A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[thedoc]

But what do the Chinese call it?

I have no idea but it's probably something I wouldn't be able to pronounce anyway.

See, you've made up your own name for it

No I haven't. It's more of a description than a name.

I'm giving you extra credit

Thank you, I'll try to spend it wisely.

I'd say "don't spend it all in one place", but I don't think it will amount to much. What can you get for a penny or less?

[Greta]

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

I believe that Gods words were transcribed by fallible human scribes and therefore are not the actual words of God, but need to be interpreted to get the truth. Those who read them literally, or interpret them in a particular way, are usually wrong.

So you would consider God's word not to be exclusive to the Abrahamics but received by different cultural groups around the world?

A question then, who is to say that scientific research is not communing with God? Trying to better understand one's deity's works would seem a greater homage than the usual lip service/emotional approach of many theists who seem to speak much more of what they hate than what they love.

I personally consider scientific inquiry to be an inherently spiritual activity, in that it has the effects of spiritual practice - focus, love/passion, loss of self in absorption - just that the emphasis in more on aspects of natural creation other than the creations of human minds.

[thedoc]

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

I believe that Gods words were transcribed by fallible human scribes and therefore are not the actual words of God, but need to be interpreted to get the truth. Those who read them literally, or interpret them in a particular way, are usually wrong.

So you would consider God's word not to be exclusive to the Abrahamics but received by different cultural groups around the world?

A question then, who is to say that scientific research is not communing with God? Trying to better understand one's deity's works would seem a greater homage than the usual lip service/emotional approach of many theists who seem to speak much more of what they hate than what they love.

I personally consider scientific inquiry to be an inherently spiritual activity, in that it has the effects of spiritual practice - focus, love/passion, loss of self in absorption - just that the emphasis in more on aspects of natural creation other than the creations of human minds.

I agree, religion sometimes tells us what God did, science tells us how God did it. And I believe that each religion has received some part of the message that is appropriate to that religion. Few religions have receiver the whole message, indeed I doubt if any have received the whole message, but only what is needed at the time. Also I don't believe any one believer needs to know all the answers, they will learn those answers when needed.

[Lacewing]

Given Atheism, MUST anyone be good?

This question seems to reflect narrow thinking and a transparent fixation on condemning atheism. It also seems to suggest that a god is needed in order for people to feel COMPELLED towards good over bad -- despite history being FULL of BAD behavior by theists in the name of their god! So why are you pitting these concepts (atheism vs. good) against each other as if there is any significant meaning in doing that?

There are many things in life that inspire people to feel that they "MUST" be good. Family, community, culture, social feedback, personal awareness, etc. A god is not required. Belief in a god can simply be another "incentive"... but clearly we can see that it doesn't much matter.

[thedoc]

This question seems to reflect narrow thinking and a transparent fixation on condemning atheism. It also seems to suggest that a god is needed in order for people to feel COMPELLED towards good over bad -- despite history being FULL of BAD behavior by theists in the name of their god! So why are you pitting these concepts (atheism vs. good) against each other as if there is any significant meaning in doing that?

There are many things in life that inspire people to feel that they "MUST" be good. Family, community, culture, social feedback, personal awareness, etc. A god is not required. Belief in a god can simply be another "incentive"... but clearly we can see that it doesn't much matter.

Do you feel better now, after your rant against religion?

[Lacewing]

Do you feel better now, after your rant against religion?

I wasn't ranting. And I feel as good right now as I did before I wrote it... which is very calm and happy. Why do you think what I said was a rant? I was responding to what IC said... which seemed very skewed to me, and I explained why. Please tell me specifically what you think is incorrect about what I said?

[Dubious]

Somehow it never occurs to theists that if you need god as an incentive to be good then at root you're just as evil as any so-called satanic atheist. There is no ethical or moral superiority in someone who must be bribed or forced by power to behave himself. The fact that this distinction is usually made by theists indicates what some would feel free to do if not restrained by their belief.

[Londoner]

Me: And how would we discover whether that (moral) system was 'true'?

I would expect, if this place were created, that its structure would reveal certain basic facts about the Creator.

For example, if the Creator were rational, we would be living in a place that operates according to reason, laws and regularities...that we would find that science would work on this reality.

Oops. We do.

The objection would be that to describe those regularities as operating according to 'reason' is to anthropomorphise them. We do not think of (say) Gravity as an entity, that has decided that objects with mass should draw together, because to do so is in some way 'reasonable'.

Science only notes that certain relationships are the case; it does not (cannot) answer 'Why?' We can present no end of ideas 'why' the universe might be the way it is, including that it was created, but we cannot show one is better than any other.

Well, I would also expect that if God were good, then his creatures would at least have an awareness of morality, whether or not they always followed that awareness. And there would be serious consequences to ignoring our moral nature.

Ooops. We do have that.

That is to treat morality as if it was an external object, such that we could be 'aware' of it. But it isn't an object in the same way as those things studied by science, so it isn't 'reasonable' in the sense that you say (above) signals the work the Creator.

I would expect that if God wanted us to know Him, he'd put some sort of impulse within us to seek Him out; so there would be some sort of universal religious character to all ancient societies...

Oops. All ancient societies are religious.

Certainly, but again there are many alternative explanations as to why we might have this impulse. We cannot rule out that possibility, but we cannot rule out any of the alternatives either.

Furthermore, if He is the Source of life and goodness, I would expect that persons and societies that rejected their connection to God would quickly decline into self-indulgence, corruption, confusion and death...

Ummm...maybe like the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union did, and like the UK and America are now starting to do?

And if God was a God of relationships and love, he would make some gesture to arrest this, and would undertake some kind of self-revelation, so that people actually could come to know Him, instead of spiraling off into disaster.

Hmm...empirical evidence is starting to pile up.

But wouldn't this interventionist God contradict the idea that we could infer the existence of God from the regularity of the universe?

I think we would also have to ask why, if God was responsible for giving us our awareness of morality and God, he would punish us if we were not sufficiently aware? Either the quality of our awareness is down to God, in which case he is punishing us for being what he made us, or it is in some way random, in which case God is punishing us for something outside both his, and our, control.

I think the historical examples are always problematic. Usually the Roman Empire is thought of as going the other way, moving from paganism to monotheism (while undergoing a relative decline). An interesting question would be which society today we should take as our model; a society which maintains a close relationship to God and that God has caused to prosper. I suppose the best candidate would be Saudi Arabia, which is both very religious and has been blessed with abundant natural resources!

[Londoner]

Given Atheism, MUST anyone be good?
This question seems to reflect narrow thinking and a transparent fixation on condemning atheism. It also seems to suggest that a god is needed in order for people to feel COMPELLED towards good over bad -- despite history being FULL of BAD behavior by theists in the name of their god! So why are you pitting these concepts (atheism vs. good) against each other as if there is any significant meaning in doing that?

There are many things in life that inspire people to feel that they "MUST" be good. Family, community, culture, social feedback, personal awareness, etc. A god is not required. Belief in a god can simply be another "incentive"... but clearly we can see that it doesn't much matter.

You describe some behaviour by theists as BAD.

If I think all behaviour, including my own, is simply a response to incentives, then how can I be in any position to call somebody else's behaviour 'bad'?

Plainly, everyone acts in response to their own beliefs, but if we say that behaviour is 'bad' we are saying that your beliefs are mistaken, that some beliefs are better than others. But to do that we must be appealing to some sort of external standard.

So we can argue there is no such thing as morality; that our behaviour just is what it is. In that case, the word 'bad' just means something like 'doing something that is not what I currently would want to do'. Or we can make moral judgements, but in that case we are in the same place as the theist, appealing to a 'something' beyond ourselves as individuals.

[Immanuel Can]

Given Atheism, MUST anyone be good?

This question seems to reflect narrow thinking and a transparent fixation on condemning atheism.

The real question is not whether or not we're "condemning": it's whatever Atheism deserves. There's no wrongness in condemning a bad ideology...like, say, Red Communism or misogyny or misandry. And "narrow" is irrelevant, given that the topic of the strand does all the "narrowing" in this case.

It also seems to suggest that a god is needed in order for people to feel COMPELLED towards good over bad -- despite history being FULL of BAD behavior by theists in the name of their god!

Irrelevant at the moment. You need to read the strand topic again.

Even if Theism were to turn out to be horrible (a ridiculous suggestion, given any fair accounting of history, but let's play along for the moment), if Atheism turns out to be awful, then Atheism's in trouble on its own merits. And given that Atheist regimes killed 148 million people in the last century alone, more than all the war-deaths in history previously, combined, Theism is way ahead on the historical count already, no matter how "bad" it's ever been. (It hasn't, by the way: it's been pretty darn terrific for the human race, by any fair metric).

So why are you pitting these concepts (atheism vs. good) against each other as if there is any significant meaning in doing that?

Atheism is at fault for that. In fact, all it is, is "A-Theism." You can't get a more stark opposition than that.

There are many things in life that inspire people to feel that they "MUST" be good.

Hmm...You don't understand the word "must," then. You seem to think it's the same as "can."

"Must" means that it has to be shown that the ideology in question, Atheism, has rational or moral merit conducing to the goodness in question -- not merely that a person can be "nice" while happening to be an Atheist. For anybody can act inconsistently with their ideology: the question really is, what does that ideology warrant?

[Immanuel Can]

Me: And how would we discover whether that (moral) system was 'true'?

I would expect, if this place were created, that its structure would reveal certain basic facts about the Creator.

For example, if the Creator were rational, we would be living in a place that operates according to reason, laws and regularities...that we would find that science would work on this reality.

Oops. We do.

The objection would be that to describe those regularities as operating according to 'reason' is to anthropomorphise them. We do not think of (say) Gravity as an entity, that has decided that objects with mass should draw together, because to do so is in some way 'reasonable'.

This objection misses the point completely.

Given the alleged randomness of the origin of the universe, what we ought to expect, from every scientific law we know, is pure chaos. Nothing ought to cohere or produce order. Where the very intricate order of our universe comes from is a huge question, scientifically. One does not even need to be a Theist to understand that.

Science only notes that certain relationships are the case; it does not (cannot) answer 'Why?'

This is true: and for that reason, we know that science is not the comprehensive answer to all the important questions in the universe. For deductively, we know there must have been a "why": and if science cannot speak to that, then it is science's limitation that is on show.

We can present no end of ideas 'why' the universe might be the way it is, including that it was created, but we cannot show one is better than any other.

We certainly could if the Supreme Being had spoken to us concerning that. So maybe the real question is, "Has God spoken?"

That is to treat morality as if it was an external object, such that we could be 'aware' of it. But it isn't an object in the same way as those things studied by science, so it isn't 'reasonable' in the sense that you say (above) signals the work the Creator.

We don't know that it isn't an external "object" as you put it, or "reality," as I would. But what we do know for sure is this: if morality is not objective and external, then it's merely a social ephemera, an odd phenomenon (since it's universal) but one for which we can find no explanation as to why we ought to believe in it at all, or why anyone should.

If we accept that morality exists, we end up having to accept that a moral Law-Giver must exist as well. Absent such, there's no reason we have to be moral at all.

Oops. All ancient societies are religious.

Certainly, but again there are many alternative explanations as to why we might have this impulse. We cannot rule out that possibility, but we cannot rule out any of the alternatives either.

No, that's true: but it's very odd, and like all highly-improbable coincidences, needs some rational explanation. Moreover, was not you argument that there was no empirical evidence at all? But here you accept that it is at least ambiguously evidentiary...you just say it could go either way. I would say the evidence leans strongly, as well.

