Diabolical drivel from dawkins?

[Sair]

So can i. But It takes a very mature and honest person to admit that what we observe and experience alone cannot rationally explain what we observe and experience.

Then how would we ever be expected to explain anything? Should we simply be content with ignorance?

You are simply saying what ever you need to maintain the self delusion that metaphysical naturalism is rationally sufficient; but it is not.

As you have yet to demonstrate that metaphysical naturalism is insufficient, I will take this rather curmudgeonly comment for what it’s worth.

It does not have to be observable in-order to be reasonably inferred.

Then what reason do you have for inferring phenomena that are fundamentally unobservable, when we don’t yet know the limits of physical reality?

I have essentially put forward the argument that if thoughts and actions are ultimately determined by non-rational processes, then freewill is meaningless. That which is the inevitable sum total of blind causality cannot logically be free anymore than a square can be a triangle. Its no more meaningful than saying that a square can be a triangle at the same time. You are saying that the non-rational can be rational at the same time; this is an essential contradiction no matter how you want to look at it. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Your response to this is precisely guesswork; that you think it may be possible simply on the basis that all you can see is physical things. This is a circular argument and is a completely ridiculous argument.

What do you think rationality actually is? It would be nothing without the very concept of cause and effect, which is precisely the basis upon which we study physical phenomena. That you feel the need to posit non-physical, unobservable phenomena to plug the holes in your worldview is no demonstration that the assumed existence of such phenomena is necessary to understanding reality as it exists.

Science has not demonstrated that the brain and the mind are the same thing and they cannot.

Such a sweeping statement requires justification, which you have yet to provide.

Presenting the fact that science has shown a close correlation between physical and mental events is not good enough, since logically speaking there is still no logical reason for me to think that the two are essentially the same thing.

And how is it more logical, then, to suppose that mental events are the province of a nonphysical, undetectable entity such as a soul? It may well be that scientific study has thus far shown only a close correlation, but philosophical/religious recourse to supernatural phenomena has not even managed that. It might well be that philosophy and religion have simply jumped the gun and made assumptions on the basis of insufficient information…

I grow tied of this cat and mouse game. If you cannot be honest, i no-longer want to debate you. And that includes other threads. Scientism is not science.

There is nothing dishonest in my posts - I speak as I find, and thus far I have found that you have not presented any compelling reason to think that it is necessary to posit supernatural phenomena in order to arrive at a complete explanation of reality - or at least, as complete an explanation as we might thus far expect.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, your previous observation didn’t seem to indicate a statistical comparison. I have not done such a statistical comparison, so can’t comment other than the observation I made previously. Speaking as a nonbeliever who does, in fact, donate to several charities, I know not what generally motivates people to give or refrain from giving. I know people like to quote high-profile examples, such as Peter Singer (who recommends giving a quarter of one’s income to charity, and practices what he preaches) - but that doesn’t really mean much when it comes down to overall numbers. Be that as it may, I would have thought charitable donation alone was rather a narrow measure of the good done by any particular group of people in society, even if it is one of the easiest things to measure. I wonder if the amount of ‘good’ attending to religious believers over nonbelievers would seem higher if one took into account things like volunteer work, caring occupations, innovators, just people quietly doing their bit to make the world a better place? Hard to measure, but worth some thought.

Sair:

I have a feeling that there is an impetus behind the charitability of Christians and that is the ‘background support’ that exists for us. The Church is actively committed to providing aide at every corner. And, in so doing, is constantly reminding us to do the same. Now, that doesn’t mean that Christians are somehow less prone to doing charity, it means that, in the modern times of our busier than life lives, we forget. As a one-time Atheist, as I recall, there was no such “support.”

But, I must also admit that when I was atheist, even though I felt badly for the downtrodden, I chose not to lift a finger for them. Now, as an active theist, I seek every opportunity to help.

Well, I don’t think there’s any harm in putting up Christmas displays, although I attach a rather different meaning to them than do those who actually put them up.

Some people put them up to engender the joy that this season should bring about. For them, it may be altruistic and/or a managing of the other. But, for most - especially those that put up manger scenes, or other religious depictions, the purpose is probably more of a reminder for other religious people to keep Christ in Christmas. Also, the cost of such displays (including tear-down and clean-up) is largely borne by the erectors of the displays. So, the general public are not out a penny of their tax money.

Nor do I think there’s any harm in having men dressed as Santa Claus wandering through shopping centres waving bells, but again, I don’t invest any belief in it. If these things make people happy, why not, say I - but there are those who feel that this kind of thing is the pernicious encroachment of religion on the rest of society.

What is this “pernicious encroachment of religion on the rest of society?” We are the multitude. We are the majority. Why must the majority operate in darkness? Such displays are for “us,” not you. Really, we don’t much care what you do, although we are gravely saddened that you have selected the life-styles you have.

But, you know, the introduction to the possibility of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit may be enough so that upon your deaths you are not completely surprised if and when you enter a realm you didn’t totally expect. Such a sight might just frighten the unprepared soul into a second death! We don’t really know. In my opinion there is more than sufficient reasons to believe that Heaven and our Triune God exists. And I think that that battle wages on every day for the rational atheist. For the rational atheist there is always that possibility (that God exists, and it is all as He revealed).

If it’s just there, and people are aware of it, that’s not the same as ramming it down people’s throats, or actively intruding on people’s consciousness, a-la Jehova’s Witnesses with their door-knocking.

Realize that the JW’s are doing that stuff more to achieve their own survival, as a group. Every group needs money, places to meet, reasons to meet, things to discuss, and part of those things to discuss are keeping the doors open and paying the ministers (or, whatever they call themselves). The message of Christ is the Girl scout Cookies in a box, for them. Although they do occasionally achieve a breakthrough with some household residents.

I’m inclined to think that those who protest about the inclusion of religious imagery in everyday situations are a little bit uptight; as is so often said towards believers, if they are secure in their beliefs, they ought to be able to cope with having them questioned or challenged - the same is true of atheists.

I think just the opposite. I think they - for the most part - do it for fellow Christians. Look, women don’t dress for their men! They dress for other women. Their biggest care is what other women will think when they see them. So, believe me, we really don’t care what atheists think - although we should. We have enough going on in our lives that it is a matter of non-think.

It’s interesting, though, this back-and-forth accusation of having an ‘agenda’. When we get down to brass tacks, everyone has an agenda, in the sense of having a preferred state of affairs - some people are more committed to actively bringing about that state of affairs, and they are the ones who tend to intrude on people’s awareness.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

Exactly.

But it seems rather ridiculous to accuse atheists collectively of wanting to destroy religion, when if you scratched the surface, I suspect most believers would find it favourable to destroy atheism as well.

But, you must admit - if atheists were not in the Christian’s faces, we would not give you guys a second thought. But, perhaps that is why you try to get into our faces. Perhaps you, like I was, are looking for that pièce de résistance motivation to spark a return to the Body of Christ. Just surmising out loud.

Quite so, although I would still dispute that there was anything in my previous post that indicated a derogatory judgement formed of the comprehension of the person to whom I was responding.

I was not looking at a singular post. I have been posting for years and so have you. I’ve read enough of your posts - to “know” you, just as you have done the same with regard to me!

I simply pointed out what I believed to be the case, in response to a claim that it wasn’t. If it came across as derogatory, I apologise. But I will endeavour to correct what I feel to be misconceptions, if I think it is within my ability to do so.

My rule is ignore the vitriolic. You have enough friends herein to pick up a conversation anytime. Also, one can talk person-to-person, even on someone else’s thread! That’s a place where any concerns you may have can and should be handled. I will try, to the best of my unworthy abilities, to encourage other Catholics to be hospitable. But, as you have seen, I will enter the battle.

As you say, writing on a public forum puts people on show - I try to be polite, but I don’t flinch from raising points that may be offensive to some people’s beliefs, nor will I ignore obvious attempts to belittle my own views. I will own that I find some beliefs to be, in themselves, rather stupid.

Then, think-through a attractive subject heading and start a thread on any one of them.

That is my honest opinion. No doubt there are those who would find my beliefs stupid for various reasons. However, I do appreciate actual discussion, rather than blanket dismissal, or what is worse, the holier-than-thou approach that runs along the lines of, “Well, if you don’t know, it’s not my business to enlighten you” which I’ve seen on occasion. There’s no better way to reveal one’s own ignorance!

I couldn’t agree more.

God bless,
(if you don’t mind)
jd

 

[_Abyssinia]

See, in one breath, I’m being told just how outnumbered atheists and secularists are compared to religious people, and in the next being told their charitable efforts don’t match up to those of Christians. As though they ever could. Though, I wonder whether the billions of dollars contributed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett count for anything.

A review of Arthur Brooks’ book “Who Really Cares” here: amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

Drawing on some ten data sets, Brooks finds that religiosity is among the best predictors of charitable giving. Religious Americans are not only much more likely to give money and volunteer their time to religious and secular institutions, they are also more likely to provide aid to family members, return incorrect change, help a homeless person, and donate blood. In fact, despite expecting to find just the opposite, Brooks concluded: “I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people.”

booksandculture.com/articles/2008/janfeb/8.11.html

 

[tonyrey]

But this is also how many Catholics feel about what they believe, non?
That they are not mistaken, not for one moment?
And many people of many religions think this way as well, about their own religion.

One defect doesn’t justify another!

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, I am surprised to hear this coming from you; you are treading awful close to the Cartesian error of saying we are only immediately acquainted with mental phenomena!

What else are we immediately acquainted with?