Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kenny · 08-08-2002, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch:
[QB]Kenny, This is absurd. There is a preponderance of western academics who reject the supernaturalist features of religion, to be sure. But calling this a bias is simply groundless whining, for two utterly obvious reasons.

Okay, calm down. I wasn�t even trying to start an argument here and what I said wasn�t intended to be provocative. By the word �bias,� I simply meant a tendency to dismiss something out of hand or to hold it as something with little initial plausibility. The word �bias� itself makes no mention as to whether or not this tendency is justified.

Quote:

First, virtually every university has a department of religion, theology, or divinity, and sometimes more than one of these. This is hardly consigning religion to the outer darkness.

True enough, but often in these departments religion is studied as a purely social phenomena or reinterpreted in entirely symbolic ways. It�s often not popular to take the specific truth claims of a religion seriously or to say that one religious truth claim may be true and another false.

Quote:

More importantly, the issue is about bias, as opposed to judgement. Most western academics also reject elan vital in biology and phlogiston in chemistry. Does this represent a bias?

Yes, it does represent a bias, and a justified one in my opinion. Bias, in itself, is not necessarily bad (and is, in fact, unavoidable). In the case of theism and Christianity, however, I do not think the bias is justified, but that it is the product of the culture created in modern western academia by the enlightenment. And yes, I am familiar with the philosophical arguments stemming from the enlightenment that have contributed to that culture, but I do not believe those arguments actually hold water. It should not be all that surprising that I don�t think such a bias is justified as I am a Christian who believes that Christianity is both rational and true. Since you are an atheist, it also does not surprise me that you think it is. All I can say is that I do not believe my judgment is an uninformed one. I hold a degree in philosophy and religion (as well as physics); I am familiar with the major atheistic arguments leveled against Christianity (both historic and contemporary); I have read and great deal of atheistic literature, interacted with atheists over the internet and in person; and, all I can say is that I am decidedly unimpressed with the arguments that the atheistic community has to offer. No doubt you could say the same about the Christian community, so I see no point in continuing along such lines.

Quote:

For someone who has seen first-hand on this board the dismal failure of so many attempts to make theism rationally defensible, Kenny's assertion that the tendency of, roughly speaking, smart people to reject religion indicates a bias falls somewhere between sad, maddening, and laughable. Who'd have thought that something could be all three of those?

Well, you must have been monitoring different sections of the board than I have, since I have observed precisely the opposite

. I really didn�t mean to start a firestorm with one little comment, but I do find it interesting that even the slightest hint of a challenge to atheistic intellectual superiority was met with such strong reactions.

Anyway, say whatever else you like. I see no point in continuing along these lines because I could see this degenerating into a flame war rather quickly. I�ll be back in a while to rap up my comments on the OA.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]

08-09-2002, 01:31 PM

Kenny,

Quote:

I plan on a couple more posts to rap up my discussion of the OA, but it may be a while (perhaps even a week or so).

That's cool, I've always been interested in hearing your thoughts. My posting rates have been and will continue in the forseeable future to be erratic as well.

lcb · 08-09-2002, 05:44 PM

call me crazy, but i still think first cause, intelligent design, and the fulfilled israel restoration prophecies, etc etc when all added together form a basis for theism. i understand the logic of agnosticism but not hard atheism.

Philosoft · 08-09-2002, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
call me crazy,

You're crazy.

Quote:

but i still think first cause, intelligent design, and the fulfilled israel restoration prophecies, etc etc when all added together form a basis for theism. i understand the logic of agnosticism but not hard atheism.

I suspect, nay I aver, that you fundamentally misunderstand atheism. I infer that from your use of the term "hard atheism." Please tell what you mean by that term and I will tell you why you're wrong.

"Fulfilled Israel restoration prophecies"??!! You mean the ones that were done with full foreknowledge of the predictions themselves?

lcb · 08-09-2002, 08:18 PM

hard atheist: person who believes they have perfect knowledge that there is no God.

Philosoft · 08-09-2002, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
hard atheist: person who believes they have perfect knowledge that there is no God.

Such people do not exist simply because you make up definitions. Show me.

{edited to add}
Post 666!

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]

tronvillain · 08-09-2002, 10:13 PM

Yes, I am aware of no atheist who fits that description. While I consider myself a strong atheist because I believe that God does not exist, I am not completely certain God that does not exist. Of course, that isn't saying much, since I am not completely certain that leprechauns and faeries do not exist either.

Theli · 08-10-2002, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
hard atheist: person who believes they have perfect knowledge that there is no God.

Is there someone here you got angry at?
Someone you think fits this description.
BTW, what is "perfect knowledge"?

lcb · 08-10-2002, 06:13 PM

toto, is a hard atheist per this definition, self admitted.

Ion · 08-10-2002, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by St. Robert:
Theli,

I'm not calling you a fool. Jesus is, because you are choosing to reject Christ and His call to salvation.

You are not alone. Many intellectuals have and will refuse the love and mercy of Christ.

How do you know this with proofs outside of the Bible?

You don't, and the Bible is just one religion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2002, 05:44 PM	#223
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	call me crazy, but i still think first cause, intelligent design, and the fulfilled israel restoration prophecies, etc etc when all added together form a basis for theism. i understand the logic of agnosticism but not hard atheism.

08-09-2002, 08:18 PM	#225
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	hard atheist: person who believes they have perfect knowledge that there is no God.

08-09-2002, 10:13 PM	#227
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Yes, I am aware of no atheist who fits that description. While I consider myself a strong atheist because I believe that God does not exist, I am not completely certain God that does not exist. Of course, that isn't saying much, since I am not completely certain that leprechauns and faeries do not exist either.

08-10-2002, 06:13 PM	#229
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	toto, is a hard atheist per this definition, self admitted.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.