In trying to debunk Johah Goldberg and Ed Feser, Heather MacDonald only shows how little she understands Judao-Christian theology:
That experiment, and all like it are doomed, because they treat God as though he were a machine that can be used whenever someone feels like accessing his power for any given purpose. I wonder if MacDonald is just flat out ignorant of the New Testament to such an extent that she doesn't even know that during the temptation of Jesus by the devil, when the devil tried to make him prove his power, he simply responded "do not put the Lord to the test." That is precisely what a scientific experiment that treats prayer and God's power as though they were mere forces of nature that can be called down, reliably, based only on the will of the caller. The Bible makes no such claim which makes this experiment, and all like it, as theologically ludicrous as it is scientifically ludicrous. People have also tried to prove that there is demonic influence in the world in a similar manner, as though demons were things that we could pop out of thin air, put on a table for observation and dismiss without incident.
The allegedly rational attempts to prove or disprove the supernatural have always been based on a very crude and childish understanding of just what the supernatural is. Let's say that there is a spiritual world, filled with sentient beings whose normal state is incorporeal. They can come and go as they please, leaving only a certain dark je ne sais quoi in their wake. What makes us think that we can prove or disprove their existence, since we have no ability to isolate them and bring them under observation if they do in fact exist? That conundrum doesn't make questions about their existance irrational, but rather merely outside of the realm of what science can answer.
From a secular point of view, it's difficult to say that human nature is essentially flawed because a secular world view accepts that many of the negative traits that we have are things that allowed us to evolve to this point. For example, cases have been made that rape was used by alpha males to spread their seed far and wide. How then, does one automatically make a convincing argument that rape is inherently wrong, when rape served a biologically useful role that allegedly made our species healthier? The very essence of sin and evil is that it is intrinsically destructive and harmful, but strictly speaking, rape is only harmful and destructive psychologically in most cases. Rape that results in a healthy child is physically no worse than normal sex in this context, since our basis for determining the good is so heavily influenced by what got us to where we are now. It could even be better if the father is a healthier father.
The consent and individual autonomy paradigm that is as close as secular conservatism can get to traditional conservatism's Judao-Christian moral code is fatally flawed because without a common, imposed moral code, human beings must intuit the good on fundamental issues. For a religious conservative, the fact that God said rape is always bad is good enough to condemn it even when it might produce offspring of such health that their DNA can be used to cure diseases and increase the life expectancy of the whole species.
Secularists have to start from the ground up and say here "is rape always bad" in order to understand it. Before they can do that, they have to come up with a common definition of what "bad" is, and that's nearly impossible to do when each person is supposed to use pure reason to determine what bad is. Reason, being not just the devil's whore, but the whore of human intellect and data, is subject to manipulation in ways that are not obvious to people like MacDonald. One person may reason that psychological harm cannot be quantified, therefore it cannot be rationally considered. Therefore, they might judge the morality of rape in large part based on the health of the father, the quality of life that the child enjoys and other factors that can be emprically determined and thus fed through the reason machine. Another may start from the perspective that psychological harm must be minimized, therefore all acts which could inflict serious psychological harm must be stopped. Lastly, another could easily prefer a positivist worldview with respect to authority and ability to act toward others in ways that control them or do things to them.
We still live in a society in which Judao-Christian memes are reasonably influential, which is why they influence the thinking of secular conservatives. They have not yet been so divorced from the culture, that their influence has been lost on what we assume about morality, justice and other subjects that science cannot give us a definitive answer. They still inform the thinking of a lot of secularists, as witnessed by the fact that our society still largely conforms to distinctly Judao-Christian values on issues ranging from torture, to marriage, to how to conduct war.
Once one rejects the premise of the Holy Books, namely that they come from the Creator of the universe, they lose their authority. Any moral code that lacks authority is one that is toothless since there is no incentive to learn it, commit it to one's heart and live by it other than some generic desire to better oneself. Take away God and Hell, and the Holy Books are just incoherent rantings about morality by people who were surrounded by pathetic degenerates. Reject Jesus' claim to being the Son of God and you find yourself listening to a man who is either a devious son of a bitch or a lunatic. In either scenario, you have to be on guard lest you be lulled into stupid, self-destructive behavior.
The issue of torture serves as a good example of the moral divide between conservatives. While many religious conservatives were opposed to the policies, many secular conservatives were not. Just because the virtues that are taught in the Holy Books are accessible to secular conservatives, doesn't mean that they will embrace them. The torture issue is a good example of that with mainstream conservative Republicans tending to support Bush, while many religious conservatives took the issue itself as a sign of the moral decay of America.
