homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
@Justinian. You suggested "The second is how to do retrospective statistics. Classical statistics are irrelevant here - you can't do classical statistics after the event has already happened. We need Bayesian Statistics. What is the probability that the universe is life-supporting given that there are living entities to ask this question."

I find this a slightly odd argument on a couple of counts. Clearly professional mathematicians such as Hoyle found the probability argument as rather compelling.

You might find it slightly odd. But it's elementary Bayesian Statistics. It's also basic classical statistics that you can't backdate questions like this.

As for Hoyle, this would be the same Hoyle who thought that sunspots were correlated with flu epidemics? The Hoyle who thought that the archeopteryx was a fake? The Hoyle who thought that oil and gas were deep carbon rather than crushed formerly living matter? Yes, he was a brilliant astrophysicist and probably deserved the Nobel Prize. He's also known to have been an utter crackpot outside his area of expertise.

quote:
And the fact that we are hear to ask the question doesn't lessen the question. Imagine (heaven forbid) you are stood before a firing squad of 50 Olympic standard marxmen, armed with high velocity rifles at a range of 10 feet. On the command to Fire! they discharge their loaded weapons. They all miss.

Now you could shrug your shoulders and say "Oh we'll, I'm still here to notice they missed". More likely you would ask how it happened you were still there.

You might even conclude that they missed deliberately.

But this is part of the point. When you step in front of the firing squad you are able to say "Only deliberate missing, loading with blanks, or a miracle will save me now". And then after they've missed you check. You must always formulate the hypothesis before you check using classical statistics. Otherwise the result is as meaningless as "I saw a car with the numberplate QZE 589 K this morning. The odds on seeing that car are one in millions. It's a miracle!"

As for your firing squad, we do not know. We've not actually seen them shoot anyone or even us. We just know we had tubes pointed at us.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The "What" is the Universe. The "How" is, so far as we can tell "A method indistinguishable from not acting at all inside the bounds of the universe". Therefore the Who must account for non-interventionism at the very least.

Now this is where we differ. I don't see God as non-interventionist. God is not "make it and leave it" as Descartian physics pronounces.

We seem to be treading old paths again and again.!

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:


quote:
The physical sciences indeed rest on the reproduction of controlled experiments.

Predictable answers to those experiments are what makes the physical sciences.

Tell it to the astronomers and astrophysicists.

I suspect that they learnt the scientific method in year 10 ( as I did) so they hardly require telling.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Hence science and religion are not mutually exclusive as I said before.

And hence why materialistic atheism is a worldview that is insufficient.

Your logic is faulty. If science and religion are orthogonal (you don't mean mutually exclusive unless you mean that no one can be a scientist and religious) then hard line atheism can fill the religion part nicely. And as such materialistic atheism would work nicely - it has both the scientific component and the religious one answered. Hard line atheism does answer all your questions - it answers "Faulty Premises" or "Mu" to almost all of them.
What? [Ultra confused]

Materialistic atheism answers no questions beyond some answers to physical questions.

It answers nothing about difficult questions, religion or beyond.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The "What" is the Universe. The "How" is, so far as we can tell "A method indistinguishable from not acting at all inside the bounds of the universe". Therefore the Who must account for non-interventionism at the very least.

Now this is where we differ. I don't see God as non-interventionist. God is not "make it and leave it" as Descartian physics pronounces.

We seem to be treading old paths again and again.!

And this is where I have a real problem with what you are claiming. The second God acts in a way that impacts the material universe then the results of those actions can be investigated. They are subject to "What" and "How". Which means God's actions are subject to scientific investigation. The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:


quote:
The physical sciences indeed rest on the reproduction of controlled experiments.

Predictable answers to those experiments are what makes the physical sciences.

Tell it to the astronomers and astrophysicists.

I suspect that they learnt the scientific method in year 10 ( as I did) so they hardly require telling.
And yet actual astrophysical experiments are very hard work. We can't create stars right here on earth. What we have to rely on is 99% observation.

Now are you claiming that astronomers and astrophysicists aren't scientists?

quote:
What? [Ultra confused]

Materialistic atheism answers no questions beyond some answers to physical questions.

It answers nothing about difficult questions, religion or beyond.

Oh, it answers the questions you claim it doesn't. It answers them by saying that what you are asking is in contradiction with the universe. Here. I'll demonstrate a few.

R/S: "What is the nature of the soul?"
MA: "Mu. We don't have souls."

R/S: "Why was the universe Created?"
MA: "Mu. It came into being every bit as uncaused by your creator."

R/S: "What is love."
MA: "A chemical imbalance in the brain."

R/S: "If the Norns control the destinies of all men, how do you claim to have free will?"
MA: "Mu. The Norns don't exist."

Does that explain how it works? Or would you like to try a few more questions? You might not like to be told that to a hardline materialistic atheist, your questions are about as relevant as "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" But that is a legitimate answer to a question.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:


quote:
The physical sciences indeed rest on the reproduction of controlled experiments.

Predictable answers to those experiments are what makes the physical sciences.

Tell it to the astronomers and astrophysicists.

I suspect that they learnt the scientific method in year 10 ( as I did) so they hardly require telling.
And yet actual astrophysical experiments are very hard work. We can't create stars right here on earth. What we have to rely on is 99% observation.

Now are you claiming that astronomers and astrophysicists aren't scientists?

She wouldn't be the first, not by a long way!

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Justinian. Oddly enough, the Bayesian approach has been used to hypothesise that it's more likely that God exists than that he doesn't.

But as your link points out, this is just one of a number of approaches to statistical modelling.

And it doesn't deal with the central point. You can debate statistical models. You can't argue with the multiple and interdependent examples of the precision of the cosmological constants necessary to produce a life-permitting universe.

Your best alternative to a creator seems to be multiverses - a metaphysical approach if there was one.

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.

Er, no.

You were the one who cited repeatability as the bedrock of the scientific method. By definition, if God is 'outside the system' then any direct intervention will not be repeatable. Unless you want him to intervene exactly when you ask him (every time) and in such a manner that leaves the rest of the world unchanged (incl. all those people demanding the same evidence as you.) i.e. You are not taking into account the location of the observer.

This is clearly not a proof for God but I'm just pointing out the deficiency in your logic.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
R/S: "What is love."
MA: "A chemical imbalance in the brain."

So love is the same as atheism then?

Unfortunately I can make the claim that atheists are people who think there is no God because their brains tell them that and, from within an atheistic world view, they have no way to refute that.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Over the last century we have seen discovery of the astonishing way that the universe is precision-tuned to be life permitting.
Over the last century we've also seen the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Theory. Who says this is the only universe?

quote:
The likelihood of a life-prohibiting universe is fantastically *more* probable than one that's life permitting.
On the other hand we do not know that this is the only universe.

To echo Ramarius' thought, I'm struggling to see how the "Many Worlds" interpretation is different in any substantial way than positing a Creator since it's completely untestable.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660

 - Posted      Profile for Drewthealexander     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Justinian on Sir Fred Hoyle: 'Yes, he was a brilliant astrophysicist and probably deserved the Nobel Prize. He's also known to have been an utter crackpot outside his area of expertise.'

Yes, I agree he was a 'brilliant astrophysicist'. Which Is why I referred to him in the context of astrophysics.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The "What" is the Universe. The "How" is, so far as we can tell "A method indistinguishable from not acting at all inside the bounds of the universe". Therefore the Who must account for non-interventionism at the very least.

Now this is where we differ. I don't see God as non-interventionist. God is not "make it and leave it" as Descartian physics pronounces.

We seem to be treading old paths again and again.!

And this is where I have a real problem with what you are claiming. The second God acts in a way that impacts the material universe then the results of those actions can be investigated.
God IMPACTS the material universe by creating it and continues to impact it by sustaining it.

The results of some of those actions are indeed being investigated.

That's what science is.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.

Only if you are a pantheist and believe God is ONLY present in creation and not transcendent of it as well.

Orthodox Christianity believes God is both immanent AND transcendent.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And yet actual astrophysical experiments are very hard work. We can't create stars right here on earth. What we have to rely on is 99% observation.

Now are you claiming that astronomers and astrophysicists aren't scientists?

99% observation?

Oh dear. No. It doesn't sound like they are scientists at all. Sounds like it's all conjecture. Nothing proven.

Must be why they are often called theoretical physicists?

The Higgs Boson particle after all is something they are trying to recreate in a controlled environment so they can prove the axiom of their beliefs.

At this stage it certainly is theoretical.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, it answers the questions you claim it doesn't. It answers them by saying that what you are asking is in contradiction with the universe. Here. I'll demonstrate a few.

R/S: "What is the nature of the soul?"
MA: "Mu. We don't have souls."

R/S: "Why was the universe Created?"
MA: "Mu. It came into being every bit as uncaused by your creator."

R/S: "What is love."
MA: "A chemical imbalance in the brain."

R/S: "If the Norns control the destinies of all men, how do you claim to have free will?"
MA: "Mu. The Norns don't exist."

Does that explain how it works? Or would you like to try a few more questions? You might not like to be told that to a hardline materialistic atheist, your questions are about as relevant as "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" But that is a legitimate answer to a question.

Ah yes. Nihilism is so good at answering difficult questions.

Because it rejects they exist.

Gotcha.

A wonderfully coherent philosophy.

So wonderfully coherent even its creator Nietzsche had to demure and develop a Superman.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The only way God is not subject to being investigated scientifically is if God does not act.

Er, no.

You were the one who cited repeatability as the bedrock of the scientific method. By definition, if God is 'outside the system' then any direct intervention will not be repeatable.

It may not be repeatable. But the actions will be measurable and stick out like a sore thumb. If there had been a Flood, we'd be able to see it in the fossil record. If there had been six days of creation then the whole universe would reflect that. If there had been real miracles then they would get more not less miraculous the better the instruments trained on them.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
God IMPACTS the material universe by creating it and continues to impact it by sustaining it.

The results of some of those actions are indeed being investigated.

That's what science is.

God persists. That is not the same as acting.

quote:
Only if you are a pantheist and believe God is ONLY present in creation and not transcendent of it as well.

Orthodox Christianity believes God is both immanent AND transcendent.

If God is immanent then that can be investigated irrespective of whether or not God is transcendent.

quote:
99% observation?

Oh dear. No. It doesn't sound like they are scientists at all. Sounds like it's all conjecture. Nothing proven.

Science proves nothing to be true. It merely winnows away the false Your point?

quote:
Ah yes. Nihilism is so good at answering difficult questions.

Because it rejects they exist.

Gotcha.

A wonderfully coherent philosophy.

So wonderfully coherent even its creator Nietzsche had to demure and develop a Superman.

When one of the most important theological questions over the centuries has been the Omphalos ("Did Adam have a navel?") then there is at least a swimming pool's worth of bathwater to be thrown out. There might be a baby in there. But the closer that he looks, the less likely.

quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian. Oddly enough, the Bayesian approach has been used to hypothesise that it's more likely that God exists than that he doesn't.

Of course. Bayesian statistics is explicitely dependent on your prior model and then iteratively updating it.

quote:
Your best alternative to a creator seems to be multiverses - a metaphysical approach if there was one.
My answer is based on two observations.
1: We don't know and can't know for certain with the current state of knowledge we have and tools we have.
2: The accounts of God are so different between different cultures and religions to be utterly inconsistent. If God wanted us to know, then God would be clear and unambiguous.

Therefore I conclude that if there is a God then God doesn't care if we know about him. I can not rule out a God - but if there is one I believe deism or local-polytheism are both far more in line with the evidence than anything monotheistic.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Justinian wrote: 'I can not rule out a God - but if there is one I believe deism or local-polytheism are both far more in line with the evidence than anything monotheistic.'

So just to develop this... An agnostic, actively exploring the question whether God exists, asks you (without prejudice to your own conclusions) for the evidence you have identified for the existence of deity. To what evidence would you point them?

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian wrote: 'I can not rule out a God - but if there is one I believe deism or local-polytheism are both far more in line with the evidence than anything monotheistic.'

So just to develop this... An agnostic, actively exploring the question whether God exists, asks you (without prejudice to your own conclusions) for the evidence you have identified for the existence of deity. To what evidence would you point them?

I'd have to ask what they meant by "A deity".

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
@Justinian wrote: 'I can not rule out a God - but if there is one I believe deism or local-polytheism are both far more in line with the evidence than anything monotheistic.'

So just to develop this... An agnostic, actively exploring the question whether God exists, asks you (without prejudice to your own conclusions) for the evidence you have identified for the existence of deity. To what evidence would you point them?

I'd have to ask what they meant by "A deity".
In the section of your post I quoted you referred to 'the evidence.' What evidence did you have in mind?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If there had been real miracles then they would get more not less miraculous the better the instruments trained on them.

Would they?

I doubt that very much.

Whenever there are tales about cancer tumours miraculously disappearing often the doctors get embarrassed and talk about a mistake in the initial tests, or whatever. But of course they would, wouldn't they?

Please do not misunderstand me - I am very sceptical about most of these miracle claims. My point is just that I don't see how it is possible for a miracle to happen 'under laboratory conditions'.

(BTW Am I to conclude that atheists have a chemical imbalance in their brains?)

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Pre Cambrian. You asked upthread 'So the direct question to you is how do you think God's instruction to wipe out the Amalekites fits into OMV [objective moral values]? If it is a justified action by God does that mean that such actions are part of OMV, and if so how can OMV possibly be a good thing?'

One of the reasons we find this so difficult is, ironically, because our values have been so powerfully shaped over time by our Christian heritage (we can find other cultures in the world even today, shaped by different values). Our society's values have been shaped much more by the New Testament than by the iron age in the Middle East. And there *is* a question about what the language here means. From 1 Sam 15, for example, you could get the impression that the Amalekites had, indeed, been 'wiped out.' But they reappear later in Samuel, and in the reign of Hezekiah. One school of thought suggests that Haman (placed in the time of Esther) was a descendant of Amalek. We are looking at very old texts relating to a cultural milieu as alien to us as the Illead, Beowolf or the Secret History of the Mongols.

Whilst by nature God is just, the revelation of God's justice has changed over time. As Tim Stanley puts it 'The horrors of the Old Testament have been rendered unnecessary by Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.' Whilst there were occasions where the Hebrews were instruments of God's justice they were not given general licence to slaughter populations. Trying to draw general principles from specific incidents where there are serious questions as to what was actually going on, seems highly problematic.

I was struck by another of your points. You said: 'But do I believe in objective moral values (OMV to save space)? What do you mean by "believe"? If you mean "Do I believe that OMV exist?", then my conclusion would have to be "No". It doesn't take much study of history, both across cultures and in individual cultures to realise that here is a great range of systems of morality and answers to individual moral questions. If you look at the spread of cultures in the modern world the conclusion is the same. Therefore I would say that there is no evidence that OMV actually exist.'

The question of whether OMV exist is different to where and how we might find them. (To get a fuller picture it's probably better to talk about objective moral values and responsibilities (OMVAR(!))). In a funny sort of way you actually make my point for me. If we try to identify OMVAR deductively, by searching for them in the collective behaviour of humanity, you may well conclude they don't exist. Human approaches to morality vary with time, place, and fashion. So you can't ground OMVAR in collective human experience - OMVAR can only be grounded, can only have a source, outside that collective experience.

OMVAR can only exist if God exists.

So if you're suggesting it's less likely that God exists if there are no OMVAR then I agree. The question is whether OMVAR do exist. And a lot rests on the answer. To deny OMVAR is to say that, given the circumstances, time, or culture, *any* act can be morally right. But I don't think you believe that. Rape is wrong. Always. It's not wrong because one culture says it is when another culture might say otherwise. It's always wrong. And we can only say it's always wrong - objectively morally wrong - because there is an ultimate lawgiver, a final moral arbiter, who stands outside of humanity.

Which brings me back to Christ. Since he claimed not just to represent God as best anyone could, but rather to *be* God, then he would be the one person who I would expect both accurately to teach OMVAR and to embody them. And if anyone could make an outrageous claim for himself like that and get away with it, Jesus is the only person I've encountered who comes close.

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... Whenever there are tales about cancer tumours miraculously disappearing often the doctors get embarrassed and talk about a mistake in the initial tests, or whatever. But of course they would, wouldn't they? ...

IIRC, in a previous discussion, we had stats showing that the rate of "miracles" at Lourdes is lower than the usual rate of spontaneous remission. Which makes sense if miracles are expected to be exceedingly rare, but also means admitting that most "miraculous" cures are assumed to have a naturalistic explanation, for which, as they say, "further research is needed." OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... (BTW Am I to conclude that atheists have a chemical imbalance in their brains?)

I'm of the opinion that religion is rooted in a human cognitive trait - the attribution of agency. This is a survival trait - if you see leaves moving, it might be because a predator is stalking you, or it might be the prey you are looking for. We are hard-wired to assume that if something happens, something did it. I believe this leads humans to attribute supernatural agency to unexplained phenomena, and formal religion "evolves" as a result of our other innate social drives - strengthening group identity and cohesion, setting behavioural norms, creating scapegoats, establishing social rank and roles, etc. All my own idle speculation, of course.

IME, there are many people who are prepared to accept the supernatural, but it is when they are expected to accept specific supernatural beliefs that they get stuck. So, e.g. there is a Creator, but Jesus wasn't born of a virgin or raised from the dead. I think the demolition of so many doctrinally specific beliefs (e.g. the flood, geocentrism) has shifted people to a more deistic default position. And of course, this is only in my own environment - I know there are plenty of places where religion still thrives with medieval intensity. Cheers, OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In the section of your post I quoted you referred to 'the evidence.' What evidence did you have in mind?

