The other day I posted a piece on how no one can say for certain that there is no God without stepping into the arena of faith. Some commentators pointed out that an Atheist can be uncertain on whether there is a God or not, but can believe that there is no sufficient evidence for God (until proven elsewise). I did some digging into this, and it seems that both the posters and I (who felt that Atheists were those who were certain there is no God) are both correct in that there are a few varieties of the belief system out there.
The commentators on that post were respectful and represent the softer wing of the group, however many of us on the information super highway, or involved with churches have witnessed a louder, more militant variety of Atheism; a group that goes so far as to accuse anyone involved in religious organizations as being stupid, devolved or abusive. These are fighting words to say the least. So the question to me now becomes, where do the militant atheists stand in light of the Thomas Aquinas reasoning with regards to the origins of existence? I have heard quite often from individuals who espouse absolute certainty that there is no God that they have figured out the puzzle and are frustrated that others have not seen the light that they have. If there are any takers, I’m sincerely interested to hear the line of reasoning on how the A* of my previous post came about without Divine intervention.
Joe wrote:
I’m not going to use Thomas Aquinus but rather use a simple analogy.
Every morning I get up and the sky in the east has a beautiful pinkish hue. During the day the sky turns a most wonderful blue. In the evening the western sky goes through various shades from pink to orange, red, purple etc. I turn to my friend who was born blind and I try to describe the sights I see.
I listen to Vivaldi’s Four Seasons and enjoy the music as it moves me in recocnition of the four seasons. I turn to my friend who was born deaf and I try to explain it to him.
I encounter and interact with God. He explains His universe to me and grants me the understanding. I turn to my atheist friend and try to explain it to him.
I know that my friends are going to call me crazy but I have to realize it is because they have never experienced what I experienced. I am also confident in my experience so I laugh off their inexperience and continue on trying to get through to my friends.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
philanthropist wrote:
Atheists are as sure of themselves as the most devoutly religious - and it’s called faith.
I hope ‘agnostic’ means that you’re not sure of anything, but don’t care enough to find out from any of these groups. If it doesn’t, then I may be unintentionally declaring something, but then again, I don’t really care….
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 12:17 am | Permalink
Jordan Alcock wrote:
“an Atheist can be uncertain on whether there is a God or not, but can believe that there is no sufficient evidence for God (until proven elsewise). ”
That is how I tend to look at things; although some will call this a form of atheism, I would say this is agnosticism. There seems to be an ambiguous dividing line; those who deny the existence of a higher power, and those who don’t deny it, but also don’t believe in one. As an agnostic, I can’t stand being lumped together with atheists - because, you’re right in your assertion that faith is required to believe that there can be no higher power. Personally, I don’t consider myself capable of making taking a set position on the matter; the lack of evidence on both sides means that making a decision is not reasonable for me. Of course, the militant and disrespectful nature of many atheists also makes it supremely annoying when we’re put in the same grouping as them.
Although faith can be invoked in agnosticism, it is generally faith in ones self or own abilities. Kind of a “master of your own destiny” way of thinking.
“I hope ‘agnostic’ means that you’re not sure of anything, but don’t care enough to find out from any of these groups.”
This is often the case; this is a type of apathetic agnosticism. I think you will find that many agnostics feel this way - religion just doesn’t play a role in our lives… and despite what some might say, most of us are just fine with that(if not better because of it ;).
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 6:33 am | Permalink
C wrote:
It seems to me that you’ve taken a problem that is currently not well understood, and assumed that for want of a better explaination, it must have been God. You may as well claim that the lack of a unified field theory proves that God exists because science doesn’t currently have any better ideas about that particular problem either. furthermore, I think your original argument is flawed, so let’s revisit it, and see what we can make of it. In your previous post you said:
“A* had to exist, because our universe now exists. Therefore, A* had to come from something more than just a simple A**; it had to be created. If it was created then, the creator would be two things:
1) Eternal, since otherwise we’re back to A* again, and
2) powerful enough to call up something out of nothing”
Firstly, I’d take issue with your creator having to be eternal. I can’t see any necessity for the continuing existance of your creator once the act of creation has taken place: its existance simply needs to predate the act of creation. Secondly, the creator is by definition not calling something up out of nothing, as the creator itself seems to already exist in the scenario you’ve outlined.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 9:33 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
C, I am saying that because there is no theory outside of a Creator God (one I believe by faith created the universe) that explains where A* comes from, atheists who put down the admittedly faithful and religious are in fact being hypocritical since they have no explanation themselves.
As for the original arguments, let’s presume for a moment that you are correct in that God could’ve died after creating A*: He still would’ve had to exist for what Christians refer to as eternity past, or going back through negative infinity (regardless of whether the concept of time at that point was different, which incidentally I believe it was) since otherwise God would have to become A* and then it just becomes a cyclical situation where my argument would still apply. Having said that, do we have any evidence that God does not exist today?
As for where the material of creation came from, the subject is just semantics as we have to either assume that God did create something from void demonstrating His power or that He is in his essence so complex that His existence could lead to the massive intricacies of our universe. The question then becomes why such a complex and eternal God could not also wield power as so many faithful believe.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 10:52 am | Permalink
philanthropist wrote:
‘Apathetic Agnostic’ - sounds perfect, thanks Jordan!
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 11:07 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
In the example you cite, “God” is simply a name given to what atheists call “We Don’t Know”.
I can’t explain the mechanism by which matter came into existence and what appears (from OUR perspective) to be a unidirectional flow of time and causality was initiated. I can point to various physical and mathematical models that may someday explain it. I can also point out that over the last hundred years science, NOT religion, has developed a series of models that mirror, with increasing accuracy, what seems to have happened in the early minutes of the universe, that those models have yielded testable predictions, and that those predictions frequently been born out.
Religion, on the other hand, simply says: “It was all created by an omnipotent mystery. We call it God.”
With all respect to the faithful, that’s not an “explanation” at all. It’s simply another way of conceding that you haven’t a clue how it all started.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 11:31 am | Permalink
KC wrote:
Even if atheists can’t disprove the existence of a god, it doesnt follow from that that any of the various “faiths” know anything about that God or what s/he expects of humans.
In other words, there may be a god but anyone who claims to know his will is acting on the basis of no evidence–and claiming that a book is authoritative merely because it claims it is is not evidence. The existence of so many different religions, and the obvious immorality of the various religious texts further convinces me that while the existence or non-existence of god may be fair game the claim that religion generally or a specific religion knows anything of him is flawed at its basic premise.
So to the extent that “militant atheists” demand that religious dogma not influence public policy you can count me among them.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 11:36 am | Permalink
Brian wrote:
I absolutely agree that there are militant athiests out there; however, I would hesitate to refer to their beliefs as ‘faith.’ I would call those people stubborn or ignorant, but the whole point of athism is that they LACK faith.
Furthermore, the position of rational athiests is that you argue the existance of something FIRST. To start talking about how it does NOT exist is a step that comes later.
[ 1) State something is true.
2) Explain reasons for why it is true.
3) The Opposition’s Rebuttal]
So, the first step is stating that God is true. Athiests listen to those reasons and decide they are not influential enough to agree.
Therefore, athiests do not have FAITH in there beliefs. They just don’t agree with the evidence presented. That is why they can say they do not believe in God.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Dalton, it is rather quite a limb you’re going out on to put God into such a box given that Christians (I cannot speak for other religions) claim to have a personal relationship with God and a book that has been a guiding light to every civilization that has either followed its Law or devoted itself to heed the Bible’s warnings; you have over-simplified what God is to us without a reasonable explaination. Plus, let’s not shift the topic to the moments after initial creation since I have focused on the only plausible explanation we have for how we got to that first moment in time — to talk about anything afterwards ignores the initial argument.
KC, you fall victim the line of reasoning that if you personally cannot attest to God’s existence, therefore no one can. While that choice is your liberty, please do not try to impose your views on general society as your premise is quite subjective. Next, regarding moral laws, we’re dealing with a two-way street here; I have argued before that, for example, a ban on “gay marriage” is just as much religious imposition on the state as Catholics believe this will benefit a society for moral reasons, however endorsing such marriage laws is also catering to the United Church beliefs of an exact opposite understanding.
Plus, before we start looking to the moral superiority of characters like Canadian Cynic, if you actually look into Christianity, it is the one faith that explains why some self-professed followers (and in fact, all Christians) are not perfect — and not because of critics like yourself but because the depravity of mankind is a central theme of Christianity and the world. Finally, I again ask, as I always do when someone claims that the Bible is flawed or immoral, for you to cite an example; I trust you to be intellectually honest enough to follow through with this request seeing as that is the standard you set before others in debates…
Brian, I do understand where you are coming from as other commentators on my original post stated something quite similar to your argument (thanks for laying it out again though!). My response though is that we could flip things around and start off 1) with stating that God is not true/existent, in order to arrive at a conclusions that the reasons for the argument are not influential enough and therefore God is true.
Of course, this line of reasoning is faulty as it just proves that we are dealing with a situation where some people do not see enough evidence to convince them either way. Why, therefore, must we work on the basis that God does not exist? Is such a premise a bias in and of itself as it leads to, among other things, policies like removing the 10 Commandments from court houses because they offend Atheists? Should we bother with such actions given that the consistent response that we’ve heard back from here at The Politic over the past few days is that Atheists just aren’t sure that God doesn’t exist? If so, on what grounds given that the 10 Commandments really never hurt anyone and are still seen by even non-Judeo-Christians as good and effective governing principles?
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Matthew:
“You have over-simplified what God is to us without a reasonable explaination.”
Your initial question was: “I’m sincerely interested to hear the line of reasoning on how the A* of my previous post came about without Divine intervention.”
That’s the question I responded to, as requested - the argument that nothing can come of nothing. The question of a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Wiccan’s personal relationships with their respective deities don’t enter into the logic of that argument; in each case, the supernatural entity is used to explain creation. However, simple attribution of agency isn’t an explanation at all.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 1:40 pm | Permalink
C wrote:
Do I have evidence that God does not exist today?
Not in terms of a judeo-christian God, but that doesn’t seem to be what your argument is attempting to prove. As I understand it, the argument you’ve put forward only attempts to prove a creator, and nothing more. As you’ve already acknowleged, the creator may have died since then. The greatest evidence that I can give of a creator not existing today is the absence of anything being created from nothing. To draw an analogy, I have no evidence for Glen Miller’s continued existance — no body, no plane, has ever been found. It is the lack of evidence for his continued existance that is my evidence. Likewise for a creator, or a mechanism of creation.
You say say that “the question becomes why such a complex and eternal God could not also wield power as so many faithful believe”, as you’ve already admitted, your argument does not support the concept of an eternal creator, and it certainly does make any claims as to power aside from from that of creation. Even if we put aside the idea that no other mechanism of creation could exist, that any creator must be some kind of sentient being, (which again, I don’t think your argument demonstrates) to deduct by inferrence that other powers must flow from a creator seems to be simply wishful thinking. To draw another analogy — By all accounts, Stephen Hawking seems to be an exceptionally talented man. Do I therefore conclude that he can beat me in a boxing ring?
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Dalton:
You simplified God as being nothing more than the “we don’t know” response; I simply responded in kind. Moving back to the point though, your explanation also contends with “what seems to have happened in the early minutes of the universe” — that is not explaining where A* came from to be specific.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
KC wrote:
Matthew - Im not saying that no one can attest to God’s existence. Maybe someone can. I’d like them to explain how and to explore whether these experiences could be explained by psychology rather than the supernatural.
I have no interest in “forcing” my non-belief on others–I fully support “freedom of religion” properly defined. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to stand for religious people who want to force their religious morals on me through the power of law; or that I will abide by the general social more that someone’s religious beliefs cant be challenged. I dont refrain from telling you that your political views, tastes in music, etc. are nonsense, why should religion get a pass?
And further to your point I agree that it is a two way street. I am no more comfortable with the religious left (ie imposing wealth redistribution, etc. on the basis of theology) than the religious right. Theology should never serve as the basis and rationale for law. THAT is true freedom of religion.
As for the Bible and immoral stuff. Leviticus is stuffed full of immoral stuff. I also like the Christopher Hitchens argument that the Bible as a whole is immoral because it says that there is a “celestial dictatorship” in his words.
My take on religion is that both the nuts and the good people can find what they need to justify their respective beliefs in their religious texts. The decent people can point to all the talk of love and whatnot while the nuts can point to the fire and brimstone. Neither is “distorting” their faith. Their faiths are internally contradictory and they pick and choose to support their viewpoints.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
C:
First, The Bible actually states what you just noted: God rested from the act of creation on the 7th day. Hence, I offer the Bible as an example of history wherein creation stopped at a point in time but wherein God still lived on, and which demonstrates your idea of a God who died as circumstantial.
As for the power question, again I offer as evidence the very world we find ourselves in which is so complex (eg. DNA) that we have to work off a base assumption that it was created by a complex mind. Put another way, the math we use is getting to be quite sophisticated. The fact though that we’re dealing with a God who lived indefinitely before creation (for your sake I will add “…if nothing else”) demonstrates that we cannot rely on a concept like evolution to explain how our universe got to be the magnificent puzzle that it is to our minds today. It is impossible in my opinion for such an existence to be anything along the lines of a divine accident.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
KC, I’m going to need to ask you to be more specific in regards to the Bible being immoral. I have heard the dictatorship argument before though and if we presume for a moment that God did create us, then He possesses us much like I possess the right to any software or art I create. Our laws reflect this even in acknowledging the rights of parents to control over their offspring until they reach the age of majority, although with God, we would be speaking in terms of the creation of not only an entire species but also the world that said species lives in.
As for our laws, you give the distinction that theology should not govern our laws, however by what reasoning do your personal morals trump my theology? Secular humanism is, by nature, a human construct with only a few hundred years behind it (and one still in the trial stages); if we assume that all religion is false, it too is a human construct making it, at worst, equal to secular humanistic ideals (like equality at all costs, or respecting rights that we have drafted).
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
KC wrote:
Matthew - I dont seek to impose my moral values on you. Liberal secularism allows us each to live our lives in accordance with our own moral values without imposing them on one another. Thats not “imposing morals”. Secularism isn’t about imposing atheism. It is about creating the largest sphere of personal autonomy to each live by our own. You CAN live by your Christian values. No one is going to make you have an abortion or marry a man or anything else. BTW I dont agree with the notion of “equality at any costs” so Im not going to defend it.
As for kids being controlled by their parents–I think it is a fallacy to assume that just because “the way we do things” happens to correspond with religious teachings. I often hear that our laws are based on “Judeo-Christian principles” just because we have some laws that match up with Christian teachings. Kids need to be controlled by their parents not because the bible says so. Kids need to be controlled by their parents because otherwise they would go play in traffic and drink draino. Murder is illegal not because the bible says so but because murder laws are necessary for a peaceful society. Most of the laws based on Judeo-Christian values which have not been repealed stand today because they have separate rationales based on reason and observation. The ones with no real support in reason–ie laws against blasphemy, adultery, etc.–have been repealed.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“Moving back to the point though, your explanation also contends with “what seems to have happened in the early minutes of the universe” — that is not explaining where A* came from to be specific.”
Quite right. But to say “a supernatural being created it by methods and for reasons we don’t understand” doesn’t explain anything either. It’s just putting a name on the incomprehensible.
What created the universe? A creator. See what I mean? We’re not any further ahead.
‘The very world we find ourselves in which is so complex (eg. DNA) that we have to work off a base assumption that it was created by a complex mind…we cannot rely on a concept like evolution to explain how our universe got to be the magnificent puzzle that it is to our minds today”
Not sure what you mean here - you seem to be switching between biological evolution and the creation of the universe.
In terms of creation, yup, it’s a magnificent puzzle. As discussed above, neither science nor religion “explains” it. In terms of evolution, the mathematical models allow quite comfortably for the current level of complexity, and even greater degrees of complexity, so maybe I’m not understanding your point.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
KC, political correctness is secularism’s way of imposing its morality on others. Companies aren’t allowed to conduct hiring practices that the government feels are “discriminatory” or against the company’s founding principles if they come after the fact. Also, what of my kids being taught that being a homosexual is perfectly okay? That also imposes on my job as a parent. Or what of my rights as a father to protect the life I created and now sits in his/her mother’s womb. Too often, secularists see only what they want to see or simply state that their ways are natural ways in my opinion; it strikes of dogmatism, which is apparently what it means to avoid.
I also wanted to examine your last paragraph from another angle. Instead of saying “We say murder causes destruction because the Bible says so”, what if I framed it as “The Bible says murder is bad because it causes destruction”? I think we can all agree with the idea that if sin was defined as a destructive force on society, a society without sin would be far, far better, and perfect if we make EVERY social ill to be a sin. We as humans don’t agree on what constitutes a sin and what doesn’t, however I have yet to run into a circumstance where the Bible in its entirety ever led any society into sin when it was properly followed.
PS - I’m still waiting for those specific examples from the Bible!
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
KC wrote:
Matthew - Well I think I would draw a distinction between between the way in which one exercises control of the means of production is quite different from the way in which someone exercises control over his own body, mind, and more personal possessions. In other words society has much more business saying the way “things” (like companies) are used than people.
If you don’t want your child taught that homosexuality is perfectly OK you are entitled to home school your kids or send them to private school. Its the same type of issue I face if I send my kids out in the world–people will try to teach them morals that may not be my own. Either way I dont think schools typically teach that homosexuality is “OK” (I’d probably rather they avoid that assertion) only that they exist you have to be tolerant (to some extent) of their existence.
As for the child in your wife’s womb–you are free to advance secular arguments (not atheist arguments or religious arguments) as to why abortion is wrong and should be illegal. Unfortunately abortion is one of those very rare issues where SOMEONES morality is being imposed on someone else whether it is prohibited or not.
I dont agree with you that society would be “better” if “sin” was prohibited. In fact I think lots of things that I personally find objectionable–racism, adultery, verbal abuse, being uncharitable, not tipping at restraunts–should be “illegal”. Law should only restrain us from–to borrow from the Lord’s prayer–those actions that tresspass against other individuals and those that demostrably cause harm against society as a whole. The bulk of decisions about right and wrong should be determined by individuals. Following the Bible as a whole may prevent the commission of sin–save for the passages quoted below–but forcing everyone to follow it undoubtably prevents people from doing things that they don’t consider sins. Thus basing law on biblical morality results in bona fide imposition of one morality on others.
Sorry I needed time to look up the exact immoral passages from Leviticus:
“If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.” (Leviticus 20:10).
“If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.” (Leviticus 20:14)
“Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed.” (Leviticus 20:9)
“If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.” (Leviticus 21:9)
“Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.” (Leviticus 24:14-16)
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)
“If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed.” (Leviticus 20:15-16).
Is that enough? Im not trying to say the conduct that God purportedly prohibits here is right or good–only that the penalty of death for them is profoundly immoral.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
KC wrote:
“In fact I think lots of things that I personally find objectionable–racism, adultery, verbal abuse, being uncharitable, not tipping at restraunts–should be “illegal”. ”
Sorry this should say “should not be illegal”.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
KC, forgive me for being so blunt, but you’re making arbitrary rules and arbitrary lines. You would infringe upon the rights of parents, or fathers, or companies if you personally feel the situation merits it (which is your right as a democratic citizen) but where you become hypocritical is in ignoring the reality that such views would impose a moral system on others. Any way you slice it, you’re going to impose rules upon society if you believe that governments should be prohibitive of activities — even if you do so to protect the rights of some, it will be at the expense of the rights of others. Stating then that rules should be prohibited simply because they are theologically linked is not a sufficient argument in my books as it only demonstrates a personal contempt for religion (again, your right as a citizen) and not a sound principle that would benefit society — the only purpose it seems to have is to keep any reminder of Christian reality out of your life, while bombarding mine with secular morality, if not a particular individual. One thing that many people today seem to forget is that the Bible is quite self-explanatory and that the Torah Law as laid out within the second through fifth books of the OT were the foundations of the legal system of the land of Israel. All laws were meant to keep law, order and stability in the land and keep it from entering into the depravity that neighboring peoples indulged in.
Thanks for referring those quotes though. Without looking them up, I found a common theme within them, which was that the criminal act described in each verse could be considered a social crime with the victim being society at large. For example, take your quote from Lev 20:9 — if such a man did such an act, he would hurt both women but also serve as a bad influence for all of his neighbours as well and cause further hurt merely by being present; not all consequences are immediate and some take time to set in and be realized. The only preventative measure aside from true repentance, which a court could never be assured of, would be permanent removal from the community.
What has happened since then is that God has brought His redemptive plan, which He foretold before giving the Law in Genesis, to completion in which the Law demonstrated that no man or woman was capable of obeying the Law 100% of the time, and thus, proving that we are all guilty, sinful creatures. Like Israel, God cannot allow such corrosive behaviour in His kingdom (creation) and will eventually render the death penalty to all offenders of His Law (hell). With Christ covering the sins of all true Christians and the Law demonstrated by God to be something man cannot obey, the sentencing aspect of the law has been delayed by God out of His generosity to all mankind so that all who truly do not wish to disobey His law will come to know Him and be forgiven by Him. It’s for this reason that if you look through these last two atheist posts, there are Christians who post comments on this site which state the nature of Christianity as being a real relationship with God. The moral laws of the Bible are there not to honour God or earn our way to heaven, but as God’s parenting, wherein He provides the divine equivalent of telling us ignorant children not to “go play in traffic and drink draino” because we’ll get hurt!
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 6:02 pm | Permalink
KC wrote:
Thats some pretty nice obfuscation of some pretty black and white language. “Must be killed”, “burnt at the stake”, “stoned to death” dont leave much room for ambiguity. But par for the course of most religious adherents–moderate and extreme–you pick and choose the passages you like and discard those that offend contemporary human decency. Of course that is your right–but in light of the clear and unambigous language I’ll stand by my assertion that the bible is patently immoral. I don’t believe dictatorships are “moral”–celestial or otherwise.
Whatsmore you can save me the theology lesson. As I asserted earlier I regard the Christian faith (and the Islamic fairth for that matter) as flawed at their basic premise. They are only believed because we are socialised in our respective societies to believe they are truth when all we really have to support that is the fact that they SAY they are the truth. There is no objective evidence of the truthfullness of these texts.
As I said before once again you are confusing secularism and atheism. Secularism allows maximum freedom for all moral codes to exist.
You seem to be suggesting that it is “ok” to impose morality on others. Correct me if Im wrong but it seems to me that you are claiming that it would be ok to force your religious morality on me. Of course I dont agree that “imposing morality” is right; but surely if it is ok to impose religious morality it is possible to impose ANY morality. So I guess we wont hear you complaining about the “injustice” when society gets together and decides its going to teach your kid that homosexuality is not only ok but fun because heterosexuality is “immoral”! Or when it decides that it isnt going to allow churches to exist because religion is deemed “immoral”. Or it decides that everyone who already has one kid has to have an abortion because overpopulation is deemed “immoral”. I would never wish that on you so I wouldnt be too quick to rationalize “imposing morality”.
If you dont want someone elses morality on you then I would suggest you take another look at secularism. It allows both you and I to live our lives by our own moral code. In the end of the day its just as easy for me to impose my moral code on you as it is for you to impose yours on me–and given my understanding of the values of modern day Canadians I will win more than you. Secularism protects religious freedom just as much as it protects my right as an atheist to be free of religious rules.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 6:23 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
KC, you’re welcome to believe that I’m cherry picking, but if you look it up, it’s right there in Genesis. Personally, I pity you if you’re so angry at religion that you won’t acknowledge this fact, but as has been said many times before, that’s your right.
As for imposing morality, I think that regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it’s an unavoidable fact. Society is always going to have competing interests/rights and each society will make judgment calls on individual cases. Secularists cheapen the argument though by claiming that they are not moralists as the very premise of secularism is in itself a moral statement that anything should go no matter the context. The difference between you and me I’m finding is that I realize that I’m setting arbitrary rules, all things being equal (which for the record, they are not), whereas you have convinced yourself that psychology and secularism are neutral forces…which, for the record, they are not!
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
KC wrote:
Well obviously I disagree with you that secularism is about the “imposition of morality”. To my ears “imposing morality” involves imposing moral rules on others. Its not “imposing morality” to simply tell someone they can’t “impose morality” on someone else. Morality is not imposed on you by the private conduct of others. It sounds to me that you think morality is being imposed on you as long as you are prohibited from imposing your morality on others.
As for the bible it doesnt matter that Genisis said that Gods redemptive plan would be revealed eventually, it wasnt revealed at the time that Leviticus was written. It really doesnt follow from that that what is written in Leviticus shouldnt be taken for its pretty clear and unequivocal literal meaning.
And if you spent your whole life being told that you had to live your entire life by a book whose origin and truthfullness is highly suspect–merely because the book itself says its true and lots of people in your society have decided to order there own lives around it–you would be angry at religion too. You sound pretty angry at “secularists” and “militant atheists” too.
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 6:51 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
philanthropist wrote: ‘Apathetic Agnostic’ - sounds perfect, thanks Jordan!
I actually prefer the term “disinterested agnostic”. Apathy implies a sort of laziness that doesn’t really describe it for me. I do not think that agnosticism is about laziness, but rather a genuine and active disinterest in the question. And there are many genuine reasons for this disinterest.
Discussions like this tend to confirm my attitude towards both religiocity and irreligiocity, actually, because they are framed in such a way that try to prove a point - the existence or non-existence of a diety.
I think a better way to frame your question, Matthew, is around the concept of militancy. Is that your real issue? For example, imagine that your best friend since birth was an athiest. You played in the park together growing up, went on your first double date together, etc. What do you suppose would happen if the topic of religion came up? Would it be something you both agreed to avoid in order to maintain that friendship? Probably. You both agreed to disagree and enjoy activities together that didn’t involve religion. You would go to church on Sunday, he would do something else. Seeing that you are not a militant, you would probably not stone him for breaking the sabath, or send him unwanted literature. He wouldn’t make jokes about Jesus only hanging out with guys all the time at your dinner table. At Christmas time, you would exchange gifts - the cards would have Santa on it, etc. etc. etc. You would remain friends, and your kids would become friends, and the cycle would continue.
What people on both sides object to is being told they are wrong. Believers don’t like to be told that they are illogical, because they believe in something that cannot be seen. Athiests don’t like being told that they are destroying civilization and incapable of morality without a diety, and that they would get it, if they just give it an honest chance and prayed really hard. Most of these uncomfortable situations are avoided by billion in the world out of common respect. The live, and let live, principle, if you wish.
Militants, on the other hand, seem to get a kick out of the confrontation. Sure, there are differing degrees of militancy. Christians send missionaries, athiests write magazines like Skeptic. Christians stack school boards to get religion taught in science classes, Athiests stack school boards to block Christians from getting religion taught in science classes. Christians claim they are doing what they do because they love mankind and want to protect society, Athiests claim that they are doing what they do becuase they love mankind and want to protect society. Some militant Christians protest funerals, abortion clinics, and hold up signs that say “God hates Fags.” Some athiests fight back by drive around with fish with feet on the back of their cars, actively discourage their children to keep an open mind about religion, and publicly ridicule believers (sorry, but I am having a hard time coming up with something that an athiest would actually hold up a sign for - can anyone help me?). My point is, too many people on both sides get very close to the line - and all it really accomplishes is to piss everyone off.
You asked “where do the militant atheists stand in light of the Thomas Aquinas reasoning with regards to the origins of existence?”
My response is this: why does it matter to you? Your question seems to be loaded, especially given that an athiest doesn’t typically recognize the authority of Aquinas. How you would respond to, say, a retort that used Darwin as a source for framing the question?
So again, ask yourself, is your problem with people believing something you do not (and go back to the example of your best friend who is an athiest), or is your problem with those who use thier beliefs in a militant fashion?
If your answer is that, fundamentally, you don’t like militancy, then perhaps you may want to take a good hard look at the way you frame your questions vis-a-vis different religious beliefs. Afterall, you wouldn’t want to be accused of being a militant yourself, right?
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Matthew, I’m still eagerly waiting for you to expand on the point you raised about the indequacy of evolution to explain the complexity of DNA.
This argument is about twenty years old, and was debunked most prominently by Gould, but in greater detail by a number of other evolutionary biologists. Would you like me to post some links to the models that confirm that the mathematically probale rate of favourable mutation more than adequately accounts for the present level of biological complexity within a Darwinin model, for your critique?
Posted on 17-Mar-08 at 7:23 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Hi, Matthew. You may have mistaken that for a rhetorical question.
It wasn’t.
You have previously stated, and stated again in this thread, that you “feel” the current level of complexity within our biota is beyond what could be expected through the mechanism of evolution.
That is incorrect, and several models provide mathematical evidence that the current level of complexity is well within, and in fact below, the limits established by probability.
I can attempt to summarize those in prose, or I can simply provide you with with the appropriate links, and you can review them and provide your comments.
Which would you prefer?
Posted on 18-Mar-08 at 6:59 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Dalton, you’re welcome to send these links, but they would at best prove that some numbers show that chemical evolution could work within a speculative amount of time. I would probably disagree with you though on the approximate age of the universe, and dispute your stats (I’ve seen other “proofs” for the age of matter before and also subscribe to the belief that while numbers are fun, stats are along with fibs, and campaign promises the three kinds of lies in the world).
Think of where I’m coming from as you being Al Gore, offering me climate change data out the wazoo proving A, B, and C, except that I’ve seen The Great Global Warming Swindle and trust that as being more accurate.
Posted on 18-Mar-08 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
StE, I’m just pointing out my argument that militant atheists in particular don’t have much of a box to stand on when they cast openly religious people as being kooks, delusional and brain-damaged. You’re welcome to dismiss Aquinas but he is respected even in the secular academic field, a place where I first encountered his arguments.
KC, if to Law starts off by God saying that the Laws listed are to be the laws of the land of Israel in a time when there was no earthly monarchy, how does that make the punishments applicable to all nations at all times?
Posted on 18-Mar-08 at 7:44 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
In other words, you are not willing to admit that your own forms of militancy (and those of the militant christian aka the god hates fag sign toters) are just as annoying to others as the athiests are to you.
Another very good argument for the disinterested agnostic, I guess.
Posted on 18-Mar-08 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
KC wrote:
Matthew - Stoning blasphemers and burning prostitutes is “immoral” by my standards whether the perpetrators live in ancient Israel or contemporary Canada. There is really no way around the patently barbaric consequences of these alleged instructions from God.
Posted on 18-Mar-08 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
‘Think of where I’m coming from as you being Al Gore, offering me climate change data out the wazoo proving A, B, and C, except that I’ve seen The Great Global Warming Swindle and trust that as being more accurate.”
Not quite. Gore’s interpretation of some observable phenomena requires both speculation and projection.
However, you seemed to be asserting that the current level of complexity was beyond what could be expected through the mechanism of evolution. That’s a testable mathematical hypothesis - in fact a fairly simple arithmetric calculation - and with the generally accepted assumption of an Earth approximately 4.5 billion years old, you’ve got tons of time to get from there to here with a fair amount of slack.
Now, if you’re going to move outside the realm of science into assumptions like Bishop Berkley’s. we’re talking another language. But at this point, you’re saying, in essence, that you find the prevailing mathematical models unsatisfactory. But why?
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 5:02 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
StE, I’m not talking about annoyance at all; go back and re-read my arguments.
KC, what forms of punishment are acceptable to you? Some people in our society feel that jail or imprisonment is a “barbaric” way of carrying justice, while others still approve of the death penalty, so the one assertion we can make is that mankind is unsure of his standard of barbarism even to this day. The point I’m making again is that the Bible is not one large, 66-book legalistic code with some zen-like wisdom in the Psalms, but an outline of redemptive history. If we need to be redeemed from something (in this case sin), it would only be fair to know what we need to be redeemed from (in our secular courts today, we read the charges in the presence of the accused, right?). You might disagree with the measure of God’s wrath, but quite frankly none of us, not you and not me, are in a place to stand in judgment of Him since none of us has lived a life without telling a lie, hurting another intentionally or committing other various types of sin. We’re all guilty, but if we begin to acknowledge our imperfection, it is the first step to reconciling ourselves and sparing ourselves from a punishment that will be far more wrathful than anything anyone has written down at any time in history.
dalton, you’re already making presumptions that I don’t agree with (I gravely dispute the 4.5 billion year age of the earth) and I know it’s a lost cause to throw numbers at each other based on pretexts that neither of us will agree upon. I will be linking to a video in the next week that, while not perfect, does detail some of my main arguments regarding the age of the Earth and evolution, but in the meantime, I think we’ve covered the issue of A* quite well and will be moving on to a new stage in this topic in the coming days.
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 9:31 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
I certainly look forward to your announcement of new findings on the age of the earth. I guess I must have missed the articles.
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 10:44 am | Permalink
KC wrote:
Matthew - Well I dont really believe in God so I feel that I CAN pass judgment on the morality of the punishment he claims should be handed out. The fact of the matter is regardless of contemporary views on crime and punishment (ie support for the death penalty etc), few or none on THIS continent at least actually think that these “crimes” (if they can be called that”) dont warrant the penalty of death. I stand by my original assertion that burning, and stoning people for non-crimes like adultery and blasphemy are barbaric regardless of the century.
As for redemption I think Gene Roddenberry said it best: “We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” Its a downright silly theory and I would prefer to take my chances (if you call the negligible odds that the Christian Bible actually shows us the way into heaven a “chance”) by refusing to bow to a celestial dictatorship.
Posted on 19-Mar-08 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
ThePolitic.com » The Essence of Christianity: Part 1 - Yes, There ARE Club Rules wrote:
[…] a previous post that I wrote as a preamble for this series, I began to establish the grounds that proved God’s very real […]
Posted on 06-Apr-08 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
pinkunicorn wrote:
All parts of a religion should be rejected, because you can’t just keep part of it alive. Imagine if we magically disappeared all the fundamentalists. Will fundamentalism disappear forever? Of course not; it will reappear quite soon. The so called “moderate believers” are the soil on which fundamentalism grows. Attacking only fundamentalist beliefs would be like trimming weeds instead of uprooting them; they will regrow.
My aim is to eradicate all religion, but as a gay man I have a particular disgust towards the abrahamic faiths - not that religions like Buddhism aren’t free of homophobia, but they have not caused anything akin to the millennial old prosecution of homosexuals the abrahamic faiths have caused.
Do I hate Christianity? Of course I do. In fact, I’m worried about gay men who do not hate religion; it’s a bad sign. I know that my kind of people will never be free as long as religion exists; and therefore, it I try to do whatever I can to wipe off this wickedness off the face of this planet.
The Bible is to gays what Mein Kampf is to Jews.
Posted on 13-Jun-08 at 1:27 pm | Permalink