Mistaken emnity between theists and atheists

[edwest2]

Trust is the problem. I watched, over a 40 year time period, various radicals abuse the trust of the religious and nonreligious alike. In the late 1960s, the battle cry was “by any means necessary.”

There is also the fiction that people, today, are living in modern times. The basic human being has not changed in the last 2,000 years. That’s why we can enjoy ancient Greek plays today.

There is the other fiction which I’ve labeled “the calendar myth.” It proposes that when the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century, knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment just poured into (some) people’s heads. This is utterly ridiculous.

Yet the media, often by creating words and inventing new ways to say the same thing, presents the illusion of change. Change is not always good. There is a reason that the ‘wisdom of the ages’ has earned that title.

All human enterprises are capable of some degree of corruption, including science.

But, because I know that ‘by any means necessary’ is still going on today, usually for temporal advantage, I look at the wisdom given to Christians by God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[John21652]

I’m not sure why you are talking about naturalist and rationalists as though they are two sides of the same coin. They really aren’t. A point of view is already being nudged here, which creates an either or situation which isn’t always the case.

Having said that…

One thing I’ve noticed about “rational” thinking, is that it really does depend on a position that you already hold. I know there is a lot of “technical” speak that goes into determining what is classified as rational and what is classified as logical, but it’s extremely difficult for the average person to comprehend it, without very specific education in this area.

But I’ve alway’s found that no matter how complex the issue, if it is a foundational part of human life, it can be explained in terms that all can understand(I know, there are probably exceptions but there won’t be as many as we think). Mythology answers this call toward common human understanding which is why it’s so powerful.

So…rational thinking. It depends on the place you hold while thinking “rationally” about the topic.

Here’s an example:

Believer: You don’t believe in God, because you reject God. (I believe in God, because he exists)

This is rational to some believers, because the “default” position they hold is that there IS a God. SINCE God exists, then to not accept this God, you reject him. Perfectly rational state of mind.

The premise being… God exists.

Non-Believer: You believe in God, simply because you want to. (God does not exist, so the reason you believe has to be an issue with you)

This is also rational, because the default position is “god does not exist”. This is the position an athiest holds. So when a believer tells us we worship a devil, reject a God, or haven’t prayed hard enough it comes across as highly irrational.** You cannot worship something that doesn’t exist, you cannot reject something that doesn’t exist **and you can’t pray to something that doesn’t exist. And yet the believer will continue to say these things, never really understanding how irrational it is, to the person who holds the default position, there is no God.

What I’m describing above, is to me the biggest problem. We simply do not come from the same place, the same world view the same map. Hence the strong need for definitions, and debate around those definitions and the quagmire that is philisophical thinking.

We just can’t all think that way or have that kind of education. We pick a side(for whatever reason) and call the other irrational.

It is interesting as an athiest, challenging the “irrational” notions of religion. It’s difficult to put myself into a new mindset and it’s taught me a lot, which is why I still come here. I find myself embarrassed by some athiest mindsets and comments and I find myself more welcoming of the ideas of people with faith. (and the reverse of course)

Not sure it’s a mistaken emnity, because the emnity exists. The mistake we make is in thinking we understand the mindset of the other person. We don’t so most arguments go nowhere other than to “create” the emnity that you are talking about.

Perhaps we can remove the emnity by firstly admiting we really do not understand the other’s map of the world?

Which just goes to prove that, without God, there can be no Atheists!

 

[bridgeforsale]

Hello, Bridge.

They waste the time and energy of thoughtful and sincere people.

Yes of course you’re right (I just think enemy is a little harsh, a term I reserve for say Al Qaeda ). Reasonable minds can disagree here though … so?

It’s not inconsistent. I understand atheists being materialistic, because they haven’t been told otherwise. But Christians take our name from a man who had harsh words for the worship of money. Any Christian who ignores the needs of the poor, or donates a pittance to them, is, as far as I’m concerned, a heretic.

So I think you are eluding to materialism in terms of placing acquisition of material wealth and personal comfort over our altruistic concern for the well being of others.

While I suppose it’s a valid philosophical debate, I certainly don’t see Christians having any particular monopoly over altruism. Indeed I would say on average American atheists are at least just as likely to become involved in altruistic activities (I know there’s also an abundance of Catholic altruism, but the main point is theism or lack thereof isn’t an indicator of a propensity towards charity).

Oh, I don’t really have a particular problem with the modern world, nor do I think past eras were, all in all, much better. Materialism (or, shall I said, “Materialanity”) has been around for a long time, and all the while wise men and prophets have been condemning it.

I think overall materialism is reflective of the innate instinct of all creatures toward their self-interest. I tend to agree with many enlightenment empiricists who say we begin as a blank slate. While I obviously acknowledge some features of our personality were gained through natural selection, others (the core of our subconscious) I think is developed from roughly the point we become sentient beings. I’m sure there’s numerous variables that play into it, and I’m not a scientist (so I’m certainly no authority) but I think altruism is basically learned behavior.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

While I suppose it’s a valid philosophical debate, I certainly don’t see Christians having any particular monopoly over altruism. Indeed I would say on average American atheists are at least just as likely to become involved in altruistic activities (I know there’s also an abundance of Catholic altruism, but the main point is theism or lack thereof isn’t an indicator of a propensity towards charity).

I agree that all types of people can be altruistic, in the sense of giving themselves in service to others. Christians were commanded to do so, however. Just like I wouldn’t blame an atheist for skipping mass, I wouldn’t blame an atheist for embracing worldly pleasures – although I’m not sure the results of that pursuit will be to their liking.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I agree that all types of people can be altruistic, in the sense of giving themselves in service to others. Christians were commanded to do so, however. Just like I wouldn’t blame an atheist for skipping mass, I wouldn’t blame an atheist for embracing worldly pleasures – although I’m not sure the results of that pursuit will be to their liking.

I suppose I wouldn’t be satisfied with letting anyone off the hook that easily, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Altruism is an affirmative virtue (versus negative virtues, or proscriptions on conduct). Arguably doing something good is more admirable than not doing something bad (and it’s probably not a great idea to try and discern individual motivation; since it’s simply not something that can be done well enough to hold any real empirical value).

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I personally reserve the term “enemy” for those who threaten my country, my family, or myself. Those whom might amuse themselves by arguing a position (without regard for intellectual honesty) are certainly annoying, but enemy?

I think this is an important point. Personally, I propose peace through arguing. Because when the dialogue closes, you know where that testosterone is going to go…

It’s the kind of suggestion by people like Richard Dawkins that would deny any view other than scientism a voice which makes me fear the emergence of a sort of fundamentalist denial of skepticism regarding their chosen belief system by materialist atheists. It’s the kind of thing that sends religions to cuddle up to whatever opposing view is less repressive - see the opposition of Christianity to Communism, despite historical similarities to ethical (and social) positions from the New Testament, due to it’s alignment by Marx with anti-theology

 

[bridgeforsale]

I think this is an important point. Personally, I propose peace through arguing. Because when the dialogue closes, you know where that testosterone is going to go…

It’s the kind of suggestion by people like Richard Dawkins that would deny any view other than scientism a voice which makes me fear the emergence of a sort of fundamentalist denial of skepticism regarding their chosen belief system by materialist atheists. It’s the kind of thing that sends religions to cuddle up to whatever opposing view is less repressive - see the opposition of Christianity to Communism, despite historical similarities to ethical (and social) positions from the New Testament, due to it’s alignment by Marx with anti-theology

While I understand your fears, I have confidence in the United States (notwithstanding the fact that we haven’t been very good at hiring leaders as of late). I think our values do transcend religiosity (they were after all created by men who, for the most part, weren’t religious but held a profound respect for religious freedom).

There will always be people like Dawkins as there will always be people like, for instance, a John Hague (the opposite extreme). The American constitution was created, in part, to facilitate free thought, expression, and the freedom to worship (or not worship) as one pleases (and allow all these different and even opposing constituencies to peaceably live under “one roof” as it were). I suppose it’s natural for people to want uniformity or believe that absent uniformity society will decay. But I believe the exact opposite is true; and I think the evidence supports me.

This country is in desperate need of a confidence boost right now.

 

[edwest2]

If everyone insists on moving in their own different direction then there will be anarchy. Second, peace and stability are not profitable. People often helped each other without charging money, then, recently, a promininent TV personality made the profit motive more important. If everyone is happy with one in five people walking around with an STD, what does that tell you? Or comedians who can’t stop saying f*** every five seconds?

Quality in, quality out.
Garbage in, garbage out.

Peace,
Ed

 

[bridgeforsale]

If everyone insists on moving in their own different direction then there will be anarchy. Second, peace and stability are not profitable. People often helped each other without charging money, then, recently, a promininent TV personality made the profit motive more important. If everyone is happy with one in five people walking around with an STD, what does that tell you? Or comedians who can’t stop saying f*** every five seconds?

Quality in, quality out.
Garbage in, garbage out.

Peace,
Ed

Several comments on this. First, I think you mean to say one in five have had an STD at some point in their lives (the vast majority of STD’s are curable with a single antibiotic treatment). According to professionals the moderate uptick in cases is attributed to better detection (in prior years detection was less likely, meaning people might die from an easily treatable STD or illness associated with an STD, without ever knowing they had it).

If you were born in 1900 your life expectancy in the United States was 49 years old, in 1950 it was 68, today it’s a whopping 78 (and slightly higher in other western countries, who are generally more socially liberal compared to the United States).

Today the gross national product of the United States is $14.3 trillion annually. By comparison China (the worlds most populous nation) has a GNP of $4.3 trillion (and Japan roughly the same); they run neck in neck for the number two spot (in terms of worlds wealthiest nations).

Is our morality plummeting? Crime in the United States, in nearly all categories, is now slightly lower than western Europe (for the first time perhaps since these statistics were being calculated). Considering our history includes slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, our outlaw folklore, the legendary reign of the mafia in the 1930’s, the slaughter of Native Americans, etc. I’d say by any reasonable measure we have much to be proud of.

Do we have more work to do, I’m certainly not blind or unrealistically optimistic. But I don’t think re-instituting compulsory prayer in schools, teaching things like creationism (that we know aren’t true), etc. will do produce any meaningful result. I do worry about this upcoming generation of kids, our national debt, etc. But I still believe there’s every reason to be confident. Unfortunately there’s plenty of irrational paranoia to go around (on the religious and secular sides of this ongoing debate), which of course isn’t very productive. Irrational paranoia makes us vulnerable to manipulation. We become entrenched, defensive, etc. and less able to think objectively and evaluate facts on the basis of evidence and logic.

 

[edwest2]

Several comments on this. First, I think you mean to say one in five have had an STD at some point in their lives (the vast majority of STD’s are curable with a single antibiotic treatment). According to professionals the moderate uptick in cases is attributed to better detection (in prior years detection was less likely, meaning people might die from an easily treatable STD or illness associated with an STD, without ever knowing they had it).

If you were born in 1900 your life expectancy in the United States was 49 years old, in 1950 it was 68, today it’s a whopping 78 (and slightly higher in other western countries, who are generally more socially liberal compared to the United States).

Today the gross national product of the United States is $14.3 trillion annually. By comparison China (the worlds most populous nation) has a GNP of $4.3 trillion (and Japan roughly the same); they run neck in neck for the number two spot (in terms of worlds wealthiest nations).

Is our morality plummeting? Crime in the United States, in nearly all categories, is now slightly lower than western Europe (for the first time perhaps since these statistics were being calculated). Considering our history includes slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, our outlaw folklore, the legendary reign of the mafia in the 1930’s, the slaughter of Native Americans, etc. I’d say by any reasonable measure we have much to be proud of.

Do we have more work to do, I’m certainly not blind or unrealistically optimistic. But I don’t think re-instituting compulsory prayer in schools, teaching things like creationism (that we know aren’t true), etc. will do produce any meaningful result. I do worry about this upcoming generation of kids, our national debt, etc. But I still believe there’s every reason to be confident. Unfortunately there’s plenty of irrational paranoia to go around (on the religious and secular sides of this ongoing debate), which of course isn’t very productive. Irrational paranoia makes us vulnerable to manipulation. We become entrenched, defensive, etc. and less able to think objectively and evaluate facts on the basis of evidence and logic.

I said nothing about prayer in schools or creationism in the post you are replying to.

Here’s some information from the Centers for Disease Control:

cdc.gov/STD/Trends2000/herpes.htm

The human capacity to lie is part of the problem. Politicians do it on a regular basis. Evaluate facts and think objectively? What did Wall Street just do? And how did that affect the national debt? These objective and rational people, have, as their daily work, the management of other people’s money. Our trust was abused, and we, the average person, globally, paid for it.

Lobbyists damage the relationship between government and the average person. The human capacity to allow others to suffer so they can make a buck is another problem:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

The fact that everyone reading this began life as a human embryo does not seem to matter when a special interest group decides that a ‘greater good’ is being served. Adult stem cells have proven their efficacy but there’s no money in that. No patents for processes, and Return On Investment.

Creationism is treated like it’s something new, but it’s not. It’s still being taught in Sunday Schools. But it, and the dreaded Intelligent Design, are enemies one and two respectively. While people post here trying to suggest that God was somehow involved in textbook evolution, the automatic response is no. And keep your god out of our public schools. There is little that is rational regarding the outcome of introducing such a concept to public school students aside from end of the world scenarios, or intimations of similar.

So, in the midst of arguing evidence and logic, vague scare tactics are part of the equation. And no, I would not vote to force someone to believe in something like creationism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[bridgeforsale]

I said nothing about prayer in schools or creationism in the post you are replying to.

I apologize (I suppose I unfairly “read that into it” … and I shouldn’t have).

[Here’s some information from the Centers for Disease Control:

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/Trends2000/herpes.htm

Holy smokes, that’s some scary stuff. When you cited overall STD rates previously (the 1 in 5 number) I looked up STD’s (and came up with stuff regarding the other ones that are treatable, never realized herpes infection rates were so high).

I did pull this off the CDC website:

*Results of a nationally representative study show that genital herpes infection is common in the United States. Nationwide, at least 45 million people ages 12 and older, or one out of five adolescents and adults, have had genital HSV infection. Over the past decade, the percent of Americans with genital herpes infection in the U.S. has decreased.

Genital HSV-2 infection is more common in women (approximately one out of four women) than in men (almost one out of eight). This may be due to male-to-female transmission being more likely than female-to-male transmission*

I admit, I’m shocked at the notion of 45 million Americans running around with herpes.

The human capacity to lie is part of the problem. Politicians do it on a regular basis. Evaluate facts and think objectively? What did Wall Street just do? And how did that affect the national debt? These objective and rational people, have, as their daily work, the management of other people’s money. Our trust was abused, and we, the average person, globally, paid for it.

I’m not sure why anyone would expect innate altruism out of bankers (maybe I’m cynical, but hasn’t every major recession started because of some sort of bubble bursting, code word for a bunch of wall street guys raiding the cookie jar)?

Lobbyists damage the relationship between government and the average person. The human capacity to allow others to suffer so they can make a buck is another problem:

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

You get no argument from me here.

The fact that everyone reading this began life as a human embryo does not seem to matter when a special interest group decides that a ‘greater good’ is being served. Adult stem cells have proven their efficacy but there’s no money in that. No patents for processes, and Return On Investment.

I thought the tide has turned in favor of adult stem cells (given its shown itself a more viable technology)? Here’s an excerpt from an article:

*NEW YORK (Fortune) – When it comes to stem cells, the public – and the media – tend to focus on embryos. But researchers and analysts say marketable therapies already are emerging from less controversial work with adult stem cells.

Adult cells make up the lion’s share of the stem cell space, mainly because they are easier to come by than embryonic cells, and less expensive to run in clinical trials. They are also derived from mature tissue, like bone marrow or umbilical cord blood, so they avoid the ethical debate that surrounds embryonic stem cells.*

money.cnn.com/2009/06/16/technology/adult_stem_cell_therapy.fortune/index.htm

Creationism is treated like it’s something new, but it’s not. It’s still being taught in Sunday Schools. But it, and the dreaded Intelligent Design, are enemies one and two respectively. While people post here trying to suggest that God was somehow involved in textbook evolution, the automatic response is no. And keep your god out of our public schools. There is little that is rational regarding the outcome of introducing such a concept to public school students aside from end of the world scenarios, or intimations of similar.

That’s a topic unto itself I suppose. I agree (with your broader inference) there’s a good case that religiosity can be an important source of morality; and whether any of it is true or not is immaterial to its social impact (or potential impact). Nevertheless, I’ve heard leading proponents of intelligent design explain their theories, and honestly I thought their methodology was terrible. The complexity of DNA does not infer an intelligent creator, in fact we’ve replicated evolutionary algorithms that show intelligence can form from randomness (indeed as far as we know that’s the only way it could have formed). We have physical evidence for evolution. IMHO (from the perspective of someone trained in law) I’d say the case supporting naturalism is far stronger than the case for theism.