Personal accounts. Claims of miracles. The cause of the universe and why the numbers are in the band they are. I don't believe any of them to hold balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt, and I believe most of them to look shakier the more you know about them. But inconclusive evidence is not no evidence.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
IIRC, in a previous discussion, we had stats showing that the rate of "miracles" at Lourdes is lower than the usual rate of spontaneous remission. Which makes sense if miracles are expected to be exceedingly rare, but also means admitting that most "miraculous" cures are assumed to have a naturalistic explanation, for which, as they say, "further research is needed." OliviaG

Actually, Lourdes would be a good example of what I'm not including as miracles - partly because it is claiming that miracles can be expected there (which contradicts the definition of miracles used) and partly because I think passages like John 5 implicitly such practices.

I'm not disputing with you about the wacky claims Christians can make. Rather I'm wondering about what would actually constitute proof of a contemporary miracle. Video footage can be edited, photos can be photoshopped, witnesses can mistaken, records can be falsified.

Is proof of a miracle a contradiction in terms?

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I'm of the opinion that religion is rooted in a human cognitive trait - the attribution of agency. This is a survival trait - if you see leaves moving, it might be because a predator is stalking you, or it might be the prey you are looking for. We are hard-wired to assume that if something happens, something did it. I believe this leads humans to attribute supernatural agency to unexplained phenomena, and formal religion "evolves" as a result of our other innate social drives - strengthening group identity and cohesion, setting behavioural norms, creating scapegoats, establishing social rank and roles, etc. All my own idle speculation, of course.

IME, there are many people who are prepared to accept the supernatural, but it is when they are expected to accept specific supernatural beliefs that they get stuck. So, e.g. there is a Creator, but Jesus wasn't born of a virgin or raised from the dead. I think the demolition of so many doctrinally specific beliefs (e.g. the flood, geocentrism) has shifted people to a more deistic default position. And of course, this is only in my own environment - I know there are plenty of places where religion still thrives with medieval intensity. Cheers, OliviaG

I'm not sure if you have got my concern. From a naturalistic world view we can come up with possible origins for religious or non-religious thought.

My point is that, from said world view it is impossible to prefer either position over the other with any absolute sense. Sure you can argue that you think that atheism is a better position but ultimately it is a question of which position is best adapted to survival and therefore which one 'wins'. There is no moral preference, not in any objective sense.

So again we are back to the position where we have to concede that atheism isn't doing very well and never has in global terms. Agnosticism possibly, but not atheism. It's no good saying that the meme of atheism is slowly gaining ground and will, in thousands of years (cf. evolution), eventually take over. Evolution cannot look forwards it can only look backwards.

[ 12. March 2012, 01:38: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A good point about deism by OliviaG. I think that quite a number of Christians have shifted back to deism, since the idea of an interventionist God micro-managing reality has become more unlikely.

Also, evolution is a bugger for theists, since it is unplanned (although not random). It seems difficult to marry this with any idea of an intelligent source or creator, who presumably has some kind of teleology going on.

I know that some palaeontologists such as Prof. Conway Morris see a possible reconciliation here, so this looks interesting.

[ 12. March 2012, 09:18: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

So again we are back to the position where we have to concede that atheism isn't doing very well and never has in global terms. Agnosticism possibly, but not atheism. It's no good saying that the meme of atheism is slowly gaining ground and will, in thousands of years (cf. evolution), eventually take over.

You reckon?

IME there are lots of vocal atheists online.

A newspaper article with a religious slant will have a billion responses - most of them from atheists bemoaning the stupidity and bigotry of the position (regardless of how stupid or bigoted it is).

Personally I know of only one avowed atheist in my circle of acquaintances but my children frighten me a bit.

The one goes to a public school for the academically gifted and has one close friend that is an avowed atheist (this is at age 13) and another influential acquaintance that certainly seems to color his thinking as well.

He comes home and tells me how Hitler was a Christian and religion is therefore the epitome of evil.

The second son attends a private Catholic school and does not come home with the same thoughts nor argues with me but says in offhand comments things like : "I'm destined to be an atheist - I've attended a Catholic school for six years".

What gives?

I certainly think atheism is on the ascendency in the younger generation: regardless of how logical or illogical it is.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Also, evolution is a bugger for theists, since it is unplanned (although not random). It seems difficult to marry this with any idea of an intelligent source or creator, who presumably has some kind of teleology going on.

I long, long, long wanted to re-write Paley's version of the design argument, but instead of the eye, to use evolution as the evidence. I never had the time and finally motivation to do it justice and a half done piece of work really isn't worth doing.

It also would not stand any case against my old statistics professor, who would argue that though the process appears random, if it was truly understood it would turn out to deterministic, the apparent randomness is due to the limits of human knowledge (and you will never get perfect knowledge because a system so designed would need to be as complex as the universe is). Therefore randomness is a tool for dealing with the fact that we can't know everything, thereby allowing us to know something.

Hume's argument stands, I am afraid Dawkin's does not.

Jengie

[ 12. March 2012, 13:25: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.

The random idea is usually a canard put about by creationists, who probably don't really know what they are talking about.

However, being unplanned is a fly in the ointment for theists, who presumably have some idea of a divine plan, or purpose, or teleology.

Isn't this one of the reasons for the retreat to deism - God might start it off, but cannot supervise evolution?

So creationism has to reject science, and also theism.

--------------------
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      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I know of only one avowed atheist in my circle of acquaintances but my children frighten me a bit.

Absolutely no need, I'll bet!!
quote:
The one goes to a public school for the academically gifted and has one close friend that is an avowed atheist (this is at age 13) and another influential acquaintance that certainly seems to color his thinking as well.
Sounds to me as if he's on exactly the right track to becoming an excellent critical thinker, who wil always take all questions to a logical conclusion as far as possible, think, 'We don't know yet' if he ends up with a question mark, and should obviously do very well!!! May I also suggest that he looks at the British Humanist Association's web site? He probably already knows about the NSS.
quote:
He comes home and tells me how Hitler was a Christian and religion is therefore the epitome of evil.
Well, the first part is correct, the second, as an intelligent boy, he'll look at all aspects, both good and bad of what people have done in the name of their religious beliefs.
quote:
The second son attends a private Catholic school and does not come home with the same thoughts nor argues with me but says in offhand comments things like : "I'm destined to be an atheist - I've attended a Catholic school for six years".
Well, the young people he's with have all the up-to-date world news at their fingertips on the internet and will not remain in ignorance about what has come to light in recent years of what's gone on in the RC church.
quote:
What gives?
Progress!!! Okay, that's a bit flippant, but I'm serious too.
quote:
I certainly think atheism is on the ascendency in the younger generation: regardless of how logical or illogical it is.
How can it be otherwise when they have access to mountains of info on the internet about scientific research, astronomy, latest discoveries in medicine, etc etc. I would be interested to read where you think atheism is illogical.

