quote: All the rationalism, empiricism, scientific method, secularism, in short all of what the droll atheist takes for granted, he has inherited from theists.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: And just a few decades later, enough gaps had been closed that it became feasible to wonder whether a creative force -- sentient or not -- was actually necessary to explain the observable universe.
When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there. If it has taught us anything by now, it's that you can pack a million gaps into the tiniest fraction of space. See, I think I actually have more respect for science than you do, by being willing to put it in its proper perspective.
quote:Socrates was a Christian?
You would not even know who Socrates was but for Christians (and Muslims, who inherited the Greek corpus from Syriac Christians and Jews). Line of inheritance is what I assert here. However, regardless, we can just speak about theists in general if you prefer.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"forged by Christians" doesn't seem to just imply line of inheritance, which is a remarkably meaningless way of claiming descent. Is there a point beyond the obvious fact that most people throughout history have been at least mildly religious?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there.
Are you familiar with Xeno's Paradox? Yes, science comes up with twenty questions for every big one it answers. But the "big one" is frequently where God used to live.
Compare and contrast "what makes lightning" with "why does an electrified plasma ground itself in this way?" A satisfying answer for the former used to be "Zeus." Zeus as a god in charge of electrifying plasma, however, isn't as satisfying a concept.
quote:Line of inheritance is what I assert here.
Inheritance of what? What, specifically, are you saying that atheists inherited from Socrates by way of Christians -- and, moreover, what debt do atheists owe Christians (and, consequently, Christians owe worshippers of the Greek gods) as a result?
See, I don't see you arguing that we should pay Zeus some respect because his followers came up with some decent philosophy. I don't see you asserting that maybe there's some validity in the whole Hera Hypothesis simply because Aquinas owed a serious debt to Aristotle. Aquinas denied Hera's existence without a moment's afterthought; are you suggesting that he was wrong to do so?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, I am the gift to TomDavidson that just keeps on giving.
quote:Originally posted by GinaG:
quote:
quote:The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians.
Socrates was a Christian?
You would not even know who Socrates was but for Christians (and Muslims, who inherited the Greek corpus from Syriac Christians and Jews). Line of inheritance is what I assert here. However, regardless, we can just speak about theists in general if you prefer.
Ah, then that's the problem. See, I read you as stating "forged by."
When I convey the text of another's ideas, either by giving someone a book or referencing them in a paper I write, I generally consider that a citation, not a forging. I didn't make the ideas myself, as it were -- just conveyed them.
---
Edited to add: And now I am being snarky. My apologies, sincerely. I hold the Euthrypo close to my heart, and not because of who first showed it to me. But you don't deserve snippiness.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Gina, the rhetorical flourishes and sly "gotcha" comments really aren't going to help you to win any minds here. Your arguments will be stronger without them.
I don't think a bit of levity hurts anything. In any case, I notice you point this towards me- I suppose the disdain on the part of the atheists, delivered stiffly, is better received?
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the "big one" is frequently where God used to live.
This isn't true for most modern religious types, and it hasn't been true for centuries.
You are arguing against a view a religion that hasn't been popular for three hundred years. Congratulations on that, but it misses the point of why people are religious now.
It so thoroughly misses the point I wonder that you can't or won't understand that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
More accurately---"The very sword you hope to slay theism with was brought to your battle by Christians."
Whom do we owe for the Sword? The teamsters or the sword-smiths? Surely it would be folly not to pay the teamsters their due, but it would also be folly to give them credit for the gift.
Christianity--the UPS of philosophy--when it absolutely positively has to be there over millenia.
(Edited to change "in a thousand years" to "over millenia". It sounds better)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't true for most modern religious types, and it hasn't been true for centuries.
I'm not sure this is true. It's true that religion has ceded most of the "Big Questions" to science, but certainly many religious people still believe, for example, in Creationism.
More importantly, questions like "is there life after death" and "what does it mean to be good" and "do I exist if my brain does not" and the like are still big questions, and I suspect they're questions that science will someday answer.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Chistianity--the UPS of philosophy--when it absolutely positively has to be there [over millenia].
Modern analytic philosophy does owe a great deal to those who maintained original texts (or copies thereof), be they Christian, Muslim, or what have you. It's a shame so much was lost, though.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there.
Are you familiar with Xeno's Paradox? Yes, science comes up with twenty questions for every big one it answers. But the "big one" is frequently where God used to live.
Compare and contrast "what makes lightning" with "why does an electrified plasma ground itself in this way?" A satisfying answer for the former used to be "Zeus." Zeus as a god in charge of electrifying plasma, however, isn't as satisfying a concept.
What does this tell us but that our conception of God is never big enough? If you think it disproves God or should cast a believer into doubt, it seems to me you just don't understand what faith in God is. I already said that every natural mechanism is, to my mind, a work of God.
See, we really do have a lot in common (in earnest). There is no reason to be adversarial. Most of the time I think people are exercising their emotional static from run-ins with fundamentalist parents, pushy evangelists, etc.
quote:Inheritance of what? What, specifically, are you saying that atheists inherited from Socrates by way of Christians -- and, moreover, what debt do atheists owe Christians (and, consequently, Christians owe worshippers of the Greek gods) as a result?
The whole patrimony of western thought was largely created by theists. Christians inherited it, and added their own contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands (rationalism, empiricism, secularism, scientific method, the idea of the university as we know it, etc.). I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many of us in this thread appreciate levity. Mocking and the idea that levity alone makes an argument have any force (as seems to be the case with your 'forged by Christians' statement, for instance) are things we do not appreciate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence you propose is stuff that just as cleanly predicts any number of quite different gods. A Muslim who speaks of the miracle of breathing takes it as evidence for Allah; since it is just as useful for this hypothesis, its actual weight as evidence is zero. If you have any evidence that distinguishes between gods, or between gods and no-gods, then present it now. Otherwise be quiet.
The events documented in the New Testament is one example of such a piece of evidence.
It should be noted, though, that it'd be foolish to place the entire weight of one's religious beliefs on any one piece of evidence. Most people become convinced of religion by looking at the larger picture of ALL evidence taken together, including authorities/experts, texts, personal experiences, observations about the world, scientific models, historical facts, basic assumptions, and almost any other sort of evidence. Asking for a single piece of evidence that by itself proves not only that God exists but that a given religious view of God is true is like asking for one note of a symphony that proves it was composed by Beethoven and not Bach.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: There is no reason to be adversarial. Most of the time I think people are exercising their emotional static from run-ins with fundamentalist parents, pushy evangelists, etc.
I think here the reaction is more plausibly attributable to the like of the following:
quote: ... I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
Inaccuracy isn't well-tolerated here. Levity is, but not at the expense of intellectual rigor. Rhetoric in itself isn't a problem; again, it is when inaccuracy grounds it that there is such a reaction.
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: The whole patrimony of western thought was largely created by theists. Christians inherited it, and added their own contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands (rationalism, empiricism, secularism, scientific method, the idea of the university as we know it, etc.). I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
You saying this repeatedly doesn't make it true. Take a proper History of Modern Philosophy course - or even Philosophy of Religion, and report back then.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I studied (or, later, taught) Greek philosophy, it wasn't through interpretation by [medieval] Aquinas texts or any other Christian writer. It was through the original texts, often using different translations to observe bias.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest looking up definitions of irony, ingratitude, and perhaps ignorance. The only irony I see in this thread is not being participated in by the atheists (I should note that I strongly disagree with many of the stronger positions, though I am not in the least theistic). I would also note that gratitude does not imply compromising one's own moral position, and what people arguing against religion is this thread are advocating is certainly a moral position.
Again, that many ideas have been tossed around, preserved, and held by theists is not news to anyone in this thread. Most of us have probably known it since approximately the age of ten, and perhaps before. You should feel no obligation to attempt to enlighten us about it, or anything requiring a similar level of knowledge.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: When scientific types talk about gaps closing, I really wonder how they keep their faces straight. Science in every discovery opens up new gaps we hadn't even realized were there.
Sure, but every gap is closed by totally natural phenomena, not divine phenomena.
There used to be a huge pile of physical phenomena which were believed to be explicable only by divine intervention. Diseases, for starter, though there are a whole lot of others.
So, how many of those disease are now still beleved to be caused by divine providence, and how many are now understood totally in terms of natural phenomena?
quote:If it has taught us anything by now, it's that you can pack a million gaps into the tiniest fraction of space. See, I think I actually have more respect for science than you do, by being willing to put it in its proper perspective.
Okay, so how many new anti-malaria drugs have hit the market because researchers put God into the gaps between, say, the transition of the falciparum between its various life stages?
Or, is it that these gaps that science reveals get filled only with...more science? That the number of physical phenomena explicable by totally natural causes grows day by day, year by year, while the number of physical causes shown to be explicable by divine causes remains at the same zero it's always been at?
quote:Line of inheritance is what I assert here.
I don't see how this argument helps you. Science had its babyhood in Greece, and became recognizable only after the Enlightement. The lion's share of Christian history is pre-Enlightenment, and Christians were happily burning witches for most of the time, and only stopped when the lost the secular power to do so. Did those Syriac Christians invent science? Or the Eastern Orthodox? Nope. Only one branch of Christiantiny got around to it, and only after they split the heck out of their "catholic" religion. If the Pope had managed to rule over all of Christendom absolutely, burning whatever books he didn't like, science might not have started in Europe.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaving aside the issue of correctness, I'm curious what a "grateful" atheist would do differently...?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: .. added their own contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands (rationalism, empiricism, secularism, scientific method, the idea of the university as we know it, etc.). I simply note the irony, and shake my head at the ingratitude, even the ignorance of history, embodied in a lot of atheist bluster.
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Inaccuracy isn't well-tolerated here. Levity is, but not at the expense of intellectual rigor. Rhetoric in itself isn't a problem; again, it is when inaccuracy grounds it that there is such a reaction.
You yourself are simply asserting inaccuracy and making no effort to support your assertion. Either show what is inaccurate and support your own argument, or you don't have much ground from which to criticize others for lack of rigor.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Western thought was definitely NOT created entirely by theists. However, its survival and progress can be mostly attributed to organized religion - Christianity and Islam. I think its reasonable to speculate that science would not exist as it does today if those organized religions were not around as a foundation for preserving ideas and thinking about important ideas.
I'd think a "grateful" atheist would agree that organized religion has been at least in part a productive force in the world, if for that reason alone.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Sure, but every gap is closed by totally natural phenomena, not divine phenomena.
Not to speak for Gina as I suspect we have little in common, but for myself, there is no separation between natural phenomena and divine phenomena. "That isn't divine; it's natural," would be a nonsense statement to me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, GinaG, everyone this thread agrees with CT (as they ought to in all circumstances, of course ). It's difficult to convince people of "the truth" when you're the only one seeing the pink elephant in the corner.
The sky is blue when it's a clear day. I don't think I'll make any effort to support my assertion, yet I doubt anyone will disagree, or say I'm "lacking rigor". Anyone who argues it's mauve will be ignored.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd think a "grateful" atheist would agree that organized religion has been at least in part a productive force in the world, if for that reason alone.
Sure. Now can we move on to more productive conversations? Because, let's face it, that's ancient history.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: I believe most who don't think organized religion has been a productive force (which doesn't necessarily include me) would simply question if there would have been much of a problem about them being lost had religion not existed, or some similar tact. That is, judge 'productive force' not vs the absence of anything, but vs the absence of religion. And since that's a counterfactual hypothesis, there isn't a good (if we include 'mutually acceptable', at least ) way to resolve it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: You saying this repeatedly doesn't make it true. Take a proper History of Modern Philosophy course - or even Philosophy of Religion, and report back then.
Medieval history is my field, history of science is a hobby. Contest the merits if you will- I will happily learn something new- but all I am seeing is a lot of prejudice and the usual bluster. This in a place supposedly known for its rigor?
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Jhai, you have much better taste in clothes than I. *grin
No, seriously, Christianity (and Islam, and the followers of Buddha, and the various legal traditions, and so many other groups or participants both strictly and not strictly defined) have done much to make the world what it is today. Of that I have no doubt, and I offer no quibble.
What the world is today is both good and ill, same as always -- though the ratio may vary. I'm all in favor of continuing to improve that balance. In the long run, I've never seen that served by rhetoric without a thorough grounding in the facts of the matter, as best we can know them.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hume and Spinoza come immediately to mind as major modern philosophers who have had valuable contributions to atheism. The number system - and zero in particular - comes to us via atheistic Hindus. Many (if not most) of the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers were religious in the same way Einstein was, which is to say not really at all.
posted
On a completely tangential note, the Chinese called, they want their paper and printing technology back based on the lines of inheritance.
They'll settle for gunpowder though, since thats been a bit of a disappointment. If you all had RTFM as intended, you'd know that you should be pointing gunpowder-based technology into the sky to make pretty colours rather than at each other. Centuries of accidental death could easily have been avoided
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Mucus, I am the gift to TomDavidson that just keeps on giving.
Hmmm, I'll take your word for it. Rather I won't, but I'll assume that TomDavidson appreciates it.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll nominate Holyoake for secularism, which is one of the areas listed above as one of the "contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The events documented in the New Testament is one example of such a piece of evidence.
Like Herod killing all the newborn boys?
Since not another soul recorded such a thing, and the author had obvious reasons for adding that to the story (it draws a parallel between Jesus and Moses, and it is a plot device to get Jesus in to Egypt, so he can come put again like the prophecies say the Messiah should), we have to conclude that it didn't happen.
Do you really wish to say that it is honest to use the Gospels as evidence for things that didn't happen?
quote:It should be noted, though, that it'd be foolish to place the entire weight of one's religious beliefs on any one piece of evidence.
It's foolish to believe anything based on one piece of evidence. Better to be skeptical, and look for more evidence before drawing a conclusion.
quote:Most people become convinced of religion by looking at the larger picture of ALL evidence taken together, including authorities/experts, texts, personal experiences, observations about the world, scientific models, historical facts, basic assumptions, and almost any other sort of evidence.
Surveys show that a majority of Christians can't name all 4 Evangelists, and you expect anyone to beleive that "most" religious people are looking at texts, and historical facts, and scientific models before coming to their conclusions?
Sorry, but "most" religious people have the same religion as their familes. This does not suggest that people are choosing based on anything objective, like scientific models and historical facts, and texts.
quote:Asking for a single piece of evidence that by itself proves not only that God exists but that a given religious view of God is true is like asking for one note of a symphony that proves it was composed by Beethoven and not Bach.
Okay, how about something at least suggestive.
One physical phenomenon for which it has been shown that a non-natural explanation is required.
You've got a whole universe, and thousands of years of human history. You should be able to find one.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: More importantly, questions like "is there life after death" and "what does it mean to be good" and "do I exist if my brain does not" and the like are still big questions, and I suspect they're questions that science will someday answer.
I can certainly conceive of the third being answered by science. I even agree that it is likely to happen in my children's lifetimes (and possibly my own). But the first, assuming such life is completely undetectable by physical means, seems unlikely to be answered by science. And the second is not a scientific question at all.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The sky is blue when it's a clear day. I don't think I'll make any effort to support my assertion, yet I doubt anyone will disagree, or say I'm "lacking rigor". Anyone who argues it's mauve will be ignored.
Or have their rose-colored glassed absconded with.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the second is not a scientific question at all
I believe it can be, once the semantic question itself is resolved. Until that point, of course, we're firmly in the realm of philosophy. But at no point is it an exclusively religious question.
My argument is that those things which were exclusively answered by religion are becoming fewer and fewer on the ground.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I've said a few things that might be interpreted as taking a side I don't agree with very much (I'm not a theist, but I don't particularly think of myself as an atheist), I thought I'd add a few things.
swbarnes: many theists believe that everything (at least nowadays, and some would extend that to all human history) can be explained by natural explanations, and yet that without god, nothing would ever have existed, much less any natural explanation have happened. The lack of unexplainable phenomena is not a problem, there.
rivka: I think I agree with every bit of your post.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: "what does it mean to be good" is the semantic question. Of course given a quantifiable definition of good one could make a science of discovering such quantities. However, the evaluation of that definition itself is the problem.
I suspect you reject that there's anything to 'good' other than humans picking a definition, but I encourage you to offer a proof Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: Sure, but every gap is closed by totally natural phenomena, not divine phenomena.
There used to be a huge pile of physical phenomena which were believed to be explicable only by divine intervention. Diseases, for starter, though there are a whole lot of others.
So, how many of those disease are now still beleved to be caused by divine providence, and how many are now understood totally in terms of natural phenomena?
quote:Okay, so how many new anti-malaria drugs have hit the market because researchers put God into the gaps between, say, the transition of the falciparum between its various life stages?
Or, is it that these gaps that science reveals get filled only with...more science? That the number of physical phenomena explicable by totally natural causes grows day by day, year by year, while the number of physical causes shown to be explicable by divine causes remains at the same zero it's always been at?
I'm trying to think how to convey how meaningless these questions are. I believe the disconnect is that the Scholastics posited that one could reason one's way to God, and you must assume all Christians take that approach, whereas I don't find it especially useful. It's true that later rationalists decided they would go Aquinas etc. one better and reason their way out of God (which is what you seem to be trying to do), but I don't think that works any better than the original notion.
Again: To me, it's all God. I don't know how to explain it without preaching a sermon, so you'll just have to take my word that any scientific marvel you throw out is food for faith to me. The idea of a dichotomized sacred and secular world is foreign to me. I recognize that many people, even Christians, live there, but I can only visit.
quote:I don't see how this argument helps you. Science had its babyhood in Greece, and became recognizable only after the Enlightement. The lion's share of Christian history is pre-Enlightenment, and Christians were happily burning witches for most of the time, and only stopped when the lost the secular power to do so. Did those Syriac Christians invent science? Or the Eastern Orthodox? Nope. Only one branch of Christiantiny got around to it, and only after they split the heck out of their "catholic" religion. If the Pope had managed to rule over all of Christendom absolutely, burning whatever books he didn't like, science might not have started in Europe.
You're obviously laboring under the tired old cliche's promulgated by 19th century historiography. I don't even know what to do with this portion of your reply except again to speed the humbling that the so-called Enlightenment desperately deserves.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'll nominate Holyoake for secularism, which is one of the areas listed above as one of the "contributions, which are largely the ground on which the materialist atheist directly stands."
You think secularism was invented in the 19th century? Go back a bit further. The medievals were separating out church and state, and natural vs. supernatural phenomena, with gusto.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, I'm reading a book on precisely this topic at the moment. Gina, have you read much Taylor?
quote:The idea of a dichotomized sacred and secular world is foreign to me.
Okay. Now explain to me why, in your worldview, God is necessary. If the physical world is evidence of God, how do you distinguish evidence of God from the physical world? And if you can't, how is that observably different from having no evidence of God?
--------
quote:I believe the disconnect is that the Scholastics posited that one could reason one's way to God, and you must assume all Christians take that approach...
In all honesty, it has never occurred to me that all Christians might have reasoned their way to God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Hume and Spinoza come immediately to mind as major modern philosophers who have had valuable contributions to atheism. The number system - and zero in particular - comes to us via atheistic Hindus. Many (if not most) of the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers were religious in the same way Einstein was, which is to say not really at all.
So you want to claim people who "sort of believe" as atheists? I think you're stretching.
I also believe the Babylonians would take some issue with your assertion about Hindus inventing the number system.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gina, I didn't say secularism was invented in the 19th century. The idea of secularism wasn't -- and that claim would be rather silly. Arguing against a silly claim I didn't make would be arguing against a strawman, or at least a rhetorical flourish not grounded in accuracy. [Added: I'm happy to assume that is not what you are doing, but then I would not know what you are doing. Which would be okay, just adding to a general confusion.]
The term "secularism" was coined by Holyoake, and my response was to Jhai's call for valuable contributors to atheism. Holyoake certainly advanced that cause by defining the concept of secularism and arguing for it pretty vehemently.
On the other hand, I am unclear on whether (and why) you attributed the founding of secularism to theists. What did you mean by this? *interested
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: I also believe the Babylonians would take some issue with your assertion about Hindus inventing the number system.
For clarification, I believe she said "comes to us via," not "invented." This may be another case of conflating "forging" with "conveyance." [but the other way around]
---
Also added: It occurs to me that there seems to be recurrent confusion between inventing something and passing something along. It might be a distinction worth noting explicitly.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Interestingly, I'm reading a book on precisely this topic at the moment. Gina, have you read much Taylor?
Which topic and which Taylor?
quote:The idea of a dichotomized sacred and secular world is foreign to me.
quote:Okay. Now explain to me why, in your worldview, God is necessary. If the physical world is evidence of God, how do you distinguish evidence of God from the physical world? And if you can't, how is that observably different from having no evidence of God?
I can explain, but it is a religious discussion. Do you want to have that?
Edit: Re-reading, it still seems to me that what you are asking above is precisely what you say below that you never thought of, i.e. that I should need to search out "evidence" in nature either for God or against Him.
quote:I believe the disconnect is that the Scholastics posited that one could reason one's way to God, and you must assume all Christians take that approach...
quote:In all honesty, it has never occurred to me that all Christians might have reasoned their way to God.
OK. Some of the commenters seem to think I care to "prove God's existence" or somehow use science as an evangelistic tool. That would be a Scholastic aim, and perhaps an approach that some Intelligent Design people take, but as I've said, I don't find it very useful.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to bother with the whole line of inheritance thing, it's irrelevant to the interesting question of what is actually true.
quote:Again: To me, it's all God. I don't know how to explain it without preaching a sermon, so you'll just have to take my word that any scientific marvel you throw out is food for faith to me.
In that case I do not understand what you mean by belief. When I say "I believe X", I mean that there is some prediction I make which I would not make, if I didn't think X was true. This does not appear to be the meaning you attach to the word. What would happen differently if your god did not exist? What would you do differently? And what convinced you in the first place that your god existed? I am not interested in what you take as supporting evidence later on, that's down to confirmation bias in a well-known and boring way; I want to know why you started looking for confirmation to start with.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Hume and Spinoza come immediately to mind as major modern philosophers who have had valuable contributions to atheism. The number system - and zero in particular - comes to us via atheistic Hindus. Many (if not most) of the ancient Greek philosophers and thinkers were religious in the same way Einstein was, which is to say not really at all.
So you want to claim people who "sort of believe" as atheists? I think you're stretching.
I also believe the Babylonians would take some issue with your assertion about Hindus inventing the number system.
I didn't say that they were atheists, merely that they had made valuable contributions to atheistic thought. I also never said that the Hindus were the only one to invent a number system - just that they are directly responsible for the invention of zero, which is a key (indeed, the key) component of the number system - aka the one that is in use round the world now.
CT, I meant invent, as in "they invented the number system we now use." My words may not have been the clearest, and I apologize for that.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Edit: Re-reading, it still seems to me that what you are asking above is precisely what you say below that you never thought of, i.e. that I should need to search out "evidence" in nature either for God or against Him.
Specifically, what I am saying is that if you have not done this, your belief in God is completely irrational, although perhaps personally useful. If a world without God looks exactly the same as a world with God, the conclusion that there IS a God is one that seems unnecessary.
KoM's questions are in this vein: what would you do differently if there were no God, living as you do in a universe where you admit no visible evidence of God?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: CT, I meant invent, as in "they invented the number system we now use." My words may not have been the clearest, and I apologize for that.
*nods
On rereading, I thought that may be the case (i.e., that when you said "number sytem," you did actually mean this particular system), but my post was already so riddled with brackets of change that I feared to add more. Thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for adding to any confusion.
It's a complicated topic, and comments are flying back and forth quickly. I'm happy to see charitable interpretations of one another's claims whenever they crop up.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really sure what difference it makes that modern science has its roots among the religious. Everything arguably has a majority of its roots among the religious.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). It's difficult to convince people of "the truth" when you're the only one seeing the pink elephant in the corner.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) way to resolve it.