I wonder to which science Mr. Feser is referring. There was the Templeton prayer experiment, and that didn't work out too satisfactorily, did it? Granted, the research design was laughable, in a charming sort of way (the people praying for the recovery of cardiac patients, for example, were only given the patient's first name and last initial, on the assumption presumably that God would know to which Jim G. they were referring). Perhaps Mr. Feser could propose a more scientifically rigorous design to show the efficacy of petitionary prayer or any other religious practice of his choosing.
That experiment, and all like it are doomed, because they treat God as though he were a machine that can be used whenever someone feels like accessing his power for any given purpose. I wonder if MacDonald is just flat out ignorant of the New Testament to such an extent that she doesn't even know that during the temptation of Jesus by the devil, when the devil tried to make him prove his power, he simply responded "do not put the Lord to the test." That is precisely what a scientific experiment that treats prayer and God's power as though they were mere forces of nature that can be called down, reliably, based only on the will of the caller. The Bible makes no such claim which makes this experiment, and all like it, as theologically ludicrous as it is scientifically ludicrous. People have also tried to prove that there is demonic influence in the world in a similar manner, as though demons were things that we could pop out of thin air, put on a table for observation and dismiss without incident.
The allegedly rational attempts to prove or disprove the supernatural have always been based on a very crude and childish understanding of just what the supernatural is. Let's say that there is a spiritual world, filled with sentient beings whose normal state is incorporeal. They can come and go as they please, leaving only a certain dark je ne sais quoi in their wake. What makes us think that we can prove or disprove their existence, since we have no ability to isolate them and bring them under observation if they do in fact exist? That conundrum doesn't make questions about their existance irrational, but rather merely outside of the realm of what science can answer.
The curious thing to me is why the idea of secular conservatism is so "appalling" to Mr. Feser and others. We are only proposing that the basis of conservatism can be broadened beyond revelation to rest on an understanding of human nature itself.This statement assumes that we share a common understanding of human nature. The traditional view of human nature held by conservatives is based on the Judao-Christian understanding that human nature is essentially flawed. It's very essence is tainted by evil and destructive qualities that must be controlled, and religiously speaking, redeemed. It's from this basis that conservatism has always derived its understanding that utopia is unconditionally impossible on this side of eternity, and has had a skepticism about power, especially government powers. The reason that the political left was generally doomed to be the domain of violence and tyranny was because of the opposite belief, namely that human nature is essentially good. This is the foundation of our disagreements on most things, left and right.
From a secular point of view, it's difficult to say that human nature is essentially flawed because a secular world view accepts that many of the negative traits that we have are things that allowed us to evolve to this point. For example, cases have been made that rape was used by alpha males to spread their seed far and wide. How then, does one automatically make a convincing argument that rape is inherently wrong, when rape served a biologically useful role that allegedly made our species healthier? The very essence of sin and evil is that it is intrinsically destructive and harmful, but strictly speaking, rape is only harmful and destructive psychologically in most cases. Rape that results in a healthy child is physically no worse than normal sex in this context, since our basis for determining the good is so heavily influenced by what got us to where we are now. It could even be better if the father is a healthier father.
The consent and individual autonomy paradigm that is as close as secular conservatism can get to traditional conservatism's Judao-Christian moral code is fatally flawed because without a common, imposed moral code, human beings must intuit the good on fundamental issues. For a religious conservative, the fact that God said rape is always bad is good enough to condemn it even when it might produce offspring of such health that their DNA can be used to cure diseases and increase the life expectancy of the whole species.
Secularists have to start from the ground up and say here "is rape always bad" in order to understand it. Before they can do that, they have to come up with a common definition of what "bad" is, and that's nearly impossible to do when each person is supposed to use pure reason to determine what bad is. Reason, being not just the devil's whore, but the whore of human intellect and data, is subject to manipulation in ways that are not obvious to people like MacDonald. One person may reason that psychological harm cannot be quantified, therefore it cannot be rationally considered. Therefore, they might judge the morality of rape in large part based on the health of the father, the quality of life that the child enjoys and other factors that can be emprically determined and thus fed through the reason machine. Another may start from the perspective that psychological harm must be minimized, therefore all acts which could inflict serious psychological harm must be stopped. Lastly, another could easily prefer a positivist worldview with respect to authority and ability to act toward others in ways that control them or do things to them.
We still live in a society in which Judao-Christian memes are reasonably influential, which is why they influence the thinking of secular conservatives. They have not yet been so divorced from the culture, that their influence has been lost on what we assume about morality, justice and other subjects that science cannot give us a definitive answer. They still inform the thinking of a lot of secularists, as witnessed by the fact that our society still largely conforms to distinctly Judao-Christian values on issues ranging from torture, to marriage, to how to conduct war.
