Psycho Economist

Or there's that.

My apologies for implying that you might have been intentionally misleading Keith. Personal revelation as an idiom usually implies being told a secret by a supernatural authority figure.

Sue Sponte

Thanks for the reply, Keith. I think you go to far in suggesting that "atheists as a group can be very arrogant, condescending, and critical", as it is wholly stereotypical. PEOPLE, not merely atheists, can be arrogant. Many Christians are unbelievably arrogant, which does not mean that Christians "as a group" share that characteristic. From a purely anecdotal view, I would add that my experience has been that theists are more indignant of opposing views than atheists simply by definition, as their "faith" demands that they hold certain views. No such impediment arises from atheism.

Expectations for increased scientific knowledge in the future isn't what I understand as Christian "faith", so I beg to differ. "Faith" in Christianity is the acceptance of the Bible as gospel. I also think there is a mistaken undercurrent in your sentiment, namely that "faith" is a concept limited to theists. I have every bit of faith in my children that they will do the right thing, but they are human and fail on occasion. No need to believe in the Bible as inspired for me to have such faith.

It also appears to me, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, that you have chosen to accept Christianity because you believe in a god in order to provide certain answers concerning the universe. To me, it is critical to distinguish between deism (the belief in a supreme being based on the state of things) and theism (the acceptance of human scripture as an accurate accounting of the supreme being). The former is not wholly unreasonable to me, as it is a pure theoretical. But accepting a RELIGION based solely on the belief that a god exists, to me, is a non-sequitor. That things cannot be explained (in your mind, at least) without assuming the existence of a god DOES NOT logically lead to the conclusion that any particular text accurately depicts that god.

The relevance of this issue, for me, is that I admit to having little tolerance for those who which to discuss theology with me based on arguments that presume the Bible is anything other than fiction, as I cannot logically follow the conversation. The concept that the Bible must somehow be an accurate description of the unknown is such a wholly tenuous position that I cannot comfortably engage in conversation which presumes the conclusion as fact.

Keith

Isn't it true that the workings of your mind are electro-chemical processes? On the atheistic assumption, at best, you can only accumulate facts about reality. There is no reason (on your assumption) for you to trust your own interpretation of the facts over mine, or anyone elses's. Your belief that no god exists undermines your ability to dogmatically claim that your interpretation of the facts is more reasonable than mine. On what authority do you claim that the facts say...no gods exist?

If you say your authority is "science" I'll point out that not all scientists are in agreement on the existence of God. So, if you say no gods exist, who's interpretation of the facts should be authoritative? On what basis can you justifiably say that you're right and theists are wrong?

Keith

Keith

The point I was making concerning the arrogant condescending attitude of many atheists toward theists is that if atheism is true then the attitude of the atheists doesn't make any sense. It seems to conflict with their view that humans have (or had) some sort of a survival (as in evolutionary) need for religion and morality. I don't doubt that Christians can sometimes be equally arrogant, but Christian arrogance, though unpleasant and ungodly, doesn't necessarily clash with the basics of Christian beliefs.

Why do you have expectations for increased scientific knowledge in the future? Is this an appeal to the uniformity of nature?

I haven't accepted a religion so much as a trust (faith) in a personal God who is in control of every detail in the universe. By way of the creation, God has shown himself to be intelligent, creative, just, loving, caring, and purposeful.

It is natural and reasonable to think that such a God would communicate with the creatures that he created in his own image. The bible is the way God tells us about himself and what our relationship with him ought to be. Why the bible, and not the Quran, or some other "holy" book? That would be a whole new topic, but suffice it to say that Christianity is not just a historical religion--it is an intellectual religion too. Only the bible can hold up under the most intense scrutiny.

Keith

Philosoft

Um, by looking at the behaviors of those individuals that are better at surviving?

Perhaps, but what does that mean? To an evolutionary psychologist, it means we survive better by thinking in patterns - attempting to understand unfamiliar things in relation to familiar things.

Design and order are as compatible with naturalistic cause as they are with divine cause. The problem with "purpose" is that, taken as a whole, the universe is incomprehensible. If there are only two meta-things, the universe and God, the "purpose" of the universe must be something internal to God and, therefore, fundamentally inaccessible to us.
I won't presume to tell you what you should find offensive, but I see no merit whatsoever in existentially blaming the 400th generation offspring of two individuals for "crimes" committed by said individuals.

Sue Sponte

Keith, you and I apparently do not share the same understanding of atheists.

The "conflict" you note is created by the assumption (likely wrong for most atheists) that atheists believe humans have some "need" for religion or morality. But even assuming this, how is arrogance by a human any more or less offensive from this perspective than arrogance from a Christian? Unless you are judging in terms of scale, I find both equally distateful.

To me, this seems to reflect your view that there is some higher power governing events, as the answer to me is quite apparent. Science has evolved over time, increasingly gaining more knowledge. As a result, it is logical to believe those gains will continue. For example, cars have been built with increasingly greater fuel efficiency. Is the injection of theologic concepts necessary to believe that such trends will continue?

I respect your right to believe this, but do not respect the conclusion as logical. In order for creation to show anything about god, one must presume god created these things. This is, therefore, a non sequitor.

Why??? From the perspective of humans? Is it natural and reasonable to even attempt to understand a supreme being from the human perspective? It is only natural to so believe if in fact one assumes that there is a supreme being AND the supreme being shares human characteristics and desires. That, in my opinion, is inherently homocentric. Why should it be presumed that man is even capable of understanding a greater life form, if one exists?

I have no reason to believe this is true.

John Page

I think its more complex than that and I'm not sure of the relevance of your comment to the debate.
Keith:

Let me play back your reasoning but from my point of view:
"Your belief that god exists undermines your ability to dogmatically claim that your interpretation of the facts is more reasonable than mine. On what authority do you claim that the facts say...gods exist?"

On the basis that both our opinions are unsubstantiated, I suggest you look to the weight of evidence. I think your personal revelation about god is totally subjective and better explained as a mind/belief phenomena than proof of your god's existence as an external agent.

Now, what facts do you have that undermine my disbelief in the existence of god? Once we have some facts on the table we can then debate the reasonableness of their interpretation un dogmatically.

May your god go with you, John

Keith

So you can just note which individuals 'survived better' and then somehow just "know" which of their behaviours helped and which harmed their survival? I'm not so sure things are that simple.

Order, purpose, and design taken together, suggest intelligence and personality. To attribute order, design and purpose to blind chance processes is highly unnatural. We don't necessarily have to know WHY God created the universe to understand that God is obviously creative, purposeful, and personal. On the assumption of atheism, order, design, and purpose need some kind of explanation. How does the atheist account for all this?

Fundamentally inaccessible to us? This would make sense on the assumption of atheism, but the assumption of atheism is not a valid option if one wishes to be rational and coherent. Without God, how is one to decide who's interpretation of the facts (any facts about reality) is most reasonable? Who gets to be the authority?

Keith

Keith

I'm not really saying it's offensive, at least not to me, personally. I'm just observing an inconsistency in what many atheists claim to believe. For atheists who believe that humans evolved a need for religion and morality to facilitate survival, it seems very odd that these atheists would ever mock, put down, or laugh at theistic beliefs. It would be like laughing at some guy for having more than the usual amount of body hair, like Robbin Williams.

Keith

Keith

I think you're saying that obviously there is a certain "uniformity" to nature. We will therefore expect the future to be similar (in certain respects) to the past. If we've observed that science is continuing to uncover more and more knowledge of the world around us, then we can be quite certain that this trend toward increased knowledge will continue.

From the Christian perspective, I can account for this uniformity of nature. I can understand that a purposeful, loving and personal creator will not create a world that is capricious or chance-driven. God would only create a universe that reflects his personal qualities.

Now lets look at this from the atheistic point of view... how does the atheist explain the uniformity of nature? Why should atheists expect that the laws of nature, laws of logic, of physics, etc., should operate in the same way tomorrow as they do today? Why should atheists expect that the future will resemble the past?

Keith