But wouldn't this interventionist God

I didn't posit one of those. I merely posited a Creator. "Interventionist" implies He is "intervening" in a state of affairs that already exists prior to Him.

...contradict the idea that we could infer the existence of God from the regularity of the universe?

No. No more than observing a painting done by you might tell me that you are intelligent, or that you have artistic skill. I could infer a great deal about you from what you had chosen to paint, how you'd made the paint behave, the technical control with which you executed your design, and the aesthetic insight the design represented...among other things. The creation would bespeak the creator...you.

I think we would also have to ask why, if God was responsible for giving us our awareness of morality and God, he would punish us if we were not sufficiently aware

?

Maybe we aren't unaware of it at all. I have certainly never met a human being who has not thought about God. And you are clearly not one of those either.

I think the historical examples are always problematic. Usually the Roman Empire is thought of as going the other way, moving from paganism to monotheism (while undergoing a relative decline). An interesting question would be which society today we should take as our model; a society which maintains a close relationship to God and that God has caused to prosper. I suppose the best candidate would be Saudi Arabia, which is both very religious and has been blessed with abundant natural resources!

I think not. The savagery and cruelty of Saudi society is certainly related to their concept of God, but it has little to do with Theism more generally. Their "god" is certainly not the most probable one, nor the one I believe exists. Delusions about God always take their toll -- whether because of a wrong view of His nature, or because the ideologues in question refuse to think of Him at all.

But let us ask, how have Atheist societies fared? Are they, in distinction to, say, America and the UK, which have a residual Christian past, bastions of tolerance, humanity and wisdom? Well, there were certainly few more Atheist societies than North Korea today, or perhaps Red China or the Soviet Union, or Albania, or Pol Pot's Cambodia...and how did they all do? They killed 148 million in the last century, as I've pointed out before. In fact, just as you cannot name a humane Muslim country, you cannot name a single humane Atheist country. And at some point, you've got to ask what their ideologies have to do with all that, don't you?

[Harbal]

The real question is not whether or not we're "condemning": it's whatever Atheism deserves. There's no wrongness in condemning a bad ideology...

This is more a case of what, in your mind, atheism deserves. Atheism doesn't deserve anything, it's merely a concept. It's what the people you attach the label to deserve that's the point. Atheists are just as varied a bunch as theists are, you get the full spectrum in both groups, as I'm sure you know very well, yourself.

if Atheism turns out to be awful, then Atheism's in trouble on its own merits.

As far as I know, Lacewing is an atheist and I do know that I also conform to your definition of one, yet our attitude seems to be a lot more tolerant than yours, which seems far more likely to create conflict. So, I think what you are is rather more awful than what we are.

And given that Atheist regimes killed 148 million people in the last century

What's the point of concocting meaningless statistics? Believing in God/creator, in itself, will not prevent someone from behaving like an evil bastard if that is their nature. This is a thoroughly idiotic discussion, it's attitudes like yours that cause trouble by forcing a divide between people.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism doesn't deserve anything, it's merely a concept.

Well, on that point we agree...Atheism truly doesn't deserve "anything" -- if by "anything" we mean trust, belief, entertaining, authority, admiration...

It hasn't exactly done great work, historically speaking. And so far, we've seen it also has zip to tell us about morality.

It's what the people you attach the label to deserve that's the point. Atheists are just as varied a bunch as theists are, you get the full spectrum in both groups, as I'm sure you know very well, yourself.

What you say about people is true. But what you say about ideology is not.

History certainly teaches us that ideologies are dangerous; for they mobilize human beings to act on some of the best and worst lights of their nature. It makes a huge difference what somebody believes, especially if they choose to take their belief seriously and follow through on the logic their ideology invites them to follow.

...our attitude seems to be a lot more tolerant than yours,

Ironically, "tolerance" is a Christian virtue, not an Atheist one.

