Handling Marvin Heyboer's Letter
Dimitrije Kostic
From: "Dimitrije Kostic"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Marvin Heyboer's email
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 6:51 AM
Dear Mr Walker,
In the spirit of intellectual discussion, I find your refutation of Marvin Heyboer's email somewhat unfulfilling. As atheists, we must examine beliefs with austere rationality rather than with raw emotions (which, I think, cause many Christians to believe what they believe). I feel your response can be improved, and I offer the following as a more thorough discussion of the logical gaps in Mr Heyboer's reasoning...
"To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know there is no God." |
That's the most egregious of his logical mistakes. Christians have faith (which Mr Heyboer's own dictionary defines as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof.") that God exists, and this forms the basis for their beliefs about the universe, the good, the moral, etc. Since by very definition, Mr Heyboer has no proof to justify his belief, he cannot prove the existence of God to any third party. I must hurry to add that there is nothing wrong with his belief in God; many people believe in things (not necessarily religious in nature) for which they have no proof (I may have faith that I will find a parking spot in the parking lot just because "I have a feeling...", for example).
However, by definition his faith in God is his personal assertion. So when he asserts "God exists" and I respond "Prove it," he will not be able to, by definition. In the absence of his proof, and since the burden of proof is on him (he made the assertion, after all), I am free to as much skepticism as I want. Similarly, if he claims that he has X-ray vision, I am entitled to be as skeptical as I want until he proves it. Thus, atheists do not need to disprove the existence of God; we are entitled to our skepticism by the lack of a proof in the affirmative. This right of skepticism, might I add, is standard practice in scientific, mathematical, and legal communities.
"But an atheist can never have enough knowledge to be certain there is no God." |
I've heard this assertion before from other Christians and I still don't understand it (i.e., I think it's nonsense, in case somebody mistakes my comment as an invitation to "enlighten" me). It sounds to me like another unsubstantiated claim. I can be certain that there exists no largest prime number, and in fact the ancient Greeks had irrefutable proof of it long before Christ was supposedly born (can you tell I'm a mathematician yet? =).
Thus, it is plausible to prove the non-existence of something. Why not God, then? Consider a curious variant on Russell's paradox: "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot, then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist." I consider statements like that to be seriously underrated in their power as refutation to the existence of God. I feel Christian apologists brush statements like this one aside as paradoxical riddles not worthy of their attention, when in fact this simple argument cuts into the heart of their belief. For without the existance of an omnipotent god, the superstructure of Christian doctrine comes crashing to the floor. Thus, I do not need to "know everything" to prove that some object does not exist.
"An atheist would have to be everywhere in and out of the universe all at one time, because if there is anywhere he cannot be, God could be there. No atheist can claim total knowledge, therefore atheism is self-refuting, because knowing everything and being everywhere is to be like God." |
How foolish. I need not exist in every location, for example, on the sun to prove that an ice cube does not exist there; I need only observe that the sun's core has a temperature of around 15 million degrees to rationally conclude that no particle of ice could exist there. Proving that something doesn't exist doesn't mean you have to prove that it doesn't exist at every particular place at every particular time. Similarly, the Greeks did not conclude that there exists no largest prime number by counting forever; they noticed that if N is a largest prime number and a,b,c,...,N is a list of all the primes then the number (a*b*c*...*N) + 1 is either a prime itself (a contradiction, since N was assumed to be our largest prime) or this number is not divisible by any of our finitely many primes, and that too is a contradiction. Thus, no matter what happens, N cannot be a largest prime. The point is that there is sometimes a logical argument to prove non-existence that doesn't require me being everywhere and knowing everything. This possibility is a real one and if I were a Christian, I would be justly haunted by it.
To Mr Walker: You may, if you so choose, post this email on your fine website. I would be flattered, of course, but I would ask you not to put my email address on there (I am in no hurry to chit-chat with the pentacostals and the fundies).
Sincerely,
Dimitrije Kostic
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Dimitrije Kostic"
Subject: Re: Marvin Heyboer's email
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 10:00 AM
In the spirit of intellectual discussion, I find your refutation of Marvin Heyboer's email somewhat unfulfilling.
It is very convenient to discredit someone's work like this without offering anything resembling a description as to why that person's work has earned your disfavor.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Dimitrije Kostic"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re: Marvin Heyboer's email
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 4:23 PM
In the spirit of intellectual discussion, I find your refutation of Marvin Heyboer's email somewhat unfulfilling.
It is very convenient to discredit someone's work like this without offering anything resembling a description as to why that person's work has earned your disfavor.
I wasn't discrediting your work or insinuating that there's anything wrong with it; I was only suggesting an improvement. The reason I suggest it, in case that wasn't clear, was that your response to Mr Heyboer's email was quite emotional. Nobody doubts that you, I, and other atheists dislike being preached at by whom we perceive as self-righteous, self-appointed religious experts. I feel that many of these self-styled crusaders understand that, and part of the reason they wax polemical to us is simply that childish need to get a rise out of people they disagree with. The surest vaccine against that is to do what they least expect--take their arguments seriously and seriously refute them, maybe occaisionally yielding when they've made a good point or two. And, of course, I'm not saying you never do what I've suggested, but I think that approach should have been taken in this instance.
You might also consider my email as simply a reader's response to Mr Heyboer's email; not necessarily in competition with yours, but rather a separate objection.
Dimitrije Kostic
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Dimitrije Kostic"
Subject: Re: Marvin Heyboer's email
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:40 PM
I wasn't discrediting your work or insinuating that there's anything wrong with it; I was only suggesting an improvement.
Ah! Okay!
Understand that I field approximately a dozen letters a day from Christians who level patently unfair charges against our position. I'm sure that any out-of-the-closet atheist endures the same treatment.
In this Forum I do not pretend to offer the ideal response, I merely take a crack at dealing with what I see as a patently unfair assessment of the atheistic position.
Part of what I offer is a variety of responses as examples either to follow, to improve, or to reject. Part of what this forum is about is to explore the many options available to us. It's also important to be able to chart the growth of ourselves and others, in our dealings with various types of Christians and other theists. The very point of doing this is so we can see if this or that approach is to our liking. So, it behooves us to hold ourselves to the very standards to which we hold others. In this case, since you level criticism from an atheist's viewpoint, I need to see justification for that criticism -- not simply that you did not like it. This is only fair.
Apart from that, to scrutinize what you read here is precisely what this whole thing is for. All we ask is to be given reasons for any criticism.
You might also consider my email as simply a reader's response to Mr Heyboer's email; not necessarily in competition with yours, but rather a separate objection.
I responded only to the apparent criticism of my presentation, and asked only for a description of your objections, while simultaneously criticizing the lack of a description in your objection. That's all.
The reason I suggest it, in case that wasn't clear, was that your response to Mr Heyboer's email was quite emotional.
Of course it was! I'm tired of hearing bald criticism without justification, and I am tired of the almost universal misrepresentation of the atheist position, which is offered for the purpose of convincing us that the religious position is one of truthfulness. I hope that other types of responses are amply represented. If not in this case, then your response will be represented when I both post your response and provide cross links to and from the original document.
I feel that many of these self-styled crusaders understand that, and part of the reason they wax polemical to us is simply that childish need to get a rise out of people they disagree with.
Perhaps, but is it unfair of me to presuppose that someone is deliberately baiting me? What if they're sincere, but are simply parroting a technique that they heard in a sermon or on TV, and are unaware that what they're doing could be seen as baiting?
How would you suggest I treat someone who seems to be baiting me? I did this in the Rich Zawadzki exchange and received a lot of flack from both sides (and lots of praise, as well).
The surest vaccine against that is to do what they least expect--take their arguments seriously and seriously refute them, maybe occasionally yielding when they've made a good point or two.
There is no shortage of us "yielding" to points made by theists; however, when it comes to diatribes from the exclusivistic, bigoted theists, they make it hard with the conspicuous absence of points worthy of anything even remotely resembling "yielding." A notable exception is the second letter to Pastor Jeff, wherein I take some of his comments and use them as springboards to encourage reasonableness and tolerance, if not full-fledged dignity. And sure I wax emotional, because the damage done by slander is mostly emotional. The emotional elements need to be presented, I think.
Also, when the very premise of their argument is faulty, the only response is to show the flaws in the argument. If the fault involves an arrogant-sounding misrepresentation of our position, followed by the equivalent of "You gotta be pretty stupid to believe that,"
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
I wasn't discrediting your work or insinuating that there's anything wrong with it; I was only suggesting an improvement.
Ah! Okay!
Understand that I field approximately a dozen letters a day from Christians who level patently unfair charges against our position. I'm sure that any out-of-the-closet atheist endures the same treatment.
That many? I extend my sympathies; I can understand why your first email seemed somewhat guarded. Here and there I catch flak from the more dogmatic of my religious acquiantances, but never so much so consistently. The instances when it does happen though, are unnerving indeed.
I am not pretending to offer the ideal response, I'm merely taking a crack at dealing with what I saw as a patently unfair assessment of the atheistic position.
As far as I can tell, we have always been in agreement on that point. I go further, and say that almost every criticism levelled at the atheistic position that I've ever heard was transparently biased.
Part of what I offer is a variety of responses as examples to follow, to improve, or to reject. Part of what this forum is about is to explore the many options available to us and to chart the growth of ourselves and others, in our dealings with various types of Christians and other theists. The very point of doing this is so we can see if this or that approach is to our liking. So, it behooves us to hold ourselves to the very standards to which we hold others. In this case, since you level criticism from an atheist's viewpoint, I need to see justification for that criticism -- not simply that you did not like it. This is only fair.
An excellent idea to be sure, and perhaps my criticism is still not clear.
Apart from that, to scrutinize what you read here is precisely what this whole thing is for. All we ask is to be given reasons for any criticism.
I will try to provide them more explicitly in what follows...
The reason I suggest it, in case that wasn't clear, was that your response to Mr Heyboer's email was quite emotional.
Of course it was! I'm tired of hearing bald criticism without justification, and I am tired of the almost universal misrepresentation of the atheist position, which is offered for the purpose of convincing us that the religious position is one of truthfulness. I hope that other types of responses are amply represented. If not in this case, then your response will be represented when I post your response and provide cross links to and from the original document.
If I got 12 emails a day from Christian lemmings whose IQ is barely sufficient to recite in an email what they heard in church earlier that morning, I too would be frustrated. My criticism is that you let that frustration show. In viewing a debate, the person who looks reasonable, calm, and collected has an upper hand against a person who appears moody and emotional, even if what the former is saying is complete nonsense (remember George W Bush's debating victory against his sighing opponent). This is because, regretably, appearance matters in such engagements. Atheists are confronted with religious issues constantly; we know better than anyone that religions are rooted irreversibly in emotion. A Christian's reason for believing the intricate doctrine of Christianity does so (I believe) because of all the emotions related to death, morality, righteousness, absolutism, etc, not because blind reason leads him to conclude all that the Bible says. Our debates with Christians ought to reflect that reality; we ought to stand as the coherent guardians of reason against our impassioned opponents. Your emotional responses, I'm afraid, give the opposite impression and that is my chief criticism of your response to Mr Heyboer's email.
I feel that many of these self-styled crusaders understand that, and part of the reason they wax polemical to us is simply that childish need to get a rise out of people they disagree with.
Perhaps, but is it unfair of me to presuppose that someone is deliberately baiting me? What if they're sincere, but are simply parroting a technique that they heard in a sermon or on TV, and are unaware that what they're doing could be seen as baiting?
If you suspect insincerity, I suggest simply not responding. Fundamentalists behave quite like children. A child will say anything outrageous enough to get his parents' attention, and it's a curious fact of child psychology that the child will dissist if he is ignored. If you suspect sincerity, but perceive "parroting" as you put it (though I'm not sure I know precisely what you mean by that), perhaps you might simply tell them that and ask them to rephrase their questions in a less antagonistic way. Beware, though, of becoming cynical and paranoid; intelligent questions from curious Christians ought to be answered intelligently.
Now, I also know that it's very easy for me to say all this because I won't be the one being harangued in a dozen emails a day and thus your Herculean effort to single-handedly correct the misunderstandings of so many ignorant Christians deserves praise no matter how you do it. I offer all that I've said in the spirit of constructive advice to a diligent colleague rather than a scolding for an unsatisfactory performance. >There is no shortage of us "yielding" to points made by theists; True, and though it's embarassing to do so it ought to be done when they make good points (and they sometimes do). Besides, a debate between two people can be an objective discussion that leads towards useful insight rather than a bitter conflict between competing rhetoric. For those who seek the latter, I offer only a cold shoulder.
... however, when it comes to diatribes from the exclusivistic, bigoted theists, they make it hard with the conspicuous absence of points worthy of anything even remotely resembling "yielding." A notable exception is the (not yet posted) second letter to Pastor Jeff, wherein I take some of his comments and use them as springboards to encourage reasonableness and tolerance, if not full-fledged dignity. And sure I wax emotional, because the damage done by slander is mostly emotional. The emotional elements need to be presented, I think.
Also, when the very premise of their argument is faulty, the only response is to show the flaws in the argument. If the fault involves an arrogant-sounding misrepresentation of our position, followed by the equivalent of "You gotta be pretty stupid to believe that," ...
When the very premise is unstable, then you can usurp the rational ground rather than the emotional one. You can calmly and easily expose the sometimes egregious flaws in their arguments and let them fume over it. That's what I did with Mr Heyboer's email; I thought it was quite easy to expose his careless errors.
Hope all that makes more sense.
Dimitrije
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Dimitrije Kostic"
Subject: Re: Marvin Heyboer's email
Date: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:07 AM
Here and there I catch flak from the more dogmatic of my religious acquiantances, but never so much so consistently.
I host a web page which prominently features the word atheism in its title and logo. This is enough for many people: the most arrogant letters we get are sent from the link on the front page, indicating that the senders got no further than the word atheism before deciding to vent their spleen. E-mail sent from links within the website is consistently more reasonable.
As far as I can tell, we have always been in agreement on that point. I go further, and say that almost every criticism levelled at the atheistic position that I've ever heard was transparently biased.
This is the crux of the biscuit, as Zappa put it. This is why we're here: to boldly go where no human has gone before in trying to discover responses to this biased criticism in ways that are both appropriate and effective.
Our debates with Christians ought to reflect that reality; we ought to stand as the coherent guardians of reason against our impassioned opponents. Your emotional responses, I'm afraid, give the opposite impression and that is my chief criticism of your response to Mr Heyboer's email.
How, then, do I communicate that this bigotry hurts me emotionally? Or is it even appropriate to point out that bigotry's primary damage is emotional?
Some of my experiments have been along the lines of performance art, so to speak -- poetry, of you will. The Zawadzki response was specifically and deliberately designed with this in mind, and I even reprinted it in the print edition because I was so proud of how it came out as a work of emotionally charged art. In it, I deliberately bared the core of my emotional frustration with this constant misrepresentation and belittling of atheists which is so commonplace that it has become institutionalized.
I am not running for a powerful administrative office, I am trying to make a point and popularize an idea. I am trying to show -- to atheists in particular and to the public in general -- that we all have become so callused and accustomed to the bigotry and misrepresentation we endure that whenever it happens, we deflect it like water off a duck's back. A profound injustice seems to mean nothing to us, whereas if similar comments were leveled against Jews or African Americans, we'd never hear the end of it: the outcry would reverberate into the outer edges of society.
Within our subculture there is no shortage of spokespeople (and silent people) who "stand as the coherent guardians of reason against our impassioned opponents." Perhaps I stand out as one crying in the wilderness simply because I am willing to risk my reputation a few times by jumping up and down to make a point.
And this is not simple posturing on my part: This George Bush (and Al Gore) thing had me so depressed that I sought professional help (and made some progress as a result). In addition, the antiatheist bigotry and misrepresentation which is usually limited to the Forum has recently spilled over into my personal life, affecting, at one point, my relationships with three different bars that I used to frequent. Had I remained silent, had I not expressed to someone this or that remark about the separation of religion from government, my relationships with two of these places would have remained intact; the third guy was just an asshole and would have picked on my hair color if that's what it took: he has since been fired.
Beware, though, of becoming cynical and paranoid; intelligent questions from curious Christians ought to be answered intelligently.
The tough part, though, is when a potentially intelligent discussion starts off by being indistinguishable from a vicious and unfair attack. Crucial to any intelligent discussion, to me, starts of with a clear understanding of each participant's position. As I said to Pastor Jeff:
If I wanted to be unfair about it, I could define Christian as one who asserts that the Earth is flat, because as I read the Bible, the Earth's topography is clearly described as being flat, having four corners, with a lid ("firmament") above it, and with a reservoir of water above that lid. At one point, the Sun "stood still" and in another place, "one-third of the stars fell to the Earth," and in another, a Bible character was shown "all the kingdoms of the world" from the vantage point of "an exceeding high mountain." However, very few Christians today are such fundamentalists that they still take those stories literally. So, for me to describe Christian as someone who thinks the Earth is flat would be as dishonest and unfair to you as Copelson's definition of atheist is toward us. |
This is why I am tempted to accept some of these unfair assessments of atheism as the result of somebody having listened, uncritically, to a sermon. They don't really believe what they are saying, as Drange's "Mumbo-Jumbo Theory" suggests, but have simply memorized statements and then learned to assert that they believe those statements to be true. This goes particularly for their assessments of the enemy position: atheism. The parroted statements don't even have to make sense upon closer examination, they are merely parroted and are then said to be a description of what the individual believes.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.