|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 21, 2009 6:18:13 GMT
So essentially both Morris and Gould are equally right? I incline much more towards Morris for a number of reasons. Welcome to the forum by the way. Welcome also to 'religionequalscult'. Can't think what his/her views are.
|
|
syzygy
Master of the Arts
Posts: 103
|
Post by syzygy on Apr 22, 2009 13:18:27 GMT
It would be wonderful if there could be a truly intellectual dialogue between atheists and theists, as opposed to one-night stands and shots over the bow. Does anybody know of an online forum where this is occurring?
Theism has been an intellectual enterprise at least since the early Greek philosophers, two and a half millenia ago. Compared to this scientific atheism is just coming out of the cocoon. It could amount to an unfair advantage for the theist, but what can you do about that?
Another thought: To argue atheism competently you have to know theology, and not many of the new scientific atheists do. In this day it seems you also need to know science to argue theism, and lots of theologians do.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Apr 22, 2009 15:52:50 GMT
Another thought: To argue atheism competently you have to know theology, and not many of the new scientific atheists do. In this day it seems you also need to know science to argue theism, and lots of theologians do. But as New Atheists would say, theology is irrelevant, since it is about things that do not exist. Therefore you don't need to know about it. This, of course, is an intellectual non-starter: you have to know the position of your opponent in order to be able to convey a convincing argument against it. Now with my cynic's hat on: the position of atheism is really quite simple, in fact, simplistic. Perhaps atheists assume therefore that theism is just as simplistic? Also, the actual knowledge of science of many New Atheists is quite moderate. Hence the ability of New Atheist leaders, like -- on the scientific front -- Victor Stenger, to come up with bad pseudo-scientific arguments that are swallowed uncritically by the followers as "science". Dawkins likes Stenger's arguments, but then he is a biologist and not a physicist. I am not a physicist either, but I am well enough informed to see through Stenger's garbage. How come?
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Apr 22, 2009 16:05:07 GMT
Same reason we find many Christians are so infuriating, and the same reason folk on these boards get tired of being tarred with a very broad "religion" brush - the Brights exhibit the same sort of behaviour and thinking as fundamentalist religious people. Sure, there isn't a God involved, but the modus operandi is strikingly similar, as is the difficulty in reasoning with them.
Of course, there are atheists/agnostics who are much more sensible, just as there are smart Christians; sadly, both groups are harder to find or make their voices heard.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Apr 22, 2009 18:42:01 GMT
Same reason we find many Christians are so infuriating, and the same reason folk on these boards get tired of being tarred with a very broad "religion" brush - the Brights exhibit the same sort of behaviour and thinking as fundamentalist religious people. What is so infuriating about the atheist attitude is that almost all (not all, fortunately) atheists are completely unwilling to learn -- just like religious fundamentalists. This is also the reason why I have lost respect for John Loftus, who emphatically claims not to be a new Atheist and who actually knows quite a bit about religion – his book also seems to be regarded higher in Christian circles than the New-Atheist drivel. I debated (not with him) about Stenger’s writings on his blog, and extensively refuted them. He said that he had read my posts and even acknowledged that I was science-minded. But he did not learn anything. After he had said that he came up again with the same nonsense that I had refuted: snipurl.com/gguit“When we think about it we must start with something. Victor Stenger starts with the laws of nature and concludes that since nothing is unstable (nothing being defined as an equal amount of positive and negative energy) then based on the math there is a 60% chance that something should exist. In fact he argues that for there not to be a physical universe it would require a God to keep that from happening!
"Now I know that this answer starts with the laws of nature and this definition of nothing, yes. But I prefer the most basic starting point than the kind of God you believe exists.”What is so hard about learning something? It is the sign of an open mind, isn’t it? Don’t all atheists consider themselves open-minded? When I noticed in 2006 that my Intelligent Design position was not tenable, I switched to an evolutionist position within weeks. And I had been convinced that an origin of life by natural causes is nonsense. After studying the primary scientific literature extensively, I discovered that it was not nonsense at all, but probable. So I changed my position here too. You learn and you move on. No, atheists don’t usually do that. This is one of the refreshing things in this place. Not only are most of the theist posters highly intelligent, they seem to have a genuine willingness to learn and inform themselves. Case in point: the latest multiverse discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Apr 22, 2009 20:30:44 GMT
To be fair to John Loftus: I had not attacked the argument about “nothing” in the specific formulation he used, but in broader terms. However, my general argument about atheists’ unwillingness to learn, which is not dependent upon this particular example, stands.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 22, 2009 21:12:03 GMT
Now I know that this answer starts with the laws of nature and this definition of nothing, yes. But I prefer the most basic starting point than the kind of God you believe exists.” [/i] [/quote] Right. It starts with the suspiciously 'fine tuned' laws of nature. That's not exactly a 'basic starting point' is it?. I mean if I discovered a complex mathematical structure which was capable of guiding something smaller than an atom through a unbelievably precise sequence leading to the evolution of concious beings, 'basic' wouldn't be the first word that came to mind. Hallelujah might be more appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Apr 22, 2009 21:35:21 GMT
Loftus has certainly demonstrated a profound stubbornness (much to his detriment).
His frequent failings in online debates demonstrate the simple fact that he is unwilling to acknowledge the weaknesses in his arguments.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 22, 2009 21:45:28 GMT
It would be wonderful if there could be a truly intellectual dialogue between atheists and theists, as opposed to one-night stands and shots over the bow. Does anybody know of an online forum where this is occurring? Of course, there are atheists/agnostics who are much more sensible, just as there are smart Christians; sadly, both groups are harder to find or make their voices heard. I think one problem is that we are trying to discuss in the easiest way possible - on the internet, which allows people from all over the world to meet. But its easiness means that anyone can join in, and I find that on the atheist forums I am a member of discussion tends to sink to the lowest common denominator. What is so infuriating about the atheist attitude is that almost all (not all, fortunately) atheists are completely unwilling to learn -- just like religious fundamentalists. I have had more success discussing privately one-on-one, though I have still not found more than one or two minor items where an atheist has changed their mind. But in fairness, I think they would say the same - that christian forums tend to sink to the lowest common denominator and I haven't changed my view much either. I think the comparison with religious fundamentalists is apt. In fact, a comparison with all believers is also apt. We have reasons other than pure reason to believe and keep on believing - to some degree or other we believe God is personal, we relate to him in a quasi personal way, and we feel thankfulness and loyalty to him for what he has done for us. We wouldn't give up on a friend at the first difficulty or doubt, and neither will we easily entertain disloyalty to God. But even though they don't have that personal aspect, many atheists these days have a loyalty to the cause of exposing God as a fraud, and in a sense all these atheist forums are like enormous online GA (God Anonymous) groups where they help each other stay godless. So they resolutely refuse to even entertain a slight weakening of their position that all things theistic are garbage. The interesting things to me are (1) that they behave so unreasonably at times yet still claim (and I think believe) that they are much more reasonable than we deluded theists are, and (2) if they are right, we theists "are of all people most to be pitied", we are victims of a powerful delusion that we have no genuine freewill to resist, yet they heap scorn, not pity, on us. I remember one forum discussion where the atheists discussed the best tactics to use on theists, and there was the general conclusion that scorn was appropriate for us deluded, mentally deficient theists until an atheist who worked in mental health pointed out that this was the very worst way to address people with this affliction - whereupon he too had scorn heaped on him! To misquote the bard - "Lord what fools we mortals be!"
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 30, 2009 13:08:57 GMT
There is a new lecture by Kevin Miller up: www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/FAR266%20Miller1.mp3Its mainly a reprise of his old stuff against ID. The one interesting thing was that the problem of pain and suffering in the evolutionary process came up. Miller's reply was that: All that natural selection says is that everything that is born will eventually die.... Explain to me how you design a material world in which there is no death and no suffering, because if it turns out that if you design an existence in which we are creatures of matter and in which there is no death you also have made that world static fixed and unchangeable, you are effectively saying that creatures will have to be immortalised, and with that come the impossibility of any change, any perfection and any evolution per se. And I would argue that the panorama of evolution, for all the cruelty and suffering, that we all know about in other organisms and in our day to day lives, I would argue that that is where the beauty and the extravagance and the creativity in life comes from. So I am sceptical of the notion, that people who say existence is too cruel to allow for the existence of a creator have really thought that carefully as to how you would design a material existence in which that was not possible and still preserve the beauty and extravagant creativity of life we see in the worldSome guy then said ‘following on from that point, isn’t the landscape of Mars a landscape without death and still dynamic and changing?’.In reply Miller said: ‘Can I ask you a personal question.....are you a geologist?. Because, to me, the landscape of Mars is only exciting if you are a Geologist’. Thats a partial answer to someone like Russell Blackford who says: People like me - philosophers who are sceptical about the truth-claims of religion - may ask, pointedly, why an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving, providential deity has employed biological evolution to bring about rational life forms like us, assuming that that was the deity's goal. It would have been within the power of such a being to create us, just as we are now, in the blink of an eye; instead it used the slow, uncertain methods of mutation, survival, and adaptation. What was all that about? As I argue in my forthcoming Voices of Disbelief essay, such a being, whose attributes include omniscience, would have known that this process would lead to untold cruelty and misery in the animal world, imperfect functional designs, and a timeframe of billions of years for rational life to eventuate. In short, why wouldn't a superlative being, such as the orthodox Abrahamic God, simply have chosen the outcome it wanted - then made it happen? As the Koran says of Jesus' virgin birth, "When He decrees a thing He only has to say, 'Be,' and it is." So why all this suffering, wasted time, and imperfection?Of course the question of whether a spontaneous creation is better than a gradual one came up with the publication of Robert Chambers's 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' (essentially a polemic against deism) in 1844. ‘If there is a choice between special creation and the operation of general laws instituted by the creator, I would say the latter is greatly preferable as it implies a far grander view of the divine power and dignity than the other....Progressive, not instant effect is his sublime rule....To a reasonable mind the Divine attributes must appear, not diminished or reduced in some way, by supposing a creation by law, but infinitely exalted. It is the narrowest of all views of the Deity, and characteristic of a humble class of intellects, to suppose him acting constantly in particular ways for particular occasions. It, for one thing, greatly detracts from his foresight, the most undeniable of all the attributes of Omnipotence. It lowers him towards the level of our own humble intellects. Much more worthy of him it surely is, to suppose that all things have been commissioned by him from the first, though neither is he absent from a particle of the current of natural affairs in one sense, seeing that the whole system is continually supported by his providence'Somehow I doubt that's going to make it into his Voices of Disbelief essay.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 30, 2009 21:01:46 GMT
Very interesting ideas. When discussing similar questions, I tend to argue that I cannot fully explain the suffering inherent in the evolution of a physical world, and that it does trouble me and count as evidence against God's existence. But since the evidence in favour of God's existence is (for me) far greater, I logically have to let the matter remain a mystery.
But I also think there is virtue in our being physical creatures. Physicality enables the joys of natural beauty, eating, sex, adventure, caressing, etc, etc, plus an evolved physical world enables God to "put some distance" between himself and us, allowing us not only the freedom to choose whether to enter his kingdom, but also to make our own characters. Thus God enables us to be "little gods", giving us the amazing autonomy to choose (to some degree) who we will be. I don't feel this is sufficient explanation to satisfy me, but it helps.
|
|
|
Post by knowingthomas on May 2, 2009 0:28:20 GMT
Regarding the Miller quote: I can see where Miller is coming from, but couldn't an all knowing, all powerful God create a system where it's (natural selection) not static AND without pain and suffering? Isn't it an argument from lack of imagination/ignorance to say this process is the best one possible for God to choose? Or the only one possible?
Edit: It seems remind me of the whole PoE in general. For example: Natural Evil (hurricanes, earthquakes etc. I understand that the forces that allow earthquakes to happen are also needed for life to continue to exist on Earth at all (bringing up nutrients from the soil, byproduct of heating the earth's core that is needed for life) but why couldn't God create a universe where we can have the benefits of the laws of nature without the natural disasters?
Another Example: Moral Evil. Couldn't an all-powerful being give us the free will without the inclination to do bad?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on May 2, 2009 8:17:58 GMT
Regarding the Miller quote: I can see where Miller is coming from, but couldn't an all knowing, all powerful God create a system where it's (natural selection) not static AND without pain and suffering? Isn't it an argument from lack of imagination/ignorance to say this process is the best one possible for God to choose? Or the only one possible? Edit: It seems remind me of the whole PoE in general. For example: Natural Evil (hurricanes, earthquakes etc. I understand that the forces that allow earthquakes to happen are also needed for life to continue to exist on Earth at all (bringing up nutrients from the soil, byproduct of heating the earth's core that is needed for life) but why couldn't God create a universe where we can have the benefits of the laws of nature without the natural disasters? Another Example: Moral Evil. Couldn't an all-powerful being give us the free will without the inclination to do bad? Well there's no denying that natural evil is an enormous problem. I'm less convinced about moral evil. I don't think making moral choices without the inclination to do bad is a real moral choice. You would essentially have a world of goody goody automata. Of course the response to that is that this is what heaven is supposed to be like, but that presumably is a place with a different purpose. It is intrinsically good that we shall have much responsibility, and make significant choices between many good and bad alternatives The entire natural evil question boils down to this. Why create a universe based on impersonal natural laws in which the interplay between order and disorder combines to produce creativity?. The world appears to be ambiguous with regard to good and evil, it its neither one nor the other. Firstly I think that natural law is tied up with freedom, freedom to act and the freedom for the world to make itself. The second point goes back to Plato. When he looked at the mixture of good and evil in the world around him he came up with the idea that the world was struggling towards perfection (the realm of perfect forms) but remained resistant to it in some way. I think that a world that is struggling towards perfection is better than some utopia that is created perfect. There is an overarching morally good objective to aim towards. The former world is one in which the products of creation will face pain, sorrow and loss and there will be setbacks and catastrophes; but much genuine good will come out of it and importantly, there will be challenge and purpose. I don't know if that's a completely satisfying answer, but when I look at history I can't shake this feeling that it is about something; not a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing but an epic with love, loss, pain, redemption, success, failure, triumph and catastrophe; something of transcendent value. For that reason I find 'problem of evil' formulations to be a bit superficial. I see it as a 'mystery' rather than a defeater, if you reflect on it for long enough you can begin to grope your way towards possible reasons for it. There seem to be two overwhelming problems. First, most of these problem of evil arguments are made on the assumption God doesn't exist, in which case there is no ultimate redemption and we are utterly swamped with evil. Second if the evils of the world really aren’t that significant in the grand scheme of things (which they would be if evil is ultimately an illusion), why do they seem so significant?. To me it seems to point to the existence of an objective moral order, something which isn't permitted in a materialist view of existence.
|
|
syzygy
Master of the Arts
Posts: 103
|
Post by syzygy on May 2, 2009 11:20:20 GMT
Here’s another way of looking at the problem of evil (i.e. suffering) in the non-human world: What’s bad for an individual may be good for the species. The fact that some wolves kill some rabbits is essential for the optimal existence of the rabbit species. One of the differences between humans and animals is that in humans the individual carries much more ontological weight. We reflect this difference in our morality. On the one hand, though we feel we must act respectfully toward individual animals (pets, subjects of experiments, food sources, etc.), we still feel entitled to use them and even kill them in some circumstances; but we feel (or we should feel) a pretty strict obligation not to destroy a species. On the other hand, in the case of people, we think of the individual as paramount. It’s an ethical dilemma when circumstances seem to call for sacrificing an individual for the common good.
I don’t believe the problem of evil reaches “mystical” proportions until you get to the human level.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on May 5, 2009 18:53:51 GMT
|
|