Derbyshire reviews Spencer: The seeds of defeat in the war on terror are sown by Christianity
posted at 1:29 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I haven’t read the book so I’ll reserve comment, but how often does Robert Spencer get attacked from the right? Mmm, that’s red:
[V]ery uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear?
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization. Fair enough, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note a striking example of Derb’s point on our own site within the past 24 hours.
I like this passage, too:
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Spencer has promised PJM he’ll respond. In the meantime, anyone read the book yet and care to reply?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »
You’re appeals to authority are a prime example of a logical fallacy. Socrates also believed fascism was the best way to run a government, Aristotle thought retards weren’t human and women were third tier at most. People like them and others aren’t the supreme authority on what people should believe or not, even “smart” people like Socrates and Aristotle can abandon logic when thinking about the concept of gods or equality.
Because you know me so much better than I know myself. You’re only reinforcing your stereotype. I admitted a mistake and you couldn’t get over it.
Point me to one scientist who says (and can back up the fact) that the Earth wasn’t formed via accretion from the planetary nebula formed from exploded stars and I’ll concede the point.
Because it’s impossible to understand something without having a doctorate in it, or believing in it, or… any other bizarre specifications you have for believing in something? Because guess what? I can know the history of homosapiens without majoring in geology or biology just as I can understand the basics of physics and astronomy without majoring in them either.
But of course you’d know so much better considering you’ve read that holy of holy documents that is 100% true (except when it is being metaphoric) that tells you what happened.
That’s convenient for you, isn’t it? I’m sure if it’s so much easier to just believe in something and pretend like someone is being dishonest when they confront your laughably insane belief. Someone tells me humans never lived to be older than 900 years? I’ll just stick my fingers in my ears and shout “DISHONEST DISINGENUOUS!” until the person gets tired with me.
Did you even read my previous posts? I said I know for a fact that the Christian God and the Muslim God and the Greek gods don’t exist; I don’t know whether or not a god exists.
So what do you call the fossil evidence of human life or the geologic record repudiating a great flood or the geologic time line pointing out the age of the Earth? You guys are ignoring the evidence and holding on to the hope that a man in a book preformed unproven miracles. And you call me a self-inflicted ignorant? Look in the mirror, bud.
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Oh, and 600th comment.
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 5:16 PM
600+ comments? Is this a new Hot Air record?
Lawrence on August 22, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Loundry on August 22, 2007 at 2:53 PM
I see what the problem here is, you didn’t do your own homework but instead let someone else do it for you and took their results as fact without bothering to check for yourself.
Let me make this simple for you. The only individuals that the bible un-categorically states will suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire are the Devil, his angles and those who accept the mark of the beast. To suggest that anyone else will is to make conjecture that is unsupported by the actual text of the bible.
Jesus Christ made the allegory
He made it very clear that everyone who was not forgiven would pay for their sin’s, but he does not say that that payment was eternal.
Edward W. Fudge delves quite deeply into this in his book, The Fire that consumes, which I suggest that you read.
I think certain indisputable laws of physic’s suck, I think that death sucks, but the fact that I think they suck doesn’t mean I get to discount them as irrelevant.
No, what we are discussing is your interpretation of the validity of Christian theology. You make your case for misanthropy based upon your own personal judgment of what is or is not fair and what you think should and should not be fair. I counter this obvious logic fallacy with by pointing out that neither you nor I are in anything even remotely approaching a position to determine what really is or is not fair.
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 5:24 PM
So what do you call the fossil evidence of human life or the geologic record repudiating a great flood or the geologic time line pointing out the age of the Earth?
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 5:11 PM
All depends on what facts we selectively ignore.
Geological evidence, especially in North America (Wyoming, for instance) proves a flooded continent at some point in the near past. Explaining why so many dinosaur bones in Wyoming are found in very specific geological formations resembling old lake and sea beds. Formations that where apparently quickly flooded at one point killing the dinosaurs, burying them in sediment, and then mysterioiusly receding.
There is indisputable proof in terms of historical evidence that Jesus miracles really occurred, based on eyewitness accounts of an number of Christian and non-Christian schollars and historians. It is well documented that many non-Christians failed at trying to copy Christ’s miracles and the miracles of the apostles. So whether by worldly majic, or by divine influence, the history of both Christians and non-Christians corroborate that miracles did happen.
Lawrence on August 22, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Nonfactor - Again, learn a bit about epistomology and the philosophy of science. No one KNOWS how the earth was formed. Scientists have theories based on data but no direct knowledge of this is possible. Scientists gather more data and revise their theories. That is why science changes over time.
Newton’s theories about movement fully explained the data available to him at the time. But later more accurate instruments provided additional data that Newton’s theories could not explain. Hence Einstein’s theories arose, which themselves will be revised in the face of new data. In this process only the data are known. The theories are only explanatory ideas, not themselves knowledge of the universe.
We can know the proofs of logic and math. We can know the products of our perceptions. We can construct theories to explain the data from our senses but we cannot forget that these theories are always constructs. Scientists are conscious of the limits of knowledge.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Well now, Loundmouth, I would say that your arrogance is definitely not too subtle to be appreciated.
hillbillyjim on August 22, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 5:11 PM
No because you have proven it time and time again with your posts. Your so called admission is DISINGENUOUS…try looking up what the word means. Admitting that you failed to dot an i or cross a tee is not even remotely similar to admitting that you dont know what you are talking about.
Yes I did, and I called bullshit on you.
Funny how often you use that excuse.
