Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Answering the New Atheism by Scot Hahn

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why am I not surprised, McGrath has turned misunderstanding Dawkins into a career choice ...

    Rather ironic since Dawkins has turned misunderstanding theology, philosophy and Christianity into a career choice.

    McGrath, of course, has the advantage over Dawkins in that he understands history, philosophy and theology as well as understanding science.


  • Options
    #33
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Ok, so if that is the case, if scientists using the latest medical technology can't determine what happened to your brother then how do you know God cured your brother?

    my faith in him tells me he cured him, I put my faith into the evidence of the things heard and seen, when people went into the water baths of lourdes they came out cured, scientists examined the water but couldnt find anything that caused a cure, thats because the cure is in the faith not the water. if you read into the story of Lourdes you'll know why.
    It is a bit silly to claim that science can't explain this but you can by simply abandoning any form of standards and just making up an explanation that you find pleasing, with no way of testing or verifying if that explanation is in anyway actually the correct or accurate one.

    my faith is based on the evidence of what was heard and seen, read the story of lourdes to find out more.
    Science could do that as well, but it doesn't because it is more concerned about being accurate than simply having an answer, any answer, to present to people.

    its concerned with being accurate yet has never been able to give us an accurate answer to these miracles attributed to God.


  • Options
    #34
    PoleStar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 774 ✭✭✭PoleStar


    Hiya!

    Right I confess I havent looked at this interview yet but I see a comment that many atheists have not looked at this kinda stuff or these kind of books that reply to Dawkin's God Delusion.

    I am an atheist.

    Have a read of Dawkin's Angel, it is supposed to be a swift and damning riposte to Dawkins book. As people at here implied, the religious seem to believe that by sticking words such as "evidence", "philosphy" and logic in amongst religious rhetoric that it turns the arguments into genuine logical scientific arguments.

    I suggest a read of Dawkin's Angel. It is a whole book of circular logic which if you study correctly comes up with no conclusion as to why Dawkins is wrong.

    Apologies if I have slightly gone off topic!


  • Options
    #35
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    my faith in him tells me he cured him, I put my faith into the evidence of the things heard and seen, when people went into the water baths of lourdes they came out cured, scientists examined the water but couldnt find anything that caused a cure, thats because the cure is in the faith not the water. if you read into the story of Lourdes you'll know why.
    That sounds to me an awful lot like the placebo effect. People swear by homoeopathy for the same reason. All they're do is drinking water and eating sugar tablets but it can have an effect. Show me someone who stepped into the bath with one arm and walked out with two and I'll be convinced.


  • Options
    #36
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    No actually that's not what you said at all. You simply said that the fact that I cannot prove your specific god doesn't exist means that not believing in him is infantile. Now you're changing to saying that there is a lot of evidence that I choose to ignore. Well Stephen I think it's you who's ignoring evidence. You look at a few good things that happened that seemed unlikely and say that's evidence for god but I look at all events and I see that good things and bad things happen with exactly the frequency that would be expected by probability. The universe appears to be completely indifferent to our existence. You look at one person getting cured at Lourdes, I look at the millions who didn't and ask why. And the answer that makes the most sense by a country mile is that god's hand is involved in neither the good nor the bad. It's the "sh!t happens" theory.

    because if God cured everyone and revealed himself to everyone in the whole world he would compel us against our own free will, therefore he gives us just enough light to get to him.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No actually he didn't, though I take it that this miss-quote means you are getting your version of the God Delusion from what Christian bloggers say it is (that line has been quoted incorrectly on a ton of blogs).

    Really? I googled those words (in quotation marks) and not a single result came up that used leaders instead of readers.

    Can you link to one of these blogs?


  • Options
    #38
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    because if God cured everyone and revealed himself to everyone in the whole world he would compel us against our own free will, therefore he gives us just enough light to get to him.

    But god does reveal himself to some people. Does that not effect their free will?

    Also, I could not walk on the surface of the sun if I wanted. Does that not effect my free will?


    Also, a being that allows horrendous suffering to befall billions through no fault of their own lest he reveal his own existence but arbitrarily decides to help certain people, even people who have themselves carried out horrendous acts of cruelty, isn't really a being that I want to have anything to do with tbh


  • Options
    #39
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    your disbelief in God remains with the beleif you have in your own ignorance that there is not a God a beleif that requires faith because you have no evidence to prove there is no God.

    I know you don't get this concept, and that you won't after reading this post either but........I have no evidence to prove there is no Shiva, or teapot in orbit around the sun, or Yeti, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, or wizard with the power to turn grass into gold living somewhere near the north pole.......so should I give all these things, along with God, an equal chance of existing or not existing because I can't definitevly prove they don't exist?


  • Options
    #40
    PoleStar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 774 ✭✭✭PoleStar


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    because if God cured everyone and revealed himself to everyone in the whole world he would compel us against our own free will, therefore he gives us just enough light to get to him.

    I hear ya but yet you aint making sense.

    So what you are saying is he only give a little information so many have to doubt him and the only way is to take other people's word for it that he is the lord.

    I dont buy that one bit, but I guess that's faith.

    As for the healings, what I find strange is that a tiny a mount of people actually claim to have been "healed by faith. People seem to forget who has done most of the healing: humans, not god, humans! Through improved sanitation and development of modern medicine and the hard work of doctors, nurses, physio's and other allied health professionals who do it for a job. Yet yet one person gets cured of their illness (and yes as pointed out, its NEVER something easily provable like a limb growing back etc) and they say "I have faith" then its a miracle!

    Oh wait, I forgot, "god is working through the doctors and nurses etc"


  • Options
    #41
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That sounds to me an awful lot like the placebo effect. People swear by homoeopathy for the same reason. All they're do is drinking water and eating sugar tablets but it can have an effect. Show me someone who stepped into the bath with one arm and walked out with two and I'll be convinced.

    Your response is similiar to the religious pharisees at the foot of the cross who said if you are the Son of God save yourself and they WERE religious people NOT atheists. therefore there is a more sinister influence around us, but of course you'll need faith for that.

    this resonates the question the devil put to him earliar in scriptures when tempted by him in the desert, he said if you are the Son of God throw yourself down from this mountain.

    go and study these cures and scientists studies of them, and you'll see the thousands who were cured of all diseases over the years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Really? I googled those words (in quotation marks) and not a single result came up that used leaders instead of readers.

    Can you link to one of these blogs?

    I'll do better than that, I'll teach you how to use Google properly (a skill that will see you right for years and years)

    If you want to search for the exact phrase you entered put double quotes around it, not single quotes

    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22If+this+book+works+as+I+intend,+religious+leaders+who+open+it+will+be+atheists+when+they+put+it+down.%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=


  • Options
    #43
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But god does reveal himself to some people. Does that not effect their free will?

    Also, I could not walk on the surface of the sun if I wanted. Does that not effect my free will?


    Also, a being that allows horrendous suffering to befall billions through no fault of their own lest he reveal his own existence but arbitrarily decides to help certain people, even people who have themselves carried out horrendous acts of cruelty, isn't really a being that I want to have anything to do with tbh

    it does not effect their free will because beleive it or not they have they still have the free will to accept him or reject him, which makes me come to a rather good conclusion, even if God were to show himself, people who are so conditioned in society that they would say it wasnt him and still reject his existence to his face, why? because they have been given free will. they'd come up with all the theories in the world, its all in me head, its something to do with my dna :rolleyes:

    therefore Christianitys job is not to convince you, you simply listen to what God has to say and what he has shown us, or you simply reject it, this is known as free will.


  • Options
    #44
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    Your response is similiar to the religious pharisees at the foot of the cross who said if you are the Son of God save yourself and they werent even religious people. therefore there is a more sinister influence around us, but of course you'll need faith for that.

    this resonates the question the devil put to him earliar in scriptures when tempted by him in the desert, he said if you are the Son of God throw yourself down from this mountain.

    go and study these cures and scientists studies of them, and you'll see the thousands who were cured of all diseases over the years.

    I'm sure I will see thousands who were cured of diseases in ways for which we have no explanation but that means nothing more than we have no explanation. "I don't know so it must be god" is bad reasoning. Always.

    And even if I was to accept that there was a supernatural influence in these cures, why should I believe that the hand involved was that of a Jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago and not that of any of the other thousands of gods, goddesses, demi gods, pixies, fairies and spooks that have been said to exist throughout the years?


  • Options
    #45
    PoleStar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 774 ✭✭✭PoleStar


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    go and study these cures and scientists studies of them, and you'll see the thousands who were cured of all diseases over the years.

    Are you suggesting that all those who have been cured of an illness for which no reason can be found have been cured by god?

    I guess this will go the same way as many other "miracles" of human knowledge such as the earth is orbited by the sun moon and stars. As human knowledge advances (not religious knowledge), the amount of spontaneous cures that are thus attributed to god and faith will diminish as we learn of explanations such as our own innate immune response (some humans for example will mount an immune response to antigens on their own cancer cells and be cured without treatment).

    Or could the argument be even more confusing. What happens if an atheist undergoes spontaneous resolution of disease, was it god who cured him? What if a pagan is cured, did mother earth heal them? What about Muslims, has Allah healed them?

    And dont say that "they are all talkin about the same god in different ways", that is simply not the case, in fact the ten commandments are very clear on that and thus I cant see why the "true god" would heal those who believe in false gods because it states clearly in the various different religious books that they are going to hell for an eternal barbecue!


  • Options
    #46
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    it does not effect their free will because beleive it or not they have they still have the free will to accept him or reject him, which makes me come to a rather good conclusion, even if God were to show himself, people who are so conditioned in society that they would say it wasnt him and still reject his existence to his face, why? because they have been given free will. they'd come up with all the theories in the world, its all in me head, its something to do with my dna :rolleyes:

    therefore Christianitys job is not to convince you, you simply listen to what God has to say and what he has shown us, or you simply reject it, this is known as free will.
    So then why doesn't he reveal himself and cure everyone, since you now say we'd still have free will if he did? You're contradicting yourself


  • Options
    #47
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    my faith in him tells me he cured him, I put my faith into the evidence of the things heard and seen, when people went into the water baths of lourdes they came out cured, scientists examined the water but couldnt find anything that caused a cure, thats because the cure is in the faith not the water. if you read into the story of Lourdes you'll know why.

    So you simply picked an answer. And then complained about science not having an answer because they weren't prepared to simply make one up.

    Brilliant :rolleyes:
    Stephentlig wrote: »
    my faith is based on the evidence of what was heard and seen, read the story of lourdes to find out more.

    Evidence that you cannot verify in anyway to any standard, yet complain about science not giving you an answer.

    If anyone, including yourself, were able to actually back up these explanations to any sort of rigorous standard (like science does) then that would be the scientific answer.
    Stephentlig wrote: »
    its concerned with being accurate yet has never been able to give us an accurate answer to these miracles attributed to God.

    That is exactly the point. Science doesn't simply guess at answers and then pick the guess that is the most appealing.

    How you think that is a criticism is beyond me


  • Options
    #48
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'll do better than that, I'll teach you how to use Google properly (a skill that will see you right for years and years)

    If you want to search for the exact phrase you entered put double quotes around it, not single quotes

    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22If+this+book+works+as+I+intend,+religious+leaders+who+open+it+will+be+atheists+when+they+put+it+down.%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

    wow thats weird, because me and PDN are most certainly being honest, his book does not say ''leaders'':confused:


  • Options
    #49
    PoleStar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 774 ✭✭✭PoleStar


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    therefore Christianitys job is not to convince you, you simply listen to what God has to say and what he has shown us, or you simply reject it, this is known as free will.

    This is kinda a mis representation. We do not listen to what god has to say, we listen to people that tell us what god has to say.

    Just because people have been saying it for 2000 years doesnt make it true. For example, people tell us that Scientology is true. Yet most sane people can easily recognise the insanity in it. Perhaps in 2000 years if people are still going on about Scientolgy, should we believe it then?


  • Options
    #50
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So then why doesn't he reveal himself and cure everyone, since you now say we'd still have free will if he did? You're contradicting yourself

    not contradicting, I'm correcting myself and expanding even more on my thoughts and your posts are helping me to do this.


  • Options
    #51
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    PoleStar wrote: »
    This is kinda a mis representation. We do not listen to what god has to say, we listen to people that tell us what god has to say.

    Just because people have been saying it for 2000 years doesnt make it true. For example, people tell us that Scientology is true. Yet most sane people can easily recognise the insanity in it. Perhaps in 2000 years if people are still going on about Scientolgy, should we believe it then?

    God speaks to us through his own ways, through people and in many other cases he does it supernaturally too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So you simply picked an answer. And then complained about science not having an answer because they weren't prepared to simply make one up.

    Brilliant :rolleyes:



    Evidence that you cannot verify in anyway to any standard, yet complain about science not giving you an answer.

    If anyone, including yourself, were able to actually back up these explanations to any sort of rigorous standard (like science does) then that would be the scientific answer.



    That is exactly the point. Science doesn't simply guess at answers and then pick the guess that is the most appealing.

    How you think that is a criticism is beyond me

    but lets say science were able to give me an accurate answer I'd still have to put my faith into their explanation and answer.


  • Options
    #53
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    God speaks to us through his own ways, through people and in many other cases he does it supernaturally too.

    Every religion is full of people who think their particular god or spirit speaks to them.

    Such a claim therefore is utterly pointless, since most likely you are simply wrong or mistaken or deluded. With no way to determine accurately who is or is not talking to god we just end up with people accepting, largely arbitrarily, which religion they choose to believe in or not with none of them having any way to actually assess in any proper fashion if they have picked the correct one.

    If that was the way it worked for every explanation about the world around us we would still be living in caves.

    If only there was some rigorous method, independent to the personal assessment of individuals that could be used to verify the accuracy of claims about the world around us.


  • Options
    #54
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    but lets say science were able to give me an accurate answer I'd still have to put my faith into their explanation and answer.

    Why?


  • Options
    #55
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So then why doesn't he reveal himself and cure everyone, since you now say we'd still have free will if he did? You're contradicting yourself

    Thomas said that unless he saw Jesus he wouldnt beleive, Jesus then appeared, thomas put his fingers into his wounds, but whats suprising is that St.Thomas had the power of free will and could still of refused to believe. ''Blessed are those who do not see yet believe''

    only through faith can we ever know God.


  • Options
    #56
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    not contradicting, I'm correcting myself and expanding even more on my thoughts and your posts are helping me to do this.

    Then please expand. I pointed out that god does not cure billions of people so there is no reason to think that he is involved in the few cases where something happens that current medical science can't explain. You said that he doesn't sure everyone because that would effect our free will. I pointed out that god already does things that effect our free will and you said that even if he revealed himself and cured everyone we'd still have free will and that people still wouldn't believe.

    so the question again: why does god pick a few arbitrary people to cure in ways that can always be explained through simple probability (it's never things like arms regrowing) and let countless billions suffer and die since curing everyone - or not letting them get sick in the first place - would not effect our free will? Why was the 158,356th person in the Lourdes queue worthy but not the previous 158,355?


  • Options
    #57
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Every religion is full of people who think their particular god or spirit speaks to them.

    Such a claim therefore is utterly pointless, since most likely you are simply wrong or mistaken or deluded. With no way to determine accurately who is or is not talking to god we just end up with people accepting, largely arbitrarily, which religion they choose to believe in or not with none of them having any way to actually assess in any proper fashion if they have picked the correct one.

    If that was the way it worked for every explanation about the world around us we would still be living in caves.

    If only there was some rigorous method, independent to the personal assessment of individuals that could be used to verify the accuracy of claims about the world around us.

    of course this is why the Catholic church is prudent to examine the claims of those who say that God speaks to them, the devil is at work too, and causes confusion, so one has to be prudent in ruling all the above possibilitys out and make sure that it is God that is speaking to them. you should read more into that if you wish to find out. its too lengthy of a disscussion for me to expand on.


  • Options
    #58
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Also I think you missed my question before: Even if I was to accept that there was a supernatural influence in these cures, why should I believe that the hand involved was that of a Jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago and not that of any of the other thousands of gods, goddesses, demi gods, pixies, fairies and spooks that have been said to exist throughout the years?


  • Options
    #59
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Then please expand. I pointed out that god does not cure billions of people so there is no reason to think that he is involved in the few cases where something happens that current medical science can't explain. You said that he doesn't sure everyone because that would effect our free will. I pointed out that god already does things that effect our free will and you said that even if he revealed himself and cured everyone we'd still have free will and that people still wouldn't believe.

    so the question again: why does god pick a few arbitrary people to cure in ways that can always be explained through simple probability (it's never things like arms regrowing) and let countless billions suffer and die since curing everyone - or not letting them get sick in the first place - would not effect our free will? Why was the 158,356th person in the Lourdes queue worthy but not the previous 158,355?

    Because to God there is no such thing as dying, therefore his doctrine is not about clinging to the current world, but working out ones salvation here in fear and trembling to be assured of a place in the next.

    I'm reminded of a saying by St.Padre pio, when it was his birthday a fellow monk said ''to padre, may he live to be a hundred'' and padre pio said ''what did I ever do to you?'':pac:


  • Options
    #60
    Kepti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭Kepti


    PDN wrote: »
    Rather ironic since Dawkins has turned misunderstanding theology, philosophy and Christianity into a career choice.

    McGrath, of course, has the advantage over Dawkins in that he understands history, philosophy and theology as well as understanding science.

    Care to back up these bold claims?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also I think you missed my question before: Even if I was to accept that there was a supernatural influence in these cures, why should I believe that the hand involved was that of a Jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago and not that of any of the other thousands of gods, goddesses, demi gods, pixies, fairies and spooks that have been said to exist throughout the years?

    because it was done through his one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement