|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A royal call to faith
|
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Yes, I listened to it. Being an atheist, I winced just a bit! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
However, until humanism, atheism and a general non-belief are strong enough to stand up to, for instance, the push for Islam that would result from a vacuum, I'll back the Queen and the CofE to the hilt.
BBy the way, I don't mean that in any way to sound hypocritical, it's taking into account the status quo, history, the gradual move towards a more liberal, open society and an increasing understanding of Science and its benefits.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Queen always mentions Christ and faith in her Christmas Broadcast. One year she was on record for being the only person to mention Jesus on the BBC's entire televisual output for Christmas Day.
I don't see what's so special about this year's broadcast.
She's a very devout lady. Ok, so 'Defender of the Faith' is part of her job title but you can tell that she has a very real and genuine faith and it's more than purely ceremonial and so on.
So, to that extent, I'm quite pleased we have a monarch who articulates their faith so positively.
But I'm not holding my breath as to any potential 'impact' it might have in what is effectively a post-Christian society.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I loved the end: "I'm going to play this anthem one more time and those who want to give their lives to Jesus should kneel at the front of the palace".
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, until humanism, atheism and a general non-belief are strong enough to stand up to, for instance, the push for Islam that would result from a vacuum, I'll back the Queen and the CofE to the hilt.
So you consider the CofE to be functionally equivalent to humanism/atheism/non-belief?
Interesting.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, until humanism, atheism and a general non-belief are strong enough to stand up to, for instance, the push for Islam that would result from a vacuum, I'll back the Queen and the CofE to the hilt.
So you consider the CofE to be functionally equivalent to humanism/atheism/non-belief?
Interesting.
I didn't read it that way at all; I read her to be saying that she prefers the COE to the push for Islam that would result in its lack, given the fact that humanism/atheism/non-belief do not have the ability at the present time to do fend off Islam in the COE's absence. HUGE difference.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
So the real issue is fending off Islam?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Perhaps you could just back up a bit, read what the lady said, and then think about it for a moment.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Perhaps you could just back up a bit, read what the lady said, and then think about it for a moment.
Too easy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I didn't read it that way at all; I read her to be saying that she prefers the COE to the push for Islam that would result in its lack, given the fact that humanism/atheism/non-belief do not have the ability at the present time to do fend off Islam in the COE's absence. HUGE difference.
Thank you. Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
Horseman Bree
Thank you too for yours.
Garasu
If I had meant what you suggest, I would have made it clear!
I am a practical person and, I hope, a realist,
and certainly don't see it as a single issue problem.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, until humanism, atheism and a general non-belief are strong enough to stand up to, for instance, the push for Islam that would result from a vacuum, I'll back the Queen and the CofE to the hilt.
So you consider the CofE to be functionally equivalent to humanism/atheism/non-belief?
Interesting.
I didn't read it that way at all; I read her to be saying that she prefers the COE to the push for Islam that would result in its lack, given the fact that humanism/atheism/non-belief do not have the ability at the present time to do fend off Islam in the COE's absence. HUGE difference.
That's a really interesting point. Her Maj is certainly theologically minded enough to appreciate and even reflect the nuances of such a position. If it's her private view, it also makes a lot of sense.
I think the main flavour of her address, however, is simply sharing her understanding of the faith that has sustained her all her life, and which she seems to believe was - at least ostensibly - a characteristic factor of the nation for so long; and it would be so much better for the nation to cop on to it again.
Elizabeth II has always been respectful and cognizant of other faiths, but I don't imagine she has any wish to water down her own view on how important the Christian faith is (or should be) to the country she promised God to look after.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think the main flavour of her address, however, is simply sharing her understanding of the faith that has sustained her all her life, and which she seems to believe was - at least ostensibly - a characteristic factor of the nation for so long; and it would be so much better for the nation to cop on to it again.
Oh, and it would be so very interesting to ask her whether she really believes that there's something after death, and what she thinks of the census figures which show that a quarter of the country's population does not believe in god/god/s.
It is not because of my atheist view that I disagree somewhat with the idea that the Nation should cop onto The CofE again, but because trying to return to some, always illusory, better way never really works. There must always be a move forward, taking an unbiased view of knowledge which is making the God-did-it gaps fewer and fewer and being confident enough to say 'we don't know yet' instead.
My suggested ideal solution would be to keep the CofE with all its structure but simply remove God!! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
QB]Elizabeth II has always been respectful and cognizant of other faiths, but I don't imagine she has any wish to water down her own view on how important the Christian faith is (or should be) to the country she promised God to look after. [/QB]
Absolutely agree. I think she is a remarkable woman, still fulfilling a major role in public life. I would like to have seen her make some brief mention of her acting role in the Opening Ceremony of the |Olympics, but I suppose that might seem odd to the people around the world who will watch her Christmas message.
[ 30. December 2012, 09:39: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
I heard part of the speech on National Public Radio and was fascinated both by the call to faith and by Her Majesty's accent. Does anyone else still talk like that?
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
It was interesting to me to notice that the media in Australia who reported on her speech failed to mention her religious message,but focussed instead on the other points made such as the Jubilee and the Olympics. I found her Christian homily to be very sincere and moving and it seemed as though it was her was her own personal thoughts even if someone else probably wrote the speech.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure that HM is thoroughly involved in the writing of what she has to say. Unlike too many people, she feels a strong sense of responsibility.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm pretty sure that HM is thoroughly involved in the writing of what she has to say. Unlike too many people, she feels a strong sense of responsibility.
I think this is one of the few speeches over which Her Majesty has complete editorial control.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Anna B - the Queen's accent is a fascinating study in and of itself. Some academics have compared recordings of her accent from when she was a Princess through to how she speaks today. Her accent has changed over the years just like everyone else's have.
If you compare Roosevelt's accent, say, with his particular US accent today then it would be possible to trace a similar degree of change.
Very few people in the UK speak like the Queen. Not even the Queen speaks how the Queen used to speak ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Meanwhile, Drew is right, the Queen does have editorial control over her Christmas message and it's probably the best thing to use as a guide to her own personal views. As I've said, she is a very devout lady and a very sincere believer. God bless her.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, I listened to it. Being an atheist, I winced just a bit!
However, until humanism, atheism and a general non-belief are strong enough to stand up to, for instance, the push for Islam that would result from a vacuum, I'll back the Queen and the CofE to the hilt.
BBy the way, I don't mean that in any way to sound hypocritical, it's taking into account the status quo, history, the gradual move towards a more liberal, open society and an increasing understanding of Science and its benefits.
Why do you prefer the CoE to Islam? Just wondering. There's as much variety within Islam as within Christianity. And you know, the obvious has to be pointed out - liberalism, openness and embrace of science is not mutually exclusive with religion. You must know this?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why do you prefer the CoE to Islam? Just wondering.
I do not doubt that there aare many millions of Moslems who treat women as equals, whose daughters are well educated, and who are lovely, caring people whom it would be an honour to know. I used to think, during the 'cold war' that I bet the ordinary Russian people are just like the rest of us, doing what we can to do the best for our family and others. This was proved to me when I met a Russian teacher of English who became a good friend until her death at the age of 60. We exchanged letters and visits as often as we could.
However, the principal Moslemcountries appear to want to keep women in the Dark 'Ages and have the aim apparently of converting the world to Islam.
I think it is desperately sad that there are so many Anglican peoples and priests who too wish to deny equality etc etc and that is very sad. I suppose, though, that the CofE is way ahead on most grounds of modernisation and the golden rule, etc. If only they'd catch up on the equality question!
quote:
There's as much variety within Islam as within Christianity.
It is good that modern communications enable us to find these things out too. That's got to be a good thing.
quote:
And you know, the obvious has to be pointed out - liberalism, openness and embrace of science is not mutually exclusive with religion. You must know this?
Yes, of course, but if the religious'side' wishes to maintain the credibility it wants, then providing evidence (other than anecdotal) of the God/god/s they believe exist would be a good start, since then atheism would disappear overnight!
--------------------
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 Susan Doris
Yes, of course, but if the religious'side' wishes to maintain the credibility it wants, then providing evidence (other than anecdotal) of the God/god/s they believe exist would be a good start, since then atheism would disappear overnight!
That 'start' was made a very long time ago, given that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the hypothesis of the existence of an intelligent, personal and eternal creator (reason, free will, consciousness, morality, complexity and first cause all spring to mind).
But the question is: are people prepared to accept this evidence?
There is the small matter of free will which you seem to be overlooking in your comment about atheism disappearing overnight. What if the evidence points to a reality that some people don't actually want to believe in, because there are personal consequences involved?
[ 30. December 2012, 16:49: 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
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
.... if the religious'side' wishes to maintain the credibility it wants, then providing evidence (other than anecdotal) of the God/god/s they believe exist would be a good start, since then atheism would disappear overnight!
There will always be atheists Susan, although they are and always have been something of an anomaly. Even by your own census data, three in every four people in the UK believe in gods of some description. Atheists seems to be concentrated in a certain time (C20/21) and place (northern Europe). You will be hard pushed to find any in South America, Africa, and they seem to be in decline in historically atheist countries such as Russia and China.
I would also be interested in the number of people in our own census who on the hand described themselves as atheists, yet on the other declared that they prayed during the last year. It's not an uncommon phenomenon.
After many years of international service it's deeply moving to see how her majesty has continued to hold to the strength of her Christian convictions and that she points to these as a prime motivator in moving her to continue to work so hard for the Commonwealth.
-Code fix
Gwai, Purg Host
[ 30. December 2012, 21:10: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why do you prefer the CoE to Islam? Just wondering.
I do not doubt that there aare many millions of Moslems who treat women as equals, whose daughters are well educated, and who are lovely, caring people whom it would be an honour to know. I used to think, during the 'cold war' that I bet the ordinary Russian people are just like the rest of us, doing what we can to do the best for our family and others. This was proved to me when I met a Russian teacher of English who became a good friend until her death at the age of 60. We exchanged letters and visits as often as we could.
However, the principal Moslem countries appear to want to keep women in the Dark 'Ages and have the aim apparently of converting the world to Islam.
The attitude towards women varies a great deal amongst mostly-Muslim countries (there are ancient Christian and Jewish communities in most of them too). It depends on cultural norms within them and not according to Islam itself.
Furthermore, it is different within the UK (and I assume you're talking about 'the rise of Islam' within the UK since you talk about the CoE) and I really don't see much in the way of Muslim evangelism within the UK - and I have lived in places with large Muslim populations and ones that are rapidly growing. Most Muslim evangelism (and the CoE is far more evangelistic than most Muslims within the UK!) is focussed on nominal Muslims who have drifted away from the religion. When non-Muslims convert it's usually due to marriage or sometimes from the convert reading about Islam themselves, not from Muslim influence.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I've previewed and I think something's gone wrong with this - I'll try and catch the edit....no, it's okay.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Susan Doris
Yes, of course, but if the religious'side' wishes to maintain the credibility it wants, then providing evidence (other than anecdotal) of the God/god/s they believe exist would be a good start, since then atheism would disappear overnight!
That 'start' was made a very long time ago, given that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the hypothesis of the existence of an intelligent, personal and eternal creator ...[QB]
But this 'overwhelming evidence' fails to
convince, for example, me! Which part of it do you think should do so? And unttil better knowledge came along, I firmly believed in a God/force/power.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that people have believed in the many gods that have been worshipped throughout human history, have written books about them, claimed that various miracles happened etc, but in my opinion gradually those beliefs have been replaced by provable facts.
quote:
[QB]...(reason, free will, consciousness, morality, complexity and first cause all spring to mind).
I will agree that Science is still working on an understanding of 'free will' and 'consciousness' but I accept that all these states of being are much closer to a complete definition because of research into the way the brain works. Complexity is part of evolution and morals too are explained by it. First cause is one that eludes an exact explanation, especially as it happened so very long ago, and of course the Science required is still very recent.
quote:
But the question is: are people prepared to accept this evidence?
Again, I wonder which evidence?
quote:
There is the small matter of free will which you seem to be overlooking in your comment about atheism disappearing overnight.
Yes, I'm afraid that even incurable optimist me realises that there's a very long way to go!
quote:
What if the evidence points to a reality that some people don't actually want to believe in, because there are personal consequences involved?
One of those things in life that I will defend to the hilt is the freedom to believe inwhatever god or reality one wishes to, as long as it remains within the law.
The thing I will endeavour to counter is the telling children that these are actually, provably true. Of course, education absolutely must teach about beliefs, since they are an integral part of history, and they should understand what and why people believe such things, but I'll draw the line at telling children they are true, without the same kind of evidence that is demanded for all other things we believe and - I think I'll use the word here - trust.
Interesting as always, and I'm probably - well almost certainly repeating myself!!
[ 31. December 2012, 11:04: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
Left to themselves Susan, children are overwhelmingly likely to believe in the existence of gods. They are naturally, quite resistant to atheistic explanations, even when raised in atheist families.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My suggested ideal solution would be to keep the CofE with all its structure but simply remove God!!
Serious question: Why? Or perhaps rather: What do you believe would be left that makes a God-free CofE not just acceptable to your atheist eyes, but the "ideal solution"? Do you imagine some kind of "building and music maintenance society"? A "social club" that performs some irreplaceable function? Perhaps a kind of "social hospice" that lets the last faithful die off in familiar and understanding surroundings? I really have no idea...
--------------------
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 Drewthealexander:
There will always be atheists Susan, although they are and always have been something of an anomaly.
Aha! Doesn't mean they're wrong though!
quote:
Even by your own census data, three in every four people in the UK believe in gods of some description. Atheists seems to be concentrated in a certain time (C20/21) and place (northern Europe). You will be hard pushed to find any in South America, Africa, and they seem to be in decline in historically atheist countries such as Russia and China.
The only thing I quibble with here is that russia was historically very religious, until communism, wasn't it?
quote:
I would also be interested in the number of people in our own census who on the hand described themselves as atheists, yet on the other declared that they prayed during the last year. It's not an uncommon phenomenon.
I'd say that the difference is that, if questioned to be absolutely honest, they'd say there's no god to pray to and that they understand they're using wishful thinking; whilst understanding too how it helps them through things.
quote:
After many years of international service it's deeply moving to see how her majesty has continued to hold to the strength of her Christian convictions and that she points to these as a prime motivator in moving her to continue to work so hard for the Commonwealth.
Well, I certainly wouldn't argue with that. I hope future generations remain in the majority as royalists.
quote:
-Code fix
Gwai, Purg Host
What does that mean, please?
--------------------
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 will agree that Science is still working on an understanding of 'free will' and 'consciousness' but I accept that all these states of being are much closer to a complete definition because of research into the way the brain works. Complexity is part of evolution and morals too are explained by it. First cause is one that eludes an exact explanation, especially as it happened so very long ago, and of course the Science required is still very recent.
You say that complexity and morals are explained by evolution (by which - I assume - you mean the entirely naturalistic process of change denoted by that word). But proposing an 'explanation' for something does not prove it to be true. For example, suppose someone returned home from a week's holiday and found his house ransacked. There is no "direct evidence" of any person having caused this chaos - in the sense that no person is empirically discernible in the house and "caught in the act" when the householder returns - but no one in their right mind would say that there is no evidence at all of the actions of a burglar or burglars. We would infer the action of such criminals from the effects we can observe. This empirical effect constitutes 'evidence'.
But suppose someone were to come along and say: "Ah, but there is no evidence of a burglar - because we cannot actually see one here and now - and I can explain how this disorder occurred by entirely natural means (albeit with a high level of improbability). You see, what happened is that the owner accidently left a window open, and there was a violent storm while he was away. Wind got in the house and caused all this damage. Also some animals managed to get in through the open window and they ran around causing further mess as well as making off with some items. So we don't need to resort to a simplistic and childish 'burglar of the gaps' explanation, because we have a perfectly non-personal explanation, which therefore must be true!" I don't think many people (if any) would accept this kind of fatuous reasoning for this particular example, but it is exactly the kind of reasoning naturalists often resort to in their efforts to debunk the "intelligence explanation".
Often when atheists / naturalists say "there is no evidence for God" what they actually mean is: "we have a competing explanation for the origin and existence of the phenomena you cite as your evidence, and therefore the mere fact that we have this explanation - no matter how improbable and hypothetical it is - automatically disqualifies your data and reasoning as 'evidence'." This, of course, is known as "special pleading" and it is logically fallacious.
The real debate should be about plausibility of evidence, and on that score, the theistic explanations win hands down - IMO!
You say that science is working on an understanding of free will and consciousness, but is that not a position of 'faith'? I am tempted to say that you are putting your faith in science in the absence of evidence, but, in fact, it is not that at all. You are actually putting your faith in an assumption that, in the future, the empirical scientific method will vindicate the philosophy of naturalism. That is certainly a 'faith' position of a kind of which many so called 'religious' and 'superstitious' people would be proud!
There is actually solid evidence that naturalism cannot explain free will. It is the evidence of logic (which is actually the basis of all evidence, because even the evidence of the empirical method requires that general conclusions are drawn from particular experiments on the basis of logical inference, not sense perception. Sense perception only concerns the experience of particular events and phenomena, but it cannot of itself - i.e. without the function of inference - prove or establish general rules about reality as a whole, and even then this limited role for sense perception is impossible without the operation of logical principles by which such perceptions are interpreted - as Kant pointed out in his "Critique of Pure Reason".)
If 'nature' is understood as a closed system subject to certain laws, and is a system that is ultimately mindless (there is no ultimate intelligence behind it), then it follows that events are determined and never the product of free decision making. If nature is understood to be an open system, then naturalism collapses as a philosophy, because there are no grounds to reject supernaturalism (i.e. the existence of dimensions above or outside nature). If cause and effect is doubted, then nature cannot be a closed system, because it follows that events occur by the action of factors outside nature. Or if events can just happen without cause (which is absurd), then naturalism is deprived of its only method of reasoning, and the predictive power of the scientific method is undermined.
So whichever way you look at it, free will cannot exist within the philosophy of naturalism. But what if there is no such thing as free will. What if it is an illusion?
This is also logically impossible, because reason itself depends on free will. Without free will there is no place for discussion, debate and the rational exchange of ideas. Why? Because everything that anyone thinks has been determined by nature, and therefore cannot be either right or wrong. If free will dies so does truth.
Think about it...
If nature is the source of human intelligence and reason, then all thoughts are simply events which nature has determined according to the laws which govern the chain of cause and effect. This means that nature has caused ideas which are contradictory. For example, the following two ideas cannot both be true: "God exists"; "God does not exist". One of those ideas is false. But both these ideas are believed by some people. If these ideas have not been believed on the basis of a free decision, but have simply been determined by nature, then nature causes lies. As a source of ideas nature is deceitful, because it produces erroneous information in the brains of at least some people. So how would we know which ideas are true?
Now the standard answer to that question is: "we test those ideas against nature". But this is patently absurd, because we have already established that 'nature' is deceitful, and is therefore not worthy to be used as the criterion by which truth can be established! Who ever heard of using a ruler known to be corrupt as an accurate means of measuring anything?! Furthermore, the idea that "ideas should be tested against nature" cannot itself be tested in this way, so how can we believe it to be true and valid? And if we cannot believe this idea to be true and valid, then on what basis do we implement our method of testing?
So we can see clearly that the deterministic closed system of nature cannot possibly be the source of reason. But reason exists. Therefore there exists some other source - other than nature - which has produced it.
Now this is the evidence of logic. Are you suggesting that this cannot count as legitimate - or even plausible - evidence? If so, on what basis?
[ 31. December 2012, 14:27: 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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
EtymologicalEvangelical
Thank you. I have listened through once, but it will need a few more times to compose a reply!!
I will return...!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Even by your own census data, three in every four people in the UK believe in gods of some description. Atheists seems to be concentrated in a certain time (C20/21) and place (northern Europe). You will be hard pushed to find any in South America, Africa, and they seem to be in decline in historically atheist countries such as Russia and China.
The only thing I quibble with here is that russia was historically very religious, until communism, wasn't it?
I'm not sure what your point is. The UK was very religious up until the last century. My point is that we're countries have actively persued a policy of promoting scientific atheism, including with children who have grown up with it throughout their education, have signally failed to consign religious belief to history. As a social experiment the empirical evidence we have is that atheism is a failed philosophy.
Code fix
Gwai, Purg Host
[ 31. December 2012, 17:44: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Drewthealexander,
It looks as if the UBB Practice thread might be of use to you.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
I fear you are even more use to me than the practice thread. I am grateful for your assistance and will try harder....
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Left to themselves Susan, children are overwhelmingly likely to believe in the existence of gods.
But that could only occur because they acquire the information from adults around them.
quote:
They are naturally, quite resistant to atheistic explanations, even when raised in atheist families.
Imaginative stories about fairies and magical lands, Santa Claus, etc etc are all a part of growing up, but the only fantasy that adults hang on to is God belief. Do you agree, even though you would not call it a fantasy?
--------------------
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 IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My suggested ideal solution would be to keep the CofE with all its structure but simply remove God!!
Serious question: Why? Or perhaps rather: What do you believe would be left that makes a God-free CofE not just acceptable to your atheist eyes, but the "ideal solution"?
Well, religious organisations and particularly the CofE have the kind of structure that seems to suit most humans. We like order and routine, we have mostly evolved to be altruistic, to enjoy company, etc. We also likeother people to run organisations- some are natural leaders and enjoy that role and many are not. We love music with a good, strong tune and harmonious-sounding language, and of course stories. My 'remove God' is of course an entirely impractical, ideal-for-me, idea, and of course it would never work. I go to the local Humanist Group meetings but I have to say that I do miss the sounds, the words, etc of the CofE services but that would never be enough to make me want to suspend my disbelief completely to be a part of church services!
quote:
Do you imagine some kind of "building and music maintenance society"? A "social club" that performs some irreplaceable function?
Yes, but I do admit that it is much too difficult to imagine as a reality.
quote:
Perhaps a kind of "social hospice" that lets the last faithful die off in familiar and understanding surroundings? I really have no idea...
No, not this part!
--------------------
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
...the only fantasy that adults hang on to is God belief.
Well if "God belief" is a fantasy, then I really don't know where that leaves the extraordinary claim that my many times great grandfather was a fish!
To be told that it is fantasy to believe in a worldview which affirms that all my ancestors were actually human beings, makes me wonder at times whether I have accidently slipped down a rabbithole. One can only take so much of the logic of Wonderland!
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well if "God belief" is a fantasy, then I really don't know where that leaves the extraordinary claim that my many times great grandfather was a fish!
Just because something is amazing and extraordinary doesn't mean it's not true.
<eta code>
[ 01. January 2013, 15:02: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well if "God belief" is a fantasy, then I really don't know where that leaves the extraordinary claim that my many times great grandfather was a fish!
Just because something is amazing and extraordinary doesn't mean it's not true.
Exactly!
And so let's apply this rule consistently.
God is amazing and extraordinary - as are his acts of creation...
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
But you also need to apply your rule of believing evidence consistently too.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Boogie...
Which is what I do.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You say that complexity and morals are explained by evolution (by which - I assume - you mean the entirely naturalistic process of change denoted by that word). But proposing an 'explanation' for something does not prove it to be true.
But the more that the theory of evolution is examined and tested, the better it cbecomes, and unless a wholesale scientific refutation comes along, which shows no sign of being produced, most of us are happy with it, I think.
Your analogy doesn't work for me because we have enough experience of burglaries and crime and experienced forensic experts so that the explanation is unlikely to be in real doubt; and anyone who suggested a poltergeist or something would be quickly dismissed.
quote:
i don't think many people (if any) would accept this kind of fatuous reasoning for this particular example, but it is exactly the kind of reasoning naturalists often resort to in their efforts to debunk the "intelligence explanation"
But the 'intelligence explanation' immediately leads to infinite regression and is unnecessary.
quote:
Often when atheists / naturalists say "there is no evidence for God" what they actually mean is: "we have a competing explanation for the origin and existence of the phenomena you cite as your evidence, and therefore the mere fact that we have this explanation - no matter how improbable and hypothetical it is - automatically disqualifies your data and reasoning as 'evidence'." This, of course, is known as "special pleading" and it is logically fallacious.
The evolutionary explanation is neither improbable nor hypothetical. The difference is that there is no independent test which can validate a 'god', or an 'intelligence', but natural explanations for things have to be backed up by testable, independent and repeatable evidence.
quote:
The real debate should be about plausibility of evidence, and on that score, the theistic explanations win hands down - IMO!
I totally disagree of course! Theistic explanations were accepted when better facts were not available, but surely you have to admit that the 'gaps' that God is supposed to fill are rapidly reducing in number and the number of scientists with reigious beliefs is, I understand, about 10% of the total.
quote:
You say that science is working on an understanding of free will and consciousness, but is that not a position of 'faith'?
For some years now, I have subscribed to the CD editions of 'New Scientist' wherein there have been interesting articles on how 'free will' appears to be decided by the brain before the subject is consciously aware. This is not faith, it is a sensible assumption that work on this will be improved and refined, however long it takes.
quote:
I am tempted to say that you are putting your faith in science in the absence of evidence, but, in fact, it is not that at all.
In the 'absence of evidence'? Certainly not.
quote:
You are actually putting your faith in an assumption that, in the future, the empirical scientific method will vindicate the philosophy of naturalism. That is certainly a 'faith' position of a kind of which many so called 'religious' and 'superstitious' people would be proud!
Yes, to a certain extent that is right. However, the increasing sum of evidence and proofs of many things and, just as importantly, the discarding of theories that didn't work, provide a much firmer basis for my faith in it. I very much like the view I read a while back: The only thing in which faith without evidence is required, is belief in God.
quote:
There is actually solid evidence that naturalism cannot explain free will. It is the evidence of logic (which is actually the basis of all evidence, because even the evidence of the empirical method requires that general conclusions are drawn from particular experiments on the basis of logical inference, not sense perception. Sense perception only concerns the experience of particular events and phenomena, but it cannot of itself - i.e. without the function of inference - prove or establish general rules about reality as a whole, and even then this limited role for sense perception is impossible without the operation of logical principles by which such perceptions are interpreted - as Kant pointed out in his "Critique of Pure Reason".)
Well, your solid evidence may be able to be argued based on logic, but I guarantee there are scientist now and in the future who will be beavering away at this subject until they have a real, and of course, logical answer -again, however long it takes.
quote:
If 'nature' is understood as a closed system subject to certain laws, and is a system that is ultimately mindless (there is no ultimate intelligence behind it), then it follows that events are determined ...
No. First, the future is not already planned and determined, we are in this moment and every moment ahead hasn't happened yet. Second, up until this moment all living things have evolved and become extinct, or survived, according to their various random mutations and ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
quote:
...and never the product of free decision making. If nature is understood to be an open system, then naturalism collapses as a philosophy, because there are no grounds to reject supernaturalism (i.e. the existence of dimensions above or outside nature). If cause and effect is doubted, then nature cannot be a closed system, because it follows that events occur by the action of factors outside nature. Or if events can just happen without cause (which is absurd), then naturalism is deprived of its only method of reasoning, and the predictive power of the scientific method is undermined.
If the universe and Nature on this, an presumably other, planets is a 'closed' system - and I'd have to consult scientists about this, then it's big enough to work well. It certainly does not need some other dimension or supernatural something somewhere outside it.
quote:
So whichever way you look at it, free will cannot exist within the philosophy of naturalism. But what if there is no such thing as free will. What if it is an illusion?
Whether it exists in philosophy or not is not a physical idea, is it? What we call 'free will' and 'consciousness' are integral parts of us humans and will continue to be the subject of investigation I have no doubt.
quote:
So how would we know which ideas are true?
now the standard answer to that question is: "we test those ideas against nature". But this is patently absurd, because we have already established that 'nature' is deceitful, and is therefore not worthy to be used as the criterion by which truth can be established!
Well, you may have established to your own satisfaction that Nature is deceitful, but I'd need an impartial scientist's view of that.
Phew!!! As always - SofF is good for keeping the brain cells busy!
--------------------
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
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Left to themselves Susan, children are overwhelmingly likely to believe in the existence of gods.
But that could only occur because they acquire the information from adults around them.
quote:
They are naturally, quite resistant to atheistic explanations, even when raised in atheist families.
Imaginative stories about fairies and magical lands, Santa Claus, etc etc are all a part of growing up, but the only fantasy that adults hang on to is God belief. Do you agree, even though you would not call it a fantasy?
