Rick DeLano’s Terrific Quantum Science Film Tainted by Catholic Nonsense |454|

I don't dismiss a Christian/Muslum/Jew/Buddist's intellect or intellectual development a priori.

It would obviously not be wise to do so - for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is that a person may choose to continue to operate within their religion even after they reach the point in their development of seeing through the exoteric and grasping the esoteric.

And intellect or IQ is only a component. There's also a variety of personality factors such as openness and orientation to authority.

And then there's life in general which offers some randomness in the mix. People might not be pushed to explore outside their birth religion or question their authorities unless circumstances beyond their control drive them to do so.

So "development" in this sense is not merely about intelligence and contains some degree of luck.

But the notion that there is a division between the exoteric and esoteric is common and is in fact baked into Judaism and Christianity. There were the outer courts and the Holy of Holies. And Jesus also spoke to the crowds in parables, but only gave the explanation to his few disciples. (Matthew 13)
 
I don’t understand why the guest couldn’t answer the question “where’s the straw man?” He kept repeating the same sentence over and over again. It’s totally absurd to call that argument a straw man.

Though I will say, though I’m not a Christian, I don’t find that particular argument against Christianity to be very compelling. Lots of things sound weird and nonsensical. Quantum physics, for one. When we’re talking about things that are beyond us, they will sound like they come from the beyond. None of any of the stuff we talk about really makes sense.

His explanation of “what Christianity is” is not what 99.9 percent of Christians think or feel that it is. If the basic tenent of Christianity is as he says it is (that is that the universe is not blindly self organizing) then Christianity is the same as the vast majority of all other spiritual belief systems. So where’s the real difference? The difference is in the phrase that Alex actually “had on the screen.”

He said, “I’m going to defend that which matters to me” (speaking in regards to the heated exchange regarding his faith during the interview) but he didn’t defend it at all. How can he act surprised at that interpretation when what was “on Alex’s screen” is literally what Christianity teaches? He can argue that it isn’t HIS brand of Christianity. So maybe it’s a straw man towards HIS brand of religion. But it’s not a straw man towards the core teachings of the Biggest religion of human history. It’s dishonest to pretend otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Though I will say, though I’m not a Christian, I don’t find that particular argument against Christianity to be very compelling.
Well.....when a moral argument enters into a religious argument, it is surely reasonable to assess that argument on moral grounds.

Thus, is it reasonable to decide to torture everyone for all eternity, and then change tack and claim that the only alternative is to send his son down to suffer torture (for a finite amount of time) in order to absolve everyone else?

As I wrote above, this was the stumbling block (insisted upon by some Christian friends of mine) that finally made me give up on Christianity.

What Rick (and probably Wolfgang Smith) doesn't realise, is that there are two steps:

To decide that materialism is false.

To decide that Christianity is true. This simply does not follow from the former conclusion - though something exciting certainly does follow.

David
 
I love that quote, and I feel Alex nailed Rick on that. The only reason Rick did not explain why that is wrong (at least up to the point I stopped listening), is that he didn't have a decent answer. Smoley's quote is in an obvious one-to-one correspondence with a precis of the bible story.

I suppose a more agile opponent would have said that the story is obviously allegorical, but Christianity endlessly dances between which parts of the bible should be taken literally,and which should be treated as a metaphor.

What I would like to discover, is what exactly Wolfgang Smith is saying. Here is a discussion that reveals something:


(I changed this video, because I think this one is better.)

Ideally it would be nice to find a gently mathematical version of this talk - I can stand a little math, but I am sorry to say that too much math overwhelms me, but without any math any discussion can become a bit vague.

David
That quote is a caricature. There are a multitude of intellectual Christians who would say that's not my belief. Ask your former guest David Bentley Hart.
 
Bloody hell.

That was quite an uncomfortable listen.

I'm not sure it's fair to attack lay people's faith with such ferocity. It's not like the guy's a preacher or a theologian. And the inclusion of Wolfgang's Catholic conversation in the film sounded fair enough.

Reminds me of when you attacked David Ditchfield, who is basically just a nice guy reporting events, and you leapt on him about Jesus not being historically accurate.

I'm not sure what you expect people to say in response to that.

But Rick Delano certainly gave as good as he got, which was to his credit.

I won't even listen to an interview in which I think Alex will get started. As for the historicity issue, Alex begs the question, often assumes the listeners and/or most folks agree there is an issue. Surely not. Again, I pose David Bentley Hart as as example, and Rupert Sheldrake. (I am not a Christian BTW).
 
It's a reasonable question.

My objection is not because I think religious beliefs should have special dispensation. Rather, people's personal faith is not usually amenable to rational argument. I mean, faith is an emotional (and of course spiritual) thing.

keep in mind that I strongly advised Rick not to do the show... he insisted... I relented and gave no "special dispensation"
 
I

Perhaps the various religions are just “secularized metaphysics”
I like the phrase but it seems to me that the... burden of proof is on them to demonstrate... because the counter hypothesis is that they are a cult
 
Last edited:
God got mad at the human race for eating a piece of fruit in Armenia 6,000 years ago. He got so mad that he condemned everybody to eternal damnation, except he kind of felt bad about this afterward, so he sent part of himself down to have it tortured to death, which somehow made it all right. Except not really, because if you don’t buy the story, you’re still going to fry forever. Does that make any sense? Of course it doesn’t.

This basically sums up the understanding I was given in my protestant confirmation classes as a kid - at least its the understanding I came away with, intended or not. It is clearly also the understanding that the bulk of other Christians I've encountered have come away with. If a sizable portion of Christians are coming away with this understanding of things, it seems fair to say it's at least one of the major take away interpretations of the faith tradition.

What little I know specifically about Catholic theology would inform me that they would likely see salvation within a different atonement scheme - likely the "Christus victor" theology in which Jesus wins humanity back from the clutches of the devil by outwitting him, rather than by being a stand in for a sinful humanity and taking God's wrath for sin upon himself (Vicarious atonement). That radically alters what is going on and how Jesus' passion is understood. Not all protestants believe in the vicarious atonement theory (championed by Calvin, from what I remember, and hashed out by him - with his lawyer's wit - in precise detail, with much attention to how one evades eternal punishment via a predestined faith by grace... it's easy to see how a lawyer would concoct such a theology). In the first sketch, God restores humanity to himself through demonstrating his indomitable will over creation - in the second, Smoley pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as I can see.

Which brings up a side matter: This stuff is clear as mud. Why in the world would an all-powerful deity make things so hard to understand? This is why arguments like yours and the guest's go on. You shouldn't need an intellect like David Bentley Hart's to sketch all this out in a way that spares God from looking like a devious cretin. Life is hard and scary enough. Wouldn't a loving God who has the power to do so shed some light on all this in a far less ambiguous manner? I say this as someone who has really been through the ringer on the religious stuff. I've suffered from scrupolosity/religious OCD for several decades. I've had to try to walk away from all this just so I can function, and it still rears its head from time to time in a way that overwhelms me. I am far from alone on this and, if you've got a heart, you won't stay long with a tradition that preaches what Smoley puts forth above unless you are pure terrified.

BTW. I feel like you should have started this episode with some WWE style talking: "In this corner: RICHARD "THE OXFORD DON" SMOLEY!!!"
 
It was an uncomfortable listen.

Perhaps the various religions are just “secularized metaphysics” with an understanding that the physics/metaphysics split some 400 years ago was wrong across the board.

Some people desire the “woo-woo” and will intuitively seek the metaphysical via whatever vehicle gets them there.

IMO - Slamming someone’s chosen “secularized metaphysics” is just rude - and pointless.

I take it that his profound understanding of physics has led him to the metaphysical with Catholicism as the vehicle.

It doesn’t sound like the Greek Orthodox of your youth had much in the way of metaphysics - but that isn’t to say that others aren’t getting a rich, metaphysical experience from the same religion.
Hi Olga, and welcome to Skeptiko!

If you browse through some of the back podcasts, I think you will find that Alex is far harder on the extreme materialists, than he was on Rick. Unfortunately Rick didn't have any sort of answer, and just ended up repeating himself in a rather pompous way. Indeed he seemed to be the sort of person who tries to win an argument by sheer verbal intimidation.

As I explained above, many years ago I was a Christian, and I had many tough discussions with my fellow students, and eventually I dropped out of Christianity, above all, because of the idea that Jesus had to "die for our sins". That left me as a materialist for many years, and then I gradually shifted to where I am now. What I am trying to say, is that I now look back on some of those tough discussions and realise how useful they were to me.

I would say that a lot of Christians go along with some of the crazy dogma, and kind of skip over it - which doesn't really help them, and maybe they eventually join the materialist crowd that don't really think about these issues at all.

Do remember also, that the Catholic Church has a long tradition of turning a blind eye when its priests abuse children in their care. For many people that church is positively evil.

I know that was your first post here, and that podcast was not to your liking - nor to mine either - I wish Rick had faced up to the challenge Alex had set him, and I wish Alex would find a better way of drawing a line in a podcast like this and moving on to other topics. I hope you stay with us, because I am sure you will find much to explore and discuss.

David
 
This basically sums up the understanding I was given in my protestant confirmation classes as a kid - at least its the understanding I came away with, intended or not. It is clearly also the understanding that the bulk of other Christians I've encountered have come away with. If a sizable portion of Christians are coming away with this understanding of things, it seems fair to say it's at least one of the major take away interpretations of the faith tradition.

What little I know specifically about Catholic theology would inform me that they would likely see salvation within a different atonement scheme - likely the "Christus victor" theology in which Jesus wins humanity back from the clutches of the devil by outwitting him, rather than by being a stand in for a sinful humanity and taking God's wrath for sin upon himself (Vicarious atonement). That radically alters what is going on and how Jesus' passion is understood. Not all protestants believe in the vicarious atonement theory (championed by Calvin, from what I remember, and hashed out by him - with his lawyer's wit - in precise detail, with much attention to how one evades eternal punishment via a predestined faith by grace... it's easy to see how a lawyer would concoct such a theology). In the first sketch, God restores humanity to himself through demonstrating his indomitable will over creation - in the second, Smoley pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as I can see.

Which brings up a side matter: This stuff is clear as mud. Why in the world would an all-powerful deity make things so hard to understand? This is why arguments like yours and the guest's go on. You shouldn't need an intellect like David Bentley Hart's to sketch all this out in a way that spares God from looking like a devious cretin. Life is hard and scary enough. Wouldn't a loving God who has the power to do so shed some light on all this in a far less ambiguous manner? I say this as someone who has really been through the ringer on the religious stuff. I've suffered from scrupolosity/religious OCD for several decades. I've had to try to walk away from all this just so I can function, and it still rears its head from time to time in a way that overwhelms me. I am far from alone on this and, if you've got a heart, you won't stay long with a tradition that preaches what Smoley puts forth above unless you are pure terrified.

BTW. I feel like you should have started this episode with some WWE style talking: "In this corner: RICHARD "THE OXFORD DON" SMOLEY!!!"
I have thought the same thing too...why would God make it so hard to know the "truth"? I have come to realize that we are given complete and total free will. I just read a book by Stephen Shaw, a mystic, and he was talking about how we always get to decide what we want to do. On the forums here , we talked about Oneness vs. Multiplicity and in the book I mentioned, the character is evolving and eventually can merge into Oneness and he decides to continue to experience multiplicity. That really struck a cord with me....even in a moment like that we get to decide. I think this relates to what you're saying in that we choose, in every moment, what to believe or experience. This is amazing freedom and I think as we grow, we become ok with that. We don't have all the answers but we get to enjoy the ride. We're all ok in the end.
 
Well.....when a moral argument enters into a religious argument, it is surely reasonable to assess that argument on moral grounds.

Thus, is it reasonable to decide to torture everyone for all eternity, and then change tack and claim that the only alternative is to send his son down to suffer torture (for a finite amount of time) in order to absolve everyone else?

As I wrote above, this was the stumbling block (insisted upon by some Christian friends of mine) that finally made me give up on Christianity.

What Rick (and probably Wolfgang Smith) doesn't realise, is that there are two steps:

To decide that materialism is false.

To decide that Christianity is true. This simply does not follow from the former conclusion - though something exciting certainly does follow.

David
I will say that the portion about salvation And eternal Hell has been flat out disproven by the combined studies of NDE, mediumship, STEs, OBEs/astral travel, channeled info etc. And the Hell part was always the most difficult for me To swallow when I was a Christian at ages 6-14 and 25-35. Been non Christian for 5 years now. Zero percent chance of going back.
 
That would be a book length answer. IMO the quote would apply to fundamentalists but not necessarily deep thinkers.
I think you are making the same mistake as Rick did - not recognising that that quote may be disrespectful, but it really is close to what the bible says, unless you take Genesis to be allegorical.

David
 
I think you are making the same mistake as Rick did - not recognising that that quote may be disrespectful, but it really is close to what the bible says, unless you take Genesis to be allegorical.

David

And that's my point--any deep thinker would be nuts to take the Bible literally.

From the brilliant Greek Orthodox David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God, p.23:

"The greatest Church Fathers...took it for granted that... Genesis could not be treated literally...but must be read allegorically....Origen of Alexandria (185-254) remarked that one would have to be rather simple to imagine that...God literally planted an orchard...whose fruits conferred wisdom or eternal life... [and witnessed the activities of Adam et al] ....These are figural tales...."

Then Hart gives other important examples of Christian allegorical thinkers throughout history.

There have always been many Christianities. I am fascinated by Docetism. Also by Simone Weil, who refused to be baptized but was profoundly deeper than any institutional thinkers. Fascinated as a scholar of religion, not as a literalist or fundamentalist. Literal interpretations of the Vedas drive me crazy, for example--soooo overly simplistic and even misleading, just like this quote.

Ciao David, I am crazy busy writing a book on theodicy. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And that's my point--any deep thinker would be nuts to take the Bible literally.

From the brilliant Greek Orthodox David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God, p.23:

"The greatest Church Fathers...took it for granted that... Genesis could not be treated literally...but must be read allegorically....Origen of Alexandria (185-254) remarked that one would have to be rather simple to imagine that...God literally planted an orchard...whose fruits conferred wisdom or eternal life... [and witnessed the activities of Adam et al] ....These are figural tales...."

Then Hart gives other important examples of Christian allegorical thinkers throughout history.

There have always been many Christianities. I am fascinated by Docetism. Also by Simone Weil, who refused to be baptized but was profoundly deeper than any institutional thinkers. Fascinated as a scholar of religion, not as a literalist or fundamentalist. Literal interpretations of the Vedas drive me crazy, for example--soooo overly simplistic and even misleading, just like this quote.

Ciao David, I am crazy busy writing a book on theodicy. :)
Well maybe if Rick had said something like that it would have let him off the hook with Alex - or maybe it wouldn't because allegorical passages open up a can of worms.

As I am sure you realise, the problem is, just how much of the bible is allegorical, and how severely so. I mean:

1) Did Jesus die on the cross?

2) If he did, was that necessary for people to be forgiven any sins?

3) Is there such a thing as eternal damnation? If there is, what is it for?

4) How do you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical, and is there a consensus about it?

5) If genesis is allegorical, do people agree what it really means?

David
 
I will say that the portion about salvation And eternal Hell has been flat out disproven by the combined studies of NDE, mediumship, STEs, OBEs/astral travel, channeled info etc. And the Hell part was always the most difficult for me To swallow when I was a Christian at ages 6-14 and 25-35. Been non Christian for 5 years now. Zero percent chance of going back.
Well exactly, and to the extent that people believe(d) those doctrines, they were appallingly cruel. Imagine literally believing that your loved one might have gone to Hell to be tortured for ever!

My frustration with Christianity - exemplified by my discussion above, is that hardly any doctrine can be pinned down as to what it means.

David
 
Back
Top