Happy...holidays?: Postmodernism and Secularisation during the Holiday Season

Venture onto any bleeding-heart liberal forum, particularly on the internet, and you'll be assaulted with cheery holiday greetings. Ranging from a simple and inclusive "Happy Holidays!" to "Happy Wednesday (if you don't celebrate Christmas)!", it raises the question as to what exactly is the appropriate greeting for one to use in a society where very few people actually celebrate Christmas for what it is - as opposed to using it as an excuse to exchange gifts, get trashed, eat far too much and argue freely with family members (don't forget to cut Auntie June off after sherry number 3, or be treated to  long-winded rants as to why the local gypsies are menaces to society).

The question of holiday greetings does seem to be one that is very subjective, in that I personally would not be offended if someone wished me a Merry Kwanzaa today or a Happy Hanukkah at the beginning of the month. In the end, they are all expressions of well-wishes and happiness. However, I can understand coming down on the other side of this. The society I live in preaches tolerance and open-mindedness to a relatively large degree. I choose to accept the well-wishes and do not linger over the precise sentiment. But if one were not raised in such a pick'n'mix society, then one may feel differently about this. I can understand the frustration that would arise from being constantly subjected to the traditions of a culture that was unlike my own, and may have, in the past, even oppressed mine.

This is where the all-inclusive holiday greetings seem to arise from. An effort to discard the "shove it in your face" element of Christmas in so many Western countries. While this does seem fair, it does also raise the question of free will, freedom of expression and on the flip-side, of whether or not an inclusive greeting is quite enough.

Being a liberal myself, I am always keen to defend the freedom of expression and the freedom to do as you wish within the constraints of the harm principle. However, I do recognise the problems that arise from such a principle. For example, although the oppression experienced by women, particularly in England today, is of a very intangible quality, it causes harm in ways which cannot be quantified. Situations such as this highlight the slightly finicky nature of the principle. In the context of tolerance and secularisation, it begs the question of how free people should be allowed to be with their religious behaviour. It has been suggested that religion has become more privatised in recent years - that people are far more inclined to keep their religion to their private rather than in the public forum. However, does this mean that it should only be private? Here arises a battle between tolerance and freedom.
To what extent should we tolerate peoples' religious expression and how much harm must come to an individual or a collective before we are justified in removing freedoms?

In a society so ideologically divided, our options seem limited. Shall we continue to adhere to our state's religion, enjoying the public holidays dictated by Christianity? Or shall we attempt to create a more cohesive society that allows people to take the religious holidays they deem necessary to themselves and not only to the majority? And in this case, should atheists be awarded days off to observe their faith in a lack of God?

Inclusive greetings seems appropriate at the given time, but they do raise questions as to how we structure our society. As a person raised Catholic, but who now practices no faith, I wonder at the extent to which our society is Christian-centric. It is the product hundreds of years of law and tradition, but in such a multicultural society, with religion either becoming more privatised, disappearing or at least differentiating to allow for multiculturalism, then should we not begin to change things more radically?

Photo attributed to AForestFrolic

Further Exploration of Religious Language - The Verification Principle

The topic of religious language questions whether or not religious language holds any meaning and if it is effective or not. Scholars have postulated theories as to what makes language meaningful or not, such as the verification principle.
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss Linguist, believed that language was made of three components - a sign, a signifier and a signified. A sign is the word itself (e.g. "chair"), the signifier is the components that create the word ("c-h-a-i-r"), and the signified is the concept (knowledge of what a chair actually is). Saussure argued that without knowledge of all three components then communication that was both effective and meaningful could not be achieved.
This presented a large problem to religious language due to the nature of the concept of God. Although all parties may be aware of the sign, "God", and the signifier, "G-o-d", when discussing God, they all may have a different concept (signified) of God. This means that they are not communicating about God in a meaningful way, as they are all thinking of different things (whether those be small or large differences).
However, it could be argued, using Kant's theory of conceptual schemes, that every individual has an innate knowledge of God. This seemingly fixes the problem created by the nature of language, but creates the problem of trapping God as a concept alone. All of this raises the question as to whether or not it is meaningful to talk about God at all.

