Theologian John Haught on evolution, etc...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This forum is so enriched by your contributions, it could make baby Jesus weep with joy. You have no idea what a wasteland it is here when you abandon us.

Thanks, Herr Doctor, I appreciate that.

Originally posted by rwingett
I guess what I was aiming at was not really clear, perhaps not even to myself initially. But I'm not so much interested in whether you think Haught is right about what he says. It goes without saying that you'll disagree with him on most issues. So do I. I guess what I really want to know (at least from the atheists) is whether these disagreements ar ...[text shortened]... get for a while. If so, it may be that the best strategy is to encourage him in his work.

I have no doubt that I could live with Haught in harmony. I'm sure we'd get along as neighbors and could even be friends. But I doubt that is what you're concerned with. What you really want to know, I take it, is whether we could achieve some sort of broad political consensus on issues that matter with theists of Haught's sort. Is that right? If so, then my answer is "yes". I'm sure that Haught's views on peace, social justice and welfare are liberal. I don't know whether his views on traditional wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage are the right ones, but, if not, I'm not sure just how much that matters. I'm not sure how much that matters because I take Haught to be committed to certain norms of public political discourse which preclude legislating one's own religious views. He is committed to a prima facie norm of tolerance, and this is at bottom what we need from theists and atheists alike.

I do not dismiss Haught quickly. I do not dismiss him at all, nor his right to believe as he wishes. I disagree with his substantive views and think his arguments in favor of these views are poor. Haught is a good but philosophically ignorant theist, like most theists of his sort that I've encountered. I certainly do not oppose all versions of theism equally. I think that the theism of Thomas Merton is beautiful, loving, and worthy of respect. I think the theism of U.S. evangelicals and conservative Catholics is ugly and full of hatred, and worthy of nothing but scorn on both ethical and epistemic grounds. I think both types of theism are ultimately misguided in that they are committed to the existence of an exoteric and personal divinity.

Originally posted by bbarr
Haught is a typically obtuse apologist for a corrupt and morally bankrupt worldview. He simply asserts, without argument, that atheism leads to nihilism and thus cannot justify hope. He simply asserts, without argument, that atheism is committed to scientism and the claim that the only legitimate evidence for belief is scientific evidence. If Haught had bot ...[text shortened]... and the instrumental value of those states of affairs that conduce to our personal excellence.

Nietzsche certainly did not think that atheism entailed nihilism.
While Freddy may have never articulated that formula (atheiesm = nihilsm), it doesn't take too much analytical ability to connect the dots.

To claim this is simply to ignore Nietzsche's repeated emphasis of ethical exemplars, intrinsic aretaic value, and the instrumental value of those states of affairs that conduce to our personal excellence.
He sure did emphasize ethical exemplars: every member of society has a set of rules by which they are to live. Here, from the Standard Encylcopedia of Philosophy:

"As he views things from the perspective of life, he further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank that ascends from the plebeian to the noble: some moralities are more suitable for subordinate roles; some are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles. What counts as a preferable and legitimate action depends upon the kind of person one is. The deciding factor is whether one is weaker, sicker and on the decline, or whether one is healthier, more powerful and overflowing with life." emphasis added

I suppose such a view would work out okay, as long as everyone agreed with the person doling out the assignments.

Originally posted by rwingett
A very interesting interview with theologian John Haught on evolution and other topics. Haught is among the seldom heard brand of theists who accept evolution. In fact, he goes so far as to say that Darwin is a "gift to theology." However, despite saying some things I agree with, Haught also says some things I disagree with. I'm sure the theists would proba ...[text shortened]... sts on Mr. Haught's position.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/

The article uses a lot of words without getting to a lot of meat. However, very telling is his insistence that no camera would have been able to register Jesus post-Resurrection activities. I wonder what that makes his view?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This forum is so enriched by your contributions, it could make baby Jesus weep with joy. You have no idea what a wasteland it is here when you abandon us.

Get a room.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Get a room.

They have. It's called the classroom.

Originally posted by kirksey957
They have. It's called the classroom.

Apparently the subtlety of the jab was lost on you. The phrase insinuates that some inappropriate public affection is being displayed which would be better served in the privacy of, for instance, a hotel which specializes in renting rooms with hourly rates.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nietzsche certainly did not think that atheism entailed nihilism.
While Freddy may have never articulated that formula (atheiesm = nihilsm), it doesn't take too much analytical ability to connect the dots.

To claim this is simply to ignore Nietzsche's repeated emphasis of ethical exemplars, intrinsic aretaic value, and the instrumental value would work out okay, as long as everyone agreed with the person doling out the assignments.

If by "analytic ability" you mean "creative stipulation", then I'm sure you're right. In the absence of even a rough demonstration of the putative entailment, I'm unconvinced. In any case, there is no valid demonstration that atheism entails nihilism, since atheism is compatible with the claim that moral categories (goodness, rightness, worth, value, virtue, etc.) pick out extant properties in the world (i.e., that there are moral facts). That is, you cannot take as premises "God does not exist" and "There are moral facts" and derive a contradiction without importing an additional unjustified premise. If you think otherwise, then present your demonstration.

