Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Solomon? Is that you?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:This poster clearly felt that it was worth the effort to convince people of his "message" - his "gospel", as it were - which sounds, of course, like the message of atheism, judging by the content of the rest of his post.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD
I'm a BBC Religion MB refugee. My reason for being there? I guess I got tired of seeing all the blinkered Biblebots lording it up over anyone with a differing opinion. After a while I discovered that my input in certain debates had indeed made not one but two people question their religion and open their eyes. As the more seasoned posters will already be aware this is extremely rare, whatever side of the fence you sit. To me it justified all the time I spent in there.
quote:I'd say the absence of a Cosmic Judge who will send you to eternal damnation for not doing (or even believing) the right things is a definite plus point.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What exactly is the "good news" of atheism, to which it is worth trying to convert people?
quote:I think this highlights one of the big differences between theistic and atheistic thought. Atheists tend to approach a proposition from the perspective of "is this true?" According to EE, the theistic approach is more along the lines of "which would I prefer to be true?" or "which 'good news' would be more advantageous for me personally?"
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This poster clearly felt that it was worth the effort to convince people of his "message" - his "gospel", as it were - which sounds, of course, like the message of atheism, judging by the content of the rest of his post.
Of course, Richard Dawkins has expressed his desire to convert people to atheism.
My question is really this: why?
What exactly is the "good news" of atheism, to which it is worth trying to convert people?
quote:So converting someone to your own truth, which is undoubtedly true, is generally a Good Thing? Sounds familiar.
I can't answer for REALLYMAD, but I would answer that the truth has value in and of itself, regardless of personal preference.
quote:An alternative solution to that (i.e. other than atheism) is just having a less fucked up view of God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd say the absence of a Cosmic Judge who will send you to eternal damnation for not doing (or even believing) the right things is a definite plus point.
quote:I get that, but isn't that what God, assuming (s)he exists, lets us do anyhow, by giving us the old free will thing?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The freedom to be what and who you want to be rather that having to be who God wants you to be (whether you like it or not) is also very appealing.
quote:Yes, but a disinterested truth is, by definition, not something that one gets particularly wound up about. I thought EE was more interested in what someone like Dawkins was getting so excited about. It is rather odd that some athiests are so damnedably evangelical about it. I tend to attribute it to an unpleasant personal history with folks who claim to speak for the Almighty, but I really don't know.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can't answer for REALLYMAD, but I would answer that the truth has value in and of itself, regardless of personal preference.
quote:I agree. That is why I am not an atheist, because, as far as I can see, the evidence for it doesn't stack up.
Originally posted by Croesos
...I would answer that the truth has value in and of itself, regardless of personal preference.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Some of the Gnus argue that society would be nicer without religion, but this seems to me an unsubstantiated argument. I suppose the standard ploy is to point to Sweden or somewhere like that, and say, that's a nice place and they're not religious.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Yes, but a disinterested truth is, by definition, not something that one gets particularly wound up about. I thought EE was more interested in what someone like Dawkins was getting so excited about. It is rather odd that some athiests are so damnedably evangelical about it. I tend to attribute it to an unpleasant personal history with folks who claim to speak for the Almighty, but I really don't know.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can't answer for REALLYMAD, but I would answer that the truth has value in and of itself, regardless of personal preference.
--Tom Clune
quote:Can't see how that requires atheism. Plenty of theistic options that exclude the trigger-happy god.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd say the absence of a Cosmic Judge who will send you to eternal damnation for not doing (or even believing) the right things is a definite plus point.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What exactly is the "good news" of atheism, to which it is worth trying to convert people?
quote:I suppose that depends on what and who you think God wants you to be. Near as I can tell, what God wants people to be is honest and kind.
The freedom to be what and who you want to be rather that having to be who God wants you to be (whether you like it or not) is also very appealing.
quote:Well said.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, the Dawkins variety [of atheists] are under the delusion humanity will be less bastards to one another if God gets out of the way. What I call the Dawkins Delusion.
quote:If that's the case he sure picked a misleading name for his most famous book.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Dawkins is not so much trying to spread atheism as trying to spread a certain kind of materialism-oriented critical thinking which tends to go with atheism.
quote:As far as Dawkins or anyone else working in the life sciences go, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote something on an unrelated topic that is nonetheless quite relevant here.
Originally posted by tclune:
Yes, but a disinterested truth is, by definition, not something that one gets particularly wound up about. I thought EE was more interested in what someone like Dawkins was getting so excited about. It is rather odd that some athiests are so damnedably evangelical about it. I tend to attribute it to an unpleasant personal history with folks who claim to speak for the Almighty, but I really don't know.
--Tom Clune
quote:There is a certain frustration dealing with those for whom "facts" are simply a matter of personal preference. That kind of thinking can bleed over into other areas. For instance, there's no particular reason that climate change denialism should be significantly higher among American evangelicals than it is among Americans generally, and yet that's the case in every poll I've ever seen address the question.
Consider this: what if you were a medievalist and the majority of your public simply refused to accept that Charlemagne ever existed. Indeed, what if they felt their prosperity was contingent on not acknowledging it. And thus all your medievalist friends spent a great deal of time proving that Charlemagne did exist.
Think about all the other interesting questions you might never get to ask, because you were spending all your energy in refutation of myth. And this would be frustrating because surely you had true questions, questions which you actually didn't have answers for. But every time you presented your work before an audience you felt called back to 800 AD all over again.
I think about how the climate scientist, or the evolutionary biologist living in Tennessee must feel, and I find some sympathy.
quote:Less fucked up than the traditional, biblical view?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:An alternative solution to that (i.e. other than atheism) is just having a less fucked up view of God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd say the absence of a Cosmic Judge who will send you to eternal damnation for not doing (or even believing) the right things is a definite plus point.
quote:OK, the freedom to be what and who you want without there being any eternal consequences of that choice.
quote:I get that, but isn't that what God, assuming (s)he exists, lets us do anyhow, by giving us the old free will thing?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The freedom to be what and who you want to be rather that having to be who God wants you to be (whether you like it or not) is also very appealing.
quote:That's the problem. And "Truth" is even more of a problem. I too can't answer for atheists because I'm not one, but I think some adherents of scientism have a problem in seeing that even if the foundational stories of a religion are fictional, they can also be true. I find truth in King Oedipus, Antigone, Ovid, Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, Dickens, Maugham, Tom Sharpe and Douglas Adams; in Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, El Greco, Turner, Van Gogh, Cezanne, Munch, Picasso, Mark Rothko, Joseph Beuys, and Cy Twombley; in De Machaut, Desprez, Byrd, Sheppard, Tallis, Praetorius, Vivaldi, Handel, Bach (oh, Bach!), Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven ... and you see where I'm going with this. They connect with me in the same kind of way that religious notions do, a way that quickens my heart, broadens my vision, and lights up the world around me and its people - especially its people. That's truth, for me.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
How do you define "truth"?
quote:Universalism is the only one that works the way I want it to. And even that has some pretty big problems.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can't see how that requires atheism. Plenty of theistic options that exclude the trigger-happy god.
quote:Right now my main issue (problem? Challenge?) is around the requirement to be charitable. If there's no God then I don't have to give any of my hard-earned cash away in order to avoid the fiery pits.
quote:I suppose that depends on what and who you think God wants you to be. Near as I can tell, what God wants people to be is honest and kind.
The freedom to be what and who you want to be rather that having to be who God wants you to be (whether you like it or not) is also very appealing.
quote:As I understand it, my particular version of theism doesn't bind people to that kind of legalism, but is more concerned with what kind of person you are. So if you are "a good tree" (to use a biblical analogy) then you will unfailingly bring forth "good fruit". That means you don't need to think about what you do with your money, because you will do good with it anyway, whether you spend it, donate it or save it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Right now my main issue (problem? Challenge?) is around the requirement to be charitable. If there's no God then I don't have to give any of my hard-earned cash away in order to avoid the fiery pits.
quote:Even atheist misers are shits.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If there's no God then I don't have to give any of my hard-earned cash away in order to avoid the fiery pits.
quote:First off, that's two questions. To answer the second question first, I refer you to my statement which you quoted. Why would anyone want to spread the truth? Because "the truth has value in and of itself".
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:But your comment implies the following question:
Originally posted by Croesos
...I would answer that the truth has value in and of itself, regardless of personal preference.
How do you define "truth"?
And why would you want to convert people to your understanding of the truth?
quote:My answer is that there is no 'good news' of atheism. On the contrary, being an atheist is not a particularly joyous experience, generally speaking.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, Richard Dawkins has expressed his desire to convert people to atheism.
My question is really this: why?
What exactly is the "good news" of atheism, to which it is worth trying to convert people?
I'd be intrigued to see how our resident atheists answer this question.
quote:The change of emphasis is noted, but it doesn't change the underlying issue.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:As I understand it, my particular version of theism doesn't bind people to that kind of legalism, but is more concerned with what kind of person you are.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Right now my main issue (problem? Challenge?) is around the requirement to be charitable. If there's no God then I don't have to give any of my hard-earned cash away in order to avoid the fiery pits.
quote:But if there's no God then it doesn't matter - they don't have to worry about it or try to change themselves if they don't want to.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even atheist misers are shits.
quote:Just one more reason why atheism is the more appealing philosophy. If I can't change my eternal fate anyway then why wouldn't I prefer the version that spares me the everlasting barbecue?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Marvin, merely giving your hard earned cash as insurance against the fiery pit won't work. You couldn't afford the premiums by an attenuated stick of sedimentary calcite, I'm afraid.
quote:when did atheism become synonymous with selfish-asshole-ism? I don't think being a good person means you by definition believe in god.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Almost every one of them acts in a way consistent with the acknowledgement of some sort of limited aspect of God - Justice, Truth, Knowledge, Enlightenment, Fairness, Kindness.
Very few people will say that it's OK to wrong someone if they have no way of finding out that you did it. Almost everyone, when confronted with a situation they feel is unjust, will appeal to some sort of extrinsic Right and Wrong.
quote:I'm assuming you mean where I said
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
comet
I notice you mention 'good persons'. What do you mean by this?
Do you think there are bad persons or evil persons?
quote:I certainly wasn't implying there's some deep character judgement, I meant if they are basically kind and generous, as opposed to selfish/greedy/miserly/judgmental/basically a dickweed. That's not a judgement on atheists, all belief systems have selfish assholes. I don't believe that people come in categories of good or bad. we all have the capability of doing good or being a shit.
if an atheist is a good person they just step up to help in a tangible, material way
quote:I have run across this attitude before; I don't think it is really any more constructive than saying "I have yet to meet a true Christian."
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I have yet to meet a true atheist.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Except that we'd say that we don't think they are aspects of God. But if that's what floats your boat, fine.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Almost every one of them acts in a way consistent with the acknowledgement of some sort of limited aspect of God - Justice, Truth, Knowledge, Enlightenment, Fairness, Kindness.
quote:This is tearing down a straw man imv. I don't help other people out of fear of God, nor to please God. I help other people now, not only through warm fuzzy thoughts but in many practical ways, because I love them. I'm better able to love them (even when they're not very lovable) thanks to the love of God that I receive through Christ.
Originally posted by comet:
I read a thing floating around on facebook this morning that I thought very relevant. to summarize (and likely over-simplify) it said, when atheists do good they do it for the sake of doing good, not out of fear of eternal damnation or out of a need to please a cosmic parent - they do good because good needs to be done. to take it further, when there is a need, rather than offering prayer or whatever, if an atheist is a good person they just step up to help in a tangible, material way. which is often more useful than warm fuzzy thoughts. The little image/thing went on to say that believers should then think like atheists when faced with fellow humans in need; meaning, don't help because you want to make God happy with you, help because someone needs help.
quote:Ecclesiastes is certainly the one part of the Bible that struck a chord with me!
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Solomon? Is that you?
quote:In McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion?", he says it is moral autonomy.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, Richard Dawkins has expressed his desire to convert people to atheism.
My question is really this: why?
What exactly is the "good news" of atheism, to which it is worth trying to convert people?
quote:Why on earth should this be reserved for atheists?
Originally posted by Demas:
I read someone explain the feeling of liberation he found when he realised that as an atheist he could now be friends with whoever he liked.
quote:How do you figure?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, IMO all atheism really offers is the certainty of eternal condemnation for everyone, good or bad
quote:And I'd like a pony
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm really not interested in what it has to offer. I'm interested in whether it's true or not.
quote:Yes, of course. That's why it's me saying them rather than an atheist.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The “absence of a Cosmic Judge”, “no hell”, “being able to lead your life how you want to” arguments don't work for me. In order to be concerned by these things wouldn't you have to believe in God?
quote:Look, you may not care much whether God actually exists or not, but it matters to me, OK?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:And I'd like a pony
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm really not interested in what it has to offer. I'm interested in whether it's true or not.
quote:But we've no way of telling for sure. So we're all back down to what makes sense, what feels right, what we experience, how we interpret it and how we find mental and/or spiritual stability with ourselves.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Look, you may not care much whether God actually exists or not, but it matters to me, OK?
quote:Quite. The existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be proven.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:But we've no way of telling for sure.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Look, you may not care much whether God actually exists or not, but it matters to me, OK?
quote:I can decide to act as if God exists. I cannot decide that he does. And I cannot turn off the rather obvious point that I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Quite. The existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be proven.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:But we've no way of telling for sure.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Look, you may not care much whether God actually exists or not, but it matters to me, OK?
Contrary to popular opinion amongst militant atheists, science can be used as evidence for both god botherers and atheists.
And well said on the rest of it long ranger.
A big part of growing up is living with unresolved tensions Karl.
Make a decision and live with it.
quote:That's true, but what are you gunna do? In your situation the only choices are to decide a) he exists b) he might not exist but I'll live as if he does c) he doesn't exist so live as an atheist or d) leave it unresolved.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can decide to act as if God exists. I cannot decide that he does. And I cannot turn off the rather obvious point that I could be wrong.
quote:Condemned as in life is short and we're all doomed to die - forever. "Oh," the atheist says, "we live on in the memories of our children and the people we influece." But a few years after you've gone they may be down the pub talking about what a twit you were. But even then, after one or two generations you will be completely forgotten.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:How do you figure?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, IMO all atheism really offers is the certainty of eternal condemnation for everyone, good or bad
quote:Well, it's b) and d) isn't it? I can live as if God exists but it's still an unresolved question.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:That's true, but what are you gunna do? In your situation the only choices are to decide a) he exists b) he might not exist but I'll live as if he does c) he doesn't exist so live as an atheist or d) leave it unresolved.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can decide to act as if God exists. I cannot decide that he does. And I cannot turn off the rather obvious point that I could be wrong.
Personally I'd find d) pretty difficult to live with.
quote:I think you're mistaking 'forgotten' for 'condemned'. 99% of people are unimportant and are forgotten when they die. So what?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Condemned as in life is short and we're all doomed to die - forever. "Oh," the atheist says, "we live on in the memories of our children and the people we influece." But a few years after you've gone they may be down the pub talking about what a twit you were. But even then, after one or two generations you will be completely forgotten.
Even in the long run, the world will end one day, and nothing we ever did will really matter, and no-one will live on in any sense of the word, no matter how much good they tried to do in their time.
We're doomed I say, DOOMED!
quote:I personally know a number of atheists who find this perspective quite attractive.
Mark Betts: But even then, after one or two generations you will be completely forgotten.
quote:Non-existence isn't half as terrifying a thought as eternal damnation.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Condemned as in life is short and we're all doomed to die - forever.
quote:OK, so none of it will matter in millions of years time. It still matters now. Live for today, and let the future worry about itself.
Even in the long run, the world will end one day, and nothing we ever did will really matter, and no-one will live on in any sense of the word, no matter how much good they tried to do in their time.
quote:Indeed. It means that even if you screw your life up completely, it won't matter in the long run. Whereas with most religions, if you screw up completely in this life you get to pay for it throughout eternity.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I personally know a number of atheists who find this perspective quite attractive.
Mark Betts: But even then, after one or two generations you will be completely forgotten.
quote:And yet on the Dawkins' theistic probability scale, where "1" is absolute certainty of God's existence...
Originally posted by Evensong
The existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be proven.
...
A big part of growing up is living with unresolved tensions Karl.
quote:I assume then that you were just taking the piss on this earlier thread?
Originally posted by Evensong
I'm a 1
quote:I'm afraid I'm one of those irritating people who compares a poster's views over different threads!
Fuck the nervous bullshit!
STAND TALL
quote:As you appear to have understood it? Heck yes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Less fucked up than the traditional, biblical view?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:An alternative solution to that (i.e. other than atheism) is just having a less fucked up view of God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd say the absence of a Cosmic Judge who will send you to eternal damnation for not doing (or even believing) the right things is a definite plus point.
quote:I've heard this kind of argument before and it's never made any sense to me. You seem to be confusing cosmological/eternal significance with here and now significance.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Condemned as in life is short and we're all doomed to die - forever. "Oh," the atheist says, "we live on in the memories of our children and the people we influece." But a few years after you've gone they may be down the pub talking about what a twit you were. But even then, after one or two generations you will be completely forgotten.
Even in the long run, the world will end one day, and nothing we ever did will really matter, and no-one will live on in any sense of the word, no matter how much good they tried to do in their time.
We're doomed I say, DOOMED!
quote:I think I can argue that "dying forever" = there is ultimately no point to anything.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In short I don't think you can argue that "dying forever" = there is no point to anything.
quote:You know what, scrap my last statement. It's totally wrong.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I can decide to act as if God exists. I cannot decide that he does. And I cannot turn off the rather obvious point that I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Quite. The existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be proven.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:But we've no way of telling for sure.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Look, you may not care much whether God actually exists or not, but it matters to me, OK?
Contrary to popular opinion amongst militant atheists, science can be used as evidence for both god botherers and atheists.
And well said on the rest of it long ranger.
A big part of growing up is living with unresolved tensions Karl.
Make a decision and live with it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:('scuse double post)
From Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody:
Nothing really matters,
Anyone can see,
Nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me,
quote:Lots of people have done exactly that with divergent results. Therefore I conclude that the experiment does not tell me anything.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:You know what, scrap my last statement. It's totally wrong.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I can decide to act as if God exists. I cannot decide that he does. And I cannot turn off the rather obvious point that I could be wrong.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Quite. The existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be proven.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:But we've no way of telling for sure.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Look, you may not care much whether God actually exists or not, but it matters to me, OK?
Contrary to popular opinion amongst militant atheists, science can be used as evidence for both god botherers and atheists.
And well said on the rest of it long ranger.
A big part of growing up is living with unresolved tensions Karl.
Make a decision and live with it.
Your trouble is you want knowledge.
The only way you're going to get knowledge is if you have faith and take that leap.
Faith is more than intellectual propositions. It is trust that the God revealed in Jesus is true.
If you think the God revealed in Jesus is worthy of your trust - take a leap.
Jump into the deep end of faith.
Pray. Talk to God. Attend services regularly. Set up self discipline to pray and read the scriptures regularly. Volunteer. Hang out with God people.
Stick with it.
The Christian story goes that you will be led by the Spirit to knowledge of God. Faith begins with the Spirit
If you have no noticeable proof after some time, say fuck it.
But hey, it's worth a shot.
quote:You're getting your paradigm's mixed up.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:And yet on the Dawkins' theistic probability scale, where "1" is absolute certainty of God's existence...
Originally posted by Evensong
The existence or non-existence of God is not something that can be proven.
...
A big part of growing up is living with unresolved tensions Karl.
quote:I assume then that you were just taking the piss on this earlier thread?
Originally posted by Evensong
I'm a 1
Along with your "advice" to me:
quote:I'm afraid I'm one of those irritating people who compares a poster's views over different threads!
Fuck the nervous bullshit!
STAND TALL
quote:...Which means that, even if you can't quite make a '1' on the Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale, you might as well try and follow Christ anyway, as best you can, because ultimately you have nothing to loose!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think I can argue that "dying forever" = there is ultimately no point to anything.
quote:Except your self respect.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
]...Which means that, even if you can't quite make a '1' on the Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale, you might as well try and follow Christ anyway, as best you can, because ultimately you have nothing to loose!
quote:Which is ultimately worthless anyway!
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Except your self respect.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Am I really going to have to explain the refutation of Pascal's wager? Hasn't everyone heard it by now? Come on Mr Betts you can do better than that.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:...Which means that, even if you can't quite make a '1' on the Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale, you might as well try and follow Christ anyway, as best you can, because ultimately you have nothing to loose!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think I can argue that "dying forever" = there is ultimately no point to anything.
quote:I don't agree with this reasoning, which is really Pascal's Wager (as has just been pointed out). The Wager is an embarrassment, and, as a Christian, I thoroughly reject it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts
...you might as well try and follow Christ anyway, as best you can, because ultimately you have nothing to lose!
quote:You were right about my spelling - how did I miss that?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't agree with this reasoning, which is really Pascal's Wager (as has just been pointed out). The Wager is an embarrassment, and, as a Christian, I thoroughly reject it.
It's based on the assumption that Christianity and atheism are the only conceivable options. But what if Islam is true? Wouldn't you then be an infidel if you turned to Christ?
The atheist is absolutely right when he says that this Pascal's Wager approach is not an honourable option. Furthermore, it implies a very cheap view of God, as if he is playing a cruel game with people's lives.
(Oh and by the way, I've taken the liberty of correcting your original post - bad etiquette or not - because that wretched ubiquitous misspelling makes me want to scream!!!)
quote:I don't think I'd put my beliefs like that, I don't even understand exactly what he means.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Thank you EtymologicalEvangelical you explained it better than I could.
Mark do you believe, as Dr William Lane Craig argues, that nothing temporary has significance?
quote:You said
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:I don't think I'd put my beliefs like that, I don't even understand exactly what he means.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Thank you EtymologicalEvangelical you explained it better than I could.
Mark do you believe, as Dr William Lane Craig argues, that nothing temporary has significance?
quote:That sounds like you are saying that nothing temporary has significance.
the world will end one day, and nothing we ever did will really matter.
quote:You seem to be suggesting that belief in God (no matter what kind of God) is soteriologically more efficacious than non-belief in any God. I find that very hard to understand.
Originally posted by Mark Betts
Anyway, concerning Pascal's wager, supposing you did choose Islam only to find out at the last that Christianity is the true faith? I still reckon you'd stand a better chance on Judgement Day than someone who rejected God (and Jesus) altogether. For argument's sake I would say the same applied if the situation was reversed and Islam turned out to be the true way.
quote:Ah, then you've misunderstood where I was coming from. I was musing on how things might seem to me if I were an atheist. But in reality I'm not.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
You saidquote:That sounds like you are saying that nothing temporary has significance.
the world will end one day, and nothing we ever did will really matter.
quote:Mark, c'mon, keep up this isn't difficult: according to you, I must either choose (your understanding of) the Christian religion and atheism otherwise I risk eternal damnation - and might be better of risking it all being wrong for eternal paradise.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It's easy to say that an old analogy has been rufuted just because some modern intellectual says it has.
quote:I share your distaste for hyper-Calvinism. And the problem for Pascals Wager now, is having said that hC's even further from God as you understand him than atheism is, you are left with three possible scenarios:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:You seem to be suggesting that belief in God (no matter what kind of God) is soteriologically more efficacious than non-belief in any God. I find that very hard to understand.
Originally posted by Mark Betts
Anyway, concerning Pascal's wager, supposing you did choose Islam only to find out at the last that Christianity is the true faith? I still reckon you'd stand a better chance on Judgement Day than someone who rejected God (and Jesus) altogether. For argument's sake I would say the same applied if the situation was reversed and Islam turned out to be the true way.
Consider the following two positions:
1. Hyper-Calvinistic predestination: God has created some people under the deliberate decree that they should never be saved, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to avoid going to a place of eternal torture.
2. Atheism: this life on earth is all there is, and when we die that's the end of all consciousness. There is no joy for anyone after this life, but also no pain. Just nothing.
Now which position do you think is further away from the God of love, mercy, justice and reason?
I would emphatically say #1, which is actually devil worship. How can anyone possibly worship a being who deliberately creates some people for absolutely no other reason than to torture them mercilessly for ever? Would it not be kinder for there to be oblivion for everyone than this kind of appalling scenario for anyone?
quote:I don't mean to be pedantic, but this is known as Reprobation.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You seem to be suggesting that belief in God (no matter what kind of God) is soteriologically more efficacious than non-belief in any God. I find that very hard to understand.
Consider the following two positions:
1. Hyper-Calvinistic predestination: God has created some people under the deliberate decree that they should never be saved, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to avoid going to a place of eternal torture.
quote:I really don't know. I'm certainly not a Calvinist myself, but there are different shades of Hyper-Calvinism - you can't tar them all with one brush and say that they all believe such-and-such. Find me someone who will even describe themselves as a Hyper-Calvinist.
2. Atheism: this life on earth is all there is, and when we die that's the end of all consciousness. There is no joy for anyone after this life, but also no pain. Just nothing.
Now which position do you think is further away from the God of love, mercy, justice and reason?
I would emphatically say #1, which is actually devil worship. How can anyone possibly worship a being who deliberately creates some people for absolutely no other reason than to torture them mercilessly for ever? Would it not be kinder for there to be oblivion for everyone than this kind of appalling scenario for anyone?
quote:There is no 'perhaps' about it.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
So perhaps PW is a load of old bollocks...
quote:Then I apologise for my presumption and take my hat off to you.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I took the "leap" you refer to many, many years ago. I'm still hacking at it. And I still do not have knowledge. It just doesn't seem to work that way. So by the formula you've just presented, I should just say "fuck it, there is no God". And yet I'm not convinced by that conclusion either.
quote:You make a good point.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem is that you also put that experience beyond the grasp of anyone to whom it might be useful, like me, by not telling me about it but sending me off to hopefully have my own experience.
I want to know what yours was, and why it means you now know God exists. Doesn't sound much like a crime.
quote:Sounds to me like you think God has called you to be someone who tells other people that God has marked them even when said other person sincerely doubts that is true.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Sounds to me like God has called you and marked you as his own.
quote:And where did I say that I was?? Did you not notice how I specified exactly what belief I was talking about?
Originally posted by Mark Betts
...you can't tar them all with one brush...
quote:Exactly. A judgment which destroys the validity of Pascal's Wager.
In the end, at the Final Judgement, only God can decide.
quote:I said that???
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Mark, c'mon, keep up this isn't difficult: according to you, I must either choose (your understanding of) the Christian religion and atheism otherwise I risk eternal damnation - and might be better of risking it all being wrong for eternal paradise.
quote:IMVHO that's one of the biggest misconceptions about judgement day. God has already decided. He has already chosen each of us.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In the end, at the Final Judgement, only God can decide.
quote:You don't say!!!
Originally posted by Mark Betts
I don't mean to be pedantic, but this is known as Reprobation.
quote:No, no, I can cope with this; it's a reasonable conclusion as to why despite anything either in isolation or accumulation I can really point to and say "this, therefore God", I'm not willing to drop the thing and embrace functionally atheistic agnosticism.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Sounds to me like you think God has called you to be someone who tells other people that God has marked them even when said other person sincerely doubts that is true.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Sounds to me like God has called you and marked you as his own.
Around here they call that insensitive.
quote:Craig doesn't argue that nothing temporary has significance. That would be absurd. But perhaps this was just poor phrasing on your part.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Thank you EtymologicalEvangelical you explained it better than I could.
Mark do you believe, as Dr William Lane Craig argues, that nothing temporary has significance?
quote:Maybe it would help if you considered what Pascal's Wager actually is. There is nothing to "prove" or "disprove". It's not even specifically about christianity, even less so about protestant evangelical christianity.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Exactly. A judgment which destroys the validity of Pascal's Wager.
quote:Of course determined Atheists don't like it - would you expect them to?
from Wiki:
It posits that there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known.
quote:You were very quick to point out my spelling inaccuracy.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:You don't say!!!
Originally posted by Mark Betts
I don't mean to be pedantic, but this is known as Reprobation.
And your point is...?
quote:How does that work goperryrevs?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
[TANGENT]
quote:IMVHO that's one of the biggest misconceptions about judgement day. God has already decided. He has already chosen each of us.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In the end, at the Final Judgement, only God can decide.
Judgement day is about our decisions, not God's.
[/TANGENT]
quote:I'm afraid you're clutching at straws here. There is nothing to be gained from believing in a kind of God, whose character is no different from that of the devil. I would rather believe in no God, than believe in (as in: "put my trust in") a devil.
Originally posted by Mark Betts
quote:Of course determined Atheists don't like it - would you expect them to?
from Wiki:
It posits that there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known.
quote:
You were very quick to point out my spelling inaccuracy.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Do you have a reference for that? I highly doubt what you say is true - he wrote it in a Christian context with the cost/benefit being hell/heaven. Indeed for almost any other understanding of deity it makes little or no sense (for example gaining Paradise for a Muslim is not simply a case of believing in Allah).
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe it would help if you considered what Pascal's Wager actually is. There is nothing to "prove" or "disprove". It's not even specifically about christianity, even less so about protestant evangelical christianity.
quote:I've started a new thread so as not to disrupt this one.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How does that work goperryrevs?
quote:I've been reading through this very interesting topic and was going to read to the end before responding, but I can't let that pass!
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I have yet to meet a true atheist.
The only thing common to all atheists is a lack of belief in the Christian God and all others too so if that applies to a person, then s/he is an atheist.quote:Yes, religions have been such an integral part of world history that it would be just about impossible not to acknowledge the various god beliefs. Omit god from that list however, and atheists are, as all humans are, the results of an evolutionary, entirely natural process and if you met two people with the characteristics you mention, you would only know if one was a believer if s/he told you so. (I think I said this elsewhere recently, so apologies for repetition.) What atheism has to offer here is a confidence that, as the BHA say, one can live a full and happy life without belief in God/god/s.
Almost every one of them acts in a way consistent with the acknowledgement of some sort of limited aspect of God - Justice, Truth, Knowledge, Enlightenment, Fairness, Kindness.
quote:I read something the other day pointing out that it is the religious who add adjectives such as 'militant' and 'new' to the noun 'atheists' not the atheists themselves.
Even the militant Dawkins atheists that ridicule and try to convert the religious to atheism ...
quote:I cannot think of a downside to an understanding that superstitions resulting from human minds looking for reasons for natural events are acknowledged for what they are. With that knowledge comes the confidence to think of them as part of the world of humour. This is very much more prevalent nowadays too, as far as I can see.
...are doing so in the pursuit of some sense of scientific or human advancement away from superstition.
quote:Strongly disagree with this, as atheists, however firmly they present their views, are aiming for greater secularisation, not conversion. I think they perhaps see it as an interpretation by believers of emotions which the atheist does not attribute to a God-source!
And, boy, do they hate it when you point out that they're just as evangelical as a Baptist on a street corner.
quote:I was under the impression that the Wager is really only a small section in a body of work compiled after his death. The name Pensées suggests that this was not a fully fleshed out argument.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:There is no 'perhaps' about it.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
So perhaps PW is a load of old bollocks...
quote:I'm less familiar with Pascal's Wager than you are, long ranger - you could start by looking up the Wiki article about it.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Do you have a reference for that? I highly doubt what you say is true - he wrote it in a Christian context with the cost/benefit being hell/heaven. Indeed for almost any other understanding of deity it makes little or no sense (for example gaining Paradise for a Muslim is not simply a case of believing in Allah).
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe it would help if you considered what Pascal's Wager actually is. There is nothing to "prove" or "disprove". It's not even specifically about christianity, even less so about protestant evangelical christianity.
quote:WTF? You're less familiar than I am with something you say says something when a quick search suggests that my recollection is nearer the truth than your claim
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm less familiar with Pascal's Wager than you are, long ranger - you could start by looking up the Wiki article about it.
Why did you make that claim if you didn't know it to be true?quote:Hostly Hat ON
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Do you moderate anything that comes out of your mouth or should we just consider it unthinking verbal diarrhea?
quote:Good - I'm glad you looked it up. I've heard the argument before, but didn't even know it was Pascal's. You should at least see from the article that the Wager deals only with God - no mention of Jesus nor the Holy Trinity.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I retract my previous comment and suspect Mark Betts simply made a grammatical error that made his comment say the opposite of what he intended to say.
Sorry Mark, you do make sense most of the time.
But your citing of wikipedia is odd given it does not at all support your assertion that it is about belief in God, any God. Can't you see that?
quote:I'm sorry did I say that it did? The wager is about heaven/hell in a Christian context.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Good - I'm glad you looked it up. I've heard the argument before, but didn't even know it was Pascal's. You should at least see from the article that the Wager deals only with God - no mention of Jesus nor the Holy Trinity.
quote:Have you never heard of Communism? Or Mao Tse-tung SusanDoris?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Battles are not fought in the name of atheism so that must also count as a good thing on offer from atheism!
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:New thread started for this tangent.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:As you appear to have understood it? Heck yes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Less fucked up than the traditional, biblical view?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:An alternative solution to that (i.e. other than atheism) is just having a less fucked up view of God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd say the absence of a Cosmic Judge who will send you to eternal damnation for not doing (or even believing) the right things is a definite plus point.
quote:No. In the name of a political movement of which atheism is a part. NOT the same thing. All it proves is humans do not need a god to be bastards.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Have you never heard of Communism? Or Mao Tse-tung SusanDoris?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Battles are not fought in the name of atheism so that must also count as a good thing on offer from atheism!
Your statement is both wrong and an insult to the many millions who were slain, imprisoned, or martyred - all in the name of atheism.
quote:And for Christian's, they are at root illusions fobbed on us by God?
Originally posted by Squibs:
I gather Craig's point is that without God concepts like beauty, justice, love, morality, purpose and meaning and so on are at root illusions fobbed off on us by evolution.
quote:To be honest, I think this is a dead end. It could be argued, as SusanDoris probably would, that while those regimes were atheistic, political power had more to do with the imprisonments and martyrdoms than atheism qua atheism. Since this is the way we usually prefer to look at our own Christian baggage*, it would probably make more sense for both sides to just back off a bit and recognize that this is a dead end. Everyone's house has just a little too much glass in it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Have you never heard of Communism? Or Mao Tse-tung SusanDoris?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Battles are not fought in the name of atheism so that must also count as a good thing on offer from atheism!
Your statement is both wrong and an insult to the many millions who were slain, imprisoned, or martyred - all in the name of atheism.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Have you never heard of Communism? Or Mao Tse-tung SusanDoris?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Battles are not fought in the name of atheism so that must also count as a good thing on offer from atheism!
Your statement is both wrong and an insult to the many millions who were slain, imprisoned, or martyred - all in the name of atheism.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Who is this ubiquitous "everyone"? My point was that if we as Christians explain away our involvement in horrors of the past (and we do) than we can hardly complain when an Atheist does the same thing. Flinging bum-fodder at each other isn't going to do one thing to really answer the question posed in the thread title.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well, everyone's quick enough to blame religion for wars and terrorism aren't they? SusanDorris was clearly implying it in her statement. So why does Atheism get off the hook so easily?
quote:Does not compute
Originally posted by the long ranger:
For me the question of what atheism 'has to offer' is the wrong one,
====
What it has to offer is just an interpretation of the world that makes sense to a lot of people.
quote:You live in a amoral universe. This means there are no moral standards floating around the universe. Morals are a function of the brain. Your brain is different to every other brain out there. How do you propose support the claim that your morals are of a better standard then all those nasty Christians out there?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
[*]I hold myself to a higher standard of morality than many Christians do.
quote:That's swell of you!
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I actually like the religious.
quote:I'm not sure if that is a genuine question or not. Do you suppose that all Christians believe God is separate to these things? Perhaps you think that God did something like create love when he created the universe? And perhaps he took a little for himself?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And for Christian's, they are at root illusions fobbed on us by God?
quote:Again, no. People cause conflict and war and death and ethnic cleansing. Some use religion as an excuse, some use atheism.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
For once, I agree with Mark. It is bloody convenient for Atheists to disown Atheist regimes when it is convenient and then complain that religion is the cause of much conflict.
Own it and live with it - religion causes conflict and war and death and ethnic cleansing in exactly the same way as atheism, and vice versa.
quote:Yes, very accurate, and a much needed accuracy, as to say that 'religion causes X' or 'atheism causes X' is absurd.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Again, no. People cause conflict and war and death and ethnic cleansing. Some use religion as an excuse, some use atheism.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
For once, I agree with Mark. It is bloody convenient for Atheists to disown Atheist regimes when it is convenient and then complain that religion is the cause of much conflict.
