Paradoxes of Atheism: de Lubac on Atheism - 1
The influential Roman Catholic theolgian Henri de Lubac lived through an era of intense revolutionary atheism, not unlike that of our own times. He has left us with many unique perspectives. Here is a sample:
"It seems that each of the great protagonists of contemporary atheism makes it a point of honor to prove that with him, from him onwards, now for the first time, as it were, mankind has progressed beyond the narrow perspective of anti-theism; that in him it has at last become free; that henceforth, thanks to him, the idea of God can be envisaged without resentment, for resentment might give rise to suspicion as to the value of this denial of him; that the question of God will not even be posed in the future; that belief in God, then, will no longer have to be fought; that the illusion will be dispelled forever; that to our children's children he will be known only as a curio of the past. Such was the line taken by Comte and Marx; and, more recently, by Sartre and a few others. Each one outdoes his predecessor and, if he recognize any predecessors, it is he, so he thinks, who definitely opens the new era, by saying the last word on the subject.
But at the same time, the thought of God obsesses them, and the care even that they take to say they are going to deliver the human race from him once for all is a sign of this obsession, which is ever reborn. Nothing is more fiercely polemical, more anti-theist, more calculated to awaken the suspicion of resentmen, than certain of their manifestos. Each of them wishes to prove, better than his forerunners, that unlike them he is at peace in his atheism and feels no need to think of God in order to "refute" him. But all that takes up a number of pages. And the concern that he shows in this way, producing a profusion of ever greater and greater subtleties and precautions, betrays him." (Henri de Lubac, Paradoxes of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1948) 218)
There is much to think about here, not the least of which is the almost exact description of the most recent popular atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hicthens). "End ofFaith," "Breaking the Spell," "God Delusion" --- all are "fiercely polemical" and aimed at nothing less than creating resentment, while at the same time each announcing a definitive end to God. How many times have we heard that faith is through, that reason is the only way, or that even God is dead? Thus, atheism is "reborn" once again.
I have long been decided on the fact that atheists are about the most religious people out there. Atheists must labor to convice themselves and others that they have explained the universe in such a way that God is not necessary. And Lubac is right, this effort requires a lot of paper and ink, and a lot of rationalization. The atheist's claim to intellectual victory --- to be able to rest contented with his scientific (atheistic, that is) explanation for life --- is betrayed, in almost every case, by his passion against God.
This leads me to conclude that there are no defacto atheists, but only anti-theists; for the belief that God does not exist is a choice, not a scientific fact.
"It seems that each of the great protagonists of contemporary atheism makes it a point of honor to prove that with him, from him onwards, now for the first time, as it were, mankind has progressed beyond the narrow perspective of anti-theism; that in him it has at last become free; that henceforth, thanks to him, the idea of God can be envisaged without resentment, for resentment might give rise to suspicion as to the value of this denial of him; that the question of God will not even be posed in the future; that belief in God, then, will no longer have to be fought; that the illusion will be dispelled forever; that to our children's children he will be known only as a curio of the past. Such was the line taken by Comte and Marx; and, more recently, by Sartre and a few others. Each one outdoes his predecessor and, if he recognize any predecessors, it is he, so he thinks, who definitely opens the new era, by saying the last word on the subject.
But at the same time, the thought of God obsesses them, and the care even that they take to say they are going to deliver the human race from him once for all is a sign of this obsession, which is ever reborn. Nothing is more fiercely polemical, more anti-theist, more calculated to awaken the suspicion of resentmen, than certain of their manifestos. Each of them wishes to prove, better than his forerunners, that unlike them he is at peace in his atheism and feels no need to think of God in order to "refute" him. But all that takes up a number of pages. And the concern that he shows in this way, producing a profusion of ever greater and greater subtleties and precautions, betrays him." (Henri de Lubac, Paradoxes of Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1948) 218)
There is much to think about here, not the least of which is the almost exact description of the most recent popular atheists (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hicthens). "End ofFaith," "Breaking the Spell," "God Delusion" --- all are "fiercely polemical" and aimed at nothing less than creating resentment, while at the same time each announcing a definitive end to God. How many times have we heard that faith is through, that reason is the only way, or that even God is dead? Thus, atheism is "reborn" once again.
I have long been decided on the fact that atheists are about the most religious people out there. Atheists must labor to convice themselves and others that they have explained the universe in such a way that God is not necessary. And Lubac is right, this effort requires a lot of paper and ink, and a lot of rationalization. The atheist's claim to intellectual victory --- to be able to rest contented with his scientific (atheistic, that is) explanation for life --- is betrayed, in almost every case, by his passion against God.
This leads me to conclude that there are no defacto atheists, but only anti-theists; for the belief that God does not exist is a choice, not a scientific fact.
20 Comments:
Nonsense.
I have as much passion against God as I do against the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or the FSM. Being an anti-theist predisposes believing in God and hating or rejecting him. I do know atheists and deists, and even some distrought Christians, who've experienced horrible calamity (e.g., sexual abuse from clergymen) who think this way, at least for a time, but it certainly isn't the rule but a minor exception.
As you do with your irrational position on evolution and the age of the Earth and Universe, you begin with a conclusion you "know" (really hope or wish) to be true and then grasp for whatever straws of support you can find, no matter how poor or near-irrelevant, to convince others. Unfortunately, you've can't find much straw anymore because you've used it almost all up in the past building all your other straw men.
As usual though, you only end up preaching to the converted and probably just hope to stir up ire and hatred instead of building bridges of understanding to those you don't understand or agree with. I think your Jesus would tell you to try another path.
For someone who claims to be dispassionate, Jane certainly spends an great deal of energy commenting on this blog.
Jane,
Nonsense.
I have as much passion against God as I do against the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or the FSM.
What you've done was group a God we Christians believe literally exists to a bunch of imaginary people that were never meant to be of literal existence anyway. I think this is quite disingenuous and would count as an anti-theist attitude.
Being an anti-theist predisposes believing in God and hating or rejecting him. I do know atheists and deists, and even some distrought Christians, who've experienced horrible calamity (e.g., sexual abuse from clergymen) who think this way, at least for a time, but it certainly isn't the rule but a minor exception.
As you do with your irrational position on evolution and the age of the Earth and Universe, you begin with a conclusion you "know" (really hope or wish) to be true and then grasp for whatever straws of support you can find, no matter how poor or near-irrelevant, to convince others.
Well, that's what you did, too. You began with a conclusion you "know" (really hope or wish) to be true (that the God of Christianity is like Santa Claus) and then grasp for whatever straws of support you can find, no matter how poor or near-irrelevant, to convince others. If the God of Christianity is like Santa Claus then make that point. What are the preconditions a Santa Claus belief has to make human experience make sense? Christian has a number of them. And I don't see how atheists can make sense of human experience at all.
Unfortunately, you've can't find much straw anymore because you've used it almost all up in the past building all your other straw men.
You got all that from a little ol' blog, Janeypoo?
As usual though, you only end up preaching to the converted and probably just hope to stir up ire and hatred instead of building bridges of understanding to those you don't understand or agree with.
If there's anybody who has ire or hatred, it would have to be you, Jane. All you're doing in this post is insulting and venting your anger.
I think your Jesus would tell you to try another path.
Uh, yes, that makes sense, Jane, Jesus would not want people to follow Him. Even though he said He was God, and that He came into this world to die for our sins, but naahh, He has no interest of being worshiped at all. Brilliant assessment, Jane.
Always,
Frank
Frank,
"What you've done was group a God we Christians believe literally exists to a bunch of imaginary people that were never meant to be of literal existence anyway. I think this is quite disingenuous and would count as an anti-theist attitude."
To us atheists your god is just as imaginary. I, in fact, like millions of Christians, believed in Santa Clause when I was a kid. He was very real to me and there was much more evidence for his existence than god. Of course, it turned out to be deception (for my own good) like much of religion. Through an open mind and reason, I outgrew god just like outgrew Santa. Grow up Frank.
Jane,
To Christians the notion that all that exists is nature is ridiculous. Atheists would have you accept such outlandish claims like
out of non-life came life,
out of chaos came order,
out of unconscious came conscious,
out of non-intelligence came intelligence,
out of irrationality came reason,
out of amoral laws came morality,
out of nothing came something,
etc.
Furthermore, to loop God in with fairy tales like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus is to make a categorical mistake. Tooth fairies have no answers to the metaphysical questions of meaning and existence. The God of Christianity however offers these answers. And upon epistemological grounds I see no precondition a flying spaghetti monster may offer to make human intelligibility intelligible.
Why don't you grow up?
Frank,
The fact that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are not associated with the outragious supernatural claims you attribute to God, which can better be explained by science, reason, and logic, only makes their likelyhood higher than god in m view.
