scigirl

Heh, didn't CS lewis accept evolution?

Oh and I fixed the title of the thread to reflect the true spelling of Vanderzyden (just noticed it was spelled wrong! )

scigirl (who has an easy to spell name both here and in real life!)

Philosoft

Oh, stop.

<strong> Either that or I was attempting to show the absurdity of your position.

<strong> Would that be the one where I make a philosophic argument that you are presently trying desperately to avoid?

<strong> Yep, a clear case of point-avoidance. You should see a specialist for this.

{snip C.S. Lewis quote that I will freely admit I haven't the first clue what he's talking about}

Lee Strobel is another alledged 'former atheist' I've read. I can say without reservation that he was intellectually dishonest. He was likely one of those "atheists" who was "angry at God" or something. I'd bet Lewis had a similar attitude when he was "atheist." You would do well to read carefully what actual atheists say, rather than quote long-dead "former atheists."

lpetrich

Which could simply be a side effect of having a bigger brain for our body size, because apes also have these capabilities, though to lesser degree. Chimps can perform "insight learning", which means that they can pause for a while and then implement solutions, like stacking crates to get to out-of-reach bananas. What must a chimp be doing in that pause? The most reasonable explanation is developing the solution in its mind, that is, using reason.

And are reason and language due to possession of some special mind-stuff?

So we came from rocks?

Because that conclusion is unjustified. For a more reasonable view, see <a href="http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/early_animal_evolution.htm" target="_blank">Early Animal Evolution</a> The base of the Cambrian was not a point of all-at-once appearance but a point in the middle of some early animal evolution.

Also, what connection does that have to human evolution?

lpetrich

Vanderzyden, why does that question bother you so much? I suggest that you read what the Buddha had said about speculating about the origin of the Universe. He compared it to being shot with an arrow and wanting answers to lots and lots of questions about the origin of that arrow before pulling it out.

Vanderzyden

Well, I do try to be careful. Thanks for the reminder.

You know, Philo, my experience with atheists/agnostics has been that, despite claims to the contrary, their anger is manifest in their denial. The anger is the practical equivalent of denial. The bitterness that usually accompanies their responses is the strongest indicator.

I have many of the works of Lewis, in which I don't find indications that he was angry. He was a literary genius and a philospher. As he writes in the quotation above, it was a philosophical objection to God. He had made God in his own image: an idol, if you will.

As for Strobel, I have read "The Case for Christ". Tell me what tips you off that he was perhaps merely angry at God.

Vanderzyden

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

ChrisJGQ

What I don't understand is why it matters. Is it supposed to be a deeply shocking and meaningful revelation that atheists sometimes convert to theism? Is the quotation's value purely in it's content, or does it somehow matter that the writer in question used to be an atheist?

If I pulled out a quote by a random xian turned atheist, would it serve to disprove christianity? Or would it not matter in the slightest? (Or, could it be he wasn't a 'true christian'?)

HRG

Vanderzyden asked:

"Tell me, how does science answer this question:
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?"

Answering meaningless questions is idle speculation or a play on words.

The above question is only meaningful if one assumes a certain default state for reality: to with, that there isn't anything which exists. Only under that assumption would there have to be a reason for something to exist: only deviations from the default state need to be explained *).

OTOH, if the default state for reality is that something exists, the question is best answered with "Why shouldn't something exist" ?

The discovery of quantum field theory that the physical "nothing" (the QFT vacuum) is nevertheless quite active is an indication that the second default state is more reasonable: existence is primary, and lack of anything existing would need an explanation.

regards,
HRG.

*) See Sherlock Holmes' case about the dog that didn't bark in the night:

If dogs by default are quiet when meeting people, then their barking needs to be explained.

If dogs by default bark when meeting people, their silence needs to be explained.

scigirl

My 2 cents. . .

I've read some of CS Lewis and Les Strobel.

The former, IMHO, is an excellent writer of science fiction and fantasy (I was halfway through the Space trilogy when the person who owned the books moved away and I never finished it ). Lewis's philosophical works aren't necessarily as great as Ari or Plato, but they were easy to read so I liked them. If he said he used to be an atheist, I believe him.

He said in Mere Christianity something which profoundly affected me, and I still remember that quote today at least in paraphrase. Lewis wrote something like, "The Nazis perhaps treated the Jews badly because they hated them, but then they hated them more because they were treating them badly, and so a vicious cycle of evil was maintained."

Les Strobel on the other hand. . . used to be a reporter. He is not a classic writer in any sense, so I'm sad to see him being compared to CS Lewis. I read The Case for Christ, and ironically it helped my deconversion! For instance, this was the first time I found out that certain books were intentionally left out of the Bible because they didn't fit with the "story" of Jesus that the Church wanted to tell!

Check out one of the criteria the Church used to organize the Bible:
Talk about circular reasoning! Christians base their religion on the bible, but early christians based the bible on their already-established religion. And this book is supposed to SUPPORT Christianity? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

In my opinion, Mere Christianity was extremely sincere (although slightly flawed), but The Case For Christ was so contrived that it nearly made me want to vomit at times.

scigirl

Edited because I mis-spelled "the" twice!

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Classical Big Bang theory -- Hubble's red shift, background radiation

Empty space -- The mass density of the universe is very low. There is much more empty space (i.e. nothing) between objects in the universe, than the collective volume of the objects it contains. Incidentally QFT vacuum theory applies to particle physics

Yourself -- Your mind, as distince from your brain, formerly did not exist. Its default state was indeed nothing.

One more thing. Perhaps you are you familiar with the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either had (a) cause or (b) did not have a caused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

You concern is with #1, (b). By proposing that the default state is that something exists, you are presupposing that the universe had no beginning.

But, infinity is an abstract concept. Nothing physical can be infinite. There cannot be an infinite series of events. And yet, a series of events with no beginning is infinite. As such, an infinite series of events impossible. So, we may declare that the universe had a beginning.

Lest we get too far afield, I leave the second premise and the conclusion for your enjoyment.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Hello scigirl,

Indeed, I wouldn't compare Strobel to Lewis. But I am surprised at your reaction, both to Strobel and to the process of compiling what is now known as the New Testament.

Do you think Strobel contrived his book? What makes you think that he intentionally fabricated anything? Furthermore, what do you think he unintentionally overlooked?

Generally, the book reads like this: Strobel finds his wife's conversion to be fantastical. But then, her life is marked by radical, positive change. So, he begins to investigate. His search eventually leads him to understand the basis for the truth claims of the gospel accounts. In the process, he interviews prominent Christian scholars for definitive explanations of "technical" aspects. He frames the book beneath an examination of twelve types of evidence. Along the way, he is convinced. Look closely, and you'll should realize that he is simply the messenger, repeating what he is told and what he discovers.

I have a different page numbers than you, so I'm not sure from which chapter you take the quotation. On what authority is he making the statement (who is the interviewee?, what is the context?)? No doubt, he is discussing the formation of the canon of the New Testament. Ye, somewhere the line had to be drawn. That line was what distinguished the obscure/ unsupportive/embellished from the simple verifiable documentary evidence that was available in abundance. Some entire books were set aside, and these became known as the apochrypa. For example, some of the apochrypa are considered outrageous, like the Gospel of Thomas, because they contain blantant theological embellishments. But I can see that this is going too far astray from suitable content for this forum. Perhaps we can discuss this in the Biblical Criticism forum.

Vanderzyden