--------------------
I 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
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How can it be otherwise when they have access to mountains of info on the internet about scientific research, astronomy, latest discoveries in medicine, etc etc. I would be interested to read where you think atheism is illogical.

You and I have had this discussion before SusanDoris. And I have just had it on this thread all over again and then some with Justinian.

To be brief, information on scientific research, astronomy, and the latest discoveries in medicine etc etc. in no way negate a belief in God.

Atheism is illogical because it doesn't follow through the natural question of where we came from and why we are here.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SusanDoris, you don't appear to be very good at stepping outside of a subject and looking at it objectively do you?

A child has a friend - another child - who is an atheist and your wish-fulfilment scenarios hit the jackpot. Instead of packing him off into your own little world of unbelief and 'the right way to think', just concentrate on trying not to get too excited at the thought that the child of a Christian mother has friends who think differently to the mother. It actually happens a lot more than it appears you think it does.

What is illogical about atheism? How about no proof that you're right about God/god? I'll be kind - and open-minded and say 'no proof as yet'. I thought proof and evidence was what it's all about after all, rather than the silly old magical supernaturalism we faith-adherents hold on to. Even Dawkins has to admit he hasn't nailed that one yet.

And whether one believes Hitler was a Christian, of course, depends on what one believes a Christian is. You appear to know Hitler was a Christian for which I'm sure you have very solid and evidential reasons. Maybe when Evensong's son has figured out whether or not he believes Hitler was a Christian and whether or not he also behaved as a Christian, maybe he can help his atheist friends to review their conclusion that Christianity is the epitome of evil because Hitler was; as this does seem to be the 'colouring' of their influence on the child.

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I know of only one avowed atheist in my circle of acquaintances but my children frighten me a bit.

The one goes to a public school for the academically gifted and has one close friend that is an avowed atheist (this is at age 13) and another influential acquaintance that certainly seems to color his thinking as well.

He comes home and tells me how Hitler was a Christian and religion is therefore the epitome of evil.

The second son attends a private Catholic school and does not come home with the same thoughts nor argues with me but says in offhand comments things like : "I'm destined to be an atheist - I've attended a Catholic school for six years".

What gives?

What gives, and I'm dead serious, is that the Churches have lost just about any claim to moral leadership that they once had amongst the young.

In times past, the Churches stood for aid to the poor - now the state provides more and better aid than the churches ever did and you get people saying that it's good that there are poor people - they provide opportunities for compassion. In times past Christianity set a moral example - now the sexual preaching includes homophobia and opposition to marriage, and as for sexual praxis look at the Catholic church - or the steady trickle of homophobic preachers that turn out to be gay. The charity work - the Roman Catholic Church holds its charity work to ransom so it can practice homophobia. And then there's the sexism. That it's even a fight that women can be priests. In the past Christianity used to preach poverty - but whereas Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, I'm told that Megachurches have invited in Wallmart. The Church's relationship with Mamon has always been closer than it should be and Televangelists make this screamingly obvious.

No, I know that your church doesn't do most of this. But it's a liberal church. What the young, full of fire in the blood, generally want is a Cause. Liberal churches with a "Keep buggering on, keep improving things" attitude don't currently provide a Cause so much as a list of causes - all worthwhile but none consuming. And just about none that call to a young idealist.

And among the Conservatives there are more Causes. They genuinely have abortion. But with the exception of abortion, the other Causes to fight for are Preventing Gay Marriage (i.e. homophobia to the young), and Traditional Values (i.e. sexism). Both those are morally unacceptable to most of the young idealists even before we look at various actions.

On the other hand, if you want a Cause and are young, fighting homophobia and sexism are both good causes that will take all you can give. Which means attacking the roots of those issues. And as the Churches are some of the major influential bastions of homophobia, the young idealists who in previous generations would have found their Cause from the churches are instead seeing both the lack of actually moral leadership from the churches and the preaching of things that are anathema and in many cases diving into "Dawkins-is-a-moderate" style atheism.

So the idealists are jumping into atheism because other than on abortion the Churches are providing causes to be battled rather than causes to fight for. And the less idealistic are routinely staying home in bed rather than going to church on Sunday. Nothing to really fire them up - even hellfire's gone. They can make their own youth groups or find other ones. No real reason for the moderates to become Christian.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to clarify my previous comment, I am deliberately overstating the case on "what gives" in order to provide a clearer illustration.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I long, long, long wanted to re-write Paley's version of the design argument, but instead of the eye, to use evolution as the evidence. I never had the time and finally motivation to do it justice and a half done piece of work really isn't worth doing.

The Discovery Institute has been trying to do this for years - it's the fundamental principle behind the Intelligent Design hypothesis. They've got nowhere.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607

 - Posted      Profile for Arminian   Email Arminian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matthew 11.25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.


I take that to mean that any 'hope' an atheist might have of seeing enough miracles to become convinced in Christianity are flawed. Christianity remains hidden to those who do not seek Jesus with a pure heart. Jesus refused to perform for the Pharasees or for Herod. Often its not proof people seek, but an excuse to stay away from God.

Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Just to clarify my previous comment, I am deliberately overstating the case on "what gives" in order to provide a clearer illustration.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I long, long, long wanted to re-write Paley's version of the design argument, but instead of the eye, to use evolution as the evidence. I never had the time and finally motivation to do it justice and a half done piece of work really isn't worth doing.