As one example, science (Quantum Mechanics) has already postulated in theory and proven by experiment that something can come from nothing. Have you ever heard of virtual particles? Maybe you should study a little science with an open mind before making such ignorant statements.
Your god of the gaps explains nothing. If He is greater than the universe He created, then He is is far more inexplicable and improbable than his creation.
If you're so deeply offended by my comparing belief in God to the FSM etc. then simply substitute Allah, or Vishnu, Zeus, or Mithras, etc. etc., - gods and their associated moral philosphies and epistomologies that were once, or are still, believed in by millions with the same conviction as you.
Jane,
The fact that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are not associated with the outragious supernatural claims you attribute to God, which can better be explained by science, reason, and logic, only makes their likelyhood higher than god in m view.
*SHRUGS* Okay. But you haven't even begun to deal with the metaphysical or epistemological problems with Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy belief if you are associating them with the God of the Bible.
As one example, science (Quantum Mechanics) has already postulated in theory and proven by experiment that something can come from nothing. Have you ever heard of virtual particles?
Yes, I've heard of it, but "subparticle" is a better word to use. But hey, if you want to believe that something can come out of nothing go ahead and believe that. Nothing takes more faith! How then would you have a problem with a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy if you can believe that something can come from nothing? Nothing is nothing. It doesn't do anything.
Maybe you should study a little science with an open mind before making such ignorant statements.
I did. And this is what I found: even if we assume that quantum events are uncaused, this tells us nothing about the cause of the beginning of the universe. Quantum events pertain to the change of condition of particles, not the bringing of these particles into existence from absolutely nothing! Also, cosmologists have proposed many different competing interpretations and applications of quantum theory when it comes to the universe. Meaning, there is no universal agreement.
Your god of the gaps explains nothing.
Nor does your nature of the gaps explain anything.
If He is greater than the universe He created, then He is is far more inexplicable and improbable than his creation.
Actually the opposite is true. The chances of us having a universe is vast and improbable. We're not *just* suppose to exist. And we certainly can't exist just because of chance.
If you're so deeply offended by my comparing belief in God to the FSM etc. then simply substitute Allah, or Vishnu, Zeus, or Mithras, etc. etc., - gods and their associated moral philosphies and epistomologies that were once, or are still, believed in by millions with the same conviction as you.
*SIGH* As I said before if you want to substitute any other god for the God of the Bible, there are vast epistemological and metaphysical differences. What would be the precondition for human intelligibility for these other gods?
I would hope you think twice before flippantly making comments against Christianity. You haven't even begun to deal with its full implications.
Thanks anyway,
Frank
Well Frank,
You’re very good at demonstrating your faithful adherence to dogma, I’ll give you that.
“Yes, I've heard of it [virtual particles], but "subparticle" is a better word to use. But hey, if you want to believe that something can come out of nothing go ahead and believe that. Nothing takes more faith! How then would you have a problem with a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy if you can believe that something can come from nothing? Nothing is nothing. It doesn't do anything.
…even if we assume that quantum events are uncaused, this tells us nothing about the cause of the beginning of the universe. Quantum events pertain to the change of condition of particles, not the bringing of these particles into existence from absolutely nothing! Also, cosmologists have proposed many different competing interpretations and applications of quantum theory when it comes to the universe. Meaning, there is no universal agreement.
Faith is not needed when you have evidence and reason. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. According to you, I guess every time a virtual particle comes into existence, (as some physicists think may underlie acceleration of universal expansion), God is creating it – despite the fact that these experimentally observed particles are predicted by QM to come out “out of nothing”. No wonder god is too busy to save innocent babies and keep the devil cornered – he’s way too occupied creating a universe of virtual particles every minute.
Once you realize that something can come from nothing and that this has been observed by science, your whole house of cards about the origin of the universe collapses. If something from nothing is possible anywhere than it becomes at least a viable possibility for creation of the universe, which is itself a QM event. Surely you must understand that. This is just the way the universe is Frank. To learn to accept that is a more rational and parsimonious explanation than any god for which no reliable evidence exists. There are a number of competing theories, such as M-Theory, which provide an explanation as to how the Universe we know (and possibly many others) could arise from nothing (brane collisions). These theories are far from proven, but they are based on sound reasoning, math, and physics without any supernatural woo woo. Why should I bother with only anecdotally supported and untestable ideas when I have logical scientific ideas that work and make accurate predictions? I’m confident that unless religious fundamentalism causes the death of science (probably by killing lots of scientists), you will have your answers. But let’s face it, you won’t want to see them will you?
It is also intellectually dishonest of you to try to discredit my argument by saying that “there many different competing interpretations and applications of quantum theory when it comes to the universe. Meaning, there is no universal agreement.” I guess the same applies to God and Christianity doesn’t it? Only all your Judeo-Christian denominations, sects, cults, and personal interpretations do not lead themselves to any logical resolution as science empowers. Eventually evidence will sort out which theory is correct. Your statement is also misleading in that you are trying to cast doubt on the reality of QM and virtual particles by noting the gaps in completion of the theory. Well, what is proven and known is still true, just as Newton’s laws are true – yet incomplete, which we recognized when Einstein showed us Relativity. The same situation exists in QM. Big deal.
“Jane: If He is greater than the universe He created, then He is is far more inexplicable and improbable than his creation.
Frank: Actually the opposite is true. The chances of us having a universe is vast and improbable. We're not *just* suppose to exist. And we certainly can't exist just because of chance.”
Well, again this is an ignorant argument. My argument is true by logic alone by the fact that the whole must be greater than the sum of its parts. Are you saying that God may be lesser than his creation? If the universe had an improbability of X, than if your omnipotent God could create an infinite number of very different universes his improbability is infinitely greater. I agree this can’t disprove god, it just makes him very very unlikely.
The later part of your statement is mere assertion without supporting evidence or argument.
““*SHRUGS* Okay. But you haven't even begun to deal with the metaphysical or epistemological problems with Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy belief if you are associating them with the God of the Bible.
….
*SIGH* As I said before if you want to substitute any other god for the God of the Bible, there are vast epistemological and metaphysical differences. What would be the precondition for human intelligibility for these other gods?
I would hope you think twice before flippantly making comments against Christianity. You haven't even begun to deal with its full implications.”
You obviously haven’t done any research on other religions and philosophies as I, someone married to a Christian by the way, have done. For example, nothing your Jesus taught wasn’t said earlier, and in many cases better, by other philosophies and religions. I’m not going to write a book for you to explain this since we both know you wouldn’t truly read it anyway – at least for the puposes of open-minded understanding. If you really want to understand this, I would welcome you to join RichardDawkins.net where you can see these resources referenced and debate me under the name FedUpWithFaith. There are plenty of decent intelligent theists (like Iano, Jerome, Nikodeimos) and atheists there who enjoy an attempt at real dialogue, in addition to the usual gang of blowhards on both sides. It’s easy to debate me on this religious turf. Are you brave enough to take me on there? Keep in mind there are many on that site who are unsure of their direction and looking for truth. If you’re right, then your efforts are better spent there than here preaching to the converted (unless you're afraid my sounder arguments will sway them). Of course, I’m happy to keep debating you here too Frank. It’s fun.
Cheers,
Jane
Hi Jane,
You’re very good at demonstrating your faithful adherence to dogma, I’ll give you that.
Ditto.
Faith is not needed when you have evidence and reason.
But your interpreting the evidence and your reasoning with your faith in atheism. No matter what evidence I show you, Jane, you're going to reinterpret it in your own worldview. Granted I do the same thing, but from the impossibility of the contrary the evidence only makes sense within Christianity. For instance, we know it doesn't make any sense that nothing can do something. However, you actually think nothing can do something! If you believe in something like that, what good would it be to continue a dialogue with such an outlandish belief?!
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. According to you, I guess every time a virtual particle comes into existence, (as some physicists think may underlie acceleration of universal expansion), God is creating it – despite the fact that these experimentally observed particles are predicted by QM to come out “out of nothing”.
Uh, yes, we already heard this from you, but you haven't even dealt with what I said only to say that I don't know what I'm saying. But whatever.
No wonder god is too busy to save innocent babies and keep the devil cornered – he’s way too occupied creating a universe of virtual particles every minute.
The God of Christianity entails that God is sovereign over EVERYTHING. I figured that if you have someone close to you who is a Christian you ought to know that much.
Once you realize that something can come from nothing and that this has been observed by science, your whole house of cards about the origin of the universe collapses.
LOL! Since you think nothing can do something I'm not so sure if there's more to argue about. Besides, not all scientists believe that something can come from nothing.
If something from nothing is possible anywhere than it becomes at least a viable possibility for creation of the universe, which is itself a QM event.
How can you have "anywhere" when there's suppose to be nowhere in nothing?