Logical positivists believe that something is true if it can be positively verified through empirical evidence, and that only true statements can hold meaning, paired with a belief that meaning is derived from the objective, factual significance of the statement. Using the verification principle, logical positivists are led to the conclusion that God-talk (talking about God in a meaningful way), is impossible. The verification principle states that if a statement is neither analytically nor empirically verifiable, it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless. Because statements about God cannot be verified, they are considered meaningless. This is not a question of whether or not they are true or false, but that if they cannot be shown to be true or false then it is meaningless to consider them.

AJ Ayer initially argued that statements were either analytically or synthetically true, and so were either true by definition or verified through empirical evidence. However, this caused problems as there are very few statements which can be completely verified through evidence, which Ayer would like to accept, such as the Big Bang Theory. He therefore revised this, arguing that statements that were potentially verifiable or falsifiable could also hold meaning. This corrected the problem caused by his first argument, but caused almost the opposite problem in that nearly every statement could be potentially verified or falsified. This prompted a response from John Hicks, who argued that statements about God possessed meaning as they were eschatologically verifiable (verifiable in the 'end times').

Hicks and Swinburne both suggest that statements about God hold meaning, and can be discussed (whether they be potentially verifiable or eschatologically so). This suggests the contrary to Ayer - that "God-talk is evidently not nonsense" (Swinburne). Aside from this, meaning seems to derive from many different things, leaving Ayer's argument logically sound but seemingly meaningless itself.

An Introduction to Religious Language

When studying religious language one becomes aware of several problems. These include the meaningfulness of language and problems presented by verification and falsification processes.

Saussure -  Course in General Linguistics

It is important to first understand the elements that make up language. Swiss linguist, Saussure postulated that there were three elements to language - a sign, a signifier and the signified. Saussure argued that without knowledge of all three elements understanding could not be gained and that they were all essential to meaning and communication.
For example, the word "pen". One must be aware of the word itself (the sign), the signifier "p-e-n", and the signified - the concept of a pen. Without any one of these, meaningful communication about the pen is impossible.
This presents a problem to religious language, most notably when discussing God. Is it possible to understand the signified "God"? Do we all mean the same thing? If different people have different concepts of the signified "God", are we communicating effectively about him? Is any of what we say meaningful?

Kant's "conceptual schemes" argues that individuals possess some innate knowledge, that some signifieds are universal. 'Conceptual schemes' are how we try to interpret the world, what we innately possess and use to interpret our experiences. Some theologians argue that God is an example of a conceptual scheme, that we all possess an innate knowledge of God. This would potentially fix the problem in talking about God that is discussed above (as if everyone has the same innate knowledge of the concept of God, the sign and the signifier, then we can communicate about him in a meaningful way), but has the problem of trapping God as a concept.

AJ Ayer - Logical Positivism and The Verification Principle

"What can be said about God?"
--> "God-talk" - being able to talk about God in a meaningful and coherent way.
This is not a question of whether or not God exists, but rather what God is like and if we can discuss that in a meaningful fashion. The verification principle is concerned with working out whether or not religious language means anything.

Logical positivists would argue that something is only true (and therefore have meaning) if it can be positively verified using empirical evidence. Therefore, to a logical positivist, statements about God are meaningless as they cannot be verified and do not correspond to anything in reality. This makes statements such as "God exists." and "God is love." meaningless as they cannot be verified. AJ Ayer argued that there was no point in even raising questions about God's nature and existence as there is nothing meaningful to talk about.

Wittgenstein (1889-1951) raised the question of the meaning of language and influenced the first logical positivists (Vienna Circle led by Maritz Schlick). Questioned "the meaning of meaning".
These first logical positivists followed the thinking of August Comte and held the belief that theological interpretations belonged in the past, leaving God as a "God of the gaps".

Cognitive (realist) language: factual statements; proven true or false using empirical evidence.
Non-cognitive (anti-realist) language: cannot be verified but nor can they be falsified; context dependent; can include symbols, myths, metaphors, etc.

Analytic statements: true by definition (tautology) and cannot be false; the wording of the statement verifies its truth (e.g. "the circle is round").
Synthetic statements: a posteriori statements which can be verified or falsified through empirical evidence; these statements are considered meaningful, as they can, in theory, hold verifiable or falsifiable truths.
AJ Ayer was criticised as many statements that he would like to consider meaningful may not be completely verified (such as scientific theories, e.g. the big bang theory, the theory of evolution). He therefore made the allowance of statements having meaning if they are potentially verifiable. This however opened the door to almost any statement, leading John Hicks to argue that statements about God and religious language have meaning as they are eschatologically verifiable (i.e. verifiable in the 'end times').

The Verification Principle: if a statement is neither analytically nor empirically verifiable, it says nothing about reality and is therefore meaningless.
When this is applied to God-talk, the conclusion is that it is meaningless and pointless. Statements about God's existence cannot be contradicted as they are not significant propositions - they are neither true nor false.

Can we talk about God in a meaningful way?

Yes:

• Concepts have meaning to individuals, small differences in understanding do not make conversation about the concept meaningless.
• A di-polar God (Process theology) can have qualities in the physical world; the incarnation shows God to be in the physical world --> God in the physical world allows communication about those verifiable and easily understood concepts.
• Aquinas; Anselm: God gave human beings language and reason so we could talk about God in a meaningful way.
• Differences in opinion about the meaning of "meaning" --> God-talk may be meaningful to some and not to others.

No:

• Logical positivists: concept of God cannot be verified or falsified and so has no meaning.
• Hume: God is outside our experience and understanding and so it is therefore meaningless to discuss him.
• Transcendent God is outside our empirical and understandable world.

Swinburne: "God-talk is evidently not nonsense." Verificationism makes many statements "meaningless" and therefore difficult to talk about.

AJ Ayer: "meaningless: not factually significant (in an objective sense)." How do we verify a proposition?

Practical Verifiability and Verifiability in Practice

Practical: can be tested in reality.

Principle: potentially verifiable, lack the technical ability to do so (e.g. we do not have the capacity to verify if there is life elsewhere in the universe).

Strong verification: verified conclusively using evidence.

Weak verification: shown to be probable by observation and experience.

Norman Malcolm's ~Alternative~ Ontological Argument

I can't take the word "alternative" seriously since I was made aware of Hot Topic and "scene kidz".

Moving onto the important stuff.


Norman Malcolm was an American philosopher writing in the mid-20th century, who wrote his own version of the ontological argument. As it is still a form of the ontological argument, it remains a priori in nature. It deals with the necessity of God's existence, and begins with an implied, rather than stated (as is the case in Anselm and Descartes' versions), definition of God.

The basic argument follows:

1. If God does not exist, his existence is impossible.
2. If God does exist, his existence is necessary.
3. God's existence is either necessary or impossible.
4. God's existence is not impossible.
5. Therefore, God's existence is necessary.

At first glance, it is fairly straightforward to follow, but as with any argument for the existence of God, it raises questions.

You might wonder why God has to be either "impossible" or "necessary", with no other options. This is explained by the implied definition of God I was referring to earlier - God is immutable, and to be immutable means to be unchanging. This closes off the options of God being either "contingently non-existent" or "contingently existent". If God were either of these things, it would suggest that God is dependent upon a set of particular circumstances for his existence, which, if changed, would lead to him changing the condition of his existence. It would limit God is some way, and this cannot be true of an immutable God. 

We are left with two options - God exists necessarily, or God does not exist necessarily. This can also be phrased as God's existence being necessarily true, or necessarily false. Malcolm sees impossible statements as those that are logically self-contradictory, such as "this square is round". The statement "God exists" is never self-contradictory, and it is possible to think that it is true, and so we are left with this option alone. 

Therefore, God exists and "necessary existence" is a predicate of God.

The last bit is a bit headache inducing...

Key Thinkers in Modern Liberalism

John Rawls:

• American academic and political philosopher.
• A Theory of Justice (1970) is often regarded as the greatest political philosophy written since WWII. Influenced modern liberal and social democratic thought.

Used a form of social contract theory to reconcile individualism with social justice and economic redistribution. "Justice as fairness" is based on the belief that behind the "veil of ignorance" (not knowing your social position and circumstance) most people would favour two basic principles: (1) the liberty of each person should be compatible with a like liberty of all, and (2) that social inequality should only exist if it works to the benefit of the poorest of society. Universalist ideas changed over time.

Writings: A Theory of Justice (1970) and Political Liberalism (1993)

Key Thinkers in Classical Liberalism

John Locke (1632-1704):

• English philosopher and politician.
• Views developed against the background of the Glorious Revolution (1688).

Consistent opponent of absolutism and seen as one of the most influential philosophers of the Glorious Revolution, which established a constitutional monarchy. A key thinker in the earliest forms of liberalism. Accepted that human beings are equal and free by nature, but prioritised property rights which prevented him from endorsing political equality or "modern" democracy.

Writings: A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) and Two Treatises of Government (1690).

Adam Smith (1723-90):

• Scottish economist and philosopher.
• Seen as the founder of the 'dismal silence'. 

Smith developed a theory of motivations that attempted to reconcile human self-interestedness and unregulated social order. Created the first systematic attempt to explain the workings of the economy in market terms and emphasizing the importance of division of labour. A free-market theorist, aware of the limitations of a laissez-faire system.

Writings: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and The Wealth of Nations (1776).

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826):

• American statesman and political philosopher.
• First Secretary of State (1789-94) and third POTUS (1801-9).
• Principle author of the Declaration of Independence.

Developed a democratic form of agrarianism - a blend of rule by natural aristocracy, limited government and a laissez-faire market. Expressed sympathy for social reform; favoured the extension of public education, the abolition of slavery and greater economic equality. "Jeffersonianism" has come to mean resistance to strong government and a stress on individual rights and responsibilities.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832):

• English philosopher, legal reformer and founder of Utilitarianism.
• Ideas formed the basis of philosophical radicalism which was responsible for many of the social and legal reforms in Victorian Britain.

Developed an allegedly scientific alternative to natural rights theory. A moral system based on the concept that human beings are rational and self-interested creatures ("utility maximisers"). Created the 'principle of general utility' - "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" - which justified laissez-faire economics, constitutional reform and political democracy.

Writings: Fragments on Government (1776) and Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789).

James Madison (1751-1836):

• American statesman and political theorist.
• Advocate of American nationalism (Continental Congress; 1774 and 1775)
• Played a part in the establishment of the Constitutional Convention (1778) and had a major role in writing the American constitution.
• Fourth POTUS (1809-17).

Proponent of pluralism and divided government. Urged the adoption of bicameralism and the tripartite separation of powers in the US government. "Madisonianism" implies a strong emphasis on checks and balances as the resistance against tyranny. However, when in office Madison was prepared to strengthen the power of the government.

Writings: Contributions to The Federalist (1787-8), which campaigned for constitutional ratification. 

John Stuart Mill (1806-73):

• English philosopher, economist and politician.
• Utilitarian background (Father - James Mill).
• MP for Westminster 1865 - 1881.

Seen to be the thinker who bridged the gap between modern and classical liberalism. Opposition to collectivist tendencies and traditions are classical views, whereas his emphasis on the quality of individual life, his commitment to "individuality", his sympathy for female suffrage and workers' cooperatives are more reminiscent of modern liberalism.

Writings: On Liberty (1859), Considerations on Representative Government (1861) and The Subjection of Women (1869).

Descartes' Ontological Argument

Descartes' Ontological Argument builds upon that put forth by Anselm, retaining the general structure and conclusion, but changing the definition of God and, existence as a perfection rather than as merely "greater than reality". He uses this argument to demonstrate that the existence of God cannot be disputed or that there is no reason to doubt his existence, rather than the more common arguments to "prove" God's existence.

Descartes begins his argument by defining God as the "supremely perfect being". This means that God contains all perfections, as Descartes believed that perfection meant "not lacking in anyway". This means that existence is a part of perfection as to not exist would be lacking, and therefore God possesses that quality. He concludes that God must exist if he is to fulfill the definition of the supremely perfect being, as he is only truly perfect if he exists. Anything less than existence is not perfection.

A more in-depth look at Descartes' reasoning provides a stronger argument. He believed that there are things that cannot be doubted, such as mathematics. Mathematics, once demonstrated, cannot be disputed as it just is. He uses the more specific example of a triangle to illustrate his point more fully. A triangle has three sides and its internal angles are the sum of 180 degrees. This is always true of a triangle, even if no one has ever had the idea of a triangle of experienced one. It is these qualities that make a triangle, a triangle. In the same way the nature of the triangle is immutable (i.e. it cannot change), the nature of God is also immutable. Descartes argued that existence was a predicate of God.

He uses another example of mountains and valleys. He argues that God cannot be thought of without also thinking of him existing, in the same way you cannot think of a mountain without a valley - it is an innate part of its definition.

In this way, Descartes is not "arguing God into existence", he is illustrating that existence is a quality of God (like the qualities of a triangle just are), whether you acknowledge it or not. He explains the problem of some people not believing in God through the argument that some knowledge is innate. Through this he means that everyone is imprinted with certain knowledge, that they have the potential to know.

Immanuel Kant argued against Descartes by saying that existence is not a predicate of God. Using the semantics of language he shows the flaw in Descartes' argument of believing that possessing existence equates to existing.

Anselm's First and Second Arguments

Anselm wrote from the perspective of 'fides quaerens intellectum' (faith seeking understanding), which is the concept of beginning with faith in God's existence and arguing in order to further understand him, as opposed to prove his existence. 
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God follows such a structure. It is an a priori argument, coming from the Greek "ontos" for "being", and thus is examining the nature of God's existence. 

The first argument is posed as a response, or rather, development, of the biblical verse "The Fool says to himself 'There is no God.'" [Psalms 14:1 and 53:1] Anselm then defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (ttwngcbc). The fool clearly has a concept of "God", as he refers to him. Anselm holds the belief that reality is greater than concept, and so in order for God to fulfill his definition, he must exist. 

However, this argument presents several problems, which Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo, highlights. In his essay "On Behalf of the Fool", Gaunilo points out that in order to have an idea of a concept, so to speak, you must have experienced it in some way. This creates a weakness in Anselm's argument as it challenges the assumption that one's concept of a thing is innate. Gaunilo uses the example of an island to illustrate the flaws in Anselm's argument. He uses the same argument, but replaces God ("ttwngcbc") with "island". This shows that just because you conceive of something, does not necessitate it's existence. Gaunilo argues that if the argument can be used to prove the existence of a non-existent argument (as it would suggest), then it is flawed. 

Anselm's retort to this is that it is an unfair comparison - the island is contingent, as is any other example he could use. God is the only appropriate subject of the argument as he is 'necessary', and therefore not contingent upon anything for his existence. 

He improves upon his argument in his second version - presented in the Proslogion - by arguing that in order for God to be "ttwngcbc", he must be thought of as something that cannot, not, exist. He also argues that if 'God' exists in the mind only, then that being is not actually God. 

This argument differs from his first through the more specific definition, or rather, distinction, of what God is. It closes the loophole in the argument that Gaunilo exploited in his "island" argument.