Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:I have no issues with any discussion. You must understand though that I am assuming the first only to discuss the second. After we are done, we will have to go back to the first question.

I'm assuming that.

But I wonder, if the Moral Problem goes away, would you even have an Ontological Problem anymore? In other words, is the only reason you struggle with the issue of God's existence is your view of the moral condition of His world? Or is the Moral Problem merely secondary to you, and if you knew for sure that God did exist, would that question be less pressing?

And I'm asking only because I want to find the starting point you really want, whatever is really of first concern to you, rather than to end up missing the essential issue.

So if you could help me map your real concern a bit I'd be grateful. I'm happy to get right to whatever you regard as the meat of the matter.

Well, honestly God's existence or non existence are only of academic interest to me. I am of the opinion that God is irrelevant in reality and plays no part whatsoever in our lives. But a very fascinating study, definitely. Doesn't matter to me either way. So I have no concerns as such.

yiostheoy wrote: You don't hear about it because few people ever speak about it. James, Peter, and Paul spoke about it and they were killed for it.

Good reason not to talk about it.

Or the best reasons TO talk about it.

yiostheoy wrote: God has not told us why.

I wonder how you know that...

That's just my guess. It is an inference and hypothesis based on my own observations of God.

How can you "observe" that concerning which you say you have no data? How can you "infer" anything or "hypothesize" either?

But if you can "observe," "infer" and "hypothesize," you will need at least one datum from which to extrapolate...

Just asking.

yiostheoy wrote: What is the book's ultimate conclusion?

It's a compendium of some of the finest essays available anywhere on the topic, compiled from many authors, the leading experts on each argument. Therefore, it does not give aunifiedconclusion, except the implication that there ARE good evidences for the existence of God in particular aspects of science and the natural world.

I highly recommend it -- for Theists, yes, but also for any Atheist who has the desire to face up to the best arguments and deal with them rationally, rather than puddling around with vague insults and only addressing whatever he imagines Theists to be saying.

Any serious thinker would find it a rewarding read. There are many, many good thoughts there.

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Actually it happened to me in college so I am definitely not going to say it did not happen.

Oh, that's intriguing....was it exactly the same? Or was your experience somewhat different?

Well, I was sitting at a canteen having a cup of tea. There was small wild flower in front of me, very tiny and very intricate. As I was staring at the flower, it suddenly hit me. There is a God. It was a complete conviction of a kind that cannot really explained. It was a complete certainty. It was the one thing I knew for sure. There is a God. No doubts. No questions. Absolute certainty. I wasnt even thinking of anything like that as it was my first cup of tea and I was quite blank. It stayed with me for years too.

Very interesting. Thank you.

That's the trick with personal experience, isn't it? For the experiencer, it can be totally compelling to a degree that even the distant report of scientific or rational arguments fail to be, but to the skeptic it just looks like a sort of passionate, irrational enthusiasm. So it's the best of evidence, and the worst of evidence, at the same time, depending on whether or not it was your own experience.

sthitapragya wrote:So I have no concerns as such.

Oh. I misunderstood.

I thought your account of the evil in the world was rather passionate, so perhaps it indicated your particular concern. But if we're merely being academic, then I won't focus on that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:So I have no concerns as such.

Oh. I misunderstood.

I thought your account of the evil in the world was rather passionate, so perhaps it indicated your particular concern. But if we're merely being academic, then I won't focus on that.

Well, I am a very passionate debater.

On "the purpose of God," here's an interesting side note. I don't hold it up as the answer to that question, but it's certainly a good insight.

A study has just been done on ten congregations in the Toronto, Canada area, tracking 49 pro-social variables, ranging from environmental improvement, to suicide intervention, to housing initiatives, to education, to crime prevention...and so on. The conclusion is that the net benefit to the surrounding communities is about 45 million dollars a year. http://www.haloproject.ca/phase-1-toronto

So much for the idea that "religion poisons everything."

Meanwhile, the parallel study of all the many wonderful contributions of Atheist "communities" is eagerly being awaited.

Immanuel Can wrote:On "the purpose of God," here's an interesting side note. I don't hold it up as the answer to that question, but it's certainly a good insight.

A study has just been done on ten congregations in the Toronto, Canada area, tracking 49 pro-social variables, ranging from environmental improvement, to suicide intervention, to housing initiatives, to education, to crime prevention...and so on. The conclusion is that the net benefit to the surrounding communities is about 45 million dollars a year. http://www.haloproject.ca/phase-1-toronto

So much for the idea that "religion poisons everything."

Meanwhile, the parallel study of all the many wonderful contributions of Atheist "communities" is eagerly being awaited.

