A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, I'm pretty sure "to exist" IS a predicate, at least in grammar.

Suppose I say 'snow is white'....

I didn't mean to precipitate you into a side-discussion about that. Sorry. I was just making a joke; hence the smiley. "Is" is, of course, both a copula and a predicate. It can either mean, "exists" or can be used to link a noun with an adjective. But I think we need only concern ourselves with the "is"-as-predication situation when we are discussing God here.

The inability to sort out the mix frustrates a project that rules what it is, and isn't, possible to say. To put it another way, to make philosophy like science, a system which does not attempt to address certain areas of experience, except unlike science it would say that those areas are meaningless.

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."

The idea is that all meaningful statements must be ultimately reduce-able to very simple sense-experiences.

I think that's guaranteed to be wrong, actually.

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 pi isn't amenable to "simple sense-experience." In fact, it's not amenable to sensory experience at all...for nobody has every seen pi, and nobody has ever even written pi out as a number, since it's infinite. Nevertheless, it's a very powerful tool for calculating real-world results, and I don't think there's a single engineer or architect in the world that doubts the "meaningfulness" of the pi concept.

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 do not think that constitutes a truth-claim in the sense of being certain that it would be impossible to distinguish concepts from experience, but we do know that we can't (and don't) do it. If you like, we know it empirically.

Well, for reasons above, I think this isn't quite so.

So I would not take this failure as ruling out the idea you can have 'knowledge ' of God, rather it implies that your knowledge is not of a different (or inferior) kind to knowledge generally.

Oh, I would agree with that last statement, but not with the claim that "knowledge" must be "empirical" to be "meaningful." Much of our knowledge is not empirical. Empiricism is but one episteme, and a presuppositional one at that. As such it's neither inevitably nor exclusive. It's not a bad one; but it's not the only one. It's one paradigm among the several to which human knowers ordinarily have resort.

Me: This is why I tend to be more sympathetic to religious claims than many on these boards. Atheist or theist, I do not think we can ever draw a sharp line between 'facts' and our conceptual frameworks. And, with conceptual frameworks, all that matters is that they work for us; that they meet our needs.

Yeah, this is where our agreement hits a roadblock. I would respond that one can have a completely consistent "framework" that one has devised, and that framework not be good or true at all. More than that, the claim, "The purpose of frameworks is to 'meet our needs,' " as you put it, is itself an unsupported claim. I would tend to deny it.

It doesn't meet our needs because it is perfect, it meets our needs/remains consistent because we constantly adjust it. We want a consistent framework because that enables us to predict future experience; when it fails we readjust it to take it into account.

Oh, I didn't say it had to be "perfect." Indeed, if science were already "perfect," what need would we have for further science? We'd just convert our "perfected" knowledge into a tradition, and move on from there: why try to improve on "perfection"?

But by the same token, we need to know what our legitimate "needs" are. And we need to know that when something "works" that it "works" for a purpose we ought to be having. After all, nuclear warheads "work" very well for some purposes some people have had. And we need a means by which to judge whether our "need" for a new Rolls Royce is a real and legitimate "need," or just something we perceive ourselves to want.

What does a human being "need" in order to be a fully-actualized human being? That is a matter of much controversy, once we get beyond the level of oxygen, food and basic clothing. And it's clear that many of the things we dream we "need" are not, after all, such absolute "needs."

What "works" for a Quaker or a Zoroastrian is nothing like what "works" for a Wiccan or a Nazi. So to leave our inquiry at the point of saying that something "works," and that it's "good" if such a thing "works," is both gratuitous and uninformative.

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.

But what do you do with the disparate conceptions of what "works" as I pointed them out above?

As far as 'good' comes in, we can speculate our choice of theory might reflect our emotions. A brutalised person might prefer a theory that is modeled around conflict...but then they might do the opposite and have a theory that denies this world is real. But now we are doing psychology on straw men, a sign that we are no longer doing proper philosophy.