Surely you must understand that.
Uhm, do you?
This is just the way the universe is Frank.
No, it isn't. If something can come from nothing how in the world can you have induction (which is necessary for science)?
To learn to accept that is a more rational and parsimonious explanation than any god for which no reliable evidence exists. There are a number of competing theories, such as M-Theory, which provide an explanation as to how the Universe we know (and possibly many others) could arise from nothing (brane collisions). These theories are far from proven, but they are based on sound reasoning, math, and physics without any supernatural woo woo.
... okay.
Why should I bother with only anecdotally supported and untestable ideas when I have logical scientific ideas that work and make accurate predictions?
Did you test this theory with the scientific method? Look, if the world can randomly come out of nothing, how can you even begin to have predictability or regularity in the universe without begging the question?
I’m confident that unless religious fundamentalism causes the death of science (probably by killing lots of scientists), you will have your answers. But let’s face it, you won’t want to see them will you?
Well, religious fundamentalism is stupid, I agree with you. But the problem is the fact that you're equating that with me. If you study Christianity more, you'll see that it's a science starter not a science stopper. Saying that nothing can do something is not science, Jane. It's illogical, irrational, and self-contradictory.
It is also intellectually dishonest of you to try to discredit my argument by saying that “there many different competing interpretations and applications of quantum theory when it comes to the universe. Meaning, there is no universal agreement.” I guess the same applies to God and Christianity doesn’t it?
Absolutely! However, amongst Christians we are at least orthodox despite competing denominations.
Only all your Judeo-Christian denominations, sects, cults, and personal interpretations do not lead themselves to any logical resolution as science empowers.
Scientists don't have all absolute agreements. According to you, the only good scientist is the scientist that agrees with you and that's it.
Eventually evidence will sort out which theory is correct.
Then stop thinking that something can come from nothing. Can you give me evidence for nothing? Nothing doesn't even exist!
Your statement is also misleading in that you are trying to cast doubt on the reality of QM and virtual particles by noting the gaps in completion of the theory.
No, I'm not. All I'm saying is that there is no consensus amongst scientists that nothing can do something.
Well, what is proven and known is still true, just as Newton’s laws are true – yet incomplete, which we recognized when Einstein showed us Relativity. The same situation exists in QM. Big deal.
... okay.
“Jane: If He is greater than the universe He created, then He is is far more inexplicable and improbable than his creation.
Frank: Actually the opposite is true. The chances of us having a universe is vast and improbable. We're not *just* suppose to exist. And we certainly can't exist just because of chance.”
Well, again this is an ignorant argument.
No, it isn't. You just agreed that the world can come from nothing. What dictated that? It had to be only by chance. Not order. Because in nothing there is no order.
My argument is true by logic alone by the fact that the whole must be greater than the sum of its parts. Are you saying that God may be lesser than his creation?
No. But it exhibits his handiwork.
If the universe had an improbability of X, than if your omnipotent God could create an infinite number of very different universes his improbability is infinitely greater. I agree this can’t disprove god, it just makes him very very unlikely.
Okay.
The later part of your statement is mere assertion without supporting evidence or argument.
Ditto.
You obviously haven’t done any research on other religions and philosophies as I, someone married to a Christian by the way, have done. For example, nothing your Jesus taught wasn’t said earlier, and in many cases better, by other philosophies and religions. I’m not going to write a book for you to explain this since we both know you wouldn’t truly read it anyway – at least for the puposes of open-minded understanding. If you really want to understand this, I would welcome you to join RichardDawkins.net where you can see these resources referenced and debate me under the name FedUpWithFaith.
Yeah, I know about it actually. I've read a number of Dawkins' work. By far the worse is THE GOD DELUSION. At least, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER tried harder to convince us of evolution.
There are plenty of decent intelligent theists (like Iano, Jerome, Nikodeimos) and atheists there who enjoy an attempt at real dialogue, in addition to the usual gang of blowhards on both sides.
Check out my blog where I've taken on some atheists on a one-to-one debate. But I do enjoy a good discourse.
It’s easy to debate me on this religious turf.
It sure is! However, all I'm getting from you is an arrogant heart.
Are you brave enough to take me on there?
We can have a one-on-one debate, sure. But you're going to have to get in line I have at least 3 people before you. But email me and we can talk about it.
Keep in mind there are many on that site who are unsure of their direction and looking for truth.
Okay.
If you’re right, then your efforts are better spent there than here preaching to the converted (unless you're afraid my sounder arguments will sway them). Of course, I’m happy to keep debating you here too Frank. It’s fun.
Indeed. However, I feel that our conversation is losing its breath. I've repeated myself a number of times and you seem to be skipping some of my arguments. Also, when I make a point you simply skip it or say that I don't know what I'm talking about, etc. Please, be more contemplative, okay?
Always,
Frank
Hey Frank,
“But your interpreting the evidence and your reasoning with your faith in atheism. No matter what evidence I show you, Jane, you're going to reinterpret it in your own worldview. Granted I do the same thing, but from the impossibility of the contrary the evidence only makes sense within Christianity. For instance, we know it doesn't make any sense that nothing can do something. However, you actually think nothing can do something! If you believe in something like that, what good would it be to continue a dialogue with such an outlandish belief?! ”
You begin with another silly anti-atheist mantra. Atheism is not a religion and has no tenets. It is merely an absence of belief in God due, for most atheists, to their weighing of the evidence pro and con based on reason and logic. I have trust, not faith, that this view is correct because of the absence of deistic evidence and the plethora of logic against gods. Faith is believing without evidence.
Unlike you I have an open mind and doubt. Without doubt and questioning one can gain no real knowledge. If you check out my blogs at RD you’ll see where I did believe in God earlier in my life and give several scenarios and situations where I could find myself believing is god(s) again. Let me see you tell me what the MINIMUM evidence you would need to observe in order to reject your belief in god. Let’s see how open-minded you really are.
As usual, you twist my words. I never said “nothing can do something”. I said something can come from nothing. This may seem like a very minor distinction, but perhaps you know, if you have really studied and understood philosophy and science, that it has significant consequences I’m not asserting. My guess is that you don’t understand it though, and I’m not going to bother to try and explain it. Keep saying it if you like, you’ll only keep proving your ignorance to those who understand.
I’ll test your sincerity be reasserting that you’ve said nothing to change my mind on the subject. So why do you continue to waste your time debating my “outlandish beliefs”.
“Besides, not all scientists believe that something can come from nothing.
As far as I know, all those scientists who know about, understand, and have seen the evidence believe just that. Show me a scientist who says virtual particles don’t exist who has studied the evidence. Perhaps you can find some crackpot, just as I can find Christians who deny Christ was resurrected or virgin born.
QM makes other claims about the nature of the universe that are really no more seemingly outlandish than something from nothing. If you really understood QM you’d understand that. How can Schrödinger’s Cat be both dead and alive at the same time? How about Bell’s Theorem on non-locality that laid to rest Einstein’s objection that “God does not play dice with the universe”? There are many other seeming paradoxes, now all proven to be true based on overwhelming QM evidence. You are sort of right about what you said about M-theory though, it is far from proven so I do not yet have much trust in it. But isn’t it sort of funny – your God hypothesis and M-Theory both postulate a dimension(s) outside time and space that led to creation of the universe we know? Yours just has a very complex mind beyond our understanding, powers beyond our reason, and a very quirky fathomless personality. Occam’s Razor suggests you dismiss your needlessly more complex hypothesis.
”Well, religious fundamentalism is stupid, I agree with you. But the problem is the fact that you're equating that with me. If you study Christianity more, you'll see that it's a science starter not a science stopper.
Well, how nice of you to announce that on a Fundamentalist blog from someone who admires Jerry Falwell. I’m sure the host will appreciate that. Though I can have a sharp tongue, please note that I haven’t called anybody stupid nor would I say Christianity sucks akin to you saying “atheism sucks” as is the title of your blog site. If you’d like to make theism more palatable and at least have a better chance of converting us atheists, maybe you should tone that down a bit. Moreover, you obviously realize the deleterious consequences that fundamentalism has on trying to convince people committed to science and reason. Perhaps you should clean your own theistic house first. Let’s see you convince your Fundamentalist brethren here that Evolution is true and that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old. I’m sure you can make that square with God’s plan as my Christian spouse does. That is, if you are as persuasive as you think you are. Methinks you have a lot of learning to do son. When do you graduate from college?
As far as Christianity being a “science starter” and not a “science stopper” you have some convincing to do. The Dark Ages and Galileo may have something else to say.
”Absolutely! However, amongst Christians we are at least orthodox despite competing denominations.
Orthodox about what? Is Bishop Spong Christian then and the many others like him (e.g., theologian James McGrath)?