Well no I don't, because the notion is factually incorrect and in complete denial of empirical evidence to the contrary. The people who peddle this particular absurdity should really know better. Many adults come to belief in God, having *not* had that belief as children. People who abandon belief in Santa and, say, the tooth fairy on reaching adulthood, don't later re-apprehend that belief. Comparing Santa and childhood fantasies to belief in God makes an absurd category error. Santa Claus and the tooth fairy do not, for example, help explain order and purpose in the world, good or bad fortune, morality, life, death, and the afterlife.
I should also point out that the fact a belief arises in childhood says nothing about its validity. Consider other beliefs that arise in childhood - that are a part of growing up as you put. These include, amongst others, that time is continuous, that cause precedes effect, that people have thoughts and desires that motivate and guide their actions, and that some things are morally right or wrong. A belief derived in childhood should surely be treated as trustworthy until there is a good reason to regard it as problematic.
And as I mentioned earlier, we have to account for children raised in atheist households who find these beliefs problematic and reject them in adulthood.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I'm not sure what your point is.
Well, not much really - I should have said that I pretty much agreed with your post!
quote:
The UK was very religious up until the last century. My point is that we're countries have actively persued a policy of promoting scientific atheism, including with children who have grown up with it throughout their education, have signally failed to consign religious belief to history.
Yes, I agree. I think it's a pity, but that's just a personal view, and even if, as I hope, religious belief becomes a minority view, it won't happen for a very long time.
--------------------
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 Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well if "God belief" is a fantasy, then I really don't know where that leaves the extraordinary claim that my many times great grandfather was a fish!
Just because something is amazing and extraordinary doesn't mean it's not true.
<eta code>
Exactly! Have you seen Richard Dawkins' book, The Magic of Reality'? It was written for older children, but one of my readers has been reading a little at a time (along with the main book she is reading to me) and it is very clearly and straightforwardly written, with a sense of fun too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Thank you, I will look it out.
This is a wonderful illustrated book which describes evolution to young children in an awe-inspiring way. I never fail to read it to my classes.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
@Susan. When you say
The evolutionary explanation is neither improbable nor hypothetical. The difference is that there is no independent test which can validate a 'god', or an 'intelligence', but natural explanations for things have to be backed up by testable, independent and repeatable evidence.
.. you are making what is known as a category error. Evolutionary explains are concerned with processes. Theistic explanations are concerned with agents. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
There are also a host of issues in relation to reality which cannot be tested by 'independent and repeatable evidence.' Historical events, where the facts are in dispute, or the motivations of the actors open to various interpretations, are by definition unrepeatable.
You also need to remember that scientific developments can support the existence of a creative agent. Discoveries in the last 100 or so years showing the extraordinary way our universe is precision- tuned to support life all act in favour of the argument that the universe is designed. The failure of the steady state theory of the universe in the 1940s and its replacement with the Big Bang theory also concurs with the view of the great monotheistic religions that the universe has an absolute beginning, before which there was nothing.
[ 01. January 2013, 20:05: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
And as I mentioned earlier, we have to account for children raised in atheist households who find these beliefs problematic and reject them in adulthood.
And we also have to account for children raised in religious households who later become atheists. So what exactly is your point?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But the more that the theory of evolution is examined and tested, the better it cbecomes, and unless a wholesale scientific refutation comes along, which shows no sign of being produced, most of us are happy with it, I think.
No - the theory of evolution can't be tested; the best that can be done is for the data to be explained by it. An elegant example of the ability of the theory to explain any data that it wants - even when the data alters radically - is shown by the story of 'junk DNA'. In 2009 Dawkins explained that there being a lot of it was consistent with evolution; now it's 'disappeared', he's explaining the opposite. For quotes and references, see here.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
redunderthebed
Apprentice
# 17480
|
Posted
Whilst i have no barrow to push against her and admire her faith i'am staunch believer in Australia one day becoming an republic..
Posts: 24 | From: Port Lincoln | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
I heard part of the speech on National Public Radio and was fascinated both by the call to faith and by Her Majesty's accent. Does anyone else still talk like that?
Yes. I do. But a little lower in the tonal range.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
