfully) to “suppress” my anger at a single rude, smug, patronising and ignorant Christian chauvinist.
Since you have made an issue of it, my “knowledge” of your religion is sufficient to tell me that, whilst I cannot rule out the possibility of some sort of God existing, the probability of your God-of-the-Old-and-New-Testaments existing is about the same as the probability of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (and the unicorn is prettier).
Steve Drake, given that:
1) You disbelieve what little I say about my beliefs (and seem disinterested in anything I have to say other than about my beliefs).
2) You have the effrontery to claim to know my beliefs better than I do.
WHAT POSSIBLE REASON WOULD I HAVE FOR CONTINUING TO TALK TO YOU?
You do not seem interested in talking to me, simply talking at me. And that’s boring.
October 27th, 2010 | 11:58 pm | #41
Following up on my comment to JMR (and I will attempt not to get mixed up as to his initials in the future):
A formalisation of my objection to “Plantinga’s version of the ontological argument” is that it is a disguised form of the fallacy of Appeal to Probability (that is the assumption “that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen” [Wikipedia]).
October 28th, 2010 | 12:17 am | #42
No Stevie, I have bluntly stated my position @21. I have further substantiated the irrelevance of your questions @25.
As I have already stated, I do not choose to elaborate. It is neither relevant nor any of your business.
But anyway, as you claim to know what I believe better than I do, WHAT POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE WOULD ANY POSSIBLE REPLY I MIGHT GIVE, MAKE TO YOU?
You would simply blindly reject anything that I say about my beliefs that contradicts your prejudices. So why should I bother?
October 28th, 2010 | 1:07 am | #43
JMR:
Actually, my adjective was “uncompelling”, not “bad” — but whatever.
No, I am not willing to “describe” them — their descriptions can be found in Wikipedia as well as more scholarly sources — so I see no point in quoting them here verbatim. I will instead explain why I find them uncompelling.
Cosmological Argument:
1) I dispute the premise that “A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.” It seems no more intuitively plausible to me to presume an infinite ‘First Cause’ than an infinite causal chain. In fact, intuitively, an infinite causal chain seems more plausible to me than that a God, who existed for an infinite amount of time, suddenly decided to create a universe.
2) Even were a “First Cause” to exist, it does not follow that this First Cause is sentient, let alone omnipotent/omniscient.
Teleological Argument:
1) I dispute the premise that “Nature exhibits … purpose”
2) I dispute the premise that “The exhibited feature(s) [of "complexity, order, adaptation, ... and/or beauty"] cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.
I assert that complexity is more typical of natural processes than of conscious artiface. I assert that it is a scientific fact that order can be derived through natural self-organisation. I assert that adapation is explained by the field of evolutionary biology and the Theory of Evolution. I assert that beauty can be found in both natural processes and artiface. (I have stated all these as bald assertions, as the arguments for and against each point are voluminous, and would most likely fill whole libraries.)
Argument from Degree
1) That some “object … has [a] property to the maximum possible degree” does not necessitate that said object has that property to an infinite degree.
2) There is no necessity that this “object that has the property to the maximum possible degree” is a sentient “entity”.
[All quotes from Wikipedia articles on these arguments.] I have used the modern forms, and names, for these arguments, as these were the ones I learned in Metaphysics (I don’t remember if their connection to Aquinas was even mentioned at the time).
The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
I don’t remember this one from my Metaphysics classes. However, it appears to be closely analogous to the Cosmological Argument (simply replacing “cause” with “mover”, so I do not think that it requires independent analysis.
October 28th, 2010 | 3:03 am | #44
Given that the issue of ‘Begging the Question’ has come up in discussion numerous times above, I thought it might be useful to give a formal definition (via Wikipedia):
Any argument (either explicit, or via a fable) for the existence of God, for the reasonableness of believing in him, counter-argument against an argument against his existence (or similar), that contains the (explicit or implicit) presupposition of His existence, commits this fallacy — and so is invalid, and subject to being rejected out of hand.
