|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Brilliant article by John Dickson. Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter
quote:
Atheists should drop their easily dismissed scientific, philosophical or historical arguments against Christianity, and instead quiz believers about Old Testament violence and hell, writes John Dickson.
One of the things I find tiresome about "New Atheists" is that they're so badly informed about Christianity.
If dialogue could get past the bullshit due to ignorance, things could get much more interesting.
I think Dickson's points on weaknesses of Christianity are good too.
What think youse?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Thirteen years hanging about this place, I must be one of the most theologically literate atheists on the planet.
But still an atheist.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Two basic thoughts about this. First, there are two Christianities, and I can argue the case for one but not for the other. What I can't argue for is Christianity that denies science, and which aligns itself with the social-political-economic right wing. I don't find that iteration of Christianity supportable at all. Those are likewise the Biblical inerrantists and literalists, those who embrace "Creation Science" and the young earthers.
The Christianity that I CAN argue for is the Christianity that understands faith and science in their respective appropriate contexts, embraces higher criticism, and is not wedded to reactionary politics. This means that I can't defend religion generally or the Christian religion specifically as a whole. I can only emphasize what I and my like-minded co-religionists generally believe.
Secondly, there is the tiresome, naive and reductionist argument one so often hears from atheists to the effect that religion is the cause of all social conflict, as one religious group fights another. To counter this might seem relatively easy, but I find that atheists can be remarkably wed to their views. I stress that human society and group psychology have characteristically employed a definition of the in-group that is partly based on the identification of an "other(s)" who are emphatically not part of the group, and that the Other is defined based on a whole range of possible characteristics, not just religion (race, ethnicity, language, social class, etc). I also emphasize factors such as economic competition between groups, the fundamental nature of aggressive drives, the enormous extent of persecution based on ideology as opposed to religious belief, and the developmental difficulties in consolidating sexual orientation and object choice - in combination with the nature of psychological defenses - that fuel bigotry and persecution against sexual minorities. In all of this, religion can and has played a role in the institutionalization of bigotry, persecution, and intra- and inter-societal conflict, but is just conveniently misappropriated for that role. In other words, if it weren't one -ism being used for malevolent purposes, it would be another. Get rid of religion and it will be some form of nonreligious ideology that will fill its role in service of conflict and persecution. That, of course, is a distinctly negative argument, and one must be able to argue in combination with that particular line of approach the positive good that religion has fostered in the lives of individuals and in society, e.g., abolition of slavery, the civil rights struggles, etc. However, in human affairs, it's always a mixed bag -- everything is.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
There are some good points there. Just last night I was having to correct an atheist detractor of mine as to the connotations of the Greek pistis does not mean "blind belief" which ties in well with point 2.
The general point, though, as demonstrated with the opening line you quoted, is a question of the terms of the debate.
Many atheists I have debated with in the past (I tend not to do so much nowadays, as it's all rather repetitive) have demanded that I answer their questions, on their terms and using their terminology.
When I point out that what is portrayed is often a parody of my belief (usually cherry-picked from one or other tradition or fundamentalist soundbite) and try to explain the christian faith as I actually believe it, there usually comes an accusation of dodging the question or trying to reframe the debate.
I certainly do try to reframe the debate, but only so that it is in a frame which gives a true and fair view, rather than ill-fitting one which distorts the picture somewhat.
I would hold up as the main weakness of christianity, or rather it's falsification criterion to be 1 Corinthians 15:14 quote:
And if The Messiah is not risen, our preaching is worthless and your faith is also worthless.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think more of a problem is the degree to which Christianity has failed to act against this tendency to persecute the other.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Why don't atheists ever want to grill Jewish people on Old Testament violence - these stories are about their ancestors and come from their holy books, after all.
I would also love to know the logic of grilling Christians on Old Testament violence at Easter, when Jewish people are practically at the same time celebrating the Passover, which marks the deaths of Egyptian babies (among others).
Christianity is an easy target for atheists, because they know if they go after a minority religion they will be accused of racism. And unfortunately for them, some of their top thinkers (ahem, Dawkins) have made comments that veer well on the side of the R-word in the past.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Why don't atheists ever want to grill Jewish people on Old Testament violence - these stories are about their ancestors and come from their holy books, after all.
