It’s on: D’Souza vs. Hitchens on whether Christianity is “the problem”
posted at 6:15 pm on October 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A little dinner theater for you provided out of obligation since I teased this in headlines on Monday night. You’ll find the entire debate online here. I haven’t watched yet but I’m told that the opening statements delivered in the first three clips are especially can’t-miss. What follows below is a snippet posted by another user that’ll give you a feel for the dynamic. There’s a lot more give and take than I expected.
Via Weasel Zippers, you’ll be pleased to know that the attendees at the Atheist Alliance International conference (the one that hosted Hitch and Hirsi Ali) have selected an official symbol for “freethought.” Feast your eyes. It looks like one of the runes on Led Zep IV reimagined as a hood ornament. And with that, the movement, such as it is, has formally jumped the shark.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
Love the Symbol! – the design, the shading.
Did it just randomly evolve over time?
The Zoo Keeper on October 26, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Watched all 10 segments last evening. I continue to respect Professor Hitchens intellect and debating skills. His arguments seem to be directed to reinforce his anti-theist positions more than to sway the mind of a Christian to give up on their path of faith. Hitchen’s sterile, cold and analytical arguments doesn’t address the entire man. Life lived in a stricly empirical laboratory of thought and action is a life of content without substance, IMO. I will continue to live my life in the knowledge that there is more to it, than can be conceived of in the human mind.
captivated_dem on October 26, 2007 at 9:47 AM
LOL! So much for your mastery of “the subject matter”.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 10:15 AM
These ontological arguments for the existence of god are ridiculous.
Others have made the same point, and it is also ridiculous. It takes no faith whatsoever. What is does require is the courage to live without the safety net of collective wishful thinking regarding the afterlife.
peski on October 26, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Looks like the anarchists symbol.
bspoogeferd on October 26, 2007 at 10:27 AM
I think you have misunderstood my position.
I am not proposing “ontological arguments.” My comment earlier, addressed to a different person in a different context, was due to my own misunderstanding of the perspective of that particular person.
Possibly you could be referring to my earlier apologetic argument for the existence of the Christian God from the known basis of logic. If so, then these are properly called “transcendental arguments”.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Bingo, see you do get it. Mans perception of reality has no impact on reality. What we perceive as reality is nothing more than a symbolic interpretation of sensory stimulus. Reality exists regardless of whether we are there to perceive it or not.
Man did not cause Faraday’s laws or Maxwell’s equations to come into existence. Man simply observed and defined what he observed. The principals existed independent of man long before man existed. Like wise the entire universe and all of the physical laws that govern the universe are independent of mans existence.
In other words man has no say what so ever in what constitutes reality. Reality existed long before man and all the laws that govern reality are independent of man. Man is at best an observer of reality, with barely more than a passive role in reality.
In a universe 40 billion years old, man doesn’t even constitute a fraction of a fraction of a blink of the universes eye. Considering that the universe is guesstimated to be less than a quarter of it’s expected life span or if you prefer duration of its existence, man will be gone long before the universe even completes the single blink of its eye in which we exist.
For man to imagine that he has the ability capacity or right to determine any of the parameters that define reality is so far beyond mere arrogance that it must be defined as insanity. What we may do, is observe and then quantify through abstract symbolical structures the codification of our observations.
Any belief that our role in the universe is anything greater than that is megalomaniacal insanity. Hence any claim of the ability to state as uncategorizable fact the none existence of a omnipotent omnipresent being exposes itself as a torturous decent into megalomaniacal insanity.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Do you find no use for religion then?
JiangxiDad on October 26, 2007 at 11:30 AM
And to live without the concept of ultimate justice.
Since all humans will share the same ultimate fate – death – the only value they have is how well known they are afterwards. It is the only form of immortality there is.