Interesting. I was just rueing to a friend that many lovely churches in Toronto were being converted to lofts and living space, some for their last parishioners. I find it sad, in a way. Religion has its place in society. The church was the center of a small community, and was there for other reasons of a more human and humane nature, for the people in it, aside from worship. I do see the good in it, and the bad at it's dwindling.

Immanuel Can wrote:On "the purpose of God," here's an interesting side note. I don't hold it up as the answer to that question, but it's certainly a good insight.

A study has just been done on ten congregations in the Toronto, Canada area, tracking 49 pro-social variables, ranging from environmental improvement, to suicide intervention, to housing initiatives, to education, to crime prevention...and so on. The conclusion is that the net benefit to the surrounding communities is about 45 million dollars a year. http://www.haloproject.ca/phase-1-toronto

So much for the idea that "religion poisons everything."

Meanwhile, the parallel study of all the many wonderful contributions of Atheist "communities" is eagerly being awaited.

But these are Canadians. Not Americans. They probably don't even know what a pedophile priest is.

sthitapragya wrote: But these are Canadians. Not Americans. They probably don't even know what a pedophile priest is.

Google the words "Mt. Cashel Orphanage," and then see if you think so.

Canadians, especially the original ones, have extensive experience of pedophile priests.
While they can't quite see how a Christian-style god figures into the scheme of things, they sure have no use for priests!

Um... What is the purpose of priesthoods?

Meanwhile, the parallel study of all the many wonderful contributions of Atheist "communities" is eagerly being awaited.

That's never going to happen. People who reject religious doctrine are free to identify themselves without reference to fictional characters. Productive, thriving and well-organized non-religious communities may exist all over the world and never consider labeling themselves as "atheist". You'll never even know how many volunteers of how many charities are non-believers.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: But these are Canadians. Not Americans. They probably don't even know what a pedophile priest is.

Google the words "Mt. Cashel Orphanage," and then see if you think so.

Well, in that case, the 45 Million dollars hasn't considered the trauma to the abused children.

My basic point is, no one considers the damage done to children.as if it does not matter. And I find that disgusting. No human being worth his salt can ever ignore damage done to children. So what does everyone here really stand for? A god that ignores children? What are you truly worshipping?

Guys like Nick worship a god who is truth and the absolute good. Absolute good? Children dying by the thousands is absolute good? What kind of perverted mind calls this absolute good? Abuse and exploitation, rape murder and mayhem. It is Satan worship.

Even an impersonal God. What did he design? This shit? Terrible job. I would bitch slap him if he ever came in front of me.

He designed spina bifida, Down's syndrome, microcephaly, meningitis, AIDS, SIDS, ringworm, whooping cough, TB, measles, leukemia, juvenile diabetes, cleft palate, muscular dystrophy,.... When He calls the little children to come onto Him, they really do suffer.

sthitapragya wrote: Well, in that case, the 45 Million dollars hasn't considered the trauma to the abused children.

My basic point is, no one considers the damage done to children.as if it does not matter. And I find that disgusting. No human being worth his salt can ever ignore damage done to children. So what does everyone here really stand for? A god that ignores children? What are you truly worshipping?

That sounds a little bigoted, actually. Are you truly suggesting you think God sanctions paedophelia? Or are you saying you think Theists do? Either way...well, consider how that looks. I think before you say that, you're going to want to know that you can prove that, or people are going to think you're just being prejudiced.

To clarify, none of the churches in the study has been involved with ANY accusation of paedophelia. So your accusation is more than a little unfair. And I'm sure you know that the Catholic Church's problems with the incontinence of their priests is largely due to the Catholic policy of mandatory celibacy.

In contrast, most Theists do not even have such a policy imposed on them...not even the Catholic ones. So you surely can't be saying that 45 million dollars a year worth of good, done by people with no connection to paedophelia is somehow to be traded off against the sins of Mt. Cashel's Catholic priests...that's would simply be perverse.

In point of fact, I'm sure you know you will find paedophiles everywhere; and yes, I agree that wherever they are found, they are always guilty of a deplorable sin. But why are you not pointing to all the Atheists who commit paedophelia? Why are you supposing a correlation with Theism that you would never think to make with Atheism?

I'm pretty sure from what you say that you have no statistics on its incidence among Atheists and secularists. Want to hazard a guess? What would you think: how many convicted paedophiles are likely to be Catholic clergymen, and how many are not?

If you can do numbers, you'll figure out pretty quickly there's no positive correlation between paedophelia and Catholicism, let alone between it and Theism in general. In fact, it's strongly negative.

As the report indicates, Theism is strongly pro-social and beneficial in practical ways, whatever you think of it as a philosophy.

But you really knew that, didn't you? The paedophelia thing was just a convenient "stick" with which to beat all Theists. It's easier than being reasonable.