Jane: Only all your Judeo-Christian denominations, sects, cults, and personal interpretations do not lead themselves to any logical resolution as science empowers.
Frank: Scientists don't have all absolute agreements. According to you, the only good scientist is the scientist that agrees with you and that's it.
Disagreement not only doesn’t bother me (you’re the one who tries to use this scientific disagreement against my arguments) but is the reason I respect science so. I am a scientist and my views often don’t agree with my peers. Science gives us the means by which to discover and settle these differences. With respect to the scientific frontier there is and always has been disagreement and incompleteness. But science also has a huge body of established proven theories that you cannot deny unless you are a fool. These alone are devastating to your case. In any case, science is a tool to seek the truth - the best tool we’ve got. You remind me again of one of my favorite quotes from Vaclev Havel:
“Seek those who seek the truth, and run away from those who’ve found it.”
Since you sought me out in this blog and not vice versa, perhaps there is hope for you yet. I am the one who should probably run away now. But this is still fun. I’ll leave when you bore me.
”Yeah, I know about it [RichardDawkins.net] actually. I've read a number of Dawkins' work. By far the worse is THE GOD DELUSION. At least, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER tried harder to convince us of evolution.”
Well, we sort of agree here. I am no huge fan of “The God Delusion” or Dawkin’s often strident style. In fact I never read the whole book – I couldn’t find anything in it I didn’t already know. But Dawkins is a fun read, at least I guess, if you don’t hate every word he writes due to your religion. I joined his forum though because the quality of membership, both atheist and theist alike, is superior to most of the debate sites I’ve been on and the dialogue less stilted.
“Check out my blog where I've taken on some atheists on a one-to-one debate. But I do enjoy a good discourse.”
I was already aware of you, your site, and your tactics Frank. Thanks for the offer but no thanks. I wouldn’t debate anyone on a site called “AtheismSucks” any more than I, or I’d expect any respectable Christian, would care to debate on a site called ChristianityTakesItUpTheAss. Since I have time on my hands and was in the mood for some fun, I engaged you. But I’ve never seen you have a real dialogue with anybody.
”Indeed. However, I feel that our conversation is losing its breath. I've repeated myself a number of times and you seem to be skipping some of my arguments. Also, when I make a point you simply skip it or say that I don't know what I'm talking about, etc. Please, be more contemplative, okay?
That is funny from someone who distorts my arguments, doesn’t bother to try and understand, and who clings to mere rhetoric. A lot of your arguments don’t make sense, aren’t worth my time, and are only geared to manipulate. A lot of my points effectively go unanswered from you as well, I just don’t both to bitch about it. Nevertheless, I’d take the time to address them all if our posts weren’t already so lengthy. If there is something you feel I missed that is really important to you restate it in a brief post and I’ll reply.
Cheers,
Jane
Hi Jane,
You begin with another silly anti-atheist mantra. Atheism is not a religion and has no tenets. It is merely an absence of belief in God due, for most atheists, to their weighing of the evidence pro and con based on reason and logic.
Why use logic and reasoning if atheism doesn't have any tenets? Sounds like your contradicting yourself.
But you're wrong. Atheism is the belief in no God. It's not a lack of belief. I write about that here.
I have trust, not faith, that this view is correct because of the absence of deistic evidence and the plethora of logic against gods.
Do you have faith in your trust?
Faith is believing without evidence.
*SHRUGS* Okay. Then you better have evidence for the tenet that reason and logic is the way to believe in something. And you have to have evidence for your trust, too.
Unlike you I have an open mind and doubt.
I don't see that to be the case. Usually, when I pin you at a corner you throw a temper tantrum and say that I don't understand the issue, etc. and then you say I have no open mind. But whatever.
Without doubt and questioning one can gain no real knowledge.
Then you better start questioning real knowledge and see if you can ever have real knowledge. Either way, you're in for a lot of questioning.
If you check out my blogs at RD you’ll see where I did believe in God earlier in my life and give several scenarios and situations where I could find myself believing is god(s) again. Let me see you tell me what the MINIMUM evidence you would need to observe in order to reject your belief in god. Let’s see how open-minded you really are.
Just tell me how the God of Christianity would not account for human intelligibility. I keep coming back to this but you keep skipping it.
As usual, you twist my words. I never said “nothing can do something”. I said something can come from nothing.
LOL! What's the difference? If nothing is nothing and something comes out of it then it's doing something.
This may seem like a very minor distinction, but perhaps you know, if you have really studied and understood philosophy and science, that it has significant consequences I’m not asserting. My guess is that you don’t understand it though, and I’m not going to bother to try and explain it. Keep saying it if you like, you’ll only keep proving your ignorance to those who understand.
Well, it sounds like you're dodging serious implications that I'm making against you. But have it your way.
I’ll test your sincerity be reasserting that you’ve said nothing to change my mind on the subject.
Personally, I don't think I can change your mind since you have the faith that nothing can have something. If that's not blind faith then I don't know what is!
So why do you continue to waste your time debating my “outlandish beliefs”.
So everybody else can see it.
As far as I know, all those scientists who know about, understand, and have seen the evidence believe just that. Show me a scientist who says virtual particles don’t exist who has studied the evidence. Perhaps you can find some crackpot, just as I can find Christians who deny Christ was resurrected or virgin born.
I'm not talking about virtual particles coming out of nothing. I already stated that. And all you did was throw a tantrum at me. But why would you have a problem with resurrections and virgin births if you believe that something can come from nothing?
QM makes other claims about the nature of the universe that are really no more seemingly outlandish than something from nothing. If you really understood QM you’d understand that. How can Schrödinger’s Cat be both dead and alive at the same time? How about Bell’s Theorem on non-locality that laid to rest Einstein’s objection that “God does not play dice with the universe”? There are many other seeming paradoxes, now all proven to be true based on overwhelming QM evidence.
There's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction, Jane. To say that something comes from nothing is a contradiction. Remember: A cannot be non-A at the same time. That's the law of non-contradiction.
You are sort of right about what you said about M-theory though, it is far from proven so I do not yet have much trust in it. But isn’t it sort of funny – your God hypothesis and M-Theory both postulate a dimension(s) outside time and space that led to creation of the universe we know? Yours just has a very complex mind beyond our understanding, powers beyond our reason, and a very quirky fathomless personality. Occam’s Razor suggests you dismiss your needlessly more complex hypothesis.
I disagree. According to Occam's the explanation that God created the universe sounds much more simple than saying nothing created the universe.
Well, how nice of you to announce that on a Fundamentalist blog from someone who admires Jerry Falwell.
If you read my blog I made it plain that I don't agree with everything Falwell says. Read it again. But if you want to hear it, I'll say it, Falwell can be an idiot sometimes. Happy?
I’m sure the host will appreciate that. Though I can have a sharp tongue, please note that I haven’t called anybody stupid nor would I say Christianity sucks akin to you saying “atheism sucks” as is the title of your blog site.
And darn proud of it, too.
If you’d like to make theism more palatable and at least have a better chance of converting us atheists, maybe you should tone that down a bit.
Sorry, I won't.
Moreover, you obviously realize the deleterious consequences that fundamentalism has on trying to convince people committed to science and reason. Perhaps you should clean your own theistic house first. Let’s see you convince your Fundamentalist brethren here that Evolution is true and that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old.
Well, to say that Darwinian evolution is true is a form of fundamentalism too. So I won't teach them that. I love my brothers and sisters enough to tell them the truth. By the way, I'm an old earth creationist.
I’m sure you can make that square with God’s plan as my Christian spouse does. That is, if you are as persuasive as you think you are. Methinks you have a lot of learning to do son.
I'm not your son, Jane.
When do you graduate from college?
I may get a masters after a BA.
As far as Christianity being a “science starter” and not a “science stopper” you have some convincing to do. The Dark Ages and Galileo may have something else to say.
Well, Galileo was a Christian. Apparently, he didn't think he was doing anything wrong in terms of science. In fact, he loved God. You see, even the example you used shows that Christianity is a science-starter and not a stopper.
Orthodox about what?
The virgin birth, the trinity, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, the general resurrection, etc. No Christian in any denomination disagree with these major tenets.
Is Bishop Spong Christian then and the many others like him (e.g., theologian James McGrath)?
Spong is not a Christian. To say that he is, is quite ignorant frankly.
Frank: Scientists don't have all absolute agreements. According to you, the only good scientist is the scientist that agrees with you and that's it.
Disagreement not only doesn’t bother me (you’re the one who tries to use this scientific disagreement against my arguments) but is the reason I respect science so. I am a scientist and my views often don’t agree with my peers. Science gives us the means by which to discover and settle these differences. With respect to the scientific frontier there is and always has been disagreement and incompleteness. But science also has a huge body of established proven theories that you cannot deny unless you are a fool.
