Arguments for the Existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

That is absurd. Even if you were right that impersonal causes are "arbitrary and unsupported", so are theistic causes, and theism would be just as absurd. You can't support one option by knocking down another.

Your approach is self-defeating. It is the nuclear option that involves selecting the most useless epistemology in order to defeat one truth claim, and then to pretend that it doesn't simply nuke all other truth claims. It is a completely vapid form of philosophy that really should be called sophistry.

To the presuppositionalist, there are only two options: theism or epistemic and moral nihilism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks. Given that all logical arguments rest on unproven and unprovable assumptions, and all your assumptions are tentative, it follows that all your conclusions are likewise tentative, which amounts to universal skepticism. This illustrates my original point (post #10), viz., that there is no logical stopping point between theism and universal skepticism or solipsism.

I think evidence would be a logical stopping point.

 

[KCfromNC]

One might argue more people in jail are theists, because they are looking for redemption. That doesn't make them immoral, in fact I'd say that's a good thing.

Still doesn't address the fact that secular societies exist and function.

Another thing that bothers me about your tone: people in jail are not merely guilty, they are often victims of various forms of oppression and injustice long before they wind up there. Saying they are examples of "bad morality" is naïve and dehumanizing.

But accusing people who don't believe in your god of being inherently unable to be moral is fine?

 

[KCfromNC]

I think evidence would be a logical stopping point.

This is the philosophy forum. If you want workable epistemological approaches rather than pointless word games, the science forum is a few doors down.

 

[FireDragon76]

But accusing people who don't believe in your god of being inherently unable to be moral is fine?

I don't think I've argued that. What I do believe is that atheists have no ultimate, objective ground for their morality.

Secular humanism lives off the corpse of religious sentiments. From there it is a slippery slope to the will to power.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't think I've argued that. What I do believe is that atheists have no ultimate, objective ground for their morality.

And theists do?

Secular humanism lives off the corpse of religious sentiments. From there it is a slippery slope to the will to power.

I think Hitchens got it right in saying that it's quite the opposite: religion steals what is good from humanism and claims it as its own.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think Hitchens got it right in saying that it's quite the opposite: religion steals what is good from humanism and claims it as its own.

Modern humanism only emerged from a culture heavily shaped by Christianity. The evidence of what I said can be seen in following a religious movement such as Unitarianism, and what happened to it. At one time Unitarians were much more numerous, but as their beliefs became more vague and empty, their numbers declined. Because there was nothing left to ground their beliefs and attitudes. Something similar will happen with secular humanism more broadly. People will find fewer reasons to engage in virtuous behavior, and eventually even the concpt of virtue will change to the point it is not recognizable. This is already happening in places like the Netherlands and Switzerland, where death is now considered a cure for depression or mental suffering. It will not be long until life itself will be seen as an intolerable burden. Fortunately for them, Muslims in Europe are not going to buy into that scheme.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Modern humanism only emerged from a culture heavily shaped by Christianity.

And yet it sought much of its inspiration from pagan philosophers, much as Christianity had.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FireDragon76]

And yet it sought much of its inspiration from pagan philosophers

I would say it's less inspiration and more intellectual engagement with antiquity. And that's nothing new. It was really only new for western European civilization. But the Christian east had been interacting with pagan thought for centuries. They called it "pillaging the treasures of the Pharaoh".

Nevertheless, Christian values such as the respect for the sanctity of life, justice and dignity for the poor and oppressed, those have deep roots in Jewish monotheism going back to the origins of Judaism as an identity. Greeks did come up with those ideas.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would say it's less inspiration and more intellectual engagement with antiquity. And that's nothing new. It was really only new for western European civilization. But the Christian east had been interacting with pagan thought for centuries. They called it "pillaging the treasures of the Pharaoh".

Hmmm... that would seem to concede my point then?

 

[FireDragon76]

Hmmm... that would seem to concede my point then?

The philosophical engagement was not because the Christians believed the Gospel was empty of content, but because some people needed a bridge between the Greek and Jewish ways of thinking.

Hitchens is wrong, however... Christianity is not simply raiding the best of paganism and dressing it in religious garb. The heart of the Torah stands in stark contrast to the paganism of the time. There is a radical call for equality and justice that is there from the beginning that was absent in the Canaanite culture when it was dominated by Egypt. That is the contribution of Judaism and Christianity to our culture. When Christianity is thrown out, equality and justice will eventually fade away and be replaced by the will to power. Which will mean whatever the strong want it to mean.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The philosophical engagement was not because the Christians believed the Gospel was empty of content, but because some people needed a bridge between the Greek and Jewish ways of thinking.

Hitchens is wrong, however... Christianity is not simply raiding the best of paganism and dressing it in religious garb.

I don't recall saying "paganism."

The heart of the Torah stands in stark contrast to the paganism of the time. There is a radical call for equality and justice that is there from the beginning that was absent in the Canaanite culture when it was dominated by Egypt.

You'll need to elaborate more precisely on the character of this "radical call for equality and justice."

That is the contribution of Judaism and Christianity to our culture. When Christianity is thrown out, equality and justice will eventually fade away and be replaced by the will to power. Which will mean whatever the strong want it to mean.

