Naturalism and Subtraction stories

[dakoski]

Charles Taylor's Secular Age sets out to answer the question:

Why was it almost impossible not to believe in God in the medieval times whereas now many find it almost impossible to believe in God?

He looks at Naturalism as a subtraction story (that god is no longer relevant to our lives and is therefore subtracted from it) made up of two elements:

1) Science has made it untenable to believe in a god

2) Naturalism is a rejection of our comforting childish beliefs and the embracing of the world 'as it is' as an adult without the need for the illusions and false consolations of belief in god.

For further details see:
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/162652476/posts/35

Questions for debate:
1) Do you agree with Taylor's view that the argument science has made belief in god untenable is vague and unconvincing? How would you respond to him?

2) Do you agree the feeling of courage in rejecting childish beliefs and embracing reality is a powerful motivation for believing subtraction stories?

3) Is this conclusion on the validity of subtraction stories an inevitable response to the data or could it possibly reflect the particular cultural values (e.g. the self reliant frontier spirit) of a particular period of history that other cultures find less compelling?

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by dakoski]

Dakoski: For further details see:
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/162652476/posts/35

In conclusion, we’ve looked at the claims of the Naturalist worldview and as a Christian they seem far form convincing. While the subtraction stories of Naturalism are asserted as an inevitable consequence of the rise of science and the only viable conclusion to draw once the old myths and legends have been debunked. It seems equally possible these subtraction stories are driven by a particular set of values popular at the rise of modernity.

William: In reading the blog I did not get the impression that the Christian author gives the reader anything much to work with in relation to the assertion above.


Dakoski: Do you agree with Taylor's view that the argument science has made belief in god untenable is vague and unconvincing?

William: Yes. Although I also can see where scientific discovery has allowed for certain mythology re 'GOD' to be able to be discounted. But that is a far cry from the proclamation that science has effectively proved GOD does not exist.


Dakoski: Do you agree the feeling of courage in rejecting childish beliefs and embracing reality is a powerful motivation for believing subtraction stories?

William: Maybe with some it is like that, but in reality it will not be the same across the board for everyone. Reasons for rejecting theism for non-theism are many and varied and even overlapping.
I think too that the theory of subtraction also forgets that ideas of GOD have been used as a means in which to have power and influence over society, and as such, is less the useful device that it was in more ignorant times, but other things have taken its place.
It that, it is debatable whether those other things are any better based in truth and morality. Humans are no less deceptive in today's world than they were in medieval times. Science in and of itself can be used just as destructively as the critique pointed at theism...and for that matter...just as constructively.
Much of the modern problems of the world are directly caused through scientific processes.


Dakoski: Is this conclusion on the validity of subtraction stories an inevitable response to the data or could it possibly reflect the particular cultural values (e.g. the self reliant frontier spirit) of a particular period of history that other cultures find less compelling?

William: I think the argument for the theory has more to do with the idea of placing aside childish notions and facing the world bravely without needing some idea of GOD or another to 'back one up'. There will of course be that aspect to why Theists are theists, but it is never a good idea to argue with sweeping statements. One such sweeping argument I see often is that theists are afraid of dying and never again existing, and that is why they are theists.
That is as ignorant as a theist proclaiming that non theists are afraid of their being more to life after death, and that is why they are non theists.
I myself am a theist, and I have encountered no science which shows me that GOD or the afterlife are not real. Generally what science has been able to thus far answer, have expanded rather than subtracted my understanding of GOD...in the mix.

[Divine Insight]

Questions for debate:
1) Do you agree with Taylor's view that the argument science has made belief in god untenable is vague and unconvincing? How would you respond to him?

This is a failed hypothesis that has no validity at all. This religion had God being responsible for plagues, birth defects, diseases, natural disasters, as well as demonic possession being responsible for madness or mental illness.

Science has shown that all those superstitions are simply false. Period amen. There is no via argument left to support those ancient superstitions.

2) Do you agree the feeling of courage in rejecting childish beliefs and embracing reality is a powerful motivation for believing subtraction stories?

This hypothesis is totally irrelevant to me. I don't reject the beliefs because they are "childish", I reject them because they have been demonstrated to be false.

3) Is this conclusion on the validity of subtraction stories an inevitable response to the data or could it possibly reflect the particular cultural values (e.g. the self reliant frontier spirit) of a particular period of history that other cultures find less compelling?

From my perspective it due to nothing more than valid and rational education. Why anyone would believe that some virgin-born demigod had to go around casting evil demons out of humans and into pigs is beyond me. Not to mention the absolute absurdity of a God who would need to have human brutally crucify him on a pole in order to earn a chance at salvation.

IMHO, this religion is so utterly absurd it doesn't even deserve serious consideration at all. It's clearly no more valid than the ancient myths of the Greek Gods.

So as far as I'm concerned Taylor's views don't even make rational sense at all. Instead of trying to accuse rational people for rejecting an ancient provably irrational religion, why not address all the myriad of problems with the religion itself and try to build a case for its rationality? Thus far no theologian has been able to do this in a convincing and compelling way?

How can I say this? Because theologians can't even convince each other of their outlandish apologies for this religion. For if they could then there would only be on acceptance theology. But there isn't. All that exists in the world are disagreeing theologians who can't even convince each other of their absurd apologies.

So the proof is already in the pudding. There is no rational theology to even speak of.

It's a done deal. Water over the dam. There's no going back. The religion is dead. Theologians simply refuse to accept this fact.

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 1 by dakoski]

William: In reading the blog I did not get the impression that the Christian author gives the reader anything much to work with in relation to the assertion above.

Yeah I think you're right the conclusion could have been worded better and flow better from the main text.

But I think that the main point of the post was that the claims for the validity of Naturalism lay often as an unquestioned assertion.

William: Yes. Although I also can see where scientific discovery has allowed for certain mythology re 'GOD' to be able to be discounted. But that is a far cry from the proclamation that science has effectively proved GOD does not exist.

Yeah I agree

William: Maybe with some it is like that, but in reality it will not be the same across the board for everyone. Reasons for rejecting theism for non-theism are many and varied and even overlapping.
I think too that the theory of subtraction also forgets that ideas of GOD have been used as a means in which to have power and influence over society, and as such, is less the useful device that it was in more ignorant times, but other things have taken its place.
It that, it is debatable whether those other things are any better based in truth and morality. Humans are no less deceptive in today's world than they were in medieval times. Science in and of itself can be used just as destructively as the critique pointed at theism...and for that matter...just as constructively.
Much of the modern problems of the world are directly caused through scientific processes.

Yeah that's a fair point - I think Taylor's argument is too much of a generalisation.

William: I think the argument for the theory has more to do with the idea of placing aside childish notions and facing the world bravely without needing some idea of GOD or another to 'back one up'. There will of course be that aspect to why Theists are theists, but it is never a good idea to argue with sweeping statements. One such sweeping argument I see often is that theists are afraid of dying and never again existing, and that is why they are theists.
That is as ignorant as a theist proclaiming that non theists are afraid of their being more to life after death, and that is why they are non theists.
I myself am a theist, and I have encountered no science which shows me that GOD or the afterlife are not real. Generally what science has been able to thus far answer, have expanded rather than subtracted my understanding of GOD...in the mix.

Yeah again, I largely agree with that. Sweeping statements on both sides about the causes of the 'other sides' beliefs are far too common and often unhelpful. Although its often the case that we have multifaceted reasons for holding certain positions - and that rarely are any beliefs purely based on our intellects since we are social beings.

[dakoski]

This is a failed hypothesis that has no validity at all. This religion had God being responsible for plagues, birth defects, diseases, natural disasters, as well as demonic possession being responsible for madness or mental illness.

Science has shown that all those superstitions are simply false. Period amen. There is no via argument left to support those ancient superstitions.

Taylor deals with this in his argument. Yes, in the Middles Ages they believed in an 'enchanted' world as you describe. The move to a 'disenchanted' world was brought about first by the Protestant Reformers and later by Deists and then Atheists. The move away from the 'enchanted' world of the Middle Ages is consistent with both Protestant and Reformed Catholic views - and not necessarily requiring atheism.

This hypothesis is totally irrelevant to me. I don't reject the beliefs because they are "childish", I reject them because they have been demonstrated to be false.

Thanks for clarifying - yeah Taylor makes a big thing about it. I see that expressed among some atheists but not all.

From my perspective it due to nothing more than valid and rational education. Why anyone would believe that some virgin-born demigod had to go around casting evil demons out of humans and into pigs is beyond me. Not to mention the absolute absurdity of a God who would need to have human brutally crucify him on a pole in order to earn a chance at salvation.

IMHO, this religion is so utterly absurd it doesn't even deserve serious consideration at all. It's clearly no more valid than the ancient myths of the Greek Gods.

As you say, that's your opinion.

So as far as I'm concerned Taylor's views don't even make rational sense at all. Instead of trying to accuse rational people for rejecting an ancient provably irrational religion, why not address all the myriad of problems with the religion itself and try to build a case for its rationality? Thus far no theologian has been able to do this in a convincing and compelling way?

So Taylor should stick to his own beliefs and not criticise other's beliefs? Isn't that a little totalitarian? Are atheists allowed to question theists but not vice versa?

How can I say this? Because theologians can't even convince each other of their outlandish apologies for this religion. For if they could then there would only be on acceptance theology. But there isn't. All that exists in the world are disagreeing theologians who can't even convince each other of their absurd apologies.

So the proof is already in the pudding. There is no rational theology to even speak of.

It's a done deal. Water over the dam. There's no going back. The religion is dead. Theologians simply refuse to accept this fact.

So is this the argument, they disagree therefore they must all be wrong one? Do you find that convincing?