Uh, okay, but don't say that the only good scientist is the one that agrees with you, then, okay?
These alone are devastating to your case.
As we've seen that isn't the case.
In any case, science is a tool to seek the truth - the best tool we’ve got. You remind me again of one of my favorite quotes from Vaclev Havel:
“Seek those who seek the truth, and run away from those who’ve found it.”
As we've seen I'm not the one with that problem.
Since you sought me out in this blog and not vice versa, perhaps there is hope for you yet. I am the one who should probably run away now. But this is still fun. I’ll leave when you bore me.
Okay.
Well, we sort of agree here. I am no huge fan of “The God Delusion” or Dawkin’s often strident style.
Yet you seem to use many of his arguments and you recommend that I go to his website? You are a strange one, Jane.
In fact I never read the whole book – I couldn’t find anything in it I didn’t already know. But Dawkins is a fun read, at least I guess, if you don’t hate every word he writes due to your religion. I joined his forum though because the quality of membership, both atheist and theist alike, is superior to most of the debate sites I’ve been on and the dialogue less stilted.
Okay.
I was already aware of you, your site, and your tactics Frank. Thanks for the offer but no thanks.
Then why did you challenge me to a debate? Apparently, you're chickening out, when you challenged me! How logical is that?
I wouldn’t debate anyone on a site called “AtheismSucks” any more than I, or I’d expect any respectable Christian, would care to debate on a site called ChristianityTakesItUpTheAss.
*SHRUGS* I'd debate someone with a website like that.
Since I have time on my hands and was in the mood for some fun, I engaged you. But I’ve never seen you have a real dialogue with anybody.
Oh, of course, you didn't, Janeypoo.
That is funny from someone who distorts my arguments, doesn’t bother to try and understand, and who clings to mere rhetoric.
There you go again.
A lot of your arguments don’t make sense, aren’t worth my time, and are only geared to manipulate.
Yet you like wasting your time with me, thinking that I'm not worth your time anyway? Uh, whatever.
A lot of my points effectively go unanswered from you as well...
That's not true. If someone reads our discourse I've taken your points one by one. But why do you keep skipping me?
... I just don’t both to bitch about it.
LOL!
Nevertheless, I’d take the time to address them all if our posts weren’t already so lengthy. If there is something you feel I missed that is really important to you restate it in a brief post and I’ll reply.
*SIGH* I wouldn't have to restate it if you actually read it already. I think you've just proven my point that you tend to skip some of my arguments. Thank you.
Look Jane, I would hope you reread people's posts more if you're going to reply to them. It's not too hard to do, okay?
Always,
Frank
Hi Frank,
I see you’re up to your old tricks again, calling me names (Janeypoo), twisting my words, and making hypocritical accusations. No surprises. Seems the only person throwing tantrums is you, and it suggests that I’m prevailing.
Anyway, I will address everyone one of your points this time, no matter how incoherent. But you be sure to speak up if I miss one OK sir?
“Why use logic and reasoning if atheism doesn't have any tenets? Sounds like your contradicting yourself. .
Logic and reasoning are tenets of my total philosophy and being and I used them to arrive at atheism as well as other ideas that have nothing to do with religion or God. Most atheists are very rational and logical and that is to be expected. I think you’ve really exhausted this line of inquiry. I’m sure you can find atheists with different views on the subject who might agree with you. Big deal.
”But you're wrong. Atheism is the belief in no God. It's not a lack of belief.”
Not wrong, but this is one time where I agree with your attempt at semantic transformation. There is much disagreement among atheists as to what the term really means too. Again, big deal – it doesn’t change any of my arguments.
” Do you have faith in your trust?”
Off course not, my trust derives from the evidenced reliability it exhibits, not wishful thinking like faith does.
”Jane: Unlike you I have an open mind and doubt.”
Frank: “I don't see that to be the case. Usually, when I pin you at a corner you throw a temper tantrum and say that I don't understand the issue, etc. and then you say I have no open mind. But whatever.”
More hypocritical rhetorical bluster as usual from you without support. State your evidence for your claim.
Jane: ”If you check out my blogs at RD you’ll see where I did believe in God earlier in my life and give several scenarios and situations where I could find myself believing is god(s) again. Let me see you tell me what the MINIMUM evidence you would need to observe in order to reject your belief in god. Let’s see how open-minded you really are.
Frank: “Just tell me how the God of Christianity would not account for human intelligibility. I keep coming back to this but you keep skipping it.”
LOL, did you mean “intelligence”? Accounting for “human intelligibility” is ambiguous but it doesn’t really matter. I didn’t answer your questions/assertions(?) concerning all the things you say God is responsible for creating because I assumed it was rhetorical and thus obvious and unnecessary. I never said the God of Christianity could not or would not account for human anything. It pretty much follows that once you swallow the fiction of any omniscient omnipotent being you can prove anything with it except its own internal logical inconsistencies. If I was omnipotent and omniscient I could create any intelligence I wanted that didn’t violate logic (which would otherwise present self-evident contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence). Or do you believe that God can violate logic?
Happy now Frank? If all those questions I “refused to address” were like this one, well… [laughing]. Starting to grasp at straws eh?
Now I’d like you to answer the question of mine you skipped:
Jane: Let me see you tell me what the MINIMUM evidence you would need to observe in order to reject your belief in god. Let’s see how open-minded you really are.”
The following exchange had some friends laughing. Would you mind if I repost it at RD? I want to give you a chance first to retract it though before it embarrasses you. It’s never too late to admit a mistake. I make them too sometimes without thinking and would hope for the same courtesy.
Frank: “LOL! What's the difference? If nothing is nothing and something comes out of it then it's doing something.”
Jane: “This may seem like a very minor distinction, but perhaps you know, if you have really studied and understood philosophy and science, that it has significant consequences I’m not asserting. My guess is that you don’t understand it though, and I’m not going to bother to try and explain it. Keep saying it if you like, you’ll only keep proving your ignorance to those who understand.”
Frank: “Well, it sounds like you're dodging serious implications that I'm making against you. But have it your way. “
…[later] Personally, I don't think I can change your mind since you have the faith that nothing can have something. If that's not blind faith then I don't know what is!
Frank you twisted my words one way to try to score points and when I called you on it you tried it again. …Very underhanded or very ignorant. Which one is it? You’re just digging the hole for yourself deeper as I predicted. QM doesn’t say that nothing “does” anything. The concept is something you obviously don’t understand so why don’t you study it? Frankly, I was a bit sloppy too but you didn’t catch my mistake and I don’t think I’ll bother pointing it out. What is “nothing” Frank? Is there “nothing” without God? Sort of like questions I hear like whether there is good without evil. Think about it. Now what are those serious implications I’m dodging? At the end of the day you’d still have to answer why your questions about something and nothing don’t apply to God too. Where did god come from? Whatever answer you give, if it’s at all logical, some variant of it can be applied to create an explanation without Him.
Jane: “QM makes other claims about the nature of the universe that are really no more seemingly outlandish than something from nothing. If you really understood QM you’d understand that. How can Schrödinger’s Cat be both dead and alive at the same time? How about Bell’s Theorem on non-locality that laid to rest Einstein’s objection that “God does not play dice with the universe”? There are many other seeming paradoxes, now all proven to be true based on overwhelming QM evidence.”
Frank: “There's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction, Jane. To say that something comes from nothing is a contradiction. Remember: A cannot be non-A at the same time. That's the law of non-contradiction.”
Duh, that was my point. You defined contradiction but not paradox. A paradox is a seeming contradiction that really may not be. So is the case for the examples I gave. Frank, how can something be 100% dead and 100% alive at the same time (Schrödinger’s Cat)? I’m asserting that the origin of matter and energy in relation to nothingness (I will no longer make the mistake of suggesting process) is a paradox, not a contradiction and that QM and other scientific theories explain how this is plausible. When these theories are proven, then the paradox will be explained just like for Schrödinger’s Cat. Again, you would be better off not debating what you don’t understand.
”I disagree. According to Occam's the explanation that God created the universe sounds much more simple than saying nothing created the universe.”
Yes, to simple minds you are correct. God seems the simplest answer to whatever we can’t explain yet – hence the God of the Gaps argument from theists. It has always been so as science continually chips away at all your beloved stories. Maxwell’s equations and Newtonian optics are seemingly complex but they explain rainbows. God, is a simple one word explanation for everything, especially if you don’t understand higher mathematics. We might as well just drop science. Genius.
Jane: “Well, how nice of you to announce that on a Fundamentalist blog from someone who admires Jerry Falwell.”
Frank: “If you read my blog I made it plain that I don't agree with everything Falwell says. Read it again. But if you want to hear it, I'll say it, Falwell can be an idiot sometimes. Happy?”
I’m always happy to see someone agree with me about Falwell being an idiot. It’s the first welcome evidence that I’ve seen that you don’t have to reject everything as I say out of kneejerk atheist hatred or bigotry.
However, I’d like to interject this last quote from you followed by the original quotes that prompted your response:
Frank: “Look Jane, I would hope you reread people's posts more if you're going to reply to them. It's not too hard to do, okay?”
Frank [from earlier post] ”Well, religious fundamentalism is stupid, I agree with you. But the problem is the fact that you're equating that with me”
Jane [from earlier post]: “Well, how nice of you to announce that on a Fundamentalist blog from someone who admires Jerry Falwell. I’m sure the host will appreciate that.”
This is just a partial quote from me but perhaps if you had followed your own advice and reread that earlier post you wouldn’t have improperly interpreted me. Go back and read it again and see for yourself. I was obviously referring to Joel McDurmon, this blog’s author (we’re in comments pal), and the host of this site who clearly states his admiration for Falwell in another blog here. I wasn’t referring to your views on Falwell but thanks for fleshing that out.
You’ve spiked my curiosity though. You are a YEC yet not a fundamentalist? Is the Bible the literal word of God? Which translation? How exactly do you define fundamentalist and why are they “stupid” to use your word?
”Well, to say that Darwinian evolution is true is a form of fundamentalism too. So I won't teach them that. I love my brothers and sisters enough to tell them the truth. By the way, I'm an old earth creationist.”
I guess that I will have to await your definition of fundamentalism to figure that out and respond. But the evidence for Darwinian evolution is overwhelming and it is as true as General Relativity. If believing in the fundamentals of reason, logic, and evidence is fundamentalism, than you are correct. But I don’t know anybody rational who uses the term that way in this context.
” I may get a masters after a BA.”
What major? What school?
Jane: ”As far as Christianity being a “science starter” and not a “science stopper” you have some convincing to do. The Dark Ages and Galileo may have something else to say.”
Frank: “Well, Galileo was a Christian. Apparently, he didn't think he was doing anything wrong in terms of science. In fact, he loved God. You see, even the example you used shows that Christianity is a science-starter and not a stopper.”
Was that the best you could do Frank? Not very convincing – noticed you skipped the Dark Ages issue too. The Enlightenment is what drove the rebirth of scientific thinking which had previously reached its zenith in pagan ancient Greece. Do I need to give you a laundry list of Christian obstinance to science that continues to today in rejection of evolution, big bang, etc. etc.
Yes, Galileo was a devout Christian succeeding despite his religion. The majority of scientists today in the hard sciences are not Christian. Over 95% of the membership in the National Academy of Science are atheist. What does that tell you?
Frank:”… amongst Christians we are at least orthodox despite competing denominations. “
Jane: “Orthodox about what? Is Bishop Spong Christian then and the many others like him?”
Frank: “The virgin birth, the trinity, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, the general resurrection, etc. No Christian in any denomination disagree with these major tenets.”
Spong is not a Christian. To say that he is, is quite ignorant frankly.”
Again, you twist my words. I never said Spong was a Christian. I simply asked the question. Nevertheless, someone who is a self-proclaimed Christian and a retired bona fide Bishop in a bona fide Christian denomination seems to contradict some of your statements.
I always love the self-proclaimed religious gatekeepers like you who decide who’s in and who’s out. That type of bigotry is responsible for most religious war and death. Are Mormons Christians? I could ask so many of these types of questions. How about this - there are many Christians(?) today, many prominent theologians and clergymen too, who doubt the virgin birth of Jesus. They at least know the truth that the OT prophecies that the NT Jesus a posteriori fulfilled were mistranslated (the Pentateuch) as “virgin” instead of “young girl”. This created other problems such as the literally unfulfilled genealogical prophecies for Jesus through Joseph, to whom he was no longer related due to virgin birth, thus creating a prophetic inconsistency. Now I’ve heard all the apologetics from you /literalists/fundamentalists/whatever you are/ and I’m not interested in your explanation of this inconsistency. I am only pointing out that reasonable Christians, seeking to know God and Jesus, could reasonably come to different conclusions based on the biblical and theological evidence and yet believe everything else as you do. To write them off seems bigoted on your part.
I’ll bet if I probed a little further I’d find there are other requirements for true Christians you didn’t mention. Must God be omniscient and omnipotent? Must a Christian believe in a worldwide flood for which there is no evidence, talking snakes, Satan, heaven, and hell and reject evolution and the big bang?
” Scientists don't have all absolute agreements. According to you, the only good scientist is the scientist that agrees with you and that's it.”
….
”Uh, okay, but don't say that the only good scientist is the one that agrees with you, then, okay?”
Never said that. Keep twisting my words, it makes you look bad. Your tricks won’t work on me Frank. When are you going to see that?
” Then why did you challenge me to a debate? Apparently, you're chickening out, when you challenged me! How logical is that?”
You’re really getting desperate now aren’t you? You’re not debating a “schtudenten” as my German grandfather used to say. I’m debating you here aren’t I? I haven’t quit have I? I proposed additional debate with you at another venue and you demurred. You countered with a different venue and my refusing, as you did, is not “chickening out” If anyone is chicken it’s you and your next quote supports this:
Jane: ”I wouldn’t debate anyone on a site called “AtheismSucks” any more than I, or I’d expect any respectable Christian, would care to debate on a site called ChristianityTakesItUpTheAss”.
Frank: “*SHRUGS* I'd debate someone with a website like that. “
I’m not surprised. Not only have you no dignity, but you are only courageous enough to debate on a fictitious site (that would presumably be populated by anti-Christians). You’d debate on ChristianityTakesItUpTheAss but not on the real RichardDawkins.net which has theists and atheists? Now who’s chickening out? I’ll wager you’ve already been there under an alias and got your butt kicked. Were you banned for rude behavior?
Jane: “Since I have time on my hands and was in the mood for some fun, I engaged you. But I’ve never seen you have a real dialogue with anybody.”
Frank: “Oh, of course, you didn't, Janeypoo.”
Well, it’s nice to see you agree with me again. Aren’t you big enough to concede a point without name calling though?
I hope that you’re satisfied I answered all your questions this time, as you failed to do with my last post. Frankly Frank, your last post was a poor effort. I hope you do better in your next reply or I’ll quickly get bored. Get plenty of rest!
Cheers,
Jane
Jane,
You said that you don't want to waste your time with Frank Walton. Yet you come back and reply to him still. It's obvious he got under your skin. But what's more obvious is the fact that he's schooling you. Your response is nothing more than a emotional diatribe filled with ad hominem remarks. I feel sorry for you. I really do. I would hope you would engage better with people than with what you did with Frank. You've skipped so many of his points and you made up arguments he never made. That's a last ditch effort from a coward in my opinion.
Daddy
Gentlemen,
First, I want to warn you about the use and proliferation of vulgar words on this site. American Vision maintains this blog for me and I will respect the integrity and trust of that ministry. I intended to delete the offensive posts but have decided against it since they are quite long and good otherwise. Any vulgarity in the future will result in deletion of the entire post.
As for fundamentalism, it would be helpful for whoever introduced the term to define it, since that word is quite elastic and abused. I could either assent or dissent to being called a fundy depending on how it is defined.
As for me being an admirer of Falwell: well, I admire some things about the man, not the least of which was his founding of Liberty Law School, and his taking the cultural mandate seriously, despite his eschatology. But I do not consider myself an "admirer" of him, nor a fundamentalist of the same stripe. There are a few things I admire about Richard Dawkins, but that does not make me an admirer of the man or all he stands for.
Joel,
My apologies for the vulgarity. It was obviously not used perjoritively but as an illustration to highlight Frank's behavior. it won't happen again.
"Daddy Cool":
Now I know you know you're losing when you send one of your sock puppets to comment.
Dear readers, Frank Walton is well known for creating phony accounts (sock puppets) to help him make his arguments. His multiple accounts have been traced by IP address by others. If you do a web seach you will find ample evidence of his tactics and the history of "Daddy Cool". Here's just one:
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-craziness-from-walton.html
Shame on you Frank.
Joel.
In answer to your request I will give a definition of "Fundamentalism" since I used the label first I believe. I realize there are different meanings for the term "Fundamantalism" but every time I've used it has been used the context of "Christian Fundamentalism". I can think of many ways to define it but the wikipedia definition works fine for me since I'm lazy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism):
"[Christian Fundamentalism is a movement] stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record.
...
or, in the words of the American Heritage Dictionary: "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."
When I use the term "Fundamentalist" or "Fundy" here for short my personal defintion agrees primarily with the first definition above with the added frequent connotation of intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism in the second which I observe in most, though not all fundamentalists.
Also, Fundamentalism arose in part as backlash to Modernism and scientific theories like Evolution which could not be resolved with the Bible fundamentally. My assumption, unless told otherwise, is that any given fundamentalist rejects evolution completely, an Earth older than 10K years, and usually the Big Bang and other theories involving ancient cosmology.
Jane,
I have many people pretending to be me, but Daddy Cool is not me. You linked to a person who has been making widespread lies and rumors about me. It's no wonder she didn't even bother taking me on in a formal debate. Why can't you attack my arguments for a change and not me? You have yet to deal with anything I say in a rational and appropriate matter instead of skipping them.
Frank
Hi Jane,
So, let me get this straight. You say you don't want to waste your time with me, then you come back to debate me here. Why? To waste your time? Whatever. Anyway...
I see you’re up to your old tricks again, calling me names (Janeypoo), twisting my words, and making hypocritical accusations.
As we've seen I'm not the one with that problem. For instance, you think our worshipping God is like worshipping an Easter Bunny. Then you call us fundamentalist. Then you associate us with Jerry Falwell.
No surprises. Seems the only person throwing tantrums is you, and it suggests that I’m prevailing.
That's a false inference. What you've done was link to a person who attacked my integrity and tried to make me out to look like a hypocrite. Why do you continue to attack me, Jane?
Anyway, I will address everyone one of your points this time, no matter how incoherent. But you be sure to speak up if I miss one OK sir?
So, *NOW* you know that you missed some points. If you thought you addressed my points from the beginning why do you come back to them and say you will *NOW* address it? It looks like I was right about you that you indeed missed many of my points.
Logic and reasoning are tenets of my total philosophy and being and I used them to arrive at atheism as well as other ideas that have nothing to do with religion or God.
Then you just contradicted yourself! You said atheism has no tenets now you are saying that it does.
Most atheists are very rational and logical and that is to be expected. I think you’ve really exhausted this line of inquiry.
We haven't even begun. You're skipping the matter that you said atheism has no tenets now you said it does. So which is it?
I’m sure you can find atheists with different views on the subject who might agree with you. Big deal.
Indeed.
Not wrong, but this is one time where I agree with your attempt at semantic transformation. There is much disagreement among atheists as to what the term really means too. Again, big deal – it doesn’t change any of my arguments.
Maybe not. But don't call yourself an atheist then. Atheism is the belief in no God. Not the lack of belief in God. That's a world of difference. If anything, you're more agnostic.
Off course not, my trust derives from the evidenced reliability it exhibits, not wishful thinking like faith does.
Do you trust your trust?
More hypocritical rhetorical bluster as usual from you without support. State your evidence for your claim.
Sure, when I say something is wrong you automatically say that I'm a close-minded, hypocritical, bigot.
LOL, did you mean “intelligence”?
No "intelligibility." I wrote this down over 3 times already and you keep skipping it.
Accounting for “human intelligibility” is ambiguous but it doesn’t really matter.
Sure, it does! If we have no absolute intelligibility then we can't make sense of human experience whatsoever. What of induction and mathematics then? Are those just subjective? But since you think they're ambiguous, it looks like Christianity looks awfully good so far.
I didn’t answer your questions/assertions(?) concerning all the things you say God is responsible for creating because I assumed it was rhetorical and thus obvious and unnecessary.
What a lame excuse and dodge?!
I never said the God of Christianity could not or would not account for human anything.
*SHRUGS* I know that. I didn't say that you did?
It pretty much follows that once you swallow the fiction of any omniscient omnipotent being you can prove anything with it except its own internal logical inconsistencies.
That's not true. If there are internal logical consistencies to something you can prove that it cannot account for human experience.
If I was omnipotent and omniscient I could create any intelligence I wanted that didn’t violate logic (which would otherwise present self-evident contradiction of omniscience and omnipotence). Or do you believe that God can violate logic?
No.
Happy now Frank?
Sort of. But this may be one of the worse cirtiques I ever read. How can you, though, Jane, account for human intelligibility? You say it's ambiguous? Well then, I think you've been soundly defeated. Because concepts like induction cannot be ambiguous.
If all those questions I “refused to address” were like this one, well… [laughing]. Starting to grasp at straws eh?
... okay. But I would hope you would look more into how the atheist worlview can account for human experience.
Now I’d like you to answer the question of mine you skipped...
I didn't skip any of your questions.
The following exchange had some friends laughing. Would you mind if I repost it at RD?
Jane, let the whole world know about our exchange, please.
I want to give you a chance first to retract it though before it embarrasses you. It’s never too late to admit a mistake. I make them too sometimes without thinking and would hope for the same courtesy.
Okay.
Frank you twisted my words one way to try to score points and when I called you on it you tried it again.
That didn't happen. You thought there was a difference between something coming out of nothing, and nothing doing something. I asked what the difference was, and you just attacked me and called me stupid and an embarrassment to logic.
…Very underhanded or very ignorant. Which one is it?
Neither. It's very true. And I have yet to see how you explain yourself instead of averting to ad hom remarks.
You’re just digging the hole for yourself deeper as I predicted. QM doesn’t say that nothing “does” anything. The concept is something you obviously don’t understand so why don’t you study it?
I have. And if you would at all recall I said, "even if we assume that quantum events are uncaused, this tells us nothing about the cause of the beginning of the universe. Quantum events pertain to the change of condition of particles, not the bringing of these particles into existence from absolutely nothing!"
And what did you do in response? You attacked me and called me ignorant, etc.
Frankly, I was a bit sloppy too but you didn’t catch my mistake and I don’t think I’ll bother pointing it out. What is “nothing” Frank?
You tell me. You think something can come out of nothing.
Is there “nothing” without God?
God created something. That's what Christians believe, Jane.
Sort of like questions I hear like whether there is good without evil. Think about it.
I have. And it begs the question, because you need some kind of justification for what constitutes as "good." You can have good without evil.
Now what are those serious implications I’m dodging?
Please, tell me how an atheist can account for human intelligibility? Also, look above in our discourse where I asked more questions. You admitted that you might have skipped some on accident. So, I would suggest you go back up and read them again.
At the end of the day you’d still have to answer why your questions about something and nothing don’t apply to God too.
Of course.
Where did god come from?
God wasn't created, Jane. Otherwise, how would He be God.
Whatever answer you give, if it’s at all logical, some variant of it can be applied to create an explanation without Him.
No, you can't. God is the standard of logic as far as I can tell. Atheists would have you believe that logic came from nothing. That's like an irrationality creating rationality.
Duh, that was my point.
Then don't say it's a contradiction but a paradox then. They're different!
You defined contradiction but not paradox.
I didn't have to.
A paradox is a seeming contradiction that really may not be. So is the case for the examples I gave. Frank, how can something be 100% dead and 100% alive at the same time (Schrödinger’s Cat)? I’m asserting that the origin of matter and energy in relation to nothingness (I will no longer make the mistake of suggesting process) is a paradox, not a contradiction and that QM and other scientific theories explain how this is plausible. When these theories are proven, then the paradox will be explained just like for Schrödinger’s Cat. Again, you would be better off not debating what you don’t understand.
As we've seen I'm not the one with that problem. I know what a contradiction is, Jane. You seem to embrace it and think it's logical. Something coming out of nothing? That's too much faith for me.
Yes, to simple minds you are correct.
No, to any mind. Can you hear yourself, Jane? You think something can come from nothing! What's next, 1+1=3?
God seems the simplest answer to whatever we can’t explain yet – hence the God of the Gaps argument from theists.
That's a false inference from what I said, but you seem to have the nature of the gap arguments. If we can't explain it, you just know it's not from God but nature.
It has always been so as science continually chips away at all your beloved stories.
Ditto.
Maxwell’s equations and Newtonian optics are seemingly complex but they explain rainbows. God, is a simple one word explanation for everything, especially if you don’t understand higher mathematics. We might as well just drop science. Genius.
More false inferences from what I said. You are knocking down a strawman.
I’m always happy to see someone agree with me about Falwell being an idiot. It’s the first welcome evidence that I’ve seen that you don’t have to reject everything as I say out of kneejerk atheist hatred or bigotry.
I didn't say that everything you said was bigoted or totally out of malice hate. But you seem to hold a grudge against Christians.
This is just a partial quote from me but perhaps if you had followed your own advice and reread that earlier post you wouldn’t have improperly interpreted me. Go back and read it again and see for yourself.
Okay. It's so, uh, nice of you to call Joel a "fundamentalist."
I was obviously referring to Joel McDurmon, this blog’s author (we’re in comments pal), and the host of this site who clearly states his admiration for Falwell in another blog here. I wasn’t referring to your views on Falwell but thanks for fleshing that out.
You're welcome. Do be more clear in what you write, okay, lest you accuse me of misinterpreting everything you say.
You’ve spiked my curiosity though. You are a YEC yet not a fundamentalist?
No. For the second time I'm old earth.
Is the Bible the literal word of God?
Yes.
Which translation?
The original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The Bible wasn't originally written in English, Jane.
How exactly do you define fundamentalist and why are they “stupid” to use your word?
Because some of them believe the Bible to be taken literally. When Revelation speaks of a Beast, it's not actually talking about some kind of monster. The Bible is God's literal word, but the literature shouldn't be taken literally. The Bible uses hyperbole and phenomenal language after all.
I guess that I will have to await your definition of fundamentalism to figure that out and respond. But the evidence for Darwinian evolution is overwhelming and it is as true as General Relativity. If believing in the fundamentals of reason, logic, and evidence is fundamentalism, than you are correct.
Why do you believe in the fundamentals of logic if you say atheism has no beliefs or tenet?
But I don’t know anybody rational who uses the term that way in this context.
Then don't attribute that to me, because I didn't say if you believe in the fundamentals of logic, therefore, you are a fundamentalist.
What major? What school?
I'd rather keep that to myself. I don't want people stalking me. I've had that happen to me from a fundamentalist atheist.
Was that the best you could do Frank?
*SHRUGS* I can only respond to what you gave me and you were incorrect about Galileo and the nature of science.
Not very convincing – noticed you skipped the Dark Ages issue too.
LOL! I was assuming that.
The Enlightenment is what drove the rebirth of scientific thinking which had previously reached its zenith in pagan ancient Greece. Do I need to give you a laundry list of Christian obstinance to science that continues to today in rejection of evolution, big bang, etc. etc.
Oh, I'm sure you can find examples, Jane. Frankly though more and more contemporary scientists are headed toward Christianity. See here for more detail.
Yes, Galileo was a devout Christian succeeding despite his religion.
NO! Because of it! Read up on your history and you'll see he thought he was doing God's will. Not despite of it.
The majority of scientists today in the hard sciences are not Christian. Over 95% of the membership in the National Academy of Science are atheist. What does that tell you?
That's an argument by popularity.
Again, you twist my words. I never said Spong was a Christian. I simply asked the question.
LOLOL! Jane, you really have to let go, okay. That was just bad. B-A-D. Bad. We were talking about orthodox Christians and you brought up his name. You weren't doing it randomly now were you?
Nevertheless, someone who is a self-proclaimed Christian and a retired bona fide Bishop in a bona fide Christian denomination seems to contradict some of your statements.
Oh, so, NOW, we're talking about Spong's orthodoxy and whether he's a Christian? Absolutely brilliant and flawless logic, Jane. Seriously.
I always love the self-proclaimed religious gatekeepers like you who decide who’s in and who’s out.
You love me? Then would it kill you to be nicer. Anyway, no, I don't decide that. If the Bible said that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in a Holy Trinity, and somebody denies that, then they can't be a Christian. That's just logical. If someone said they were an atheist and we told him then that means he's not a Christian, would we be wrong?
That type of bigotry is responsible for most religious war and death.
Tell that to the Christian victims who died under atheist and evolutionist tyrany.
Are Mormons Christians?
No. I find it odd that you would think they are.
I could ask so many of these types of questions.
Oh, I'm sure you can!
How about this - there are many Christians(?) today, many prominent theologians and clergymen too, who doubt the virgin birth of Jesus. They at least know the truth that the OT prophecies that the NT Jesus a posteriori fulfilled were mistranslated (the Pentateuch) as “virgin” instead of “young girl”. This created other problems such as the literally unfulfilled genealogical prophecies for Jesus through Joseph, to whom he was no longer related due to virgin birth, thus creating a prophetic inconsistency. Now I’ve heard all the apologetics from you /literalists/fundamentalists/whatever you are/ and I’m not interested in your explanation of this inconsistency. I am only pointing out that reasonable Christians, seeking to know God and Jesus, could reasonably come to different conclusions based on the biblical and theological evidence and yet believe everything else as you do. To write them off seems bigoted on your part.
*SHRUGS* Okay.
I’ll bet if I probed a little further I’d find there are other requirements for true Christians you didn’t mention. Must God be omniscient and omnipotent?
According to his nature, yes.
Must a Christian believe in a worldwide flood...
No.
... for which there is no evidence, talking snakes, Satan, heaven, and hell and reject evolution and the big bang?
You don't have to believe in talking snakes unless you equated it to Satan. Heaven? Yes. Hell? Yes. Evolution? No. You can still be a Christian and believe in evolution. Big bang? Many Christians believe the universe started with a bing bang, but, unlike you, they don't think that this big bang created itself from nothing.
Never said that.
You seem to awfully contain that premise though.
Keep twisting my words, it makes you look bad.
Tell that to a person reading these posts.
Your tricks won’t work on me Frank.
I'm not trying to trick you.
When are you going to see that?
Don't have to because I never did it.
You’re really getting desperate now aren’t you?
No. You said you didn't want to waste your time with me, but then you come back and respond to me? Well, Jiminy Jillickers, who's the desperate one?!
You’re not debating a “schtudenten” as my German grandfather used to say. I’m debating you here aren’t I? I haven’t quit have I? I proposed additional debate with you at another venue and you demurred. You countered with a different venue and my refusing, as you did, is not “chickening out” If anyone is chicken it’s you and your next quote supports this:
Jane: ”I wouldn’t debate anyone on a site called “AtheismSucks” any more than I, or I’d expect any respectable Christian, would care to debate on a site called ChristianityTakesItUpTheAss”.
Frank: “*SHRUGS* I'd debate someone with a website like that. “
I’m not surprised.
Uh, okay, but I did say I'd still debate. So that makes someone a chicken? I'm being consistent, Jane.
Not only have you no dignity, but you are only courageous enough to debate on a fictitious site (that would presumably be populated by anti-Christians).
Well, if that fictitious site became a reality, I'll still debate them. What's the difference? Either way, I'll take them on.
You’d debate on ChristianityTakesItUpTheAss but not on the real RichardDawkins.net which has theists and atheists?
I WILL go to RichardDawkins.net, sure.
Now who’s chickening out?
Well, it's not me.
I’ll wager you’ve already been there under an alias and got your butt kicked. Were you banned for rude behavior?
No, I haven't registered there yet. But I'll go.
Jane: “Since I have time on my hands and was in the mood for some fun, I engaged you. But I’ve never seen you have a real dialogue with anybody.”
Frank: “Oh, of course, you didn't, Janeypoo.”
Well, it’s nice to see you agree with me again.
I didn't say I agreed with you. I just knew that it was typical of you to think I never had a real dialogue. Talk about twisting other people's words!
Aren’t you big enough to concede a point without name calling though?
Yes. But as we've seen I'm not the one with that problem.
I hope that you’re satisfied I answered all your questions this time, as you failed to do with my last post.
That's not what happened, Jane. I answered you point by point. Anybody can see that.
Frankly Frank, your last post was a poor effort. I hope you do better in your next reply or I’ll quickly get bored. Get plenty of rest!
Well, I'm back, aren't I?
In the end though, Jane, realize you just conceded this point:
Accounting for “human intelligibility” is ambiguous but it doesn’t really matter.
I think this proves once and for all that Christianity is ever so much more rational (if not, ONLY rational) position to hold.
Thanks, Jane! You're the best!
Frank
Dear Frank,
Despite your assertions that you answered all my questions, perhaps I'm blind, but where did you answer this one (that I am now repeating for the third time!):
"Let me see you tell me what the MINIMUM evidence you would need to observe in order to reject your belief in god. Let’s see how open-minded you really are."
Also, I didn't see a response to this:
"As far as I know, all those scientists who know about, understand, and have seen the evidence believe just that. Show me a scientist who says virtual particles don’t exist who has studied the evidence."
Are you conceding that you've found no scientist with a solid background in QM who has studied virtual particles that denies their existence or that they come from nothing?
There are some others, like my question about Schrodinger's Cat that you didn't really address either, rather than dwell on the semantics of "contradiction" vs. "paradox". But those can wait for now.
I see no point in answering your questions further here until you answer mine.
In the meantime, let me know when you're on RD and what your screename is. I'll be waiting.
Love,
Jane
I became an atheist when I read in Richard Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker "We no longer need to invoke the supernatural to explain the origins and development of life on earth". And I knew in my heart he is right.
You cannot create life out of "nothing" but organic molecules can be created from inorganic under the right conditions (Ref Miller's work.
Aggregations of organic molecules can form replicating proto-cells which are subject to natural selection, and then, as they say, the rest is history.
Post a Comment
<< Home