Rabbit is the question
Posted on December 27, 2009 | 65 Comments
Saturday’s edition of The Guardian‘s Comment is free ran a piece by Mark Vernon, called “God is the question: What does it mean to accept that God is not the answer to anything, but remains the unanswerable question?” I have zero patience for this kind of rambly, meaningless, intentional obscurantism, this “God is an unknowable mystery that cannot be touched by reason or intellect and that cannot be put into words” ridiculousness espoused by this author, among others. It’s completely nonsensical word salad. It’s a bunch of empty, vague rationalizations for belief in God disguised in language that is intended to seem deep and profound.
Intentional obscurantism is always annoying and intellectually dishonest, but it’s especially troubling when authors use it in an attempt to make their particular form of religious belief immune to criticism. How convenient that their God is unknowable and cannot be put into words! It’s pretty difficult to question and critique the truth claims of and to point out the real-life negative consequences of the belief systems of those who hide behind strings of meaningless phrases and who refuse to provide even a vague explanation of what in the hell they actually believe in.
This type of theologicalbabble also displays these authors’ willful ignorance about the God that most religious individuals believe in and about the horrible actions some believers engage in because of their blind religious faith. The average believer does not perceive God in the way that these authors do, a fact that the authors conveniently avoid acknowledging. By refusing to acknowledge this, they are both protecting themselves from being seen as “just a common believer” and pretending to be blind to the negative consequences of unquestioned religious belief. This type of writing is vacuous, hollow, dishonest, and willfully misleading.
When I first saw Vernon’s ridiculous article, I thought about deconstructing it, paragraph by paragraph, to illustrate just how nonsensical it is. But then I realized that it’s literally meaningless. There’s no substance to it and it’s thus not worth deconstructing. Sometimes, the only effective way to tackle such nonsense is with humor, and this is one of those times. So, voila:
Rabbit is the question
What does it mean to accept that The Rabbit is not the answer to anything, but remains the unanswerable question?
Although I’ve never seen Him, and have absolutely no evidence that He exists, my intuition and my gut feelings tell me that a holy rabbit, in fact the holy Rabbit, lives just outside of my door. No, I’ve never seen or heard Him, but, to be honest, I actually prefer that He chooses, in His powerful but ineffable wisdom, not to reveal Himself to me. The Rabbit, you see, is above existence and He plays such an important role in my life precisely because He won’t show himself to me. My life would be meaningless without The Rabbit.
Many wise people understand this, including a Marxist scholar and an an ex-nun, both of whom have made valiant efforts to clearly explain these qualities of The Rabbit, He who cannot be expressed in words. They, like me, intuitively know that The Rabbit is the question, not the answer. But what does that mean?
As you can surely tell by now, it’s very important to me that I be completely clear and comprehensible in my writing. So, firstly, let’s set the terms of the discussion: what do we mean when we talk about “The Rabbit”? The beautiful and incredibly satisfying answer is this: no one knows. The Rabbit is the essence of what we call “a mystery.” As certain wise scholars of The Rabbit have said, The Rabbit is simply a term that describes that which we do not know.
I can just hear those strident New Arabbitists right now, the ones who dare to reduce the question of The Rabbit’s existence to science (can you imagine?), saying that this is nonsensical obfuscation and is just a pathetic attempt to rationalize my belief in The Rabbit. But, perhaps, after reading my piece, the New Arabbitists will open their minds and will begin to attempt to understand something so deep and so powerful that we cannot possibly even begin to understand it. First, let’s answer this question: what is a mystery?
Mysteries, you see, are much, much different than problems. Problems can be studied by scientists. But science is powerless to even begin to explain a mystery such as The Rabbit. There are not words in existence that can describe The Rabbit. A devout believer in and scholar of The Rabbit, one who lived in the Middle Ages, said it best: The Rabbit cannot even be said to exist. That’s how very mysterious He is!
It’s all very clear: those of us who understand The Rabbit know that He is not of this material world. In fact, The Rabbit is the only thing that is not of this world. The Rabbit created all of existence and thus could not possibly be a part of it: He caused existence but is not something that actually exists.
However, the fact that The Rabbit doesn’t actually exist only means that we should think and discuss and study Him all the more. But why? Well, it’s simple: anyone who feels that life has any meaning or purpose at all must ask the question that is The Rabbit. The Rabbit, you see, is the question! To ask of The Rabbit, then, is to ask the most important of questions, questions that cannot be answered without The Rabbit’s existence. No, The Rabbit does not exist and is never the answer; however, He is the question and His non-existence must be felt and experienced before we can even begin to think about life’s big questions. Those of us who believe in The Rabbit know that there is an answer: The Rabbit, who is a mystery that we know but can never, ever even begin to understand. So, The Rabbit is sometimes the answer if we realize that in being the answer, He is still always an unknowable question and always will be. See how very clear all of this is?
Having cleared that up, I can move on to answer the question of how we should discuss The Rabbit. Again, the answer is very simple and clear: we can talk about The Rabbit in the negative and describe what The Rabbit is not. Here are some things that The Rabbit is not: visible, definable, able to be expressed in words. So, even though we can say nothing about what The Rabbit actually is, by explaining what he isn’t, we’re, mysteriously enough, saying something about what The Rabbit is!
You see, true enlightenment will only come when all of humanity realizes that even though The Rabbit is sometimes the answer, if and only if, in being the answer, he remains completely unknowable, there really is no answer, or, in other words, the answer is the question: “what”? Life is full of mysteries and is revealed to us as a beautifully enigmatic and puzzling question, one that cannot and will not ever be solved. So, too, The Rabbit.
How profound and magnificent! Of course, there are skeptics who will say that all of this is purposely confusing and meaningless nonsense (I find this so amusing, I must say. How could that which is the only path to meaning and which I have described in such a clear, lucid manner, possibly be nonsense?) and will ask how we can possibly justify belief in the existence of a divine being for whom there’s not a shred of evidence. But those skeptics, those New Arabbitists, in addition to being close-minded and ignorant about the mysteries of the world, never bother to read the massive amount of scholarly literature about The Rabbit. Instead, they dare to claim that The Rabbit’s existence is a scientific question! They tell me that if I opened my door right now, I’d see no trace of The Rabbit. Well, of course I wouldn’t! But that only means that I should think about Him and study Him more! For some reason, these New Arabbitists stubbornly refuse to be open-minded enough to understand that.
I’ll end by saying something that may surprise you: our belief in The Rabbit is only made stronger when we doubt Him, and we can only doubt Him as long as He doesn’t reveal himself to us. Because The Rabbit is a question, we must always work to make ourselves more and more doubtful of The Rabbit so that we keep alive the unknowable mystery of The Rabbit.
Remember, you must open yourself up to the wonder of the unknowable mystery that is The Rabbit before you can even begin to find meaning or purpose in existence. The Rabbit is the only answer, even though He can never be anything but an unanswerable question.
Tell me, is there anything as clear or as simple as that? My strongest hope is that humanity will start to try to understand The Rabbit, He who is something so deep and so profound that we cannot possibly even begin to understand Him. Truly, that will be a blessed day indeed.
(I’m no longer updating this blog. My new blogs are miranda celeste and ex-catholic girl. Thanks!!)
Comments
65 Responses to “Rabbit is the question”
December 28th, 2009 @ 4:16 am
On what grounds do you describe Eagleton as a ‘a Marxist Scholar’? Below is a comment I made to the New Humanist website in response to an article on there about Eagleton.
‘Having read Eagleton on religion – or rather, his sectarian preference for the Christ inanity variety of religion – all I can ask is: Why drag in Marx?
Marx’s view of religion is completely at odds with Eagleton’s will-o’-the-wisp wishful thinking. To turn the tables slightly on him: has Eagleton read Marx and Engels on historical materialism? Has he even heard of the term?
If the historical materialism of Marx, allied with Darwin’s discovery of natural selection, still leave room for the ‘truth’ of Christianity for Eagleton and still permit him to claim to be – and considered to be by people who should know better to scratch below the surface of any self-administered political designation – a ‘Marxist’, all I can do is echo what, according to Engels, Marx said of the self-proclaimed French ‘Marxists’ of the late 1870s: “All I know, is that I’m no Marxist”.’
December 28th, 2009 @ 4:35 am
Sorry, I forgot to ask, are you aware that the Prophet himself has given your ‘Rabbit’ piece a nice plug on RD.net? No doubt his dopey disciples are winging their way over here as I write.
December 28th, 2009 @ 5:41 am
Blasphemy! The Rabbit is not some amorphous creature that you can just call a “non-existent mystery!”
The Rabbit has an exact size, shape, and dimensions, in that He’s big enough to fill the universe and small enough to fill my heart! And the Rabbit is clearly a He, because female rabbits have dirty icky girl parts.
I know that “historical recreationists” would tell you that the Rabbit was some swarthy brown haired creature when He was on Earth, but all of the pictures show that the Rabbit is as white as the driven snow, that His hops cleansed me of my sin!
How dare you say that the Rabbit is a mystery, because I feel Him in my heart every day!
(For the clueless, the preceding was sarcasm.)
December 28th, 2009 @ 6:05 am
You make bunny cry.
Actually, I almost couldn’t bear reading through your essay after having forced myself through Vernons claptrap. That’s how powerful such drivel can be – you develop an aversion even to parodies. And this power is why it’s offensive and shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Yes, I want drivel outlawed. Appoint a ministry of drivel monitoring. Employ all those professional theo-wafflers, postmodernists and newspaper columnists you need; they’re the ones who’ll know it when they see it, by mere measure of appreciation. The more they like it, the sooner it needs to be destroyed. I’m offended and that can’t be legal.
Hmmm, I think I now know how theist crybabies feel when they spot a “New Atheist”. The difference is that they’re offended because they lack understanding, and I’m offended because I understand too much. Damn right I’m arrogant, because I’m right. So there.
December 28th, 2009 @ 6:50 am
I liked the first part of this, but I’m not sure the second part worked, as I don’t see how anything is added to the argument by the switch from “God” to “Holy Rabbit”.
I also personally don’t much mind the intellectual obscurantism that much. I find it quite funny to read :)
December 28th, 2009 @ 7:57 am
Nice work. Isn’t this like Sam Harris’s “diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in the back yard”?
Steve
December 28th, 2009 @ 9:09 am
@NMcC: Eagleton is generally known as a Marxist scholar. That’s why I used the phrase. No other reason.
@John Hummel: Love it! :)
@Felix: Yes indeed. Obscurantism, whether of the theologicalbabble variety, the postmodernist variety, the homeopathic-woo-y variety, etc. is just painfully frustrating. They haven’t anything of substance to say so they dress it up in pretty, meaningless words in the hope that their audiences won’t notice that the emperor has no clothes and will instead think they’ve heard something “deep” and/or “profound.” And, sadly enough, many people eat this shit up and then ask for more. It’s depressing.
@Steve Zara: Thank you! But re: the second part, I didn’t just substitute one for the other. I tried to just use that as a starting point, a platform from which I could point out the completely ridiculous and frustratingly meaningless nature of this type of obscurantism in general. My efforts may or may not have worked (this is my first attempt at parody, and one of the first times I’ve tried to be funny in my writing, and I’m not sure how good I am at it), but I definitely did try to do more than just substitute one for the other.
@Steve Weeks: Thanks, Steve :) And I can’t recall that Sam Harris phrase. I’ll have to go look that up now!
December 28th, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Miranda: “Eagleton is generally known as a Marxist scholar. That’s why I used the phrase. No other reason.”
Hitler is ‘generally known’ as an atheist and a Darwinist, but I’ll bet you don’t refer to him as such. What is ‘a Marxist scholar’ anyway? Does anyone know? Do you? That someone is generally known as something or other is no excuse for ignorance. Dawkins is ‘generally known’ as a shrill, strident fundamentalist, but, again, I’ll bet you could say WHY HE ISN’T.
December 28th, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
@NMcC: Listen, I was writing a parody. I have no interest in Marxism. Clearly, describing Eagleton that way upsets you. Fine, but I haven’t the least interest in debating whether or not the phrase fits him.
December 28th, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Miranda – NMcC really isn’t worth responding to.
December 28th, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Miranda – No problem, it was just an observation:-)
Zara – Oh no, am I being ravished by the proverbial dead sheep! It’s the Doubting Thomas of rd.net, aka Richard Morgan the Second, aka ‘I’m leaving on principle until I can think of a lame excuse to come back’ the twenty-third – time, that is.
I’m not worth responding to? Is that why you spent most of your time quaking behind your sofa whenever I bothered with RD.net? How brave you must be feeling – these days?
December 28th, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Nicely done, Miranda! I have posted a link to this from the Atheist Wiki site, under Transcendental Arguments. Here’s my definition of a transcendental argument, for the record:
1. The believer puts forward a complicated form of words, which s/he claims make the existence of God obvious if you just understand them properly.
2. The atheist suggests various interpretations of the words, none of which make very much sense or appear to prove anything.
3. The believer rejects each of the atheist’s interpretations, but is unwilling or unable to provide a plain interpretation of their own.
This goes on for minutes, or hours, until one or both parties have had enough.
December 28th, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Jon-
From what I recall it is like being a believer, I think you are mistaken about what the intention of the believer is. The obscurity of the words has a purpose, and it isn’t to make the existence of God obvious. It is to get those who are listening into a certain frame of mind, a certain emotional state, where they will share the feelings of the believer. It’s almost like a chant, or a poem. The reader is supposed to be carried along by the rush of words.
The problem with the interaction between a believer and an atheist is not just that they aren’t accepting each other’s arguments, but they aren’t even using words the same way.
The believer can see the atheist’s use of words as crass; as simplistic and lacking sophistication. Focusing on the precise meaning of words is so shallow.
The atheist insists that if you are going to make political statements about how people should behave in the real world, you had better base than on clear statements of facts and rational, not purely emotional, arguments.
That’s why I don’t think the use of “rabbit” works (at least not for me), because a rabbit is something concrete and accepted in the real world by both believer and atheist. It doesn’t help to show the true absurdity of the believer’s position, I think. Change rabbit to “Jabberwock” and it works better for me.
This is a minor complaint. Miranda is one of my favorite bloggers.
December 28th, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
In regards to the bizarre statements made by NMcC that “Hitler is ‘generally known’ as an atheist and a Darwinist” and “Dawkins is ‘generally known’ as a shrill, strident fundamentalist”; I’ve never seen any evidence to back up those assertions and I’ve seen plenty of evidence that contradicts them.
I would be very interested in seeing some of NMcC’s sources for these fascinating revelations, that is of course if NMcC can take some time off from argumentum ad hominem and engage in rational conversation.
By the way, I’m one of those “dopey disciples”, not that RD has disciples, he does have fellow travelers that evaluate the claims that he makes based on the evidence. He has earned my trust and respect based on his uncompromising commitment to reality.
December 28th, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Steve – I think you’re a bit confused. You appear to think that I am saying that Hitler was an atheist and a Darwinist, and that I think Dawkins is a shrill, strident fundamentalist. Nothing could be further from the truth, I don’t think anything of the sort. I am well aware of both Hitler’s religious credentials and his ignorance of Darwinian theory as well as Dawkins’ critics’ ability to confuse clear, logical arguments for shrillness etc.
If you did understand me correctly, on the other hand, are you seriously suggesting that the majority view is NOT that ‘the two greatest mass murderers in history, Stalin and Hitler, were atheists’ and that ‘Dawkins is just as bad as the fundamentalists he criticises’? If so, you should pay attention more often – and let Dawkins himself know, because he’s under the distinct impression that this is the case, having had to refute the charges in almost every interview he has given – not to mention in TGD too.
Zara – That’s better. So much more becoming than a cowardly, wimpish one line insult. Quite interesting too.
December 28th, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
@MishaMadeMeDoIt I’m not a heathen. Just now I’ve found my one faith: http://www.mirandacelestehale.net/?p=1041
December 28th, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Hi Miranda,
I fixed your rabbit’s halo in this post on RD.net.
And if you don’t use it, I’m having mutton for dinner…
December 29th, 2009 @ 8:01 am
@Jon Jermey: Thanks for the link, Jon! :) I appreciate it.
@Steve Zara: That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought about the issue of using something that does exist vs. something imaginary. And constructive criticism is always appreciated, especially from one of my favorite writers :)
@SaintStephen: Ha, alrighty, I’m headed over there now!
December 29th, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Why is it that everyone who claims to have a “mysterious unknowable god” then proceeds to tell everyone what their god is like, what he likes and doesn’t like, and so on. It’s just kindergarten schoolyard games – make up the rules as you go along – which explains why no two jesus cults are the same.
December 29th, 2009 @ 8:45 am
Actually, I think that using something concrete as a rabbit may even be necessary. Otherwise, it may not have been easy to tell that it was parody. After reading Miranda’s post, I went back to read Mark Vernon’s article again. This time it struck me that it could be read as parody all by itself. Not knowing who Mark Vernon is, I am simply not able to tell if he is serious or not. :)
December 29th, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
The Eagleton-Marxist discussion may be a distraction, but since Eagleton was a member of the International Socialists and the Workers’ Socialist League, wrote books called “Marxism and Literary Criticism” and “A Marxist Study Of The Brontes,” composed a song called “The Ballad of Marxist Criticism,” and in his memoir “The Gatekeeper” he discusses himself as a Marxist, it hardly seems unfair to call him that. It would be hard not to.
The Guardian wrote of him in 2002 as “a prominent and unrepentant Marxist revolutionary,” and he did not object. That seems sufficient evidence to me.
December 29th, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Excellent little satire, Miranda–and congrats on your getting some positive notice from Jerry Coyne and others. Well done.
But let me make one very small point, if I may, since you’re and English teacher. Try to avoid the expression “different than.” “Than” is not a preposition. “Than” is a conjunction used for the purpose of comparison. For that reason, it’s not correct to say, “Your way of walking is much different than hers.” Different does not offer a comparison; it precedes a distinction. So “different than” is always ungrammatical. Different must take a preposition. Something is “different from” or “different to” something else. Never use “different than”–unless the construction of the sentence would seem too tortured in its obedience to grammar. (This particular exception is always a stylistic judgment call. Most good stylists would advise that the careful writer recast the sentence.)
December 29th, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
“Above existence”, eh? In that case, where’d you get the photograph?
December 29th, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
I read a bit of Vernon’s bit and initialy I figured that god as an unanswerable question was an improvment over God as an answer. You are right tho Miranda in that this ignors totaly how most people actualy practic their faith. This seams like an act of willfull ignorence realy.
And Danish, I agree w your point of it being good to have something concrete so one can tell that it is a parody. With so many actions from people of faith being so totaly w/o reason it is often hard to tell. I read something about evangelicals suporting Guliani as he was most likely to bring about end times and I did not realize this was a joke until I saw that it was writen by “The Onion”. And upon seeing that ridiculouse frakker w that banana I had a realy hard time taking that at all seriosly.
December 29th, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Poe’s Law (“Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.”) seems to apply to the Armstong school of theology too – hence, presumably, your preamble.
December 29th, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
A pretty good parody, especially for a first attempt. Although, while I was reading it, I kept waiting for a John Updike tie in.
December 29th, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Ah. But is he peoples front marxist or marxist people’s front?
Also, the link I used is not my site but it may shine some light on this subject.
December 29th, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
@MadScientist: Good point. I think they just like to have their cake and eat it too, unfortunately enough
@Danish: Yeah, his piece pretty much parodies itself! Too bad he’s actually serious, and actually seems to think he’s making some sort of deep and profound argument in it
@Don: Thank you! :) & I appreciate the correction.
@babrock: Yeah, I think his willful ignorance of how most people actually practice their faith/worship, etc. is perhaps what bothers me the most. I grew up terrified of hell and so scared of the punishments of the terribly frightening God I was told about in church and school, and I want to ask these theological babblers where their ineffable and unknowable God of wonderment (blah blah blah) fits into that, or how their God fits into violence done in “God’s name,” etc. It’s very, very frustrating.
@Joe Fogey: I included the preamble mostly because I wasn’t sure if everyone would be familiar enough with this type of theological babbling/inanity. Also, I’d never written satire/parody before, so I wasn’t sure if it could stand on its own or not.
@jdhuey: Thanks! & Ha, I hadn’t thought of the Updike connection before now.
@eddie: Dinosaur Comics = LOVE!
December 29th, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
I hadn’t realized that all this time I’d been hoping for a blog about atheism and literature. Awesome.
The theology espoused by people like Vernon and Karen Armstrong seems like such thin gruel. Why believe in God at all if He is the kind of wispy and ill-defined thing they describe?
More importantly, do they talk about every other topic in the same irritating way they talk about God? Is this what a conversation with Vernon is like?
December 30th, 2009 @ 11:03 am
I just want to point out that what Mr. Vernon is espousing is apophatic (negative) theology — see Wikipedia for an overview of its history in various religions.
This is not to say that having a history makes it meaningful or coherent, of course, but rather that quite a lot of theologians and mystics got off on deep obscurantism.
I’ve sometimes wondered how people would react if a different name was used instead of “God” or “Jesus” in scriptures — would “In the beginning Fred created the heavens and the earth” have the same psychological impact, or would it help highlight that what they think they know about God is based on a fallacy? How about if “Satan” was used instead?
A name is a label for a person, whose character becomes known by an understanding of their actions; from positive statements made about what they did. But how can negative theologians claim that some label — God — cannot have positive statements made about it at all? What then does the label even refer to? And how can that claim be honest when their respective religions are all specifically based on making positive statements about that label as unquestioned dogma?
On a different note, you might be amused, regarding the specific replacement you used, by What, If Anything, is a Rabbit? (the original paper cited is: Wood (1957)).
Perhaps we should all question the reality of Rabbit(s)…
December 30th, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
I know this must sound weird, but again you have voiced the same argument I have had with so many godbots, at least those who would for a time listen.
I would fabricate a story using the essential elements of their faith without their particular dogma and they would have to admit that it did indeed sound really bizarre. To a man, however, they still denied that their own particular dogma was wrong. They stated that without ‘god’ it did sound weird, but with ‘god’ it all made sense. Sense?!
I long ago left such practices and now I simply mock the disgusting stupidity of their dogma. I know I’m not winning any converts, but I finally realized that I no longer cared.
Anyway, what astounds me is that throughout history, the arguments dealing with the stupidity of any and all religious beliefs are all essentially the same. They are just stated in more familiar terms for the particular era in which they are rewritten.
And you have penned a magnificent version of the comparison to other quantities argument. I am greatly cheered that the work goes on and goes on so well. That continuity that only reason can give does give me hope for the future.
And yes, in spite of my jaded cynicism, I did share this lovely little piece with the most troublesome of the godbots I work with and he responded in exactly the same form everyone else has throughout history: “Yeah, that’s cute, but ‘god’ is different. You don’t understand ‘god’ because you don’t know ‘god’.”
And he wonders why I get so frustrated with him….
Keep up the fight!
(P.S.: did you see the great video of Bertrand Russell on RD.net? I’ve loved that man since I was a child and first read his fantastic ‘Why I Am Not A Christian.’ He was so clear, clean, and precise in that tome I thought there was simply no intelligent rebuttal. There isn’t, of course, but people still believe. And really, after what he stated in that brilliant polemic, what is there to say except, “Eureka! I’m free!”)
December 30th, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
I’m really confused at how on the one hand people can say their god is an ineffable, apophatic mystery, and at the same time be deadly certain that he hates gays. Or shellfish. Or heck, on a more basic level, that this indescribable, incomprehensible being/concept/metaphor/pointer is actually even GOOD in some human-understandable-and-thus-worthy-of-worship sense.
The more the concept of god becomes vague, the less work the concept can actually DO.
December 31st, 2009 @ 1:38 am
@yunmen: Thank you! & Fabulous comment. Go get thee a blog right now (& post that comment) if you don’t already have one :)
@Owlmirror: Ha, wow! I hadn’t seen that link/paper before. Quite apt indeed
@Logician: Thank you so much for the kind words :) & Ugh, your coworker’s response, of the “but God is different! He just is!” variety, is so very, very frustrating.
& I haven’t yet had a chance to watch that Bertrand Russell video, but I’ve bookmarked it. It looks lovely. After I became an atheist at 16, the first comforting and reassuring book I found was WIANAC. And, really, it was the only such book (at least for me) for a long time. I’m definitely grateful for it.
@Tulse: Exactly! How can a deity be both an unknowable mystery AND a totally knowable moral ruler? It makes no sense at all. Sigh.
December 31st, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Does your mother know you troll?
December 31st, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Wow this rabbit thread just keeps going and going. Must be running on Duracell…
[Sorry about that - just thought I'd try lightening the mood a little ;-) ]
December 31st, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Gee wiz Miranda, didn’t you know that the Holly rabbit was at the mad hatters tea party? together they put Russell’s teapot into orbit ;) the ultimate last supper non?
December 31st, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Rabbit is the question http://www.mirandacelestehale.net/?p=1041
January 1st, 2010 @ 1:31 am
Anything that can affect our reality is observable. At least indirectly through it’s effects. And if it is observable, it’s part of the realm of science.
If it is not observable, and does not have an affect on our reality, then it is impossible to know about anything about it.
This is the argument I use against anyone claiming God is above science.
January 1st, 2010 @ 6:10 am
Fantastic, and the most important, funny, Regards from The Kingdom of Spain
January 2nd, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
That was a fantastic and inspired rant! Thank you, it needed to be said and you phrased it very well.
January 2nd, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
@John Stevens: Ha, yes indeed :)
@JB: Yes, definitely. It’s pretty simple, but, frustratingly enough, many people persist in these type of ridiculous arguments
@Raven-neo: Thank you so much! I really appreciate that
@FSM_Ed: Thank you very much!
January 4th, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
Your preamble is without substance. You’ve denounced the article for what it does and does not do without quoting it once. Finishing up with a statement about wanting to “deconstruct” the article does not excuse unsupported assertions and (once again) very heavy rhetoric. I’d venture to say it’s your writing that warrants deconstruction but is sometimes so maddening to almost be unworthy. You’re using words like obscurantism so loosely (and often) that it’s difficult to tell what you mean by it. In this case you may simply mean obscure works are works you haven’t engaged with meaningfully. The cop out is to say the work is meaningless so it can’t be engaged. This would be especially true in your case as you seem to agree that a meaningless statement can be shown to be so. Or if nothing else a seemingly random string together of characters or words could be said to be believed to be as such or at least not understood, but you appear to be saying that this author is saying something that you’re able to understand at least enough to not agree with, consider to be harmful and do a parody of!
I suspect you are also ascribing motive or malice without evidence by saying it is “intentionally” obscure or “willfully” misleading. Saying the writing is dishonest also perhaps assigns motives or makes assumptions of the character of the writer. A contradiction here is that you berate him for espousing a belief that is different from the majority, but it would be dishonest to alter his writing to conform to the majority. In fact I can’t really understand what you mean by this criticism that what he saying is not what most people believe. Is he saying what he is saying is what most people believe? This is I think a fallacious understanding of a common criticism: that many religious leaders don’t believe what most of their followers believe but fail to mention that when talking to them. Leading their followers to believe they do believe the same thing. Here I believe he is doing the opposite (or at least you’re criticizing him for the opposite) as I have no idea if he is sincere and really believes what he says. Though I can’t imagine a better way to find out than by examining what he says and asking questions.
Also I think your criticism about him not acknowledging or willful ignorance of (again with willful) the horrible (unnamed by you) acts of these other believers comes from the common criticism of religious leaders not speaking out enough or convincingly against extremist groups actions carried out in the name of religious belief such as bombing clinics and killing doctors. Though I think it’s strange to attack THIS article for THAT reason. It’s either a random (or dishonest) way to criticize it or some sort of assertion that all pro-relgious articles of this type should come with a disclaimer or warning to extremist groups.
I believe your use of repetition is revealing to the poor quality of much of what you write. I think it reveals the rhetorical nature of the writing. It also smacks of a certain insinuating style of the sophists and spin artists of cable news. I would go into examples but the preamble is such a short piece that what I’m saying is probably somewhat obvious (at least the bit about repetition) and maybe someone else will pick up my slack.
One other possible contradiction (and another blatant and common subject of insult by insinuation rather than supported and exampled argument) is your talk of postmodernism (firmly or loosely? grouped in the comments with theology and homeopathy as varieties of obscurantism). I realize deconstruct has entered common vocabulary and you may simply mean to Fisk or rebut or debunk or rejoin. But I suspect you’d consider Derrida and his philosophy of deconstruction to be obscurantism (intentional?). And of course it’s easy enough to say deconstruction and postmodernism are different. I don’t think Derrida referred to himself as such though Alan Sokal did attempt to go after him. Just like Foucault would not own the term but is associated with it. Anyway I don’t know that much about it but I’d rather read something that refutes the ideas of postmodernism or someone associated with it (ideas held by real people not straw) than insinuations and slurs.
What’s so stupid about this is I don’t care for the article but can’t understand (and certainly don’t desire) rhetoric such as this. What the hell is this?
Also I agree somewhat with that changing god to rabbit doesn’t work that well. The Holy Rabbit is what a derivative of the Easter Bunny and FSM or Russell’s teapot, Invisible pink unicorn etc.
January 4th, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
@yunmen
Did you just read Infinite Jest? Your example reads to me more of an attack/parody of Infinite Jest than Vernon/Armstrong. Of course you could love the book and this reading is unintentional. Perhaps it is an homage?
January 5th, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
… by liars and fools.
And your point was?
Really, who cares what disgusting liars and contemptible fools say? Every person who has looked at the evidence knows that Hitler was a slavish theist and a moronic creationist — so what does it matter if liars have persuaded idiots that he was “an atheist and a Darwinist”?
The truth will endure. And the contemptible falsehoods of degraded creationist liars will vanish like the morning dew.
January 7th, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
Owlmirror:
I’ve often thought substituting “Satan” for “God” in the Bible would render it no less credible. Indeed, perhaps the Devil’s greatest trick wasn’t convincing us he didn’t exist, but something much more ingenious…
Miranda: great blog, excellent post. I came here via Jerry Coyne’s blog. Keep it up – I’ll be back! And I, too thought Vernon’s article was a load of tosh.
January 9th, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
@Peter Magellan: Thank you so much :) & Your comment over at The Guardian is spot-on.
February 10th, 2010 @ 8:00 am
Nice little piece, Miranda!
Also got here from Jerry Coyne's WEIT.
As whether Eagleton was a Marxist, this is as I remember him from my uni days (this is from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Eagleton ):
Literary Theory: an Introduction (1983, revised 1996), probably his best-known work, traces the history of the study of texts, from the Romantics of the nineteenth century to the postmodernists of the later twentieth century. Eagleton's thought remains firmly rooted in the Marxist tradition; he has also produced critical work on such more recent modes of thought as structuralism, Lacanian analysis, and deconstruction.
As his memoir The Gatekeeper demonstrates, Eagleton's Marxism is far from a merely theoretical pursuit. He was active in Marxist organisations (most notably the International Socialists, a forerunner of the British Socialist Workers Party), as well as Alan Thornett's Workers Socialist League, whilst in Oxford. He continues to provide political commentary for publications such as the New Statesman, Red Pepper and The Guardian.
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
Thank you so much! :)
June 28th, 2010 @ 6:30 am
49 comments and no one has yet mentioned El-ahrairah or Lord Frith?
Seriously though, “God” in these sorts of arguments is really an undefined term that can be used to mean anything but always avoids meaning anything, and a nonsense word might have been better “splook is the question” for instance.
September 3rd, 2010 @ 8:30 am