It's predicated on a primary right to freedom of conscience, even when a person is wrong. And the rationale for it was produced by the Theist, John Locke, entirely on a Theistic basis. So you're borrowing from a different ideology there. Atheism has, so far as I have been able to find, no particular rationale for "tolerance" at all. But I'm certainly open to hearing if you suppose otherwise, and that would seem "tolerant," would it not?

So I'm listening. Please inform me: given someone's being an Atheist, why would "tolerance" be a virtue? In fact, why would anything be a particular virtue?

And given that Atheist regimes killed 148 million people in the last century

What's the point of concocting meaningless statistics?

"Concocting"? Are you saying it's not true? I can prove it is. Or are you denying the existence of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il,...

Or did you mean that the death of 148 million is a "meaningless" statistic? Some people might even think that was intolerant.

Believing in God/creator, in itself, will not prevent someone from behaving like an evil bastard if that is their nature.

Very tolerantly, I would also declare that an Atheist will not be forced thereby to be a Stalin. But he might be encouraged to be one. After all, if morality is just a contingent figment...then why not?

Perhaps the better question is this: what role does that ideology play in producing those who ARE Stalins? And with that, we should ask whether or not anything in that ideology has anything in it to RESIST a person taking the choice to become a Stalin.

...it's attitudes like yours that cause trouble by forcing a divide between people.

Maybe. But some divides are warranted.

I hope you will happily divide yourself from evil and the people who espouse it. Certainly there's no virtue in unity if all it does is to"unite" cruelty with mercy, violence with peace, falsehood with truth, and so on, creating an indiscriminate mix of the vile and the laudable. Knowing the difference between such things, and being willing to stand by the "divide" between them is the difference between being moral and amoral...or perhaps even immoral.

So vive la divide.

[Lacewing]

You describe some behaviour by theists as BAD.

I don't know if you're referring to what I said in my previous post, or if you mean in general. In my previous post, I was simply making a point in response to IC's apparent claim that atheists have no moral system compelling them toward good behavior, whereas theists do. I was trying to make the point that it doesn't seem to make a difference for "bad" behavior.

ULTIMATELY, I think it's all just labels... and all is divine.

The real question is not whether or not we're "condemning": it's whatever Atheism deserves.

Your absurdity is showing! First, you like to say what the question is so that you can answer/spin things your way and ignore the rest. Second, atheism is not a belief system of ideas that groups of people congregate to follow... as theism is. Launching attacks against a simple definition as if it were actually such an entity is extraordinarily foolish and superstitious and desperate.

I agree with Harbal's response to you. The ignorance of your divisiveness is more dangerous than anything else. You are casting yourself as some sort of elevated judge and jury, and trying to look intelligent while you do it -- and although you've gotten very good at that, probably from lots of practice and snaky behavior -- I can assure you that some people (probably most) see right through it. But you're apparently impressing yourself, so maybe that's more important than being truly clear.

[Immanuel Can]

The real question is not whether or not we're "condemning": it's whatever Atheism deserves.

Your absurdity is showing! First, you like to say what the question is so that you can answer/spin things your way and ignore the rest. Second, atheism is not a belief system of ideas that groups of people congregate to follow... as theism is. Launching attacks against a simple definition as if it were actually such an entity is extraordinarily foolish and superstitious and desperate.

I agree with Harbal's response to you. The ignorance of your divisiveness is more dangerous than anything else. You are casting yourself as some sort of elevated judge and jury, and trying to look intelligent while you do it -- and although you've gotten very good at that, probably from lots of practice and snaky behavior -- I can assure you that some people (probably most) see right through it. But you're apparently impressing yourself, so maybe that's more important than being truly clear.

Well, it's easier to tell yourself that than to think, I understand. If It lets you dismiss the argument when it gets scary. But what you should perhaps consider doing is asking yourself this: is it true?

Really, nothing else ought to matter: and if it does, maybe you should ask yourself why it does.