The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[ContegoFides]

How insulting. Tell you what, buddy: you pray for me, and I’ll think for you.

I don’t understand why you would be so angry that someone wishes you well in their own world view? If you wished me well, I would thank you for it, even if the well-wish came from your atheistic belief.

On the “I’ll think for you.” Atheists, generally, seem to have this arrogant pressuposition that they are the only rational people on Earth. This pressuposition is simply false in the face of generations of extremely intelligent, rational people of faith. Some of the greatest minds in history - even scientific ones of the 20th Century - believed in God. Even Einstein believed in God, of a sort. Isaac Newton was a man of faith.

Thomas Acquinas was no dummy. Maybe you believe he was wrong, but all this talk of atheists being the only rational people around is objectively false and seems to be directed at “shouting down” the opposition and a rather crude attempt a playing “king of the intellectual hill,” rather than at rational debate.

 

[ContegoFides]

Because that effort is semantically equivalent to a couple of propositions:

1. ‘I will think about you when I’m alone.’
2. ‘I hope you reject your deepest principles and instead accept mine. Rather than discussing them with you and hoping you come around due to logic I’m seeing supernatural aid.’
3. ‘You are probably going to burn in hell for all eternity.’
4. ‘You are subverting God’s plan for you [as if such a thing were possible].’
5. ‘You are founding your life on a life so vile that I am at a loss to explain its depravity.’

I would ask you a similar question–in the strongest possible wording; how could you be ‘touched’ that someone thinks your life is founded on a lie and that you have been deceived into believing it?

I can almost understand how the statement ‘I will pray for you,’ makes sense in the worldview of a person of faith but I think it’s one of those (many) things that are best kept to oneself.

How could I be touched by someone that thinks my life is founded on a lie and I have been decieved? Easy. Because a well-wish is still a well-wish. If you wished me well, but thought I was an idiot, I would accept the offer of Agape (love) and rejoice in it.

Additionally, only people who are unsure of their faith are truly upset at having their faith challenged. Atheists react so strongly because when I pray for you, I directly challenge your belief in atheism. Becaue you are not really sure of this belief, that challenge makes you angry.

I know that there is a God and that He incarnated Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. On the “1-7 scale,” I would be a “1” (if memory serves - “knowing” there is a God). No challenge you issue to me can make a difference to that knowledge that I know the Truth to the extent my limited brain can take it, and thus challenge in and of itself can make me angry or upset. In my view, if you flamed at me and called irrational and all other kinds of names, and denounced Christianity as vile, it would not change the Truth - so I have no need to get upset about it.

Naturally, if you wanted to start a flamewar and be insulting of my personal character, I might get upset and angry (not that you ARE doing that, I believe that this debate has by and large been quite civil. Heated, but civil). But challenging my faith or even calling it stupid doesn’t make make upset.

Now, as for your propositions:

1. I don’t know why that bothers you. People think about each other all the time. I’m not a stalker, you know.
2. Again, the prospect of rejecting or accepting deepest principles should not shake you if you are truly confident that you are right.
3. I cannot know the state of your soul; no one can. I certainly pray that you will make a choice for God when you die and thereby achieve Heaven (the Beatific vision). I can say that lack of belief is a risk factor for chosing to be apart from God when you die (Hell), because Jesus said so.
4. I don’t know God’s plan for you, except in a broad sense. For all I know, God’s plan for you is to journey through the dark of atheism for a time. However, I do know that God’s plan for everyone (including you) is to know Him and to love Him.
5. I would say atheism is a dark, nihilistic philosophy that is open to grave evil - much more grave than any twisted version of religion. I would urge you to reject atheism simply because it is a bad philosophy, both for an individual and for society as a whole. It’s natural and probable consequence is nihlisim, hopelessness, depression, and the dictatorship of moral relativism - none of which I would wish on you or anyone else.

Perhaps you think that you can’t “choose” your belief; but you can. Take the first step, keep taking steps, and you will find others on the road that will help you reach the Goal. That’s the way God often works: unexpected help on the journey.

 

[ThomasToo]

I don’t understand why you would be so angry that someone wishes you well in their own world view? If you wished me well, I would thank you for it, even if the well-wish came from your atheistic belief.

On the “I’ll think for you.” Atheists, generally, seem to have this arrogant pressuposition that they are the only rational people on Earth. This pressuposition is simply false in the face of generations of extremely intelligent, rational people of faith. Some of the greatest minds in history - even scientific ones of the 20th Century - believed in God. Even Einstein believed in God, of a sort. Isaac Newton was a man of faith.

I think I covered this before but I think the presumption on our end is that the statement ‘I’ll pray for you’ comes with what is–to me at the very least–a lot of uncomfortable theological baggage. My father is probably one of the best men I know and I know there is nothing but good intention when he says ‘I’ll pray for you,’ I still prickle a little on the inside. I think part of it is that the implicit assumption, at least in me, is that you’re praying that I find Jesus (i.e. abandon my core principles of skepticism, rationalism [as opposed to faith] and empiricism) which is not so well-wishing.

I will say, however, that the ‘I’ll think for you,’ which cutesy is a bit underhanded… It’s like saying ‘don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church;’ I’m opposed to organized/official school prayer (for obvious First Amendment issues) but thinking does go on in churches though admittedly not a lot–most of the churches I’ve visited people have been struggling to (a) stay awake, (b) keep their kids in line or (c) pay attention given the people trying to do (a) and (b).

Thomas Aquinas was no dummy. Maybe you believe he was wrong, but all this talk of atheists being the only rational people around is objectively false and seems to be directed at “shouting down” the opposition and a rather crude attempt a playing “king of the intellectual hill,” rather than at rational debate.

I think Aquinas was born in a time where it was difficult on the verge of impossibility to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I am curious if a man of his undeniable intellect were
alive today what he would be doing and what he would believe. So too with Newton who actually wrote on eschatology and theology more generally than he ever did on physics.

By the way, Einstein’s God looks nothing like yours…
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949):

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

and
In response the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in (24 April 1929): "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words.":

I believe in Spinoza’s God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

In Einstein’s (and Hawking’s) use ‘God’ is semantically equivalent to the fundamental constants of the universe.

 

[ContegoFides]

The Christian God is demonstrably non-existent because this is most certainly not ‘le meilleur des mondes possibles [the best of all possible worlds]’ (Gottfried Leibniz, Essays on Theodicy, concerning the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil). Do you disagree with this assertion (i.e. is this the best of all possible worlds)?

But what of the suffering of all those beings that lack the ability to choose anything (e.g. caterpillars containing the eggs of the ichneumonidae) and that results from natural phenomena? Surely these cannot be explained away by the free will defense.

How does that “demonstrate” God’s non-existence? Even if your supposition were true in the way you mean it, there is no proof. In quality, this supposition is no different that the indicators for God’s existence. Why would you accept this one over first cause?

Leibniz’ proposition also assumes that he (we) are the judge of what, in the grand scheme, is good and evil. Additionally, it fails to recognize the role of free will in our relationship with God, including both love and sin.

As for the suffering of animals, that falls under the category of physical evil, which I have addressed above in an earlier post.

 

[ContegoFides]

I acknowledge and so far as my knowledge of Islam goes understand that Christianity and Islam are substantively different religions but both are necessarily predicated on the notion of faith as a virtue. I’ve always had practical and theoretical problems with this notion; when I was in classes for my first Communion, I asked enough questions about inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible that one of our classroom helpers quit–and I was only 7! (N.B. my parents are very faithful Catholics so my skepticism is not their fault and they by no means put me up to the above) In brief, I’ve never had the ability to believe without proper evidence which, rankly, I see lacking for gods of any sort. Theoretical issues run deeper but may simply be the result of the practical issues but frankly the origin is more or less moot.

I respectfully submit that you have not enquired deeply enough if you could not see why Catholicism is more rational than Islam. First and foremost is their claims to authority.

Also, again, you are placing yourself as the arbiter of what is proper evidence. Ultimately, you are making a choice based on your limited understanding of the world around you, just as I am.

Why would you choose a faith in which nihilism and hopelessness are the only outcomes? At a bare minimum, it seems rational to try to start to cultivate faith out of pure self interest.

 

[AntiTheist]

Given that even incontravertible proof can be doubted, it stands to reason that we are “expected” to take a leap of faith on some things.

Ok. We have a problem with terminology.

I define belief as “the acceptance of a claim as true.”

That acceptance can rely on evidence or it can rely on faith, but it cannot rely on both, in the way that I define them.

Evidence-based belief is “the acceptance of a claim as true on the basis of sufficient evidence that can be presented to another person and – on the weight of that evidence alone – convince virtually any reasonable person.” We can quibble over how good the evidence is, what we accept as evidence, etc. But for the most part, virtually any reasonable person would be convinced by the evidence.

There is no faith involved in evidence-based belief. Obviously, we trust the evidence and the ability of our own reason to derive true conclusions from it – but this trust is itself based on good evidence (our experience of our past good judgments and the general reliability of evidence in the past). “Faith,” as I’m about to define it, is not necessary.

I define faith-based belief as “the acceptance of a claim as true without sufficient evidence.”

Under my definitions, you cannot have it both ways. Either you have sufficient evidence for a claim – in which case, faith is not necessary – or you have insufficient evidence for a claim – in which case, discussion becomes completely and totally pointless.

I have to go now, and I will not have time to reply until much later today.

 

[ContegoFides]

By the way, Einstein’s God looks nothing like yours…

I know that, which is why I said “of a sorts.” However, Einstein was still a man of faith. It is undeniable that you would consider him a “theist.” He certainly believed in a supreme intelligence.

I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

— From E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

 

[AntiTheist]

Why would you choose a faith in which nihilism and hopelessness are the only outcomes? At a bare minimum, it seems rational to try to start to cultivate faith out of pure self interest.

It’s my favorite game: count the number of logical problems:

1. Atheism isn’t a “faith” (not being a belief, it cannot logically require faith)
2. One does not “choose” a belief, but is convinced of it.
3. Atheism hardly has “nihilism and hopelessness” as its “only” outcomes.
4. As far as cultivating faith for purposes of self-interest, what is useful is not the same as what is true.

More to come tonight…that was just too much fun to pass up.

 

[ContegoFides]

Under my definitions, you cannot have it both ways. Either you have sufficient evidence for a claim – in which case, faith is not necessary – or you have insufficient evidence for a claim – in which case, discussion becomes completely and totally pointless.

I have to go now, and I will not have time to reply until much later today.

If the discussion is pointless, then why are you here? Earlier you said because you like to rip our arguments apart and you enjoy the excersise - so obviously there is a point.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[AntiTheist]

If the discussion is pointless, then why are you here? Earlier you said because you like to rip our arguments apart and you enjoy the excersise - so obviously there is a point.

There’s a point in terms of my enjoyment; there’s not a point in terms of persuading others.

At any rate, since my beliefs (and lack thereof) are evidence-based, unlike yours, there is a point in my talking to others with the intent to persuade.

 

[ThomasToo]

I know that, which is why I said “of a sorts.” However, Einstein was still a man of faith. It is undeniable that you would consider him a “theist.” He certainly believed in a supreme intelligence.

— From E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

I would hardly consider him a theist. He did not believe in a personal god of any sort and would be, at worst, at deist which is like theism-lite. I don’t know that such a ‘god’ takes faith in any meaningful sense.

 

[ThomasToo]

I respectfully submit that you have not enquired deeply enough if you could not see why Catholicism is more rational than Islam. First and foremost is their claims to authority.

Their claims to authority? Jesus ordained Peter as the first pope (Matthew 16.18) according to the Catholic tradition and Allah spoke directly to Muhammad–the seal of the prophets–and gave him the Quran, the literal word of Allah. Seem about on par to me. Notice that there is no provision for the successor of either man in the texts and one of the first major conflict in these religions when they were new was about succession (and the same with Mormonism). Interesting–at least to me.

Also, again, you are placing yourself as the arbiter of what is proper evidence. Ultimately, you are making a choice based on your limited understanding of the world around you, just as I am.

We all must do the best we can with what we have.

Why would you choose a faith in which nihilism and hopelessness are the only outcomes? At a bare minimum, it seems rational to try to start to cultivate faith out of pure self interest.

Because this is the first and only ‘faith’ that caused no cognitive dissonance. I would hardly say atheism leads inexorably to hopelessness. Honestly, I am happier and more fulfilled as an atheist as I was as a Catholic–and I get to sleep in on Sundays.

 

[ContegoFides]

1. Atheism isn’t a “faith” (not being a belief, it cannot logically require faith)
2. One does not “choose” a belief, but is convinced of it.
3. Atheism hardly has “nihilism and hopelessness” as its “only” outcomes.
4. As far as cultivating faith for purposes of self-interest, what is useful is not the same as what is true.

1. Sophistry. You believe there is no God. You cannot prove that He is non-existent; therefore you take on faith that He does not exist. Your counter-examples point to belief in leprachauns. However, given that you can’t prove a negative, you still have faith that they don’t exist (however reasonable that faith may be). In the end, atheism is a faith - the question is whether it is reasonable.
2. Sure you can choose. In the absence of incontrovertible proof you must choose. What you call “convinced” is merely your educated guess based on subjective probability analysis. What’s more: Your choices affect who you are and make similar choices more likely. Your choices affect your brain chemistry and change you as a person. This has been demonstrated scientifically (such as in the effects of porn on the brain). The choice for faith and then developing that faith helps you grow in faith. The choice for lack of faith helps you to grow in lack.
3. Sure it is. Nihilism and hoplessness are the only real outcomes of atheism. The whole universe will end - probably in a big rip, maybe heat death, unlikely the big cruch - but it will end. That is the definition of nihilism - nothing. Knowing that everything you do and think and believe are pointless because they will end, and the despair that results, is hopelessness.

The proof is in the pudding. I have never met an atheist who is happy and peacful on the inside. (Though I suppose it’s possible such a person could exist.) Atheists, by and large, are angry and unhappy, even if not clinically depressed. While I have also met depressed and angry people of faith, by and large those who are true followers of a major world religion (i.e., really, really internalize the belief system) are peaceful and happy on the inside. The happiest and most peaceful people are Catholics who respond the most completely to God’s invitation to love - the Saints.

1. As I stated before, self interest is merely the beginning of faith. It is a reason to start down the road of cultivating a relationship with God. The end point will be a relationship of love for the beloved, not carrot and stick.

Nevertheless, even if atheism were true - it should be rejected as a philosophy because it is bad for individuals and for society.

 

[ContegoFides]

There’s a point in terms of my enjoyment; there’s not a point in terms of persuading others.

At any rate, since my beliefs (and lack thereof) are evidence-based, unlike yours, there is a point in my talking to others with the intent to persuade.

You just contradicted yourself. Perhaps you would care to re-phrase when you have more time.

 

[ContegoFides]

would hardly consider him a theist. He did not believe in a personal god of any sort and would be, at worst, at deist which is like theism-lite. I don’t know that such a ‘god’ takes faith in any meaningful sense.

Note Einstein’s quote referred to “His” (capital H) thoughts. That’s a divine creative intelligence.

You’re missing my point. My point is that extremely intelligent, rational people believe in God - though they may disagree as to His nature.

If so, then faith is not irrational as the “new atheists” would have us believe.

 

[ThomasToo]

Note Einstein’s quote referred to “His” (capital H) thoughts. That’s a divine creative intelligence.

You’re missing my point. My point is that extremely intelligent, rational people believe in God - though they may disagree as to His nature.

If so, then faith is not irrational as the “new atheists” would have us believe.

I think it’s more a poetic question in Einstein’s use but you’re right that isn’t the main point.

As I said above I’d be curious to see how the last two millennia of theologians (of all stripes) would turn out today.

I think modern atheists such as Professors Dawkins and Dennett as well as Hitchens and Harris think religious faith is irrational in the same way as Einstein called a belief in a personal god ‘childish.’

 

[ContegoFides]

Their claims to authority? Jesus ordained Peter as the first pope (Matthew 16.18) according to the Catholic tradition and Allah spoke directly to Muhammad–the seal of the prophets–and gave him the Quran, the literal word of Allah. Seem about on par to me. Notice that there is no provision for the successor of either man in the texts and one of the first major conflict in these religions when they were new was about succession (and the same with Mormonism). Interesting–at least to me.

There is nothing “par” about their claims. Christianity claims that Jesus (God Himself) founded the Catholic Church by conveying HIS authority to Peter.

Islam claims that God gave direct revelations to a mortal man - Muhammed.

Christianity claims the higher authority (God Himself) versus Islam (a mortal’s received messages from God).

We all must do the best we can with what we have.

Self evidently, I must agree. However, in the end, there is always going to be a choice that is made. I have demonstrated that is it more rational to believe in God, than not to.

Because this is the first and only ‘faith’ that caused no cognitive dissonance. I would hardly say atheism leads inexorably to hopelessness. Honestly, I am happier and more fulfilled as an atheist as I was as a Catholic–and I get to sleep in on Sundays.

I’m curious, why does the thought of nihilism cause you no cognitive dissonance? I’m asking here, not preaching. What is it about your life that fulfills you, knowing that it all doesn’t make a difference in the end? Again, I’m asking, not preaching. Is it that you feel numb? License to do what you please? Simple resignation to what you believe is truth? Again, just asking - feel free to refuse to respond.

Also out of curiosity, did not your Catholic faith end when you were 7 and you rejected the Eucharist? I guess I’m wondering whether you ever really knew and more importantly practiced your faith? Was it all just challenge, or did you try to internalize?

 

[ContegoFides]

Going off line for a while now.

 

[ThomasToo]

1. Sophistry. You believe there is no God. You cannot prove that He is non-existent; therefore you take on faith that He does not exist. Your counter-examples point to belief in leprachauns. However, given that you can’t prove a negative, you still have faith that they don’t exist (however reasonable that faith may be). In the end, atheism is a faith - the question is whether it is reasonable.

I think here we are having a problem with equivocation. ‘Atheism’ has two senses: (1) ‘no official belief in gods one way or another’ and (2) ‘belief that no gods exist.’

While with leprechauns (celestial teapots, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters &c) we may strictly speaking be open to their possibility in the face of the overwhelming lack of evidence we are hard pressed to believe and I think that may at times go so far as to a belief in (2). Many atheist may be atheists_1 regarding gods in the general case and atheists_2 regarding given deities (e.g. יהוה‎).

1. Sure it is. Nihilism and hoplessness are the only real outcomes of atheism. The whole universe will end - probably in a big rip, maybe heat death, unlikely the big cruch - but it will end. That is the definition of nihilism - nothing. Knowing that everything you do and think and believe are pointless because they will end, and the despair that results, is hopelessness.

That’s not quite what nihilism means; while there may be no intrinsic value in the universe (existential nihilism) there’s not necessarily no hope. We still get to live, have fun, make love and so on. As I think I said above, I’m not hopeless and feel happier as an atheist than I ever did as a Catholic. As an aside, there are Christian Nihilist the most notable of whom is Søren Kierkegaard; he wrote some good stuff some of which you may enjoy.

The proof is in the pudding. I have never met an atheist who is happy and peacful on the inside.

Raises hand Hi, I’m Thomas. How do you do?

Nevertheless, even if atheism were true - it should be rejected as a philosophy because it is bad for individuals and for society.

The truth ought never to be rejected. Ever. To do anything else is intellectual suicide. The truth may be uncomfortable, unflattering and nihilistic but it’s still the truth. Frankly, when I hear this sort of assertion I grow frightened because it represents what I like to think are my stupid fears of what Christianity is deep down: the mentality to hide whatever is unpleasant even if it’s real.

 

[ThomasToo]

How does that “demonstrate” God’s non-existence? Even if your supposition were true in the way you mean it, there is no proof. In quality, this supposition is no different that the indicators for God’s existence. Why would you accept this one over first cause?

I don’t mean this disproves gods only that it disproves the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God because Leibniz’s proposition is the only possible justification of the problem of evil that makes sense but it’s simply not so. We can imagine the world just a little bit better (i.e. with a little bit less suffering somewhere) and hence this is not the best of all possible worlds.

Leibniz’ proposition also assumes that he (we) are the judge of what, in the grand scheme, is good and evil. Additionally, it fails to recognize the role of free will in our relationship with God, including both love and sin.

I don’t think the free will argument holds water. At best it makes God seem sadistic.

As for the suffering of animals, that falls under the category of physical evil, which I have addressed above in an earlier post.

I missed that one, which post number if you don’t mind?