Herman Wouk, on beliefs...

[cnorman18]

Something I've often sensed, but found very gracefully expressed in Wouk's words:

Religious people tend to encounter, among those who are not, a cemented certainty that belief in God is a crutch for the weak and the fearful...Now the belief in God may turn out at the last trump to be a mistake. Meantime, let us be quite clear, it is not merely the comfort of the simple--though it is that too, much to its glory--it is a formidable intellectual position with which most of the first-class minds of the human race, century in and century out, have concurred, each in his own way....speaking of crutches--Freud can be a crutch, Marx can be a crutch, rationalism can be a crutch, and atheism can be two canes and a pair of iron braces. We none of us have all the answers, nor are we likely to have. But in the country of the halt, the man who is surest he has no limp may be the worst-crippled.
Herman Wouk, This Is My God: The Jewish Way of Life

[wiploc]

Religious people tend to encounter, among those who are not, a cemented certainty that belief in God is a crutch for the weak and the fearful

This is not my position. Religion doesn't seem to strike just the weak or fearful; it seems to strike at random.

...it is a formidable intellectual position with which most of the first-class minds of the human race, century in and century out, have concurred, ...
Herman Wouk, This Is My God: The Jewish Way of Life

It's a formidable intellectual position? Then you can offer a formidable argument in favor, yes?

[cnorman18]

Religious people tend to encounter, among those who are not, a cemented certainty that belief in God is a crutch for the weak and the fearful

This is not my position. Religion doesn't seem to strike just the weak or fearful; it seems to strike at random.

Since you're speaking of it as if it were a disease, I'd have to note that it does seem to be communicable; runs in families and spreads in groups, you know. That's not "random" -- and then, in other cases, the "victims" seem to freely choose it. Myself, for instance; once a Methodist, now a Jew.

...it is a formidable intellectual position with which most of the first-class minds of the human race, century in and century out, have concurred, ...
Herman Wouk, This Is My God: The Jewish Way of Life

It's a formidable intellectual position? Then you can offer a formidable argument in favor, yes?

Oh, I don't know that I could; perhaps Herman Wouk could -- or Spinoza, a Jew whose thought I admire very much. Or the Baal Shem Tov, or Maimonides, or Franz Rosenzweig, or of course Martin Buber. There are many more.

But bear in mind that virtually nowhere in Jewish philosophy or theology (insofar as "Jewish theology" even exists) will be found any attempt to "prove the existence of God." That's just not a central -- or indeed, even a peripheral -- concern. I don't bother to play that particular intellectual boardgame myself. As I've said rather often; If a question cannot be answered, it has no importance.

In the modern Jewish religion, the content of one's belief -- if any -- is generally considered a matter of personal choice, and belief itself is entirely optional. Judaism has no required doctrines, no dogmas if you will. The Jewish religion is much more concerned with ethics than with abstract philosophy or theology or matters that no one can know and no one can verify. The Bible is the collected ancient literature of the Jewish people, and its language of God and miracle and pseudo-history a matter more of tradition and acknowledged metaphor than of literal history or science.

The focus of Judaism is THIS life, THIS world. The next -- well, we leave that to God.

If any.

[wiploc]

It's a formidable intellectual position? Then you can offer a formidable argument in favor, yes?

Oh, I don't know that I could...

It is a formidable intellectual position with, so far as you know, no intellectual justification. Perfect.

[cnorman18]

It's a formidable intellectual position? Then you can offer a formidable argument in favor, yes?

Oh, I don't know that I could...

It is a formidable intellectual position with, so far as you know, no intellectual justification. Perfect.

Are you familiar with the expression "to put words in another's mouth"? You have just done that, and rather baldly. I do not think that, I never said that, I would not, and I feel rather sure that you know all that to be true.

I just decline to engage in a "debate" on a question that, as far as I am concerned, has no verifiable answer -- and I am not motivated to change my approach when confronted with a person who ignores everything I said in favor of posting a facile, fatuous sneer like the one above, and who apparently considers that sort of remark either probative, clever, or civil.

From where I sit, it might be a good example of the sort of two-canes-and-iron-braces handicap that parades as smug, cemented certainty that Wouk was talking about. Don't actually consider other modes of thought; just mock, and that's enough, right?

Well, it's enough for me, anyway. Have a nice Fourth.

[wiploc]

It's a formidable intellectual position? Then you can offer a formidable argument in favor, yes?

