Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Fanny Cradock · 18-09-2012 11:04pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Which, to an extent, isn't too far from the thinking in that "divine simplicity" view. However, I do find that view somewhat unsatisfactory as a description about a deity, as it really takes you nowhere. If this god is such a completely different yoke that we can't even call him a yoke, how are people suppose to relate to him at all?

Take a statement like "Jesus is God". What can it mean, if God is such a different (what? being/thing/concept) that to apply the word "is" between God and Jesus makes no sense - because this man that you might hope to know, with skin and hair and bone, cannot possibly be anything like the God that he's meant to be telling us about, or leading us to, or whatever.

Divine simplicity isn't a self-contained argument. It an argument that says the Creator is different to that which he created.

If you want to know more about how we can know this God then I there about 1 bazillion resources I know of that attempt to answer this question. I also know a few that try to make sense of the trinity.

Short answer is that God is a person and we can get to know God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. (And here the claim is that person-hood is not simply a function of being human)

18-09-2012 11:06pm

philologos wrote: »

You seem to not understand that atheism isn't just a stand alone idea. It affects a persons entire philosophy, much as Christ affects my whole philosophy. Individuals are not an island, and everyone has a worldview. Those worldviews are built on some underlying source whether that be Christ, something else or atheism. The underlying source affects our thinking in various ways.

For example, moral subjectivity is borne out of a godless attitude to the world. Moral subjectivity is entirely incompatible with Christianity, because Christians believe that God created this world, and as a rightful result of that Creation gave us standards to live by.

The philosophies that are constructed on atheism, lack explanatory power as to the fallen nature of man.

By the by, I'm dealing with worldviews and philosophies. That's all I'm touching on, and the beautiful thing is, everyone has one even if you're an atheist that view has logical implications on how you live your life, and how you think. As an agnostic, I found that my agnosticism affected how I led my life. As a Christian who is trusting step by step in the sovereignty and holiness of God, I'm finding that changes everything.

The crux of the question I find is this: What is your worldview, and under what authority do you believe or subscribe to said worldview?

EDIT: Fanny Craddock explained perfectly my view point on morality. The good or evil behind an action, not the brain processes that bring that about. Psychology can tell me many things, but it doesn't inform what I believe to be right or what I believe to be wrong.

I may have misunderstood your initial post, or at least taken it too simplistically. I was specifically replying to your point, "[...] I do think Christianity provides a much better answer to why do bad things happen to "good" people and so on. Atheism provides no reasonable explanation for this." You can explain why people do bad things (to "good" people) with a naturalistic world-view -- no recourse to morality is required, as psychology is the explanatory power in situations like that; psychology can explain the motivations people have. But when it comes to the good or evil behind an action, then you're right, atheism doesn't inform in an objective, absolute manner. If you're looking for objective absolutes then I can see why Christianity would appeal to you. As Fanny mentioned above, I was having a different conversation with you than the one you were having with me.

nagirrac · 18-09-2012 11:18pm

philologos wrote: »

Your view is about as dogmatic as mine. Let's stop pretending. Atheism is about as dogmatic as Biblical Christianity is. At least I'm willing to accept that Christianity is dogmatic, insofar as it teaches about the state of reality and the universe. It teaches a doctrine, or a thesis about reality. Any philosophy that is built on atheism does the same.

My view is that we simply do not know, how can that be dogmatic? I personally lean towards an intelligence behind the universe but am open to learning otherwise. I have little time for dogmatic religious or dogmatic atheists, a pox on both their houses as by and large it is dogmatic beliefs that have resulted in most of the intolerance in the world.

Ush1 · 18-09-2012 11:32pm

Asking why with an anthrocentric reasoning linked with purpose to anything that was not designed by humans is not a relevent or meaningful question.

It simply doesn't apply.

PDN · 18-09-2012 11:52pm

nagirrac wrote: »

I have little time for dogmatic religious or dogmatic atheists, a pox on both their houses

How intolerant of you.

tommy2bad · 18-09-2012 11:53pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Asking why with an anthrocentric reasoning linked with purpose to anything that was not designed by humans is not a relevent or meaningful question.

It simply doesn't apply.

Doesn't apply if we are consequential to creation but from a Christian perspective we are created in the image of God, so the question remains on the table.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 19-09-2012 1:14am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Divine simplicity isn't a self-contained argument. It an argument that says the Creator is different to that which he created.

If you want to know more about how we can know this God then I there about 1 bazillion resources I know of that attempt to answer this question. I also know a few that try to make sense of the trinity.

Short answer is that God is a person and we can get to know God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. (And here the claim is that person-hood is not simply a function of being human)

What I'm about to say will probably look terribly Dawkins-like, and I'm not really an evangelical Dawkins-like atheist, but I'm not sure that any of this extensive literature will help in any way.

Sometimes we've to judge stuff without reading it, because there's just too little time. I'd expect that literature can't really fill the gap in comprehension. All it can boil down to is "We can't really comprehend what a creator god would be like, or what essential components - if any - make him what he is. If we don't know what he's like, we can't possibly draw connections between him and any event or person or whatnot that we, for whatever reason, might want to ascribe to him."

The traffic can only be one way - it can only be us figuring out what it makes sense for us to say about something that's beyond our capacity to make sense of. We can't even link it to any impression we might have of sensing a divine presence, as that would suggest this god has features that we can sense.

pauldla · 19-09-2012 2:04am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's actually not how the argument is formulated. It is commonly formulated that everything that comes to exist has a cause. God is by definition uncaused. You seem to have misunderstood the argument being made. We aren't talking about a God that is complicated and requires another Creator and another and another. That would not be God by definition of Christianity.

Again, can you explain to me what reasons you have for claiming that the concept of God is illogical? That is really all I am trying to get at. If it was a throwaway remark that is fine. But I want to understand why the notion of God is apparently illogical. So far I haven't seen you expand on this.

The reason I ask about the universe is because I think it is relevant to the topic. I can think of only 3 options (with some variations in between) when it comes to existence -

1) There is some First Cause, prime mover, uncaused Cause etc, which in the context of this forum is referring to God.
2) An uncaused universe - one that had no beginning and always existed.
3) An infinite regress of causes that are individually finite but part of an infinite whole.

It is not obvious to me why 1 is illogical but the other two aren't.

Forgive me for reducing the argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but the argument from First Cause runs “Everything that exists has a cause, the universe exists, therefore the universe has a cause, and as there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe must be the First Cause, i.e. God”.

You’ve probably heard it already. I don’t understand why god is defined as uncaused; it seems suspiciously convenient, and in any case appears to buck the argument. If everything that exists needs a prior cause, why does god get an exemption? Why do we need god in there at all? It looks to me be like an argument by someone attempting to shoehorn God into the cosmos. I was so disappointed the first time I read Aquinas; I remember thinking “That’s it? That’s his proof?” Of course, there is every chance that I have indeed misunderstood the argument; in which case, could you please show me my errors?

When you get down to the specifics of godhood, and especially the specifics of the Christian God, all sorts of creaks and groans can be heard from the logic. For example, to refer back to a point I mentioned previously, do you see any difficulty in claiming that God is omniscient and omnipotent? Do you find these ideas to be logically consistent with each other?

As stated above, I’m happy to suspend judgment on the matter of the existence of the Universe. Like I said, it's OK to wait until the proofs are in. You won't burn if hell for reserving judgment on such an issue.

nagirrac · 19-09-2012 5:50am

PDN wrote: »

How intolerant of you.

Nice job slicing my sentence in half and leaving out the bit that adds context. My point is that dogmatic views whether religious or atheist are what leads to intolerance and intolerance is the first step to the gulag or the gas chamber. There is little to be worried about from well balanced moderate centralist sensible intelligent people who just accept we know f-all in the grand scheme of things.

King Mob · 19-09-2012 7:47am

philologos wrote: »

Your view is about as dogmatic as mine. Let's stop pretending. Atheism is about as dogmatic as Biblical Christianity is. At least I'm willing to accept that Christianity is dogmatic, insofar as it teaches about the state of reality and the universe. It teaches a doctrine, or a thesis about reality. Any philosophy that is built on atheism does the same.

Atheism cannot have a dogma.
It is no more dogmatic than a lack of belief in fairies.
Does non believing in fairies constitute a doctrine or a thesis in reality? If not, why not? What makes it different to atheism, other than a predisposed assumption that your fictional entities has special status?

philologos · 19-09-2012 8:08am

King Mob wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Your view is about as dogmatic as mine. Let's stop pretending. Atheism is about as dogmatic as Biblical Christianity is. At least I'm willing to accept that Christianity is dogmatic, insofar as it teaches about the state of reality and the universe. It teaches a doctrine, or a thesis about reality. Any philosophy that is built on atheism does the same.

Atheism cannot have a dogma.
It is no more dogmatic than a lack of belief in fairies.
Does non believing in fairies constitute a doctrine or a thesis in reality? If not, why not? What makes it different to atheism, other than a predisposed assumption that your fictional entities has special status?

Your post has already demonstrated that dogmas come in an atheistic worldview. Namely that believing and trusting in God is akin to believing in fairies. I haven't heard any good reason for believing in that dogma.

There's plenty more I can show you from even a brief look at the new atheists. So yes there are doctrines and dogmas forming in new atheism, that's even before I look at the spat concerning Atheism+ or Rebecca Watson on sexism in atheism.

The poor assumption that God is a fictional entity should be substantiated also.

Ush1 · 19-09-2012 9:26am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Doesn't apply if we are consequential to creation but from a Christian perspective we are created in the image of God, so the question remains on the table.

You may call it a Christian perspective but logically "why was there a Pol Pot" in the human sense of why referring to purpose is not a meaningful question.

What are the reasons or events which led to the birth, life and death of Pol Pot would make sense. However, that question is nothing to do with design or purpose.

Ush1 · 19-09-2012 9:31am

philologos wrote: »

Your view is about as dogmatic as mine. Let's stop pretending. Atheism is about as dogmatic as Biblical Christianity is. At least I'm willing to accept that Christianity is dogmatic, insofar as it teaches about the state of reality and the universe. It teaches a doctrine, or a thesis about reality. Any philosophy that is built on atheism does the same.

Not true at all.

Many people who are atheists will have no inclination nessacerily to the scientific method or any other method. During the reign of the Soviet Union many were athiests but very few believed in evolution for example.

It would be handy to pigeon hole alright but it's just a generalisation most likely based off of people you've chatted to on the internet. Christianity is dogmatic yet many Christians will have different ideas to the next one.

Tim Robbins · 19-09-2012 9:44am

nagirrac wrote: »

I have little time for dogmatic religious or dogmatic atheists...

dogmatic atheist - an oxymoron

Sin City · 19-09-2012 9:46am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Doesn't apply if we are consequential to creation but from a Christian perspective we are created in the image of God, so the question remains on the table.

If we are created in the image of God why can we not see the face of God?

philologos · 19-09-2012 10:03am

Ush1: I've met more than my fair share of atheists in real life as well. By and large on the basis of atheism a lot of people form dogmas as to how other atheists should regard Christianity and other religions, comparing any belief in the supernatural irrespective of how grounded in logic or reality as akin to believing in fairies and so on. The reality is that atheists aren't much different from anyone else with a worldview. Indeed all people have one as a result atheism and the worldview/s it generates can he challenged much as other theistic worldviews can.

pauldla · 19-09-2012 10:44am

philologos wrote: »

Ush1: I've met more than my fair share of atheists in real life as well. By and large on the basis of atheism a lot of people form dogmas as to how other atheists should regard Christianity and other religions, comparing any belief in the supernatural irrespective of how grounded in logic or reality as akin to believing in fairies and so on. The reality is that atheists aren't much different from anyone else with a worldview. Indeed all people have one as a result atheism and the worldview/s it generates can he challenged much as other theistic worldviews can.

If it's well grounded in logic or reality, it's hardly supernatural, wouldn't you think?

tommy2bad · 19-09-2012 10:45am

Tim Robbins wrote: »

dogmatic atheist - an oxymoron

Not really, their are anti religious atheists who rightfully should be classified as a subset of religion. Dawkings for example.

19-09-2012 12:02pm

philologos wrote: »

Your post has already demonstrated that dogmas come in an atheistic worldview. Namely that believing and trusting in God is akin to believing in fairies. I haven't heard any good reason for believing in that dogma.

It's worth noting that atheism isn't always a positive world-view (i.e. one that has dogmas), as Christianity always is. I have a couple of friends who would consider themselves atheists (though they might not use the term); they consider the idea of a god to be unbelievable. Yet, despite this, they wouldn't have any knowledge about the bases for morality and ethics, or wonder where the universe came from -- what caused it all. They spend none of their time thinking about anything like this; they just live their lives. A lot of atheists are like this, so it's not fair to claim that all atheists are as dogmatic as Christians.

There's plenty more I can show you from even a brief look at the new atheists. So yes there are doctrines and dogmas forming in new atheism, that's even before I look at the spat concerning Atheism+ or Rebecca Watson on sexism in atheism.

Please note that a lot of atheists (almost all of the regulars over on A+A) find Atheism+ and Rebecca Watson to be ridiculous.

The poor assumption that God is a fictional entity should be substantiated also.

Of course it shouldn't. You can't put the burden of proof on atheists.

Edit: by the above I mean you can't expect an atheist to have to justify his lack of belief.

Tim Robbins · 19-09-2012 1:49pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not really, their are anti religious atheists who rightfully should be classified as a subset of religion. Dawkings for example.

I am sure there are anti religious people who don't believe in flying teapots too. But you wouldn't call them dogmatic non flying teapot - ists would you?

Ush1 · 19-09-2012 2:13pm

philologos wrote: »

Ush1: I've met more than my fair share of atheists in real life as well. By and large on the basis of atheism a lot of people form dogmas as to how other atheists should regard Christianity and other religions, comparing any belief in the supernatural irrespective of how grounded in logic or reality as akin to believing in fairies and so on. The reality is that atheists aren't much different from anyone else with a worldview. Indeed all people have one as a result atheism and the worldview/s it generates can he challenged much as other theistic worldviews can.

These things have nothing to do with it though. Pure atheism is a lack of belief in religious deities. That's it. You may have met atheists who have similar creeds but a few apples don't make an orchard.

Pure biblical christianity is a fundamental dogmatic system with a book. Atheism is a single idea, Christianity covers many ideas.

King Mob · 19-09-2012 2:58pm

philologos wrote: »

Your post has already demonstrated that dogmas come in an atheistic worldview. Namely that believing and trusting in God is akin to believing in fairies. I haven't heard any good reason for believing in that dogma.

But that isn't dogma, not by any definition of the word.
It's not a required, fundamental and unchangeable doctrine intrinsic to atheism or to atheists.
It's simply an analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous your claim about atheist dogma is.

A non belief in fairies is not a dogma. And for the exact same reasons neither is atheism.
And you know this I think, but feel that pretending that Atheism is dogmatic makes it easier to argue against.

philologos wrote: »

There's plenty more I can show you from even a brief look at the new atheists.

Then please do. Saying you can show something doesn't mean you can.

philologos wrote: »

So yes there are doctrines and dogmas forming in new atheism, that's even before I look at the spat concerning Atheism+ or Rebecca Watson on sexism in atheism.

Except that the vast majority of the response to that was along the lines of "atheism is only a lack of belief in God, it doesn't imply any other beliefs."
The exact opposite of what you are claiming.
Further if you just have a look on the atheism board you can see large amounts of the atheists there disagreeing with things and ideas from New atheists.
If there was an atheist dogma, why is that happening?
So again, you either fundamentally don't understand that issue or are misrepresenting it to pretend it backs up your claim.

philologos wrote: »

The poor assumption that God is a fictional entity should be substantiated also.

So no one has ever explained the burden of proof to you?

My point was that you couldn't use your usual tack of the notion of God being so special that he had to be assumed to exist, which makes him different to other fictional entities.
I am assuming he is fictional because that is the default logical position in the absence of good solid evidence or good reasoning. I have yet to see either.
And this is the same position I have for fairies, unicorns or any other fantastical or fictional creature which does have evidence to show that it exists.

And it is your position for those creatures as well you just pretend that God is special.

King Mob · 19-09-2012 3:03pm

gvn wrote: »

Edit: by the above I mean you can't expect an atheist to have to justify his lack of belief.

A better way do phrase that would be to say "you can't expect an atheist to prove a negative".
I certainly can justify my non-belief, just as I can with other non-existent or fictional entities. But oddly I can justify it with god a little more.

nagirrac · 19-09-2012 3:20pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

dogmatic atheist - an oxymoron

Ever hear of the Soviet Union? Stalin? Would you not regard a systematic campaign to eliminate religion including murdering thousands of its followers as dogmatic?

Zombrex · 19-09-2012 3:22pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What I would say is that I find any purely reductionistic explanation to be utterly inadequate. Phil can speak for himself.

Then I am confused as to why you would say exactly those words. If you have a point, make it. People shouldn't have to second guess your posts.

I used that simple as an example of a non-explanation that exists simple to make people feel better but that actually explains nothing. I could have picked any number of them. It is the type of thing people say when they actually have no idea why or how something happened but feel the need to fill in an explanation, no matter how vacuous or pointless.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I suppose that this is another example of people on this forum talking past each other. I would gather that Phil is presupposing there are moral absolutes - good and evil - and that discovering causal factors in somebodies decision to commit a particular evil deed doesn't itself explain the existence of evil in the first place. Anders Breivik might have killed 77 people and injured 245 for any number of reasons we can pin down but that doesn't in any way address why his actions were evil or from whence this evil came. You don't believe in evil so therefore you and Phil are both having different conversations.

Phil is saying his explanation is more robust and explains more than the naturalistic explanation. I would be very interested in his Christian non-naturalistic explanation of how and why Anders Breivik did what he did. He could start by explaining how "sin" actually does anything tangible, least of all cause a person to shoot up an island of children, detailing the processes involved. What happens when and why.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't understand your questions.

What does "broken by evil" actually mean in a real world sense. If I say Anders Breivik was a paranoid sociopath I can explain what I mean by that, what is actually happening in Breivik's mind, how it manifests itself in his actions, how it causes him to act a particular way. It explains why he did it rather than his milk man or his land lady. In other words it actually explains something, it explains something different to another explanation such as saying he was hallucinating on magic mushrooms. It details what actually happened and why it happened.

Broken by evil, or any other Christian "explanation" seems nothing more than poetic nonsense, explaining nothing on examination. Which is why I find Phil's assertion that the Christian explanation is more robust than the naturalistic one ridiculous. It is not even that I don't believe it is the correct explanation, it isn't an explanation to begin with.

marienbad · 19-09-2012 3:23pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Ever hear of the Soviet Union? Stalin? Would you not regard a systematic campaign to eliminate religion including murdering thousands of its followers as dogmatic?

You do know Stalin came from a religious background , but that is just an aside.

Stalin was about control so he tried to eliminate anyone that opposed him and not just religious.

pauldla · 19-09-2012 3:23pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Ever hear of the Soviet Union? Stalin? Would you not regard a systematic campaign to eliminate religion including murdering thousands of its followers as dogmatic?

But did Stalin do that because he was atheist? Could it have been because he was, for example, a paranoid despot heading an authoritarian regime?

King Mob · 19-09-2012 3:33pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Broken by evil, or any other Christian "explanation" seems nothing more than poetic nonsense, explaining nothing on examination. Which is why I find Phil's assertion that the Christian explanation is more robust than the naturalistic one ridiculous. It is not even that I don't believe it is the correct explanation, it isn't an explanation to begin with.

Similarly the claim that god created the universe as an explanation fails in the same way. I've yet to see anyone who believes this detail the process by which God supposedly did this aside from magic.
And then when we ask why he did it, we get an even more deafening silence.

Tim Robbins · 19-09-2012 3:52pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Ever hear of the Soviet Union? Stalin? Would you not regard a systematic campaign to eliminate religion including murdering thousands of its followers as dogmatic?

But Stalin also had a moustache - so was he a dogmatic moustachist?

You misunderstand the word atheism.
All it means is disbelief. *Nothing* else. So - a priori - it can't have causal relationships with either acts of generosity or that of a psychopath.

nagirrac · 19-09-2012 3:56pm

pauldla wrote: »

But did Stalin do that because he was atheist? Could it have been because he was, for example, a paranoid despot heading an authoritarian regime?

It wasn't just Stalin. The ideologogy of the Soviet Union was the elimination of religion and its replacement by atheism. I am using it as an example where atheism can lead to intolerance just as religion can.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments