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.
Yes, I agree with that.
This was mostly a technical point, about whether one could check the correctness. The same point applies to human proofs. Many mathematicians won’t fully accept them unless they have personally gone through and checked out the proof. They might tentativel accept, pending such verification, but that’s short of full acceptance.
I think that’s a different issue. I see intuitionistic mathematics as perfectly valid, though using a different method and, in effect, different axioms. I’m guessing that most traditional mathematicians would agree. Where I disagree with intuitionism is in their philosophical arguments, particularly their arguments against traditional mathematics. But note that L.E.J Brouwer demonstrated his ability to do traditional mathematics.
I’m inclined to agree with petrushka, and put engineering ahead of science. With science, there is something arbitrary about the choice of theory. Engineering, however, has to deal with reality as it is directly experienced, so differences in theory tend to factor out when it comes to engineering problems.
In looking for example for how different mathematicians view the correctness of proofs, I had a vague recollection of a short book or essay written about how the proof and scope of Euler’s formula V – E + F = 2 evolved through time. But I could not remember the reference. Does it ring any bells?
Would you think that software produced by different software engineers for the same requirements is at all likely to be the same at the code level?
Microsoft makes a lot of compilers and languages, but I believe they all funnel into the same object code generator. I wouldn’t know about specialized languages like LISP, but if it creates a GUI interface, it’s mostly a glorified interpreter calling function libraries.
If you need to optimize code for performance, you are in a different world.
Same code — no. Same algorithms — perhaps not. But they would mostly be using equivalent algorithms.
But I think that’s the wrong question. Two people going from New York to Toronto might not use the same airline, and perhaps one of them might even drive. We don’t expect that much identity.
I spent my professional life managing IT project teams so I have first-hand knowledge of how code is written and varies, despite same requirements, even within the same corporation. (I’ve also coded shareware at one time when Win32 API was still the old new thing).
(ETA: if you’ve ever been involved in a leading a formal RFP process with detailed requirements in the RFP, you know one type of example of what I mean).
My general point is that engineering involves tradeoffs, efficiency versus maintainability, features versus cost versus schedule, risk versus innovation and market/user success, and so on. Different teams make different choices.
Choosing scientific theories also involves trade-offs, simplicity versus accuracy, experimental fit versus robustness, and so on. Different scientific groups make different choices, at least until a theory reaches near universal acceptance, if that happens.
So it’s not clear to me that engineering processes are more likely to lead to unique solutions than scientific ones.
But they are both objective processes.
It also happens to be standard Logos Christology. The reason you don’t know much about it you rejected Christianity when you were so young.
The Logos is the comprehensibility/consciousness of the universe in that sense Jesus is always and everywhere
The Logos is the life of the universe in that sense it is always alive
quote:
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
(Joh 1:4)
end quote:
quote:
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
(Joh 1:18)
and
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
(Col 1:15)
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(Joh 1:14)
end quote:
peace
To be honest, I haven’t had much exposure to “Logos Christology” either. Still waiting though for keiths to explain how he can know for certain that you are wrong. 🙂
Might as well give up, keiths. Any question you ask FMM, he’ll always have a Bible verse ready in response. He’ll never understand that you’re asking him to justify Christianity from a neutral point of view, because for him, there is no such neutral point of view.
The lesson of Montaigne is worth heeding: “For those who argue by presuppositions, one must suppose, on the contrary, the very axiom about which one is arguing.”
1)The Holy Spirit did not impregnate Mary. This is Christianity not Greek polytheism
2)
quote:
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things
(Heb 2:14a)
end quote:
1)Again the Holy Spirit did not impregnate Mary.
2) The Christian God is a Trinity physical interactions between Divinity and Creation require all three members of the Godhead. We could talk about the necessity of the Spirit if you like.
Apparently You need to study up on Christianity you are thinking about some other religion. There was no implanting, Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit is not physical by definition.
Here is a good classic introduction of the way the members of the Trinity interact
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html
you might want to check it out
peace
KN,
He’s quoting scripture, but the verses don’t say what he wants them to. Plus I know the Bible too and I enjoy watching fifth fight against it. Stay tuned.
