Tuesday, November 08, 2011
An argument against religion: the argument from locality
A true religion, created by God worthy of worship, wouldn't have been started in any particular location. So this argument goes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
I think part of the issue here is what is involved in knowing God and following Him. If this is something that is superficial it can be communicated to everyone, everywhere at once. But it this is something that requires considerable effort and persuasion to get people to accept and follow it would make more sense to start at on location and work from there.
The argument is a non-starter for those of us to believe it is incoherent to claim God has any obligations to us. They are acting as if God is obliged to do something one way or another. God is not obliged to transmit the true faith one way or another. Nor does it matter when one considers the doctrine of Divine Providence.
He can tell one desert dweller & his son about himself and 3000 years later billions of people believe in Him.
It also assumes implicitly God will not provide extra ordinary Grace to persons who have not heard of Him threw no fault of of their own and automatically damn them.
Finally it ignores how in Philosophy pagans deduced The Absolute or The Form of the Good by reason alone sans revelation.
Or how among many primitives above their local polytheistic God there is often a belief in one Super God at the top of the Universe looking down.
In the later two cases it could be said God has never been local.
The wiki people have far too much time on their hands coming up with this crap.
I think the argument from "if humans are so important why are elephants bigger?" myself.
Think it's better, that is.
Seems to give a good Bayesian shunt to me, although I think it really is a sub-set of a wider argument from hiddenness. Assuming God has some motivation to make himself known to man, then demonstrating himself in one tiny section of space and time is pretty silly. The "religion as elaborate social/cultural pattern" explanation seems to do better here.
Assuming God has some motivation to make himself known to man, then demonstrating himself in one tiny section of space and time is pretty silly.
That really depends on the particulars of the motivation. I think this sort of reply has the most force against religious faiths which combine 'God wants to make Himself known to all men' + 'He always wants them aware of these particular doctrines' + 'Also, you're hellbound if you don't hear them'. And even they can put up one hell of a defense.
As a Christian, I've always been bothered by the fact that in this absolutely colossal, hostile junkyard of a universe that we inhabit, the Earth certainly seems like just another insignificant speck of debris, a "pale blue dot" tucked away randomly in a small, obscure region of celestial waste.
Mind you, I don't know of any good arguments one could make from this fact to atheism, since any attempt to do so would contain an exceedingly suppositious premise like "If a God that cares about human beings exists, then the universe wouldn't look so excessively large and wasteful, and the Earth wouldn't seem like a pale blue dot that was tossed aside nonchalantly on an infinite black canvas." Nevertheless, it still has some intuitive pull, and thus poses a problem for me at the level of intuition.
>As a Christian, I've always been bothered by the fact that in this absolutely colossal, hostile junkyard of a universe that we inhabit, the Earth certainly seems like just another insignificant speck of debris,
According to Hugh J Ross back in the 19th century & before when we believed the Universe consisted of just the Solar System some 19th century Atheists used to complain why wouldn't an Infinite God make something larger and more grand then the universe He made?
Now the complain is flipped to "It's too Big"!
Heads I win! Tails you lose!
As a Christian,
:D
I've always been bothered by the fact that in this absolutely colossal, hostile junkyard of a universe that we inhabit,
Colossal? Relative to what? Earth itself? Sure.
Hostile? To who? Even putting aside the fine-tuning conditions, what are you talking about? The fact that the center of the sun is apparently inhospitable?
And, junkyard? You're really claiming that space is nothing but a whole lot of trash?
the Earth certainly seems like just another insignificant speck of debris, a "pale blue dot" tucked away randomly in a small, obscure region of celestial waste.
Again, insignificant according to what yardstick? In terms of size? There's the elephant argument I was alluding to: if God really existed, humans wouldn't be so small compared to whales. And we're downright insignificant compared to blue whales.
For that matter, human brains must be tremendously unimportant. After all, did you know the average brain to body ratio for humans is 1:40? If that thing were important, I'd expect a 1:10 ratio at the very least.
Why didn't, for example, God have Christ manifest Himself in the Roman Senate, instead of rural areas of Judea? Or across ..los cielos.
And as usual "Crude" and Yachov defend the Rooody Giuliani version of Deus. God? God don't have to do nothin' but win, baybe, win.
I see J is still bitter from being banned from Edward Feser's Blog.
Get over it guy.
Ad hominem, as usual.
Banned by a Bush-supporting Randian turned pseudo-catholic who thinks Aquinas has the answers to any issue under the sun? wounded, I am. De nada.
Rarely posted there. But perhaps take on the Gibbon-Hume-ean point raised here, DoktorYachov (not that I necessarily agree, but..it is a slight issue--something like a heresy in early church--the "Docetists", IIRC, even gnostic one might say)
I think you are holding back.
Tell us how you really feel J?
Look here peeps, the appearance of the universe is exactly what we'd expect if atheism were true.
Ad Hom. again genius. Better, let's look at Feser's old Right Reason posts (the site mysteriously disappeared some time ago) and his Randian-neo-con pro-Bush flag waving (against JP II's pronouncements). Anyway, Im not opposed to some Thomistic wisdom,Yach., however quaint..and pre-copernican--TA was sort of PC (ie, St.Tom..opposed usury and the venetian capitalists of his era--and torture, IIRC). I am opposed to Thomism via, say, one of Feser's vichy heroes, Garrigou Lagrange (a French Thomist who blessed the nazis)
@J
That's it! Feser along with Kyle Broflovski using Thomist Philosophy (with an assist from the Ayn Rand Society) helped Bush pull off 911!
There by causing a serge of patriotism in the USA thus leading to an increase in the sale of American Flags!
Thus Feser could corner the market in Flag sales thus financing the publication of his book THE LAST SUPERSITION so he could cloud people's minds with useless Thomism thus preventing them from seeing the truth intelligently outlined in THE GOD DELUSION!
It's all so obvious! Why didn't I see that! I could just kick myself for not getting in on the ground floor of this racket.
Oh why didn't I buy that American Flags INC stock back in 2000 when I had the chance!
Thanks J. You really opened my eyes.
And as usual "Crude" and Yachov defend
You clearly have no idea what I'm defending, or Ben.
Rarely posted there.
And this is a flat-out lie. Can you name how many aliases you came up with to post on *this site* after your ban, much less Feser's? Your frequent renames don't exactly hide much.
Cue foaming at the mouth namecalling and bluster from J in 5, 4...
Nevermind, he already engaged in it. ;)
I normally make it a practice to ignore postings from "Anonymous", but the last one was too much. It said, "The appearance of the universe is exactly what we'd expect if atheism were true."
Not so. Were atheism true, I would expect the universe to look like NOTHING. There wouldn't be anything, to look like anything. End of story (which would never have started, were atheism true).
No space, no time, no matter, no energy... nothing.
Did I say that? Nyet.
Ive read Feiser from 2000 or so--he wasn't even a catholic until 2005-06. Prior to that, he was a libertarian and Randian-Locke type--you know, Vegass/NRA, booze/ porn type (as was his weird crony the "Maverick Philosopher"). But like...right-side Dominicans will do as well as Miss Ayn for the...machiavellian such as EF or BV--so out with Ayn,in wit' the Garragou- Lagrange. Bada bing, bada boom.
Also Crude-perp--am I here defending Dawkins, little man? No. While I object to dogma--whether catholic, prot.,jew, etc-- I respected JPII's ...ethical/political pronouncements. Unlike you and the Feser gang.
Also Crude-perp--am I here defending Dawkins, little man?
J - where did I bring up Dawkins? I know you're not a member of the Cult of Gnu. You're in a whole other bracket of low-intellect nutters.
I disagree with Feser about plenty, and I'm well aware of his intellectual past. You, meanwhile, couldn't disarm the most wild, juvenile Randite. But hey, do keep up with the freak-outs. Slip in some anti-semitisms, we all know it's coming eventually.
You're the freak out, Nursey Crude. Are you suggesting JPII was anti-semitic as well? (Ive heard that among some neo-con rodents).
You don't know jack about philosophy little man.
Are you suggesting JPII was anti-semitic as well?
Because that was anywhere even remotely implied by my estimation of your past rantings? Swing desperately, J. And the worst part is, you're not even good at it - work on your english some more. ;)
You're the rustic here "Crude", as your ridiculous "I♥Roody Giuliani" site indicates.
Actually I suspect your reaction is not "philosophical". You simply noted a reference to the US Constitution or Jefferson on my site, and that bothers you --sort of how Elliot Ness bothered Al Caponay and his gang.
>Ive read Feiser from 2000 or so--he wasn't even a catholic until 2005-06.
So he was secret Thomist secretly using Thomism to hide in plain sight and didn't join the RC Church till it was safe?
Believing in Thomism for Nazi purposes while pretending to support Locke so he & Kyle can cause 911 using the dark mystical power Thomism grants him like it did for Garragou- Lagrange etc....
This is all very interesting J. I never knew this!
Wow! But like I said I wish I knew about this earlier so I could have bought more stocks in Flag making companies. Thus make a killing in selling patriotism to the masses in the wake of 911.
Thanks for nothing keeping all this to yourself!
You're the rustic here "Crude", as your ridiculous "I♥Roody Giuliani" site indicates.
I think Giuliani is a tremendous sham. I opposed the second Iraq War from the start, and was never impressed with that guy's handling of 9/11, which mostly amounted to screaming about how tough New Yorkers are and how they'll pull through because of how tough they are, without noticing the outpouring of help the rest of the country was directing their way.
Also, "rustic"? Again: Learn some freaking english. Also learn to reason.
You simply noted a reference to the US Constitution or Jefferson on my site
How cute. J thinks people reads his blog. ;)
No need for your lame ham-fisted attempts at satire, Yach.--Feser still has a link up to the vichy priest G-Lagrange, and has written approvingly of him--a french thomist who approved of the nazis, and Dachau. Politically speaking, Feser supported BushCo, the right-wing neo-cons, torture, etc.-- against JP II's proclamations. Another machiavellian in catholic robes--or it is neo-nazi .
Recently he's been on one of his anti-science rants. All science is Evil, and like we have to return to pre-copernican views of Aquinas, the flying saint and ...maybe work on some exorcisms! Yeah.
you're the peasant here, Crude--like yr peasant criminal boss Feser.
Arguments? You don't have any---quoting ptolemy or Thomistic dogma is not an argument
you're the peasant here, Crude--like yr peasant criminal boss Feser.
Sure, J. I mean, my only mention of him in this thread was to say that I disagree with him on various topics, but hell, you're batting a .000 so far in the categories of "insults" (they're adorable, 'J doesn't have a good grasp of english' antics), "what Crude thinks" (haha, Giuliani? Seriously dude?) or "What Crude is saying in this thread", so at least you're consistent.
Also, hahaha, peasant. Peasant criminal boss. You are adorable! It's almost a shame you get repeatedly banned from blogs. You're like some kind of combination between Scrappy Doo and Borat as far as blog comments go. ;)
Sure, Crude, deep thinker. Maybe go look up the wit and wisdom of Feser again--like his pro-torture comments in 2003-2004. Alas, Crudeski, there's no Gospel according to Dick Cheney, even if your crypto-nazi pal Feser insists there is.
There is something in Aquinas against Torture as well (and...utilitarianism for the good of the Church--ie, torture might help us win; ergo its good-- Feser gang's tactics).
So J is Feser going to use His Nazi Thomism powers to bring about 911 2.0?
I need to know this now so I can buy flag stock early.
Hopefully I won't get hit too hard with Capital Gains Taxes from your commie liberal friends in the Obama Administration.
You're the mystic here Yaki--jus the sort of...official Lourdes sort. Maybe like....make some blood spout from Maria's eyes, basura! (the LA Diocese itself is onto Feser and his gang as well--think he's a quack neo-con rightist--and he is, like you)
Hopefully I won't get hit too hard with Capital Gains Taxes from your commie liberal friends in the Obama Administration
Cap. gains rates are at-time lows still--15%--, after your pals in the BushCo regime slashed them for their neo-con pals. Then, historical facts never stopped right-wing morons from brainfarting.
"Any god or gods who truly wanted all humans to follow them logically could have started their religion at the very instant that the human race appeared and would have informed all cultures, not just one"
And God did just that:
Romans 1:20,21:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Post a Comment