The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
KN, I think you give too much when you allow the move these guys like to make from “Platonism” to theism. Their arguments that if (objective) logic then God and if objective values then God are not actually sound. They’re nothing but a kind of transcendental woo that isn’t even pulled off as cleverly as the 17th Century rationalists did it.
With values, you agreed with me on another thread (mentioning Kant, whom I hadn’t thought of), that relativity doesn’t imply subjectivity. I think your interesting discussion of norms with respect to logic on this thread has similar consequences.
I very much agree, but one must pick one’s battles!
That seems right to me, though I do think that a political commitment to human rights — especially something like Nussbaum and Sen’s capabilities approach — will require that some rational (and also moral) norms are human universals. (There’s no other way of getting an ethical critique of the Islamic State or the Christian Right off the ground, is there?)
I have no idea what you are getting at with this.
I just don’t buy this. Anything based on this premise is very likely to be wrong. In fact, on it’s very face I find it absurd. Christians are instructed to love one another. The very idea involves community. Does she even allow that Christianity had it’s origins in Second-Temple Judaism?
Not only that, but love for each other and love for God was construed in terms of practice, not some vague idea.
Perhaps I misconstrued your argument. But can you please say in what way you find my question to be confusing or incoherent?
Children are not born speaking the language of their parents, nor does it seem reasonable to believe that they are born thinking in the language of their parents. I’ve come across some pretty fanciful theories when it comes to evolution but that’s not one of them.
So if you accept these facts, what does this mean for your theory about language and reason?
Do you believe children are born with some innate language they employ prior to learning a spoken/written language?
That’s not an argument fifth is making, so it sort of misses the point.
fifth presupposes the existence of God. He is not arguing from this [logic] or that [values] to the existence of God. Or at least he clearly claims to not being doing so.
You are quite the puzzle KN. 🙂
Where do you think these things which are more central to your concerns derive from, if not human individual selfishness?
Not that there is nothing to be said for condemning an entire society!
Those also seem to be the concerns of Jesus and the prophets. But their call was one of repentance. Don’t make me haul out the Hebrew prophets, those were some mean dudes!
God always seemed to be pissed about something.
This could be interesting:
Maimonides and St. Thomas on the Limits of Reason
That sounds about right.
But there’s also an irony. If truth and logic come directly from God, then that would seem to leave humans as little more than mindless mechanical automatons. Yet the conservative objection to materialism is mostly an objection to its supposed mechanistic implications. The idea that logic and truth are connected with social norms should be more congenial, in that it does not have (or at least does not obviously have) the same implications to mindless mechanism. More liberal theologies do not have this problem, as they allow that God could have created humanity so that truth and logic would emerge through such norms.
Again I’m amazed at the obsession with the Bible from people who claim not to believe any of it.
You and I have no right to the truth, That is the long and short of it. absent the Gospel you and I are children of wrath our minds are busted.
quote:
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
(Rom 1:21-22)
end quote:
1) The only way you can know things is if God reveals them to you
2) The only way for God to fix your reasoning problem is the execution and resurrection of Jesus
quote:
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, …………………….who once were alienated and hostile in mind………………………….. doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him,
(Col 1:19-22)
end quote:
I hope that helps
peace
Meaning is orthogonal to reason, and I would argue, so is truth. Else Mr Spock and computers would own philosophy.
Absurd on it’s face.
Now that we have that out of the way, what liberal theology did you have in mind, in which God could have created humanity so that truth and logic would emerge from norms, that did not originate from [have their basis in] God?
In what sense would they not be objective?
Because in a sense communication is incarnation. How could a physical being communicate with a purely spiritual being with out some sort of incarnation?
If you think there is a way for the purely spiritual to affect matter with out interacting with it in some way please let me know.
If you could come up with a plausible scenario I would love to hear it. Till then I will stick with what I know works
On the contrary I have spent a lot of time on this. I’ve racked my brain Ive talked to non-christian theists Ive done word studies on the role of Christ in the OT
I’m even researching the topic right now. That is why I keep asking you how you know things in your worldview.
It’s obvious you don’t know a way for God to communicate with humans with out incarnation or you would have posted it here.
peace
I know my posts about this stuff sound like so much gibberish to you. That is how is it supposed to work
quote:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:14)
end quote:
I myself find all of this discussion incredibly boring. I’m only answering questions.
I would much rather be discussing something we could potentially agree on like science.
It seems that that sort of topic is not very popular around here. Apparently what atheists like to talk about is bible exegesis
peace
No to your ending question.
I still don’t know what you are questioning in my two posts. Please be specific about what “my” theory is in your understanding and what that implies about children that you appear to think is inaccurate.
I’d prefer not to try to put words in your mouth by speculating where your concern lies.
You appear to be equating Christianity with Gnosticism, a heresy to Christians. You also seem to be confused about dualism.
You’re such a blessing keiths. I just love how you always strive to do your best to follow the good faith rule here at TSZ. An example for all of us.
William Murray has explicitly made that argument repeatedly. Fifth just hints at it, I realize. But I think that’s where he’s headed.
Fifth insists he’s not making arguments in ever other post, but of course he is. They are generally of the form:
You concede that there’s is truth, non-contradiction, communication etc. For me God provides those. You, OTOH, have nothing that can do so.
That’s an argument from best explanation, presumably. It’s not any good, iMHO, but that’s not a reason for anyone to be taken in by the claims that no argument is being put. Fifth says, “Just tell me what your presupposition is if it’s not God.” He gets back (from me, at least) “I presuppose such things as truth, logic, etc.” Then he responds, “But how do you know THEY’RE right?”
That’s an argument.
Mung,
I’m opposed to the good faith rule, as you know. It rewards dishonesty by insulating it from criticism, and it punishes those who truthfully point out instances of dishonesty, as I did with fifth’s above.
Rules that punish honesty and reward dishonesty are a bad idea.
keiths:
fifth:
If a purely spiritual being can’t communicate with the physical, then how can a purely spiritual being incarnate into the physical?
Again, I realize that you haven’t thought this through — you’ve just accepted the dogma uncritically — but it’s a question you should have asked before buying into the dogma.
I don’t believe in God, so I have no need to explain goofy things like that. This is your problem, not mine.
If communication (without incarnation) isn’t possible across the “infinite ontological gap”, then why do you believe that incarnation is possible across that same gap?
In other words, what is the relevant difference that explains why incarnation can bridge the gap when mere communication cannot?
It’s okay to say that you don’t know. We’re already aware of that.
Petrushka said:
Command-authority theisms similarly cannot adequately ground the criteria for proper discourse or living.
No, that’s not what I said, and it’s not what I mean. KN’s perspective provides us with no reason to give a crap about it and no means by which to distill proper human behavior from improper other than “because I say so”.
The theistic account gives a reason to give a crap about it (necessary consequences) and a means by which to comprehend proper human discourse (logic) and behavior (morality) by providing us with self-evident truths in both areas from which we can develop a proper method of reasoning and behavior; self-evident because they are sewn into the very fabric of existence, the denial of which leads to absurdity.
I’m not arguing about my beliefs. I’m arguing about the logic of theistic vs KN’s “norm-based” grounds and why only a theistic grounding provides the framework for how people actually behave and argue.
Whether or not that is true has nothing to do with the argument.
Woodbine said:
What difference does that make?
Then don’t.
I do think theists sometimes take something that is admittedly mysterious and offer up an explanation for it that is 1000 times wilder–as if that would help solve things.
KN:
First, where did William say or imply that humans are essentially selfish?
Second, note that KN has no answer to my question: Why should I (or anyone) give a crap about transgressing non-Platonic norms? What’s the penalty? He doesn’t answer, I assume, because there is no reason why I should give a crap about transgressing non-Platonic norms.
Third, note that in the above, KN is simply asserting that non-selfishness is a proper behavior of humanity; he’s made no case for it at all. Certainly selfishness is as woven into the fabric of humanity as non-selfishness, making it an intrinsic part of “the human animal”. But what tome or principle does KN refer to when he simply assumes we we will agree that non-selfishness is proper and selfishness is not?
In that post, KN repeatedly refers to his own political views and how they affect his metaphysics:
KN’s metaphysics are apparently the product of his typical progressive politics. Real reasoning (via classical logic) – is dismissed as binding because the only thing in the way of KN’s (or anyone’s) politics and associated beliefs would be an externally binding, authoritative, quantified form of reasoning that has the power to falsify such views and reveal them as erroneous; that has the power to show statements to be contradictory, insufficient or a fallacy. KN’s concept of “normative reasoning” and “normative behavior” is so vague and fluid and toothless that nothing can prove his views (or anyone else’s, for that matter) erroneous and nothing he might happen to do wrongly matters at all.
Which is really what postmodernist deconstructivism is about; eliminating the only tools available that can judge your views or your behaviors to be wrong or in error in contradiction to your own predilections or belief.
That’s a pretty nifty cognitive bias.
I don’t think I’ve touched on the bible but when somebody claims that their religion (and only their religion) is the precondition for knowledge then it’s hardly obsessive to ask for an explanation.
Congratulations, you’ve managed to restate your position. How about an explanation? Oh wait, what’s this…..
Nope….this time you’ve just let Paul restate your position for you – no sign of an explanation. This is a waste of time, clearly. God wins again!
One thing though….
I drive my car every day, I’ve been driving for about 30 yrs.
Do I know how to drive my car?
If yes – when was the appropriate revelation from God? I don’t remember.
If no – how should we explain my ability to pilot my car relatively safely around town?
All that philosophy and that’s what KN comes up with? Anti-patriarchy, anti-white man, socialism/communism? Postmodern deconstructivism? I’m so disappointed that KN’s philosophy is nothing more than a shell used to protect and advance such a pathetic set of progressive political cliches.
Ah, I love the smell of a Biblically sanctioned ad hominem in the morning!
I’m pretty sure he was talking about philosophical positions rather than political ones. I don’t think he is running for election.
Post moved to guano. Currently, accusations of lying break the “good faith” rule. This rule does not apply in the noyau thread so anyone can make such allegations there.
(Just borrowing a friend’s keyboard – back early next week)
Said the Breitbart supporter…
William, what aspect of “progressive” do you object to?
Progressive spending cuts are those that fall most heavily on those best equipped to bear them. Are you against those?
Or are you against society accepting people as equal regardless of their sexual orientation or colour?
What progressive policies do you find pathetic?
I’m not sure on the details but I’ll do some speculating if you like.
In a sense The Logos is the soul/consciousness of the universe it functions just as your consciousnesses does with your body,
In order for the Logos to incarnate all that is necessary is for a relevant portion of that consciousness to localize sort of like when you move a particular finger to the exclusion of the rest of your body.
Like I said this is only speculation no one knows how you consciously move a particular finger it just happens. Your consciousness interacts with your brain in some way and presto a finger moves.
I see no reason why incarnation would not work in a similar fashion. The Logos decides to localize into a particular localized phyiscal configuration of mater and it happens. Just like you moving a finger to the exclusion of the rest of your body.
peace
This is probably the seventh time I’m said this.
I am making no claims at all.
I am only sharing my presuppositions in response to a direct question from keiths. I’m explaining how knowelege is possible according to my worldview
I would love to hear your presuppositions so we can compare but so for no one is willing to present them here.
How do you know stuff in your worldview?
Yes you do know how to drive your car. Your knowelege like all knowelege is the result of revelation. We call this kind of revelation general revelation
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_revelation
the revelation occurred during the process of your attempting to acquire this particular skill. God graciously granted you this knowelege.
It’s a gift he has given you, He did not have to do it. God has chosen to withhold the give of knowelege of hot to operate a car from lots of people.
Have you ever taken the time to thank him?
peace
Just to respond to Keiths challenge
the boring part is not the subject itself it’s trying to explain this to folks who don’t have a clue what I’m talking about and would rather mock than try and understand it but insist on asking questions anyway.
peace
Let’s see.
Just so you know, those are all claims. There are lots of them in every post of yours.
And, as I’ve said, you make them in support of an argument. You’re humble pie about it, yes, but that doesn’t change the facts.
Does it never occur to you nor worry you that it’s *all* speculation and no certainty ‘on the details’?
I’m just telling you how it works in my worldview. These are assumptions I make not claims. I assume them to be the the case because that is the only way I know that knowelege is possible
If you have an alternative. I’m all ears
peace
Your consciousness *is* your brain. It does not “interact” with it. Unless of course you have some evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain. And evidence is not “it says it in the bibble” by the way.
Details are what we spend our lives filling in. I expect to be filling in details for many years to come. It’s what will make eternity fun
peace
You do realize how absurd this sounds?
I guess God chooses to give mass murderers the knowledge how do to perform murder without being caught?
Some piece of work your god is.
I would suggest you live your live here and now, rather then looking forwards to eternity.
And it’s attitudes like yours that cause people to accept terrible circumstances now for the promise of heaven later.
Except that one instant after you are dead you still have a brain and no consciousness is present.
peace
Please answer directly: Does God grant the knowledge of how to murder without being caught? There are many active serial killers that have not been caught. Presumably God is whispering in their ears giving them the knowledge they need to remain undetected?
That’s right. What’s your point? For your claim to be true all you have to do is demonstrate the existence of consciousness without a brain. All you’ve just done is add to my point – a dead brain is not capable of being conscious.
In fact when decapitation is the cause of death you have about 4 seconds (if you are a rat!)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/extrasensory-perceptions/lucid-decapitation.htm
There are stories from the French revolution of people (heads) surviving for minutes, being able to blink and change expression.
So one instant after you are dead you still have a brain and it still has oxygen and it’s still concious. Then that runs out and you are not.
So is there a difference between a live brain and a dead brain, other then the lack of consciousness? Sure there is. And *none* of this supports you.
This is a good counter-argument, which is why I reject the claim that your consciousness is your brain.
Rather I would say that your consciousness is a specific set of physical behaviors of your brain (what the brain does under certain conditions). These behaviors can be altered such that you lose consciousness, and when you die or your brain is damaged or affected by chemicals.
Yes, I’d agree with that.
And I’m disappointed that your “philosophy” is nothing more than a shell used to protect and advance every cliche conservative (if not reactionary) position out there.
In other words, I don’t pretend that my philosophical views are neatly separable from my political views, and I think it folly for anyone to assume otherwise, either about themselves or others.
(Also, please don’t use the words “postmodern” and “deconstructivism”. Just don’t. Please. Every time you use a word that you don’t understand, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens.)
fifthmonarchyman,
Near the beginning of this discussion you made the explicit claim that “Jesus is lord.” You said you could support that claim. Thus far you have not.
Well, if you mean by my alternative, what I think you might actually be doing, I’d say that those are all claims. If you mean by my alternative, what *I* do instead of what you do, I’ve already told you a number times, and the fact that you’ve asked again makes me think that you’re trying to make an argument that there’s something defective about what everybody else does.
Either way, you’re not just idly noting your own categories for the hell of it.