Quote of the day
posted at 10:48 pm on March 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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: [1] 2 3 4 »
I think the strongest argument against atheism is the Argument from Reason.
ColtsFan on March 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Harris, Hitchens and others are right. They can debunk the same ridiculous myths over and over. People will simply ignore all argument and repeat the same crap.
No Russian from 1917 until pretty much now has ever been consoled. Right…
freevillage on March 13, 2008 at 10:53 PM
I think any good argument contains true propositions and possesses logical entailment and logical necessity.
But to have a physicalistic worldview that denies immaterial abstract entities, and that denies logical entailment, denies logical necessity, and instead this same worldview posits a materialistic universe that arose by chance and time is to ultimately deny reason itself.
And this is the strongest argument against atheism.
ColtsFan on March 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Dead link.
Vigilante on March 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Obligatory:
“It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
hadsil on March 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Atheists only Prove God exists. They always point to science or whatever but then their results only lead to deeper questions- that can only eventually lead to God.
eski502 on March 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Stoicism works for me.
Dr. Manhattan on March 13, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Theist, atheist … I wonder if there is room for those of us who are apatheist?
(”apatheist” = Someone for whom the question of the existence of a divine being is irrelevant.)
irishspy on March 13, 2008 at 10:57 PM
The Russian circle of consolation.
1. It’s cold, let’s drink.
2. It’s cold, let’s screw.
3. It’s cold, can’t put on condom.
4. Pass out.
5. Head towards the abortion clinic.
When your sad country starts having more live births than abortions then you can start talking.
ninjapirate on March 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM
A Christian foundation
Popular efforts to tuck Christianity neatly aside as a footnote to this country’s history and to deliver a secular society will fail. Why? Because the faith is inextricably tied to our values, our institutions and even modern science.
By Dinesh D’Souza
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-christian-fou.html
Indy Conservative on March 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080312/img/ppl-us-politics-newyork-gov-1-4e48f9b2ad981.html
Click that, Eliot Spitzer is now a Republican!
Chakra Hammer on March 13, 2008 at 11:05 PM
That’s not an argument against atheism. But it does explain why, against all evidence, people choose to believe.
paul006 on March 13, 2008 at 11:05 PM
http://i32.tinypic.com/993zbr.jpg
Chakra Hammer on March 13, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Ahhhhhh… Nothing like warm words from a Christian.
freevillage on March 13, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Although I am not a full blown Christian nor an atheist, I must say, without any bias, that freedom is our common call.
Where would Japan, Germany, France, etc be without our Christian call for freedom. I know that subject could call for months of debate, but our christian country (read some preambles of the constitution) saved all of us from fascism . If you don’t look twice, it may be on the next round…
Knowing that you are an atheist Allah, where do you lie here?
Just a question.
lsutiger on March 13, 2008 at 11:07 PM
um, isn’t that an agnostic? According to Dictionary.com:
Ok…maybe not exactly the same.
p40tiger on March 13, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Just trying to help you put on the condom.
ninjapirate on March 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Yar
AbaddonsReign on March 13, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I woulda said “You gotta be kidding me!”, but then I saw who produced it!
lsutiger on March 13, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Thanks. I recently moved and had to leave all my gay friends behind. Glad I can start rebuilding that part of my circle.
freevillage on March 13, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I was going to say that (though not as eloquently).
emailnuevo on March 13, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I like Tony. He’s Great!
VolMagic on March 13, 2008 at 11:15 PM
And, hey guys and gals, we’ll all eventually find out! What’s the hurry?
VolMagic on March 13, 2008 at 11:17 PM
ahh..nothing like warm words from a Rissian
windansea on March 13, 2008 at 11:17 PM
What the hell is a rigorous atheist?
Anybody who puts that much thought into the idea of a God is a moron. Rigorous atheists included.
Jaynie59 on March 13, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I think the Christian philosophical contribution to the Constitution and other early American legal documents consisted of a healthy dose of skepticism towards government and a negative view of human nature. The writings of the Founding Fathers warned about a government lacking “checks and balances” precisely because most believed in a negative view of human nature, i.e. the Fall of Man due to sin, as taught by the Holy Scriptures. Granted, some Founding Fathers were, of course, deists.
But the Constitutional Framers did not share the Socialist French’s call for big government.
The point is that the Socialist’s rallying cry of “utopian here on Earth” via the method of government spending is largely absent in the early Framer’s writings precisely because of the Framer’s dim views of human nature being sinful.
People often criticize Christianity because of its alleged “solution” (the need for a Savior). But the Framers realized that, metaphysically speaking, Christianity was correct concerning the seriousness of the problem—-man IS the problem.
ColtsFan on March 13, 2008 at 11:19 PM
We’ll have to keep this relationship purely cyber. I hear you guys have a GRIDs epidemic.
ninjapirate on March 13, 2008 at 11:20 PM
What? Did you think about any of this before setting finger to keyboard?
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM
So that best argument against atheism is that it doesn’t fulfill something it never claimed to fulfill? That sounds stupid. How about the biggest argument against Christianity being the lack of logic behind the whole God-Satan system? The fact that God is all powerful, but not all powerful enough to stop this satan character from corrupting sould. Or the other view is that God is all powerful, but not all good, because he himself leads to the evils in the world to force suffering. Of course, this is like arguing whether the wolf would be better suited to use a leaf blower to get to the pigs, either way its not real.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM
I guess yahoo really want to make sure that everyone doesn’t get confused that he is one on the (R)Right side in that photo
**Cough Cough**
lots of women are named Eliot you know
Chakra Hammer on March 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM
All evidence? And that would be….? You have evidence God does not exist? Is that how I would interpret that remark?
CrimsonFisted on March 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM
I can explain how his religion is relevant. Can you explain how my origin is?
freevillage on March 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM
@ LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM
No, you must understand, the Christians on this board think that atheists lack all humanity and are incapable of anything good. OF COURSE that all came from Christianity, something they have no evidence for, ever. But who needs evidence when you could just throw the faith word around.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM
The Difference Between Atheism and Christianity is:
1 - Faith
2 - Love
3 - Hope
Love and Hope come through Faith.
First, you Believe in the Creator.
Second, you Love Him and keep His commandements.
Third, you Hope to see Him face to face.
Hope in an Eternal Life with the Creator overcomes all life’s troubles.
Without Believing, Loving and Hoping, our life is senseless.
Indy Conservative on March 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM
The perennial philosophy, similar to Christianity here, holds that man is born in sin, sin is not something separate from the self, but something that keeps the self from realizing the Self.
deesine on March 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Quite so. Especially as regarding Adams. Jefferson had more faith in man himself, but it was Adams MA framework that became, essentially, our Constitution. And his view is summed up nearly perfectly in your first paragraph.
Spirit of 1776 on March 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Well, aren’t you just the most noble among us!
On the other hand you’re declaring your disinterest in the first question you should ask when laying out a course for the rest of your life. I am on the far opposite end of the spectrum from AP, but at least he has the sense to make a choice.
The Ritz on March 13, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Serenity now!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Seinfeld_s9e3.jpg
Chakra Hammer on March 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I would like to see an argument posited between atheists and agnostics. Explain why atheism is more rational than agnosticism.
aengus on March 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM
@ CrimsonFisted on March 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Using logic, I can fairly confidently say that the Christian God is not the only God, nor is any other God from any religion we as humans have created to explain things we didnt understand. Christians believe in 1 more god than atheists do, even though man has created hundreds of “Gods”. The chance that humans would be able to understand some invisible force which cannot be measured or calculated or determined to exist in any way, and would be able to nail down EVERYTHING that he wants us to do, is insane. Moses was tripping his butt off anyway.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:27 PM
@ aengus on March 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM
If you are gonna choose not to believe, why not go all the way? That a good enough argument?
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:27 PM
How about the biggest argument being that there is no more reason to believe ‘Christianity’ than there is to believe that existence was pooped from a giant fluffy pink bunny.
If you attempt even a primitive formalization of ‘religion’ it all boils down to irrational gibberish.
But at least the followers of Christianity gibberish are no longer attempting to slaughter non-gibberish-believers. They grew out of that several hundred years ago.
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:28 PM
@ Indy Conservative on March 13, 2008 at 11:24 PM
So a mother cannot love her child unless the mother accepts YOUR god? How pompous you christians are.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I always get the the feeling on these threads that the Christians are talking to themselves rather than anyone else.
But what do I know, apparently I lack everything that makes life worth living. Love, hope, faith, what do I know about these things? These ideas frighten and confuse me. I’m going to go light a black candle and plot to remove the 10 commandments from my local courthouse now.
Dr. Manhattan on March 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Perhaps we have Catholicism (the western world’s contemporary taliban) to blame for this deranged state of affairs?
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM
In the beginning, there was this turtle.
ronsfi on March 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Remember to apply for a permit first
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I don’t believe that and I’m a Christian.
aengus on March 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM
…and some elephants
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:32 PM
It’s a long discussion and Dawkins attempts to develop it in great detail. I’m not sure I completely follow him and/or agree. However, in oder to illustrate a potential problem with agnosticism, consider this toy example by Sam Harris.
It’s impossible to prove logically that there isn’t a china teapot revolving around our Universe. Its existence cannot be proven, its non-existence can’t be proven either. Yet is it reasonable to be an agnostic about its existence?
The ultimate difficulty seems to be that it’s impossible to strip God of any qualities whatsoever. And once you ascribe any, a whole set of apparent contradictions immediately arises.
freevillage on March 13, 2008 at 11:33 PM
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Agnosticism is not a choice not to belive. It is the acknowledgemnt of the fact that it is impossible to logically deduce the existence of God. It is saying “I can’t prove or disprove the existence of God, so I will neither say he exists or does not exist”
VolMagic on March 13, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Agreed. 100%.
However, if such a God exists what precludes Him from speaking for himself? Are you seriously saying such a God would be incapable of making Himself known?
The Ritz on March 13, 2008 at 11:34 PM
I was resonding to the comment that God did not exist beyond all EVIDENCE.
The EVIDENCE would be…?
Still waiting.
CrimsonFisted on March 13, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Atheism is a belief in as much as it is a principle. A principle which requires an opposite in order to exist. You cannot have one without the other. Such is life and death!
dmann on March 13, 2008 at 11:34 PM
The comments of this evangelical Christian are directed against Atheism as a philosophical “ISM”, and not personally against atheists as people. My large collection of atheist authors in my library reveals my respect for them as individual thinkers (Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus, …). I just think atheism has too many philosophical problems because it cannot account for rationality, for reason, and for the immaterial laws of logic, etc.
Thank you for your comments.
ColtsFan on March 13, 2008 at 11:35 PM
@ Dr. Manhattan on March 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Cause dont you know, christians have been around since the universe were created. They were given the divine word of God. Somehow I can’t figure out how over 6000 years, 2 people became 7 billion, and all with only 2 sets of chromosomes. Imagine that!!! Adam and Eve have the exact same genetics cause of that pesky rib, which means we are all exact copies of the original human.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:35 PM
@ VolMagic on March 13, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I know what is says.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM
No that is not a good argument. If you are going to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God then on what grounds do you insist that it isn’t possible that God exists? Where is your evidence? If you were merely interested in proof you would, in your capacity as a scientist, have to admit that the issue cannot be solved either way. Furthermore, it would be an academic question and you wouldn’t invest your emotions in it.
aengus on March 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Indy Conservative on March 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM
“A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief, cannot explain love, cannot sigh in happy wonder at life’s endless surprises.”
Don’t think so. All atheists believe in God in times of crisis.
Kevin M on March 13, 2008 at 11:38 PM
By the way, AP are you still following this discussion? - or did you just through a bone into the pack to keep us busy while you do something else?
Seems like this ground has been plowed over many times.
The Ritz on March 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Forgive me the inexcusable arrogance of knowing love and denying God.
God worshipers claim all goodness as their exclusive domain. Then call the godless arrogant. Puzzling.
ronsfi on March 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM
@ CrimsonFisted on March 13, 2008 at 11:34 PM
No one can ever prove God does not exist. Its impossible because whenever a part of the bible is shown to be ridiculous, christians choose that THAT part of the bible was metaphor, or THAT part of the bible isnt the true story. Its frustrating. If the bible was infallible like people claim it to be, the fact that things in the bible have been shown to be wrong and have been explained scientifically should be proof enough that your story is wrong. If your story is wrong, there is no reason to believe certain parts of it.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM
No, you don’t.
VolMagic on March 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Just don’t show the elephants how the rabbits do it :)
You two, thanks for the laughing of tears. Now, that is happiness.
Entelechy on March 13, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Science is now admitting that God exists…just watch the video: “What The Bleep Do We Know”.
I suspect that atheists are still angry with their parents and probably for good reason. It’s hard to believe in a higher power when your parents don’t love you or are unable to show it. For others, faith in a higher power was their only way to survive. God and I love Hitchens too, but he is one screwed up dude.
Actually, if you just observe nature, experience a child’s birth or feel the presence of someone who has passed on, it’s nearly impossible to be an atheist, but even Carl Sagan was a doubter…until the end of his life.
“People will simply ignore all argument and repeat the same crap. (My belief in a higher power doesn’t involve religious dogma, but it can and i respect that–can you?)
No Russian from 1917 until pretty much now has ever been consoled. Right.” (How do you know what’s in the hearts of Russians and how do you know that belief in God will always console a believer? Life is more complicated than that.)
freevillage on March 13, 2008 at 10:53 PM.
Christine on March 13, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Not even close.
But Europe chose Islam and America is on its way.
So why blaming the Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church doesn’t impose Her Teachings on anybody.
Go Islam!
Go Atheism!
Indy Conservative on March 13, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Agnosticism is the rather radical intellectual position that beyond the mutually exclusive sets of true & false, there exists a null set.
The Japanese might call it “mu”
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:41 PM
That makes no sense.
MB4 on March 13, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Chapter and verse please.
The Ritz on March 13, 2008 at 11:42 PM
@ aengus on March 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM
I never said that A god could not exist. I am saying that the christian story, since it is the one I am most familiar with, is wrong, and ITS god does not exist. I also understand where religion came from. It came to existence to explain things which humans cold not explain. Now that we can explain MUCH of that, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL for a supreme being, THAT makes it easy to come to the conclusion that there is no God.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Christian here. I don’t believe that either.
baldilocks on March 13, 2008 at 11:42 PM
“In the beginning, there was this turtle.”
ronsfi on March 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM
OMG…I thought i would never hear that again. Firesign Theater lives on.
Christine on March 13, 2008 at 11:43 PM
And he was big! And he was veddy big!
ronsfi on March 13, 2008 at 11:44 PM
The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on March 13, 2008 at 11:44 PM
@ Christine on March 13, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Seriously, people like you make christians look like asses. The reason I am an atheist is because my parents didnt love me? Oh, DING DING, you win the most pompous ass of the year award. Maybe you are christian because your parents are divorced? Because christians get divorced more than atheists, remember. Remember that? The group which claims its evil to get a divorce are the ones who do it most. Remember that?
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Oh Muyosooooo,
two questions so far and no response. I’d like to hear your answer to each.
The Ritz on March 13, 2008 at 11:46 PM
The Taliban currently condone stonings and beatings and shootings and choppings…it has been some time since Catholicism has partook in such festivities.
I am not literally describing Catholicism as being ‘Taliban’ - to misinterpret me in such a fashion is very naive.
I am comparing the most essential aspects of both - theocratic fascism that dictates almost every aspect of human life.
Some may say “nuke Mecca”, to which I would add “nuke the Vatican”.
Not that either would accomplish much, in a positive sense.
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Not all those who claim to be “believers in God” are truly believers. There a lot more hypocrites and liars than true believers.
In most cases, personal issues, need for money, etc. make even pastors lie and claim to be true believers in God.
They may believe in the Creator, but superficially.
To be a true believer, money and promiscuity shouldn’t be your number one goal in life.
It takes personal sacrifices to be a true believer.
Indy Conservative on March 13, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I daresay Willard Quine, who clearly grasped more about both physicalism and logic than anybody in this forum (if not who’s ever lived), would have taken issue with that. But as he’s passed on, I’ll do what little I can.
Simply put, physicalism obviously does nothing to contradict or reject logic, mathematics, language, or for that matter thought or emotion. If any of those conclusions were entailed, obviously nobody would ever take the notion seriously at all. (If you’ve still any doubt, simply note how Quine, a pioneer of physicalism, dedicated the bulk of his life’s work to the study of logic and mathematics.)
Resisting the urge to grant special ontological status to things simply because doing so seems the easiest philosophical route is merely to follow the sage advice of William of Occam: “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” (”Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”–the closest thing to the popular notion of “Occam’s Razor” ever actually written by Occam). The only thing this approach inherently “denies” is laziness.
Blacklake on March 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM
Wow.
freevillage on March 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM
ronsfi on March 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM
I was responding to a comment that beyond all EVIDENCE, Christians believe in Christ.
You have provided none, nor any arguments that hold water. CHRIST existed. Fact. The fact we still argue over him is evidence of that. He was the Son of God. Believe it or not. 517 witnesses recorded (biblically) that he was seen AFTER he died. Walking. Talking. Even after the nail was pounded in his legs. THAT is some evidence, whether you want to believe it or not, that is up to you. That is your choice. That is your right. But to tell me that the “fact things in the bible have been shown to be wrong” are not empirical facts. No one has ever shown me that the facts in the Bible are wrong. To the contrary, the more I learn, the more I realize what a cohesive document it is.
CrimsonFisted on March 13, 2008 at 11:48 PM
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. … Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:48 PM
In order to cogently and consistently use logic, you must have a worldview (or philosophy of life) that allows you as a thinker to utilize and have epistemic access to the immaterial laws of logic. Atheism is a physicalistic worldview that teaches that ultimate reality is material in nature. Atheism, as a worldview, denies the laws of logic by their futile attempts to “reduce” the immaterial law of non-contradiction to either a contingent function of biology, psychology, C-fibers, evolution, sociology, or culture.
But the laws of logic are rooted in necessity, and they are not contingent.
Besides, what is said to be contingent cannot provide the ground for what is logically necessary.
Therefore, atheism fails to justify its access to the immaterial laws of logic. In effect, atheists deny logic even while claiming to use logic at the very same time.
This is not an attack on atheists as people. Rather, it shows the bankruptcy of their physicalistic worldview that cannot provide a foundation for the immaterial laws of logic.
ColtsFan on March 13, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I still maintain that atheism is nothing more than another religion in which each member gets to play god and denounce the existence of any or all others. The “progressive” concept that this tiny minority of self believeing “gods” should even be paid attention to doesn’t wash with me either.
Buzzy on March 13, 2008 at 11:50 PM
sure, right after you explain Michelle Obama’s 200% salary increase in one year :)
windansea on March 13, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Wrong.
http://brewright.blogspot.com/2006/12/christian-divorce-rates.html
ninjapirate on March 13, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Muyoso,
are you avoiding my standing questions (2) or ignoring? If you’re ignoring, that’s fine. You won’t hurt my feelings to say so.
The Ritz on March 13, 2008 at 11:51 PM
No. The ‘facts’ in the Bible have never been shown to be true. Falsity before truth - essential underpinnings of logic.
‘People of faith’ are essentially committing the most profound fallacy - non sequitur.
But if they’re happy (and not trying to kill me) I’m happy
LimeyGeek on March 13, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.
- Confucius
MB4 on March 13, 2008 at 11:52 PM
More creation myths for Christ-o-centric Athiophobes.
Do none of the pious believers of these mythologies know love? Consolation? Joy?
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/creationmyths.htm
ronsfi on March 13, 2008 at 11:52 PM
@ CrimsonFisted on March 13, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Hundreds of people see UFO’s flying. Does that mean they are? The bible wasn’t even written within a generation after Christ was dead. Parts of it were voted on, as it ALL of the gospels weren’t words of God. The bible was written by MAN. The fact you choose to believe it is because of your parents. Your parents indoctrinated you with your belief. If you were born in Pakistan, you would be Muslim.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Okay. Fair enough.
Your thinking is muddled. How can a lack of (material) evidence for a proposition automatically lead to a definitive negative conclusion? It can’t. If scientists thought like you then the field of science would cease to exist. Newton would never have discovered gravity if he shared your mentality.
aengus on March 13, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Catholicism do not “dictates almost every aspect of human life.”
Catholicism is not “theocracy” or “fascism.”
Catholicism is more into Faith and moral social issues than politics.
Politicians may quote the Catholic teachings, but the Church don’t have any politicians of her own.
The Catholic Church, again, doesn’t impose Her Teachings on anybody.
Islam does.
Atheism does.
Indy Conservative on March 13, 2008 at 11:53 PM
“What The Bleep Do We Know”
Oh my, this indie film, or rather its success, shows just how starved people are for some sort of validation for a more mystical, spiritual worldview. But the problems with this film are so enormous it’s hard to know where to begin.
What the Bleep is built around a series of interviews with physicists and mystic, all making ontological assertions about the nature of reality and about the fact that - yes, you guessed it - “you create your own reality”. But you don’t create your own reality, psychotics do.
There are at least 6 major schools of modern physics, and not one of them agrees with the general and sweeping assertions made by this film. No school of physics believes that a human being can collapse the Schroedinger wave equation in 100% of the atoms of an object so as to “qwaff” it into existence. The physics is imply horrid in this film, and the mysticism is not much better, being that of an individual (”Ramtha”) who claims to be a 35,000-year-old warrior from Atlantis.
None of the4 interviewees are identified while they speak, because the film wishes to give the impression that these are well-known and well-respected scientists. The net result is New Age mysticism (of the “your ego is in charge of everything” variety) combined with wretched physics.
Bad physics and froot-loop mysticism. Bless those starving souls that don’t look further. Between modernism (and scientific materialism) and postmodernism (and its denial of depth), there is nothing left to feed the soul, and thus What the Bleep is well received. I’m sorry to be so harsh about this, because clearly the intentions are decent; but this is exactly the kind of tripe that gives mysticism and spirituality a staggeringly bad name among real scientists and postmodernists.
deesine on March 13, 2008 at 11:54 PM
@ Ritz
No a God wouldnt preclude himself from being known. I see where you are going with this line of questioning, and it doesnt play. A God would also not hide dinosaur bones in the earth to trick people into believing he doesnt exist because the account he gave shows humanity to be 6000 years old.
As for your second question, refer to what I wrote already.
muyoso on March 13, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Limey,
speaking of non sequitur
here’s one: Man cannot prove the existence of God, therefore God does not exist.
here’s another: Man cannot prove the existence of God, therefore God cannot reveal Himself.
Agreed?
The Ritz on March 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM
I contend that we are not far apart. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
MB4 on March 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM
W.V.O. Quine was a very sharp thinker. And an atheist philosopher. In all due respects, I disagree with his “Naturalized Epistemology.” But he was a very perceptive philosopher.
Yes, I am familiar with Quine.
What is Quine’s views concerning immaterial abstract entities?
I am familiar with nominalism in mathematics and logic.
But can you please explain briefly W.V.O. Quine’s views concerning abstract entities and the law of non-contradiction? I am not interested in his talk about set theory, only what he believed concerning abstract entities.
ColtsFan on March 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 »