Oh, I don't know that I could...

It is a formidable intellectual position with, so far as you know, no intellectual justification. Perfect.

Are you familiar with the expression "to put words in another's mouth"?

Of course.

You have just done that, and rather baldly.

Then I apologize, though I don't know where I misstepped. I did not mean to misrepresent.

I do not think that, I never said that, I would not, and I feel rather sure that you know all that to be true.

No, at this point I have no idea what you think you said, or what you're going to say next.

I just decline to engage in a "debate" on a question that, as far as I am concerned, has no verifiable answer

It seemed to me that you took the positions that
1. theism is a formidable intellectual position (which could be rephrased as "eminently defensible"), and
2. atheism is, or can be when strongly held, intellectually crippled (the opposite of intellectually formidable).

But let's look up "formidable" at dictionary.com, just to make sure I'm not misrepresenting:
1. causing fear, apprehension, or dread: a formidable opponent.
2. of discouraging or awesome strength, size, difficulty, etc.; intimidating: a formidable problem.
3. arousing feelings of awe or admiration because of grandeur, strength, etc.
4. of great strength; forceful; powerful: formidable opposition to the proposal.

The theist argument, then, is so strong as to make us intellectual cripples quaver.

So, you opened with bluster and insult aimed at people like me. I took the bait; I asked you to justify your claim that theism is intellectually formidable. I thought that was what you wanted. Why else would you open with bluster and insult if not to attract challenges so that you could put them down, thus proving how formidable theism is?

But do you defend your position that theism is formidable? No, you claim that formidableness of theism cannot be verified. It "has no verifiable answer."

Very puzzling. Are you just trolling? Is something else going on? You've got me stumped.

-- and I am not motivated to change my approach when confronted with a person who ignores everything I said

What did I ignore? I quoted what you said. How is that ignoring?

in favor of posting a facile, fatuous sneer like the one above, and who apparently considers that sort of remark either probative, clever, or civil.

I thought I was alerting you to the incongruousness of your position, thus giving you a second chance to defend the territory you had staked out in your OP.

If I did make some error of tact or tactics, I fail to see how it was unprovoked. And even if it had been unprovoked, as your OP certainly was, I don't see how my post could possibly be taken to be as facile, fatuous, sneering, or uncivil as your OP.

You baited us, got a response, and now pretend to be the injured party.

From where I sit, it might be a good example of the sort of two-canes-and-iron-braces handicap that parades as smug, cemented certainty that Wouk was talking about.

More insult, this time directed not at atheists generally but at me personally.

Don't actually consider other modes of thought; just mock, and that's enough, right?

I invited you to make a substantive defense of your claim. Had you done so, then I would have been able to consider your "other mode of thought."

Well, it's enough for me, anyway.

Me too.

Have a nice Fourth.

You too.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 6 by wiploc]

Oh, stop it. Posturing as the injured party will not magically make your deliberate misstatement of what I said, and your refusing to respond to the rest of what I DID say, go away.

You quoted only two small parts of the OP and ignored the rest, to which omission I responded in a perfectly civil and friendly manner.

Then, you deleted the rest of my (rather long and involved) answer to your question after the first phrase (and, to underline the fact, utterly ignored everything else I had to say in both posts). Tell me: How does alluding to Spinoza, Maimonides, et. al. equate to "so far as I know, no intellectual justification"?

Further, there was no "bluster and insult" in my OP, nor in my reply to you. First, it was a quotation, and this is the "Random Ramblings" subforum, where ideas can be, and often are, thrown out for consideration. There is no invitation to debate here; this is not a debate forum.

Further still, note the qualifiers; "can be" in the quote, and "perhaps" in my last. Take offense all you like, but there are no insults there, only observations of possibilities -- which I will stand by.

And yet further: I take the initial quotation, as well as my own first reply, to be about more than mere "theism," a word which does not appear anywhere in this thread but in your own posts. I made that clear in my remark that "proving the existence of God" is not a concern in the Jewish religion, and never has been; and as I said, if THAT is the only issue you want to discuss (not debate), I am not interested.

If I grew a bit snarky in my second reply, that was only in response to your clear intent to cherrypick, dismiss and ignore, and to mock and misstate. Your bald statement that I was admitting that I knew of no intellectual justification of these ideas was, I say again, a facile, fatuous sneer that had nothing whatever to do with anything I actually said.

I note in passing that you also put MORE words in my mouth in your last, including these: "The theist argument, then, is so strong as to make us intellectual cripples quaver." I've never said that, either, and if you'd been here longer, you've have known better than to try to pin that sort of attitude on me.

I do not apologize. If you actually intended your post to be more than a contemptuous, mocking one-liner that ignored the substance of my posts in favor of focusing on something you WISH I had said, you need to read this thread again. That IS what you posted.

[Elijah John]

It's a formidable intellectual position? Then you can offer a formidable argument in favor, yes?

Oh, I don't know that I could...

It is a formidable intellectual position with, so far as you know, no intellectual justification. Perfect.

Actually, cnorman did not say an intellectual justification could not be given, notice he emphasized the word "I", and also listed some Jewish thinkers to a list of those who defend the rationale of the religous position.

And if we are talking about religion in general, more so than Judaism in particular, I would also add Thomas Aquinas to the list. Seems to me cnorman was only saying that there were those better qualified to make a formidable argument in favor of religion than he.

And "formidable" can simply mean strong, it doesn't mean "unasailable".

Pesonally, I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

And I have the most respect for the Theist position which states "we BELIEVE there is a God" And a lot less respect for the Fundamentalist position which says we KNOW there is a God, and that the Bible is an innerrent portrayal OF that God.

Seems to me that many Atheists dismiss the Bible in it's entirerty, which is just as dogmatic as accepting the Bible in it's entirety and without question. Imo, the positions are two sides of the same dogmatic coin, and both are simplistic ways of thinking and both extreme points of view could rightly be considered "crutches."

Both the Atheist (In the cases where they dismiss the Bible in it's entirety) and the Fundamentalist avoid the hard work of applying reason to their approach to Scriptures in determining what is true and useful vs. what is not, what is metaphor vs. what is literal., and what is beautiful and good vs what is absurd and atrocious.

And oftimes, when Atheists point out that religion is a crutch for those who fear death, they ignore the position of Judaism (as cnorman points out) the oldest of the three major monotheistic faiths, which has no universally defined or accepted position on the afterlife.

Ironic then that many Atheists continue to use that argument to entirely dismiss religion as "anti-intellectual".

[cnorman18]

It's a formidable intellectual position? Then you can offer a formidable argument in favor, yes?

Oh, I don't know that I could...

It is a formidable intellectual position with, so far as you know, no intellectual justification. Perfect.

Actually, cnorman did not say an intellectual justification could not be given, notice he emphasized the word "I", and also listed some Jewish thinkers to a list of those who defend the rationale of the religous position.

And if we are talking about religion in general, more so than Judaism in particular, I would also add Thomas Aquinas to the list. Seems to me cnorman was only saying that there were those better qualified to make a formidable argument in favor of religion than he.

Well said, and a MUCH more accurate, not to mention reasonable and civil, reading of my post.

And "formidable" can simply mean strong, it doesn't mean "unasailable".

Pesonally, I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

And I have the most respect for the Theist position which states "we BELIEVE there is a God" And a lot less respect for the Fundamentalist position which says we KNOW there is a God, and that the Bible is an innerrent portrayal OF that God.

Seems to me that many Atheists dismiss the Bible in it's entirerty, which is just as dogmatic as accepting the Bible in it's entirety and without question. Imo, the positions are two sides of the same dogmatic coin, and both are simplistic ways of thinking and both extreme points of view could rightly be considered "crutches."

Both the Atheist (In the cases where they dismiss the Bible in it's entirety) and the Fundamentalist avoid the hard work of applying reason to their approach to Scriptures in determining what is true and useful vs. what is not, what is metaphor vs. what is literal., and what is beautiful and good vs what is absurd and atrocious.

And oftimes, when Atheists point out that religion is a crutch for those who fear death, they ignore the position of Judaism (as cnorman points out) the oldest of the three major monotheistic faiths, which has no universally defined or accepted position on the afterlife.

Ironic then that many Atheists continue to use that argument to entirely dismiss religion as "anti-intellectual".

Agreed, 100%.

[wiploc]

Pesonally, I have more respect for the Agnostic position, which says "we don't know" than I have for the Atheist position, which usually holds that we KNOW there isn't a God.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of the atheist position. There is no reason to assume that strong atheists are gnostic. To be a strong atheist is simply to believe gods don't exist, not to know it.

Most strong atheists are not gnostic, so it's unfair to say that we "usually" are.