Reason and the evidence of history show the crucial importance of parental responsibility, self-discipline, limited government, and free economic exchange in creating a society in which individuals can most thrive. Do religious conservatives believe that only religious belief grounds conservatism? That position strikes me as rather an admission of defeat.It's a matter of how much these things can achieve their fullness within a secular society. Secularism has hardly been good for conservatism, as witnessed by the fact that most secular parts of the West are the most staunchly left-wing. Going purely on observation here, it seems highly irrational to say that conservatism and secularism have any real natural affinity for one another.
Secular conservatives applaud the virtues put forth in various Holy Books, we simply claim them--proudly-as the creation of human beings, to which all have access.That's all well and good, but utterly simplistic. One of MacDonald's commenters said that "thou shalt not kill" (which was actually "you shall not murder") was a moral commandment before it was given in the 10 Commandments, but that's not true in the least. From a secular point of view, there are times when murder is not only moral, but virtuous. To murder Hitler, Mao and Stalin would, in that context, be a mitzvah if there ever was one. In the utilitarian calculus that underlies secular thinking about universal moral statements like "murder is always wrong," to murder three people to save nearly 100,000,000 people from being slaughtered by their governments would be effectively impossible to declare immoral on any level worth discussing because the the result is an unqualified good. The slippery slope begins there, once one realizes that doing acts that we used to believe to be evil, can actually result in truly good outcomes.
Once one rejects the premise of the Holy Books, namely that they come from the Creator of the universe, they lose their authority. Any moral code that lacks authority is one that is toothless since there is no incentive to learn it, commit it to one's heart and live by it other than some generic desire to better oneself. Take away God and Hell, and the Holy Books are just incoherent rantings about morality by people who were surrounded by pathetic degenerates. Reject Jesus' claim to being the Son of God and you find yourself listening to a man who is either a devious son of a bitch or a lunatic. In either scenario, you have to be on guard lest you be lulled into stupid, self-destructive behavior.
The issue of torture serves as a good example of the moral divide between conservatives. While many religious conservatives were opposed to the policies, many secular conservatives were not. Just because the virtues that are taught in the Holy Books are accessible to secular conservatives, doesn't mean that they will embrace them. The torture issue is a good example of that with mainstream conservative Republicans tending to support Bush, while many religious conservatives took the issue itself as a sign of the moral decay of America.
Excellent point about 'Testing God." This is a ridiculous experiment.
When I am alone and not observed by anyone, I can levitate three feet off the floor. Also, at night, I become invisible and can walk through walls and other solid objects. I could easily prove this, but keep it a secret because I value my privacy.
I hope you find my claims absurd.
How are my assertions different from your claims about demons?
Well, for starters how about the fact that I am actually describing the fundamental scientific conundrum with trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical being that is evil, capable of rendering us incapable of observing it, sentient and able to bend matter and energy around it to its will. MacDonald fails to accept that demons, and God for that matter, could never put to a scientific test because by their very nature scientists cannot control them like scientists can control laws of physics in simulations. You may find my claims to be absurd, but you cannot falsify them because you cannot conduct an experiment that proves or disproves the existence of demons.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that people haven't experienced their existence. I've known even an atheist or two who has had to concede that they have had experiences that are fairly in line with Judao-Christian descriptions of demonic activity. Some people that I know to be very reliable have personally seen demonic possessions, for example where a scrawny kid is suddenly able to throw off three or four grown men as though he had the strength of a body building player for a major football team, not to mention other experiences like one demoniac who went from being a girl with a fairly high pitched voice, to having a voice so low it made most of the men around her sound like little girls.
The reason I am open minded toward these things is that I have experienced some of them myself, and people I know I can trust have as well. Scientific evidence is not the only rationally acceptable form of evidence of phenomena. If that were the case, then the entire basis for our legal system would be a fraud.
Although you are correct scientific evidence is not the only acceptable form of evidence of phenomena, your analogy to the legal system is misplaced.
The legal system seeks to prove the existence of facts but it cannot (and does not purport to) prove any fact as the absolute truth. Hence, the burden of proof in any legal case is not proving absolute truth but proving truth either "by a preponderance of the evidence" (meaning more likely true than not) or "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Ironically, the testimony of any witness is often much easier to admit into evidence than conclusions based on scientific methods, regardless of how unreliable that witness may be. Then, twelve troglodytes get to decide whether the testimony is "true enough" to satisfy the burden.
Of course, this only circles us back to what it means to prove something to be true. Is truth what we all agree it is, what some percentage of us agree it is, or something else.
The legal system can be corrupted, and often is, but when allowed to work, it tends to do a good job at arriving at a truth that can be worked with. That's the problem that all science outside of Physics and Chemistry face themselves. I would hazard to guess that the models for evolutionary theory are a lot closer to a legal case, than a proven Physics mathematical model. Furthermore, much of the scientific community does work in a similar group manner, wherein dissenter evidence is often disregarded and scoffed at. Global warming research is an example of that behavior.