Papalinton brings up the actions of Christians in Africa who harm children accused of being witches.
Why is this any different from bringing up the crimes of communists, and the persecution of religious believers in Communist countries.
You can't have it both ways. If these horrible actions by Christians counts against Christianity, then the crimes of atheistic communists counts against atheism.
These things were done by Christian theists, but not by Christianity. In the case of Christianity, we have Matthew 18:6, which says
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
That's what Christ says about harming children, so Christians who harm children have to violate the teachings of its founder to do such things. I'm not even saying that the people who did these things are not real Christians. What I am saying is that they are violating the teachings of Jesus. You cannot even say that the actions of Stalin, Mao, et al, violate the fundamental teachins of atheism. Atheism does not require such actions, but it does not proscribe them either.
323 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 323 of 323Bob,
I don't have any problem with those statements, but then again, I don't make much ado out of believing in something.
im-skeptical
I have to wonder if the atheist's hesitation to claim that she believes in atheism was a reaction to the Christian's enthusiastic fideism. Personally, I see no trouble saying that I believe in atheism (in those moments that I do believe in it, that is. I'm what you'd call "a waffler.")
BenYachov
It's not Linton's atheistic fundamentalism or lack of subtlety that bothers me, it's his misplaced sense of nobility, like he's somehow doing us a favor by telling us what to believe. It really rubs me the wrong way.
Atheists insist on the idea that atheism is a lack of belief instead of a belief because a) they want to argue that, unlike theism, it has a deserves a "default status" and shouldn't have to be justified by argument or b)since it is a lack of belief, it is, in the words of John Lennon, nothing to kill or die for. It cannot provide a motivation for, say, using the powers of the state to persecute believers.
I don't buy the burden of proof argument, but more importantly, the elimination of religion can be perceived as a cause of great importance, if it is thought that it religion is standing in the way of the progress of the human race, or the advance of science.
Dan,
I'm not hesitant to state what I believe. It's just that I see the term 'believe in' as something that is more akin to an expression of faith. Lots of people try to tell me that atheism is a religion. I am adamant that it is not.
Victor,
You may be right that "the elimination of religion can be perceived as a cause of great importance", but it is the struggle against religion that becomes a cause in its own right, not simple atheism.
Take Richard Dawkins as an example. He thinks religion is harmful, and he would like to see it go away. It's the struggle against something he sees as harmful that is his cause.
Skeptical: "As I said, atheism is not a philosophy or a system of beliefs. I know this because I am one. I have beliefs, but I don't 'believe in' atheism. The lack of a god in my beliefs is just one fact that enters into the the full system of beliefs that I profess."
Of course. That's why I never call atheism (or theism) a religion, by itself. It is an element in fuller belief systems that may be called religions.
"Atheism may be incorporated into a system of beliefs such as the communist ideology of Marx. To say that there is something called virulent atheism is incorrect. The term 'virulent atheism' is something that only a theist would say."
What about the "League of the Militant Atheists?" (Союз воинствующих безбожников -- literally, and Bob can correct me if he likes, "The Union of Battling Godless." That was 3.5 million atheists who applied a close synonym to themselves, in fact -- refuting your claim. Of course they probably wouldn't use the word "virulent" ABOUT THEMSELVES, because why would ANYONE compare themselves to a virus? But the meaning is the same. So you are just wrong about that.
"There may be militant or virulent ideology, and that ideology may include atheism. But nobody ever went to war over a simple absence of belief."
Again, by this twist of logic, you exonerate Christians and Muslims from killing pagans who believed in gods we think are unreal. We "simply believe in one less god than you do" -- that's your slogan de jure. From which it follows, we couldn't possibly do any evil simply because we disbelieve in pagan gods. Maybe if the Inquisitors are on trial in the afterlife, they can use this as their defense.
"It is the ideology of communists that propels their militancy, just as the ideology of Islam or the ideology of Christianity forms the basis for people having something to fight about."
Yes, but part of that ideology was atheism and hatred of God or those who believe in him -- as it seems to be for Dawkins, PZ Myers, etc. In fact, the New Atheism greatly resembles the intellectual community that gave birth to communism.
It remains a quibble of enormous irrelevance, not unlike the claim that Christianity is the one true and only religion in the world.
It remains a quibble of enormous irrelevance, as it does not provide an explanation why it is that Europe, Australia, Canada, japan is largely atheistic with churches and religion now occupying the role of museums and historical theme parks. It provides no explanation why the trend away from religion gathers increasing speed. It is an obfuscatory quibble in that it is a distraction from the issues that matter, such as that which is happening under the aegis of Christianity in Africa. Perhaps what is happening in Africa is representative of the cause for such exodus from religions especially, but not exclusively, in the West. See HERE.
Even the Christian Post acknowledges the trend.
And of course, the quibble over such irrelevancies is symptomatic of the state of mind and the pathology of those that persist in subscribing to superstition of the ineffable unseen unknowable. I would suggest this is where hubris really lies. Such beliefs are beginning to resemble a sieve holding back the tide of reason.
To remain in a state of existential denial is your prerogative. I for one say, "Knock yourself out". But don't expect too many to follow down the road of primitive mythos; not into the 22stC and beyond.
For a little light entertainment THIS VIDEO records the 20 most atheistic countries, by flag. All of them, with the exception of Vietnam, are Democracies. Interestingly, now that Russia is regarded a Christian nation, being on the list clearly indicates atheism did not disappear with the demise of communism, but now stands independent of your 'communism=atheism' mantra.
But then that is only quibbling, isn't it?
Such beliefs are beginning to resemble a sieve holding back the tide of reason.
If by "reason" you mean "scientistic materialism", then I would agree. And I would also say that this sieve needs to be held in place as long as possible in that case.
A literal translation of Союз воинствующих безбожников would be something like "Union of the Militarized Godless", but that's the thing about translations - none of them are truly accurate. A big reason why I could never be a biblical literalist. Words are just too darn slippery for such nonsense.
Союз is the Russian noun for "union" (as in the first "С" in CCCP, or USSR). воинствующих is the genitive plural for the present active verbal adjective of the Russian verb "to militarize". безбожников is the genitive plural for the compound noun "the godless ones".
Oh, and by the way... the democracies of Western Europe and Oceana are not "largely atheist" - they are "secular". Huge difference.
Thanks, Bob. I haven't used much Russian for a while, and didn't recognize exactly how that word was used as a verb.
David,
See my comment of April 06, 2013 4:06 PM., regarding the League of Militant Atheists. It was all about communism, not atheism.
"by this twist of logic, you exonerate Christians and Muslims from killing pagans who believed in gods we think are unreal."
I can't believe you're serious about that. It wasn't atheists who killed pagans, it was Christians and Muslims. The rhetorical device of saying "We're all atheists about all gods but one" does not imply that we're all free of ideology. Clearly, we're not.
That goes as well for atheists who are ideologically motivated. Dawkins and Myers both have ideological motivations, but it is worth noting that I don't see either of them going around killing people in defense of their ideology.
David, I think you are just looking for excuses to justify your dislike of atheists. If you don't like what communists did, why don't you just say that? Why bring me and other atheists into it? If you think my logic is bad, why do you try to distort what I'm saying with a statement like the one above? You should be able to argue against my own bad logic, not your distorted version of it.
David Marshall
'In fact, the New Atheism greatly resembles the intellectual community that gave birth to communism."
Much of your wildest hopes and dreams are wound up in this statement, aren't they? Unfortunately, for you it will be a dream unrealized. New atheism is a product of reason, an eschewing of religious superstitious nonsense having a seat at the table of public policy. New Atheism is a product of democracies where substantive evidence and proofs are not simply rhetoric in informing good public policy in the area of social policy. New Atheism is a reaction to religious abuse of state power and of the legislature. No longer does the community tolerate the continuing and objectionable degrading, humiliating and discriminatory practices against other members of a community, treated as they are second class citizens, simply on the basis of what the Bible says. The most recent activities are exemplified in the treatment of gays and gay marriage, and the religious debauching of women's personal health and the self-determining prerogative to minister one's own body.
Speaking of quibbles, Linton:
1. In the first sentence of your second paragraph, you should have capitalized "Japan".
2. Also in the first sentence of your second paragraph, there is a subject-verb disagreement; it should be an "are" after "[J]apan", not an "is".
3. In the first sentence of your third paragraph, you should have used the personal pronoun "who" instead of "that".
Please keep commenting so I can quibble more about your grammar and syntax.
"Oh, and by the way... the democracies of Western Europe and Oceana are not "largely atheist" - they are "secular". Huge difference."
No difference at all in a qualia sense really.
See HERE.
In part it reports: "Benedict XVI used the first papal state visit to Britain to launch a blistering attack on "atheist extremism" and "aggressive secularism", and to rue the damage that "the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life" had done in the last century."
See Sydney Morning Herald.
In part it reads: "A leading contender to become the next Pope has launched a fierce attack on the forces of secularism, arguing that they were fostering intolerance in Europe and forcing Christianity underground.
See HERE.
The Heading, "POPE ATTACKS ‘RADICAL SECULARISM’ AND ORDERS US BISHOPS TO TWIST THE ARMS OF POLITICIANS OVER ABORTION" Posted: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:02
In part it reads: 'The pope has again railed against what he sees as the dangers posed by "radical secularism".
Here is an interesting article at THIS SITE.
CATHOLIC CHURCH TO LOSE CONTROL OF SOME SCHOOLS IN IRELAND - COULD THIS BE THE START OF A SEISMIC SHIFT? Posted: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:26
Following a survey of parents by the Irish Department of Education, 23 primary schools across the country will be divested of their Catholic Church patronage. The move is part of the drive to encourage more choice and diversity in the types of primary schools in Ireland. At present 96% of primary schools are under the patronage of religious denominations – 90% of which are Catholic.
In 2011 the Minister for Education established an expert group to consult with people and to make recommendations on how primary schools can become more inclusive of different traditions, religions and beliefs."
Contrast this message about Christianity to that of the child's experience of Christianity in Africa.
After the travesty of Catholicism in Ireland, one can only hope the Irish will continue looking to the future based on reason and logic.
New atheism is a product of reason, an eschewing of religious superstitious nonsense having a seat at the table of public policy. New Atheism is a product of democracies where substantive evidence and proofs are not simply rhetoric in informing good public policy in the area of social policy.
Nope. New Atheism is a product of a dogmatic adherence to scientism that they wish to impose on the rest of the world. It is not enough for the New Atheists to get rid of religion - it must be replaced by scientism and materialism, a worldview that says that we are all nothing more than machines made out of carbon, that everything we think of as our "thoughts" and "emotions" are nothing more than electrochemical reactions inside our skulls, and that morality and ethics are just whatever behaviors are useful for the survival and reproduction of said carbon machines - the worldview that, according to the New Atheists, is rationally entailed by modern science and "reason" and is only eschewed because of religious dogma.
Skeptical: "It was all about communism, not atheism."
This is like saying, "I ate a cherry pie for desert. I didn't have any cherries, though." As has been pointed out, atheism is part of communism. It was historically an important part.
DM: "By this twist of logic, you exonerate Christians and Muslims from killing pagans who believed in gods we think are unreal."
Skep: "I can't believe you're serious about that. It wasn't atheists who killed pagans, it was Christians and Muslims. The rhetorical device of saying "We're all atheists about all gods but one" does not imply that we're all free of ideology. Clearly, we're not."
Yes, and theism is part of Christian and Muslim ideology, as atheist is part of communist ideology. And your goal, for some reason that has little to do with skepticism, seems to be to pretend that theism was to blame for crimes by theists, while atheism was not to blame for crimes by atheists.
"Dawkins and Myers both have ideological motivations, but it is worth noting that I don't see either of them going around killing people in defense of their ideology."
And how many people have you seen Reppert, Prokop or myself murder?
"David, I think you are just looking for excuses to justify your dislike of atheists."
Bad psychology. I have no such general dislike. Nor have I ever attempted to justify that which I do not feel.
But the New Atheists themselves claim that some ideas are dangerous and harmful. I agree with them about that, and I think their idea is one of them.
"If you don't like what communists did, why don't you just say that? Why bring me and other atheists into it?"
When did I blame you for what the communists did? But I agree with Victor's OP. It is hypocritical and untenable to try to blame Christianity for evil deeds done by bad Christians in the face of Jesus' teachings, then try to detach secularism from the terrible effects radical secularism has often had. I think we're just asking for an honest consistency, or better yet careful historical analysis. At least that's what I'm asking for. That and a little genuine skepticism, which is a way of thought, not a doctrine.
"I think you are just looking for excuses to justify your dislike of atheists."
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but it cries out to be answered regardless. I honestly know not one single person who "dislikes atheists". I mean that literally. In fact, many of my closest friends are atheists. For heaven's sake, I married an atheist! True, she converted to Catholicism some years into our time together, and she died having received all the sacraments.
(My wife's decision to embrace the faith is a quite interesting story, by the way. She became convinced of the existence of God by becoming a mother, and said (repeatedly) that she was incapable of disbelieving after that experience. Perhaps that's part of the explanation why an overwhelming number of atheists are men?)
Actually, David, Victor made a good point in his OP. "These things were done by Christian theists, but not by Christianity." Yet he fails (as you have repeatedly failed) to apply the same logic to atheism. The crimes in question were done by communistic atheists, not atheism. Why is that so hard for you to admit? The point that I have tried so hard to make is that it is ideology (of whatever stripe) that motivates people to do those things. I never denied that there are ideologically motivated atheists, but you have insisted on claiming that it is atheism itself that is at fault. When you say that, you aren't limiting the problem to the ones who committed crimes, you are broadening the scope to everyone who is atheist. As long as I keep hearing that kind of nonsense from you, I'll keep saying you're wrong.
And when are we supposed to expect this Heaven on Earth of everyone having no ideology and singing Lennon's "Imagine"? Not gonna happen. Not now, not next year, not ever.
But remember, the opposite of good belief is not no belief - it's bad belief. Atheism is the worst of all possible defenses against lunatic ideologies of any sort, because it has nothing it can answer them with.
On strictly pragmatic grounds, well meaning people everywhere have good reason to flee such a toothless, impotent non-belief. Yes, communism is not atheism (as I've repeatedly said already on this thread), but atheism nevertheless opens the barn door wide for such things as communism to occur.
Of course people need something to believe in. Better if it's something real. Many atheists find value in humanity, and meaning in their lives by having a positive impact on the lives of others.
ingX24
So what is your complaint? Much of what you say is correct and testable: we are all meat machines made out of carbon, that everything we think of as our "thoughts" and "emotions" are indeed electrochemical reactions inside our skulls, and that morality and ethics are behaviors useful for the survival and reproduction. No-one argues the toss about the reality of what you describe above. That much we all do know. So what is this 'more' that you speak of? So far religions have been a failed social and scientific experiment in explaining what it is and how one recognises this 'more'. I say a failure for two reasons:
(1) There are thousands of religions and tens of thousands of Christian variants with as many answers and conclusions reached consistent with the numbers of beliefs extant; a smorgasbord, if you will, to chose what you wish to put on your plate. I understand the eclectic mix and match strategy is popular in contemporary societies, with a little bit from there, a bit of this and a pinch of that and a dollop of the other. At bottom, nothing to speak of in terms of resolving what this 'more' is. On current understanding this 'more' is really nothing more than a derivative of culture, and whatever religion, cult or sect you subscribe to says everything about your culture and little about the 'more'.
(2) Following two thousand years of religious argie-bargie we are no closer to resolving this issue. The temperature of the today's debate is a factual and evidentiary strike against the capacity of religion to resolve this.
One thing is of absolute certainty. Of the almost incalculable events that were once ascribed to God have been clearly and firmly put to rest. Infection and disease is not the affliction of God for sins committed or golden calves worshipped. Thunder and lightning are without a shadow of doubt the result of the generation of static electricity. People do not climb out of their graves, never have, never will. Snakes don't talk. Schizophrenia and epilepsy are not an indicator of being 'possessed by the devil'. And on and on and on, ad nauseam. Of these, there has not been one instance in which a satisfactory natural explanation has failed to convince and people have reverted back to a theistic explanation. Not one.
On that record alone it is a reasonable proposition to suggest that a scientific explanation is more likely to provide an explanation. Maybe not the one you want. There are no guarantees.
As Democtritus, (c. 460-370BCE), Greek philosopher noted way back when:
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion."
It is truly an unfortunate circumstance of history that humanity had invested far too heavily in the nonsense of the ineffable unseen unknown, right down to the personal level, to make an about-turn along the no-through-road of Christian thought. The dead weight of religious inertia was simply too great to effect the U-turn until this moment, 2,000 years late. It is only now that genuine knowledge and understanding has crossed the threshold, has reached the break-even point against the amorphous mass of religious flummery that has dictated human relations for 2 millennia.
And if this is scientism, then who am I to counter? After all, the Big Bang was a pejorative until it took on the mantle of respectability in people's lexicon. And it was the methodology that confirmed and substantiated the expanding universe that posited the Big Bang as a cosmic event, on which scientism is sustained. As LaPlace said to Napoleon, when asked where his mathematics included the hand of 'god', Laplace is said to have responded (in French, of course) "I have no need for that hypothesis".
So it won't be religion or theology that will provide an explanation of the 'more' you so desperately crave. After 2,000 years when is the time up to say, "Enough already." Religion ain't going to do it.
VR: "[Some] Atheists insist on the idea that atheism is a lack of belief instead of a belief because ..."
True.
But, ultimately, it's because such persons are intellectually dishonest.
"a) they want to argue that, unlike theism, it has a deserves a "default status" and shouldn't have to be justified by argument"
As I said, intellectual dishonesty.
"b)since it is a lack of belief, it is, in the words of John Lennon, nothing to kill or die for. It cannot provide a motivation for, say, using the powers of the state to persecute believers."
Yet, an honest appraisal both of human nature and of actual historical experience shows this to be false. And still they assert it -- such persons are intellectually dishonest; they assert this demonstrably false argument *because* they are intellectually dishonest.
Prokop "Oh, and by the way... the democracies of Western Europe and Oceana are not "largely atheist" - they are "secular". Huge difference."
You know there is not a "huge difference" between a 'secular' and an 'atheistic' state.
There is no such thing, nor can be such a thing, as a religiously-neutral society ... or state. A state that is 'secular' will, perforce, push atheism upon the society it rules.
The difference that matters is between ‘non-sectarian’ and the various gradations of (for lack of better word) “theocratic”.
Ya-a-a-wn.
Papalinton has a very limited number of arrows in his quiver, and he drags them out with wearisome predictability. Perhaps I should say comic predictability, since they've all been shot down so many times they have no force left whatsoever.
Ephram asked (on April 9 at 5:45 AM) "why do you continue to engage him?" Maybe it's like the drunk looking for his car keys, searching under the lamp post. He knows he didn't lose them there, but says anyway "the light's better here." In like manner, we all know Papalinton's got nothing of substance to say, but it's so easy to refute him that it's almost impossible to resist.
Cases in point here:
1. He once again falls back on his favorite pacifier, the faux notion of a "God of the Gaps" - this despite the fact that it has been demonstrated to him over and over and over again that no one believes in such a God. As it says in Isaiah: I the Lord have not spoken from hiding, nor from a land of darkness. And I have not said to the descendents of Jacob, "Seek me in an empty waste or in chaos. Nope, no gaps there.
2. Papalinton dares to bring up the Big Bang, as though this is an argument in his favor, whilst conveniently avoiding mention of the fact that it was a Catholic priest who first posited this theory. Hilariously, he then says, "After all, the Big Bang was a pejorative until it took on the mantle of respectability in people's lexicon", sidestepping the uncomfortable fact that it was the atheist Fred Hoyle who coined the term "Big Bang" as an insult, because he couldn't tolerate any evidence that the universe had a beginning.
On a side note, I wonder how Paplinton is ever able to "prove you're not a robot" since he proudly claims to be one: "We are all meat machines made out of carbon, everything we think of as our "thoughts" and "emotions" are indeed electrochemical reactions inside our skulls, and morality and ethics are behaviors useful for the survival and reproduction."
Catholics are allowed to have doubts?
I thought one of the unarguable pronouncements of The Magisterium was that the existence of God could be proven with absolute certainty.
"Catholics are allowed to have doubts?"
Man, I should learn by now to never be amazed by the depth of ignorance out there. Allowed? Heck, they're encouraged - they're practically mandatory!
You're mistaking Catholicism for some of the more anti-intellectual flavors of Protestant fundamentalism.
Has The Magisterium walked back on the certainty of the proofs of God? Or am I just wrong about this completely.
I am asking sincerely.
"one of the unarguable pronouncements of The Magisterium"
This is an example of one of the hugest misconceptions that non-Catholics have about the Church. They seem to think that infallible pronouncements are spewing out of the Vatican like the Huka Waterfall.
Do you know how many "unarguable pronouncements" have been issued since 1870 (adjournment of the First Vatican Council)? There's an exact number, so take a guess...
Ready for the answer? One! I'm not even going to tell you what it was; I'll let you look it up. I'll even give you a hint - the year was 1950. Not once since then.
Want to take a stab at how many were made prior to 1870 (when the principle was first established)? Get ready... ZERO! That's right - zero. File that fact under "Amazing, but True".
So much for Catholics supposedly having to "turn off their minds" when the Magisterium speaks.
Gimme a break!
"Papalinton dares to bring up the Big Bang, as though this is an argument in his favor, whilst conveniently avoiding mention of the fact that it was a Catholic priest who first posited this theory."
I certainly didn't conveniently omit mentioning Le Maitre proposed the Big bang. I simply assumed it was a given.
But more germane to the issue, Lemaitre told Pope Pius XII not to use the Big Bang as evidence of creation as described in Genesis. He was so pissed off by the Pope's baseless argument from affirmation:
"In 1951, Pope Pius XII tried to use his theory as a justification for Creationism, but Lemaitre resented this.[16] In fact, he convinced the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology. [Wiki]
And he was right. As I have explained time and again, we don't know what existed before the Big Bang. And neither do you. And if you don't know then neither does God.
Not that amazing if it was first established in 1870.
Not really. They could easily have retroactively "grandfathered" a few in, yet chose not to.
"Catholics are allowed to have doubts?"
Man, I should learn by now to never be amazed by the depth of ignorance out there. Allowed? Heck, they're encouraged - they're practically mandatory!
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm
The link above lists quite a huge number of doctrines which are considered to be De fide. My understanding is that something that is pronounced as "De fide" is considered to be an essential doctrine, denial of which is heresy. Not much room for doubt there.
"Perhaps I should say comic predictability, since they've all been shot down so many times they have no force left whatsoever."
When blind faith imagines the arguments have been shot down. Religion inures and desensitizes one to reason and logic.
Atheism is growing in the global community; of that there is no doubt. As i mentioned in an earlier comment, reason, logic and empiricism, the troika of sensibility, has crossed the threshold, has reached the break-even point at which point it now heads out on its own volition having sloughed off the baggage of religious thought that has proscribed freedom of thought and mind since man first became a self-aware conscious entity. Religion is no longer the triumphal 'force majeur' that ostentatiously paraded before the ignorant, the illiterate and the superstitious.
The species Homo religiosus is going the way of Homo neanderthalensis. :o)
True to form, whenever Papalinton has been cornered, he punts to an imaginary future of his own making. How convenient! By making unverifiable claims about some atheist paradise on earth to come, no one can contradict him.
Two can play at that game. I'll start claiming that at some unspecified point in the future, the entire world population will be devoted fans of the Liverpool Football Club. Who's to say I'm wrong?
Oh, well. It's been fun searching for my car keys under the lamp post, but I'm done here. Shutting down for today, and going out to work in the garden. All that winter mess to clean up!
"God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.
The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality."
Skepcitcal: I'm (in part) an historian. I don't admit historical claims unless I think they are justified by the evidence.
Having studied communism in some depth, in Jesus and the Religions of Man (2000), I wrote a chapter entitled, "Where did Marx go wrong?" (Which I showed to Dr. Treadgold: he agreed with my analysis.) I didn't blame "atheism" in some vague, Platonic sense for communist crimes. I argued that Marx's biggest problem was not that he denied God, but that he tried to be God.
Yet as an historian, I cannot deny that there is a close and mutually-supportive relationship between atheism, which was not all all a marginal issue for the young Marx or Engels, and the particular form Marxism-Leninism took around the world.
Nor would I deny that the concept of "God" mattered to the inquisitors, and to the ideology Medieval Christendom developed, for better and sometimes perhaps for worse.
Yes, it's the larger ideology that motivates people to act, usually, not atheism or theism on their own. But as I pointed out, atheism or theism never are on their own. You can't generalize about the morality of either atheists or theists, granted. And only people who do evil should be blamed for doing evil, absolutely. That's why I don't usually bring up "the evils of atheism" except in response to some atheist ninny who brings up "the evils of religion" in a sanctimonious way. Atheism was certainly not incidental to the Marxist ideology, but then, neither was theism to that of the Inquisitors.
It doesn't sound to me as if you're so far off the deep end on these issues as some of your fellow skeptics, though.
@B. Prokop:
"I'll start claiming that at some unspecified point in the future, the entire world population will be devoted fans of the Liverpool Football Club. Who's to say I'm wrong?"
I will. For it is blindingly obvious that everyone will be a fan of Benfica, the greatest soccer club in the world.
Platonic schizmatics! Round is not the proper shape for objects on the playing field, any more than for objects in the sun's gravitational field. Everyone will be a Seattle Seahawks fan.
I should say, for the orbit of objects in the sun's gravitational field.
"It is blindingly obvious that everyone will be a fan of Benfica, the greatest soccer club in the world."
Harumpf! And I had such great respect for you, Grodrigues. Just remember, with Liverpool FC, "You'll never walk alone!"
Hal, a smiley face signals fun, a bit of persiflage, a little bit of a dig at the certainty of an ineffable unseen unknowable offered as an excuse for the existence of a no-thing by the believer.
"By making unverifiable claims about some atheist paradise on earth to come, no one can contradict him."
You mean like an alternative to the heaven and hell combo of Christian theism?
No Bob, no atheist paradise in the making here. Only the reality of a fully natural world with no supernatural superstition in the formula.
The paradise bit you imagine I am imagining is just a bit of theologizing on your part as the believer cannot conceive of a world sans celestial dictatorship [as Chris Hitchens would have coined] other than through the indoctrinated religious paradigm. It is the woo-meisters that are the past masters of an imaginary future of their own making.
I hope for an improved and safer world without that overarching 'Stalin of the sky'. :o)
"Oh, well. It's been fun searching for my car keys under the lamp post, but I'm done here."
I could not have selected a better characterization of the Christian world, Bob. And I really do like the 'lamp post' analogy for either the Bible and/or the magisterium, whichever is applicable to the believer.
David,
Thanks for the kind words. I will desist.
Some atheists here are claiming that Catholics are not, as a matter of principle, allowed to doubt.
But there have been multitudes of Catholic philosophers in human history, and there are many in the present day. And one definitionally cannot be a philosopher if he or she cannot doubt.
What's going on here? Is the concept of "Catholic philosopher" incoherent? Was Elizabeth Anscombe, one of Wittgenstein's greatest pupils, and a Catholic herself, not a real philosopher? Or not a real Catholic?
And some examples from a contemporary context: Gyula Klima, David Oderberg, John Haldane, Alexander Pruss, and Edward Feser. Are they not real philosophers?
Clarity on this point would be nice.
Ephram,
I'm not going to play pin the tail on the "real" Catholic or "real" philosopher, or get in an idiot definitional dispute.
But, if being a Catholic means accepting all the dogmas of the church without question, then no, a Catholic cannot be a philosopher.
Here is a link to the 255 infallible dogmas. Any philosopher who even doubts one of these is by definition a heretic and is not a Catholic.
http://tinyurl.com/d96v389
"No, a Catholic cannot be a philosopher."
Wow. St. Thomas Aquinas not a philosopher? (Or alternatively not a Catholic)? Quick - somebody tell Ben!
After all, no True Scotsman.. er, I mean Catholic, would ever doubt.
Ephram
"And some examples from a contemporary context: Gyula Klima, David Oderberg, John Haldane, Alexander Pruss, and Edward Feser. Are they not real philosophers?"
They most certainly are, real live genuine philosophers. Of that there is no doubt. But it must also be acknowledged they enjoy an a priori disposition that informs their philosophy. It is an a prior disposition that is almost always purposely masked by Christian philosophers.
Atheist philosophers are known for their atheism. To recover the contextual perspective of many theist philosophers, to understand the context in which they philosophise, is indeed a highly problematic journey of discovery. One has to dig deep and even into secondary and tertiary sources of evidence to elicit that perspective. Simple question; why is that so?
Many believers on this site, including Dr Reppert, vociferously claim to searching for this context is ad hominem, righteously decrying that what a person believes has no bearing on the substance of the argument. I disagree and for very good reasons. There is no equivocation in the identity of atheist philosophers, all of whom wear their atheism openly, honestly, prepared to meet the flak from the religious head-on. For many, if not most theist philosophers? Not that much.
Hal: As to burden of proof. I think anyone positing the existence of an entity is obliged to provide evidence for that entity.
VR: Sounds good, until you put "external world" in as your entity. Then try shouldering the burden of proof on that one.
So, certain beliefs are properly basic? Plantinga thinks the existence of God can be properly basic, at least for some people.
Hal: As to burden of proof. I think anyone positing the existence of an entity is obliged to provide evidence for that entity.
VR: Sounds good, until you put "external world" in as your entity. Then try shouldering the burden of proof on that one.
Besides which, God isn't a posit.
Hal: "Of course people are going to differ over what counts as evidence."
Translation: No matter what arguments and evidence the "theists" present, the God-deniers have the (moral and rational) right simply to wave their hands and it all goes away. ... It doesn't even matter that to defend their God-denial God-deniers ultimately retreat to the position that knowledge is impossible to have and reason is impossible to do, the hands still rule.
Hal: "Unfortunately, there are a lot of rather nasty theists and atheists right now that are making it more difficult for moderates to engage in reasoned discourse."
*eyeroll*
The *point* of "reasoned discourse" is to identify error -- so that it can be eliminated. The last thing that those who raise paeons "reasoned discourse" ever seem to want to do is to eliminate the error in their thinking.
Similarly with those who play the "a pox on both their houses" card.
Bob,
Once again you prove yourself to be essentially a jackass and a troll. You quote mined me, removing the important "if".
Hal asks:
"Are you saying that no one can be a philosopher if they are certain about anything?"
No. If you accept without question the pronouncement of an alleged authority then you are no philosopher.
Are you guys unable to read and understand qualifiers?
BeingItself
"Here is a link to the 255 infallible dogmas. Any philosopher who even doubts one of these is by definition a heretic and is not a Catholic.
http://tinyurl.com/d96v389"
Apart from the list being a CLASSIC template of an exercise in the agglomeration of oxymora, I have been able to prune the surfeit of 255 infallible dogmas down to the quintessential:
(1) God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.
(2) See Rule No. 1.
"You quote mined me, removing the important "if"."
Oh the ubiquitous nature of Christian quote mining [Lying for Jesus]. Much practiced by woo-meisters as to have acquired the status of an art; a central tenet of Christian Apologetics. It has the ring of the habitual criminal professing his innocence.
Hmmm... I must be doing something right, to get both these guys mad at me!
"Hmmm... I must be doing something right, to get both these guys mad at me!"
Oddly enough, you fools "reason" that since you're all mad at me, I'm clearly the one at error and at fault.
Can anyone say 'hypocrisy'?
Yes Ilíon, everyone is mad at you, therefore you are the one at error and fault ...
How do you spell narcissist again? Oh! I remember: I-L-Í-O-N ...
One more thing, Ilíon: you don't engage fools, you only hold them up as dis-examples. So, I don't know, find some way to dis-exemplify me.
^^ The solution is simple: you stop being a fool.
Hell! You *chose* for me to use you as a dis-example. It was you who invented -- and sustains -- the war you vainly image exists between the two of us. I hadn't even noticed you until you took it upon your self to put me in my place.
We aren't at war, I just like goading you into saying ridiculous things. I call it "troll trolling".
By popular demand a swipe at BI
@BI
You are not a philosopher & you don't even have a basic understanding of Science much less philosophy.
In your latest little hit & run over at Feser's blog you made all these stupid statements on the Argument from Motion & physics.
The locals ripped your pathetic "arguments" to shreds(including moi) and you ran like a little bitch.
What is the point of you Gnu?
Your "atheism" is for 14 year old public school kids who get 200 hours of courses a year on their feelings and about 5 hours on reading,writing, math and science.
In short it is on Paps' intellectual level.
smell ya lader.
"... I just like goading you into saying ridiculous things. I call it "troll trolling"."
I don't say ridiculous things. You certainly have no power to goad me.
And yes, you are a troll.
You honestly had to quote the part of my comment to which you were responding? You couldn't have just implied it in your response? That would've been so much more logical.
Logic fail. :-(
Now boys, don't make me have to come in there and separate you two!
STAY OUT OF THIS YOU APOLOGIST FOR MASS MURDER!!!
... just kidding. :-D
Bob
"Hmmm... I must be doing something right, to get both these guys mad at me!"
ROTFLOL is not a feature of anger the last time I referred to dictionary. I-S and PapaL are simply pointing out that contradiction between being a bona fide philosopher while concurrently holding onto 255 infallible edicts which are inalienable no-go zones for bona fide Catholics.
There is nothing whatsoever in that argument that could remotely elicit anger as a response. On the contrary, it is genuine Bill Maher, George Carlin and Ricky Gervais territory.
As Delos B KcKown, emeritus professor and former head of the philosophy department at Auburn University; and former clergyman, noted:
"The Bible is a mine rich in the ore of cognitive dissonance."
"The Bible is a mine rich in the ore of cognitive dissonance."
Of course it is! I wouldn't give it a second glance if it weren't. That's the precise feature that makes it so plausible as the being in truth the very Word of God. I would never suspect some neat and tidy artifact as being the Genuine Article.
The sad thing is, you probably quoted that thinking you were scoring some sort of point, when in reality you were passing on high praise. The messiness, uncertain paternity, and rough edges are points in its favor.
Bob
Still running away from ownership, away from responsibility. You must respond to the argument: 255 infallible edicts that identify the practice of Catholicism and the notion of philosophers circumventing these inalienable edicts being a genuine philosopher. How does one reconcile the cognitive dissonance in holding these diametric positions other than through the obscurantism and obfuscatory nature of Christian apologetics?
Perhaps the 255 infallibles are simply dishes at a smorgasbord, from which one can pick and chose to suit circumstances and conditions, and indeed the flavour of Catholic arguments. We know for a fact that the Bible can be anything one wants it to be, a literal history, an historical sketch, an allegory, a metaphor, a parable [lots of those], an anology, in fact everything and anything because it has defined itself out of any meaningful existence.
The suspicion of it's despairing meaningless and irrelevance is clearly strengthened in your gauche admission:
"That's the precise feature [cognitive dissonance] that makes it so plausible as the being in truth the very Word of God."
Catholicism; nowhere to run, nowhere to hide anymore, even in language.
Papalinton,
I'm afraid I'm just going to have to go all Ben on you here, and point out your hopelessly ingrained predilection towards fundamentalism.
The real world is far messier than any list of 255 truths (without taking anything away from their truth). It's also messier than everything we know about it from science. Heck, it's messier than mathematics and reason itself, for that matter. These are all fine tools in their place, and all are valid up to a point.
The glory of Catholicism (I'm not speaking of fundamentalist Protestantism here) is that it embraces all of these things, realizing that Reality is bigger than them all - combined.
You're going to come to a far better understanding of the faith if you get your nose out of Wikipedia lists and look at the Beatitudes, at the Magnificat, at your local food bank or homeless shelter, at the life of Father Emil Kapaun (since he's in the news right now).
By the way, I finally got around to reading the list of 255 truths. Turns out, I have no problem with any of them. Not a bad list - I wonder where it came from. HOWEVER, as with all statements expressed in any human language, one's interpretation of any specific statement may be quite wrong. That's why I do not and can not believe in the Protestant doctrine of every person interpreting scripture, etc. for themselves. The Church is necessary.
Bob, you state that doubt is virtually mandatory for a Catholic, but I am not sure how that is supposed to work. I doubt that Jesus is/was God, that he walked on water or turned water to wine; I doubt that Jesus resurrected from the dead or flew through the sky on his way to God's throne room. Does that make me a good Catholic? I doubt it does.
Walter,
As I've said before, anyone who says he knows everything with absolute certainty is just blowing smoke. But there is such a thing as responsible use of one's intellect. There's no good reason to doubt, for example, the existence of the external world. One does not have to imagine that you're nothing but a brain in a jar as some sort of a default position.
There are zillions and zillions of things we all accept as true without personal, empirical evidence. I've never seen Pluto with my own eyes, but I trust those who have. I wasn't there at D-Day, but I accept (within responsible reason) the accounts of those who were. I have no idea how my laptop works, but have faith in its designers who know more than me in such matters.
In like manner, using reason plus the evidence presented to me, I can responsibly accept the claims made by the Church. But yes, yes, and yes, that does not imply blind certainty. By no means. As I've already pointed out (I can't remember on which thread), the Apostles themselves doubted even after seeing the Risen Christ with their own eyes, speaking with Him, and for heaven's sake eating with Him! (And they were all "good Catholics".)
I call that a License to Doubt.
Walter: "Bob, you state that doubt is virtually mandatory for a Catholic ..."
Prokop says and does a lot of silly things. In that instance, he was, among other things, vainly trying to earn brownie points from the sort of people who'd as soon kill him as not, if he really were a Christian, rather than a leftist -- "Look at me! I'm not like those icky ol' "fundie" Protestants!" Never mind that "fundies" are figments of the "liberal" and leftist imagination ... and that there is great poetic justice in the "liberals" automatically considering any serious Catholic to be a "fundie", fully equivalent to the snake handlers everyone talks about. For, after all, US Catholic bishops invented the "fundie" a century ago so as to train their flock to sneer down their noses at the Fundamentalist Movement, rather than investigating its positions.
Prokop, blowing smoke: "As I've said before, anyone who says he knows everything with absolute certainty is just blowing smoke ..."
Translation: no one can know anything ... and I know that with absolute certainty!
Damn! I didn't even speak of the devil, and yet he appeared anyway!
(Actually, Ilion is an excellent case proving my very point. Talk about blowing smoke - only in his case, it smells of brimstone. Still haven't repudiated Hell's governing constitution, right, "Ilion"?)
I'm not sure what's more laughable, Ilíon's lack of self-awareness or his grasp of history. Thanks to him for providing me with the free entertainment.
Pope Francis on certainty (the most important sentence is the first):
"Certainty does not reside in the human head but in the harmony of all human faculties. Faith itself is primarily a trust in the authority of another. Most of the things anybody knows, he knows by trust in the testimony of others. Our religious faith depends on the witness of the Apostles and their faithful handing down what they saw.
But faith is not "contrary to reason." Faith in fact is directed to reason. And reason is always concerned with the intelligibility of what is presented in revelation. Faith is reasonable, which does not imply that it can be deduced to mere reasoning. It is reasonable, but not reasoning. Perhaps this rather enigmatic statement is clearer if we simply say that what we do not know about something is not unintelligible but that we just do not yet grasp its full intelligibility. Omne ens est scibile."
Faith itself is primarily a trust in the authority of another.
So I can actually doubt that Jesus is God or that he resurrected, but I can still perform the sacraments, which displays my trust in the authority of the Catholic Church to guide me towards salvation, thus making me a good Catholic. Would you agree with this, Bob?
Not totally, because I have the almost undoubtable (put smiley face here) suspicion that you and I would be meaning very different things by the word "doubt".
Keep in mind that the Creed, one of the foundational documents of the Church, begins with Credo in unum Deum, i.e., not "I know there is one God", but rather "I believe in one God".
Not totally, because I have the almost undoubtable (put smiley face here) suspicion that you and I would be meaning very different things by the word "doubt".
This is interesting to me.
So you are allowed to doubt, but it has to be the right *kind* or *degree* of doubt? In other words, you are allowed to have a vague doubt about certain religious propositions, but the doubt must remain small enough as to not cause you to repudiate what the Church teaches to be Truth. Am I getting closer?
>255 truths
I recognize the language those are taken from THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA by Ott.
They are various doctrinal theorems with their explanations or the level of authority and certainty omitted.
My lower back is killing me!!!!!
No, I am not referring to a degree of doubt, but to the very definition of the term.
To doubt, in the sense I am using the term, is to say one knows such-and-such for such-and-such reasons, but not through direct and certain experience. Alternatively, it could be assumed as an axiom (and recognized as such).
For instance, I believe that A is equal to A - not because I can prove it, but because I must assume such before I can proceed further with logical thinking. I believe that Australia exists - not because I've been there and seen it with my own eyes, but because to disbelieve in its existence would necessitate an unraveling of everything else I know about basically everything (as well as requiring me to believe in fantastical conspiracy theories). I believe that Christ physically rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, 33 AD, because I have no alternative explanation for the account of that event that satisfies my reason.
But I "know" all of these things basically on faith. Substitute "subatomic particles" for "Australia" and none of the three examples can be proven beyond unreasonable doubts.
Hal,
I'll take number 7.
To expand, the uncertainty comes not from within, but from the means of acquiring knowledge of a particular thing. I.e., one's necessary doubt (in the sense I've been using the term in previous postings) arises not from emotion, mental habit, personal desires, hope or fear, but rather from external circumstances.
("I believe in one God", and not "I know there is a God", due to the means this belief came to me, not because of how I feel about this knowledge.)
B. Prokop,
What is the Catholic stance on Hell? Is Hell in Catholicism seen as eternal conscious torment in a pit of fire? Is there even an official statement on what Hell is by the Catholic Church?
Furthermore: Does Catholicism entail an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics and/or the belief that animals are purely material?
I'm genuinely curious about these things - Catholicism honestly strikes me as the most intellectually respectable sect of organized Christianity, and I'm curious to know what Catholics actually think as opposed to the stereotypes that most outsiders associate with them.
What is the Catholic stance on Hell?
What I've always been told is that the Church teaches that Hell is a very real possibility, in that it is the inevitable result of a definitive rejection of love. HOWEVER, the Church is resolutely silent as to whether or not anyone has actually ever made such a choice. (I.e., Hell could be empty.)
Is Hell in Catholicism seen as eternal conscious torment in a pit of fire? Is there even an official statement on what Hell is by the Catholic Church?
There is no definitive statement. All narratives and/or descriptions of Hell, including those in Holy Scripture, are considered to be symbolic or allegorical.
Furthermore: Does Catholicism entail an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics and/or the belief that animals are purely material?
Gotta plead ignorance on that one. My personal suspicion (not belief) is that animals are no less immortal than humans.
" If one understands the rules of math then one knows that 3 is larger than 2."
Really? Then it's obvious you understand nothing about math.
Bob
"You're going to come to a far better understanding of the faith if you get your nose out of Wikipedia lists and look at the Beatitudes, at the Magnificat, at your local food bank or homeless shelter, at the life of Father Emil Kapaun (since he's in the news right now)."
Been there. Done that. Written home to Mum. Bought the T-shirt. Took the photos, and shot the video. Have since swum out of the whirlpool.
Hal,
I am not making this stuff up. That's the way mathematics works. Have you never heard of axioms? They are unprovable statements which form the basis upon which to arrive at further conclusions. Various things are simply defined as being so, such as parallel lines (in Euclidean geometry) will not intersect, or (to take a random example) 3 is "larger" than 2. You can't prove these statements - you simply have to assume their veracity.
And when it comes down to it, that's how we "know" anything at all. After a point, you stop looking for turtles all the way down, and posit a few basic things to be true, and go from there. Otherwise, insanity lurks at the door.
Oh my gosh! I use the word "insanity" in my posting, and my prove-you're-not-a-robot word is "ilione". What are the odds against that!?!
Bob to Walter: "As I've said before, anyone who says he knows everything with absolute certainty is just blowing smoke."
Tell me about the absolute certainty of the virgin birth. Tell me about the absolute certainty of the trinity. Tell me about the absolute certainty of resurrection. Tell me about the absolute certainty of ascension.
Just blowing smoke, right? Or are they held by believers just like and in the same manner that provisional scientific certainties are held until a better scientific explanation comes along?
Definitely not, History is very much against your account on this score. Nothing is more characteristically certain than subscribing to these imagined Christian certainties. And this certainty persists despite and in direct contravention to all the evidence to the contrary.
The best argument against religion is the existence of all the other religions. HERE are two maps showing the certainty of the global distribution of multitudinous religions and the certainty of the universality of the global distribution of science. As explanatory tools, which would be closer to the truth of reality?
"And this certainty persists despite and in direct contravention to all the evidence to the contrary."
Hmmm... funny, I seem to have missed hearing about "all th[is] evidence". In Fact, I have yet to hear of one single piece of credible evidence against the Faith. Not one. Still waiting.
And as for there being various religions, so what? When it comes to genuine religion, there's more truth than otherwise in any one of them. Tremendous wisdom to be found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Yoriba... heck, even in Paganism. I don't reject any of it.
And as for the pathetic atheist trope that I'm an atheist about all other gods, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm repeating myself here (from a long-ago previous posting), but one of the most "religious experiences" I've ever personally had was some years ago in the British Museum. I was admiring an ancient Greek statue of Aphrodite when it hit me like a ton of bricks that I was looking at, not just an image of a long-dead beautiful woman, but at a depiction of God. I meant my simile in the last sentence - the realization was like a physical blow. So yes, I go believe in Aphrodite, and Zeus, and Ganesha, and Krishna, etc., etc. Credo in unum Deum.
Typo. That should have read "I do believe" - not "I go believe".
"What I've always been told is that the Church teaches that Hell is a very real possibility, in that it is the inevitable result of a definitive rejection of love. HOWEVER, the Church is resolutely silent as to whether or not anyone has actually ever made such a choice."
Doesn't the Catechism teach that commission of a mortal sin (a grave matter such as murder) that remains unrepented would be grounds for condemnation?
Furthermore, it is only in recent years that the church has decided that the inferno of Dante is a bit harsh for the sensibilities of the modern Catholic.
"Doesn't the Catechism teach that commission of a mortal sin (a grave matter such as murder) that remains unrepented would be grounds for condemnation?"
Correct, but who are we to say that anyone has died without repentance? I'm not wrong in this. The Church as always held out resolute hope for every last person, and has written no one off from salvation - no one. Notice how thousands of people have been declared to be Saints in Heaven over the centuries, yet not one single person ever declared to be damned.
Damn these typos!
I meant to write "The Church has always held" - not "as always held".
Resolute hope, but I think it's a good bet that many people have gone to the grave without ever repenting. Surely it is not the decision of the church whether they get a reprieve.
"the Inferno of Dante is a bit harsh"
Well, it is about Hell, after all. But more importantly, The Inferno should never, ever be read in isolation. It can only be understood in context as the first third of The Divine Comedy (which happens to be my perennial all-time favorite book ever).
If you have never read it in its entirety, might I recommend the Dorothy Sayers translation? Not for her English version of the poem itself (there are others far better), but for her unsurpassed explanatory material and footnotes. No one has ever come close to Sayers, with the possible exception of Charles Williams, in making the poem come alive for the English language reader.
I have said consistently that the direct inference from "X was done in the name of religion X" to "Religion X is bad" is faulty, and that applies to atheism as well.
There is a "trail" of thinking that leads from Christianity to becoming a Grand Inquisitor, and there is a trail that leads from atheism to being the atheist equivalent of being a Grand Inquisitor. In the latter case, you start by thinking that the collapse of religion must occur for humanity to progress. You then get enough political power to, say, prevent parents from teaching their children their religious beliefs. So you conclude that the end of faith justifies the means, and then you deprive people of their religious liberties when it comes to childrearing. At this point, you've fallen into the abyss, and it is a very similar abyss to the one that the Inquisitors fell into. New Atheists seem to have taken the first step in the wrong direction, but they don't have the political power to do the real damage. Not yet.
Signing off for the next three days. (Off to a wedding, and I never take my computer with me when traveling.) Don't expect any more comments from me until Tuesday at the earliest. I hope that what I've written so far is clear enough as it stands ('Cause its all yer gonna get!)
Bob
"And as for the pathetic atheist trope that I'm an atheist about all other gods, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm repeating myself here (from a long-ago previous posting), but one of the most "religious experiences" I've ever personally had was some years ago in the British Museum. I was admiring an ancient Greek statue of Aphrodite when it hit me like a ton of bricks that I was looking at, not just an image of a long-dead beautiful woman, but at a depiction of God. I meant my simile in the last sentence - the realization was like a physical blow. So yes, I go believe in Aphrodite, and Zeus, and Ganesha, and Krishna, etc., etc. Credo in unum Deum."
Catholicism unravelling at the seams as we speak. Bob's watered down version of ecumenical catholicism . The univocity of religious thought of which you speak seems a lot like anathema to Catholic thought as Professor Brad Gregory, Catholic and philosopher, notes:
"It is a rather technical area of medieval metaphysics, but Professor Gregory sees the shift to univocity in the work of Duns Scotus and his followers as essentially placing God and creation on a continuum and thus making God vulnerable over time to radical critique at the hands of materialist science. In layman's terms, Protestantism's commitment to the univocity of being leads eventually to Richard Dawkins."
See HERE.
And this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia notes about Hinduism:
"But apart from this unimportant line of modern speculation, and from the abortive theosophic movement of more recent times, one finds no trace of Hindu influence on Western civilization. We have nothing to learn from India that makes for higher culture. On the other hand, India has much of value to learn from Christian civilization."
The Catholic Encyclopedia HERE. It seems nothing from Hinduism can inform Catholicism. And this was from 100 years ago and is current today.
In terms of the beloved CS Lewis:
"When C.S. Lewis was converted from atheism, he shopped around in the world's religious supermarket and narrowed his choice down to Hinduism or Christianity. Religions are like soups, he said. Some, like consomme, are thin and clear (Unitarianism, Confucianism, modern Judaism); others, like minestrone, are thick and dark (paganism, “mystery religions”). Only Hinduism and Christianity are both “thin” (philosophical) and “thick” (sacramental and mysterious). But Hinduism is really two religions: “thick” for the masses, “thin” for the sages. Only Christianity is both."
How odd. Lewis seriously contemplating Hinduism but then plumping for Christianity, because it had everything, even English. But he was right in one sense; Christianity appeals to both the very thick and the very thin.
CONT.
CONT.
Peter Kreeft from the Catholic Education Resource Centre notes:
"5. Individuality is illusion according to Eastern mysticism. Not that we're not real, but that we are not distinct from God or each other. Christianity tells you to love your neighbors; Hinduism tells you you are your neighbors. The word spoken by God Himself as His own essential name, the word “I,” is the ultimate illusion, not the ultimate reality, according to the East. There Is no separate ego. All is one.
6. Since individuality is illusion, so is free will. If free will is illusion, so is sin. And if sin is illusion, so is hell. Perhaps the strongest attraction of Eastern religions is in their denial of sin, guilt and hell.
7. Thus the two essential points of Christianity — sin and salvation — are both missing in the East. If there is no sin, no salvation is needed, only enlightenment. We need not be born again; rather, we must merely wake up to our innate divinity. If I am part of God. I can never really be alienated from God by sin.
See Kreeft's article HERE. How does one reconcile the truth of Catholicism with that of Hinduism except through the mental suppression or sequestration of cognitive dissonance?
It seems you are resorting to indiscriminate rhetoric without courage of conviction, taking the path of least resistance; running away from acknowledging and accepting responsibility for the Catholic beliefs held.
Victor
"So you conclude that the end of faith justifies the means, and then you deprive people of their religious liberties when it comes to childrearing. At this point, you've fallen into the abyss, and it is a very similar abyss to the one that the Inquisitors fell into. New Atheists seem to have taken the first step in the wrong direction, but they don't have the political power to do the real damage. Not yet."
Shades of Armageddon, all because of New Atheism. The Apocalypse of the world is immanent. Read John.
Sorry Victor. Not going to happen. The only thing that is changing is the downsizing of the influence of supernatural superstition on public policy. Everything else remains the same.
How could Hell be empty? Doesn't Satan and his minions dwell there?
No, not according to Christian theology. Satan and his minions are roaming the earth.
"you start by thinking that the collapse of religion must occur for humanity to progress. You then get enough political power to, say, prevent parents from teaching their children their religious beliefs. So you conclude that the end of faith justifies the means, and then you deprive people of their religious liberties when it comes to childrearing."
Here we go again. Projecting your sins onto us. If and when atheists in Ameerica try to establish a state religion you may have grounds to lodge such a complaint. Remember, the communists had their own state religion - it was communism. There is no justification for pinning that on the rest of us, since we have no such ideology. All we would like to see is for Christians to keep their dogma to themselves - teach it in your churches and your own homes, and don't force it on the rest of us. There is no movement to deprive you of your liberties, so please stop whining about it.
im-skeptical,
A lot of contemporary atheists do have an ideological agenda - eradicating religion and replacing it with a worldview of scientistic materialism that eliminates or reduces away such "superstitious" ideas as morality, free will, conscious experience, thoughts and emotions, personhood, and any kind of purpose whatsoever, reducing us to nothing more than machines made out of carbon programmed by natural selection to behave in ways that facilitate survival and reproduction. Most atheists are just regular people who don't believe in God and don't really have any commitments beyond that, scientistic, materialistic, or otherwise - but the most influential atheists undeniably have a scientistic agenda that they want to force on the rest of the world.
I'm not sure who those people are, but I haven't heard of any effort to restrict the constitutional freedom of religious people. Maybe I don't read enough. Do you know of something like that?
It's not that they're trying to use political power to eradicate religion (although they probably would if they did have political power) - it's that they're trying to use the authority of "science" to do it. If they can make it seem like "science" has "shown" that all of our thoughts and emotions are nothing but electrochemical reactions, they can eventually make the common-sense view (dualism) seem like a position that only insane, dogmatic, anti-scientific, anti-intellectual religious nutjobs would take (similar to how we see Young Earth Creationism). This has already happened in most academic philosophy departments - it's only a matter of time before materialism regarding the mind gets taught in high school science classes as "fact", and the Catholic Church needs to accept materialism regarding the mind and try to incorporate it into their system like they did with evolution in order to remain intellectually respectable.
It seems that not even religion can protect us from dehumanization by materialism. The last defenders of dualism will die out, and history will look back on them with the same condescension that we apply to evolution deniers, seeing them as reactionaries who desperately tried to protect a religious dogma of a "ghost in the machine" or "immaterial matter" by spinning hopelessly bad arguments. Science's murder of the soul will kill religion, neuroscience will advance, and most likely society will slowly move to eliminative materialism as we realize that neuroscience has nothing to say about thoughts and feelings. We will move into an "advanced" society where we stop "naively personifying" ourselves and accept that we are all just blind, unconscious machines just like the rest of nature.
I smell a good idea for a dystopian novel! ;D
Grodrigues,
Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? It makes not a single mention of atheism. It expresses no theistic or atheistic beliefs at all. It is strictly a political document. Religion is seen as a tool of the bourgeoisie. It speaks of communism abolishing religion, and thereby takes its place.
It is also worth noting that President Putin, a former communist party official of the Soviet Union, now sports a cross. Some atheist, eh?
grodrigues,
Seems I replied to a phantom comment.
ingx24,
It appears that you are not concerned so much about suppression of constitutional rights as about science winning out over religious teaching and dogma. You cling to your cherished views about the essence of humanity found in the immaterial mind, and fear that as science chips away at these beliefs, that essence will be lost. But don't fear. That essence won't be lost, because science doesn't take anything away from humanity. It adds to our knowledge and our understanding of how things really are. All that can be lost to science is ignorance and superstition.
im-skeptical,
Remember, you seem to define "material" in a different way than most people do. Under your definition of "material", both me and Victor Reppert (and probably 99% of humanity) would be materialists, since we agree that the mind is located in space.
What I deny is that thoughts and emotions are either identical to electrochemical reactions in the brain or algorithmic abstractions instantiated by said electrochemical reactions. The mind is not "actually something else", and cannot be if any rational inquiry is to take place at all. My awareness of my own mind trumps whatever scientistic "proofs" you have that it's not real.
Hal,
Where did you get the idea that I only think there are two stances on the mind-body problem?
"Remember, you seem to define "material" in a different way than most people do."
I don't think I do, but I must have given you that impression when I said physical things exist in space-time. I have maintained all along that mind has no immaterial component. Mind is simply the activity of the brain.
But that's all beside the point of this discussion. Whatever we learn from science, it gets us closer to a true understanding of things. If it turns out that mind is determined by science to be purely physical, it doesn't change anything about who you are. You aren't dehumanized. You've only gained knowledge about yourself. You haven't lost anything except perhaps for a mistaken belief.
VR: "I have said consistently that the direct inference from "X was done in the name of religion X" to "Religion X is bad" is faulty, and that applies to atheism as well.
... At this point, you've fallen into the abyss, and it is a very similar abyss to the one that the Inquisitors fell into. New Atheists seem to have taken the first step in the wrong direction, but they don't have the political power to do the real damage. Not yet."
Somehow, inexplicably, every time the atheists-who-reject-Judeo-Christianity get their hands near the levers of state power, millions of innocent human beings end up dead. It's a great mystery. It's almost enough to make a man wonder whether there is something about God-denial that *must* lead to windrows of corpses.
@im-skeptical:
"Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? It makes not a single mention of atheism. It expresses no theistic or atheistic beliefs at all. It is strictly a political document. Religion is seen as a tool of the bourgeoisie. It speaks of communism abolishing religion, and thereby takes its place."
Yes. My fathers were intimate with the some of the local luminaries of the extreme left -- and when I speak of extreme left, I do not mean the piffle of a left that you have in the United States (I assume you, as well as most of the auience lives in the States), but the real deal: the splinter Maoist and Trotskyite groups from the USSR-backed communist parties. In my adolescent home there were shelves with literally thousands of pamphlets and little booklets fresh from the clandestine presses detailing the controversies, the in-fighting and the squabbles, the materialist atheist philosophy, the whole shebang. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
But I get you: religion is the source of all evil while atheism is the path to Enlightenment and the Salvation of mankind; communist regimes were evil, ergo, communist regimes were at bottom disguised theocracies. Crystal clear.
note: blogger eats my posts on a regular basis. Must have its reasons (no, I am not going to shout "censorship").
"I find your dualism and im-skeptical's materialsim to be deeply incoherent."
I am confused by both of you. I agree that it makes no sense that the immaterial mind of dualism could be located in space. I also think it makes no sense to say that you are a physicalist but the mind exists outside of space.
The definition from Wikipedia says: "Physicalism is a philosophical theory holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things." That seems to be consistent with my own belief.
The problem is that the mind and brain are so different that their properties are irreconcilable. The activity of the brain consists of electrical impulses and chemical reactions between cells, which link causally to produce behavior in the organism. None of that seems to have anything to do with thoughts, emotions, or anything mental - you could observe brain activity and still have no clue what that person was thinking or feeling without knowing how to correlate brain activity with mental activity. So for mind and brain to be identical, one of three things must be true:
1. Mind and brain are two aspects of one substance - brain activity has an electrochemical component and a mental component, neither of which are less real and the latter of which is not revealed in neuroscientific observation (property dualism)
2. The brain is actually the mind - mental phenomena are what matter is really like "on the inside", with the outside just being an appearance (Russellian monism or "panprotopsychism")
3. The mind is actually the brain - presented in two possible ways: Either mental phenomena are not really "real" per se, and what is actually there is just electrochemical reactions in our brains that we mistakenly call thoughts, emotions, etc.; or mental concepts are actually functional roles played in producing behavior, which in our case are filled by electrochemical reactions in our brains (materialist identity theory or functionalism)
The third option is what most contemporary philosophers opt for, and that is what I argue against. The former two options show some promise, but in the end I don't think they work.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy:
"Physicalism is sometimes known as ‘materialism’; indeed, on one strand to contemporary usage, the terms ‘physicalism’ and ‘materialism’ are interchangeable. But the two terms have very different histories."
Hal,
Maybe I should have been more clear. I do not deny that the mind is located in space, in the way that Descartes did. If the mind needs to be spatially located in order to make mind-brain interaction intelligible, then I have no problem with that. My understanding is that part of what made the interaction problem such an issue was that Descartes claimed that the mind interacted with the brain despite not being located anywhere in space.
Also, Hal: What is your position on the mind-body problem? I honestly can't tell.
Perhaps Hal and I are not far apart. I do not think that the mind is some kind of substance or some kind of object. I do not think that the mind is identical to the brain. I think that the mind is what the brain does. Mind is an activity, like breathing. When the brain stops functioning, its activity ceases also, and so there is no mind.
But what the brain does seems to have nothing to do with thinking at all - all that's going on in the brain is that light waves, sound waves, etc. come in through the sensory organs and cause electricity to reach the brain, and then electrochemical reactions happen in the brain that end in electrical signals being sent to the rest of the body to produce certain behaviors. Can't this all be done without a single conscious thought, feeling, or experience?
"Can't this all be done without a single conscious thought, feeling, or experience?"
You have strange notions. Who says a physical brain can't have consciousness? We DO have consciousness. And it happens without anything other than the brain doing what it does. You just can't get past the idea that it results from electro-chemical activity in the brain. Yes, that physical brain activity in the brain produces what we call phenomenal experience, or conscious experience. To think conscious experience is somehow separate from the brain seems strange to me. It's like saying running has some kind of existence apart from the runner.
Hal,
Hacker's article on mind is the most sensible one I've read. I find myself in agreement with everything that article says. I suspect that we are both on the same page, but I may have stated things in a way that didn't properly convey my belief. In particular, ingx24 has the wrong understanding of my concept of materialism - that it would include something like his dualistic notion of mind, which I adamantly reject. As far as I can tell, my notion of materialism is identical to your own physicalism.
Hal and im-skeptical,
Does that make you two behaviorists?
I read a good portion of it (I admit I had a hard time understanding a lot of it, hence me not reading it in its entirety), and it sounds remarkably similar to Gilbert Ryle's arguments for behaviorism and against dualism from 1949. As does your idea of "the mind is not a thing, but an action".
Post a Comment