Ship of Fools: Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter

Thread: Top 10 tips for atheists this Easter Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027331

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Thirteen years hanging about this place, I must be one of the most theologically literate atheists on the planet.

But still an atheist.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I think more of a problem is the degree to which Christianity has failed to act against this tendency to persecute the other.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I agree with most of his points except no. 4 - sure no decent theologians argue 'God of the gaps' but many lay people still do - they will accept evolution and the big bang and then say that 'somebody must have started it off'.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

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

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

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]

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.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

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 ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

In my first post there, I should have said an objective fact.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

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.

[

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

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?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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 ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

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.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.

I was responding to the question of why atheists don't grill Jews about OT violence; it's because Jews, not being proselytizers, don't invade others' time and privacy with such efforts. IME, Christians have.

I don't, in general, oppose Christianity (or other religions); it's no business of mine what others believe, until or unless those beliefs lead to actions which interfere with the ordinary human rights of others. My ability to counteract such efforts is fairly limited to my being a citizen of a particular place.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

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?

I can't speak to the goals of "organized" atheists, especially in the UK. You seem to be suggesting that the "state funding" is some sort of red herring. I disagree; I'm in the U.S., which separates church and state Constitutionally, and that's no red herring. It's one of several founding principles of our governance. Of course, the UK has an established church & their situation is necessarily different.

Personally, I thought the function of a US free, appropriate public education was to ensure that all children get the opportunity to acquire the skills needed to become effective citizens and workers. I don't quite see how this is a legislative move to enforce atheistic demands on people of faith.

As to "secular philosophy," if by that you mean the basic principles on which ordinary democracy functions, then yes: that should be part of a public education. If that's not what you mean, perhaps you can spell out what this "secular philosophy" consists of.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I was responding to the question of why atheists don't grill Jews about OT violence; it's because Jews, not being proselytizers, don't invade others' time and privacy with such efforts. IME, Christians have.

I understand that, and my response is pointing out that your reasoning - that Christianity is targeted by atheists because it proselytizes - is problematic, because it makes atheists who argue against Christianity out to be nothing more than NIMBY-types who simply do not like being confronted with a different set of beliefs. I must admit I don't recognize this characteristic either in atheists that I personally know, or in the atheists who write lengthy pieces using philosophical, scientific, or logic-based arguments against religion.

(It's also worth noting that, at least in my area, the groups that spend the most time trying to recruit are two heterodox groups that the established church doesn't even recognize as Christian - Jehovah's Witness and Mormon. Is this too much nuance to expect from atheists?)

So I would say that the majority of Western atheists writers/bloggers/journalists I have come across are really more accurately described as anti-Christians. They tend to be ambivalent at best about other religions, even those that do recruit (like Islam) or those that have oppressive behaviors built into them (like Hinduism). And as I said before, Christianity is an easy target. Go after some of those other groups and being accused of xenophobia at best and being threatened at worst are likely outcomes. So why not stick to the old church, they won't do anything about it.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
(It's also worth noting that, at least in my area, the groups that spend the most time trying to recruit are two heterodox groups that the established church doesn't even recognize as Christian - Jehovah's Witness and Mormon. Is this too much nuance to expect from atheists?)

The Mormons of my acquaintance self-identify as Christian; I take them at their word. If you tell me you are Christian, I take you at yours.

Nuanced or not, I see no reason to argue this point with people who are advancing causes I'm not interested in joining, primarily because all these distinctions are based on an underlying belief system I don't share. I'm also acquainted with self-styled Christians who claim that RCC folk aren't Christian either, though RCC folk claim they are. As a non-believer, how can I refute or defend such claims? You make a distinction important to you on the basis of your own beliefs (that these "other" groups are "heterodox"), but only those who share your beliefs are in a position to appreciate or argue that distinction.

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
So I would say that the majority of Western atheists writers/bloggers/journalists I have come across are really more accurately described as anti-Christians. They tend to be ambivalent at best about other religions, even those that do recruit (like Islam) or those that have oppressive behaviors built into them (like Hinduism). And as I said before, Christianity is an easy target. Go after some of those other groups and being accused of xenophobia at best and being threatened at worst are likely outcomes. So why not stick to the old church, they won't do anything about it.

I take your point. That said, though, I'm only one non-believer. I don't claim to have worked out my own "beliefs" in any great detail, I don't represent views other than my own, and I'm not especially fussed that others believe in things I don't believe in.

However, I don't seek out opportunities to "have at" believers; it's just that only self-styled Christians -- no Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, et al. -- have accosted me on the street, on my doorstep, in a laundromat, etc., in an effort to evangelize me. I explain I'm not interested, and about half the time they persist regardless. To the extent I harbor animosity toward believers, this persistence despite polite refusal is where it springs from, not from what they believe.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

There's an interesting review in The Guardian today by Julian Baggini, looking at Nick Spencer's new book - Atheists: The Origin of the Species.

What struck me was the comment:

quote:
That we should talk about "atheisms rather than atheism" is self-evident.

That we should, yes. But I'm not convinced that we do. The 'we' there refers to both atheists and non-atheists alike.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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?

If there is no free will then I may still believe that I have it. Nothing about determinism implies that we would ever accept that our behaviour was determined. Obviously, if we thought that the arguments for determinism were strong enough we might assent to them* - that is say they are true but I doubt we could ever 'feel' that it was so.

People frequently argue that if determinism were true there would be no point in, for example, punishing people. But that assumes we have the free will to makes the choice to stop.

* Or not since we may, deterministically, be unable to do so.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Hinduism and its religiously enforced segregation through the caste system

I thought caste was outlawed after Gandhi, thugh some outlying villages still give dalits a hard time.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Hinduism and its religiously enforced segregation through the caste system
I thought caste was outlawed after Gandhi, thugh some outlying villages still give dalits a hard time.

It's illegal to discriminate based on caste. As it is illegal to discriminate based on race in the United States. Draw your own conclusion.

Socially and religiously it is the same as it's always been.

Daily Beast - Dalit women targeted for rape

Teenage boy strangled for dating higher caste girl
Al Jazeera - "Rat Eaters" of India

I've heard shocking things from high-caste Hindus about lower-caste ones, in the US and UK, as well. And they were justified in religious terms as well, that they have different social responsibilities that have a spiritual component so it's best to keep within your own group.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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).

Maybe it's something to do with the tendency on the part of many Christians to wrap themselves in the cloak of "Judaeo-Christian values", along with the declaration that it would be a good thing if society at large was based on such values. It's not the Jews who ram this down people's throats.

[ 01. May 2014, 00:07: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
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.

Why the fuck not? It was Good Friday that Christians chose to use the centre of Croydon for a "procession of witness". One purpose was, I assume from the name, proselytization. I'm sorry but "respect" for religion does not mean bowing our heads before it.

And I see from your recent posts that you have no qualms about the potential poor taste of levying charges of discrimination and rape against Hinduism. Double standards?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

This may be a pond difference, but here's the American secular view.

If you were not being allowed to open a religious school that you funded, I'd be happy to work with you to make lift that oppression.

There's a substantial difference between prohibiting religious schools and not funding such schools with taxpayer money. People who belong to other faiths or no faith don't see the need to fund your religion.

Why should I pay taxes to teach your religion? I'm fine with it being legal provided it provides a competent education. You want to teach religion, do it on your own dime.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

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.

I'm afraid this is a major pond difference. In America, we have people trying to legislate away sex acts, birth control, gay marriage, and sex education. I would argue that our "drug war" is a byproduct of our "Christian values." In short, they are absolutely PERNICIOUS in every way of trying to make their religion dominate the law and political discourse. We don't call it the Religious Right for nothing.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

I wanted to talk about the 10 "Tips"

#1 While I am very versed in Christianity and am currently reading the bible cover to cover (I already know it pretty well), I think that the idea that if us atheists just studied this or that branch of intellectual tradition, we would somehow miraculously see what Christians want us to see, or worse, believe, is kinda absurd as an argument. I know the Christian tradition I was raised in pretty well, and it is pretty stupid in hindsight. I try not to say that, generally, and try to be civil, generally, but when it gets right down to it, it's like looking at Grimm's Fairy Tales and arguing that some expert will make them real. No way. It's still a faerie tale, even when an expert tries to say it's a worthy faerie tale.

#2 Okay, I get there are different meanings to faith. On the other hand, someone telling me that god is real to them for "philosophical, historical, and experiential reasons" doesn't make it any more so to atheists.

#3 I don't think 6-day creationism is a default position. On the other hand, it is THE default position in the States, based on polling, or something close to it. It is a horrible, nasty, insidious idea that needs to be beaten to death with a sledgehammer, and ruins our science abilities as a nation, amongst other things. One can't be too harsh with it here, in the US, for all intents.

#4 Bullpucky. See #3. I hear gods of the gaps ALL the TIME from American Christians.

#5 Did the author seriously just put Shiva, Ra, and "God" as somehow the same entity, in any way? They are saying god is just misunderstood? Please, stop. ROFLMAO

#6 Don't disagree with the sentiment that Christianity can do good. It can also do horrible harm. Atheists should give credit where credit is due, and Christians shouldn't EVER try to whitewash gay bashing, sexism, and a whole host of other stupid ideas that come from some of their various sects. See #3

#7 I agree. We know about twenty things that are almost certain about Jesus, including that he lived. The rest may be all utter BS. Or not. May never know.

#8 Agree, with the caveat that all revolutions need lightning rods to motivate the uprising. Dawkins and Hitch fulfill a useful function. They motivate people to come out of the atheist closet. I love them for that, while not personally beating Christians up, myself, if I can avoid it.

#9 I prefer to point out the crappy stuff in the NT myself. Plenty there. Gay bashing. Endorsements of slavery. Women should be silent. The OT is just gravy.

#10 Fair enough. But I think the Problem of Evil is far from a draw. Many people are atheists because god smote their loved ones, and it created cognitive dissonance.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for listening.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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?
If there is no free will then I may still believe that I have it. Nothing about determinism implies that we would ever accept that our behaviour was determined. Obviously, if we thought that the arguments for determinism were strong enough we might assent to them* - that is say they are true but I doubt we could ever 'feel' that it was so.

People frequently argue that if determinism were true there would be no point in, for example, punishing people. But that assumes we have the free will to makes the choice to stop.

* Or not since we may, deterministically, be unable to do so.

In his novel Free Fall, William Golding makes the following observation:

quote:
Free-will cannot be debated, but only experienced, like a colour or the taste of potatoes.

He then goes on to describe one such experience in the life of the main character:

quote:
I remember one such experience. I was very small and I was sitting on the stone surround of the pool and fountain in the centre of the park. There was bright sunlight, banks of red and blue flowers, green lawn. There was no guilt but only the plash and splatter of the fountain at the centre. I had bathed and drunk and now I was sitting on the warm stone edge placidly considering what I should do next. The gravelled paths of the park radiated from me: and all at once I was overcome by a new knowledge. I could take whichever I would of these paths. There was nothing to draw me down one more than the other. I danced down one for joy in the taste of potatoes. I was free. I had chosen.

The fact that there was "nothing to draw me down one more than the other" is a mystery to me, but if there had been, then this character would not have been free. His illusory sense of choice would have been determined by whatever it was that drew him down one particular path.

Do I think that determinism is the case, and that freedom is an illusion? No, I don't think so. If we accept that free choice is an illusion, then the morality of consent is illegitimate. Two adults may say that they consent to a particular act with each other, but it could very well be that one is being subtly abused by the other and is too afraid and brainwashed to speak out, and therefore tries to convince others that freedom operates in the relationship. If free will is an illusion then we know that no consent has been given in any relationship. Consent is simply not possible without freedom.

Perhaps two adults could say that they do not have free will, but, for whatever reason, they enjoy their liaison, even if that enjoyment has been forced on them by their genes, environment or whatever. The trouble with that hedonistic justification is that it could just as easily apply to the claims of a child. Why do we prohibit sexual relations with children? The answer is that we assume that they cannot give their consent. And we are right in so assuming. But if there is no such thing as free will, then a child's inability to give consent is no more serious than an adult's inability to do so.

Clearly we cannot justify a morality based on consent, if consent is, in fact, an illusion. Like William Golding, we may not be able to explain exactly how free will works, and we may just have to accept it as a 'given', but it is a 'given' that we rely on, and therefore it is part of reality. The job of the philosopher (and theologian) is to seek an explanation which accounts for reality. Christians are often accused of hiding from reality - of even being scared of reality! - but nothing could be further from the truth.

When it concerns the reality of free will, it is theism, with its affirmation of free will (despite some forms of theism denying it), which fits reality. The philosophy of naturalism, to which I think most atheists probably subscribe, does not fit reality. Because it does not fit reality, therefore I cannot accept that it is true.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In his novel Free Fall, William Golding makes the following observation:

quote:
Free-will cannot be debated, but only experienced, like a colour or the taste of potatoes.

Thanks for the quote. I feel that discussing whether we have freewill or not is pointless. I know I've posted this before but I remember a talk by Susan Blackmore in which a slide began: "If I believe freewill is an illusion, I have three choices .... ". I stifled my guffaw when I realised everyone else (including Dr Blackmore) was taking it seriously.

quote:
... I could take whichever I would of these paths. There was nothing to draw me down one more than the other. I danced down one for joy in the taste of potatoes. I was free. I had chosen.

I haven't read Free Fall. Pincher Martin and "Lord of the Flies" put me off. These sorts of passages, where one has an intense feeling of "reality" are the sorts of thing that both science and Anglophone philosophy have problems with: when one knows (more surely than one knows the truth of any proposition) that what you are experiencing is 'really' real. I have a guide to Heidegger's "Being and Time" which begins with another quote from Golding about a similarly veridical peak experience (from The Spire).

quote:
... even if that enjoyment has been forced on them by their genes, environment or whatever. ... it could just as easily apply to the claims of a child. Why do we prohibit sexual relations with children? ... But if there is no such thing as free will, then a child's inability to give consent is no more serious than an adult's inability to do so.

All such discussions flounder: if everything is determined then we can and may "justify a morality based on consent" even if we know it is an illusion because we would have no choice about what we justify. To assume, as people often seem to, that if determinism were seen to be the case we should stop prosecuting criminals (since they had no choice) is to assume what we are denying: that we could chose to stop prosecuting criminals. Determinism changes nothing, we would go on as always. As you say, freewill "is a 'given' that we rely on, and therefore it is part of reality."

quote:
The job of the philosopher (and theologian) is to seek an explanation which accounts for reality.

I make no such demands of either philosopher or theologian - or have expectations that they will give me one. Good things should be enjoyed, bad ones endured. As Nietzsche said, understanding a picture isn't a question of knowing the chemistry of paint and how canvas is manufactured.

quote:
The philosophy of naturalism, to which I think most atheists probably subscribe, does not fit reality.

We differ only in the degree to which we think anything explains reality. I'm determined to believe nothing does.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, as soon as you start talking about 'fitting reality', I think you are tied to a floating signifier. I mean, it's kind of meaningless.

As an example, science does not claim to describe reality, although various philosophers argue that it does. But that of course is not a scientific claim!

And to say that religion fits reality seems bizarre to me - only in the sense that a guess might fit. To paraphrase Laplace, religion explains a lot, but predicts very little.

There's also an old joke that the religious invented science in order to describe nature; but it's a kind of double-edged compliment.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
We don't call it the Religious Right for nothing.

The biggest single problem with the Religious Right is that it's tended to obscure the presence of a Religious Left.

It actually had an interesting effect here in Australia. Politicians here learnt lessons from America and started assuming that 'religious' meant 'right wing' for a while. The Australian Christian Lobby gained a fair bit of influence for a while.

That influence evaporated quite rapidly a few years later, after the Lobby's head said some nasty things, and the Prime Minister withdrew from attending the Lobby's conference. There was a very large contingent of responses to the effect of "I'm a Christian and you don't speak for me". There was definitely a sense that Australian politicians suddenly woke up to the fact that the Religious Right is an American phenomenon and it isn't inherent in Christianity that Christians will vote en masse in that way. Some will, of course, but in this country at least, plenty of self-identifying Christians don't subscribe to the same views.

[ 01. May 2014, 11:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
And to say that religion fits reality seems bizarre to me - only in the sense that a guess might fit. To paraphrase Laplace, religion explains a lot, but predicts very little.

What do you mean by 'religion'?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
And to say that religion fits reality seems bizarre to me - only in the sense that a guess might fit. To paraphrase Laplace, religion explains a lot, but predicts very little.
What do you mean by 'religion'?

What does anybody mean by 'reality'?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Psst. Porridge, I think it is a segue into "Scientism."

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
What does anybody mean by 'reality'?

Whom are you asking? Someone who you believe objectively exists?

Or are you dreaming?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0