American Grace Questions: The Fun Ones, Wherein I Appear Amoral and Finish the List

I'll finish the questions in this post, which necessarily means brevity. Since some of the quetions are long, that makes this easier to digest anyway.

15: How often do you read holy scriptures?

With a fair degree of regularity, primarily because I teach Comparative Religion and World Mythology. Also, more than casual familiarity is necessary when discussing ethics and politics in Oklahoma, especially with my students who are supposed to have grown up learning the Bible. Alas, they grew up believing what someone else told them it said.

The next two are related, and can both be answered with the same response:

How often do you say grace or give blessings to God before meals, and how often do you pray outside of religious services?

Never. Prayer, in the sense of petition, is the most pointless of religious exercises. I irritated an acquaintance one day who asked I pray for her sister. I said no. A conversation ensued, the end result of which I warned her about in advance. The usual questions: why don't you pray, don't you believe in God, etc. My final answer, I don't pray because based on what I believe about prayer I might just as well throw rocks at your sister for all the good prayer does.

And now for the really fun ones:

We will all be called before God to answer for our sins. (agree/disagree)

No. What's worse is that many theists don't believe it either. They believe theirs are covered. Nice. It's like an invitation to be a douchebag, or worse, permission.

Morality is a personal matter and society should not force everyone to follow one standard. (agree/disagree)

Terrible question. The first clause is idiotic. The subject of the second is so vague as to be meaningless, and the idea that there is one standard is a horrible assumption. Even if we agreed that there is one standard, a transcendent law/Lawgiver sort of thing, we have no way of accessing the information. Therefore, morality is communal, evolving, and so complex as to warrant better questions than this one. I think everyone should follow one standard related to rape and child molesting, but I'm happy to allow for many standards when it comes to marriage. Just a really shitty oversimplification here, survey writers.

Which comes closer to your views: There are absolutely clear guidelines of what is good and evil; OR there can never be absolutely clear guidelines of what is good and evil.

With friend Scott, I want to say that the second comes CLOSER to my view, but seriously, this is goofy. What can I possibly learn about someone from her answer to this question. This has to be an essay question. Seriously. There are clear guidelines in some cases, and there are very vague ones in others, and I'm certain that many are a matter of personal preference. This is perhaps the worst false dilemma in the list of questions.

Which comes closest to describing your feelings about holy scripture: Scripture is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word; OR Scripture is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, word for word; OR Scripture is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by men?

Surely you know the answer to this one. Next.

Which comes closer to your views: Right and wrong should be based on God's laws OR right and wrong should be based on the views of society?

Okay, maybe this is the worst of the false dilemmas. Can I get another option here? The first has already been addressed above, and Scott rightly points out that Plato's Euthyphro offers the classic dilemma that theists can't consistently answer, especially when the extrapolations are considered: is something good because god wills it, or does god only prefer the good? I like that paraphrase. Anyway, the second question is also idiotic, as the views of "society" (a word I never allow my students to use) are so diverse as to be irreducible.

Which comes closest to your views: The path to salvation comes through our actions or deeds OR the path to salvation lies in our beliefs or faith?

I don't believe in salvation, unless you mean saving me from a charging rhino or a staff meeting. I would prefer theists choose the former, but more and more they are choosing the latter, and the world is immeasurably shittier for it.

The last question is about evolution, which I answered quite well in the previous post. This was an interesting exercise. What I really learned was that survey writers should have to take a technical writing class before composing questions on a complex subject.

Comments

[Charles Curtis]

Great writing Greg. But weak on any real arguments. More prescriptive than persuasive. Let me know if you'd be interested in a debate.

[Greg Horton]

I've made the arguments exhaustively elsewhere, so no real need to make them again. Just finishing up the list. Debate? To what end? We both agree that we speak fundamentally different languages, especially in terms of epistemology. What sort of venue? What topic? What's the upside? I seem to have nothing to gain from a conversation that usually leaves me frustrated, so offer me a reason for doing it. Seriously, not being evasive, just have no idea what the point is.

[Charles]

What's the point of posting these blogs? Only difference is that it's tandem. LOL.

I haven't read any cogent or coherent arguments against Christian belief from you yet. I read some very well written and well expressed opinions about Christianity, with an occasional brush with a familiar argument name, but no real arguments developed.

Not expecting either of our minds to change. Just thought it's always more interesting when two people on opposite sides discuss things than cheerleading our own causes.

People get their heels dug in with their beliefs. But then if we were obedient determinists, we wouldn't bother blogging anything but recipes. So we both think furthering a conversation has possibilities. At least that's how we act.

Not a big deal, if there's no interest.

[greg]

I'm not sure what qualifies as a coherent or cogent argument against Christianity in your mind, Charles. Most of my arguments are opposed to theism in general, not a specific version of theism. However, I'm equally sure you've not read every post I've written and every response since 2002. Odds are good you missed some cogency somewhere in the mix. As for coherence, I'm comfortable with my level of coherence. I suspect it has more to do with your epistemological and metaphysical assumptions, such that (almost?) nothing disqualifies Christianity on the grounds of irrationality. I've written extensively about my objections to theism. Most of the arguments aren't new, and as I've come to understand, aren't easily refuted, so those are pushed aside as matters of faith. It's an interesting shell game wherein faith and reason play the role only as necessary and only when convenient. Consistency is not the grammar of theism. As I said, we speak two different languages. Without being derisive (seriously), I find "conversations" with you incredibly tedious and a shad painful, since much of your conversation is filled with the level of toxic certainty that drove me from evangelicalism long before I left theism behind.

As for why I post these blog entries, I'm guessing it's because I want to. It's equally true that along the way I've collected a group of real and virtual friends from various backgrounds and diverse places who challenge me to think more clearly, write more clearly, and refine what it is I believe. That's an invaluable service. After one of my "conversations" with you on fb, I forwarded the transcript to five of those friends. Their comments were very helpful for me in putting your philosophical and rhetorical methods into perspective, as well as helping me see that I'm not as unclear, uncogent, or incoherent as you imply. That too is an invaluable service. I'm happy to forward you their replies with their names redacted. Sometimes people provide a wonderful mirror.

I would agree to a debate, but only in a panel style, and I'd like some input into a moderator. I actually have a Christian in mind! I see no value in me arguing with you, but I do see value in four or six having a genuine conversation.

[MyQuest]

Thanks for posting your own answers as well. It has been fun to read what you wrote.

[Charles]

With regards to missing your full position on theistic arguments, you're right. I am far from having read all your stuff and from knowing your positions on the array of topics.

I did read some of your friend's responses with the names redacted in our prior message threads. To be honest, one of them was good, albeit emotionally charged, and the other was....escoteric, to be as generous as I can be about it. In the end, us writing to each other in a public forum would be cool. Blog format would permit scads of panel discussions, if they were worthy of comments.

Narrowing down the topic would be a challenge, but sure we could come up with something between us that wasn't too broad. I would attempt to fight off my A.D.D. as much as possible to keep it on the road :-)

What do you think?

[Greg Horton]

Probably the best idea we've come up with together, Charles. I do have one request, and please humor me on this. I'd prefer the uber-knucklehead Reverend Green not be involved. He pokes all my "I loathe douchebag" buttons. He is in all sincerity the only "friend" I've ever unfriended from fb, and I've kept some loons on my list. Other than that, I have no requirements. Let me know what you think in terms of topics, and we can start trimming.

[Charles]

LOL. If we do the blog format, not sure that could be effectively regulated. Besides, I am sure you know some button pushers that would tempt to set me off as well. We'll figure out a way to try to keep it as civilized as possible.

Give me a few days to get through some work deadlines and in the meantime I'll mull over some ideas. If you have any, send them my way.

BTW, I supply my email for these comments but never recieve updates. Not sure if that's how it works. It would be cool to recieve updates here on my email,since I can be absent minded at times :-) Is there something I can do here to start recieving them?

[Greg Horton]

Not sure on that one. I get updates, but it's my blog, so there is an option button for me. I'll check the TypePad faq page and get back to you.