tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6864806104913532067..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Plantinga-Dennett exchangeVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60100331471943529242009-03-07T19:32:00.000-07:002009-03-07T19:32:00.000-07:00And it's Rob 'G', not 'B.'Looks like a plain old e...<I>And it's Rob 'G', not 'B.'</I><BR/><BR/>Looks like a plain old everyday typo to me Rob B.<BR/><BR/>Oops, I meant Rob G (what does the G stand for, gullible)?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09991410496107221875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10048272398699823852009-03-06T08:42:00.000-07:002009-03-06T08:42:00.000-07:00"The usual Ad Mysterium from Rob B. You're the der..."The usual Ad Mysterium from Rob B. You're the derailers here , and sounding more calvinist with each post."<BR/><BR/>Hah! I'm an Eastern Orthodox and probably couldn't be more strongly ANTI-Calvinist. It was, in fact, an examination of Calvinism that led me to Orthodoxy (go figure).<BR/><BR/>And it's Rob 'G', not 'B.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44477871274424376412009-03-06T05:55:00.000-07:002009-03-06T05:55:00.000-07:00the quite simple fact that there is no such thing ...<I>the quite simple fact that there is no such thing as “the future.”</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is an interesting question, and in an everyday sense you're right, but it depends upon your view of time, also. To a character in a novel, on page 41 the events on page 141 haven't "happened" yet and so do not yet exist for them, but for the reader of the novel, who can skip ahead to see what is going to take place, that "future" is already there. <BR/><BR/><I><BR/>It's just about impossible to discover truth when you persist in (and insist upon) asking the wrong questions.</I><BR/><BR/>True.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09991410496107221875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81301212890009018272009-03-05T21:53:00.000-07:002009-03-05T21:53:00.000-07:00It's just about impossible to discover truth when ...It's just about impossible to discover truth when you persist in (and insist upon) asking the wrong questions.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28862050379751100352009-03-05T21:50:00.000-07:002009-03-05T21:50:00.000-07:00You know, the main reason for the interminability ...You know, the main reason for the interminability of the “free-will” “debate” is that most persons -- including most who have posted in this thread -- are so utterly resistant to wrapping their minds around the quite simple fact that there is no such thing as “the future.”Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1884564442931439782009-03-05T14:16:00.000-07:002009-03-05T14:16:00.000-07:00The usual Ad Mysterium from Rob B. You're the dera...The usual Ad Mysterium from Rob B. You're the derailers here , and sounding more calvinist with each post. I'm not too fond of Dennett; Hitchens, however, knows his skeptical classics pretty well, and quite rhetorically gifted (DawkinsSpeak may be a bit raw for some, but TGD outlines the counterarguments fairly effectively). <BR/><BR/>Anyway, Mainstream Christianity rarely touches upon the system of Aquinas, or Calvin, or religious philosophy. Rev. Hagee is not discussing the First Cause argument (if he even understands it). He's whipping up his congregation into a froth with some loudmouthed rants from the Book of Revelation (As are preachers, rabbis, imams, priests the world over--though using the dogma particular to their own sect).<BR/><BR/>Of course, there's little point in having reasonable discussions with biblethumping zombies who actually accept the authenticity of the Book of Revelation (as the True Believer must, since it's all Gawd's word and therefore inerrant) .<BR/><BR/>Holy <I>Doomsday Asteroid of Providence,</I> batmanPerezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11698318247899198852009-03-05T12:14:00.000-07:002009-03-05T12:14:00.000-07:00"Given the rise of the Dennett/Dawkins/Hitchens ga..."Given the rise of the Dennett/Dawkins/Hitchens gang..."<BR/><BR/>They'd be far more compelling if they actually knew a damn thing about what Christianity actually teaches. As they are now, they barely rise to the level of interesting.<BR/><BR/>**Rob G why are you wasting time trying to reason with “Perezoso”?**<BR/><BR/>LOL. Good question. Tar baby and all...<BR/><BR/>I've read Hart's "The Beauty of the Infinite" but, frankly, much of it was over my head. I did thoroughly enjoy, however, the section where he discussed postmodernism and deconstruction. That section alone is worth the price of the book, IMO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45660174713948320502009-03-05T08:56:00.000-07:002009-03-05T08:56:00.000-07:00The anger and bellicosity of the DI pious amuses m...<I>The anger and bellicosity of the DI pious amuses me: turn the other cheek, brutthr! </I><BR/><BR/>I have not argued for complete "atheism," btw: my position that of strong agnosticism (and against monotheism). Pointing out the lack of convincing arguments which would establish the existence of "God," or asserting the dogma of OT and NT is unreliable does not equate to '"all religious thinking is mistaken." <BR/><BR/>Simply mention Hume, or Jefferson and Co, and they start shrieking. Really, anyone who values calvinism over the principles of the Founding Fathers (however quaint they seem to modern academia, or hipsters) should simply be ignored. We don't have to idolize Ayn Rand to understand the need for secular tolerance, and the need to oppose fundamentalism, whether of jiahdists, Opus Dei freaks, or the baptist-mormon bonehead sort.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80020626794013482722009-03-05T08:53:00.000-07:002009-03-05T08:53:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2640437578903440952009-03-05T00:36:00.000-07:002009-03-05T00:36:00.000-07:00Foolish, petty, pointless man, do you *really* ima...<I>Foolish, petty, pointless man, do you *really* imagine that you get my goat? And especially in such an infantile manner?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually a description of Ilíon himself, an obvious fool who imagines that calling anyone who challenges his delusions a "fool" or "liar" makes it so, or will get an angry reaction (his real purpose). He lives in a fantasy world where invisible magic beings are conjured from thin air by his imagination, so it's no surprise that he imagines he has exposed those "dishonest" atheists as well with his childish comments.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09991410496107221875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11865889638321539452009-03-04T18:15:00.000-07:002009-03-04T18:15:00.000-07:00You're mistaken again. Dogma does not suffice as p...You're mistaken again. Dogma does not suffice as proof of Judeo-Christiainity (as Hume pointed out. You just won't read it, or can't understand it). So you say the dogma is correct? A minority and indeed nearly fascist view. Idion sound fairly blackshirt like to some of us (as I said, macho man, step in a ring, legal and proper like. LA way. Capiche?). And Darwin/Lyell offered rather substantial revisions of the Old Testament. <BR/><BR/>The Aquinas chestnuts are not proof either: KANT himself dealt with those rather effectively (then I doubt you've read that either. THEOLOGY IS NOT PHILOSOPHY). Nor is Descartes: the Cogito itself not axiomatic. <BR/><BR/>So, you're dissembling. Not that that ever stopped the xtian-mafioso.<BR/><BR/>You don't only mock the Founding Fathers, you mock Reason, and the Enlightenment itself.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72007177211528037572009-03-04T16:08:00.000-07:002009-03-04T16:08:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71966311806981690162009-03-04T16:06:00.000-07:002009-03-04T16:06:00.000-07:00Robert, I *might* have read it soon after it was p...Robert, I *might* have read it soon after it was published on First Things (I don't remember at the moment).<BR/><BR/>But, thanks for asking if I'd read it ... and thus reminding me that I'd intended to check out the link you provided: <A HREF="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394" REL="nofollow">Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark</A>Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26572322589305823432009-03-04T16:01:00.000-07:002009-03-04T16:01:00.000-07:00Foolish Person: "How do you know Idion's lying? He...<B>Foolish Person:</B> "<I>How do you know Idion's lying? He has a new post up.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Foolish, petty, pointless man, do you *really* imagine that you get my goat? And especially in such an infantile manner?<BR/><BR/>Who is 'Idos,' and why should I care that you've confused him with 'Ilos?'Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3650615170628523752009-03-04T15:19:00.000-07:002009-03-04T15:19:00.000-07:00Rob G said:“Yes, I'm in the process of reading Har...Rob G said:<BR/><BR/>“Yes, I'm in the process of reading Hart' new book, "In The Aftermath," right now and that piece is in there. Hart is the bomb. I'm glad we Orthodox have him! ;-)”<BR/><BR/>You guys are lucky, I wish I could clone that guy! Have you read THE BEAUTY OF THE INFINITE yet?<BR/><BR/>Rob G why are you wasting time trying to reason with “Perezoso”?<BR/><BR/>Ilion is right when he says:<BR/><BR/>“Just keep in mind, guys, that this fellow is not arguing and he is not seeking truth. Keep that in mind and you'll be less likely to be goaded into responding in anger.”<BR/><BR/>Ilion I believe that you would enjoy the piece written by Hart as well: have you read it?<BR/><BR/>Finally, Victor have you read the Hart piece on Dennett? And if you have, why haven’t you posted it on your blog yet so that everyone can **enjoy** it? :-)<BR/><BR/>RobertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67340870548305088702009-03-04T14:21:00.000-07:002009-03-04T14:21:00.000-07:00How do you know Idion's lying? He has a new post u...How do you know Idion's lying? He has a new post up. <BR/><BR/>You're no logicians, either. Analogies are not valid arguments. And arguments making use of unconfirmable premises (a God exists, or a soul exists, Heaven exists, etc etc) are unsound, even if trivially valid.<BR/><BR/>Indeed to suggest (as most DIsters do regularly) that there are necessary arguments for God, when there aren't, is a type of mendacity as well. The dogma is not infallible, and neither is Aquinas. So you are left with "faith".Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17191587045514713212009-03-04T13:15:00.000-07:002009-03-04T13:15:00.000-07:00'Atheist' "argument" at its finest!LOLJust keep in...'Atheist' "argument" at its finest!<BR/><BR/>LOL<BR/><BR/>Just keep in mind, guys, that this fellow is not <I>arguing</I> and he is not <I>seeking truth</I>. Keep that in mind and you'll be less likely to be goaded into responding in anger.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78288862936575603322009-03-04T12:16:00.000-07:002009-03-04T12:16:00.000-07:00Your typical diversion: ah, no one believes that a...Your typical diversion: ah, no one believes that anymore, except Randians, so you're a Randian! Nyet. <BR/><BR/>Given the rise of the Dennett/Dawkins/Hitchens gang, and the backlash against fundamentalism of all sorts, and even the continuing presence of the Randians it's quite obvious many humans are concerned with the churches' power-- and abuses of power. I don't support objectivists, though Aynnie knew her Aristotle, unlike the usual seminary student; she also quoted Jefferson & friends once in a while.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46849467262392628292009-03-04T11:50:00.000-07:002009-03-04T11:50:00.000-07:00"Hart absolutely annihilates Dennett's views, Rob ..."Hart absolutely annihilates Dennett's views, Rob have you read it?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm in the process of reading Hart' new book, "In The Aftermath," right now and that piece is in there. Hart is the bomb. I'm glad we Orthodox have him! ;-)<BR/><BR/>"Ad Auctoritas. For that matter, St. Thomas was not always considered Authori-tay."<BR/><BR/>For a more detailed traversal of this issue (Hart did, after all, write this piece as a column for the WSJ) see John Paul II's "The Theology of the Body." That early Christianity did not hold to soul/body dualism is well documented therein by the late pope.<BR/><BR/>"Once experimental science came to the forefront, the older theological conceptions faded, including the ideas of substance, essence, the soul, etc."<BR/><BR/>This "argument" is a pious fraud put forth by the church of naturalism, the philosophes, etc. It ignores the fact that many of the pioneers of experimental science were themselves believers, and saw no conflict between science and faith (which is the same with many today, I might add),<BR/><BR/>"Paraphrasing Nietzsche, the church wanted to keep feeding people dogma, immaterialism, the priestly ethos, humility, eternal life/salvation, etc. Naturalism's bad for the God bidness."<BR/><BR/>The "it's all about control" bit? Please. The only people I know who still take this argument seriously are the Randians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72695023379654270182009-03-04T10:57:00.000-07:002009-03-04T10:57:00.000-07:00Aver-oe, Avicenna, who cares: leave it to the heri...Aver-oe, Avicenna, who cares: leave it to the heritage-mongers to focus on a trivial issue to try to score points (bogus points). <BR/><BR/>The important point was that Aquinas was accused of impiety for bringing back Aristotle. The Augustinian school did hold to a dualism for most part, and so Rob B not entirely correct even in terms of dogma-slinging. <BR/><BR/>Some of us read a bit of the Stagirite back in the day: the square of opposition ain't exactly scripture. Aristotle's politics not at all Judeo-Christian anyway. <BR/><BR/>The code of Aristotle serves the emperors well--Alexander, and then Caesar, or Marcus Aurelius--no friend of christians (he sounds about like Nietzsche when discussing them). <BR/><BR/>Aristotle gave the catholic church a certain power (even Caesarian) that it had lacked. <BR/><BR/>The more important point, however, missed by moron, was that the transmitter/receiver analogy, while not lacking a certain illustrative power, does not prove anything, whatsoever, but a nice red herring, sort of akin to the watchmaker analogy and others.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14649425963138935102009-03-04T10:54:00.000-07:002009-03-04T10:54:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91002723217099124662009-03-04T10:41:00.000-07:002009-03-04T10:41:00.000-07:00You put forth an irrelevant analogy, you're the mo...You put forth an irrelevant analogy, you're the moron, moron: besides, analogies are never necessary arguments, even when relevant. <BR/><BR/>Then, if you've held the Bible to be infallible since your first indoctrination in sunday school, you're probably included in the class of Morons until grave.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46789901876834136252009-03-04T08:17:00.000-07:002009-03-04T08:17:00.000-07:00Hello Rob G,Thanks for bringing up a great stateme...Hello Rob G,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for bringing up a great statement on dualism properly conceived by David Hart (one of my favorite theologians). Regarding Hart and since this thread involves Dennett, Rob did you see Hart's absolutely devastating review of Dennett's book on religion (found here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394<BR/><BR/>??<BR/><BR/>Hart absolutely annihilates Dennett's views, Rob have you read it?<BR/><BR/>RobertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70807243442888253922009-03-03T21:52:00.000-07:002009-03-03T21:52:00.000-07:00Didn't Avicenna call Aquinas a pansy addicted to g...<I>Didn't Avicenna call Aquinas a pansy addicted to greek pagan lit or something?</I><BR/><BR/>Since Ibn Sina died early in the 11th century, that would have been difficult.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15786874834919065011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49815578589989449072009-03-03T20:50:00.000-07:002009-03-03T20:50:00.000-07:00"indeed the analogy itself all explainable by phys..."indeed the analogy itself all explainable by physical processes."<BR/><BR/>That's why the parts of the analogy are taken figuratively, not literally, you moron.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com