Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Atheistic fundamentalism
Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,621 Views)
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Dec 25 2007, 04:36 PM
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 10:21 PM
There are empirical discoveries about what methods of truth-seeking are productive, and what are not.

Except that science is not a method of truth-seeking.

Got a better method/model? ;)

Klaus
Dec 25 2007, 04:36 PM
As Hawking says in the quote I gave, the purpose of a scientific model is to make predictions.

Scientific theories are "productive" in making predictions - that is what they are designed to do - and not much more.

Perhaps -- but, what if "truth seeking" happens to be a prerequisite of "making [good] predictions"?


Klaus
Dec 25 2007, 04:36 PM
A religious theory may be "productive" in making people spiritually satisfied - that is what they are designed to do - but not much more.

Perhaps -- but religion that sticks to "theories" are practically non-existent. When you see rules like "thou shalt not kill," "thou shalt not eat pork," "thou shalt giveth 10% of thy income to thy temple," "thou shalt kill non-believers," "thou shalt chop off the hand of a thief" -- and I note that the existence of such rules happen to be the rule rather than the exception among religions -- it tells you that religions are designed to tell people how to live, not "merely" to make them feel spiritually satisfied.

Klaus
Dec 25 2007, 04:36 PM
"Truth" is something that is entirely outside the scientific domain.

Suppose that is, "Truth [seeking]" is in what domain, then? Philosophy? Religion? How confident are you that Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama can figure out quantum gravity by thinking/meditating about it? ;)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 04:41 PM
Few people say, 'Heaven does not really objectively exist, but it makes me happy to pretend that it does."

There is eternal supply of good beer and great sex in the afterlife.
Now be happy already, damn it! :biggrin:
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank_W
Dec 25 2007, 09:41 PM
All mind, no heart = no wisdom and nothing to feed the soul.

I don't really disagree with the rest of your post, but on this, I offer two questions:

1. How do you figure that a "heart" is necessary for "wisdom"? Can you think of any brain-dead patient with a healthy beating heart who still has "wisdom"? Can you think of patients suffering heart problems who still exhibit signs of "wisdom"?

2. How do you figure that the soul needs to be fed in the first place, and for what?

:)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Axtremus
Dec 26 2007, 05:26 AM


2. How do you figure that the soul needs to be fed in the first place, and for what?

"Cure the soul by means of the senses, and the senses by means of the soul."

Sorry, I have nothing substantial to offer, but that's the first thing I thought of. ^_^
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Dec 26 2007, 06:22 AM
Axtremus
Dec 26 2007, 05:30 AM
And a logician would look at mythologies and say they are Let us suppose that there is a "why" question, Q, for which no scientific model can give an answer. Let us further suppose that there are other [non-scientific] models that give answers {A1, A2, A3, ...} to this question Q. Now how do you know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)? If you can't answer the question of which answer(s) to accept, would any of these answers do you any good? Or would you argue that it's unnecessary to know which answer(s) is (are) the "correct," "right," or "most appropriate" one(s)? :blink:

Of course, non-scientific methods don't work with the methods of science, that's tautologicial. It is meaningless to assess, say, religious explanations by scientific means or vice versa.

Humans have many devices to assess or explain a situation which are not scientific or logical in nature, such as "gut feeling", "what your heart tells you", "what your conscience tells you" etc. These devices may very well give you unique answers to these questions - these answers cannot be verified using scientific means, but this does not per se make them invalid.

I really think it is useless and meaningless to compare and "benchmark" science and religion in the way you do. You cannot assess one with the methods of the other one. There is no competition between the two.

I did not mean to suggest that you need to use a "scientific" method to pick an answer out of {A1, A2, A3, ...} etc., just "any method" -- how would you choose that method?

If your answer is arbitrary (e.g., "just go with your heart/gut," "pray,"), then, OK. :)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Dec 26 2007, 07:04 AM
Axtremus
Dec 26 2007, 05:30 AM
Klaus
Dec 25 2007, 01:58 PM
A logician would say that science, viewed as a logical axiom system, is incomplete, i.e., it does not  have a unique model (which would then be reality) but rather a whole class of different models.

And a logician would look at mythologies and say they are illogical (while some others would put it more kindly and say certain mythologies "transcends" logic, which amount to the same thing). So, I don't get see how this affects the atheism vs. theism debate one way or another.

It certainly affects the debate in a quite fundamental way.

Do you have any idea what incompleteness means?

The incompleteness result of Gödel is in my estimation the most fundamental result in logic and mathematics ever, and its implications for science are just beginning to be acknowledged and explored. This result shows that the logic method of acquiring and deducing knowledge is quite limited in a very fundamental way. In the 20th century, it has put mathematics and logic into its biggest crisis ever, and the 21th century will see the same crisis in physics in my estimation. For example, some scientists have already noted that the long-standing "Theory of Everything" is probably impossible due to his result, see here or here


Informally speaking, incompleteness means that a theory will always have big gaps, i.e., questions that are impossible to answer using this theory. It is an inherent limitation and should make all believers of the scientific method (to which I also belong) a bit more humble about what they can achieve.

(Yes, I'm aware of Godel's Incompleteness theorem.)

That may be, but science/logic/math can identify/quantify/estimate to what extent it is incomplete (i.e. "knows what it doesn't know").

[Faith-based] Religions make no effort to identify their limits or incompleteness. If anything, they claim that they have "all" the answers (i.e. "doesn't know what it doesn't know").

Do you not consider this distinction significant?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

'The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned that human greed is threatening the environmental balance of the Earth.

In his Christmas sermon, Dr Rowan Williams called on Christians to do more to protect the environment.

The planet should not be used to "serve humanity's selfishness", he told worshippers at Canterbury Cathedral.

Meanwhile, the leader of England and Wales's Roman Catholics, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has said people should do more to welcome immigrants.

'Fragile balance'

Dr Williams said humanity needed to protect the world that God had created.

"The whole point of creation is that there should be persons... capable of intimacy with God, not so that God can gain something but so that these created beings may live in joy," he said.

"And God's way of making sure that this joy is fully available is to join humanity on Earth so that human beings may recognise what they are and what they are for."

The leader of the Anglican Church said this meant people should treat both others and nature with reverence.

"More and more (is) clearly required of us as we grow in awareness of how fragile is the balance of species and environments in the world and just how our greed distorts it," he said.

"When we threaten the balance of things, we don't just put our material survival at risk, more profoundly we put our spiritual sensitivity at risk - the possibility of being opened up to endless wonder by the world around us.

"Yes, it (the world) exists in one sense for humanity's sake, but it exists in its own independence and beauty for humanity's sake - not as a warehouse of resources to serve humanity's selfishness."

The archbishop spoke of the "brave and loving people on both sides of the dividing wall" in Bethlehem.

"The delight and reverence we should have towards the things of creation is intensified many times where human relationships are concerned," he said.

"And if peace is to be more than a pause in open conflict, it must be grounded in this passionate amazed reverence for others."

He also mentioned the atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, whose comments about the Earth's diversity Dr Williams said reflected the feeling of the Spanish saint, St John.

'Violated and blasphemed'

In the Archbishop of York's sermon at York Minster, Dr John Sentamu said that every person was a "stand-in for God".

He said the abduction of Madeleine McCann and the murder of schoolboy Rhys Jones were examples of God being "violated and blasphemed".

"For God who came to us in humility speaks forcefully to our pride, economic and social status, justice and the importance of human worth, forcing us to see each human being as a God-carrier, a stand-in for God," he said.

Dr Sentamu also highlighted trouble-spots around the world including Darfur, Zimbabwe and the Middle East.

"May the God who 'shone in our hearts and gave us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' give us the grace and the courage to stop all those who are disfiguring his image and likeness in the suffering people he loves in His world," he said.

'Good reasons'

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said in his Christmas Homily, broadcast live on BBC Radio 4, that Christians should ensure "nothing and nobody remains untouched by the tidings of comfort and joy that came from heaven on the first Christmas night".

The Archbishop of Westminster said: "A theme which is much in the news in Britain at the moment is the question of the many immigrant peoples who come to our country.

"Most immigrants come to our country because they wish to have a better life and work so as to provide for their families."

He added: "Many of these people are trying, for perfectly good reasons, to enter Britain and they need to be welcomed." '


I think irrespective of one's ideas about the likelyhood of a personal God there is a great deal to agree with in these messages.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
It would be a distinction if it were true, Ax, but it's not true. Christianity makes no claim to having all the answers, only those pertaining to life and godliness. The Bible says specifically that human knowledge is incomplete, and makes many statements regarding the finite nature of man's understanding.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Diva - First, a Merry Christmas to you!!

However, you say: "The Bible says specifically that human knowledge is incomplete, and makes many statements regarding the finite nature of man's understanding."

But it does (like the Koran, and the Book of Mormon, etc.) make claims to have special revealed access to a being of infinite and complete knowledge, an access that people who do not read the Special Book do not have.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Dec 26 2007, 12:44 AM
Axtremus
Dec 25 2007, 08:41 PM

How many religion you know of can claim the same? How many adherents of religions acknowledge that their religion is "incomplete" and needs more work?
Catholicism, for one.
Quote:
 


There are even verbiages in religious texts that essentially say "thou shalt not add or subtract anything from this set of text," which essentially cap the "growth" of the religions on which such texts are based. :shrug:

Such as?

British Book of Birds, indeed.

ivorythumper -- I would appreciate it if you can point me to specific passages in the scripture or in seminal Catholic/Vatican writings that acknowledge the incompleteness of the Catholic faith. :)

In the mean time, for you "such as" question, see, for examples:

1. Revelation 22:18-19
2. Koran 6.34, 6.115, 10.15

Also, Book of Mormon -- the gold leaves are buried and hidden from men, so by such arrangement, none can revise it. ;)
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
But it does (like the Koran, and the Book of Mormon, etc.) make claims to have special revealed access to a being of infinite and complete knowledge, an access that people who do not read the Special Book do not have.


That's a rather twisted view of it, don't you think Jeffrey? The purpose of the book is to give you that access. Should we assume that science (your god) is only accessible to those who study physics?


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
Dec 25 2007, 09:28 PM
Jeffrey
Dec 25 2007, 01:33 PM
Here is a brief and inadequate summary of moral realism, the view that moral judgments are true or false:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

jeff: on the wiki page, does this following passage really explain moral realism? :
Quote:
 
Moral realism asserts that moral statements express propositions about the actual state of reality, that a statement such as "murder is wrong" is in fact true or false in the same way that the statement "it is raining" or "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is true or false.

The statement "it is raining" can be right or wrong depending on whether it is raining, and the truth changes with the rain cycle. I don't see how that can be compared to whether murder is right or wrong, since presumably it is always wrong (or always right).

(by "murder", I am taking it as the unjust and deliberate killing of an innocent human being)

The statement "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is taken by everyone to be true, which would say "murder is wrong" is always true.

However, the fact of the Earth continuously revolving around the Sun is observable as true. The notion of murder as wrong (I am assuming that is what we are intended to deduce from the comparison) is not an observable fact.

The Wiki article is sort of correct, but not well explained.

Moral realism is the view that ethical judgments are true or false (and not, for example, simply a relativistic expression of society's majority opinion, or our emotions, our our self-interest).

You are a moral realist, since you think some moral judgments are true or false (on abortion, murder, lying etc.) The anthropologist M. Mead would disagree with you (and me) claiming that moral judgments are simply an expression of a culture, and are not universally true. The philosopher A.J. Ayer would disagree and say that moral judgments are simply the expression of the speaker's feelings and emotions, which do not have a truth-value, but are simply expressions.

If one thinks that moral judgments are true or false, then one must explain what makes them true or false (and not just feelings, or cultural values). Three historically popular answers include: reason (Kant), human flourishing (Aristotle, Mill), or Divine Commands (Calvin, Descartes). There may be others, this list is not logically exhaustive, just a quickie summary of past thought.

Ethical Naturalism is the view that moral claims are true or false, and that what makes them true or false are empirically-observable facts about human flourishing. Ethical Naturalist views are thus a subset of Moral Realist viewpoints.

I would suspect that Aquinas is some sort of Ethical Naturalist, but I have not read him carefully enough or recently enough to counter a different interpretation with much confidence.

But your objections above are thus to Ethical Naturalism, not Moral Realism as a whole (since you yourself think that moral claims have a truth-value, and are not just personal opinion).

You raise several objections to Ethical Naturalism (how to observe moral facts, the argument from disagreement, whether moral absolutes can be justified within a naturalist framework), but here I am simply spelling out the definitions in meta-ethics.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
Ax, the Revelation passage, obvious in its context, is a warning that nothing be added to or subtracted from the prophecy given to, and recorded by, John in the book of Revelation. It clearly does not refer to any completeness of knowledge in the book of Revelation itself, or in the completed canon of Scripture. It is saying "the stuff that is written on these particular pages is complete and perfect concerning the things about which it speaks, don't monkey around with it"...there is no implication at all of completeness or perfection with regard to any other subject.

While I'm no Islamic scholar, I do know enough about their thinking to know that they readily accept abrogation in the Hadith.

Jeffrey, THANKS! and good to see you. Yes, the Bible does claim to give man access to an infinite and omniscient God. It never claims that man has the capacity, through that access, to become infinitely knowledgable himself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Dec 26 2007, 07:25 AM

ivorythumper -- I would appreciate it if you can point me to specific passages in the scripture or in seminal Catholic/Vatican writings that acknowledge the incompleteness of the Catholic faith. :)
1. Corinthians 13:12

Summa Theologiae 1a2ae:1-5

Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 18 Nov. 1965, art. 8
Quote:
 


In the mean time, for you "such as" question, see, for examples:

1. Revelation 22:18-19
2. Koran 6.34, 6.115, 10.15

Also, Book of Mormon -- the gold leaves are buried and hidden from men, so by such arrangement, none can revise it. ;)

I cannot speak for Islam or Mormonism. However, as for the Apocalypse:
"For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book."

In what sense do you see that as making your point? It is speaking of specifically the prophecies in this book (profeteias tou bibliou). "This book" can only be anachronistically considered the whole bible or even the NT since NT was not formally assembled into a standard and definitive canon much later.

If you read the history of theology you will see quite a bit of growth of understanding -- even recently with John Paul IIs theology of the body, the proper role of the laity in the Mass and in the world in the 20th cent, the relations of the Church to the world in Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II).

I don't know where you get this idea of Christianity as static. Apostolic Christianity is not based on texts, though I suppose you can see biblical fundamentalism as such.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Dec 26 2007, 07:22 AM
Diva - First, a Merry Christmas to you!!

However, you say: "The Bible says specifically that human knowledge is incomplete, and makes many statements regarding the finite nature of man's understanding."

But it does (like the Koran, and the Book of Mormon, etc.) make claims to have special revealed access to a being of infinite and complete knowledge, an access that people who do not read the Special Book do not have.

Actually it says quite the opposite, Rom 1 points out that God has revealed himself primarily in what has been created. It takes no special book -- it does not even take literacy.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
IT,

I'm just clarifying, since we have our theological differences but for all intents and purposes play for the same team.

Yes, Biblical Christianity is certainly based on the text, but fundamentalists, while believing Scripture to be sufficient, never teach (to my knowledge, finite as it is) that the Bible speaks to all subjects with completeness, only that Scripture is completely sufficient in all manners pertaining to life and godliness through our knowledge of Him.

With respect to Romans 1, if by "primarily" you mean "originally," we agree. If you mean "mainly," I'll disagree with the idea of the primacy of general revelation over Scripture. I believe that Romans teaches that general revelation leaves man without excuse with regard to his knowledge of the existence of God. (in other words, I don't believe in atheists, I think all men know God exists, some choose to deny what God says they know, some very noisily) I believe God gave specific revelation in Scripture in order to explain the evidence He created in specific terms and bring man to knowledge of his need for reconciliation with the God he knows is there, whether he is willing to admit it or not. Without the revealed Word, God's attributes are still plainly visible in Creation, but the specifics of His plan for fellowship with His children is not evident therein. Which, I think is probably pretty much the same thing you think, again, I just want to clarify.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
DivaDeb
Dec 26 2007, 11:31 AM
I believe that Romans teaches that general revelation leaves man without excuse with regard to his knowledge of the existence of God. (in other words, I don't believe in atheists, I think all men know God exists, some choose to deny what God says they know, some very noisily)

How interesting. Bizarre, but interesting. Explains a lot, though, thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
DivaDeb
Dec 26 2007, 01:31 PM
in other words, I don't believe in atheists

That's OK, we still believe in you.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
I didn't invent it, that's what it says :lol:

John...I enjoy you all immensely, but I could not care less what anyone thinks of me. The issue for me is what a person thinks of Christ. Because I think that's the issue for all of us, I say what I think when the occasion presents itself.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I didn't think Ax was asking about completeness of all knowledge but it seems he was assuming some sort of static Christianity with the misunderstanding that it was based on words in a book. Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead us into the fullness of truth, implying that we do not have the fullness of all truth and that human development and spiritual/theological insight is a continuing process.

As for mainly vs originally, I do think God has revealed himself *primarily* through creation -- first and mainly -- and necessary but not sufficient. Revelation is necessary to know any particularities in terms of specificity, but the bottom line is that God has created us with a conscience that is the prime agent of the moral life (how to live a morally good life and to be naturally happy, which is certainly part of his plan). The ancient Greeks, with their virtue ethics, got a long way in understanding the well lived human life (eudaimonia) -- which some Christians see as insufficient for salvation, and other Christians (rightly in my estimation) reserve the final disposition of the soul to God alone with the understanding that people who do the best they can with what they have -- whether technically *Christian* or not -- still rely on grace and mercy and God's desire that all people experience his love eternally.

Again, I was addressing Jeff's point. I don't know what he means by "special revealed access" since anyone can pray and have the exact same access to God as anyone else. You needn't be a baptized believer to have a love relationship with God, or to pray and experience God's grace.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
Just for those who may not be familiar with the passage that IT referenced:

Romans 1:18-22

8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Diva: " I don't believe in atheists, I think all men know God exists, some choose to deny what God says they know, some very noisily"

Interesting. I was about to say that I don't believe anyone is really a theist. I think all people know God does not exist, but some choose to deny what they really know deep inside, sometimes very noisily. Curious.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
yes, but I said it first

:lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
DivaDeb
Dec 26 2007, 12:08 PM
Just for those who may not be familiar with the passage that IT referenced:

Romans 1:18-22

8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Do you think Paul is referring to a specific group of people, or to people who generally don't believe in God?

It seems to me the former, and cannot be applied to all who do not believe in God.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
These verses declare that knowledge concerning God is available to all. Because this knowledge from general revelation is seen in the created world, it is accessible to the entire human race, and is not soteriological (dealing with salvation effected by Christ) The witness to God in nature is so clear and so constant that ignoring it is indefensible in His eyes. Their condemnation is based not on their rejecting Christ of whom they have not heard, but on their sinning against the light they have in them (that He put there).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply