Quotes of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on September 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
“People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.
The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn’t give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a ‘delusion.’”
*
“Their level of intolerance is unacceptable for somebody who claims to be presenting an intellectual, academic case.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Allah – I think you’re great.
nailinmyeye on September 11, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Hah. Why? Cause I gave you a post dumping on atheism?
Allahpundit on September 11, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Allahpundit ackbar? ;-)
Harpazo on September 11, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Nice of you to post a quote from the opposing camp, Big A.
jaime on September 11, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Oh, our Allahpundit. I was confused for a sec, wondering what the Muslim god, Allah, had to do specifically with those quotes.
Interesting quotes, AP – good to see you’re continuously dumping on people who happen to believe in G-d.
mjk on September 11, 2007 at 10:43 PM
No, because your tough enough to put yourself in the cross-hairs.
Troy Rasmussen on September 11, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Oops, I forgot the “NOT” in the good to see you’re “NOT” continuously dumping on people who happen to believe in G-d.
My stupid crappy proofreading.
mjk on September 11, 2007 at 10:44 PM
OK, NOW we know you’re trolling your own site AP.
Anyway, this isn’t news to me. What do Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have in common? They are self-seving egotists and educated idiots. Their atheism is a moot point, and only serves as the ultimate irony when you consider they’ve probably written more about a deity they don’t believe exists than any believer out there.
BKennedy on September 11, 2007 at 10:47 PM
I view this as I view the Left-Right “lines”, it should be looked at not as a linear differntation but more like a horseshhoe shape. Militant Atheists are not that far away from Militant Evangelicals in the big picture.
bbz123 on September 11, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Honestly, if atheists were like the Humphreys guy in the second QOTD, you’d never a negative word about atheists from me. Its the militant tools who kick around people I don’t like, and I don’t like when religious people do it needlessly to atheists.
Bad Candy on September 11, 2007 at 10:58 PM
We are working on making him tough, believe me.
Mcguyver on September 11, 2007 at 11:00 PM
No. Because, kind of like Troy said above, because you are fair enough to put both sides in the cross hairs. I just think it is interesting, and I have an appreciation for you because of it.
nailinmyeye on September 11, 2007 at 11:03 PM
And, I don’t want to “dump on atheism.” I hope this thread doesn’t become that.
nailinmyeye on September 11, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Hey, I’ve got a question. Why don’t we have comment permalinks?
I wanted to quote and link to something from the previous thread on atheism vs. religion, about how Allahpundit was treated completely unfairly in my view, but unlike most blogs we can’t link to a particular comment.
Is that a Hot Air policy or oversight from your template builders?
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:05 PM
What exactly is a “Militant Evangelical”? Just curious.
nailinmyeye on September 11, 2007 at 11:07 PM
If that is what Dawkins thinks of God, I’d be interested in how he thinks of Lucifer.
infidel4life on September 11, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Like there’s maybe 10 of those in the whole world?
Yeah right.
infidel4life on September 11, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Yeah, that may have been a bit harsh, nailinmyeye, i was just saying that the extreme fringes of any human conflict almost meet in the middle. not in a moral equivalence kind of way, but their intolerance and hatred of the other ’side” can get in the way.
bbz123 on September 11, 2007 at 11:11 PM
**I’m thinking this does not describe AP, as much as we beat up on him…… But then again he keeps posting this stuff so maybe he is trying to become bold and brave by having us beat up on him some more.
Over 200 comments and into the wee hours of the morning on the last religious post. Good pay off there.
Mcguyver on September 11, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Well, if he’s anything like other infamous biologists…
(scroll down to buffalo pictures)
angryoldfatman on September 11, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Not to mention the HATE that incessantly spews out of their mouths — their atheism is moot because a hate-filled *ssh*le is a hate-filled *ssh*le. Hate-filled *ssh*les come in all religious flavors/varieties — atheist, pagan, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu (and on and on ad nauseum). They (hate-filled *ssh*les) cut across all intellectual or social strata, all cultures, all religions, all races, all nationalities, all geographic locations, and all historical accounts. They are ubiquitous — more pervasive than gravity and as inevitable as the generation of entropy.
No matter when or where I find them (hate-filled *ssh*les, that is), I, for one, will not hesitate to “call them on it.” Hate is hate. NOBODY gets a free pass with me.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on September 11, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Seems to me the reviewer more or less makes Dawkin’s point for him in the first sentence of the article.
peski on September 11, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I find it odd that atheists are so full of hate toward a deity they don’t think exists. How can you hate something that you don’t believe exists in the first place? It’s like hating the easter bunny.
CT on September 11, 2007 at 11:19 PM
The Easter Bunny doesn’t motivate people to fight wars, commit murder, stone adulterers, kill gays, and send people to prison with felony convictions in the 90s for oral sex with their spouses in private.
Perhaps that explains why he looks a bit differently at the two…
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Allahpundit,
Thank you very much for linking to this article.
Unfortunately, no progress is made in typical discussions between atheists and theists when one side, frequently, and unfairly, chooses to quote only weak, ignorant, uneducated folks as “examples” or “representatives” of the “Christian position.”
There are many fine Christian philosophers who are respected as scholars in their own fields of epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, logic, ethics,etc.
I have gently reminded my atheist friends of the need to be fair and also of the importance in reading very good philosophers who also happen to be Christians, instead of only quoting TV preachers or megachurch pastors who subscribe to false theology.
And I also constantly remind my Christian friends of the importance in reading atheist scholars like Nietzsche, Sartre, Freud, etc.
But Allah, you actually quoted this guy!! Alvin Plantinga is a first-rate Christian scholar.
His book is a classic work of fine scholarship in epistemology.
Thank you for being fair and honest to both sides of the debate.
ColtsFan on September 11, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Neither does God. People motivate each other to start wars. God’s got nothing to do with it.
Assuming he exists.
CT on September 11, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Not that you’re incorrect on that, Troy, but I think even Allah would tell you he’s doing it more to “stir the pot” for traffic’s sake. He likes to get these 500+ comment threads going.
RightWinged on September 11, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Nothing up this sleeve…nothing up that sleeve…*poof* a rabbit pulled out of a hat. I don’t know if I ought to be amused or just sad.
VerbumSap on September 11, 2007 at 11:24 PM
“Hate” is totally the wrong word. Like you say, how can you hate something that you don’t think exists?
As I’ve said before, I don’t agree with Hitchens that “religion poisons everything.” It has plenty of redeeming qualities. I just think it’s bogus.
I do, but I’m not expecting more than 100 or so for this thread. Who here would argue with the sentiments in the post except for me, Enrique, Nonfactor, or JayHaw Phrenzie?
Allahpundit on September 11, 2007 at 11:26 PM
The Easter Bunny also does not demand a 10% tithe (2.5% in Islam). So perhaps Dawkins is expressing his conservatism by opposing excessive wasteful taxation? Or maybe he’s expressing his liberalism by opposing a flat tax? Who knows? Surely, if you are honest, you will see there is a substantial difference between God and the Easter Bunny?
And CT your answer at 11:22 PM was just dishonest. God created the whole world. Including wars. Assuming he exists.
Further, all the smiting and so forth in the Bible that Dawkins refers to — and the direction to seize Israel from the Philistines, etc. — doesn’t exist?
This is an argument you will lose if you’re honest. So don’t be honest.
At any rate, the Easter Bunny is not believed by people to be a catalysis for these evils (or goods in some cases)… God, however, we are taught by our religious texts mandates all these things.
Are you advocating my view that the religious texts are wrong… but God the creator exists and wants the best for us if we will but choose it?
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:27 PM
I never meant to suggest you hate Christians, Allah. I’ve never gotten that impression from you. I do get that impression from Dawkins and other evangelical atheists.
I’m not a Christian myself, or religious at all, and I find the evangelical atheists revolting.
CT on September 11, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Personally, I need to worry less about atheists and more about getting my butt to church. I skipped church last Sunday to watch the Jaguars game and it’s pretty clear from the Jags defense that God didn’t approve of that at all!
tlynch001 on September 11, 2007 at 11:29 PM
The analysis in green on this post is pretty funny
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070909a
And as always, here’s an example of evolutionists telling us that a lack of evidence for their assumptions, is somehow still evidence for their assumptions:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200709.htm#20070901a
(here’s where the rabid evolutionists come and attack the messenger [that site], instead of acknowledging that they’re simply linking to and reporting stories from mainstream evolutionist science without the built in evolutionist bias that forces the evos to make ridiculous and erroneous statements)
RightWinged on September 11, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Well, to be fair, ‘the war of the
rosesatheists’ isn’t something you hear about much.I think the term religion in this case is much too broad.
More accurately the exaggeration of a fundamentalist form of religious domination is more likely.
Speakup on September 11, 2007 at 11:30 PM
People have freewill. God doesn’t ask for tithes, people do. God doesn’t spread hate, people do. God doesn’t do harm, people do. Your name calling is pointless.
Christoph, you’re proving my point. You are full of hate and anger. There is no point in having a discussion with you. Someone in your state of mind just wants to toss meaningless accusations and spew anger.
CT on September 11, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Sounds a whole lot like the pope.
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:31 PM
weak…I’m not biting
tlynch001 on September 11, 2007 at 11:34 PM
The Bible didn’t call for Tithing, CT? The Bible doesn’t talk about hating gays as an abomination? It doesn’t describe genocide?
The Qu’ran doesn’t advocate the killing of Jews? The Hadiths don’t describe in great detail slaughtering entire tribles by beheading?
I’m not full of either hate nor anger. I don’t hate Christians. I was defending the possibility of Hillary Clinton having a true faith here yesterday and I love my warm, caring, Christian girlfriend.
But equating the Easter Bunny with God without allowing for the fact that one is an obvious fantasy regarding Easter eggs and the other allegedly created Charles Manson is not to acknowledge the essential difference between the two.
Dawkins, who I disagree with on Creation and God, does not make this mistake.
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:35 PM
That wasn’t quite the Lucifer I had in mind, but I wouldn’t want to tangle with that mofo, LOL.
infidel4life on September 11, 2007 at 11:35 PM
God wrote the Bible? Now who’s delusional. I thought people wrote the bible.
CT on September 11, 2007 at 11:36 PM
This was a very well written article. Thanks for posting it AP. I don’t take it as dumping on atheism either. It was an article by an extremely well intentioned scholar. How do I know? Intellectually honest people realize that the more they learn, the less they ‘know’.
ThackerAgency on September 11, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I’m not too bothered by athiests. I know it’ll all come out in the wash eventually, and if you ain’t got nothin’ to lose, well…there’s nothing to lose.
Win-win for me.
Bob's Kid on September 11, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Tylynch001,
Do what I do.
Go to the early church service. And then watch the game of the week. If no early service, then go on-line and check out some audio sermons. But never, NEVER miss a NFL game!!
:-)
By the way, I thought your Jags would be a lot tougher this year. I was very surprised they got beat by the Titans.
ColtsFan on September 11, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Under inspiration my friend, under inspiration.
;-)
infidel4life on September 11, 2007 at 11:39 PM
And I’m not angry at you. My disagreeing with your point and showing the dishonest of equating the Easter Bunny with God and going on to say God is not behind wars when, if true, He is behind everything, particularly as both are understood in Dawkins’ mind, and my mind, and probably yours too… does not mean I hate you. Or God. Or Christians. Or Dawkins. Or anyone, really.
I don’t necessarily think all wars are bad, incidentally. I’m looking at it from Dawkins’ point of view and being fair to him.
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:39 PM
The Dallas Cowboys are purportedly “America’s team” — I am not certain who “God’s team” is.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on September 11, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Christoph,
I’m not trying to cause an argument but most Christian girls won’t date non Christians. She must see evidence that there’s some hope you will change your mind.
Rose on September 11, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Now you’re being intentionally dishonest, CT. I never said God wrote the Bible. People did write the Bible.
Although it is commonly accepted by many Christians that divine providence inspired every word of it.
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM
I guess the Giants better get religion then. :)
Limerick on September 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Rose, I have a deep faith in God. Too much to believe the Bible.
Christoph on September 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Cyber,
honestly, what does your collie think about this guy’s team?
ColtsFan on September 11, 2007 at 11:43 PM
You were surprised? The only team we hate more than the colts is the Titans, and all the promises of a great season were swept away. “just one game” they say..bah, you lose, at home, with our supposed great defense to the TITANS!?!?! Jacksonville has no patience for that.
Like most of America, I hate the Colts and have my tickets for the jags/colts game. Man I hope we get better…
tlynch001 on September 11, 2007 at 11:49 PM
My collie says:
I don’t find my collie’s argument all that convincing, do you?
CyberCipher on September 11, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I bet AP didn’t see his flamebait atheist posting get turned into a football forum.
I love football season.
tlynch001 on September 11, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Hmm…another religion thread. The old stand-by when site traffic is slow. The weather has been fairly nice; I suppose people are out enjoying summer, vacations, etc…; So it’s religion or evolution – both of which transform into the same conversation in the end. I usually participate…thinking I’ll pass tonight.
thedecider on September 11, 2007 at 11:53 PM
One thing above that I do agree with you is that Jacksonville consistently has a very tough defense. Personally, I have always feared this guy will put a hard hit on Peyton or Joseph Addai.
ColtsFan on September 11, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Ditto here.
Just doing my part to get “page views” up so that Allah can get his iphone from MM.
ColtsFan on September 11, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Did anyone see the 49ers and the Cards stumble and bumble their way to a close game?
It’s truly sad what the salary crap has done to football.
csdeven on September 11, 2007 at 11:57 PM
OT, but I thought you guys would like to hear some good news…
Just returned from Hannity’s Freedom Concert and wanted to let everyone know that Geraldo Rivera showed up, spent perhaps 30 seconds on stage, and he was booed. He was the only person who was booed the entire night. The best part: someone nearby shouted out: “Who you gonna spit at?” Geraldo heard it but ignored it. The booing stopped as soon as Geraldo said something about our wonderful troops.
God Bless America. Land of the free because of the brave.
IrishEi on September 11, 2007 at 11:59 PM
The mohel said while spitting out his work. Hey look at the priest.
Then Jimmy Swaggart says no look at Jim Jones.
Trust me fellas, There may be a god and there probably is. But what you think it is and what it really is are two very different things. ( I think)
TheSitRep on September 11, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I’m trying to talk smack and you’re being civil! Stop it!
Yeah, our defensive tackles are crazy huge.
tlynch001 on September 12, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Cyber,
I have enjoyed your Calvinist collie in the past, though I was worried for awhile about your dog’s over-indulgence for alcohol.
Has your collie ever been to Indiana?
Was your collie referring to the weather in Indiana? Or just to the plentiful corn fields?
One huge advantage of Indiana is that we have an over-abundance of these. Personally, I think that is a good thing.
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Are we to follow the same god that Al sharpton and Jesse Jackson represent? Not I my friend, not I.
TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Parity. The fans want parity. Especially fans in small markets. We can’t financially spend like teams in New York, Chicago, etc.
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:02 AM
hehehehehe. Haha.
My civility stems from my awareness of how difficult it is to “repeat.”
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:04 AM
My problem with the classical theism is that sets the creator apart from the creation: Plantinga says (paragraph 15), “But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.”
My problem with classical materialism is not one of a creator, is that it rejects an underlying x value that unites matter, whether gross or subtle.
The problem, the divide, as I see it, is one of volition. What sets the whole thing in motion.
Plantinga, I think, is not considering the possibility that simplicity and complexity are really two sides of the same coin. Spirit cannot exist without the created and the created cannot be considered aside from its source. One cannot have one without the other.
Plantinga, in arguing for the simplicity of spirit, God, without the complexity of her creation, paraphrases Aquinas, without understanding the thrust of Aquinas’ argument: Plantinga writes, “According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like.” Here Aquinas allows for the “essence and existence.” It follows, then, that “essence and existence” cannot be separated, whether as potentialities or actualities.
What, Plantinga, has not accounted for is volition, or will, as an attribute of God.
Funny, but the theists don’t recognize Aquinas for what he really was. A monist.
My advice to the likes of Plantinga and Dawkins: Throw everything away, grab hold of attention, follow it back to the point from where it arises and grasps its objects and there will be no need to argue materialsim, theism or, for that matter, monism.
ganeshpuri89 on September 12, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I bet you God could build one hell of a football team. Better than Richard Dawkins.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Me too. I was going to put my 2 cents in but historically I have come to realize that it would be a bad investment.
Guardian on September 12, 2007 at 12:05 AM
My collie says:
Well, yeah, okay, I guess that deserves an enthusiastic “Praise God” — but my collie is STILL just a stupid dog.
CyberCipher on September 12, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I’m sorry Allah, I don’t get it. Which definition of “naturalism” applies here ? I’m pretty sure number 1 does not apply, but I’m stuck as to whether its number 2 or 3. In fact numbers 2 and 3 seem to oppose each other.
naturalism:
1. artistic movement advocating realistic description: in art or literature, a movement or school advocating factual or realistic description of life, including its less pleasant aspects. In literature, it is applied especially to Zola, Maupassant, and other 19th-century French writers. In the visual arts, it refers to the practice of faithfully representing subjects.
2. belief in religious truth from nature: a belief that all religious truth is derived from nature and natural causes, and not from revelation
3. doctrine rejecting spiritual explanations of world: a system of thought that rejects all spiritual and supernatural explanations of the world and holds that science is the sole basis of what can be known
Maxx on September 12, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Then what God is it you have faith in?
infidel4life on September 12, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Humphrys, with the journalist’s instinctive distrust of the dogmatic, now proudly joins their doubting ranks with a new book “In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist.”
“Unless you are on the fairly extreme wing of either religion or atheism … I am not sure you can ever be at peace with yourself because there will always be questions,” he told Reuters in an interview to mark the book’s publication.
“Unless the Archangel Gabriel appeared to me in the next 10 minutes or possibly tomorrow morning and said ‘I am saving you, here are your wings, cone and join me’ I shall always have doubts.”
This is precisly the reason Humphries has never had his personal experience with God. He is looking for his burning bush when God is in the spirit of evey man and shows himself in more sublte ways. God is knowlege,honesty,truth,light, all creation, purety. These are God like qualities that we men as mortals can aspire to and get closer to God.
These kind of statements invariably come from people who have led a relatively easy truamatic free life. Suffering is a powerful motivation to seek God. Humphries is incorrect here 180 degrees. Someone in the extreme wing or position can not be at peace simply because their position demands activism, whether from a sense of duty or directives from an earthly source. This is common behavior of new christians who are ‘On Fire for the Lord’ they run around trying to convert everyone and judging folks.
Speaking from a christian perspective, The spiritual principles taught in the New Testament first by Jesus and secondly by His Apostles offer a way of life that neither perpetrates conflict or generates retribution by an individual, but rather promotes understanding and forgivness.
sonnyspats1 on September 12, 2007 at 12:12 AM
As well as the conflict between natrualists who can’t accept that their naturalism has become their religion. Considering that their naturalism has replaced the void left by their absence of religion.
Lawrence on September 12, 2007 at 12:12 AM
You’re worried? What about me? If he’s drunk all the time, how am I ever going to get his picks for this weekend’s college football games? He has an impressive record (a knack really) when it comes to picking the winners. (Don’t tell him how good he is though, lest he start gambling as well.)
CyberCipher on September 12, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Yeah, sometimes it comes down to a “casting pearls before swine” decision. Oh! I bet that might generate a comment or two – granted, not in my favor.
thedecider on September 12, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Justice.
Does that make you believe in something, AP?
By the way, IrishEi who or what was the big surprise at the concert?
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I like this quotation from the CT piece:
jaychandra on September 12, 2007 at 12:14 AM
This is a false argument. There is no way this would ever happen. We do not die and become angels. Angels are a different type of being from mankind, and Angels do not realy have wings. So if your waiting form someone to give you angels wings, you’re in for a very long wait.
Lawrence on September 12, 2007 at 12:14 AM
no, God can’t make boulders too heavy for him to lift, round squares or exceed the salary cap.
But, the opposing team might face some obstacles:
“It looks like a 35 yard field goal attempt into a 250 mph headwind…”
Assuming God would cheat…like the Patriots. That’s right..I said it!
tlynch001 on September 12, 2007 at 12:15 AM
I have no use for the pope, so that comment isn’t even a reply to mine.
RightWinged on September 12, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Nu uh. No swine in here.
The swine are our Representative Government who don’t listen but shout back calling us bigots, etc, etc, etc.
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 12:18 AM
ganeshpuri89,
Probably due to my lack of careful reading (or lack of knowledge), I am having difficulty understanding your position.
You write, “spirit cannot exist without the created.” I understand this as an assertion. But I do assume that you are aware that Christianity teaches that God created the world out of desire, not out of necessity. That is God the Spirit can and has existed, metaphysically, without creation.
What is your definition of monist? How are you using it here?
In the history of philosophy, Aquinas was never considered a monist.
I apologize if I am misunderstanding your position, but I am having difficulty grasping your argument.
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:18 AM
It wasn’t intended to be an insult, RightWinged, just an observation.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 12:18 AM
The surprise was awesome: a live feed to Iraq with the parents on stage talking to their son in real time on the big screens. Tears and cheers all around!
IrishEi on September 12, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Whatever God there is.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Yeah, pretty exciting there at the end. AZ gave it up just like they did last year against Chicago. It’s only week 1, so there’s going to be some rust.
I gave up my season tickets this yaer, and gave up DirectTV’s “Sunday Ticket” because I want to reduce the revenue I generate for the NFL, so I didn’t see all the games this week. Bears/Chargers was good, as was Giants/Cowboys, Eagles/Packers, and Ravens/Bengals.
I thought I’d go cold turkey on the NFL this year, but I guess I’ll just watch some of it on broadcast TV, then maybe give it up next year.
jaime on September 12, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Oh yeah. I am so sick of hearing about New Orleans that I was very happy to see the Colts stomp the Saints.
jaime on September 12, 2007 at 12:30 AM
This is an interesting quote from Alvin Plantinga.
All of us—Christians and atheists—benefit from the insights of neuroscience. But neuroscience may tell us ***descriptively*** HOW our brain processes “work”, but these same neuroscientific analyses cannot provide a ***normative*** epistemological linkage (or epistemological connection) to why our truth-conducive brain faculties actually yield true beliefs in this actual world.
We know true propositions because we are made in the image of God. We know true propositions are “true” because we have the “machinery” (Rationality) to do that.
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Naturalists or atheists do indeed count. Alvin Plantinga here is only arguing that atheists cannot **account** for their practical, everyday usage of the laws of logic because atheism denies the required machinery (rationality) needed to “get the epistemological job done right.”
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 12:35 AM
How can you have faith in a god you can’t even identify?
infidel4life on September 12, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Thanks!
I was afraid you’re going to say it was Geraldo. Yikes!
I guess that was just a spit-jerk reaction.
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 12:41 AM
No, it doesn’t. It condemns the act:
It does not say to hate the person who commits the act. This is a non-trivial distinction.
The Monster on September 12, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Football and Jesus….this is where Bobby Bare comes in and sings “drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life….”
FishFearMe on September 12, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Come out of the closet and announce your conversion…to Christianity…
Tim Burton on September 12, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Plantinga is a nice guy and smart too, but his apologetics fails on the level of the most basic. It is too ad hoc.
Tim Burton on September 12, 2007 at 1:07 AM
“It fails on the level of the most basic.”
Does your position entail the rejection of all versions of epistemic foundationalism?
I think William Lane Craig has written a good article summarizing the benefits of Alvin Plantinga’s Foundationalism.
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Coltsfan, what is desire if it is not a movement within spirit. If God desired, is not her desire but the seed of her creation? It follows then, how could one, and where could one, draw a distinction between the seed and the tree?
Thus we come to Thomistic assertion: no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence. Monism, in my experience, is the dissolution of the knot that divides name and form (immanence) from its source (transcendence) whereupon name and form are merely recognized to be attributes. Name and form are present in spirit as potentialities. Thus there is no absolute distinction between the transcendent, primordial I and its manifestation. This is monism. Thus the classic injunction “The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world.” And volition, whether desire or need, can be considered the first movement toward manifestation.
ganeshpuri89 on September 12, 2007 at 1:23 AM
You took the bait…
Rick on September 12, 2007 at 1:24 AM
I will quote from the above Alvin Plantinga article:
To be honest with you, I part with Alvin Plantinga on some minor particular points. I am not an Externalist. I tend to be an Internalist along the lines of Paul Moser or a Lawrence Bonjour, “In Defense of Pure Reason.”
But Alvin Plantinga’s “cognitive faculties” argument, can be tweaked or modified, to accomplish my ***non-externalism*** purposes.
I am not a reliabilist, though I find Plantinga’s argument very interesting.
ColtsFan on September 12, 2007 at 1:28 AM
That you and your collie are having these conversations proves that there is a God. Wait, dog spelled backwards is…[G]od. The answer has been in front of us all this time. Or Cyber could just be smoking some really strong s#!t.
Rick on September 12, 2007 at 1:34 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »