The trouble with atheists....
It's boom time for the unbelievers. Folks like Dawkins and Hitchens are zooming to the top of the best-seller lists championing the cause that God is just a really bad idea.
Well, good on 'em, I say. This is America, after all, and we're all free to ply our books, whatever they say. (Speaking of books, I've just started reading Garry Wills' new tome -- "Head and Heart: American Christianities." Like everything Wills writes, it's very good. Wills is one of those writers I'm in awe of. "How can anybody be this smart?'' is what I always think when I'm reading his work. With this book, he seems to be saying that American Protestantism has always had a tension between reason and emotion, between Enlightenment and Revivalism. But he also makes the point that it is precisely the wall of separation between church and state that has allowed such a vigorous religiosity in this country.)
But back to atheists. The more strident among them can sound as foolish as fundamentalist Bible-thumpers.
I have more respect for agnostics, those who can say, "I don't know," which Frederick Buechner has noted, is "all of us some of the time, and some of us all the time."
P.S. Most of the time, blogger Ray sounds like a guy I could have a beer with.
Well, good on 'em, I say. This is America, after all, and we're all free to ply our books, whatever they say. (Speaking of books, I've just started reading Garry Wills' new tome -- "Head and Heart: American Christianities." Like everything Wills writes, it's very good. Wills is one of those writers I'm in awe of. "How can anybody be this smart?'' is what I always think when I'm reading his work. With this book, he seems to be saying that American Protestantism has always had a tension between reason and emotion, between Enlightenment and Revivalism. But he also makes the point that it is precisely the wall of separation between church and state that has allowed such a vigorous religiosity in this country.)
But back to atheists. The more strident among them can sound as foolish as fundamentalist Bible-thumpers.
I have more respect for agnostics, those who can say, "I don't know," which Frederick Buechner has noted, is "all of us some of the time, and some of us all the time."
P.S. Most of the time, blogger Ray sounds like a guy I could have a beer with.
posted by Michael Riley at 9:22 AM
91 Comments:
"P.S. Most of the time, blogger Ray sounds like a guy I could have a beer with."
That's because you and Ray are one and the same.
"You can call me Ray and you can call me Jay but ya doesn't has to call me......"
Dawkins and Hichens can rant and rave all they want, but I don't think God gives a hoot one way or the other.
Maybe you and ray can catch a brewsky with your fictional Irish drunk mentioned in a previous blog. Good luck with that! Better yet, add pat(papinian)to your motley crew and margaret can tag along for good measure to keep you all honest.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wonder why you think it's boom time for unbelievers. I just think it's a boom for unbelievers to be vocal in their unbelief.
Either that, or it's the first time that the MEDIA is more accepting of it.
margaret , unbelieving IS their belief.once again you do not get it.
It sounds like a few of these posters could use a few beers. Maybe then they'd mellow out and figure out how to behave with someone who thinks differently than they do.
Lighten up, folks. How can you make like you're all Jesusy yet be filled with so much venom?
Maybe Jesus isn't your favorite role model?
An anonymoid wrote: "unbelieving IS their belief"
We need a few definitions here. There are several types of non-believers. In the simplest breakdown there are atheists and agnostics. Atheists deny God outright. Agnostics say you can't know one way or another but find no compelling evidence for God.
To pronounce that God doesn't exist is indeed a form of belief. I consider myself an agnostic but I prefer the stronger term just because it makes people mad. I think Dawkins goes a bit too far but my heart is definitely with him.
Margaret:
"Either that, or it's the first time that the MEDIA is more accepting of it."
That's basically it. Previously the media was deathly afraid of the subject. Only recently has it been possible for non-believers to speak up without fear of the modern-day equivalent of being burned at the stake. That's largely due to the fact that non-believers are growing in numbers and because publishers now realize that there can be a profit in publishing their books. Of course, acceptance of non-believers hasn't changed much. For that matter, acceptance of blacks hasn't changed as much as we'd like to believe as evidenced by the racist remarks of posters in these blogs.
And we're really talking about the same folks here, aren't we?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ray is calling the kettle black (or is it PC to have to say african-american?). you are a hypocrite re: accepting believers.
Margaret: I think that most of the mainstream media are atheists.They believe that the unsaved human race is basically good and that finding the right leaders and government will lead to peace on earth.
That will never happen until the real Theocratic government is established by Jesus return.
I think most of the media are wishy washy.
And acceptance of nonbelievers. I accept the persons, but not the nonbelief. You may say it's a package deal, but I don't see it that way. Sometimes it's hard too. I'm not perfect. There are a lot of people who are either on the fence because they've been hurt, or just always nonbelievers.
I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the sky and stars, mountains and oceans, and say, "it just happened and there's no being responsible".
Margaret:
"I just can't fathom how anyone can look at the sky and stars, mountains and oceans, and say, "it just happened and there's no being responsible"."
That's because you're mired in your belief system.
Anonymous:
"ray is calling the kettle black (or is it PC to have to say african-american?). you are a hypocrite re: accepting believers."
Explain?
Anonymous:
"I think that most of the mainstream media are atheists."
Anyone who doesn't believe in precisely what you believe would be an atheist in your view.
"They believe that the unsaved human race is basically good and that finding the right leaders and government will lead to peace on earth."
So you're saying that democracy is unnecessary and pointless?
"That will never happen until the real Theocratic government is established by Jesus return."
You do realize that you're at odds with our founding fathers and the founding principles of our nation, don't you? Perhaps you'd be happier living somewhere else?
"Mired" is a funny word, like "burdened" or "stuck". Very negative. Actually "belief system" is so robotic. Again, so negative, and from your perspective Ray, so it's really not accurate in regard to myself, so I will clarify.
The better sentence here would be "I believe in God".
Speaking of the anonymous, who is the blog administrator? I'd have a few questions to ask, without being anonymous to that person.
Funny how that 'fictional Irish drunk' came up again..Does anyone doubt Mr. Riley's writings are true and accurate? He wouldn't stretch the story too far? That would be like that 'false witness' thing, wouldn't it? Perhaps we should consider the title of this as "The Trouble with Hipocrites.."?? ohh and BTW, yes there is a God. And when some of those who claim to represent Him arrive at that place to meet Him, they may be in for a surprise.
Getting Into Heaven ...
I was testing the children in my Sunday school class to see if they understood the concept of getting to heaven. I asked them, "If I sold my house and my car, had a big garage sale and gave all my money to the poor, would that get me into Heaven?"
"NO!" the children answered.
"If I cleaned the church every day, mowed the yard, and kept everything neat and tidy, would that get me into Heaven?"
Again, the answer was, "NO!"
By now I was starting to smile. Hey, this was fun! "Well, then, if I was kind to animals and gave candy to all the children, and loved my wife, would that get me into Heaven?" I asked them again.
Again, they all answered, "NO!"
I was just bursting with pride for them. "Well," I continued, "then how can I get into Heaven?"
A five-year-old boy shouted out,
"YOU GOTTA BE DEAD!"
I've read that one before, but it still makes me laugh. :)
Anon 3:09 November 10th...there's this song by George Michael. you may not like the guy; he's controversial, but he's got an incredible singing voice, and it's obvious he's been through much pain (at least I hear it in his songs). Anyway, the lyrics go:
..And it's hard love,
There's so much to hate,
Hanging on to hope
When there is no hope to speak of.
And the wounded skies above
Say it's much much too late,
So maybe we should all be praying for time...
Me and my typos...the first line is supposed to be " And it's hard to love" :)
M
He's an immoral gay.Peggy's trying to convert/save him? He is not allowed in "your" heaven is he? catholics are hypocritical pious
Margaret wrote:
""Mired" is a funny word, like "burdened" or "stuck". Very negative."
I'll stick with 'mired' since you've never really had much of a choice in the matter.
I had plenty of choice. It is quite arrogant to say what you say here about me, Ray. You assume so very much. Not very scientific.
And judgemental anon who speaks to me in the familiar, he(GM) is a person, who always has a chance to get to heaven...just like you. :)
Anonymous wrote:
"ohh and BTW, yes there is a God. And when some of those who claim to represent Him arrive at that place to meet Him, they may be in for a surprise."
Now substitute "Bigfoot" for "God" in the above and notice that very little changes except that one arbitrary belief system has displaced another.
And nothing has changed under the sun.
Now, substitute "sun" for "Son". Nothing has changed under the Son. You'll notice that nothing has changed other than the arbitrary belief system that God doesn't exist when the evidence is all around.
Yet your very church will not allow him to marry another man or receive sacrament of Holy Communion because he is gay.hypocrite.like I said before. If he's good enough to get into Heaven, why not be good enough to be treated like other men?
Being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin and many gay people receive Holy Communion every day in Catholic Church. Only an ignorant bigot would suggest otherwise.
I don't think I'd use the capitalized pronoun (Him) if I had to describe Bigfoot, so the substitution suggestion would not be correct. In fact, we're not sure of his/her gender just as we aren't aware if the Almighty has been ID'ed one way or another.
I feel free to believe, and I'm okay with those whoe don't. But I was wondering; what do they have to look forward to?
You're getting kind of riled, peg's pal. Calling me a hypocrite. Your anger is displaced. I don't debate angry name callers because it is a waste of time. You have no interest of knowing anything of my faith. You only wish to rail and antagonize.
Margaret wrote:
"Now, substitute "sun" for "Son". Nothing has changed under the Son."
This amounts to little more than, I know you are but what am I? It's tit for tat and accomplishes nothing.
"You'll notice that nothing has changed other than the arbitrary belief system that God doesn't exist when the evidence is all around."
The only way this argument has a chance of working is if you acknowledge the arbitrary nature of belief. Do you? No? Then your point is moot.
And, BTW, not believing in God is not a belief system. If it is then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
And whatever you're calling evidence is what you get when you view the world through the filters of your belief system. Also, I wonder, are you a creationist?
Anonymous wrote:
"I don't think I'd use the capitalized pronoun (Him) if I had to describe Bigfoot, so the substitution suggestion would not be correct."
Methinks you've missed the point. People who immerse themselves in trivia usually miss the bigger issues.
"I feel free to believe, and I'm okay with those whoe don't. But I was wondering; what do they have to look forward to?"
I look forward to the rest of a happy, healthy, productive life. If that's not good enough for you then that's your problem. I don't need the feel-good silliness of something after death to affect my life today. Someday I'll cease to exist, the same way I didn't exist before I was born. I have no problem with that. It's a part of growing up.
Anonymous wrote:
"Being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin..."
That depends on who you talk to, doesn't it? Seems like the word of God is different things to different people. I think I heard somebody said that once or twice before...
I agree to disagree, ray not believing is his belief because he labels himself an atheist which is a movement of people with similar beliefs of not believing in God.
Anonymous wrote:
"ray not believing is his belief..."
LOL! Do you ever stop to read your silly words to see if they make any sense? Let's view the world through anonymous' lens:
- If not believing is a belief, then belief is not believing.
- The Colorado Rockies, not believing they won the World Series, won the World Series.
- A maple tree, not being a tree, is a tree.
- Anonymous, not believing he's a fool, is a fool.
"Methinks you've missed the point." No I got it, but in YOUR effort to trivialize the concept of universal and perpetual exisitance, you missed my point, which was it's okay for you to think whatever you want. However you seem very intolerant of those who disagree with you. That doesn't seem very grown up.
Here's something to consider for those who don't like the dogma from the organized religions. In physics, matter can not be created or destroyed. It can be transfered into energy. We're made of matter. Do we really cease to exist when we die? Science says no. We become something else. What will that be and for how long? And will we ever become energy? The questions can be extended on and on until we reach a point were it can not be answered. The experiences of my living may not continue to the ultimate end, but over the eons of time, what has been used to make me (and you) will quite possibly end up in the same place at the same time with all of that which ever was in the universe. An energy perhaps? Something else? Regardless of what you choose to beleive, it seems worth considering to me.
Ray, can you prove to me and others that God does not exist?
Do you, Ray, believe that there exists (or existed at some point) some form of matter that has always existed, that was not created? Was it from this never created, always existed form of matter that we humans and our universe hail?
Did non-life create life?
atheism is a belief system whether you believe that or not, ray.that was my point.
ashes to ashes, dust to dust
Am I a creationist? If you mean, Ray, do I believe that the world was created in 6 days, then no, I am not that literal. Neither are most Roman Catholics (that I am aware), in regard to that part of Genesis in the Old Testament.
Anonymous wrote:
" No I got it, but in YOUR effort to trivialize the concept of universal and perpetual exisitance.."
I see. If I disagree with you I'm trivializing your beliefs. Got it.
"However you seem very intolerant of those who disagree with you."
Let's see - I disagree with you, I get attacked by a whole slew of people for it - and I'm intolerant?
"That doesn't seem very grown up."
So I should shut up if I disagree with you or I'm not grown up? You're coming in loud and clear.
Anonymous wrote:
"Ray, can you prove to me and others that God does not exist?
Why would that be my burden? Aside from the fact that trying to prove nonexistence is absurd, the fact of the matter is that it is your burden to convince me that God exists. That's the way it works in the real world. If you sue someone in court it's your burden to make the case. It's not the other person's burden to show that they're not at fault. If someone said to you that if you don't believe in flying saucers that it's your burden to convince him that they don't exist and not his burden to show you that they do, would you accept that reasoning? Of course not. Similarly, you have the burden of proof here.
"Do you, Ray, believe that there exists (or existed at some point) some form of matter that has always existed, that was not created? Was it from this never created, always existed form of matter that we humans and our universe hail?"
I choose not to believe at all. Why waste my time on such things? What would come of it? The only thing that could come of it would be a pseudo-answer that might make me feel like I've answered some question when in fact, I haven't. Beliefs are cheap and they don't lead to truth. Beliefs are just psychological tools that we use to make ourselves feel good and pretend we know something. Belief is not knowledge. But I'll tell you one thing: if the only option is belief, then that should tell you that something's coming up short.
Anonymous wrote:
"Did non-life create life?"
Who or what created God?
Anonymous wrote:
"atheism is a belief system whether you believe that or not, ray.that was my point."
You still haven't demonstrated this. How can non-belief be twisted to mean belief? Your statement is Orwellian, to say the least.
Anonymous wrote:
"The experiences of my living may not continue to the ultimate end, but over the eons of time, what has been used to make me (and you) will quite possibly end up in the same place at the same time with all of that which ever was in the universe. An energy perhaps? Something else? Regardless of what you choose to beleive, it seems worth considering to me."
But this is all still belief. Even if you slather it with jargon like 'energy' (undefinable in this context) it's still mere belief. Maybe it makes you feel good, maybe it warms the cockles of your heart, but it's nothing more than a forced response to a question that's simply not answerable. Personally, I need intellectually honest answers.
...that you can believe in. A belief system, whether YOU choose to define it that way, or not.
Aside from Ray not hearing that he can say and do what he wants from most of us who differ with his views (with impunity and frankly my respect for the courage of his convictions, the same as I would give to a hard line creationist) he chooses to take the views of those who disagree with him as a personal afront and attack. Yes, there are reformers out there that want to change your views, but that seems to be really no different than the dialog Ray supplies trying to argue against the concept of a supreme being. In other word, if you disagree with me, you're wrong. Nobody's wrong on this, and nobody's right. A belief is acceptance without proof.
I would also suggest that some people are sayig things here just for the purpose of pushing other people's buttons just because it makes people mad. (uh ohh... I can see it coming )
People are proven in court all the time for circumstantial evidence (not all evidence is scientific ray) and those people are just as guilty.
Anonymous wrote:
"People are proven in court all the time for circumstantial evidence (not all evidence is scientific ray) and those people are just as guilty."
Circumstantial evidence is quite irrelevant here. Where did you get that from? I've never spoken about it. The issue is how logic and the system work. And they work by requiring the claimant to back up his claims and prove them, NOT by requiring the accused to show he's not guitly. A defense is necessary only to counter the charges made against the accused. You find someone guilty only by proving the accusation. Why is it necessary, in this country, to have to argue this point? It's a fundamental aspect of our founding!!!
Again, it's not up to me to prove that there is no God. It's up to you to convince that there is.
For the record: I'm on record as having said that I don't deny the existence of a God. Rather, I've said that I simply don't know: I'm an agnostic. That's the only intellectually honest and rational position. It's more honest and rational than either theism or atheism. So again, my position is that I'm unconvinced of the existence of a God. Convince me.
Anonymous wrote:
"he chooses to take the views of those who disagree with him as a personal afront and attack."
Uh oh! Have you been paying attention? I'm arguing a point and being attacked for it. It's the thin-skinned believers who take it personally. Just read what they say. I'm quite happy to be debated. Heck, I instigated this whole thing! And you suggest that I can't hack being disagreed with? Why would I be here if that were the case?
"Yes, there are reformers out there that want to change your views, but that seems to be really no different than the dialog Ray supplies trying to argue against the concept of a supreme being."
Again, it's called debate. If you don't want debate then a blog isn't the place for you.
"In other word, if you disagree with me, you're wrong."
Then try debating someone while telling them they're right. That'll work well.
"Nobody's wrong on this, and nobody's right."
Hey! You're not disagreeing with us and telling us we're wrong, are you? Because if you were doing that, well, you'd be trying to change our views! And Mr. Anonymous says that's not right.
Margaret wrote:
"...that you can believe in. A belief system, whether YOU choose to define it that way, or not."
Sigh. It's not a belief system. It's a point of view. I don't believe, I have an opinion. There's a HUGE difference. Belief is blind, obediant and, yes, irrational. As I've shown, I opt for rationality and intellectual honesty. Please at least make an attempt to understand this.
Ray claims to be both agnostic and atheist.Even he is confused about his own beliefs. Yes, they are beliefs whether you acknowledge that word or not.
Let's all just go to bed/work/school earlier.
An atheist was walking through the woods. He said to himself:
"What majestic trees"!
"What powerful rivers"!
"What beautiful animals"!
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time Stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky: "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?
The atheist looked directly into the light and said, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very Well," said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty, through Christ our Lord, Amen."
Anonymous wrote:
"Ray claims to be both agnostic and atheist.Even he is confused about his own beliefs."
Are you playing stupid or are you just trying to be annoying? I've never said that I'm an atheist, although I said that I prefer the term simply because it makes people like you mad. I am an agnostic and I've told you why. I've even told you that agnosticism is a more rational and intellectually honest position that either theism or atheism. Why are you still having such trouble understanding?
" Yes, they are beliefs whether you acknowledge that word or not."
Agnosticism is not a belief, and your mere repetition of the claim doesn't change anything. Quite the contrary, your repetition without substantiation screams out that you can't make an argument in support of it. IOW, you're doing my job for me again. Thanks.
Pat, or a Pat wannabe wrote:
""Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty, through Christ our Lord, Amen."
There's a somewhat similar story that featured lions instead of bears...
Sorry Ray, any "ism' is a belief, including your agnosticism .You can deny all want, doesn't make you right either. Of course, being the haughty intellectual wannabe,you choose agnostic over atheist because it is superior in YOUR mind.
Wonder if the Christian bear found the atheist palatable? Only God know for sure...:)
The usual is still trying to convince that agnosticism is a belief. Unfortunately he offers absolutely nothing to support the idea. I press him for an argument but I still get nothing. That says a lot, doesn't it? I guess he figures that if he says it often enough it'll become true. Maybe he should say it three times and click his heels...
margaret4 4margaret wrote:
"Wonder if the Christian bear found the atheist palatable? Only God know for sure...:)"
Don't overwork your brain trying to figure it out. It's just a silly bit of pre-digested pablum for those who need the assist.
You are certainly deft at insults. Don Rickles strikes again.
Ray wrote:
"There's a somewhat similar story that featured lions instead of bears..."
It's no story, Ray; it's history.
And you forgot to mention that some of those folks that got fed to the lions -- I believe we call them Catholics now -- saw Jesus Christ, saw Him perform miracles, and perhaps even saw Him ascend into Heaven. Rather than deny Jesus' divinity or their faith in Him, these very same folks willingly faced horrific and certain deaths at the hands of the government of the day.
I don't know about you, Ray, but I can't help but admire folks like that.
Anonymous wrote:
"Rather than deny Jesus' divinity or their faith in Him, these very same folks willingly faced horrific and certain deaths at the hands of the government of the day.
I don't know about you, Ray, but I can't help but admire folks like that."
Then you no doubt admire the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh, too.
They all died unwillingly.
No comaprison.
"comparison"
After remembering the two events Ray mentioned, I need tochange my position about them all dying unwillingly.
The Jonestown massacre was horrible - ...I think a lot of the followers went willingly, but some fought. I was a child when it happened, but I'll never forget the footage on television.
The Koresh thing - again, some went willingly, and many fought, and they were children.
Comparing the Christians who were being persecuted for their faith (and were thrown to the lions for not retracting their faith) to those who listened and believed in "false prophets" (who were self-absorbed psychotics) is not an equitable comparison at all.
It's misleading, and inaccurate.
All religions have one thing in common-all its followers are brainwashed!
The more successful religions promise the faithful something: an afterlife, meeting your loved ones again, 72 virgins (or 72 raisins, depending on how you interpret things), eternal bliss, etc. How can you go wrong with that? Such a deal!
Margaret wrote:
"Comparing the Christians who were being persecuted for their faith (and were thrown to the lions for not retracting their faith) to those who listened and believed in "false prophets" (who were self-absorbed psychotics) is not an equitable comparison at all."
They are false prophets only as defined within your particular set of beliefs. Get outside of those beliefs and you'll see that it makes no difference who they are or what they say. They are the same. True, some are more brutal than others, some are more benign, but the differences are quite arbitrary. What is false in one belief system is true in another so they can say the same things about your beliefs, and within their belief systems, they're right and you're wrong. Happy motoring!
BTW, don't forget the Crusades and the witch-burnings. Who were the false prophets in those cases?
If we exist, Ray, isn't it reasonable to believe that we were created? The way I see it, we were either created by a God that always existed and that, as such, is beyond our human ability to comprehend; or we owe our existence to some sort of cosmic accident. If we are to assume the latter, then wouldn't we still have accept the notion there always existed some form of matter that was never created and which always existed?
Given those choices, I am at a loss as to how anyone could categorically reject the existence of God or even doubt the existence of God. Isn't it far more probable to believe in a God that is beyond our ability as humans to fully understand than it is to believe that certain tangible matter always existed and was never created?
God certainly heard my prayers. The Supremes are hearing Heller!!!! Thank you Jesus. Now let's all bow our heads and pray that the SCOTUS will bring a prompt end to all too many of New Jersey's unconstitutional gun laws.
Anonymous wrote:
"Isn't it far more probable to believe in a God that is beyond our ability as humans to fully understand than it is to believe that certain tangible matter always existed and was never created?"
Why would a God be more probable? This is just a statement of faith, not a real probability. In fact, you have no idea which is more probable!
Second, your assumption begs the question, Who made God?, which is weighty baggage that renders it even less probable since it introduces even more that you can't explain.
Third, What is God, anyway? Is he the God of the Bible? How does your question address this? How do you get from your question about origins to your beliefs about God?
Fourth, why don't you argue that the origin of things is "beyond our our ability as humans to fully understand" when you believe that a God is "beyond our ability as humans to fully understand"? Seems like it's a matter of personal preference, doesn't it? Your preference is for a God. My preference is to say, I don't know. And I'm not moved by your God argument.
Anonymous wrote:
"God certainly heard my prayers. The Supremes are hearing Heller!!!! Thank you Jesus."
Yeah, right. Jesus is all about guns. The very first thing we think about when we think about Jesus is a Smith and Wesson. How perverse can a religion get?
Remember what I said about the word of God being whatever you want it to mean...
You also said that a Supreme Court decision is tantamount to a decision made by society as a whole. In short, you say a lot of dumb things, Ray.
Get outside of those beliefs and you'll see that it makes no difference who they are or what they say. They are the same. - Ray
Jesus didn't make us drink poisoned koolaid, or burn down a house with children in it. He was humble and performed miracles, cured people, gave the oppressed hope and lashed out a sanctimonious, hyporcitical people (Pharisees/Sadducees). He got killed for all those things. He rose.
He was not like everyone else. He was not the same.
Amen.
Ray wrote:
"Why would a God be more probable?"
Because the alternative is tantamount to believing that inanimate objects and/or matter not only created itself, but somehow transformed itself into that which we now know exists.
Ray also wrote:
"Second, your assumption begs the question, Who made God?"
No one "made" God. He always existed. He always will exist. It is precisely God's eternal nature (e.g., no beginning, no end) that is beyond our limited abilities as human to fully comprehend.
Ray also wrote:
"Third, What is God, anyway? Is he the God of the Bible? How does your question address this? How do you get from your question about origins to your beliefs about God?
Well, the short answer is that I have faith in what God has chosen to divinely reveal about Himself. That faith, however, is not at all relevant or required when the discussion involves whether God exists in the first place. Although faith is at the very center of every Christian's life, one can reach the conclusion that God exists merely through the use of human reason alone. See, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica or even Tom Morris' Philosophy For Dummies
A brief synopsis of The Cosmological Arguments for God's existence advanced by both Aquinas and Morris is as follows:
(1) St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
(2) The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
(3) The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.
Or as Morris argues:
1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.
Ray also wrote:
"Fourth, why don't you argue that the origin of things is "beyond our ability as humans to fully understand" when you believe that a God is "beyond our ability as humans to fully understand"?
See that which has been written above.
Ray also wrote:
"Seems like it's a matter of personal preference, doesn't it?"
Only if your personal preference involves ignoring basic logic and human reason. But then again, it's a free country. If you want to believe that its possible for the toaster to have created the goldfish, go right ahead. Just don't expect all too many to take you all that seriously.
Ray also wrote:
"And I'm not moved by your God argument."
No surprise there. To you, Ray, I suspect that "even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride."
Ray, love how you substitute "preference" for belief-in this case, are one and the same. UH-Oh! The blue links can only mean one thing-pat/paps has resurrected from his creepy basement as one of the anonymi. I feel a hail storm of Hail Marys coming-intime for the holidays!
Ugh................Papinian has come out of hibernation as one of the blue link anonymi............lured by Ray's boring rhetoric- again
other wrote:
"Ray, love how you substitute "preference" for belief-in this case, are one and the same."
Take a closer look. I said that my preference is to say that I don't know. So you just argued that my saying that I don't know is my belief! You've put yourself in the curious position of thinking that not knowing is believing! Uh oh!
patandrayshow wrote:
"lured by Ray's boring rhetoric- again",
If it's so boring then what's the attraction for you? Why are you here? Go somewhere where someone wants you. Unless, of course, there is no such place.
anonymous wrote:
"[Me:]"Why would a God be more probable?"
[anon:]Because the alternative is tantamount to believing that inanimate objects and/or matter not only created itself, but somehow transformed itself into that which we now know exists."
No it's not. The alternative is to say that we shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we know how the universe works and that anyone who makes definitive statements about the origins of it is merely stating a belief.
[Me:]"Second, your assumption begs the question, Who made God?"
[anon:]No one "made" God. He always existed. He always will exist. It is precisely God's eternal nature (e.g., no beginning, no end) that is beyond our limited abilities as human to fully comprehend."
That is simply your belief. It doesn't derive from anything except your desire to believe.
[Me:]"Third, What is God, anyway? Is he the God of the Bible? How does your question address this? How do you get from your question about origins to your beliefs about God?"
[anon:]Well, the short answer is that I have faith in what God has chosen to divinely reveal about Himself."
Yes, you have faith. That doesn't answer any questions, though, does it?
[anon:]"That faith, however, is not at all relevant or required when the discussion involves whether God exists in the first place."
It necessarily follows.
[anon:]"Although faith is at the very center of every Christian's life, one can reach the conclusion that God exists merely through the use of human reason alone."
No, it's not reason. It's belief. Sometimes we just have to acknowledge that we don't know certain things. Belief, however, removes the honesty and humility of such an acknowledgement and places one in the arrogant position of "knowing" answers to questions even before they've been asked. Not for me, thanks. I'll opt for honesty every time.
[Me:]"Fourth, why don't you argue that the origin of things is "beyond our ability as humans to fully understand" when you believe that a God is "beyond our ability as humans to fully understand"?
[anon:]See that which has been written above."
So the undefinable God suits you but the honest answer that we don't know much about how the universe works is unacceptable? Invoking a God does nothing more than to push back the answer one step farther.
[Me:]"Seems like it's a matter of personal preference, doesn't it?"
[anon:}Only if your personal preference involves ignoring basic logic and human reason."
It's not logical to force an answer when we know little to nothing about the question. We know so little about the universe yet it's logical to expect it to conform to our minds?
[anon:]" But then again, it's a free country. If you want to believe that its possible for the toaster to have created the goldfish, go right ahead. Just don't expect all too many to take you all that seriously."
That's a red herring and you know it.
[Me:]"And I'm not moved by your God argument."
[anon:]No surprise there. To you, Ray, I suspect that "even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride."
The "greatest truth" hasn't been established, only believed. The position of ignorance is the only honest one.
To say "I believe" is not honest? Not so. Not by a long shot.
There is nothing at all dishonest or "arrogant," Ray, in suggesting that we were either created by an eternal God or we were not. If there exists somewhere within the realm of possibilities a third option, then I would thank you to disabuse me and I'd ask that you explain that option herein.
Addressing Margaret and Anonymous of 1:16 PM,
No, belief isn't intellectual honesty, as in maintaining consistency and a single standard. Intellectual honesty is about not pretending to know, when in fact we really should be professing some humility. It's about not trying to force the universe to conform to our wants. It's about not taking the emotionally easy path.
It is indeed arrogant when we pretend to know the universe and even make grand pronouncements about it. How many times have people thought they understood the universe only to learn about some of the nonintuitive and counterintuitive aspects of it? Worse still, when we learn about it and pretend that what we've learned doesn't matter since our (your) beliefs will never change as a result. THAT'S arrogance!
Anonymous wrote:
"If there exists somewhere within the realm of possibilities a third option, then I would thank you to disabuse me and I'd ask that you explain that option herein."
I'm not suggesting a third option. I'm simply suggesting that we should be intellectually honest enough to say "I don't know". I think I've said it here before: Who would have ever thought that opting for humility in the face of little dependable knowledge (i.e. opting for intellectual honesty) would bring such vociferous objections? THAT'S arrogance!
But the political/religious climate is such that one isn't free to hold off on such judgements. One is required to be religiously correct and follow the majority.
Arrogance, then, would be relying on science to explain things, because science is knowledge about things we believe we know to be true...for now. Like Thalidomide. Like whether the earth is round or flat. Like who ewe believe was the first people to live in NOrth America (New Mexico? The Carolinas? all depends on who you talk to, really).
Who among us has NOT said "I don't know"? Do you know us all so well to proclaim that we (the other side...you know...those faith filled people) have NEVER said "I don't know"?
My goodness. I have said it many times in regard to those things (how about 9/11, how about the horrors in Bangladesh right now) that were so far beyond my understanding. I know other here have made that statement. Faith filled folks, Ray.
You make grand statements about the other side based on bias. It irks me.
Margaret, you're expanding this beyond the scope of the discussion. I've discussed arrogance within the context of the argument for God as posted by 'anonymous' of 1:13 PM, November 21, 2007. I've never hinted at anything beyond this context. Quite the opposite, in fact, since I've already argued that there exists a double-standard among believers who don't apply the same reasoning to belief that they do in other circumstances.
Post a Comment
<< Home