Damn straight!!
Posted on 10/06/2007 2:38:18 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
Ladies and Gentlemen and All Interested Parties...This is in regards to the previously advertised debate announced here previously.
The audio transcripts of the debate are now available here
The debate featured Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.
Dawkins, voted by Europe's Prospect Magazine as one of the world's most important intellectuals, is regarded by many as the spokesman for the "New Atheism." BBC has labeled him "Darwin's Rottweiler." He has written numerous best-sellers, most notable among them, his recent book, The God Delusion. TGD has been on The New York Times List of Best-Sellers for over thirty weeks. It is a no-holds-barred assault on religious faith generally, and Christianity specifically. According to Dawkins, one can deduce atheism from scientific study; indeed, he argues that it is the only viable choice.
Lennox, a popular Christian apologist and scientist, travels widely speaking on the interface between science and religion. Like Dawkins, he has dedicated his career to science, but he has arrived at very different conclusions. "It is the very nature of science that leads me to belief in God," he says. Lennox possesses doctorates from Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Wales. He has written a response to the notion that Science has exposed the Bible as obscurantist in a book titled God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. The book will be published this fall.
What I am saying is that being rational entails an appreciation of ratio. Ratio -- reason -- always involves a comparison of one thing to a standard; that is, to another more deeply-rooted, universal thing. Understanding takes root in this process, and only in this process.
Let us say that this is true. There is no reason, however, to believe that there is only one "more deeply-rooted, universal thing". For an atheist who happens to be Buddhist, for example, that standard might be the truth that all sentient beings desire happiness and do not desire suffering. While that standard is different from the one(s) that a Christian might judge by, it is no less valid. Ergo, the atheist is certainly rational/reasonable. Wouldn't you agree?
No, you elicited my explicit denial that we can know (now) there is such a thing. Since I asked for, but you never provided, an explicit test by which we can know it, I assume you must agree with me. Perhaps that was unfair of me because I know (and oviously this was my point) your opinion isn't based on a predictive theory, so you can't provide such a test.
whatever you are describing, it is something other than morality
No, it's something other than what you think morality must be.
An analogy occurred to me later. Your attitude is like someone who asks you "what is the force that pushes me right when the car turns left?" and then, after you give the account involving a change in reference frame, complains that you've not explained Real Centrifugal Force, but rather explained it away.
Sure there is. Because there is only one universe. That being the case, one can reasonably assume that it expresses one fundamental, universal law at its deepest level. Even if multiverse theory were true (which I doubt), the multiverses would simply be different inhabitants of the ONE universe. And the problem of the beginning of space and time and the natural laws would still be there. [I'm cribbing from Einstein's Special Relativity here.]
For an atheist who happens to be Buddhist, for example, that standard might be the truth that all sentient beings desire happiness and do not desire suffering. While that standard is different from the one(s) that a Christian might judge by, it is no less valid.
This is the first time in my life that I have ever heard someone equate Buddhism with atheism. Buddhists believe in God, but a God that is embedded in nature. That is, Buddhists embrace pantheism or panentheism. Atheists simply and plainly say "there is no God at all."
Everyone desires to be happy and avoid suffering. But such things are not controllable or finally decided by man. Many people desire things they think will make them "happy"; the people at the Folsom Street Fair were doing the things that make them "happy." My, but such a grim "happiness" there: The participants were/are slaves to their own disordered passions, where they constantly need "more and more"; and there isn't enough "more and more" in the universe to make them happy. But their attempts along this course result literally in pathology, medical and social. One might just as well take up smoking opium, or committing suicide (which perhaps some of these folks, at least, are subconsciously doing).
Ergo, the atheist is certainly rational/reasonable. Wouldn't you agree?
No I absolutely disagree. I think atheists are the most irrational and unreasonable human beings of all. They will not open themselves to the lessons that are learned from simple observations of nature, as aided by common sense. They remind me of the inhabitants of the flying island of Laputa, in Jonathan Swift's Gullivers Travels:
...[T]he reader can hardly conceive my astonishment, to behold an island in the air, inhabited by men, who were able (as it should seem) to raise or sink, or put it into progressive motion, as they pleased. But not being at that time in a disposition to philosophize on this phenomenon, I rather chose to observe what course the island would take, because it seemed for awhile to stand still. Yet soon afterward, it advanced nearer.... I waved my cap...and my handkerchief toward the island; and upon its nearer approach, I called and shouted with the utmost strength of my voice; and then looking circumspectly, I beheld a crowd gather to that side which was most in my view. I found by their pointing towards me and to each other, that they plainly discovered me, although they made no return to my shouting. But I could see four or five men running in great haste ... to the top of the island, who then disappeared. I happened rightly to conjecture, that these were sent for orders to some person of authority....Of course, the inhabitants of that flying island never have to put their feet down on the real ground. They are completely untethered from the things that pertain to real human existence, down here on earth.
Capice?
Sure there is. Because there is only one universe. That being the case, one can reasonably assume that it expresses one fundamental, universal law at its deepest level.
I do not agree that there can only be one universal law simply because there is only one (thus far discovered) universe. But since there's no way to prove it, we will each have to believe what we believe.
This is the first time in my life that I have ever heard someone equate Buddhism with atheism. Buddhists believe in God, but a God that is embedded in nature. That is, Buddhists embrace pantheism or panentheism.
There are more than one "denomination" of Buddhism, and some strains believe in pantheons of gods/goddesses. But basic, "vanilla" Buddhists do not believe in a god. Many of us do recognize a "divine spark" in all sentient beings, as reflected in the greeting, "Namaste". But that is not the same as panentheism. In fact, many Buddhists do not consider Buddhism to be a religion, but a philosophy.
I think atheists are the most irrational and unreasonable human beings of all. They will not open themselves to the lessons that are learned from simple observations of nature, as aided by common sense.
It sounds to me more like atheists do not draw the same conclusions as you want them to from observations of nature, via common sense, and therefore you deem us irrational. From this side of the fence, however, guiding one's actions according to what one believe will cause the most happiness and the least suffering is eminently more rational than guiding one's actions according to what one believes an invisible magician in the sky tells one to do. So I guess it's really just a matter of perspective, isn't it?
We are the salt of the earth. Without us, the earth is dead meat :)
You want to talk about the "rational," do you disrgr? "Time to make it real -- compared to WHAT?"
The part you and your colleagues tend to obscure or forget is that man's reason, if unsupported by Logos, has no wind nor sea room. Man's reason is measured against the real conditions that obtain in nature -- universal, human, social -- that a competent sailor cannot obviate or disregard, if he means to survive the voyage. If you catch my drift.
By the way, I do not believe in "an invisible magician in the sky." I leave that sort of thing to Swift's Laputans.
Rather, in my experience God is not "an invisible magician in the sky," but a tangibly real living Presence.
Whereas what I am saying is that every person--including/especially atheists--must decide for her/himself what is rational, and that for me at least, the Buddhist guideline of trying to do that which causes the most happiness and the least suffering is a pretty good yardstick.
I am puzzled by your reference to "surviv[ing] the voyage". Do you mean the "voyage" of life? Because obviously no one survives that. To what were you referring?
Also, if it's not too much trouble, would you mind elaborating on the "tangible" nature of your god? You're Christian, aren't you? In my 40+ years as a Christian I never found the Christian god to be tangible, and am very interested in the fact that you do. Or are we each using the same word to signify different things again?
Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion, and I thank you for it! May you be well and happy!
All I meant to convey by the word "tangible" is that the Presence is "felt" -- not via direct sense perception, but in an interior state of awareness. Don't know if that helps, disrgr.
It's not my job to "measure" people. I do believe, however -- as a Christian, and as a life-long student of classical philosophy -- that there is a "divine measure," according to which one day we shall each of us be judged.
On that we can agree.
For your edification I post a link to an entry I found today in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Metaethics, particularly sections 3,4 & 5, which delineate some of the challenges and burdens relative to our respective positions.
Cordially,
Tough going, but I note that my view is not represented.
Cordially,
And yes the article is very obtuse. I started skipping after the "open question" part where I think the author makes a category mistake. Later I seemed to be siding with the "internalists" even though I think the author thinks I should be an "externalist." Evidently, as a moral naturalist, I'm supposed to think "amoralism" makes sense as a moral concept. But that's dumb since part of my naturalism is based on innate human feelings and the amoralist, as described, has none (about moral matters at least).
It's too bad these guys don't write more plainly, they wouldn't confuse themselves so much.
I need someone to explain to me the logic of the allegation, that "standards of morality exist independently of God's will," such that God's will is subject to a standard that is not of His own making and thus beyond Himself. This line of thinking invokes the idea of an infinite regression, when the entire point is that God is the uncaused cause. Thus He can be the only cause of His own will and moral perfection; and as their cause, the only legitimate explicator of His moral law. His commands are eternally valid precisely because they are His commands; He is the standard, the measure.
There is nothing more ultimate than God. There can be no "prior" to God; for that implies that God is "in" space and time. And He is not; for if He were "in" space and time, then He would be subject to them, just as we mortals are, and so not could not have been their creator.
The whole suggestion that God is subject to "a higher standard" is an unwarranted and unsubstantiated claim, a smokescreen or diversion premised on the supposition that man can know that higher standard independently of God. That is, that "man is the measure," not God. Well, man can insist on this 'til he's blue in the face; but that does not change one whit the nature of things, or the facts on the ground -- which comprise the basis of human existence.
But what evidence does "Metaethics" have to show in this regard? "Metaethics" sounds more like a group session of mental patients, collectively dedicated to the proposition that moral relativism can actually be socially constructed as a public good, if we all could just negotiate away our differences regarding our moral premises, and agree that morality is a human, not a divine, project. Talk about loaded dice....
It's interesting that edsheppa claims not to associate with this view. But then, edsheppa has not really told us, so far as I know, what his view actually is. So we are left guessing, and faced with the temptation to "characterize" his position for him -- as he has recently done for me, in the process coming up with a caricture, a straw man, to beat. I have seen his conclusion (i.e., that I understand myself to be in possession of "The Truth," etc.); what I have not seen is his evidence.
Moreover he suggests that my "objectivity" or reliability as a truthful observer is deranged because I am besotted with a fantastic futility known as ontology (i.e., the science of being). The fact is, my main problem with edsheppa is epistemological, and only secondarily ontological: He is a walking self-contradiction in the epistemology department, whose materialist, atheist doctrine provides him with no basis to be discussing questions such as: "What is signified by the term, 'innate?'"
Think he'll lay out the bare bones of his argument plus his supporting evidence for us anytime soon, Diamond? I notice he has been quite coy with you lately, as well.
Thanks Diamond, as ever, for your excellent posts!
Please don’t ping me to purely religious posts unless I am actively engaged in the thread.
It appears I have once again come in late to a very interesting discussion. Sigh...
He is the uncaused cause of "all that there is" which includes spiritual and physical, space and time and physical causation itself.
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
A thing is true because He says it. Indeed, only God can speak objective truth - everyone else is a creature and suffers from the "observer problem."
Only God is Good --- only He can be "good" because only He is Creator ex nihilo.
His Name is I AM.
When He says "thou shalt not murder" it is not a suggestion. It is law in the most absolute sense of the word.
Amen to that, dearest sister in Christ: For your witness here is the report of Truth unvarnished: God's creative will constitutes the nature of all things; His permissive will leaves scope for human freedom.
I like to think that He wills to do so because He intended man to be his faithful steward, even his "co-creator," in the management and development of the Creation He made in the Beginning -- ex nihilo, just as you say.
I know that God loves His creation; but that of all He made, He loves man utmost. (I have this finding via direct experience of God's Word. Should be nothing so very unusual about that, even in our day....)
May God forgive me, but I am beginning to wonder whether man, as he seems to understand himself in the so-called post-modern world -- I would call it the post-human world -- is deserving of God's love.
Then I am reminded of the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the blessed joy attending his reunion with his Father. And once again realize that all things, here on earth and in heaven, work to God's good purpose -- He who constantly maintains the highest standard of good for each and all of His creatures, though perhaps in ways that we cannot even begin to imagine....
Thank you ever so much for your beautiful essay/post, dearest Alamo-Girl!
You are correct, BB. To claim God is subject to some pre-existing standard is no different than the question: “Well, where did God come from?”
The point is that everything comes from nothing or everything comes from something. The eternal must have been a something rather than a nothing, because nothing always gives rise to nothing.
The eternal something must be sufficient to account for all that is.....to include the eternal moral order.
That's exactly the way I see it, too, xzins. The Word of God, the Logos, is the complete specification of all that there is or can be.
Praise God!
Damn straight!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.