What intelligent Atheists & Christians have in common about God

[catholic1seeks]

I don’t think you quite captured the point of the original post.

Obviously, atheist means “don’t believe in God,” and so the idea of God will be ascribed to fantasy (and the rest of your laundry list.)

Rather, the initial point of the thread was to show that many atheists reject a false notion of God, the same false notion that most intellectual Christians (following the greater Theistic tradition, Aquinas, etc.) would also reject.

And so at this point, a Christian would just say that the atheist is in error when he identifies the first and ultimate cause of all things with a chunk of matter, or a physical reality, or a law, etc.

Another case in point: Many atheists reject the straw-men “God of the Gaps,” but many Christians who know what they are talking about also reject “God of the Gaps.” I, and many other Catholics, for example, don’t think you have to bring in deity in order to account for biological complexity (at least, not in the sense of replacing evolution and other secondary natural causes).

 

[STT]

At least nothing, at most a definition.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t think you quite captured the point of the original post.

Obviously, atheist means “don’t believe in God,” and so the idea of God will be ascribed to fantasy (and the rest of your laundry list.)

Rather, the initial point of the thread was to show that many atheists reject a false notion of God, the same false notion that most intellectual Christians (following the greater Theistic tradition, Aquinas, etc.) would also reject.

And so at this point, a Christian would just say that the atheist is in error when he identifies the first and ultimate cause of all things with a chunk of matter, or a physical reality, or a law, etc.

Another case in point: Many atheists reject the straw-men “God of the Gaps,” but many Christians who know what they are talking about also reject “God of the Gaps.” I, and many other Catholics, for example, don’t think you have to bring in deity in order to account for biological complexity (at least, not in the sense of replacing evolution and other secondary natural causes).

I’m not sure you understand the God of the Gaps argument. It’s not used to explain what we already know (such as biological complexity) but it’s used to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Such as abiogenesis for example.

Most people (who have no religious beliefs) are quite happy to say: ‘there is a gap in our knowledge base’. Most people (who have a religious belief) are quite happy to slide God into the gap.

 

[goout]

Hmmm as an atheist I’d say not much.
We can’t agree on the same definition of terms like faith, moral, good, etc. for example.
Theists have yet to come up with a concise definition of supernatural terms like soul, spirit, deity, angels, god, etc.
The actual reading of the texts where the deity is acting like Trump with too much power is poetic metaphor, taken out of context, etc. It’s like the atheists are the exasperated news reporters trying to get an honest answer out of the apologetic spin room of the religious Huckabee’s take on the obvious documented abuses and failures of their deity.
They believe god is mysterious, we believe it’s man made up.
They believe in authoritative rule for morality, we believe in secular discourse reasoned debate.
They believe in channeling magical powers from other realms, we can document how medicine actually works.
They believe the worship and groveling is a good thing, we believe standing up with respect in our self worth regardless of the leader in attendance.
We take ownership of our moral failings, they write it off as biblically mandated and then come to a “new interpretation” when their religion starts becoming socially irrelevant.
Religious believe that logical conclusions are just as equal as reality based documented testings since our logical conclusions are never wrong once tested right?

Let me observe that while you criticize Christianity, you do not know what Christianity is.
You demonstrate an ignorance of mystery, scripture, authority, worship, and Christianity’s integration of faith with reason.
Etc…

Is there a term for one who criticizes something he/she does not even understand?
How about “whiner”?

 

[goout]

I’m not sure you understand the God of the Gaps argument. It’s not used to explain what we already know (such as biological complexity) but it’s used to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. Such as abiogenesis for example.

Most people (who have no religious beliefs) are quite happy to say: ‘there is a gap in our knowledge base’. Most people (who have a religious belief) are quite happy to slide God into the gap.

You, of all the atheists here probably the most longevity, should know better. You should really, truly, finally, know better what Christians believe about the relationship between faith and reason, faith and science.

Why is it that you do not?
Are you blinded by your beliefs?
Or some other explanation, like the inability to shed an agenda?

 

[Bradskii]

Is there something about what I said that you don’t understand?

Do you not understand that the God of the Gaps argument is not an argument at all? It’s simply an option that’s taken by most people who refuse to accept ‘I don’t know’ as a valid answer. They just feel the need to insert what their faith tells them into that gap.

They perceive that the gaps get smaller so the tight space into which they need to fit God gets smaller so the arguments become more strident. Was it ever thus a complete waste of everyone’s time?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Is there something about what I said that you don’t understand?

Do you not understand that the God of the Gaps argument is not an argument at all? It’s simply an option that’s taken by most people who refuse to accept ‘I don’t know’ as a valid answer. They just feel the need to insert what their faith tells them into that gap.

They perceive that the gaps get smaller so the tight space into which they need to fit God gets smaller so the arguments become more strident. Was it ever thus a complete waste of everyone’s time?

Have you missed that Christians believe that God is the ultimate cause and explanation of everything? That even if there were no gaps there would still be God? That every aspect of reality exists because God does? You’ve been here for years. Surely you don’t actually believe that Christians believe in a god of the gaps.

And, just in case you are confused, Christians do not hold that scientific explanations exclude God. In fact, mature Christians thank God for scientific advancements because they demonstrate the greatness of God.

 

[IWantGod]

Do you not understand that the God of the Gaps argument is not an argument at all? It’s simply an option that’s taken by most people who refuse to accept ‘I don’t know’ as a valid answer. They just feel the need to insert what their faith tells them into that gap.

It’s one thing to put God in a gap in our scientific knowledge, and it’s quite another thing to conclude God’s existence on the back of an ontological impossibility. This idea that any argument for God is necessarily an epistemological placeholder for a lack of scientific understanding is a fallacy. Equally fallacious is the scientism that you seem to subscribe to; the idea that the only valid kind of inference is one backed up by the scientific method, which is untrue.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

To answer the OP’s questions, one thing that atheists and Christians have in common is the pursuit of truth.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult to find parties that are willing to engage you in good faith and actually listen what is being said without responding with knee jerk biased talking points.

I know a good many atheists in real life. One of the benefits of having personal relationships is that both parties are more like to engage each other with respect.

 

[Sedona]

Very true, but I think that a good number of people who go to church every week probably fall into that category as well. In truth, they only half-believe what they profess in church. But I can only go with the people I talk to, so that observation is only direct experience and not based on any hard data. Like it says on the package, your experience may vary.

 

[Bradskii]

So you accept ‘I don’t know’ as a valid answer. In which case the statement doesn’t include you.

But actually I think that your position would be one better reflected by the statement ‘I do know’. In which case you would be included.

It’s your choice…

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Of course I don’t accept “I don’t know”as an answer. To do so would be to deny God as the uncaused first-cause. You understood me perfectly well.

I acknowledge that you “don’t know”. It’s quite understandable since you have limited yourself to only using the scientific method to understand material reality.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course I don’t accept “I don’t know”as an answer. To do so would be to deny God as the uncaused first-cause. You understood me perfectly well.

I acknowledge that you “don’t know”. It’s quite understandable since you have limited yourself to only using the scientific method to understand material reality.

But you don’t know. All you can say is: ‘God did it’. Without having the foggiest idea how. Unless you just want to believe that He didn’t use natural means for the unanswered questions and natural ones for those we do have an anwer for. Therein lies the God of The Gaps - natural answers for systems we understand (evolution for example) and unatural ones for those we don’t (abiogenesis).

It was always thus.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Unless you just want to believe that He didn’t use natural means for the unanswered questions and natural ones for those we do have an anwer for.

Alternatively, we accept that those aspects of material reality that we are not currently able to grasp may become intelligible overtime. And that this knowledge will only further illustrate the awesome power of God.

Christians ( or religious people in general) have not arbitrarily limited ourselves to material reality. We do not have our heads in the sand. We understand transcendence and that the human mind has the capacity to grasp some aspects of immateriality. We, therefore, more fully embrace our intellect.

I don’t expect you to agree. You’ve limited your intellect to material reality and the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean I have to.

 

[Bradskii]

You’ve limited your intellect to material reality and the scientific method, but that doesn’t mean I have to.

It does bewilder me that a lot of people in these forums, should you keep the conversation ticking over long enough, will eventually state something that confirms one’s original point and contradicts their own argument.

You are exactly right. If we have a realistic and scientifically coherent answer to any given problem, then you will accept that. If we don’t, then as I said and as you literally just confirmed, then you slip in the immaterial and unscientific. Aka God.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

And you falsely believe that “immateriality” and “unscientific” are “bad” things, so you set them aside based on arbitrary beliefs that subsist in a whole lot of “I can’t” thinking.

I see them as a necessary part of existence, but then again, I accept the fullness of my capacity for knowledge and understanding.

 

[Bradskii]

And you falsely believe that “immateriality” and “unscientific” are “bad” things, so you set them aside based on arbitrary beliefs that subsist in a whole lot of “I can’t” thinking.

I see them as a necessary part of existence, but then again, I accept the fullness of my capacity for knowledge and understanding.

Two sentences that were difficult to parse. But suffice to say that I have never said that immaterial and unscientific things (2 completely different aspects of existence incidentally) are bad.

Maybe you really don’t understand the gotg argument. It is ONLY relevant when talking about material and scientific explanations for the natural.world. So no wonder I am likely to discount the immaterial and the unscientific when referring to it.

God is used precisely when there IS no material and/or scientific explanation for any given event. And as you said above, if the answer MAY be forthcoming, then the only logical answer to its explanation is: ‘As yet, I don’t know’.

Umless you want to invoke the gotg position. You seem to want your cake and eat it. So I have no idea what your likely position is going to be on any matter. Because I don’t think you know either.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

God is used precisely when there IS no material and/or scientific explanation for any given event. And as you said above, if the answer MAY be forthcoming, then the only logical answer to its explanation is: ‘As yet, I don’t know’.

This is a false choice. There is no either it’s God or it’s science in Christian belief. Even that which is scientific is God. There are no gaps in the workings God. There are only gaps in human understanding.

I understand the materialist argument quite well. You don’t understand the Christian argument.

 

[abucs]

As a Christian I prefer to think of it as God on the other side of the gaps and western science’s job is to close that gap as much as is possible.

 

[Bradskii]

This is a false choice. There is no either it’s God or it’s science in Christian belief. Even that which is scientific is God.

Exactly right. Which is why the gotg argument fails on two levels. The Christian who uses it discounts the fact that God is meant to have His hand in everything in any case AND finds herself slotting God into every smaller gaps in our understanding as our knowledge increases.

So there was no need to bring up the immaterial or non-scientific aspects. Because they imply ‘we don’t know and cannot know and therefore God’.

All you need to say (and you can agree with this or not) is that gaps in our knowledge will be filled if at all possible but God doesn’t reside in the ones that exist.