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Strawman. There is nothing in the article about legislation. And wasn't Australia's last PM before the current one an atheist? Are you speaking about Australia specifically or just making a general comment?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Neither are most Christians.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Neither are most Christians.
We would not have the dead horses board if this were true.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Why don't atheists ever want to grill Jewish people on Old Testament violence - these stories are about their ancestors and come from their holy books, after all.
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Strawman. There is nothing in the article about legislation. And wasn't Australia's last PM before the current one an atheist? Are you speaking about Australia specifically or just making a general comment?
You asked why atheists in predominantly Christian nations are more concerned about confronting Christians than Jews. The answer (aside from frequency of opportunity) is that Christians often use their numerical superiority to inflict (from an atheist point of view) negative policies at either a social or legal level.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Neither are most Christians.
Yeah, but the ones who do are especially pernicious. As lilBuddha notes, virtually all Dead Horse issues are argued in theological terms.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Yeah, but the ones who do are especially pernicious.
So what?
That is true of any philosophy or world view, including atheism.
Attack the ones who do, not the ones who don't.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You asked why atheists in predominantly Christian nations are more concerned about confronting Christians than Jews. The answer (aside from frequency of opportunity) is that Christians often use their numerical superiority to inflict (from an atheist point of view) negative policies at either a social or legal level.
I do not know why you are speaking on behalf of this John Dickson and claiming his view is based on Christians pushing through legislation or social control, but it is not the point he has made in that article. He is saying that atheists should use the Christian holiday of Easter as an opportunity to disabuse Christians of their incorrect beliefs.
If you can point me to the articles in the Israeli, or Malaysian, or heck even Nigerian press that go after Jewish and Muslim beliefs in the same manner, then I'll accept that this line of reasoning against Christianity is only due to its status as a majority religion in Australia.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
Tip #9. Ask us about Old Testament violenI promised to highlight vulnerabilities of the Christian Faith. Here are two.
Most thoughtful Christians find it difficult to reconcile the loving, self-sacrificial presentation of God in the New Testament with the seemingly harsh and violent portrayals of divinity in the Old Testament. I am not endorsing Richard Dawkins' attempts in chapter 7 of The God Delusion. There he mistakenly includes stories that the Old Testament itself holds up as counter examples of true piety. But there is a dissonance between Christ's "love your enemies" and Moses' "slay the wicked".
'
All religions are, at base, a way of explaining the question of "Why did God (any god) allow that (any event, usually bad)to happen? If the believers accept the religious answer and incur no further bad things to happen, then well and good. The problem comes when the religious cast their beliefs onto "the other" as a way to expiate their belief. Live and let live should be a common, non-religious belief.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I've realized that the writer is a Christian academic. I maintain that it is shockingly poor taste to encourage atheists to quiz Christians about the legitimacy of our faith at Easter, and I do not think most newspapers would touch such an article from a Jewish or Muslim writer with a ten foot pole.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Neither are most Christians.
We would not have the dead horses board if this were true.
What are you implying by this?
So Christians who put their point of view on a particular part of a particular website are "using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives"??
But presumably those who argue against those Christians on that same subsection of the website are not "using their world view / philosophy to legislate everyone else's lives"?
Hmmm. How does that work?
Let's take a DH example (and I am not making a DH argument here in purgatory, but merely making an observation about how we view moral discourse). Abortion. So a Christian who happens to take a more pro-life position may argue against the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy in a certain context, thereby apparently attempting to legislate her life (even though the Christian may not have any political means to do so, and is merely expressing a moral opinion), whereas the advocate of the so-called "pro-choice" position (who may or may not be a Christian) is not considered to be acting against the rights and interests of the person in the womb?
Sounds like double standards to me.
Anyone who promotes any moral position can be regarded as someone who is attempting to "legislate other people's lives", and unless atheists abandon morality altogether, they are just as capable and culpable of this as Christians.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Neither are most Christians.
We would not have the dead horses board if this were true.
What are you implying by this?
What I was implying is that Christians are using legislation to attempt to enforce their religious beliefs.
The vocal frontline would be merely footnotes if they did not have a sizable backing. Every Christian? Of course not. A sizable percentage though.*
Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs. And they are entitled to share those beliefs, but are not entitled to impose them on others. Or should not be.
*This is changing, thankfully.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Probably because, unless you happen to live in Israel, most Jews aren't using their religion as an excuse to legislate everyone else's lives.
Neither are most Christians.
We would not have the dead horses board if this were true.
Nor the periodic threads about the Social Gospel
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The 10 points are not bad, and more subtle than the usual anti-atheist stuff; although his comment about philosophical and scientific arguments seems a bit weak to me. I think those arguments would be against the notion of the supernatural, wouldn't they?
Or you might turn it round, and argue that there is no method for describing or assessing the supernatural. To quote Laplace again, God explains everything, and predicts nothing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Brilliant article by John Dickson. Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter
quote:
Atheists should drop their easily dismissed scientific, philosophical or historical arguments against Christianity, and instead quiz believers about Old Testament violence and hell, writes John Dickson.
One of the things I find tiresome about "New Atheists" is that they're so badly informed about Christianity.
If dialogue could get past the bullshit due to ignorance, things could get much more interesting.
I think Dickson's points on weaknesses of Christianity are good too.
What think youse?
Very interesting, yes, but having just listened to the whole thing, my first thought is - too many words!!! All of which avoid the objective
fact that would confound all atheists! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
...therefore of the presence of a Mind behind reality.
And then there's that question of what's behind that mind, which for the atheist is a simple one - no such mind anyway.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Thirteen years hanging about this place, I must be one of the most theologically literate atheists on the planet.
But still an atheist.
Love your post!!
:
[ 29. April 2014, 15:41: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
In my first post there, I should have said an objective fact.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Brilliant article by John Dickson. Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter
quote:
Atheists should drop their easily dismissed scientific, philosophical or historical arguments against Christianity, and instead quiz believers about Old Testament violence and hell, writes John Dickson.
One of the things I find tiresome about "New Atheists" is that they're so badly informed about Christianity.
If dialogue could get past the bullshit due to ignorance, things could get much more interesting.
I think Dickson's points on weaknesses of Christianity are good too.
What think youse?
Very interesting, yes, but having just listened to the whole thing, my first thought is - too many words!!! All of which avoid the objective
fact that would confound all atheists!
quote:
...therefore of the presence of a Mind behind reality.
And then there's that question of what's behind that mind, which for the atheist is a simple one - no such mind anyway.
This points up a reason I find the argument between atheists and theists rather pointless or misdirected. My argument is that something is eternal -- but what? Is it an eternal, utterly impersonal duality of energy and matter? Or is there any agency behind this duality? The proposition of nothingness - an utter non-existence from which anything could arise in the first place - is an absurdity. But why should we believe in an eternal duality of matter and energy that operate without any agency? Of course, I fully understand that one can ask precisely the same question regarding a deity that is the ultimate eternal, and from which the physical Creation emerges. My response is that this is completely a matter of aesthetics that are an aspect of the individual's subjectivity, and apparently an aspect of the shared psychology of most individuals in the species Homo Sapiens.
Various theological propositions can be spun out from the foregoing understanding of a Deity that is the ultimate eternal and creative agency, the uncaused cause. I don't think, however, that much of the cultural artifact that is human religions has much directly to do with or say about this Deity. Much of religion says a great deal more about the evolution of human thought.
So I'm not sure I have much to argue about with atheists at the end of the day. For an authentically faithless person there is a psychological - or aesthetic - imperative that seems simply not to be there. I don't think that gap can be bridged in such instances. I have my set of aesthetic imperatives which the true atheist evidently does not experience, assuming that s/he has thought seriously about questions of existence.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Thirteen years hanging about this place, I must be one of the most theologically literate atheists on the planet. But still an atheist.
That's a non sequitur, a condemnation and a holy truth rolled into one and a half sentences. Nice. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Everyone is entitled to their moral beliefs. And they are entitled to share those beliefs, but are not entitled to impose them on others. Or should not be.
Does this apply to moral beliefs about:
a) cruelty to animals?
b) rent sharking, loan sharking, health and safety legislation, etc?
c) environmental protection legislation?
Apart from a few libertarians, most of us have some moral beliefs that we're happy for the government to impose on other people.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Lietuvos
Very nice post. I have often thought about the aesthetic benefits of religion, although it sounds too superficial, I suppose. Yet it can carry a lot of weight, and can actually overwhelm one's ratiocination. Give me some candles, some incense, some Latin, and I am yours.
In relation to nothingness, some Buddhists posit an emptiness; I believe it is sometimes expressed as reality being 'empty of all characteristics'. But then of course, it becomes full of characteristics, suggesting possibly an act of creation. Hmm.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What I was implying is that Christians are using legislation to attempt to enforce their religious beliefs.
Because non-Christian countries like Japan, China, India, Turkey, etc. are more accepting of religious and DH-issue minorities than majority/historically Christian countries are.
Wait...they aren't.
One of the weakest atheistic arguments against Christianity is that it is the cause of political oppression of non-Christians. There is enough historical evidence of non-Christian and non-religious governments that nonetheless crushed any and all opposing ideologies to debunk this straight away.
Elites actively work to consolidate and extend their power in every society. The particular religious beliefs of those elites differ from place to place but their behavior remains remarkably similar. Suggesting that it's not Christianity specifically or religion specifically that is the problem.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I don't count most of those as strictly moral, but practical.
The cruelty to animals thing is largely moral.
If your point is that only pure arguments are valid, then no argument is. We humans are messy that way. But the dead horse issues are largely no harm except imaginary. Yes, there is at least one exception, but trying like hell not to import those arguments here.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Elites actively work to consolidate and extend their power in every society. The particular religious beliefs of those elites differ from place to place but their behavior remains remarkably similar.
Which has been my underlying argument the entirety of my presence on SOF. But realise the opposite is true as well. The source of all good does not reside in Christianity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
This is not a very good post, I'm afraid!
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
My argument is that something is eternal -- but what? Is it an eternal, utterly impersonal duality of energy and matter? Or is there any agency behind this duality? The proposition of nothingness - an utter non-existence from which anything could arise in the first place - is an absurdity.
For the moment, 'we don't know' what was before the start of the universe and no doubt physicists will still be trying to find out when the sun no longer allows for human existence.
quote:
But why should we believe in an eternal duality of matter and energy that operate without any agency? Of course, I fully understand that one can ask precisely the same question regarding a deity that is the ultimate eternal, and from which the physical Creation emerges. My response is that this is completely a matter of aesthetics that are an aspect of the individual's subjectivity, and apparently an aspect of the shared psychology of most individuals in the species Homo Sapiens.
Yes, I think that's an assessment I can agree with.
[QUOTE]So I'm not sure I have much to argue about with atheists at the end of the day. For an authentically faithless person there is a psychological - or aesthetic - imperative that seems simply not to be there.[//QUOTE]
I have been thinking about that point...I think it would be very difficult to be 'authentically faithless', as anyone, including atheists, who has lived in any kind of community could not avoid observing and learning something of the religious faiths of others. For myself as a child, I knew it was simply not done to say anything against God, or even raise the subject as it was the height of bad manners. This meant of course that I took longer than I would otherwise have done to be an atheist.
[
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
One of the things I find tiresome about "New Atheists" is that they're so badly informed about Christianity.
Is there some succinct work of apologetics which all Christians could subscribe to? Something that would inform New (or old) atheists adequately and get the whole hearted support of all Christians and so get the discussion off to a better start. Perhaps SoF could produce it's own.
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras says "there are two Christianities, and I can argue the case for one but not for the other". So how do we non-Christians know who are the real Christians? I'll happily go with LSK but I suspect some people calling themselves Christians would say I was being duped by the devil.
Dickinson says "Serious theists have always welcomed explanations of the mechanics of the universe as further indications of the rational order of reality and therefore of the presence of a Mind behind reality." If I can't believe the claim is true of all Christians at all times, should I conclude that Christians who don't share his view are not serious? Given that some people say they are Christians and yet clearly do believe in a god of the gaps, would disagreeing with one be less atheist provocation and more Christian charity? Or is it the other way round?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Lietuvos
Very nice post. I have often thought about the aesthetic benefits of religion, although it sounds too superficial, I suppose. Yet it can carry a lot of weight, and can actually overwhelm one's ratiocination. Give me some candles, some incense, some Latin, and I am yours.
In relation to nothingness, some Buddhists posit an emptiness; I believe it is sometimes expressed as reality being 'empty of all characteristics'. But then of course, it becomes full of characteristics, suggesting possibly an act of creation. Hmm.
