How do I turn the table on atheists?

[Curious_Seed]

Didn’t Jesus ask, “Who do you say that I am?”

Well, until Peter’s response becomes their response, there is no turning of any table.

Knowledge of God is a revelation, not by blood or by water.

Of course, though tables are rarely turned is no reason not to try, but only as it be to proclaim the Truth.

After that, let the sand drop from the sandals and move on.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Didn’t Jesus ask, “Who do you say that I am?”

Well, until Peter’s response becomes their response, there is no turning of any table.

Knowledge of God is a revelation, not by blood or by water.

Of course, though tables are rarely turned is no reason not to try, but only as it be to proclaim the Truth.

After that, let the sand drop from the sandals and move on.

You are free to be sceptical of reasons ability to persuade.

 

[Reivax]

What? So what you saying here is that evolution created reason for the purpose of survival?

I think you need to rethink what you have said here, because it sounds like you trying to make a teleological argument using the theory of evolution.

If you don’t believe in a creator, then it is meaningless to say that certain attributes exist for our survival.

When you say survival mechanism it sounds like you saying its purpose is survival; but there is no purpose in a universe without purpose. So why attribute survival to it? Doing so implies that life has an objective meaning.

No, evolution is not goal-orientated, it’s a combination of chance mutation and the preservation of favorable characteristics. For this reason I have not used the word ‘purpose’. Evolution never ends, so it is not working towards an end or aim/objective/goal. Humans are still evolving, we have not reached the highest point of intelligence and complexity and potentially never will. It is not meaningless to say that certain attributes exist for our survival. Evolution simply does not require a creator.

 

[Whadyamean]

No, evolution is not goal-orientated, it’s a combination of chance mutation and the preservation of favorable characteristics. For this reason I have not used the word ‘purpose’. Evolution never ends, so it is not working towards an end or aim/objective/goal. Humans are still evolving, we have not reached the highest point of intelligence and complexity and potentially never will. It is not meaningless to say that certain attributes exist for our survival. Evolution simply does not require a creator.

Being has no purpose other than to know itself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No, evolution is not goal-orientated, it’s a combination of chance mutation and the preservation of favorable characteristics.

Whats preservation got to do with something thats not goal orientated? What possible meaning could that have from a purely atheistic perspective? In the context of metaphysical naturalism, the fact that favorable traits evolve has to be seen as purely coincidental and not something that the process of evolution is aware of or seeks to fullfill.

For this reason I have not used the word ‘purpose’. Evolution never ends, so it is not working towards an end or aim/objective/goal.

Humans are still evolving, we have not reached the highest point of intelligence and complexity and potentially never will.

Nobody actually argued this as being the case.

It is not meaningless to say that certain attributes exist for our survival.

It is meaningless in the eyes of a true naturalist. What you can say however, is that certain attributes have arisen which by coincidence happen to support the continuation of certain biological structures.

Evolution simply does not require a creator.

You seem to think that its an “either or” situation. But in order for evolution to take place there has to be objective rational meaning and laws in reality. The idea that the process of evolution removes the possibility of discerning teleogical meaning in physical systems is false. While the process of evolution can certainly be attributed to natural mediums, one cannot say that evolution is the cuase of those laws and meanings that we find in biological systems. Evolution is not a sufficient cuase of nature, it is just a process which involves nature; nothing more.

You cannot present evolution as its own cause.

 

[tonyrey]

Being has no purpose other than to know itself.

That would be the apotheosis of egoism - if Being is solitary!

 

[tonyrey]

. Evolution never ends, so it is not working towards an end or aim/objective/goal.

Isn’t the goal of living organisms supposed by naturalists to be survival? Therefore evolution must be working - unwittingly - towards the survival of life…

 

[Al_Moritz]

Isn’t the goal of living organisms supposed by naturalists to be survival? Therefore evolution must be working - unwittingly - towards the survival of life…

Yes, unwittingly is the key. Evolution as a process is not more goal-oriented than the grinding motion of a glacier that just follows gravitational forces. Survival is not a goal, it is simply an outcome of natural selection.

But for the blind process of evolution to be able to take place, the laws of nature that allow for that process must be exceedingly special, in fact they are so special that they decisively point to design.

As Stephen Barr says in his article “The Miracle of Evolution”:

“If biology remains only biology, it is not to be feared. Much of the fear that does exist is rooted in the notion that God is in competition with nature, so that the more we attribute to one the less we can attribute to the other. That is false. The greater the powers and potentialities in nature, the more magnificent must be nature’s far-sighted Author, that God whose “ways are unsearchable” and who “reaches from end to end ordering all things mightily.” Richard Dawkins famously called the universe “a blind watchmaker.” If it is, it is miracle enough for anyone; for it is incomparably greater to design a watchmaker than a watch. We need not pit evolution against design, if we recognize that evolution is part of God’s design.”

Link:
firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-miracle-of-evolution—4

 

[Reivax]

Whats preservation got to do with something thats not goal orientated? What possible meaning could that have from a purely atheistic perspective? In the context of metaphysical naturalism, the fact that favorable traits evolve has to be seen as purely coincidental and not something that the process of evolution is aware of or seeks to fullfill.

In an atheistic universe, you can make your own meaning. I don’t pretend that the rules are layed out, because I know this to be not only arrogant but impossible. While meaning in one’s life my change from one person to the next, we can still have common ideas that we obtain from reason. That love is a nice feeling to share with people for example. As a skeptic I refuse to accept something no matter how appealing and wonderful it is, without evidence to back it up. There is no evidence of God, there is no evidence of an afterlife. I wish God and an afterlife did exist, but my pursuit is for truth, not fanciful delusion. The fact that religious people are often happy is no more to the point that a drunk person is happier than a sober person. Yes, evolution is essentially driven by chance.

Nobody actually argued this as being the case.

I never said they did, I’m just trying to highlight some common misconceptions about evolution. For example that it is goal-orientated. From my experience, if someone claims that evolution is false or incomplete, they simply don’t understand how evolution works (especially Creationists).

It is meaningless in the eyes of a true naturalist. What you can say however, is that certain attributes have arisen which by coincidence happen to support the continuation of certain biological structures.

This is simply how evolution works. If I throw a ball at a very distant hoop with my eyes closed, say, a thousand times, you would be surprised if I didn’t get some goals? The same goes for evolution. In the fossil records there are billions of failed attempts, but unfortunately people in their ignorance, will only pay attention to the currently successful species that exist today, including us, and deem that the ‘irreducible complexity’ is somehow evidence of a creator. The history of evolution is gradual and happens over billions of years. I don’t think you’re giving this wonderful and beautiful process its due credit.

You seem to think that its an “either or” situation. But in order for evolution to take place there has to be objective rational meaning and laws in reality. The idea that the process of evolution removes the possibility of discerning teleogical meaning in physical systems is false. While the process of evolution can certainly be attributed to natural mediums, one cannot say that evolution is the cause of those laws and meanings that we find in biological systems. Evolution is not a sufficient cuase of nature, it is just a process which involves nature; nothing more.

You cannot present evolution as its own cause.

I can understand that you can attempt to marry God and evolution very successfully. But this is no surprise to me considering the characteristics of God. God does not play by rules, he can break any preset condition or rule, simply because he is omnipotent. This is what is called special pleading. I’m not interested in a specter that is restricted to the unknown, I’m interested about what we can know and what we do know about the world. I don’t find it meaningless to have not been crafted in the likes of an all loving God. I’m sure this brings immeasurable comfort to your life, but the truth is, I probably have just as much comfort in my life knowing the opposite. Evolution does not answer why the universe or special laws came into being, no. But it does explain how intelligent, self-reflecting creatures came into being, beings that could imagine realities that never were.

Ultimately it just seems to me that you’re making an arguments similar to:

“I don’t fully understand how science works, therefore God exists”

My parents are both devout Catholics, I used to be a believer, I went to a Catholic school, I asked questions, I prayed, I went to Mass every Sunday. I’ve given both sides even attention. Becoming an atheist and skeptic was a gradual journey of truth.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ve given both sides even attention. Becoming an atheist and skeptic was a gradual journey of truth.

And I reply: “I’ve given both sides even attention. Remaining a theist and skeptic was a gradual journey of truth.”

I would also like to add that I have thought about all the arguments both in favor of atheism and of theism more thoroughly and deeply and with more scientific, philosophical and theological knowledge of the issues than most atheists will ever do. This may sound overconfident, but it is a simple observation from the discussions that I had and the articles and opinions that I read.

 

[Reivax]

And I reply: “I’ve given both sides even attention. Remaining a theist and skeptic was a gradual journey of truth.”

I would also like to add that I have thought about all the arguments both in favor of atheism and of theism more thoroughly and deeply and with more scientific, philosophical and theological knowledge of the issues than most atheists will ever do. This may sound overconfident, but it is a simple observation from the discussions that I had and the articles and opinions that I read.

Haha, if Carl Sagan was still alive today, he might be up for the challenge

 

[Al_Moritz]

Haha, if Carl Sagan was still alive today, he might be up for the challenge

And i would gladly take him on anyday. I would also gladly take on Dawkins anyday. Perhaps you can arrange a debate

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In an atheistic universe, you can make your own meaning. I don’t pretend that the rules are layed out, because I know this to be not only arrogant but impossible. While meaning in one’s life my change from one person to the next, we can still have common ideas that we obtain from reason. That love is a nice feeling to share with people for example. As a skeptic I refuse to accept something no matter how appealing and wonderful it is, without evidence to back it up. There is no evidence of God, there is no evidence of an afterlife. I wish God and an afterlife did exist, but my pursuit is for truth, not fanciful delusion. The fact that religious people are often happy is no more to the point that a drunk person is happier than a sober person. Yes, evolution is essentially driven by chance.

In the future, if you want to debate with me, stick to the context of what you read in my post. I am really not interested what you think about religious belief or whether or not you think there is evidence for God. If i present an argument, refute it if you believe it to be error. This means rationally demonstrating why its in error.

Keep your assertions to your self.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MOM2,

I do not think this is the real issue. While the unaided mind can come to a knowledge that God exists - it assumes a mind open to receiving such information. From my experience, we have not seen much of this on the thread.

Ultimately, it takes Faith - and I think Curious Seed was just pointing this out. I do not think he was being either hasty or rash in moving the dust from his sandles - just an observation on what we have been doing and looking at the written results.

I think we can continue to try - but look at Christ’s words as recorded in Matthew 10

11Whatever town or village you enter, look for a worthy person in it, and stay there until you leave. 12As you enter a house, wish it peace. 13If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you.* 14* Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. 15Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Maybe the classic example for me was the person that had ‘Atheist’ in their name, yet denied they were an Atheist. We can only do so much … but some folks have ‘industrial strength’ denial!

In my opinion each of us have only so much time - while how we choose to spend it is a personal choice, we really are required to look at how we are progressing (admittedly, with the unknown number of ‘lurkers’ we will never get posts from everyone to assess what if any progress a particular thread is having. We will, however, make a choice - to stay, to post, to discuss to evaluate and then we all move on.

God bless

You are free to be sceptical of reasons ability to persuade.

 

[Whadyamean]

Hi, MOM2,
… While the unaided mind can come to a knowledge that God exists -

And an “unaided mind” would be? And what exactly to you constitutes “knowledge that God exists?” Are you speaking of a wish, a belief, an intellectual perception or an experience–a direct encounter?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hi, MOM2,

I do not think this is the real issue. While the unaided mind can come to a knowledge that God exists - it assumes a mind open to receiving such information. From my experience, we have not seen much of this on the thread.

Ultimately, it takes Faith - and I think Curious Seed was just pointing this out. I do not think he was being either hasty or rash in moving the dust from his sandles - just an observation on what we have been doing and looking at the written results.

I don’t think merely recognizing the existence of God requires faith, especially not for someone who started out as a believer and has not been a life-long atheist (the former is much more frequent than the latter). It takes an open mind as you say, but also intellectual humility with regard to the question – well, an open mind is not possible without such humility. That may sound rich especially coming from me who probably just sounded quite arrogant a post or two ago, but while I am only humble before men when it is appropriate, and not when I don’t see the necessity, I am relatively humble before God, or when it comes to the God question. This fortunate (perhaps not quite merit-based) attitude of mine helped inform my intellectual search, made it much more thorough than it otherwise would have been, and ultimately was also an important factor in not having me slip into atheism when I had a crisis a few years ago.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Whadyamean,

By, “unaided” I mean that religious faith is not involved. Look at the known histories of the ancient world. Men in every civilization and in every time period have left evidence of there being a power higher than themselves. Most of these societies were polytheists and attributed all natural events to a god (the ancient Greeks were possibly the most famous in this area).

There is no civilization to my knowledge that has ever left a record stating, “There is/are no god(s)”.

Here is an interesting link that gives a similar view, but from a different perspective: bible.org/seriespage/evidence-gods-existence

While the unaided mind can come to a knowledge of the existence of God - only Faith can bring this mind to a knowledge that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, suffered and died for our sins.

God bless

And an “unaided mind” would be? And what exactly to you constitutes “knowledge that God exists?” Are you speaking of a wish, a belief, an intellectual perception or an experience–a direct encounter?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Al Moritz,

Thanks for sharing your personal experience…

God bless

I don’t think merely recognizing the existence of God requires faith, especially not for someone who started out as a believer and has not been a life-long atheist (the former is much more frequent than the latter). It takes an open mind as you say, but also intellectual humility with regard to the question – well, an open mind is not possible without such humility. That may sound rich especially coming from me who probably just sounded quite arrogant a post or two ago, but while I am only humble before men when it is appropriate, and not when I don’t see the necessity, I am relatively humble before God, or when it comes to the God question. This fortunate (perhaps not quite merit-based) attitude of mine helped inform my intellectual search, made it much more thorough than it otherwise would have been, and ultimately was also an important factor in not having me slip into atheism when I had a crisis a few years ago.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Reivax,

It could be that the late Carl Sagan has found out the Truth - and he will have many ‘billions and billons’ of eons … and then some … to comtemplate his former position.

In my opinion, he really did not set the example that most of us want to enter into Eternity with.

Here is what Wiki had to say:

*Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about the conventional conceptualization of God as a sapient being. For example:

Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.[39]

In another description of his view of God, Sagan emphatically writes:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.[40]

Despite his criticism of religion, Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.”[41] In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, “I’m agnostic.”[42] Sagan’s views on religion have been interpreted as a form of pantheism comparable to Einstein’s belief in Spinoza’s God.[43] Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.[44] According to his last wife, Ann Druyan, he was not a believer:

When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me—it still sometimes happens—and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don’t ever expect to be reunited with Carl.[45]*

God bless

Haha, if Carl Sagan was still alive today, he might be up for the challenge

 

[Whadyamean]

…Here is an interesting link that gives a similar view, but from a different perspective: bible.org/seriespage/evidence-gods-existence

While the unaided mind can come to a knowledge of the existence of God - only Faith can bring this mind to a knowledge that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, suffered and died for our sins.

God bless

Thanks for the clarification and the link.

And the steps beyond faith are???