I’ve seen some of whom I guess are the better apologists out there (guys like William Lane Craig); and honestly I think the arguments they make are logically bizarre (they’ll probably succeed in building more atheists than anything else). These new apologists are referred to as evidential apologists, and they rely on concepts like Bayes probability theorem. But underneath it all they use subjective (name removed by moderator)uts (that I think is a terrible distortion and abuse of statistics). Moreover, the logic and assumptions they make are terribly flawed. So for a variety of reasons I just don’t find any of this stuff compelling.

I understand many others do, and of course it’s our individual right to believe what we want. I just have not been personally moved by any of these arguments.

So, in the midst of arguing evidence and logic, vague scare tactics are part of the equation. And no, I would not vote to force someone to believe in something like creationism.

Peace,
Ed

Obviously a belief cannot be forced, but I think the relevant question is what direction does the weight of evidence take us? I think there’s objective answers to these questions; and IMHO it’s a better idea to base education on demonstrated facts, or at least plausible theories.

 

[Fran65]

Hi Touchstone,

Your explanation clears up my misunderstanding. I apologise if I have treated you unfairly. You are right, people do need to be taken to task - particularly when it comes to treatment of, and education of the young. Whilst you say that an email correspondance had taken place, those present (other than you and your interlocutor) would not have known that or the contents; I hope that you had the opportunity to present your facts and corrections during the subsequent debate.
It’s important that young people are given the skills to evaluate claims for themselves and that they see that censorship is unhealthy. A subsequent presentation from someone with accurate and detailed contrasting material would have been ideal. The problem with suppression and censorship of those with what we could generously call ‘alternative’ points of view is that their views are never exposed to the cold light of day and they can justifiably cry that they are not being given a fair hearing. I would argue that creationism, including yec should be taught in religious education classes so that there is no mystery about those ideas (other than how anyone could believe them ) and so that students get the opportunity to debate them in a safe and neutral environment.
For example, I am often asked, when teaching about Freud, what psychoanalysis believes about single parent families and about homosexuality. I tell them what the psychoanalytic position is and then we evaluate the evidence supporting that position, including contrasting theories and evidence. As you can imagine, it is a very sensitive area, touching as it does on some of my students’ own lives and families. I feel that I am doing my job by presenting and facilitating a balanced, open discussion. It is important that students know what is ‘out there’ and that they are equipped to deal with those things.

 

[Sair]

Which just goes to prove that, without God, there can be no Atheists!

Quite true, though to put it more accurately, without the concept of a god, there would be no such concept as atheism. It makes no sense to not believe in something that doesn’t exist, even as an idea. I think Dameedna’s point was to demonstrate the absurdity of claiming that atheism is somehow equivalent to a religious belief.

 

[John21652]

Quite true, though to put it more accurately, without the concept of a god, there would be no such concept as atheism. It makes no sense to not believe in something that doesn’t exist, even as an idea. I think Dameedna’s point was to demonstrate the absurdity of claiming that atheism is somehow equivalent to a religious belief.

Indeed and it strikes me as rather ironic that atheists seem to want to wear their ‘belief’ like a badge.

I peeped at your profile and saw you have Peter Singer as a ‘hero’.
Maaaate, you gotta be kidding?!

I actually studied Philosophy under him at Monash University in Melbourne. He’s a tight thinker, but some of basic premises are pretty bloody weird. His utilitarianism is very ‘crackable’ and the underlying flaw in his philosophical discourses. I think he has a lot to answer for, particularly his stance on ‘animal rights’. He’s someone I’d love to -]fry on the barbie/-] invite to a BBQ

 

[Touchstone]

Hi Touchstone,

Your explanation clears up my misunderstanding. I apologise if I have treated you unfairly. You are right, people do need to be taken to task - particularly when it comes to treatment of, and education of the young. Whilst you say that an email correspondance had taken place, those present (other than you and your interlocutor) would not have known that or the contents; I hope that you had the opportunity to present your facts and corrections during the subsequent debate.

The other father had his laptop with him, which he offered to bring up and plug in to show the real data AND the correspondence, so the people there (the parents in the room anyway, most of the kids weren’t in a position to assess the credibility of the claims themselves, which was why this creationist’s presentation was such an offense in the first place) could see and judge for themselves; the offer was refused, unsurprisingly. So in the few tense minutes of confrontation, the counter claims were made, and the “facts” that were willfully bogus were identified.

It’s important that young people are given the skills to evaluate claims for themselves and that they see that censorship is unhealthy.

Absolutely. I’m a free speech guy, and it’s BECAUSE of my commitment to free speech that ridicule and confrontation are important tools to bring to bear. I am loathe to censor people, and am generally happy to let everyone say their piece, and be subject to criticism and retort (or praise and adulation) in response, rather than being silenced. Criticism is not censorship.

A subsequent presentation from someone with accurate and detailed contrasting material would have been ideal.

I agree.

The problem with suppression and censorship of those with what we could generously call ‘alternative’ points of view is that their views are never exposed to the cold light of day and they can justifiably cry that they are not being given a fair hearing. I would argue that creationism, including yec should be taught in religious education classes so that there is no mystery about those ideas (other than how anyone could believe them ) and so that students get the opportunity to debate them in a safe and neutral environment.
For example, I am often asked, when teaching about Freud, what psychoanalysis believes about single parent families and about homosexuality. I tell them what the psychoanalytic position is and then we evaluate the evidence supporting that position, including contrasting theories and evidence. As you can imagine, it is a very sensitive area, touching as it does on some of my students’ own lives and families. I feel that I am doing my job by presenting and facilitating a balanced, open discussion. It is important that students know what is ‘out there’ and that they are equipped to deal with those things.

I’m totally with you, here. We are aligned on freedom of speech, and in fact, my use of ridicule is the outworking of those very principles. I don’t want to “outlaw” young earth creationism or shut them up or use rules/laws to keep them from expressing their views; their ability to advance their foolishness is INTIMATELY related to my own freedom to speak and express my (hopefully less foolish) views.

In a free society, where people govern themselves, collectively and individually, these tools – criticism, debate, and yes, ridicule, denunciation, even, are how that self-governance obtains. We don’t combat foolish and destructive ideas through censorship if there is any way to avoid it (and there almost always is such a way), and instead rely on grown ups with strong spines and some integrity to speak up and out against foolishness and deception, as the means for maintaining some nominal social commitment to honesty, integrity, and reason, those being sustaining nourishment for a free and prosperous society.

-TS

 

[edwest2]

Honesty would be nice, but in any conflict, truth is the first casualty. Secondly, there is the matter of differing belief systems. The anti-theist rejects, out of hand, miraculous events. This is the hand of God at work. There is also the belief that unintelligence can create intelligence.This, I think, is one of the key differences in worldview, but logically follows when the underlying premise is that there is no God.

There is a Creator.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Touchstone]

Honesty would be nice, but in any conflict, truth is the first casualty. Secondly, there is the matter of differing belief systems. The anti-theist rejects, out of hand, miraculous events.

There may be some who do, but I don’t, and I can’t think of an atheist I know that would not be persuaded by evidence for a miracle. God is quite scrupulous, for example, in avoiding miracles like restoration of amputated limbs, miracles which would represent, just by their nature, strong evidence for their miraculous provenance. If you added video tape, and observation/witness by neutral observers and researchers, you’d have a compelling case for a miracle, attested to by atheists who predicate their beliefs on the evidence.

Your god just insists on performing miracles in such a way that reasonable analysis finds them much more economically explained as wishful thinking and storytelling. He’s not into evidence, and apparently demands piety in the face of evidence that would justify that piety.

But that’s not to say miracles can’t be affirmed evidentially by a real god that isn’t against leaving evidence of his existence and interventions, or some other process that produces what we would describe as a miracle.

This is the hand of God at work.

Perhaps it’s the mind of man wishing it was the hand of God? I think that explains your claims of miracles much more economically – no real but unseen, interested but ostensibly absent supernatural deity needed for the explanation.

There is also the belief that unintelligence can create intelligence.This, I think, is one of the key differences in worldview, but logically follows when the underlying premise is that there is no God.

Again, all one needs to reach a conclusion that there is no God or gods is a healthy agnosticism as a starting point – we begin without a finding either way. Atheism doesn’t require any such premise. If we are open to a godless of godful reality, that’s sufficient, as the evidence and analysis points to “godless”. I think this may be overlooked by theists who “just know” there is a god, not from any rational analysis, but just by incorrigible reliance on their ‘divine’ intuitive skills. That does look like an “underlying premise”, and I agree that is problematic, but I suggest it’s asymmetric here – you don’t find atheists who “just know” by intuition that there is no God as their starting point. Even anti-theists like Dawkins grant that human intuition often fuels religious credulity and fabulous ideas, even in their own minds, and these “starting points” are impulses we must counter with reason and disciplined thinking.

If by “underlying premise”, you just mean considering the hypotheses that there is no God, then I’d agree, conclusions of a godless reality proceed naturally from that. That would be the scientific approach, considering a claim provisionally, and then testing it, as if it were true, to see how it matches reality. The atheist hypothesis turns out to be a good performer in that approach.

There is a Creator.

Peace,
Ed

-TS

 

[edwest2]

Christopher Hitchens was quoted in the National Catholic Register as saying that he would doubt the evidence of his own eyes if he witnessed a miracle.

Recently, Secretary of State Clinton viewed the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and asked, “Who painted it?” The Church has declared it was not painted by human hands. And it is there, right now, for any who wish to examine it.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/our_lady_of_guadalupe_completely_beyond_scientific_explanation_says_researcher/

The world is only partly known by evidence that can be seen. Even man’s most sophisticated instruments are unable to uncover the rest.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Touchstone]

Christopher Hitchens was quoted in the National Catholic Register as saying that he would doubt the evidence of his own eyes if he witnessed a miracle.

As well he should. I would do the same. Doubt is the foundation of knowledge, and it is the fool who witnesses such a fabulous aberration as a previously amputated leg magically being restored before one’s eyes, and doesn’t doubt it, strongly. All of our experience cries out for doubt. But science is filled with observations (particular in the last several decades) that spark all kinds of reasonable doubt, as they should. Knowledge is that which overcomes doubt through demonstration and performance. But doubt must be applied, or you have theology, rather than knowledge.

Recently, Secretary of State Clinton viewed the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and asked, “Who painted it?” The Church has declared it was not painted by human hands. And it is there, right now, for any who wish to examine it.

Ayiyi. How people who claim to be reasonable folk can advance that kind of story telling with a straight face is beyond me. The Church really does seem to take the world for a bunch of dimwits some times. This claim doesn’t begin to overcome reasonable doubt. This was a claim recommended to me several years ago as a Protestant preparing to swing the Tiber, and was certainly a serious bit of cognitive dissonance for me; thinking the Catholic Church was a big upgrade in terms of reasoning, claims like that one and the other one (the Padre Pio nonsense) definitely planted the idea that the RCC is just enamored of goofy claims as your Fundamentalist Baptist preacher, they just gild them to a fine shine better than their Baptist counterparts.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/our_lady_of_guadalupe_completely_beyond_scientific_explanation_says_researcher/

The world is only partly known by evidence that can be seen. Even man’s most sophisticated instruments are unable to uncover the rest.

This is such a disappointing example, an absolutely pathetic claim. The only explanation I can come up with is that people just really want to have themselves some miracles, and the Church is just gonna give 'em what they want.

Peace,
Ed

I think it is just not acknowledge in the Church how claims like that of the tilma San Juan Diego discredit the fundamental claims of the Church itself. If it’s willing to go goofy on a claim like that, what are we to make of its claims of resurrection? It’s as if someone trying to sell you an a miraculously high-tech hard-to-believe medical therapy turned around then tried to also sell you on the benefits of homeopathy. Selling snake oil just totally undermines the foundational credibility of the Church.

-TS

 

[Fran65]

The Church has declared it was not painted by human hands. And it is there, right now, for any who wish to examine it.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/our_lady_of_guadalupe_completely_beyond_scientific_explanation_says_researcher/

The article states that a researcher has been unable to explain why the cloth has not deteriorated despite the conditions in which it has been kept and unable to explain the associated miracles.

It says nothing about ‘not being painted by human hands’.

Please try to summarise news/research accurately. You discredit much of what you report with this type of sloppy post. Indeed, TS illustrates this in his post above by leaping to an assumption that the Church is selling snake on the basis of your report.