|
Post by eastshore4 on Nov 20, 2009 16:13:29 GMT
Hi guys,
I apologize if I'm putting this in the wrong place(also the bad grammar), but I had some questions for the theists here that I was hoping you might be able to answer. For some quick perspective, I'm a self-hating atheist. I don't like being an atheist, but I still find it hard to commit to belief in God. Deism seems viable, but it has its own hurdles that make me rather cautious to accept it. I'm certainly not looking for people to go out of their way to try and help me answer these questions, but I would still appreciate it if you could throw in your two cents on some of them. Anyways, onto the questions:
-Something that doesn't seem to get a lot of discussion from apologists are some of the more supernatural issues: miracles(modern miracles at least), near-death experiences, visions, etc. Perhaps this is for good reason... as compelling as NDEs seem, it doesn't seem hard to segway into issues like psychic powers when the topic is brought up, plus it could probably be argued that it doesn't play a necessary role in natural theology. Still, I'm curious as to what theists think of these things. Being close to the rather strange Gianna Talone issue I've always been a little skeptical when it comes to miracles like that of Fatima and Assuit. NDEs seem rather interesting but like I said they don't seem to be discussed a whole lot. It looks like Dinesh D'Souza and Roy Varghese have books coming out this month about this phenomena, but I don't know if they offer anything that hasn't been said already. As far as visions go, I guess that's harder to use as a persuasive argument, since these are usually personal encounters, but I'd certainly like to hear some thoughts on that too.
-Aside from the argument that life is meaningless as an atheist(a point William Lane Craig seems to enjoy making quite often), what do you think are the strongest arguments against atheism?
-One of the common objections by atheists is that religion is simply wish fulfillment. I'll admit that some aspects make it seem that this is true... probably the biggest thing would be the promise of life after death. I just seems too convenient sometimes. Are there any good arguments against statements like these? What kind of justification can be offered that belief isn't just wish fulfillment?
-I've read some bits of the God delusion, but none of the other works from the "New Atheists". People generally tend to group all the NAs together, but at the same time it's hard to find any real rebuttals or discussions about anyone besides Dawkins. Have you guys read some of these other books? I was curious if some of the other guys with different specialties had any other variations on their argument against God. Harris is a neuroscientist and Stenger is a physicist if I'm correct, but I don't hear much about them so I was wondering if they make their findings the point of their arguments not unlike how Dawkins does with his "evolution disproves religion" rant.
-In a discussion with a friend we got to talking about the whole science vs. religion thing. We both agreed that science isn't incompatible with religion, but he made a point that if you don't begin with the presumption that science is working towards understanding God's creation but rather start with a neutral position of belief, it's easier to see science as being more a more atheistic practice. I found it hard to disagree with this... religion and science may not be in conflict, but when you use it as evidence to prove one belief over another I think it's easier to say that science proves atheism true more than theism. Is there any argument against this assumption?
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Nov 20, 2009 22:16:07 GMT
Hi eastshore, welcome to the forums! You'll get a few different perspectives here - allow me to give some "quickie" answers of my own. NDEs seem rather interesting but like I said they don't seem to be discussed a whole lotAs a Christian, I try to be skeptical about reports of miracles and odd paranormal phenomena. Maybe not what you'd expect to hear; but my reading of theology would imply that God tends to work through his creation rather than in spite of it, and miracles are by their very nature uncommon. There's no particular reason why, say, someone COULDN'T be cured at Lourdes, but I'd have to have good evidence of it. As for NDEs, there's a thread on this very topic at jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science&action=display&thread=387What do you think are the strongest arguments against atheism?Now, are you asking what arguments are popular? Or what argument I think will convert you? Or what reasons I have for being a theist? The cosmological argument is an interesting one, and the anthropic principle in the universe (discussed many times on this forum) is powerful and (I think) rather befuddling if you refuse to take theism as an option. Personally, though, I believe in God because of Jesus Christ - direct evidence of God's existence and his interaction with this world. One of the common objections by atheists is that religion is simply wish fulfillment.Sometimes it is - and the same charge could be held against atheism. No spoilsport God! No external rules! Just do what you want to be happy! Sex? Pah - do it with whoever or whatever you like (as long as they don't say no)! I get the feeling that many criticisms of any given belief system can sometimes be applied to humanism. Harris is a neuroscientist and Stenger is a physicist if I'm correctHarris is studying for his PhD to try and prove that religious belief can simply be a by-product of some odd neurological pathway; Stenger is, I'm afraid, very much regarded as "lunatic fringe", at least in the metaphysical conclusions he draws from his scientific knowledge. I don't know of any works written specifically against them (like you get with Dawkins), but if you've got a specific argument or position of theirs that you want to discuss.... Religion and science may not be in conflict, but when you use it as evidence to prove one belief over another I think it's easier to say that science proves atheism true more than theismDepends what you mean by science. If one uses a materialistic outlook, then the odds are already stacked against any kind of theism, and I suspect that this is why you find that atheism seems to fit more snugly with science. But then, if one basis their faith on sound reason, and science is not necessarily in conflict with religion (as you accept), then surely that faith is the best position to take?