I want to stress that by "aesthetic" I don't mean material things at all, but rather one's psychological, subjective sense of goodness-of-fit, what intuitively feels "right" or plausible. A Nothing-into-Something (sans an eternal Creative Agency) feels implausible to me, and an eternal duality of energy and matter without agency or motivation doesn't feel right or satisfying to me either. I expect that we mortals will never know, and certainly I in my mortality will not know. Thus, I can only be governed by my own aesthetic imperative. Further, as may be apparent, my basic theism is nothing to do with the Christian revelation that I confess: for me theism must preceed the Revelation of God in Christ, or indeed any other system of faith. The most fundamental Christian verity that I apply my basic, bare bones theism is that the nature of God is love, because I deduce that the nature of creative energy and sustenance is love; creativity and love are intimately
intertwined. Still, this is only scratching the surface of these matters.
[ 29. April 2014, 18:54: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I want to stress that by "aesthetic" I don't mean material things at all, but rather one's psychological, subjective sense of goodness-of-fit, what intuitively feels "right" or plausible. A Nothing-into-Something (sans an eternal Creative Agency) feels implausible to me, and an eternal duality of energy and matter without agency or motivation doesn't feel right or satisfying to me either.
What intuitively feels right often isn't. For example, our world feels both flat and stationary.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Yes, I agree with that, Croesus, but the physics of our earth and solar system can be proved via appropriate observation with suitable instruments. Ultimate reality cannot be proved and is not subject to instrumentation.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
IMHO, one difference between atheism and religion is that whereas atheism must posit that meaning is strictly a human construct, the religious has to posit that meaning has an external referent.
An atheist/agnostic can of course have a meaningful life, but he would say that all the meaning is simply his own human construct, his own little crutch. In short, life has no meaning in itself. This differs from nihilism. Nihilism says that meaning is impossible. Atheism posits that meaning is possible but we make it.
The religious posit that meaning, while having the human element of interpretation, nevertheless refers ultimately to God, something beyond human concept. Augustine says "Thou has made us for thyself and our hearts are restless until we rest in you." An atheist response might be "Of course, we are restless, but we solve that restlessness through our own creativity and our own resilence."
[ 29. April 2014, 19:16: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Yeah, but the ones who do are especially pernicious.
So what?
That is true of any philosophy or world view, including atheism.
Attack the ones who do, not the ones who don't.
I've never heard of anyone trying to stop same sex marriage because of their atheist world view.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Yeah, but the ones who do are especially pernicious.
So what?
That is true of any philosophy or world view, including atheism.
Attack the ones who do, not the ones who don't.
I've never heard of anyone trying to stop same sex marriage because of their atheist world view.
Nor require anyone to enter into a same-sex marriage.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... he would say that all the meaning is simply his own human construct, his own little crutch.
Augustine says "Thou has made us for thyself and our hearts are restless until we rest in you." An atheist response might be "Of course, we are restless, but we solve that restlessness through our own creativity and our own resilence."
Atheists might say that Christians have created a a set of beliefs to resolve their restlessness.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Why don't atheists ever want to grill Jewish people on Old Testament violence - these stories are about their ancestors and come from their holy books, after all.
Judaism doesn’t proselytize. While some branches of that tradition accept converts, I’m not aware of any that actually seek or encourage these. (Jews for Jesus is not seen, AFAIK, as a branch of Judaism by most Jews.) Islam and Christianity both proselytize. Thus far, no Muslim has buttonholed me on a streetcorner demanding to know if I’ve been saved, but several Christians (or so they’ve claimed) have done so. This is annoying and confrontational; I found it so even when professing Christianity.
From the article’s beginnings:
quote:
In the interests of a more robust debate this Easter, I want to offer my tips for atheists wanting to make a dent in the Faith. I've got some advice on arguments that should be dropped and some admissions about where Christians are vulnerable.
I’d just like to point out that this article is addressed to those who want “to make a dent” in Christianity, that is, New Atheists. Not all atheists share this title or have this goal. I don’t. I once was a Christian, deeply involved in church affairs, even appointed a deacon for three years. I don’t claim to be profoundly well-informed about Christianity, but neither am I ignorant enough to rail on the straw men of creationism et al. Then there’s this:
quote:
This is a peculiar problem of the Christian gospel. If God were principally holy and righteous, and only occasionally magnanimous in special circumstances, we wouldn't be shocked by final judgment. But it is precisely because Jesus described God as a Father rushing to embrace and kiss the returning 'prodigal' that Christians wonder how to hold this in tension with warnings of hell and judgment.
I agree this is a special problem for Christians. I sincerely hope they work it out one day. But why is it the responsibility of atheists to assist Christians in that process by challenging this paradox? Why should atheists care about what is, AFAICT, a strictly Christian issue?
I am perfectly happy for Christians to believe whatever they wish. As others have noted, I am not happy to have Christian DH beliefs foisted on me legislatively, attempts which do in fact occur in the US from time to time.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
IMHO, one difference between atheism and religion is that whereas atheism must posit that meaning is strictly a human construct, the religious has to posit that meaning has an external referent.
An atheist/agnostic can of course have a meaningful life, but he would say that all the meaning is simply his own human construct, his own little crutch. In short, life has no meaning in itself.
As one of more agnostic stripe myself, I’m not sure how we get from meaning-as-a-human- construct to life-has-no-meaning-in-itself. I’m perfectly prepared to acknowledge that humans, being limited in all sorts of ways, are not terribly well-equipped in the finding-of-meaning department. I’m also prepared to acknowledge that there may be dimensions to “life” or “meaning” that we’re ( or I’m) wholly unable to detect. The fact that I don’t believe in God or gods by no means settles any questions for me or anybody else; I could be wrong. It’s just that I begin my search for meaning (to the extent I search at all) from a different starting-gate on a different course.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
I've never heard of anyone trying to stop same sex marriage because of their atheist world view.
Maybe so (although one could argue that they are forcing a philosophically motivated redefinition of marriage onto society), but I have certainly heard of atheists who want to undermine consent when it concerns the availability of a certain type of school which is not to their philosophical liking.
In other words, they are forcing their version of morality on other people, thus undermining free choice and consent.
Morality speaks into the way society coheres and functions, and therefore anyone with any concept of morality cannot help imposing their view on the rest of us, because a totally individualistic morality is a practical contradiction (imagine someone saying: "I think it's wrong to steal, but I'm perfectly relaxed about others thinking differently"). The idea that atheists have no expectation as to how society should function morally, is simply nonsensical, but that seems to be what is being implied in this thread.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
I've never heard of anyone trying to stop same sex marriage because of their atheist world view.
Maybe so (although one could argue that they are forcing a philosophically motivated redefinition of marriage onto society), but I have certainly heard of atheists who want to undermine consent when it concerns the availability of a certain type of school which is not to their philosophical liking.
In other words, they are forcing their version of morality on other people, thus undermining free choice and consent.
Morality speaks into the way society coheres and functions, and therefore anyone with any concept of morality cannot help imposing their view on the rest of us, because a totally individualistic morality is a practical contradiction (imagine someone saying: "I think it's wrong to steal, but I'm perfectly relaxed about others thinking differently"). The idea that atheists have no expectation as to how society should function morally, is simply nonsensical, but that seems to be what is being implied in this thread.
How do you know these efforts spring from atheists? Where I live, so-called "mainline churches" join in these efforts, and perhaps are the primary movers.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't count most of those as strictly moral, but practical.
The cruelty to animals thing is largely moral.
If your point is that only pure arguments are valid, then no argument is. We humans are messy that way.
It seems to me equally open for a conservative to take the 'humans are messy' line as a response to you on Dead Horses. If you're going to hold other people to a position you really ought to hold yourself to it first.
I am not at all sure why you think environmental and abuses of economic consent issues are practical rather than moral. (I agree that environmental protection has practical benefits. It's not obvious to me that that's the primary reason for supporting legislation. The primary reason for preserving species diversity is because we think the diversity of living organisms is a good in itself regardless of its value to human beings.)
[ 29. April 2014, 22:24: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The primary reason for preserving species diversity is because we think the diversity of living organisms is a good in itself regardless of its value to human beings.)
The primary reason science minded people think the diversity of living organisms is good is because it is.
Yes, there are shared moral values which are encapsulated in law. Some of these are necessary for a peaceful society and Some are about not harming others. Many DH subjects do not do harm to those who wish to regulate them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I agree that environmental protection has practical benefits. It's not obvious to me that that's the primary reason for supporting legislation.
Really? I was under the impression that the main reason people supported clean water laws (for example) was the very practical desire not to have to drink polluted water.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Judaism doesn’t proselytize. While some branches of that tradition accept converts, I’m not aware of any that actually seek or encourage these. (Jews for Jesus is not seen, AFAIK, as a branch of Judaism by most Jews.) Islam and Christianity both proselytize. Thus far, no Muslim has buttonholed me on a streetcorner demanding to know if I’ve been saved, but several Christians (or so they’ve claimed) have done so. This is annoying and confrontational; I found it so even when professing Christianity.
If the primary opposition by atheists to Christianity is due to the fact that it is annoying to be preached at occasionally, then my respect for atheists has plummeted. Certainly such a position, without any larger philosophical or scientific reasoning for lack of belief in a god, cannot be described as atheism. Otherwise I am an a-charitist because I do not accept the charity muggers that accost me in the street.
Hinduism and its religiously enforced segregation through the caste system is OK because they don't proselytize, so they don't bother you walk down the street? There are about 1 billion people practicing that religion.Surely given the global scale of Hinduism vs Christianity, plus demographics suggesting more growth in India, this is more important than what your local Baptist church hands out on the high street.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... although one could argue that they are forcing a philosophically motivated redefinition ...
... atheists who want to undermine consent ...
... not to their philosophical liking ...
... forcing their version of morality on other people, thus undermining free choice and consent.
'Forcing' and 'undermine' are interesting choices of word. People argue a case, sometimes they convince people/legislators to change things. Isn't that how democracy works? And when more (or less) is allowed the definition of the thing (legally at least) has changed.
As for "philosophically motivated", I'm not quite sure what it means. Back to Hume's Fork I guess. People want something to change and so find arguments (which may be wholly correct) to persuade other people. On that basis all political/legal change is philosophically motivated.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
How do you know these efforts spring from atheists? Where I live, so-called "mainline churches" join in these efforts, and perhaps are the primary movers.
I gave the example of faith schools, and there is plenty of evidence that there are atheists and humanists who oppose the existence of these schools - see here, for example. This demonstrates that atheists and humanists are just as guilty of "legislating other people's lives" as Christians allegedly are. Of course, they will reason (as the BHA does) that parents have a right to bring up their children in their religion, but not with state funding. But what right does the state have to finance a secular philosophy?
The assumption seems to be that there is a kind of "null hypothesis" or "default world view" called secularism, that is completely non-discriminatory and perfectly objective (even morally objective), whereas religions are subjective and biased. This is a philosophical claim, which I certainly do not accept. The philosophy of naturalism that lies behind secularism is just another faith system, and the claim that all aspects of reality should be interpreted according to this system (even in the absence of direct empirical evidence or even sound inference from observation) - under the guise of science - is an example of special pleading and intellectual bias. Anyone who dares to suggest that, on the basis of coherent inference from the evidence, there might actually be more to reality than blind and mindless nature just somehow ("we don't yet know how") organising itself into high levels of complexity, is scathingly dismissed as a 'creationist'. No wonder so many people regard atheism as just another militantly proselytising faith system. Which, in fact, the New Atheism largely is.
I also find it rather strange that atheists tend to champion the concept of 'consent' as regards personal morality, and yet subscribe to a world view which tends to deny the function of free will. How can consent operate in the absence of free will? This is an example of how atheists have taken an idea from the theistic view of reality, which makes free will possible (although some forms of theism seem to deny free will), and claimed it as their own. It seems remarkable to me that atheists rail against 'moralistic' Christians, and argue that consenting adults can do what they like (without harming others), thus upholding a principle that makes no sense within the deterministic philosophy of naturalism.
More evidence that atheism is simply not true. Sorry Susan Doris. But it just isn't.
[ 30. April 2014, 08:56: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I agree that environmental protection has practical benefits. It's not obvious to me that that's the primary reason for supporting legislation.
Really? I was under the impression that the main reason people supported clean water laws (for example) was the very practical desire not to have to drink polluted water.
You think that clean water laws should only apply in populated areas? It's ok to release pollutants into areas with minimal population?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, there are shared moral values which are encapsulated in law. Some of these are necessary for a peaceful society and Some are about not harming others. Many DH subjects do not do harm to those who wish to regulate them.
To say some things oughtn't to be illegal because they don't cause harm is one argument. To say they oughtn't to be illegal because banning them involves imposing one's moral values on other people is another argument.
If you mean the former, you should say the former, rather than the latter.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
