tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post1126629119154508853..comments2023-03-26T01:39:48.669-05:00Comments on u n d e r v e r s e: The Lout's ComplaintUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-79436444857962976232008-06-04T04:10:00.000-05:002008-06-04T04:10:00.000-05:00What so many theists still haven't got is that it ...What so many theists still haven't got is that it doesn't matter what your precise views are. No matter what supposed nuances and subtleties your belief in God contains it is still a belief in God and it therefore deserves to be criticised. If you genuinely want expertise on existence then theology is clearly the wrong field entirely, a philosopher, preferably of metaphysics or a scientist would seemingly be better suited than a theologian (who's job description is to study belief from a biased perspective of already believing). <BR/><BR/>Your argument is like claiming I can't deny the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn because I'm not fully educated in the history of your pathetic schisms over what shade of pink the unicorn is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-40894708692317478922008-05-30T18:34:00.000-05:002008-05-30T18:34:00.000-05:00Holy crap you're verbose!Holy crap you're verbose!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-53239512118724543352008-05-29T16:39:00.000-05:002008-05-29T16:39:00.000-05:00Larry et al,I've got a new thread up that responds...Larry et al,<BR/><BR/>I've got a new thread up that responds to most of your comments here. Except you, Dave W. Yours is still coming.<BR/><BR/>http://underverse.blogspot.com/2008/05/number-of-points-seem-to-be-recurring.htmlChris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-33551787445073492962008-05-29T14:42:00.000-05:002008-05-29T14:42:00.000-05:00underverse -If what you are trying to communicate ...underverse -<BR/><BR/>If what you are trying to communicate is simply that people like Dawkins, PZ and Larry wish to substitute a dry reason for imagination and its products, then I think you are quite wrong. Dawkins is clear in his book (which I found far more gentle in tone - rational, one might say - than the critics or your piece might have one believe) that there are things he likes about Anglican traditions, for example, and that an understanding of nature by no means precludes feelings of immanence.<BR/><BR/>I can vouch from personal experience that the latter is true. Years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) and I were out watching the Leonid meteor shower. At 5 a.m., as the shower had generally diminished and we turned to go in, there was a spectacular display of several bright shooting stars in front of us. My girlfriend's mother had been ill for months, and she said, "Those are the angels welcoming my mother into Heaven." We went to bed. Around noon, we received the call that her mother had passed away at 5 a.m. that morning.<BR/><BR/>The point? That I don't need to "believe" (for whatever meaning of "believe" one wants to use) in angels literally welcoming souls into Heaven in order to appreciate the poetry of that moment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-28927966884760166472008-05-29T07:44:00.000-05:002008-05-29T07:44:00.000-05:00Underverse said: "Can you not distinguish between...Underverse said:<BR/> "Can you not distinguish between lying, on the one hand, and sincerely arguing in good faith on the other?"<BR/><BR/> Yes, but can you understand why I don't think lying to yourself is much better than lying to others?<BR/><BR/> To not ask the hard questions, to not look into the evidence, to not challenge beliefs long-held since, often, early childhood*, and to essentially put your own feelings and intuitions above everything this world has to offer, then to hawk these ideas to the credulous as if you have developed some kind of authority during your pseudo-journey, is just as disgusting as a faithless televangelist shearing his flock.<BR/><BR/> It is an insult to all of us who spend years of hard work in a particular discipline and/or who make a continuous effort to keep up with the volumes of new scientific information produced each and every day, because we do care, passionately, about understanding the universe accurately, and being truthful with ourselves and with others to the end of all reckoning (not just when we we get tired, bored, or scared of reckoning). <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>*Yes, I know theologians often differ wildly from the details of the belief system they were raised in, but also usually leave the foundational assumptions untouched and go straight to the publisher.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-19140708095540774282008-05-29T04:42:00.000-05:002008-05-29T04:42:00.000-05:00However, I'm not the one who wrote one of the book...<I><BR/>However, I'm not the one who wrote one of the books saying that everyone that doesn't think like me is deluded or toxic. This is why I bring up understanding and curiosity: because that might be a step one takes before wholesale condemnation of most of the world's population.</I><BR/>You still seem to condemn us for not being curious enough to something that we think is irrelevant, and without showing its relevance.<BR/><BR/>In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes the issues of a god that interacts with our universe, which opens such a god up to scientific and logical analysis. His arguments against this type of god are quite to the point. <BR/><BR/>You appear to argue that most advanced theologians or christians actually don't believe in this type of god. This leaves a god that <I>doesn't</I> interact with our universe, or maybe just so indirectly and slightly to be effectively undetectable. Such a god could exist, as science nor logic could ever rule that out. However, the existence of such a god is clearly irrelevant. Why should we be curious what theologians have to say about a god that can't influence our lives? Why should Dawkins not dismiss such gods as irrelevant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-64411793644666353472008-05-28T23:52:00.000-05:002008-05-28T23:52:00.000-05:00"Literal belief in god as an existing "thing" that..."<I>Literal belief in god as an existing "thing" that can perceived sensually is ahistorical.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Ahem. <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2032&version=9;" REL="nofollow">Genesis 32</A>:24 says otherwise.Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-56732244964807258692008-05-28T23:44:00.000-05:002008-05-28T23:44:00.000-05:00You said: "I did not mean to imply that Krishnamur...You said: "I did not mean to imply that Krishnamurti was a Christian. One of his more annoying tendencies was to declare wrong everyone but himself--that's even more exclusive than Myers, who at least belongs to a loose federation of rationalists.<BR/><BR/>The point is that Krishnamurti wrote books and gave talks that would give Myers fits just as epileptic as anything by Thomas Aquinas.<BR/><BR/>It would be interesting, actually to see just what sort of reaction the New Atheists would have to Krishamurti. They share a rebel streak, a disdain of submission, but where they differ is in Krishnamurti's refusal to treat words as though they were real, that they accurately convey reality. This of course is the highest teaching of the rationalist doctrine, and it's just what gets in the way of mutual understanding when we discuss the different possible meanings of the word god."<BR/><BR/>Are you certain you are referring to Jiddu Krishnamurti? iirc, J. Krishnamurti was very adamantly opposed to any authority, including his own, as evidenced in the talk given on the occasion of dissolving the <A HREF="http://www.prahlad.org/gallery/ommen_speech.htm" REL="nofollow"> Theosophical Society's 'Order of the Star' in 1929</A>taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15749680218314068445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-12236422714650411402008-05-28T23:18:00.000-05:002008-05-28T23:18:00.000-05:00underverse says,In general though I think you want...underverse says,<BR/><BR/><I>In general though I think you want something I can't provide: an argument for religious believe in the language of naturalism.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. I'll settle for just plain simple English with a touch of rationality.<BR/><BR/>You claim that you are an atheist but you also claim that you understand and sympathize with those "sophisticated" beliefs. Seems to me like you're the ideal person to explain them to another atheist.<BR/><BR/>Waiting ....<BR/><BR/><I>That doesn't mean I'm not interested in continuing to communicate with you about this. I hope that's clear. I would appreciate it if you would extend as sympathetic or charitable an understanding of these words in your reply.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm trying really, really hard to understand this "sophisticated" view of theism. I only ask for one thing, that the "sophisticated" believers tell me why they aren't atheists. I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?<BR/><BR/>Read all the comments by the believers. Has any one of them offered an explanation for why they believe? <BR/><BR/>From my perspective they are not even trying to communicate with atheists. <BR/><BR/><I>At any rate, I'm manifestly *not* attacking atheism. I'm just responding to a particular atheist metaphysics that often claims to have obviated all other descriptions about the world.