|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "Richard Dawkins has done us a big favour..."
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You make my point for me. It's probably true that some atheists know more of the philosophical assertions that go with Christianity.
Almost certainly.
quote:
Those things are not Christianity.
I think you meant to write "Those things are not True Christianity." Because this is the fundamental nature of one of the arguments. Does someone like Adeodatus or even IngoB or EtymologicalEvangelical have the right to define True Christianity? Or is Christianity the religion practiced by Christians taken as a whole.
quote:
I've done theology. I've more or less got a degree in it. I've spent twenty-odd years studying it.
Theology isn't Christianity? That I'll accept. How about Christian praxis? You may be writing off Westboro Baptist as non-Christian. But you are as appalled as I am about the nature of hell in classical theology. But trying to define classical theology (such as Aquinas) that is also the overwhelming belief in Evangelical Christianity as something other than Christian is a pure True Scotsman argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Also, in TGD, Dawkins is very specific about the type of god he is talking about. It's not a theologically sophisticated ground of all being, or an Einstein style pantheistic entity, nor yet some sort of Spinozan affair.
This, for the record, isn't so. Dawkins is breaking the concept of God into pieces along that fissure - the "theologically sophisticated" and the much more primal God worshipped by what he considers to be the overwhelming majority of Christians.
quote:
If that's not your god, then the gnus are not that interested in you, but their contention is that there are plenty of people for whom that god is real, that this is not an unalloyed blessing for the world and that they will jolly well get all militant and write books and blog posts about it if they want to. The bastards.
If that isn't your God, and you are not going to provide covering fire for the Christians for whom it is (as Adeodatus does above) then GNU Atheists aren't particularly bothered. The God Delusion isn't targetted at the militants, it's targetted at those providing covering fire and saying "That's not (true) Christianity" when it is manifestly being preached and believed by many as Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it's striking that Justinian uses the 'about' word - knowledgeability about Christianity.
But what is it to have the mind of Christ? Is there an 'about' about this?
Given the massive diversity in Christianity, our survey says "probably not - and if there it it's very, very confused."
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Well there's Prof Dawkins' assumption that God can't exist because someone or something must have "made God".
Oh please. That's a rebuttal to the Creationist/ID attempt of "How can anything exist without a creator?"
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I assume you'll be contacting Rowan Williams separately about his reference to Prof Dawkins as an 'atheist pub bore'?
It isn't mean if it's true.
I only disagree with Adeodatus here in one respect. Something can be mean and true.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the odd things I've noticed in many discussions with atheists, is that many of them focus on Protestant ideas. The first 1500 years of Christianity seem to have bypassed them. I don't know whether this is because some of them were Protestant Christians, or whether they are just used to knocking over fundamentalist Protestants, or some other reason.
It has odd consequences - I recall explaining to some that Catholic moral theology was not just a Biblical commentary.
Most are more used to Protestant Christians than to Roman Catholic Christians. And many consider Roman Catholic morality a laughably easy target. But the main reason is that for various social reasons and because it's obviously pear shaped you don't get people leaping to defend Roman Catholic morality in the same way you get the liberal Christians leaping in to defend the bigots. You can also pin down Catholic teaching so you don't have the "That isn't (true) Christianity" used by Adeodatus above.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You make my point for me. It's probably true that some atheists know more of the philosophical assertions that go with Christianity.
Almost certainly.
Only because they are reacting against a belief. That's what most atheism is.
You cannot react against that which you do not know something of the details of.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Those things are not Christianity.
I think you meant to write "Those things are not True Christianity." Because this is the fundamental nature of one of the arguments. Does someone like Adeodatus or even IngoB or EtymologicalEvangelical have the right to define True Christianity? Or is Christianity the religion practiced by Christians taken as a whole.
You're missing the point.
Christianity is not a set of intellectual propositions to which one assents.
It's a personal/communal relationship with God and others.
Yeah the intellectual stuff matters. But it's essentially secondary to faith.
You can easily have intellectual assent and no faith.
[ 06. November 2012, 11:59: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I suppose there are some atheists who might have set themselves up as 'champions of reason'. Can you quote one?
What are the 'assumptions of atheism'? Can you give an example of a couple which have been successflly challenged? Atheism,as has been often said, is a lack of belief in god/god/s. Atheists have many views on all manner of things as have believers, but there are no 'rules' of atheism which direct those ideas.
Well there's Prof Dawkins' assumption that God can't exist because someone or something must have "made God".
Why is this not a reasonable assumption? If you believe (as I used to long ago -) that god just sort of is, then how do you convince yourself of this? Did it decide to turn up when Man evolved? Was it there before the universe began, in which case where is it now, and why connected with this almost invisible dot in the universe?
quote:
At a popular level, which is the level EE is referring to, this is quite a common view amongst atheists.
It is a rational one, which does not need the addition of faith. .
quote:
This facile argument (repudiated by serious atheist philosophers as well as theist) ...
Do you describe it as facile because it does not agree with Christian views? I presume not, as you go on to mention 'serious atheist philosophers', but A C grayling is most certainly a serious atheist philosopher and, having just finished listening to 'Against All Gods' by him, I cannot recall anything he says which would repudiate the infinite regression idea (or the logic of it).
quote:
...has provided an opportunity for Christians to explain the nature of God, his relationship to the universe, ...
Of which there are of course many, many varying ideas. If there is a 'nature' to consider do you imagine it as a mind? There may be a general consistency, but since all opinions as to the 'nature of God' are thought of and voiced by people, then I think we're back to square one!! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
...and to bring more to the fore scientific evidence to support premises which form the bases for arguments in favour of God's existence.
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the odd things I've noticed in many discussions with atheists, is that many of them focus on Protestant ideas. The first 1500 years of Christianity seem to have bypassed them. I don't know whether this is because some of them were Protestant Christians, or whether they are just used to knocking over fundamentalist Protestants, or some other reason.
It has odd consequences - I recall explaining to some that Catholic moral theology was not just a Biblical commentary.
Most are more used to Protestant Christians than to Roman Catholic Christians. And many consider Roman Catholic morality a laughably easy target. But the main reason is that for various social reasons and because it's obviously pear shaped you don't get people leaping to defend Roman Catholic morality in the same way you get the liberal Christians leaping in to defend the bigots. You can also pin down Catholic teaching so you don't have the "That isn't (true) Christianity" used by Adeodatus above.
Really? Catholic moral theology has surely been through a fairly pluralist period, hasn't it? I'm not an expert on it, of course.
I've often seen atheists struck dumb by mention of ideas from classical theism, for example, from Dionysius the Areopagite, probably one of the most influential of Christian mystics and thinkers.