The Discovery Institute has been trying to do this for years - it's the fundamental principle behind the Intelligent Design hypothesis. They've got nowhere.
You misunderstand Paley is a brilliant piece of writing, but there is no reason why the example needs to be the eye, anything that works well in the universe will do, including evolution. Evolution is part of the Universe, nothing more, nothing less. Is the production line that creates a swiss watch any less designed than the watch itself? I don't need to adapt Paley's argument to take into account evolution, I just want to share some delight in the way evolution works, how as a process it is well designed for purpose. I might even borrow some of Dawkin's own purple on how stupendous evolution is.

Of course I don't believe it, I accept Hume's argument against design argument and have done since I was in my twenties. Basically it is not enough to show that something is marvellous to conclude it is designed but you must also show purpose. Therefore it is purely a writing exercise for the fun of it. I am not trying to prove anything except that as evolution is part of the Universe it is incapable of disproving the design theory.

The eye never proved it, it was a semi-arbitary artefact of the system, you could have chosen the malarial mosquito cycle, the seismic geological action or the tidy laws of physics and it would have done as well.

As long as something draws a persons attention to an order in the system, then you are open for the rhetorical device that Paley gambit. You need to go further to see what is wrong with the argument.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You reckon?

IME there are lots of vocal atheists online.

You mean hundreds.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A newspaper article with a religious slant will have a billion responses - most of them from atheists bemoaning the stupidity and bigotry of the position (regardless of how stupid or bigoted it is).

Was the hyperbole deliberate?

The irony is that an online newspaper article will get hundreds of responses, whereas the population of the planet literally is in billions.

As a general trend people (in the West) are turning their backs on established religion (for the reasons you give) and that may cause some of them to self-identify as atheist. However, that is mostly with a kind of folk atheism. "I'm not a Christian anymore, so I must be an atheist." IME very few people are consistent, 'positive' atheists as we have on the ship - i.e. they have accepted atheism as a world view as opposed to merely rejecting their traditional religion.

I'm still waiting for the recent census results to come out. From memory, according to the 2006 census, I live in the area of Australia that has the lowest belief in God. As a church we teach Christian Scripture* in the local public primary School and we get about half the school opting in for that. Church attendance is, again, the lowest in Australia locally, so if there is anywhere that atheism is rampant it is here. I meet some atheists but they are tiny minority compared to the mass of apathy and indifference. I see plenty of evidence of people turning their backs on the church, I see very little of them turning towards atheism as any kind of world view.


[* For those outside of Australia the state I live in (NSW) did some deal years ago so that education would become entirely secular and no religious education would be taught by schools at all, on the condition that any religious organisation local to a school could offer to come in once a week to teach their religion to any pupils whose parents requested it. (Actually it was originally opt out but in my area it has been opt in for years.) In our school the options are: 1. Christian. 2. Bahai. 3. Ethics - entirely secular. 4. Do not attend.

The two largest groups (by a long way) are 'Christian' and 'do not attend'. Although, to be fair, ethics is fairly new so may grow in popularity in the future. The biggest thing holding up the ethics option is finding people prepared to teach it each week. That also explains why no other religions are represented - the religion has to supply the teachers.]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What gives, and I'm dead serious, is that the Churches have lost just about any claim to moral leadership that they once had amongst the young.

I agree with you that the Church has lost a great deal of credibility and with good reason.

I don't think this is entirely a phenomenon amongst the young tho. In fact, I suspect the young people of today don't know much at all about Christianity bar the bad press it receives in difficult areas like sexuality.

I've heard it said that Gen Y are actually desperate for spirituality......

Much easier to take up the banner of anti-homophobia etc as an atheist rather than a Christian tho hey if you've never been in a church or ever picked up the bible in the first place....

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No real reason for the moderates to become Christian.

Agreed.

Besides God.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A newspaper article with a religious slant will have a billion responses - most of them from atheists bemoaning the stupidity and bigotry of the position (regardless of how stupid or bigoted it is).

Was the hyperbole deliberate?

I'm part Irish. I can't help it.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

The irony is that an online newspaper article will get hundreds of responses, whereas the population of the planet literally is in billions.

I agree with your general assessment of the Australian population. That has been my experience too.

But I have noticed that online there is a bigger representation of atheists than the stats reflect in the normal population .

I guess I find that curious.

Perhaps its a demographic thing....the young are more online than other segments of society.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I agree with you that the Church has lost a great deal of credibility and with good reason.

I don't think this is entirely a phenomenon amongst the young tho. In fact, I suspect the young people of today don't know much at all about Christianity bar the bad press it receives in difficult areas like sexuality.

Who said this was the first generation where this was the case? 30 years ago we were in the 1980s, and even in the 80s in Britain I'm told the Church was about the last acceptable bastion of overt homophobia. Which means that teenagers now are regularly kids who were teenagers in the 80s.

The Church has been one of the bastions holding out against social progress for an entire generation. And we're not just on those rejecting the Church for moral reasons and not bothering. We're at the kids of those who rejected the church for moral reasons. And the kids of those who saw no reason to bother with the church. As well as the kids of the holdouts rejecting the church for moral reasons or who saw no reason to bother with the church.

quote:
I've heard it said that Gen Y are actually desperate for spirituality......
And instead the Church offers the Alpha Course.

quote:
Much easier to take up the banner of anti-homophobia etc as an atheist rather than a Christian tho hey if you've never been in a church or ever picked up the bible in the first place....
Really? All the active atheists I know have read the bible. In fact many of the active atheists I know became athiests through reading the bible and thinking that the petty, genocidal tyrant who sent plagues to Egypt just to show off, explicitely mind controlling Pharaoh to give himself an excuse (or pick any other OT atrocity or genocide mandated by God) was not something worth following.

Actually reading the Bible is a brilliant conversion tool for militant atheists.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No real reason for the moderates to become Christian.

Agreed.

Besides God.

Not proven.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That is because you are not reading.[ I don't believe in EVIL. Evil happens. The holocaust was evil. Paedophilia is evil. Torture is evil. They all cause manifest harm.

In my defence I've read your post on a number of occasions and I don't understand the distinction you are making between Evil and evil. Could you please try again? Dumb it down for me. Right down.

If Torture is evil then what are we to say about the orca whale who plays with its prey - tossing the poor cartwheeling beast through the air before it is torn in two? Is the orca doing evil? Surely it is causing manifest harm to the seal. Or do we first need some knowledge of evil - a belief if you will - for a given act to be evil?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

And if you want to continue that line of personal attack, take it to hell.

Take it to hell. See if I care [Razz] But before you do perhaps you should first consider the possibility that whatever nastiness you read out of my post was first read into it by yourself. In other words, I am innocent.

quote:
Honestly, to me the primary positive contribution Christianity has made towards humanity that would not have been made under the systems humanity has replaced has been intellectual. I believe that Christianity does not and has never held a lock on compassion. But what a dominant monotheist system has brought is Sic et Non. The belief that with a single Creator (as opposed to many Gods) things need to be consistent. You don't get a discontinuity between the works of Chronos and that of Rhea. That of Zeus and that of Poseidon. There was one creator, by whom all things were made and without whom was not anything made which was made. Which means you can systematically approach the universe rather than merely collect facts. The Enlightenment therefore, I believe, needed to come out of a Monotheistic system and is a fruit of Christianity.
Thank you. That is very interesting.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408

 - Posted      Profile for Squibs   Email Squibs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Church has been one of the bastions holding out against social progress for an entire generation.

Not all social change is social progress. And not all progress is opposed by the church (whatever "the church" means.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QB All the active atheists I know have read the bible. In fact many of the active atheists I know became athiests through reading the bible and thinking that the petty, genocidal tyrant who sent plagues to Egypt just to show off, explicitely mind controlling Pharaoh to give himself an excuse (or pick any other OT atrocity or genocide mandated by God) was not something worth following.

Actually reading the Bible is a brilliant conversion tool for militant atheists.

Although, logically atheism needs to accept that if that is all there is, then it is simply a product of human nature, and we have no particular reason to believe our current take on the issue is any better - we just happen to like it more at the moment.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You and I have had this discussion before, SusanDoris. And I have just had it on this thread all over again and then some with Justinian.

Yes, I suppose we have, but I do find the discussions and their variations very interesting always, and don't think I'll tire of them for quite a long time to come!! [Smile]
quote:
To be brief, information on scientific research, astronomy, and the latest discoveries in medicine etc etc. in no way negate a belief in God.
Hmmmm, yes, but if one has been a believer (as I was) and gradually moved to becoming a non-believer because of what I see as better and rational, answers to the questions that used to be 'god', then I think the belief will be less frequent as time goes on. I have seen discussions about this where figures are given of scientists who still believe, but I haven't got the links I'm afraid.
quote:
Atheism is illogical because it doesn't follow through the natural question of where we came from and why we are here.
But why should it? It is a human question and we ask it because of how we have evolved. To do so must have been a survival strategy. Logically, there is no purpose of any sort for life of any kind; so we set our own purposes. Life just started and then evolved, adapting and playing catch-up to changing conditions and becoming extinct if this was not done. The question of where we came from goes back to the begining of cell replication and although what came before the start of the universe is of course an unknown at present, to put God at that point of creation creates a whole new set of infinite regression puzzles, I think.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
SusanDoris, you don't appear to be very good at stepping outside of a subject and looking at it objectively do you?

I suppose it could easily come across that way, but I can only assure you this is not so! At my age there is no point in being obstinate. I'll try and think of a way to demonstrate this.....!!
quote:
A child has a friend - another child - who is an atheist and your wish-fulfilment scenarios hit the jackpot.
I do not call this 'wish fulfilment', but yes, I hope that the sooner people move away from superstition to (*hesitates over choice of next word*) evidenced reality, the better. In the meantime, I look at things as they are, knowing that I can do little to make a change.
quote:
Instead of packing him off into your own little world of unbelief ...
I wouldn't call it such a 'little world'. I'm a radio 4 listener and the non-believers are having a much greater say than they used to and cases challenging religious dogmas are more in the news too. And as I think I saw in another post here, the majority of people are not interested in the question at all.
quote:
...and 'the right way to think', just concentrate on trying not to get too excited at the thought that the child of a Christian mother has friends who think differently to the mother. It actually happens a lot more than it appears you think it does.
I do not think it is unusual and am not surprised.
quote:
What is illogical about atheism? How about no proof that you're right about God/god?
<snip>
Even Dawkins has to admit he hasn't nailed that one yet.

Yes, agreed.
quote:
And whether one believes Hitler was a Christian, of course, depends on what one believes a Christian is. You appear to know Hitler was a Christian for which I'm sure you have very solid and evidential reasons.
I have seen links to documentary, factual evidence of this, but I don't keep a list.
quote:
Maybe when Evensong's son has figured out whether or not he believes Hitler was a Christian and whether or not he also behaved as a Christian, ...
As a young person with research skills that I'll certainly never have, I hope he will seek for evidence for the things he wants to know.
quote:
...maybe he can help his atheist friends to review their conclusion that Christianity is the epitome of evil ...
Here again he is obviously not going to accept this and other exaggerated claims without evidence to back them up.
quote:
...because Hitler was; as this does seem to be the 'colouring' of their influence on the child.
As an inteligent boy, with interested, intelligent parents, who are obviously constantly engaged in discussion as a family, he is not going to be in any way a gullible person.

--------------------
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
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No real reason for the moderates to become Christian.

Agreed.

Besides God.

Not proven.
[Killing me]

Not disproven.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Atheism is illogical because it doesn't follow through the natural question of where we came from and why we are here.
But why should it? It is a human question and we ask it because of how we have evolved. To do so must have been a survival strategy. Logically, there is no purpose of any sort for life of any kind; so we set our own purposes. Life just started and then evolved, adapting and playing catch-up to changing conditions and becoming extinct if this was not done.
Cute theory.

No evidence for it though.

But hey, if it makes you happy - go for it. [Smile]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I agree with your general assessment of the Australian population. That has been my experience too.

But I have noticed that online there is a bigger representation of atheists than the stats reflect in the normal population .

I guess I find that curious.

Perhaps its a demographic thing....the young are more online than other segments of society.

[Confused] I thought you wanted to get involved in church work? Haven't you realised yet that the loudest voices are always those against (whatever). The phrase 'silent majority' didn't arise by chance ... it was created.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The phrase 'silent majority' didn't arise by chance ... it was created.

Yes, it was created by political spin doctors who were in the minority and wanted to claim that somehow this wasn't the case. In fact those spin doctors were part of a very vocal minority, and were hoping to suggest that there was a huge number of people who agreed with their idiocy, but chose to keep silent about it while every person opposed them was busy chatting away. It was every bit as disingenuous as that sounds.

--Tom Clune

[ 14. March 2012, 13:30: Message edited by: tclune ]

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that evolution even appears to be random. However, it is unplanned.
.

Not random, not planned - what's the other alternative?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551

 - Posted      Profile for Ramarius         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Also, evolution is a bugger for theists, since it is unplanned (although not random). It seems difficult to marry this with any idea of an intelligent source or creator, who presumably has some kind of teleology going on.

Not really.  There are many theists who see God as creating the mechanism of evolution through which he expresses his creative and designing power. 

Sir John Houghton makes the point 'The fact we understand some of the mechanisms of the working of the universe or of living systems does not preclude the existence of a designer, any more than the possession of insight into the process by which a watch has been put together, however automatic these processes may appear, implies there can be no watchmaker.' (The Search for God - Can Science help? 1995 p54).

In a recent report from the National Center for Science Education, (which self-advertises as “the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out,” ) Daryl Domning writes:

'In truth, many (perhaps most!) evolutionists are theists of one sort or another. Their views are as sincerely and validly held as those of the atheists and have as much (perhaps more!) claim to be representative of evolutionist thinking. Atheists have every right to believe that theists are woefully misguided in failing to see the obsolescence of religion after Darwin; but that is their philosophical opinion, not an infallibly proven proposition of science or logic.'

My favourite example - France's Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins). He describes scientific discoveries as "an opportunity to worship." He writes “The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate, and beautiful.”

--------------------
'

Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The phrase 'silent majority' didn't arise by chance ... it was created.

Yes, it was created by political spin doctors who were in the minority and wanted to claim that somehow this wasn't the case. In fact those spin doctors were part of a very vocal minority, and were hoping to suggest that there was a huge number of people who agreed with their idiocy, but chose to keep silent about it while every person opposed them was busy chatting away. It was every bit as disingenuous as that sounds.

--Tom Clune

Er, Tom. That was my point.

A vocal minority is exactly that. It doesn't actually tell you anything about what the majority thinks.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
In my defence I've read your post on a number of occasions and I don't understand the distinction you are making between Evil and evil. Could you please try again? Dumb it down for me. Right down.

EVIL is supernatural. It is an absolute scale. This doesn't exist, and the attempt to force in the supernatural simply destroys discernment - although not necessarily as much as the doctrine of hell (itself an example of EVIL being used does).

quote:
If Torture is evil then what are we to say about the orca whale who plays with its prey - tossing the poor cartwheeling beast through the air before it is torn in two? Is the orca doing evil? Surely it is causing manifest harm to the seal. Or do we first need some knowledge of evil - a belief if you will - for a given act to be evil?
The orca is sentient but not sapient. Seriously diminished responsibility.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Justinian:
[qb] The Church has been one of the bastions holding out against social progress for an entire generation.

Not all social change is social progress. And not all progress is opposed by the church (whatever "the church" means.
Not all social change is social progress. However some, like equal rights, is. And although not all churches have opposed equal rights for women or gay people, most of the people openly opposing equal rights are basing their objections on religious teachings.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
In a recent report from the National Center for Science Education, (which self-advertises as “the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out,” ) Daryl Domning writes:

For those who want to read it, the whole op-ed can be found here. And it is an op-ed, discussing tactics and making the mistake everyone makes (I'm certainly not immune to it) of assuming everyone's like him. For that matter it is good tactics.

But it's speculation with no actual numbers. The only numbers I have easily been able to find say that in a survey with responses from 149 prominant biologists, 72% of them see religion as a manifestation of evolution.. (And that's a 55% response rate to all the surveys sent out).

If you want the full results of the survey they can be found here and they are somewhat overwhelming.

quote:
My favourite example - France's Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project
Francis Collins exists. I don't think anyone claims it's impossible to be a religious scientist. And indeed studying nature to have a better understanding of the Creator has a long and honourable tradition. However the more we study the less room we find for the fingerprints of the Creator until by now most of the arguments have pushed him back from a real Flood to right outside the unverse.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QB All the active atheists I know have read the bible. In fact many of the active atheists I know became athiests through reading the bible and thinking that the petty, genocidal tyrant who sent plagues to Egypt just to show off, explicitely mind controlling Pharaoh to give himself an excuse (or pick any other OT atrocity or genocide mandated by God) was not something worth following.

Actually reading the Bible is a brilliant conversion tool for militant atheists.

Although, logically atheism needs to accept that if that is all there is, then it is simply a product of human nature, and we have no particular reason to believe our current take on the issue is any better - we just happen to like it more at the moment.
Why? We have more information than ever before and can see further than ever before. And there's Occam's Razor.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Francis Collins exists. I don't think anyone claims it's impossible to be a religious scientist. And indeed studying nature to have a better understanding of the Creator has a long and honourable tradition. However the more we study the less room we find for the fingerprints of the Creator until by now most of the arguments have pushed him back from a real Flood to right outside the unverse.

Absolute rubbish!

The more we study the more beautiful and complex the creation of God appears!

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And there's Occam's Razor.

Occam was a priest you know.

He believed Gods action was expressed in creation.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Come to think of it, if we apply the Razor systematically, we might end up saying that 'there is only One'. This is in fact not an orthodox Christian view, but it might be found in some Eastern religious ideas, that the apparent multiplicity of reality is actually One and Whole.

Although, I think gThomas has something like this, 'when you make the two into one, and you make the inner like the outer ...'.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools