Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, he does eat babies and ban Christians from everything, or so I've heard.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Placing bets anyone?
Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny will chair a dialogue between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Professor Richard Dawkins on the subject of "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin." The event will be held in the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford University, and will be hosted by the Sofia Europa Group of the Theology Faculty.
A webcast of the discussion will be screened live on the homepage of this website www.archbishopofcanterbury.org on Thursday 23rd February 16:00-17:30, and will also be available after the event.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Typical nonsense from an atheist. Dawkins would only do that if he were the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I expect Dawkins will eat a baby and ban Christians from everything.
quote:In other news, Porky sprouted wings and quickly flew up the sky right when the butcher was just about to bring him to kingdom come.
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
quote:About 1m10s into this video....
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
quote:I think you're spot on with Williams, but what's all this about punching "below the belt"? I've never noticed Dawkins doing such a thing, and I'm not even quite sure what you mean by it, but you claim he does it frequently.
Originally posted by Cod:
I fear that Williams will talk thoughtfully, learnedly and probably somewhat abstrusely about the nature of faith, whereas Dawkins will punch below the belt as he frequently does, and in the eyes of most people "win" the debate.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Glad to hear it.
Originally posted by leo:
I saw a debate between the two of them about a year ago - it was most civilised with both people being polite and Dawkins acknowledged that not all Christians are fundamentalists and Williams admitting that some of him co-religionists embarrassed him.
quote:Little clue: if you have to use a joke twice in a thread it probably wasn't that funny the first time.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, he does eat babies and ban Christians from everything, or so I've heard.
quote:It's an interesting subject. I remember a tv programme a couple of years ago that asked the question, "Are chimps people?" There were contributions from a number of scientists and, I think, a solitary philosopher. The philosopher alone seemed able to think past the idea that a "person" was identical with being a member of the species homo sapiens*. Conversely, I noticed in the news today that there are calls (by scientists this time, not philosophers) for dolphins to be accorded human rights.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny will chair a dialogue between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Professor Richard Dawkins on the subject of "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin."
quote:I believe there was a storyline very similar to this in Drop The Dead Donkey (I think that's what it was on). They brought on a hardcore religious person and a hardcore atheist to debate the existence of God and they both changed their minds at the last minute. That would be a very interesting thing to see with these two.
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
quote:What you mean presumably is that Dawkins will make clear and understandable statements whilst the Archbishop will waffle and baffle.
Originally posted by Cod:
It sounds misconcieved.
Williams is not a scientist. Dawkins is not a philosopher (although he seems to consider himself one these days).
I fear that Williams will talk thoughtfully, learnedly and probably somewhat abstrusely about the nature of faith, whereas Dawkins will punch below the belt as he frequently does, and in the eyes of most people "win" the debate.
Surely Dawkins debating with Warsi or Williams debating with Grayling would be a better pairing.
quote:I hear this a lot about Dawkins but does it really matter? Most of us are not philosophers but whenever we analyse concepts or critique arguments we are doing philosophy. Should we stop because we're not qualified? If Dawkins is wrong about the question of God, & lots of us think he is, then the job is to look at what he's saying and provide reasons for our disagreement. Pointing out that he's not a philosopher doesn't prove that he's wrong.
Williams is not a scientist. Dawkins is not a philosopher (although he seems to consider himself one these days).
quote:Quite right, but I think you've missed the point.
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
Pointing out that he's not a philosopher doesn't prove that he's wrong.
quote:I agree but it seems to be a fairly common repsonse now to point out that Dawkins is not a philosopher as if that wins the argument. I've come across this in a few conversations.
It is a question of the level at which an issue is engaged with
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
I hear this a lot about Dawkins but does it really matter?
quote:It merely means that a simple elementary undergraduate course in Philosophy would point our all the gaping holes in his arguments. As would a simple class in logic. One cannot go 'ooh lookie, Religious-fundies argue this and this is poor logic!' and then argue the reverse using the virtually the same logic while sounding smugly superior about the fact that you're not a Religious-fundie, and thus you can't be accused of flawed logic or philosophy, because the only people who use bad logic, are, of course, theists.
Most of us are not philosophers but whenever we analyse concepts or critique arguments we are doing philosophy. Should we stop because we're not qualified? If Dawkins is wrong about the question of God, & lots of us think he is, then the job is to look at what he's saying and provide reasons for our disagreement. Pointing out that he's not a philosopher doesn't prove that he's wrong.
quote:Go ahead.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
...a simple elementary undergraduate course in Philosophy would point our all the gaping holes in [Dawkins's] arguments.
quote:Nothing.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
What about The God Delusion led you to believe it was a research paper?
quote:As part of my job I have contact with several Universities and Colleges in Sydney. One College is mostly 16-19 year olds studying for Child Care and Secretarial qualifications. It is a great college but its qualifications are still at school level and are most commonly a stepping stone to further qualifications.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
And why would a weblink equate to popularist views, rather than (for example) an easily accessible way to point to evidence and further reading for a wide audience without referring to dusty and obscure academic papers? I haven't read the book, although I intend to do so, but your complaints make no sense.
quote:In such instances I agree with you entirely. It is merely a cop out from the Christians involved.
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
I agree but it seems to be a fairly common repsonse now to point out that Dawkins is not a philosopher as if that wins the argument. I've come across this in a few conversations.
quote:But that is the point. It does handle the points badly and has received bad reviews from those 'in the field' as it were.
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
Of the course the level of engagement is important but it's woth remembering that the God Deslusion is a popular book not an academic work. Of course that doesn't excuse sloppy thinking or simply being downright wrong but it does mean that it won't cover every possible theological or philosophical viewpoint. If it handles the ones that it does cover badly then by all means critique it.
quote:Seems that as per the OP, it's possible to watch it on the Archbishop's website at the moment.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would love to hear from anyone who was there. It sounds like it was an interesting evening indeed.
Did anyone faint when the air went out of the Sheldonian when Dawkins said he is really an agnostic?
quote:The trouble is ++++Rowey would be out of a job, whereas Dawky would just have egg on his crucifix
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:I believe there was a storyline very similar to this in Drop The Dead Donkey (I think that's what it was on). They brought on a hardcore religious person and a hardcore atheist to debate the existence of God and they both changed their minds at the last minute. That would be a very interesting thing to see with these two.
Originally posted by angelfish:
Wouldn't it be great if one of them actually convinced the other to change sides?
quote:Actually, I agree with some of the responses in the reviews.
Originally posted by Zappa:
Despite some weird and seemingly almost choreographed hate-responses in the reviews, this was a good if light reponse to Dawkins' thought ... I doubt if Williams was far from McGrath in his responses.
quote:Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
quote:I would have thought both those things are possible. And while we're at it, the frequently observed zeal of the convert (on both sides) probably belongs in here somewhere.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
quote:Given that he said that in his book the God Delusion, it shouldn't have been much of a surprise.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would love to hear from anyone who was there. It sounds like it was an interesting evening indeed.
Did anyone faint when the air went out of the Sheldonian when Dawkins said he is really an agnostic?
quote:OUCH!
The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species' during a discussion with Giles Fraser, Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, over a poll conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) which found that self-identified Christians didn't go to Church, or read the bible.
Dawkins said an "astonishing number couldn't identify the first book in the New Testament." But his claim that this indicated self-identified Christians were "not really Christian at all" was challenged by Fraser, who said the poll asked "silly little questions" to "trip" people up.
Giles Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of 'The Origin Of Species', I'm sure you could tell me that.
Richard Dawkins: Yes I could
Giles Fraser: Go on then.
Richard Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
Giles Fraser: You're the high pope of Darwinism… If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said 2% got it right, it would be terribly easy for me to go 'they don't believe it after all.' It's just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.
quote:That is undoubtedly true in some cases. I remember being unreasonably shook up when I heard that Jonathan Edwards (former triple jump world record holder and erstwhile host of Songs of Praise) lost his faith. I didn't have any hostility towards him but it was certainly disconcerting to see what can potentially happen to any one of us. This was early on in my return to faith so perhaps I was less prepared than now. Perhaps not.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
quote:I like the title "high pope of Darwinism".
Richard Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With, Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
Giles Fraser: You're the high pope of Darwinism
quote:I personally think this is probably true of many Christians. Though I also think it's probably manifested more as a secret fear than an outright hostility.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Wish on. It seems to me that many Christians are so hostile to atheists (especially ex-christians) because they are scared stiff they might follow. But if they convince themselves that the atheist isn't at heart an atheist, or was never really a pukka christian, or has private doubts and may become religious, they can downsize the risk to their own faith.
Originally posted by Arminian:
Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins did have some private doubts. Many of the most notable converts from atheism to Christianity spend years being its biggest critics before caving in.
quote:I'm no apologist for Dawkins but I don't think there's any comparison between Dawkins not remembering the full title of 'The Origin of Species' and a Christian not knowing that the Bible begins with the book of Genesis.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Did Dawkins do better than when he debated with former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Giles Fraser on Radio 4?
quote:OUCH!
The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species'... Dawkins said an "astonishing number couldn't identify the first book in the New Testament." But his claim that this indicated self-identified Christians were "not really Christian at all" was challenged by Fraser, who said the poll asked "silly little questions" to "trip" people up.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:The question was 'what is the first book of the New Testament'.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But the Bible is the holy book of Christianity; am I being an elitist snob in expecting a Christian to know the one-word answer to 'what is the first book of the Bible'? Was Giles Fraser saying that 'What is the first book of the Bible?' is a silly little question intended to trip people up?
quote:It was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
quote:The question was 'what is the first book of the New Testament'.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But the Bible is the holy book of Christianity; am I being an elitist snob in expecting a Christian to know the one-word answer to 'what is the first book of the Bible'? Was Giles Fraser saying that 'What is the first book of the Bible?' is a silly little question intended to trip people up?
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.
quote:I would have thought that most people, Christian or not, would be familiar with the childhood prayer,
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
It was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.
quote:Oh, but apparently it is, especially if you stick your fingers in your ears every time he speaks. And if he'd said anything different, he'd have been castigated as unscientific and dogmatic.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:Given that he said that in his book the God Delusion, it shouldn't have been much of a surprise.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would love to hear from anyone who was there. It sounds like it was an interesting evening indeed.
Did anyone faint when the air went out of the Sheldonian when Dawkins said he is really an agnostic?
quote:I think that's a much fairer comment. But he probably thought he could remember it, and in fact eventually did. More or less...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think what's entertaining about it is Dawkins confidently announcing that he could tell Fraser the full title and then fumbling it. If he'd said up front that he didn't know, followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question. He didn't. As it is, he dropped himself in it.
quote:Hear, Hear!!
Originally posted by aumbry:
What you mean presumably is that Dawkins will make clear and understandable statements whilst the Archbishop will waffle and baffle.
quote:Yes the point was to show that the argument made based on the poll was not a very good one.
Originally posted by Inger:
Dawkins fumbling for a moment to recall the rather lengthy subtitle of one out of many scientific works, and then getting it more or less right - that doesn't begin to compare.
quote:I would have thought that a significant proportion of people who answered wrong misread the quesion, and answered "Genesis". If you phrase it as a trick question, you will inevitaly trip people up.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
it was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.
quote:Well, possibly. But I think it's stretching it to call it a trick question, and the results of the survey don't really bear out your suspicion:
Originally posted by angelfish:
quote:I would have thought that a significant proportion of people who answered wrong misread the quesion, and answered "Genesis". If you phrase it as a trick question, you will inevitaly trip people up.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
it was also a multiple choice question with the choices being Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles, Psalms, and don't know. Only 35% of the people who identified as Christians could answer the question correctly.
quote:Could this apply to many regular church-goers, do people think? In a church where the Sunday service is strongly based on the lectionary, might people not pick up the basics of how the Bible is structured?
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.
quote:Indeed. But most people who dislike Dawkins strongly appear to have not actually given his work more than a cursory skim. They make his approach to Christianity seem nuanced.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
[qb]Given that he said that in his book the God Delusion, it shouldn't have been much of a surprise.
quote:Agreed entirely. The questions aren't in the same league. Dawkins was thrown a disingenuous question and got overconfident.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think what's entertaining about it is Dawkins confidently announcing that he could tell Fraser the full title and then fumbling it. If he'd said up front that he didn't know, followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question. He didn't. As it is, he dropped himself in it.
quote:A lot of our folk simply go to an online Bible, search and print out the passage to be studied. Indeed, we often make it easier and email the passages out to them in advance.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Wow, 45% of respondents who self-identified as Christians got the question wrong without even the excuse of the mistake that I made (first book of the New Testament, not the whole Bible).
quote:Could this apply to many regular church-goers, do people think? In a church where the Sunday service is strongly based on the lectionary, might people not pick up the basics of how the Bible is structured?
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.
I ask because I'm really in no position to judge; pretty much everyone who comes to our Sunday meetings is also involved in a midweek home group, in which (amongst other activities) the Bible will be studied. That sounds like boasting but I don't mean it to be! I'm just trying to make the transition in my mind to thinking of how church might be done in a way that doesn't involve people routinely looking through a Bible themselves.
quote:Further to Leo's remarks, I think it fair to say that there are a fair proportion of my congregation who would struggle with the order of the books in the Bible, New Testament or Old. I suspect that this may well be true of a lot of Anglican congregations. My previous Vicar made no secret of the fact that he believed that the majority of our congregation probably did not read anything from the Bible from one week's end to the next. We took to printing the readings for the day on a loose sheet, so that the congregation at least had a portion of the Scriptures in their hands each week (to more-or-less quote his comment at the time).
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Wow, 45% of respondents who self-identified as Christians got the question wrong without even the excuse of the mistake that I made (first book of the New Testament, not the whole Bible).
quote:Could this apply to many regular church-goers, do people think? In a church where the Sunday service is strongly based on the lectionary, might people not pick up the basics of how the Bible is structured?
Originally posted by JJSchmidt:
If you don't actually *read* the Bible, even going to Church every week, it's certainly possible you wouldn't notice.
I ask because I'm really in no position to judge; pretty much everyone who comes to our Sunday meetings is also involved in a midweek home group, in which (amongst other activities) the Bible will be studied. That sounds like boasting but I don't mean it to be! I'm just trying to make the transition in my mind to thinking of how church might be done in a way that doesn't involve people routinely looking through a Bible themselves.
quote:I'm not sure he would. I can see there's a difference between scientific method and holy-book-method of course, but I don't see how you get from saying the Bible is a holy book to needing to know particular details about scripture to be able to self-identify as a Christian.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question.
quote:It wasn't disingenuous. It was clear what point Fraser was trying to make by asking it. And, while it might have been more irrelevant to the point than the question in the poll, it did at least make the point that that kind of question can be irrelevant.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The questions aren't in the same league. Dawkins was thrown a disingenuous question and got overconfident.
quote:What if he self identifies as God?
unless I am very much mistaken, Prof. Dawkins is not God.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:He'd have rebutted it rhetorically. I agree that in print or on a bulletin board, Fraser would have been able to advance supplementary questions. But there was a reply to that particular question that would have held up for the purpose of radio debate.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I'm not sure he would.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
followed by a spiel about how it's not a Holy Book, science doesn't have Holy Books and so on, then he'd have successfully rebutted the question.
quote:It's not really likewise. Evolution isn't to atheism as Christian doctrine is to Christianity. Someone could perfectly well be an atheist and believe that the universe has lasted for ever, or that there is no such thing as truth except for social consensus, etc. And many Christians accept that all life evolved from an ancestral self-organising cell by a process of differential reproduction.
likewise I suspect many who self-identify as atheists, freed from superstition by evolution, have very little understanding of what evolution is about.
quote:When did your "always" begin? Does a state church mean a more honoured position for atheism? Recusancy laws to force you to go to church? Heresy laws to make sure you believe the right thing once you get there? State-backed Church courts to pry into your private life and punish you if you don't follow Christianity's idea of morality? Test Acts to exclude anyone who doesn't believe in the right sort of Christianity from local government or the universities? Deliberately framed oaths to exclude non-Christians from Parliament? State-enforced prayers and religious education in schools? That's a funny history if atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.
quote:That's what I noticed too....
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
In the Sheldonian debate, Dawkins twice appeared to argue that there was some sort of equivalence between a programmed computer and living organisms - he regards humans (and all plants and animals) as machines programmed by DNA.
We know of no programs that "write themselves" in any meaningful way, i.e. without the action somewhere of a programmer, so the analogy between software and DNA seems to me a strange one for Dawkins to draw. If DNA is a program, it seems more logical to posit a programmer than not.
[In case anyone brings up evolvable programs / genetic algorithms, I write them for a living. The point is I write them!]
quote:I realise that Dawkins has back tracked a bit on his meme theory but I can't see how an atheist is in a position to complain about this at all.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.
quote:So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.
quote:For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.
quote:Correct, but surely that means that we cannot simply disapprove of how things are either?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Johnny S, you seem to be confusing describing how things are with approving of them. Describing the process of natural selection due to disease and pestilence doesn't mean one approves of early death due to infectious agents.
quote:One atheist postulates a hypothesis about how religion spreads and suddenly all atheists are tied to that view? If I said a Christian can't complain about being called stupid because some Christians believe in Young Earth Creationism you would be screaming "Strawman" before my words hit the screen.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I realise that Dawkins has back tracked a bit on his meme theory but I can't see how an atheist is in a position to complain about this at all.
If ideas (or memes) are nothing more than impersonal bits of data then I can't see what difference it makes how they ensure they are transmitted.
From your world view all you seem to be doing is drawing our attention to the fact that for most of human history atheism has had its butt kicked.
quote:Not at all. I think there is something very wrong with that ... but then my world view gives me reason to do so.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The tone of your response (oh well, it's just victims making a fuss) makes me think that you probably don't see anything wrong with that.
quote:Given the history forgive me if I take a Christian world view with a very considerable degree of distrust.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Not at all. I think there is something very wrong with that ... but then my world view gives me reason to do so.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The tone of your response (oh well, it's just victims making a fuss) makes me think that you probably don't see anything wrong with that.
quote:Remind me. Who are the atheists in the House of Lords who are there just for being prominant atheists? Is the Queen head of the Atheist movement or just the head of the Church in England? Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation? Is the minister for education trying to get documents for the National Secular Society given out to all schools?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.
quote:And you are in precisely this position. The atheists are finding a voice and Christians have had it so good for so long. Equality is something you desperately fear. You're just taking part in the age old Christian habit of claiming to be oppressed. You've had it so good for so many centuries that equality rather than being handed a priveliged position is terrifying you.
I've seen the same thing happen with 'protestantism' in Northern ireland. They thought they were being driven to a smaller area of land, but what in fact was happening was that a fairer balance was being given. They felt persecuted, got at, even victimised - but the reality was of course very different. They had it so good for so long, and they were able to cast aspersions about everyone else who differed from them without ever thinking that the 'others' might suddenly find voice; and oh did they find a voice.
quote:You have a point. In a few rare cases Atheists are firing back using sectarianism that is a pale shade of but still reflects that used by Christians.
But I've seen it before. It's called sectarianism - 'new atheism' is a mirror image of what it claims to hate, but only manages to be successful in spreading the same form of hate and division.
quote:Well I'm with you 100% on that one.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:If atheists get hostile it's because we can see that for 1400 years it was "always" Christianity that demanded and received a place of honour at the expense of every one else, and we're damned if we going to let you pretend it never happened or cry persecution whenever you don't get your own way.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.
quote:So tell me something good Christianity brought to the world.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Remind me. Who are the atheists in the House of Lords who are there just for being prominant atheists? Is the Queen head of the Atheist movement or just the head of the Church in England? Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation? Is the minister for education trying to get documents for the National Secular Society given out to all schools?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As in a lot of these types of debates it comes up time and again that there is an unusual honour according to the place of Christianity or theism. The truth of course is quite the opposite: atheism and agnosticism have always been accorded a better position of honour because they are, rightly or wrongly, seen as the more coherent and 'rational' positions.
quote:And you are in precisely this position. The atheists are finding a voice and Christians have had it so good for so long. Equality is something you desperately fear. You're just taking part in the age old Christian habit of claiming to be oppressed. You've had it so good for so many centuries that equality rather than being handed a priveliged position is terrifying you.
I've seen the same thing happen with 'protestantism' in Northern ireland. They thought they were being driven to a smaller area of land, but what in fact was happening was that a fairer balance was being given. They felt persecuted, got at, even victimised - but the reality was of course very different. They had it so good for so long, and they were able to cast aspersions about everyone else who differed from them without ever thinking that the 'others' might suddenly find voice; and oh did they find a voice.
quote:You have a point. In a few rare cases Atheists are firing back using sectarianism that is a pale shade of but still reflects that used by Christians.
But I've seen it before. It's called sectarianism - 'new atheism' is a mirror image of what it claims to hate, but only manages to be successful in spreading the same form of hate and division.
quote:As such stoning is prohibited by law in this country, shall I assume that our current societal structure represents your ideal?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
quote:You seem to be deliberately not engaging with my question.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Given the history forgive me if I take a Christian world view with a very considerable degree of distrust.
quote:What's that got to do with anything? But as a first answer, the St Matthew Passion by J.S. Bach.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So tell me something good Christianity brought to the world.
quote:Oh, I'm not saying that as countries go, Britain has been bad. I'm saying that the reason Christians are complaining is that they are now no longer being praised and massively rather than just minorly favoured. Which means that although the actual situtation is still significantly in your favour it feels worse than it used to be.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So she's not queen because she's head of the church. And as Queen she's head of state of a democracy which actively allows people like me and thee to both hold and express our views. I could think of other places where we could have a different kind of monarch, in a different kind of relationship to a national government, taking a different approach to these matters.
quote:That would be the Premier of China then
Originally posted by Justinian:
Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation?
quote:You need an explanation of why a surgeon can't fight against cancer but also accept the biological facts of its existence? It seems such a bizarre thing to want an explanation of before accepting it I'm lost as to where to start. I'm as thrown as if you asked me to explain why 2+2 didn't equal 5.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction.
quote:The question was addressing history/Christianity as a whole. If we suddenly narrow it down to just once country that loses the point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:As such stoning is prohibited by law in this country, shall I assume that our current societal structure represents your ideal?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
quote:Point. But comparing the Premier of China as an atheist to the Pope as a Christian is comparing apples to oranges.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:That would be the Premier of China then
Originally posted by Justinian:
Did we recently give a massively expensive state visit to the head of a specifically secular organisation?
quote:True Freethinker
When asked for a response on the “Big Band Theory,” they can not answer where the particles came from to begin with? How did they form? How does SOMETHING come from absolutely NOTHING?
They have no answer. Why……. because it doesn’t fit their agenda! [ellipses in original]
An Atheist responded thusly:
It is perfectly fine to say, “We don’t currently know the answer.” When the answer isn’t known, it makes no sense to place a magical explanation in its place. Humanity has done this since the first person came up with the “it must be something beyond us causing it” ideologies, thousands of years ago.
To which this Examiner replied:
God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer.”
“In the beginning [time] God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond and not subject to the universe’s constraints] created [volitionally brought into being] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”
When we know that the universe had a cause it makes no sense to deny it by claiming materialistic agnosticism in its place.
It is the logical fallacy of the ad hominem aka generic fallacy to refer to that which “Humanity has done….thousands of years ago” as who and when are not relevant to truth.
Supernaturalism is the default position and materialism is not. Since the universe, life and everything do not explain themselves, that is do not account for themselves, then materialism is not the default position. Yet, since God is a philosophically necessary being then supernaturalism is the default position.
quote:I don't quite get that. Surely saying "God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer".
Originally posted by Evensong:
I noted in the discussion that Dawkins was quite happy to say "he didn't know".
And that that didn't mean you should ascribe a supernatural explanation.
Yet people that believe in God are not allowed to say "they don't know" are they?
There's a brilliant conversation about this on the Examiner:
quote:True Freethinker
When asked for a response on the “Big Band Theory,” they can not answer where the particles came from to begin with? How did they form? How does SOMETHING come from absolutely NOTHING?
They have no answer. Why……. because it doesn’t fit their agenda! [ellipses in original]
An Atheist responded thusly:
It is perfectly fine to say, “We don’t currently know the answer.” When the answer isn’t known, it makes no sense to place a magical explanation in its place. Humanity has done this since the first person came up with the “it must be something beyond us causing it” ideologies, thousands of years ago.
To which this Examiner replied:
God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer.”
“In the beginning [time] God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond and not subject to the universe’s constraints] created [volitionally brought into being] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”
When we know that the universe had a cause it makes no sense to deny it by claiming materialistic agnosticism in its place.
It is the logical fallacy of the ad hominem aka generic fallacy to refer to that which “Humanity has done….thousands of years ago” as who and when are not relevant to truth.
Supernaturalism is the default position and materialism is not. Since the universe, life and everything do not explain themselves, that is do not account for themselves, then materialism is not the default position. Yet, since God is a philosophically necessary being then supernaturalism is the default position.
I think the point about default position is a really good point!
quote:And I think that it is a vast step backwards in philosophy, in science, and in human knowledge. The position you are supporting and claiming is a good point is "We don't know but Goddidit!" - a disingenuous flip. It's not claiming ignorance. It's claiming unproven knowledge then using ignorance to deflect criticism.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I noted in the discussion that Dawkins was quite happy to say "he didn't know".
And that that didn't mean you should ascribe a supernatural explanation.
Yet people that believe in God are not allowed to say "they don't know" are they?
There's a brilliant conversation about this on the Examiner:
quote:True Freethinker
When asked for a response on the “Big Band Theory,” they can not answer where the particles came from to begin with? How did they form? How does SOMETHING come from absolutely NOTHING?
They have no answer. Why……. because it doesn’t fit their agenda! [ellipses in original]
An Atheist responded thusly:
It is perfectly fine to say, “We don’t currently know the answer.” When the answer isn’t known, it makes no sense to place a magical explanation in its place. Humanity has done this since the first person came up with the “it must be something beyond us causing it” ideologies, thousands of years ago.
To which this Examiner replied:
God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer.”
“In the beginning [time] God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond and not subject to the universe’s constraints] created [volitionally brought into being] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”
When we know that the universe had a cause it makes no sense to deny it by claiming materialistic agnosticism in its place.
It is the logical fallacy of the ad hominem aka generic fallacy to refer to that which “Humanity has done….thousands of years ago” as who and when are not relevant to truth.
Supernaturalism is the default position and materialism is not. Since the universe, life and everything do not explain themselves, that is do not account for themselves, then materialism is not the default position. Yet, since God is a philosophically necessary being then supernaturalism is the default position.
I think the point about default position is a really good point!
quote:It requires an explanation because if you have a worldview which excludes anything transcendental, what are the grounds on which you declare something "good" or "bad"? What are the grounds on which you "approve" or "disapprove" of what happens in Nature? Why should we fight "as human beings" against these things?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You need an explanation of why a surgeon can't fight against cancer but also accept the biological facts of its existence? It seems such a bizarre thing to want an explanation of before accepting it I'm lost as to where to start. I'm as thrown as if you asked me to explain why 2+2 didn't equal 5.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction.
quote:I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you, but I'm mystified. It looks like you're trying to open up the hoary old chestnut about atheists having no basis for morality, but that's a) irrelevant , b) nonsense, and c) irrelevant nonsense.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:It requires an explanation because if you have a worldview which excludes anything transcendental, what are the grounds on which you declare something "good" or "bad"? What are the grounds on which you "approve" or "disapprove" of what happens in Nature? Why should we fight "as human beings" against these things?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You need an explanation of why a surgeon can't fight against cancer but also accept the biological facts of its existence? It seems such a bizarre thing to want an explanation of before accepting it I'm lost as to where to start. I'm as thrown as if you asked me to explain why 2+2 didn't equal 5.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction.
quote:Do you ever read poetry? I mean really, do you read it and enjoy it? I believe the world isn't all governed by mathematics, equations, scientific theory and physics and chemistry and biological pathways. Sure, this helps explain a lot and it can be fascinating and wonderful, but there are some things that only poetry will explain, that only story can capture and that only music can express fully, and it often does it without ever touching scientific fact, dry theories or equations and physics. Maybe you think everything can be explained in this way, but I don't. I live in a different world where spirituality breathes life into poetry, story, art and music, but you seem to want to examine all these things with scientific tools - but you can't. It's not comparing like with like. It's utterly futile.
And I think that it is a vast step backwards in philosophy, in science, and in human knowledge. The position you are supporting and claiming is a good point is "We don't know but Goddidit!" - a disingenuous flip. It's not claiming ignorance. It's claiming unproven knowledge then using ignorance to deflect criticism.
quote:We announce the page numbers in the pew bibles at the start of each reading
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
unless you choose to follow the readings in a pew Bible, you are unlikely to have any idea where in the Bible the readings come from, far less how the books are positioned in relation to each other.
quote:No, the question was "now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?"
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:The question was addressing history/Christianity as a whole. If we suddenly narrow it down to just once country that loses the point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:As such stoning is prohibited by law in this country, shall I assume that our current societal structure represents your ideal?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:For a start one where the stoning of women on grounds of morality didn't happen.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
quote:Of course they are. It just seems they rarely do; whether it's faith or insecurity I couldn't guess. Instead, we get theology. OliviaG
Originally posted by Evensong:
I noted in the discussion that Dawkins was quite happy to say "he didn't know".
And that that didn't mean you should ascribe a supernatural explanation.
Yet people that believe in God are not allowed to say "they don't know" are they? ...
quote:The presence or existance of a Divine entity does absolutely nothing to answer this question. It just adds unwarranted authority to whatever answer you decide. "God said so" is simply a claim to authority that is not fundamentally different from "Because I say so", and "God exists" is not a moral position.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It requires an explanation because if you have a worldview which excludes anything transcendental, what are the grounds on which you declare something "good" or "bad"? What are the grounds on which you "approve" or "disapprove" of what happens in Nature? Why should we fight "as human beings" against these things?
quote:I live in a world of love and beauty. I also live in a world where poetry works with meter, and music is based on scales and chords. I believe that the human mind needs to be a step more complex than anything it genuinely can understand, therefore the human mind can not be fully comprehended by itself. I live in a world where many propositions are unprovable - and it is provable that even in a realm as limited as arithmetic there are unprovable propositions. And that not only can we not know the position and velocity of things with perfect accuracy, if we don't know them perfectly then the end results are going to be far beyond those we have forseen.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Justinian:
quote:Do you ever read poetry? I mean really, do you read it and enjoy it? I believe the world isn't all governed by mathematics, equations, scientific theory and physics and chemistry and biological pathways. Sure, this helps explain a lot and it can be fascinating and wonderful, but there are some things that only poetry will explain, that only story can capture and that only music can express fully, and it often does it without ever touching scientific fact, dry theories or equations and physics. Maybe you think everything can be explained in this way, but I don't. I live in a different world where spirituality breathes life into poetry, story, art and music, but you seem to want to examine all these things with scientific tools - but you can't. It's not comparing like with like. It's utterly futile.
And I think that it is a vast step backwards in philosophy, in science, and in human knowledge. The position you are supporting and claiming is a good point is "We don't know but Goddidit!" - a disingenuous flip. It's not claiming ignorance. It's claiming unproven knowledge then using ignorance to deflect criticism.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I'm going to try to answer this seriously, but the first thing I need to say is "I don't know" and the second is that "It would be unattainable anyway".
Originally posted by Ramarius:
So now we're all in the twenty first century, what would your ideal society look like?
quote:Sorry, I'm lost. Whose last paragraph are you referring to? OliviaG
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I could agree with everything you said until your last paragraph - then you spoilt it with lazy, facile observations about what you would like your stereotypical christian to think as long as it suits your world view....
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But in that paragraph all he does is give examples of those who have it both ways, he never actually explains why it is not a contradiction.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You need an explanation of why a surgeon can't fight against cancer but also accept the biological facts of its existence?
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It requires an explanation because if you have a worldview which excludes anything transcendental, what are the grounds on which you declare something "good" or "bad"?
quote:I agree with the Great Gumby. Maybe you are suggesting only Christian surgeons can chop out cancers with internal consistency. But it strikes me as a completely separate point - whether atheists have any basis for their morality is an old one.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
It looks like you're trying to open up the hoary old chestnut about atheists having no basis for morality, but that's a) irrelevant , b) nonsense, and c) irrelevant nonsense.
quote:No.
Originally posted by mdijon:
]I agree with the Great Gumby. Maybe you are suggesting only Christian surgeons can chop out cancers with internal consistency. But it strikes me as a completely separate point - whether atheists have any basis for their morality is an old one.
quote:And yet on this thread there are people advocating God of the Gaps which is a perfect example of the world view with issues mentioned in my last paragraph. If "lazy and facile" means the same thing as "true with evidence right in front of me" I accept the charge - and wonder what the issue is.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I could agree with everything you said until your last paragraph - then you spoilt it with lazy, facile observations about what you would like your stereotypical christian to think as long as it suits your world view.
Gosh, there's a turn up for the books
quote:In which case we are again full circle. Why is it inconsistent for an atheist to say I observe x occurring but I don't approve of it?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The inconsistency of thinking for this particular atheist was.
quote:I'm sort of a panentheist, so the world you described pretty much spells out "God" to me.
Justinian: I live in a world not just richer, deeper, and more beautiful than I comprehend, but one that is richer, deeper, and more beautiful than I can comprehend.
quote:The point is that the supernatural explanation makes more sense so it should be the logical default position.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I don't quite get that. Surely saying "God created the universe but do not ask me how because “We don’t currently know the answer".
Is nothing like saying “We don’t currently know the answer"
quote:Only if you have the existence of the supernatural as an initial assumption.
Originally posted by Evensong:
The point is that the supernatural explanation makes more sense
quote:And panentheists are part of the group I described as "gilding refined gold". I don't see why you'd want to define nature as God, but ultimately it changes very little from what I can see and might even add some interesting shading and highlighting. But the end result either way amounts to solid gold
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sort of a panentheist, so the world you described pretty much spells out "God" to me.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Justinian - although this does not describe me - and I have no idea if it describes LeRoc either - there is a school of people who express their concept of god as a sort of emergent property. As best I can understand it this includes Jack Spong. I would have to observe that using that argument against this position is inherently reductionist, as it is well known from nature that higher-order properties do emerge. There are other arguments against it of course, but Ockham's razor won't work here (I take it your argument is a specialist variant of that).
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:And panentheists are part of the group I described as "gilding refined gold". I don't see why you'd want to define nature as God, but ultimately it changes very little from what I can see and might even add some interesting shading and highlighting. But the end result either way amounts to solid gold
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm sort of a panentheist, so the world you described pretty much spells out "God" to me.
quote:My argument is that we end up in the same place. I'm not saying that +Spong is wrong. I'm saying that there's no appreciable difference other than aesthetics. Such a God, if one emerges, is completely congruent with my Nature. So yes, it's possibly a version of Ockham's razor. But I was thinking of it more in terms of two sets of equations being the same under the axiom of equality (both ending up with pure gold), but the +Spong version or the Panentheist version being written with a few extra and certainly to me unnecessary lines. Of course lines of an equation that are unnecessary or even obfuscatory to one person can significantly help another understand it.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Justinian - although this does not describe me - and I have no idea if it describes LeRoc either - there is a school of people who express their concept of god as a sort of emergent property. As best I can understand it this includes Jack Spong. I would have to observe that using that argument against this position is inherently reductionist, as it is well known from nature that higher-order properties do emerge. There are other arguments against it of course, but Ockham's razor won't work here (I take it your argument is a specialist variant of that).
quote:Very interesting, as always.
Originally posted by Justinian:
To further expand my analogy, Evensong is trying to throw perfume on the violet. She's saying "Nature should smell good. This smells good. Therefore we'll add it to nature." And by doing so blotting out some of the actual fascination and beauty of nature, replacing it with something that no matter how often we have tried it has never stood up to serious investigation. The violet smells good enough without your "help", Evensong. And every part of nature that has ever been thoroughly investigated has turned out to be the result of causes that are ... not supernatural.
Young Earth Creationists would be those trying to throw poster-paint all over lillies, rejecting the beauty of nature entirely to substitute their scribblings.
quote:Apologies - I replied just before going to bed - it is hard work keeping a conversation going across 12 time zones. It feels as if the conversation has moved whenever I get the chance to check this thread.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:In which case we are again full circle. Why is it inconsistent for an atheist to say I observe x occurring but I don't approve of it?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The inconsistency of thinking for this particular atheist was.
quote:The only assumption you need to make is that the Universe has a cause.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Only if you have the existence of the supernatural as an initial assumption.
Originally posted by Evensong:
The point is that the supernatural explanation makes more sense
quote:
“In the beginning [time] God [a transcendent being existing outside of, beyond and not subject to the universe’s constraints] created [volitionally brought into being] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].”
When we know that the universe had a cause it makes no sense to deny it by claiming materialistic agnosticism in its place.
quote:You missed my point oh Descartian One.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The violet smells good enough without your "help", Evensong. And every part of nature that has ever been thoroughly investigated has turned out to be the result of causes that are ... not supernatural.
quote:You're still committing the Naturalistic (or Is-Ought) Fallacy. It may well be that the "Christian meme" is adaptive, which helps it to survive. That does not imply that this survival is good, or desirable.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
FWIW I was commenting on Dawkins idea of memes. In the analogy with genetic evolution memes, like genes, have no morality - they simply seek to replicate themselves.
The context of my question was when pre-cambrian was complaining about the privileged position of Christianity in the West. My point was that from Dawkins' POV this would surely only demonstrate how 'adaptive' the Christian meme is.
quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You're still committing the Naturalistic (or Is-Ought) Fallacy. It may well be that the "Christian meme" is adaptive, which helps it to survive. That does not imply that this survival is good, or desirable.
quote:Then what you've been repeatedly saying makes no sense.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You're still committing the Naturalistic (or Is-Ought) Fallacy. It may well be that the "Christian meme" is adaptive, which helps it to survive. That does not imply that this survival is good, or desirable.
Are you doing this just to wind me up?
Read quetzalcoatl's post - he/she has understood what I have been repeatedly saying.
quote:Not so. You need the Universe to have an intentional cause. And that still brings you nowhere near any sort of remotely involved God. If the universe was created in the equivalent of CERN and not really noticed by the scientists who did so in that universe does that make them God?
Originally posted by Evensong:
The only assumption you need to make is that the Universe has a cause.
quote:In short you are adding an unproven hypothesis to observations with no real evidence, and every time that hypothesis has been seriously tested somewhere else it has been shown to be not so. God of the Gaps. Which is perfume that is entirely man made and getting rancid.
You missed my point oh Descartian One.
The smell of the violet is good because God made it and the laws by which we understand and smell it.
No God, no violet.
quote:I like the attempt to reverse the question of Theodicy. How can you have evil in a world by the Grace of God if God is Good?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But the naturalistic fallacy cuts both ways. How can you have evil in a naturalistic worldview?
Things just are. You may like them or not like them. Isn't that the basis of morality within naturalism?
quote:I watched it last night and agree with you - though I haven't got that 'way with words' that you have.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Well I watched the whole 1 1/2 hours. Rowan ran rings round him and he did not seem to notice. In particular I liked how Prof. Dawkings described one of Rowans arguments as have a diminishingly small chance of happening. Rowan then took each argument Prof. Dawkins put forward after that and made him admit that it was a very small chance of being true.
Excellent stuff. Like watching a WWF wrestler being hypnotised and castrated by a bunny with a sharp carrot and a soft shoe shuffle. Poor bloke did not have a chance.
AtB Pyx_e.
quote:In answer to your first question, part of the grace of God was the creation of morally intentional beings with the power of choice between good and evil, who ended up choosing evil rather than good - but God also has a response for that.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I like the attempt to reverse the question of Theodicy. How can you have evil in a world by the Grace of God if God is Good?
As for how can you have evil in a naturalistic universe, genocide is natural - and lessens the world. It is evil. Start from there. Or from the difference between what you can do with a closed fist and an open palm and how doing each makes you feel.
quote:Just to add to your point... Justinian actually believes what we both do - that objective moral values exist. Trouble is, I can't see where he objectively grounds them. They can't exist in society (the Nazis thought genocide was doing the world a favour). Do they exist as a concept (grounded where?). Might they possibly exist in a being who is the the ground of all morality?
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:In answer to your first question, part of the grace of God was the creation of morally intentional beings with the power of choice between good and evil, who ended up choosing evil rather than good - but God also has a response for that.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I like the attempt to reverse the question of Theodicy. How can you have evil in a world by the Grace of God if God is Good?
As for how can you have evil in a naturalistic universe, genocide is natural - and lessens the world. It is evil. Start from there. Or from the difference between what you can do with a closed fist and an open palm and how doing each makes you feel.
I agree with you that genocide is natural and lessens the world. I agree that it is evil. In my understanding it is because I have an 'ought' category for it which derives from elsewhere. From whence within the naturalistic universe comes the 'ought' which defines genocide as evil.
quote:Sorry. But how is that reversing theodicy? To my mind it is like saying "we went to the shops and the cinema" is meaningfully different from "we went to the cinema and the shops".
Originally posted by Justinian:
I like the attempt to reverse the question of Theodicy. How can you have evil in a world by the Grace of God if God is Good?
quote:Where is all this talk of evil coming from? The point being made - or so I believe - is that you don't have evil in this world to begin with. There are only actions and our subjective response to them.
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for how can you have evil in a naturalistic universe, genocide is natural - and lessens the world. It is evil. Start from there. Or from the difference between what you can do with a closed fist and an open palm and how doing each makes you feel.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Where is all this talk of evil coming from? The point being made - or so I believe - is that you don't have evil in this world to begin with. There are only actions and our subjective response to them.
quote:I suppose that was really what was behind my questions.
Originally posted by Squibs:
What is the state of memetics these days, I wonder?
quote:Let me be clear. I do not believe in EVIL. I do not believe that there is a supernatural force that is the enemy of all that is good or even God. I believe that evil is that which lessens that which is and good is that which helps everything grow and means that things will be better for the future than they are now.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Where is all this talk of evil coming from? The point being made - or so I believe - is that you don't have evil in this world to begin with. There are only actions and our subjective response to them.
quote:So the universe may have been an accident and it therefore means it was not necessarily created by God but could have been created by any other being of awesome power that is uncaused in the sense of our Universe.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Not so. You need the Universe to have an intentional cause.
Originally posted by Evensong:
The only assumption you need to make is that the Universe has a cause.
quote:I haven't the faintest idea where you're getting the idea that I'm a god of the gaps proponent. Far from it.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:In short you are adding an unproven hypothesis to observations with no real evidence, and every time that hypothesis has been seriously tested somewhere else it has been shown to be not so. God of the Gaps. Which is perfume that is entirely man made and getting rancid.
You missed my point oh Descartian One.
The smell of the violet is good because God made it and the laws by which we understand and smell it.
