Letter to a Christian Nation

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by strngrnrth View Post
The only large-scale experiments in atheism ever tried have been the dictatorships we’re discussing, and the reason, as I’ve been saying, is that without a supernatural source of absolute moral definition, society is left to each person’s desires (the street, also a lsaughterrhouse when uncontrolled from outside), or to a particular person or group’s leadership – a dictatorship, where no overriding law restrains the whim of the one(s) who gain(s) power first.

Is being too desirous of evidence in support of our core beliefs incompatible with democracy? I can’t see how. In fact countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest,…

Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.

But certainly atheism is consistent with a healthy society and religion does not ensure a society’s health.

You confuse “indifferentism/relativism” with “atheism”.

Those societies are living off of their “Catholic Capital”, their “civilizational inheritance”, which was produced by Catholic (and quasi-Catholic [ie so-called “Christian”]) societies of the past.

They are rapidly descending into becoming “morally debtor nations”, which will have some “interesting” consequences (of sin).

“Atheistic societies” are the last gasp (of libertine wantonness) before the “invasion” and “scattering”.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Likewise, when we discover moral truths that promote human flourishing we won’t need to force those truths on anyone. I’m not proposing that government should be any different than it is now.

You still haven’t defined “human flourishing”. Would you do that, please?

Who gets to define it, and who gets to enforce it?

And, do you also believe in the existence of actual “moral truths”?

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

You still haven’t defined “human flourishing”. Would you do that, please?

Who gets to define it, and who gets to enforce it?

And, do you also believe in the existence of actual “moral truths”?

Hi CatsandDogs,

Enforce it? In the US we live in a liberal democracy where a fundamental principle is that we each are permitted to have our own conception of the good (eudaimonia, human flourishing).

Eudaimonia is like seed scattered on fertile soil as compared to seeds trying to grow on rocky soil or being eaten by the birds. I’d prefer not to give a static definition of human flourishing (any more than Jesus did who preferred using such parables) because I think any static definition of eudaimonia is likely to miss the mark in some ways. It would be like trying to find objective measures to compare one work of literature to another. Yet measures of human flourishing that we can probably all agree on are those listed in the UN human development report I referenced including life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality.

Certain aspects of morality need to be agreed on as law through the democratic process where one person’s conception of the good can interfere with another’s, but we don’t make laws on the sole basis that something is immoral. There have to be good reasons why it is necessary to limit people’s freedom to pursue happiness on their own terms.

All I’m suggesting is that science can have something to say about the issue, and can help us find moral truths about how to achieve eudaimonia. I do believe in moral truth, for example, I think it is true that female circumcision and forcing women to wear burkas are not conduscive to human flourishing and that meditation and prayer have physical and psychological benefits. I think it is possible to know such things in the same way that we know that aspirin reduces the risk of heart attacks.

What we are seeing in this discussion of morality (see also thread Morality without God?) is Catholic refusal to look in Galileo’s telescope beacause of a fear that science will not reveal the same truths that religions claim to have possession of as “revealed truth.”

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

It’s easy to say that some dogma that we hold is “subject to revision”, but there is no possibility that a dogmatic belief that dogmatic beliefs are bad can be “revised”.

It is a basic violation of the definition of dogma. It equates “dogma” with “provisional belief”, and with “belief”, more simply put.

“DOGMA” is an evil word (always) to folks who don’t understand that the only TRUE dogmas are those from God. And, in fact, “dogma” used that way IS vastly an evil word (an evil deed) without knowing the origin of true dogmas.

Any other so-called “dogma” is merely a belief, which IS indeed subject to revision, as in expansion, contraction or negation.

Hi Cats,

No dogma is subject to revision. That is what I think is the problem with dogma.

I use the term dogmatic belief to mean beliefs that are held in such a way as to be impervious to our own powers of doubt. In other words, such beliefs are not based on evidence and therefore can’t be revised based on new evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

All I’m suggesting is that science can have something to say about the issue, and can help us find moral truths about how to achieve eudaimonia.

But science only gives us “what works” which supports moral truths.

The actual truths are not found by science, but by true religion, as portion of which is science.

Science is not lateral to religion. It is a part of religion. And it is the subservient part.

What we are seeing in this discussion of morality (see also thread Morality without God?) is Catholic refusal to look in Galileo’s telescope beacause of a fear that science will not reveal the same truths that religions claim to have possession of as “revealed truth.”

Your typical scientistic materialist “war between science and religion” is showing again!

We have absolutely no fear that science will overturn any Catholic truth.

We fear for mankind that science will provide the tools for some men to enslave their fellows by not acknowledging the truths of the container of science, which is true religion (the Church).

Folks such as yourself propose the war between science and true religion so as to “lateralize” science in relation to it’s governor (“Governor” used in it’s engineering sense), so that scientists who subscribe to “uncontrolled science”, aka scientistic materialism, can become the “masters” of their desired “benevolently enslaved” populations.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

No dogma is subject to revision. That is what I think is the problem with dogma.

I use the term dogmatic belief to mean beliefs that are held in such a way as to be impervious to our own powers of doubt.

Then, once again you prove your non-understanding of “dogma”. And by “dogma” I ONLY mean true dogma, which is only the dogma of the Church.

It is not “a sin” to doubt dogma. It is a sin to not believe dogma.

To doubt dogma is to not see how it fits into reality as you know reality. That is not an unacceptable condition to be in, but to remain in that condition while not searching for how dogma DOES fit into reality, to “changing ourselves” to make sense of dogma, to conform ourselves to actual reality, is the sin related to doubting dogma.

To not hold dogma as absolute abject truth is the more serious sin, and is a sin compounded by the sin of not searching for why dogma is dogma.

In other words, such beliefs are not based on evidence and therefore can’t be revised based on new evidence.

You “materialistic evidence worshipers” are more than a little amusing.

You say you must have evidence and then refuse to do what it takes to get that evidence, then replace the thing that the evidence would affirm with chains of nonsense which rapidly turn into chains of bondage, and blame humanity’s resultant enslavement on those who told what you needed to do to avoid your chains!

Satan at play! Don’t you LOVE being a toy and tool of the stirrer of filth?

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

You say you must have evidence and then refuse to do what it takes to get that evidence, then replace the thing that the evidence would affirm with chains of nonsense which rapidly turn into chains of bondage, and blame humanity’s resultant enslavement on those who told what you needed to do to avoid your chains!

Hi Cats,

But what you say must be done to be convinced that your claims are true is to first believe your claims? In my experience people do not have the power to believe things unless they are convinced that those things are actually true. How does one believe before being convinced?

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

But what you say must be done to be convinced that your claims are true is to first believe your claims?

Correct. Held with faith in hope of what is hoped for.

Now, you don’t have to hold it forever. Just long enough to either “be saved” or “not be saved”.

To “not be saved” shouldn’t be a problem for one who has done “the experiment” and found that God is not real, and is in fact the affirmation of their being an atheist.

But if they have “the least twinge” that they may be missing something, they might have been a bit hasty in ending the experiment.

In my experience people do not have the power to believe things unless they are convinced that those things are actually true.

How does one believe before being convinced?

Conviction is confirmation.

Belief, believing, is “holding”.

Conviction comes from DOING belief, from HOLDING what is hoped for.

If one has no idea what to hope for, one has nothing to hold, and no conviction can come.

To simply dismiss what others have suggested one hope for, because it’s “silly” (which is the “scientistic materialist” position at heart) is to make even doing the “experiment” an impossibility.

Catholics aren’t “annoyed” that people don’t have convictions in what they believe in, they are annoyed that people WON’T even HOPE for what there is no reason to not hope for, which is God qua God (as described by the Church).

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

the implication is that religion causes war, but the fact of the matter secular, officially “atheistic regimes have killed hundreds of millions”

I refer you to these regimes

1. nazis 6 million
2. soviets 20 million
3. red china 20 million
4. pol pot 5 million

these are rough numbers and only cover a few well known examples in the 20th century.

Has there even been a war over purely religious reasons in the last 100 years?

yes it happens ocasionally, but i think serious research would show that regimes denying a faith are by far the more deadly.

even worse i can understand why religious disputes might escalate to killing. but i don’t understand that same killing on a much more massive scale over simply political and economic restructuring.

a world where all people held some religious belief would seem to have a lower net number of deaths than that same world where people had none.

in other words that kind of evil is a function of people, not of faith

 

[Fran65]

Leela,

Its about being open to the possibility that God exists.

Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and their followers dismiss completely even the possibility of God’s existence.

Dawkins claims that this is the only tenable position for a real scientist. In this, he is wrong. The only tenable position for a real scientist is an open mind. The more educated one becomes the more one knows one does not know.

Harris, whom I haven’t read, but have gleaned his arguments from some of your posts seems to be saying that belief in God is dangerous because of the divisions and violence that he says has occurred between competing religions. He confounds belief in God with human sin. It is hard, but God cannot be judged through judging the behaviour of some of those who profess a belief in Him. Harris may also be ignoring the role of competition for land and other resources which also confounds the role of religion in many countries. He (Harris) appears to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It is simplistic and naive. Get rid of religion, get rid of conflict.

The trouble with people who give up belief in God is not that they don’t believe in anything, but rather, they will believe anything - to paraphrase a writer whose name I have forgotten.

Hitchens I know nothing of.

Cats is right, it is the loss of hope that is heartbreaking. The scientific materialist agenda offers nothing but enslavement to reason without love or compassion.

How anyone can say ‘There is no God’ is beyond me. How can they possibly know that?

 

[crowonsnow]

Cats is right, it is the loss of hope that is heartbreaking. The scientific materialist agenda offers nothing but enslavement to reason without love or compassion.

‘Heartbreaking’ can also be to think that the only reason I can love my child is because there is a god. How does that even begin to make sense?

How exactly does knowing gods are not real take away my love of child and family? How does knowing gods are not real in any way remove the wholesomeness of life or remove my practicing hope or faith? It doesn’t.

The claim can be made that it does. But that does not make it so.

 

[Leela]

Leela,

Its about being open to the possibility that God exists.
…
How anyone can say ‘There is no God’ is beyond me. How can they possibly know that?

Hi Fran,

Of course everyone would like to believe that they will go to heaven when they die. Who would turn down such an offer? And who is not open to such a possibility?

I don’t claim that there is no God. Harris doesn’t make this claim. (I haven’t read the other two you mentioned.) Enough people believe in God that I wouldn’t make such a claim since there is no way to prove that something does not exist. I remain open to new evidence and arguments in support of the claim that there is God. I just haven’t heard any compelling justification for that claim and doubt that such justification will be forthcoming.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

leela

given your last post to this thread,

what is your view on First Cause?

 

[Leela]

leela

given your last post to this thread,

what is your view on First Cause?

Hi Petey,

I think the First Cause argument has a lot of problems. Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t. The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the universe itself rather than God.

Even if you buy into the First Cause argument (which has already collapsed in the argument above), the uncaused First Cause needn’t have any traditional God-like qualities. How do we know that this First Cause is the God described in the Bible? It’s simply first, and as we know from other realms, being first doesn’t mean being best. No one brags about still using the first personal computers to come on the market? The first life forms to evolve weren’t “higher life forms.” Evolution demonstrates that intelligence evolved from less intelligent life forms. Why does a First Cause have to be more intelligent than the first living cell?

I think that questions about the beginning of time may simply be wrong questions? I’m not sure it even makes any sense to talk about the beginning when things like beginnings can only be understood if you presuppose the existence of time.

In short, to me it seems better not to pretend to know things that I don’t know. I actually get along fine and have a life full of meaning without knowing much about cosmology. What do you think about the First Cause argument? Is this argument compelling evidence for you for the existence of God?

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes for me it is, i recognize the objections based on an empirical cosmology, observed by the various formulators of those objections.
like you i tend to dismiss the arguments against based on time, mostly because they are weak in relation to the observable empirical universe, which is what they are supposed to be based upon.

For me it is reasonable evidence because it jibes with my knowledge of cosmology and my understanding of biblical cosmology,(yes i understand biblical reference doesn’t matter to you)

the synthesis i use is fine for me and makes the First Cause irrefutable as far as i can see, however it is no good when dealing with atheists, because the descriptions of the nature of G-d, as i understand him are all found in Scripture, it is that synthesis of modern cosmology and biblical cosmology that makes it such a powerful argument to me.

frankly to me most of the arguments against are so many word games. I don’t even really understand most of them.

that said its fine to play word games, but the truth is the universe happened somehow, I have no empirical evidence acceptable to all parties. but that lack of evidence doesn’t hinder my belief that the universe has more meaning than “i don’t know”

The truth is i despise Reason alone, as the handmaid of fools, so to speak, it can be twisted however you like, its like a lawyer that way, its all perception and interpretation, smoke and mirrors, it has no substance. its only use to me is communicating with people most comfortable in that language, which i admit is the vast majority in todays culture.

I freely admit that i have no empirical evidence in the existence of anything supernatural. i don’t happen to need one, i have Faith, deep and abiding Faith. Reason fails one when one needs it most, there is nothing strong or true in it, the winds will blow a different direction and every idea one builds on Reason alone will be blown away like so many leaves in the fall. Reason changes

but faith, faith is a rock, it is my firm foundation, when the wind blows and i doubt, i make that act of will called Faith, and i am strengthened, Faith does not change

so do i enjoy playing with Reason? yes, but at the end of the day i put it away with my other toys, pick up my toolbox full of Faith and head home.

 

[1holycatholic]

I think the First Cause argument has a lot of problems. Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t. The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the universe itself rather than God.

Even if you buy into the First Cause argument (which has already collapsed in the argument above), the uncaused First Cause needn’t have any traditional God-like qualities. How do we know that this First Cause is the God described in the Bible? It’s simply first, and as we know from other realms, being first doesn’t mean being best. No one brags about still using the first personal computers to come on the market? The first life forms to evolve weren’t “higher life forms.” Evolution demonstrates that intelligence evolved from less intelligent life forms. Why does a First Cause have to be more intelligent than the first living cell?

I think that questions about the beginning of time may simply be wrong questions? I’m not sure it even makes any sense to talk about the beginning when things like beginnings can only be understood if you presuppose the existence of time.

In short, to me it seems better not to pretend to know things that I don’t know. I actually get along fine and have a life full of meaning without knowing much about cosmology. What do you think about the First Cause argument? Is this argument compelling evidence for you for the existence of God?

I’m always surprised at the irony of an advocate of scientism presenting these unsuccessful arguments against causality. If these type of arguments had any merit they would completely obliterate the scientific method. :coffeeread:

 

[Leela]

I’m always surprised at the irony of an advocate of scientism presenting these unsuccessful arguments against causality. If these type of arguments had any merit they would completely obliterate the scientific method. :coffeeread:

Hi Holy1,

I am not at all an advocate of scientism.

Can you please explain why the arguments I’ve made have no merit? And how they obliterate the scientific method?

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

leela,

here is a definition i found on the web

scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

no offense intended but this does seem like an apt description of
the atheists i happen too know. if you dont take this position then can you tell me what sources other than empirical evidence you will accept the veracity of?

frankly thats exactly why i don’t discuss First Cause too intimately with atheists, i simply have nowhere to go if i cant define properties of G-d from the source that specifically defines him for Christians which is principally Scripture.

its ok to believe in scientism, it just makes a full, reasonable discussion difficult with people who dont have a strickly
scientistic world view.

that also goes back to why i ask about motivations in the other thread,

after all if physical evidence is all that is acceptable in the course of these things than i couldn’t prove the existence of x-rays, radio waves, magnetism, infrared light, sub-atomic particles, or almost anything that happened in history.

taken to the extreme one cannot prove the existence of anything outside of cognito ergo sum. specifically because sensory information transmission is not instantaneous, the object you were looking at could have vanished in the time it took you to sense its presence, and you cant prove it didnt.

or to translate that into zen “if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to here it did it really fall?” or something to that effect

thats a large part of the reason i asked that question in the other thread. in effect when it comes to that motivation it seems strange too want to continually argue about something in a way you cannot lose, so whats the point?

and its true that the universe happened somehow, scientism doesnt allow for a non empirical data so it simply says it doesnt know how the universe came to be.

and yet there is an empirical universe, scientism simply allows one to claim there is no god, while disallowing thousands of years of experiential evidence, carefully documented, by literally billions of people, almost all of whom were and are just as intelligent as me, you or any other advocate of belief or dis belief

essentially scientism is an inappropriate tool by which to explore the existence of the supernatural,

its like trying to measured the length of a ruler by clipping on an ohm meter

 

[redneck22]

Hi CatsandDogs,

I mean “peace” in the usual way. People not killing each other over their beliefs? As for whether the beliefs are more important than the killings I would say that beliefs that result in killing are probably bad belief.

Best,
Leela

Interesting thread Leela, I’ll refer you to Sam Harris’ own words from his book “End of Faith” page 52:-

*“The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live” *

.

 

[redneck22]

Hi Petey,

… Evolution demonstrates that intelligence evolved from less intelligent life forms.

Are there any examples you can provide where this can shown to be true using the scientific method, science or repeatable observation?

.