That being so, Hitler was actually better than Jonas Salk, because the former is more well known than the latter.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 11:39 AM
When he begins to describe the nature of faith, Lewis writes: “Take it as one man’s reverie, almost one man’s myth. If anything in it is useful to you, use it; if anything is not, never give it a second thought.”
I think that’s almost a final word about it. I’m not much of an apologist, because I think of Faith as a gift and not something one can be argued into. And indeed I feel no compulsion to do anymore than deflect the blows sent my way – even often simply leaning into them to soften their impact. I have little reason to be defensive, either.
I could never debate Hitch, partly because I respect his intelligence but also because I would be like, “Well, if you don’t get it you don’t get it. If you want to know something ask me, but if you don’t want to know we’ve got nothin’ to talk about.”
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 11:46 AM
No he doesnt, JayHaw Phrenzie is one of the most rabid of the militant atheists.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 11:47 AM
At least he doesn’t endlessly cut-and-paste and declare that to be the pinnacle of intellectual discourse. He just grunts and goes on his way.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Yes, truly it is ridiculous to assume that the rudder, tiny part of the ship that it is – could possibly control the direction it heads.
It was understood long, long before we knew the age or size of the cosmos how frail man’s life and how short his existence is.
It is true that we do not define the parameters of reality. In fact, we all live in the same, One existence.
But again, just as the nanoscopic virus can bring down the giant whale, should we assume that based on the size – mere size – of something, how important it is?
This is what I have heard, so listen. It is not such and such a man – you or I – who has any importance at all. We are dust, nothingness, vanity. But man as such – humanity if you will – is essential. In this way we may have humble hearts and yet great expectations.
Besides, the cosmos is so beautiful. What’s up with that?
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Unfortunately, having a “concept of ultimate justice” does not lead to being just. Ask any client of the Inquisition, or victim of sharia or witch trials.
The fact that your religion defines the framework of your value system doesn’t make your values “right”. And just because I don’t ascribe to the religious basis of your value system doesn’t mean that I can’t share some or all of the same values. We choose what to value. I don’t believe in god, but I do believe in good and evil. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “evil is as evil does”.
peski on October 26, 2007 at 11:59 AM
There is no such thing as good and evil. These are invisible nonmaterial things made up by hairless monkeys.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Correct ! But they do matter very much to the hairless monkeys, if not anyone else.
peski on October 26, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Without God, though, there is simply no reason to label anything good or bad. You’re being utterly arbitrary. Since there’s no ultimate judge in your view then there can be no right and no wrong. There simply is what is, no value judgments allowed.
Mojave Mark on October 26, 2007 at 12:11 PM
How can you believe in invisible nonmaterial things? You are illogical.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:11 PM
AngryOFM: so on what basis do you condemn the Fijian cannibals or Andrea Yates? or do you think they’re just living according to their own moral code which is on par with yours just different?
“Good” and “evil” join the list of things that are invisible and immaterial and yet exist: logic, mathematics, aesthetics, will. I submit that these things are indeed immaterial and yet would exist even if mankind did not.
jdpaz on October 26, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I’d also like to add the laws of nature to the list of things that exist and yet are immaterial. Not only do the laws of nature exist but the material world obeys them. Very curious.
jdpaz on October 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Atheism would be far, far more interesting if it actually involved a little “free thought.”
It tends to be exactly the opposite.
Professor Blather on October 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM
You call us illogical angryoldfatman? Logic is immaterial and it exists. You are trying to use something that, according to your own belief, does not exist. That is the definition of illogic.
jdpaz on October 26, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Incorrect. Judgment is what people do. When a lion eats the stomach from a still living antelope, she is not doing evil, she’s just eating. When a sadistic rapist tortures his victim just to see her in pain, he is doing evil.
Who says so? We do, we make the judgment. So, is homosexuality evil? Some say yes, some say no. Who is right? We have to decide together.
The Catholic church says that using a prophylactic is evil, and claims the force of god in this judgment. I say they are full of crap.
peski on October 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM
God – pun intended – but is that ever a sophomoric, simplistic, simple-minded statement.
Things are only good and evil because some “judge” somewhere labels them as such? We can’t decide for ourselves? If I don’t believe in God, I’m suddenly going to start torturing kittens for fun?
Please. That’s just painfully stupid.
Society can decide good and evil, with or without God.
And if society doesn’t – or fails in the attempt – the individual can do so.
It’s based on a single word: empathy. Look it up, since it’s polysyllabic. Ironically, it’s also the basis for the Christian model of morality: do unto others.
If you could prove the non-existence of God tomorrow, I’m still going to do my best to treat people the way I want to be treated. I don’t want to be beaten or robbed or murdered; for that reason alone, I wouldn’t do it to someone else.
Anyone who needs God to explain that to them is probably semi-retarded … or fundamentally evil. Most people have empathy. Most people behave empathetically.
The constant attacks on the morality of atheists here grows truly tiresome … especially since its the self-proclaimed Christians who tend to be the least empathetic people here.
The irony is enormous: if you actually obeyed God, you wouldn’t behave that way. Meanwhile, your atheist host, Allahpundit, treats some of you with more respect than you deserve. That’s ironic. Deeply.
If you can’t obey God and be decent, and you can’t just be empathetic enough not to toss out these childish, entirely illogical biases against atheists … couldn’t you at least have enough maturity to treat your atheist host with a little respect.
Sure, his religious threads can get tiresome, too. But in general, he treats Christians far better than they treat him. Which is weird, since – you know – God isn’t telling him to do that. So I guess he ought to be shrieking obscenities at you, right?
Some of you are swimming in a vast ocean of stupid, and you’re so deep in the hypocrisy you’re drowning in it.
Jesus wept. Literally.
Professor Blather on October 26, 2007 at 12:30 PM
A theist should answer you: Good and evil exist because God exists, and says what is good and what is evil. Fijian cannibals and Andrea Yates did wrong as judged by God, therefore have done evil.
An athiest should answer you Good and evil do not exist outside of human experience. Fijian cannibals and Andrea Yates have done what they thought was right, so therefore we cannot judge them, just as your stupid Bible says we can’t. It’s evil to force your morality on someone else.
Logic, mathematics, and aesthetics do not exist outside of human experience. If there is no sentience to perceive them, they do not exist. It is absurd to think something exists just because we make it up. That’s God talk.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:31 PM
If he derives pleasure from it, how can it be evil? Is the “victim” have more intrinsic value than her “rapist”? If not, then it is simply an action and reaction between two living things, just like the lion and the antelope. The universe does not care. Nature teaches us that life is not special.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Does the victim, not Is
sorry about editing mistake
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:40 PM
The Bible does not teach that we should not judge. It teaches that we’ll be judged by the same standard by which we judge others. Big difference.
So far as this goes:
This is sheer and utter foolishness. We did not make up the rules of logic, mathematics or laws of nature—we discovered that they exist and that they hummed right along before we ever knew about them.
jdpaz on October 26, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Your view assume that an unrealistic and un-true and rigidly inflexible Scientism is reflective of the actual world. But Scientism is not at all reflective of the actual world, as the last 30 years of discussion in epistemology has shown. That is why many philosophers have rejected Scientism.
Philosophers believe in invisible, non-material things because:
***not all of reality is reducible to the physical
***invisible things do exists, like the immaterial laws of logic, like the nature of rationality, like logical necessity or the law of contradiction
We hold these things to be pre-conditions of intelligibility. They exist, though they cannot be reducible to the phyiscal world.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:41 PM
You know stuff, this ain’t for you. ;-)
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Despite how revolting I find your sentiment, I must respect your consistency with your beliefs. Does “Nature” have some “mind” that it is capable of “teaching” us anything?
jdpaz on October 26, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Lies. Show me a fossil of logic or mathematics.
The “laws of nature” are merely made up numbers we superimpose on existence. When we are gone, nature will still exist whether we state there are laws for it or not.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Do you believe in the laws of logic? They’re invisible and nonmaterial, aren’t they?
PRCalDude on October 26, 2007 at 12:49 PM
You’re just messin’ with us, aren’t you? Little slow on the uptake there.
jdpaz on October 26, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Man is essential, essential to what? Certainly not the universe. But man as such – humanity if you will, is essential only to humanity, which in the grad scheme of things is insignificant, nay less than insignificant.
It is truly megalomaniacal insanity to suggest that humanity inhabiting one small planet which orbits one single small star, in a galaxy consisting or billions of stars, in a universe consisting of billion upon billions of galaxies is essential to anything other than humanity itself.
No, we don’t get to make the rules, we don’t get to decide what the parameters or definitions of reality are. They existed long before us and will continue to exist long after us. We do not get to decide whether god exists or not. He either does or he does not, but that decision is not our to make.
We can chose to believe one way or the other, but we do not have the authority ability or right to decide god’s fate. The universe has not asked our permission for anything, nor is it going to. God has not ask us for permission to exist, he either does or does not exist, but the fact of his existence or none existence is not our to decide.
Just as we have had no say in the existence of the universe or any of the physical laws that govern the universe so we have no say in the existence or none existence of god. To pretend otherwise is megalomaniacal insanity.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Good and evil do exist independently of human experience.
I do not have kids personally.
But I know from rational reflection, that the claim, ***it is universally wrong, everywhere, at all times, for all peoples, to torture my kids for the fun of it” is true.
I do not have kids in my experience.
But a priori rational reflection informs me that the above claim is true. And the history of philosophy has already shown that we know a priori truths exist, and we know them independently of experience.
If you desire to go down this road, I will only be repeating what has already been said about the utter inability of empiricism to justify any normative claims.
But I have personally not had the particular “human experience” yet of having “someone force their morality on someone else,” using your line of reasoning. Therefore, since I have not personally had the unique human experience, I will not know rationally, before the experience (according to your line of reasoning) if it is right or wrong.
Human experience, by itself, cannot provide the philosophical basis for normative or ethical conclusions.
In addition, since right or wrong do not exist outside of humans (according to your perspective), it really does not matter in the final analysis.
We are really only engaging in language games.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
*pulls up mask*
It’s not my sentiment, nor my beliefs. Nice of you to notice the consistency though.
*puts mask back in place*
Nature has selection, as Darwin has told us. The tools it uses are sex and death. The “rapist” is asserting his will over his “victim” in your example; since he is able to do so, it is right for him to do so because it is natural that the strong dominate the weak.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Sorry.
:–)
You wanna discuss the NFL.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:53 PM
LOL! That I am, but I am actually using arguments from an (in)famous atheist philosopher. I’ll be amazed if anyone besides Coltsfan knows who it is.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:56 PM
And no, it’s not Nietzsche, that’d be too easy.
angryoldfatman on October 26, 2007 at 12:58 PM
One last point, please, before I go back to reading about that RHINO Gov. Huckabee….
Darwinian natural selection may reveal nature with a bloody tooth and claw…
But we must be very clear here:
The very same Darwinian natural selection that atheistic evolutionists talk about does not at all provide any shred or hint or support for WHY we should morally have compassionate responses to human suffering, or why we are morally obligated to help the same Homo Sapien who are a drain on society’s resources, and who are not of the “fittest.”
Sentimental Humanism dies a quicker death than just good ole’ plain Nietzschean “Overman” Humanism.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Mountains crumble into the sea, while the mosses that grow upon them continue. The mosses are frail and easily destroyed, and the great mountain nigh invulnerable. How much more for the moss which can shape the mountain by its will?
Regardless, you can hate sin and the flesh, but you cannot hate humanity – mankind – and also love God.
As for what mankind is essential to? I do not believe that we are, but I know that we are. It is a mystery to me; something which I have yet to grasp. Maybe I will never grasp it.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 1:09 PM
In all politeness and due respect, I believe the above response commits the logical fallacy called a “category mistake.”
Is the above quote regulated by the laws of logic?
If no, (which I believe would be ***philosophically in tune*** with your atheism), then may I please suggest that you rephrase the above quote in an arbitrary fashion so as to demonstrate the consistency of your naturalistic worldview for your audience?
If your answer is yes, then your response needs a worldview that makes sense of the immaterial laws of logic.
I am not denying that you are a keen thinker.
I am only trying to make progress on the direction of this discussion.
So here is a question for you:
Is reality ultimately mathematical or physical?
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Yes!
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 1:13 PM
I meant that as a “either-or” question to my buddy angryoldfatman.
RiverCocytus,
which do you say reality is, ultimately?
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:15 PM
AngryOldFatMan-
Come clean now.
JiangxiDad on October 26, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Neither, and yet both. Existence surely is physical mathematics.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Sorry for the evasions. I believe Reality is ultimately mysterious. I think that existence, for instance, physical existence, has a mathematical inertia; that is, its natural tendency is to be mathematical. But reality is ultimately more than this. Does that explain what I mean?
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 1:44 PM
The nature of a logical disjunction is that one cannot rationally accept both.
You may say, “neither”, and deny the meaningfulness of the question, which I take is your answer.
In my own humble opinion,
I believe that reality is mathematical. But because I believe mathematics is further reducible to logic, I believe, ultimately, that reality is fundamentally reducible to logic.
This is not to deny the importance of, or fact of physical existence, or contingency claims, or the meaningfulness of science. This is not to deny the importance or relevance of science or the enterprise of scientific inquiry.
It is only to suggest that answering the previous logical disjunction “opens the door wide open” to clearly discussing why the Christian theist favors one set of presuppositions, and why the atheist favors a different set of presuppositions.
I believe that reality is ultimately logical, because I believe in the truthfulness of John 1:1 in the New Testament.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM
A practical, “worldly” ques. about religion.
Suppose you didn’t believe that “atomic” energy came from the splitting of the atom. Yet, you see the energy created.
My recent interest in Christianity comes from the energy it can create, to be used as a weapon against radical Islam. (I’m curious about it’s underpinnings and philosophy, but secondarily.) I rarely see the thrust in these religious threads about using Christianity to beat the enemy.
That’s why I asked JayHawPhrenzie, an atheist, whether he saw any use for religion.
JiangxiDad on October 26, 2007 at 1:51 PM
I would like for our conversation to center on epistemology.
I am not claiming that I or anyone else knows exhaustively the attributes of God Himself, or the meaning of life itself in an exhaustive, infinite sense. Nor am I denying the existence of mystery, assuming we have defined “mystery” properly and Biblically.
My argument is limited to what can we know about reality?
Yes, there is mystery in reality. There are non-rational aspects to reality, we are persons. We are not Vulcans as our mutual friend doriangrey did a very good job of pointing out earlier.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:53 PM
A logical disjunction is only absolute if the system it is within is itself logical. While reality is ultimately reasonable, that is, apprehendable by human reason, it does not follow that logic (which is a subset of reason) applies to all levels and parts of reality. For instance, Christ is himself such a thing: Are you man, or are you God? Being logical, many fell into traps saying, “He must be man” or “He must be God.” But he is both, and neither. For he is true man and true God, but is not restrained by the distinction. When I say, Both or Neither, I mean, you have given me a choice of answers, neither of which completely answer the question even if each of them partially does.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 1:57 PM
RiverCocytus,
Are you denying that logical statements apply to God?
Q: does logic itself apply to cognitive statements that we as humans make about God? Yes or No?
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I should have added ColtsFan and RiverCocytus that I copied most of your comments to my hard drive to read again. I also copied all of your links ColtsFan. They look fascinating–especially the debate, and the Jesus Logic. To read your writings, I need my dictionary out!
JiangxiDad on October 26, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Thank you for your kindness.
A good sign of a thinker is the ability to communicate clearly. And I am not anywhere close to that level.
That is why I try to point many people to the fine and very clear writings of Gordon H. Clark. Everyone will benefit from him.
As a Christian philosopher, Gordon H. Clark has all of the good points which I personally lack, and he has none of the
bad points. Seriously, Gordon Clark is a very fine scholar.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 2:03 PM
The fighting of Islam is not something Christianity pertains to directly. It is to prepare the man for the work of God, in this sense. If I fight Islamists it is because they threaten my land and home, and because they spread lies to corrupt the minds of men.
But neither is a specifically Christian thing. In fact, the path of the true martyr is to lay down one’s life so that in death, the enemy is humiliated and God glorified by the power of such faith.
However, there are more things we are called to do under the sun than all go to our deaths, I believe. Pacifism to me seem like giving up — and I’m hard pressed to find an argument for total pacifism that does not resort to wishful and fantastic thinking.
For myself I would not mind death, but if others are in my care I will not stand down while they are slaughtered. I love my nation, and I would not see her spit on and demolished if I still had strength in my bones.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Logic’s correctness relies on the clarity of the terms on which it operates. Language is at its basest material, so logic is clear on material things: “The blue ball is five feet from me.” As we ascend towards God the feeble language of man becomes insufficient; it is not that logic ‘does not apply’ but rather is unable to be used. It would be like trying to cross space with an ocean liner. If you could get water enough up there, you could pull it off.
A: Again, paradoxes are literally ‘beyond words’. Had we the terms to accurately use we might be able to deploy logic. In their stead, we must rely on paradoxical and circular statements to ‘outline’ the thing which we cannot describe directly.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 2:09 PM
May I please discuss this issue with you later? I have to go to work right now. Could you bookmark this thread, and we will make progress later?
This is a very crucial point above, and it is the main reason why Eastern Orthodoxy and “mystery” is leading many people to heresy.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Sure. I would tell you that the reverse is why Western Christianity is closing people’s minds off to the fullness of God.
We can talk later.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Thank you.
ColtsFan on October 26, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I’d use “All men are created equal” as a jumping off point. It is a principle asserted by men as a foundation for this particular government. Granted that’s only about 230 years ago, but societies have been evolving as leaders and the governed adapt to what yields the greatest productivity. Civilizations as early as Sumeria were able to have laws and economies in a polytheistic culture. They seem primitive compared to the United States in 1776 or 2007, but mankind has figured a lot out, by necessity, in the past 7,000 years.
If you assert a logical case for the existence of God. I was curious about the following?
–Why would God need you to imagine him or even given you the mental tools to imagine him?
–Allowing that there is a supernatural creator, what is the logical case that he is the God of the Bible?
dedalus on October 26, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Neither moss nor mountain are invulnerable, they are temporal, even the universe is temporal. Time itself is temporal, having a fixed beginning it therefore logically has a fixed ending. That mountains rise and fall changes not one bit reality.
That moss lives on the rock of that mountain changes not one bit reality. The physical laws which raised those mountains care not one bit whether the moss exists or not, nor the physical laws which law that lay that mountain low again care that the moss exists.
The moss like the mountain are mere manifestations of reality. They are but temporal manifestations of realty at that. Their having been here, their being here now and their one day no longer being here will not affect reality in the slightest.
Reality is not perception, nor is perception reality. Reality is, that which is. Before the universe existed, was there no reality? No, before the universe exploded into existence reality was that there was no universe. In order for reality to be that the universe did not exist reality had to exist to prove that the universe did not exist.
When the universe has ceased to exist will reality likewise cease to exist? No, for reality will indeed be that the universe no longer exists. Yet again reality will be forced to exist if for no other reason then to prove that the universe no longer exists.
If than reality existed before the universe and shall exist after the universe has ceased to exist how shall the mere existence of the universe or anything that exists within the universe alter reality. Obviously then it cannot.
The existence than of anything is not proof of reality, but that reality is the proof of the existence or none existence of everything. Therefore man as such – humanity if you will, is essential only to humanity, his inability to affect reality is manifest in his existence in reality but not aside from reality.
Man, humanity if you please, perceives reality, reality however is not perception. Reality testifies to mans existence, as it will one day testify to his non existence, man does not testify to realities existence, he can only acknowledge realities existence.
How you ask can reality testify to anything? Because that is precisely what reality is. Reality is precisely and exactly that which is. If all is non existent and there is nothing that exists reality will in fact be that nothing exists except for reality, and the reality that does exist will be that nothing exists.
This is the very fabric of reality, that it exists independent of existence. The universe as we know and observe it is overlaid upon this basic reality. The physical laws of the universe which did not exist prior to the existence of the universe care not one whit whether humanity approve of their existence.
Nor is humanity capable or even entitled to approve or disapprove of those laws. Long before man existed electrons orbited nucleus to form molecules, and long after man has ceased to exist shall they continue doing so. Man gets no say in the reality of this, it simply is reality.
That this is a true statement I do not dispute, but it bears no relevance to mans role in the universe. To perceive man as anything other than a momentary observer of reality is misanthropic. To suggest that our extremely limited ability to manipulate mere temporal manifestations of reality constitutes any capacity to influence reality is megalomaniacal insanity.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 2:34 PM
You assume that we are “momentary observers” instead of being part of the fabric of reality itself.
RiverCocytus on October 26, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I love to listen to Hitch but he is so certain he knows what is good, and decent and right. How does he know? He knows by faith. Which faith. His own.
Hitler sought a higher good too, and Hitler was sure it was good, and decent and right.
I do believe Hitch is wide open for evangelizing because he is a man driven by faith. I just have to get him over the speed bumpand.
entagor on October 26, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Thats not an assumption, it is a demonstrative fact.
doriangrey on October 26, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Lots of pretzel logic on these posts. You atheists keep assuming a Christian moral standard which for you is altogether inconsistent. One things for sure, whether you’re right or wrong you’re safe from ever going to heaven.
Mojave Mark on October 26, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Or perhaps an experiment, an artificial neural network, by a highly powerful but otherwise indifferent creator.
dedalus on October 26, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I think I’ve seen that movie.
jdpaz on October 26, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Wow, tough crowd.
I thought I’d get at least one taker between the bunson burner and yardstick comment and the science as a soulless tool comment. Go figure.
BKennedy on October 26, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Does life require a formula for meaning? Science improves our lives by helping us manage nature and making the world more predictable. Meaning is left to the individual.
dedalus on October 26, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Utter nonsense. The Christian God is both Transcendent AND Immanent. Thus, we cannot speak of anything that is not in its way a part of God, and yet, nothing that we can speak of is essentially God.
Again, you are stating that God is (by implication) transcendent, but not immanent. From even the old testament we find there was a notion of God’s immanence. The world itself is in a sense a veil which may hide the -image- of God in the world. Satan’s power, for instance, works to do this. In this way, obscenity is a kind of under-appreciated wickedness. It takes the beauty which is concealed in plain sight and mars it beyond recognition.
But interestingly, one’s notion of God is completely merged in most cases with one’s notion of Man. Those who say that God is only transcendent tend to hold that man is an ‘observer’ as though he is or can be totally neutral or impassive. Despite the separation, the reflection is clear (Even if it is operating the other way.) What people see in man they tend to project onto God.
If you believe that reality consists of just atoms and quarks, this would be true. Otherwise, you have no way to prove me wrong.
RiverCocytus on October 29, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3