251. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64340 by Lauregon on August 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm

I was making the point that this classic distopian novel describes a stable but undesirable future society. I mention my friend because of how shocking his views were to me. I went on to explain why I think that morality that exists in order to create stable societies is not morality that we ought to follow. - PaulEmecz

Perhaps "stable" wasn't the best word for me to use; I used it to indicate societies governed according to precepts of the Golden Rule, a concept revered by history's most revered "holy" people.

What makes social stability so desirable? Why should we share your values here? - PaulMecz

As has been mentioned here several times, the Golden Rule has proved to be a pragmatic choice in creating less violent, more just societies. Life is often terrifying enough without wanton human cruelty being added to myriad natural dangers. Think of the Golden Rule as a tool that makes life less stressful.

252. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64337 by Lauregon on August 19, 2007 at 4:01 pm

This is the point. You can say to a Christian "They are children of God, made in His image". Central to Christian ethics is the sanctity of life principle. It says that every life is of supreme value because we are all made by God and have a special status in the world. While I am sure you may find the language unnecessarily poetical, it would be very clear to Christians what it meant.

The point is that from a Christian standpoint, there is a reason for treating everyone as equals. I don't see what reason you can give from a non-theistic position. - PaulEmecz

Reduced to that, the Christian "reason" amounts merely to obedient submission to a supernatural alpha male, or, as my friend terms it, "chimp behavior." :(

253. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64332 by Lauregon on August 19, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Who says that's what's RIGHT? I remember clearly having a friend who thought that the society in Brave New World was a utopia, not a distopia. What about Walden Two?

You can't make objective value judgments that are subjective! PaulEmecz

Believing that the Bible is the word of "God" and that religious orthodoxies correctly describe the existence, wishes, and purposes of an unseen almighty, omniscient, omnipotent supernatural Supreme Being is a subjective perception.

It's also true that the "God" of the Bible often falls terribly short of the kind of morality demonstrated by humanity's most revered and honored "holy" people over time. Most civilized people look to such exemplars as models for the most desirable of behaviors, and from those behaviors come ideas about what makes societies more moral and stable than others. That your friend found "Brave New World" to be a utopia suggests that he or she views tyranny as a desirable state, whereas humanity's most revered "holy" people have a very different perspective. Of course, it's true that people often assume that "God" is the author of such a perspective, but that proves only that many people are willing to assume that moral ideas of necessity must come from a supernatural realm---but that doesn't make it so.

254. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63529 by Lauregon on August 14, 2007 at 5:22 pm

However flawed the reasoning is, there is a greater error - if the universe is an isolated system, entropy always increases and the universe has a limited life-span - no-one is going to survive the universe, so whatever we do ultimately makes no difference. - Paul Emecsz

So what? While we're here, we're here.

I think we can use reason, and our ability to experience, to discover the objective moral truths that I believe to exist in this universe. I think that's what we do, and I think that explains why the Golden Rule is so prominent. However, it also explains how the Golden Rule might actually be RIGHT rather than merely popular. Without the existence of God and some form of afterlife, how could morality, ontologically, exist? - Paul Emecz

Human pragmatism. The Golden Rule might be RIGHT because it makes for more stable human societies rather than because it's thought to please a supernatural deity no one has ever seen or heard.

255. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63316 by Lauregon on August 13, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Lauregon,
Perhaps your husband was given a perfectly good heart and he didn't take care of himself. Perhaps he purposely damaged his heart by poor living habits. How about his parents, maybe they didn't take care of themselves and passed down defective genes. Perhaps civilization has been selfish (as evolution would dictate) and they spoiled the environment which damaged his heart.
I guess that's the atheist dilemma, a bad cosmic roll of the dice. - Geno

On the other hand, Geno, it can be legitimately argued that a truly "perfect design" would be built to successfully thwart and/or be totally impervious to ill-use. ;)

As far as an alleged "atheist dilemma," there are endless accounts of believers for whom the cosmic dice roll disastrously.

Speaking of "perfect design," I read in the current New Yorker magazine (or maybe it was Harper's) about a rare syndrome which, among other things, drives its victims to savagely and involuntarily bite off their own fingers and lips. IMO, a perfect designer wouldn't permit such a catastophic condition to occur---unless, of course, "he" were sadistic or perhaps, viciously didactic.

256. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63314 by Lauregon on August 13, 2007 at 9:44 pm

My beliefs are my subjective conclusions based on my observations of life. Objectively speaking, I realize my subjective beliefs may be totally wrong. If consciousness continues after death, we will get a wealth of scientific evidence to pursue this issue further. - Darwin2

If that were the case, one might think with all the consciousnesses throughout history and prehistory, that by this time numerous consciousnesses would have managed to come back to make sure the pre-dead know unequivocally that consciousness survives physical death. Oh, wait! That happened a lot back in the 19th century in the table-rocking, wall-thumping spiritualism craze! Dang. We were just born too late. :(

257. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63310 by Lauregon on August 13, 2007 at 9:31 pm

If there were a Supreme Being Designer and Creator of the Universe, common sense would dictate that human bodies would come pre-equipped with plenty of sturdy, fail-proof zippers to facilitate easy repair of physical flaws and disorders (all inexplicable, of course). Alas, they don't. Therefore, my husband's sternum will have to be sawed apart Wednesday in order to enable the repair of his heart valves. Some lousy Supreme Designer! Back to the drawing board, Supreme Being Sir.

258. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63258 by Lauregon on August 13, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Good points. To me, God is a metaphor, a metaphor which transcends ALL categories of thought. I agree that those who view, for example, Christianity, as TRUE, in the scientific, materialistic sense, need to be challenged on the foundations of their beliefs, and that this should not be allowed to remain taboo. - IQHQ

I emphatically agree.

Part of "growing up" is to recognise myths AS myths. - IQHQ

I'm appreciative of the explanation Banzai wrote a few weeks ago that describes (my paraphrase) "God" as the poetic or literary term for human aspirations and yearnings.

259. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63181 by Lauregon on August 13, 2007 at 12:18 pm

I tend to think that this is because the key to artistic creativity is "imagination", and it is exactly this "imagination" which is most inspired by the mythical import of religious stories. - IQHQ

I'd say imagination is/can be inspired by the mythical import of myth, but myth usually doesn't attempt to make literal or factual its descriptions of supernatural phenomena. Myth itself is an artistic creation that paints a story beyond itself that tries to explain aspects of human life. The Christian myth, unfortunately, claims far more for itself, and that's the big problem.

One thing I noticed in White's argumentation is that he presumed a universal need for "salvation." His presumption drags the whole subject back to the authority of the Bible (and the Church) which makes for yet another circular apologist argument.

When White linked future "proof" of the Big Bang with "revelation," I felt like whacking my computer speakers. Maybe he misspoke and didn't mean a revelation delivered to the Pope---but then again, maybe he did.

People in modern day secular countries have lost their "heroes", so to speak. -
IQHQ

Secular hero-seekers find them on movie screens(and in sports stadiums)---impoverished heros they may be, and yet their heroic stories do often bear at least traces of eternal myths. (Maybe the secular world is so overfed with supernatural cinema heroes that many among us have grown bored with them.

260. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62395 by Lauregon on August 9, 2007 at 3:02 pm

What also amazes me about Atheists is that they attack beliefs without ever properly studying them; how many have ever read the Bible with an open mind? - Dianalake

Probably far many more than have believers. Those who have and do quite often become non-theists.

261. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62391 by Lauregon on August 9, 2007 at 2:48 pm

The heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is "true for me". -Phillips

I'm not a Brit, but I'm gonna say this anyway: BOLLOCKS.

I'm furious. I've just received an email from a devout Christian evangelical I worked with for several years, a "nice" woman, totally devoted to "God," and a real true believer. Yesterday she sent me (yet another) of those stupid missives right-wingers in the US are abysmally fond of sending out in mass mailings to all their friends and acquaintances. It was a short essay, allegedly written by a well-known, liberal media celebrity, extolling a right-wing perspective about the virtue of a rosy worldview---in fact, it was a thinly-veiled attack on liberal critique of common reality in this age of (god-loving) George W Bush. As soon as I read it, I smelled a rat and immediately checked Snopes, an i'net debunker of urban legends. I wrote a friendly personal note back to the sender, including a brief sentence saying that the essay (actually written by a right-wing hack) was wrongly attributed, and I included a link to the debunker site which explained in detail how this legend had (ahem) evolved, built upon and around a complete misrepresentation of a droll and ironic line the media celebrity had actually tossed off during a tv show. The answer I received from my truth-loving, evangelical Christian former co-worker: "It doesn't matter who said it! The message is a good one!"

Well, sorry! I'm a liberal, AND a non-theist, and it's my belief that misrepresentation and mis-attribution is NOT a good message---and certainly has nothing to do with truth.

Theists, IMO, have a perverse understanding of truth and virtue.

262. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61980 by Lauregon on August 7, 2007 at 5:57 pm

By "perfect memory" I meant the kind of memory a perfect person would have; hmm maybe I should have written "ideal memory" rather than "perfect memory". (Here is the original context of our discussion about God's memory from post 1749, or #61352: By knowing oneself and considering what is ideal one comes to know God, and hence reality. Take any other bit of your structure as a person, say your memory. [and so on]) - Dianelos

Premise rejected. Memory is memory. If you want to talk about not remembering what you choose to forget, please find a different term. "Memory" doesn't work.

As for the natural evils (such as natural catastrophes, illness etc) they are not individually "crafted" by God. Rather these happen within the mechanical and effectively random physical environment we experience. That environment is caused by God for a good reason, namely to give as the opportunity to grow in virtue... - Dianelos

That's a bit like a nutcase parent deliberately leaving loaded guns around in order teach his children to not play with them.

Further, the context of our discussion is how reality is, and to offer as an argument that the other party tries "to avoid facing the reality" as you understand it – is of course begging the question.- Dianelos

Assuming "God" and then proceeding with the debate positing that "God" and "God's" goals are as YOU subjectively define it and them, is interminably begging the question.

As for my dealing with psychology, you are quite right: If reality is personal then of course psychological thought is the way to understand it. - Dianelos

The common physical "reality" we live in is shared, not personal. Fruit is fruit, trees are trees, cows are cows, gravity is gravity. Psychological reality is personal. Insane people have personal realities. That doesn't mean everyone else should adopt their realities.

You insist there's a personal "God" who is a person, who has given us an environment from which we are to learn lessons "he" wants us to learn to the end of acquiring virtue (but to what ultimate end?). That is YOUR reality. You believe that holding those beliefs makes your life better than it otherwise would be. Because you think it does, you seem to believe we should adopt your reality. You are, in effect, telling us our "reality" isn't real, but that yours is. Example: Here in the US, a Bush spokesperson boasted to a journalist a few years ago that while most people live in "the reality based community," the (supposedly God-led) BA creates it own reality and the rest of America had better just accept it. We see where that has led us both globally and domestically. Understandably, private realities can be understood to be problematic.

Seems to me that if a Supreme personal "God" person existed and wanted to be known and worshipped, "God" would be clearly obvious to all without the convoluted subjective contraption (s) you (and others before you) have constructed.

263. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61950 by Lauregon on August 7, 2007 at 2:30 pm

I won't disagree with you here. I even agree with the term "projection". After all we believe that people around us are persons because we project to what we experience of them what we ourselves are. And, similarly, we project to the whole of our experience what we ourselves are – and interestingly enough the resulting understanding of reality as being personal and following personal will works much better than the view that reality consists of a physical universe that follows mechanical laws. -Dianelos

And so, Dianelos, "God" becomes whatever someone thinks "God" is---or isn't---and you want us to believe in your projection because it works best for you to live your life thinking of "God" as personal. I, for one, don't find it makes my life better to think there's a "God" who's arbitrarily assigning me life lessons according to "his" inscrutable will which I must find ways of cheerfully accepting and rationalizing away as ultimately "good" in order to support the idea of a benevolent, all-caring "God." I've been there and done that---and found it a crazy-making way to live.

264. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61942 by Lauregon on August 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Actually I am using the concept of "memory" exactly in the way we use it when speaking about ourselves, or the way we use it when speaking about computers or even about any dynamic physical system: as the repository of information that affects one's future actions and reactions. - Dianelos

Uh, yes. Remembering that you were once burned by touching a hot broiler pan generally affects the future actions of a rational person. Not remembering it may well lead to a needless repeat of the injury.

But maybe the wording I used above was not very good, so let me rephrase: "Perfect memory is the one that will never fail to remember all that is good and will never fail to forget all that isn't." - Dianelos

I'd say "perfect memory" is the ability to remember everything that has occured to the one remembering. I'd say you're talking about selective memory and dishonestly calling it "perfect."

So it's not like God does immediately forget any evil thing that happens (as Steve99 in post 1756 or _J_ in post 1757 hypothesize), of course not. But evil cannot be completely overcome unless it is not only forgiven but is also forgotten – for the slightest shadow that past evil casts in the present is present evil. _ Dianelos

As you've explained it, there appears to be no evil to overcome. All misery and catastrophe appears to be, as I understand your accounting, a lesson crafted by "God" to further the virtue of humans.

Speaking of God's memory, consider this: God is not at freedom to forget all evil. You see, God is all of reality, and reality consists not only of God but of many other free persons too, for example us. So unless each one of us forgets an evil God can't forget it either. So we are not only God's co-creators of reality, but also God's co-sweepers of reality :-) It goes without saying that the whole thing of forgetting evil will take quite some time, at least in my own case. - Dianelos

It seems to me you've constructed an exceedingly complicated and cumbersome contraption in order to avoid facing the reality that we are finite beings living in a finite material universe and that within that universe bad things inevitably happen, and that in the long run, the universe will do what the universe will do, therefore que sera sera.

It appears to me you're most concerned with the pragmatic efficacy of your worldview, and I suppose that's not necessarily a bad thing, but to insist that your optimistic worldview represents a factual state of how things are---especially when it involves forgetting horrific things that happen---is, as I see it, willful dishonesty. It seems to me you should admit that you're dealing with psychology and not with science or fact.

265. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61931 by Lauregon on August 7, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Idiot! Dawkins bashes God, not those who believe the tale! - Yorker

Doesn't he actually bash the concept of God and the claims made for God by believers? That's how I see it anyway.

266. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61796 by Lauregon on August 6, 2007 at 11:09 pm

In fact, reason is intrinsic to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Bible provides a picture of a rational Creator and an orderly universe - which, accordingly, provided the template for the exercise of reason and the development of science. - Phillips

Most people today know that dead bodies don't rise from the crypt, and yet, the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains the cornerstone of Christian faith, closely followed by the requirement of belief in vicarious atonement through Jesus' death as the means to salvation and escape from hell. Neither of these are rational concepts, and yet they are the basis of Christian faith. Rational? Not really.

Dawkins pours particular scorn on the Biblical miracles which don't correspond to scientific reality. But religious believers have different ways of regarding those events, with many seeing them as either metaphors or as natural occurrences which were invested with a greater significance. - Phillips

Miracles? When a huge majority of the people in the pews refuse to participate in professing belief in traditional creeds, and rise up and demand that creeds and articles of faith be changed to unambiguously abandon the doctrines of the resurrection of Jesus and of salvation achieved through vicarious atonement and all the other supernatural elements of Christian orthodoxy, Phillips might be taken seriously about this. Until then, no.

267. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61683 by Lauregon on August 6, 2007 at 10:35 am

I don't, but when I find that worldview A works better than B under all and each one of the criteria I can imagine then reason demands that I adopt worldview A over B – and if A is moreover much more beautiful than B then, frankly, the much the better :-) - Dianelos

You've constructed A and eliminated B to suit your own psychological needs. If you feel believing in A makes your life better, that's lovely, but using the term "God" for your construct doesn't help, since "God" already has been described otherly in the Bible. Speaking of "God" lends support and legitimacy to traditional religion which you obviously part company with whenever necessary. Maybe you should coin a new term for the overarching pattern you see, and leave the term "God" out of the discussion.

BTW, I think you deceive yourself. I think you really do believe in a "Brahman" sort of ultimate reality but aren't yet ready to face it. :)

268. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61677 by Lauregon on August 6, 2007 at 10:05 am

But you may insist: "What God exactly are you talking about?". My short answer there could be: "The God absolutely all evidence points to – find out the details for yourself as you have the same evidence I have." - Dianelos

Evidence points to a vast, complex universe. It doesn't point to a "God" person who is conducting an experiment on human beings for his own secret purposes and who deeply cares how humans respond---otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for "evidence," you invent your own "evidence" by redefining words, ignoring the believer-perceived sacredness of scripture ("the Word of God!") and its material and psychological effects on human beings (the burning of witches, for example, persecution of homosexuals, etc.), glossing over human tragedies and promising that pie in the sky will be exquisitely delicious, and countless other conveniences, thereby creating your own reality and more or less beseeching us to accept your subjective reality as fact.

My longer answer is this: All concepts we coin to define existents, for example "apple", or "atom", or "gravitation", or "pi", or "beauty", or "mathematical laws" or whatever, refers to an explanatory pattern that is present in our experience. - Dianelos

True, and according to the experience of humans throughout history, "God" has been described and encreeded in anthropomorphic terms, often possessing the worst characteristics of humans. Humans experienced (and still do today) the "pattern" you speak of in flood and drought, in feast and famine, and called it "God's Will." Simply filtering out the horrific aspects of the "pattern" and seeing it solely as benevolent and loving defies both honesty and logic.

Further the patterns present in our experience are hierarchical, for example "fruit" is a more general pattern than "apple" which in turn is a more general pattern than "this particular apple". So the question arises whether there exists the most general pattern of all, an overarching explanation for all our experience. Most people would intuit that it exists because our experience appears to be coherent.- Dianelos

Many people insist that our experience is willed and created by a supernatural person who will serve them glorious pie in the sky by-and-by. Others interpret experience as finite life in a material universe.

If that overarching explanatory pattern exists then the next question that arises is: what are its properties? Well, to say "God exists" is equivalent to saying that this overarching explanatory pattern exists- Dianelos

I disagree. The term "God" is an anthropomorphic term/construct created to explain often bewildering, sometimes excruciating/sometimes pleasant physical reality as perceived and experienced by human beings. It involves projecting upon the unknown characteristics manifested by the very human beings who are doing the projection.

and that its most basic property is that it is a person.- Dianelos

Exactly. It's an anthropomorphic construction projected onto the unknown. And by definition, a "person" IS a human being and not some intangible something else (except in America, of course, where corporations are defined (mistakenly) as "persons" with Constitutional rights. See how this definition thing can be made to work? As the Queen in Wonderland said, "Things are whatever I say they are!").

269. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61584 by Lauregon on August 5, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Steve99 and Dr Benway's comments got me to thinking that the idea that this vast and complex universe was designed solely for the benefit of humankind seems to be something akin to the Japanese "chindogu," an absurdly elaborate invention constructed to perform very simple tasks.

270. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61463 by Lauregon on August 5, 2007 at 8:38 am

How can we find out how God's memory is? By considering how it would perfect. For me the answer is clear: Perfect memory is the one that remembers all that is good and forgets all that isn't. - Dianelos

That pretty much defines (and permits) your whole rosy, subjective theology, Dianelos. You've invented an entirely new meaning for the word "memory." Alas, there can be no truly meaningful discourse when words are defined subjectively and contrary to common usage. It can also be said that your method of determining "God's memory" is pure anthropomorphism, the projection of human thought onto a supernatural being, thereby sanctifying human thought as "God's" reality.

271. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61452 by Lauregon on August 5, 2007 at 7:48 am

What evidence, proof, documentation, fossil, relic etc would it take to convince you that you were wrong about god's existence? - Katherine

Even the discovery of Jesus' bones would probably not convince him. He'd patch together some rationale...

272. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61304 by Lauregon on August 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm

"To Serve Man" - Dr Benway

An artfully curled slice of lemon, perhaps, with a scattering of tiny yellow and red pear tomatoes can add a festive touch to the hearty entree.

273. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61302 by Lauregon on August 4, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Not only is there evidence for God, but that evidence consists of the whole of our experience of life and therefore is inescapable (nobody can really say to have lacked that evidence). And it is evidence for God because it cannot be understood without recourse to God. In other words far from there being no evidence for God, there is no evidence that is not for God:- Dianelos

This is circular reasoning, Dianelos. You assume that our whole experience of life is proof of "God," therefore, because we have experience of life, you say it's proof of "God."

However, if by "God" you mean something like the impersonal undifferentiated Vedantic concept called "Brahman," we might have some tentative element of possible agreement. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of a non-anthropomorphic, impersonal, non-favor-performing, non-punishing, unifying fabric of all being that underlies and permeates all reality.

If that's what you mean by"God," then it might make some sense to speak of "trusting God," however, it would be "trust" in the sense of "que sera sera ("we're all drops in the ocean so go with the flow")" rather than "trust" as in the trust between friends.

But then, that's not the "God" of common discourse in the Western world.

274. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61283 by Lauregon on August 4, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I agree that to trust a friend we need to know something about them, but I do not agree that that's all there is to trust: We trust friends because we love them, and we cannot love them without trusting them. -Dianelos

Your original point was that knowing and thinking aren't necessary to developing trust. In my experience, knowing and thinking precede trust, and love may follow the development of trust.

Exactly the way it is for God. After all, according to my understanding, S/He is somebody who is not unpredictable nor mysterious.- Dianelos

Presumably then, you can explain all unpleasant and horrific events and circumstances which humans experience.

Quite on the contrary: God being perfectly good is in many ways easier to understand and predict than other people. -Dianelos

As long as you assume that all that happens is necessarily and ultimately "good."

What's partially unpredictable is the physical environment we find us in, and one can understand why God would have caused us to experience such a basically random environment. - Dianelos

One can? I can't. You've said that trusting "God" is like trusting friends. I seriously doubt that you'd long retain a friend who willfully for his or her own personal reasons caused you or someone you love to "experience such a basically random environment" that visited upon you or your loved one catastrophes such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, birth defects, etc., etc., etc..

God's ways are not mysterious – that's only something that theists who don't understand God's ways say. After all, a benevolent God would not create us with the cognitive capacity to form meaningful questions we can absolutely not answer, would S/He? - Dianelos

Why not? "God" might have perfectly "good" reasons for confounding human cognition.

You argue circularly, assuming a benevolent "God" because you assume that all that happens is necessarily "good" and expresses the benevolent will of a benevolent "God." Round and round and round you go.

275. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61262 by Lauregon on August 4, 2007 at 11:46 am

Eppeist, (Post #207) Thanks for your response and the links. I know almost nothing about fencing, but I lived for a while with my aunt and uncle in 1952 and was in awe of their living room filled as it was with medals, ribbons, and trophies. My family was fractured, and after that year, I saw almost nothing of my aunt and uncle. Yours and scottishgeologist's comments here prompted me to suppose there must be something on the i/net about Maxine so I googled, and there it was! I'm very grateful for the motivation you both provided.

(Sorry for this off-topic tangent, folks. I don't usually do this kind of thing).

276. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61259 by Lauregon on August 4, 2007 at 11:21 am

But that is your interpretation of what was happening. There is no evidence that people in Biblical times thought that epileptic seizures were really demonic possession. In fact what is happening is that 20th century atheists are reading back into the text and thinking that this must have been the case therefore this was the case. You have no evidence whatsoever for your statement. - Wee Flea responding to Katherine

The point is the belief in demon possession as part of the Biblical worldview. Epilepsy or not, the Bible depicts instances of people believing others were possessed by devils. Mark 5 contains an account of demonic possession being assumed to be the reason for frightening abnormal human behavior.

277. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61249 by Lauregon on August 4, 2007 at 10:43 am

Actually you do have your creeds and your philosophy. But my point was more to do with the way that you insist everyone thinks the same and you do not allow any deviation.- Wee Flea

If that's what you meant, that's what you should have said---and been able and willing to prove it. Alas, you didn't, and weren't. You said atheism and fundamentalism are "exactly the same."

Do you only spend time on things you fear? What a sad life you must live! And what makes you say I am fuming that RD has not debated me. I do not expect and I have a lot more important things to be angry about. Please don't read your emotions into other people. - Wee Flea

Methinks you protesteth much too much. Why am I saying you're fuming because RD hasn't debated you? Because you've fumed about it several times.

By the way, Wee Flea, what do you think of John Shelby Spong's efforts toward developing a non-theist Christianity? Do you think it's possible to have a non-theist Christianity? If not, why not? - Lauregon

No. Its not. Spong is a dishonest man. He should leave the Church and join the atheist movement rather than play these stupid games. - Wee Flea

What a mouthful of close-mindedness and intolerance! It sounds as though you're of the opinion that all Christians must think the same things. By the way, you didn't answer my question. I asked WHY you'd think non-theistic Christianity isn't possible. I hope when you Come Again you'll take the time to answer my question coherently instead of spewing angry knee-jerk insults and denunciations about Spong's perspective.

278. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61097 by Lauregon on August 3, 2007 at 3:11 pm

scottishgeologist, eppeist, you may (or may not) be interested in this oral history of my aunt who was in the Olympics in the 50's and 60's as a fencer.

www.aafla.org/6oic/OralHistory/OHmitchell.indd.pdf

279. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61072 by Lauregon on August 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Dianelos, a correction to this paragraph in my post, #1731:

I wrote:

The injunction "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" is found in the Bible (Exodus 22:18). Because the entire Bible is believed by devout Christians to be the very word of God, the killing of witches was dutifully performed by Christians. On whose authority can it be said they were wrong to ignore the Biblical injunction?

The last sentence should have been, "On whose authority can it be said that the (alleged) word of God as recorded in this Exodus passage was wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously?"

Further, concerning your argument that the idea of witches was a superstition, the fact is that the worldview of the biblical writers included belief in the reality of witches. Who determines which elements of the Biblical worldview are superstitions and which are not?

280. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61042 by Lauregon on August 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Fonex-86, that rib-woman fable by PZ Myers made me spew tea on my keyboard. It's a keeper (the fable, that is. Well, yeah, the keyboard is too).

281. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61038 by Lauregon on August 3, 2007 at 11:48 am

Actually I am having trouble thinking of a single serious crime against humanity - not to mention a serious threat for civilization or the survival of humankind today - that was primarily motivated by religion. It seems to me that even the burning of witches centuries ago was not so much motivated by religion (I am not aware of any injunctions in Christianity that call for the burning of witches), but by superstition – the explicit justification was the once again imagined threat that witchcraft represented for society. - Dianelos

The injunction "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" is found in the Bible (Exodus 22:18). Because the entire Bible is believed by devout Christians to be the very word of God, the killing of witches was dutifully performed by Christians. On whose authority can it be said they were wrong to ignore the Biblical injunction?

Some of the punishments (cutting off hands, stoning of women, female circumcision, etc) that may be practiced in some Muslim countries today are barbaric, but so is the not religiously motivated execution of prisoners in the US – Dianelos

I agree that the practices are barbaric, but I don't agree that capital punishment in the US isn't religiously motivated. It's not unusual for religionists to be a celebratory presence at executions. It's also not unusual for religionists to quote Biblical "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" defenses for capital punishment.

The problem, Dianelos, is that argumentation for the character and edicts of an unseen, supernatural Supreme Being are inescapably capricious.

282. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61027 by Lauregon on August 3, 2007 at 11:21 am

On the contrary I have spend lots of time arguing that the evidence for God is overwhelming and inescapable – all data we have, both third and first-person data point to God. - Dianelos

Whose God, Dianelos? "God" as defined by what person or group? The God of Christian orthodoxy? The Jewish version? The Muslim version? Or, perhaps the literary-type "God," the poetic construction "God" that embodies human dreams and yearnings suggested by Bonzai in reference to Hedges "God" some pages back? Perhaps a psychological tool "God" constructed to make life seem easier and joyous? Whose version of "God," Dianelos?

283. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61018 by Lauregon on August 3, 2007 at 10:39 am

"You wanted non-theists to talk about your virulent scorn for Dawkins and atheists? - Lauregon

Sigh. Let me explain this slowly so you might get it. I wanted them to discuss some of the issues that RD raises. And they do. - Wee Flea

Sigh. You thought that without your contributions of expressions of virulent scorn and contempt for Dawkins (and atheists in general) that atheists who come here wouldn't talk about issues Dawkins' raises? I've had the distinct impression you want posters here to discuss issues YOU raise! ;)

"Different thinking? ATHEISM is different thinking ---which is why it's so despised and feared by people like you." - Lauregon

I don't fear atheist thinking. The more I go on the more I realise it is exactly the same as fundamentalist religious thinking – it cannot go out its own box. - Wee Flea

Exactly the same? Really? Does atheist thinking involve belief in virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, heaven and hell, and salvation from eternal punishment for human sin through the vicarious atonement of a divine savior who is one third of a supernatural holy trinity that exists in a heaven outside time and space? No, Wee Flea, it doesn't. Atheism doesn't involve creedal belief or faith in unseen supernatural phenomena. As for your denial that you fear atheism, if you didn't fear it, it's unlikely you'd be here spending so much time arguing so strenuously against it, and fuming that Richard Dawkins hasn't debated you.

By the way, Wee Flea, what do you think of John Shelby Spong's efforts toward developing a non-theist Christianity? Do you think it's possible to have a non-theist Christianity? If not, why not?

284. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60652 by Lauregon on August 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm

"What did you hope to accomplish ---other than to air your virulent scorn for Dawkins and atheists? How productive is that?" - Lauregon

To get people to talk about it. And its worked. - Wee Flea

You wanted non-theists to talk about your virulent scorn for Dawkins and atheists?

"You're extremely unlikely to convince anyone here of the truth of theism, so why feed your anger by composing furious screeds against non-believers?" - Lauregon

I still have this silly and fading hope that people on this site actually are open to discussion and different thinking. - Wee Flee

Different thinking? ATHEISM is different thinking ---which is why it's so despised and feared by people like you. As for "discussion," most non-theists are far more capable of vigorous discussion concerning religious matters than are theists. Maybe you're really here because you're bored silly by theists! ;)

285. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60621 by Lauregon on August 2, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I'm not a big fan of the way these authors are referred to as fleas. Illogical? Yes. Wrong? Most probably. But fleas? I don't think so. - LB

:) As far as I can tell, Wee Flea chose his own screen name, giving rise to the "flea" concept being attached to others who've contrived their book titles from Dawkins' book title.

286. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60618 by Lauregon on August 2, 2007 at 1:11 pm

"Whatever for? Your argumentation may be convincing to believers who can't fathom non-theism, but they're little more than impotent tirades against Richard Dawkins." - Lauregon

I assume you have read the book then? Actually the biggest response I have had has been from atheists and agnostics. They don't generally seem to agree with you. But then they must be stupid too… - Wee Flee

No, Wee Flea, I haven't read your book. I wrote in my post not of your book, but of your argumentation which I've read on this site as well as on your own site. As for atheist response you've received, that's not at all surprising since this is where you've chosen to post your anti-Dawkins/anti-atheist argumentation, but as far as I've seen here, you've convinced no one here of the truth of theism with your argumentation, and I do think that most would agree that your argumentation is little more than tirades against Dawkins and atheism, so I repeat, whatever for (did you write primarily for atheists and agnostics)? What did you hope to accomplish ---other than to air your virulent scorn for Dawkins and atheists? How productive is that?
You're extremely unlikely to convince anyone here of the truth of theism, so why feed your anger by composing furious screeds against non-believers? You're foolishly arrogant when you assume non-believers as a group haven't given theism enough consideration. I think it's a safe argument to say that most non-believers have given far more critical thought and study to theism than Christian believers have given to non-theism---and in large measure, non-theists are far more articulate and knowledgable on the subject than are theists. (Speaking for myself, incidentally, my own library contains far more books on Christianity than it contains books on atheism---not counting all the lesser theist books I've disposed of over the years).

287. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60362 by Lauregon on August 1, 2007 at 5:07 pm

There once was a Scottish Wee Flea
Who thought he could cause folks to see
His God in the clouds
But he drew no large crowds
With his tired and stale stuffery.

288. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60357 by Lauregon on August 1, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Really pisses me off that WH Smith keeps putting McGrath's book in the popular science section beside stuff like The Selfish Gene (I keep returning them to the fiction section when no one is watching). - Luthien

I chuckled yesterday when I saw two copies of Behe's latest book on ID in the art section of Borders under "Design."

289. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60290 by Lauregon on August 1, 2007 at 1:38 pm

I'm not too bothered about that because my main aim was actually to write for atheists and agnostics. - Wee Flea

Whatever for? Your argumentation may be convincing to believers who can't fathom non-theism, but they're little more than impotent tirades against Richard Dawkins.

As for there being few Christian books in "secular book stores," it sure isn't like that in the US. In the first place, I've never seen a "secular book store," nor have I ever seen an atheist bookstore, but I have seen dozens of Christian bookstores, and countless mainstream bookstores. One of the two major chain bookstores in my city has several long aisles of Christian books, and ONE SHELF of atheist books. The other chain store also has several long aisles of Christian books, and NO atheist section at all, and scatters its few atheist books here and there in the philosophy section.

One forum contributor here on RD whose name I forget at the moment, quite aptly likens believer argumentation against non-theism as akin to a fish on land. As for this array of anti-atheist believer pamphleteering, it looks to me like the manic hysteria of people trying to bail water with fish nets.

290. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59784 by Lauregon on July 30, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Lovely tit-mice, Dr Benway! Delightful pics. So is your argumentation. :)

291. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59779 by Lauregon on July 30, 2007 at 4:00 pm

The way to understanding God is by understanding ourselves and our experience of life. We are all persons, and God, if you wish, is the ideal person. - Dianelos


Would any "ideal person" do something as sadistic as condemning women to suffer agonizing pain in childbirth as a punishment for disobedience as the "God" of Genesis is supposed to have done? Would any ideal person use the threat of eternal punishment in "hell" as a means of extracting divine allegience? I don't think so. Do you?

292. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59774 by Lauregon on July 30, 2007 at 3:43 pm

If you should care to answer, in your experience did the people around your granddaughter become better people because of her disability? (If they have, I do not mean to say that your granddaughter's tragedy was therefore a good thing – that's not what I am saying. Hers is a true tragedy, a terribly bad thing that any person would like her to have avoided - my heart goes out to her parents too. - Dianelos

Have the people around my granddaughter become better people? Well, her parents divorced, and her mother now has the job of raising three girls alone. I suppose her independence might be counted as a plus.

What I am saying is that maybe random tragedies like the one you describe can ultimately make sense within a theistic worldview according to which our growth in goodness will in the end join us all - including your granddaughter who is not going to be handicapped in the afterlife - with God, who is the ultimate good.) _ Dianelos

I appreciate your sympathy and your offering of hope in eternity; it's very kind of you, but really, Dianelos, pie in the sky is a very long way away from here and now. My granddaughter will probably never be able to support herself or live alone. That's reality. I seriously doubt that any truly loving human being would ever contrive such a program for the development of human virtue.

293. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59760 by Lauregon on July 30, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Why should God do as one wished? If I did what my daughter wished I would be feeding her only chocolate ice-cream. We must find in the reality of our God-given experience of life the signs of what God Him/Herself wishes, and I think it is childish when we protest that God does not wish what we ourselves wish. - Dianelos

You've switched tracks. My comments were in response to your views linking the trusting of "God" to the way in which we trust our friends. You said that we don't need to think or know our friends, but simply to "trust" them, that "trusting" them was all that was required. My point was that we trust our friends because we know them well enough to know how they think and behave and can usually be relied on to help us out in common-reality situations, as contrasted to the unpredictable way "God" (allegedly) responds to human wishes, prayers, and desires.

But your question is not why did God cause that tragedy, but rather why did God allow that tragedy to happen. The short answer is: Because if God did not allow such random tragedies to happen our experiential environment would not be optimized for growing in virtue. - Dianelos

You've continued to sidestep the issue. My point was, and remains, that we trust our friends because we think and because know them, and know how they behave and think, whereas "God" behaves according to his mysterious will. If our friends behaved as capriciously as "God" does, we probably wouldn't retain them as friends. In short, Dianelos, your trust-your-friends/trust in God analogy was flawed. We trust our friends because we know them, and because we think . Knowing and thinking precedes trust; trust doesn't develop magically---and unlike as is supposed to be the case with trusting "God," "trust" of our friends isn't bestowed through "grace." It comes through thinking and knowing.

294. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59303 by Lauregon on July 28, 2007 at 6:35 pm

I think the same goes in all loving relationships between persons: trusting is more important than thinking or knowing the other person. Of course there need not be any contradiction between the two and the two are good things – but what's critically important for the relationship is to trust the other person. And it sometimes happens that from too much reasoning and thinking about the other person one kind of forgets to trust them, or if you prefer, one fails to surrender to them :-) - Dianelos

To "trust" another person means knowing the other person well enough to have faith that the other person won't let you down in situations that have to do with common reality. To trust in "God" means continually making excuses for why "God" didn't do as one wished, prayed for, and wanted. It is, for instance, to say that "God" must have wanted one to learn a "lesson" of some sort when cruel things occur to him or her. For example, my granddaughter was born with cerebral palsy, and barring new medical discoveries, her life will always be very difficult. A believer might say, for instance, that "God" must have allowed her disability to occur in order for those around her to learn some virtue such as patience, or to have compassion for the afflicted---or for her to learn to rely on "God's goodness." I wonder how long that believer would have faith in a human friend who willfully allowed such a disability to occur in the first place.

People like Harris and Dawkins, themselves possessed by their anger against religion, only see what the want to see when considering Muslim suicide bombers. In this context, don't you think it incongruent when we condemn those Arabs who approve of suicide bombings under certain circumstances but do not condemn people like Harris who approve of torture under certain circumstances? As far as I am concerned both groups of people fail in the same sense: they let anger and hate cloud their reason, sense of proportion, and sense of ethics. - Dianelos

There's a major difference: suicide bombers have actually blown people up. It's one thing to talk about permitting torture or suicide missions, but quite another to actually permit, finance, or participate in them. I haven't heard of Dawkins or Harris doing any of those things.

I think that what my friend's attitude which she described as "surrendering into God's hands" is quite different from "que sera sera". The latter reflects a passive and rather fatalistic attitude of surrendering oneself to one's destiny; the former an active attitude of affirming the inescapable goodness of reality and trusting one's very being with it. - Dianelos

It's well-known that one of the last stages of impending death is the acceptance of its inevitability. You can dress your friend's embrace of "God's goodness" by calling her acceptance an "active attitude of affirming" etc., etc., but death is seldom a person's ideal event, and no matter how you try to paint it otherwise, that so-called "loving God" decreed it---at least according to orthodox beliefs. Few people would trust a human friend who brought death upon them against their will, but believers will excuse "God" for every ugly thing that happens and call it "beauty." If that makes them feel happy, fine, but, in fact, few people would be as accepting of a human friend who treated them as their "God" treats humankind.

295. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59219 by Lauregon on July 28, 2007 at 11:17 am

"There was so much pain and so much uncertainty about the future that I surrendered myself into God's hands". (Which now reminds me that "Islam" means "peaceful surrender".) How is one to describe in naturalistic terms the joy and meaning and strength of surrendering? And how tragic it would be, how truly tragic, if people were to lose that sense of beauty she was speaking of? - Dianelos

Why would people lose that sense of beauty if they abandoned theism? You assume that sense is dependent upon belief in "God." A sense of beauty or an experience of bliss is not dependent upon belief in "God."

Further, an experience of "beauty" following a surrender to "God" is not necessarily a good thing given that it's almost certainly an element on the path to suicide bombings.

As for how one can explain "in naturalistic terms the joy and meaning and strength in surrendering," try this: it's an experience of bliss resulting from the resolving of mental conflict caused by an acute psychological crisis: "Que sera, sera."

296. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #59207 by Lauregon on July 28, 2007 at 9:25 am

For many literary types such as Hedges, "God" is a language or a mental picture employed to capture certain human experience which are too ambiguous,nuanced and ill defined to be verbalized or comprehended in a precise way. The language and symbolism of religion help them to articulate these feelings.

For the scientific types like Dawkins "God" is an empistomological construct which is supposed to disginate something "out there" with a list of definitive properties.

For people like Hedges, their utterance about "God" are not meant to be propositions refering to the objective state of the world which has a truth value. They express emotions. The scientific types got upset because they think utterance without truth values are meaningless and (quite unfairly IMO) accuse the more literary minded believers of intellectual dishonesty.

Basically they talk pass each other, they are not talking about the same thing. - Bonzai



It seems to me that "literary types" like Hedges aren't willing to let go of their attachments to orthodoxy but instead take refuge within it by sheltering in the ambiguous use of orthodox language. It appears to me these literary types haven't the courage to step outside the institution, behaving something like adult children still living with their parents. It seems to me "scientific types" sense this lack of courage and what results are accusations of intellectual dishonesty. After all, orthodoxy is very literal. The creeds say what they say and the John 3:16 cudgel says what it says, but of course, there's power in numbers and as long as it's socially unacceptable to reject "God," there's protection to be gained by sheltering among believers, however uneasy and tenuous the connection to orthodoxy may actually be.

297. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #59098 by Lauregon on July 27, 2007 at 10:02 am

In a sense his "God" is a literary device rather than a "being", he "believes" in it because for him it is a shorthand for a lot of powerful experience, emotions and yearnings. - Bonzai

Ka-blamm! Nailed it! Superb.

298. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58806 by Lauregon on July 26, 2007 at 7:35 am

The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force that works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is a verb. God is a process accomplishing itself, not an asserted existence. And God is inescapable. - Hedges

Episcopalian John Shelby Spong argues for nontheism and for a perspective somewhat similiar to that of Hedges. Spong's latest book is titled, "Jesus For the Non-Religious." While he has an enthusiastic following of non-theists, he is frequently and virulently denounced by believers as a heretic, as having been inspired by Satan, as evil, as an atheist, etc., etc., etc. His views are shocking even to many (if not most) moderate, liberal Christians who refuse his argument for non-theism and argue for defense of supernaturalism. Hedges would do well to discover and/or admit that his "God" views are
by no means anything approaching mainstream, and that creedal beliefs still hold sway over the imaginations of most believers as Hitchens and others describe. Dr Benway has it right: Christian creeds and articles of faith are what they are---and what they are is a far, far cry from Hedges' argumentation. While I have in the past applauded Hedges' denunciations of fundamentalism, his theology is far too marginal at this point to sustain his "God is a verb" argument against Hitchens. BTW, Hedges didn't invent the concept. Former nun and radical feminist thealogian Mary Daly wrote about God as a verb decades ago. Also, While Tillich's ideas may have cache among some liberal clergy, most people in the pews simply aren't there, and as clergy I've known quite well have argued, "you have to meet the people where they are." And since it's the people in the pews who pay the salaries of the clergy, it's usually best to leave the folks in the pew right where they are.

299. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #58145 by Lauregon on July 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Darwin clearly demonstrated and proved that He didn't use this method but rather used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms on our planet and probably throughout our universe and all other universes that may exist. - darwin2

Darwin didn't prove that "God" used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms. Darwin demonstrated that life-forms evolve.

300. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58143 by Lauregon on July 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm

To say that one believes in a supernatural god is not to say much at all. It is to say "I believe in X and you can't disprove or prove it." - BN

"Supernatural" as I understand it, within the context of Christian beliefs, means believing in/having faith in the creeds, doctrines, and articles of faith of Christian orthodoxy and all they entail, most particularly the doctrines of the resurrection of Jesus and of "the body and the life of the world to come," and the unique and singular divinity of Jesus. Many secularists have admiration for the better teachings of Jesus and see him as a model for human behavior, but even moderate Christians who claim to see the Christian story as metaphor appear unwilling to see themselves merely as, to coin a phrase, "secularists for Jesus," or to separate themselves from the fold of orthodoxy. It appears to me that there's some attachment to the supernatural, some expected supernatural benefit that keeps moderate/liberal Christians connected to the apron strings of orthodoxy even as they claim to embrace a metaphoric interpretation of the Christian myth.