Well, he’s at least trying to justify his claim that knowledge is dependent on the truth of Christianity. His argument is in pretty bad shape, but he’s actually making one, for which I give him credit.
keiths:
fifth:
I asked you where the physical Jesus was during that time.
keiths:
fifth:
I asked you about the physical Jesus — Jesus’s body.
keiths:
fifth:
None of those verses answer my question:
The sight of Jesus’s face doesn’t seem to have been fatal. A reasonable person would infer that the face being talked about in Exodus 33:20 was not Jesus’s human face.
You’re 0 for 3, fifth. Let’s see how you do at your next at-bat.
Apparently you have highly selective recall.
For the 10th time I am making no claims. I’m only sharing my presuppositions.
In my worldview Knowledge is dependent on the truth of Christianity. Perhaps that is not the case in your worldview I don’t know.
That is why I keep asking
How do you know stuff in your worldview.
Still crickets on that one from you.
At the same time what you think is an argument is simply me repeating revealed truth.
Christianity is both presupposition and revealed truth because……….
The Logos became flesh
peace
More Bible talk from an guy who became an apostate early in life
goody
Well this is just silly and rather blatantly doesn’t come from someone with a “neutral point of view.”
The road-map was set out by fifth early on and recently confirmed. keiths just wanted to blaze a trail off in some other direction, and then he whines about where he ended up. hilarious. frankly.
What does it mean to “justify Christianity from a neutral point of view”?
How would a Jew go about justifying Christianity from a neutral point of view?
A Muslim?
An atheist?
keiths:
fifth:
Fight the Bible, fifth:
keiths:
No answer from fifth. 0 for 5.
keiths:
fifth:
Again, you need to fight it out with the Bible, which says that the Holy Spirit did impregnate Mary.
fifth:
You claimed that Jesus was responsible for physical interactions, remember? No incarnation, no interactions across the “infinite ontological gap”. So by your reasoning, it must have been Jesus who somehow impregnated his mother, yielding Jesus the Fetus.
Or it was the Holy Spirit working through Jesus — a threesome with Mary.
fifth:
It was a question, not a declaration, fifth. You claim that Jesus was embodied long before Mary gave birth to him, and that he mooned Moses. What happened to that body? Why did Mary need to give birth to Jesus if he already had a body?
Also, you didn’t answer the most important question:
0 for 8, fifth.
You are falsely equating “physical body” with actual molecules existing in first century Palestine.
Do you think actual molecules are necessary before Christ’s real physical body can be present?
Apparently you need to brush up the difference between Transubstantiation, Sacramental union, and Reformed Real Presence. Christians have been cussing and discussing this one for as long as we have been around.
check it out and get back to me
http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/pasigucrc/2012/05/03/four-views-of-the-lords-supper/
here is a good article on the omnipresence of Christ
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/the-omnipresent-son-of-god/
peace
Please provide a reference.
peace
fifth:
I did. Read my comment.
I forgot to post this on the physical body of Christ
quote:
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
(Joh 6:48-53)
end quote
notice he says the bread……. is…… his flesh
peace
fifth,
🙂
Contra Lewis I’ll go with lunatic.
Secular Jewish atheism (and philosophistry) disguises (or rather properly defines) you as a fox.
If you would actually pretend to look like a hedgehog, then go see your childhood rabbi or find another rabbi where you live now who could possibly stomach the (“I might seem to know a lot of things”) haughty self-deceptive twirl you pose at people disguised as esoteric ‘philosophy.’ Thus far, you really do ‘belong’ quite well-suited as the resident philosophist at ‘The Skeptical/Atheist Zone,’ stuck in the muck of Sellarsianism (or shall we just call it Selloutism?).
In related news, I just came across this and don’t wish it upon anyone here, though some of the ideas expressed therein are miserably echoed by (“no, please don’t play the nihilism card, though it may actually be appropriate for us!”) ‘atheist/skeptics’ here, even the 99.7% non-Jews.
Likewise this, “Undercover Atheists”
Wonderful news. Sad for them that they cannot escape the shackles of their rigid communities without being forced to also cut off all ties with their children, friends, and coworkers. But wonderful that even the ultra orthodox are not hopelessly blinded by their inherited and indoctrinated faith: this is a hopeful development for those who want to see them wean away from the ignorant sexist and bigoted views which are naturally part of the medieval belief system.
Thank you, Gregory, for bringing a little cheer to my day with this good news.
Gregory,
You’ve GregXed that one too. Try and sound less bitter, by not typing anything.
No you did not, Your quote does not say that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. It says she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. I know you enjoy blasphemy for effect but your statement is not remotely accurate
Would you ever say Mary was found found to be pregnant through Joseph?
Of course not, it would not make sense that is because Joseph is a phyiscal fellow he does not work “through” anything.
The Holy Spirit is not physical by definition. What we are talking about is a virgin birth no phyiscal intercourse with anyone.
Virgin birth is a miracle all miracles happen through the Holy Spirit.
Would you agree that God impregnated Mary with the semen of Joseph? Jesus was after all “of David’s seed”.
Richardthughes,
You seem jealous that I was invited to give a TedX talk, Richardthughes, since you bring it up so much. Care to link us to yours? No? Wow, to be repeatedly flattered by an empty-minded atheist-skeptic at TAZ, what an honour! 😉
Ted talk, perhaps worth mentioning. TedX, not so much…
Gregory,
Sophisticated thinker Greg is flattered by a class of entity that is empty minded.
I hope you do many more TedX talks. Please link if you do!
Neil Rickert,
Sorry for the delay in replying. Sometimes a day or two offline is a good thing.
I’m trying to distinguish between fifthmonarchyman’s beliefs and the position he holds. The position itself is constructed in such a way as to (poorly) attempt to avoid the burden of proof one assumes when making claims like “a god exists” or “Jesus is lord.” That I consider intellectually dishonest. I don’t think fifthmonarchyman came up with it on his own, but that doesn’t make the construct itself less dishonest.
I also find fifthmonarchyman’s refusal to support his claims that “If Christianity is false we can know nothing at all” to be lacking in honesty, as is his insistence that anyone not willing to assume that Christianity is true is explicitly assuming it to be false. Those could be based in confusion, but after so many people have pointed the problems out to him so many times, that excuse starts to wear thin.
It is possible to maintain the assumption that someone is posting in good faith and not deliberately lying while still noting that the behavior of that person is not intellectually honest.
fifth:
What do you think ‘impregnate’ means, fifth?
I again hesitate to call that dishonest. But I do think it is contrary to Christian moral principles.
In any case, I think we are only disagreeing about which is the best way to describe what we both see as a problem.
fifth,
I didn’t say that it required “physical intercourse”. It does require a physical interaction, however.
You said that a purely spiritual being can’t interact with a physical being across “the infinite ontological gap” — hence the need for incarnation. Therefore, according to your belief, the Holy Spirit could not directly impregnate Mary. The incarnated Son — Jesus — was needed.
So Jesus — the same physical Jesus who mooned Moses, according to you — somehow participated in the impregnation of Mary, forming the Fetus Jesus. How did that work, exactly? And what was the point, given that Jesus already had a physical body?
Hence these questions:
4. If Jesus already had a body, why did the Holy Spirit bother to impregnate Mary?
5. How did the Holy Spirit — a spiritual being — impregnate Mary? You’ve told us that it is “logically impossible” for a spiritual being to interact with the physical.
6. If incarnation is required before physical interactions can take place, as you claim, then it must have been Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, who impregnated Mary.
Neil Rickert,
I agree and I’m open to changing my terms to better communicate.
I don’t think that any of those can be justified from a neutral point of view.
I was just thought that keiths seemed to be assuming that Christianity can be justified from a neutral point of view, and then was then getting frustrated with FMM for not playing that game.
But that was my assessment what was going on in the back-and-forth between keiths and FMM. I wasn’t speaking for myself there.
Speaking for myself . . .
On the one hand, I think that what can be justified, must be justified according to shared epistemic principles. (I’ve been calling these principles “norms” rather than “rules” in order to avoid a specific philosophical paradox that arises if they are rules.) That’s what I’ve been insisting on in my debates with WJM. The difference between WJM and myself is that he insists on conceptualizing the shared epistemic principles as necessarily presupposing ontological commitments.
By contrast, I think that by insisting that no one that can count as a fully rational interlocutor unless they acknowledge these ontological commitments, WJM is in effect claiming that no one can play the game of giving and asking for reasons unless they agree to play according to his rules. It’s actually a bullying tactic.
(I also think that of the three ontological commitments that he thinks are necessarily presupposed by the shared epistemic principles, one — the existence of God — is unknowable, and the two others — libertarian freedom and the ontological priority of mind over matter — are utterly false. This means that it is simply not possible for WJM to recognize me as a fully rational interlocutor.)
On the other hand, I do not think that religious or speculative metaphysics, or what Rawls calls “comprehensive doctrines”, obey the same constraint. Rawls puts it this way:
Comprehensive doctrines “have three main features. One is that a reasonable doctrine is an exercise of theoretical reason: it covers the major religious, philosophical, and moral aspects of human life in a more or less consistent and coherent manner. It organizes and characterizes recognized values so that they are compatible with one another and express an intelligible view of the world. Each doctrine will do this in ways that distinguish it from other doctrines, for example, by giving certain values a particular primacy and weight. In singling out which values to count as especially significant and how to balance them when they conflict, a reasonable comprehensive doctrine is also an exercise of practical reason. Both theoretical and practical reason (including as appropriate the rational) are used together in its formulation. Finally, a third feature is that while a reasonable comprehensive view is not necessarily fixed and unchanging, it normally belongs to, or draws upon, a tradition of thought and doctrine. Although stable over time, and not subject to sudden and unexplained changes, it tends to evolve slowly in the light of what, from its point of view, it sees as good and sufficient reasons.”
I think that such ‘comprehensive doctrines’ are basically what Wittgenstein calls a ‘form of life’: they are implicit habits and practices that are bound up in very complex ways with symbols, metaphors, rituals, feelings, moods, as well as beliefs and theories.
I do not think that any comprehensive doctrine, or form of life, can be justified or needs to be justified simply as such.
However, justification according to epistemic principles shared across comprehensive doctrines is required under the following condition: when conduct guided by the principles of the comprehensive doctrine will, or is likely to, either (a) infringe upon anyone’s basic human rights (formulated according to the capabilities approach — link in the “Some things are not so simple” thread) or (b) infringe upon the the conduct of anyone with a different comprehensive doctrine.
Put more simply: religion alone is harmless; religion + politics is dangerous.
I could be wrong, but I think people at the time of Jesus had no concept of human eggs and fertilization. The metaphor of seed implies that the male provides a fully formed but immature human to the female.
So it is a double problem. The impregnation itself, and the supplier of the seed. If not Joseph, who?
KN,
I don’t assume that. If it could, and were, then I would be a Christian!
He is playing that game — he just doesn’t want to admit it. He is actively trying (though ineffectively) to justify his claim that the possibility of knowledge depends on the truth of Christianity. He is trying, but failing, to answer the eight questions I posed to him regarding the Incarnation.
fifth knows that if he were to simply assert the truth of Christianity as a presupposition, without any justification, then his assertion would have no more weight than a Muslim’s or a scientologist’s affirmation of faith.
He wants, and is trying, to do better than that. Unfortunately for him, he assented to a set of bizarre beliefs without first thinking them through. He is now in the uneviable position of having to invent post-hoc rationalizations for those beliefs, and he’s tripping all over himself in the process.
petrushka,
The Holy Spirit. Unlike fifth, most Christians don’t think it’s impossible for spiritual beings to interact with the physical world.
keiths,
It’s my understanding from his comments that fifthmonarchyman is, in fact, simply asserting that Christianity is true. I’ve just been trying to point out that that kind of bald assertion without evidence (even if he calls it a “worldview” or “presupposition”) is worthless.
Patrick,
He does say that, and in fact declared it ‘non-negotiable’, but then he contradicts himself by admitting that it really isn’t, as when he writes:
There goes the ‘philosophist’ KN again saying absurd things as if he ‘knows’ them. Religion + reality is dangerous for him. His solution: run away from polity to a desert island and hide from people. He has already tried (without success) to hide his soul from YHWH who his ancestors taught created even him. Only living outside of any society could he ever really demonstrate himself as a convincing atheist, naturalist, empiricist, Kantian, Sellarsian, neo-Marxist, socialist, LGBTQ, environmentalist fake. Will he ever join reality and religion again as in his youth?
Everybody’s got troubles.
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/carbon-dating-suggests-worlds-oldest-koran-is-even-older-than-the-prophet-muhammad/
You are correct — I should have said that you are asking FMM to assume a neutral point of view and justify (his version of) Christianity from that standpoint. I didn’t mean to imply that you thought it was possible to succeed at doing so!
Be that as it may, I suspect that FMM is basically confused as to whether he is treating his “presuppositions” as presuppositions, in which case testing them is not possible, or whether he is treating them as hypotheses, in which case testing them is possible.
It should be clear that “presuppositions” as presuppositions cannot be tested, since they function as the criteria of evaluation for any test. I believe that FMM is indeed treating his presuppositions that way, which is why he does not think that a non-theistic account of knowledge can succeed. Of course a non-theistic account of knowledge will fail if one is judging that account by a theistic standard of what knowledge is and how it is possible.
Since it seems that FMM is treating his presuppositions as presuppositions, and not as hypotheses, he would seem to be better off by trying to treat them as testable hypotheses as well. In trying to have it both ways, he ends up contradicting himself, because he ends up treating his assertions as both possible to test and as impossible to test.
Fond as I am of dialectics, not all contradictions are true!
Interesting. a while back I accused theists of defining terms so that they are right by definition. I think we all do that to some extent.
I like to think that some of us are more willing and able to revise our categories in light of experience than others. We’re all dogmatic to some degree, but some are more dogmatic than others!
Of course the incarnated Son was needed. You can’t have a pregnancy with out a fetus. As I said before The Christian God is a Trinity God does not act unless all the members of the Godhead are involved, This is core of Trinitarian orthodoxy.
The Father sends the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit
That you don’t seem to know this says a lot about your level of understanding of Christianity.
peace
I think I can sort of understand where you are coming from here. When I hear someone claim not to know God exists I consider that to be the height of intellectual dishonesty.
It is beyond obvious that God exists. It is literally impossible not to know that God exists because God has revealed himself. To deny knowing God exists is claiming that you don’t believe in the color red only more ridiculous .
However in order to have fruitful discussions with atheists I must try set this very strong conviction aside and act as if atheists are not being dishonest and instead are simply confused. This requires the utmost deference and bending over backward on my part.
I would hope that you would go to the same effort when it comes to people who don’t share your worldview.
peace
fifth,
As you like to say:
Geeze. Use your head, man.
According to you, incarnation is needed before a spiritual being can interact with the physical. You agreed that when God mooned Moses, it was Jesus’s physical butt that Moses saw.
If Jesus already had a butt with which to moon Moses — and the rest of a human body, presumably — then why did Mary need to be impregnated in the first place? Why go through gestation when you already have a body?
And if incarnation must happen before a spiritual being can interact with the physical, then incarnation had to precede Mary’s impregnation. Jesus the Fetus was the result of the impregnation, not the cause of it. The cause — again, according to your belief — must have been a previously incarnated Jesus — the one who mooned Moses, perhaps.
How many times do you think Jesus incarnated?
It’s okay to say that you’re confused about all of this, and that you need to think it over. But then my question #8 applies:
8. Why haven’t you asked these questions yourself? Why are you so gullible?
FMM:
There is a symmetry here, in that I can’t shake the conviction that all Christians know, at some level, that what they are espousing is nonsensical, ridiculous and false.
fifthmonarchyman,
It is beyond obvious that God exists.
It’s neither obvious nor beyond obvious to me.
It is literally impossible not to know that God exists because God has revealed himself.
Either literally impossible or just plain impossible, God hasn’t revealed himself to me.
To deny knowing God exists is claiming that you don’t believe in the color red only more ridiculous .
I don’t believe in red. When I perceive light with a wavelength of about 650 nm, I call it “red.” I learned at an early age that light of that color is called “red” in the English language.
I have not perceived God.