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Nov 21, 2009 0:27:15 GMT
As to science, the ideas of John Polkinghorne might be of interest. Polkinghorne is a distinguished physicist and an Anglican priest.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Nov 21, 2009 0:48:57 GMT
Eastshore, welcome to the forum. Jamie gave very good answers with which I mostly agree. Science more favorable to atheism? This is how I see it: a) The world develops via self-sufficient processes of physical and biological evolution. This can either mean that the world simply happens to be that way, or that it was created by God to be that way. Atheism vs. theism: a tie. b) The laws of nature must be incredibly special ("fine-tuned") for the self-sufficient processes of physical and biological evolution to occur in the first place. They strongly make the appearance of being designed, and all the non-design options fail. For this, see my article (which also thoroughly debunks Stenger on the topic): home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htmConclusion from the fine-tuning argument: huge advantage of theism over atheism, hands down. Science is vastly more favorable to theism.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 21, 2009 12:36:30 GMT
I had some questions for the theists here that I was hoping you might be able to answer. Hi! Glad you've joined us. Here's my 2c worth .... I wonder whether the reason for your reluctance is reason, or something more personal? It may make a difference to what would be the best responses. While I think these are all interesting, I think they don't help much in deciding of God exists or christianity is true. They may help to grab people's attention, perhaps, but you seem to be already there. For the record, I am a little less sceptical than Jamie - I believe modern miracles occur though not as often as I'd like, I'm on the doubting side of neutral about NDEs, and I think some visions and dreams are real. It is virtually impossible to justify atheism in any positive way, all atheists can do (in my opinion) is pour doubt on believers. Even if their criticisms were successful, the logical outcome would be agnosticism, or "weak atheism". I don't think any one argument for theism is a killer, but rather the cumulation of many lines of thought. The cosmological and design arguments have become very much stronger in the 40 years that I have been interested in them; the various arguments about humanity (the arguments from reason, morality, etc) do not prove anything, but they show that atheism has great difficulties explaining logically things that we all believe in; and based on on the best historical study, I find the best explanation of the life of Jesus and the birth of the christian faith is that the stories of Jesus are true. Combined, these all convince me. The key word is "just". Let's grant that any belief can be wish fulfillment. The question then is, is it more than that, is it true? To answer that we must leave amateur psychology and venture into evidence and reasons, which is where we should have been all along. The wish fulfillment argument is, in my view, a red herring. I've only read little bits of these two guys. Harris is still trying to earn his qualifications as a neuroscientist, but his books reveal someone with some pretty nasty views. I don't think I've ever seen anything positive about or by Stenger, and one of his papers which purports to show that a universe like ours is quite likely to have occurred randomly is significantly at odds with what real cosmologists say, so he has little credibility. We have several times discussed here that science is built upon methodological naturalism - i.e. science is about the natural world, so scientists assume they will find natural causes. This is not an assumption of atheism (though some people take it that way) but a definition of the boundaries of science. But science says nothing about whether God exists outside the boundaries of science. Some atheists recognise this, but argue that if God exists, even outside of the natural world, his actions should be visible within the natural world and hence analysable by science. I believe God does act within the natural world, but because his actions are unique and individual, they are not easily analysed by science, which tends to address repeatable actions. But God's actions within the natural world are able to be analysed by other means of knowing, e.g history, reason and experience. Hope that adds something to what the others have said. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Nov 21, 2009 14:51:37 GMT
We have several times discussed here that science is built upon methodological naturalism - i.e. science is about the natural world, so scientists assume they will find natural causes. This is not an assumption of atheism (though some people take it that way) but a definition of the boundaries of science. But science says nothing about whether God exists outside the boundaries of science. Some atheists recognise this, but argue that if God exists, even outside of the natural world, his actions should be visible within the natural world and hence analysable by science. I believe God does act within the natural world, but because his actions are unique and individual, they are not easily analysed by science, which tends to address repeatable actions. But God's actions within the natural world are able to be analysed by other means of knowing, e.g history, reason and experience. Well said Unklee. I have written about this in more detail at: home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/scientist-belief-god.htmAl
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Nov 22, 2009 16:49:47 GMT
Thank you all for your responses!
- You would probably find my reasoning to be rather shallow. I tend to have a negative view of things(although I'd like to think I'm not an outwardly negative person), whenever something positive happens, I think it's a ruse, or an attempt to gloss over the sobering truth. Obviously this plays right into the hands of people who want to tell you that beliefs are a feel-good lie. Another problem I have with accepting belief in God is because atheism seems to be such an easy, natural explanation for all the problems of the world... everything from evil to evolution can be reasonably argued by the theist, but then the atheist answer is simply "the reason these random, strange, and cruel things happen is because there is no God". I certainly don't like the arrogant and dismissive attitude atheists have when making these rebuttals, but it does seem right in a way. It seems that Christian apologists are always fighting an uphill battle, particuarily when it comes to criticisms of the bible, but perhaps this is more an issue of overzealous accusations then there being legitimate faults with the Christian faith. If anyone could clarify on this it would be appreciated.
-Those are very good points on the wish-fufillment question. I tend to forget that not everyone necessarily has the same need for assurance in life after death that I do(your article explains this well almoritz) and one could as well justify atheism as it's own sort of wish fufillment. I'd imagine it's still gotta be a pretty big deal though, because this belief seems to be a common atheist accusation(one of the first questions in the "humanist quiz" is if you believe in LAD), but perhaps that's just a silly atheist misconception.
-Regarding miracles and the like, my follow-up question would be "how does personal experience factor into this question?" Many folks argue that this is the most convincing "proof" of God's existence, although it doesn't make for a good apologetic defense due to it's unique and personal nature. Should one be as skeptical about these theophanies as much as any of the other miracles and phenomena?
-I have read quite a bit about the cosmological argument and the fine tuning of the universe, and perhaps I should give a good deal more consideration to it's implications. I guess my problem here is that there is great order and beauty in the cosmos, but here on planet earth life seems random, clumsy and "uninspired". It's like God made us a beautiful well-designed house, and then carpeted the floors with grape jelly. I guess this is where the arguments for free will, plus our morality and rationality and such come into play, perhaps I just need to consider this more.
-I actually have read Polkinghorne, his Questions of Truth book was the first thing I found when I was looking into the reconciliation of science and faith. In some ways it was the works of JPH that helped me find out about Quodlibeta(through Nicholas Beale). His work is really great, but he has always been a man of faith so it was hard to get a perspective on my particular issue from his writing. You guys have helped clear up that question for me though, so thank you for that.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Nov 22, 2009 18:27:07 GMT
It seems that Christian apologists are always fighting an uphill battle, particuarily when it comes to criticisms of the bible, but perhaps this is more an issue of overzealous accusations then there being legitimate faults with the Christian faith.Well, just because an argument is easy to quickly accept doesn't mean that it is true, or holds up to closer scrutiny For example, it's easy to convince yourself that evolution is a lie if you just repeat the mantra "there are no transitional fossils!" over and over again. It's only when you do make the effort that you realise the issue is far more complex and elegant than that. Similarly, many people dismiss the entire Bible with a wave of the hand and some mumbling about history being written by the winners. It's easy to do - but it's also shallow and foolish, IMO. Likewise for the problem of evil - it appeals to our sensibilities and tugs at the heartstrings, until one puts in a bit of effort and tries to approach the issue objectively. Once you do that, I'd say that the PoE has far less potency than is commonly made out.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 22, 2009 22:50:41 GMT
I tend to have a negative view of things(although I'd like to think I'm not an outwardly negative person), whenever something positive happens, I think it's a ruse, or an attempt to gloss over the sobering truth. Obviously this plays right into the hands of people who want to tell you that beliefs are a feel-good lie. I hope it isn't arrogant of me to offer advice, but you don't seem to have much of an issue with the classic arguments for the existence of God. While I find these arguments quite compelling, I think that they have done their work if they take us halfway there - i.e. they leave us thinking that belief in God is not unreasonable and strong disbelief is not reasonable, even if they don't go anywhere near proving God. And I think you have probably got that far with them. If you are that point, then I think the main issues are elsewhere. And I think these are: (1) on your own admission, a negative attitude seems to prevent you from believing, and (2) I agree with Jamie that the best evidence for God, and the most important part of my belief, is Jesus. The main value of the proofs is opening the way to believe in the stories of Jesus, which involve the supernatural - which I might have problems accepting if it wasn't for the fact the existence for God (and hence the possibility of miracles) has been already shown to be reasonable. Since Jesus revealed God as a personal being, there comes a time when we have to move from a theoretical approach to God to a more personal one. And your situation reminds me of a man who said to Jesus (Mark 9:24) "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"I don't know what your background is, but I presume you have access to a New Testament in modern English. My suggestion would be to talk to God in your mind and ask him to help you know him if he's really there. If he's not there, no-one need know you've been a little foolish, but if he is there, he just might help you. Then read through one of the gospels (I'd suggest Luke, but others suggest Mark because it's shorter), just a short section each day, and ask yourself "Do I believe this guy is telling the truth? Would I be willing to follow him?" Give that a go for a month (if you read half a chapter a day, it'll take at least that long), asking God to reveal truth each day, and see if you feel any different. I wouldn't suggest that course for most people, but it seems to me that you are ready for that. If you do it, let us know how you are going, what questions arise, etc. I know unbelievers see it differently, but I have always felt that belief in God is going against human nature - after all, who wants God interfering in our lives? So I think we christians are always fighting an uphill battle. I find most criticisms of the Bible are based on a fairly fundamentalist view, because, let's face it, such a view has some distinct problems. But if you accept the Bible as it is, a collection of historical literature which God has inspired (I don't think it claims more than that), many of the problems evaporate. And if you take the view (as I do) that I am a christian, not a Jew, and therefore my primary source is the New Testament, I can leave most of the remaining problems to one side, unanswered, because I have newer revelation than that. I think we get a little blase about life on earth sometimes. I think life, generally, is far from "random, clumsy and uninspired", but quite amazing. I go out into the yard and see a spider with a brain the size of a flea spinning this most amazing and beautiful web. In our yard we also have lorikeets (small parrots) who are so bold and intelligent they can speak to us (in the sense that they communicate that they want us to put out more sunflower seeds for them). And so on. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins find life amazingly wonderful. Yes, there's lots of tough things as well, yet despite this, studies show that 75% of people are happy, and few of the rest are seriously tired of life. Hope those comments are of some help. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by perplexedseeker on Nov 22, 2009 23:42:20 GMT
Hello there Eastshore and welcome! I hope you find what you're looking for here - I'm in a position not unlike yours and I've found plenty of help and interesting perspectives on these forums. Your questions are ones that have troubled me also, but nevertheless I reckon I could take a stab at a couple of them: 1. Are there any rebuttals to the other NAs?As I understand it, Harris (and Dennett) seem to think that modern research into brain structure proves that religious belief could be generated by patterns of neurons firing without any divine involvement, which automatically invalidates any arguments that these beliefs could be true. Now, intellectual honesty compels me to admit this is a possibility, but as I'll attempt to show you, I think this reasoning is flawed and comes close to being self-defeating. I'm not a neuroscientist nor a philosopher (I'm a biochemist), so I can't claim to speak with authority on either of these fields, but I've made an effort to try to understand these arguments both for and against belief from a scientific perspective. It seems to me that the real problem with trying to claim that religious experience is produced by the brain due to "purely natural and fully caused processes", (which seems to be the buzzword on the topic these days) is that such an understanding of the way the mind works implies that all thoughts and beliefs are either non-existent or also "fully caused" by previous movements of atoms. In other words, it implies that nobody could possibly believe anything because it's true, but only because of an unbroken chain of causal links all the way back to the Big Bang, which made it inevitable that you would hold those ideas and no others. The reason I have a serious problem with this idea as a scientist is that, if true, there would be no way we could distinguish true beliefs from false ones! Which would of course mean that there would be no way to tell if the ideas of the NAs are true or not, hence, at least in the crude form they articulate it, the argument is self-defeating. A similar exercise can be applied to the idea of "memes" that are so beloved of Dawkins and Dennett (since it implies ideas don't spread because rational people consider their implications and find them convincing but that the ideas themselves alter to increase their rate of spread). But it gets even worse in the case of memes, since getting rid of God involves inventing a whole ecosystem of malevolent, parasitic, invisible, unverifiable self-replicating entities (which, oddly enough, have most of the abilities traditionally attributed to demons in traditional mythology). It's useless for the NAs to argue they are trying to free people from the influence of memes - if they are right, all ideas are memes, including their own, and freedom is impossible. Their own theories exclude the philosophical conclusions they would like to draw from them. This is already a big problem in the sciences, since empiricism and all of sciences relies on the assumption that the information we get from our senses more or less corresponds to reality, and that our cognitive facilities are more or less capable of sorting out truth from rubbish. And yet these much-trumpeted studies of the human body ( using those senses and cognitive faculties) strongly imply that much of what our senses tell us doesn't correspond to reality and that our cognitive faculties give us incorrect answers most of the time. There is a real and growing problem here, which often makes the results of such research into the neural basis (if any) of beliefs deeply ambiguous and riddled with contradictions. Some links to people with other viewpoints: There is a very good essay here: www.thecommonreview.org/fileadmin/template/tcr/pdf/52.pdf (it's on page 36) in which an evolutionary biologist, David Sloan Wilson, criticises Daniel Dennett's (one of the "Four Horsemen") theories about the origins of religion from a scientific (and atheistic) viewpoint. Wilson is no friend of religion, but he exposes a lot of the sloppy reasoning that underlies a lot of theories about the evolutionary origins of religion. I've only seen one book discussing Harris in detail - it's by a guy writing under the pseudonym Vox Day, as part of a collection of chapters focusing on different NAs called The Irrational Atheist. The one dealing with Harris is easily the best of all of them, since he lacks the scientific knowledge to go head to head with Dawkins and the rest. However, I hesitate to reccommend it since the guy has a fire-breathing, evangelical style of writing which can be very off-putting to agnostics and people who have yet to make up their minds. 2. Is religion wish-fulfilling?The "wish-fulfillment" argument is, in my opinion, a fatally flawed one, for several reasons. I have no problem with people putting forth good arguments against religious practice, but this is not one of them. - unklee is of course quite right that whether or not something is wish-fulfilling is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is true. Eating food when you are hungry is undoubtedly wish-fulfilling too. This is the whole basis on which organic minds seem to work - avoiding unpleasant things and seeking out pleasant ones. Singling out religious beliefs in this way is arbitrary. But the problems with the argument go much deeper than this. - Because wish-fulfillment is seen as something childish, use of this argument allows atheists to assert their moral superiority for being "brave enough to face the truth like an adult." In other words this is in fact a purely emotional argument cleverly disguised as a logical one. I believe this is an example of what some scientists call "the reverse naturalistic fallacy", where people assume that the fact that they personally disapprove of something can make it untrue. - But by far the most damning problem with this statement is that it is based entirely on the deeply unscientific work of Sigmund Freud, which have been pretty much entirely discredited over the last few decades by advances in psychology. Freud had all sorts of bizarre pseudoscientific beliefs about the human psyche, most infamously that all men have a deep-seated desire to murder their fathers and have sex with their mothers (which, if you think about it for even a second, makes NO EVOLUTIONARY SENSE WHATSOEVER - in fact, the opposite seems to be true, and that humans have an instinctive revulsion to incest which can be empirically observed). Serious scientists of human behaviour dismiss Freud's conclusions, but they often cheat by retaining his explanation of religion because it provides a useful and memorable line of attack. - Even Freud got it second-hand from Auguste Comte, a 19th-century sociologist (founder of the positivist movement) who had some even stranger beliefs about human history. Their idea was that religion is the "childhood" phase of the human race's inevitable and preordained progress towards "adulthood" of science and enlightenment. Of course, this idea of orthogenesis or steady, linear improvement is incompatible with modern understanding of evolution, and makes no sense from an atheist point of view since it can't even be described without language so deeply teleological that it practically requires some sort of external guidance to keep it going. - I find it sad that even today otherwise respectable scientists and philosophers still trot out this truly dreadful argument.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 23, 2009 15:28:45 GMT
Hi there Something that doesn't seem to get a lot of discussion from apologists are some of the more supernatural issues: miracles(modern miracles at least), near-death experiences, visions, etc. It used to be (especially in the ancient world) that miracles were the mark of authenticity. Now they are a bit of an encumbrance, mainly because of the enlightenment prejudice against them; although apparently Hume's argument against miracles is so poorly regarded now in philosophy departments it is known as 'Hume's Abject failure'. The problem with any argument from common religious or supernatural experience is the nature of the human imagination. After all people believe in and experience a whole host of silly stuff. I even had someone call my house some years back to tell me he was going to go to France to channel the spirit of Marie Antoinette and find out how she felt about being guillotined. NDEs however are interesting and well attested. Of course one can say that all that is happening is chemical reactions in the brain, but on a materialist account all of our experiences are chemical reactions in the brain anyway. Aside from the argument that life is meaningless as an atheist(a point William Lane Craig seems to enjoy making quite often), what do you think are the strongest arguments against atheism? I can see where WLC is coming from here but it's an argument from consequences and makes for a poor apologetic. If something is true we would just have to face up to it. I don't think there is any particular argument as such. One just has to try a worldview on for size and see if it is possible to live it consistently and follow things through to their logical conclusion. Different people will find different things convincing. For my part I find fine tuning (when discussed properly) a pretty devastating line of attack as it plays havoc with the atheist 'creation myth'. When a similar kind of reasoning is applied to chemistry and biology it offers the chance for a renewed natural theology. I find the purely materialist account of the mind unconvincing. But none of these are going to be knock down arguments, rather they act as pointers in the grand mystery. -One of the common objections by atheists is that religion is simply wish fulfillment. I'll admit that some aspects make it seem that this is true... probably the biggest thing would be the promise of life after death. I just seems too convenient sometimes. Are there any good arguments against statements like these? What kind of justification can be offered that belief isn't just wish fulfillment? Eternal life is in some was as troubling a prospect as eternal annihilation especially when coupled with divine judgement and ultimate accountability for ones actions. The atheist always has the expression 'I was not, I was, I am not, I care not'. I've read some bits of the God delusion, but none of the other works from the "New Atheists....as curious if some of the other guys with different specialties had any other variations on their argument against God. Harris is a neuroscientist and Stenger is a physicist if I'm correct, but I don't hear much about them Sam Harris just got his Phd so I suppose he now counts as a neuroscientist. I haven't read his books but from the looks of them they are merely polemics. Stenger is a retired physicist and is very hit and miss. A lot of the science he presents is wilfully distorted and he is very poor on issues like fine tuning. You should check out this review by George Ellis physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/27736Do a search on this forum and you'll find he comes up quite a lot. I find other atheist physicists like Stephen Weinberg and Sean Carroll are a lot more reliable. . religion and science may not be in conflict, but when you use it as evidence to prove one belief over another I think it's easier to say that science proves atheism true more than theism. Is there any argument against this assumption? It rather depends. If the scientific method provides us with a set of facts about the world then the metaphysical 'spin' you put upon those facts is going to determine whether is corrosive to your religion or not. I think most people here would say that science proves theism more true than atheism.
|
|
|
Post by knowingthomas on Nov 23, 2009 18:10:45 GMT
-Something that doesn't seem to get a lot of discussion from apologists are some of the more supernatural issues: miracles(modern miracles at least), near-death experiences, visions, etc. Perhaps this is for good reason... as compelling as NDEs seem, it doesn't seem hard to segway into issues like psychic powers when the topic is brought up, plus it could probably be argued that it doesn't play a necessary role in natural theology. Still, I'm curious as to what theists think of these things. Being close to the rather strange Gianna Talone issue I've always been a little skeptical when it comes to miracles like that of Fatima and Assuit. NDEs seem rather interesting but like I said they don't seem to be discussed a whole lot. It looks like Dinesh D'Souza and Roy Varghese have books coming out this month about this phenomena, but I don't know if they offer anything that hasn't been said already. As far as visions go, I guess that's harder to use as a persuasive argument, since these are usually personal encounters, but I'd certainly like to hear some thoughts on that too. As far as NDEs go, I'd actually prefer them to be hallucinations as their images of angels on clouds and an ethereal state are not exactly Christian in nature but is more an outworking of Greek thought (I think). Craig is not really making an argument for theism or against atheism, just trying to make the case that ahteism is unlivable Now I want to make it clear that I have not yet shown biblical Christianity to be true. But what I have done is clearly spell out the alternatives. If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live happily and consistently.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Nov 23, 2009 18:30:45 GMT
Craig is not really making an argument for theism or against atheism, just trying to make the case that ahteism is unlivable Now I want to make it clear that I have not yet shown biblical Christianity to be true. But what I have done is clearly spell out the alternatives. If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live happily and consistently. There was a discussion about this at Bede's journal, bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/09/meaning-of-life.htmlwhere the atheist Tim O'Neill was the one who made sense. The argument against atheism from a meaningless life is in my view a non-starter. I think Craig is dead wrong on this one, even though I admire him on other topics.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 23, 2009 20:36:13 GMT
There was a discussion about this at Bede's journal, bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/09/meaning-of-life.htmlwhere the atheist Tim O'Neill was the one who made sense. The argument against atheism from a meaningless life is in my view a non-starter. I think Craig is dead wrong on this one, even though I admire him on other topics. I somehow missed that discussion. A brief read suggests to me that you are correct, that Tim validly pointed out how his life had all the meaning he wants, and all he believes any of us actually get. This has made me think a bit (no mean feat!!!). For I still think Craig has a point, even if it's now harder to figure it out. I wonder ..... I think it is probably true that theism (and other "isms" like pacifism, humanism, environmentalism, socialism, perhaps even capitalism) make life a little less arbitrary. These belief systems have their own goals, ethics, values, etc, and so tend to lead people's lives in particular directions. Perhaps atheism and existentialism do this less. In itself, this may not be important. But if a person wants to "leave the world a better place than they found it", which many people do, including both atheists and theists, this sense of direction, this lower level of arbitrariness, this sense of purpose that our worldview gives us may indeed help. It is doubtful that a hedonist, in his/her hedonism, leaves the world any better (Hugh Hefner for example), whereas an environmentalist (say David Suzuki) arguably will. These are just musings as I explore the ideas, but I'm inclined to think that if we substitute "purpose", or better still "worthwhile purpose" (with all the value judgments that entails), I might be able to support Craig's point. Of course it's not an argument for the truth of God's existence, just an argument why we should consider the question, along with a lot of other serious questions.
|
|
|
Post by eastshore4 on Nov 26, 2009 23:40:27 GMT
Thank you all again for your responses!
For the most part, yes. I'm still rather hung up on the issue of morality, or really anything that goes on in the mind. After reading perplexed's link to David Wilson's review of Dennet's book, I noticed Mr. Wilson is confident that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origins of morality, and basically anything that can be attributed to a Creator. I skimmed through quodlibeta to see if there was anything on this, and it looks like James wrote about it("How evolution tells us that religion is probably a good thing"). James seems to applaud the conclusion from Wilson's theories that religion is good for you, but it doesn't look like he ever followed up with discussing the rest of the work like he intended to(unless I'm overlooking it somewhere). One of the common arguments for God's existence is our objective morality, but Mr. Wilson seems to think there's a perfectly naturalist reasoning for this.
Aside from that though I think you are right unklee, the evidence is quite strong as far as proving the existence of God and I just need to figure out where to go from there. I feel that the reason for my "conversion" to atheism was because I figured science had disproved religion. Although some atheists judge their conclusions by scientific findings I don't quite think I have enough of a foundation for my disbelief anymore(except for that issue I mentioned above) I believe one of my problems is that when I was looking into both atheism way back when and theism now I was looking for knock-down arguments, I wanted someone to just completely obliterate the credibility of the opposing belief for me, but that's obviously not how it works, since there really are no definite proofs. I think I might take a look at the bible like you said, it's rather silly of me to make assumptions without first seeing what I am arguing against. As for the greatness of Jesus... this is something I'm sort of vague on. What is some suggested reading about Jesus(aside from the bible of course)? I've been able to read some debunking on the Jesus myth, but I haven't had the chance to read anything that shows that Christianity was more than just a cult so I need to gain some perspective on that.
-Thanks for the update on Harris and Stenger perplexed. It doesn't sound like their material strays too far from what I had expected. I actually managed to find a bit about Harris and it seems to be that he's probably the most "vitriolic" of the bunch. I'm sort of curious as to how their arguments differ from those of other atheists. You often see rational atheists saying "I'm not with them" in regard to the NAs, but for the most part I don't necessarily know if it's their reasoning or just their attitude that they're disagreeing with.
I do appreciate you folks helping me out with my questions, you definitely help put a more familiar spin on things than from some of the other sources I've been looking through. I'm sure these things are often discussed, and I'm just probably overlooking things so I appreciate your patience.
|
|