The quote you pick out (and apparently fail to grasp) actually entails that nihilism is false. Though perhaps you are sloppily confusing nihilism (the view that there are no moral facts) with the view that everyone is bound by the exact same ethical norms regardless of their capabilities or natures. This second claim is incompatible with Nietzsche's point, which is roughly that what one ought to do is at least partially a function of the type of entity one is. This claim of Neitzsche's is incompatible with nihilism in that it is committed to there being facts about what one ought to do.

Originally posted by bbarr
I have no doubt that I could live with Haught in harmony. I'm sure we'd get along as neighbors and could even be friends. But I doubt that is what you're concerned with. What you really want to know, I take it, is whether we could achieve some sort of broad political consensus on issues that matter with theists of Haught's sort. Is that right? If so, then ...[text shortened]... d in that they are committed to the existence of an exoteric and personal divinity.

Interesting story I once heard about D.T. Suzuki exclaiming to Merton: “Tom, you’re a hopeless dualist, and you always will be—unless, unless perhaps you read your own Meister Eckhart...”

Originally posted by vistesd
Interesting story I once heard about D.T. Suzuki exclaiming to Merton: “Tom, you’re a hopeless dualist, and you always will be—unless, unless perhaps you read your own Meister Eckhart...”

I was actually going cite Eckhart as an example of a view that I am largely sympathetic with, but it is clear that he was not a theist. Eckart was a mystic that succeeded in transmitting his view despite the impoverished spiritual vocabulary he inherited.

Originally posted by bbarr
I was actually going cite Eckhart as an example of a view that I am largely sympathetic with, but it is clear that he was not a theist. Eckart was a mystic that succeeded in transmitting his view despite the impoverished spiritual vocabulary he inherited.

All subject-predicate language is problematic when trying to communicate non-dualism, even poetic language. That’s a cultural inheritance as well as a religious one. The mystics have always had to deal with that, whether the language is Sanskrit or Greek or Latin (or Hebrew, though that seems to be a bit more open). Ideogrammatic language, like Chinese, seems less problematic.

Eckhart’s inherited religious language, or spiritual vocabulary, was usable by mystics before Eckhart (e.g., Pseudo-Dionysius). I really don’t think it’s such a stretch as the theists make it out to be, once you allow your mind to make that paradigm shift. (Then again, I have more than once been charged with “Buddha-sizing” the Christ.)

Bhakti guys, like Ramakrishna, are also able to incorporate dualistic forms into their basic non-dualism.

I guess what I’m trying to suggest is that any impoverishment of the inherited spiritual vocabulary is more a product of insistence by exoteric theists that it be understood dualistically (again, taking account of any dualism that is built into a subject-predicate language itself), especially when that insistence becomes entrenched as “orthodoxy.”


“Hear O Israel, That-Is, your God, That-Is is One.” That-Is being a quite literal translation of YHVH; if one fleshes out the English a bit, it becomes a nice: “Hear O Israel, the One-that-is, your God, the One-that-is — is One.” I suspect (but cannot prove, of course) that nondualism in Judaism long preceded formal Kabbalah or Hasidism.

“I and the abba are one.” Of course, as Alan Watts put it, the boss’s son was taken as speaking only for himself, and was subsequently kicked upstairs where he couldn’t do any more harm; and nobody else is allowed to say such a thing.

Have you read Fritjoff Schuon’s The Transcendent Unity of Religions? In his terms, the exoterics and the esoterics will always be at odds.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Nietzsche certainly did not think that atheism entailed nihilism.
While Freddy may have never articulated that formula (atheiesm = nihilsm), it doesn't take too much analytical ability to connect the dots.

To claim this is simply to ignore Nietzsche's repeated emphasis of ethical exemplars, intrinsic aretaic value, and the instrumental value would work out okay, as long as everyone agreed with the person doling out the assignments.

(atheiesm = nihilsm), it doesn't take too much analytical ability to connect the dots.

Are you saying that it doesn't take much to see that's what F.N. thought; or are you saying that it doesn't take much to see this equation is valid? Either way, you're wrong.

Is this like the time you tried to teach us all something about Schopenhauer and his views on reason?

Originally posted by rwingett
A very interesting interview with theologian John Haught on evolution and other topics. Haught is among the seldom heard brand of theists who accept evolution. ... "

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/[/b]

The Roman-Catholic Church accepts the scientific theory of evolution. The Church has 1.000.000.000 members who are hopefully all theists and who hopefully all follow the Roman-Catholic teachings regarding this matter ...... so, it's time you upgrade your hard disk regarding this issue, Rwingo .....

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Theology is the study of something that does not exist. Why would an atheist care about what people tell each other about ninja leprechauns and other nonsense?

This writer of that passage has a biased view of these religions. He misses the immoral core of Judeo-Christianity - the theme of absolute obediance to an overwhelmingly powerful tyrant, a ...[text shortened]... ther sort of monster who demands infanticide, genocide, and other horrible things. .....
.....

... another Richard Dawkins copycat.

Originally posted by rwingett
I guess what I was aiming at was not really clear, perhaps not even to myself initially. But I'm not so much interested in whether you think Haught is right about what he says. It goes without saying that you'll disagree with him on most issues. So do I. I guess what I really want to know (at least from the atheists) is whether these disagreements ar ...[text shortened]... get for a while. If so, it may be that the best strategy is to encourage him in his work.

Divide and conquer ..... I knew Evolutionism was and is the new ideology and our Rwingo is one of their advocates ..... isn't that correct, Rwingo ?