October 28th, 2010 | 3:27 am | #45
On closer examination, it seems that Aquinas’ ‘Argument from Contingency’/'Argument from Possibility and Necessity’ is not equivalent to the Cosmological Argument. So here are my reasons for not finding it compelling (based on the articulation of it found here:
Argument from Possibility and Necessity
Whilst it is true that “For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist”, and it is true that “it is impossible for [any specific contingent being] always to exist” it does not follow that “there could have been a time when no things existed” (the premises are necessary, but not sufficient for this conclusion). A more reasonable conclusion would appear to be that, at any given time, some contingent beings exist, and some don’t.
October 28th, 2010 | 6:48 am | #46
My earlier assertion was that this is not accurate in the case of Christianity:
Christianity does not make a bare appeal to authority, but invites people to examine the evidence and to apply reason.
October 28th, 2010 | 6:57 am | #47
Hrafn,
Are you familiar with modal (possible worlds) logic, such as Plantinga’s argument employs? Just wondering.
October 28th, 2010 | 7:26 am | #48
Tom Gilson:
What “evidence”, beyond Christianity’s “mutually exclusive revelations” are you claiming?
Do you mean his ‘Transworld Depravity’ argument? If so, it’s been a while since I browsed it — but do not remember it striking me as being particularly solid or compelling.
October 28th, 2010 | 8:34 am | #49
Tom Gilson:
[Update] It would appear that you are suggesting the argument presented here
My response to it is:
1) P2 contains the same unsubstantiated conclusion that I pointed to in my first objection to the ‘Argument from Degree’ (“That some “object … has [a] property to the maximum possible degree” does not necessitate that said object has that property to an infinite degree”). If P2 is taken as definitional, then I would argue that the existence of “maximal excellence” (and therefore “maximal greatness”) has not been established.
2) Given the definition of “maximal greatness” in P1, I’m not sure that P3 makes sense (maximal greatness is a property that is only defined across all worlds, not in a single world).
3) P4 does not appear to be a logical consequence of P1-P3 (but this may be a consequence of the inconsistent use of “maximal greatness” in P3).
October 28th, 2010 | 9:27 am | #50
It seems that Hrafn has reduced all our arguments for the existence of God to circularity and irrationality. We must now give up this irrational faith, and chide ourselves for believing it for so long. Moreover, since Hrafn, the smartest man/woman that has ever lived, has finally been the one to show and demonstrate this to us all, I hereby nominate him ‘Great High Wizard’. We must now turn and embrace Hrafn’s belief system, for he has clearly shown his belief system to be the correct one.
Oh, but wait, Hrafn has not shown us what his belief system is, and has not described it for us. Long live the Great High Wizard, but your majesty, please don’t leave us destitute of all faculty to make sense of our world or our human experience, and do tell us, do not deem us unworthy, to grant us your servants, your great wisdom for the certainty you have.
October 28th, 2010 | 9:33 am | #51
Thus spake Steve Drake:
I would point out that this bears little, if any, resemblance to anything I actually said.
October 28th, 2010 | 9:57 am | #52
But master, your superior wisdom has demolished what I thought was true. You are the smartest man that has ever lived, you must have all knowledge of everything there is to know in this vast universe. You are not like me, finite, with limited knowledge, a mere human, that cannot know ‘all’, even if I lived to be a 1000 years. If I were just to touch the fringe of your cloak, I might but gain just a spoonful of the wisdom of ‘all’ that you have. You must be the great infinite One, superior in all your ways, with special knowledge that us mere humans do not possess. All the great philosophers, all the great theologians, all the great men and women of old, the Dawkin’s and Hawking’s, the PZ Myers and Carl Sagan’s of today and yesterday can only pale in the towering shadow of your infinite wisdom. You must have existed from eternity, from evermore, for how can one speak with such certainty if this were not the case. Please deem us worthy, deign to our intellectual weaknesses and proclivities to believe just so stories, so that we might at least rise above the level of snails sliming our way across the ground of this vast universe.
October 28th, 2010 | 10:10 am | #53
[long, languid & cat-like yawn]
The Steve Drake wit –or half of it at least.
[rolls over and has a cat-nap]
October 28th, 2010 | 10:43 am | #54
Hrafn,
No, I mean modal logic, such as he employed in the Ontological Argument on the Wikipedia page you referenced—that modal logic (the logic of possible worlds). Are you familiar with it?
The evidence I’m claiming includes the things we are discussing here. I refer back to your statement:
You are rejecting the revelation (Christianity) based on your assessment of the evidence, not solely on the authority of its proponents. Hence you are yourself an exception to your own dictum. Others of us have looked at the evidence and examined the logic associated with it and find Christianity intellectually solid and satisfying. To say that we have accepted it solely on the basis of authority is just false.
You ask, “what ‘evidence?’” You know what evidence I’m referring to. You don’t accept it, and you think we’re wrong for accepting it, but you know what it is, and you know that we argue for Christianity on the basis of evidence, not just on the basis of authority.
October 28th, 2010 | 10:44 am | #55
I am excited to dialog, but am giving a paper this morning. More later!
October 28th, 2010 | 10:47 am | #56
Hrafn,
Then listen, to the voice of God:
“For the Lord of hosts will have a day of reckoning, against everyone who is proud and lofty. And against everyone who is lifted up, that he may be abased” (Isaiah 2: 12).
Listen, to the voice of God:
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’. They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds: There is no one who does good” (Psalms 14:1).
Listen, Hrafn, to the voice of God:
“Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, ‘Who is this who darkens counsel, by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! (Job 38:1-3).
Listen, Hrafn, to the voice of God:
“Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless” (Isaiah 40: 21-23).
Listen, Hrafn, to the voice of God:
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor my praises to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8).
Listen, listen, Hrafn, to the voice of God:
“…Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the LORD; And there is no savior besides Me” (Isaiah 43:10-11).
Listen again, Hrafn, to the voice of God:
“Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The Word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, That to me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance” (Isaiah 45:22-23).
October 28th, 2010 | 11:12 am | #57
Tom Gilson:
See #49 above.
Except that we haven’t been discussing evidence, only arguments and a fable.
I would further point out that none of these arguments, even were I to accept them, support the existence of the Christian God over the deity of some other, mutually exclusive, revelation. They no more point specifically to the Christian God than they do to Hinduism’s Brahman.
This is not my “own dictum” — this argument in fact traces back at least to Voltaire’s Candide in 1759.
The argument is not framed from your viewpoints, but from the viewpoint of an unbeliever trying to decide which revelation to accept.
No I do not — or I would not be asking the question. Even if you are so ill-mannered as to doubt my word on this, then humour me and state explicitly what “evidence” you are referring to.
Please note in doing so that:
1) An argument is something different from evidence. This is acknowledged in JMR’s original comment:
2) That in any case an argument, that does not differentiate between one supreme deity and another, is not a reason to choose one over the other — which returns us to the question of choosing between inconsistent revelations.
October 28th, 2010 | 11:17 am | #58
Steve Drake @56:
Thank you for showing your true colours.
But you’ve me given no reason to listen to the voice of men purporting to be speaking for Yahweh, than I have to listen to the voice of any other bronze-age man-made myth — or the purported voice of Brahman, Odin, etc.
Your self-important portentousness is highly amusing however. :)
October 28th, 2010 | 11:43 am | #59
Hrafn,
I don’t think this is going to go anywhere fruitful, and your accusations of ill-manneredness are most ironically self-referential, so I’m going to exit the discussion.
October 28th, 2010 | 11:46 am | #60
The Jester’s Reply: A Fable
End of fable: “And they all lived happily ever after.”
Do they really?
Will this thread end “happily ever after” for all its participants?
October 28th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #61
Tom Gilson:
There I’ll have to agree with you — there is nothing more fruitless than trying to hold a discussion with somebody who claims to know what you know better than you do. [shrugs]
October 28th, 2010 | 12:21 pm | #62
We agree on something!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact