Posts Tagged ‘brights’

h1

Inventing Multiple-choice Lite Brites?!

19 February 2010

The gospel according to Christopher Hitchens:

“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”

That’s Brilliant.
That’s “Brite.”

This is a term coined by some within the ranks of militant atheism. It seems to me that most thoughtful atheists either have to grin and bear the likes of Mr. Hitchens, roll their eyes, checkout their minds, and invite the Unwanted Uncle to the picnic of thoughtful interaction on this subject.

Who invited him? He is just here because he is part of the family. Most of what this crotchety, old man has to say can be portrayed as the repainting of relatively good people who are involved in some religious aspirations as the blight and plague of human civilization. Give him a few more drinks and the show will begin as he paints the other side with caricatures and vitriolic language.

Those who listen are somewhat amused.

But mostly embarrassed.

And I get this vague impression from reading his words in his books or others that the working pictures of his opponents are shining out of one of those children toys that has a bunch of colored pegs in which you press into a grid-work of holes in a box that contains a light of some sort. It makes a picture. Sort of.

The picture radiates in the light. You can almost make out a sort of argument in the portrait and its really bright and beautiful.

That’s “Brite.”
That’s “Lite Brite.”

You can almost make out some sort of argument in the midst of the ranting and raving of an uncle that has lost his mind, his marbles, but unfortunately not his speech. You can almost see the picture and its real pretty if you turn off the lights.

“Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”

It sounds good. It quite pretty. But if this reasoning were applied to a multiple-choice test would the results demonstrate the robust nature of this statement?

A: Animism.
B: Buddhism.
C: Christianity.

D: Do include all the other major and minor Belief Systems.

Since it is obviously inconceivable that all answers can be right, the the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.

It seems to me that one ought to consider the merits of each answer to make an educated guess with respect to belief systems. To consider that all the answers can not be right—being quite obvious—and conclude that all answers must be wrong—being quite dubious—seems to be a nice way of trying to argue to a conclusion that one already believes to be true.

E: None of the above.

Perhaps that makes great sense to binge-drinkers in universities everywhere. But it stands to reason that if they are using such a rationale it is being reflected in their grand achievements of entering the workforce earlier than planned.

Perhaps, this is the correct answer to the multiple-choice question, but if the question was asked in a Logic 101 and required an essay to give reason for the answer chosen, then something tells me the results would be just as grand.

And there might be a chance that you could get a job on the ground floor of a manufacturing plant producing Multiple-choice Lite Brites.

h1

Simpletons on Both Sides of the Fence?!

10 July 2008

Picture of John Stuart Mill

The gospel according to John Stuart Mill:

“The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments–of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue–are complete skeptics in religion.”

Should I be in the least bit astonished by how such a claim could even be verified? Really. How does one go about proving such a statement?

Certainly it becomes a matter of how words are being unpacked.

Would I be “astonished” in finding out this number of God-deniers to be not so great as implied by this quote (would the quote be any less true if such was the case)? What of the categories of “brightest” or “distinguished” described in such a way that excludes many or most that are God-believers of some sort? What cultures of the world are included in this “popular estimation” that is being made? Who are these “complete skeptics” that he mentions (atheists, agnostics, or perhaps even people who distrust the church for any number of reasons)?

One thing can be known for certain and I believe it to be a reasonable inference. Mr. Mills is wise enough not to exclude from the group of “brightest ornaments” those who do have faith and do believe in God.

This reveals a measure of reality that many atheists are quick to deny.

Embracing faith as a way of solving the riddle of life doesn’t equate to the abandonment of the mind or its ability to reason. Just as the embrace of Atheism as a way of assuming our reality to be a closed-system doesn’t equate to being any more or less rational.

The quality of intellect crosses over both sides of the fence.

Some atheists and theists make a “leap of faith.” Some atheists and theists take a smaller step into the riddle of life. There are simple-minded atheists as there are theists with the same caliber of faculties. In both of these groups, there are those who know how the car works and others who are content just knowing that it works and they can drive to the local grocery to get dinner.

There are atheists and theists in this group described as “the brightest ornaments.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.