What do make of these arguments?

MonkeyBalls

1. A woman, whose name escapes me at the moment, wrote a book saying
that most atheists are rejecting a fundamentalist conception of God;
there is no tangible evidence for this god, and so He is rejected. But
what about those moments when the sheer overwhelming rush of majestic
subjective experience overcomes you, such as while listening to a
beautiful piece of composition. You cannot reach out and touch that
thing, you cannot neatly delineate it into logical components, and no
one can prove that it exists, but it does, and the only way you know
this is that you feel it, you feel it undeniably right in the
core of your being, ineffable, powerful, fragile, yet real. Same with
a higher intelligence; you cannot reach out and touch it and dissect
it with the cold, blunt callipers of science – which are, of course,
invaluable in deriving truths about how physical things work, but
cannot delve into the more philosophical and meaning-based realm of
theology, the "why" questions – and so He is rejected.


2. Evolution versus God is a false dichotomy. Believing in evolution
doesn't mean that you must give up a belief in God. In fact, just the
opposite: the nucleotide sequences of DNA are the language of God. You
can look under a microscope at the billions of DNA base pairs
elegantly connected within billions of beautiful double helices
operating in a symphonic harmony of unimaginable complexity. And the
blueprint for all of this is embedded in a single living cell.
Trillions of these cells come together to generate life, to generate
creatures capable of morality, poetry, literature, love, compassion,
music, and science. We exist in a universe tweaked with physical laws
that are perfect for the flourishing of life. God breathes life
through the particles, through the molecules, through the cells. He is
everywhere, you just have to open your eyes to see Him.

catbear

Are they arguments?

MonkeyBalls

Yes. Argument doesn't just mean yelling and disagreeing, it also means an attempt to convince you through discussion, evidence, providing a point of view.

Edit: These are arguments for the existence of a deity.

Fanny Cradock

I don't think they are up to much, tbh.

MonkeyBalls

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think they are up to much, tbh.

Fanny, are you an atheist?

Fanny Cradock

I'm a Christian. It's just that I happen to think there are better arguments.

catbear

I would have thought an argument had to have different positions. I've reread them and what I see are two views but what's being put out argument. Neither of the pieces take a stance but seem to merely musings, or "what ifs".

What do make of them Monkey balls?

MonkeyBalls

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm a Christian. It's just that I happen to think there are better arguments.

Cool. Would you mind sharing? I'm interested in this kind of thing.

MonkeyBalls

@catbear, I think they are some of the better arguments put forward for the existence of a deity. For example, I think they're better than anything the Bible or Koran has to say.

catbear

Ah, ok. I still read them as personal views though. I can't argue with them.

hivizman

The second argument seems to be a modern version of the "argument from design": the world, or particular phenomena in the world, are too complex or well-ordered to be the outcome of purely chance processes. Hence, there has to be a "designer", who is equated with God.

The first argument is perhaps a summary of Karen Armstrong's recent book The Case for God (London: Bodley Head, 2009). Karen Armstrong argues that, in pre-modern cultures, there were two main ways of thinking and acquiring knowledge: logos and mythos. These were seen as complementary rather than in conflict. Logos was the practical mode of thought that made it possible for people to live in the world. It was of necessity grounded in external, physical reality. However, "it had its limitations: it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life's struggles. For that, people turned to mythos or myth."

Armstrong points out that myths were not regarded simply as stories but rather were seen as ways of making sense of particular aspects of human existence where logos was inadequate. Importantly, myths were not simply about belief - they were programmes of action. Myths provided rationales for how people should live their lives - in short, they provided meaning. Armstrong claims that religions are not reducible simply to sets of beliefs - they provide guidance on how people should live. It makes no sense, for example, to claim to believe in the teachings of Jesus and hence to be a Christian but at the same time not to live one's life according to those teachings.

Armstrong suggests (The Case of God, p. 7) that emphasising logos at the expense of mythos is a fault of both atheists and fundamentalists:

The defensive piety popularly known as 'fundamentalism' erupted in almost every major faith during the twentieth century. In their desire to produce a wholly rational, scientific faith that abolished mythos in favour of logos, Christian fundamentalists have interpreted scripture with a literalism that is unparalleled in the history of religion. . . . Historically, atheism has rarely been a blanket denial of the sacred per se, but has nearly always rejected a particular conception of the divine. At an early stage of their history, Christians and Muslims were both called 'atheists' by their pagan contemporaries, not because they denied the reality of God but because their conception of divinity was so different that it seemed blasphemous. Atheism is therefore parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes its reverse mirror image.

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have, according to Armstrong, focused their critique on the concept of God developed by fundamentalists, but she claims that this concept of God "frequently misrepresents the tradition it is trying to defend". Armstrong concedes that many of the atheists' criticisms of the consequences of religious belief and the actions of adherents to particular religious faiths are valid, but she concludes: "their analysis is disappointingly shallow, because it is based on such poor theology".

MonkeyBalls

^ Good summary of the book.

georgieporgy

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Cool. Would you mind sharing? I'm interested in this kind of thing.

From what I have read so far, you could be a monkey and you might have balls.

git back to to where you belong.:P

just because we're christians don't mean we're stoopid.

MonkeyBalls

What have you to fear, georgieporgy?

Onesimus

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

What have you to fear, georgieporgy?

Monkey balls, very good post at least the first point ( too tired and lazy to read the second ). Dont mind many people. Science is the study of visible things but no longer becomes science when it seeks to build theorys and talk about the existence of God, then it becomes philosophy. Science just isnt science these days.

Ask Science to stop all the hatred in the world and see what it comes up with. The only answer is the practice of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

Your dealing with intellectuals which is why your lovely arguments are rejected even by Christians who like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Good man, I'll pray a rosary for you, God bless you.

Onesimus

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

Monkey balls, very good post at least the first point ( too tired and lazy to read the second ). Dont mind many people. Science is the study of visible things but no longer becomes science when it seeks to build theorys and talk about the existence of God, then it becomes philosophy. Science just isnt science these days.

Ask Science to stop all the hatred in the world and see what it comes up with. The only answer is the practice of the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

Your dealing with intellectuals which is why your lovely arguments are rejected even by Christians who like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Good man, I'll pray a rosary for you, God bless you.

Onesimus

Yeah, not quite sure that is what he meant :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056148958

georgieporgy

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

What have you to fear, georgieporgy?

I fear psychology students who take themselves seriously.

PDN

I think the basic flaw in all this is the idea that God needs an argument.

God doesn't need any argument. He is there, and He will continue to be there whether we like it or believe it or not. He has extended an offer of merciful salvation to us, and if we choose to reject it then that is our decision and we deal with the consequences.

MonkeyBalls

Onesimus, thank you for the prayer...very kind of you.

PDN wrote: »

I think the basic flaw in all this is the idea that God needs an argument.

God doesn't need any argument. He is there, and He will continue to be there whether we like it or believe it or not. He has extended an offer of merciful salvation to us, and if we choose to reject it then that is our decision and we deal with the consequences.

Hi PDN.

That itself is an argument.

Is it possible, do you think, that you remove God from the reach of reason because reason is dangerous to Him?

PDN

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Hi PDN.

That itself is an argument.

Is it possible, do you think, that you remove God from the reach of reason because reason is dangerous to Him?

No, it isn't an argument.

And you seem to be confused somewhat. Just because something doesn't need an argument doesn't place it beyond the reach of reason.

Theology is reasoning about God, so no, I don't think that is dangerous at all.

MonkeyBalls

I'm afraid it is, PDN. You have contradicted yourself.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I think the basic flaw in all this is the idea that God needs an argument.

God doesn't need any argument. He is there, and He will continue to be there whether we like it or believe it or not. He has extended an offer of merciful salvation to us, and if we choose to reject it then that is our decision and we deal with the consequences.

I don't think the implication was that God needs an argument. It was that belief that God is real in the first place needs an argument, something I imagine you agree with if you hold that belief in God is rational and based on rational claims.

Though given that salvation requires belief that God exists, and God wants salvation it could I guess be argued taht God needs an argument. If you want to be pedantic :pac:

catbear

Monkeyballs, what's your argument?

Fanny Cradock

Yes, I'm also confused about that.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think the implication was that God needs an argument. It was that belief that God is real in the first place needs an argument, something I imagine you agree with if you hold that belief in God is rational and based on rational claims.

No, I don't think belief in God's existence needs an argument at all.

God is there, and millions of people around the have their various reasons for believing in His existence. In my case it was a combination of personal experiences, and also weighing up the experiences and thoughts of other people.

If someone is genuinely interested in finding God and is willing to seek Him with an open mind then, I believe, they will find Him.

But if someone takes the attitude of, "OK then, try to convince me with an argument!" then I think neither I, nor God, owes them an argument at all.

MonkeyBalls

Once again, PDN, that is an argument - just an extremely poor one.

What you are really saying is "I don't believe God requires a good, thoughtful argument, because it's so obvious He's real. I want to believe He exists, and He exists, and you will find him if you search."

The existence of God is so embedded in your mind that you would find it painful to question it.

Fanny Cradock

MonkeyBalls, what is the point of this thread?

It has already been put to you on a number of occasions that either the arguments you have put forward (and seemingly don't accept yourself) are not convincing to some. Others have suggested that there is little point in even arguing about God - at least to the sole end of arguing someone into belief. Either way, it appears to me that you have an answer.

PDN

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Once again, PDN, that is an argument - just an extremely poor one.