No, not "straw men," but imaginary cases. They're two different things.

"Straw men" are reductional misrepresentations of real-world arguments; imaginary cases are fictive heuristic devices, realistic representations of cases that we use so that we do not have to perform experiments on actual human beings. The former are bad, and the latter are very good for philosophical (and moral) purposes.

You seem to leave us above at Emotivism. The problems with Emotivism are well-documented. They include things like that just because one emotionally "likes" something cannot tell us whether or not it's "good," and that emotions are not stable as a source of information for how different human beings can reach consensus about the world...and do things like build societies, systems of justice, fair distribution, and so on.

In sum, the fact that someone "likes" or "wants" something does not ever turn out to be morally informative. It may be interesting, but it does not give us reason to associate rightness with any such emotion.

[seeds]

Furthermore, are you seriously operating under the assumption that these little Hindu kids...

...are not the children of God, simply because they were not indoctrinated into the teachings of Christianity?

...‘No, to be true "children of God," we need to have a real relationship with God. It's not automatic...

You and I seem to have a completely different interpretation of what it means to be a “child” of God.

For example, a raggedy old poodle sitting on grandma’s lap has developed a “real relationship” with grandma who, in turn, refers to the poodle as being her “child,” yet clearly that is not true in any literal sense.

However, that seems to be what you are implying in terms of our relationship with God, in that even though we are a lower life form with respect to God, it is indeed possible for us to have a child-to-parent like relationship with God, but only in a way that is similar to the poodle and grandma relationship.

Whereas I, on the other hand, suggest that in order to be the true “children of God,” we need to be the “TRUE” children of God (as in his “literal” offspring/progeny).

In other words, it’s not some “honorary title” arbitrarily bestowed upon us simply because we cultivated a relationship with him through the sheer chance of being born into the right religion on earth (in this case, Christianity) in which we said the right words, performed the right rituals, or thought the right thoughts.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Now, I can't speak for children I've never met...or adults either. But I can tell you this much: there IS a God we all need to get to know. And He, from His side, has done and is doing everything that can be done, short of forcing us against our wills into a 'relationship' with Him.

But that's the point: a forced relationship is not a relationship at all. We do have names for relationships constituted on the basis of compulsion...but to my knowledge, none of them is complimentary. I think you know what I mean. Is that the God you have in mind?

No.

The God I have in mind is so far above us in scope and consciousness that us trying to fathom God’s level of being is like amoebas trying to fathom our level of being.

Or more accurately, like the fetuses of a certain living entity that they (the fetuses) are destined to become like, trying fathom and describe the true form and nature of that entity from within the dark confines of the entity’s womb.

My vision of God comes in the wake of trying to comprehend the level of being that a living entity would “literally have to exist at” in order to create a hundred-billion galaxies of suns and planets.

In which case, it has become clear to me that the nonsensical descriptions of God handed down to us from ancient minds (minds who thought that if you travelled too far in one direction you would fall off the edge of the planet) are precisely that – “NONSENSE.”

Earlier in the thread you implied that I was on some kind of a “trip” that you’re not prepared to sign up for, and I respect that.

However, in order to understand why you are getting so much negative push-back from atheists, you need to be fully cognizant of the implications of your own “trip.”

For it is one that embodies doctrines that are based upon something that allegedly transpired in a “mythical garden” where phantasmagorical circumstances involving a "talking snake" and an “apple-swiping caper” led to the ridiculous notion that this...



...is filled with nasty “sin” and is condemned (right from the womb) to eternal damnation in some hellish dimension of reality.

And the only way that the torturing of the child can be avoided is by her accepting Jesus as her personal savior, thus avoiding the fires of hell.

And that, in a nutshell, is the foundational theme of the religion that you are promoting and defending in this thread.

(And you wonder why there are atheists in the world?)

Therefore, I’ll ask you once again:

If the unthinkable happened, and that sweet little cherub in the tub had died shortly after the above picture was taken (clearly, long before she had the mental wherewithal to accept Jesus as her personal savior), then what do you personally think God should do in her situation?

