Just Finished Reading: Philosophers Without Gods – Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life Edited by Louise M Antony
With a title like that how could I possibly resist buying this book? Fortunately it turned out to be pretty good although the first section, which consisted of ten philosophers relating how they became or were confirmed in their Atheism by the study of Philosophy did, I couldn’t help but feel, drag on a bit. It was, however, surprising that many of them specifically pointed to the study of philosophy itself that undermined their faith in God. It’s an interesting by-product of such teaching and would encourage me, if such encouragement was necessary, to propose teaching it in schools as standard.
The second section dealt with philosophical issues surrounding faith, atheism or secular society. This I generally found much more interesting particularly when they discussed alternatives to Christian morality such as ideas from the Ancient Greek world (of which I am a big fan). Some of the arguments I found to be rather ‘technical’ in the sense that they relied on an understanding of theology I do not possess but still (largely) managed to get across their points on Providence, Transcendence and Evil. Other arguments went down the well worn paths relating faith to fundamentalism and discussing the self deception of the religiously minded.
In places this book certainly doesn’t pull any punches though some of the authors did speak of secular toleration rather than all out opposition. The book is certainly not just a polemic against religion but a serious attempt to challenge theism without the often mistaken view that it should be treated as critically immune because of its 'divine' status. Clearly this volume appears to be written to give non-theists ammunition and support in any confrontation with their theistic contemporaries. I doubt very much if its intention was to persuade anyone to change sides nor do I imagine it could do so if that was its intention. I can recommend this to anyone who does indeed desire to bolster his/her burgeoning disbelief and anyone on the theistic side who wants a greater appreciation of where we’re coming from.
23 comments:
I went to add it to my Amazon wish list and it's already on it. Doh! ;-)
I've done that before too... but I do have 300 items on my Wish List ATM.
[grin]
"The book is certainly not just a polemic against religion but a serious attempt to challenge theism without the often mistaken view that it should be treated as critically immune because of its 'divine' status."
Just so you know I don't believe Christianity to be immune to critical analysis. What is true, stands up to such analysis.
Karla said: Just so you know I don't believe Christianity to be immune to critical analysis. What is true, stands up to such analysis.
So... Christianity isn't *immune* to criticism... just *beyond* it as it's True?
Sounds like a good book.
Karla - Christianity and "critical analysis" are pretty much mutually exclusive. Religion relies on faith, not logic, and I get that. It's when the religious try to defend their belief with logic that they are getting a bit over their skis.
Hey CK! How goes the ever-loving battle? Dbackdad... good to see you're still haunting this arena and with that same fantastic avatar. I wish my desk was by the lake/river/ocean.
Guess I'm like the prodigal son. =) Except CK's an Atheist, not my dad and though I'm sure he's happy to see me. At least I know I'm always welcome.
Karla is new... at least to me (which could mean she's been around for AGES)... so is Mike... I think
So... hmmm... on one hand we have Philosophy and logic and on the other we have Religion and faith. Dback you've got a point, which is one I think we agreed on last time I was here, it's very difficult to argue my faith based experiences against CK's logical ones, though I do try my best to watch for anything I can grab ahold of, like logic errors and so forth because logic is logic and when you argue with it you leave yourself open to critical thinking errors. I also seem to like to smash my head into the concrete, perhaps as much as CK although somewhat less consistent in my appearances than he is. Secretly I think CK's becoming religious but he doesn't want it to effect his fame on the interwebs (the same that made LOLCats famous).
*clears throat*
I don't think it is impossible to argue Religion logically. I think there are various pitfalls and I think Dback is saying that to argue religion logically is an incredibly arduous and razor strewn path to success. I believe it's a correct assumption. I could dedicate a lifetime to study and only put forth a few 'pillars' that any Atheist could easily undermine with cross referenced science. In the logical game of oneupmanship the Atheist will always have the predominant and much more accepted view of things, at least in this show-me day and hands-on age. Atheists will also always have more work to draw from as religious science isn't popular and there's really only one authoritative piece of literature.
I think there is something to be said for the OPPOSITE dback. I think Atheists who attempt to disprove or discredit religious beliefs through logic are perhaps taking the moguls with incorrectly adjusted bindings (skiing terminology don't fail me now).
Here's what I'd argue. Religion is a very popular subject for debate. “What happens when we die? Why are we here? What's life all about?” type questions have always been predominant in philosophy.
However, religion is personal, emotional, and fairly important to those who stick with it despite the overwhelming 'intellectual' evidence that we're supposed to just accept our fate as mere mortals and learn to live inside our self-made (well self-conceptualized at least) universe. We do a lot in our lives that is not 'logical' and yet never feel the need to write books about it. We fall in love, for no apparent reason. We all have a varying sense of what is funny, sad, or uplifting. CK, you enjoy a good sci-fi novel, and what great reason would there be for such an endeavor? Why do you enjoy the music you do? Why not define and explain it all?
We all share the lack of knowledge that prevents there from being a final end to this debate. My primary fault with most Atheists is their failure to admit, for as much as they know and understand, that they are as 'in the dark' about our spiritual nature as the rest of us. You can find infinite fault with the Bible, with the story of creation, with the idea of a omnipresent, omnipotent God, but you can not prove that there is nothing. I can't prove there's anything. So here we are... familiar place isn't it.
Hi sirkolgate,
I've only been an atheist for a year, so I'd bet I've been reading here less than that.
"My primary fault with most Atheists is their failure to admit, for as much as they know and understand, that they are as 'in the dark' about our spiritual nature as the rest of us."
And that is my primary fault with most theists as well.
Hi Mike,
I'm a Christian of some twenty years. Not a member of any denomination though I've been a member/attended several. I'm one of the few who actually read the bible in an attempt to understand it personally. Science is not something I hide from and philosophy is a friendly subject to me. CK has been visited by me on and off since summer '06 (at least I think it was summer '06)
"And that is my primary fault with most theists as well."
Ahhh, but with theists they aren't (or shouldn't be) arguing with you based on logic, but rather on their beliefs, which to them are as solid as fact (if they're really believers) From their standpoint everything is crystal clear (i.e. no question on what happens after death so no reason to admit failure to have 'proof')
As for Atheists you're arguing generally on some combination of logic and science. So... if everything needs proof...
You see my point?
However, if those theists try to browbeat you with their personal understandings without perhaps even attempting to understand your viewpoint then yeah... they're full of lose.
Personally, I believe Atheists and Theists have far more in common than they'd allow. They both have to allow for a certain element of 'faith' whatever the final reasoning.
SK said: Hey CK! How goes the ever-loving battle?
Not bad.... Level 18 & killin' *lots* of Orks and assorted other bad guys.
SK said: So... hmmm... on one hand we have Philosophy and logic and on the other we have Religion and faith.
Personally I'd say Science, Reason & Philosophy Vs Religion & Faith.
SK said: it's very difficult to argue my faith based experiences against CK's logical ones
'Logic'? A way of making mistakes with confidence.... [grin]
SK said: Secretly I think CK's becoming religious but he doesn't want it to effect his fame on the interwebs..
Fame? Me? [grin]
As to becoming 'secretly' religious.... Oh I *doubt* that! [rotflmao] Maybe if I get Altzheimers so I keep fogetting to be critical and skeptical enough...
SK said: I don't think it is impossible to argue Religion logically.
It's one of the faults with logic - that you can argue or even 'prove' something logically that may not necessarily be true.
SK: In the logical game of oneupmanship the Atheist will always have "the predominant and much more accepted view of things"...
...and yet most people are believers.... odd that... [muses]
SK said: CK, you enjoy a good sci-fi novel, and what great reason would there be for such an endeavor?
Erm... Because I normally find them very entertaining... Isn't that a good enough reason? It's certainly good enough for me.
SK said: Why do you enjoy the music you do?
It's probably something to do with the structure of my brain. Some things stimulate it in the right way - whilst other things don't. Personally I think that music has something to do with mathematics... not that maths is my favourite subject or anything....
SK said: My primary fault with most Atheists is their failure to admit, for as much as they know and understand, that they are as 'in the dark' about our spiritual nature as the rest of us.
Erm... *What* spiritual nature?
SK said: but you can not prove that there is nothing. I can't prove there's anything. So here we are... familiar place isn't it.
I thought it was about belief & faith - not proof. Which is why theists & atheists often talk past each other.
SK said: Personally, I believe Atheists and Theists have far more in common than they'd allow. They both have to allow for a certain element of 'faith' whatever the final reasoning.
There is faith and there is faith. Personally I don't think it means the same thing on both sides of the debate.... and its not just a difference in degree - but in kind.
SK, good to be conversing with you again.
SK said, "My primary fault with most Atheists is their failure to admit, for as much as they know and understand, that they are as 'in the dark' about our spiritual nature as the rest of us. You can find infinite fault with the Bible, with the story of creation, with the idea of a omnipresent, omnipotent God, but you can not prove that there is nothing."
-- CK and I have had this discussion before. I believe that doubt is the very foundation of legitimate atheism. As the proverb says, "Doubt is the beginning not the end of wisdom". I discover things every day that I don't know. Absolutism and fundamentalism are much more of a problem with religion than with atheism. That's what most of us atheists get criticized for ... moral relativism.
As for not being able to prove that God doesn't exist - I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either, but that doesn't prove he does exist. It's the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster phenomenon all over. To quote something I read on a blog once: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, otherwise you might as well accept the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns because you can't disprove them."
CK: Not bad.... Level 18 & killin' *lots* of Orks and assorted other bad guys.
*claps* I'm impressed... a long time and this is the FIRST comment regarding my avatar. Good show. Orcs is with a 'c' not a 'k' though... and at lvl 18 you've got work to do.
CK: 'Logic'? A way of making mistakes with confidence.... [grin]
Can I have Educated Guess for $500?
CK: Fame? Me? [grin] As to becoming 'secretly' religious.... Oh I *doubt* that! [rotflmao] Maybe if I get Altzheimers so I keep fogetting to be critical and skeptical enough...
I think you'd expect about as much from my Atheistic conversion. Skeptical is a good word and you've used that with me before. No one will ever question your naivety CK.
CK: It's one of the faults with logic - that you can argue or even 'prove' something logically that may not necessarily be true.
*shrug* I doubt it's as much a fault of logic as dynamic/fluidity is a 'fault' of science. The mechanics of the principle are tools to work with the data the surrounds us. If we wanted to get really trippy we could talk about how all knowledge tools such as empirical method and logical reasoning are faulted with the inclusion of our imperfect abilities to conceptualize our surroundings. As to what we 'prove' well a faultless proof in any human condition experience is a rare and wondrous thing.
CK: ...and yet most people are believers.... odd that... [muses]
MOST people believe that there is 'something' be it God or some flying spaghetti monster, or whatever... and that death isn't the end. However, when sat in a classroom and presented with a fairly general scientific analysis of say... evolution, they're more than willing to believe that. Then two months later when faced with another 'God' survey they again 'believe' in something.
Honestly, most people are 'followers'... those of us who actually do the footwork, we're what's rare.
CK (regarding music and books): Erm... Because I normally find them very entertaining... Isn't that a good enough reason? It's certainly good enough for me. It's probably something to do with the structure of my brain. Some things stimulate it in the right way - whilst other things don't. Personally I think that music has something to do with mathematics... not that maths is my favourite subject or anything....
You more or less helped with my point, though I wasn't meaning it as an attack or anything. My point was just that there's things we take in everyday that, while they may be 'scientifically studied' in some form or another (though behavioral studies involving music, literature, movies, etc. well... anything intersecting human behavior is generally laughable. Trust me, I'm bi-polar and my wife was just diagnosed with OCD. I've seen 'cutting edge' psychological medicine and science up close and personal and it's a crap shoot) *ahem* So... 'that stuff' may have 'some' science that's more hocus than pocus out there somewhere it's not something you fully understand and yet you devote a lot of your time/life to pursuing it.
Here... let me try this without cluttering it up with random thoughts. CK, you like music/literature because you do. To scientifically prove or disprove the reasons would be exhaustive and rather pointless. You like it so you do it... what's it matter why or how? I examine the universe in a similar fashion. The science that would prove/disprove anything remotely useful is so convoluted and either irrationally complex or overly simplified that it literally just filters through the brain as BS.
Hey... like you CK I'd always consider switching sides if someone could make a decent argument. =)
I said: My primary fault with most Atheists is their failure to admit, for as much as they know and understand, that they are as 'in the dark' about our spiritual nature as the rest of us.
CK responded: Erm... *What* spiritual nature?
Yes... I know... I should pick my words better. You're as in the 'dark' about what happens after we die.
CK: I thought it was about belief & faith - not proof. Which is why theists & atheists often talk past each other.
Well... proof is the universal. Everyone always likes 'proof' and it generally wins the most 'fans'. I spoke about 'proof' because it's what we are usually philosophically debating anyways. You are correct though... The difference in Atheism and Theism is that Atheists take their side due to 'lack' of proof while Theists choose 'faith'.
CK: There is faith and there is faith. Personally I don't think it means the same thing on both sides of the debate.... and its not just a difference in degree - but in kind.
Yes, faith in a well articulated and expounded theory, like Evolution, is far more superior seeming then the faith in a few thousand year old text. Perception matters a lot and therein lies the ground for some very interesting philosophical debate.
Still... I won't concede my point. Faith is 'belief that is not based on proof'. I don't care how 'pure' you think your faith is. It's still faith and the 'purity' of that faith is as questionable as any other. However, CK you have me in one arena and you've said this before.
To get you on board with me I need to not only shake your confidence in your current 'beliefs', but I also have to somehow get you to agree to mine. To get me in the Atheist basket all you need to do is get me away from what I believe... philosophical gravity will do the rest. Makes the 'current' Atheist movement less romantic... doesn't it. (sorry cheap shot)
13 minutes after work is over and here I am... this is why I 'take breaks' from this forum.
Dback said: SK, good to be conversing with you again.
Same here bud! Nice seeing you.
Dback said: -- CK and I have had this discussion before. I believe that doubt is the very foundation of legitimate atheism. As the proverb says, "Doubt is the beginning not the end of wisdom". I discover things every day that I don't know. Absolutism and fundamentalism are much more of a problem with religion than with atheism. That's what most of us atheists get criticized for ... moral relativism.
*nod* Yeah, Theists come off as being very 'stubborn' and in a rather droll sort of way. Doubt is a very serious component to any thought process. If you start off believing and then work backwards, well... you already believe. It's an interesting dilemma.
Dback said : To quote something I read on a blog once: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, otherwise you might as well accept the possible existence of invisible pink unicorns because you can't disprove them."
Yes, well... as person who would someday like to be an author of fantasy I can really come up with some crazy sh!t =), and look at poor Tom Cruise... that scares the hell out of me.
Here's the thing. I figure in situations like this it's best to go introspective. My faith is full of doubt, as I think any Christian who doesn't delude themselves would allow, and sometimes chasing the 'white rabbit' as it where leads me to a hole where I can't see the bottom. That's scary for me in a few ways.
So, when I'm faced with the emptiness what do I do? Science is a warm glow, it's got a lot going for it. There's many good things about this world and I can just live a good life and be done. The thought of death being the 'big sleep' isn't all that terrifying, it's like the end to a good movie, it's just that... the end.
Why don't I go then? Well, in my personal life there were a few times when I wasn't doing all that well and every time I hit bottom I reached out to God. It's hard to describe and I won't get too preachy, but He is there. There's no reason for me to have felt that any of those bad times were not the beginning to a decent into something far worse, and as a good Christian prior to those experiences there's reason I should have turned my back on Him since He didn't keep me from the bad place to begin with.
I could discuss it more, but being that it's my belief it's no more than a Christmas Story for you. I'm not absconding from doubt. I just have my reasons for feeling as I do. I don't claim any 'miracles' and I don't have some particular 'miracle' that I heard about which made me believe. I also don't do it to be contrary to Science and Philosophy which are both subjects that I admire, and get excited about.
I just think there is a continuation of 'things' after death and I've found an excellent explanation in a very old book that I've read multiple translations/versions of. Since science, for as far as it has come, hasn't provided me with a decent explanation to shake my 'faith' then I allow both to exist in my world. I believe in Science and I believe in God.
"Ahhh, but with theists they aren't (or shouldn't be) arguing with you based on logic, but rather on their beliefs, which to them are as solid as fact (if they're really believers) From their standpoint everything is crystal clear (i.e. no question on what happens after death so no reason to admit failure to have 'proof')"
My point still stands. Regardless of how they argue, they no more know where we go when we die than I or anyone else does.
No one knows what happens when we die, this is true Mike, in the sense that they've not got hard evidence. However, the difference between the Atheist and the Theist in that argument is that the Theist follows a system of belief that allows for an answer without said evidence.
So, when looking at our original debate:
I said: "My primary fault with most Atheists is their failure to admit, for as much as they know and understand, that they are as 'in the dark' about our spiritual nature as the rest of us."
You said: "And that is my primary fault with most theists as well."
So, to make my point... you would fault a Theist for using their system of belief, which you chose to ignore, fail to understand, or simply chose to not follow? You can fault the system, but is it wise to fault the individual for following their beliefs? If they are forcing them on you then just be like CK and say “Show me and I'll believe”.
I think I'm entitled, however, to fault the Atheist who follows a system of Science, Philosophy and Reason that I accept, understand and am actually quite good at, when they ask for proof from me, but they have none of their own. Find all the fault you want with the bible, some ritual, some 'natural' human condition, or whatever else is on the docket this week, but I don't think you can fault me for believing as I do without proof when proof is your method, not mine.
"...is it wise to fault the individual for following their beliefs?" If they follow it blindly, yes.
Wouldn't it be considered dishonest to claim certainty on something that no one could possibly be certain of?
“Show me and I'll believe”.
The problem is that they can show me until they are blue in the face, but if I don't experience God for myself then all the presented evidence won't convince me.
"think I'm entitled, however, to fault the Atheist who follows a system of Science, Philosophy and Reason that I accept, understand and am actually quite good at, when they ask for proof from me, but they have none of their own."
Certainly you have that right, and should do so. However, not all atheists are like that, not all are scientists or philosophers or logicians. Some just live their lives and do not observe anything they would call God.
Mike said: “ If they follow it blindly, yes.”
Yeah, blind faith is rather annoying. I'll take a respectful Atheist over a fanatic Christian any day.
Mike asked: “Wouldn't it be considered dishonest to claim certainty on something that no one could possibly be certain of?”
Well, yes and no. If I do such a thing as some televangelists have done with the hidden agenda of generating as much cash flow as possible then yes. If I claim certainty for myself because of what I believe and don't force that on you then no.
Mike said: “The problem is that they can show me until they are blue in the face, but if I don't experience God for myself then all the presented evidence won't convince me.”
That's exactly right. I just was using CK's “Show Me” as a literal. You captured the best point, if you don't accept religion for yourself then it doesn't matter.
Mike said: “However, not all atheists are like that, not all are scientists or philosophers or logicians. Some just live their lives and do not observe anything they would call God.”
Thanks for that Mike. I sometimes forget that.
SK said: Orcs is with a 'c' not a 'k' though
In this game its with a 'k'. I checked on the box - definitely a 'k'.
SK said: at lvl 18 you've got work to do.
Only goes up to Lvl 20 - which most of my guys are now at.
SK said: Honestly, most people are 'followers'... those of us who actually do the footwork, we're what's rare.
Quite possibly. Most people don't really think about things most of the time. I don't think about things some of the time - though I have been told on more than one ocassion that I think too much (as if such a thing where possible!)
SK said: The science that would prove/disprove anything remotely useful is so convoluted and either irrationally complex or overly simplified that it literally just filters through the brain as BS.
Oh, I think we've discovered *lots* of useful stuff and, presumably, will long continue to do so - unless we do something particularly stupid and end up killing everyone.
SK said: like you CK I'd always consider switching sides if someone could make a decent argument. =)
Oh, I think that highly unlikely don't you?
SK said: You're as in the 'dark' about what happens after we die.
Burial or cremation are the two main options I understand. As to what happens to the essential part of us that is us.... there is zero evidence for life after death. Therefore, it is logical to assume that life ends on death.... until *proven* otherwise.
SK said: Everyone always likes 'proof' and it generally wins the most 'fans'.
...and there I was thinking that *faith* had the most 'fans'.
SK said: Yes, faith in a well articulated and expounded theory, like Evolution, is far more superior seeming then the faith in a few thousand year old text.
'Faith' in Evolution? Huh?
SK said: Makes the 'current' Atheist movement less romantic... doesn't it. (sorry cheap shot)
Missed shot anyway.... I was unaware of any Atheist 'movement' - over and above the Four Cowboys of the Theocratic Apocolypse [grin]
... and 'romantic'? How so?
SK said: 13 minutes after work is over and here I am... this is why I 'take breaks' from this forum.
I didn't realise it was so addictive here... [laughs]
SK said: My faith is full of doubt, as I think any Christian who doesn't delude themselves would allow, and sometimes chasing the 'white rabbit' as it where leads me to a hole where I can't see the bottom. That's scary for me in a few ways.
I've lost count of the Christians I've debated with who certainly do not admit to having *any* doubts. That's very scary! There are even those who have said that they will follow knowledge and truth *wherever* it leads - 'knowing' full way that it can *only* lead to God. They failed to see the contradiction in this..... or the funny side.
SK said: However, the difference between the Atheist and the Theist in that argument is that the Theist follows a system of belief that allows for an answer without said evidence.
That's just not good enough for me I'm afraid.
SK said: you would fault a Theist for using their system of belief, which you chose to ignore, fail to understand, or simply chose to not follow?
Yes.
SK said: You can fault the system, but is it wise to fault the individual for following their beliefs?
Yes. Especially when it appears that they have switched off the rational part of their brains. At least some Theists seem to revel in wilful ignorance - and that can definitely be faulted.
SK said: when they ask for proof from me, but they have none of their own.
'Proof' of what exactly? - absense?
SK said: but I don't think you can fault me for believing as I do without proof when proof is your method, not mine.
..and that's a fair position to take - for you. However, with a position like that you'll *never* convince me that you are right and that I am wrong, which is probably not your intention anyway.
CK, what game is it?
Dawn of War 2
Ahh, RTS games don't keep my interest long. The last one I played for any length was Bungie's Myth and then one of the original Warcraft games.
CK: In this game its with a 'k'. I checked on the box - definitely a 'k'. Only goes up to Lvl 20 - which most of my guys are now at.
Warhammer 40K, I'm familiar with that. I had a friend in college who insisted on playing that game when it was still predominantly miniature based. It was fun, but cumbersome, I have not tried any of the computer variants.
My time vampire is the famous MMORPG World of Warcraft which a friend introduced me to several years ago and it stuck. I used to enjoy AD&D but sadly not many people go for spending a few hours once a week over paper, dice and their own imaginations. WoW gives me a little of that back and at $15/month it's not a bad sacrifice. The level cap in WoW is now 80 and the 'stroll' from 18 to 80 is quiet an endeavor. My 'main' is 74 and I have no other characters near that.
CK: Quite possibly. Most people don't really think about things most of the time. I don't think about things some of the time - though I have been told on more than one ocassion that I think too much (as if such a thing where possible!)
*nod* I don't think it is possible to think too much. I think more people should try it out sometime, especially those who are running my country. However, there's something to be said for how relaxing and blissful ignorance is.
CK: Oh, I think we've discovered *lots* of useful stuff and, presumably, will long continue to do so - unless we do something particularly stupid and end up killing everyone.
Yeah, I'm sorry about what I said that lead into that. I need to proofread more. I was talking more along the lines of the 'big bang' theories and the like that explain creation. Science is very useful and I didn't mean to make it seem as though I thought otherwise.
SK said: like you CK I'd always consider switching sides if someone could make a decent argument. =) Ck replied: Oh, I think that highly unlikely don't you?
Yeah, probably. Arguments are not really too definitive.
SK said: You're as in the 'dark' about what happens after we die.
CK replied: Burial or cremation are the two main options I understand. As to what happens to the essential part of us that is us.... there is zero evidence for life after death. Therefore, it is logical to assume that life ends on death.... until *proven* otherwise.
Yes, and this is why I stay late to post, not because of addiction, but because of the insight and PoV that I get back, which I generally miss. I must give thanks to Dbackdad for saying something similar in his post to me. I was too tightly clinging to the fact that there's as much 'evidence' on both sides, but as Dback indicated, you can't have proof simply because 'nonexistence' isn't provable.
CK siad: 'Faith' in Evolution? Huh?
My entire point was mainly that there are some things which you really take on 'faith' with Evolution. That we are developed from a single celled organism is still rather 'distant' from fact. Personally I find it interesting that single or very basic and colonialist multi-celled organisms didn't take over the planet since they are generally the 'best' suited for their environments. However, when compared to creationism there's no argument. Please see: http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html as it is a very concise and interesting way of dealing with 'claims' against evolution.
SK said: Makes the 'current' Atheist movement less romantic... doesn't it. (sorry cheap shot)
CK replied: Missed shot anyway.... I was unaware of any Atheist 'movement' - over and above the Four Cowboys of the Theocratic Apocolypse [grin]
... and 'romantic'? How so?
*laugh* Yeah, I do have my 'rants' that somehow don't get filtered the way they should. From my dealings with Atheists in my person life I find that some feel they are 'winning' and truthfully given the nature of mass media and government in the last several years I don't think religion will be welcome much longer. At the most it's mainly just 'tolerated' in the mainstream.
As for the Romantic side... well. As an Atheist aren't you proud of your ability to define your universe absolutely within all the intellectual tools that are available to you? I guess my dealings with Atheism is generally with those who are very 'smug' in that I'm the one who is believing the fairy tale, making me rather dated and outmoded.
Does that make sense?
CK: I've lost count of the Christians I've debated with who certainly do not admit to having *any* doubts. That's very scary! There are even those who have said that they will follow knowledge and truth *wherever* it leads - 'knowing' full way that it can *only* lead to God. They failed to see the contradiction in this..... or the funny side.
There's a strong 'fear' that showing any doubt in God is some mortal sin. I haven't encountered any mention as such in the bible. We're human and doubt is as much a part of our makeup as food and water. To deny all doubt is to lie (which is a sin) because honestly I can't imagine a single person who has been able to live their life without such a doubt, especially when faced with the scientific knowledge of today.
CK said: That's just not good enough for me I'm afraid.
Yes. Especially when it appears that they have switched off the rational part of their brains. At least some Theists seem to revel in wilful ignorance - and that can definitely be faulted.
..and that's a fair position to take - for you. However, with a position like that you'll *never* convince me that you are right and that I am wrong, which is probably not your intention anyway.
You're right CK. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm actually here for myself and the intellectual conversation.
SK said: However, there's something to be said for how relaxing and blissful ignorance is.
I think that the 'attraction' of ignorance is largely an illusion. What you don't know will definitely kill you [laughs].
SK said: Arguments are not really too definitive.
I doubt very much if there is a 'killer' argument in either camp. If there was I think we'd both have heard of them by now.
SK said: I was too tightly clinging to the fact that there's as much 'evidence' on both sides, but as Dback indicated, you can't have proof simply because 'nonexistence' isn't provable.
It is certainly more difficult to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does - but saying that we don't demand proof the unicorns do not exist, we just take it for granted that they don't because of an absolute lack of evidence for them. In the same way I assume that God does not exist because of a total lack of evidence to support the idea. There is a point where lack of evidence can (and should) be viewed as evidence of absence. Atheists and Theists just draw the dividing lines in different places. I find that most debates about Gods existence - or for any supernatural phenomena - revolve around the idea of what exactly constitutes evidence. Both sides just happen to disagree on what 'evidence' actually means.
SK said: Personally I find it interesting that single or very basic and colonialist multi-celled organisms didn't take over the planet since they are generally the 'best' suited for their environments.
I think they did - for the vast majority of life on Earth. It's only fairly recently (in Geological terms) that multi-cellular life really took off.
SK said: As an Atheist aren't you proud of your ability to define your universe absolutely within all the intellectual tools that are available to you?
But I don't. I'm confident that our understanding of the universe is growing in the right direction but we have *much* to learn & I bet that at least some - if not quite a bit - of what we 'know' will turn out to be wrong. But I'm more than happy in my Naturalism if that's what you mean.
SK said: I can't imagine a single person who has been able to live their life without such a doubt, especially when faced with the scientific knowledge of today.
Oh, I think I know of at least one person who *claims* (or appears to claim) to be like that.
SK said: I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm actually here for myself and the intellectual conversation.
Glad that you're enjoying it and, hopefully, finding it stimulating.
Post a Comment