Quote of the day
posted at 10:48 pm on March 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
This leads us to perhaps the strongest argument against atheism, which D’Souza makes only indirectly—the argument from experience. Atheism cannot reach our hearts. A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief, cannot explain love, cannot sigh in happy wonder at life’s endless surprises. He can only utter, “What is, is.”
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 4
I have no idea whether they do or not. You’ll just have to ask one.
LimeyGeek on March 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Humans have always ascribed magical origins to that which they don’t understand. You are merely continuing that tradition.
Peering into the gaping chasm of infinity is frightening for the unprepared and I am not claiming that I am. I imagine it is much the same as being alone in middle of the ocean and swimming down into the vast dark depths. But to attribute that which is unknown and may be unknowable to the arcane man/god deity strikes me as grasping for reasurance in the face of the stark merciless face of the universe. No different that appeasing the thunder god with supplications to keep from being zapped. Wrapping arcane myth in scientific jargon to give it an aura of legitimacy amounts to nothing more than misdirection. Faith defies reasoning and logic and hypthesis and proofs. If you defend faith then you must defend the whole myth. Instead you say “This I don’t understand. There is God.”
Arjuna asks Krishna for a vision of his true form. Responding to this request, Krishna grants Arjuna the vision of that form, both glorious and terrifying. Arjuna sees the whole universe inside Krishna-Vishnu, and Krishna exhorts him again. “After Arjuna had heard these words of the Lord Krishna, he folded his palms and bowed down, trembling.”
ronsfi on March 14, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Only a twisted egomaniac would want to be worshiped.
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
- Robert A. Heinlein
MB4 on March 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Where is your evidence?
I am waiting for an atheist to give me empirical proof for God’s non-existence–and I am refering to the God of the Bible. *chirp*
The physicalist/natrualist/empiricist says, “I won’t believe X unless you give me empirical evidence for X’s existence.” Where is the empirical evidence for the truth of that statement? That understanding is self-defeating.
Those who say atheists are not moral/ethical are using an ad hominem argument which can be shown to be grossly wrong time and time again. The issue is where do atheists derive their moral/ethical system.
Ahteists have no foundation. If darwinian evolution is correct, whatever “I” decide is right is right. If I decide child molestation is OK, who is to disagree? If I decide homosexuality is OK, who is to disagree? If I decide canabalism is OK, who is to disagree? If I decide fornication is OK, who is to diagree?
Another issue on which atheist have no foundation is “purpose” and “design.” Christians believe that God created and designed us for a purpose. And we will not be fulfilled unless we are actively participating in that purpose.
A life which has its existence based only on chance/accident has no purpose. Any claimed purpose is merely self-derived. Devoting your life to the service to mankind-whatever that means in a purposeless world-or being a serial rapist/murderer/molester has no moral distinction.
Protest how one may, this is true.
davidk on March 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Atheism is the default, logical choice until one can prove the existence of a God. It’s possible that there is a red teapot circling Mars right now. It’s also possible that the God of the Bible exists, that he told the Israelites to slaughter the Cananites in Palestine and that he had a son who died for our sins. But until either one of those things are proved I’ll remain skeptical. I’ll rely on natural law for my morality and not what some men decided long ago to write down and call scripture. I certainly wouldn’t rely on some council of bishops somewhere to tell me what to do.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on March 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM
ronfi:
I don’t believe in God because I don’t understand things in this world. I believe in God because the complexity and order of what I have studied point to the existence of a God/Creator rather than pure chance. There is nothing magical or mystical about God. He works within the absolute laws that govern our universe. We simply don’t understand all that he understands.
I do not believe that all existing manifestations of faith in God are completely equivalent and true. However, this fact doesn’t argue against the existence of a God. It simply points to the failings of humans and the reality that the details concerning who God really is and how he created the universe are largely unknown and perhaps unknowable by the finite human mind.
However, I can clearly see common principles in almost all versions of faith in God that lead to positive results when practiced by human beings in their dealings with other human beings. These core principles are the eternal truths that God provided for the benefit of those that he created. They give purpose and hope for the future of mankind. The fact that humans have managed to add some of their own superstitions and creeds to the central truths delivered by God is simply a result of the failings of humans and not of God. God has provided these truths but he does not force us to follow them.
Simply put, I see life on Earth as a brief proving/testing period to identify those who will seek out and be guided by the core principles/truths provided by God. Those who seek these truths and live by them will be granted more truth in the next life. To me, this approach is far better than disbelieving in God and provides a better future for humans even if it turns out that nothing exists after this life.
NuclearPhysicist on March 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Extrordiary claims require extrordiary evidence. I would settle for any evidence.
Who claims that it’s pure chance? Not science. The current model certainly makes proveble predictions that have nothing to do with chance. That straw man is not new. If God is subject to laws, then he is not omniscient. If he is not omniscient then the myth is false. Manipulating the claimed nature of God to suit the current model is a backward approach that amounts to nothing more than rationalization.
I appreciate your response and accept it in the spirit intended but I have learned that it is pointless to argure with those who believe in magic.
ronsfi on March 14, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I haven’t read something so beautiful in a long time. Tony speaks like someone who stands on a cliff overseeing a vast sea; happy and content with a wonderful life lived; and knowing EXACTLY where he’s going. Simply Gorgeous!
Sultry Beauty on March 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM
ronsfi:
If there is no intelligent driver and multiple outcomes are possible, then the natural progression of creation must rely on random scientifically postulated events to move toward more order and complexity. Since the existence of multiple possible outcomes is one of the central themes of macro-evolutionary theory, chance is a main driver for creation in the absence of an intelligent creator. It’s still science, but it is science randomly selecting different outcomes.
My assessment of this approach to creation is that the universe and Earth simply aren’t old enough to support this model. If the universe were many orders of magnitude older, I could agree that creation might have progressed without intelligent intervention. Since it’s not, I simply can’t agree with the current model put forth by atheists.
With regard to the omniscience of God, this term is defined as having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight or possessed of universal or complete knowledge. It does not rule out the existence of universal laws that even God must abide by. So, God can be omniscient and still have rules to follow.
I am not manipulating the nature of God. It is what it is and cannot be changed by me or anyone else. I appreciate your opinion, but I do not see where it is superior or more provable than mine. If your approach to life brings you happiness then more power to you. My problem with most atheists is that they seek to belittle and reduce belief in God to mysticism rather than a valid alternative to what they believe. This holier than thou version of the atheist creed is what rightly offends most believers in God.
NuclearPhysicist on March 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
I’d like to make one last point concerning this topic. If atheists are right and there is no God, using a belief in God as a guide for my life does nothing to reduce my overall level of happiness. If it does, I certainly haven’t seen it. If there is no God, then atheists and believers alike have the same opportunity to live their lives to the fullest under the rules that they choose to abide by. Its live and let live so to speak.
If atheists are wrong and there is a God and an afterlife that is based on obedience to his laws, then the plight of atheists may be less good in the next life, but atheist don’t believe in one so it shouldn’t matter to them. So, why is there a need for such heated debate on this topic? Neither position is more provable and both provide an equal opportunity for self-determined happiness in this life. Maybe we should all simply agree to respect each others opinions and stop the destructive criticism of deeply held beliefs.
NuclearPhysicist on March 14, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Well that is a very different interpretation of the Bible than the Council of Nicaea, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and the vast majority of Christian Believers. What you are professing is more like New Age Spriritualism. God is in the subatomic particles. Meh. You believe it, fine. You have no evidence. This is the straw man though. Theists never want to defend the myth. They have venture to the edge of the unknown of the known in order to find a place that can not be seen in which place God. Also you are not argueing the existence of God but the existance of the Christian Gods so holier than thou can be applied both ways here.
“reduce belief in God to mysticism” I find that a curious phrase. God is mystisim defined.
ronsfi on March 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Anyway, I have no issue with believers in general. The world is hard sometimes and we must take our comforts where we can. Generaly the believers I know are fine folks. I struggle with the things they are willing to accept. My row to hoe.
ronsfi on March 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Your plea resonates with me, but I am an adult who judges others for their decency, not their beliefs.
Part of what bothers me is watching the children I love get indoctrinated to believe in magic by well meaning but IMO misguided family members. I don’t argue with them very often, out of consideration for family peace. Reading and participating in the argument online is a privilege both educational and cathartic.
I have not changed my mind, but since reading HA, I have softened my outlook considerably.
RushBaby on March 14, 2008 at 5:43 PM
No.
Just because you claim that it is the
“default, logical choice” does not make it so. You assume by faith that it is.
Show me both the “logical” proof you claim you have and the “emperical” you demand from me.
By what authority do you claim that natural law is the source of morality? Without an Absolute Standard, anything goes.
davidk on March 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Nuclear you claim to put so much stock in the order of the universe being consistant with something created yet you seem to have no difficulty with the glaring inconsistancies between the Old Testament God(Jesus) and the New Testament God(Jesus).
OT God(Jesus) tells his chosen people to slaughter the children of their enemies. NT God(Jesus) tells people children are precious and to turn the other cheek. Those guys should have gotten their stories straight. One would think they would have gotten their stories straight before inspiring them. Omnipotence and all. Shrug.
frreal on March 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM
ronsfi:
I’m not interpreting omniscient, I’m simply using the dictionary definition. Regarding Nicaean orthodoxy, you would be right if you concluded that I don’t believe it. I see it more as human meddling with the truth, because it falls outside of the realm of the scriptures. But, I also don’t subscribe to the “God is in the subatomic particles” model referred to by you.
Belief in God is not provable but neither is atheism. I do not ask atheists to defend/prove atheism because it can’t be done. So, asking for some objective proof from believers in God is a double standard. I have given reasons in my defense for why I have come down on the side of belief in God, but there can be no proof unless God decides to visit Times Square in the near future (don’t hold your breath).
With regard to equating belief in God to mysticism, use of that term ranks right up there with cult and is considered derogatory by most believers in God. A more acceptable term would be spiritualism. So, if you want to intentionally offend us, then you can continue to call us all mystics. It’s your choice.
RushBaby:
I also judge people by the decency that they exhibit in their personal lives irrespective of their belief system. Those who believe in God but are not decent don’t get a pass.
What really bothers me is that people like you feel compelled to use terms like “believers in magic” and “misguided” when referring to believers in God. Both of these terms reflect a clear disdain for those who believe in God with atheism apparently being some form of superior/more provable system for governing human interactions. It is offensive and should be regarded as such by all reasonable human beings. I have nothing but respect for those who chose belief systems that are contrary to mine but which bring happiness to their lives. Perhaps you should try a little humility and do the same.
NuclearPhysicist on March 14, 2008 at 6:30 PM
frreal:
I accept the Bible with its inconsistencies, many of which are due to difficulties in having the stories passed down by word of mouth and through many successive translations. Even with its inconsistencies, it is a great book that helps me gain a better understanding of God and his recommended rules for living. If God had handed the Bible directly to us in English without translation errors we wouldn’t see such inconsistencies but thats not what happened. I can live with that, so, why should atheists care about this, since they don’t believe in it anyway. I only care about the end result of its teachings as I apply them in my life. Following these teachings has made me and my family happier, so what’s your problem?
NuclearPhysicist on March 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM
LimeyGeek on March 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Wow. Thanks. I had no idea that “meaning” is subjective. I mean, what do words mean? What is the meaning of the word meaning? Accidents of meaning are mean and the meaning of mean depends on whether or not mean people find meaning in life.
Know what I mean?
BTW, how are your teeth? :)
VolMagic on March 14, 2008 at 8:30 PM
So you are content then with OT God(Jesus) ordering his chosen people to slaughter babies? Just askin’.
God apparently couldn’t write/inspire a book that could be translated literally in all languages? Why not? You are content with inconsistincies, errors, mistranslations because you think/believe you KNOW what God surely must have meant to say. Imagine that. Was the order to kill children a translation error or is that the God you worship as omnibenevolent? Just askin’. Shrug.
Those people that have no clue what I’m talking about need to start googling Bible errors and inconsistancies.
frreal on March 14, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Blacklake,
I am still at work.
I would like to continue the discussion on W.V.O. Quine’s attempt to address the recurring problem of abstract entities facing Naturalism.
I will check back later.
ColtsFan on March 14, 2008 at 9:16 PM
VolMagic:
“Wow. Thanks. I had no idea that “meaning” is subjective. I mean, what do words mean? What is the meaning of the word meaning?”
There is literally a dozen different definitions for that word. Pick up a dictionary some time.
As for “meaning” being subjective….if you’re using the definition of the word which means “value” then yes, it absolutely is subjective. Your children’s lives have no particular meaning to me, but I’m sure they mean a lot to you.
On the other hand if you’re using the definition of the word which means “purpose”, well, yes, that also is subjective – you may think that your purpose is to be the best McDonalds fry-cook that you can be, while I may think that your purpose would be best served by being my slave. Outlandish example, I know, but it serves it’s purpose, since I’m simply trying to illustrate for you that both value and purpose are subjective terms.
As for your argument that anything created by accident cannot have meaning…well, once again, it depends on how you define “meaning”.
If you mean “value”: you could win the lottery tomorrow, which is a result of chance. Would that not have value for you?
If you mean “purpose”: penicillin was discovered completely by accident, does that mean that penicillin does not have a purpose?
If you mean “significance”: if your entire family were to die tomorrow in a car accident, would that not have some significance in your life?
Are you starting to see the bigger picture here?
c6gunner on March 14, 2008 at 10:46 PM
c6gunner on March 14, 2008 at 10:46 PM
You couldn’t tell that was a joke?
For your other arguments, all I can say is, who cares? Life is but a dream within a dream. Time is like a seige or lighting or a rock. Materialism is an illusion. Who cares?
Random molecules collide, extend, attach, disperse. Life springs from nothing and goes into nothing.
Does any of this mean you can’t find ultility or happiness in life? No. Does it negate emotions or any other irrational products of various chemicals colliding and mixing in the matter that occupies my head? No. It just means that it is all meaningless. Why would you attach any significance to a random collection of atoms that arrainged themselves in a very strang and improbable way?
Are you starting to see the bigger picture here?
Again, I’m not arguing for any religion or even for a way of living. I’m just pointing out that, in complete chaos and randomness, there is no reason to think anything matters, or has meaning.
VolMagic on March 15, 2008 at 1:52 AM
And, again, all of your examples, whether penicillin, lottery, or family, presupose something that makes them. lottery cannot exist without a creator, accident or not. Penicillin would not exist without a creator, accident of not. Family would no exist without a creator, accident or not. What makes you think matter can exist without a creator, accident or not?
VolMagic on March 15, 2008 at 1:57 AM
c6gunner on March 14, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Furthermore, your argument is simply a “Man is the measure” argument. Such leads to anything and everything. I love that you say my purpose, to you, could be best fulfilled by being your slave. Thus, anything is permissible; slavery, rape, murder, genocide, torture, drinking blood from skulls. Whatever I find “meaningful” is o.k. because man is the measure. Q.E.D.
VolMagic on March 15, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Of course man is the measure. Even if you assume that a God exists, we still measure the world through OUR perceptions. Even your idea of “God” is only your own personal interpretation of a set of stories that someone else interpreted from another persons interpretations….and so on.
And, of course, your argument fails due to the infinite regression fallacy. Simply put: if everything has to have a creator in order to have meaning, then God must either have a creator, or he must have no meaning.
c6gunner on March 15, 2008 at 3:06 AM
c6gunner on March 15, 2008 at 3:06 AM
you’ve gotta be kidding me.
VolMagic on March 16, 2008 at 12:44 AM
c6gunner on March 15, 2008 at 3:06 AM
If man is the measure, then can you make 2+2=5? If not, why not?
VolMagic on March 16, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4