← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · albion
Thread ID: 19600 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2005-08-13
2005-08-13 00:12 | User Profile
[size=5]Just give me that old-time atheism![/size]
[size=5]by Salman Rushdie - - May 23, 2005 [/size] [font=Times, Times New Roman, Serif, MS Serif][size=3][color=#000000]"Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naïvely pro-science," says Dylan Evans, a professor of robotics at the University of West England in Bristol.
Evans has written an article for the Guardian of London deriding the old-fashioned, "19th-century" atheism of such prominent thinkers as Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller, instead proposing a new, modern atheism which "values religion, treats science as simply a means to an end and finds the meaning of life in art."
Indeed, he says, religion itself is to be understood as "a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality and which only a child would reject for being false."
Evans' position fits well with that of the American philosopher of science Michael Ruse, whose new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, lays much of the blame for the growth of creationism in America ââ¬â and for the increasingly strident attempts by the religious right to have evolutionary theory kicked off the curriculum and replaced by the new dogma of "intelligent design" ââ¬â at the door of the scientists who have tried to compete with, and even supplant, religion.
A staunch evolutionist himself, he is nevertheless highly critical of such modern giants as Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson.
Evans' "Atheism Lite," which seeks to negotiate a truce between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished.
Such a truce would have a chance of working only if it were reciprocal ââ¬â if the world's religions agreed to value the atheist position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts.
No such reciprocal arrangement exists, however, nor is there the slightest chance that such an accommodation could ever be reached.
It is among the truths believed to be self-evident by the followers of all religions that godlessness is equivalent to amorality and that ethics requires the underpinning presence of some sort of ultimate arbiter, some sort of supernatural absolute, without which secularism, humanism, relativism, hedonism, liberalism and all manner of permissive improprieties will inevitably seduce the unbeliever down immoral ways.
To those of us who are perfectly prepared to indulge in the above vices but still believe ourselves to be ethical beings, the godlessness-equals-morality position is pretty hard to swallow.
Nor does the current behaviour of organized religion breed confidence in the Evans/Ruse laissez-faire attitude. Education everywhere is seriously imperilled by religious attacks.
In recent years, Hindu nationalists in India attempted to rewrite the nation's history books to support their anti-Muslim ideology, an effort thwarted only by the electoral victory of a secularist coalition led by the Congress party.
Meanwhile, Muslim voices the world over are claiming that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Islam.
And in America, the battle over the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. schools is reaching crunch time, as the American Civil Liberties Union prepares to take on intelligent-design proponents in a Pennsylvania court.
It seems inconceivable that better behaviour on the part of the world's great scientists, of the sort that Ruse would prefer, would persuade these forces to back down.
Intelligent design, an idea designed backward so as to force the antique idea of a Creator upon the beauty of creation, is so thoroughly rooted in pseudoscience, so full of false logic, so easy to attack that a little rudeness seems called for.
Its advocates argue, for example, that the sheer complexity and perfection of cellular/molecular structures is inexplicable by gradual evolution.
However, the multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do evolve together, gradually expanding and adapting ââ¬â and, as Dawkins showed in The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, natural selection is active at every step of this process.
But, as well as scientific arguments, there are others that are more, well, novelistic. What about bad design, for example? Was it really so intelligent to come up with the birth canal or the prostate gland?
Then, there's the moral argument against an intelligent designer who cursed his creations with cancer and AIDS. Is the intelligent designer also amorally cruel?
To see religion as "a kind of art," as Evans rather sweetly proposes, is possible only when the religion is dead or when, like the Church of England, it has become a set of polite rituals.
The old Greek religion lives on as mythology, the old Norse religion has left us the Norse myths and, yes, now we can read them as literature.
The Bible contains much great literature, too, but the literalist voices of Christianity grow ever louder, and one doubts that they would welcome Evans' child's storybook approach.
Meanwhile religions continue to attack their own artists: Hindu artists' paintings are attacked by Hindu mobs, Sikh playwrights are threatened by Sikh violence and Muslim novelists and filmmakers are menaced by Islamic fanatics with a vigorous unawareness of any kinship.
If religion were a private matter, one could more easily respect its believers' right to seek its comforts and nourishments.
But religion today is big public business, using efficient political organization and cutting-edge information technology to advance its ends. Religions play bare-knuckle rough all the time, while demanding kid-glove treatment in return.
As Evans and Ruse would do well to recognize, atheists such as Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are neither immature nor culpable for taking on such religionists.
They are doing a vital and necessary thing.
Salman Rushdie is the author of The Satanic Verses, Fury and many other books. [/color][/size][/font][url="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1116770647079"]http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1116770647079[/url]
2005-08-13 08:22 | User Profile
Then, there's the moral argument against an intelligent designer who cursed his creations with cancer and AIDS. Is the intelligent designer also amorally cruel? The standard Christian reply to this is that it's Adam's and Eve's fault that we live with those curses. You see, God's infinitely perfect justice requires that some beings be punished for the failings of others. And if we don't understand this "justice," it's because we're "fallen," of course. (Never mind that the Bible itself says that men can tell the difference between good and evil, justice and injustice, precisely because of the "fall.")
What is the evidence for such religious claims? There is none, of course. You're supposed to believe it "because it is absurd," as Tertullian said. Well, I don't believe it for the very same reason: because it is absurd.
Reason: the mental process using one's sense organs in order to perceive facts of reality, integrate the material by means of logic, and form abstractions (concepts) to build knowledge beyond the perceptual level.
Faith: The mental process of using imagination in order to fill in the gaps in one's knowledge where no sense data or other known valid abstractions appear to be relevant, in order to fill an emotional need for filling the gap. (From someone's post [url=http://www.objectivismonline.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t3518.html]here[/url].)
2005-08-13 08:40 | User Profile
As already Blaise Pascal pointed out, ONLY Christian worldview can plausibly explain the human nature in all its dimensions.
Orthodox Christianity underscores BOTH of the following things:
[B] - that man has been created as an image of God[/B], as is thus a partaker of the divine nature.
[B] - [U]and[/U] that man is now in fallen state[/B], a victim of his megalomaniacal and perverse desires
ONLY a combination of these two factors can explain why there is so much greatness AND rotten degeneracy in the human soul SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Cynics cannot explain why humans quite often display so much grand, unselfish and in sublime behavior - as C.S. Lewis pointed out, if absolute materialism were true, we wouldn't be able to think or even hope that things should or could be better than they are. We instinctively feel that this world "isn't the way it's supposed to be". Evolution cannot explain the origin of high-minded idealism - we all know that such naivete usually just hampers the survival abilities in this fallen world!
On the other hand, idealists (like some ancient Greek philosophers) cannot explain why there is so much malevolent nastiness lurking in every man. Evolution cannot explain the origin of sadistic pleasure that one gets from intentional wrongdoing, either.
Only Christianity can solve this problem with its synthesis, and so its evidence is present for every man to see. Like apostle Paul said, men are "without excuse" if they refuse to see the hand of God in the universe and in themselves.
Petr
2005-08-13 09:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]As already Blaise Pascal pointed out, ONLY Christian worldview can plausibly explain the human nature in all its dimensions.
Orthodox Christianity underscores BOTH of the following things:
[B] - that man has been created as an image of God[/B], as is thus a partaker of the divine nature.
[B] - [U]and[/U] that man is now in fallen state[/B], a victim of his megalomaniacal and perverse desires
ONLY a combination of these two factors can explain why there is so much greatness AND rotten degeneracy in the human soul SIMULTANEOUSLY. This is totally out of touch with reality and begs the question to boot. For example, there is no evidence that the human soul even exists. There IS evidence that it doesn't (e.g., from brain-damaged patients).
Human nature is what it is for the same reason that a dog's nature is what it is, that a lion's nature is what it is, that an ape's nature is what it is, etc. Lots of social animals are capable of showing both great love and displaying great rage and viciousness. Humans are no different.
Cynics cannot explain why humans quite often display so much grand, unselfish and in sublime behavior... For the same reasons that lower social animals do -- it aids mutual survival. And terms like "grand" and "sublime" are completely subjective.
...as C.S. Lewis pointed out, if absolute materialism were true, we wouldn't be able to think or even hope that things should or could be better than they are. That hardly follows.
We instinctively feel that this world "isn't the way it's supposed to be". Human feelings are certainly not a guide to the nature of reality. For example, a person whose loved one has just died will often feel that the person is still alive -- denial is common in such circumstances. Emotions are just as likely to put one out of touch with reality as to do the opposite.
Evolution cannot explain the origin of high-minded idealism - we all know that such naivete usually just hampers the survival abilities in this fallen world! How do you know evolution can't explain that? Maybe "high-minded idealism" does contribute to survival by giving a person strength of will. Or maybe it's just a side-effect of the neural complexity of the human brain, which itself clearly contributes to survival.
On the other hand, idealists (like some ancient Greek philosophers) cannot explain why there is so much malevolent nastiness lurking in every man. Evolution cannot explain the origin of sadistic pleasure that one gets from intentional wrongdoing, either. I think that evolution can, in principle, explain all aspects of human psychology. But if something is not yet explained, that doesn't mean it's not explainable. But some people can't do without an explanation and that's the reason why there's faith:
Faith: The mental process of using imagination in order to fill in the gaps in one's knowledge where no sense data or other known valid abstractions appear to be relevant, in order to fill an emotional need for filling the gap. God is used to fill in the gaps in peoples' understanding of life, the universe, and everything. It's always been that way, and it will be that way for some time to come.
Only Christianity can solve this problem with its synthesis, and so its evidence is present for every man to see. Like apostle Paul said, men are "without excuse" if they refuse to see the hand of God in the universe and in themselves.[/QUOTE]I don't see any problem there in need of a solution. And no, there is no evidence for Christianity or God. No one is "refusing" to see it (as if that were even possible) -- it's just not there. Religion is an imaginary world shared by believers for their mutual emotional gratification.
2005-08-13 13:26 | User Profile
Your worldview is so banal, Angler. It is [B]you[/B] who is out of touch with reality, thinking that you can solve these deep issues by blathering about how human nature is basically just like that of animals - a good example on how evolutionism brings an animalization of man along with it.
You cynically think that people are altruistic just because it aids the "mutual survival." Thinkers like Mencius beg to disagree: [COLOR=DarkRed][I] "This is why I say that all men have a sense of commiseration: here is a man who suddenly notices a child about to falI into a well. Invariably he will feel a sense of alarm and compassion. And this is not for the purpose of gaining the favor of the child's parents or of seeking the approbation of his neighbors and friends, or for fear of blame should he fail to rescue it. Thus we see that no man is without a sense of compassion or a sense of shame or a sense of courtesy or a sense of right and wrong. The sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is the beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of decorum, the sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Every man has within himself these four beginnings, just as he has four limbs. Since everyone has these four beginnings within him, the man who considers himself incapable of exercising them is destroying himself."[/I][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.abbc.net/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis4.htm[/url]
Like G.K. Chesterton put it:
[COLOR=Sienna][I]"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. "[/I][/COLOR]
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial] [B][I] - "I think that evolution can, in principle, explain all aspects of human psychology."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Of course it can [B]try[/B] to explain everything - especially since evolutionists have made their theory, for all intents and purposes, [B]unfalsifiable.[/B] Everything can be interpreted as a proof of evolution.
Petr
2005-08-13 13:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]Your worldview is so banal, Angler. [/QUOTE]Even if you think so, that's not relevant. I'm not interested in being fresh or original (as if all the religious boilerplate you post were either of those). I'm interested only in being accurate. And the number of considerations that lead me to believe that religion is all make-believe is overwhelming.
2005-08-13 13:43 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "I'm interested only in being accurate."[/I][/B] [/FONT][/COLOR]
The problem is, you aren't. Banality and unoriginality are not themselves any proofs of being correct (or being some super-duper professional), either.
Petr
2005-08-13 13:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial] [B][I] - "I think that evolution can, in principle, explain all aspects of human psychology."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Of course it can [B]try[/B] to explain everything - especially since evolutionists have made their theory, for all intents and purposes, [B]unfalsifiable.[/B] Everything can be interpreted as a proof of evolution.[/QUOTE]I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution is easily falsifiable. One or more certain kinds of fossils found in the right (or "wrong") place would do exactly that. Better start digging!
"Goddidit" is nothing but an intellectual cop-out. It's a soothing but cheap explanation for whatever a person doesn't understand. Once it was used for lightning and volcanic eruptions; then it was used for epilepsy (or "demonsdidit"); and now it's used for the remaining mysteries of the universe.
It's likely that there'll always be something unknown for those with an emotional need for God to retreat into. But they'll only be fooling themselves.
2005-08-13 14:27 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "One or more certain kinds of fossils found in the right (or "wrong") place would do exactly that. "[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Rest assured that evolutionists would quickly find a way to squirm out of such situation rather than giving up their pet theory and acknowledging Creator.
Petr
2005-08-13 14:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "One or more certain kinds of fossils found in the right (or "wrong") place would do exactly that. "[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Rest assured that evolutionists would quickly find a way to squirm out of such situation rather than giving up their pet theory and acknowledging Creator.[/QUOTE]That's right, Petr. We hate God! We'll never admit that he exists! We'd rather burn in hell than acknowledge Him! LOL
If you want to see "squirming," just read a Bible-thumper's explanation of why there are two conflicting stories of how Judas died in the Bible, or how Noah managed to fit the millions of earthly species into the Ark, or why the "Great Flood" didn't leave a worldwide geological stratum as it should have.
Religion is the most powerful drug ever created by man. I know firsthand how addictive it is.
Anyway, you can have the last word. I get bored bickering about this stuff.
2005-08-13 16:43 | User Profile
Religion isn't addictive. It's laughable.
2005-08-13 16:49 | User Profile
The average quality of your comments is really low, maddy. Another useless sound-bite.
Petr
2005-08-13 17:10 | User Profile
Religion is what you make it be according to "the" religion, sex, location, race, who your parents are,enviroment and many other factors....what is a Christian in South American is not the same Christian in North America.
To me religion is nothing more than a tool used to control people, needed by those who are insecure and those who are afraid of dying and who wants to believe in the after life (Heaven).
If religion makes you feel good then good for you but don't used it to attack others in the name of you God or to make others believe that you are wright and they are wrong.....religion is supposed to be about understanding, peace and love.
2005-08-13 19:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]As already Blaise Pascal pointed out, ONLY Christian worldview can plausibly explain the human nature in all its dimensions.
Orthodox Christianity underscores BOTH of the following things:
[B] - that man has been created as an image of God[/B], as is thus a partaker of the divine nature.
[B] - [U]and[/U] that man is now in fallen state[/B], a victim of his megalomaniacal and perverse desires
ONLY a combination of these two factors can explain why there is so much greatness AND rotten degeneracy in the human soul SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Cynics cannot explain why humans quite often display so much grand, unselfish and in sublime behavior - as C.S. Lewis pointed out, if absolute materialism were true, we wouldn't be able to think or even hope that things should or could be better than they are. We instinctively feel that this world "isn't the way it's supposed to be". Evolution cannot explain the origin of high-minded idealism - we all know that such naivete usually just hampers the survival abilities in this fallen world!
On the other hand, idealists (like some ancient Greek philosophers) cannot explain why there is so much malevolent nastiness lurking in every man. Evolution cannot explain the origin of sadistic pleasure that one gets from intentional wrongdoing, either.
Only Christianity can solve this problem with its synthesis, and so its evidence is present for every man to see. Like apostle Paul said, men are "without excuse" if they refuse to see the hand of God in the universe and in themselves.
Petr[/QUOTE]
That's a great post, Brother Petr.
Well done.
2005-08-14 03:59 | User Profile
Atheists are odd ducks. I have known many likable non-believers and the best of them, like my late friend Sam Francis, realized that the vast majority of human beings are going to believe in some kind of god no matter what.
Man is is religious by nature and in the relaively rare case of a person ceasing to believe, he will replace it with a philosophy or system that has many of the attributes of religion, even if God is denied.
2005-08-14 05:01 | User Profile
It's like the realization that most people are dumb: you can get upset about it, or just accept and live with it :beer:
2005-08-14 13:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Evolution is easily falsifiable. You got that right as it basically refutes itself.
"Goddidit" is nothing but an intellectual cop-out. You must mean "Goddidn't" becuase that is the intellectual cop-out that serves the secular power brokers who want to destroy faith in God to pave the way for their plans of world government. There is another phrase for faux rebels like you but I'll just say that you are "useful" and leave it at that. It's a soothing but cheap explanation for whatever a person doesn't understand. While screaming that Goddidn't is a cheap and safe way to "rebel". Why do you think atheists are almost all left wing nihilists and often even anarchists who have problems with normal people and normal society? It is all part of rebelling against traditional God ordained authority which means spitting at not only the father who seeded you but the Father of Fathers who created the universe you live in. You ever wonder why the secular liberals out there all support your form of easy "rebellion"? Think hard about it and think about how eroding these healthy forms of authority only paves the way for the Global Secular Super State which is the stuff Marxist wet-dreams are made of. It's likely that there'll always be something unknown for those with an emotional need for God to retreat into. But they'll only be fooling themselves.[/QUOTE] People with an emotional need to rebel against God are fooling themselves. You are no less a believer than any Christian you are just more self righteous and way less honest about it.
2005-08-14 13:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Religion isn't addictive. It's laughable.[/QUOTE] I agree to the extent that many tenets of Atheist and Evolution religion do make me laugh especially when they are spoken in haughty and self righteous tones which is nearly always the case.
2005-08-14 13:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CornCod]Atheists are odd ducks. I have known many likable non-believers and the best of them, like my late friend Sam Francis, realized that the vast majority of human beings are going to believe in some kind of god no matter what. I never read Sam Francis say he was an atheist do you have any cites to back that up?
Man is is religious by nature and in the relaively rare case of a person ceasing to believe, he will replace it with a philosophy or system that has many of the attributes of religion, even if God is denied.[/QUOTE] That is very true and one of many reasons the belief that religion is dying out is ridiculous.
2005-08-14 13:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=aimshi]You got that right as it basically refutes itself. What do you know about it that the worldwide scientific community doesn't?
You must mean "Goddidn't" becuase that is the intellectual cop-out that serves the secular power brokers who want to destroy faith in God to pave the way for their plans of world government. There is another phrase for faux rebels like you but I'll just say that you are "useful" and leave it at that. Right. I guess that's why the President of the United States and so many other world politicians are so vocal about their atheism. :rolleyes:
As for "Goddidn't" being an intellectual cop-out: Do I need to list all the natural phenomena that used to be considered the result of divine (or diabolical) intervention but that are now known to be due to purely natural causes? I hope not, because it would take up all the space on Tex's server.
While screaming that Goddidn't is a cheap and safe way to "rebel". Why do you think atheists are almost all left wing nihilists and often even anarchists who have problems with normal people and normal society? Um, who's screaming? I'm not.
Your claim that most atheists are left wing is probably true, but I'd like to see some evidence that they're almost all nihilists or anarchists. And "problems with normal people and normal society"? That's absurd. Most atheists are highly intelligent and productive people. (By the way, I should let you know that I consider myself an agnostic, not an atheist. I think it's entirely possible that a God exists, though I'm skeptical about whether he's a "personal" God who intervenes in human affairs. Of all religions, I think deism is by far the most sensible.)
It is all part of rebelling against traditional God ordained authority which means spitting at not only the father who seeded you but the Father of Fathers who created the universe you live in. Unfounded statements. Let's see some evidence that this Father exists, please.
You ever wonder why the secular liberals out there all support your form of easy "rebellion"? Think hard about it and think about how eroding these healthy forms of authority only paves the way for the Global Secular Super State which is the stuff Marxist wet-dreams are made of. Make up your mind, please: Do secularists lean towards nihilism and even anarchy, as you implied above, or toward a "super-government"? You're contradicting yourself.
People with an emotional need to rebel against God are fooling themselves. You are no less a believer than any Christian you are just more self righteous and way less honest about it.[/QUOTE]Correction: I'm no less a believer than any Christian; I just have evidence and logical arguments to back up my belief, while Christians follow Tertullian's advice to "believe because it is absurd."
2005-08-14 15:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]What do you know about it that the worldwide scientific community doesn't? You must mean the scientists who bow down to cultural Marxist political correctness.
Right. I guess that's why the President of the United States and so many other world politicians are so vocal about their atheism. Normal and well adjusted people overwhelmingly believe in God so it stands to reason that even politicians who don't must give lip service. That does not change the fact that the liberal elite is dominated by atheists, secular humanists, and others opposed to traditional Christian morality. Think Hollywood and New York City not the Heartland. As for "Goddidn't" being an intellectual cop-out: Do I need to list all the natural phenomena that used to be considered the result of divine (or diabolical) intervention but that are now known to be due to purely natural causes? That is a false dichotomy since "natural" phenomena ultimately originate outside of "nature". Even under the Big Bang theory to be coherent there has to be a "first cause". Your claim that most atheists are left wing is probably true, but I'd like to see some evidence that they're almost all nihilists or anarchists. Without regard for a transcendent foundation everything must become relative. Therefore you have a rudderless excuse for ethics and moral chaos despite any outer trappings that might feign otherwise. From moral chaos comes cultural and political chaos which could help explain why officially atheist states have murdered hundreds of times more people than ever were punished by Inquisition courts. And "problems with normal people and normal society"? That's absurd. Most atheists are highly intelligent and productive people. I would say strong proclivities for culture-destroying leftism would qualify and that's just one example of many. Let's see some evidence that this Father exists, please. Some Force had to father the cosmos just as surely as you and I were fathered. It's every bit as self-evident as the God-given rights you claim to believe in. By the way how can you possibly believe in these rights without acknowledging the God that grants them? Make up your mind, please: Do secularists lean towards nihilism and even anarchy, as you implied above, or toward a "super-government"? You're contradicting yourself. There is no contradiction. The nihilism and anarchy provide pretext for ever expanding super-government. Nature abhors a vacuum and government grows like wildfire. Correction: I'm no less a believer than any Christian; I just have evidence and logical arguments to back up my belief, while Christians follow Tertullian's advice to "believe because it is absurd."[/QUOTE] Christians are not the ones who reject the testimony of their own eyes.
2005-08-14 16:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=aimshi]You must mean the scientists who bow down to cultural Marxist political correctness. No, I mean nearly all scientists, including people like myself who hate Marxism and PC.
Normal and well adjusted people overwhelmingly believe in God so it stands to reason that even politicians who don't must give lip service. That does not change the fact that the liberal elite is dominated by atheists, secular humanists, and others opposed to traditional Christian morality. Think Hollywood and New York City not the Heartland. False/unsupported premise highlighted in bold.
That is a false dichotomy since "natural" phenomena ultimately originate outside of "nature". Even under the Big Bang theory to be coherent there has to be a "first cause". How do you know that the laws of physics aren't self-existent? How do you know that the "first cause" is the personal God of the Bible?
Without regard for a transcendent foundation everything must become relative. Therefore you have a rudderless excuse for ethics and moral chaos despite any outer trappings that might feign otherwise. Nope. Human moral instincts can have a natural basis, just as animal behavior has a natural basis. The natural basis comes from the fact that social animals are much more likely to survive and propagate their genes when they get along, cooperate, and care for each other. Animals that happened to behave in this way have outlasted those that didn't.
From moral chaos comes cultural and political chaos which could help explain why officially atheist states have murdered hundreds of times more people than ever were punished by Inquisition courts. Faulty comparison. Officially atheists states are much more modern than the Inquisition, have much more effective killing machines available to them, and have control over much larger populations.
I would say strong proclivities for culture-destroying leftism would qualify and that's just one example of many. No offense, but many leftists and even centrists would consider you to be abnormal merely for posting on this site? How do you define "normal"? And if that word could be rigorously defined, why is being "normal" so important? All geniuses throughout history -- people from Mozart to Heisenberg -- have been, in at least a sense, "abnormal." If they had been just like everyone else, they wouldn't have made outstanding contributions. Most people don't amount to squat in life. If that's being "normal," then normality is to be avoided at all costs.
Force had to father the cosmos just as surely as you and I were fathered. How do you know this force is a conscious being? How do you know the "first cause" isn't entirely naturalistic?
It's every bit as self-evident as the God-given rights you claim to believe in. By the way how can you possibly believe in these rights without acknowledging the God that grants them? I don't rule out the possiblity of a God, but I don't believe in "rights" as actual entities floating out there in some metaphysical realm. To me, there's something of a paradox here: all humans have "rights" because there's no such thing as the "right" to rule over anyone else. It's kind of like the way we say a hole exists when a hole is really the absence of material and does not actually have tangible existence. Do you see?
Here's another perspective. In practical terms, might makes right. That's how the world works. But anyone who claims a right for himself and is willing to fight and possibly die for it basically has a right that exists in his own mind. It's a part of his neurochemistry. It exists in the sense that an idea exists.
Lastly, one could say "natural rights" exist in a naturalistic sense similar to that I described above regarding morality: as evolved instincts toward cooperation among human beings.
There is no contradiction. The nihilism and anarchy provide pretext for ever expanding super-government. Nature abhors a vacuum and government grows like wildfire. Okay, I see what you meant. But I think that a population of people who reject governmental authority hardly presents fertile ground for the growth of government. Most government grows due to public apathy toward loss of freedom.
Christians are not the ones who reject the testimony of their own eyes.[/QUOTE]The existence of the universe does not prove the existence of the supernatural. It provides evidence neither for nor against the existence of a God or other supernatural beings.
Look at it this way. What if I said that invisible creatures called "gravity gnomes" exist and are the reason why we stay stuck to the earth? Would you believe me? After all, there's evidence that they exist (the fact that we don't float around) -- isn't there?
2005-08-14 18:34 | User Profile
At least old timey atheists openly said they were. Today we have folks who claim to be Christians, but live like atheists.
2005-08-14 18:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]At least old timey atheists openly said they were. Today we have folks who claim to be Christians, but live like atheists.[/QUOTE]
You got it CW, most Christians are Christians only for one hour on Sundays and I have known many "atheists" who are more Christians than the Christians themselves.
To me there is no need for religion, either you are good or you are bad and you should know which one you are.
2005-08-14 19:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponch]To me there is no need for religion, either you are good or you are bad and you should know which one you are.[/QUOTE]
We're all bad, Ponch.
2005-08-14 22:16 | User Profile
A couple of comments. First, it might help the discussion to know that the term "The Christian Religion" in its modern meaning was novel with Calvin's Institutes. It is not self evident that there is Religion and there is Atheism and there is no third way between them. Orthodox Christianity can and has been read as a denial of (Pagan) Religion, in itself not unlike Science or Atheism. Certainly the Romans read it that way, since they executed Christians for--impiety--or as we would now say, not having a religion. :)
Second, Angler's comments on the soul highlight the problem of crossing the divide between Modernity, to which atheism and secularism are more "native religions" than the denial of anything in particular. The word "soul" is funny--no scientist would ever deny humans have souls, if he were speaking Ancient Greek. Having a soul, being alive, and being an animal are near synonyms in the culture Christianity grew up in. "Saving your soul" means no more or less than "saving your life". The word that captures what Angler is trying to deny is not Soul, but Intellect (nous). That the special something humans are alleged to have that animls don't. More precisely, there are three "souls" or functions of Soul--the Vegatable Soul, which is associated with growth, desire, and nutrition--and oddly for our culture, as a consequence with Sex and Femaleness. Then there is "Animal Soul" which is associated with anger, "making your mark on the environment" or "press" as psychologists say nowadays, courage, aggression, and the military virtues--Male of course.
This all seems odd to us, since we are convinced that "the desire for food and sex" are basic "animal drives" not "vegatable" ones. We don't have a notion that sex is beneath maleness, which is properly concerned with fighting and winning, not with "nurturing". Funny how different cultures split things up arbitrarily. I mention all the silliness about the Greek presumptions to help us see the equal silliness about our own.
In any event, the point in dispute is whether Mankind in fact has an Intellect that animals don't, an third Intellectual Soul to go with his Vegatable and Animal ones. Angler says we have Animal Souls, which I guess means our intellects are no better than animals, except when they are no better than vegatables as is often the case with our politicians, both in the modern sense and the Greek one.
Christians believe (or used to believe anyway) that animal souls are mortal and dead is dead and gone for animal nature, just as science would have it, but that humans are special and have in Intellectual soul, which gives them a distinctive human nature, that includes the possibility of knowing and understanding God to the degree appropriate to that created nature, and that the whole human soul (and body with it) will be resurrected.
The conflict with science and modernity is thus not over whether humans have souls like other animals, but whether their soul differs from animal soul because it is (1) specially fitted to know God as its "purpose", and (2) except for the fall, would have been immortal.
It is, by the way, impossible to convince a human who wishes to be irrational and indulge in merely animal pleasures and ways of life, that there exist higher goods and virtues than a full belly and sexual indulgence. However, that is not proof that no one else possesses an Intellect, or has intellectual virtues and intelligence (logismos, arete, sophrosune...).
Naturally, if science denies the Intellect exists at all, it can have nothing constructive to say about the existence of a race of animals alleged to have said nature, alleged to have arisen ca. 4000 (well maybe 6000) BC, as evidenced by an obscure animal behavioral ritual called "writing" that seems to arise invariably alongside "intellect". All we have to go on are some traditions that science prefers, on, uh, intellectual grounds, to debunk. ook-ook I'm a monkey.
2005-08-14 23:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]We're all bad, Ponch.[/QUOTE]
Speak for yourself Tex, you yourself are one of those who uses religion as a tool and a weapon and not because you really believe in what you preach.
Usually those who talk the most about religion are the ones who are the less secured with what they say they believe in.
The day that you take a walk into a forest and look at a three and then out of nowhere you find the need to say "Thank you" that will be day that you will find yourself.
You will not find the one that you call "God" in a building because a building was build by man for man and not for God.
2005-08-14 23:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponch]Speak for yourself Tex, you yourself are one of those who uses religion as a tool and a weapon and not because you really believe in what you preach.
Usually those who talk the most about religion are the ones who are the less secured with what they say they believe in.
The day that you take a walk into a forest and look at a three and then out of nowhere you find the need to say "Thank you" that will be day that you will find yourself.
You will not find the one that you call "God" in a building because a building was build by man for man and not for God.[/QUOTE]
Whoa. That's deep, Ponch.
Very zen-ish and deep...
I'll have to ponder that for a while...
2005-08-15 03:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]It's like the realization that most people are dumb: you can get upset about it, or just accept and live with it [/QUOTE] Yep, Hoss, you're right. Christians like Sir Isaac Newton, Galilieo, Grigor Mendel, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, JS Bach, etc..., were pretty @!#$% dumb, unlike eminent men such as yourself who more than make up for what they lack in faith with an even more glaring lack of accomplishment.
2005-08-15 05:38 | User Profile
Everyone was 'Christian' in those times, there was no other way. By the standards of the day, Newton and Galileo probably deviated from the 'party line'. Today they'd be atheists (or agnostic if you wish).
Placing someone believing in the 6,000-year-old world and Newton into the same heap for the sake of an argument makes just as much sense as trying to deduce something from the fact of Hitler being a Christian.
2005-08-15 07:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Everyone was 'Christian' in those times, there was no other way. By the standards of the day, Newton and Galileo probably deviated from the 'party line'. Today they'd be atheists (or agnostic if you wish).
And who forged that path, mr? The jew bolsheviks and commies that wrecked your native fatherland and continue to instigate problems in Europe and my own blessed Southland.
At worst you reject your own Creator, but on a lesser scale also dishonor the generations of your ancestors by disparaging them as dumb people who just didn't know any better. Nay, we are eternally blessed by the baptismal covenant passed down through and by our forefathers and if divorced from that then we are nothing more than the rootless cosmopolitans we decry on this very board.
God's grace, blood and soil. It is who we are and may it ever be so. I stand and fight for Christ, my people and our traditions. There's not a more solid cornerstone to lay a foundation on this temporal plane.
2005-08-15 16:56 | User Profile
You misunderstand, I don't have anything against religion of my ancestors. Only against anti- (and pseudo-) science posturing :smoke:
Faith can be good and bad. Good when you blindly believe into something good for your people. Bad when you reject rationality and science.
2005-08-15 17:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Faith can be good and bad. Good when you blindly believe into something good for your people. Bad when you reject rationality and science.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, mr. It is my opinion that no orthodox Christian on this board rejects rationality and science. Speaking for myself, what I reject is 'scientism' and all that entails, including evolution if you will. There are ultimate questions that rationality and science can never answer and what I reject is the attempt to make them do so or even pretend that they can.
2005-08-15 23:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]This is totally out of touch with reality and begs the question to boot. For example, there is no evidence that the human soul even exists.
Hold that thought.
[QUOTE]Human nature is what it is for the same reason that a dog's nature is what it is, that a lion's nature is what it is, that an ape's nature is what it is, etc. Lots of social animals are capable of showing both great love and displaying great rage and viciousness.[/QUOTE]
So far, so good.
[QUOTE] Humans are no different.[/QUOTE]Ah, but humans are different. What animals hold humans in their zoos? Who's in charge?
Besides being able to organize a society that is so advanced that the XBOX gets invented, woo ha, humans do a few things that animals don't and can't. Herding. Agriculture. Building machines.
[QUOTE]
For the same reasons that lower social animals do -- it aids mutual survival. And terms like "grand" and "sublime" are completely subjective.
[/QUOTE]
You presume an equality of purpose. While your shot at the descriptives is just fine, how do you prove the equality of purpose among unequals, mental and cognitive unequals? Ya know, the way many members of this board present unequality as a fundamental fact, observable, among the different races of man.
[QUOTE]Human feelings are certainly not a guide to the nature of reality. For example, a person whose loved one has just died will often feel that the person is still alive -- denial is common in such circumstances. Emotions are just as likely to put one out of touch with reality as to do the opposite.[/QUOTE]So, where does this emotion come from? What binds it all together? What makes the "self?" I think we'd both agree it is not the simple, mechanical earthly frame we inhabit. What is it about those 21 grams? What are they?
[QUOTE] How do you know evolution can't explain that? [/QUOTE]It may not yet, which is my favorite point in the favor of science, though not Science as Deity, the continual seeking after understanding.
[QUOTE]Maybe "high-minded idealism" does contribute to survival by giving a person strength of will. Or maybe it's just a side-effect of the neural complexity of the human brain, which itself clearly contributes to survival.[/QUOTE]OK, a touch on game theory there, fair enough. Maybe it is a byproduct of an entity within us, the "yet to be tied down by science" spirit. Theory at best, you say? Ok, for your PoV, but not worth rejecting out of hand.
Science didn't figure out microbes until a few centuries ago. What "we" collectively don't know far exceeds what we do know. So, when we find the Spirit withing us, in a lab, what should we do with it?
[QUOTE]I think that evolution can, in principle, explain all aspects of human psychology. [/QUOTE]I am not going to take that on FAITH. Psychology and psychiatry have done some neat stuff, but there is still quite a bit of "the devil made me do it" in how psychiatry is applied. They just give it a new name.
[QUOTE]
But if something is not yet explained, that doesn't mean it's not explainable.
[/QUOTE]True in many cases.
[QUOTE]But some people can't do without an explanation and that's the reason why there's faith:[/QUOTE]Only for those who believe in The God of the Gaps. That premise most Christians I know reject.
[QUOTE]
God is used to fill in the gaps in peoples' understanding of life, the universe, and everything.
[/QUOTE]According to whom? Do you refer to the generic of deity, as in animist gods, or God?
[QUOTE]
And no, there is no evidence for Christianity or God.
[/QUOTE]No evidence? Evidence exists, though apparently not enough lately to convince many a doubting Thomas. So be it. The problem of not being able to disprove God remains.
No one is "refusing" to see it (as if that were even possible) -- it's just not there. Religion is an imaginary world shared by believers for their mutual emotional gratification.[/QUOTE]So you say, though I'll point out that religion itself is a construct around which one organizes one's faith in God.
If that is good enough for you, that trivialization, so be it. You made your choise, per your own points made here. That does not make what you say, no matter how oft repeated, the Truth.
Cheers
AE
2005-08-18 04:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE]By the standards of the day, Newton and Galileo probably deviated from the 'party line'. Today they'd be atheists (or agnostic if you wish). [/QUOTE]For someone who claims to believe in nothing but science, you seem to know woefully little about the great holy prophet of science:
Though he is better known for his scientific achievements, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
That Sir Isaac Newton was an extreme religious fanatic is no great secret. Do you know anything about Newton, other than that he had something to do with the theory of gravitation?
Galileo was also a crazed religious fanatic, but of the Roman variety. Do some research on HIS life. He was even more religious than his best friend, Maffeo Barberini, alias Pope Urban VIII.
It is about as likely that Newton and Galileo would be atheists today, as that the collective membership of the American Humanist Association will someday make a contribution, ANY contribution, to science.