Philosophy Now Forum

Lots of good comments! I haven't had time to check today, so I'm behind, but the conversation above is excellent. I hope my non-responses aren't taken as ignoring some rather thoughtful comments.

A quick response (or two) to vegetariantaxidermy:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Actually atheists tend to know a lot more about religion than religious nuts do.

The nuts, yes. The theologians (e.g. those who are informed), not so much (in my experience). This is the point I'm after. I would happily join in with atheists in taking on the nuts, but it's when the nuts are taken to be a "correct" understanding of orthodoxy (or any tradition) that I tend to get frustrated.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't see why I should have to study fairies in depth to know that I don't believe in them.

Well, someone has to do this, no? If no one studies fairies in depth, then how do we know we ought not believe in them? Obviously, that's sort of a comical position, but I think the idea holds. If you've not been given good reasons not believe in them, why shouldn't you? But on a more serious note, belief in God is not on the same level as belief in fairies, if for no other reason than that the existence of one can be more or less settled by the hard sciences, while the other can't.

duszek wrote:Ah yes, that´s true.

But he was not a theologian, that´s why the pharisians loathed him so much. Because they thought they knew everything that was to be known about God.

Alright you seem to be willing to accept the Bible account as evidence that Jesus could read and write, at least in one language. Why then is it so difficult to accept that Jesus is indeed a theologian also, after who would know more about God, than God himself?

It occurs to me that I owe you all an apology. I did not intend my question to apply so much to belief as to debating theists. I certainly am not so strict as to insist that the atheist has to read this, that or the other before not believing in God. But before expounding on how theism is not a rational position, shouldn't the atheist be familiar with the defenses of theism that claim to be rational (rather than just the nuts)?

ReliStuPhD wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't see why I should have to study fairies in depth to know that I don't believe in them.

Well, someone has to do this, no? If no one studies fairies in depth, then how do we know we ought not believe in them? Obviously, that's sort of a comical position, but I think the idea holds. If you've not been given good reasons not believe in them, why shouldn't you? But on a more serious note, belief in God is not on the same level as belief in fairies, if for no other reason than that the existence of one can be more or less settled by the hard sciences, while the other can't.

What about "Woods Fairies"? On the old house we had a rather large deck and one winter I made a shallow pond to do some Ice Skating for the daughters. In the spring when the water had melted the wind would cause swirls on the water, and I told the girls that I had seen evidence that "Woods Fairies" were dancing on the water. I'm not sure they believed my, but I had shown them the swirls on the water.

ReliStuPhD wrote:It occurs to me that I owe you all an apology.

Who, Me?

"shouldn't the atheist be familiar with the defenses of theism that claim to be rational?"

If the core of theism is 'the universe was designed, created, and is sustained, by god' then I'm not seeing why the nontheist has to futz around with the details of one religion or another.

For example: in another thread, folks are dickering around with the logic of god's ominpotence and omniscience. This, to me, is like asking how Santa delivers all those gifts in one night. That is: lot of energy devoted to discussing god's (or Santa's) nature or capabilitites when, instead, one could simply ask for an evidence of God (or Santa) existing.

If an evidence is offered (tangible, direct, with little room for interpretation) then all involved can have a fine time swinging the cat by the tail. But if no evidence is offered, then all involved are left dickering over the weight of ghost whispers.

I'm certainly willing to review any and all bits of evidence offered, but I have no time to have at it over spook speech.

Like the old lady used to say, "Where's the beef?" Without beef (evidence), you ain't got no burger (foundation for claiming god exists) and all the details of any religion you care to name will not change that.

ReliStuPhD wrote:It occurs to me that I owe you all an apology. I did not intend my question to apply so much to belief as to debating theists. I certainly am not so strict as to insist that the atheist has to read this, that or the other before not believing in God. But before expounding on how theism is not a rational position, shouldn't the atheist be familiar with the defenses of theism that claim to be rational (rather than just the nuts)?

I think that's what I was trying to say when I first came to the religion forum, and commented, though rather poorly I suppose, on IC's comment about the necessity of having to study a religion in order to intelligently comment on the existence of God, or the divine inspiration of the Bible. I wasn't saying that I could comment on other aspects of Christianity. I was saying anyone could comment on the non-specifics without having to study the intricacies.

Anyways, for my part in losing my cool on that thread, I apologize to you, RS, and to IC. I realize you weren't being a jerk. I hope you both can accept that apology. It's been on my mind.

Dalek Prime wrote:I think that's what I was trying to say when I first came to the religion forum, and commented, though rather poorly I suppose, on IC's comment about the necessity of having to study a religion in order to intelligently comment on the existence of God, or the divine inspiration of the Bible. I wasn't saying that I could comment on other aspects of Christianity. I was saying anyone could comment on the non-specifics without having to study the intricacies.

Anyways, for my part in losing my cool on that thread, I apologize to you, RS, and to IC. I realize you weren't being a jerk. I hope you both can accept that apology. It's been on my mind.

Water under the bridge. All is fine.

thedoc wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:It occurs to me that I owe you all an apology.

Who, Me?

Well, everyone who commented on how informed they had to be to believe X when I really was speaking to debating X vs Y. So mostly an apology for not being clear enough to steer the thread down the right road, though the way it went was nice as well.

Very gracious, RS. Thank you.

henry quirk wrote:"shouldn't the atheist be familiar with the defenses of theism that claim to be rational?"

If the core of theism is 'the universe was designed, created, and is sustained, by god' then I'm not seeing why the nontheist has to futz around with the details of one religion or another.

For example: in another thread, folks are dickering around with the logic of god's ominpotence and omniscience. This, to me, is like asking how Santa delivers all those gifts in one night. That is: lot of energy devoted to discussing god's (or Santa's) nature or capabilitites when, instead, one could simply ask for an evidence of God (or Santa) existing.

If an evidence is offered (tangible, direct, with little room for interpretation) then all involved can have a fine time swinging the cat by the tail. But if no evidence is offered, then all involved are left dickering over the weight of ghost whispers.

I'm certainly willing to review any and all bits of evidence offered, but I have no time to have at it over spook speech.

Like the old lady used to say, "Where's the beef?" Without beef (evidence), you ain't got no burger (foundation for claiming god exists) and all the details of any religion you care to name will not change that.

Well, it seems to me that you're making an evidentialist mistake here. Lack of evidence does not constitute non-existence. And evidentialism itself is often self-refuting.

As for debating the existence of God, I agree that you don't need to bone up on a particular tradition. It does seem to me, however, that you ought to be informed with respect to the arguments for the evidence of God (so as to refute them). Since God's existence is a meta-physical question (unless you're a monotheist and claim an actual revelation of some sort or another), these sorts of debates are necessary. In effect, the atheist is no more rational to state "I don't believe in God" than is the theist who responds "I do" if neither can offer support for their position. And since evidence is in short supply for both positions, logical & metaphysical arguments are all that's left.

(As for that other thread, I'm about to reply to it, lol)

Dalek Prime wrote:Very gracious, RS. Thank you.

You bet!

thedoc wrote:What about "Woods Fairies"? On the old house we had a rather large deck and one winter I made a shallow pond to do some Ice Skating for the daughters. In the spring when the water had melted the wind would cause swirls on the water, and I told the girls that I had seen evidence that "Woods Fairies" were dancing on the water. I'm not sure they believed my, but I had shown them the swirls on the water.

How do you know they weren't made by wood fairies? (Seriously)

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:What about "Woods Fairies"? On the old house we had a rather large deck and one winter I made a shallow pond to do some Ice Skating for the daughters. In the spring when the water had melted the wind would cause swirls on the water, and I told the girls that I had seen evidence that "Woods Fairies" were dancing on the water. I'm not sure they believed my, but I had shown them the swirls on the water.

How do you know they weren't made by wood fairies? (Seriously)

That's the thing, my rational mind deduced that it was the wind, my spiritual or whimsical mind would say that it was Woods Fairies. Whether we admit it or not, each mind is made up of a rational part, and a more whimsical part. Which part rules your roost.

Doc, it would be a miserable world indeed if we cannot allow ourselves to indulge in flights of fancy at times. I like the wood faerie hypothesis.