The way atheists think?

[ebia]

So, where were we up to?

 

[spblat]

Behold: an atheist and a Christian who live in countries that once warred (recently in both Biblical and scientific terms!), and they mostly agree on what the atheist describes as his core values.

what gives you hope it will get better?

This conversation, in addition to the other stuff I described in my previous response to you.

So, where were we up to?

I deferred our conversation about something you said earlier:

an unverifiable belief that there is no God nor anything else beyond what we can explore through the naturalistic mechansims of science

Can I demonstrate that there is nothing else beyond what we can explore through the naturalistic mechanisms of science?

No! And I'm okay with that. Furthermore, I'm not certain that supernatural phenomena do not exist. The most publicly overt atheist I have studied (Dawkins) concedes that he is not 100% certain either (and then he will without fail say something that will annoy you about fairies).

Rather, my rationalist (or perhaps empiricist is more appropriate) outlook leads me to question claims for which natural evidence is unavailable. The claim that the Bible is God's word is a staggering one to push through that sieve: it first assumes the existence of God and His attributes (known to us through the Bible, so we're back to the circular argument, assuming that which you're trying to prove).

So I believe that's pretty much it for God if you're a pure empiricist/rationalist. (Unless you admit the Bible as natural evidence. Is that worth pursuing?) Rationalism and acceptance of the personal God depicted in the Bible are incompatible. If we have not already, here is where ebia and I part ways: which outlook do we choose? On what basis?

 

[spblat]

But can you trust yourself about what you believe?

Sooner or later we might want to get to this one too. But I'm not sure how to interpret it.

 

[Sketcher]

But I can't say I agree with your characterization of Dawkins (Newdow is unfamiliar to me). Dawkins comes across as abrasive, as superior, as intellectual; I'll grant you that. Carl Sagan's book, published last year, is much more tactful (as I note in my Sagan Book Report). But in my heart of hearts, I agree with them both to the last semicolon, and I will continue to deny that atheism constitutes a religion of its own, and I will also therefore deny that it is possible to be a "fundamentalist atheist".

Dawkins is against freedom of religion. In his ideal world, parents would not be allowed to pass their religion on to their children, which is a fundamental part of many religions, including but not limited to Christianity. Anyone who thinks passing on a religious belief system constitutes "child abuse" as he does, is an enemy of freedom. He doesn't even make distinctions between violent faiths like Jihadist Islam and non-violent ones like Evangelical Christianity, though even if one did, religious freedom for the non-violent religions would still be dangerously precarious.

 

[spblat]

Dawkins is against freedom of religion. In his ideal world, parents would not be allowed to pass their religion on to their children, which is a fundamental part of many religions, including but not limited to Christianity. Anyone who thinks passing on a religious belief system constitutes "child abuse" as he does, is an enemy of freedom. He doesn't even make distinctions between violent faiths like Jihadist Islam and non-violent ones like Evangelical Christianity, though even if one did, religious freedom for the non-violent religions would still be dangerously precarious.

Did we read the same Dawkins?

There are rights that are in tension with one another, as is the case in many societies. In this case we're talking about "freedom of religion" (which I recognize as a basic right) in tension with "freedom from religion", which I also insist is a basic right.

Let us not argue about Dawkins the man; let us discuss the ideas. Children are disposed to believe what their elders tell them; this keeps them safe until they are able to think for themselves. "Keep away from the boar pen." "Don't stare into the sun." "Jesus Christ is your savior."

Do I have the right to teach my kids that red is green? Or that those who do not believe as we do shall not be allowed to live?

Where one legitimate freedom impinges upon another, we must come together and decide where to draw the line.

 

[Sketcher]

Did we read the same Dawkins?

There are rights that are in tension with one another, as is the case in many societies. In this case we're talking about "freedom of religion" (which I recognize as a basic right) in tension with "freedom from religion", which I also insist is a basic right.

Let us not argue about Dawkins the man; let us discuss the ideas. Children are disposed to believe what their elders tell them; this keeps them safe until they are able to think for themselves. "Keep away from the boar pen." "Don't stare into the sun." "Jesus Christ is your savior."

Do I have the right to teach my kids that red is green? Or that those who do not believe as we do shall not be allowed to live?

Where one legitimate freedom impinges upon another, we must come together and decide where to draw the line.

Teaching your kid the precepts of Christianity is not the same as teaching them that red is green. Sorry. As a Christian, I believe that every other faith is as false as the claim that red is green, but I will also defend the rights of people to teach whatever faith they have to their children. If a parent wants his kid to grow up atheist, that's fine with me. But I have the right to share my faith with that kid, and if the kid chooses my faith, that's the kid's right.

 

[spblat]

Teaching your kid the precepts of Christianity is not the same as teaching them that red is green. Sorry.

No need to apologize. We agree.

As a Christian, I believe that every other faith is as false as the claim that red is green, but I will also defend the rights of people to teach whatever faith they have to their children. If a parent wants his kid to grow up atheist, that's fine with me. But I have the right to share my faith with that kid, and if the kid chooses my faith, that's the kid's right.

Do I understand you correctly? That you have the right to convert my children? Who or what gives you this right? Under what circumstances may you attempt this? Whose consent must you first obtain? Under whose supervision may you share your faith with my kids while they are under my care?

 

[Sketcher]

Do I understand you correctly? That you have the right to convert my children? Who or what gives you this right? Under what circumstances may you attempt this? Whose consent must you first obtain? Under whose supervision may you share your faith with my kids while they are under my care?

Jesus has given me that right. However, I am not a public school teacher or a babysitter. I was talking primarily in the context of friendship and acquaintanceship. If I was a child at the same age as your child, or if your child were grown or adolescent and we were friends or coworkers or something, yes, I would share the Gospel and there wouldn't be a thing inappropriate about it. Ditto if this child went to a church and I was a teacher there or asked a question on this forum that I would see and answer.

 

[spblat]

Very well. I was preparing to pounce

 

[ebia]

Can I demonstrate that there is nothing else beyond what we can explore through the naturalistic mechanisms of science?

No! And I'm okay with that. Furthermore, I'm not certain that supernatural phenomena do not exist.

Ok.

The most publicly overt atheist I have studied (Dawkins) concedes that he is not 100% certain either (and then he will without fail say something that will annoy you about fairies).

I haven't really read any Dawkins - what I've seen hasn't impressed me sufficiently to do so - so I don't have a clear picture of his position.

Rather, my rationalist (or perhaps empiricist is more appropriate) outlook leads me to question claims for which natural evidence is unavailable. The claim that the Bible is God's word is a staggering one to push through that sieve: it first assumes the existence of God and His attributes (known to us through the Bible, so we're back to the circular argument, assuming that which you're trying to prove).

If you mean 'God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is correct because its "God's word"', then yes, that's a circular argument.

So I believe that's pretty much it for God if you're a pure empiricist/rationalist. (Unless you admit the Bible as natural evidence. Is that worth pursuing?)

Well, you could could pursue the New Testament's historicity - after all, if the easter story is historical that must give one pause to think. However, the historicity can't be demonstrated beyond all doubt, so if, a priori, you decide that cannot have happened that tends to be sufficient to push the balance to rejecting their historicity.

Rationalism and acceptance of the personal God depicted in the Bible are incompatible.

I think we are still in agreement here.

If we have not already, here is where ebia and I part ways: which outlook do we choose? On what basis?

Personally, since pure rationalism can't answer all the questions, and I see no reason for taking it as an absolute and not looking beyond it when necessary, I'm prepared to consider other means for considering those questions.

 

[spblat]

Well, you could could pursue the New Testament's historicity - after all, if the easter story is historical that must give one pause to think. However, the historicity can't be demonstrated beyond all doubt, so if, a priori, you decide that cannot have happened that tends to be sufficient to push the balance to rejecting their historicity.

Let me quibble: I have not concluded, a priori, that the Bible does not constitute natural evidence of its own truth. On the contrary, I refuse to accept an a priori claim that it does.

Personally, since pure rationalism can't answer all the questions, and I see no reason for taking it as an absolute and not looking beyond it when necessary, I'm prepared to consider other means for considering those questions.

Which questions does rationalism fail to answer? Of these questions, which of them demand answers at all? Why? Which of the infinitely numerous extra-rational (please let me know if you prefer another term) approaches will we select to answer them? Why? When extra-rational means are used to obtain these answers, on what basis do we assure ourselves of their validity?

And most important of all, what are we to do when the answers we obtain through extra-rational means impel us toward conflict with others?

 

[ebia]

Sorry about the delay - I woke up feeling decidely ill this morning.

Let me quibble: I have not concluded, a priori, that the Bible does not constitute natural evidence of its own truth.

I didn't mean to suggest you did. Rather, I was noting that many rationalists conclude a priori that the Resurrection could not have happened, and therefore conclude from that that the gospel stories are inaccurate. I don't yet know enough about you to know if that is your position or not, but if it is then I would be wasting my time addressing the topic from that point of view since historical evidence is never conclusive enough to overcome that sort of objection.

On the other hand, if you are willing to accept the possibilty that an exceptional event like the resurrection might have taken place then it would be worth exploring whether the New Testament (and other) historical documents provide reliable evidence that it did, not based on internal claims of inerrancy (that would be circular reasoning), but looking at internal and contextual clues within them and the circumstances of their production etc. I'm not going to pretend the case is as anything like as clear cut as the likes of Josh McDowell do, but I believe it does offer at least some concrete evidence for the Christian faith.

On the contrary, I refuse to accept an a priori claim that it does.

As you should.

Which questions does rationalism fail to answer?

Why are we here? Why is there so much suffering in the world? What happens when we die? etc, etc.

Of these questions, which of them demand answers at all? Why?

That, of course, is a matter of opinion, but it seems most people throughout history have attempted to address them in one way or anther, so it seems most people think they need answering. One could just as reasonably ask "why do we need to know how stars are created?".

Which of the infinitely numerous extra-rational (please let me know if you prefer another term) approaches will we select to answer them?

The term will do. Like the rationalist approach, I think we should judge it by its fruits. If it produces understanding that it helpful and reliable (as scientific rationalism does within its field) then the approach is valid. If it doesn't then chuck it and look elsewhere.

When extra-rational means are used to obtain these answers, on what basis do we assure ourselves of their validity?

Clearly not with a rationalist based certaintly, but then on what basis does one accept that kind of knowing as certain, and no other? That's a very much a product of the Enlightenment - for most of human history, and still in many parts of the world - rational facts are not seen as the only, or even the most important - sorts of knowing.

I know I love my wife and daughter, and I know they love me. I know I have a vocation to teach at the school I teach at and to do what I do within my church community. I know all these with as much certainty as I know my height and eye-colour. It's a different sort of knowing, and not scientifically verifiable, but actually more important.

And most important of all, what are we to do when the answers we obtain through extra-rational means impel us toward conflict with others?

The same as when supposedly rationalist methods impel us towards the same thing: if the conflict is healthy conflict deal with it healthy ways. If it's not re-examine the process that led us here.

 

[spblat]

Glad you're feeling better. :-/

Ebia, you and I have a different life stance. We disagree on the existence of God, the validity of the Bible. Deep down, we may disagree on how we "know" anything at all.

Yet in my opinion we have achieved something very significant and lamentably rare: we have made respectful contact, and then made a successful effort to understand each other. And most importantly, I feel that we have established agreement that our differing views need not endanger each other. This is in sharp contrast with most of what passes for discourse, both online and in the media.

I feel elated and hopeful, and I think this particular conversation has run its course. If you feel as I do, how can we take this success and help others duplicate it?

 

[ebia]

Glad you're feeling better. :-/

Ebia, you and I have a different life stance. We disagree on the existence of God, the validity of the Bible. Deep down, we may disagree on how we "know" anything at all.

Yet in my opinion we have achieved something very significant and lamentably rare: we have made respectful contact, and then made a successful effort to understand each other. And most importantly, I feel that we have established agreement that our differing views need not endanger each other. This is in sharp contrast with most of what passes for discourse, both online and in the media.

I feel elated and hopeful, and I think this particular conversation has run its course. If you feel as I do, how can we take this success and help others duplicate it?

That's the 6 million dollar question, isn't it? How can a culture be created where genuine listening is viewed as important as expression one's own point of view, and gaining understanding of others as more important than winning the argument?

Beyond modelling that kind of approach in this kind of forum, and whatver aspects of that I can pass onto my students at school, I'm not sure. Certainly churches could do a lot more to promote that kind of mutual respect and way of managing relationships which I believe can be easily justified theologically.

 

[Reptoid]

am grateful for your interest. While adding a "questions for atheists" forum would be really cool, and I would be SO delighted to hang out there and provide respectful answers, I'm afraid such a forum will never be added here at CF. So feel free to PM me if you have a question about what it's like to go through life without believing in anything except the beauty of the natural world around us, the wonderful people in our lives, and the glory of finding things out.

At least from my own perspective, I find great relief in the fact that I need not feel any guilt or fear for failing to live up to standards imposed on me from some god. I am free to question, explore, and experiment without feeling as though damnation awaits me for doing so. It's about intellectual honesty, I don't have to suppress my doubting nature or get anxious or neurotic because I might start having doubts.

 

[spblat]

One other loose end to tie up:

Behold: an atheist and a Christian who live in countries that once warred (recently in both Biblical and scientific terms!), and they mostly agree on what the atheist describes as his core values.

What a stupid gaffe. Australia and the USA have, as far as I know, never warred. Sorry about that.

 

[MethodMan]

Is this a widely held view among Christians about atheists? If so, what is the appropriate forum for us to discuss this erroneous claim?

No

 

[MethodMan]

Closed per forum Statement of Purpose

OP has asked that I issue an invitation to continue this discussion here