tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post436818683577591087..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: atheism a faith position?Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20937670126778232252012-05-02T20:59:46.624+00:002012-05-02T20:59:46.624+00:00To Anonymous: personal experienceTo Anonymous: personal experienceEzrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15217339726923281206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51925671686586281822012-05-02T15:40:00.281+00:002012-05-02T15:40:00.281+00:00For you, what is the evidence that operates as the...For you, what is the evidence that operates as the criteria for or against the existance of God?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11401584928200734422009-08-07T06:54:26.118+00:002009-08-07T06:54:26.118+00:00I know this post is quite old now, but I've be...I know this post is quite old now, but I've been chatting about it with a friend and its raised a few questions. So I wanted to ask a question about the line of reasoning to do with the scale of reasonableness stated in the first paragraph and what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable". Based on the assertion stated - <br /><br />SL: "So, if theists wish to continue to maintain that their belief is at the very least "not unreasonable" (and they pretty much all do) the onus is on them to come up with some half-decent arguments for God's existence..."<br /><br />Depending on the scale of reasonableness if it were reversed toward the Theists way of thinking, would it be fair to say - "So, if atheists wish to continue to maintain that their belief is at the very least "not unreasonable" (and they pretty much all do) the onus is on them to come up with some half-decent arguments for God's non-existence". The outcome of this statement would be to concede agnosticism, which seems like a much more logical stand-point .Ezrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15217339726923281206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49467962560776625412009-05-20T05:23:11.225+00:002009-05-20T05:23:11.225+00:00I must clarify: I meant scientific knowledge, rath...I must clarify: I meant scientific knowledge, rather than reason, in regard to Swinburne's argument. Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79065737763116942912009-05-20T05:18:11.466+00:002009-05-20T05:18:11.466+00:00Theistic arguments about an omniscient, omnipotent...Theistic arguments about an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God make 3 enormous assumptions. However, atheistic arguments tend to make the assumption that these 3 are the only possible criteria of God. Take the heresy of Gnosticism, which posits that the universe was created by an imperfect demiurge (not saying that I agree with this vision, but it does allow for some interesting thought experiments)? Why is it that God must either fit all 3 of these standards or must not exist? It seems so silly to me, and further discredits both yourself and the daffy Dawkins. <br /><br />Of course, with the recent publication of the marvelous Terry Eagleton's book on the debate, "Reason, Faith, and Revolutin", there should be at least somewhat of a fall in the surety (if they have any sense whatsoever) Dawkins and his cronies crave in their atheism, an atheism which indeed requires extraordinary and unproven certitude. All of these arguments, of course, presuppose absolute faith in reason, reason which for certain matters (such as the human heart or even general relativity) clearly works, but reason for matters that extend past the Big Bang and past the realm of science itself (Swinburne's argument) seems like quite the uncertain and unwieldy tool. <br /><br />Bearing in mind your philosophical background, I am much more shocked that, you, along with Dawkins (who I am not surprise to see nonsense from) do not even strongly consider in your posts the arguments great theistic philosophers have made which are revelant to the debate of today, debate which here engage yourself in. <br /><br />Scientists have not always been so unreasonable: Albert Einstein, a much greater scientist that Dawkins can ever hope to become, at least held a pseudo-agnostic, pseudo-pantheistic persepctive, as have many other modern and earlier scientists.<br /><br />I hate to resort to ethos, but if this atheistic truth should be so self-evident, why is it that there are so many current theistic philosophers? Martha Nussbaum, generally considered to be the greatest American contemporary philosopher, has very strong faith in Judaism. Admittedly, she does not work in the realm of metaphysics or the philosophy of religion, but she must have at least considered the arguments, being the free thinker that she is. And finally, is it out of the realm of possibility that a God matching all 3 aforementioned criteria would not allow for natural disasters for some cause out of of knoweldge (or ability of reason). I know that this is purely speculative, but out of the realm of possibility-absolutely not!<br /><br />Oh, and your argument about animal suffering also assumes a utilitarian, Singeresque view on animals. What would your fellow atheist Nietzsche say of this preposterous slave-morality? Ha!<br /><br />"Religions pass away, but God remains."<br />-Victor HugoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22574292120884761572008-07-19T16:39:00.000+00:002008-07-19T16:39:00.000+00:00"If by "faith position" we mean can't be proved be..."If by "faith position" we mean can't be proved beyond all doubt, then yes, it is. But then so is the belief that there are no fairies and that the sun goes round the Earth."<BR/><BR/>Well, I certainly agree that belief that there are no gods or fairies is reasonable, but your belief that the sun goes round the Earth is preposterous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-4452299319497840162007-03-01T17:36:00.000+00:002007-03-01T17:36:00.000+00:00Even just an ordinary level of evidence would be n...<I>Even just an ordinary level of evidence would be nice.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm with Ingersoll: I'm <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/01/quote-for-day.html" REL="nofollow">begging for a single fact</A>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-8539090580276901012007-03-01T15:02:00.000+00:002007-03-01T15:02:00.000+00:00There are two "types" of God (or descriptions of G...There are two "types" of God (or descriptions of God): The falsifiable (and false) and the unfalsifiable.<BR/><BR/>In my years of discussing the existence of God, mostly on the <A HREF="http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php" REL="nofollow">Internet Infidels Discussion Board</A>, I find theists constantly switching between these types of description. The argument schema goes: "You can't <I>disprove</I> (an unfalsifiable description of) God. Therefore it's reasonable to believe that God exists. Therefore we can talk meaningfully about (a falsifiable description of) God.<BR/><BR/>If you can stand the pain, you can read a good example of this sort of equivocation in the comments <A HREF="http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/02/wired_for_intel.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/02/materialism.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>-- LarryLarry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40473724436063583882007-03-01T09:44:00.000+00:002007-03-01T09:44:00.000+00:00"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary eviden..."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."<BR/><BR/>Even just an ordinary level of evidence would be nice.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84824151815013692902007-03-01T09:43:00.000+00:002007-03-01T09:43:00.000+00:00Steelman said: you've made a good case here agains...Steelman said: you've made a good case here against the all-powerful all-good God of mainstream Christianity, but not against any other type of god<BR/><BR/>Yes I am talking about the all-good all-powerful God of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. Arguments against other gods can also be constructed, of course.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-27805249559074151612007-02-28T23:15:00.000+00:002007-02-28T23:15:00.000+00:00"I've often encountered this type of irritating eq..."I've often encountered this type of irritating equivocation..."<BR/><BR/>Might make more sense as: "I've often encountered this type of irritating supposed equivalence..."<BR/><BR/>I was thinking of equivocation in regard to the use of the words "faith" and "belief" (reasonable vs. unreasonable), while making a more general point about poor argumentation...but <EM>I</EM> knew what I meant.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-5453448292086817262007-02-28T19:41:00.000+00:002007-02-28T19:41:00.000+00:00SL: "Personally I think these sorts of considerati...SL: "Personally I think these sorts of consideration do establish beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no all-powerful all-good God. So we can, in this sense, prove there's no God."<BR/><BR/>"In this sense," yes, you've made a good case here against the all-powerful all-good God of mainstream Christianity, but not against any other type of god (theism can be a very broad umbrella). It's not a case against the unreformed, Old Testament Yahweh for instance; a figure just as anthropomorphic and capricious as any in the ancient Greek pantheon (a real punisher and abusive parent; just look what he did to poor Job on a casual bet). <BR/><BR/>SL: "The fact that something cannot be conclusively proved either way doesn't mean the two theories are equally reasonable."<BR/><BR/>Agreed. I've often encountered this type of irritating equivocation (a radical relativism?) in Internet discussions. Another common trick is the assumption that a weakness in one argument automatically proves the veracity of the alternative argument (which is also all too often a false dichotomy to begin with).<BR/><BR/>I agree with you in that the burden of proof rests with the claimant. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think part of the problem here is that theists do not consider their claims about God to be extraordinary, but "common knowledge." I'm reminded of something Daniel Dennett said, in <EM>Breaking the Spell</EM>, about the efficacy of the tribal ritual of animal sacrifice being "something everybody knows."<BR/><BR/>SL: "That religion certainly does have the power to blind people to the obvious is demonstrated by the fact that in just 50 years, some 100 million US citizens have come to accept that the entire universe is six thousand years old, and that this is consistent with the empirical evidence)."<BR/><BR/>I think many prefer proclamations of absolute certainty, and simple answers to complex questions, above the hard work of critical thinking (due to manner of education or religious tradition, or just because they are human). This is reflected in the public relations strategies of commercial advertising and politics, as much as in organized religion. Life in the U.S. includes a constant bombardment of propaganda and, unless you live out in the country somewhere, a fast pace of life. There's a craving for quick, easily understood answers to all of that lifestyle's questions. The Churches and the media are serving that market.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com