A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[seeds]

How about no one gets condemned.

I totally agree with that, Dubious,...

...but not with this:

You die and that's it...

_______

[seeds]

I only know that I believe that those who have not been exposed to Jesus will not be condemned.

Can you not see the irony in that statement?

What you are inadvertently implying is that if Christians long ago would have just kept quiet about Jesus and his teachings, then no one would have to worry about being condemned for rejecting him.

No, I do not see the irony. I am not referring to those who have heard the word and rejected it, I am referring to those who have never been exposed to the teachings.

Doc, I’m having difficulty understanding how you could so thoroughly misinterpret what I wrote.

If you carefully reread what I stated above, then you should realize that I too was referring to those who have never been exposed to the teachings.

Also Christians are supposed to spread the word to all people, once others have heard, it's not the job of Christians to convert them to Jesus.

That’s my point, doc, “...once others have heard...” they have now been put in the dangerous position of facing condemnation if they reject it.

Whereas, just prior to “hearing it,” they were safe from judgment (the judgment implied in rejecting Jesus) due to their lack of exposure to Jesus – hence the irony.

Reread your very own words in the quote at the top of this post.

...Christians don't "save" anyone, that is God's job.

And why, precisely, does anyone need to be “saved”?

Is it because of some kind of “original sin” that allegedly occurred in a place called the “Garden of Eden” – a sin that established the so-called “fall of man”?

Doc, do you honestly believe that a series of bizarre circumstances involving a “talking snake” and the eating of the fruit from a tree that somehow represented the “knowledge of good and evil,” literally took place somewhere on this planet - sometime in the past?

The point is that if one can question the veracity of an “original sin” that was allegedly perpetrated by two “mythical humans” in what is clearly a mythical situation, then what does that suggest about the need for a “savior” to expunge the sin that was never committed?
_______

[uwot]

Moreover, if the child would turn out to be a wicked person (like a Hitler or a Stalin) then many Atheists would accuse God of failing to end the child's life before all that evil was actualized, and would think it a good thing if He did.

Well, only the Atheists that believe in god.

[Londoner]

Fair point. Ideally a code of laws should aim to allow the maximum freedom with the minimum coercion, but that is just my personal belief...

The problem with transcendental authority is that there isn't one that is universally accepted. We are stuck with arguing for our personal beliefs.

Not just arguing. If we are to have any laws, or even just make moral assertions, we are claiming authority.

There are any number of hypotheses that seek to explain the cause of gravity. John can believe in any or none of them, but that massive bodies are subject to a force can easily be demonstrated by dropping something. In other words, John might not believe in, for instance, warped spacetime, but unless he has some esoteric, perhaps Eleatic metaphysical beliefs, it is unlikely that he will deny that something is making heavy objects fall to the ground.

But now you are arguing against John by pointing out the consequences of his disbelief in gravity. If he doesn't believe, how does he explain his observation that objects fall? But you say atheism is supposedly without any such connection to experience, or anything else. It is something we believe in for no reason. It is the equivalent of John saying 'No, my disbelief in gravity is nothing to do with objects falling or spacetime or anything else. I just don't believe'.

Me: In other words, there is no 'just not believing'. If we are saying something meaningful, then it has to relate to the rest of our ideas.
Well, it is worth remembering that scientific theories can consist of three elements.
1. The phenomenon you wish to understand. This is crucial; 'science', if it means anything, is investigating, describing and explaining things that demonstrably happen. Anyone suitably equipped should be able to agree that the phenomenon exists. If an area of interest does not relate to phenomena that others can agree is 'real', then science is just any idea that anyone happens to have. That is pretty much how sociology defines science, conveniently, as it grants sociology scientific status, but personally, I think physics is about physical phenomena, or it isn't physics.
2. Pattern recognition. This might simply be inductive reasoning: the sun has always come up, therefore, it probably will continue to do so. It might be a bit more sophisticated and predict where and when it will rise and fall, based on previous observations; or it might be a full blown mathematical model, like Ptolemy, and a general pattern is inferred from quantifiable measurements.
3. Finally, there is the explanation. You can attribute the rise and fall of the sun to anything you like. An hypothesis may or may not make predictions about future observations, but if it doesn't, it has no 'scientific' value.
I should add that utility, ease of use, is generally accepted scientific value. It's Occam's Razor, a simpler model is preferable to a more complicated one that gives exactly the same results, but it isn't necessarily any more 'true'.

Exactly. So within science, I am not free to pick and choose. If I understand the world through a scientific framework, I cannot simply disregard particular features, for example I can't say 'but I don't believe in X-rays', because that would undermine the whole framework. That although observations have persuaded me gamma rays exist, the same observations do not persuade me that x-rays exist.

I think that all our beliefs are tied in with all our other beliefs. If we use language and name something, then that thing has a place in a general framework of understanding; everything is a type of something else. So a belief or disbelief in anything must be the application of some sort of general rule, and thus must have consequences for other beliefs.

So, to put it crudely, I can't just 'not believe in gravity' or just 'not believe in X-rays'. I might be applying the criteria that 'I don't believe in anything I can't see', but if so then it couldn't stop at gravity or X-rays. I would have to deny everything of that type. Which is why I don't think an atheist can simply 'not believe'; non-belief is always an assertion of a general criteria.

Me: Is personal belief sacrosanct, in the sense that nobody should be allowed to impose anything, on anyone?
Yes.
Me: Because even that super-libertarian idea incorporates a 'should' that is supposed to govern everyone else, i.e. the law that there shall be no laws. (And presumably policemen whose job would be to prevent anyone becoming a policeman).
The job of the police is not to control what people think; it is to control what people do.

I am still confused by these policemen who will control what people do, yet not impose anything on anyone! I think this captures the difficulty mentioned in the first part of this post; the wish to have authority to say what should happen - and enforce it - but while being reluctant to admit that we are claiming that authority.

Both beliefs have consequences. If there is no such thing as authority, then you cannot claim it over others. If there is such a thing as authority, then others can claim they have it over you. And if authority is a thing in itself, such as there is a correct use or an incorrect use, then you need to be able to point to it as if it was an objective fact, which involves making the kind of transcendental claim you would deny to theists.

Well, this is a philosophy forum and in a sense, serious philosophers are committed to making at least a logically valid case. The tool that philosophy uses is logic; this can be used to investigate the coherence of a narrative. Most people believe that their narrative is coherent, but the mistake many make is equating coherence with truth. The issue is not necessarily the logic, which can be analysed 'objectively', but the premises are often "entirely personal"; 'God exists' is such a premise. As a personal belief, it is sacrosanct, but when the narrative based on it becomes an excuse to interfere with other people's liberty, then it's time to call the police.

But what about the premise 'you should not interfere with other people's liberty'? Why isn't that also 'entirely personal'?

(It looks neutral as stated, and something everyone can agree, because the word 'liberty' seems to be as empty of content as 'God'. However as soon as we start explaining what we understand by those words, it starts to clash with what other people mean. Surely we don't need to do a run through of all the societies that have claimed to embody 'liberty' while doing things other societies would call oppressive.)

If we are going to say either God or Liberty is more than 'entirely personal' then we are back to making that transcendental claim. And in neither case is this claim based on science. So again, we are not free to just throw out 'God' because it is just personal, while retaining 'Liberty' as real.

[Londoner]

I don't think it would, actually. Philosophy doesn't assume, for example, that Metaphysics is "meaningless," even though by definition it's not "scientific." After all, logic itself (upon which science depends, of course) is not "scientific" if by that we understand "strictly empirical."

Well, some philosophy certainly would rule out metaphysics. Not just Logical Positivism; famously Hume: If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion

There are various claims about logic and maths, including that they are scientific in the sense of being generalisations of experience in the same way as scientific laws. (You understand I am not always giving my own opinions here).

Take a concept like "pi". Pi is a real thing, in the sense that there IS (exists) a real ratio between the radius and circumference of a circle, and circles are real things.

But circles are not real things. For example they only exist in two dimensions. So anything we say about circles is ultimately a tautology, that is that if pi did not represent that ratio, then the shape would not be a circle. This is another approach, one which agrees that logic and maths are not scientific - but claims they do not say anything.

Me: The same goes for ethics and metaphysics; they are literally nonsense. or, more kindly, 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent'.
Why then are you speaking of them? I don't mean to be glib, but you see...even you cannot do it! They're too real to be ignored.

I can also speak of circles that do not conform to 'pi'. That would not make them real;others would respond that I had failed to comprehend either 'circle' or 'pi'. In the case of statements about ethics or metaphysics, we would say they are neither comprehended or comprehensible.

Me: Quite a lot of what such people believe will be common; 'fire burns' etc. But the important point is that a theory is simply an attempt to provide a consistent description of experience and there isn't just one single, correct, theory. For example, I can have the theory that the whole world is just my dream, or that every event that happens is willed by God, or that we all live in The Matrix. Since all these theories can be made consistent with our experiences, there is no way that we can use experience to show which one (if any) is correct.

That's why it's an excellent thing that sensory experience is not all we have, as I have said earlier.

I understand that is what you believe. As I have explained in earlier posts, I would say that we cannot form a picture of the world based only only on sensory experience, however it does not follow that the non-sensory elements must therefore be reliable. In other words, we may need some sort of a theory, if only the a priori concepts of Kant, but there is no way we can verify that theory, since that would involve seeing from a perspective outside our own heads.

I would suggest religion posits just that sort of an observer. (But so does any ethical theory; when I say 'X is good' I give a point of view of human behaviour with the implied claim 'this is not just what I think, it is a fact'.)

[BradburyPound]

While the end of human kind to the Atheist is just the end, the end to the Religious believer is a catastrophe! I still fail to see why Atheists necessarily are committed to Ethics/Morals and Meaning for real and I mean real. Clearly, there's an ontological void with the Atheist in regard to Ethics/Morals and Meaning! Even so, why don't you address my point of Atheistic Social Darwinism? I believe this is widespread with Atheism, yes? Being idealistic about Atheism isn't typical with Atheists, isn't this so?

Alright, I'm looking forward to answers! I believe the Religious believers and I will win this! Cheers!
)

Atheism does not mandate any specific moral/ethical system. It is a negative label that has no recommendation nor system of belief.
For your question to work at all; that is to say if it is at all meaningless, you are asking what would it mean for society to devise a system of ethics in the absence of a reference to God.
I see no problem here, because this is pretty much what most of the western world (at least) as done for the best part of 200 years.
And for the last 200 years our society has managed to be far more flexible and responsive to an ever changing moral playing field. Human rights, democracy for all, education for all, city planning, hygene, medicine, workers protections, and the massive sexual revolution of the 1960s has all been achieved not simply with the absence of god, but with the explicit rejection of the old out-of-date moral landscape mandated by the established churches of the so-called Christian world. Rejecting the authority of the church and the empirical god that justified enabled them to mobilise their power. It was only when Theism was challenged that all these changes and the FREEDOM they imply were made possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, some philosophy certainly would rule out metaphysics...

Interesting thoughts, and they require a thoughtful answer. Unfortunately, I expect to be out for a bit, and cannot manage the time necessary just now. I will try to see if I can pick up your thread when I return, if I may. Meanwhile, I thank you for them.

[thedoc]

Doc, do you honestly believe that a series of bizarre circumstances involving a “talking snake” and the eating of the fruit from a tree that somehow represented the “knowledge of good and evil,” literally took place somewhere on this planet - sometime in the past?

The point is that if one can question the veracity of an “original sin” that was allegedly perpetrated by two “mythical humans” in what is clearly a mythical situation, then what does that suggest about the need for a “savior” to expunge the sin that was never committed?
_______

Don't tell anyone I said this, I only say it out loud to a few people, but I view much of the OT as mythology using allegory to convey a truth. The "Fall of Man" represents humans becoming aware of their own mortality and good and evil. Before this humans were like the other animals, unaware of mortality and good and evil, that is why I have often said that good and evil are human terms that do not apply to animals. Adam and Eve are symbolic of humanity reaching that level of awareness. Much of the controversy about the OT stories is irrelevant to the message that is presented in the story.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Atheism frees us to choose our morality

...but tells you it's all a delusion anyway, so there's no reason to "choose" anything in particular.

What a bankrupt, vacuous, amoral thing it is. The longer we talk about it, the more clear its emptiness becomes.

Hobbes has hit the nail right on the head and your feeble response is nothing more than a feeble response.

Hobbes is far too polite to say what needs to be said but I have no such inhibitions: You're a thoroughly despicable fellow, Sir, an utter twat.

I miss Hobbes' nail-hitting. It's jolly inconsiderate when interesting posters disappear without so much as a by your leave.

[Harbal]

I miss Hobbes' nail-hitting. It's jolly inconsiderate when interesting posters disappear without so much as a by your leave.

It's my guess that Hobbes' absence is not a matter of his own choosing. I know that PhilX is on a one month ban and I'm wondering if he took Hobbes down with him. Hobbes and I are not the greatest of pals but I agree, it is noticeable when he's not here.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I miss Hobbes' nail-hitting. It's jolly inconsiderate when interesting posters disappear without so much as a by your leave.

It's my guess that Hobbes' absence is not a matter of his own choosing. I know that PhilX is on a one month ban and I'm wondering if he took Hobbes down with him. Hobbes and I are not the greatest of pals but I agree, it is noticeable when he's not here.

Hmm. You could be right. I have noticed Philexs' disappearance, but I didn't see any fighting between them beforehand. I'm always out of the loop I didn't know PE was on a ban.

[thedoc]

I miss Hobbes' nail-hitting. It's jolly inconsiderate when interesting posters disappear without so much as a by your leave.

It's my guess that Hobbes' absence is not a matter of his own choosing. I know that PhilX is on a one month ban and I'm wondering if he took Hobbes down with him. Hobbes and I are not the greatest of pals but I agree, it is noticeable when he's not here.

Hmm. You could be right. I have noticed Philexs' disappearance, but I didn't see any fighting between them beforehand. I'm always out of the loop I didn't know PE was on a ban.

PE has found another forum where he can post whatever he wants without much hassle.

I don't know where Hobbes went, he didn't tell me.

[thedoc]

I miss Hobbes' nail-hitting. It's jolly inconsiderate when interesting posters disappear without so much as a by your leave.

FYI, members do not need your permission to stop posting.

[Harbal]

FYI, members do not need your permission to stop posting.

So who's permission do they need, doc?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I miss Hobbes' nail-hitting. It's jolly inconsiderate when interesting posters disappear without so much as a by your leave.

FYI, members do not need your permission to stop posting.

Oh really? I wish you would learn to not be so literal.