Bollocks. Equality and justice are not conceptually tied to Christianity. You are once again showing how perilously close to nihilism you are.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't recall saying "paganism."

You'll need to elaborate more precisely on the character of this "radical call for equality and justice."

Social Justice and the Prophets:
http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/social-justice-and-the-prophets.aspx

"...intellectual honesty demands recognition of the fact that what passes as “secular,” “western” principles of basic human rights developed nowhere else than out of key strands of the biblically-rooted religions."

http://www.pewforum.org/2003/01/27/sources-of-basic-human-rights-ideas-a-christian-perspective/

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Social Justice and the Prophets:
http://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/social-justice-and-the-prophets.aspx



http://www.pewforum.org/2003/01/27/sources-of-basic-human-rights-ideas-a-christian-perspective/

Can you summarise the contents? I'm not always inclined to read links in full, given that this is a discussion forum after all.

 

[FireDragon76]

Can you summarise the contents? I'm not always inclined to read links in full, given that this is a discussion forum after all.

You asked a very technical question... a summary of which would not do it justice. But I did attempt one. Our concepts of human rights are grounded in the belief in divine revelation to the Jewish people about what God commands owing to our nature as being created in the image of God.

From that second article by Dr. Max Stackhouse:

we have some residual capacity to reason, to will, and to love that is given to us as an endowment that we did not achieve by our own efforts. And while every one of these areas of human life is at least imperfect, often distorted by sin, obscured by false desires or corrupted by exterior influences in sinful circumstances, the dignity conferred on us by the gift of the “imago” demands both a personal regard for each person, and a constant drive to form and sustain those socio-political arrangements that protect the relative capacities to reason, to chose, to love that are given with this gift

and note this also, where he critiques the postmodernist political outlook:

Thus, human rights are seen as a matter of socio-historical context. While some lament that more universal principles cannot be found, many celebrate the fact, making diversity, multi-culturalism, and religious distinctives themselves universally positive moral values, although on their own grounds it is difficult to see how they could defend the view, except as a cultural preference

I would really encourage you to read that article in full, if you sincerely want to know why I think its reasonable to conclude that our western understanding of human rights is only grounded in the Jewish religious tradition.

http://www.pewforum.org/2003/01/27/sources-of-basic-human-rights-ideas-a-christian-perspective/

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't think I've argued that. What I do believe is that atheists have no ultimate, objective ground for their morality.

Secular humanism lives off the corpse of religious sentiments. From there it is a slippery slope to the will to power.

That's nonsense. Secular humanism often is a result of rejecting religious moral systems.

I can confidently say that absolutely none of my moral views have their basis in the Christian religion or bible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You asked a very technical question... a summary of which would not do it justice. But I did attempt one. Our concepts of human rights are grounded in the belief in divine revelation to the Jewish people about what God commands owing to our nature as being created in the image of God.

That seems plainly false. What was the punishment for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Were the people free to practice another religion or to worship a different god? What was the punishment for blasphemy or speaking freely against dogma? Did women have the same rights as men? Was slavery forbidden?

From that second article by Dr. Max Stackhouse:

Struggling to see the relevance of this quote given what is actually recorded in the Bible.

 

[FireDragon76]

That seems plainly false. What was the punishment for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Were the people free to practice another religion or to worship a different god? What was the punishment for blasphemy or speaking freely against dogma? Did women have the same rights as men? Was slavery forbidden?

That has less to do with universal principles and more to do with a cultural setting in a particular time and place.

Struggling to see the relevance of this quote given what is actually recorded in the Bible.

Why not listen to what scholars who have spent their lifetimes studying these things have to say, instead of going off your own limited interpretation or that of disgruntled people motivated by animosity and other negative emotions?

Again, as I told you a long time ago, I think you and a lot of other atheists are reacting to a particular form of Christianity called Biblicism. One that is not particularly traditional or ancient. You have not considered the breadth of depth of Christian and Jewish interpretation of their own Scriptures. It's more like somebody who ridicules what they do not understand, most people don't consider that virtuous behavior.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That has less to do with universal principles and more to do with a cultural setting in a particular time and place.

It directly refutes your claim. You are, quite simply, wrong. Our concept of human rights isn't grounded in the Bible. In fact, it is deeply anathema to several biblical teachings. In response to this, however, you can only bleat about the cultural setting of the time and place. Well, if cultural setting is so important, then why not acknowledge that our concept of human rights arose in the context of the Enlightenment, which questioned the very teachings you claim our rights are based on.

 

[FireDragon76]

It directly refutes your claim. You are, quite simply, wrong. Our concept of human rights isn't grounded in the Bible. In fact, it is deeply anathema to several biblical teachings.

Your whole argument seems to be "Bible, yuck!" It's a sentimentalism.. But it has nothing to do with whether the message or not is true. You just find it distasteful. Being a non-Christian, you don't have the first clue how we understand the Scriptures. So you should leave that to us.

then why not acknowledge that our concept of human rights arose in the context of the Enlightenment, which questioned the very teachings you claim our rights are based on.

Most of the philosophers and politicians of the Enlightenment were Christian or heavily influenced by Christianity. Again, your assertion is ahistorical.