No God, no violet.
quote:Why?
If we are all computers programmed by our DNA, all argument is pointless.
quote:How about the idea that if you wouldn't want it done to you then you shouldn't do it to anyone else? Empathy doesn't require a divine being, does it?
Originally posted by BroJames:
From whence within the naturalistic universe comes the 'ought' which defines genocide as evil.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the universe may have been an accident and it therefore means it was not necessarily created by God
quote:"Could" is such a weasel word. Our universe could have been farted into existence by a transdimensional chav who'd just had a bad curry, but such speculation is pretty useless without any way of proving the veracity of any given claim.
but could have been created by any other being of awesome power that is uncaused in the sense of our Universe.
quote:The only established fact (frivolous "how can you know that anything is real" navel gazing aside) is that the violet does actually exist. All else is unproven - uprovable - speculation.
As for unproven hypothesis? Your hypothesis that the violet lives and exists without God is unproven.
quote:Yes. So?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it is equally valid to say that I should be selfish, and just look after myself and my family. Within this moral framework, the welfare state itself is evil.
I can't see any way to distinguish empathy from this Ayn Rand type morality. It's just which one you prefer.
quote:Yes. So?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So it suggests that the term 'evil' is incoherent within naturalism, except as an expression of personal preference.
quote:Marvin is just pointing out that what you said in those last two posts didn't invalidate their argument.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I like this game. Do I get to have a go?
In reply to your 'Yes. So?', I would like add a 'No. But? Yes. But'.
Your turn.
quote:Let me try a different approach. I refuse to say that lying is evil. There are some cases where it would be "in my opinion" wrong to lie. In other cases, for example lying in order to save a life, it would be the right thing. I express my personal preference on what is evil and what is not all the time. There are cases where a lot of people share my preference and others where there is a great divide.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes. So?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So it suggests that the term 'evil' is incoherent within naturalism, except as an expression of personal preference.
quote:Marvin.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Who is 'their'?
quote:Yep. Agreed.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the universe may have been an accident and it therefore means it was not necessarily created by God
quote:My argument wasn't for which god or anti-god created the universe. It was that the supernatural explanation is the most logical one in current parameters.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Could" is such a weasel word. Our universe could have been farted into existence by a transdimensional chav who'd just had a bad curry, but such speculation is pretty useless without any way of proving the veracity of any given claim.
but could have been created by any other being of awesome power that is uncaused in the sense of our Universe.
quote:You can believe that without God everything exists if you want, but that doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The only established fact (frivolous "how can you know that anything is real" navel gazing aside) is that the violet does actually exist. All else is unproven - uprovable - speculation.
As for unproven hypothesis? Your hypothesis that the violet lives and exists without God is unproven.
You can believe that without God nothing would exist if you want, but that doesn't make it true.
quote:So which revelation is that then?
Yep. Agreed.
If you disregard revelation.
Which ignores a lot of evidence.
Unless of course all revelation is a fantasy made up by humankind.
The balance of evidence weighs against that though
quote:Let's take genocide as an example seeing as you've brought it up. Your problem is that according to the Bible, which is the evidence for this being and what his objective morality is, God ordered the massacre of all of the Amalekites, men, women and children plus flocks, i.e. genocide. So taking the direct instructions of the source of your objective morality as a guide, genocide would seem to be a Good at least some of the time.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Just to add to your point... Justinian actually believes what we both do - that objective moral values exist. Trouble is, I can't see where he objectively grounds them. They can't exist in society (the Nazis thought genocide was doing the world a favour). Do they exist as a concept (grounded where?). Might they possibly exist in a being who is the the ground of all morality?
quote:I don't believe I said anything like that. I was just curious how you could establish, among conflicting claims, what a genuine revelation would look like & how you could know it was genuine.
You think most religions claim the universe was an accident
quote:I don't believe I said all revelation was genuine.
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
I don't believe I said anything like that.
quote:Actually, the evidence for the existence of God is that He makes Himself known to people through revelation. Nobody starts believing in God because they read about Him. Once God makes Himself known, you can go to the Bible to see how others experienced revelation and read it using your intelligence, knowledge of history, anthropology etc and start to understand things on a level that is somewhat higher than a children's book.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
. Your problem is that according to the Bible, which is the evidence for this being and what his objective morality is, God ordered the massacre of all of the Amalekites, men, women and children plus flocks, i.e. genocide.
quote:Ok. So bearing in mind that earlier you suggested that revelation provides something in the way of information about the origin of the universe how would you establish what a genuine revelation is?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
I don't believe I said anything like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe I said all revelation was genuine.
I just said most revealed religions do not posit the universe is "an accident".
In fact, I can't think of one.
quote:I believe that there is no good reason to hypothesise an uncaused being out of whole cloth. That it doesn't do a damn thing to answer any philosophical questions about first causes that a big bang out of nothing would not - it still leads to there being something uncaused.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the universe may have been an accident and it therefore means it was not necessarily created by God but could have been created by any other being of awesome power that is uncaused in the sense of our Universe.
quote:Now you're just multiplying entities massively to no good end in a way that doesn't at all match what I see of reality. Reality is neither Good nor Bad. And to claim it was created by an entity that was either one or the other is to me a denial of the complexity of Reality.
Certainly what the Gnostics believed. I think it was the Devil that created the world and the world was Bad.
quote:Oh, absolutely. I'll put it alongside my hypothesis that the violet lives and exists without the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Tooth Fairy.
As for unproven hypothesis? Your hypothesis that the violet lives and exists without God is unproven.
quote:Yep. Agreed.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
[qb]So the universe may have been an accident and it therefore means it was not necessarily created by God
quote:Except that everywhere we have tried that hypothesis it has turned out to be not true. The definition of insanity is sometimes considered to be doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
My argument wasn't for which god or anti-god created the universe. It was that the supernatural explanation is the most logical one in current parameters.
quote:Indeed. Reality cares very little what you believe.
You can believe that without God everything exists if you want, but that doesn't make it true.
quote:No. I think what most religions claim is mutually incompatable. That they disagree so strongly is an argument against taking any of them seriously.
Originally posted by Evensong:
You think most religions claim the universe was an accident?
quote:Really? When should I expect that to happen? And he seems to have missed out great chunks of the population throughout the world.
Originally posted by angelfish:
Actually, the evidence for the existence of God is that He makes Himself known to people through revelation. Nobody starts believing in God because they read about Him. Once God makes Himself known, you can go to the Bible to see how others experienced revelation and read it using your intelligence, knowledge of history, anthropology etc and start to understand things on a level that is somewhat higher than a children's book.
quote:Seek, and you shall find, George Spigot.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:Really? When should I expect that to happen? And he seems to have missed out great chunks of the population throughout the world.
Originally posted by angelfish:
Actually, the evidence for the existence of God is that He makes Himself known to people through revelation. Nobody starts believing in God because they read about Him. Once God makes Himself known, you can go to the Bible to see how others experienced revelation and read it using your intelligence, knowledge of history, anthropology etc and start to understand things on a level that is somewhat higher than a children's book.
quote:Sure. You can reply "Yes. So?" the very next time I say something that completely agrees with what you're saying.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I like this game. Do I get to have a go?
quote:Show me this evidence.
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you disregard revelation.
Which ignores a lot of evidence.
Unless of course all revelation is a fantasy made up by humankind.
The balance of evidence weighs against that though.
quote:As I said, it's only logical if you presuppose the existence of the supernatural.
My argument wasn't for which god or anti-god created the universe. It was that the supernatural explanation is the most logical one in current parameters.
quote:That's right.
You can believe that without God everything exists if you want, but that doesn't make it true.
quote:I think 'Yes. So?' is wonderfully enigmatic, and I like it. I shall say it to the next policeman who asks me if that's me pissing on his shoes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Sure. You can reply "Yes. So?" the very next time I say something that completely agrees with what you're saying.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I like this game. Do I get to have a go?
Or maybe I can coax a better reply out of you by stating "What's the problem with that?" instead of "Yes. So?" Would that work?
quote:I do. And good ones. But I don't extend either out to the be all and end all of reality. "The portion of reality I currently interact with is on the whole pretty good although it could be better."
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian. You wrote " Reality is neither Good nor Bad."
Do you ever have a bad day?
quote:Just don't look too carefully or you'll realise it's a mirage or there was a man behind the curtain, angelfish
Originally posted by angelfish:
quote:Seek, and you shall find, George Spigot.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:Really? When should I expect that to happen? And he seems to have missed out great chunks of the population throughout the world.
Originally posted by angelfish:
Actually, the evidence for the existence of God is that He makes Himself known to people through revelation. Nobody starts believing in God because they read about Him. Once God makes Himself known, you can go to the Bible to see how others experienced revelation and read it using your intelligence, knowledge of history, anthropology etc and start to understand things on a level that is somewhat higher than a children's book.
quote:An issue and a question there:
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
Posted by Evensong
quote:Ok. So bearing in mind that earlier you suggested that revelation provides something in the way of information about the origin of the universe how would you establish what a genuine revelation is?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
I don't believe I said anything like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe I said all revelation was genuine.
I just said most revealed religions do not posit the universe is "an accident".
In fact, I can't think of one.
quote:Well I thought my original quote from the Free thinker explained why there is good reason. Makes more sense.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I believe that there is no good reason to hypothesise an uncaused being out of whole cloth.
quote:It does a helluvalot more to answer philosophical questions than the big bang does. The big bang is a just a physical process. Nothing more. It doesn't answer any philosophical questions.
Originally posted by Justinian:
That it doesn't do a damn thing to answer any philosophical questions about first causes that a big bang out of nothing would not - it still leads to there being something uncaused.
quote:That is your prerogative and your choice.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Further I believe your God is about as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster
quote:To deny God altogether is to me a denial of the complexity of Reality.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Now you're just multiplying entities massively to no good end in a way that doesn't at all match what I see of reality. Reality is neither Good nor Bad. And to claim it was created by an entity that was either one or the other is to me a denial of the complexity of Reality.
Certainly what the Gnostics believed. I think it was the Devil that created the world and the world was Bad.
quote:Materialism denies the complexity of life.
There is, after all, nothing inherently reasonable in the conviction that all of reality is simply an accidental confluence of physical causes, without any transcendent source or end.
quote:I was unaware Gods non-existence was proven; either as creator or as sustainer.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Except that everywhere we have tried that hypothesis it has turned out to be not true.
quote:The existence of God goes waaaaaay beyond the creation of the universe.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Even if you were right that it was the best explanation we have, that's like saying that "Zeus hung the stars" was the best explanation the Greeks had for star formation. We simply don't have the tools to see beyond the Big Bang, so any hypothesis we can make is extremely poorly supported.
quote:Indeed. As it cares very little what you believe.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Indeed. Reality cares very little what you believe.
You can believe that without God everything exists if you want, but that doesn't make it true.
quote:I suggest you shouldn't have abandoned the search simply because the first thing you happened upon was fool's gold.
Originally posted by Justinian:
To illustrate, I have an interest in hypnosis. This dates back to the days when I sought and found. What I found was the Toronto Blessing. I found and then I tested. And what I found when I tested was something that seemed convincing had manifestations that were completely explainable by a non-supernatural hypothesis. I sought. I found. I tested. I found the man behind the curtain.
quote:Oh. And I forgot to mention this was gold.
Originally posted by angelfish:
Actually, the evidence for the existence of God is that He makes Himself known to people through revelation. Nobody starts believing in God because they read about Him. Once God makes Himself known, you can go to the Bible to see how others experienced revelation and read it using your intelligence, knowledge of history, anthropology etc and start to understand things on a level that is somewhat higher than a children's book.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I didn't. That was just the simplest, clearest, and most obvious one. I'm quite familiar with most of the major churches, and grew up a mix of Quaker and Calvinist Anglo-Catholic.
Originally posted by angelfish:
quote:I suggest you shouldn't have abandoned the search simply because the first thing you happened upon was fool's gold.
Originally posted by Justinian:
To illustrate, I have an interest in hypnosis. This dates back to the days when I sought and found. What I found was the Toronto Blessing. I found and then I tested. And what I found when I tested was something that seemed convincing had manifestations that were completely explainable by a non-supernatural hypothesis. I sought. I found. I tested. I found the man behind the curtain.
quote:OK, so no evil, no good. Get it. Why then in the next sentence do you go on to give us vague description of what good and evil are? I'm confused. It's like saying, "I absolutely hate pumpkin in all its forms. Now let me alone while I tuck into this pumpkin pie."
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Let me be clear. I do not believe in EVIL. I do not believe that there is a supernatural force that is the enemy of all that is good or even God. I believe that evil is that which lessens that which is and good is that which helps everything grow and means that things will be better for the future than they are now.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Where is all this talk of evil coming from? The point being made - or so I believe - is that you don't have evil in this world to begin with. There are only actions and our subjective response to them.
quote:Well, yes. You're an atheist. Of course you didn't find God in any of those places.
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QUOTE]It isn't just the Toronto Blessing where I've found a Man behind the Curtain or Fools Gold. It's bells-and-smells High Anglicans, rainbow-guitar strap wearing Low Anglicans, Middle of the Road Anglicans, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodists, the Baptists, and some non-denominationals.
quote:My understanding is that the RSOF faith and practices (and each yearly meeting has their own) are not considered holy but rather worthwhile. They also tend to ask questions for consideration and quotes of people on such questions rather than decrees written on stone. The Bible is also still a worthwhile book though does not need to be considered inerrant.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I leave exempt from this general condemnation the Religious Society of Friends who have their own holy book which they update every ten years or so - something I believe to be strongly correlated with them not having strong and active regressive elements.
quote:There was a separate discussion on
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Let's take genocide as an example seeing as you've brought it up. Your problem is that according to the Bible, which is the evidence for this being and what his objective morality is, God ordered the massacre of all of the Amalekites, men, women and children plus flocks, i.e. genocide. So taking the direct instructions of the source of your objective morality as a guide, genocide would seem to be a Good at least some of the time.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Just to add to your point... Justinian actually believes what we both do - that objective moral values exist. Trouble is, I can't see where he objectively grounds them. They can't exist in society (the Nazis thought genocide was doing the world a favour). Do they exist as a concept (grounded where?). Might they possibly exist in a being who is the the ground of all morality?
If there is no objective morality then perhaps genocide is no more than morally neutral. But that still seems to me to be a considerable step up from an objective morality that conceives that it can be morally positive.
quote:Why does Umberto Eco spend his time writing brilliant books on the subject of human folly?
