The "Truth" of Symbol Part I (Demanding Evidence part 2)

[warpspeedpetey]

I find this response surprising. I would have thought that being in the academic world would make one much more humble about one’s own intellectual powers rather than tempted toward pride in such powers since there always seem to be others who are so much more powerful in that way.

those who can, do. those who cant, teach.

Also, the standards that such academics hold to one another for justifying assertions make it hard for someone in that world to claim that her belief in her religion is justified.

why would that be? one can easily determine the existence of G-d from the contingency argument if one has never even heard of the idea of G-d.

if you know some flaw in it than please let me know specifically what it is and i will be happy to explain it.

Lastly, I would think that the fact that these others more powerful intellects are usually not Catholic would cause people entering that world to doubt their own Catholicism.

whoever told you that they werent Catholic? further, why would someone more intelligent than me, refusing to see the obvious, make it any less obvious?

so, though i meet atheists more intelligent than me, all the time. the strength of my position isnt in me. its in obvious truth of my position.

 

[Syntax]

Leela;6316943:

Lastly, I would think that the fact that these others **more powerful intellects are usually not Catholic **

would cause people entering that world to doubt their faith.

whoever told you that they werent Catholic? further, why would someone more intelligent than me, refusing to see the obvious, make it any less obvious?

so, though i meet atheists more intelligent than me, all the time. the strength of my position isnt in me. its in obvious truth of my position.

Yes, Leela is abiding by this urban myth that “more powerful intellects are usually not Christian.” This is false. And I’ve met so many atheists who couldn’t even tie their shoes. And even if we could find positive correlations, which causal factors are at stake? Is it really literacy, or is it more economic and social as a result of a severly narcissistic culture? Besides, the claim is simply not true! We’ve had a recent emergence in the past decades of some quite famous and very-well respected still-practicing philosophers at the top universities here:

Alvin Plantinga–Catholic
van Fraassen–Catholic
Elenore Stump–Catholic
Peter Geach–Catholic
Wilfred Sellars–Catholic
Alice von Hildebrand–Catholic
Peter Kreeft–Catholic
Henri Nouwen–Catholic

Peter van Inwagen–Christian
Richard Swinburne–Christian
William Lane Craig–Christian
Wes Morriston–Christian
Dallas Willard–Christian
etc, etc…

And what about Edith Stein, Frederick Copleston, Jacques Maritain, Romano Guardini–all of whom were Catholic? Copleston even debated Russel in the most famous Theist/Atheist debate of all time. van Fraassen turned philosophy of science on its head. And Edith Stein worked personally with Husserl.

societyofchristianphilosophers.com/news-and-events/

So this alleged observation is a myth!

 

[Syntax]

I’ve read Lewis (unpersuasive) and I’ll check out Chesterton since many others have also recommended him to me.

You’ve continually chided me for reading and referring to sources that aren’t taken seriously in academia. Does it concern you that the arguments made from those above are also not taken seriously by academia? Or do I have that wrong (I’m no academic myself)?

By who? Atheists? And in which discipline? In the study of religion, all of these people are sources.

Moreover, if I wanted to know about the intimate structure of Islam, I don’t go to Campbell. I go to see practicing muslims for insight. Any comparative religious scholar would tell you that.

And when I want to know about the debates concerning the proofs for God’s existence which is a purely philosophical enterprise, I don’t read Sam Harris, Chris Hutchinson, or Dawkins. I read Plantinga, Swinburne, Craig, Tooley, Schellenberg–all of whom are respected in their field, theist and atheist alike.

So your comparison doesn’t make any sense.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, Leela is abiding by this urban myth that “more powerful intellects are usually not Christian.” This is false. And I’ve met so many atheists who couldn’t even tie their shoes. And even if we could find positive correlations, which causal factors are at stake? Is it really literacy, or is it more economic and social as a result of a severly narcissistic culture? Besides, the claim is simply not true! We’ve had a recent emergence in the past decades of some quite famous and very-well respected still-practicing philosophers at the top universities here:

Alvin Plantinga–Catholic
van Fraassen–Catholic
Elenore Stump–Catholic
Peter Geach–Catholic
Wilfred Sellars–Catholic
Alice von Hildebrand–Catholic
Peter Kreeft–Catholic
Henri Nouwen–Catholic

Peter van Inwagen–Christian
Richard Swinburne–Christian
William Lane Craig–Christian
Wes Morriston–Christian
Dallas Willard–Christian
etc, etc…

And what about Edith Stein, Frederick Copleston, Jacques Maritain, Romano Guardini–all of whom were Catholic? Copleston even debated Russel in the most famous Theist/Atheist debate of all time. van Fraassen turned philosophy of science on its head. And Edith Stein worked personally with Husserl.

societyofchristianphilosophers.com/news-and-events/

So this alleged observation is a myth!

dont forget Etienne Gilson!

i thought Platinga was a protestant though.

i use Coplestons argument all the time. heirarchical causality rocks! i dragged it through 850 posts with the mods on an atheist forum. great fun, i felt like a kid with a magnifying glass at an ant party.

its an excellent argument, Russell dodged with a denial based on the synthetic nature of the argument, but thats a dodge only a mathematician would use. too bad they were so polite back then. Copleston said something to the effect that you cannot lose a match if you refuse to sit down at the table.

 

[Syntax]

dont forget Etienne Gilson!

yes, sorry:blush: I just took straight from the top of my head…

i thought Platinga was a protestant though.

You’re right. The fact that Plantinga is from the University of Notre Dame always causes me to think he is Catholic and not protestant. lol.

Hey, truly, check out van Fraassen’s views on science, if you haven’t already. He’s definitely the most famous philosopher of science, almost just as big as Kuhn. Awesome stuff. He turned the philosophy of science upside down, and I’m pretty sure you will find him agreeable since his views seem to resemble your own take on science quite a bit actually. He takes a purely “instrumentalist” view on scientific practice, and is heavily influenced by his observation that all passed science has turned out to be false, partly springing from what he labels the “error of abduction.”

i use Coplestons argument all the time. heirarchical causality rocks! i dragged it through 850 posts with the mods on an atheist forum. great fun, i felt like a kid with a magnifying glass at an ant party.

haha! too funny!

its an excellent argument, Russell dodged with a denial based on the synthetic nature of the argument, but thats a dodge only a mathematician would use. too bad they were so polite back then. Copleston said something to the effect that you cannot lose a match if you refuse to sit down at the table.

Yes, it is great debate. And I vaguely remember that dodge Russell did, too. It’s been a few years since I read it. There are so many new versions of this debate given recent developments in modern Physics.

 

[Leela]

The human struggle in the search for Truth (which you yourself either fundamentally lack or continue to supress), is not some egoistic choice which your model of “consumerism” presupposes. It is only when people out of weakness reduce their transcendental principles to their egoisistic practices which is consumer-minded. You have a very dim understanding of the existential complexities of the human struggle for Truth because your pragmatic model rejects it from the start making your views incredibly shallow.

Though I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to draw between egoistic and nonegoistic choices and the one between transcendental and non-transcendental principles, I do understand very well that people want to have beliefs that are true. I am no different. Presumably Catholicism seems the most true to you and that’s why you are Catholic rather than some other religion. The consumerism I’m talking about is that everyone chooses the religion that seems the most true to them.

 

[Leela]

Yes, Leela is abiding by this urban myth that “more powerful intellects are usually not Christian.” This is false. And I’ve met so many atheists who couldn’t even tie their shoes. And even if we could find positive correlations, which causal factors are at stake? Is it really literacy, or is it more economic and social as a result of a severly narcissistic culture? Besides, the claim is simply not true! We’ve had a recent emergence in the past decades of some quite famous and very-well respected still-practicing philosophers at the top universities here:

Alvin Plantinga–Catholic
van Fraassen–Catholic
Elenore Stump–Catholic
Peter Geach–Catholic
Wilfred Sellars–Catholic
Alice von Hildebrand–Catholic
Peter Kreeft–Catholic
Henri Nouwen–Catholic

Peter van Inwagen–Christian
Richard Swinburne–Christian
William Lane Craig–Christian
Wes Morriston–Christian
Dallas Willard–Christian
etc, etc…

And what about Edith Stein, Frederick Copleston, Jacques Maritain, Romano Guardini–all of whom were Catholic? Copleston even debated Russel in the most famous Theist/Atheist debate of all time. van Fraassen turned philosophy of science on its head. And Edith Stein worked personally with Husserl.

societyofchristianphilosophers.com/news-and-events/

So this alleged observation is a myth!

I didn’t realize that most scholars are actually professed Christians. My impression based on statistics I’ve seen was that “more powerful intellects are usually not Christian.”

 

[Leela]

You obviously missed my point: The accusation against Campbell by other scholars is that he couldn’t see things from the inside point of view…duh. Who is more of an expert on C.S. Lewis’ understanding of his own religion. C.S Lewis or Campbell? You apparently are not aware of the principles that govern the scholarship in cultural anthropology and comparative religion. You are going to get MORE information and understanding about their symbols and traditions when you JOIN the people and live among them and understand how they relate to the symbols. You’re not going to find this information in a text book!!

I didn’t miss your point at all. I understand very well that you think Campbell is in no position to say how myths should be interpreted. My question was about a different issue. It was impression that such authors as you cited previously are not taken very seriously in academia, but since then you have pointed out that most scholars are actually professed Christians, so perhaps I am wrong and such authors actually are taken very seriously.

 

[Syntax]

I didn’t realize that most scholars are actually professed Christians.

I didn’t say that. I said that Christians have a permanent place in academia as they always had and that atheists allegedly having “more powerful” intellects is false.

My impression based on statistics I’ve seen was that “more powerful intellects are usually not Christian.”

Like I said, your statistics do not speak for themselves. Even if there were positive correlations between practicing academics and lack of belief in the Western World, there is nothing to suggest from this data alone that the causal factor is literacy or eductation and *not * merely pride and narcissism–which happens to be very common among academics in the Western World. Nor does the data say anything about other cultures. So you have to test for these other causal factors such as pride, narcissicism, economics, and culture outside of the Western World if you want to establish any causal connection between education and lack of belief. After all, the Western World’s excessive consumerism and selfishness could be the very impediment that makes atheists so blind to God’s existence (and I firmly believe this). So your alleged evidence remains both uninterpreted and incomplete. It says nothing.

 

[Syntax]

Though I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to draw between egoistic and nonegoistic choices and the one between transcendental and non-transcendental principles, I do understand very well that people want to have beliefs that are true. I am no different. Presumably Catholicism seems the most true to you and that’s why you are Catholic rather than some other religion. The consumerism I’m talking about is that everyone chooses the religion that seems the most true to them.

Yes, but what does this explain about the human predicament? It is a totally useless and elementary abstraction that doesn’t tell us anything.

 

[Leela]

I didn’t say that. I said that Christians have a permanent place in academia as they always had and that atheists allegedly having “more powerful” intellects is false.

There appears to be some confusion. My phrase about powerful intellects was in reference to your claim about academics beig prideful in their own powers. I do not claim that atheists are necessarily smarter than Christians, I just noted that most academics are not Catholic. You seemd to be saying that that was a myth and I took your word for it, but apparently now you are agreeing that most academics are not Catholic. I asked before because I was wonderring if that fact gave you pause about your own beliefs not being widely accepted since you chided me for reading things that are not widely accepted in academia.

Your assertion is now that Christians have a permanent place in academia. I don’t see why that would not continue to be true, either. I do wonder though if theology will always be considered a valid form of academic inquiry. I wonder if it will some day go the route of astrology which was one day pretty much THEE focus of academic study but is now not regarded as anything that someone can have knowledge about. Is there academic contraversy about whether theology ought to be part of the university? I know that it is often relegated to “divinity schools” instead of part of the main university and that at least Dawkins has questioned whether theology ought to be considered an academic subject. But he may very well not represent the mainstreem view.

Best,
Leela

 

[Syntax]

I do wonder though if theology will always be considered a valid form of academic inquiry. I wonder if it will some day go the route of astrology which was one day pretty much THEE focus of academic study but is now not regarded as anything that someone can have knowledge about. Is there academic contraversy about whether theology ought to be part of the university? I know that it is often relegated to “divinity schools” instead of part of the main university and that at least Dawkins has questioned whether theology ought to be considered an academic subject. But he may very well not represent the mainstreem view.

That’s your superstition which I seriously doubt will ever become true. For instance, scientific theories continue to come and go. But the Church is the oldest surving institution of humankind. Moreover, humankind will always have the religious longing for the transcendent that scientific inquiry alone can never satisfy. So I don’t sympathize with this shallow atheistic hope at all. Also, it is completely contrary to the facts so far, and you have no reason for thinking it is true. So as far as we know, it is an unsubstantiated myth.

 

[Leela]

Yes, but what does this explain about the human predicament? It is a totally useless and elementary abstraction that doesn’t tell us anything.

But that is exactly my point. You criticized a view as “religious consumerism” and I can’t see how that term could distinguish any person from any other in a society that protects religious freedom and pluralism. The only alternatives that I can imagine are ignorance of other religions or theocracy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The only alternatives that I can imagine are ignorance of other religions or theocracy.

or, other religions are wrong. easily demonstrable. we can prove Christ is the prophecied Messiah, making all other religions false.

 

[Leela]

or, other religions are wrong. easily demonstrable. we can prove Christ is the prophecied Messiah, making all other religions false.

That is what I am saying as well WSP. You are choosing the religion you are choosing because it is true. Either you think it satisfies this personal desire of yours to hold true beliefs or it satisfies some other personal desires. Catholicism is chosen within a marketplace of available religious ideas.

By the way, I doubt that Syntax would agree that proving that Christ is the Messiah and that all other religions are false is such an easy thing to do. If it were, we would all be Christians.

Best,
Leela

 

[Syntax]

But that is exactly my point. You criticized a view as “religious consumerism” and I can’t see how that term could distinguish any person from any other in a society that protects religious freedom and pluralism. The only alternatives that I can imagine are ignorance of other religions or theocracy.

No, this is precisely my point: your observation is too generalized, and doesn’t make the necessary distinctions that need to made about the individual’s character, past, upbringing, personality weaknesses and strengths, and his or her intellectual capacities–in order to evaluative whether or not one’s choices were morally salutary, unegoistic, and intellectually sound.