Apparently unlike you I am actually schooled in the physical sciences (Physics Oceanography and Chemistry) and have read the bible for what it actually does say, not what I want it to say.
I’ll give you a hint here, remove the misconstrued and mistranslated term day from the Genesis account of creation and compare sequence of events laid out in Genesis to the scientific data compiled by researchers. If you cant figure it out from there, well then the term self-inflicted stupidity is not only a well earned moniker for you but one which you will never escape.
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I answered your problem with “cud” as academically as possible. Are you still holding to your postition that there is a problem with that verse?
The same goes for you.
The answer is as academic foolproof as you can get without you reading the original Hebrew. And I am assuming you can’t.
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 5:39 PM
On the other hand, the *knowledge* of a know-it-all has no bounds.
Nothing to gain by trading words with Nonfactor and such. They seemingly already know everything.
Great post, all the same.
hillbillyjim on August 22, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Yeah, I’m gathering that. I guess we should thank them for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts. Back after this message.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Straw men are fun.
Writing something in caps doesn’t make it any more true. I’m a better judge about what I was being sincere about than you. You say you’re happy for believing in God and I believe you, when I say something was a mistake I expect you to believe me.
No, you didn’t. I pointed out the dishonesties in Genesis and you ignored my post. It is what I expected because to refute my claims you’d have to offer up proof yourself, and seeing as how you have no proof to offer you were really fighting a loosing battle.
Funny how often I have to. Guess you can’t even see the fact that all your excuses are designed for you to worm your way out of answering a question or thinking at all.
I guess it’s easy to create a truth if you say “remove X from The Bible.” Even if what you said were true it doesn’t account for a worldwide (or was it simply in one area?) flood or 900 year old people or humanity starting in the Garden of Eden. You realize your entire “argument” in that last couple sentences boils down to: “if you ignore this section of The Bible the events written down are almost the same as how they really happened.” Self-inflicted stupidity fits you nicely.
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM
A good treatment of objections to the Bible and Christianity.
jdpaz on August 22, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Does not Jesus Christ command that even “the tone and attitude” of our conversation bring Him honor and glory?
There are too many problems with atheism as a philosophy. But atheism is not going to go away.
The big question for my fellow believers is whether Christians are up to showing how their Lord Jesus Christ supplies a life-giving alternative to all the false, worldly counterfeits.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM
There’s nothing wrong with Christianity that liberals haven’t gone and screwed up already.
Jesus preached to love your neighbor. Sometimes in order to love someone you have to protect them. It’s as simple as that.
Christianity isn’t pacifism, it never was pacifism, and has only been interpreted as pacifism in the past 50 years by Godless liberals who wish to see the death of all religion everywhere.
What they have planned to put in it’s place would be hell on earth indeed.
thareb on August 22, 2007 at 6:30 PM
You’re not helping here. NonFactor is picking on you because it’s easy to get a rise out of you. If you don’t have some type of presuppositional debate with him, you’re not going to win anyway. Yes, he has an air of superiority, but if you can’t respond without resorting to snark, just ignore him.
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Yep. Sometimes you even have to blast another neighbor to do so.
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Nonfactor, Loundry, et. al. :
Your willingness to engage in this philosophical debate is evidence, in its own right, of an inner struggle with which you have yet come to grips; the venom and vigor of such is further proof of said struggle.
If you were yourself satisfied with your own arguments, you would have been content to exit this debate many comments ago.
There are numerous reasons that there exists the word *faith.* I feel sure that none of those reasons, dating back to the ‘beginning of history’ will be satisfactory for your sceptical minds.
However, I would speculate that you are not so sure of your conclusions on the matter; otherwise, why would it matter to you to the extent that you would spend so much thought and time trying to debunk (to yourselves, subconsciously at least) anything spiritual.
I am sure you will have a clever, yet ingenious, answer; so God Bless You.
hillbillyjim on August 22, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Remove from your mind, not the text. You have to read it for what it does say, not what you want it to say. Can you prove that nobody ever lived 900 years? No actually you cant. Can you prove that the garden of eden was suppose to be a literal and not metaphysical story? Again not you cant, in fact you are so woefully ignorant you have no basis for your arguments.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM
You mean kind of like when Jesus said to the Pharisees…
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Sorry, ingenuous (sp.)
Just goes to show–preview button isn’t itiot proof.
hillbillyjim on August 22, 2007 at 6:41 PM
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Why? Because in your view Christianity and therefore Christians should be non-confrontational?
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Doriangrey,
I’m not going to debate you further on this.
Please remember that the Biblical verse that you quoted above refers to Jesus’s judgment on “professing believers in God,” not atheists, not skeptics, and not unbelievers.
Jesus’s harshest words were directed at professing believers, not unbelievers. 1 Corinthians 5-6 states that we are to judge believers, not unbelievers.
The Bible states that we are to honor Christ with the “tone and attitude” of our conversations. I have made many mistakes myself over the years concerning this same point.
I am still trying to apply this to my life, so that I may bring glory to God, despite my sins.
It is crucial that even the tone and our humble attitude conveys to others that Jesus Christ Himself is the life-giving alternative to all other false, counterfeits which this temporary, finite world tries to offer in the name of “pleasure.”
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 6:48 PM
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 6:48 PM
While I do think you are wrong on this (I have come not to bring peace on earth but a sword, and to make a division among men,” {cf, Matt 10:34) I am not so stubborn or hardheaded as to refuse your request.
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM
I’m an atheist about revealed religion and I’m agnostic about a non-interventionist impersonal non-anthropomorphic Creator of some sort. I also think questions like “On balance, has religion been good or bad for humanity?” are pretty silly. Religion has been (and is) such a pervasive aspect of our culture and its relationship with pretty much every facet of our lives is so intricate that broadbrush causal or counterfactual claims are inevitably facile. It’s pretty much inconceivable to me what the world would be like today if our ancestors had not believed in God, and I daresay none of you know either. In the absence of this vital data, these arguments will always descend into futility.
As for the existence or otherwise of God, I believe (like Nonfactor) that the Gods of virtually all major religions could not have existed if the claims about them are to be taken literally. For instance, it is biologically impossible for a human brain to survive three days of clinical death. Now the response might be that this doesn’t prove anything. Of course, regular humans can’t come back after three days of death, but then most of them aren’t God. But this is pleading for special standards of proof that you would not require in any other situation. For instance, sailors over a number of years produced remarkably consistent accounts of mermaid sightings. The fact that science tells us that such a creature can not exist (given what we know about evolutionary genealogy) is adequate disproof of their claims. The demonstrable biological impossibility of the resurrection should, then, be adequate disproof of the Christian God. In other words, a claim that flies in the face of well-tested theory requires exceptional evidence if it is to withstand dismissal. And I do mean exceptional - the supposedly uncanny consistency of accounts of Jesus’s life doesn’t count (if it exists, it can be accounted for in a number of ways that do not require us to posit the temporary suspension of laws of nature).
However, when it comes to a non-interventionist Aristotelian type of deity, I have heard no compelling arguments against. The one that is usually trotted out is Russell’s teapot, but I find it unconvincing. It is obvious that the believer in the teapot has the burden of proof. The default position should be disbelief in the teapot until confronted with evidence. This is supposed to carry over to the debate between theists and atheists, with the default position being atheist. But I fail to see why it is the theists who are analogous to the teapot believer. Why not say that teapot belief is analogous to atheism, and our default belief should be theism?
The analogy might be motivated by arguing that theists, like the teapot believer, are positing entities, so the burden is on them to demonstrate the existence of these entities. In other words, the side with the more bloated ontology has the burden of proof. But it seems to me that this cannot be right. For instance, consider the solipsist who thinks that the only thing that exists is his own mind. The supposed “external world” is just a dream he’s having. Now I think his position is ludicrous. Clearly the default position should be that the external world exists, that there are actually chairs and tables and dogs and trees. But my ontology is much more bloated than the solipsist’s, so if the principle behind Russell’s teapot is right, then I have the burden of the proof. I must demonstrate to him that the external world exists. If I can’t, then it would be rational for me to accept solipsism. This is ridiculous, so Russell’s teapot argument can’t be right. It seems incorrect to suppose it a general principle that the more parsimonious ontology is the one we must accept in the absence of countervailing evidence.
Perhaps the claim is that it is not the size of one’s ontology that matters, but the believability of the entities one posits. A teapot circling the sun seems pretty unlikely. How did it get there? If you want me to believe that it’s there, then you better give me some extraordinary evidence. Similarly, the existence of an intelligent Creator is also quite unlikely, and the claim requires evidence. But of course, this is just begging the question. For plenty of theists, it seems far more ludicrous to suppose there is no God than to suppose there is one, so they would argue that it is the atheists who must provide extraordinary evidence. In fact, one could construct an argument parallel to Russell’s, except from the theist’s perspective. Call it Jazzman’s daughter. Someone tells me my daughter doesn’t exist and is actually a figment of my mind, some sort of complex wish fulfilment fantasy. I would (rightly) claim that the burden is on them to prove it to me. Similarly, if the atheist claims there is no God (when it is so manifestly obvious to me, the theist, that there is) the burden of proof is on him.
My point is that there is a dialectical impasse here, and I have not heard absolutely compelling arguments on either side. Perhaps it is best to admit that the beliefs of both sides are perfectly rational and part amicably. Incidentally, I also believe that a Biblical literalist’s beliefs can be rational, even though they are demonstrably false. This is because I hold to an instrumental conception of rationality. However, since this post is already ludicrously long-winded, I’ll say no more here.
Jazzman on August 22, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Straw-men (pl.) — More than one straw man.
All of that intellectualist bullshit, for what?
(you guys seem to be quite *big-time gone* on -ists and -isms, so there)
Some people choose to believe in something bigger and better, and some people choose to believe in some mish-mash in between, and some people choose to believe in non-belief.
Choose as you will; just don’t get all high-and-mighty if someone else has different standards of proof as yourself.
We are all frail humans,; on this planet but for a whisper of time.
If you believe in something more, or if you don’t, so be it.
By the way, I love all of you. Reading and learning from such a diverse group is a blessing in itself.
hillbillyjim on August 22, 2007 at 7:38 PM
OT–
Allahpundit, you have outdone yourself with this thread. Surely this 600+ # will spare us from *r* for at least a couple of days!
Prayerfully,
hillbillyjim on August 22, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I’ve added this page to my favorites, just for all the interesting links and viewpoints.
BadgerHawk on August 22, 2007 at 9:07 PM
I’d prefer to rely on myself….just sayin’. We are so into relying on other people which to me isn’t really what an American stands for..but unfortunately what our lazy people have become…lazy lazy.
Highrise on August 22, 2007 at 9:44 PM
nonfactor and loundry never answered my statement on the “cud” comment.
Either they are in hiding, or they cannot come to grips that they have been “set” straight.
Just say, “thank you, I now understand and I was wrong”.
And I would say; “your welcome sharing knowledge is what this is all about”.
It won’t be to hard, if your really looking for the truth…but impossible for some.
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Once you accept a Creator God then the rest are just details. Surely the Creator of the universe, of time and space and the principles of physical reality, could raise someone from the dead. Surely the Creator of physical laws could break them, or have such an infinitely finer understanding of them as to create acts that appear to break them, acts that so defy our poor understanding of the world that we call them miracles.
This may or may not be an argument for Christianity but once you posit that there is a Creator beyond the universe, a vast and unknowable Creator who made us for reasons we cannot comprehend, then details like miracles should be quite easy to incorporate.
As for the idea that what matters is “the believability of the entities one posits”, well, science posits all kinds of counter-intuitive, unbelievable entities. Quarks? Black holes? Neutrinos? Light can be both a particle and a wave? The position of an electron or the direction of its movement can each be known but not both simultaneously? Chimps are 98% genetically identical to humans? Dark matter which can never be known through observation but makes up most of the universe? Some sub-atomic particles can in two places at once? These and many many others are difficult entities to believe but because they are draped in the cloak of Science we seem to accept them without question.
I think too many people get turned off early in life by ignorant theists hawking silly, childish notions of God and never give the idea a second chance. Good for you for at least entertaining the notion. If you look into this more I think you will appreciate the complexity and subtlety that the history of theology offers. Some of the brightest minds of Western history have labored over the problems of theology. Augustine, Aquinas, Spinoza, Hegel, Kant, Tillich, Barth: these are not hacks or ignorant country preachers spinning tales of an old man in the sky but rather some of the most brilliant Western minds wrestling with the deepest problems of what it means to be human.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 10:03 PM
AP-
When this thread reaches 666, close it fast.
Wouldn’t want to accidentally bring about the the Rapture.
profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Or, worse, The Rupture.
profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 10:05 PM
“Man would rather have the Void for a purpose than be void of purpose.” -F. Nietzsche.
The cure for all despair, religious or irreligious.
(633 comments, which leaves only 33 more to go!)
profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Yeah, good ole Fred Nietzsche. Cause Eternal Return is so rational and simple and makes so much more sense. (32 left then, eh?)
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Thomas the Wraith-
I don’t buy his Universal Mobius Strip Theory but he’s a great aphorist and profound analyst of Philosophy’s flaws and prejudices.
If not his own.
(He died very young, don’t forget, and was trying ‘to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted’ with his wordplay and challenges.)
Basically, a decent guy in his life.
“I would believe only in a God who knows how to Dance.” F.N.
profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 10:49 PM
I think the reason the atheists get involved in these threads is that they really think that they are such good debaters and are so sure of what they have to say that they feel they can convince us that they are right and we are wrong. What they don’t seem to understand is that we have heard it all before and have already studied on our own and do not believe what we believe lightly.
Rose on August 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Cool. Actually, I have the Gleason Archer book somewhere… what a wonderful scholar! I think he knew like 27 languages when he retired from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School a few years ago… last I heard. He was a professor of one of MY college professors, who esteemed him greatly. I had wanted to go there at one time.
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 10:55 PM
The atheists, and not just those on this thread, are very good at denying (”There is no god. You can’t prove it. Na na na.”) but not so good at putting forward positive ideas or explanations.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Why should the universe be understandable to humans (when it does not appear to be understandable to any other species)? What a remarkable coincidence, don’t you think, that the human mind just happens to be able to comprehend the laws of physics? What are the odds?
What is morality? Where does it come from? How do humans understand it? If there is no God why is it wrong to murder people? Or is it wrong? What, in a world without God, would terms like “wrong” mean? In what sense are humans equal? How do we know that (after all human equality cannot be proven but human inequality can be measured a thousand different ways)? Or, as Nietzsche would say, is human equality just a trick, a rhetorical sheet the weak have pulled over the eyes of the strong?
Are terms like ‘human dignity’ or ‘rights’ just fictions used in a political power struggle or do they have real meaning? Without some appeal to the metaphysical on what foundation can they rest?
In what sense does a human life or human life in general have meaning? Is history moving toward something or is it just a series of events without direction or purpose? Why is compassion a better trait than greed? Or are they both merely descriptive terms without value-judgment?
These are difficult questions for believers. I imagine for atheists they are at least thought-provoking. But of course for some on this thread these issues are just stupid word game that they will ignore before proceeding to heap insults on me. Such is life.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Thomas the Wraith-
“The meaning of life is to give life meaning.”- (I think the sculptor Rodin, a big fan of Dante, said this.)
All questions are potentially profound to the mind ready for them.
“Ask ‘why’ and you’ve got your whole life cut out for you.”-Les Paul (inventor of the guitar named after him, and many other intriguing devices).
Why the Volvox and not chaos?
The asking is often more vital than any answer.
(30 to go!)
profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I agree. An interesting and sad life really. But clearly a brilliant, passionate and troubled writer. Like a cold shower, he’s a great cleanser, great for clarifying and focusing, but not something I can take for long stretches. But stylistically, one of the very best (especially for a German).
I myself am more drawn to Schopenhauer, also a very fine stylist. I realize this makes me an idiosyncratic Christian (at best) but I find Schopenhauer to be a profound thinker, a reservoir of insights, and like Nietzsche, a fearless writer. Schopenhauer attacked the biggest names of his time and like a philosophical Rocky, he comes out on top.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 11:13 PM
As for Rodin, no one could spend years working on The Gates of Hell and not be a believer. An odd believer no doubt, perhaps a highly personal believer like his assistant Rilke, but a believer nonetheless.
I don’t know anything about Les Paul.
I won’t be around for the big number rollover. Only 28 to go I think. Good night.
Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I am humbled yet again by this audacious thread. Allah — phuh — ran this as some sort of present to himself, I think.
To be fair, you might acknowledge that these claims are nearly always in response to some sort of moral equivalence from the left about Islam, and therefore perfectly true and appropriate.
Jaibones on August 22, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Thomas the Wraith-
“The World as Will and Idea” is at the top of my bookshelf.
Edmund Husserl is an intriguing thinker, as well.
His short “Cartesian Meditations” worth a read.
But, I especially like Henri Bergson, a gallic wit, and philsopher of “process” (influenced by the Lumiere Brothers?).
“Some other faculty than the intellect is necessary for the apprehension of reality.”
(Speaking of faculties: I always wondered why the real 6th Sense, The Sense of Balance, was not included in the other 5, since, without it, we’re flat on our asses? Is it too much taken for granted?)
profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Thomas-
Don’t let the 666 bedbugs bite.
Rodin said: “If there was no religion, artists would have to create it.”
Mohammad, on the other hand, thought that the act of doing representational art would condemn the artist to burn in hell forever, with his creations tied around his neck, mocking and tormenting him for challenging Allah’s inviolate creativity.
Allah being the most jealous “god” in history.
Making creatures capable of Art, but forbidding them to utilize their innate talents.
Perverse. Sadistic. A Tantalus of Arabia.
(Or was this all just a projection by art-hating Mohammad?)
profitsbeard on August 22, 2007 at 11:49 PM
I’m so glade I’m not a Catholic. I spell my name
Tim M a h o n E y. Actually that’s not the reason I’m glad I’m not a Catholic…
taterblade on August 22, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Go AP. NonFactor, Et Al. We Non Re or er uh, Con formists gotta love this Shit.
taterblade on August 22, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I purposefully ignore every conversation about Leviticus. If you notice I never got into your “cud” debate, it’s trivial discussing laws that Christians don’t follow anyway and even more trivial still considering the laws are man made.
What God acts as is a moral ruler in the sky where on one side something is labeled “good” and the other “bad.” Numerous different people have different ideas of what this ruler looks like and what things are on what end.
I don’t think anyone will tell you asking moral questions is stupid. But if you assume these moral questions can only be answered if you believe in God and more specifically the Christian God they turn from genuine philosophical questions to a stump speech for your religion.
Your thrid paragraph is full of so much wrongness even I can’t go through it all. Just do a google search of all the things you listed and then do a search of scientific journals. Sure, some of the things are merely hypothetical, but some are truth.
Good.
A few of his writings were weak (notably On Suicide), but overall a great thinker, not sure if I’d want him in charge of anything though (like Kant).
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Scott Johnson of Power Line had a post up yesterday about Robert Spencer’s new book:
He also notes that:
INC on August 23, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Just adding one more toward the 666 goal.
baldilocks on August 23, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Hoping for 666 by morning.
Off to the rack.
Robert Spencer’s interview by Atlas Shrugs’s lovely Pamela Geller is worth a watch [scroll down].
(t]Thank the Fates that all of the good-looking ladies are on our side…)
profitsbeard on August 23, 2007 at 1:01 AM
One l too many in the Atlas link above.
profitsbeard on August 23, 2007 at 1:07 AM
You don’t have to be a good debater if you’re an atheist. The answer to everything is for them is if they can’t see it, it’s not true. The only problem with that point of view is that it leaves some very deep holes. I mean, we’re sitting in this immense universe, and the only sign of consciousness, which is unlike anything else out there, is immediately plain to us but we can’t measure it, explain it, or even tell if it is present in animals, or worst of all, at what age does it appear in a fetus.
Since we have consciousness, it is sensible to assume that the potential for consciousness is everywhere, and just the presence of a human brain causes it to be perceived. To be an atheist requires you to believe that not only does matter and energy come from nothing, but an entire universe full of potential consciousness as well. It seems quite sensible to me that if there is this astronomical amount of space filled with potential consciousness, that there might just be another way for it to manifest itself besides the human brain or matter of any type. Given that the bulk of the universe is dark matter which we cannot interact with, and beyond that there is a huge amount of negative energy flooding into the universe, and the zero point energy of the vacuum is 10^150 times higher that it should be, the amount of consciousness that is likely out there is beyond comprehension. It seems quite reasonable to conclude that such as massive amount of consciousness could become organized and have a huge affect on our society. You then think about how that might manifest itself. When you study pure, uncorrupted Christian doctrine you see that is quite likely what it would look like.
So a real atheist debate would confront all of those realities and explain why none of it matters. But now let’s get back to our rabbit cud.
pedestrian on August 23, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Coming from someone who’s entire argument rests on the statement “The Bible is true so my belief is true,” this is laughable. And that’s no including the fact that your statement is a complete straw man. If you’d actually read this thread you’d see that’s not what the atheists are claiming at all.
If that were the argument I’d agree, but it isn’t. It is something I remark when people give the generic response about their rationality for believing in a certain God–there are very deep holes.
God of the gaps isn’t an explanation for God any more than The Matrix is. Sure, we don’t know how something happens or why something happens, but that doesn’t mean a God must make it happen. It means there is a possibility a God (or gods) made it happen, but the probability is infantile (similar to Russell’s teapot–where I disagree with Jazzman).
True. The key word here being potential. To assume that because there is a potential for something that it is probable would be unwise.
This is a straw man.
I’m genuinely interested why you think it’s “sensible” that this potential consciousness can manifest itself in something you don’t know exists (not ‘matter of any type’). The belief (keep in mind we’re not talking about the belief in God, simply the possibility for consciousness to manifest itself et cetera et cetera) isn’t predicated on anything in reality. It’s akin to supposing that space is infinite with matter equally distributed throughout thus allowing for an infinite number of Earths with an infinite number of possibilities (from palm trees being purple to Lincoln not being assassinated). I think we could agree this isn’t a “sensible” assumption because the “potential” is too infantile to take seriously, let alone rest in our entire basis for morality.
“Likely”? We just took a jump there from “potential” to “likely,” in religion I guess this is called the “leap of faith;” it has to be made somewhere and I guess here is a “likely” a place as ever.
It’s one thing to assume there is a mass of potential consciousness drifting about in space, it is an entirely different thing to assume that this potential consciousness manifested itself in something that existed before time and space to eventually create time and space and hold bear over the Earth and all living thing on it, wouldn’t you agree? I’d agree that the Christian God does look like a mass of consciousness in space, but your explanation is only slightly more probable (and possible too) than the one described in The Bible.
The vision of God I think most probable (but still not provable) isn’t one that lords over us or punishes us, but one that has always existed possibly in the form of a star or galaxy that kicked off this entire universe thing. But I’d also like to note that even if a God (or gods–even one like the one I described) did exist I wouldn’t bow down to it or align my morality to fit the morality of what we suppose its to be, but if it was proven to exist I certainly would believe in it.
Nonfactor on August 23, 2007 at 3:03 AM
Where, pray tell, was this “star or galaxy” before it “kicked off this entire universe thing?”
hillbillyjim on August 23, 2007 at 3:25 AM
Oh I forgot about the Space-Time Continuum. My bad.
Beam me up, Scottie.
hillbillyjim on August 23, 2007 at 3:27 AM
Many of these are extremely important questions, and I am yet to find good answers. Questions about morality and rights are especially troubling to me. I have read many attempts to provide non-religious answers to these questions (Hume, Mill, Kant, Rawls, for instance), but I will admit none of them have been entirely satisfactory. Should this drive me towards a belief in an interventionist deity? I presume the argument goes something like this (correct me if I’m wrong):
1. Objective, non-natural moral facts exist.
2. These moral facts, by their very nature, have normative authority over all rational beings.
3. The normative authority of moral facts cannot be explained without (or, is best explained by) positing the existence of God, i.e. an absolutely authoritative promulgator and enforcer of moral law.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Premise three seems extremely dubious to me. It relies on a Hobbesian voluntarism (no normativity without a lawgiver)that is riddled with philosophical problems. The most immediate, to my mind, is the apparent infinite regress: what obligates us to accept the authority of the lawgiver? Answering that question requires a conception of obligation prior to the authority of the lawgiver. But for the divine command theorist there is no such prior obligation, unless another lawgiver is posited, and so we are off on the regress.
The answer might be that the authority of the lawgiver is accepted not out of a sense of duty but out of love. OK, but then the universality of the ethics seems to fail. Suppose I love the devil more than God and live accordingly. On what grounds would you criticize me? You couldn’t say that I should love God more, because that “should” is going back to a concept of duty prior to the acceptance of the lawgiver’s authority, and we have the regress again.
Of course, you could say that the lawgiver’s authority comes from His ability to ensure eternal damnation to those who disobey. This would work, but it reduces the foundation of morality to egoism, and egoism is a position that is just as available to the atheist.
So I don’t think premise 3 is true. I’m not even sure about premise 1 and 2, although I hold to them for the time being. Nietzsche, interestingly, would probably accept 3 but reject 1 and 2.
And speaking of Nietzsche, a word on eternal recurrence. I realize there are places in the Nachlass where he treats it as a cosmological hypothesis, but in most of his published writing it is not meant to be taken as literal truth but as a test for the higher type. The higher type, the truly autonomous man, would be able to cheerfully will the eternal recurrence of every moment of his life. In other words, he would regret nothing, and recognize every moment of his life as a product of his will. Understood as a normative metaphor rather than an actual claim about the world, it makes a lot more sense.
Jazzman on August 23, 2007 at 3:53 AM
I didn’t say it was true, I didn’t even say I believe in it, so don’t worry, I’m not going to start a religion to rival yours or anything.
Nonfactor on August 23, 2007 at 3:59 AM
Here’s a thought. Why don’t you construct a circular argument next time, just for the fun of it?
hillbillyjim on August 23, 2007 at 4:07 AM
Thank you for your generosity.
Phew! You really had me sweating bullets there for a minute.
hillbillyjim on August 23, 2007 at 4:11 AM
>>>>>It’s the end of the world as we know it….>>>>>>
hillbillyjim on August 23, 2007 at 4:14 AM
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are you suggesting that the argument in my last post is circular? How so?
I would also appreciate it if you could substantiate your previous charge that I had set up multiple straw-men.
Or perhaps you’d like to continue with the non-sequiturs. It’s a free country.
Jazzman on August 23, 2007 at 4:26 AM
You wrote that it was important for us all to realize that we are “just as immoral as John Wayne Gacy”. Your claim that “being equally immoral doesn’t mean you are that thing” makes no sense because it is “being that thing” (actually, making those same choices, such as rape and murder) that makes someone immoral in the first place. You can’t have it both ways by calling someone “equally as immoral” as a murderer and yet not a murderer. What is it that makes a person as immoral as a murderer? The murder, of course!
Furthermore, I don’t need to feel equally as immoral as John Wayne Gacy just to feel like I’m not better than other people. Humility does NOT require me to think of myself as worthy-of-execution human garbage.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 7:53 AM
Then maybe you should withhold the “sanctified” and “set apart” language, because it sounds really condescending and snobbish.
It is, and I apologize. It’s just that Christians often times slide into “Christianese” when they feel like it’s time for “spiritual warfare”, and I just want you to save your breath because the traditional arguments are NOT going to work on me. One thing that would be helpful for you to understand is that I know all about your lifestyle and philsophy and world-view while you know next to nothing about mine.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 7:56 AM
I can use the Bible, too! In fact, all of my evidence against you will come directly from scripture. (Fair warning.)
In any event, here’s something else that is “very biblical”:
“But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.’” John 8:7, words of Christ
In any event, you’re trying to change the subject. What matters on earth is of little consequence compared to eternity. And Rom 3:23 is clear: You’re either perfect, or you’re a sinner and fall short of the glory of god. Kill no babies, kill five, or kill one thousand, you fall short of the glory of god no matter how many babies you kill or don’t kill.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 8:00 AM
Evidence is something that I perceive, but I reject the “experience” method of gathering evidence. People who use LSD have fantastic experience, but that doesn’t mean that their hallucinations are evidence of anytihing that they experience. (And, no, I’m not saying your religion is an LSD trip.)
So I have never claimed that “there is evidence that cannot be perceived or experienced” (and I agree with you that it is absurd). Instead, I have received insufficient and contradictory evidence that Christianity is true and that the Bible is the perfect word of a divine being. Hence, I do not believe it.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 8:03 AM
doriangray:
You’re absoulely wrong. I beg you to remember that I know the Bible better than almost anyone here.
41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Mat 25:41-46, words of Christ
Here, it isn’t the Devil, his angles, and those who have the mark of the best who are sent to hell. Instead, it’s those who didn’t do five specific works.
You’re trying to turn this into an issue of my failings again? Tell me why that isn’t an attack against my character?
In any event, it is NOT illogical to me to use my own personal judgment, and I will never refrain from doing it for your sake nor for Jesus Christ’s sake.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 8:09 AM
In other words, you’re telling me that there’s something wrong and broken inside me. This is standard operating procedure from Christians, and you are, by far, not the first Christian to attempt it against me. Just look back in this very thread!
Now, do you have something to say about Christianity and my very valid criticism of it, or are you going to come back with more personal attacks?
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 8:13 AM
The thread’s gone past 666 but the Rapture didn’t come.
aengus on August 23, 2007 at 8:26 AM
I think the first question is whether morality exists. Are there, to use your terms, “moral facts”? If so, how do we know about them? After all, morality cannot be proven. We do not experience morality through our senses and moral laws are not demonstrably true like math. What kind of knowledge is moral knowledge? Why is moral revulsion so powerful (so much more powerful than say aesthetic revulsion)?
I for one say that without an appeal to metaphysics morality, along with notions of human equality and rights, are impossible. Scientific materialism, physics, biology, etc, have nothing meaningful to say on this topics. The specter of Nietzsche looms over this debate. Once we, like Nietzsche, abandon metaphysics, then morality shows itself to be a tool of the weak against the strong; human equality a tool of the masses of the stupid against the elite of the brilliant; human rights a tool of the crowd against the freedom of the artist. This is a consistent and intellectually interesting position but not one that many people can live and breathe on a daily basis.
I think wrestling with these questions to very productive and certainly a more valuable way to spend one’s time than, like others on this thread, hurling insults in a vain effort to disguise one’s inner terror.
Thomas the Wraith on August 23, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Looks like when youi are found wrong you resort to the ol “I don’t know what your talking about” dodge. Here let me remind you.
Looks like trivial stuff, and support of the “cud”. What a wonderful thing when you can go back state the truth…try it.
AM
Oh, Loundry, you never responded to my little study on “cud”. Really, until you can say “oops, I made a mistake, thanks for correcting me” you just won’t have any credibility on these issues. You see, when someone corrects you, you take it as an attack, not as a gift.
You and nonfactor are cut from the same mold. You can argue, and yell, and stomp your feet, but when corrected you sulk. You will keep the argument going until you lose, then on to another one. It is best you continue to argue about the existence of God, it really can’t be proved. But stay away from things that can be shown to be true or untrue. You seem to have a problem winning those battles.
I am sorry, what atheist hospital will you take your famiiy to in an emergencey? You would never rely on something as foolish as faith in God to assist you. What atheist organization helps the poor, the ones in a disaster, helps abused women, is first on the scene with relief? What atheist organization builds schools, were they the foundation of our school system? Oh, I forgot, you like to receive, not give. You use the fruits of the faithful to fulfill your life, and then you batter them…the irony.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 8:39 AM
I meant that, as showing how ridiculous the analogy was.
A scuba diver has to be careful in ascension, but a skydive naturally has not interest in that. So the scuba dive wastes his time explaining a very important procedure for them, but of no use to the skydiver. However, the rule (boyles law) still is valid, just not applicable.
right2bright on August 23, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Please remember that you’re not the only one here with whom I’m having a discussion. It’s not all about you and your precious little “cud” study. But to satisfy you, what can your study show that is NOT going to turn the translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV into incompetent goons? I take the word over those scholars over your word. Are you claiming I’m a fool for doing that? I maintain that the translators of the KJV, NIV, and RSV translated those two verses correctly when they say “the rabbit chews the cud”.