</I><BR/><BR/>Please describe why you think those other descriptions of the world reflect reality. And please use language that gets to the point. I'm more than happy to discuss those other views as soon as someone explains why I should believe in them.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-19845998438352306392008-05-28T22:41:00.000-05:002008-05-28T22:41:00.000-05:00Anonymous wrote: "...if you believe in God, you ha...Anonymous wrote: "...if you believe in God, you have a reason to, so explain what that reason is, lay out the evidence, we'll all be able to see whether it's right or wrong.<BR/><BR/>So, complete the following sentence; 'the evidence for God is obvious and it's ... '"<BR/><BR/>Forget "evidence" for a moment.<BR/><BR/>If there is another rational, consistent and reliable method with which we can justify a belief aside from an iterative process of empiricism and logic, I'd like to hear it. Maybe it uses something that isn't called "evidence," which would make all these calls for evidence moot.Dave W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12092834841145857131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-14705386765016874212008-05-28T22:00:00.000-05:002008-05-28T22:00:00.000-05:00As owlmirror pointed out, Dawkins quite clearly st...As owlmirror pointed out, Dawkins quite clearly stated at the start of The God Delusion that he wasn't even talking about the kind of religion that you are going on about.<BR/><BR/>“My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the <BR/>other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to <BR/>get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity <BR/>to confuse. In the rest of this book I am talking only about supernatural gods, <BR/>of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the <BR/>God of the Old Testament. "<BR/><BR/>How ridiculous that your whole post was against a strawman? Maybe if you read the atheists you criticise more closely you would have realised how misguided you were.tankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18276245863516352094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-91501108782304728762008-05-28T21:23:00.000-05:002008-05-28T21:23:00.000-05:00'It is sometimes allowed that these and other reli...'It is sometimes allowed that these and other religious writers are deluded or mad, but most commonly, in keeping with rationalist skepticism, they are charlatans'<BR/><BR/>There's a much simpler, more generous answer ... people who believe in God are, for whatever reason, just mistaken. <BR/><BR/>Mistaken possibly for the noblest of reasons, and 'smart people made the same mistake' is a pretty good reason. But people make mistakes. <BR/><BR/>So, simple enough: if you believe in God, you have a reason to, so explain what that reason is, lay out the evidence, we'll all be able to see whether it's right or wrong.<BR/><BR/>So, complete the following sentence; 'the evidence for God is obvious and it's ... ' and we can settle this by tomorrow evening and move on. Awesome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-17197732802667040702008-05-28T21:16:00.000-05:002008-05-28T21:16:00.000-05:00Chet says: They certainly don't have the tradition...Chet says: <BR/><I>They certainly don't have the tradition and depth of fundamentalist traditions, since they're making it all up as they go along."</I><BR/><BR/>I see you are not familiar with the history of how religious belief arose. Which can pretty much be summed up as "making it up as we go along".<BR/><BR/>You are also mistaken about the depth of rationalist traditions and their accomplishments. Think "science" and be in awe of it's accomplishments in comparison to religion.Brian Mackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10186974009384447015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-90610451596243506202008-05-28T21:08:00.000-05:002008-05-28T21:08:00.000-05:00"This is not a very close reading of Myers, Dawkin..."This is not a very close reading of Myers, Dawkins, or Harris, at least, each of whom purveys the belief that language is a kind of code or cipher, with hard meanings that should not be dislodged. "<BR/><BR/>This is a pretty evasive and vague response to what I said. And I don't agree that your "close reading" is accurate in any case. What these people are addressing are specific claims: claims they identify upfront, and deal with upfront.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile you're slinking around in a cloud of obfuscation accusing them of not dealing with things they never claimed to want to deal with or even care about.<BR/><BR/>"Read Larry Moran at Sandwalk, for example, where he writes that a self-described Christian isn't "really" a Christian because he doesn't believe in God in the way Moran finds it necessary to believe to be rightly called a Christian."<BR/><BR/>While I'm happy to let people call themselves whatever they want, the definition Moran is citing in this case is hardly some sort of obscure atheist imposition: they're the sort of requirements and definitions that the vast vast majority of Christians use and would think it rather absurd and pointless to call oneself a Christian without.<BR/><BR/>The problem of course, is that once you simply accept that anything can be as metaphorical or poetic as you'd like at any one moment (which is perfectly fine as far as it goes), then anyone can claim to be anything. That's fine and all, but sort of useless for clear, substantive discussions of any matter. <BR/><BR/>Given that theologians have basically granted themselves the leeway to say anything, without any bounds of evidence, logic, or even coherent communication, is it any surprise that there is an endless diversity of obscure views possible, always out there for you to point and complain that Dawkins hasn't addressed this or that aspect of?<BR/><BR/>But again, unless any of these views can demonstrate something of relevance or interest to the discussion, I think the burden is on them or you to explain why they are relevant, and why anyone should care.Badhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225890125470949454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-8348078663244494612008-05-28T19:31:00.000-05:002008-05-28T19:31:00.000-05:00Just FYI: The control group in the Penn & Teller's...Just FYI: The control group in the Penn & Teller's episode of Bullshit! was people who quit drinking without the help of the 12-step method. Their success rate was --- that's right --- 5%!<BR/><BR/>To recap: With 12-step -- 5%, without -- 5%. Obviously, the metod is of big help here...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-38024672233056333352008-05-28T19:21:00.000-05:002008-05-28T19:21:00.000-05:00The problem with this approach is god-concepts Y a...<I>The problem with this approach is god-concepts Y and Z may well possess attributes completely different from god-concept X which make them impervious to the critiques of god-concept X.<BR/><BR/>This is what the theologians are attempting to argue. They're pointing out Dawkins' strawman argument.</I><BR/><BR/>Dawkins quite clearly lays out that he is referring to the god-concept of a personal God, in the very start of the book, as you can read for yourself here:<BR/><BR/>http://preview.tinyurl.com/3vtob2<BR/><BR/>So if god-concepts Y and Z are impersonal, then Dawkins does not conclude that they are "unlikely to exist", but rather, that they are irrelevant to his arguments against the personal god-concept.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-74700488855051976682008-05-28T17:55:00.000-05:002008-05-28T17:55:00.000-05:00There are god-concepts X, Y, and Z.A person evalua...There are god-concepts X, Y, and Z.<BR/><BR/>A person evaluates the evidence for god-concept X, and concludes the god described by god-concept X is highly unlikely to exist.<BR/><BR/>The person then extrapolates this conclusion to god-concepts Y and Z without bothering to understand these concepts.<BR/><BR/>The problem with this approach is god-concepts Y and Z may well possess attributes completely different from god-concept X which make them impervious to the critiques of god-concept X.<BR/><BR/>This is what the theologians are attempting to argue. They're pointing out Dawkins' strawman argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-24958772081578040312008-05-28T17:46:00.000-05:002008-05-28T17:46:00.000-05:00Dave W.I'm going to answer your question in a new ...Dave W.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to answer your question in a new post, presently.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-15186099482256590142008-05-28T17:38:00.000-05:002008-05-28T17:38:00.000-05:00As a side issue...you are absolutely right that ev...As a side issue...you are absolutely right that every believer has their own picture of God. It is not possible to dispute that without interviewing them first, on an individual basis.<BR/>On the other hand, the God presented in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity in omniscent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The concepts of individual believers are immaterial. There would be no organized religion with a minimum that everyone agrees on.<BR/>As this minimum is available to everyone, Dawkins is perfectly justified to critique it at book length. The specifics of the opinions given by St Augustine and Martin Luther are just as unimportant to the average church goer as they are to Dawkins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-43238262370773489692008-05-28T17:23:00.000-05:002008-05-28T17:23:00.000-05:00There's nothing wrong with requesting arguments fo...<I>There's nothing wrong with requesting arguments for god's existence. That doesn't mean anybody is owed one, of course.</I><BR/><BR/>Earlier, you seemed to suggest that to request or look for an argument was somehow to make an uninformed mistake about religious belief -- "something of a non sequitur". I'm not sure what the mistake was supposed to be: maybe it's in thinking that religious belief purports to be descriptive and religious language fact-stating, maybe you accept a kind of noncognitivism about religious thought and discourse. But I wanted to point out that, whatever mistake it is, informed religious thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas are making it as well.<BR/><BR/>But if you're now saying that arguments for God's existence <I>aren't</I> missing the point entirely, then maybe you disagree with the noncognitivists and agree with the rest of us. I can't tell.<BR/><BR/>Also, about whether anyone is owed an argument: there's a pretty plausible principle about beliefs that they shouldn't be held unless you have <I>some</I> basis for holding them. Do you think religious beliefs are a special exception to this principle, or do you reject the principle root and branch?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-56309822421982658712008-05-28T17:08:00.000-05:002008-05-28T17:08:00.000-05:00Dave2,There's nothing wrong with requesting argume...Dave2,<BR/><BR/>There's nothing wrong with requesting arguments for god's existence. That doesn't mean anybody is owed one, of course.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-74396438994141860202008-05-28T16:58:00.000-05:002008-05-28T16:58:00.000-05:00Max II,The "liar" bit was a direct citation from M...Max II,<BR/><BR/>The "liar" bit was a direct citation from Myers' piece, where he wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>It's time we saw through the con game of these lying leeches, and that goes for the local liberal church as well as the most outrageous televangelist.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how you missed this, since I cited it specifically and provided a link.<BR/><BR/>Frederick Douglass was an A.M.E. minister.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-696384536800403232008-05-28T16:55:00.000-05:002008-05-28T16:55:00.000-05:00Beowulff, you wrote:I figured it would be obvious ...Beowulff, you wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I figured it would be obvious that I was pointing out that I did not think your arguments were enough to make someone want to experience a (non-fundamental) religious experience, or even develop a curiosity to it.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't actually have a vested interest in whether or not anyone has a religious experience or not, or develops a curiosity about it.<BR/><BR/>However, I'm not the one who wrote one of the books saying that everyone that doesn't think like me is deluded or toxic. This is why I bring up understanding and curiosity: because that might be a step one takes before wholesale condemnation of most of the world's population.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-10646688464262407592008-05-28T16:50:00.000-05:002008-05-28T16:50:00.000-05:00Bad, you wrote:The people you are attacking explic...Bad, you wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>The people you are attacking explicitly say that they are only interested in attacking or discussing claims of "that sort."</I><BR/><BR/>This is not a very close reading of Myers, Dawkins, or Harris, at least, each of whom purveys the belief that language is a kind of code or cipher, with hard meanings that should not be dislodged. <BR/><BR/>Read Larry Moran at Sandwalk, for example, where he writes that a self-described Christian isn't "really" a Christian because he doesn't believe in God in the way Moran finds it necessary to believe to be rightly called a Christian.Chris Schoenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993906736813166617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7827846.post-9796985890723420272008-05-28T16:48:00.000-05:002008-05-28T16:48:00.000-05:00I'm still interested in how, for example, Heisenbe...I'm still interested in how, for example, Heisenberg demonstrated "the commonalities of scientific and mythic thinking?" I mean, there are commonalities between an orange and a basketball, but one will generally be sorely disappointed if one attempts to use one in place of the other.<BR/><BR/>I'm also intrigued - despite discussions elsewhere - about the phrase "literal beliefs." A belief is something one thinks is true, regardless of whether it's literal or metaphoric. "I believe X" is an assertion that X is, in some measurable-in-principle way, true. Even if the statement is full of flowery metaphor, we can scrape that aside and see the underlying claim about reality within. So "literal beliefs" as opposed to <I>what</I>?Dave W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12092834841145857131noreply@blogger.com