151. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73186 by Lauregon on September 24, 2007 at 11:40 am

Hey - I've just found a video clip of Dianelos Georgoudis. Now you can see him as he really is - check this out :


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc

:)

Or, you can do a simple search for D's name and discover that he spends a lot of time writing reviews on Amazon...

152. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73182 by Lauregon on September 24, 2007 at 11:32 am

(I believe that God interacts with us in the non-objective part of our experiential life – but that's another issue.) - Dianelos

What exactly does that mean? Please explain and be specific, and also please explain what you see as the proper response and relationship of humans to the "God" you believe in.

153. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72761 by Lauregon on September 22, 2007 at 7:19 pm

mis_spelled, for whatever it's worth: a woman came into possession of an art object I'd made, and told me a couple of years later that the art object enabled her to get the preganancy she'd being trying for years to achieve. This story won't help your situation with your mom, but merely serves to show that many people are eager to attribute natural occurances to supernatural means. ;)

154. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72700 by Lauregon on September 22, 2007 at 11:08 am

Do you really think that all the atheist authors who have written thick books and detailed arguments about this issue were all stupid, and that Dawkins's superior intellect had to come along to explain to the world how trivially easy it is to prove God's non-existence? - Dianelos

I think arguing about whose version of atheism is best is pretty pointless...unless, of course, atheists disagreeing with Dawkins et al, are doing so primarily because they're afraid he/they may manage to convince some of the truly ignorant that there's no "God," perhaps concerned that without a "God" to believe in, the truly ignorant will run amok. Atheism among the uneducated may be perceived by some as too big a threat to society. Some theists here have hinted darkly at that possibility.

155. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72698 by Lauregon on September 22, 2007 at 10:46 am

Deism is the thesis that some designer set up the universe and then walked away, but if the appearance of the first replicator on naturalistic grounds turns out to be for all practical purposes impossible this will evidence the existence of a designer who is continuously interfering. - Dianelos

I believe you expressed the belief on the McGrath thread that "God" doesn't interfere, or at best interferes only rarely, so, which is it, Dianelos?
Does "God" interfere, or not?

156. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72696 by Lauregon on September 22, 2007 at 10:31 am

Truth in anagrams! Bravo, Cap'n Underpants. ;)

157. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72694 by Lauregon on September 22, 2007 at 10:25 am

when theologians say that God made the universe what they mean (and this would be obvious to anybody who actually reads a little theology) is that the best explanation for the existence of the universe requires the existence of God.- Dianelos

Correction. What it means is that theologians begin with the assumption that a Supreme-Creator-Of-All referred to as "God" exists, which in turn requires the conclusion that the universe was created by the Supreme-Creator-Of-All referred to as "God."

158. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72578 by Lauregon on September 21, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Orphans all: "Oh, please kind sir, do show us the magic bean hidden in your secret pocket!"

159. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72521 by Lauregon on September 21, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Instead of calling it "God", we may as well just label the unknown cause "X". This is intellectually more honest and would avoid all the linguistic and conceptual pitfalls and baggage that the label "God" conjures up. - Bonzai

Worthy idea, but not likely to happen. Speaking of "X" would leave neo-theists like Dianelos vulnerable to disputation from traditionalist believers as well as from atheists, and with no place to hang his hat other than on his own head.

160. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72380 by Lauregon on September 20, 2007 at 10:51 pm

The alternative, the non-golden-calf route, is to sit light to definitions, hypotheses and images, and allow God to be God. - Skinner

That pretty much eliminates all church doctrine, creeds, and articles of faith. So, what will believers believe, and when will they start believing it?

...it is no bad thing regularly to be reminded that all images of God fall far short of the reality encountered and witnessed to by Moses and the prophets, and by Jesus and the apostles. - Skinner

Huh? Hmmm. Maybe he's not all that anti-golden calf after all.

161. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72318 by Lauregon on September 20, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Oh. Why should I value the long-term well-being of advancing societies? - PaulEmecz

This question has been answered over and over and over again. Unable to see past your "only two responses possible" dualism, you reject the answer.

What if I don't, and instead I value conflict among societies, believing it to speed up the process of evolution, killing off the weak majority and leading to the survival of the strong minority? - PaulEmecz

In that case, you may qualify as a sociopath, one who proudly stands apart from the custom-bound community and indulges in extreme narcissism, acted out through violence and mayhem. Sociopathy happens, "God" or no "God."

What if I crave constant improvement, rather than stagnation at the current stage of our evolution? As soon as you realise that people actually can have different values, you can no longer argue that they SHOULD have your values. - PaulEmecz

Which is pretty much the issue between believers and non-believers. Religious leaders and their pious congregants have historically punished those who moved beyond the traditions and the worldview of bishops and believers.

Your arguments about why we should be honest, kind etc. are based on one (or in fact many as you have stated them) assumptions about what is actually intrinsically or ultimately valuable. - PaulEmecz

Okie-dokie, Paul. Your persistence in flogging this poor ragged horse has gotten extremely tiresome. I have asked repeatedly, and you have refused repeatedly to respond to my questions concerning how you think what you refer to as "objective values" come to be accepted by humans. Perhaps you will now, at LONG last, tell us where you think "morality" derives from, and how people come to learn of it and accept it, and at what point in history humans will KNOW that they've achieved the absolute pinnacle of knowledge concerning morality, aka, "objective values."

