Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[tonyrey]

On the other hand, if the non-theist claim is correct, it should not be surprising that a number of myths emerged over the centuries with more or less the same ideas. Those would be ideas related to being human–i.e., “eternal” and “universal” truths emerging out of the human condition. In fact, if you think about it, under the null assumption of the non-theist, the really surprising observation would be that there were no common themes across the numerous myths of our past and present civilizations, and in particular myths related to creation.

If the atheist claim is incorrect it is not surprising that one myth has emerged over the centuries - that there are no truths whatsoever and that there is merely a semblance of rational thought because everything without exception is the product of purposeless, inanimate and irrational particles - a hypothesis which is ironically self-destructive…

 

[Jocko_VT]

If you don’t believe in God, why are you even bothering to convince others?

Where have I tried to convince anyone?

I Why are you breaking a sweat in here instead of just being out in the real world, living your happy, God-free life?

I haven’t broken a sweat. But, the reason is that I enjoy talking about morality and its origins. There’s been just enough of that in here to keep me interested. On the other hand, there’s been a lot of this, too.

IIf I went to the Democratic Underground and started in on how stupid liberals are, I would expect arguments.

I haven’t suggested Catholics (or any other theists) are stupid, so what’s your point?

IIf I went on the Ann Coulter Official Chat and proceeded to tell everyone off about the idiocy of conservatives and how intellectually superior I am because I disagree with them, I should expect a similar number of arguments.

I haven’t told anyone they are idiots (though I’ve been called an idiot). Also, I haven’t suggested that I’m intellectually superior, though a couple of people here have told me that they are intellectually superior.

IWhy should the laws of forum physics be suspended for atheists?

Why shouldn’t you have to be a good christian when speaking with atheists in a catholic forum?

IEspecially since their idea of critical thinking wouldn’t pass muster in a duck pond.

Again, why shouldn’t you have to be a good christian when speaking with atheists in a catholic forum?

 

[antunesaa]

Then I apologize. I took you as repeating something I’ve heard probably 5 times in these forums in the last week. If that’s not what you meant, I apologize.

Ok. Let’s move on!

Then we are in complete agreement on this issue.

Which also means that we can safely ignore Dawkins et al’s hate-based arguments and discuss this interesting topic rationally and calmly.

 

[Jocko_VT]

There are many believers in Design - both Christian and non-Christian - who reject Creationism.
If you give an example I shall tell you whether it is worth the trouble!
So you regard the work and opinions of all specialists as worthless!

“Creation” is so widely defined now, I’m not exactly certain to what you refer, but if it’s to young-earth creationism, then yes, I accept that you are correct.

E.g., Irreducible complexity. Testability.

No. I consider the work and opinions of specialists as essential. But if the only objective is to throw out a name and a quote and then disregard another name and quote, then it’s worthless.

 

[Jocko_VT]

If the atheist claim is incorrect it is not surprising that one myth has emerged over the centuries - that there are no truths whatsoever and that there is merely a semblance of rational thought because everything without exception is the product of purposeless, inanimate and irrational particles - a hypothesis which is ironically self-destructive…

I don’t follow.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

The usual complaint about the idea of God is that it is not falsifiable.

But neither are the existence of multiple universes falsifiable.

And other universes are at the moment the only escape hatch for atheism.

Atheism relies upon the assumption that the universe is eternal, or that our universe was born out of a series of existing universes that have existed and will exist throughout all eternity. Why then can atheism not abide the notion of an eternal God?

 

[tonyrey]

If the atheist claim is incorrect it is not surprising that one myth has emerged over the centuries - that there are no truths whatsoever and that there is merely a semblance of rational thought because everything without exception is the product of purposeless, inanimate and irrational particles - a hypothesis which is ironically self-destructive…

1. In a Godless universe everything is produced by inanimate, irrational particles.
2. Neither truths nor rational thought can be produced by inanimate, irrational particles.
3. Therefore no rational conclusions are possible.
4. Therefore the theory that everything is produced by inanimate, irrational particles is self-destructive.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Then you might as well go the way of Von Neumann, the famous mathematician and physicist, who famously said about his late (re)-conversion to Catholicism, that “Pascal had a point”.

But, belief in god is not a cost-benefit analysis. Or, if it is, I’m not interested. If that God is happy with followers who are convinced by Pascal’s wager (i.e., they choose to believe because it’s the best option based on an economic model), then I don’t belong in Heaven, anyway.

From a scientific view point, it never makes sense to say that something had no cause without recognizing the inefficacy of science itself for shedding light on that issue.

Unless the discovered laws suggest that something needn’t have a cause. Again, I don’t know the answers, but I know there are scientists whose understanding of physics leads them to conclude that, in fact, the universe could emerge on its own out of nothingness.

A lot of non-theist activists would vigorously reject that because that would put science in equal footing to any other belief system, namely philosophy and theology.

“Non-theist activists”? What are those?

It would put science on equal footing only if science simply resorted to it when they didn’t have any other answer. As it stands, so far as I know, they have only resorted to it when actual evidence (mathematical models based on the current understanding of physics) has suggested the possibility. They don’t regularly throw up there arms and declare “There’s no way to know this, so let’s just decide that this can happen spontaneously.”

On another note, there’s not enough philosophy of science amongst scientists. I don’t consider philosophy and science as being at odds, even when philosophers and scientists sometimes appear to be.

But, to me, that is a perfectly acceptable declaration. Perhaps it would be fair to state here that I am a scientist - not that this gives me any particular authority…

Really? What is your PhD in? You’ve seriously piqued my interest. I have training in scientific method and a smattering of philosophy of science, but my graduate work is in the social sciences.

The essential reasoning of Aquinas about the non-caused cause, for instance, is perfectly valid today.

Why? Why should we assume that the universe is intuitive? Quantum mechanics is not in the least bit intuitive. Why should the universe be familiar?

I’ve heard a few versions of this saying, I don’t know who said it originally, but it gets at my point–this one’s attributed to J B S Haldane: “…the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”

I’m not insisting that we know everything. I know we don’t.

And things come and go: who would have said in the late XIXth century that the Universe had a beginning, contrary to claims of most physicists? A universe without a beginning would have been so much more atheist-friendly… Not to mention the fact that, contrary to philosophy and theology, modern science is, as the name says, well… modern, and people really have not yet had the time to process its ever more evident limitations.

Indeed it is modern. Indeed it does have limitations–the limitations of all modernity. We can not break it all down and make sense of it. We can not take it apart and hope to know how to put it back together again. Of course, the notion that the Big Bang is evidence of God is a fully modern notion–it assumes that science has no limitations, and that it has provided an absolute truth.

Of course, I don’t believe that science (in reality, certain physicists in particular) are at all settled on the notion that there was nothing whatsoever in the natural world prior to the moment when the universe began to expand.

Some people today seem to think that eventually science will solve the problems of us humans. They will be sorely disappointed. I view science as an useful tool for solving practical problems, including traveling to Mars, studying the Inflation Theory and finding the first 10^100 digits of Pi’s decimal expansion. Nothing more, nothing less.

The use of science has caused so many problems!! I agree with you. It is indeed a useful tool. It allows us to uncover aspects of nature that we would never have thought up. It also provides us with tools that we, as products of evolution, are ill-equipped to handle morally.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Ok. Let’s move on!

Good idea.

Which also means that we can safely ignore Dawkins et al’s hate-based arguments and discuss this interesting topic rationally and calmly.

We can seemingly agree that there’s nothing about the teachings of Christ that justify or necessitate the evils accomplished in the name of religion. Evil deeds by christians or in the name of christ, like evil deeds of atheists, are evil deeds. While they need explaining, the explanations cannot be Christianity or atheism unless someone actually makes the case otherwise. If we can agree on that, the we can agree.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

Evil deeds by christians or in the name of christ, like evil deeds of atheists, are evil deeds. While they need explaining, the explanations cannot be Christianity or atheism unless someone actually makes the case otherwise.

Your focus here is on evil deeds. Here’s the difference between Christianity and atheism. Christianity not only prohibits evil deeds, and assures us of consequences according to their severity, it also mandates good deeds (Matthew 25). There is nothing in atheism that mandates good deeds except one’s own natural disposition. And if that disposition fails, how is it resurrected under the atheist aegis? How is it encouraged and rewarded under the atheist aegis?

 

[Jocko_VT]

jThe usual complaint about the idea of God is that it is not falsifiable.

It’s a common complaint, but one of many, yes.

jBut neither are the existence of multiple universes falsifiable.

Fair enough. I think the notion is falsifiable in principle. I also think this is being taken too far. The existence of multiple universes makes sense based on certain understandings of physics and according to the musings of certain theorists (are you denying this?), but I agree that it’s currently not experimentally falsifiable.

And other universes are at the moment the only escape hatch for atheism.

No. That’s not the case. Why do you say it is the case?

As I’ve said several times already–and I’ll phrase it differently this time: Let’s say that there is no question whatsoever in anyone’s mind that the universe began with the big bang, and let’s say that no one has an inkling about the notion of multiple universes or anything of the sort (i.e., other “escape hatches”). The question would still be, what happened before the big bang? It’s a nonsensical question, of course, because “before” suggests time, and time began with the big bang. But, to me, it’s still not satisfying to argue either that a) there was nothing before, and it just popped out of nowhere and there’s no explaining it, nor b) God did it, and there’s no explaining God. So, I’m stuck with “I don’t know.”

As things stand, my “I don’t know” is assuaged by certainly theoretical arguments suggesting, for example, that a) there likely are multiple universes, and/or b) the universe, based on the laws of physics as currently understood, do allow for a universe to pop out of nowhere.

In other words, it’s not an escape hatch. I don’t know the answer. I don’t have to know it. The lack of an answer is not evidence for a religious, supernatural answer.

jAtheism relies upon the assumption that the universe is eternal, or that our universe was born out of a series of existing universes that have existed and will exist throughout all eternity.

Atheism is not reliant on any such thing. Most atheists (and I’m guessing here) don’t really concern themselves with these questions. They’re too busy working, paying bills, raising families, and enjoying life. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in god–nothing more. It’s not a position on the question of the origins of the universe.

Well, “atheism” can not abide that notion because it’s in direct contradiction with the “a” part of “atheism.” But I’m being a smartalec. The reason is because there’s no evidence for that eternal god.

You’re treating the notion of multiple universes as though it were equivalent to the notion of an eternal god. They’re not equal. If multiple universes do or do not exist is neither here nor there to me. There is no agenda. No theory of multiple universes asks anything of me one way or another. It’s not as if someone will shove pages on multiple universes into my kid’s text book and try to change the way he thinks about the world and try to convince him that he needs to accept multiple universes or he’s a bad person. The eternal god? Not only does it want to push its way into every aspect of life (as well it should if your theology is reality), but it insists that I believe things that are, to me, patently absurd.

The options aren’t just multiple universes or eternal god, but multiple universes or eternal god which requires you believe in resurrection and an afterlife and the eternal damnation of good people and that gay marriage is evil and condoms and birth control pills are a sin, etc. To make it more complex, the eternal god comes in different flavors–leaping the hurdle of disbelief to accept an eternal god is only the first step on a long trip–which eternal god ?

So, why not abide the notion of an eternal god? Why would I?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Your focus here is on evil deeds. Here’s the difference between Christianity and atheism.

My focus was on evil deeds because that was the topic at hand.

Christianity not only prohibits evil deeds, and assures us of consequences according to their severity, it also mandates good deeds (Matthew 25).

Yes. I don’t think it does a good job at this, but yes.

There is nothing in atheism that mandates good deeds except one’s own natural disposition.

One’s own natural disposition is not a tenant of atheism. There is nothing in atheism. Period. Atheism is not a way of life. Atheism is not a code to be followed.

And if that disposition fails, how is it resurrected under the atheist aegis?

If the disposition you refer to fails, then the christian also will do immoral things. This isn’t a problem for atheists–it’s a problem for humanity.

How is it encouraged and rewarded under the atheist aegis?

There is no “atheist aegis” as I understand the word aegis. But, we’ve been over this many, many times. It’s not about encouragement and reward. Morality is part of being human. The capacity for empathy directs us. Our conscience guides us. If this fails, atheist and christian alike will be problems to deal with.

 

[Jocko_VT]

1. In a Godless universe everything is produced by inanimate, irrational particles.

Inanimate? To a certain point. But, once something animate comes out of that inanimate mix, then there is animate matter producing things.

Or are you just referring to the initial production? If so, this assumes it is produced–it assumes answers to questions that I don’t have and have never heard satisfactory answers to.

Irrational? Depends on what you mean. It seems there are certain laws by which particles behave, at least on certain levels. If this is true, does this count as irrational? And, if something animate comes out of the inanimate mix, is that animate matter necessarily incapable of being rational, at least on some level–a bounded rationality?

1. Neither truths nor rational thought can be produced by inanimate, irrational particles.

If there are laws, are those not truths? If animate matter emerges out of the inanimate, why could it not realize certain truths, at least bounded truths applicable to their immediate experience?

1. Therefore no rational conclusions are possible.

Not universally, perhaps. I don’t think human reason and rationality are universal, though, so this is not a problem for me. With in a certain environment, rational conclusions would still be possible. Of course, this assumes “rational” means something beyond how we define it. “Rational” could just be a way humans think about the environment, rather than being an actual characteristic of the environment.

1. Therefore the theory that everything is produced by inanimate, irrational particles is self-destructive.

Even if your premises were correct, I don’t see how you get to this conclusion. If, say, the laws of physics are such that they may lead to certain outcomes, and those outcomes are themselves *not *inanimate, and are capable of reason, at least a bounded sort of reason applicable to their immediate experience, then how is this self-destructive?

 

[Betterave]

What I see is that a lot of people in here make this particular charge, and they do not back it up. I don’t need to prove that it’s not true, because I don’t care if anyone in here agrees with me and don’t care to change their minds on this point. Since I know that it’s false, I’m fine with charging the people who repeat the nonsense with hatefulness and libel.

Okay, fair enough. I think you’re mistaken, I don’t think you know it’s false, and regardless, the hateful and libelous charges don’t stick - unless you have ruled out honestly mistaken, and clearly you haven’t - but I don’t think it’s a very interesting or constructive point to argue about either, so I won’t.

In any case, the more important issue, I think, is that you properly understand the meaning of the term “positive statement,” so I hope you’ve gotten clear about that now.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

As long as we’re slinging opinions like diner hash, I think atheism is for wimps.

It doesn’t demand anything of you. Christianity does, and Catholicism is the most stringent. You are asked to ‘die to the self’ in order to serve God. And I fall far short of this ideal.

Atheists and New-Agers can pretty much drift with the tide, doing whatever they please. It’s an easy life.

I still wonder why atheists are so ‘hell-bent’ (yes, pun intended) on trying to convince the rest of us there is no God. If there’s not, why does it matter to you? Again, why aren’t you out living your merry God-less life? Surely you don’t have this much spare time on your hands.

Why are you seeking agreement here?

 

[Betterave]

You appear to have missed a great deal of what has been covered in here. If you want to debate something, make clear what it is you want to debate. If you just want to bicker, I’m not interested.

I don’t think I missed anything. Can you give me a hint as to what you think I missed? I think I made it very clear what I want to ‘debate’ (that would be the part where I pointed out the apparent weakness of your argument for your position). If you aren’t interested in responding to my logical point logically, however, then you really ought to acknowledge that you are the one who just wants to bicker, not me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

**There is nothing in atheism. Period. Atheism is not a way of life. Atheism is not a code to be followed. **

You said that, I didn’t. But I agree. Atheism is morally bankrupt.

 

[Jocko_VT]

jocko

**There is nothing in atheism. Period. Atheism is not a way of life. Atheism is not a code to be followed. **

You said that, I didn’t. But I agree. Atheism is morally bankrupt.

How did you get to morally bankrupt?

Again, is this really a thoughtful way to go about a dialogue?

 

[Jocko_VT]

I don’t think I missed anything. Can you give me a hint as to what you think I missed? I think I made it very clear what I want to ‘debate’ (that would be the part where I pointed out the apparent weakness of your argument for your position). If you aren’t interested in responding to my logical point logically, however, then you really ought to acknowledge that you are the one who just wants to bicker, not me.

I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this burden of proof topic. I’m done with it. If you want to go to the original post and my original response to it, fine. Otherwise, move on to something or someone else.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Okay, fair enough. I think you’re mistaken, I don’t think you know it’s false, and regardless, the hateful and libelous charges don’t stick - unless you have ruled out honestly mistaken, and clearly you haven’t -

but I don’t think it’s a very interesting or constructive point to argue about either, so I won’t.

While it isn’t very interesting or constructive, it’s worth getting a last word in, eh?