Indeed, that would be best *for you* if I argued against the existence of god, and you even peg the reason why it would be best *for you*. That’s why none of my arguments here have focused on the existence of god. My argument has been that Christianity is misanthropic and thus harmful, and, so far, you have made no effort to dispute that.
Why do Christians even need hospitals? So much for “God will provide”.
I’ve never denied that Christians have done and continue to do lots of good in the world. In fact, I’ve even claimed as much in this very thread. Focus in on my complaint and try to address it specifically: Christianity teaches you that all human beings are worthless, sinful garbage and that you need Jesus to “fix” this problem. I think that is misanthropic, harmful theology.
Again with the character assassination. I think the reason why you do this is because your religion teaches you to think of other people as worthless, sinful garbage.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Fatal,
Sorry I missed your comment earlier.
You are precisely correct. I just pick and choose what I want to believe. Christians do it, too! When it pertains to scripture, they call it “interpretation”. But it’s really the same ol’ picking-and-choosing that everyone else does. And I do reserve this right to myself, just as I give you the right to choose for yourself what you think is true.
I think of myself as a pretty good judge of things and I’m not distracted by anyone else’s claims that I’m “selfish” or incompetent. Naturally, you disagree, but I think that’s the harmful effects of your religion showing. I think your religion teaches you to think of people as “sinners” or “sheep” or in some other denigrating way.
That’s called “begging the question”. I do not think faith is a good way to live.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 9:56 AM
671 comments? An HA record maybe?
Wow. Nice. This God stuff gets people all excited.
Anybody want to post the Cliff Notes version of the last 671 comments?
Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 10:04 AM
cliff notes version ….
blah … Islam … blah … Christianity … blah … atheism … blah …. democracy …. blah …. predestination … blah … separation of church and state … blah … MKH is hot! … blah … What was the topic?
corona on August 23, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Ah. So in other words, “the usual.” Got it.
Wish they’d move the MKH sub-discussion to another thread. That’s always worth babbling about. Plus, it ought to be something everybody can agree on.
Professor Blather on August 23, 2007 at 10:15 AM
-Yes it is!
-No it isn’t
-Prove it!
-No, you prove it!
-Ah ha! See, I’m right!
-No, I am.
-I’m more correct because you don’t know me.
-Is that a personal attack?
geckomon on August 23, 2007 at 10:29 AM
The brand of Christianity I practice teaches that we must obey the law of the land as well as the laws of God. Jesus asked his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit, not free, the imprisoned.
Wingo on August 23, 2007 at 10:37 AM
It’s interesting to see some saved-by-works Christians coming out of the woodwork. I caution you that you got some, but not all of the mandates. Jesus actually told you to:
1. Feed the hungry
2. Give drink to the thirsty
3. Invite strangers in
4. Clothe the naked
5. Visit those in prison
He also said that if you don’t do those five things, then you will scorch and scream in hell for all eternity. A gentle reminder to the saved-by-faith-not-by-works Christians.
Loundry on August 23, 2007 at 10:42 AM
aegnus-
No, but the Rupture did.
Several times.
profitsbeard on August 23, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I only use the language in an attempt to communicate concepts in a way that I thought both of us would understand. My being Christian and your being ex-Christian, I assumed you would understand the Sanctification thing. You do, don’t you? It’s not about being “holier than thou”, but being holy like Christ, or set apart for God. You will recall a number of places the Bible expects the believer to “Be holy; for I am holy.”
Can I assume you appeal to a source [the Bible] you acknowledge has no authority just to prove a point? I’m afraid your appeal will fall flat, if not the point. What I mean is, it will probably not be taken seriously, not that there’s no point to be made.
That’s interesting. And it’s a serious assertion. Although if Satan were posting here, he’d probably argue the point! :P (Hope you smiled!)
Is there some forum, or document, or book, or something to which you can point that will delineate your criticisms in an organized format? This thread has gotten so long that it would be difficult to get to. Not that I would have the time, or the acumen, but I (and maybe others) might find it interesting reading.
First, I will not dispute that Christianity is foolishness to a whole slew of people. I just don’t think “misanthropic” is the right word at all. I also do not believe it is “harmful” at all. But then again, that WOULD be my position, now, wouldn’t it? So, do I think that there are a lot of people out there who call themselves Christians that are “misanthropic”? Yeah.
Secondly, I don’t think the charge that “all human beings are worthless” is proper. That all are subject to sin, yes. Who’s fault is that? Can we count on a power more powerful than we are to fix it? Yes. You know these answers already. I fail to see how that is misanthropic or harmful. Is it simply that I fail to see it, or that you have failed to communicate it, or somewhere in between?
Finally, even though it could be construed as a misapplication of the “Golden Rule” not all people (even Christians) are going to treat others the way they want to be treated. Human nature is not perfect and tends to be self-centered.
BNCurtis on August 23, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I think Nietzsche once offered a similar critique of Christianity.
Of course, he had syphilis, for whatever that’s worth. Probably from doing very un-Christian things.
Besides, I thought Christ was both the lion and the lamb.
At least, that’s what Flannery O’Connor used to tell me at the seances.
Jeff G on August 23, 2007 at 11:33 AM
-Thomas the Wraith on August 22, 2007 at 11:03 PM
So, the only thing stopping Christians from becoming serial killers is their fear of god?
Scary people. I understand that it is inherantly wrong to murder someone and that god is not a factor in this.
I guess, if belief in god is required to stop Christians from running amuck and killing indiscriminately, it must be a good thing.
BTW, what does the bible say about killing? Here’s a few good quotes for you.