I'm guessing that your answer, if you were open and forthright about it, would involve "God" supernaturally imprinting divinely ordained "objective rules" on the hearts and minds of believers. Unfortunately, that's an assumption founded in religious belief, riddled with holes and answers taking refuge in "mystery," and is not a fact that can proved. As I see it, Paul, the moment has come for you to answer the questions clearly and without ambiguity, without dodginess, without evasion, and without off-hand references to Kant. How do YOU see "morality" ("objective values") coming into existence and becoming known to and accepted by human beings?

162. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71799 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 5:21 pm

That's not it. It isn't a 'reward' - my beliefs aren't that we get rewarded for doing good deeds. I don't believe that at all. There are all sorts of reasons why people do bad things. Most paedophiles were abused themselves as children. I wouldn't want to condemn them to eternal punishment. The idea is simply that if this is it, we have a life of limited length and then die, and ultimately all people die and that's it, what difference does it make, ultimately, if we made one person happy or another sad? How would the universe be any different, ultimately, one way or the other? - PaulEmecz

Sigh-h-h-h-h. Because while we're here, we're here, and it makes sense in the long run to make the best of life while we're here.

So when steve99 said

Good deeds, even minor ones, have effects that spread. Show love to a neighbour and this may make them show more love to others.

he missed the point. That only makes sense if there is eternal life. - PaulEmecz

Huh???? To you, obviously. Certainly not to me. Do explain why you see it as you do.

Why would I need to know with absolute certainty? I don't think we know anything about the world with absolute certainty. - PaulEmecz

It does seem that that's what you're demanding here.

My belief in God is compatible with belief in objective morality, objective values. I can believe in God and believe that honesty, courage, kindness, wisdom etc. are real virtues. I don't see that an atheistic position would allow me to believe in objective values, which is where I see newatheist's difficulties stem from. - PaulEmecz

Paul, the "difficulties" are yours, not newatheist's.

This is not to say that atheists can't be or are not courageous, kind, honest people (I have never said that). It just means that they cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom. - PaulEmecz

Why can't they? Those qualities serve the long-term well-being of advancing societies. They're pragmatic virtues. Anyone can value them. Sociopaths may not value them, but sociopaths, both atheist and professing believer sociopaths are nut-cases.

163. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71784 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Rational Thinking, post # 44, it would be a good idea for you to make clear who you're responding to ---if it's to someone particular.

164. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71782 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm

I went to several Christian blog sites before posting this message and I couldn't find the word atheist, dawkins or agnostic anywhere. Yet here, it seems every word that is typed is intended to attack people of faith... That is very telling, don't you think? - Marshall

Being no stranger to debates with believers, both as a believer and as a former believer, I'm confident in saying that believers are more than eager to attack atheists when given the opportunity, not the least of their attacks being the absolutist claim that atheists have no morality. So, to answer your question, #1, no, it's not true that "every word that is typed is intended to attack people of faith," and #2, no, "that" is not telling at all. ;)

165. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71778 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Christians, on the other hand seem passionate about what they believe... - Marshall

However un-educated and incurious about the doctrines and history behind the things they claim to believe they may be.

...and are offering something that atheists aren't....purpose. That seems like an extremely important component to just leave out. - Marshall

What Christians "offer" in the way of "purpose" is the promise of heaven coerced by threat of eternal punishment in hell for not believing in "salvation" and the doctrine of Jesus' vicarious atonement, and/or not being sufficiently penitent for being human rather than divine and immune from committing "sin." In today's world, coercing compliance from people through threats of violence or acts of torture is illegal, and may even be considered "terrorism."

As has been advised above, create your own "purpose" by means of your own choices.

Also, I strongly suspect that at least most theists who argue the "purpose" aspect of the theist/non-theist debate, are arguing for a "received" issue, i.e., one they didn't arrive at themselves, but were indoctrinated in by others. Truly, I've never yet actually met a theist who appeared to have thought deeply enough about their faith in "God" for it to have occured to them to seriously worry about "purpose."

166. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71657 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 12:25 pm

OK, but I notice you haven't really proposed any objective evidence for naturalism. Surprising that there aren't any, no? Before criticizing other peoples' ontological beliefs it's a good idea to try to apply the same standards to one's own. What goes for the goose goes for the gander. - Dianelos

You've brought your ontological theist beliefs to an atheist site, Mr Gander, and so far have convinced no one of the truth of your beliefs, for all the "evidence" you claim to have presented. The burden of proof isn't on non-theists, Dianelos. It's on you. ;)

167. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71649 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 12:04 pm

By the way, Paul, Khaled Hosseini's novel, "A Thousand Splendid Suns" provides an engrossing multi-layered story of the conflicting moralities of human beings living in extreme circumstances. It served to reaffirm for me a gratitude for not living in a time or place of absolute moralities, given that human life is seldom if ever black and white.

168. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71638 by Lauregon on September 19, 2007 at 11:49 am

Many reasons. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' means you do good to others. Now, if they're going to die, and never remember what you did, what difference does it make to them, ultimately? In fact, what difference does any of it make, ultimately? - PaulEmecz

You seem unable to let go of the idea that there must be a divine pay-off in the end in order for humanitarian behavior to make sense. You seem unwilling to accept the results of employing concepts such as the Golden Rule as ends in themselves.

Justice is an important concept, but again this makes no sense when millions died in the Holocaust etc. - PaulEmecz

A loving God who answers the prayers of his "chosen people" makes no sense given that millions died in the holocaust.

I would value Jesus' teachings even if I didn't believe in God. - PaulEmecz

Why? How would your valuing of them be different from that of atheists who value Jesus' ethics?

However, if I didn't believe in God, I would find myself in newatheist's position, trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true. - PaulEmecz

As it is, you're stuck with being unable to explain how you know with absolute certainty what "God's" morality is. It looks to me as though you're in no better position on the subject of morality than you see newatheist in.

169. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71393 by Lauregon on September 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Jesus' teachings on ethical issues strike a chord with me. Morality, with God in the picture, makes sense to me. I am unable to get any alternative view on morality to sit comfortably and consistently. - PaulEmecz

But, Paul, that's your problem, not ours. You've limited your thinking to dualism and you seem unable to think beyond it.

Could Jesus' teachings on moral issues make sense to you apart from "God?" If not, why not?

170. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71326 by Lauregon on September 18, 2007 at 12:52 pm

On the other hand there is not a shred of objective evidence for the view that the physical universe is real either. - Dianelos

And yet we experience it as such in these bodies, in this time and place. As I said before, I'm pretty sure that if you were a patient in a burn ward, you'd find yourself sincerely convinced of the reality of physical existence. And as Dr Benway pointed out elsewhere, Christian Science, which is based upon the theory that physical reality is an illusion, is dying. Like it or not, Dianelos, we are here, with this physical eqiuipment---however limited it may or may not be---in this time and place. Insisting that human physical reality isn't real is simply another unprovable claim of yet another elite Priesthood of the Unseen.

171. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71317 by Lauregon on September 18, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I accept only two responses to morality - one is that there is no morality, nothing we should or shouldn't do. Moral codes have simply arrived, like social conventions, in a way that might be explained by evolution, sociology, psychology or whatever. There are no 'oughts'.

The other possibility I see is that some things are right and others wrong, there are things you should and should not do - and I have said that I do not see how this could be the case without God.

Strangely enough, people have argued with my position. Out of this argument, my most recent point has been that if you do not believe that there are things you should do and others you should not, there must be 'mental gymnastics' going on. - PaulEmecz

Paul, it's not strange at all that people have argued with your position. Nor is it strange that you accept "only two responses to morality." Your two-answer model is a bold declaration of dualist thinking which is itself a primary characteristic of fundamentalist Christian belief, borrowed evidently, from the Zoroastrian good vs evil worldview. You persist in assuming there must be mental gymnastics going on in the minds of people who see morality differently than you do, but your reasoning in this appears hopelessly circular: because you are certain there can be only "two possible responses," you assume others must engage in mental gymnastics in order to have responses other than your two. You're caught in a loop of your own presuppositions, Paul, your own embrace of dualist black/white, good/evil, either/or thinking, but in reality, life just isn't like that---no matter how much fundamentalist-inclined believers wish it to be so.

172. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71049 by Lauregon on September 17, 2007 at 5:00 pm

The head tilting was apparent when I tried to explain the possible legal consequences of these young men's actions. So, I don't take all that much cognisance of the study you mention Lauregon. Maybe Oxytocin will weigh in here. He may know of the study and/or others.

As a consequence of my dealings with people, I have developed a wariness of head tilting. I know, I know, that's subjective and anecdotal. However, that's how we tend to live our lives. - Veronique

I didn't mean to suggest that the reported study showed that head-tilters are actually honest, but only that many people interpret head-tilting as an indication of an honest person, which is why, according to the person I heard talking about this, he mentioned Ronald Reagan's head tilting. Many gullible Americans believed Reagan to be situated pretty damn close to the right hand of "God." A minority of others vehemently disagreed. The person talking about this also pointed out, almost as a warning, that Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney is another head-tilter. (I, not buying head-tilting as a sign of honesty, refer to him simply as Mitt Botox, in honor of his latex-smooth appearance, but evidently many people find him presidential).

173. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71019 by Lauregon on September 17, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I think it's useful to realize that there are limits to scientific knowledge and that it is unreasonable to apply science beyond its field of applicability. - Dianelos

And yet, it seems that science is the primary vehicle you're using in attempting to "prove" your case for theism.

174. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70904 by Lauregon on September 17, 2007 at 7:59 am

Surely you are not saying that one can conflate theism with religious fundamentalism, are you? - Dianelos

I certainly am, and I'd toss in Judaiam and Muslim belief as well---as well as all other faiths that posit a supernatural deity that created all that is and is King of the World.

After all "theism" means belief in God, "religious fundamentalism" means belief that the Bible is the literal word of God, and the two are obviously quite different things. - Dianelos

Fundamentalists can't believe the Bible is the literal word of God without first believing there IS a "God." Of course fundamentalism is theism. Not your version, perhaps, but it's theism.

Here we are discussing Dawkins's errors and I wouldn't like to start discussing mine, but let me just very quickly point out that my definitions of God as what best explains all our experience of life, and that God is a perfect person, are definitions that virtually all Jews, Christians, and Muslims would accept. I don't think that any of them would object and argue that there are better explanations for our experience of life, or that God is some kind of flawed person. So I don't think I am redefining anything. - Dianelos

Indeed you are, inasmuch (at least) that in other threads you've taken the position that "God" isn't "personal," i.e., doesn't intrude or interfere or perform miracles in the daily lives of human beings. Such a position stands in sharp contrast to the beliefs of the faithful and the teachings of clergy and theologians over millennia that "God" answers prayers---not to mention the teachings of the Bible itself. You ARE redefining both "God" and theism---according to your premises.

Look, you can prove almost anything if you base your logic on premises of your own choosing. - Dianelos

Uh-huh. Most if not all of what you say is an example of that, including your above comments suggesting that fundamentalism isn't theism, as well as your positing of what you claim as the "most powerful theistic position."

175. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70889 by Lauregon on September 17, 2007 at 7:18 am

I was also put off by his facial expressions and the way he held his head to one side. - Veronique

About that head-tilt thing...

Recently I heard a psychologist report that studies in body-language have shown that many people are inclined to interpret the head-tilt as an indicator that the head-tilter is a person to be trusted. He cited the embrace of head-tilter Ronald Reagan by so many Americans as one shining example of this. Many Americans saw Reagan as a kindly grandfather type, and he was widely spoken of by the media as the Great Communicator---which mostly goes to show that even B-movie actors can sell cheese product.

176. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70656 by Lauregon on September 16, 2007 at 1:29 pm

The main character has moral choices. He can make good or bad choices, but he has choices. - PaulEmecz

What would make his choices "moral" or "immoral?"

He can be strong or weak, brave or cowardly, decent or depraved. He could define the very best of the human race, or the very worst.- PaulEmecz

In regard to what?

Maybe you'll want to argue that he must have a relationship to be moral, and this would necessitate God, with whom he must have a relationship, thereby proving God's existence - PaulEmecz

Why would it necessitate "God"---apart from the fact that you believe morality must derive from a supernatural Being?

What seems clear to me is that he could lead a good life or a bad one, regardless of any relationships he has or does not have. -PaulEmecz

What would define a "good" or "bad" life to the last person on earth---apart from the person succumbing to the imminent physical dangers on every side, or not?


BTW, "The Road," by Cormac McCarthy is an interesting (however bleak) read on post- apocalypse existence.

177. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70646 by Lauregon on September 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm

and should avoid the common strawman of conflating theism with religious fundamentalism- Dianelos

Not only are you doggedly attempting to redefine "God," Dianelos, but now you're trying to redefine theism too. You write as though you believe that most if not all the multi-millions of theists before you have been misled about "God," but that now you've got the One Truth. Sheesh. What a row to hoe. Not only must you convince agnostics and atheists of the reality of your new and improved "God," but all "true believers" as well. Alas, those traditional theists aren't going to give up their prayer-answering, miracle-performing, punishing, rewarding "God" any time soon. ;)

178. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70238 by Lauregon on September 14, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Not that your assumptions about why religious people might give are correct, but I wonder if the receiver in need cares about the motives of the giver. I think at that stage they probably don't. - fides_et_ratio

I agree with your last sentence, but I've debated with enough evangelicals to know with certainty that many among them insist that giving not connected with "faith in Jesus" counts for nothing in "God's" eyes without the giver having first accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior: there are stars in heaven to be gained by believers in their giving. It's also true, in the US, at least, that one major reason for conservative opposition to federal welfare programs is that believers are "forced" to give to the undeserving poor who, they believe, should be left to their misery on the grounds that if the poor were "right" with "God" they wouldn't be poor, therefore, to help them through welfare is to oppose "God's will" for punishment-through- deprivation for the undeserving poor. A loving lot they are, such believers.

179. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70233 by Lauregon on September 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm

If there exists "objective truth" it appears to me there can be only one origin for it, and that would be the supernatural being believers call "God," who, they believe, created everything that is and isn't, which surely would have to include all "objective truth." - Lauregon

No, this isn't true. That would reduce 'objective' to 'God's opinion'. If something is objectively true (be it maths, logic, morals or whatever), then it just is, and needs no backing or foundation from a supernatural being; indeed the idea that it might makes no sense. - Steve99

I agree. I was speaking of "objective truth" when spoken of by a theist (thus the quotation marks) and specifically in response to comments by Dianelos and his ever-changing descriptions of "God," and Dianelos' claim of there being "only one objective truth." I obviously didn't make that clear enough. Sorry.

180. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70018 by Lauregon on September 13, 2007 at 4:50 pm

HOW could anyone be certain the discoverer wasn't putting forth his own ideas as the morality of "God?" - Lauregon

How do you mean that? Of course the discoverer would be putting forth their own ideas. If he or she is the discoverer then who else's ideas would he or she be putting forth? That's the way it works with any discovery. For example when Einstein discovered a better way to describe gravitational phenomena he put forth his own ideas. Ah, maybe the confusion is this: When a theologian claims that X is true then it is also implicitly claimed that God would agree that X is true; but this fact does not imply that it is God who claims X and that the theologian somehow knows God's claims, or that the theologian justifies the truth of X by pointing out that that's what God thinks. To claim that that's what the theologian is always doing is just a strawman. - Dianelos

Don't be silly. The entire structure of Christian faith is based upon a collective belief among certain people of "faith" that the people who wrote the Bible knew God's mind---Paul the Apostle most particularly, who did in fact claim to have access to the thoughts of "God." And of course there's Moses, and also all the OT prophets who railed against all they believed was against "God's" purposes---not to mention the myriad shouting and sweating Christian evangelists today (and mullahs, etc.,) who claim to know God's mind through their reading of the Bible.

If there exists "objective truth" it appears to me there can be only one origin for it, and that would be the supernatural being believers call "God," who, they believe, created everything that is and isn't, which surely would have to include all "objective truth."

The intellectual dishonesty required by Christian faith drove me out of the Church 22 years ago, and more recently away from theism altogether. - Lauregon

Surely you are not implying that theistic belief requires intellectual dishonesty do you? - Dianelos

I am. I certainly found it to be so, and given opinions posted on this RD site by other non-theists, I'm not alone in my belief.

I'm going to go out on another limb here and suggest that just possibly, the brains of theists and non-theists may work differently. - Lauregon

Well, strictly speaking the brains of any two people work differently; on the other hand I don't think the differences between any two groups of people of normal cognitive capacity can be so great as to invalidate reason. And of course there is only one objective truth. So as there is only one truth and all normal people can reason about it I think that sooner or later most people will gravitate towards one understanding of reality. We'll see. - Dianelos

I don't agree that there is only "one objective truth." That's an opinion you, Paul, and other theists share by virtue of your belief in an all-powerful, omniscient deity who created everything that is---and in your case, everything that isn't, as well. ;)

You make all sorts of claims, Dianelos, assuming and even stating that many of your claims are indisputably true. To some extent, then, you could be described as believing that you know "God's" mind. ;)

181. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69796 by Lauregon on September 12, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Lauregon, thank you for your post. I am genuinely surprised that you really don't feel the inconsistencies. Maybe you live in a fairly safe society, where people's human rights are generally respected etc. In such circumstances, people don't worry about a lack of objective morality, because evolution seems to have done a good job. I imagine that the vast majority of the world, who are much worse off than any of us on this thread (simply by using computers we are in the wealthiest 10% of the world), might not be so happy about things. - PaulEmecz

I'm just asking, does it not cause some sort of conflict to believe that morality is subjective when people treat morality as prescriptive? - PaulEmecz

Not having absolute rules written in heaven obviously causes you great unease, Paul, but do realize that the Bible contains (allegedly) divine rules and laws which many if not most believers ignore, eliminate, or at least moderate to suit their own modernist views. Having absolutes believed by many to have been written in heaven is no guarantee of obedience or even of eternal retention. In the long run, even allegedly divine absolutes are subject to change through the application of human reason---at least in the absence of rule by tyrannic theocracy. I think you're tilting at windmills if you believe that absolute rules would improve human societies all that much---at least apart from enforcement such as is practiced by believers such as the Taliban and the ayatollas in Iran. Do consider as well that divine law stands in sharp contradiction to the principles of modern democracy. The only way modern democracy can work is by not according primacy to allegedly divine law. IOW, if you value democracy, you can't also insist on the imposition of absolute moral laws decreed by a supernatural being.

Do you not have to do some sort of mental gymnastics, as people have been on this site, and really behave as though morality is objective for most of the time. I mean, when it comes to arguing about ontology with a theist, you'll admit morality is subjective, but surely you don't let people know, when a child is abducted and people say how terrible such a thing is, that it is merely a subjective opinion that child abduction is wrong. Surely you find yourself treating morality as prescriptive and doing so whilst at the same time recognising that morality is subjective must cause some intellectual conflict. It must. - Paul

Modern advanced societies collectively agree that certain behaviors are forbidden and they make laws addressing such behaviors. Making such agreements is, IMO, part of the heavy price of humans having evolved the ability to work through complex issues by means of the application of human reason. Absolute rules are a simplistic and often brutal solution to the failure of some people to obey social custom. Human reason requires the ability to sort though and resolve complex issues. Like it or not, life in modern human societies is complex, and we're stuck with it.

In the case of catastrophically devolved societies, such ability must eventually be re-developed---a process which might require a lengthy period in which societal rules might be said by leaders to have been ordered from above by a divine supernatural being---a pragmatic claim which wouldn't actually have to be factual.

182. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69659 by Lauregon on September 12, 2007 at 4:58 am

Well, your question finds me off balance because it's like asking me about which physicists who speak of "massive particle" actually mean "particle with mass". I suppose the answer is "pretty much all of them." When I find the term "personal God" in some theological text it always makes sense when understood as "God who is a person". It's like common knowledge. _ Dianelos

The "God" of Christianity is referred to as "Father," and has been sold to believers all along as a supernatural "person" who lovingly (or even angrily) intervenes in the daily lives of humans, i.e., a "personal God," not simply, "God who is a person."

Indeed it's thus described in the American Heritage dictionary as evidenced by the example chosen to clarify one possible meaning of the adjective "personal": "Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being: belief in a personal God" Nevertheless, after doing a little research, I find that nowadays and in popular usage the term has become ambiguous, which is unfortunate.

As for how the greater Christian/religious community understands the term I don't know. If the correct meaning of the term in theology is "God who is a person" then that's the meaning the greater Christian/religious community should use.- Dianelos

Dianelos, a "God" who "is a person" but "not personally interacting with us" (as you've described) is f-a-r too large a brick to swallow given the endless and ever-present theologizing by theologians about "God" the loving Father who answers prayers and petitions, and requires worship. Sorry, Dianelos, that "all theologians" elephant simply won't fly.

No. I am talking about panentheism, not about pantheism – there is a huge difference :-)

So there is. Silly me for understanding "all of reality" as physical reality as humans experience and know it. ;)

Pantheism is the view that the physical universe is God, or maybe more exactly that God exists in nature. That's certainly not my view, after all I don't even believe that the physical universe (or physical nature) is real. -Dianelos

I suspect, Dianelos, that if you were a patient in a burn ward you'd experience the physical universe as "real" pretty quickly. :)

What's more pantheism strikes me personally as incoherent as it identifies God who by definition is supernatural with the physical universe itself which by definition is not supernatural. I think the deeper meaning of pantheism is that functionally or pragmatically God is to be identified with the physical universe, in the sense that all personal experience or sense of relationship with something much larger than oneself or value or meaning or ethical imperative - the very kind of stuff theists claim in relation to God - can and are only realizable in relation to the physical universe (which is a view that Dawkins might agree with).

Panentheism is the view that all that is real is God. There are many different panentheistic understandings of reality. For example you can coherently believe that the physical universe is real and also in panentheism: in this case you consider that the physical universe in an integral part of God. My own view is that reality consists of persons who all form an integral part of God, and that all other existents (including physical and mathematical existents) exist as stable patterns in a personal experience (physical objects existing presumably only in human experience in this life, mathematical objects existing presumably in all personal experience, and so on).

In a way pantheism and panentheism are opposite ideas: pantheism resumes all that is invisible/spiritual to what's visible/physical, and panentheism does the opposite and resumes all that's visible/physical to what's invisible/spiritual. - Dianelos

As I've indicated before, Dianelos, in my opinion, and history bears me out, the priesthood of the invisible and spiritual has been, is, and can yet, and will likely continue to be an instrument of tyranny. You're advocating a worldview in which "reality" is defined by an elite caste of "seers," while the physical experience of mere mortals is denied as "unreal." That's the same old smoke and mirrors thing that's been sold to believers for eons. To that I say, Caveat Emptor.

And BTW, trying to sell panentheism to priests and people in the pew will be a tough job, given that mainstream theologians and clergy all along have been adamant about panentheism (and pantheism) being well outside the fold of orthodox Christian belief, both having been considered "pagan."

183. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69653 by Lauregon on September 12, 2007 at 3:59 am

Re: Post #2262

Without wanting to discredit your position in any way, I'm not scoring points here, how do you cope with the inconsistencies of being an atheist? - PaulEmecz

So far, much better than I coped with the inconsistencies and patched-together theology that is Christian faith. However much you may doubt it, I did not come to the position of a non-theist carelessly or casually. It's been an arduous, grueling, journey. - Lauregon

I woke up at 3 a.m. thinking of this exchange and realized, "Hey, wait a minute, I don't agree that there are inconsistencies," and got up and logged on to amend my comments. Unfortunately, the edit box isn't showing, so this will have to suffice. So, Paul, to re-visit your question, so far, I haven't seen any troubling inconsistencies in atheism, and, as I said earlier, as I see it, theism is all about inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty, which is why I left it behind. As a non-theist, I feel intellectually honest, and I find that a far better place to be.


Newatheist, I enjoyed your responses to Paul's questions.

184. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69572 by Lauregon on September 11, 2007 at 6:31 pm

I don't choose what to believe on the basis of how convincing it might be to atheists. You seem to perceive faith as some sort of corporation touting for business. - PaulEmecz

Paul, you seem to have ignored the context of my comment which was directed to Dianelos in response to his description of a "God" as "all of reality." I made no assumption whatsoever about how you choose your beliefs. I did go out on a limb and suggest that a few atheists might be able to accept pantheism. I certainly wasn't talking about you or the way you've come to your beliefs.

I want to say that I don't really choose my beliefs at all - I find myself believing whatever seems most convincing to me after having studied an issue. - PaulEmecz

So do I. I've been studying issues pertaining to
"God" since you were four years old---and less passionately even before that---assuming you are 35 years old now---and if you are 35, that makes me nearly twice as old as you are. I've been a theist, and now I'm not, and I haven't come to my position in the least bit lightly. It's been more difficult than you are likely able to know, at least at this point in your life.

...I feel genuinely uncomfortable just thinking about the honest atheist response to morality.

An honest atheist response is that morality doesn't exist. - PaulEmecz

And here we back to your insistence that the word "morality" is something absolute and derived from "God." We clearly don't agree about the meaning of the word. The dictionary, however, is on my side, although I'm pretty sure there are Christian dictionaries that would define "morality" as you do.

However, your position has to be that if society changes, and it could so easily change after a viral pandemic or nuclear holocaust, the Golden Rule may be lost and something much less palatable could arise. You want to believe that evolution means progress, but the concept of progress requires a sense of objective value that is beyond the scope of your belief system. - PaulEmecz

I do agree that morality as I understand it can be lost. It can also be found again, of necessity, and eventually would be for the reasons I've already given. What you still haven't answered are my questions concerning how and when absolute "morality"would be "discovered." It's beyond obvious that human ideas about "God's" morality have changed over millenia. I've given examples of that already, more than once. What makes you think---if you do think so---that "God's" morality has been discovered yet? And by the way, how and when do you suppose such "morality" would be likely to be discovered after a pandemic or other cataclysm? HOW would it be discovered, and HOW could anyone be certain the discoverer wasn't putting forth his own ideas as the morality of "God?"

I could not be an atheist. - PaulEmecz

Not at this point in your life surely.

I could imagine believing that there is no God (I think it is less likely, but is clearly possible given what I have experienced), but the intellectual dishonesty that would be part of my daily life would affect so much more of my life than my faith does.- PaulEmecz

The intellectual dishonesty required by Christian faith drove me out of the Church 22 years ago, and more recently away from theism altogether. I was a layreader in the Episcopal Church for some years, and finally could no longer stand up in front of the congregation and conclude readings by pronouncing, "The Word of the Lord!" Nor could I recite creeds, or the Lord's Prayer, and I'm too much a thinker to be swept along emotionally by what others called "the beauty of the liturgy."

Without wanting to discredit your position in any way, I'm not scoring points here, how do you cope with the inconsistencies of being an atheist? - PaulEmecz

So far, much better than I coped with the inconsistencies and patched-together theology that is Christian faith. However much you may doubt it, I did not come to the position of a non-theist carelessly or casually. It's been an arduous, grueling, journey.

I'm going to go out on another limb here and suggest that just possibly, the brains of theists and non-theists may work differently. A recent study reported by the Los Angeles Times last week, suggests that the brains of political conservatives and the brains of political liberals work differently. Also, I've been casually interested for decades in the personality theories of Isabel-Myers Briggs which are based on CG Jung's writings. They show, to give just one micro example, that people typed "N" (for intuition) interpret information differently than do people typed "S" (for sensing). I've found that to be apparently true. When people persistently talk past one another, on and on, it's probably because (we) are processing information about the world we live in differently. I don't want to get into a long discussion about this; I'm merely mentioning these things to suggest a reason why people can be so divergent in their thinking about ourselves and our world.

185. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69511 by Lauregon on September 11, 2007 at 2:32 pm

When theologians speak of God being personal, they don't mean personal as in personally interacting with us. They may believe the latter to some degree or other, but that's not the meaning of "personal God" – and I remember being myself confused when I first encountered this term. - Dianelos

Which theologians are these, Dianelos, and how popular or even known or accepted are their views by the greater Christian/religious community? When will their views come to be reflected in creeds and articles of faith in the church pews?

By "personal God" they simply mean that the most basic and defining property of God is that God is a person. (Further "person" as used in theology does not only mean a human being but a conscious subject, i.e. a being with some specific attributes such as reason and free will.)

Indeed that's the basic disagreement between theism and naturalism. We all sense that reality is structured and that there is a deepest structure in it. According to naturalism the deepest structure of reality is mechanical; the whole of reality consists of some kind of machine, a machine naturalists call "the universe". According to theism the deepest structure of reality is personal; the whole of reality consists of some kind of a person, a person theists call "God". - Dianelos

You seem to be talking about pantheism, Dianelos. The "God" you argue so vigorously for appears to be a very dodgy, extremely nebulous and amorphous, whole of reality "person." Last I heard, pantheism was fiercely denounced by the churches, while the "God" who can be petitioned for mercy and forgiveness and even the occasional miracle was worshipped and glorified. (On the other hand, I suspect that pantheism has at least a chance of being accepted by at least some atheists). ;)

186. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69327 by Lauregon on September 10, 2007 at 10:43 pm

But what if God designed us to have the best life possible? - Paul

Then you've got to account somehow for all the hideous things that occur to people through no fault of their own--spina bifida, for example. Anencephaly. Cerebral Palsy. Being engulfed by molten lava. Death by tsunami. And yes, even including infestation by schistosomes. If there's an all-good, all-powerful, always-beneficent "God," a Satan becomes a necessity---and then the "God" story gets really complicated.

187. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69293 by Lauregon on September 10, 2007 at 11:01 am

2126

I don't recall saying anyone "should" do anything. - Lauregon


2054

I agree that there are rules we SHOULD keep. - Lauregon - snipped by PaulEmecz

Fine. You're right, I did say I agree there are rules we "should" keep---speaking, of course, in the context and interests of maintaining social stability, a human construct as I see it---which IS and has been my point all along, advocating for the Golden Rule as the source of human morality, a very different understanding than your absolutist use of the word "should," involving morality which you believe can only be decided by "God." I don't believe there are divine "shoulds." That certainly should be clear by now. I think your response to me (above)is disengenuous.

188. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69160 by Lauregon on September 9, 2007 at 8:17 pm

JJ Ramsey, please try an application of some oil of lavender. You seem unduly wound up, and I've heard it's very soothing. ;)

189. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69139 by Lauregon on September 9, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Dr B,

I didn't say God created oughts. I did say God designed and created the universe, and it is a universe where certain laws can be discovered - this includes moral laws. - PaulEmecz

If "God" didn't create oughts, perhaps they created themselves. Why should humans obey oughts that self-created? Why would oughts create themselves? If oughts can create themselves, why can't everything be self-created?

190. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69130 by Lauregon on September 9, 2007 at 6:47 pm

I have answered this one repeatedly, over and over again. - PaulEmecz

Not really.

Even Dr B. rightly accuses me of having given two quite different answers. My earlier answer was something along the lines of God having designed us with a specific purpose - find out what we're for, our uniquely human attributes, and BINGO! - PaulEmecz

Wow. "BINGO!" Now there's a (dodgy) answer.

Aristotle and Aquinas filled in some of the gaps. My more recent responses hinted at a Kantian solution, one of categorical imperatives, discernible through reason.

Is this not enough? If you're desperate, I suggested that there might be some mileage in Situation Ethics (the 'love' principle) - this was in discussion around the concept of 'objective' morality and the possibility of a relativist approach. Relativism does not equal non-cognitivism though! - PaulEmecz

Desperate? You're the one here who appears desperate, the one here who has begun from a conclusion and is doggedly trying to make the non-fitting pieces fit.

191. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69107 by Lauregon on September 9, 2007 at 5:56 pm

it's just that the criteria you have given, of stable societies and happy people, means that IF a society is happier and more stable with sharia law than with the Golden Rule, then sharia law is actually better than the Golden Rule. - PaulEmecz

I doubt that people living under sharia are really stable or happy, and, it appears to me that history shows that in time, as people escape the tyranny of the priests of the unseen, they eventually choose to abandon the absolutism of belief systems such as sharia.

You STILL haven't answered my question concerning how people would learn of it if there was such a thing as the morality of "God." Why is it that you refuse to answer questions asked of you that bear strongly on the discussion?

192. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69004 by Lauregon on September 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm

It does seem to me that Goldy and Lauregon have just dropped the "There really are some actions that we should do and some we should not" and are now pretending that they never believed in 'that' definition of morality. That's not fair - they should not have done that... - PaulEmecz

I haven't dropped the ball. I've been speaking about the Golden Rule and why it's valuable to societies. Treat others as you would be treated. It's not a hugely complicated idea, but you keep tossing in fascism and anti-social behaviors as choices people might make unless there are absolutes. You seem immune to acknowledging that those who would impose fascism or engage in anti-social behaviors have obviously exempted themselves from the Golden Rule---and that no absolute from a divine being has, so far, prevented either fascism or anti-social behaviors. There are of course, societies that stone law breakers to death, and no doubt that cuts down on anti-social behavior, but it's not the absolute law itself that does it; it's the fear of being stoned to death that does it.

I'm not sure how to convince you of this point if you cannot see it. You want an answer on the 'is/ought' problem, but don't seem able to imagine that God could be the author of morality. My belief is that the laws of logic and reason themselves were created by God, and therefore when we discover moral laws by reason, and follow what reason dictates, we are acting as God intended. - PaulEmecz

Stoning people to death is thought by some---even today in the US---to be a moral solution to violating "God's laws." Do you agree that it is?

Clearly you can act that way without believing in God, but if you don't believe in God, how do you answer the question "Why should you act that way?" - PaulEmecz

I thought "God" wasn't supposed to be part of this discussion, Paul. That's what you kept saying. Evidently, "God" was up your sleeve all along, just as several of us recognized---and is the reason you won't accept our explanations. You started with a firm conclusion and are, therefore, immune to answers that don't support that conclusion.

193. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68986 by Lauregon on September 9, 2007 at 11:56 am

An argument is much more interesting when you listen to both sides. -fides_et_ratio

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Fides, please see posts 90 and 91.

"Both sides?" Indeed, it's high time for theists to see both sides of the argument. Will they? Do they? Look what happens when they find out there's another side---a highly articulate and studied side, BTW, one they can't refute because they're in the business of illusion rather than reality. Hear the cries! Hear the outage! "Militant atheists!" they shriek. Curious how they ignore the historic militance of theists who not only insist and have insisted with sword, fire, and law for millenia that their illusions are THE ONE TRUTH, but that their illusions came straight from the Boss of the World! Now that's militance.

194. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68822 by Lauregon on September 8, 2007 at 7:50 pm

www.deism.com/

195. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68771 by Lauregon on September 8, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I don't see why non-theists should be expected to read anti-non-theist books. Most non-theists have been theists, found it wanting, and left it behind. Why should we re-visit the stale pro-theist arguments again? I've read at least a hundred times more theist books than non-theist books. I'm fairly certain that 99% of theists can't say the reverse.

196. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68763 by Lauregon on September 8, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Alas, those who believe in the unseen will simply have to count the roses on the wallpaper when those who believe in the seen pull the curtain away. Might not like it, to be sure, but the earth really isn't flat! 8(

197. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68727 by Lauregon on September 8, 2007 at 10:00 am

Good. You have moved forward, accepting that 'morality' is merely a set of customs. "Do not rape" and "Circumcise your daughter" are just conventions. One is not 'right' while the other is 'wrong'. These are merely descriptions of human behaviour. In some societies they may say "It is wrong not to circumcise your daughter" but all they mean is "It goes against the customs". - PaulEmecz

Uh, Paul? It's what we've been saying all along. "Morality" is a human invention---and as I've pointed out at least twice, by definition it is.

Heh-heh. I suspect that your conclusion on this is, just as you knew all along, yessiree, when atheists use the term "morality," their use of the word is in error---on the grounds that "true" morality is absolute and not merely "custom."

And Paul, I notice that you still haven't answered my questions concerning your belief about where "morality" comes from. C'mon, 'fess up. There's surely a compelling reason you made it appear you didn't get what we were saying about morality all this time. C'mon, tell us where you think morality comes from and what its properties are. ;)

198. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68612 by Lauregon on September 7, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Your are quoting from my post 39 or (#46643) where I describe McGrath's position as I understood it, but by cutting the introductory part you give the impression that I am describing my own position and contradicting myself later. Here is the original text from post 39: Even though I don't quite agree with McGrath's position that God directly saved that particular child, neither do I find his position incoherent. His position seems to be this: God as a rule does not interfere with the natural order; [etc] - Dianelos

Dianelos, I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding your text. I saw the comments on my screen as I was scrolling to get to the current page, remembered reading them when they were first posted, and obviously didn't give them a careful enough re-read the second time around. That was stupid and careless of me, and I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position. It wasn't intentional.


That said, I'd still like clarification about whether or not your idea of "God" is "personal," and if so, what makes your "God" "personal," given that you say you don't see your "God" as interventionist, and given that you said you don't quite agree with McGrath (concerning the child). In what way do you agree with McGrath in that regard?

199. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68593 by Lauregon on September 7, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Ms Bunting went a hunting
With a cudgel and a rake
Bedevilled Richard Dawkins
For things he never spake.

Ms Bunting's ire is heated
Her tone is snarky-sneer
She took a whack at Richard
And landed on her rear.

200. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68588 by Lauregon on September 7, 2007 at 5:13 pm

He persists in believing (note the verb) that belief is an intellectual assertion based on reasoning. But belief is a word derived from the old German "to love" as Diana Eck, Harvard professor of comparative faith, argues. Only in the last couple of centuries has belief become a matter of the intellect rather than an expression of commitment. - Bunting

I haven't found any validation for the claim that "believe" is derived from an old German word meaning "love." In any case, the word "believe" is routinely used today by theists to mean intellectual assent. Often, "belief" is said by ardent theists to be a matter of "choice:" choose rightly and attain heaven, or choose wrongly and go to hell.

Bunting decries the idea that "belief" means intellectual assent, apparently freely admitting that religious belief isn't intellectual. It's odd then that theist leaders throughout history have put so much effort into making intellectual arguments for the existence of "God."