Own it and live with it - religion causes conflict and war and death and ethnic cleansing in exactly the same way as atheism, and vice versa.
quote:Yes, but you never told us how you measured your standards to determine that they are superior. You've just informed us that you are morally superior to some Christians.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I stated how my standards are superior to SOME Christians.
quote:The point is that there are many Atheists who like to use in argument the point that 'religious causes most wars' and at the same time deny that atheists cause wars.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
gain, no. People cause conflict and war and death and ethnic cleansing. Some use religion as an excuse, some use atheism.
quote:Because one tricks us into believing that love, for example, is something other than a way of perpetuating genes. The other says that there actually is a standard that our love can be measured against.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Genuine comparison. Both mechanisms, in the context you outlay, are external. How is one superior to the other be it created by a God, inherent in the universe or selected for by evolution?
quote:That's not what atheism means though. You're describing nihilism -- which is an atheist 'denomination' but not intrinsically a statement on whether or not there is a god at the helm. Life that snuffs out when the engine room packs in could be created by God. And eternal life could be a matter of fact without an external agency being involved in its creation.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
......2. Atheism: this life on earth is all there is, and when we die that's the end of all consciousness. There is no joy for anyone after this life, but also no pain. Just nothing.
quote:Yes, of course. That's one of the attributes accorded to God by those who imagine him to exist. On the other hand, if he doesn't exist, then he can't. And causality is our only judgment.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
......In the end, at the Final Judgement, only God can decide.
quote:Just out of curiosity, what units are used to measure love, and how is that measure taken? This could certainly make sibling disputes a lot easier to resolve.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Because one tricks us into believing that love, for example, is something other than a way of perpetuating genes. The other says that there actually is a standard that our love can be measured against.
quote:Agreed - I knew there was a better way of expressing this, but would have had to hunt around, so also, a thank you!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No. In the name of a political movement of which atheism is a part. NOT the same thing.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Your statement is both wrong and an insult to the many millions who were slain, imprisoned, or martyred - all in the name of atheism.
quote:But there are as many different views as to whether God is separate from this or that as there are humans to think about this; it is a personal opinion - i.e. they are human ideas.
Originally posted by Squibs:
*an amoral universe
Do you suppose that all Christians believe God
is separate to these things?
quote:Everything that God is supposed to have done, or not done, is supposed to be or is not supposed to be, is a human idea, isnn't it?
Perhaps you think that God did something like create love when he created the universe? And perhaps he took a little for himself?
quote:Anyone with a brain can see that the Golden Rule as a system of ethics is a fallacy.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am not particularly interested in turning this into a morality play, so much as answering the question in the OP.
The answer to the question is:
The Ethic of Reciprocity a.k.a. Golden Rule.
My morality is more in keeping with that than someone which treats gays and women badly. Nearly every philosophy and religion in the world recognizes it. Christian religions (Ironically, in some cases) recognize it, and then fail to heed it's own ostensible idea. Morality is not difficult. Every culture in the world has the basics, and some religions ruin something that should be self-evident to anyone with a brain, eg The Ethic of Reciprocity.
quote:Why would evolution make these things illusionary?
Originally posted by Squibs:
I gather Craig's point is that without God concepts like beauty, justice, love, morality, purpose and meaning and so on are at root illusions fobbed off on us by evolution.
quote:Are there any other bits of the Sermon on the Mount that are only for the brainless?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Anyone with a brain can see that the Golden Rule as a system of ethics is a fallacy.
Mainly because, on its own, it is value free. What I would like done to me is not necessarily what my neighbour would like done to her.
A sadomasochist would like and invite pain inflicted and would like to inflict pain.
Personally, I'm not so keen on pain.
quote:Because they are basically patterns of neurons?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:Why would evolution make these things illusionary?
Originally posted by Squibs:
I gather Craig's point is that without God concepts like beauty, justice, love, morality, purpose and meaning and so on are at root illusions fobbed off on us by evolution.
quote:But that's not illusionary.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Because they are basically patterns of neurons?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:Why would evolution make these things illusionary?
Originally posted by Squibs:
I gather Craig's point is that without God concepts like beauty, justice, love, morality, purpose and meaning and so on are at root illusions fobbed off on us by evolution.
quote:Sure you do. But it didn't come out of a vacuum.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Suffice it to say, I have a very well developed moral code, I stick to it well, and it's better than any Christian's that suppresses women (using Paul's alleged writings and OT writings) or gays (using both the NT and OT versions of that bigotry).
quote:Yeah, because everything should be measurable on a scale.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Just out of curiosity, what units are used to measure love, and how is that measure taken? This could certainly make sibling disputes a lot easier to resolve.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Because one tricks us into believing that love, for example, is something other than a way of perpetuating genes. The other says that there actually is a standard that our love can be measured against.
"So if you'll look at the chart on page three, you can see that I received a total of 247 milliluvs compared to your 632, proving conclusively that Mom did, in fact, love you best."
quote:Yes, "God's nature is X, Y and Z" is an idea. And advanced ideas as this are, to my knowledge, always human ideas. And this includes ideas about the nature of the universe, the existence of God and your atheism. None of which are made null and void simply because they happen to have the quality of emanating from a human brain. I'm sorry, but I don't see your point, Susan.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Everything that God is supposed to have done, or not done, is supposed to be or is not supposed to be, is a human idea, isnn't it?
quote:How do you know that? If your only experience of Christianity was that misogyny and homophobia were promoted, how can you then say that your moral outrage is Christian?
Originally posted by Evensong:
You think misogyny and homophobia are wrong? On what basis?
A Christian basis.
quote:This depends on how far you go with materialism, doesn't it? If you are an eliminative materialist, you might argue that things such as justice were illusions, since they consist of large numbers of fundamental particles, whizzing round. That is what reality is.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:But that's not illusionary.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Because they are basically patterns of neurons?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:Why would evolution make these things illusionary?
Originally posted by Squibs:
I gather Craig's point is that without God concepts like beauty, justice, love, morality, purpose and meaning and so on are at root illusions fobbed off on us by evolution.
quote:And yet so often it's Christians you're fighting against when you stand against these things. Weird innit?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Sure you do. But it didn't come out of a vacuum.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Suffice it to say, I have a very well developed moral code, I stick to it well, and it's better than any Christian's that suppresses women (using Paul's alleged writings and OT writings) or gays (using both the NT and OT versions of that bigotry).
A most curious part of the God Delusion is Dawkin's discussion of why Pasal's wager is wrong.
His moral argument comes straight from his Church of England upbringing.
So any "morality" an atheist growing up in a Christian county professes will come from Christianity.
You think misogyny and homophobia are wrong? On what basis?
A Christian basis.
quote:I'm not arguing that it causes them. I would point out though as a simple matter of fact that it perpetuates them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But surely misogyny and homophobia don't originate in the Abrahamic religions, but in patriarchal society itself. For example, anti-gay feelings can be linked with the fierce code of masculinity which we find in many societies. For example, anthropologists have studied societies round the Med, where a macho culture has predominated, often linked with homophobia.
To argue that religion 'causes' these things strike me as ahistorical. The Abrahamic religions have undoubtedly been expression of patriarchy, but they are not the origins of it.
quote:Why is that so astonishing?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules".
quote:Yet and nevertheless - that was the hypothesis Crick was presenting.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry to post this separately; blame idiotic soft-ware, which has such a short time lag for editing.
Francis Crick:
"The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules".
quote:You'd better ask Francis Crick!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why is that so astonishing?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules".
quote:I don't think this is necessarily denying that these things are real "in some sense." What's unreal about the behavior of cells and molecules?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:You'd better ask Francis Crick!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why is that so astonishing?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules".
I suppose he is saying that it runs counter to the general belief system of Western culture, that things such as identity, free will, joys and sorrow, and so on, are in some sense, real.
quote:Did he not respond "And who do you say I am?"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember that Prof Dawkins was challenged about this at a public meeting, when somebody got up, and said, 'did you write your books?', and I think Prof Dawkins could see where this was heading, and sort of stammered a bit.
quote:Very Zen.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Did he not respond "And who do you say I am?"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remember that Prof Dawkins was challenged about this at a public meeting, when somebody got up, and said, 'did you write your books?', and I think Prof Dawkins could see where this was heading, and sort of stammered a bit.
quote:Because it is Christianity that advocated the idea that everyone - absolutely everyone - has value in God's eyes.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:How do you know that?
Originally posted by Evensong:
You think misogyny and homophobia are wrong? On what basis?
A Christian basis.
quote:We were talking about the Golden Rule being useless unless you have a system of values to direct it. In itself it is valueless.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Seems like you're just saying that all Good Morals come from Christianity. Is it not possible that someone works some out for themselves?
Originally posted by Evensong:
You think misogyny and homophobia are wrong? On what basis?
A Christian basis.
quote:So..?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Because it is Christianity that advocated the idea that everyone - absolutely everyone - has value in God's eyes.
quote:Rubbish. Asserting something doesn't make it true - and the Golden Rule isn't even a Christian construct anyway.
Originally posted by Evensong:
We were talking about the Golden Rule being useless unless you have a system of values to direct it. In itself it is valueless.
As to someone working out morals on their own, sure. But how effective they might be in community and if the Golden Rule is to apply in that community then no - you cannot work out your morals on your own.
quote:Because it is extremely irrational.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why is that so astonishing?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules".
quote:So it is the foundational basis on which to argue against discrimination.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:So..?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Because it is Christianity that advocated the idea that everyone - absolutely everyone - has value in God's eyes.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Rubbish. Asserting something doesn't make it true - and the Golden Rule isn't even a Christian construct anyway.
Originally posted by Evensong:
We were talking about the Golden Rule being useless unless you have a system of values to direct it. In itself it is valueless.
As to someone working out morals on their own, sure. But how effective they might be in community and if the Golden Rule is to apply in that community then no - you cannot work out your morals on your own.
What am I asserting that isn't true?quote:It is debatable if it is a useful way to argue against discrimination, but even if it is, it certainly is not foundational. Utter drivel.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So it is the foundational basis on which to argue against discrimination.
quote:I'm sorry, you were the one who appeared to be arguing that the knowledge that the knowledge that misogyny and homophobia are wrong could only have come from Christianity. If you didn't mean that, what did you mean?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Agreed that the Golden Rule isn't a Christian construct. Apparently its quite common all over the world.
What makes the Christian construct different is the system of values it is based on.
The Corinthians had such a hard time understanding the Gospel because they were not schooled in the law - Jewish ethics.
quote:And I asked you how the hell you can possibly know that someone's atheistic morality originated from Christianity. You can't know that, can you?
You said:
it didn't come out of a vacuum.
A most curious part of the God Delusion is Dawkin's discussion of why Pasal's wager is wrong.
His moral argument comes straight from his Church of England upbringing.
So any "morality" an atheist growing up in a Christian county professes will come from Christianity.
You think misogyny and homophobia are wrong? On what basis?
A Christian basis.
quote:I don't know why you posted that link, because it's got nothing whatsoever to do with my post, nor the one to which I was replying.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Because it is extremely irrational.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why is that so astonishing?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules".
quote:It is not utter drivel at all.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:It is debatable if it is a useful way to argue against discrimination, but even if it is, it certainly is not foundational. Utter drivel.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So it is the foundational basis on which to argue against discrimination.
quote:It would originate from Christian morality if they lived in a predominantly Christian country.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
And I asked you how the hell you can possibly know that someone's atheistic morality originated from Christianity. You can't know that, can you?
quote:Well my bad then. I thought you were discussing the stupidity of materialism as a philosophy.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't know why you posted that link, because it's got nothing whatsoever to do with my post, nor the one to which I was replying.
quote:We were discussing the hypothesis "that you, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules".
Originally posted by Evensong:
I thought you were discussing the stupidity of materialism as a philosophy.
quote:Then that is your lack of imagination not anyone else's problem.
Originally posted by Evensong:
It is not utter drivel at all.
I can't think of any other foundation.
quote:How would you explain the fact that for 17 centuries slavery wasn't considered a sin?
How would you explain the movement against slavery by a bunch of Christians in England?
quote:No, come on you can do better than that. You're supposed to be arguing that it is not possible to oppose misogyny outwith of a Christian understanding, not just offering random Good Things that some Christians have done.
Or the massive charitable works started in the first centuries of Christianity amongst the poor and worthless?
They were bored one day perhaps?
quote:Why would it? If their only experience of Christianity was misogynist, bigoted and homophobic, why would a different morality have to have originated from Christianity?
It would originate from Christian morality if they lived in a predominantly Christian country.
quote:Yes you've said that before. Neither time have you offered any rational or sensible explanation of why that is true and why someone might not come up with a morality on their own which was against misogyny and homophobia. Given the prevailing attitude amongst Christians (which turned many into atheists in the first place), I'd say that the chances that this morality came from Christianity is highly doubtful.
If they lived in China it would probably originate from Confucianism or something.
Morality is not creation ex-nihilo.
quote:The post I refered to was creating the idea that we are not just products of our electrons and protons. It does refer to creation sometimes but more often to existence.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That in itself says nothing about how the universe was created, just about how it operates today.
quote:Must be.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:Then that is your lack of imagination not anyone else's problem.
Originally posted by Evensong:
It is not utter drivel at all.
I can't think of any other foundation.
quote:It is not insulting to ask you to explain yourself and to justify the things you say. That is the nature of debate.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think I'll go watch paint dry. It tends to insult you less and offers better alternatives to your ideas when it disagrees with you.
quote:Sadly not. I can easily affirm that we are merely* organic bags of physical and chemical reactions that all come together to form the beings that we are, without also having to prove how it was that we came to exist in the first place.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Whether you are discussing creation or today the principal still holds.
quote:Actually, I grew up in a Christian religion that had misogyny and homophobia built into it's system. At every level. Period.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Sure you do. But it didn't come out of a vacuum.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Suffice it to say, I have a very well developed moral code, I stick to it well, and it's better than any Christian's that suppresses women (using Paul's alleged writings and OT writings) or gays (using both the NT and OT versions of that bigotry).
A most curious part of the God Delusion is Dawkin's discussion of why Pasal's wager is wrong.
His moral argument comes straight from his Church of England upbringing.
So any "morality" an atheist growing up in a Christian county professes will come from Christianity.
You think misogyny and homophobia are wrong? On what basis?
A Christian basis.
quote:Same thing. I once read a book called 'Born to be Gay' by an former priest who demonstrated conclusively that homophobia and patriarchy both go back to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But surely misogyny and homophobia don't originate in the Abrahamic religions, but in patriarchal society itself.
quote:No patriarchy in ancient Egypt or Babylon? Pre-Christian Greece or Rome? Lots of women in the Athenian senate were there? Xanthippe the great orator?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Same thing. I once read a book called 'Born to be Gay' by an former priest who demonstrated conclusively that homophobia and patriarchy both go back to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But surely misogyny and homophobia don't originate in the Abrahamic religions, but in patriarchal society itself.
You don;t find the same in Hinduism and Buddhism nor native religions except insofar as they have been influences by Western empires.
quote:In what way is it a dodge? If you look first in examples where there is no controversy, ie steer clear for the moment of issues of self and consciousness etc, it is, well, uncontroversial. We're are just looking at the most appropriate level of explanation. A modern physicist is interested in looking at quarks and electrons and the strong and weak forces and suchlike to try consider how things work at the atomic level and below and explain things in those terms.
My impression is that the eliminative materialists are arguing that particles, neurons, cells, and so on, are the only things which are real. Thus, some of them speak of 'folk psychology' actually being wrong. This would fit with the idea that things such as identity and justice are illusions or errors.
However, I think it is possible to get round this by means of 'emergence' or 'supervenience', although they always look a bit of a dodge to me.
quote:Of course. But that is a very easy measure of the morality of a religion or moral system. A way of separating the sheep from the goats.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is there no more to morality than having a right view towards mysogyny and homophobia?
quote:I don't think this is necessarily implied by the Crick quote you gave above, though. As I read it, he didn't say the concepts of personhood, joy, sorrow, etc. aren't real or don't exist - he just said they're the behavior of cells and molecules. (Perhaps Crick isn't an eliminative materialist, but some other kind?)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I think the problems come up when you use emergence in relation to folk psychology. Thus, the eliminative materialist will say that there is no such thing as a person, since personhood is psychological, and is made up of patterns of neurons.
quote:That's true, but the question of consciousness and self-awareness is in a completely different category. Emergence and supervenience both describe observed properties or patterns, not the ability to observe those properties or patterns. There is no way to extrapolate from what is observed to the ability to do the observing. It's like trying to arrive at imaginary numbers by extrapolating from real numbers.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:In what way is it a dodge? If you look first in examples where there is no controversy, ie steer clear for the moment of issues of self and consciousness etc, it is, well, uncontroversial. We're are just looking at the most appropriate level of explanation.
My impression is that the eliminative materialists are arguing that particles, neurons, cells, and so on, are the only things which are real. Thus, some of them speak of 'folk psychology' actually being wrong. This would fit with the idea that things such as identity and justice are illusions or errors.
However, I think it is possible to get round this by means of 'emergence' or 'supervenience', although they always look a bit of a dodge to me.
quote:It is at least arguable that they are merely specific examples of the Golden Rule: don't treat women and homosexuals like crap, because you wouldn't want them to treat YOU like crap.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is there no more to morality than having a right view towards mysogyny and homophobia?
quote:I'm pretty sure that Crick and the Churchlands quote each other approvingly, and they are (or were) the high priests of eliminative materialism.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:I don't think this is necessarily implied by the Crick quote you gave above, though. As I read it, he didn't say the concepts of personhood, joy, sorrow, etc. aren't real or don't exist - he just said they're the behavior of cells and molecules. (Perhaps Crick isn't an eliminative materialist, but some other kind?)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I think the problems come up when you use emergence in relation to folk psychology. Thus, the eliminative materialist will say that there is no such thing as a person, since personhood is psychological, and is made up of patterns of neurons.
Analogously, we could say (and it seems that modern biology does say) that all of the activities of a living cell can be described (at least in principle) as behaviors of molecules, explicable in terms of the same sort of reactions that govern the molecules in non-living things - there's no special, extra "spark" which might once have been imagined (in a "folk biology," perhaps.) But I don't think that this position necessarily implies that there's no such thing as life.
quote:Yes, I sometimes say that you can't get from the third person to the first person. Thus, experience itself remains opaque to neurology, since the neurological description is perforce in the third person, as is the whole of science, at the moment.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:That's true, but the question of consciousness and self-awareness is in a completely different category. Emergence and supervenience both describe observed properties or patterns, not the ability to observe those properties or patterns. There is no way to extrapolate from what is observed to the ability to do the observing. It's like trying to arrive at imaginary numbers by extrapolating from real numbers.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:In what way is it a dodge? If you look first in examples where there is no controversy, ie steer clear for the moment of issues of self and consciousness etc, it is, well, uncontroversial. We're are just looking at the most appropriate level of explanation.
My impression is that the eliminative materialists are arguing that particles, neurons, cells, and so on, are the only things which are real. Thus, some of them speak of 'folk psychology' actually being wrong. This would fit with the idea that things such as identity and justice are illusions or errors.
However, I think it is possible to get round this by means of 'emergence' or 'supervenience', although they always look a bit of a dodge to me.
quote:I can't pretend any real familiarity with the topic, but if all materialists are eliminativists, wouldn't that mean "eliminative materialism" is redundant? Philosophers seem to distinguish between different varieties of materialism, though; the Wikipedia article on EM constrasts it with "reductive materialism" and "revisionary materialism". That doesn't seem consistent with the idea that all materialists must be eliminativists.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But how can one be a materialist and not an eliminativist? If you accept that 'a person' exists at some level of psychological or conceptual abstraction, then you are a dualist.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:I don't think this is necessarily implied by the Crick quote you gave above, though. As I read it, he didn't say the concepts of personhood, joy, sorrow, etc. aren't real or don't exist - he just said they're the behavior of cells and molecules. (Perhaps Crick isn't an eliminative materialist, but some other kind?)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I think the problems come up when you use emergence in relation to folk psychology. Thus, the eliminative materialist will say that there is no such thing as a person, since personhood is psychological, and is made up of patterns of neurons.
Analogously, we could say (and it seems that modern biology does say) that all of the activities of a living cell can be described (at least in principle) as behaviors of molecules, explicable in terms of the same sort of reactions that govern the molecules in non-living things - there's no special, extra "spark" which might once have been imagined (in a "folk biology," perhaps.) But I don't think that this position necessarily implies that there's no such thing as life.
quote:
The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when someone says, "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory.
Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics in The Darwinian Paradigm
quote:Well, I think that some materialists will argue that they are not eliminativists; I'm just not convinced how they can escape it, since either one is a 100% materialist, or one is not. If you are not, then you are not a materialist, really, you are some kind of dualist.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:I can't pretend any real familiarity with the topic, but if all materialists are eliminativists, wouldn't that mean "eliminative materialism" is redundant? Philosophers seem to distinguish between different varieties of materialism, though; the Wikipedia article on EM constrasts it with "reductive materialism" and "revisionary materialism". That doesn't seem consistent with the idea that all materialists must be eliminativists.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:But how can one be a materialist and not an eliminativist? If you accept that 'a person' exists at some level of psychological or conceptual abstraction, then you are a dualist.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:I don't think this is necessarily implied by the Crick quote you gave above, though. As I read it, he didn't say the concepts of personhood, joy, sorrow, etc. aren't real or don't exist - he just said they're the behavior of cells and molecules. (Perhaps Crick isn't an eliminative materialist, but some other kind?)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I think the problems come up when you use emergence in relation to folk psychology. Thus, the eliminative materialist will say that there is no such thing as a person, since personhood is psychological, and is made up of patterns of neurons.
Analogously, we could say (and it seems that modern biology does say) that all of the activities of a living cell can be described (at least in principle) as behaviors of molecules, explicable in terms of the same sort of reactions that govern the molecules in non-living things - there's no special, extra "spark" which might once have been imagined (in a "folk biology," perhaps.) But I don't think that this position necessarily implies that there's no such thing as life.
If you'd care to comment on my analogy, I'd be interested in knowing whether you think modern biology's treatment of "life" is eliminative.
quote:Whatever.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The article to which you linked merely** repeated the same tired old non-argument, viz. "How did the entire universe first come into existence? What, science doesn't know? Well then it must have been God! Ha! Proved it!"
quote:No wonder you're an atheist then.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually, I grew up in a Christian religion that had misogyny and homophobia built into it's system. At every level. Period.
quote:Learned that misogyny and homophobia are wrong on a humanist basis?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I learned that on an HUMANIST basis.
quote:It does in the Western tradition, but not, not in other parts of the world.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You may be incapable of understanding this (or maybe you are), but it is a simply a fact that Christianity doesn't have a corner on morality.
quote:Can you stop saying this, please.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Humanism is just liberal Christianity without transcendence. Sorry mate, you can't escape it.
quote:Good argument.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Can you stop saying this, please.
quote:I'm sorry Tom, I have asked her to explain and justify this every time she said it on this thread. She refuses and just keeps repeating it as if it is plainly obvious and true.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Good argument.
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Can you stop saying this, please.
--Tom Clune
quote:That may in fact be true, but I wonder if there is anything more to it than mere assertion, any basis in actual evidence.
Originally posted by Squibs:
By way of adding more interesting quotes from atheists RE morality
quote:
The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when someone says, "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory.
Michael Ruse, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics in The Darwinian Paradigm
quote:Wait what?
Humanism is just liberal Christianity without transcendence.
quote:Actually we were discussing What Atheism Has To Offer and you derailed.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:No wonder you're an atheist then.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually, I grew up in a Christian religion that had misogyny and homophobia built into it's system. At every level. Period.
quote:Learned that misogyny and homophobia are wrong on a humanist basis?
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I learned that on an HUMANIST basis.
Humanism is just liberal Christianity without transcendence. Sorry mate, you can't escape it.
quote:It does in the Western tradition, but not, not in other parts of the world.
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You may be incapable of understanding this (or maybe you are), but it is a simply a fact that Christianity doesn't have a corner on morality.
But we weren't discussing that. We were discussing how the Golden Rule is value free and cannot be used as a basis for ethics.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Christianity is not "based on a book." It's based on a person. The church was up and running for decades before the NT even started to be written. And Jesus was a person, not "based on a book."
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
But it's all based on a book that is completely morally bankrupt to one degree or another.
quote:I think there is something to be said for that idea.
Originally posted by Evensong
Humanism is just liberal Christianity without transcendence.
quote:So do you think that their ideas on morality can be integrated within a naturalistic world-view?
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Oh come on. Ideas of 'The Good' came from Plato and Aristotle. Kant has a whole ethical framework which is not dependent on a divine being.
Saying 'these ideas are shared with Christianity therefore they must be from Christianity' is obviously nonsense.
quote:Well there is an old joke that if we're all as unimportant as Dawkins says we are, his words are as worthless as everyone else, so we should stop taking any account of what he says.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So do you think that their ideas on morality can be integrated within a naturalistic world-view?
quote:Yes, but there is nothing obviously connecting the moral views expressed and Christianity. That is an unsupported assertion which cannot be proven or justified.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's why some critics argue that atheists are simply borrowing an ethical framework, (nothing wrong with that, of course), which actually doesn't fit.
quote:Also regarding this - even if you have a lower understanding of the person (which I suspect just amounts to doubting the unique characteristics of a human soul rather than anything else), that is not the same as believing in society.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, of course, but I suppose one argument is that any such moral framework could be eaten away by some of the implications of naturalism. For example, you might argue that there cannot be a person within naturalism, since it is not a physical thing. Of course, there are ways round that!
quote:That's not saying there is no such thing as a person, it's saying a person is not necessarily what we intuit it to be.
Thus, the eliminative materialist will say that there is no such thing as a person, since personhood is psychological, and is made up of patterns of neurons.
quote:That's not an argument that is going to trouble many monists, since details of how personhood as a concept, or anything else for that matter, works in a dualistic paradigm are notoriously light. The problem is just as hard for the dualist as it is for the materialist.
Surely here, we are hitting the 'hard problem', since no-one can demonstrate how you move from brain activity to things such as personhood as a concept, unless they posit abstract objects, which seems to lead to dualism.
quote:Heterophenomenology.
That's true, but the question of consciousness and self-awareness is in a completely different category. Emergence and supervenience both describe observed properties or patterns, not the ability to observe those properties or patterns. There is no way to extrapolate from what is observed to the ability to do the observing. It's like trying to arrive at imaginary numbers by extrapolating from real numbers.
Yes, I sometimes say that you can't get from the third person to the first person. Thus, experience itself remains opaque to neurology, since the neurological description is perforce in the third person, as is the whole of science, at the moment.
quote:That's interesting and ingenious. For me, it misses the obvious point that experience cannot be described. Well, it can to a degree, but the quality of 'what is it like to be me' is elusive. Try describing the present moment, it just can't be done.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:Heterophenomenology.
That's true, but the question of consciousness and self-awareness is in a completely different category. Emergence and supervenience both describe observed properties or patterns, not the ability to observe those properties or patterns. There is no way to extrapolate from what is observed to the ability to do the observing. It's like trying to arrive at imaginary numbers by extrapolating from real numbers.
Yes, I sometimes say that you can't get from the third person to the first person. Thus, experience itself remains opaque to neurology, since the neurological description is perforce in the third person, as is the whole of science, at the moment.
There's another point I was going to make, but John Bishop's on. Laters.
quote:If people like Ruse and Dawkins don't see how objective levels of love, truth beauty, or evil can exist in this universe then I don't see what options they are left with other than the one they have chosen. To them existence is at bottom mass energy.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
That may in fact be true, but I wonder if there is anything more to it than mere assertion, any basis in actual evidence.
quote:On a strictly naturalistic view of the world there is scant evidence for objective moral, ethical and aesthetic standards. And anything that does look like evidence is explained away as a trick of evolution. But the point is being missed, is it not? Moral standards are not like trees, universes, or anything else science is good at measuring. These standards must ultimately lie outside us, outside society and ultimately, so the claim goes, outside the material universe. And that is why People like Sam Harris are talking out their pie hole when they try to ground morality in science.
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
quote:Looks like it's worth a read.
Edward Feser argues in The Last Superstition, in fact there is not, and never has been, any war between science and religion at all.
There has instead been a conflict between two entirely philosophical conceptions of the natural order: on the one hand, the classical “teleological” vision of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, on which purpose or goal-directedness is as inherent a feature of the physical world as mass or electric charge; and the modern “mechanical” vision of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, according to which the physical world is comprised of nothing more than purposeless, meaningless particles in motion.
The modern “mechanical” picture has never been established by science, and cannot be, for it is not a scientific theory in the first place but merely a philosophical interpretation of science.
quote:
Not only is this modern philosophical picture rationally unfounded, it is demonstrably false. For the “mechanical” conception of the natural world, when worked out consistently, absurdly entails that rationality, and indeed the human mind itself, are illusory. The so-called “scientific worldview” championed by the New Atheists thus inevitably undermines its own rational foundations; and into the bargain it undermines the foundations of any possible morality as well.
quote:Why is it in a different capacity? The ability to observe properties and patterns is, in the naturalistic view, itself a property that can in principle at least be analysed. It is no different, philosophically speaking, than looking at, I dunno, gas pressure, that is a property of lots of molecules and the environment they are in. Like consciousness and a sense of self, you can't, no matter how hard you look, discern a scintilla of pressure, but put a few molecules of gas in a constrained environment and a phenomenon we like to call pressure occurs, the results of which we can observe. We don't feel the need to posit a platonic realm of perfect pressure or a special region outside of space and time where pressure resides. Neither, and here's the important bit, did they in that time when the precise nature of pressure was a mystery. They rolled their sleeves up and got on with the job of working it out.
That's true, but the question of consciousness and self-awareness is in a completely different category. Emergence and supervenience both describe observed properties or patterns, not the ability to observe those properties or patterns.
quote:I agree that as behavior, the ways in which we express our self awareness can be studied and analysed. I can observe people around me and the ways in which they act that seem to me to be a result of their own self awareness. I can even observe my behavior and conclude that their self awareness must be very similar to my own. And I agree that such behavior could theoretically be an emergent property of physical brain activity.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
The ability to observe properties and patterns is, in the naturalistic view, itself a property that can in principle at least be analysed.
quote:
"If a scientist took off the top of your skull and looked into your brain while you were eating the chocolate bar, all he would see is a grey mass of neurons. If he used instruments to measure what was happening inside, he would detect complicated physical processes of many different kinds. But would he find the taste of chocolate?
It seems as if he couldn’t find it in your brain, because your experience of tasting chocolate is locked inside your mind in a way that makes it unobservable by anyone else. . . Your experiences are inside your mind with a kind of insideness that is different from the way that your brain is inside your head.
...Suppose a scientist were crazy enough to try to observe your experience of tasting chocolate by licking your brain while you ate a chocolate bar ... your brain probably wouldn’t taste like chocolate to him at all. But even if it did, he wouldn’t have succeeded in getting into your mind and observing your experience of tasting chocolate. He would have discovered... that when you taste chocolate, your brain changes so that it tastes like chocolate to other people. He would have his taste of chocolate and you would have yours."
quote:I'm doing an essay on atheism at the moment and attempting to define the different types.
Originally posted by Tea:
I'm relieved that I don't have to wrestle with burdensome aspects of religious belief that have not only a cognitive but also an affective and ethical dimension, such as the theist's problem of evil. I welcome challenges and puzzles, but I think I would find having to live with this insoluble problem to be psychically crushing.
quote:A nice little quote I found:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Evensongquote:Wait what?
Humanism is just liberal Christianity without transcendence.
quote:- Rev Peter Corney
Christianity’s great radical moral idea is that we are all made in the image of God and so every person must be treated with dignity and justice and kindness. All are precious. This is the idea that transformed the ancient pagan world of Rome and then claimed and shaped the heart and mind of Europe and formed our collective moral imagination and what is best in the moral DNA of Western culture.
This, ironically, is what lies behind our now secular liberal values that the New Atheists assume and borrow. Alain De Botton acknowledges this in his recent book Religion for Atheists.
quote:Yes, but the view of a morality toward misogyny and homophobia is a useful touchstone.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is there no more to morality than having a right view towards mysogyny and homophobia?
quote:As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
Originally posted by Tea:
I'm an atheist, but for a variety of reasons I'm not a fan of the militant hostility to all religion characteristic of so many of the "new" atheists.
My lack of enthusiasm for the "new" atheism does not, however, mean that I am simply indifferent to matters of belief. Like almost everybody, I would, on the whole, prefer not to be in the grip of false beliefs.
I'm relieved that I don't have to wrestle with burdensome aspects of religious belief that have not only a cognitive but also an affective and ethical dimension, such as the theist's problem of evil. I welcome challenges and puzzles, but I think I would find having to live with this insoluble problem to be psychically crushing.
quote:Ooooo quoted on an opening post. Why didn't anyone tell me? Am I due any royalties?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I read the following comment on another thread:
quote:This poster clearly felt that it was worth the effort to convince people of his "message" - his "gospel", as it were - which sounds, of course, like the message of atheism, judging by the content of the rest of his post.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD
I'm a BBC Religion MB refugee. My reason for being there? I guess I got tired of seeing all the blinkered Biblebots lording it up over anyone with a differing opinion. After a while I discovered that my input in certain debates had indeed made not one but two people question their religion and open their eyes. As the more seasoned posters will already be aware this is extremely rare, whatever side of the fence you sit. To me it justified all the time I spent in there.
Of course, Richard Dawkins has expressed his desire to convert people to atheism.
My question is really this: why?
What exactly is the "good news" of atheism, to which it is worth trying to convert people?
I'd be intrigued to see how our resident atheists answer this question.
quote:Late to the party but...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd say the absence of a Cosmic Judge who will send you to eternal damnation for not doing (or even believing) the right things is a definite plus point.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What exactly is the "good news" of atheism, to which it is worth trying to convert people?
quote:"Shit happens".
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil?
quote:If there's no afterlife there's no need for one.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What about the consequent absence of a loving Saviour who saves you from eternal damnation which is the consequence of your actions?
quote:TBH, that's the only vaguely reasonable answer I've managed to get from a theistic viewpoint as well.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Shit happens".
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil?
quote:Eternal damnation decreed by the same loving Saviour. Eliminate the Saviour's decree of damnation, and salvation therefrom is unnecessary.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What about the consequent absence of a loving Saviour who saves you from eternal damnation which is the consequence of your actions?
quote:Maybe it does it for you, but to me that looks to be as satisfying an explanation of evil in the same way that "fire burns" is a satisfying explanation of why your business burnt down.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:"Shit happens".
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil?
quote:Well if you want an explanation of evil then "people are selfish, greedy shits" covers most of it, and geology covers the rest.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Maybe it does it for you, but to me that looks to be as satisfying an explanation of evil in the same way that "fire burns" is a satisfying explanation of why your business burnt down.
quote:First I don't believe that evil is a problem - and I believe that supernatural Evil doesn't exist, however comforting it would be if it did.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
quote:Damnation is the result of a decree, by definition.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I see it more as being the antidote to poison which we have drunk rather than the result of a decree; we are rescued from our own folly.
quote:Does it? I'm not sure that I could look at the depths of depravity that we regularly sink to as individuals and as a species and explain it as a bunch of selfish shits doing shitty things.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well if you want an explanation of evil then "people are selfish, greedy shits" covers most of it, and geology covers the rest.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Maybe it does it for you, but to me that looks to be as satisfying an explanation of evil in the same way that "fire burns" is a satisfying explanation of why your business burnt down.
quote:Although Evensong at 16:30 understood what I meant by the "theist's problem of evil", I ought to have made it clearer in my post that I meant the problem of reconciling a belief in an omnipotent deity who who deserves our worship with our knowledge of the existence of evils, or undesirable states of affairs in the world. My apologies to Drewalexander and any others who were puzzled by my original phrasing.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil?
quote:And how do you propose we clean up this shit?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
"Shit happens".
quote:Surely for an atheist, the notion of 'evil' is simply nonsensical, isn't it? I know that some atheists still use the word, for example, saying that religion is evil! But I assume that this is a kind of metaphor, meaning, I suppose, 'something I don't like', or, 'something which is bad for society', although here 'bad' itself looks a bit dodgy.
Originally posted by Tea:
quote:Although Evensong at 16:30 understood what I meant by the "theist's problem of evil", I ought to have made it clearer in my post that I meant the problem of reconciling a belief in an omnipotent deity who who deserves our worship with our knowledge of the existence of evils, or undesirable states of affairs in the world. My apologies to Drewalexander and any others who were puzzled by my original phrasing.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil?