No, it is not an argument. It is a statement that many people find rational reasons for believing in God, but that it is unneccesary to argue for his existence.

What you are really saying is "I don't believe God requires a good, thoughtful argument, because it's so obvious He's real. I want to believe He exists, and He exists, and you will find him if you search."

No, I never said it was obvious that He is real, nor that I want Him to exist. You are free to disagree with what I or anyone else posts, but please don't lie about us by saying "What you are really saying" and then misrepresenting what we just said.

The existence of God is so embedded in your mind that you would find it painful to question it.

As a mind-reader you are a failure.

I used to be an atheist, and only came to faith in God after learning to question the stuff I had been brainwashed with as a child.

MonkeyBalls

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

MonkeyBalls, what is the point of this thread?

It has already been put to you on a number of occasions that either the arguments you have put forward (and seemingly don't accept yourself) are not convincing to some. Others have suggested that there is little point in even arguing about God - at least to the sole end of arguing someone into belief. Either way, it appears to me that you have an answer.

I want to know why the arguments are not particularly convincing and what arguments are therefore better than them. I see no one has answered that yet.

georgieporgy

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I want to know why the arguments are not particularly convincing and what arguments are therefore better than them. I see no one has answered that yet.

Thomas Aquinas did a few hundred years ago.

(Are you a catholic who went to university and lost their Faith?)

MonkeyBalls

georgieporgy wrote: »

Thomas Aquinas did a few hundred years ago.

(Are you a catholic who went to university and lost their Faith?)

Let's hear it. First, what do you find weak about the two arguments?

By the way, it's irrelevant whether I'm an atheist, theist, agnostic, or whatever.

PDN wrote: »

No, it is not an argument. It is a statement that many people find rational reasons for believing in God, but that it is unneccesary to argue for his existence.



No, I never said it was obvious that He is real, nor that I want Him to exist. You are free to disagree with what I or anyone else posts, but please don't lie about us by saying "What you are really saying" and then misrepresenting what we just said.

As a mind-reader you are a failure.

I used to be an atheist, and only came to faith in God after learning to question the stuff I had been brainwashed with as a child.

PDN you sound a little emotional, and you're flailing.
I suggest you go back and re-read the exchange, put your emotions aside, and come back with a polite apology.

Until then, you have discredited yourself as worthy of my attention.

PDN

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I want to know why the arguments are not particularly convincing and what arguments are therefore better than them. I see no one has answered that yet.

Stop trolling. You yourself said the arguments are bollocks.

PDN

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

PDN you sound a little emotional, and you're flailing.
I suggest you go back and re-read the exchange, put your emotions aside, and come back with a polite apology.

Until then, you have discredited yourself as worthy of my attention.

I am not in the slightest bit emotional. But I have pointed out where you were dishonest.

I guess I will have to learn to live with the devastating news that an anonymous troll who goes by the name of MonkeyBalls doesn't think too highly of me. I'm sure, given enough counselling and support, that I will learn to cope with this disaster.

Fanny Cradock

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I suggest you go back and re-read the exchange, put your emotions aside, and come back with a polite apology.

Until then, you have discredited yourself as worthy of my attention.

Methinks your one public warning is up.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I guess I will have to learn to live with the devastating news that an anonymous troll who goes by the name of MonkeyBalls doesn't think too highly of me. I'm sure, given enough counselling and support, that I will learn to cope with this disaster.

There is a gif for that...

hivizman

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I want to know why the arguments are not particularly convincing and what arguments are therefore better than them. I see no one has answered that yet.

In your original post on the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, you stated:

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Maybe later I'll explain why those arguments are bollocks. For now, the essential point is this: this stuff, and other stuff like it, is only a superficial layer of faith wrapped around a deeper core of belief: a throbbing ball of reality-distortion that deflects whatever argument, facts, and reason you throw at it.
The faith monster devours reason in its greedy maws and spits out an indigested, mutated perversion of it.
Theists - though normal in most ways, and cool, intelligent people for the most part -have a gnarled, selective, fractured sense of reality, as any probing discussion with them will show. Facts that jar with their worldview are siphoned off to the sewers where cognitive dissonance gets dumped. Facts like the inherent cruelty of nature, horrific suffering of innocent people, the lack of any karmic balance in the world, deformed babies born with natural pathogens that ravage and destroy them, the incoherency of the notion of a soul when you stop to think about it.

The tension between human reason and religious faith has been around for centuries, and is not unique to Christianity (I recently discussed a similar debate in Islam on the Islam forum). It ultimately depends on whether a person puts divine revelation or human reason first. To someone who gives priority to revelation, acceptance of the existence of God is a fundamental part of his or her worldview. Arguments based on human reason may reinforce or challenge the worldview, but in the final analysis such arguments are irrelevant. On the other hand, to someone who gives priority to human reason, "God" becomes a hypothesis that must be established without recourse to revelation. The only evidence that is admitted is based on human senses or on logic.

Logical arguments such as the argument from design (or argument from complexity), mentioned as number (2) in the original post, don't convince those who give primacy to human reason (see Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker for a rebuttal from this perspective), while they are at best "icing on the cake" for those who give prrimacy to revelation. If you already believe in God, you don't need the classic arguments for God's existence; if you doubt the existence of God, you are unlikely to find the classic arguments persuasive, even if they are considered in good faith.

Seaneh

Fanny, do you have a gif for every occasion?

Fanny Cradock

Seaneh wrote: »

Fanny, do you have a gif for every occasion?

MonkeyBalls

Good post hivizman.
This part interested me:

hivizman wrote: »

It ultimately depends on whether a person puts divine revelation or human reason first. To someone who gives priority to revelation, acceptance of the existence of God is a fundamental part of his or her worldview. Arguments based on human reason may reinforce or challenge the worldview, but in the final analysis such arguments are irrelevant. On the other hand, to someone who gives priority to human reason, "God" becomes a hypothesis that must be established without recourse to revelation.

I like to break ideas into basic, unambiguous language to get at the truth, so I'll simplify that while retaining what it means (this pisses most people off, incidentally):

Are you able or willing to step outside the goldfish bowl of your belief system and look at it from outside, or not? Those who believe in relevation uber alles are not, because it would cause paroxysms of cognitive dissonance.

For this very reason, many theists cling to their worldview and immure its foundations from reason. If you challenge that, they'll flail and shriek ad homs.

Fanny Cradock

It would be great if you actually had a purpose to this thread beyond a what it took you 39 posts to reveal: you telling us how it is.

All I can see here is that you have decided to export whatever notions you have had coddled on the A&A forum. Ultimately I see no substance to your opinion, just bald assertion - with all the pejorative language and smug overtones you can manage - rephrased and repeated from on top of the bump in the ground you have evidently mistaken for a pedestal.

catbear

I think I know what Monkeyballs is asking but I don't think it can be answered by anyone else but themselves, hence the lack of any reference by which a position can be argued leads to mere musings. They're looking for definition for what is essentially an unformed personal understanding. Maybe the ambiguity is just a cover against the fear of there being nothing to believe in?

I think you'll have to scratch a bit harder Monkeyballs!

Fanny Cradock

catbear wrote: »

They're looking for definition for what is essentially an unformed personal understanding. They're looking for definition for what is essentially an unformed personal understanding. Maybe the ambiguity is just a cover against the fear of there being nothing to believe in?

And I assume you say this from your informed position on their thinking?

The amount of pompous generalisation both of you have generated in less than 10 lines is impressive, if not ultimately unwelcome.

This thread is getting closed quick sharp unless something happens that is a little more interesting than atheists assuring us that it's all a load of crap and that believers are tied up in all manner of convoluted mental knots for fear of death or whatever. It's all rather imperious and tedious.

MonkeyBalls

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It would be great if you actually had a purpose to this thread beyond a what it took you 39 posts to reveal: you telling us how it is.

All I can see here is that you have decided to export whatever notions you have had coddled on the A&A forum. Ultimately I see no substance to your opinion, just bald assertion - with all the pejorative language and smug overtones you can manage - rephrased and repeated from on top of the bump in the ground you have evidently mistaken for a pedestal.

I do have a purpose.

It's a test of intellectual honesty.

I asked a question, and nobody has answered it.

I'll repeat it, to save you scrolling back.

What do you think of those arguments - are they good or bad? Do you think there are better arguments - and if so, what are they?

(It's pretty hilarious I must admit that you accuse me of "bald assertion", but say nothing to the person who asserts "God doesn't need an argument")

Fanny Cradock

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I'm not going to reveal it yet.

And we await your intellectual coup de grâce for Christians everywhere. However, I suggest that you hurry up and deliver it soon because this thread is shortly closing for business.

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I asked a question, and nobody has answered it.

I happen to not find your question interesting enough to answer beyond what I said in the 3rd(?) post. As for listing other arguments, I think I'll spare myself the bother given your opinions.

MonkeyBalls

I'll check back later to see if anyone has answered my question. Fanny - if you don't find it interesting (or perhaps it upsets you?), you're free not to answer.

If you're so certain of yourselves, you have nothing to fear.

Fanny Cradock

I'm afraid you have rum out of time.

People have answered your questions. Though I suspect that any answer you received was only as good as its usefulness in springing your most devious "trap". If there was a specific point to this thread beyond you ignoring responses that didn't fit the bill then you should have stated it from the outset or sometime before the 45th post.

So roll on the inevitable accusations that we are all living in fear of your reason. But in the meantime, I suggest you get over yourself.