Riverwind

I don't know. When you understand atheism and agnosticism as well as Peter did, I don't know if you'd come back. If you understand atheism and agnosticism, what reasons would you have for coming back to them if you decide to leave them?

I'm not sure what philosophers you're talking about, but I would say that the existentialists were probably the only ones to really see and understand what Peter is probably seeing now. It sounds like Peter may have taken a Kirkegaardian-like leap of faith (which is not really much of a leap considering that existentialism helps one realize that anything we accept in life we accept by a sort of faith).

Ted Hoffman

I dont know how much Peter knows about atheism but I would be shocked if it were Ted Drange of Richard Carrier converting. If it were Ted Drange, or Richard Dawkins, I would probably start questioning the existence of God myself. But I am only suprised at Peter. That is why a number of us would like to see an explanation. To help us understand.

Riverwind

One other thing I'd like to add...and I hope that Peter is still reading these posts.

After finding and reading through Peter's blog and recent posts to a Christian forum, it seems to me as if there is a significant emotional / mystical element to his conversion. He seems to be going through a sort of honeymoon period with his newly rediscovered Christianity right now in which he is deeply imbibing the wonderful feelings of familiar ritual. However, it is not a matter of if but when those new and wonderful emotional / mystical feelings will subside and he will be left with the cold hard fact that religion is merely an institution and that the people around him are merely fallible humans. Christianity is a choice, and those who follow it must focus more on God and his will for his creations than on themselves and their good feelings.

If he fails to see this, then the honeymoon period will eventually end, perhaps because of a run-in with other fallible human Christians, and he will be left dissolutioned and perhaps crave another divorce from the church and/or from God. Only time and his understanding of his situation and true reasons for his conversion will tell.

No Robots

Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?

spin

Burn?

spin

Not even that is a good enough reason. God by all definitions is beyond all our perceptions, so there is no way that we can perceive said god. Any other means of receiving information cannot be separated from paranoia, so there is no way that one can ever (past, present, or future) have knowledge of god. (And hearsay is not knowledge.)


spin

spin

Why? Hasn't everyone else told him?

Steven Avery

Hi Ted,

Curious ..
When Anthony Flew moved towards a sympathy for a Deist perspective, did you do any questioning ?

Shalom,
Steven

Ted Hoffman

Nope. He is aging and getting rather confused lately. Carrier documents his shifts and uncertainties. Plus I am not as familiar with his work as those of Ted Drange.

post tenebras lux

Did anyone read Peter's blog from Sunday? (here)

To quote the start of the bit where it gets interesting:Personally, I'm not too sure what he's saying - and don't want to be jumped on by any 'pro' or 'anti' - so could someone kindly explain it for a thick-feeling Luxie?