Jason, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
---In [email protected], <jedi_spock@...> wrote : > > > --- <authfriend@...> wrote : > > > I still think you're painting with too broad a brush when you use the > > > term "society." Some elements of society take the position you describe, > > > but others do not. > > --- <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : > > C: Seems like a reasonable objection. > > > J: And the negative reaction to criticism from atheists has a great deal > > > to do with its hostility quotient. Simple disagreement doesn't tend to > > > provoke the same response as "And you're stupid to believe this." > > C: Since Madalyn O'hair for whom this was true, I haven't seen this > > argument from any of the modern atheists. Which books have you read from > > them? I have seen them say that certain ideas like a 5,000 year old earth > > are stupid, but that is only because it really is. > --- <authfriend@...> wrote : > Indeed. But what does that make the person who believes it? > > Given the barrage of death threats and ad hominem attacks that vocal > > atheist face, I think you might be holding them to a higher standard than > > you are the religious side. Check out some of the debates with religious > > people with Sam Harris. You will see much of his time spent deflecting > > personal attacks during a supposed discussion of ideas. I think you are > > putting the blame for this on the atheist as if they somehow deserve this > > abuse. I have seen numerous debates where this is not the case that the > > atheist started the personal attacks. I have even experienced it here on > > FFL in discussions. Who fires the first shot is perhaps a debatable point > > but in any case being stupid is not an atheist talking point about a god > > belief. It is that it is an idea with poor reasons supporting it. > > Personally I don't believe people who believe in some god are stupid since > > I have met people I consider smarter than I am who do. But whenever I have > > had a discussion with them about it I have found their acknowledgement that > > they have chosen to take a leap of faith and acknowledge that this choice > > is beyond reason. I respect that. > But many if not most atheists don't--they think it's stupid to make a > choice "beyond reason." > > I do not respect people who deny evolutionary science or try to get > > theological perspectives on creation into science curriculums in schools. > > > J:Plus which, some of the most vocal atheists these days are also often > > > quite ignorant about what religious belief entails. Not making the > > > effort to acquaint oneself with what one is criticizing is perceived to > > > be a function of intolerance, and rightly so, IMHO. Rather than > > > facilitating "full open discussion," it tends to slam the door on it. > > > Those who most prominently speak for atheism need to get their act > > > together, as far as I'm concerned (and speaking as a nonreligionist). > > C: One of the problems I learned from our Feser discussions is that > > atheists don't care about obscure ontological arguments about a god since > > it is the epistemological jumps that cause all the problems. > The question is whether the atheists understand the ontological arguments > well enough to dismiss their significance. The arguments are philosophical, > of course, not empirical, which changes the role of epistemology in > evaluating their validity. And Feser repeatedly makes the point that some of > the most important terms and concepts of the Thomist arguments have been > misunderstood by modern theologians and philosophers (e.g., the distinction > between "act" and "potency"). As I pointed out, it is rare to find someone who does not include Aquinas in their classical version of god and this brings in the aspect of agency and interaction of god with the world and particularity with specific communications with mankind through certain books. That is the issue that concerns atheists. > --- <authfriend@...> wrote : > A lot of this and the paragraph that follows depends on what you mean by > "interaction," "communications," "personal agenda," etc.--specifically, the > degree of anthropomorphism involved. The God of classical theism is the > ultimate abstraction. According to Aquinas, describing God in human terms, > like those I just quoted, can never be anything more than analogical. > The distinction between God as a being and God as Beingness Itself is > crucial. It absolutely rules out the "white bearded dude" (as well as the > "one God less" attempt at rebuttal). And as I noted, it changes the role of > epistemology. I think, I did mention to you once that the classical theism is basicaly an abstract philosophical position, and the position of most religions are 'personalistic theism'. You didn't agree with me then. This is what classical theism basicaly argues for, 1) The Causalitical argument (first cause principle, prime mover)1, 2) The Teleological argument (the order and design of the universe)2, 3) The Ontological argument (if it is logically possible for God to exist, then God exists)3, 4) The Anthropical argument (the fine-tuned characteristics of nature, making human life possible)4, 5) The Moralistical argument (awareness of right and wrong, the law of balance which rewards or punishes every action)5, The above five arguments raised by classical theism have been successfully refuted not only by scientists, but also by Xeno and Curtis. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other versions of gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ...~ Stephen Roberts "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ... ~ Christopher Hitchens "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." ...~Carl Sagan > > And once that jump has been made, the epistemological difference between > > an abstract spirit god who can still guide the hand of the writers (and > > translators) of the Bible and a fully decked out white bearded dude are > > insignificant. I know religious people make a big fuss about these > > distinctions and it rankles them to see what they think of as a more > > sophisticated version lumped in with versions they feel above > > intellectually. But once communication with a being with a personal agenda > > and ability to communicate that agenda to mankind specifically is claimed, > > these cherished distinctions are all a moot point. The bone of contention > > for atheists revolves around how we could be confident that this human > > claim is true or not. What is the claim based on. Not the imagined details > > of the being itself or himself or herself. The burden of proof is all on > > the man making the claim. Those other detail are all distractions to the > > epistemological issues. None of them improve or even hurt those knowledge > > issues. They are simply irrelevant to the real problem. No atheist I have read would have a problem with the kind of god that has zero interaction with humanity. That is just a speculation with zero consequences to the issues that concern atheists about the influence of the different god beliefs in societies around the world. The other thing religion adds to the human tendency to power grab is to deflect criticism about the ideas they are spreading because it is shielded by the "don't criticize religious ideas directly" ban. Harris agrees with your analysis of the extremists but he places the blame on the moderates for shielding them behind the odd way we treat religious ideas. If they came out and said that this part of the Koran is wrong, or if Christians did this with the Bible we could have a discussion of ideas like we do with everything else in human knowledge. But both of these books are shielded from direct criticism by the idea that they are different from all other human produced literature containing ideas. There are scripture and God's hand was in their production. And the weird thing is that each religion only accepts their own god book as authoritative, not the other guy's. But they still protect the other guy's divine right of non criticism so that people wont challenge the absurd claim they are making about their own god book. Harris is against this collusion of ignorance. If you take out a section of the Bible that advocates slavery and say, this is stupid and wrong you will be accused of being religiously intolerant rather than just pointing out a stupid and wrong idea some man wrote. This is the battle Harris is picking, not the ultimate cynicism about the leader's motivations.
