Atheism

[Djevv]

And all with multiple authors, translators and debates around them.

There are always debates about things in academic circles. Where the Bible is concerned, given what it claims to be, multiply that by 100. I'd be surpised if there weren't raging debates!

Are you referring to the English translations? There are as many as you can poke a stick at. Including literal word for word ones.

The actual text is a consensus one based on numerous ancient texts. Given the pure number of existing documents it is likely the text we have is very close to the autographs. As for the composition of the texts themsleves, this is textual critisism. I know there is a body of opinion that some books were cobbled together (Isaiah, the Pentateuch) but I think they (the books) are in the minority.

The Bible we have is very, very close to what was possessed/ written by the ancients.

 

[evo]

Plantinga also points out that there are issues with the meatphysical underpinnings of the science.

There are some sciences that deal only in measurements and facts and have little to do with understanding our place in the Cosmos. He calls this Duhemian Science, science which everyone can access, regardless on their metaphysical leanings. An example might be anatomy or cell biochemistry or rock classification or analyitical Chemistry.

well thats hardly suprising.Meta physics means outside of physics--ie not of science.

Other he fits under the umbrella of 'Augustinian' science which embraces a world view. They have a definite world view and trespass somewhat into the area normally reserved for religion. Psychology, the general theory of Evolution and other 'human' sciences might be examples of the latter. His point being that if it is legitimate for Naturalists to practice science purely from their POV, is should be permissable for Christians to do the same.

So creationism is true if you want to believe it is true. It's definately not scientific..Although that doesn't sound like it is a problem for him.

i don't think psychology and Evolution are of the same order.Psychology is a humanity,evolution is a science.

In psychology one can be a Jungian, Freudian or any of the other leanings--it's like being a Keynsian,Freidmanite, Hayekian or something else in economics--all positions have at least some validity,it becomes a personal preference.Very few serious scientists are Not evolutionists.

Yes of couse from an Atheistic POV there is no issue, but there are many other problems which God solves very neatly.

Those gaps to stick God in get ever smaller.

 

[Djevv]

well thats hardly suprising.Meta physics means outside of physics--ie not of science.

So creationism is true if you want to believe it is true. It's definately not scientific..Although that doesn't sound like it is a problem for him.

Look WRT to Creationism a lot of it goes way too far and says stuff that I agree is not science. That does not mean it is ALL wrong or in that it's Evolutionary critiques are totally incorrect. I think it also has every right to make those critisisms. Just the same as ID has every right to attempt to falsify Evolution by finding examples of Biological irreducible complexity. Plantinga make the very interesting point that IF you are a materialist Evolution is FACT. Must be. It is the only possible way of explaining Biological complexity. If you are a Theist Evolution may be true - there is no difficulty about that - but may not be the only or most likely scientific explanation permissable with this worldview.

i don't think psychology and Evolution are of the same order.Psychology is a humanity,evolution is a science.

In psychology one can be a Jungian, Freudian or any of the other leanings--it's like being a Keynsian,Freidmanite, Hayekian or something else in economics--all positions have at least some validity,it becomes a personal preference.Very few serious scientists are Not evolutionists.

Psychology uses scientific methodology. It is recognised as a science. But it has materialistic underpinnings, like non mind-body duality. Plantiga argues that it could, just as easily, be done with a Christian POV - taking into account the effect of sin etc.

Those gaps to stick God in get ever smaller.

:hihi If you say so. Plantinga does a nice hatchet job on 'God-of-the-Gaps' explanations too.

If you are interested here is the link and part II. A heavy read tho.

 

[evo]

:hihi If you say so. Plantinga does a nice hatchet job on 'God-of-the-Gaps' explanations too.

If you are interested here is the link and part II. A heavy read tho.

From what I could tell he was critisizing theists in the god-of-the-gaps section.

I'm loathe to read the whole lot.Parts i did read were pretty painful.Most of it sounded like what Betrand Russell would've called 'special pleading'.

Why don't you read some non theologian philosophers.There's heaps of good ones.

Or if you must read some theistic ones,try Kierkegaard,or Wittgenstein(he was the logical positivist,would probably appeal to a scientist)

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It is a special pleading argument.

Why do you apply different criteria to assessing empirical evidence that disputes your metaphysical (ie. non-scientific) viewpoint?

There is no doubting the occurence of biological evolution. The IDists that you mention are far more concerned with PR than science. The only assertions they have made disputing evolution involving irreducible complexity have been comprehensively shown to be deeply flawed.

You continue to assert that theism and atheism are 2 equally valid viewpoints. One stance makes an absolute claim (in the absence of verifiable evidence) and tries to explain natural phenomena in light of this claim, whereas the other makes no claims that aren't strongly supported by empirical evidence. To suggest that both have as much verifiable support, or that they are just 'different ways of knowing' is absurd.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Whilst I may not sound like it, I am actually a great supporter of most scientific invention, research and their search for further knowledge. I just don't believe that they have it all right and would rather put my faith in God than men on some things, that's all. It is nice, however, to hear you say that "science provides our best approximation" as I agree with that in many circumstances. However in elements of faith, God gives those who believe in Him a "blessed assurance" which goes beyond any "approximation" that science may come up with. It is a certainty from within that He not only exists, but loves you, wants to have a relationship with you and that that is the reason that He created you. It is an incredible feeling.

I am interested to know why it is nice to know that science only provides an approximation. Of course it does, we have fallible senses and perception and thus must use tools, such as inference and statistical analysis to get at the heart of previously intractable problems. These provide degrees of confidence, not absolute surety (however in many cases the probabilities of the theory being correct are so high we can accept it as fact - in fact the term 'theory' in scientific circles is used for these types of 'facts').

Your 'God' can provide nothing like this and it is an arrogant stance to say that you know something that you cannot possibly know.

Can you guarantee me that what we believe scientifically will be the same in 200 years as it is today? I can guarantee you that in 200 years, if the world is still around in it's current form and Jesus has not returned yet, that people will still believe in God as we do today. Religion has definitely passed the test of time.

I can assure you that what we know from a scientific perspective will not be the same in 200 years time. As we learn more and eke out more information about the world around us our perspective will, for the most part, be tweaked to fit our better understanding and in some cases we may see wholesale changes due to scientific breakthroughs (that may, or may not fit in with your religious dogma). That is the power of the scientific method, not a weakness as you perceive it. It is worth noting that Charles Darwin was born 200 years ago come this February, and the main crux of his theory of evolution by natural selection still stands as an integral part of the modern theory of evolution. This despite concerted efforts to discredit it by those with vested interests in the supernatural. So yes, our understanding of evolution has changed in the past 2 centuries (On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago), but the fundamental tenets of the theory remain unchanged.

It is interesting that you say "religion has definitely passed the test of time", because that is clearly not true for the vast majority of religions that have existed on this planet. Even Christianity has gone through major revisions since its inception. Surely you must know this?

 

[Djevv]

It is a special pleading argument.

Why do you apply different criteria to assessing empirical evidence that disputes your metaphysical (ie. non-scientific) viewpoint?

There is no doubting the occurence of biological evolution. The IDists that you mention are far more concerned with PR than science. The only assertions they have made disputing evolution involving irreducible complexity have been comprehensively shown to be deeply flawed.

You continue to assert that theism and atheism are 2 equally valid viewpoints. One stance makes an absolute claim (in the absence of verifiable evidence) and tries to explain natural phenomena in light of this claim, whereas the other makes no claims that aren't strongly supported by empirical evidence. To suggest that both have as much verifiable support, or that they are just 'different ways of knowing' is absurd.

Surely the unverifiable claim that Atheism makes is that all complexity, and indeed the origin of the universe is all explicable purely by the working of scientific laws that it cant explain the origin of either. It is not 'absurd' to suggest that intelligence is behind it all. I would suggest is is absurd to suggest otherwise. There is no empirical evidence either for or against God, only metaphysical, philosohical arguments.

Evo, on the God-of-the-gaps argument, yes he was critisising theists for using an invalid argument against atheists. It's his counter argument that was interesting.

 

[jayfox]

I am interested to know why it is nice to know that science only provides an approximation. Of course it does, we have fallible senses and perception and thus must use tools, such as inference and statistical analysis to get at the heart of previously intractable problems. These provide degrees of confidence, not absolute surety (however in many cases the probabilities of the theory being correct are so high we can accept it as fact - in fact the term 'theory' in scientific circles is used for these types of 'facts').

It is nice to know because it means that you at least admit that what you believe today could be debunked by further discovery tomorrow. It is also nice to hear you admit that people have fallible senses etc. as you are admitting that you and many other scientists could be wrong in their, even educated, viewpoints.

Your 'God' can provide nothing like this and it is an arrogant stance to say that you know something that you cannot possibly know.

You can call me arrogant if you like. What you choose to call me does not bother me at all. The one thing that Christians understand that those without faith never can is the certainly that a genuine faith provides. I have mentioned it before and the Bible calls it a "blessed assurance" and it is just that. It is like an opening of your eyes when you were previously walking around with them shut. Very hard to explain to a non-believer and I understand the skepticism, but I assure you that we are not making it up. The best way I could describe it is that it is like a realisation, something that has just hit you and you can't believe, can't comprehend, that you hadn't seen it before, and you have no doubt that it is true. It doesn't mean that you suddenly have all of the answers it just means that you know know the one who does.

I can assure you that what we know from a scientific perspective will not be the same in 200 years time. As we learn more and eke out more information about the world around us our perspective will, for the most part, be tweaked to fit our better understanding and in some cases we may see wholesale changes due to scientific breakthroughs (that may, or may not fit in with your religious dogma). That is the power of the scientific method, not a weakness as you perceive it. It is worth noting that Charles Darwin was born 200 years ago come this February, and the main crux of his theory of evolution by natural selection still stands as an integral part of the modern theory of evolution. This despite concerted efforts to discredit it by those with vested interests in the supernatural. So yes, our understanding of evolution has changed in the past 2 centuries (On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago), but the fundamental tenets of the theory remain unchanged.

Whilst this paragraph is actually slightly contradictory (saying that what you currently believe certainly won't be the same in 200 years, then stating that Darwin's findings of 150 years ago are largely unchanged today), I certainly acknowledge that many scientific findings will still be valid long into the future, and others will change. I think that what science neglects to understand is the affect that a Omnipotent, Supernatural creator could have on a natural world. We may not see scientific evidence of every occurrence in the Bible, but when you are talking fallible senses verses Omnipotent Creator, it makes sense, or at least has an explanation.

You may think that my beliefs are arrogant but I am the one who believes that there is a far higher power than us in this world and that we don't deserve His love or forgiveness. I believe that we deserve to be punished for our indiscretions but instead we get a chance at forgiveness and purity that we don't deserve, can't earn and only get because of the grace of God. I am not the one who believes that we are the most intelligent being on this Earth and bow to the greater power and understanding of an omnipotent Creator. In order to accept Christ into my life, I have to acknowledge that I can;t do it on my own, accept my errors and deficiencies and humble myself in reverence before Him. If that makes me or my beliefs arrogant in your opinion, then so be it.

It is interesting that you say "religion has definitely passed the test of time", because that is clearly not true for the vast majority of religions that have existed on this planet. Even Christianity has gone through major revisions since its inception. Surely you must know this?

You are right. I should have said "Christianity has passed the test of time". What has happened in other religions is largely irrelevant to my input in this section of the debate. Whilst, what I would call, minor changes regarding rituals etc. have changed over the years, the core beliefs of Christianity have remained unchanged for 2000 years. We still use the same texts, albeit in more modern translations, that they did those many years ago. I believe that shows that Christianity has passed the test of time.

 

[evo]

Surely the unverifiable claim that Atheism makes is that all complexity, and indeed the origin of the universe is all explicable purely by the working of scientific laws that it cant explain the origin of either.

Atheism doesn't make any of those claims.Dawkins may,but he doesn't speak for all atheists any more than the Grand Mufti speaks for all theists.

You attribute far too strong a position to atheists.It's just a lack of belief in a deity,thats it.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Surely the unverifiable claim that Atheism makes is that all complexity, and indeed the origin of the universe is all explicable purely by the working of scientific laws that it cant explain the origin of either. It is not 'absurd' to suggest that intelligence is behind it all. I would suggest is is absurd to suggest otherwise. There is no empirical evidence either for or against God, only metaphysical, philosohical arguments.

No it does not. I am fine with the fact that we don't know everything. I also know that you (nor any other theist) don't know either - your continued assertions aside. To suggest that a intelligence is behind it all certainly is more far fetched than a simple natural explanation...it begs the question. There is no evidence for or against the general idea of a god, but nor is there for any supernatural construct that you can imagine....that does not make it real though. It is also noteworthy that the specific god that you (and Jay) worship does have evidence against him, thus requiring revisions and logical gymnastics to explain some of the dogmas that you adhere to in light of our current knowledge.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It is nice to know because it means that you at least admit that what you believe today could be debunked by further discovery tomorrow. It is also nice to hear you admit that people have fallible senses etc. as you are admitting that you and many other scientists could be wrong in their, even educated, viewpoints.

Of course change can occur in science...that is one of its cornerstones! However I don't know if I would use the word "debunk", as the theories that hold sway now are the best explanations of the available evidence. New evidence can lead to revisions and in some extreme cases the discarding of a theory, however the term 'debunk' suggests that the theories themselves are flawed in there current form. If you believe that then there are avenues to publish your objections. The problem is you have to point out the flaws and propose a verifiable alternative explanation. I have seen none of that in your postings in this thread thus far.

You can call me arrogant if you like. What you choose to call me does not bother me at all. The one thing that Christians understand that those without faith never can is the certainly that a genuine faith provides. I have mentioned it before and the Bible calls it a "blessed assurance" and it is just that. It is like an opening of your eyes when you were previously walking around with them shut. Very hard to explain to a non-believer and I understand the skepticism, but I assure you that we are not making it up. The best way I could describe it is that it is like a realisation, something that has just hit you and you can't believe, can't comprehend, that you hadn't seen it before, and you have no doubt that it is true. It doesn't mean that you suddenly have all of the answers it just means that you know know the one who does.

I didn't blindly call you "arrogant", it was based on your stance that you claim to know something that you can't possibly know. I know that you will make your long speech about your 100% surety, however you are human, and you yourself claim to know of the fallibilities of human perception, yet apparently that doesn't apply to your perception of the reality of god. Can't you see the concessions that you make in this instance?

You are right. I should have said "Christianity has passed the test of time". What has happened in other religions is largely irrelevant to my input in this section of the debate. Whilst, what I would call, minor changes regarding rituals etc. have changed over the years, the core beliefs of Christianity have remained unchanged for 2000 years. We still use the same texts, albeit in more modern translations, that they did those many years ago. I believe that shows that Christianity has passed the test of time.

Those other religions aren't irrelevant as they too have 'passed the test of time' and yet they hold contradictory viewpoints. Just because a flawed, or incorrect belief is adhered to by many for a long period of time, doesn't provide any support for the validity of that view. Why would I subscribe to Christianity over any other religion that has been around for as long, or longer?

 

[Djevv]

Atheism doesn't make any of those claims.Dawkins may,but he doesn't speak for all atheists any more than the Grand Mufti speaks for all theists.

You attribute far too strong a position to atheists.It's just a lack of belief in a deity,thats it.

Come on. Get real! Athiests believe there is no God or Gods. Surely that is a reasonable assertion! Therefore they must explain everything material in terms of its self.

 

[Djevv]

To suggest that a intelligence is behind it all certainly is more far fetched than a simple natural explanation...it begs the question.

If you see a sandcastle on a beach do you suppose
a) a child built it
b) It got there by the action of wind and wave.

Sorry but your explanation here is hopelessly naive. The 'simple natural explanation' doesn't wash. Are any of the natural explanations really simple? Athiestic explanations seem nonsensical to me and involve monumental leaps of faith, logical fallacies and belief in absurdities. IMO none of them have the explanatory power of simple theological arguments.

 

[Disco08]

Come on. Get real! Athiests believe there is no God or Gods. Surely that is a reasonable assertion! Therefore they must explain everything material in terms of its self.

Why must they? Why do you assume that people must somehow be able to explain the nature of everything to justify their beliefs, or lack thereof?

If you see a sandcastle on a beach do you suppose
a) a child built it
b) It got there by the action of wind and wave.

Sorry but your explanation here is hopelessly naive. The 'simple natural explanation' doesn't wash. Are any of the natural explanations really simple? Athiestic explanations seem nonsensical to me and involve monumental leaps of faith, logical fallacies and belief in absurdities. IMO none of them have the explanatory power of simple theological arguments.

What absurdities and logical fallacies?

Also, the term 'simple theological argument' is a self-contradiction. No argument that insists that a single, unseen being created the entire universe is ever going to be simple.

 

[AngryAnt]

jayfox, I took the time to respond to your questions... it seems you have lost interest?

 

[AngryAnt]

If you see a sandcastle on a beach do you suppose
a) a child built it
b) It got there by the action of wind and wave.

Sorry but your explanation here is hopelessly naive. The 'simple natural explanation' doesn't wash. Are any of the natural explanations really simple? Athiestic explanations seem nonsensical to me and involve monumental leaps of faith, logical fallacies and belief in absurdities. IMO none of them have the explanatory power of simple theological arguments.

If I was eating wheaties I would have choked on them right there.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If you see a sandcastle on a beach do you suppose
a) a child built it
b) It got there by the action of wind and wave.

Sorry but your explanation here is hopelessly naive. The 'simple natural explanation' doesn't wash. Are any of the natural explanations really simple? Athiestic explanations seem nonsensical to me and involve monumental leaps of faith, logical fallacies and belief in absurdities. IMO none of them have the explanatory power of simple theological arguments.

No, it is you being naive. Natural selection* is such a simple concept that my 7 year old understands it. When I first learned of it as a young adult my first reaction was, why wasn't this described earlier?!? It is self evident and remarkably simple. An extremely simple mechanism that can lead to the appearance of 'designed' complexity.

Please point out the "monumental leaps of faith, logical fallacies and belief in absurdities".

What predictions do your 'simple' theological arguments make? If they are to be explanatory than they should also make testable predictions.

An all-seeing all-knowing power is a simpler explanation?!? :hihi (Of course this being is exempt from your analysis).

*Natural selection is not the only force driving evolution, but it does play an important role.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Come on. Get real! Athiests believe there is no God or Gods. Surely that is a reasonable assertion! Therefore they must explain everything material in terms of its self.

Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. End of story.

 

[evo]

Come on. Get real! Athiests believe there is no God or Gods.

I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out before it sinks in.

It is a lack of belief in something(in this case God)

Therefore they must explain everything material in terms of its self.

It's a non-sequiter.Atheists don't have to explain anything.They aren't necessariliy scientists or philosphers(who may have a theory on this sort of thing),they are just people who don't believe in your God.

Just because someone doesn't believe in,say the loch Ness Monster, doesn't mean they have to explain sightings etc. They just lack that particular belief.

 

[Disco08]

The one thing that Christians understand that those without faith never can is the certainly that a genuine faith provides. I have mentioned it before and the Bible calls it a "blessed assurance" and it is just that. It is like an opening of your eyes when you were previously walking around with them shut. Very hard to explain to a non-believer and I understand the skepticism, but I assure you that we are not making it up. The best way I could describe it is that it is like a realisation, something that has just hit you and you can't believe, can't comprehend, that you hadn't seen it before, and you have no doubt that it is true. It doesn't mean that you suddenly have all of the answers it just means that you know know the one who does.

Do you ever entertain the possibility that what you think is a connection to God is a delusion and that what you feel as 'blessed assurance' is your brain's way of dealing with its fear of the unknown?