151. Comment #47422 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 1:17 pm

james,
one of the things that really made me lose my faith was when I went through the gospels and checked the fulfilment of messianic prophecies. I found all alledged fulfilments and then checked the original prophecies. I found that none referred to jesus. I recommend yo try it yourself. You could also read this link http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
Ironically, it was a last gasp attempt to confirm my faith

Other Comments by BillySands

152. Comment #47423 by PrimeNumbers on June 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm

If Plantinga has to posit a completely non-physical, essentially non-knowable "beyond" the physical world, then quite frankly, he's lost. Because, that's just a "get out of jail" free card, because once you posit that, logic, science and the human senses can no longer help us, and you can "win" any argument by positing whatever the hell you want.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

153. Comment #47424 by Benjamin Michael on June 4, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Re: Comment #47418 by james

Dianelos, you've got to be one of the most confusing people I've met...

What's your motive for arguing?...

people like me (sort of) want atheists to have faith and get "saved". But what about you?...

HUH? That's not a belief that's a hamburger chain slogan....

You see, theism inherently leads to conflict.

Other Comments by Benjamin Michael

154. Comment #47426 by Fedler on June 4, 2007 at 1:27 pm

I believe that what really counts is to be a good person, and belief in God is valuable only in as far as it helps one be a good person.

Somebody please correct me, but isn't this basically saying you believe in the belief? If so, isn't this just a short step across the stream to atheism where you realize there really is no point in believing the belief when you can believe in something tangible, like humanity? The belief in belief itself seems like an unnecessary step.

Other Comments by Fedler

155. Comment #47431 by Zwingli on June 4, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Re the "Infidels" disproval of Biblical prophecy... the writer makes a fundamental mistake in understanding the nature of Old Testament prophecy.

Prophecy was often about current events, rather than 1000 years hence. However, some was also taken to have a second meaning... So for instance the Psalm that prophecies "you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay." was probably primarily intended by the author [David] to talk about God's protection of himself, but it was later taken as a prophecy about the future "Holy One" - especially, probably, after the early Christians experienced Jesus back from death.

Other Comments by Zwingli

156. Comment #47433 by Zwingli on June 4, 2007 at 1:44 pm

As for Prime Number's complaint about the unprovability of an infinite God who is outside the physical universe.... that is a problem for both "sides"!

But there is no use trying to construct something else and telling me that I am stupid to believe in it! What is the point of arguing against something that theists don't believe in ---- like some super-advanced god-like creature living in alpha centauri (or on Mount Olympus) ? It might make you feel better, and confirm some unthinking people's prejudices, but it is completely intellectually dishonest.

Other Comments by Zwingli

157. Comment #47436 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm

"You see, theism inherently leads to conflict."

Ah, touche. But any disagreement of any kind CAN lead to conflict... theism isn't a special case.(Yes, I know what you're going to say... I watched Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil".)

My point is, we (on this site) have the sense to use words, not weapons of mass destruction.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

158. Comment #47437 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 1:55 pm

zwingli
I dont think he misunderstands the prophecy. His point like yours (i think) is that they are not about anything other than the events of their context eg, the "virgin birth" prophecy was only for the benefit of ahaz some 730 BCE. The gospel writers take these out of context and rather deviously attribute these to jesus

Other Comments by BillySands

159. Comment #47439 by Zwingli on June 4, 2007 at 2:03 pm

BillySands
I don'tt hink that "prophecies" ONLY have meaning in the original context... By saying that you are imposing a particular way of understanding prophecy... which inevitably leads to the conculsion thatt hey aren't about Christ. A classical circular arguement.

Generally, reasonable bible interpretation starts with understanding what was said "in context" - but that does not have to be the limit of the meaning. Especially when faced with events that suggest an alternative.

Other Comments by Zwingli

160. Comment #47440 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:08 pm

been a while since I read that link. The virgin birth context is actually in this one http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

Other Comments by BillySands

161. Comment #47442 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Generally, reasonable bible interpretation starts with understanding what was said "in context" - but that does not have to be the limit of the meaning. Especially when faced with events that suggest an alternative.

Erm - NO! it is not circular logic the question is does the prophecy refer to jesus or not. Read in context, it does not. Also couple that with the fact the most other contempory deities at the time were born of virgins too, and you smell a rat.
I presume you are the one using circular logic: that the gospels say so, therefore it must be about jesus. Can you demonstrate why the very clear and unequivocal statement to ahaz is even remotely about jesus?

Other Comments by BillySands

162. Comment #47443 by the great teapot on June 4, 2007 at 2:17 pm

james and dianelos, welcome to this site.
You are the best unwelcome visitors we have had.
I look forward to your posts. Many thanks.

Other Comments by the great teapot

163. Comment #47444 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Dianelos:

You raise a whole series of points, and I would like to contribute to answering them, as I think for at least some points I have something original to contribute.

According to atheism the World consists of our physical universe and nothing else

No, this is a naive generalisation. There are major philosophies which are strictly atheist that are not materialistic.

Now all educated people agree that science is extremely successful in producing knowledge about the physical universe, but for a religious person this does not imply that science can produce knowledge about all the World.

Anyone who knows Godel's (and other) demonstration of incompleteness knows that neither science or mathematics can produce all knowledge about the world. But that does not mean religion is going to be any better.

In general atheism has trouble dealing with ethical questions.

This is just plain wrong. Buddhism is atheist. In fact, taken as a whole, the vast majority of atheists are Buddhists. And that philosophy has one of the most detailed and consistent set of ethical principles.

You see atheism's intellectual toolkit is science

No. The majority of atheists use philosophy, not science.

God, which instantiates what is objectively good.

That is demonstrably false, otherwise all theists would have the same objective sense of what is good. In practice, everyone to some extent follows their individual concience.

Some such axiomatic beliefs might be "I am a conscious being" and "There are objectively good and bad acts". The theistic arguments from consciousness and from morality work by claiming that all atheistic (or at least all non-religious) worldviews cannot deal in a satisfactory manner with either one of these axiomatic givens. How could atheism respond to that?

Very easily. There is no connection whatsoever between "I am a concious being" and the existence or otherwise of a God or Gods. All you are doing is assuming that this axiom opens the door for non-physical phenomena, hence God. This is not a valid implication: even if you want assume that conciousness is non-physical or even spiritual it still has no connection with the question of the existence or otherwise of God.

As the second... "There are objectively good and bad acts", there is no problem with that at all. Of course, what you actually are saying is that there are acts that most people consider good or bad, so it is not so objective then, is it? But let's assume that virtually everyone has the same sense of right and wrong. Why do you need a God for that? Most people like eating chocolate. Does that need divine explanation? No - like the sense of right and wrong, it can be explained from an biological and evolutionary basis. That sense of right and wrong had good survival value. We can see the same kind of moral behaviour in other animals - apes, cetaceans, elephants and so on. I don't think you would imply that they have religious beliefs?

So let me suggest something that clearly exists but that does not form part of the physical universe: the color red.

No, you are mistaken. There is a big argument going on about qualia (such as the experience of red), but that does not mean they aren't part of the physical universe. Even the strongest supporters of the existence of qualia (such as the philosopher David Chalmers) does not expect anyone to think that they are somehow spiritual. When we prod the physical world (in terms of changing brain state) we experience qualia. When we think about qualia, it changes the physical world (neurones activate), so they are physical.

In short science cannot help us decide what is good.

No-one seriously claims it can. But that is not the point. It can help explain why we have a the ability to feel that some things are good, and why the majority of people tend to think that the same things are good.

1. God in enormously complex. (premise)
2. The more complex any thing is the more improbable it is. (premise)
3. Therefore God is enormously improbable. (from 1 and 2)

I don't believe this is so much a justification for saying that God does not exist, as for saying that God as a useful explanation for complexity and meaning in the Universe (which is why a vast number of people believe in God) is invalid. Combined with the lack of evidence of God having interfered in the physical world in any way, it then becomes part of a justification to assume God does not exist.

Other Comments by steve99

164. Comment #47445 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 2:19 pm

james and dianelos, welcome to this site.
You are the best unwelcome visitors we have had.
I look forward to your posts. Many thanks.

I see I am not the only one who has doubts about james' doubts then :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

165. Comment #47450 by Zwingli on June 4, 2007 at 2:33 pm

The writer/speaker of the prophecy had no idea it was about Jesus, of course. But to say that there is no other meaning than the author's intention is to impose assumptions that lead to an obvious conclusion..

But if there is a God who can inspire people's writing, then meaning is not necessarily limited by the human writer's intent. And, if you exclude the possibiliity of such a God, then the meaning can only be what was in the mind of the human author.

However, the NT writers had the benefit of hindsight and recent experience - which gave them another perspective on possible inspired meanings.

In addition, parts of the some NT writers' focus was on justifying christianity as a continuity or development of judaism. So it is hardly surprising that the writers looked again at what was in the OT.

We can't logically agree on Divine inspiration, but we can possibly agree that the NT writers were making a reasonable interpretation of some OT writings - in the light of the recent events and their experiences.

Other Comments by Zwingli

166. Comment #47451 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Billy, thanks for the links. I've bookmarked them for later. By the way, is that your real portrait? Do you have piercings all across your forehead?

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

167. Comment #47455 by Dianelos Georgoudis on June 4, 2007 at 2:42 pm

PrimeNumbers (138):

Well, we are less than perfectly good so we need a place to get our morality from, but God is perfectly good so does not need to do that.

There is a common atheist argument of the form "If God X then what X God?" for example: "If God created the universe then who created God?" or "If God is our base of morality, what is the base of morality of God?" or "If God explains all our experience what explains God?" But this is a fallacious kind of argument, because reason rejects actual infinities. So it's meaningless to keep asking why? why? why? or how? how? how? in any field of knowledge. There is always an end point. Why must there always be such an end point? Because answers (and explanations) tend to be more general than the question, and there comes a point where one reaches maximal generality. For example take the field of mathematics and make some question (say "Why is there no greatest prime number?"), and then keep asking why; there will come a point where the mathematician will answer: because that's how it is. Or take physics, make some question and keep asking why or how. Again there comes a point that no more answering is possible. For example there is no answer to the question of how mass bends spacetime. Similarly you cannot simply keep asking for definitions, because a point comes where concepts allow for no more defining without creating circularity.

You write "Atheist's morality is empirical - we see what works and change and adapt to circumstance." So, let's take a current example of an ethical question: abortion. As you know some people believe that abortion is amoral in all cases, some that it is moral when the mother's health is at risk, some that it is moral when the fetus is shown to have some particular defect, some that it is moral in all cases if performed in the first trimester, some that it is always moral as long as both the father and mother agree, and so on. How do you suggest we empirically test which of these is the correct ethical precept?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

168. Comment #47456 by the great teapot on June 4, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Billy
my thanks was sincere. I actually like them both.

Other Comments by the great teapot

169. Comment #47457 by Dr Benway on June 4, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Interesting, BillySands, about the role of prophecy in your unbelief.

My faith was ruined at about 15 or 16 years by contemplation of the eternal barbeque thing. I'd met a number of non-Christians I admired, people of honesty, kindness, intelligence, and humor. It was difficult for me to imagine a loving God roasting these specific people for all eternity, merely for their lack of belief. I'd find myself thinking, if so-and-so is damned, I'm gonna have to stand beside him in hell, or I'll feel like a total schmuck. And if Jesus is half the man I imagine him to be, he'll do the same. Might even bring marshmallows.

The entire edifice of belief crumbled soon after.

Dianelos:

Well, we are less than perfectly good so we need a place to get our morality from, but God is perfectly good so does not need to do that.

Seems like a failure of the imagination to me. Try as I might, I can't draw a perfect circle. But I can imagine one. And for that I don't require an actual, perfect circle as a reference.

However, I'm not sure a mental representation of perfect goodness would help me in any practical way. Most of the time I simply try not to be an asshole. When I do get stuck on a sticky ethical problem, I'm usually faced with a choice between two unpleasant options. I ask a few friends how they'd handle the situation, then I pick the lesser of the two evils and hope for the best. If God were around, his input would be welcome. But God never rings.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

170. Comment #47461 by Dianelos Georgoudis on June 4, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Miri (139):

If I understand you correctly you see an egg and chicken problem in the argument from morality. Indeed according to theism ethical precepts are objective because they are grounded in the objective reality of God, i.e. in how God objectively is. And it's true that the argument from morality for the existence of God uses as a premise the proposition that at least some ethical precepts are objective. Still I think you are mixing up levels. Here is why:

All arguments are built on some premises, that is propositions that are affirmed to be true without any further justification. For example in mathematical proofs such premises would be the relevant axioms. Now in the case of the argument from morality one premise states that at least some ethical precepts are objectively true, in other words are true independently of any particular person's subjective opinion or of social convention. (Your example that torturing children is wrong would be a good candidate.) The argument from morality does not make any pretence to justify that premise in any way; you are free to reject it and by doing so you reject the validity of the argument from morality too. In other words you are free to reject the argument from morality by simply claiming that no ethical precepts are objectively true. But if you are not prepared to reject that premise but rather (as most people would do) accept it a-priori, then you must deal with the rest of the argument on its merits.

Should you find that argument convincing, or should you for some other reason end up believing in the existence of God, then you have the additional bonus that a theistic worldview is capable of explaining how come ethical precepts are objective, namely by being grounded in the objective reality of God. But this latter insight is irrelevant to the argument from morality, and indeed is not used by it any way.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

171. Comment #47462 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Dianelos, I was hoping you would respond to my post with something like... My overall motive for being on this site is...so an so.

I'm not being rude, truly, I think it would help me figure out the rest of your posts.

Your last comment on morality based on God is still confusing in light of your "pick and choose" definition on the nature of God. You said you didn't believe in hell or that "nonsense". ???
Who/what perfect and good God are you talking about to base our morality on?

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

172. Comment #47463 by epeeist on June 4, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Comment #47455 by Dianelos Georgoudis

But this is a fallacious kind of argument, because reason rejects actual infinities.

Nonsense - in the actual meaning of the word. Go and read some Cantor.

Incidentally, your analysis of RD's naive argument for the non-existence of god is wrong. A mixture of poor logic and not using the primary source.

It should really be cast in one of two ways, the first echoes the theme of "Climbing Mount Improbable"

1. Some things created in a single step are complex.


2. Complex things created in a single step are improbable


3. Some things are improbable

Or

1. Complex things created sui generis are improbable
2. 
   
3. God is a complex thing created sui generis


4. God is improbable

Other Comments by epeeist

173. Comment #47465 by krogercomplete on June 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm

D.G. said: "Well, we are less than perfectly good so we need a place to get our morality from, but God is perfectly good so does not need to do that."


What are the practical implications of this? Is every single thing that God does perfectly good? Is god definitionally precluded from doing something that is not perfectly good? If so, how does this square with the concept of omnipotence?


"But this is a fallacious kind of argument, because reason rejects actual infinities. So it's meaningless to keep asking why? why? why? or how? how? how? in any field of knowledge. There is always an end point."


If reason rejects infinites, then how is it that reason leads one to postulate an infinite God as the explanation for the universe? Is the argument just that there can be no infinites in the natural world, and that those rules do not apply to the supernatural world? Is God just a synonym for "end point," and if so, how do we derive all the added attributes that God is meant to possess?

Other Comments by krogercomplete

174. Comment #47466 by BillySands on June 4, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Teapot,
I did not mean to imply they were unwelcome, and they are respectful and very welcome

James. It's not actually me it is a character played by ade edmundson called vyvyan from a show called the young ones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdkT9sGRw_E

Dr Benway, that was another of may reasons for me too

zwingli

The writer/speaker of the prophecy had no idea it was about Jesus, of course. But to say that there is no other meaning than the author's intention is to impose assumptions that lead to an obvious conclusion..

I disagree, the sole intention is quite clear.

But if there is a God who can inspire people's writing, then meaning is not necessarily limited by the human writer's intent. And, if you exclude the possibiliity of such a God, then the meaning can only be what was in the mind of the human author.

This is a kind of special pleading that works on the assumption you are correct, and is circular logic. It is no different from saying the bible is the word of god, therefore it is true. Therefore the bible is ture because it is the word of god

However, the NT writers had the benefit of hindsight and recent experience - which gave them another perspective on possible inspired meanings.

Like stealing pagan myths perhaps?

In addition, parts of the some NT writers' focus was on justifying christianity as a continuity or development of judaism. So it is hardly surprising that the writers looked again at what was in the OT.

Well we agree on that. However, when you look at more and more prophecies, you conclude the writers were being dishonest

We can't logically agree on Divine inspiration, but we can possibly agree that the NT writers were making a reasonable interpretation of some OT writings - in the light of the recent events and their experiences.

Now, this is the crux, logically deriving divine intervention. Surely if god was clear and to the point about prophecies concerning jesus, there would be no room for doubt (particularly if some extant OT manuscripts carbon dated to the time before jesus - i'm not disputing the dates here). However, the more prophecies you read in context, the more contrived the life of jesus seems. John (20:31) would disagree with you on the need for accepting the supernatural as a prerequisite for intepreting the prophecies. He clearly says his gospel was written so that you may believe in jesus. It woulsd be of little use if you already needed faith to intepret it now. Also, the bible even says you should test all prophecies(1 thess 5:19)

Other Comments by BillySands

175. Comment #47471 by PrimeNumbers on June 4, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Dianelos, "God is perfectly good". How do you know that? What even does that phrase mean? If you're defining god as the source of all morality, then of couse good == good, but then the phrase "God is perfectly good" adds no useful information as it's just a restatement of your definition.

What Atheists are using is the standard mathematical logic of "proof by contradiction". You posit something, follow through from that statement and see if you get a contradiction. That's the esscence of the argument from evil.

Why is there no greatest prime number? Because there are an infinite number of primes, and given all the primes below a certain number it's always possible to create a new prime from them that is greater than any of them.

Your example of abortion has a problem : "which of these is the correct ethical precept?", in that the answer could be "none" and the answer could be "there is NO right answer for all circumstances and NO right answer even for specific circumstances." I think any God defining morality would have the same problem as there will be circumstances where there is NO right answer, and we, as humans just have to do what we've always done and muddle on through as best as we can, and accept that we can be put in situations where we cannot possibly do right.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

176. Comment #47472 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 4:01 pm

then you have the additional bonus that a theistic worldview is capable of explaining how come ethical precepts are objective, namely by being grounded in the objective reality of God.

No, this is a false step of reasoning. Even if there were evidence of the object reality of God, this does not mean there is any objective reality of ethical precepts. Even if we got our ethics from God, all that means is they are God's current opinion of what our ethics should be. It does not mean there is anything objective about them. In fact, many Christians believe that God's idea of ethics changed from the Old Testament to the New.

You aren't making ethics objective in any way by linking them to God; all you are doing is attempting to pass responsibility for ethics to a higher power.

For example there is no answer to the question of how mass bends spacetime.

I suggest you take a look at current ideas coming out of String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity before coming out with statements like that. This is not a trivial point - you are making definitive statements from a point of (understandable) ignorance. This summarises how many religious people put arbitrary limits on what science can achieve.

Other Comments by steve99

177. Comment #47474 by PrimeNumbers on June 4, 2007 at 4:08 pm

It seems to me that circumstances dictate morality. It's wrong to kill, but if you're killing a crazed axe murderer to protect your wife and daughter, you've actually done good.

If as is suggested above, morality comes from God, it's pretty obvious that his circumstances as creator of the universe, are going to be very different from ours here. God doesn't have to deal with crazed axe murderers attempting to kill his family, so why should we expect him to provide a moral for that occaission?

Never the less, the written works of the Christian god show a total LACK of morality. The argument from morality does not address the problem of communication on how we are to receive updates and bug fixes on the morality code.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

178. Comment #47475 by PrimeNumbers on June 4, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Steve99, I think you state my point a lot better than I did. God can never be an objective source of morality because to God, that morallity is now subjective. And yes, it's passing the buck....

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

179. Comment #47476 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Prime: I am afraid that at least the Christian religion has come up with a clever answer to how we get our morality code patched for bugs: the Holy Spirit. God tweaks individual conciences so they can 're-interpret' sacred texts and commandments. This allows, for example, the Pope to change doctrine. It is a clever addition to the set of memes forming Christian religion - makes it far more adaptable than Islam, for example.

Other Comments by steve99

180. Comment #47477 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 4:19 pm

steve99 wrote:

"You aren't making ethics objective in any way by linking them to God; all you are doing is attempting to pass responsibility for ethics to a higher power.

Uhh...I've never heard that before. Everyone I know who does believe in God also thinks God is omnibenevolent - so yes the buck would stop there. If you don't believe that God is objective truth, then you probably don't believe in God in the first place, so the objective/subject question is irrelevant.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

181. Comment #47480 by Dianelos Georgoudis on June 4, 2007 at 4:29 pm

James_the_doubter (151):

Let me start by saying that to doubt is I think an excellent state of mind as long as it motivates you to search and check. I make that latter clarification because some people become professional doubters which I think is a cover for intellectual laziness.

You ask what my motive for arguing is. Well, it turns out that I read Dawkins's "The selfish gene" when I was very young and it became one of the seminal books in my life. So I was disappointed when the same Dawkins started writing anti-theistic books, not so much because I think he is wrong (everybody can be wrong, I may be wrong too) but because, in my judgment, Dawkins oversimplified the issues in a very irresponsible manner, became unnecessarily combative, and even started affirming propositions that are trivially wrong, such as that "God is in the same status as fairies", that "We should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns", or that "Religious fundamentalists never change their minds". In an interview (available here: http://media.newscientist.com/data/av/podcast/newsci-20061110-science-vs-religion.mp3) Dawkins says that scientists must reject any idea that tends to say that "natural selection is God's way to do it, because it's unscientific". I agree it's unscientific, but I wonder, why should scientists reject it? The idea that natural selection is God's way seems quite reasonable to me. Or does he mean that scientists should reject all unscientific statements? What about the statements "Mozart wrote beautiful music" or "War is a terrible thing" or "There is hard problem of consciousness"? Most of the things we debate about or even think about are unscientific questions - is that bad? Further he said that there is "an important scientific question: Is there as a matter of fact a supernatural designing intelligence in the universe? If it were it would be the most exciting scientific fact of all." Well, by "supernatural designing intelligence" he means God, but God is not supposed to be *in* the universe or a matter of scientific investigation. I am afraid that listening to the "creation science" fundamentalists he has a very primitive idea of what God is supposed to be. But then he is making a lot of noise doing battle with a paper tiger and, even worse, affirming that one does not need study serious theology before rejecting it. Imagine a fundamentalist Christian affirming that one does not need study serious science before rejecting it. Also it seems to me that Dawkins tutoring other scientists about what they should believe about God brings religious talk into the scientific discourse and that's definitely a bad idea.

So, to finally answer your question, I find it alarming how such an excellent mind as Dawkins's can become so confused, and my motivation in this forum is to suggest that the question of the existence of God is a) not trivial, b) a philosophical question, and c) that philosophy in general is a very interesting and important field of study.

As for me writing that what really counts is to be a good person: This forms a central part of my worldview, indeed it explains to my satisfaction the existence of evil (it's not my idea: this is called the Irenaean theodicy and has been developed in modern form by John Hick). But also consider this: All of Christianity turns on Jesus' teaching in the gospels, and I find that all the gospels turn on John 13:34 where Jesus at the Last Supper says: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; according as I did love you, that you also love one another; in this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you may have love one to another". I understand this literally. So as far as Jesus is concerned an atheist who loves others is closer to God than a theist who believes all the right things but does not love others. And observe that to love others is equivalent to being good, because one can't be good without loving others, and one cannot love others and not be good. Finally observe Jesus's clarification that the love that counts is the kind of love that he had for others, namely universal and selfless love.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

182. Comment #47482 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Uhh...I've never heard that before.

Thanks (I think).

Everyone I know who does believe in God also thinks God is omnibenevolent - so yes the buck would stop there. If you don't believe that God is objective truth, then you probably don't believe in God in the first place, so the objective/subject question is irrelevant.

Things are far more complicated than that.

First, it doesn't matter if God is omnibenevolent. It still does not mean that we can rely on our ethics as coming from God. Even a brief reading of the Bible reveals (if you believe it) that God tests humanity and gives us all free will. It is all subject to interpretation. For example, was Judas acting unethically in betraying Jesus? It may seem so, but the imprisonment of Jesus was surely part of what he was intended to undergo.

This may seem twisted and convoluted - but that is my point. Even with a benelovent and loving God, you can worry indefinitely about what He wants you to do. In the end, it us up to us to find our own way anyway.

Also, there are religions where the God is certainly not universally benevolent or omnipotent, so is not a good source of 'objective' anything (take a look at Zoroastrianism).

Other Comments by steve99

183. Comment #47483 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 4:32 pm

This allows, for example, the Pope to change doctrine

The 100's of believers I know find this appalling. In fact Catholicism is so far away from what I understand about Christianity I hardly recognize it as Christianity. Harsh, but true. I once questioned some Catholic friends about the whole praying to saints thing - blank stares all around.

Strangely, all the additions of Catholic doctrine over the years fly in the face of the bible's warning itself of not to add anything to scriptures. I don't get it.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

184. Comment #47484 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 4:42 pm

The idea that natural selection is God's way seems quite reasonable to me.

Only if He required a method of producing complexity that hid all possible evidence of his work (and, indeed, make it appear that he was not even needed).

Well, by "supernatural designing intelligence" he means God, but God is not supposed to be *in* the universe or a matter of scientific investigation.

That makes no sense. If God interacts at all with the Universe, then that can be investigated. If He does not interact in any way, then in principle nothing He has ever done can result in a belief in Him.

I am afraid that listening to the "creation science" fundamentalists he has a very primitive idea of what God is supposed to be.

I doubt that very much. Dawkins has been discussing ideas about God with some mild and respectable Anglicans for a very long time.

What about the statements "Mozart wrote beautiful music" or "War is a terrible thing" or "There is hard problem of consciousness"? Most of the things we debate about or even think about are unscientific questions - is that bad?

You are simply defining these, with no foundation, as unscientific questions. You are falling into the 'unweaving the rainbow' trap of assuming that because something gives us joy, or spiritual feelings, that it simply must be beyond the reach of science.

You also fall in a common logical and philosophical mistake of assuming that even if there were things beyond science and spiritual, that this would be any argument for or against the existence of God. There are actually many 'atheistic' religions - they believe in many supernatural beings, the persistence of a 'soul' and so on, but they don't specify any overall authority, or even a creator. You are making false connections.

is a) not trivial, b) a philosophical question, and c) that philosophy in general is a very interesting and important field of study.

I would mostly agree with you. The problem I have is that I think you have the philosophy way off, as in your attempts to link ethics with God. I also believe that much of the apparent non-triviality about the existence of God is because people have confused science and religion. For example, the idea of God seemed far less trival before evolution was understood, and before much modern cosmology was discovered.

Other Comments by steve99

185. Comment #47486 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 4:46 pm

The 100's of believers I know find this appalling.

Then that is slightly hypocritcal, as just about every version of Christianity does this. Virtually none of them now accept Paul's teachings on slavery, for example. They all allow for divine revelation as to what should be 'bug fixed' (to use PrimeNumbers lovely analogy) about belief as the centuries pass.

Other Comments by steve99

186. Comment #47489 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 5:18 pm

steve99, ya I guess it must seem hypocritical. I was observing that Catholics, more than any other brand of Christianity I know, flat out add teaching, like transubstantiation (bread becomes real flesh during communion), and Mary's assumption (spiritual ascension into heaven without physically dying). It just strikes me as totally made up... 1200's they thought of X, then 1400's made up Y, then 1600's Z, etc and poof in modern times it's all valid.

I know others would say that the whole of the bible was made like that, so it's not a good argument in itself, but I'm just trying to explain what "the rest" of the Christians believe.

The Catholic "extras" are more obviously extreme than merely figuring out a correct interpretation of what some guy wrote 2000 years ago (Paul's take on slavery).

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

187. Comment #47493 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 5:35 pm

I was observing that Catholics, more than any other brand of Christianity I know, flat out add teaching

Oh yes, as an ex-Catholic, I totally agree. It was just trying to make the point that it just a matter of degree.

The Catholic "extras" are more obviously extreme than merely figuring out a correct interpretation of what some guy wrote 2000 years ago (Paul's take on slavery).

It is hard to think of less clear statements than those Paul made on slavery. To put it bluntly, it is hard to re-interpret what he said about that as moral now without putting a few 'not's in.

The thing is, that believers have 'bug-fixed' that belief, but so many refuse to update other bits of Paul, such as the condemnation of homosexuals and (really, really silly) effeminates.

My point was that so many use the 'Holy Spirit' argument to justify this - basically, a feeling that came from God said 'forget that, keep on with this'. The problem is that this is virtually impossible to argue against, and it can justify almost anything.

Other Comments by steve99

188. Comment #47495 by MIND_REBEL on June 4, 2007 at 5:41 pm

What's ununderstandable, is that McGrath claims to have a science degree and yet he still believes in a Christian god. One or the other, brother.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

189. Comment #47502 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 6:22 pm

so many use the 'Holy Spirit' argument to justify this - basically, a feeling that came from God said 'forget that, keep on with this'. The problem is that this is virtually impossible to argue against, and it can justify almost anything.

Very true Steve... the "pick n' choose" theology is worthless. (and the source of my headaches over Dianelos' posts)

But, I've been a Christian most of my life (in my early 30's now) and I haven't observed the "Holy Spirit" interpret-what-you-want argument in action, other than some nutjobs on TV. To be honest though, I need to re-read the "slavery" part in the Bible. Thanks for the homework.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

190. Comment #47504 by Sancus on June 4, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Thank you for posting this video.

I think the interview was most valuable during the conversation about "the one child" that survived a train wreck. McGrath describes God as "trying" to do something good for a dangerous world. Deity is an externalization of incompetence.

It reminds me of how children learn the word "please." At first they just go for the things they want, lacking the communicative ability to ask for things. Then they learn to use basic gestures, like crying, when they want something. If they are denied it or otherwise don't receive it, they keep crying until they do. Crying becomes an extension of just going for they want. Eventually they learn the word "no" and realize that crying will not work, and incidentally begin using the word "no" themselves. So they figure out this language thing can be rather useful and realize this "please" word that everyone seems to be muttering around them. They repeat it and get what they want. Success! It becomes a foundation for their ethical model BEFORE religious indoctrination.

So, when they get to religion, and are taught to pray to an invisible man in the sky, they respond by asking for things. Once they realize that their requests are not being granted, they continue on in their learned ethical behavior. They say please, pretty please, over and over and over and over again. Their religious leaders encourage it. "Keep praying," they say. Since it is already learned behavior, it is fairly easy to reinforce. The repetition of the request that is denied is natural, like crying. It's an extension of "just going for what they want" although a severely compromised one.

Prayer is a natural outgrowth of a system of childrearing when 1) parents control resources that their children need, 2) limit access to those resources with linguistic cues and 3) periodically deny their children's requests.

Children have to find a way to deal with these denials, which may lead to the beginning of empathy. They may see that their parents are struggling emotionally and may just try to ask more nicely next time.

That is, if they do not overcome their own incompetence and instead fine independent ways to achieve their goals.

Other Comments by Sancus

191. Comment #47505 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 6:39 pm

I haven't observed the "Holy Spirit" interpret-what-you-want argument in action, other than some nutjobs on TV.

I can give you an actual example from a few days ago on this site. It turns out that ministers in the Free Church of Scotland have to proclaim certain things as true when they are ordained. These things include creation happening in 6 days, and that the Pope is the Antichrist. These are both ridiculous, so what has happened is that 'days' is somehow morphed into 'long periods of time' to be constent with cosmology, and the Antichrist bit is hand-waved away. But, this is the dogma of that Church! None of the words have changed, and they are unambiguous. However, as I said, it can be arbitrarily abandoned based on concience.

Other Comments by steve99

192. Comment #47509 by USA_Limey on June 4, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Dianelos Georgoudis...

I've just read four pages of your crap; My fellow atheists pain me somewhat when they allow themselves to be sucked into "high brow" philosophical debate.

Can you please just cut the shit and tell us what bullshit myth you subscribe to? Or don't you have the guts to actually plant your flag in any hard theist ground?

Other Comments by USA_Limey

193. Comment #47513 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 7:49 pm

steve99,

My Old Testament 101 prof said "6 days" in Hebrew is "6 yom". Yom can mean "day" or "age"... so 6 ages could be any length of time. I don't know much about Hebrew so I'll shut up about it.

Wow! The Pope is the antichrist! Whew! I'm glad that the Scots have solved that one! Someone should tell the Pope he's supposed to be in New Babylon. (My ancestors are Scottish - just poking fun)

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

194. Comment #47534 by alovrin on June 4, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Comment #47509 by USA_Limey on June 4, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Dianelos Georgoudis...
I've just read four pages of your crap; My fellow atheists pain me somewhat when they allow themselves to be sucked into "high brow" philosophical debate

HEAR HEAR come on Danny boy, cut the circumlocution, we can tell you like the sound of your own voice, the shininess of your towering intellect But so f*&king what.

How about we look at some of your wonderous prose HMmm

What I am saying that that many atheists don't think that such a larger World exists. Which atheists? Well, obviously, those who believe that the physical universe exhausts all reality and that there is nothing more there than the physical universe. So let me suggest something that clearly exists but that does not form part of the physical universe: the color red. To claim that the color red does not form part of the physical universe might sound surprising at first but consider this: According to science (or more precisely: according to scientific realism) there exists electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths, molecules that absorb or reflect some of these frequencies better than others, cone cells in the human eye that are especially sensitive to some particular electromagnetic frequencies, particular neural networks in the human brain connected to these cones, etc – but no matter how carefully you search in the physical universe as modeled by science you will not in fact find any part that is what we know as red.

Oh wow man, no red, what a bummer. Hey sound doesnt actually exist physically like, perhaps loud noises are gods talking to us.
OH thats right some people USED TO THINK THAT.

Oh I know, light doesnt actually exist either, and on this planet when the sun comes out we get light, so god must live in the sun, why dont we worship the sun.
Oh thats right, lots of people USED TO BELIEVE THAT.

And you have the gall to accuse RD of confused thinking.
When people start to posit other worlds and claim to have explanations of or an understanding about them. Their behaviour in this world usually degenerates on a sliding scale from laughable to utterly malevolent, and usually in correlation to the amount of power or influence they have in this world.
So at the moment you are at the laughable end of the scale, I just hope you stay there.

Other Comments by alovrin

195. Comment #47535 by steve99 on June 4, 2007 at 10:40 pm

My Old Testament 101 prof said "6 days" in Hebrew is "6 yom". Yom can mean "day" or "age"... so 6 ages could be any length of time. I don't know much about Hebrew so I'll shut up about it.

Well, it is kind of odd that a supposed message from God would be so vague.

Other Comments by steve99

196. Comment #47542 by epeeist on June 4, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Comment #47509 by USA_Limey

Dianelos Georgoudis...

I've just read four pages of your crap; My fellow atheists pain me somewhat when they allow themselves to be sucked into "high brow" philosophical debate.

Have you noticed he doesn't actually answer any questions.

A few comments back I noted that some of his prose sounded as though he was semi-quoting Plato or Husserl.

I take that back, I think what he is actually doing is following some 13th century writers, namely the scholastics. Arguments from authority without reference to any empirical grounding e.g. "reason rejects actual infinities", when mathematicians and theoretical physicists handle infinities on a daily basis. It can't be long before he starts questioning whether we can really know whether planets go around the sun in ellipses, rather than circles because this is a "perfect" shape.

Oh, and the colour red thing? No more than nominalism.

Other Comments by epeeist

197. Comment #47544 by roach on June 4, 2007 at 11:35 pm

I can't debate sophisticated theists effectively. I assumed I could just let them talk and people would see right through their specious reasoning but nope. Even when I provide examples (essentially none of them are mine) demonstrating the absurdity of religious moderation I seem to come off as intolerant and closed-minded. It sucks. I don't know how Dawkins et al. deal with it.

Other Comments by roach

198. Comment #47551 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 12:04 am

roach,

let me explain (I'm a theist, yet not sophisticated)...we have MUCH to lose: family, respect, self-confidence, jobs sometimes, time, friends, positions, support networks, purpose, feelings of relationship with God, not to mention salvation, and eternal life...

and then...

someone like you questions/argues/rationalizes very well and occasionally belittles us...

and essentially asks us to be "born-again" AGAIN. (think about the fundamental reversal in world views you're asking us to consider... it's akin to being born again)

The proposition is usually too much to entertain for many, many reasons, and so you're left going to bed frustrated, and we're left going to bed examining any chinks in our lifelong-constructed armour.

Other Comments by james_the_doubter

199. Comment #47555 by roach on June 5, 2007 at 12:26 am

james,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. My frustration is not so much with religous people who (believe) they have much to lose but rather with secularists and agnostics who think that tolerating all manner of absurdity is the right and respectful thing to do.

I have acutally encountered people who state that opinions/beliefs are not open to debate and many agree with this ridiculous position. Would they have us debate facts instead? It really is a failure of our discourse.

I realize that my reply didn't address the issues you raised. Whereas you believe you would lose much if you were to embrace a naturalistic (nonsupernatural) world view, I would argue that you don't lose anything and have much more to gain. I will respond in more depth tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Cheers.

Other Comments by roach

200. Comment #47572 by Flagellant on June 5, 2007 at 2:22 am

Dianelis Georgoudis (141)

I agree with Russell Blackford (123) that you are acquitting yourself rather better than Alister McGrath. While it isn't really possible to compare the two arenas, you have had to cope with a bevy of disputants who have joined the discussion here, whereas McGrath had only Dawkins and his producer to contend with. While I am not as dismissive of what you have written as, for example, USA_Limey (193) and Alovrin (195), (Hey Peeps, I think it behoves us to engage with visitors, rather than to dismiss what they (visitors) say outright. It is by such engagement that we can take issue with the visitors' expanded views in one way or the other *), you are beginning to wriggle.

Your attempt to broaden the discussion, just when I was trying to narrow it down and to get a better understanding of the special world to which you allude, is rather disingenuous. I would not claim that science has everything to offer, other than by way of discipline/method, to the business of ethics but it's getting there all the time, as you have accepted for other realms. Further, humanist ethics seems to be a more satisfactory way of finding answers to ethical questions than appeals to authority such as scripture. We know so much more now than we did when all these texts were synthesised.

The nub of your position is encapsulated in:

And to go back to the question of theism, I personally find that the best theistic worldview I can devise is much more successful in giving me this kind of overarching understanding than the best atheistic worldview.

Too personal; you have given no reasoning for preferring the best theistic world view to the best atheistic worldview: you haven't said why the one is better than the other and you don't tell us anything about the two views, either; you haven't even said that there is a difference. Without this, I'm not sure that what you are describing is a theistic world view, at all; I would suggest that it is non-theist, perhaps even atheistic.

Your answers are not quite what I had expected. I had hoped you would explain to me the nature of the world that the atheists are missing. You might, for example, have chosen ultra-violet instead of 'red' and explained that experiencing 'ultra-violet' by sight (never mind the feelings of warmth), requires special lenses. I have had similar experiences when putting on dark glasses and suddenly seeing cloud patterns not visible to the naked eye.

I so wanted you to describe your other way of thinking (e.g. intuiting) so that I could try it myself; I really want to recognise something that is different and from which I might learn something. However, so far all you have said, e.g. about red, love and beauty, are things that I recognise and can empathise with. There's not much difference there, then. However, what's this?

how it is to reach self-transcendence – these are all parts, even significant parts, of the human condition

What do you mean by 'self-transcendance'? Death or what? Or is this just being subsumed by community feeling – common humanity, in other words?

I think you have very ably demonstrated, at least in your discussion with me, that you cannot, or do not want to, explain the larger world to which you allude. From this, I suggest that such a world is illusory or that your arguments for it are circular.

Do you see what else you have done, here? You have talked about the world, and ways of seeing it, which almost any humanist would accept but you haven't, except by implication, included god. Now, I don't mind this because it means that you have a world view with 'god' just tacked on as an afterthought. Why not knock it off altogether?

Although you have mentioned god in dealing with other posters, in not mentioning god at all here, and positing your preference for an under-defined theistic view, you are allowing me to infer that you are not really happy about the concept of god; you are probably ashamed about it but you can't say so - yet. I applaud that because it means that you do not have the certainty of the in-your-face evangelical. You haven't come here to save some souls but to have your views tested in the same way that James has done. Doubt is good you say to him (182). Well it's good in your case, too; try engaging with the world without hocus pocus. You have ably demonstrated your potential for doing so.

* Lest it be thought that I do not have a 'horses for courses' approach, look for my posts to chamber. Lol.

Other Comments by Flagellant