It's a simple question, I.C..

And if you again try to sidestep it by suggesting that God is “loving” and will certainly do the “right” thing by her, then you will be ignoring the large stinking gorilla in the room that represents the consequences (as laid-out in Christianity) for anyone who dies on earth without accepting Jesus as their personal savior.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

...even though we are a lower life form with respect to God, it is indeed possible for us to have a child-to-parent like relationship with God, but only in a way that is similar to the poodle and grandma relationship.

No, not so. You're off the mark. Your analogy is a little contemptuous, but I'll speak to the concern.

There is nothing artificial or second-rate, or merely metaphorical about becoming a child of God. It's a profound thing, a transformation of identity, purposes, inclinations and destiny...and it's done by God Himself, not by some clever innovation of our ingenuity.

In other words, it’s not some “honorary title” arbitrarily bestowed upon us simply because we cultivated a relationship with him through the sheer chance of being born into the right religion on earth (in this case, Christianity) in which we said the right words, performed the right rituals, or thought the right thoughts.

No, you're right about that bit...it's none of the above. "Sheer chance," "being born into" any particular place, religion or situation, "rituals" or whatever, these things have nothing to do with it. But a relationship with God, yes, that's on point.

[Immanuel Can]

The God I have in mind is so far above us in scope and consciousness that us trying to fathom God’s level of being is like amoebas trying to fathom our level of being.

I have no problem with what you say. But if this God is as great as you say, do you suppose he could make an "amoeba" understand what he wants? And if He's the Creator, could He make that "amoeba" into something far, far better than that?

...that sweet little cherub...

I wonder what you'd think of my arguing technique if I sent you some pictures of, say, children in a Sunday School class, and a few at a Yeshiva...and then perhaps some winsome blonde girls with shiny teeth, singing hymns in a chapel, and a few pictures of handsome young men handing out tracts in a university courtyard...and then asked you, "How can anyone be an Atheist? How can they be so proud and cruel as to say all these lovely people are wrong?"

I think you would -- quite rightly -- point out that it was no kind of argument. And I think you'd probably wonder if I had any estimation of your intelligence, that I imagined a few dewy-eyed pictures would melt your brain and cause your knees to become weak. You'd probably think I'd lost my mind completely, and I suppose that you'd laugh me to scorn. And I would have to admit that you would be completely justified in doing that. It's not good logic.

In the first place, what would the emotional attractiveness of anyone -- of any age -- or their "sweet little cherub" faces have to do with anything? How is that a premise conducing to some conclusion? If you think it is, please tell me what it is: "cuteness" = what?

But secondly, you're simply making an appeal to emotion, and nothing you are offering there is really of substance. What is the question that "cuteness" raises, and why does it raise it?

In honesty, you would have to admit this: you have no idea whether or not the children in the picture will come to know God. Evidently, you do not know those children at all; nor do I. Moreover, we do not know their futures. We do not know what God is doing or going to do in their lives. They may be saved by his grace at any time, or they may grow to full adulthood, and become a scourge to the Earth...neither you or I can tell that. No doubt Gandhi, MLK and Albert Schweitzer were once little kids; but I would not be surprised if Nero, Hitler or Pol Pot had once been "cherubic" children themselves. Whether the children are good or bad people, and whether they will be or not, is in no way to the point: even less is whether or not at present they are cute.

So what's the issue? What does cuteness conduce us to believe?

Now, what is to the point is the real nature of God. And I think that if you actually have in mind a God as great as you say, then you will know that regardless of what you and I might wish, His person and will are His own to define. We have neither the information to conclude on what He's doing, nor the foresight to see what He will or will not do in the lives of children -- or unknown people of any kind. Moreover, if we believe God is transcendent to the degree you describe, would your judgment about what he should or should not do be any better than anyone else's?

But now, if that God you're speaking about were great enough to reveal His purposes to us, then we might know something. So I put the question to you: do you think God has spoken? Do YOU think you know what the future is for "cherub" faces? And how did you get that wisdom?

[seeds]

...even though we are a lower life form with respect to God, it is indeed possible for us to have a child-to-parent like relationship with God, but only in a way that is similar to the poodle and grandma relationship.

No, not so. You're off the mark. Your analogy is a little contemptuous, but I'll speak to the concern.

You quoting me out of context makes it sound like the analogy is referencing something that I personally believe, when in fact it’s an analogy of what appears to be your take on the situation.

Is that simply the result of a hasty reply, or is it on purpose in an effort to obfuscate the point I was making?

...that sweet little cherub...

I wonder what you'd think of my arguing technique if I sent you some pictures of, say, children in a Sunday School class, and a few at a Yeshiva...and then perhaps some winsome blonde girls with shiny teeth, singing hymns in a chapel, and a few pictures of handsome young men handing out tracts in a university courtyard...and then asked you, "How can anyone be an Atheist? How can they be so proud and cruel as to say all these lovely people are wrong?"

I think you would -- quite rightly -- point out that it was no kind of argument. And I think you'd probably wonder if I had any estimation of your intelligence, that I imagined a few dewy-eyed pictures would melt my brain and cause my knees to become weak. I suppose that you'd laugh me to scorn. And I would have to admit that you would be justified in doing that. It's not good logic.

In the first place, what would the emotional attractiveness of anyone -- of any age -- or their "sweet little cherub" faces have to do with anything? How is that a premise conducing to some conclusion? If you think it is, please tell me what it is: "cuteness" = what?

It should be obvious that the pictures I have uploaded in my last few posts in this thread have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “cuteness,” but everything to do with “innocence.”

Your attempt to twist the meaning seems a bit disingenuousness I.C., and is quite revealing as to what you are willing to do in order to win an argument.

Furthermore, it is also obvious (to me, anyway) that you have once again managed to sidestep the question I asked you at the bottom of this previous post - viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3561&start=1635#p293527

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Now, what is to the point is the real nature of God. And I think that if you actually have in mind a God as great as you say, then you will know that regardless of what you and I might wish, His person and will are His own to define. We have neither the information to conclude on what He's doing, nor the foresight to see what He will or will not do in the lives of children -- or unknown people of any kind.

I think that we can at least assume that he isn’t some kind of unspeakably savage entity who has nothing better to do than to torture defenseless beings for eternity just because they didn’t quite understand his intentions as they fumbled around in the confusing din and atmosphere of his “cosmic womb.”

Moreover, if we believe God is transcendent to the degree you describe, would your judgment about what he should or should not do be any better than anyone else's?

Are you talking about the judgment of those who think that God is going to provide them with 72 virgins in heaven? Or the judgment of those who, again, think that God is going to torture defenseless beings for eternity? Or the judgment of those who insist that there is no God?

If so, then I'd have to say yes.

But now, if that God you're speaking about were great enough to reveal His purposes to us, then we might know something. So I put the question to you: do you think God has spoken?

I think that, commensurate with our present level of consciousness, God supplies us with just enough information to give us “hope” without revealing too much about the afterlife in such a way that would cause us to long for it, or seek it out prematurely.

Do YOU think you know what the future is for "cherub" faces?

Yes. - To forever share life with the Being that made it possible for them.

Not in some stagnant form as depicted in ancient visions, but one with an ever-growing, ever-evolving, and ever-fruitful purpose.

I am speaking of a form that can truly withstand the implications of being in possession of “eternal” life.

In other words, the same form as God (our ultimate “parent”), which brings this discussion back full circle to what it truly means for us to be “the children of God.”
_______

[Immanuel Can]

...appears to be your take on the situation.

I was saying that it's NOT my take on the situation, and that the framing of it was your words, not mine. I found the terms in which it was framed contemptuous, but I honoured it anyway.

It should be obvious that the pictures I have uploaded in my last few posts in this thread have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “cuteness,” but everything to do with “innocence.”

Okay, let's say "innocence." I still would need your logic, and I can't find it. Let me show you:

Premise 1: This is a picture of a child.
Premise 2: {Not given by seeds yet.}
Conclusion: What?

Is your intended argument something like, "Because this child looks innocent, God can't save it?" Is it "Because this child was put in a Hindu costume, he cannot change from being a Hindu?" Is it, "Because this child has rubber ducks in his tub he cannot be a bad person?" None of these make sense; but I wrack my brain for what you could be trying to claim, and I can't make any logical sense of it.

I can't put words in your mouth for you: but you can explain your logic. Supply Premise 2 and a Conclusion, and I'll be happy to speak to it. But as I say, I cannot read your mind. You need to tell me what you're trying to assert.

[Immanuel Can]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Huge "straw man" argument, worded unkindly, in which you claim to describe my view, but actually describe no view I have.

I'm afraid that's just not my horse to ride.

[Ginkgo]

No. I'm saying that through the example Kant chose, we can see the contrast between what would be "right" from a Deontological perspective as understood by the so-called Neo-Kantians, and what would be "right" from a Consequentialist one. They're opposites.

The important point is simply this: you can't have both. They rationalize opposite actions as exclusively "right". So there's no solution possible in saying, well, we'll just declare both are right: you won't have a clue which is actually moral.

I don't see this as a problem, we can combine both theories. Kant says the moral worth of an action depends on the motive, however, he provides us with an example of the consequences of lying. This seems to be an inconsistency on the part of Kant and shows that when it comes to lying his formulation is too strong .We can deduce from deontology and consequentialism is that it is generally wrong to lie, but there could be circumstances whereby lying is necessary.

Kant is thought by many, particularly the so-called Neo-Kantians, to be a pure Deontologist; but what Wood shows is that Kant was only secondarily Deontological in his views: his primary suppositions were really teleological in origin.

Kant would have probably thought he was being purely Deontological; but as Wood shows, he couldn't have even gotten to the premises required for things like the U-Principle or the Dignity Principle except that he was taking for granted certain teleological suppositions -- suppositions so generally agreed upon in his day that Kant surely felt they needed no defence, but which are not at all generally conceded by people today.

Could you outline these teleological assumptions?

I would pose the problem this way: why should we treat people as "ends," anyway? What line of reasoning proves that true? Once we think we're just animals engaged in a kind of evolutionary power struggle as per Nietzsche, Rand or the Social Darwinists, what's the reason we must any longer think we can't use people as we see fit? And who says we owe it to anyone to be rational, or to keep our practices self-consistent? The Pragmatist say, "Let's just do what 'works' at the moment": how do we prove to the Pragmatists that that is wrong, and that they owe us to behave in a way that's "universalizable"? Are we just supposed to take Mr. Kant's word for it? That's the issue, really.

As rational agents living in a society we know that to treat people unfairly there is always the possibility that we will be paid back in kind.

[thedoc]

...is filled with nasty “sin” and is condemned (right from the womb) to eternal damnation in some hellish dimension of reality.
And the only way that the torturing of the child can be avoided is by her accepting Jesus as her personal savior, thus avoiding the fires of hell.
And that, in a nutshell, is the foundational theme of the religion that you are promoting and defending in this thread.

This is a misrepresentation of Christianity as I understand it and believe it. The innocents, (those who have not been introduced to Jesus, or are too young to understand) will not be condemned. You are trying to paint all Christians with the extreme fundamentalist brush, and this is just wrong. Typical of someone outside a religion trying to analyze and comment on that religion, they take the extreme position expressed by those claiming to be of that religion, and try to paint everyone who claims to be of that religion with that brush.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't see this as a problem, we can combine both theories.

Three problems: firstly, as I pointed out, they say opposite actions are "good." In many situations, they flatly contradict one another. Secondly, Neo-Kantianism is generally understood as ruling out any Consequentialist elements. But thirdly, if we do "combine" them, then we can only do so on the basis of a third theory, one that is neither Consequentialism nor Deontology at all, but some form of Egoism or Pragmatism. In any case, whatever moral paradigm we use in order to decide when to act Consequentialist and when to behave like a Deontologist, it is that master paradigm that is our real ethic...neither of the other two.

But the work on the interminable conflicts between Neo-Kantianism and Consequentialism have been written up very, very frequently. Any basic book on Ethics will give you far more than I can give you here on that topic. You'll have to be referred to the literature, if you want more.

Could you outline these teleological assumptions?

Yes, I could...if I had as much time and space to do it as Wood has. But I think, again, you'll have to be referred to the literature if you want to know with certainty about that. We can't do it all here.

I would pose the problem this way: why should we treat people as "ends," anyway?..

As rational agents living in a society we know that to treat people unfairly there is always the possibility that we will be paid back in kind.

That's mere Consequentialism, and of a basically self-interested type. Kant would be appalled, and practically speaking, the problem runs something like this: if I steal, I know very well there is "always the possibility" that I will be caught and "paid back in kind." But that's not the same as saying the thing is really "wrong." It just means that some power-group may catch me. But the act itself is not condemned by such a paradigm. I may well call it "good" to steal.

Moreover, what if, as a thief, I decide I don't fear that prospect of being caught enough to care. Beyond the pale threat of being caught, is theft really "wrong"? Why should I not do it, if I'm happy to take the risk -- especially in circumstances in which I am reasonably sure I won't get caught?

[Immanuel Can]

This is a misrepresentation of Christianity as I understand it and believe it. The innocents, (those who have not been introduced to Jesus, or are too young to understand) will not be condemned. You are trying to paint all Christians with the extreme fundamentalist brush, and this is just wrong. Typical of someone outside a religion trying to analyze and comment on that religion, they take the extreme position expressed by those claiming to be of that religion, and try to paint everyone who claims to be of that religion with that brush.

Yeah, that's my problem with "seeds" too. Not even many of the "fundamentalists" say children before the age of understanding are guaranteed to be "lost." There just isn't a big representation of that view among Christians, if there's any at all.

As I said to "seeds," It ain't my horse, and I ain't gonna to ride that one.

[seeds]

This is a misrepresentation of Christianity as I understand it and believe it. The innocents, (those who have not been introduced to Jesus, or are too young to understand) will not be condemned.

Hi Doc,

Thank you for giving an honest and completely logical reply to the situation I presented.

For indeed, it is utter madness to think that “...those who have not been introduced to Jesus, or are too young to understand...” will be condemned for something that is beyond their control.

However, before I give a full response to your post, would you please tell me exactly who it is that will be condemned (according to Christianity as you understand it)?

And please include the reason for the condemning, along with a detailed description of what that “condemning” will entail.
_______

[thedoc]

This is a misrepresentation of Christianity as I understand it and believe it. The innocents, (those who have not been introduced to Jesus, or are too young to understand) will not be condemned.

Hi Doc,

Thank you for giving an honest and completely logical reply to the situation I presented.

For indeed, it is utter madness to think that “...those who have not been introduced to Jesus, or are too young to understand...” will be condemned for something that is beyond their control.

However, before I give a full response to your post, would you please tell me exactly who it is that will be condemned (according to Christianity as you understand it)?

And please include the reason for the condemning, along with a detailed description of what that “condemning” will entail.
_______

I know it will sound like a cop-out but I don't pretend to know what will actually happen to those who reject Jesus, it is not my decision to make, nor do I claim to know all who have been exposed to the message of Jesus. I only know that I believe that those who have not been exposed to Jesus will not be condemned. I know you are trying to pin me down to something that you can criticize and object to, so keep trying, it just makes me think more carefully about what I do believe.