What do Evensong and other theists who have to say about natural evils - those instances of pain and suffering that cannot be blamed on the choice of free agents to do wrong?
As an atheist, I don't have to suffer the torment of this "Lisbon earthquake" question.
quote:No, I guess you don't. And that means you have solved the problem. Shit happens. That's it.
Originally posted by Tea:
As an atheist, I don't have to suffer the torment of this "Lisbon earthquake" question.
quote:Or maybe its best described by mental illness. Don't forget that unfortunately some people are born psychopaths. Unable to feel empathy.
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:Does it? I'm not sure that I could look at the depths of depravity that we regularly sink to as individuals and as a species and explain it as a bunch of selfish shits doing shitty things.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well if you want an explanation of evil then "people are selfish, greedy shits" covers most of it, and geology covers the rest.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Maybe it does it for you, but to me that looks to be as satisfying an explanation of evil in the same way that "fire burns" is a satisfying explanation of why your business burnt down.
Abducting and killing little girls isn't just the act of a tremendously large and mad tosser, nor is it simply wrong in a "break from the mores of societal morality" type of way. It is wrong in a deeply disturbing, grotesque and offensive way that I think alone is best described by the concept of sin.
quote:It may well be mental illness. But as an explanation I don't find it much more compelling than Marvin's mantra. So while we can both agree that you have to be a very sick individual to do such things, and in this respect Marvin is right on target, I think that the sickness is symptomatic of a greater malaise. But I guess you don't.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Or maybe its best described by mental illness. Don't forget that unfortunately some people are born psychopaths. Unable to feel empathy.
quote:Something something evolution...
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Accounting for that intuition takes some doing.
quote:I really don't get this style of argument. There are copious philosophical ramblings of a humanist, secular, utilitarian/Consequentialist flavour out there that demonstrate this is patently false. You might not agree with any of it, you might think that it ultimately fails, but to think that an atheist must also be a moral nihilist because he rejects a (I'm trying hard not to use "Sky Daddy" here) metaphysical higher authority is just sloppy.
Surely for an atheist, the notion of 'evil' is simply nonsensical, isn't it? I know that some atheists still use the word, for example, saying that religion is evil! But I assume that this is a kind of metaphor, meaning, I suppose, 'something I don't like', or, 'something which is bad for society', although here 'bad' itself looks a bit dodgy.
quote:Link please.
Originally posted by Grokesx
I really don't get this style of argument. There are copious philosophical ramblings of a humanist, secular, utilitarian/Consequentialist flavour out there that demonstrate this is patently false.
quote:I think we'd prefer to read an argument rather than an assertion.
You might not agree with any of it, you might think that it ultimately fails, but to think that an atheist must also be a moral nihilist because he rejects a (I'm trying hard not to use "Sky Daddy" here) metaphysical higher authority is just sloppy.
quote:Good to see you can do subtle irony.
I think we'd prefer to read an argument rather than an assertion.
quote:So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:I really don't get this style of argument. There are copious philosophical ramblings of a humanist, secular, utilitarian/Consequentialist flavour out there that demonstrate this is patently false. You might not agree with any of it, you might think that it ultimately fails, but to think that an atheist must also be a moral nihilist because he rejects a (I'm trying hard not to use "Sky Daddy" here) metaphysical higher authority is just sloppy.
Surely for an atheist, the notion of 'evil' is simply nonsensical, isn't it? I know that some atheists still use the word, for example, saying that religion is evil! But I assume that this is a kind of metaphor, meaning, I suppose, 'something I don't like', or, 'something which is bad for society', although here 'bad' itself looks a bit dodgy.
quote:I'm not sure how a theists suffers more torment than an atheist at natural processes that cause human harm.
Originally posted by Tea:
What do Evensong and other theists who have to say about natural evils - those instances of pain and suffering that cannot be blamed on the choice of free agents to do wrong?
As an atheist, I don't have to suffer the torment of this "Lisbon earthquake" question.
quote:Something something goddidit.
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:Something something evolution...
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Accounting for that intuition takes some doing.
quote:Nothing to apologise for Tea Your post was clear enough and the question well made. I was wondering, coming back to the OP, what as an atheist you have to say to people who experience the effects of natural or moral evil. What does atheism have to offer?
Originally posted by Tea:
quote:Although Evensong at 16:30 understood what I meant by the "theist's problem of evil", I ought to have made it clearer in my post that I meant the problem of reconciling a belief in an omnipotent deity who who deserves our worship with our knowledge of the existence of evils, or undesirable states of affairs in the world. My apologies to Drewalexander and any others who were puzzled by my original phrasing..
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil?
quote:To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
quote:OK, eliminate the word 'damnation' and substitute with 'torment' (as a result of drinking from the poison that is sin). We still need to be rescued from it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Damnation is the result of a decree, by definition.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I see it more as being the antidote to poison which we have drunk rather than the result of a decree; we are rescued from our own folly.
quote:Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
quote:Well, this thread is about atheism, and hopefully will not be reversed in the usual manner, so that we end up talking about theodicies.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
quote:Oops. Forgot to add the extra pie in the sky that "evil" is wrong?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
quote:Yes, and my answer about atheism was that it has nothing to offer in terms of an answer to the "problem of evil".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, this thread is about atheism
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
quote:Yes. It's everything that's promised to us after we die, for which we have no evidence and no reasonable reason to suppose it's going to actually happen.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
quote:Thank you for quote-mining me. It is always refreshing and sort of elevating for this to happen, since it presumably means that the bit that was quote-mined was so powerful and eloquent, that the remainder of it needn't be quoted as well, especially as it is relevant to the points that you make here! Good strategy!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, and my answer about atheism was that it has nothing to offer in terms of an answer to the "problem of evil".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, this thread is about atheism
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
I then stated my opinion that religion has nothing to offer in terms of that particular problem either, unless you're willing/able to believe in pie in the sky. The point being that this isn't the knock-down argument in favour of religion that you appear to think it is.
quote:No. It's not all about after we die. All that pie in the sky is about now AND in the future.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes. It's everything that's promised to us after we die, for which we have no evidence and no reasonable reason to suppose it's going to actually happen.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
quote:"Quote mining" can also perhaps be referred to "paring down the part you're quoting so you don't end up with 100 lines of preface and only 3 lines of response." This latter practice is kind of fucking annoying.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thank you for quote-mining me. It is always refreshing and sort of elevating for this to happen, since it presumably means that the bit that was quote-mined was so powerful and eloquent, that the remainder of it needn't be quoted as well, especially as it is relevant to the points that you make here! Good strategy!
quote:It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
quote:Oh well, Marvin retained 6 words of my post, and got rid of 113! I suppose it's one way of having a discussion, you can dispense with most of what somebody said, then you don't have to reply to that, especially if it contradicts what you say.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:"Quote mining" can also perhaps be referred to "paring down the part you're quoting so you don't end up with 100 lines of preface and only 3 lines of response." This latter practice is kind of fucking annoying.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thank you for quote-mining me. It is always refreshing and sort of elevating for this to happen, since it presumably means that the bit that was quote-mined was so powerful and eloquent, that the remainder of it needn't be quoted as well, especially as it is relevant to the points that you make here! Good strategy!
quote:You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
quote:Although I am a theist, i dfon't think my answer is much different from that of some atheists - the earth hasn't finished evolving yet so it isn't perfect yet - much as Iraenaus also thought.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
And your view on his would we welcomed as well Leo.
quote:Although I am a theist, i dfon't think my answer is much different from that of some atheists - the earth hasn't finished evolving yet so it isn't perfect yet - much as Iraenaus also thought.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
And your view on his would we welcomed as well Leo.
quote:Although I am a theist, i don't think my answer is much different from that of some atheists - the earth hasn't finished evolving yet so it isn't perfect yet - much as Iraenaus also thought.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
And your view on his would we welcomed as well Leo.
quote:I'm still not getting this idea. It is, of course, the same question as we discussed earlier in relation to consciousness. I'm afraid I'm going to bring out another analogy, one that I brought up on EE's "What's the point of anger, justice..." thread a while back which went unanswered: Is it nonsensical to say that water is derived from oxygen and hydrogen on the grounds that neither of them are wet?
If they are naturalists, it might even be said to be a nonsensical question, since evil cannot be derived from patterns of fundamental particles.
quote:I've never proposed goddidit as an explanation. Though I supposed that God must be the ultimate answer to the problems of pain and suffering. While I can accept "something something evolution" as part of the answer, it doesn't get to the heart of it.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Something something goddidit.
It almost sounds like you are arguing that because you don't like an answer it's less likely to be true.
quote:The best comment I have read on the Ship all year!
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too.
quote:No, absolute moral truth and purpose are not offered by atheism.
Originally posted by Squibs:
This thread is not about what I like, George. It's about what atheism offers. And absolute moral truth and purpose are not offered.
quote:I don't understand the problem, to be honest.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that no good, no evil, and no purpose, were absolutely fundamental in any kind of naturalist or materialist view of the universe. Of course, not all atheists adhere to those views, I suppose.
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too. It's just difficult to derive the latter from the former.
quote:I've met many people, all are capable of holding apparently contradictory ideas at the same time. In this case I don't even think they are contradictory.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I agree with that. I sometimes talk about 'necessary illusions'.
I suppose the radical materialists, or whatever you want to call them, are pointing out that an illusion is an illusion, and that, for example, morality is such an illusion.
But it still seems to me there is an element of bad faith here by some atheists, who on the one hand, profess materialism, and on the other hand, are quite happy to use various metaphysical ideas. Perhaps they are being very sophisticated, and are saying this 'as if'. I live as if morality actually existed, although between you, me and the bed-post, I know that it doesn't. Well, maybe.
quote:Yes. And I don't even think it is that clever either.
But sometimes it does seem to matter. For example, if there really are no such things as persons, or no such thing as free will, this is important in many different areas. To argue that the person is a necessary illusion (or free will), is very clever, but is it consistent?
quote:It depends on what you mean by words like "reality" and "exist".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's the consistency of naturalism which is the issue. If you see reality as consisting of fundamental particles, fine, but then this has certain implications. For example, the eliminative materialists argue that things such as ideas and persons don't really exist.
quote:I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I suspect they're actually arguing against the notion that there is an absolute truth and that there is an absolute standard of justice which is unchanging and static.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For example, if justice and morality are illusions, what implications might this have? I don't know, but I would think they could be quite considerable.
quote:And you simply haven't followed through on the implications. There is no purpose except the purpose we make. But that is not the same thing at all as saying there's no purpose. A purpose we give ourselves is at least as valid as one given to us by someone who doesn't manifest directly in a confused and contradictory book and being looked over and interpreted by a range of differingly corrupt organisations.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that no good, no evil, and no purpose, were absolutely fundamental in any kind of naturalist or materialist view of the universe. Of course, not all atheists adhere to those views, I suppose.
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too. It's just difficult to derive the latter from the former.
quote:It would mean we live in a universe without consequences and one in which we are all such special snowflakes that we are entirely unlike each other.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My point is that the implications of these ideas, that things like persons and ideas and so on, are illusions, are only just being worked on. In other words, people are only at the beginning of this work.
For example, if justice and morality are illusions, what implications might this have? I don't know, but I would think they could be quite considerable.
quote:What do you mean by 'the purpose we make' and the 'purpose we give ourselves'? If you accept physical determinism, which I would think most naturalists would, (allowing for stochastic processes), then in what sense is there a 'we' which 'makes' or 'gives'?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:And you simply haven't followed through on the implications. There is no purpose except the purpose we make. But that is not the same thing at all as saying there's no purpose. A purpose we give ourselves is at least as valid as one given to us by someone who doesn't manifest directly in a confused and contradictory book and being looked over and interpreted by a range of differingly corrupt organisations.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that no good, no evil, and no purpose, were absolutely fundamental in any kind of naturalist or materialist view of the universe. Of course, not all atheists adhere to those views, I suppose.
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too. It's just difficult to derive the latter from the former.
quote:1: Cogito Ergo Sum. So yes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What do you mean by 'the purpose we make' and the 'purpose we give ourselves'? If you accept physical determinism, which I would think most naturalists would, (allowing for stochastic processes), then in what sense is there a 'we' which 'makes' or 'gives'?
Are you saying that there is a human subject which is able to create or construct things or concepts? And is this a free conscious agent?
quote:Super post - applause!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Take love, for example. Can you show me a single molecule of love?
*snip*
Love may not be a physical object in the universe, and therefore not a thing that really exists, but that doesn't mean it's a useless concept.
quote:Cogito ergo sum is total nonsense, since it takes its conclusion as its premise. 'I think' - no, it is this I which we are trying to demonstrate, but not by assuming it in the first place.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:1: Cogito Ergo Sum. So yes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What do you mean by 'the purpose we make' and the 'purpose we give ourselves'? If you accept physical determinism, which I would think most naturalists would, (allowing for stochastic processes), then in what sense is there a 'we' which 'makes' or 'gives'?
Are you saying that there is a human subject which is able to create or construct things or concepts? And is this a free conscious agent?
2: Define free. We are relatively free - free to choose our friends but not our relatives.
But ultimately yes. I believe consciousness is an emergent property rather than an illusion.
quote:No. Cogito Ergo Sum works. It's disproof of the negative by contradiction. Something must think to be able to formulate such a statement because if nothing thought neither the statement nor its antithesis would have meaning - therefore paradox. And I might as well call that thing that thinks and uses me to articulate that thinking 'I'.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Cogito ergo sum is total nonsense, since it takes its conclusion as its premise. 'I think' - no, it is this I which we are trying to demonstrate, but not by assuming it in the first place.
quote:And you have just thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Your arguments strike me as the decaying remnants of 19th century positivism, a kind of pitiful ruin, embellished by 'I believe'. Your faith is touching, I suppose.
quote:My arguments start from the premise that the universe is bigger than we are - and is more than big enough to encompass my brain and billions of other brains of equal complexity*. Even if the watchmaker universe didn't appear to conflict with our observations we need to work with what we have available. Will pure physicalism work? In theory - in exactly the same way that Chemistry is a branch of physics in theory. But standing where we are treating chemistry as nothing more than a branch of physics (rather than starting with chemistry and attempting to unify the two) would be a bad idea.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Justinian
But your arguments are pure metaphysics. Perhaps you are not claiming to be an adherent of naturalism or physicalism? Otherwise, I can't see how you reconcile all this metaphysics with physicalism. I suppose the awkward bits are emergent!
quote:Having personal experience with mental illness and the incontrovertible fact that drug treatments do in fact make a difference in some cases is part of the evidence. Also there are many documented cases in which people with brain damage suffer corresponding changes in mental abilities. Just as it would be expected if those mental abilities actually reside in the brain. The changes documented also include changes to behavior.
I want also to say that consciousness is nothing but a neurobiological process, and by that I mean that precisely because consciousness is qualitative, subjective, irreducibly phenomenological (airy fairy, touchy feely, etc.) it has to be a neurobiological process; because, so far, we have not found any system that can cause and realize conscious states except brain systems. Maybe someday we will be able to create conscious artifacts, in which case subjective states of consciousness will be “physical” features of those artifacts. John R. Searle in Why I Am Not a Property Dualist
quote:When you use words like freedom and tyranny you are begging the question, Marvin.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which, looked at from a different angle, means that there's not one rigid standard to which everyone must conform their lives whether they like it or not. We are free to decide our own moral truth and purpose, be it as individuals or as societies. Looked at this way atheism offers moral freedom while religion offers moral tyrrany.
Which is better? Ask any member of a group that has been persecuted because they don't conform to the moral absolutes of the dominant religion.
quote:I take it you mean there is no scientific evidence for non-material entities? This is hardly surprising given the purpose of science is to investigate the material world. You may as well attempt to phone your mother with a cheese cake moulded into the shape of a mobile phone as use science to investigate things at are by definition outside its remit.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Because there is no evidence that anything non-material exists.
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:I take it you mean there is no scientific evidence for non-material entities? This is hardly surprising given the purpose of science is to investigate the material world. You may as well attempt to phone your mother with a cheese cake moulded into the shape of a mobile phone as use science to investigate things at are by definition outside its remit.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Because there is no evidence that anything non-material exists.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Many atheists are property dualists and happy with it.
So I can never quite understand why atheists are not happy to be dualists, since presumably they are happy to accept that numbers and propositions are not themselves physical, aren't they? Such things have no physical extension, surely.
quote:Some atheists may have that fear, as unlikely as I may find it. Of course, the obverse may be true of some theists - they may fear that the advance of knowledge and the overturning of long cherished notions might slam the door shut in God's face, or at least leave him sneaking around in ever shrinking gaps.
Or is there a fear that dualism has a nasty little back door, into which G-d might sneak?
quote:Yes, this shows the chaotic nature of naturalism, that naturalistic evidence should be sought for something non-natural or non-material. Eh? This is so incoherent, it makes you wonder if naturalists or materialists even understand their own terms.
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:I take it you mean there is no scientific evidence for non-material entities? This is hardly surprising given the purpose of science is to investigate the material world. You may as well attempt to phone your mother with a cheese cake moulded into the shape of a mobile phone as use science to investigate things at are by definition outside its remit.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Because there is no evidence that anything non-material exists.
quote:Hang on - which thread are you on? I look at the top, and it says 'what exactly does atheism have to offer?' I take that to be asking for some information about atheism, whereas you seem to now asking for information about theism. Are we on the same wave-length here?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
If you show me were to find those non-natural or non-material things you conveniently fail to specify. I would take your accusation of incoherence more seriously.
quote:Or as my systematic theology lecturer says: “Methodological atheism jumps to ontological atheism with no explanation.”
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just making the point that asking for evidence for something that is non-natural or non-material strikes me as very odd. Science itself sets its limits in methodological terms, so that stuff like God is omitted or ignored. How then can there be scientific evidence for what has been omitted? It just doesn't make sense, yet again and again one finds atheists asking 'where's the evidence?'
quote:I'm pretty sure I addressed this in a previous post.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, for me, a pure physicalism is immediately contradicted when the physicalist starts to think or speak, since their ideas and meanings are themselves not physical things. OK, they are connected to physical things - patterns of neurons, but they are not identical to them.
quote:Looks for Like button...will have to make do with
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
quote:Make your own:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:Looks for Like button...will have to make do with
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
quote:Like I said, it depends on your point of view. Theists see having a bunch of Divine Commandments to live by as freedom, atheists see being able to decide how to live their lives for themselves as freedom.
Originally posted by Squibs:
When you use words like freedom and tyranny you are begging the question, Marvin.
quote:The question is not whether standards should exist. The question is "who gets to decide what they are?"
By way of counter-point, I would contend that certain rigid standards are essential in any loving relationship, and they type of unlimited freedom that you are espousing is precisely the type of thing that can stunt and poison relationships.
quote:Every single democracy that has ever existed, for a start.
It might seem liberating to collectively embrace our own truths and purposes, but I wonder if a society has ever existed that was founded upon these relativistic tenets?
quote:Yes - the first Greek democracy was founded on these principles and was a disaster for these very reasons.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Every single democracy that has ever existed, for a start.
Originally posted by Squibs:
It might seem liberating to collectively embrace our own truths and purposes, but I wonder if a society has ever existed that was founded upon these relativistic tenets?
quote:Are you talking about Athens? One of the most powerful Greek City-states for hundreds of years?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Yes - the first Greek democracy was founded on these principles and was a disaster for these very reasons.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Every single democracy that has ever existed, for a start.
Originally posted by Squibs:
It might seem liberating to collectively embrace our own truths and purposes, but I wonder if a society has ever existed that was founded upon these relativistic tenets?
quote:**[[ LIKED ]]**
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
quote:In the same way you unbelieve in Marxism, Hinduism and a million other things.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
quote:Hubristic to tell atheists what they mean by the term isn't it?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Make your own:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:Looks for Like button...will have to make do with
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
**[[ LIKED ]]**
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
quote:Actually, as far as I can see, more and more Christians do give some credit to other religions, and 'other gods'. They might not go so far as to say, well, your path is as valid as my path, which is an ultra-liberal position, but they might say that there are many paths, and I can't really dismiss them all, since God sure works in mysterious ways.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Hubristic to tell atheists what they mean by the term isn't it?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Make your own:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:Looks for Like button...will have to make do with
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Tea. If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
**[[ LIKED ]]**
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
There are thousands of gods spread throughout human history. You don't believe in any of them except one. Atheists just take that process a reasonably logical stage further and don't believe in that one either.
quote:If you can convince EE that the idea of God - the eternal, personal, intelligent Creator of the universe - is just a trivial idea, from which flow absolutely no implications whatsoever for our view of reality, then not only will you have won the internet, but EE will also award you the Nobel Prize for Sophistry.
Originally posted by George Spigot
If you can convince E E that atheism is just disbelief in the existence of a god then you win the Internet.
quote:But I didn't - I just stated what it meant to me.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Hubristic to tell atheists what they mean by the term isn't it?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
quote:Interestingly, the early Christians were denounced as atheists because of their disbelief in any other God but one.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There are thousands of gods spread throughout human history. You don't believe in any of them except one. Atheists just take that process a reasonably logical stage further and don't believe in that one either. [/QB]
quote:So is theism disbelief in the non-existence of God or belief in the existence of God?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
quote:I think that's a very good point. I have always said that I don't go to church in order to sit there having beliefs. In fact, I'm not really sure what it means to 'believe in God'.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:So is theism disbelief in the non-existence of God or belief in the existence of God?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
btw. I don't see Atheism as disbelief in the existence of God - I see it as belief in the non-existence of God.
I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe in Fate, or for that matter the tooth fairy. I didn't choose this position any more that than I chose to be right handed. It seems to just be the way my mind/brain works.
Could somebody please explain the difference between disbelief in the existence of God and belief in the non-existence of God. Can you do both? If you only do the first it seems you aren't an atheist - so what are you?
And how do I know which I am? Unless I'm both ... or even if I am.
quote:I am not claiming that theism is trivial, but that arguments like "If Tea is an atheist, then Tea is an eliminative physicalist" are unsound. As I pointed out earlier, atheists have all sorts of views about ontology, epistemology, and ethics.
Originally posted by Etymological Evangelical
If you can convince EE that the idea of God - the eternal, personal, intelligent Creator of the universe - is just a trivial idea, from which flow absolutely no implications whatsoever for our view of reality, then not only will you have won the internet, but EE will also award you the Nobel Prize for Sophistry.
quote:So let me get this straight. From this and your recent posts, you seem to me to be saying you have a mind and imagination that have a separate existence from your body. Together these things determine your belief in God. You also have contra causal free will that doesn't seem to extend to influencing the belief, and somewhere in the mix there is an exchange of immaterial stuff between the time and space where where your body resides and another place, where God is.
As you say, I didn't choose for my mind and body and imagination to work this way. I can't unchoose it either. Fuck it, I'm stuck with it.
quote:Actually, going back to the OP, it's you and your adherents we are waiting to hear some good news from.
Originally posted by Tea:
In short, EE, we atheists might be offering you the opportunity to cut out the redundant from your proclamation of the gospel. You can give us good news rather than bad philosophy.
quote:If my "proclamation of the Kingdom of God" is just a hobby like flower arranging, then I guess you've got a point. But I tend not to pay much attention to such patronising nonsense.
Originally posted by Tea
As you tell us about your faith and encounter non-believers with some background in philosophy, might it not occur to you that your proclamation of the Kingdom of God does not require you to take a position on a "view of reality" - supervenience, levels of explanation, causal closure, pragmatic justifications for naturalism, and so on?
quote:Well, that's because you've done a complete caricature.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:So let me get this straight. From this and your recent posts, you seem to me to be saying you have a mind and imagination that have a separate existence from your body. Together these things determine your belief in God. You also have contra causal free will that doesn't seem to extend to influencing the belief, and somewhere in the mix there is an exchange of immaterial stuff between the time and space where where your body resides and another place, where God is.
As you say, I didn't choose for my mind and body and imagination to work this way. I can't unchoose it either. Fuck it, I'm stuck with it.
I know I must have it all wrong, but it from where I'm standing the incoherence of your interpretation of naturalism has nothing on that lot.
quote:So how do you think I have caricatured naturalism?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Quetz
That's kind of the point. What's good for the goose and all that.
Anyway, help will soon be at hand for you in addressing actual naturalistic arguments on free will, consciousness, morality, emergence and the rest.
quote:Well, you've drawn a big hairy bubo labelled "incoherent" on some naturalist positions and despite counter arguments that you have either not responded to or dismissed as dodges, carried on drawing the bubo.
So how do you think I have caricatured naturalism?