I just assume that they think Christianity began with Luther!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Some very much want an end to all supernatural belief, ...
Yes, but of course common sense tells us that unless every single religious belief worldwide was to come to an end simultaneously, then the move to atheism (humanism, etc) must be a gradual one. I do hope that it's moved a bit further along the track before I die!!
--------------------
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
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
That is why Dawkins is totally missing the point in thinking that unless God is yet another item in the universe who can be scientifically measured, God doesn't exist.
If you could prove the existence of God like that, it would not be God whose existence you'd proved.
God is the possibility of anything.
(We've met before on R3ok, Susan, where I'm DB. I hope all is well with you and the tap dancing still going fine.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You make my point for me. It's probably true that some atheists know more of the philosophical assertions that go with Christianity.
Almost certainly.
Only because they are reacting against a belief. That's what most atheism is.
You cannot react against that which you do not know something of the details of.
Atheism is the state of being without (a) God. Most atheists are reacting against a belief. But tha doesn't make this necessary - I'm an a-invisible pink unicornist without reacting against the belief in invisible pink unicorns.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Those things are not Christianity.
I think you meant to write "Those things are not True Christianity." Because this is the fundamental nature of one of the arguments. Does someone like Adeodatus or even IngoB or EtymologicalEvangelical have the right to define True Christianity? Or is Christianity the religion practiced by Christians taken as a whole.
You're missing the point.
Christianity is not a set of intellectual propositions to which one assents.
It's a personal/communal relationship with God and others.
Yeah the intellectual stuff matters. But it's essentially secondary to faith.
You can easily have intellectual assent and no faith.
You're playing the "true Christian" card again. Christianity is a set of beliefs and practices. The intellectual stuff matters. So does everything else - whether charitable giving, communal meetings, behaviours considered acceptable, and almost everything else. Your defense is that "Just because we've lost on this ground doesn't mean we lose everywhere". But you do lose on what is meant to be your home ground. This matters - and so does everything else. (You lose on most other things as well fwiw but not as spectacularly)
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Really? Catholic moral theology has surely been through a fairly pluralist period, hasn't it? I'm not an expert on it, of course.
By their fruits shall ye know them. And the fruits of Catholic Morality have been all over the press for a long time. Between the kiddy fucking, the homophobia, and the opposition to contraception the only serious question about Catholic morality is how such a plausible moralistic system can reach such horrible outcomes.
quote:
I've often seen atheists struck dumb by mention of ideas from classical theism, for example, from Dionysius the Areopagite, probably one of the most influential of Christian mystics and thinkers.
I just assume that they think Christianity began with Luther!
This is the perfect day to list such an example! I stuck a Christian with a degree in Theology dumb last night by producing Thomas Aquinas. That most people aren't familliar with writings a thousand years old let alone twice that is normal. Most Christians are only familliar with a very few such writings.
That most people in the west are unfamilliar with a mystic who fell out of favour in Western Europe as a consequence of the Great Schism is neither here nor there. It's merely an indication of how little penetration the Orthodox have. And do you mean Pseudo-Dionysius anyway?
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Well there's Prof Dawkins' assumption that God can't exist because someone or something must have "made God".
Why is this not a reasonable assumption? If you believe (as I used to long ago -) that god just sort of is, then how do you convince yourself of this? Did it decide to turn up when Man evolved? Was it there before the universe began, in which case where is it now, and why connected with this almost invisible dot in the universe?
We conclude from observing the world that everything that comes into existence or is contingent has a cause. Causation cannot be circular. Causation may extend infinitely back in time, but it cannot extend infinitely in depth at any given instant. I can say that my cup stands on the table because of the resistance against gravity that the table offers, which is caused by molecular forces, which are caused by electrons whirling around atoms in a suitably quantum way, which are caused by ... well, let's say superstrings vibrating in a specific manner, which are caused by ... who knows what. So I managed to go four steps down in depth here. Perhaps you can come up with an example a hundred causal steps deep. But it is impossible that there are infinitely many. Because we need all this causation in depth to happen right now, simultaneously, and if there wasn't an end to this chain then nothing would have a reason to be. Because without molecular forces the cup would fall through the table. And without electrons there would be no molecular forces. Etc. So there must be a First Cause, in order for all the less deep causes to exist. A First Cause that is, by necessary definition, Uncaused. Because if it wasn't, then it would be merely part of the deep chain of causes, not the origin. And this First Cause, by convention, is called "God".
Is this First Cause identical with Yahweh? Well, certainly not in the sense that we have somehow proven that Yahweh must exist. In fact, we have basically no idea what we have proven to exist there, other than that it must be an Uncaused First Cause. Whatever that may mean. But yes, Yahweh can be compatible with what we have proven to exist. That is to say, at least in some interpretation of what Yahweh is, He could be the Uncaused First Cause we have proven to exist. Now Dawkins' error consists in assuming that the First Cause must be like all the other causes. That's what saying "But what made God?" implies. Probably Dawkins even thinks that this is a question about time, i.e., what is the cause that came "before" God to make Him appear at that time. (Certainly Stephen Hawking appears to be believe that this is a valid question.) But even if Dawkins knows that we are not talking about a temporal chain of causes, it still remains a silly question that completely ignores the flow of argument. We have arrived at the Uncaused First Cause precisely because there had to be something else than yet another link in the chain of deep causation. That's the very point of the argument. So how can one then ask about this as if we were talking about just another link?
And no, there is no "reductio ad absurdum" here either. The argument did not contradict itself in the slightest. Rather, given our premise ("everything that comes into existence or is contingent has a cause") we must now conclude that the Uncaused First Cause, which we may label "God" by convention, cannot have come into existence or be contingent. Thus we conclude that "God" must be eternal and necessarily existent. Again, these conclusions do not prove that Yahweh exists. But of course, being eternal and existing necessarily (remember "I am Who is") is compatible with at least some interpretations of Yahweh.
Further, if we find some real agreement between things, then there must be a cause for that. For example, thing fall to the ground, water flows down, planets circle the sun and after some hard thinking we come to the conclusion that masses attract each other, a common cause called gravity. But all entities have in common that they have being. So there must be a common cause for that, and since all existing entities have being, it can only be the Uncaused First Cause that gives being to all entities through all causes. (Yahweh compatibility check: "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." Passed.)
Hence since all being that ever was, is or will be stems from this "God", this "God" is omnipresent in time and space. (Yahweh compatibility check: Passed.) So yes, this "God" connects as Uncaused First Cause to this infinitesimal speck as to any, was around at the evolution of Man as at any time, and indeed was logically before the universe. That is to say, caused the universe. Not temporally "before" the universe though, since we now understand "time" as being measured by the change of the universe. So "time" was caused by "God" together with the universe simply by "God" causing a changing universe.
And so on. I hope you get a feel why traditional Christians need not be particularly impressed by New Atheist attacks.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Really? Catholic moral theology has surely been through a fairly pluralist period, hasn't it? I'm not an expert on it, of course.
By their fruits shall ye know them. And the fruits of Catholic Morality have been all over the press for a long time. Between the kiddy fucking, the homophobia, and the opposition to contraception the only serious question about Catholic morality is how such a plausible moralistic system can reach such horrible outcomes.
quote:
I've often seen atheists struck dumb by mention of ideas from classical theism, for example, from Dionysius the Areopagite, probably one of the most influential of Christian mystics and thinkers.
I just assume that they think Christianity began with Luther!
This is the perfect day to list such an example! I stuck a Christian with a degree in Theology dumb last night by producing Thomas Aquinas. That most people aren't familliar with writings a thousand years old let alone twice that is normal. Most Christians are only familliar with a very few such writings.
That most people in the west are unfamilliar with a mystic who fell out of favour in Western Europe as a consequence of the Great Schism is neither here nor there. It's merely an indication of how little penetration the Orthodox have. And do you mean Pseudo-Dionysius anyway?
On your first question, (how a plausible moral system can have horrible outcomes), I do believe that early Christians and later ones have wrestled with that question. For example, you get Paul saying that he was appalled to realize that he did not do what he wanted, but 'the very thing I hate'. Later, Luther was also to be appalled at the realization that he could not try to be good; well, OK, he could try, but must fail.
Anyway, it seems to me that this link between the plausible and the horrible outcome is one of the central tensions within the Christian framework. And of course, this analysis must be applied to itself. I suppose Beckett is relevant: fail again, fail better.
I suppose Freud said something similar, but with a different solution!
I'll leave Dennis for another time.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On your first question, (how a plausible moral system can have horrible outcomes), I do believe that early Christians and later ones have wrestled with that question. For example, you get Paul saying that he was appalled to realize that he did not do what he wanted, but 'the very thing I hate'. Later, Luther was also to be appalled at the realization that he could not try to be good; well, OK, he could try, but must fail.
Anyway, it seems to me that this link between the plausible and the horrible outcome is one of the central tensions within the Christian framework. And of course, this analysis must be applied to itself. I suppose Beckett is relevant: fail again, fail better.
You are missing half the point. According to Catholic theology, contraception is evil. According to just about anyone who has thought about it who isn't immersed in Catholic teaching or part of the allied Evangelical groups making a pact agaisnt abortion, contraception (a) is the best known thing for reducing the abortion rate, (b) reduces disease, and (c) reduces unwanted pregnancies which is good for a whole range of issues.
The horrible outcomes I'm referring to are not just the actions of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church but of the moral teachings of that Church. This isn't a matter of failure so much as setting off in the wrong direction.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I guess I will try henceforth to set off in the right direction! Wish me luck.
--------------------
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
IngoB
Thank you for your post to which I have listened very carefully. I am happpy with an unknown first cause which I think of as a 'we don't know , but the universe runs as it does whether that first cause is known or not. I was listening to an article in New Scientist today and it mentioned the 'big bounce' rather than the 'big bang'. No problem, it doesn't matter what it was; what followed occurred as a logical consequence.
To then label that first cause with a name and then add layer upon layer of complexity, adding and subtracting characteristics and supposed thoughts, is a human concept. Then to decide that this named cause can have a personal relationship with people and communicate with them etc ... well, why?! Give the credit for all that Man has done to Man, where it belongs!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
That is why Dawkins is totally missing the point in thinking that unless God is yet another item in the universe who can be scientifically measured, God doesn't exist.
However, it is the only thing in the universe which cannot submit, and could not be submitted, to measurement in some way, isn't it? Its 'existence' relies entirely on faith. I know that abstract concepts cannot be measured as separate, independent items, but they only exist as abstract ideas because of the brain and its activities, which can be measured; and this on an increasingly sophisticated scale.
quote:
If you could prove the existence of God like that, it would not be God whose existence you'd proved.
No, and I think that's because the only source for the God idea is the human brain and since the Theory of Evolution is pretty good on that, there's no need.
quote:
God is the possibility of anything.
No problem there, but the word God has acquired so many layers of meaning that it can no longer be thought of as an unknown, entirely personality-free idea.
quote:
(We've met before on R3ok, Susan, where I'm DB. I hope all is well with you and the tap dancing still going fine.)
Thank you for saying! Yes, I stay logged in there permanently because whenever I've accidentally logged myself out, I've found it so difficult to get back in! I pop in quite often, and yes, tap dancing every thursday without fail!
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
I suppose there are some atheists who might have set themselves up as 'champions of reason'. Can you quote one?
Ever heard of the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science"?
And how did RD begin his eulogy about the late Christopher Hitchens? Allow me to quote it:
"Farewell, great voice. Great voice of reason..."
Great voice of reason? Sounds like the idea of "championing reason".
So are we to believe that Dawkins can give such a eulogy and yet does not consider himself one who champions reason?
And this is, of course, the same Richard Dawkins who presented a two part documentary on Channel 4 called "Enemies of Reason", in which he sought to expose various beliefs that he thought existed without any foundation in what he termed 'reason'. Are we seriously to believe that someone who presents a programme like this considers himself anything other than a 'champion of reason'?
Of course, I would take issue with the idea that atheism is rational, given that it is based on a view of mind rooted in mindless materialism
quote:
What are the 'assumptions of atheism'? Can you give an example of a couple which have been successflly challenged? Atheism,as has been often said, is a lack of belief in god/god/s. Atheists have many views on all manner of things as have believers, but there are no 'rules' of atheism which direct those ideas.
What do you mean by "successfully challenged"? How many people need to be convinced in order for success to be declared?
Given that the idea of 'God' - the personal, eternal, intelligent creator of the universe - is about the most non-trivial concept imaginable, and which therefore has profound consequences for our whole view of reality, then it follows logically that the denial of the existence of God also has profound implications for our view of reality. The idea that atheism is concept-free, because it is just a "lack of belief in God / gods" is such lazy and naive thinking. That kind of spurious reasoning would have some merit if 'God' were a totally trivial idea - like the childish constructs of the New Atheism, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc - but quite obviously God is anything but trivial.
[ 06. November 2012, 17:00: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you for your post to which I have listened very carefully. I am happpy with an unknown first cause which I think of as a 'we don't know , but the universe runs as it does whether that first cause is known or not. I was listening to an article in New Scientist today and it mentioned the 'big bounce' rather than the 'big bang'. No problem, it doesn't matter what it was; what followed occurred as a logical consequence.
Just to make sure that we are on the same page here: the argument for a First Cause is independent from whether there was a 'big bang' or 'big bounce' or indeed a static universe that has existed as it is forever.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To then label that first cause with a name and then add layer upon layer of complexity, adding and subtracting characteristics and supposed thoughts, is a human concept. Then to decide that this named cause can have a personal relationship with people and communicate with them etc ... well, why?! Give the credit for all that Man has done to Man, where it belongs!
Some of the characteristics and complexities are logical consequences that can be argued either from what has already been shown, or from similar metaphysical arguments. We can indeed go quite far in analysing what this First Cause, this "God", must be like, simply by applying human reason to observations of nature. Not in the manner of physics (i.e., modern natural science), but in the manner of metaphysics. That is a different, but in my opinion just as valid, way of gaining rational understanding.
But I agree entirely that this will never get us all the way to the Christian God. Metaphysics is not the gospel, and philosophical argument is not faith. My motivations for accepting the Christian God are contemplative experience, hope and a kind of conceptual aesthetics (or as the atheists so charmingly would have it, hallucination, wishful thinking and sentimentality). However, for me it is important that my faith, that which I believe in without compelling evidence, is not in clear contradiction to the best and most comprehensive analysis of all known facts that reason is capable of providing. I cannot believe in a God that contradicts physics or metaphysics. The Christian God, or at least certain versions thereof, is compatible with physics and metaphysics. Hence I feel free to follow other guidance, as mentioned.
And I do think that it is important to do so, I do not think that this is optional, a mere "life style choice". I think all humans have a "God-shaped hole" in their hearts, and all of them will fill it with something. I think one has to realize that, and then take a good, hard look at what one is dropping in there. And then make a conscious decision what should go in there. That I contend is the human thing to do, and I respect those who have made their choice, even where I think they got it wrong (as with other religions) or very wrong (as with atheism).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Those things are not Christianity.
I think you meant to write "Those things are not True Christianity."
No I didn't. I mean exactly what I wrote: those things (i.e. philosophical assertions, facts about the Bible, etc.) are not Christianity. They are not what Christianity consists of. Christianity consists of lives lived, vocations followed, footpaths trod, prayers prayed, a Word proclaimed, sacraments celebrated, a Lord adored.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
I suppose there are some atheists who might have set themselves up as 'champions of reason'. Can you quote one?
Ever heard of the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science"?
Ah, I see what you mean; thank you. Apologies for not being able to search easily for those things myself.
quote:
And how did RD begin his eulogy about the late Christopher Hitchens? Allow me to quote it:
"Farewell, great voice. Great voice of reason..."
Great voice of reason? Sounds like the idea of "championing reason".
Yes, I have to agree! However, I certtainly too 'champion reason'!
quote:
Of course, I would take issue with the idea that atheism is rational, given that it is based on a view of mind rooted in mindless
materialism
If you think that atheism is not rational, why do you think yourbeliefs are? Serious question - I'd be interested to know. Okay, I probably won't agree, but it's reading and joining in the discussions here that's the important thing.
quote:
What do you mean by "successfully challenged"? How many people need to be convinced in order for success to be declared?
The number of people believing something does not alter its truth or falsehood. But I was asking the question because of what you said in the previous post of yours I quoted!
quote:
Given that the idea of 'God' - the personal, eternal, intelligent creator of the universe - is about the most non-trivial concept imaginable, ...
Which is why it should present the sort of testable, independent, non-subjective evidence for itself, rather than relying entirely on the faith of its adherents.
quote:
...and which therefore has profound consequences for our whole view of reality, ...
Well, yes, a concept declared as true, but which requires faith based on what other people had faith in is on shaky ground, I think.
quote:
...if 'God' were a totally trivial idea - like the childish constructs of the New Atheism, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc - but quite obviously God is anything but trivial.
Certainly the idea of god is not a trivial one, as the people who have made use of its power and influence have been the dominant forces throughout history. But at no time has any person been able to show that God/god/s were any more than an idea. Statues, stories etc etc reveal the thoughts they had about the God/god/s of which they spoke, but that's it.
You talk of FSM etc as childish constructs. In what way is God (or any other religion's god) not a construct? Of course, as soon as religions agreed that the construct is the same, although the god/god/s ones have a longer history, then that's when God ... is really seen as it always has been - one of the infinite number of ideas thought up by Man.
That could come across as somewhat dismissive, but that is most certainly not intended.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Ingo B
thank you for post at 18:35. I have listened through once and will listen again tomorrow and see if I can come up with a good, rational of course, response!!
--------------------
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
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ever heard of the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science"?
And let us not forget the resent "Reason Rally" held close to the Washington Monument. It a good example that atheist can be as daft as the next group when they gather together in crowds.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Squibs
quote:
That odd given that they have published titles such as The End of Faith, a rant against all religious faith.
And it not just that Dawkins is concerned with the god that both of you so delightfully caricature. He also spent a number of pages utterly demolishing the God of classical theism. The problem is that he never understood Aquinas to begin and consequently refutes a series of arguments borne of his own ignorance.
Sorry to say, but some the more passionate New Atheists out there aren't content to demolish faith in the god you describe. Some very much want an end to all supernatural belief, and this often starts with an attack on God as revealed in the Old and New testaments (or various caricatures of him).
I said not that interested in you, not that they agree with you. They are atheists for crying out loud. Just as damnationists think the gnus (and us olds) are on a one way ticket to the eternal barbeque, we think your faith is bonkers. Goes with the territory.
If that was all there is to it, we could happily argue the toss on here and no one would really give a shit, secure in the knowledge that our private views on the fundamental nature of reality would not make much of a difference in our dealings with each other in the real world. The days of stupid wars over religion, monkey trials and such were behind us, and secularism - the freedom of religion and freedom from religion - was something valued by the religious and non religious alike. Science and religion were non overlapping magisteria and all was good in the hood.
And then we woke up.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Given that the idea of 'God' - the personal, eternal, intelligent creator of the universe - is about the most non-trivial concept imaginable
And as such can be used to solve any problem. Isn't it a bit philosophically risky to base everything on such a complex and over-determining 'axiom'? I'm sure that if you start from God you'll be able to prove anything you like. Which may be why some of us would like some evidence of his existence before we treat your concept as anything but that - a concept.
The idea that atheism is concept-free, because it is just a "lack of belief in God / gods" is such lazy and naive thinking. That kind of spurious reasoning would have some merit if 'God' were a totally trivial idea - like the childish constructs of the New Atheism, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc - but quite obviously God is anything but trivial.