Originally posted by Calvin Beedle:
Warning this is a tangent:
@ Justinian
I'm not commenting on your right to be here or say whatever you like but if you find the whole Christian thing to be as vacuous as it apears you do then why spend your time debating it?
I mean that as a genuine question rather than an underhand way of making a point.
quote:The policeman would, presumably, be able to come up with a rather good answer to the question implicit in "So?".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think 'Yes. So?' is wonderfully enigmatic, and I like it. I shall say it to the next policeman who asks me if that's me pissing on his shoes.
quote:That is because you are not reading. I don't believe in EVIL. Evil happens. The holocaust was evil. Paedophilia is evil. Torture is evil. They all cause manifest harm.
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:OK, so no evil, no good. Get it. Why then in the next sentence do you go on to give us vague description of what good and evil are? I'm confused. It's like saying, "I absolutely hate pumpkin in all its forms. Now let me alone while I tuck into this pumpkin pie."
Originally posted by Justinian:
Let me be clear. I do not believe in EVIL. I do not believe that there is a supernatural force that is the enemy of all that is good or even God. I believe that evil is that which lessens that which is and good is that which helps everything grow and means that things will be better for the future than they are now.
quote:And if you want to continue that line of personal attack, take it to hell. My belief is closer to that of the Socratic comment of the unexamined life not being worth living. (Which is a significant overstatement). I believe I have a responsibility to try to assess my own beliefs and conclusions.
Well, yes. You're an atheist. Of course you didn't find God in any of those places.
It's possible that you didn't find God because there is no God to be found. It is also possible that you didn't find God because each of your tests is rooted in the firm conviction that everything you are about to experience is a load of bollix. Don't be surprised if you find yourself drawing the Joker each time you stack the deck.
quote:Honestly, to me the primary positive contribution Christianity has made towards humanity that would not have been made under the systems humanity has replaced has been intellectual. I believe that Christianity does not and has never held a lock on compassion. But what a dominant monotheist system has brought is Sic et Non. The belief that with a single Creator (as opposed to many Gods) things need to be consistent. You don't get a discontinuity between the works of Chronos and that of Rhea. That of Zeus and that of Poseidon. There was one creator, by whom all things were made and without whom was not anything made which was made. Which means you can systematically approach the universe rather than merely collect facts. The Enlightenment therefore, I believe, needed to come out of a Monotheistic system and is a fruit of Christianity.
One other thing. What do you think is the primary positive contribution that Christianity has made towards humanity? (Obviously for you it's not care for the poor, architecture, or keeping up with the Zeitgeist.)
quote:I've heard this argument before.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The belief that with a single Creator (as opposed to many Gods) things need to be consistent. You don't get a discontinuity between the works of Chronos and that of Rhea. That of Zeus and that of Poseidon. There was one creator, by whom all things were made and without whom was not anything made which was made. Which means you can systematically approach the universe rather than merely collect facts. The Enlightenment therefore, I believe, needed to come out of a Monotheistic system and is a fruit of Christianity.
quote:Two and a half thousand? Monotheism was fringe before Constantine the Great legalised Christianity in about 300 AD. But simple Monotheism isn't sufficient - two other factors are ones I'd consider necessary for The Enlightenment. The first is either the Printing Press (European re-invention in 1440). The second is that you share a central framework, but not a central list of answers.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've heard this argument before.
I find it a bit odd tho.....
I mean, it makes sense in a way.
But why did it take over two and a half thousand years to develop if indeed Monotheism was the driving force?
quote:It doesn't assume them either in the way polytheism does.
Also, Monotheism does not preclude non-rational or inconsistent elements.
quote:Personally I prefer Godel - even in as pure a rationalist world as algebra there are unprovable statements.
Yet if you go full circle. You can certainly see that Science is indeed limited by reason as well.
quote:For once I agree with you. We're back to square 1 only in the sense that the wheel is rolling and the angle repeats.
So perhaps we are back to square one?
But no. I don't think we are entirely.
quote:I know this is stating the obvious, but any positive contributions from people belonging to any religion are just that - contributions from people.
One other thing. What do you think is the primary positive contribution that Christianity has made towards humanity?
quote:In the 1600s, universal education was brought in in Scotland. This was motivated by the Reformation and was so that everyone would have sufficient literacy to read the Bible for themselves and so seek a personal Christianity.
Justinian:
The start of the Enlightenment is normally estimated between 1650-1700.
quote:Oh, it is known. Mathematics is provably incomplete. I've already cited Godel's Theorem which pretty much proves exactly this - that in any field big enough to contain arithmetic there are statements it is impossible to know the truth of.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
Logic and mathematics can prove things starting from sets of consistent premises. But it is not even known whether mathematics is incomplete or inconsistent.
quote:That's about right. Science can't definitely say "It is this." What it can do - and no small achievement - is say "It isn't this."
Science doesn't in fact prove anything. A scientific theory is always a conditional explanation for observed facts. Note that when recent experiments seemed to indicate faster than light travel by photons, scientists didn't say, "it's impossible, we've PROVED that nothing travels faster than light." It was simply inconsistent with known experiments and theories and if it was proved true (it seems now there may have been bad wiring somewhere) the theories would have to be revised.
quote:I think it does pretty well at all the above - with psych beign the least effective. The core problem with ecology is the amount of money spent by vested financial interests trying to corrupt it.
What is also very notable is that science starts to struggle badly as it moves away from physics and chemistry through biology to ecology and psychology.
quote:You miss two points. First, the biggest problem in economics being effective is the corruption of the discipline. Second, what makes you think economics is a science? Rather than an answer to the oldest question in moral philosophy - the search for a superior justification for self-interest?
From in fact the inanimate to the animate. By the time you get to sociology there is little one would point to that could be trumpeted as a scientific "truth" and economics was invented to make astrology look good
quote:Simple answer. Twitter is ephimera. The Creator if he is anything like that which is preached by Christianity is a large consistent entity whose thumb prints should be all over creation. Unfortunately the more closely people look at the supposed work of the Creator, the more likely they are to conclude that he's not there.
Why should we expect science to have anything remotely useful to say about questions of spiritual revelation or indeed one's personal relationship with the Creator of the universe and life? It can't even predict what's going to trend on Twitter tomorrow.
quote:Can you explain why you link spirituality so very closely with religious belief? I would say that 'spirituality' includes ideas and appreciation of arts, emotions etc, all of which people of all beliefs, and none, have. I am confident that I have my fair share of spirituality, but the difference between being a believer with it and a non-believer with it is that now I enjoy the feelings more in the knowledge that they are well within the capabilities of my own brain and have, in fact, never had any input from a God/god.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
...and somewhere along the line you throw spirituality out as well.
<snip>
Why should we expect science to have anything remotely useful to say about questions of spiritual revelation ...
quote:You are confusing the physical with the spiritual again.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Creator if he is anything like that which is preached by Christianity is a large consistent entity whose thumb prints should be all over creation. Unfortunately the more closely people look at the supposed work of the Creator, the more likely they are to conclude that he's not there.
This leads to the obvious question: If the Creator actually exists, why does he hide so completely from those who study his work?
quote:Not at all. Creation is a physical thing. If you were to claim you had a God who created the soul and had nothing to do with the creation of the universe then you would have a point about the creator.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You are confusing the physical with the spiritual again.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Creator if he is anything like that which is preached by Christianity is a large consistent entity whose thumb prints should be all over creation. Unfortunately the more closely people look at the supposed work of the Creator, the more likely they are to conclude that he's not there.
This leads to the obvious question: If the Creator actually exists, why does he hide so completely from those who study his work?
Science does not provide philosophical and spiritual answers. It provides mechanisms to discover physical things.
That's why it is not in competition with religion.
quote:?
Originally posted by Justinian:
Not at all. Creation is a physical thing. If you were to claim you had a God who created the soul and had nothing to do with the creation of the universe then you would have a point about the creator.
quote:Haven't you just contradicted yourself there?
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also science is concerned with that which is and that which is repeatably. Any time you can get predictable answers there goes science.
quote:It's not a system of philosophical or spiritual answers. Its a system of discovering physical explanations (in the physical sciences) and psychosocial explanations (in the sciences like psychology).
Originally posted by Justinian:
It goes anywhere there is rhyme or reason because it is as much a methodology as a system of answers.
quote:No they don't. Science is about "What and How" rather than the "Why" of philosophy or the "Who" of spirituality and theology. On the other hand the "Why" must answer the "What" and the "How" - if it doesn't thn it is wrong. And one of the answers necessary for the "Who" to be valid is "Someone who would do the how necessary to make the what."
Originally posted by Evensong:
As you know, I believe God created so the physical is part of God's creation.
In terms of the physical sciences, we just discover the physical processes God has instituted when we do them.
And they are amazing and beautiful. Which is why I was initially drawn to Biology as a discipline.
But the sciences provide no philosophical or spirtual answers.
quote:Tell it to the astronomers and astrophysicists.
The physical sciences indeed rest on the reproduction of controlled experiments.
Predictable answers to those experiments are what makes the physical sciences.
quote:Your logic is faulty. If science and religion are orthogonal (you don't mean mutually exclusive unless you mean that no one can be a scientist and religious) then hard line atheism can fill the religion part nicely. And as such materialistic atheism would work nicely - it has both the scientific component and the religious one answered. Hard line atheism does answer all your questions - it answers "Faulty Premises" or "Mu" to almost all of them.
Hence science and religion are not mutually exclusive as I said before.
And hence why materialistic atheism is a worldview that is insufficient.
quote:I think not. Godel's incompleteness theorems leave it open whether mathematics, which certainly contains *all* consistent axiomatic systems containing Peano's axioms (arithmetic), is in fact consistent. If mathematics contains an inconsistent statement, i.e. a proposition P which is true and whose negation is also true, then it (all of mathematics) is complete. All statements Q can be proved.
Justinian:
quote:Oh, it is known. Mathematics is provably incomplete. I've already cited Godel's Theorem which pretty much proves exactly this - that in any field big enough to contain arithmetic there are statements it is impossible to know the truth of.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
Logic and mathematics can prove things starting from sets of consistent premises. But it is not even known whether mathematics is incomplete or inconsistent.
quote:I don't think it is controversial to link spirituality with religious belief. I was certainly not saying it was exclusively the product of religious belief. In fact I was saying that a strand of Protestant belief taken to its ultimate exclusion denies or rejects spirituality.
Susan Doris:
quote:
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
...and somewhere along the line you throw spirituality out as well.
<snip>
Why should we expect science to have anything remotely useful to say about questions of spiritual revelation ...
quote:
Can you explain why you link spirituality so very closely with religious belief? I would say that 'spirituality' includes ideas and appreciation of arts, emotions etc, all of which people of all beliefs, and none, have. I am confident that I have my fair share of spirituality, but the difference between being a believer with it and a non-believer with it is that now I enjoy the feelings more in the knowledge that they are well within the capabilities of my own brain and have, in fact, never had any input from a God/god.
quote:It is exactly this kind of smug self-righteousness that irritates me about hard line atheism. These are at bottom value judgements dressed up in pseudo-logical or pseudo-scientific clothing.
Justinian:
Hard line atheism does answer all your questions - it answers "Faulty Premises" or "Mu" to almost all of them.
quote:Maybe as a Christian you should just accept it as the sincerest form of flattery.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
It is exactly this kind of smug self-righteousness that irritates me about hard line atheism.
quote:That earlier thread doesn't actually answer the question so your question is a diversion more than anything else.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:There was a separate discussion on
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Let's take genocide as an example seeing as you've brought it up. Your problem is that according to the Bible, which is the evidence for this being and what his objective morality is, God ordered the massacre of all of the Amalekites, men, women and children plus flocks, i.e. genocide. So taking the direct instructions of the source of your objective morality as a guide, genocide would seem to be a Good at least some of the time.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Just to add to your point... Justinian actually believes what we both do - that objective moral values exist. Trouble is, I can't see where he objectively grounds them. They can't exist in society (the Nazis thought genocide was doing the world a favour). Do they exist as a concept (grounded where?). Might they possibly exist in a being who is the the ground of all morality?
If there is no objective morality then perhaps genocide is no more than morally neutral. But that still seems to me to be a considerable step up from an objective morality that conceives that it can be morally positive.
this specific issue.
But the question remains PC - do you believe in objective moral values and, if so, where would you ground them?
quote:Exactly where they are in any other religious outlook. Hard line atheism isn't something I see as justifiable based on the evidence.
Originally posted by Full of Chips:
It is exactly this kind of smug self-righteousness that irritates me about hard line atheism. These are at bottom value judgements dressed up in pseudo-logical or pseudo-scientific clothing.
Where are the precise definitions, the carefully designed scientific experiments that materialism requires to say anything at all? (and let's not get into how it rationally justifies itself in the first place.)
quote:OK. If you're going to disagree with me, disagree with the full sentence. The clause you've ignored is "if he is anything like that which is preached by Christianity". Hawking is not saying anything about a remotely interventionist God. What is being talked about is that we can't see past the Big Bang therefore Deism is entirely possible. A God who set the universe in motion then left it alone.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Justinian wrote 'The Creator if he is anything like that which is preached by Christianity is a large consistent entity whose thumb prints should be all over creation. Unfortunately the more closely people look at the supposed work of the Creator, the more likely they are to conclude that he's not there.'
I must confess I did wonder whose these 'people' might be? Let's look at a non-theistic scientist who's has a good look at the issue. Stephen Hawking recognises that the very possibility of the universe having a beginning opens up the possibility of a God who created it. As he says: "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God." He also appreciates there is an a priori philosophical issue why some people have a problem with this when he writes: 'Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.' (A Brief History of Time p46).
quote:Over the last century we've also seen the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Theory. Who says this is the only universe?
Over the last century we have seen discovery of the astonishing way that the universe is precision-tuned to be life permitting.
quote:On the other hand we do not know that this is the only universe.
The likelihood of a life-prohibiting universe is fantastically *more* probable than one that's life permitting.
quote:Impossible to write down? 10^-123 does the job nicely.
Penrose invites us to imagine a creator, pin in hand, choosing the phase space to start a low entropy universe. The right area of space to hit with his pin is absolutely tiny - one part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. He writes: 'In the ordinary denary notation; it would be '1' followed by 10 to the power of 123 successive '0's!" (Roger Penrose The Emperor's New Mind (New York: Penguin books 1991), p344.) The number is impossible physically to write down.
quote:Or maybe that it was the British Olympic team.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
You might even conclude that they missed deliberately.
quote:You might find it slightly odd. But it's elementary Bayesian Statistics. It's also basic classical statistics that you can't backdate questions like this.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Justinian. You suggested "The second is how to do retrospective statistics. Classical statistics are irrelevant here - you can't do classical statistics after the event has already happened. We need Bayesian Statistics. What is the probability that the universe is life-supporting given that there are living entities to ask this question."
I find this a slightly odd argument on a couple of counts. Clearly professional mathematicians such as Hoyle found the probability argument as rather compelling.
quote:But this is part of the point. When you step in front of the firing squad you are able to say "Only deliberate missing, loading with blanks, or a miracle will save me now". And then after they've missed you check. You must always formulate the hypothesis before you check using classical statistics. Otherwise the result is as meaningless as "I saw a car with the numberplate QZE 589 K this morning. The odds on seeing that car are one in millions. It's a miracle!"
And the fact that we are hear to ask the question doesn't lessen the question. Imagine (heaven forbid) you are stood before a firing squad of 50 Olympic standard marxmen, armed with high velocity rifles at a range of 10 feet. On the command to Fire! they discharge their loaded weapons. They all miss.
Now you could shrug your shoulders and say "Oh we'll, I'm still here to notice they missed". More likely you would ask how it happened you were still there.
You might even conclude that they missed deliberately.
quote:Now this is where we differ. I don't see God as non-interventionist. God is not "make it and leave it" as Descartian physics pronounces.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The "What" is the Universe. The "How" is, so far as we can tell "A method indistinguishable from not acting at all inside the bounds of the universe". Therefore the Who must account for non-interventionism at the very least.
quote:I suspect that they learnt the scientific method in year 10 ( as I did) so they hardly require telling.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Tell it to the astronomers and astrophysicists.
The physical sciences indeed rest on the reproduction of controlled experiments.
Predictable answers to those experiments are what makes the physical sciences.
quote:What?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Your logic is faulty. If science and religion are orthogonal (you don't mean mutually exclusive unless you mean that no one can be a scientist and religious) then hard line atheism can fill the religion part nicely. And as such materialistic atheism would work nicely - it has both the scientific component and the religious one answered. Hard line atheism does answer all your questions - it answers "Faulty Premises" or "Mu" to almost all of them.
Hence science and religion are not mutually exclusive as I said before.
And hence why materialistic atheism is a worldview that is insufficient.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:And this is where I have a real problem with what you are claiming. The second God acts in a way that impacts the material universe then the results of those actions can be investigated. They are subject to "What" and "How". Which means God's actions are subject to scientific investigation. The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Now this is where we differ. I don't see God as non-interventionist. God is not "make it and leave it" as Descartian physics pronounces.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The "What" is the Universe. The "How" is, so far as we can tell "A method indistinguishable from not acting at all inside the bounds of the universe". Therefore the Who must account for non-interventionism at the very least.
We seem to be treading old paths again and again.!
quote:And yet actual astrophysical experiments are very hard work. We can't create stars right here on earth. What we have to rely on is 99% observation.
quote:I suspect that they learnt the scientific method in year 10 ( as I did) so they hardly require telling.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Tell it to the astronomers and astrophysicists.
The physical sciences indeed rest on the reproduction of controlled experiments.
Predictable answers to those experiments are what makes the physical sciences.
quote:Oh, it answers the questions you claim it doesn't. It answers them by saying that what you are asking is in contradiction with the universe. Here. I'll demonstrate a few.
What?
Materialistic atheism answers no questions beyond some answers to physical questions.
It answers nothing about difficult questions, religion or beyond.
quote:She wouldn't be the first, not by a long way!
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:And yet actual astrophysical experiments are very hard work. We can't create stars right here on earth. What we have to rely on is 99% observation.
quote:I suspect that they learnt the scientific method in year 10 ( as I did) so they hardly require telling.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Tell it to the astronomers and astrophysicists.
The physical sciences indeed rest on the reproduction of controlled experiments.
Predictable answers to those experiments are what makes the physical sciences.
Now are you claiming that astronomers and astrophysicists aren't scientists?
quote:Er, no.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.
quote:So love is the same as atheism then?
Originally posted by Justinian:
R/S: "What is love."
MA: "A chemical imbalance in the brain."
quote:To echo Ramarius' thought, I'm struggling to see how the "Many Worlds" interpretation is different in any substantial way than positing a Creator since it's completely untestable.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Over the last century we've also seen the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Theory. Who says this is the only universe?
Over the last century we have seen discovery of the astonishing way that the universe is precision-tuned to be life permitting.
quote:On the other hand we do not know that this is the only universe.
The likelihood of a life-prohibiting universe is fantastically *more* probable than one that's life permitting.
quote:God IMPACTS the material universe by creating it and continues to impact it by sustaining it.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:And this is where I have a real problem with what you are claiming. The second God acts in a way that impacts the material universe then the results of those actions can be investigated.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Now this is where we differ. I don't see God as non-interventionist. God is not "make it and leave it" as Descartian physics pronounces.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The "What" is the Universe. The "How" is, so far as we can tell "A method indistinguishable from not acting at all inside the bounds of the universe". Therefore the Who must account for non-interventionism at the very least.
We seem to be treading old paths again and again.!
quote:Only if you are a pantheist and believe God is ONLY present in creation and not transcendent of it as well.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.
quote:99% observation?
Originally posted by Justinian:
And yet actual astrophysical experiments are very hard work. We can't create stars right here on earth. What we have to rely on is 99% observation.
Now are you claiming that astronomers and astrophysicists aren't scientists?
quote:Ah yes. Nihilism is so good at answering difficult questions.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, it answers the questions you claim it doesn't. It answers them by saying that what you are asking is in contradiction with the universe. Here. I'll demonstrate a few.
R/S: "What is the nature of the soul?"
MA: "Mu. We don't have souls."
R/S: "Why was the universe Created?"
MA: "Mu. It came into being every bit as uncaused by your creator."
R/S: "What is love."
MA: "A chemical imbalance in the brain."
R/S: "If the Norns control the destinies of all men, how do you claim to have free will?"
MA: "Mu. The Norns don't exist."
Does that explain how it works? Or would you like to try a few more questions? You might not like to be told that to a hardline materialistic atheist, your questions are about as relevant as "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" But that is a legitimate answer to a question.
quote:It may not be repeatable. But the actions will be measurable and stick out like a sore thumb. If there had been a Flood, we'd be able to see it in the fossil record. If there had been six days of creation then the whole universe would reflect that. If there had been real miracles then they would get more not less miraculous the better the instruments trained on them.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Er, no.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.
You were the one who cited repeatability as the bedrock of the scientific method. By definition, if God is 'outside the system' then any direct intervention will not be repeatable.
quote:God persists. That is not the same as acting.
Originally posted by Evensong:
God IMPACTS the material universe by creating it and continues to impact it by sustaining it.
The results of some of those actions are indeed being investigated.
That's what science is.
quote:If God is immanent then that can be investigated irrespective of whether or not God is transcendent.
Only if you are a pantheist and believe God is ONLY present in creation and not transcendent of it as well.
Orthodox Christianity believes God is both immanent AND transcendent.
quote:Science proves nothing to be true. It merely winnows away the false Your point?
99% observation?
Oh dear. No. It doesn't sound like they are scientists at all. Sounds like it's all conjecture. Nothing proven.
quote:When one of the most important theological questions over the centuries has been the Omphalos ("Did Adam have a navel?") then there is at least a swimming pool's worth of bathwater to be thrown out. There might be a baby in there. But the closer that he looks, the less likely.
Ah yes. Nihilism is so good at answering difficult questions.
Because it rejects they exist.
Gotcha.
A wonderfully coherent philosophy.
So wonderfully coherent even its creator Nietzsche had to demure and develop a Superman.
quote:Of course. Bayesian statistics is explicitely dependent on your prior model and then iteratively updating it.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian. Oddly enough, the Bayesian approach has been used to hypothesise that it's more likely that God exists than that he doesn't.
quote:My answer is based on two observations.
Your best alternative to a creator seems to be multiverses - a metaphysical approach if there was one.
quote:I'd have to ask what they meant by "A deity".
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian wrote: 'I can not rule out a God - but if there is one I believe deism or local-polytheism are both far more in line with the evidence than anything monotheistic.'
So just to develop this... An agnostic, actively exploring the question whether God exists, asks you (without prejudice to your own conclusions) for the evidence you have identified for the existence of deity. To what evidence would you point them?
quote:In the section of your post I quoted you referred to 'the evidence.' What evidence did you have in mind?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:I'd have to ask what they meant by "A deity".
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian wrote: 'I can not rule out a God - but if there is one I believe deism or local-polytheism are both far more in line with the evidence than anything monotheistic.'
So just to develop this... An agnostic, actively exploring the question whether God exists, asks you (without prejudice to your own conclusions) for the evidence you have identified for the existence of deity. To what evidence would you point them?
quote:Would they?
Originally posted by Justinian:
If there had been real miracles then they would get more not less miraculous the better the instruments trained on them.
quote:IIRC, in a previous discussion, we had stats showing that the rate of "miracles" at Lourdes is lower than the usual rate of spontaneous remission. Which makes sense if miracles are expected to be exceedingly rare, but also means admitting that most "miraculous" cures are assumed to have a naturalistic explanation, for which, as they say, "further research is needed." OliviaG
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... Whenever there are tales about cancer tumours miraculously disappearing often the doctors get embarrassed and talk about a mistake in the initial tests, or whatever. But of course they would, wouldn't they? ...
quote:I'm of the opinion that religion is rooted in a human cognitive trait - the attribution of agency. This is a survival trait - if you see leaves moving, it might be because a predator is stalking you, or it might be the prey you are looking for. We are hard-wired to assume that if something happens, something did it. I believe this leads humans to attribute supernatural agency to unexplained phenomena, and formal religion "evolves" as a result of our other innate social drives - strengthening group identity and cohesion, setting behavioural norms, creating scapegoats, establishing social rank and roles, etc. All my own idle speculation, of course.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... (BTW Am I to conclude that atheists have a chemical imbalance in their brains?)
quote:Personal accounts. Claims of miracles. The cause of the universe and why the numbers are in the band they are. I don't believe any of them to hold balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt, and I believe most of them to look shakier the more you know about them. But inconclusive evidence is not no evidence.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In the section of your post I quoted you referred to 'the evidence.' What evidence did you have in mind?
quote:Actually, Lourdes would be a good example of what I'm not including as miracles - partly because it is claiming that miracles can be expected there (which contradicts the definition of miracles used) and partly because I think passages like John 5 implicitly such practices.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
IIRC, in a previous discussion, we had stats showing that the rate of "miracles" at Lourdes is lower than the usual rate of spontaneous remission. Which makes sense if miracles are expected to be exceedingly rare, but also means admitting that most "miraculous" cures are assumed to have a naturalistic explanation, for which, as they say, "further research is needed." OliviaG
quote:I'm not sure if you have got my concern. From a naturalistic world view we can come up with possible origins for religious or non-religious thought.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I'm of the opinion that religion is rooted in a human cognitive trait - the attribution of agency. This is a survival trait - if you see leaves moving, it might be because a predator is stalking you, or it might be the prey you are looking for. We are hard-wired to assume that if something happens, something did it. I believe this leads humans to attribute supernatural agency to unexplained phenomena, and formal religion "evolves" as a result of our other innate social drives - strengthening group identity and cohesion, setting behavioural norms, creating scapegoats, establishing social rank and roles, etc. All my own idle speculation, of course.
IME, there are many people who are prepared to accept the supernatural, but it is when they are expected to accept specific supernatural beliefs that they get stuck. So, e.g. there is a Creator, but Jesus wasn't born of a virgin or raised from the dead. I think the demolition of so many doctrinally specific beliefs (e.g. the flood, geocentrism) has shifted people to a more deistic default position. And of course, this is only in my own environment - I know there are plenty of places where religion still thrives with medieval intensity. Cheers, OliviaG
quote:You reckon?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So again we are back to the position where we have to concede that atheism isn't doing very well and never has in global terms. Agnosticism possibly, but not atheism. It's no good saying that the meme of atheism is slowly gaining ground and will, in thousands of years (cf. evolution), eventually take over.
quote:I long, long, long wanted to re-write Paley's version of the design argument, but instead of the eye, to use evolution as the evidence. I never had the time and finally motivation to do it justice and a half done piece of work really isn't worth doing.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, evolution is a bugger for theists, since it is unplanned (although not random). It seems difficult to marry this with any idea of an intelligent source or creator, who presumably has some kind of teleology going on.
quote:Absolutely no need, I'll bet!!
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I know of only one avowed atheist in my circle of acquaintances but my children frighten me a bit.
quote:Sounds to me as if he's on exactly the right track to becoming an excellent critical thinker, who wil always take all questions to a logical conclusion as far as possible, think, 'We don't know yet' if he ends up with a question mark, and should obviously do very well!!! May I also suggest that he looks at the British Humanist Association's web site? He probably already knows about the NSS.
The one goes to a public school for the academically gifted and has one close friend that is an avowed atheist (this is at age 13) and another influential acquaintance that certainly seems to color his thinking as well.
quote:Well, the first part is correct, the second, as an intelligent boy, he'll look at all aspects, both good and bad of what people have done in the name of their religious beliefs.
He comes home and tells me how Hitler was a Christian and religion is therefore the epitome of evil.
quote:Well, the young people he's with have all the up-to-date world news at their fingertips on the internet and will not remain in ignorance about what has come to light in recent years of what's gone on in the RC church.
The second son attends a private Catholic school and does not come home with the same thoughts nor argues with me but says in offhand comments things like : "I'm destined to be an atheist - I've attended a Catholic school for six years".
quote:Progress!!! Okay, that's a bit flippant, but I'm serious too.
What gives?
quote:How can it be otherwise when they have access to mountains of info on the internet about scientific research, astronomy, latest discoveries in medicine, etc etc. I would be interested to read where you think atheism is illogical.
I certainly think atheism is on the ascendency in the younger generation: regardless of how logical or illogical it is.
quote:You and I have had this discussion before SusanDoris. And I have just had it on this thread all over again and then some with Justinian.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How can it be otherwise when they have access to mountains of info on the internet about scientific research, astronomy, latest discoveries in medicine, etc etc. I would be interested to read where you think atheism is illogical.
quote:What gives, and I'm dead serious, is that the Churches have lost just about any claim to moral leadership that they once had amongst the young.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I know of only one avowed atheist in my circle of acquaintances but my children frighten me a bit.
The one goes to a public school for the academically gifted and has one close friend that is an avowed atheist (this is at age 13) and another influential acquaintance that certainly seems to color his thinking as well.
He comes home and tells me how Hitler was a Christian and religion is therefore the epitome of evil.
The second son attends a private Catholic school and does not come home with the same thoughts nor argues with me but says in offhand comments things like : "I'm destined to be an atheist - I've attended a Catholic school for six years".
What gives?
quote:The Discovery Institute has been trying to do this for years - it's the fundamental principle behind the Intelligent Design hypothesis. They've got nowhere.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I long, long, long wanted to re-write Paley's version of the design argument, but instead of the eye, to use evolution as the evidence. I never had the time and finally motivation to do it justice and a half done piece of work really isn't worth doing.
quote:You misunderstand Paley is a brilliant piece of writing, but there is no reason why the example needs to be the eye, anything that works well in the universe will do, including evolution. Evolution is part of the Universe, nothing more, nothing less. Is the production line that creates a swiss watch any less designed than the watch itself? I don't need to adapt Paley's argument to take into account evolution, I just want to share some delight in the way evolution works, how as a process it is well designed for purpose. I might even borrow some of Dawkin's own purple on how stupendous evolution is.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Just to clarify my previous comment, I am deliberately overstating the case on "what gives" in order to provide a clearer illustration.
quote:The Discovery Institute has been trying to do this for years - it's the fundamental principle behind the Intelligent Design hypothesis. They've got nowhere.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I long, long, long wanted to re-write Paley's version of the design argument, but instead of the eye, to use evolution as the evidence. I never had the time and finally motivation to do it justice and a half done piece of work really isn't worth doing.
quote:You mean hundreds.
Originally posted by Evensong:
You reckon?
IME there are lots of vocal atheists online.
quote:Was the hyperbole deliberate?
Originally posted by Evensong:
A newspaper article with a religious slant will have a billion responses - most of them from atheists bemoaning the stupidity and bigotry of the position (regardless of how stupid or bigoted it is).
quote:I agree with you that the Church has lost a great deal of credibility and with good reason.
Originally posted by Justinian:
What gives, and I'm dead serious, is that the Churches have lost just about any claim to moral leadership that they once had amongst the young.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Justinian:
No real reason for the moderates to become Christian.
quote:I'm part Irish. I can't help it.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Was the hyperbole deliberate?
Originally posted by Evensong:
A newspaper article with a religious slant will have a billion responses - most of them from atheists bemoaning the stupidity and bigotry of the position (regardless of how stupid or bigoted it is).
quote:I agree with your general assessment of the Australian population. That has been my experience too.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The irony is that an online newspaper article will get hundreds of responses, whereas the population of the planet literally is in billions.
quote:Who said this was the first generation where this was the case? 30 years ago we were in the 1980s, and even in the 80s in Britain I'm told the Church was about the last acceptable bastion of overt homophobia. Which means that teenagers now are regularly kids who were teenagers in the 80s.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I agree with you that the Church has lost a great deal of credibility and with good reason.
I don't think this is entirely a phenomenon amongst the young tho. In fact, I suspect the young people of today don't know much at all about Christianity bar the bad press it receives in difficult areas like sexuality.
quote:And instead the Church offers the Alpha Course.
I've heard it said that Gen Y are actually desperate for spirituality......
quote:Really? All the active atheists I know have read the bible. In fact many of the active atheists I know became athiests through reading the bible and thinking that the petty, genocidal tyrant who sent plagues to Egypt just to show off, explicitely mind controlling Pharaoh to give himself an excuse (or pick any other OT atrocity or genocide mandated by God) was not something worth following.
Much easier to take up the banner of anti-homophobia etc as an atheist rather than a Christian tho hey if you've never been in a church or ever picked up the bible in the first place....
quote:Not proven.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Justinian:
No real reason for the moderates to become Christian.
Besides God.
quote:In my defence I've read your post on a number of occasions and I don't understand the distinction you are making between Evil and evil. Could you please try again? Dumb it down for me. Right down.
Originally posted by Justinian:
That is because you are not reading.[ I don't believe in EVIL. Evil happens. The holocaust was evil. Paedophilia is evil. Torture is evil. They all cause manifest harm.
quote:Take it to hell. See if I care
Originally posted by Justinian:
And if you want to continue that line of personal attack, take it to hell.
But before you do perhaps you should first consider the possibility that whatever nastiness you read out of my post was first read into it by yourself. In other words, I am innocent.quote:Thank you. That is very interesting.
Honestly, to me the primary positive contribution Christianity has made towards humanity that would not have been made under the systems humanity has replaced has been intellectual. I believe that Christianity does not and has never held a lock on compassion. But what a dominant monotheist system has brought is Sic et Non. The belief that with a single Creator (as opposed to many Gods) things need to be consistent. You don't get a discontinuity between the works of Chronos and that of Rhea. That of Zeus and that of Poseidon. There was one creator, by whom all things were made and without whom was not anything made which was made. Which means you can systematically approach the universe rather than merely collect facts. The Enlightenment therefore, I believe, needed to come out of a Monotheistic system and is a fruit of Christianity.
quote:Not all social change is social progress. And not all progress is opposed by the church (whatever "the church" means.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Church has been one of the bastions holding out against social progress for an entire generation.
quote:Although, logically atheism needs to accept that if that is all there is, then it is simply a product of human nature, and we have no particular reason to believe our current take on the issue is any better - we just happen to like it more at the moment.
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QB All the active atheists I know have read the bible. In fact many of the active atheists I know became athiests through reading the bible and thinking that the petty, genocidal tyrant who sent plagues to Egypt just to show off, explicitely mind controlling Pharaoh to give himself an excuse (or pick any other OT atrocity or genocide mandated by God) was not something worth following.
Actually reading the Bible is a brilliant conversion tool for militant atheists.
quote:Yes, I suppose we have, but I do find the discussions and their variations very interesting always, and don't think I'll tire of them for quite a long time to come!!
Originally posted by Evensong:
You and I have had this discussion before, SusanDoris. And I have just had it on this thread all over again and then some with Justinian.
quote:Hmmmm, yes, but if one has been a believer (as I was) and gradually moved to becoming a non-believer because of what I see as better and rational, answers to the questions that used to be 'god', then I think the belief will be less frequent as time goes on. I have seen discussions about this where figures are given of scientists who still believe, but I haven't got the links I'm afraid.
To be brief, information on scientific research, astronomy, and the latest discoveries in medicine etc etc. in no way negate a belief in God.
quote:But why should it? It is a human question and we ask it because of how we have evolved. To do so must have been a survival strategy. Logically, there is no purpose of any sort for life of any kind; so we set our own purposes. Life just started and then evolved, adapting and playing catch-up to changing conditions and becoming extinct if this was not done. The question of where we came from goes back to the begining of cell replication and although what came before the start of the universe is of course an unknown at present, to put God at that point of creation creates a whole new set of infinite regression puzzles, I think.
Atheism is illogical because it doesn't follow through the natural question of where we came from and why we are here.
quote:I suppose it could easily come across that way, but I can only assure you this is not so! At my age there is no point in being obstinate. I'll try and think of a way to demonstrate this.....!!
Originally posted by Anselmina:
SusanDoris, you don't appear to be very good at stepping outside of a subject and looking at it objectively do you?
quote:I do not call this 'wish fulfilment', but yes, I hope that the sooner people move away from superstition to (*hesitates over choice of next word*) evidenced reality, the better. In the meantime, I look at things as they are, knowing that I can do little to make a change.
A child has a friend - another child - who is an atheist and your wish-fulfilment scenarios hit the jackpot.
quote:I wouldn't call it such a 'little world'. I'm a radio 4 listener and the non-believers are having a much greater say than they used to and cases challenging religious dogmas are more in the news too. And as I think I saw in another post here, the majority of people are not interested in the question at all.
Instead of packing him off into your own little world of unbelief ...
quote:I do not think it is unusual and am not surprised.
...and 'the right way to think', just concentrate on trying not to get too excited at the thought that the child of a Christian mother has friends who think differently to the mother. It actually happens a lot more than it appears you think it does.
quote:Yes, agreed.
What is illogical about atheism? How about no proof that you're right about God/god?
<snip>
Even Dawkins has to admit he hasn't nailed that one yet.
quote:I have seen links to documentary, factual evidence of this, but I don't keep a list.
And whether one believes Hitler was a Christian, of course, depends on what one believes a Christian is. You appear to know Hitler was a Christian for which I'm sure you have very solid and evidential reasons.
quote:As a young person with research skills that I'll certainly never have, I hope he will seek for evidence for the things he wants to know.
Maybe when Evensong's son has figured out whether or not he believes Hitler was a Christian and whether or not he also behaved as a Christian, ...
quote:Here again he is obviously not going to accept this and other exaggerated claims without evidence to back them up.
...maybe he can help his atheist friends to review their conclusion that Christianity is the epitome of evil ...
quote:As an inteligent boy, with interested, intelligent parents, who are obviously constantly engaged in discussion as a family, he is not going to be in any way a gullible person.
...because Hitler was; as this does seem to be the 'colouring' of their influence on the child.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:Not proven.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Justinian:
No real reason for the moderates to become Christian.
Besides God.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Cute theory.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But why should it? It is a human question and we ask it because of how we have evolved. To do so must have been a survival strategy. Logically, there is no purpose of any sort for life of any kind; so we set our own purposes. Life just started and then evolved, adapting and playing catch-up to changing conditions and becoming extinct if this was not done.
Atheism is illogical because it doesn't follow through the natural question of where we came from and why we are here.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I agree with your general assessment of the Australian population. That has been my experience too.
But I have noticed that online there is a bigger representation of atheists than the stats reflect in the normal population .
I guess I find that curious.
Perhaps its a demographic thing....the young are more online than other segments of society.
I thought you wanted to get involved in church work? Haven't you realised yet that the loudest voices are always those against (whatever). The phrase 'silent majority' didn't arise by chance ... it was created.
quote:Yes, it was created by political spin doctors who were in the minority and wanted to claim that somehow this wasn't the case. In fact those spin doctors were part of a very vocal minority, and were hoping to suggest that there was a huge number of people who agreed with their idiocy, but chose to keep silent about it while every person opposed them was busy chatting away. It was every bit as disingenuous as that sounds.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The phrase 'silent majority' didn't arise by chance ... it was created.
quote:Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.
quote:Not really. There are many theists who see God as creating the mechanism of evolution through which he expresses his creative and designing power.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, evolution is a bugger for theists, since it is unplanned (although not random). It seems difficult to marry this with any idea of an intelligent source or creator, who presumably has some kind of teleology going on.
quote:Er, Tom. That was my point.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Yes, it was created by political spin doctors who were in the minority and wanted to claim that somehow this wasn't the case. In fact those spin doctors were part of a very vocal minority, and were hoping to suggest that there was a huge number of people who agreed with their idiocy, but chose to keep silent about it while every person opposed them was busy chatting away. It was every bit as disingenuous as that sounds.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The phrase 'silent majority' didn't arise by chance ... it was created.
--Tom Clune
quote:EVIL is supernatural. It is an absolute scale. This doesn't exist, and the attempt to force in the supernatural simply destroys discernment - although not necessarily as much as the doctrine of hell (itself an example of EVIL being used does).
Originally posted by Squibs:
In my defence I've read your post on a number of occasions and I don't understand the distinction you are making between Evil and evil. Could you please try again? Dumb it down for me. Right down.
quote:The orca is sentient but not sapient. Seriously diminished responsibility.
If Torture is evil then what are we to say about the orca whale who plays with its prey - tossing the poor cartwheeling beast through the air before it is torn in two? Is the orca doing evil? Surely it is causing manifest harm to the seal. Or do we first need some knowledge of evil - a belief if you will - for a given act to be evil?
quote:Not all social change is social progress. However some, like equal rights, is. And although not all churches have opposed equal rights for women or gay people, most of the people openly opposing equal rights are basing their objections on religious teachings.
quote:Not all social change is social progress. And not all progress is opposed by the church (whatever "the church" means.
Originally posted by Squibs:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Justinian:
[qb] The Church has been one of the bastions holding out against social progress for an entire generation.
quote:For those who want to read it, the whole op-ed can be found here. And it is an op-ed, discussing tactics and making the mistake everyone makes (I'm certainly not immune to it) of assuming everyone's like him. For that matter it is good tactics.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In a recent report from the National Center for Science Education, (which self-advertises as “the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out,” ) Daryl Domning writes:
quote:Francis Collins exists. I don't think anyone claims it's impossible to be a religious scientist. And indeed studying nature to have a better understanding of the Creator has a long and honourable tradition. However the more we study the less room we find for the fingerprints of the Creator until by now most of the arguments have pushed him back from a real Flood to right outside the unverse.
My favourite example - France's Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project
quote:Why? We have more information than ever before and can see further than ever before. And there's Occam's Razor.
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:Although, logically atheism needs to accept that if that is all there is, then it is simply a product of human nature, and we have no particular reason to believe our current take on the issue is any better - we just happen to like it more at the moment.
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QB All the active atheists I know have read the bible. In fact many of the active atheists I know became athiests through reading the bible and thinking that the petty, genocidal tyrant who sent plagues to Egypt just to show off, explicitely mind controlling Pharaoh to give himself an excuse (or pick any other OT atrocity or genocide mandated by God) was not something worth following.
Actually reading the Bible is a brilliant conversion tool for militant atheists.
quote:Absolute rubbish!
Originally posted by Justinian:
Francis Collins exists. I don't think anyone claims it's impossible to be a religious scientist. And indeed studying nature to have a better understanding of the Creator has a long and honourable tradition. However the more we study the less room we find for the fingerprints of the Creator until by now most of the arguments have pushed him back from a real Flood to right outside the unverse.
quote:Occam was a priest you know.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And there's Occam's Razor.
quote:The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
quote:If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Or, maybe, God really is a surgeon -- and His signature is just unreadable...
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
Try engaging with the argument. It is not proven that there is no Creator. Merely extremely likely that if there is a Creator, that Creator does not want to be known. If the Creator is making itself as hidden as possible, I don't see much reason to worship it against the wishes expressed. And if there is no Creator then that is entirely consistent with matters too and there's no reason to worship.
quote:Such statements always remind me of Oolon Coluphid and his argument that the Babel fish was the ultimate proof for the non-existence of God (for instance here).
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
quote:I'm not particularly interested in arguing about evidence for God (or lack thereof), but I am interested in how you are arguing about it. Your logic is fine (although I'd modify it a bit to say that the Creator does not want to be known by means of empirical observations), but you seem to be using it to reach a predetermined conclusion, particularly from the deductions you make about what God's wishes must be. I have no problem with you doing that, and I admit to constructing arguments to reach a predetermined conclusion myself as well, but I hope you realize that the rhetorical effect is less than impressive.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
quote:To paraphrase a "Swedenborgian" lecturer I heard, God's signature would be in the angle of carbon bonds. Or to put it another way, work by Stephen Wolfram shows how incredibly complex patterns can be produced by repeated application of relatively trivial rules. God's signature for the universe would be the rules that he chose to base it on, namely the basic laws of physics and the particular values of the relevant constants that determine the precise nature of the universe that we observe. Of course, such a signature would only persuade those of us already inclined to see it as a signature.
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
More seriously, what do you think such a signature would be like?
quote:As someone who paints, thinks and campaigns - you do believe in the reality of beauty (in whatever form your aesthetics allow) and in morality and therefore evil ....
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm sorry to do the "a plague on both your houses" thing, but for either Christians or atheists to say the universe is "beautiful" is nonsense. To a Christian, the universe is fallen. To an atheist, the perception of beauty is merely a chemical in my head going "fizz", nothing more.
In fact, now I think of it, the whole discussion of evil/Evil on the previous page comes down to the same thing: "evil" happens when a chemical in somebody's head goes "fizz". And since any human being is merely a bag of chemicals, to get angry at evil is just one chemical going "fizz" in response to another chemical going "fizz".
All rather pointless, really, isn't it?
quote:To all Christians? It isn't to me.
Adeodatus: To a Christian, the universe is fallen.
quote:I would consider humanity - made in God's image - as being his signature. Not even artists, incidentally, always signed off on their work. Not sure why you think the Almighty should!
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:If I were God and I created the universe, I would sign it so people could easily tell that I created it. Since there is no such signature, clearly there cannot be a creator.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
quote:I was taking a bit of a swipe at the atheist position in that post, but actually I'm not sure I do believe in all that stuff. It depends a bit on what you mean by the reality of beauty, etc. I believe in beauty as a set of conventions, a perception, a construction. And I'm deeply interested in its perception, construction and communication. But I'm not sure about that word "reality".
Originally posted by Twangist:
As someone who paints, thinks and campaigns - you do believe in the reality of beauty (in whatever form your aesthetics allow) and in morality and therefore evil ....
quote:What do you mean more like? It is the creation of God. How can it be more like the Creation of God?
Originally posted by Justinian:
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God,
quote:Not necessarily as W Hyatt has pointed out. Depends often what your prejudices are when you look at the evidence.
Originally posted by Justinian:
then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be.
quote:More rubbish.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
quote:
A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.
quote:A plague on your house too.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm sorry to do the "a plague on both your houses" thing, but for either Christians or atheists to say the universe is "beautiful" is nonsense. To a Christian, the universe is fallen.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
quote:Then we can say it is likely God is uninterested.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:What do you mean more like? It is the creation of God. How can it be more like the Creation of God?
Originally posted by Justinian:
The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God,
quote:Your point? Three people - as against the 72% survey I mentioned of Naturalists, with the majority of the rest leaning deist rather than theist. Scientists are more atheistic than the general population, period.
quote:More rubbish.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Unfortunately neither is true. The more we know, the fewer places we see God as a group, and the more someone studies the world the less likely they are to be a theist.
Francis Collins - Head of the Genome Project - was an atheist. He was converted by his work. He is now a theist.
Off the top of my head I can think of two other scientists that were atheists but are now priests. Keith Ward and Alister McGrath.
quote:Three swallows do not make a summer. There will be conversions. Both ways. You've mentioned few enough names to count on the fingers of one hand.
I'm sure there are plenty of others that become more convinced after their scientific studies.
quote:The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different results. Given everywhere the Creator has been predicted to be and hasn't been found it's no longer that logical. And the scientists that posit a Creator lean Deist, not Theist. They as a rule posit a Creator who doesn't interfere or do much that is now relevant.
It is more logical to posit a creator than deem the world a random accident after all.
quote:It's just possible that events have moved on since Genesis 1.31.
Originally posted by Evensong:
To say the universe is fallen is gnostic heresy.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
quote:Good and fallen need not be mutually exclusive either.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:It's just possible that events have moved on since Genesis 1.31.
Originally posted by Evensong:
To say the universe is fallen is gnostic heresy.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
quote:But if you're right, someone who is "embedded in science" and a believer would have to be intellectually dishonest. Evensong's argument is a strong one that scientist see the fingerprint of God in creation *through their science* as opposed to imposing a predetermined belief on their studies.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:The more beautiful and complex the universe appears, granted. But if it were to appear more like the Creation of God, then the more scientific knowledge advances the greater the proportion of believers there would be. And the more deeply someone was embeded in science the more likely it would be that they were a believer.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Absolute rubbish!
The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!
.
quote:Yo Quetzalcoatl. You might have missed this earlier. What did you have in mind?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:It's just possible that events have moved on since Genesis 1.31.
Originally posted by Evensong:
To say the universe is fallen is gnostic heresy.
quote:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. Gen 1:31
quote:You believe the Creator hasn't been found.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given everywhere the Creator has been predicted to be and hasn't been found it's no longer that logical.
quote:Quite so. You and I keep repeating the same arguments without getting anywhere.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action and expect different results.
quote:I don't get your question. Evolution is unplanned; it is also not random. I said that this is a problem for theism, since this must assume some sort of teleology.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Yo Quetzalcoatl. You might have missed this earlier. What did you have in mind?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.
quote:As a matter of interest, here's another
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian. Oddly enough, the Bayesian approach has been used to hypothesise that it's more likely that God exists than that he doesn't.
But as your link points out, this is just one of a number of approaches to statistical modelling.
And it doesn't deal with the central point. You can debate statistical models. You can't argue with the multiple and interdependent examples of the precision of the cosmological constants necessary to produce a life-permitting universe.
Your best alternative to a creator seems to be multiverses - a metaphysical approach if there was one.
quote:You've defined evolution in terms of two negates. It's not a), it's not b) - which leaves open other possibilities. But unless you say what those possibilities are, it's not possible to make a judgement as to whether they are more or less likely than the two possibilities you've negated. So I guess I'm trying to work out what your positive description of evolution is. It didn't come about by planning, or by random processes, so it came about....how?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I don't get your question. Evolution is unplanned; it is also not random. I said that this is a problem for theism, since this must assume some sort of teleology.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Yo Quetzalcoatl. You might have missed this earlier. What did you have in mind?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.
.
quote:Oh but I thought evolution was the God of Atheism.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Those about to argue in favor of "planned evolution" please include in your explanation something about the ichneumon wasp the aids virus and tapeworms while you are at it.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:You just aren't getting it are you?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You believe the Creator hasn't been found.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given everywhere the Creator has been predicted to be and hasn't been found it's no longer that logical.
I believe the Creator is found partly in creation.
Still can't see the difference and why science and religion are not mutually exclusive?
quote:Of course it is not. I'm just saying that
Oh but I thought evolution was the God of Atheism.
Are you saying it is not?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
But if you're right, someone who is "embedded in science" and a believer would have to be intellectually dishonest.
quote:Evensong's argument is in a vacuum. I know some religious scientists. I know some atheist scientists.
Evensong's argument is a strong one that scientist see the fingerprint of God in creation *through their science* as opposed to imposing a predetermined belief on their studies.
quote:Oh, it has personal and practical consequences. One of the practical consequences of a God who intervenes in the universe is that the interventions God makes are measurable. And once that is the case, science can approach it. At that point NOMA falls apart. Science might not reach outside the universe yet - but can reach inside it quite happily.
You're also making a profound mistake in suggesting that the results of scientific study *alone* would convince people to be theists. Belief in a God who has designed and intervened in the universe has personal and practical consequences.
As we all know.
quote:OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evolution works via mutation (variation), selection, and inheritance.
Normally, genetic mutation is described as random, and selection as governed by the environment, hence not random, but a full description would become much more complex, and would include factors such as genetic drift.
However, from the point of view of theism, the big problem is that evolution operates in an unplanned manner. Can this be reconciled with the directedness or teleology of God? I don't know.
quote:No it isn't. Not at all. In fact the opposite.
Originally posted by Justinian:
One of the practical consequences of a God who intervenes in the universe is that the interventions God makes are measurable.
quote:I'm not sure he's saying that at all. And if he was it's be wrong. Selection is not random (by definition).
Originally posted by Ramarius:
OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
quote:Actually he isn't. There is no difference between the two types except the time needed for two populations to become unable to interbreed. Evolution is unplanned but not random.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
quote:No. Wrong again. There is no difference between micro and macro, except that the latter involves long periods of time. (Thus, macro is the sum or accumulation of long periods of micro). Evolution is unplanned but not random. Since it is unplanned, this seems to contradict the idea of God as somehow purposive or with a plan. Is there a solution? Don't know.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evolution works via mutation (variation), selection, and inheritance.
Normally, genetic mutation is described as random, and selection as governed by the environment, hence not random, but a full description would become much more complex, and would include factors such as genetic drift.
However, from the point of view of theism, the big problem is that evolution operates in an unplanned manner. Can this be reconciled with the directedness or teleology of God? I don't know.
quote:The consequence of intervening is that it looks like God hasn't done anything? That is what you are saying?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:No it isn't. Not at all. In fact the opposite.
Originally posted by Justinian:
One of the practical consequences of a God who intervenes in the universe is that the interventions God makes are measurable.
quote:If God is the eternal and omnipotent creator of the universe, of course. Unless God chooses to be visible that is. The whole thing is God's action, not just little parts of it.
Originally posted by Justinian:
The consequence of intervening is that it looks like God hasn't done anything?
quote:No, I'm right on this one. The difference between micro and macro evolution is, roughly speaking, the difference between applying the theory either below (micro) or beyond (macro) species level. And the debate about how this might take place is a vigorous one. M.T Kinnison, (An introduction to microevolution: rate, patter, process, Genetica 112-113, 2001, 1-8) puts it like this: 'Evolution is often considered in two categories: microevolution and macroevolution. The former obviously implies a small amount of change and the latter a large amount. The difficulty comes in deciding where the boundary between the two should fall, whether or not they represent the same process (acting over different timescales), and whether or not the dichotomy is useful or valid.... Are macroevolutionary events (large morphological changes or speciation) simply the cumulative outcome of microevolutionary mechanisms (micro mutation, selection, gene flow, genetic drift) or does macroevolution require some qualitatively different mechanism? The history of this debate is long, convoluted, and sometimes acrimonious.'
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:No. Wrong again. There is no difference between micro and macro, except that the latter involves long periods of time. (Thus, macro is the sum or accumulation of long periods of micro). Evolution is unplanned but not random. Since it is unplanned, this seems to contradict the idea of God as somehow purposive or with a plan. Is there a solution? Don't know.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:OK I'm with you now. You're talking about evolution in two senses. Micro evolution, or in-species selection is clearly governed by measurable factors. Certainly that's not random. But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether. You seem to be saying that macro evolution *is* random.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Evolution works via mutation (variation), selection, and inheritance.
Normally, genetic mutation is described as random, and selection as governed by the environment, hence not random, but a full description would become much more complex, and would include factors such as genetic drift.
However, from the point of view of theism, the big problem is that evolution operates in an unplanned manner. Can this be reconciled with the directedness or teleology of God? I don't know.
Are you a creationist? They go on about micro and macro, but generally they don't know what they are talking about.
quote:Justinian doesn't understand Christians that aren't God of the Gaps proponents ken.
Originally posted by ken:
The whole thing is God's action, not just little parts of it.
quote:I don't see why any believer in a god has to affirm that evolution is planned. Are the effects of gravity planned? How about continental drift; did God specifically intend for the continents to be as they are? What's the problem with believing that God set up the initial conditions and now (mostly) leaves them to run their course?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Certainly theistic evolutionists have no problem at all in affirming that evolution is a planned process.
quote:And it's a very good question. It's also a different question, taking us into the various shades of the doctrine of providence.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
That was my point. If you believe in "planned" evolution you believe God "planned" Lupus or Yersinia pestis. This of course implies nothing about a Deist non-interventionist God.
But why would an Interventionist God who plans everything not do anything in cases like this?
quote:One species does not mutate into another; new species evolve from a common ancestor.
But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether.
quote:Yep. Exactly right. Separation of species is (usually) a process that takes time and space, not a single event in ecological time - though it might look like a single event in evolutionary time.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ramarius
quote:One species does not mutate into another; new species evolve from a common ancestor.
But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether.
quote:Don't know if we're just haggling over semantics, but on mutation and evolution see
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Yep. Exactly right. Separation of species is (usually) a process that takes time and space, not a single event in ecological time - though it might look like a single event in evolutionary time.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ramarius
quote:One species does not mutate into another; new species evolve from a common ancestor.
But macro-evolution, mutation of once species into another is a different matter altogether.
(My inner pedant wants to point out that in a strict sense speciation can occur in a single mutation when chromosome rearrangements such as polyploidy render onme individual unable to mate successfully with its siblings or parents - this seems to have happened quite often in the history of plants, though nowhere near as often in animals - but I hestitate to say that becaus those with the strange inner compulsion to consider that there is some worth in YEC will almost certainly misread it as supporting silly salatational theories... and also it doesn't fit with the popular idea of speciation because the new "species" is likely to be all but identical to the old one if you want to be confused do an online search for the taxonomy of agamospecies of Limonium [sea lavender])
quote:Yes I do. However you are a God of the Gaps proponent.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Justinian doesn't understand Christians that aren't God of the Gaps proponents ken.
Originally posted by ken:
The whole thing is God's action, not just little parts of it.
quote:In your dreams buddy.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Yes I do. However you are a God of the Gaps proponent.
quote:Why is it a different question? Why are the results of such "Planning" not involved when deciding whether or not there was planning involved?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
And it's a very good question. It's also a different question, taking us into the various shades of the doctrine of providence.
Death doesn't bother me much, but I'm a wimp about pain!