Suppose we found somewhere a tribe to whom the concept of 'God' was totally alien, i.e. they had no concept of God, they just pottered happily along hunting, gathering whatever. Would you say their atheism was concept-free? They have no concept of 'atheism' or 'theism'.
Then someone tells them about God, explains it all very carefully. No doubt tells them about Hume's fork as well (lots of times). They now have the concept but, alas, they think it's all just made up. It's like the stories they use to scare the kids, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Entymological Vangelis - interesting, frightening to the kiddies, but a concept without reference.
"But surely", you say, "this has profoundly changed you view of reality". "If you say so", they reply, "but it's late, we're going to bed. Lots more pottering about to do tomorrow".
"You are just being lazy and naive", he cries. "Sticks and stones ... ", they say.
And I shall follow their example and go to bed. I hope the Entymological Vangelis doesn't bite.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I said not that interested in you, not that they agree with you. They are atheists for crying out loud. Just as damnationists think the gnus (and us olds) are on a one way ticket to the eternal barbeque, we think your faith is bonkers. Goes with the territory.
Well thanks for pointing out the obvious. I contend that many New Atheists are very interested in religion. That's why they talk about it so much. Some even think religion so evil or stupid or whatever that they have expressed their desire to see an end to it. And in this regard, they are very much interested in religious people, including Christians like me.
Sam Harris, for example, felt so uncomfortable that Francis Collins, an extraordinarily talented scientist, should be appointed director of the National Institutes of Health that he felt compelled to write this regrettable article. Likewise, Steven Pinker, another notable atheist, wrote a post expressing his concerns. Between the two I think Pinker wins the wooden spoon.
If you think I am wrong when I say that people like Harris, Dawkins, Pinker, Hitchens et al. are very interested in doing something about the beliefs that people like me hold to (and I wonder exactly what category you put me into and on what basis) then please show me. Because for the life of me I can't figure out how you have responding to my post.
[ 06. November 2012, 23:10: Message edited by: Squibs ]
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
They are atheists for crying out loud. Just as damnationists think the gnus (and us olds) are on a one way ticket to the eternal barbeque, we think your faith is bonkers. Goes with the territory.
Well, here's the thing. If I take your statement as definition of "damnationist", then few Christians would be damnationists now. Well, at least so in these parts. I'm a reasonably traditional RC, and I do not think that all atheists are destined to hell. So why would it go with the territory for atheists to think that our faith is bonkers? Why are so many of them incapable to move beyond that? (I know there are some on the Ship, but still...)
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
The days of stupid wars over religion, monkey trials and such were behind us, and secularism - the freedom of religion and freedom from religion - was something valued by the religious and non religious alike. Science and religion were non overlapping magisteria and all was good in the hood. And then we woke up.
Hmm, did we manage to reestablish Christendom? I didn't get the memo. Anyway, I sort of understand the angst of US atheists. In Europe, quite frankly, I think Christians have more to worry about than atheists...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE][qb]...and to bring more to the fore scientific evidence to support premises which form the bases for arguments in favour of God's existence.
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
You could have a look at this - try item 4 on the list. Robin Collins is an American Philosopher with degree-level qualifications in Maths Physics and (of course) philosophy.
By the way Susan, it's a bit cheeky to say your atheism is based on rational enquiry and then to say that scientific evidence supporting arguments for God's existence "must be very tenuous" before you've looked at the evidence. "That Susan's a saucy so and so" I thought...
Truth is my lovely, is that our conclusions about life and reality are based on a number of factors - rational enquiry being one. So on a previous thread you said "Even when I believed in a god, I did not wait for him/her to tell me what his/her purpose was for me, I made my own decisions." How much of the appeal of atheism to you, is that it appeals to your independent streak ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Keep warm, and if you're feeling chilly have a virtual hug from a fellow sailor <H>
[ 07. November 2012, 12:50: Message edited by: Ramarius ]
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
Susan, I meant to PM you these links because we had a conversation that touched on this question.
You might want to try out http://www.veritas.org/ and http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php. (Go to the media sections and you can listen to or download the audio/ video files.) Both sites feature guests who make the claim that there is a body of evidence for God's existence, and part of this evidence takes the form of interpretation of scientific discovery.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
You make my point for me. It's probably true that some atheists know more of the philosophical assertions that go with Christianity.
Almost certainly.
Only because they are reacting against a belief. That's what most atheism is.
You cannot react against that which you do not know something of the details of.
Atheism is the state of being without (a) God. Most atheists are reacting against a belief. But tha doesn't make this necessary - I'm an a-invisible pink unicornist without reacting against the belief in invisible pink unicorns.
Of course you are. If you didn't know what an invisible pink unicorn was you wouldn't react against it or name yourself an (a) invisible pink unicornist. It wouldn't mean anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You're playing the "true Christian" card again. Christianity is a set of beliefs and practices. The intellectual stuff matters.
You failed to mention faith again.
It is the cornerstone.
And what Adeodatus said.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
...we think your faith is bonkers.
Well, I guess we'll just have to say that the affirmation of intelligence is bonkers, if you - along with all those very clever "brights" - say so! Wouldn't we be much wiser putting our faith in the paradigm of total mindlessness? Wouldn't science be so much healthier if we abandoned the idea (held by many of the pioneers of modern science) of intelligent causation resulting in an intelligible universe, on which the central concepts of prediction and sound inductive inference depend?
And I suppose the affirmation of the reality of free will (which appears to fit reality - at least the reality that I happen to inhabit) is obviously a bit crazy, if it's not to the liking of the self-confessed guardians of reason (sic). Wouldn't it be far easier just to relax into the arms of brute determinism?
Yes, let's all put our faith in the philosophy of naturalism, and forget about that irritating little thing called 'reality'...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You failed to mention faith again.
It is the cornerstone.
And what Adeodatus said.
No it isn't. It is the cornerstone of some Christianity. But then faith is merely intellectual sloth given a new coat of paint to pass it off as a virtue. If you want to say that a vice is the cornerstone of Christianity, you said it rather than me.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
There's an extra [/QUOTE] tag I see when previewing, but I'll leave it in case I mess it up further!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you for your post to which I have listened very carefully. I am happpy with an unknown first cause which I think of as a 'we don't know , but the universe runs as it does whether that first cause is known or not. I was listening to an article in New Scientist today and it mentioned the 'big bounce' rather than the 'big bang'. No problem, it doesn't matter what it was; what followed occurred as a logical consequence.
Just to make sure that we are on the same page here: the argument for a First Cause is independent from whether there was a 'big bang' or 'big bounce' or indeed a static universe that has existed as it is forever.
I think I'm okay with that - that the idea of a first cause can be considered from many points of view but if there is no evidence for any of those points of view, then they are not independent ideas I think. Hmmm.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To then label that first cause with a name and then add layer upon layer of complexity, adding and subtracting characteristics and supposed thoughts, is a human concept. Then to decide that this named cause can have a personal relationship with people and communicate with them etc ... well, why?! Give the credit for all that Man has done to Man, where it belongs!
Some of the characteristics and complexities are logical consequences that can be argued either from what has already been shown, or from similar metaphysical arguments[/quote]
The word 'metaphysical' always seems to blur clarity a bit in my opinion. I'm probably quite wrong, but only having come across it when I was older, I avoid it!
quote:
We can indeed go quite far in analysing what this First Cause, this "God", must be like, simply by applying human reason to observations of nature.
As soon as one starts thinking of the god idea and applying our evolved human reason to nature instead of observing and recording directly and checking that such things are indeed independently verifiable, then one loses the impartiality needed to come to a true conclusion.
quote:
But I agree entirely that this will never get us all the way to the Christian God. Metaphysics is not the gospel, and philosophical argument is not faith. My motivations for accepting the Christian God are contemplative experience, hope and a kind of conceptual aesthetics (or as the atheists so charmingly would have it, hallucination, wishful thinking and sentimentality).
May I suggest that, rather than 'charmingly', which could sound just the teensiest bit condescending! the word 'evidentially', might work better?!
quote:
I think all humans have a "God-shaped hole" in their hearts, and all of them will fill it with something.
If there's a God-shaped hole, it is one that is, like every other idea about God/god/s, a humanly-created one.
quote:
I think one has to realize that, and then take a good, hard look at what one is dropping in there. And then make a conscious decision what should go in there. That I contend is the human thing to do, and I respect those who have made their choice, even where I think they got it wrong (as with other religions) or very wrong (as with atheism).
There used to be in my brain a spot that had a Godd in it, but rationality, evidence, etc etc meant that I erased it and was complete.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE][qb]...and to bring more to the fore scientific evidence to support premises which form the bases for arguments in favour of God's existence.
Could you give me a link to one of these pieces of scientific evidence which lead to support for premises which in turn lead to the existence of God, i.e. the Christian one? I think the link must be very tenuous.
You could have a look at
this - try item 4 on the list.
Thank you! When I said the link must be tenuous, I can see I did not make it clear that I was thinking of the lack of logical steps from one to the other; to arrive at god you have to have one step which is faith without evidence!
I have clicked on the link, but my screen reader will only read it using what's called 'line view mode' and I can't listen to a bit, comment and then go back to the same place. So I'll listen later and come back to comment.
quote:
By the way Susan, it's a bit cheeky to say your atheism is based on rational enquiry and then to say that scientific evidence supporting arguments for God's existence "must be very tenuous" before you've looked at the evidence. "That Susan's a saucy so and so" I thought...
Maybe 'confident' might apply ... but I'll see if I can find a suitable paper bag to place over head!
quote:
Truth is my lovely, is that our conclusions about life and reality are based on a number of factors - rational enquiry being one. So on a previous thread you said "Even when I believed in a god, I did not wait for him/her to tell me what his/her purpose was for me, I made my own decisions." How much of the appeal of atheism to you, is that it appeals to your independent streak
Do you think I'd have done better to wait for decisions to sort of materialise in my brain and then think, ah, that must have been God telling me what to do? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Keep warm, and if you're feeling chilly have a virtual hug from a fellow sailor <H>
Thank you!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Susan, I meant to PM you these links because we had a conversation that touched on this question.
You might want to try out http://www.veritas.org/ and http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/index.php. (Go to the media sections and you can listen to or download the audio/ video files.) Both sites feature guests who make the claim that there is a body of evidence for God's existence, and part of this evidence takes the form of interpretation of scientific discovery.
Thank you - I can see I'm going to be busy for the rest of this evening!
--------------------
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
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
[QUOTE]Truth is my lovely, is that our conclusions about life and reality are based on a number of factors - rational enquiry being one. So on a previous thread you said "Even when I believed in a god, I did not wait for him/her to tell me what his/her purpose was for me, I made my own decisions." How much of the appeal of atheism to you, is that it appeals to your independent streak
Do you think I'd have done better to wait for decisions to sort of materialise in my brain and then think, ah, that must have been God telling me what to do?
You ducked my question Misses SD.
Like I said - saucy....
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
So why would it go with the territory for atheists to think that our faith is bonkers?
Same reason atheism is foolish because of some sort of quantum bollocks, I suppose.
quote:
In Europe, quite frankly, I think Christians have more to worry about than atheists...
You should try telling Squibbsbie that. For me the most interesting thing about gnu atheism is not the unexpected success of a few books about religion, but the hysteria of the reaction from even moderately religious folk and some nominal atheists like the Grauniad's Andrew Brown. I mean, you sort of expect the Pope to witter on with vague comparisons to nazis, and the occasional Cardinal to opine that atheists aren't fully human, but the widespread opprobrium from common or garden theists is out of all proportion to what is actually in the books. As Dawkins says in the preface to the paperback edition of TGD, the average restaurant review is more belligerent than his anti-theism.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But then faith is merely intellectual sloth given a new coat of paint to pass it off as a virtue.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) OMFG!
What a completely deluded view. I've never heard anything so wrong!
[ 08. November 2012, 00:26: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So why would it go with the territory for atheists to think that our faith is bonkers?
Same reason atheism is foolish because of some sort of quantum bollocks, I suppose.
That was a quick move of the goalposts there, from doomed vs. bonkers to foolish vs. bonkers. As for the new one, being foolish is not the same as being bonkers. And this is no accident. Lesser "gnus" are intellectually lazy, they just want to piss on theists from great heights and calling faith insane is allowing that without having to engage with faith in any meaningful way. Greater "gnus" are dimly aware that there is very tightly argued theology out there that would require a lot of effort to refute. So it is convenient to declare the basis of all that argument as beyond sanity, because then one can just ignore the argument wholesale.
Whereas to declare someone as foolish merely means that they have made an error of argument or judgement. And that allows the comeback "Really? Show me my error then, if you can." So, can we progress to the stage where both sides merely declare each other to be foolish?
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
As Dawkins says in the preface to the paperback edition of TGD, the average restaurant review is more belligerent than his anti-theism.
Well, I cannot judge the book since I have not read it. But I have seen Dawkins in several interviews / discussions and this just goes to show that he either lacks self-awareness or is dishonest.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
How much of the appeal of atheism to you, is that it appeals to your independent streak
You ducked my question Misses SD.
Like I said - saucy....
Yes, probably. Looking baqck, I realise that I was the child who always asked, 'Why?' and , 'Is this TRUE?' I suppose I have a natural (and that of course is genetic) confidence, and have never, for example, felt shy! I think my second question about things being TRUE is the more important one.
I hope that answers the question! I shall be interested in your answer to mine:
Do you think I'd have done better to wait for decisions to sort of materialise in my brain and then think, ah, that must have been God telling me what to do?
I listened to the essay and will be posting a comment, or rather quite a few, today or asap.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Ramarius
I hope you will be suitably impressed that I listened to just about all of that paper!
the word 'if' played a major role and introduced many conjectures about a fine tuned universe and our particular planet. He said there was an 'intuitive implausibility' about fine tuning ... well, that intuition is correct! the idea of a fine-tuned universe, particularly one supposedly created by A. N. Other, is just that, completely implausible.
As the essay went on and on, I recognised, i.e. recognised in the sense that I have read a lot and learnt much during the past 10-15 years, the very large amounts of scientific information which served, in my opinion, to distract from the original conjecture that the universe is fine tuned by a something/God, however you imagine that God to be. These science sections I listened to faster, by listening to a few words at the beginning of each line.
However, amongst all those many thousands of words (I would be interested to know approx how many actually!) there wasn't one which provided evidence for the God/mind/power/whatever. If you think they are there and ccan quote the words or section, please let me know.
However, well-presentded and factual the science was, and I thought those parts were very interesting, I do wonder whether the intention was to hide that lack of evidence with the volume of words and info. And no, I'm not being cynical! If that's what he wants to do, he has the right. However, one short paragraph with evidence would have sufficed. Those who were already biased towards agreement with the fine tuning would not be reading in the way that I was doing.
A phrase that kep coming up was'the atheist single universe hypothesis'. A phrase which jarred on me every time it occurred. (a) there may be many atheists who neither know nor care whether there are multiple universes and many others who do, but
even if by some remote chance it turns out to be able to be proved (I've read quite a lot about string theory too) , I can't imagine that its of any practical use, (b) if the hypothesis is well known, it's a scientific idea and would be tested and proved (or not) by experiments to form a theory. Okay, atheists are more likely to do this without trying to put any god into the process. What do you think about the phrase?
I will stop there, but no doubt there will be further questions arising from this!
(By the way, I found I could cursor down line by line, but could not put the coloured frame on the line I was listening to, so could not leave it and go back. It's brilliant software though.)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Just to be clear - when I mention 'B]evidence[/B], I'm talking of evidence for a fine tuned universe made thus by design rather than it being natural.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
squibs
When I went to the veritas web site, the first video was to a debate with Peter Singer and someone else. I listened to Peter Singer, and then turned off because it was getting a bit past my bedtime but when I went back today, a different video was in the main place and I couldn't find the othere one. That's what these video /you tube sites do, don't they? I have to say that I find Peter Singer's case very well put, but will do my best to watch the second part with an unprejudiced ear, if you know what the link to that particular video is.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We conclude from observing the world that everything that comes into existence or is contingent has a cause. Causation cannot be circular.
I don't see why causality can't be circular. I'm pretty sure it isn't but it is no more logically difficult to imagine than causality extending back infinitely. Imagine a circular train track, train A hits train B which, going round the track, hits train A again. In an imaginary, friction free world it would go on for ever.
Godel showed that the General Theory of Relativity did not forbid circular time see wiki. Godel's metric is weird. 40 years ago I sort of understood this stuff but my time hasn't gone in a circle yet so I don't now! Godel's metric allows an exact solution to the field equations and depends on wholly unlikely boundary condition but it makes the point that there could universes in which time is circular. Once you've found one solution to a set of equations there could be others we have yet to find.
I think Godel invented this to annoy Einstein but it still persists as a problem. Careful theoretical physicists sometimes prefix their proofs with 'assuming no causal anomalies'.
I can say that my cup stands on the table because of the resistance against gravity that the table offers, which is caused by molecular forces, which are caused by electrons whirling around atoms in a suitably quantum way, which are caused by ... well, let's say superstrings vibrating in a specific manner, which are caused by ... who knows what.
Here I'm less convinced you are correct. Your examples are carefully worded to avoid howlers like protons being made from quarks and quarks from .... which wouldn't involve any causation but might involve infinite complexity (which again seems logically possible). However statements like the resistance against gravity that the table offers, which is caused by molecular forces could be rephrased the molecular forces are the resistance against gravity that the table offers.
Do we have any logical grounds for denying infinite depth of causation in this form? I can't see why, obviously you would have to drop the speed of light as upper limit of information flow but that is a contingent fact which may only apply at certain 'levels' of existence.
And this First Cause, by convention, is called "God".
Is this First Cause identical with Yahweh? .... ... Yahweh can be compatible with what we have proven to exist.
As indeed could many things. The first cause, as you say, may be wholly alien to us: perhaps so peculiar we can't even begin to understand it in our terms. I would be very surprised if it was quite so anthropomorphic as many people seem to imagine (having a 'personal' nature for example).
But I entirely agree with you about naive arguments such as Dawkins'
But all entities have in common that they have being. So there must be a common cause for that
Well I don't see 'being' as a predicate. No being, no entity I'd say.
and since all existing entities have being, it can only be the Uncaused First Cause that gives being to all entities through all causes.
Maybe, but only in an indirect way. Houses are made from bricks which are made from ..... quarks/leptons ... etc So the Uncaused First Cause (UFC) made them. Of course the UFC could have made independent entities with the power to create other entities out of nothing maybe. And if UFC gave them free will the sense in which every thing comes from the UFC while still true becomes deeply tangled up in what we mean by 'caused'.
And so on. I hope you get a feel why traditional Christians need not be particularly impressed by New Atheist attacks.
With that I agree.
Sorry if this post is too late and too nit picking. Some of the ideas I've taken from "Logic and Theism" by Jordan Howard Sobel though I don't recall him considering your chain of physical levels.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just to be clear - when I mention 'B]evidence[/B], I'm talking of evidence for a fine tuned universe made thus by design rather than it being natural.
What's your "evidence" for the universe being "natural" rather than designed?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Dawkins is concerned with the personal God of abrahamic religions because more "sophisticated" concepts of a non-personal god in the west are usually just a soft transition from christianity to secularism. And it doesn´t make any difference to believe there is no god and to believe "god" is an impersonal abstract entity, since that is pretty much a wording game.
Two comments:
a.) There is almost certainly a difference for people who do believe in a purely impersonal god. And telling them that what they 'really' believe is secularism shows the same level of arrogance as the preacher who thinks atheists 'really' know that Jesus wants to save them but reject the belief because they're too sinful and prideful. And it's just as unhelpful.
b.) More pertinently, I think it misunderstands what's actually going on.
(This next paragraph is following C.S. Lewis: I have mixed feelings about Lewis but he undoubtedly represents where many Christians are.)
The contention for many Christians isn't that God is personal or impersonal but that he is 'beyond' personality. There are two ways to proceed from here: i.) God can be expressed in personal terms 'by analogy', in the same way that you'd describe a hypercube using cubes, or ii.) God can only be described negatively, in terms of what he isn't (so-called via negativa or apophatic theology, both of which have a long Christian pedigree).
The overall effect is that Christianity as it is taught contains elements of both a personal and impersonal God (corresponding to i. and ii. above); that people who describe God in apparently personal terms may be more 'sophisticated' (to use your term) than they appear; and that people who describe God in impersonal terms may not be as 'liberal' as they sound.
It´s just that I find misleading to label any of these non-personal (which is not the same as "beyond personal") "gods" as "God". If "God" is not an intelligent creator, doesn´t have a purpouse, etc, why call it "god"? It´s like calling the law of gravity "god". You don´t pray for the laws of nature. And while people might call this a "god" I would still classify them as atheists, since their use of the term is misleading and has nothing to do with the Christian God that spoke to Moses and the prophets. A living God, not merely a principle or a feeling.
This liberal "god" that so many theologians insist he doesn´t care "who we sleep with", certainly has nothing to do with the God that delivered a lot of do´s and don´t do´s to Moses. So why call it "god" since it has nothing to do with what average people in our culture refer to as God? Perhaps, it has something to do with the fact people who hold these beliefs usually depend on a church stipend, and they have to wait until they´re retired to finally becoming openly atheists.
And you are right about my mistake with secularism/atheism. English is not my first language, sorry. What I meant to say is that liberal christianity is just a transition from traditional theism to atheism, since being religious is still socially relevant (tough not as much as it was in the past). Once traditional theism disappears, and being religious ceases to have any social appeal, liberal christianity dies out. Once there are no more people that holds the belief in a tradional theist God, people who do not believe will not feel compelled to label "god" whatever abstract mystic or reverent feeling they have in life in order to still be able to use that word "god" in their discourse and take whatever advantage that comes from it. For example, do you think an openly atheist would be elected president in the USA? No. But if you mask whatever abstract concept you have under the label "god" and join a mainline denomination that doesn´t require any specific belief, except the belief that whatever god is, he is not concerned with what we do in bed (and outside of bed, since this impersonal "god" cannot be concerned with anything...), you´re already christian enough to fill the minimal requirements.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
squibs
When I went to the veritas web site, the first video was to a debate with Peter Singer and someone else. I listened to Peter Singer, and then turned off because it was getting a bit past my bedtime but when I went back today, a different video was in the main place and I couldn't find the othere one. That's what these video /you tube sites do, don't they? I have to say that I find Peter Singer's case very well put, but will do my best to watch the second part with an unprejudiced ear, if you know what the link to that particular video is.
The featured video is probably automatically changed each day or some such.
Singer is an interesting character. He certainly makes as good a case for infanticide as you're likely to hear.
If you go to the talks section then go underneath the main featured video you will find various search options. If you click these options - featured talks, topics, presenters etc. - the search bar directly below will change accordingly
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
You should try telling Squibbsbie that.
If you are referring to me then do you mind telling me what you mean? Not for the first time I don't see the connection between your reply and the very simple point I made originally.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
That was a quick move of the goalposts there, from doomed vs. bonkers to foolish vs. bonkers.
Since we’re stuck in the middle of epistemic no man’s land here, the position of the goalposts is pretty arbitrary and every kick, even when it completely misses the ball and leaves the opponent writhing on the floor, is claimed as a legitimate goal. In that epistemic world, unverifiable claims and conclusions based on wonky premises abound on both sides, many of them foolish and bonkers. (BTW my thesaurus has common synonyms for both words – the difference is merely one of tone. My default tone is flippancy, I'm afraid.)
quote:
Greater "gnus" are dimly aware that there is very tightly argued theology out there that would require a lot of effort to refute.
And also aware that no one outside of seminaries and internet forums would pick up a book entitled, I dunno, “The Ontological Delusion : Why Existence is not a Predicate” or “The Uncaused Cause is Not Great: How Deduction from Unwarranted Assertion Poisons Everything."
quote:
Well, I cannot judge the book since I have not read it. But I have seen Dawkins in several interviews / discussions and this just goes to show that he either lacks self-awareness or is dishonest.
Really? Or is it a matter of perspective? Was your own dear Pope not doing his own pissing when he not quite explicitly likened atheists to Nazis? Or the Cardinal saying we’re not fully human? I’m not saying they should stop saying these things, just that we need to be careful that our tribal loyalties don’t blind us.
It seems to me there’s a strand in even the most laid back of Christian thought that hankers after blasphemy laws and seems to contend that to criticise religion is of itself a militant, aggressive act in a way that criticising political positions or opponents, for instance, isn’t.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
but the hysteria of the reaction from even moderately religious folk and some nominal atheists like the Grauniad's Andrew Brown.
What is 'nominal atheist' supposed to mean? How does an atheist qualify for nominal status?
And, secondly, can you cite any article or piece of writing by Andrew Brown that matches any reasonable definition of 'hysteria'?
You can try defending Dawkins' reputation as a reasonable and rational debater by excoriating and shouting down all criticism. You can try anathematising Brown and Eagleton and insinuating that any atheist who criticises Dawkins can't be a proper atheist. It doesn't help the case. But no doubt it gives you a warm feeling inside.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elephenor
Shipmate
# 4026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dionysius the Areopagite
[...]
That most people in the west are unfamilliar with a mystic who fell out of favour in Western Europe as a consequence of the Great Schism is neither here nor there.
If he fell out of favour as a consequence of the Great Schism, it would be odd he is quoted so frequently by the aforementioned Thomas Aquinas (who indeed wrote a commentary on him); was translated into English in the c14th; and (through conflation with his cephalophoric namesake) was patron saint of France.
(I would suggest a more plausible signpost might be Luther's dismissal of him as 'more of a Platonist than a Christian' The Babylonian Captivity of the Church - in Selected Writings I:461)
This needn't detract from your primary point that ignorance of the influential Corpus Dionsyiacum is unremarkable (howsoever regrettable).
--------------------
"Man is...a `eucharistic' animal." (Kallistos Ware)
Posts: 214 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
