« Links for Wednesday, 16 March 2011 | Main | Links for Wednesday, 23 March 2011 (firearms edition) »

March 17, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

tildeb

Faith grounded in knowledge? But you just argued faith is grounded in comfort. Which is it?

Try being intellectually honest: either you respect and care about what's true first or you care about about is believed to be true . You can't have it both ways.

And therein lies the choice you must make concerning the respect you offer to either faith-based beliefs or what's true. Living in the world of respecting what's true is no wasteland unless you consider lies and deceit and false truths of what is believed to be true essential for the god-soaked decor.

Rusty

It's not faith *or* reason, but faith *and* reason. There is no "blind faith" in Christianity. CS Lewis noted that his feelings were fleeting, driven to and fro by circumstances; yet his faith was grounded in the reality of the Christian message and, as such, provided the basis for the hope it brings - hope which sustains us with comfort. Read Psalm 13 in which David despairs at feeling abandoned, yet remains steadfast in his faith in God because of the knowledge he has about him.

I believe Christianity to be true... do you believe atheism to be true? On what do you base your belief? If the word "believe" is a stumbling block, then "On what do you base your conclusion that atheism is true?"

tildeb

Non belief is the default we share for every supernatural claim we come across. That's why you don't pay any attention to Muk Muk of the Volcano nor seek out meaningful answers to life from scientology. Is your non belief in these absurdities of faith true? That's a very strange question, don't you think?

It behooves those who makes such claim that something IS true to show why this is a sound conclusion. And it is here where we soon find that the epistemology for faith-based beliefs is broken... that's why it's a faith-based conclusion and not a fact-based or evidence-based conclusion. Faith-based conclusions look exactly like delusion, like wishful and magical thinking, with no meaningful difference in epistemology to differentiate. And that's why we can't have respect for both belief in what's true and what is true. These utilize different and contrasting epistemologies. If you are like most believers in the veracity of faith, you will compartmentalize your reasoning and keep the two separate in your mind, switching back and forth between them based on what's the most practical one to use depending on what's at issue. But they are not compatible together.

When someone suggests that people pay homage to a god who kills specific children willfully in the case of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and then backs away from rationally defending such a vile act with metaphysical excuses, then such an author needs to be brought to task for this intellectual hypocrisy and prostitution of reasoning. The problem that specific suffering brings to the theology of a benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god is fatal to anyone who can think honestly.

Rusty

I was not talking about Muk Muk, scientology, or Santa Claus. I was talking about the God of the Bible. And no, non-belief is not the default (you can't get away that easily).

Again, you're confusing a faith-based conclusion with that of blind faith. Consider that before you can know anything you have to believe something. Also consider that how you know things is sometimes context dependent. Is it true that torturing babies for pleasure is wrong? Do you need some fact-based foundation for what is an inherent moral knowledge?

So, what is your fact-based basis for non-belief in the God of the Bible?

You seem to be claiming that God killing children in an earthquake is morally wrong. Tell me, where did you get this idea that it is wrong? And who says that you are correct in your claim that it is wrong? Factually speaking, and naturalism-based, of course.

You claim that God is benevolent... where did you get that idea from and how does it harmonize with the revealed characteristics of the God of the Bible?

But, most of all, I'm interested in how you can defend a moral claim (an abstract notion if there ever was one) within a completely natural framework.

tildeb

So you assume a special pleading for the god(s) of the bible. Again, based on what? And yes, I can get away with non belief as the default because it's true. You do not believe extraordinary claims without cause. You assume a rational and knowable world all the time or you could not function. If your keys are not where you thought you left them, you do not jump to the conclusion that something extraordinary has happened to them; you function based on the assumption that they are simply elsewhere with a reasonable explanation for their new location. This is not based on a belief as used in the religious sense for faith - belief in things not seen, requiring no evidence but trust that it is so first. It is based on confidence and trust that results from being tested against the world for its truth value with consistent evidence. The keys are elsewhere because they have been put elsewhere and they can be found by looking in the world. When they are later discovered hanging in the lock, your belief in the veracity of the world has been verified yet again. This is how you function. No belief in extraordinary causes is necessary for you to find your keys nor do your keys in their altered location reveal anything about the truth value of any beliefs in the extraordinary. Religious beliefs based on faith are not indicative of truth value of those beliefs. For that you require extraordinary evidence and there is none or you would have already pointed to it and avoid the entire 'faith first' aspect of belief.

We get our morality from and through our biology. No supernatural causation is required unless you can show why. It is very dangerous for you to suggest that non believers are not moral and, in fact, fails utterly to explain why nations with lower rates of religiosity have lower rates of the kind of behaviours we call immoral. For your argument about morals to hold any truth value, you must show show how religious faith is a necessary condition for moral behaviour. This you cannot do. Name me an ethical statement made - or a moral action taken - by a 'religious' person in the name of a faith-based belief that could NOT have been made - or taken- by a non-religious person without involving faith. You see? Morality is not dependent on faith. It must be explainable as a species-wide judgment of behaviour in some other way. And the evidence points consistently at our biology.

If I have to argue with you why the killing of specific children of our shared species in large numbers is immoral (by direct intention of a single sentient agency as you suggest when you claim that it is the hope in such an agency that brings a dying child some measure of comfort) then we have problem not just in communication but in a shared humanity. We are biologically disposed to care for our young and that evidence is plentiful. But the point you make that the argument of suffering does not interfere with the truth of the existence of the christian god remains obtuse: it undermines this belief thoroughly.

tildeb

Rusty asks me You claim that God is benevolent... where did you get that idea from and how does it harmonize with the revealed characteristics of the God of the Bible?

That's a funny question to ask considering your final paragraph. Of even greater incongruity is the empty assertion that the character of atheists must be one inhabiting a "vacuous wasteland" because they respect what is true. That's a very strange way to express love for someone who points out the obvious discrepancy in an incoherent belief that insists belief in a god both powerful and benevolent in the suffering face of evidence offered to us through a tragedy like the one unfolding in Japan. Of note should be the fact that there are no winged angels rushing to the rescue; there is humanity coping as best it can.

Rusty concludes his argument with the Christian response, in times of tragedy, must be one of love. Why must that be a christian response and not a human response, one quite accessible to believers and non believers alike if it is expanded to encompass compassion and empathy and a desire to help? Why the false separation to cast atheists as somehow different by a lack of belief in some supernatural agency?

Too often those who assume themselves the righteously pious because of the faith-based beliefs they choose to hold disparage the character of non believers without cause. Rusty is the latest in this detestable practice while spouting injunctions to other members of the in group to show benevolence through love to those less fortunate. The hypocrisy drips cold and calculating on those of us who do not deserve this religiously garbed venom. The assumption that respecting the epistemology of and ontology from methodological naturalism somehow reduces our ability to be moral and ethical empathetic and compassionate creatures is vile. It is a vile accusation based on nothing but belief it must be so yet a belief bereft of any evidence. It seems clear to me that such character reductions based on faith alone appears identical to hate speech.

Rusty

Okay, so you still think you can claim that non belief in God is the default simply, as you put it, "because it's true". Yet, since you've provided no naturalism-based evidence that it is true, we're still left with a base-less claim. Rather than refer to this base-less claim as the "because it's true" notion, let's refer to it as, say, "blink". What we're then left with is you claiming that non belief in God is the default because of blink. How this blink came into being you do not say. You only state that blink is true - no data provided as to why blink is true - just the bold claim that blink is true. Are you beginning to see how silly it is to make the claim that non belief in God is the default because it is true? You claim to follow the correspondence method of determining truth, which is good, yet you don't seem to provide any means with which to test your claim that non belief is the default because it is true.

I will state it again: I am under no obligation to accept the position that the default approach is non belief in God (unless, of course, you can provide some conclusive data demonstrating the non existence of God?).

You claim that we get our morality from biology. Interesting claim. Morality tells us what we ought to do, correct? Yet biology only tells us what is (e.g., dna replication, reproductive cycles, causes of indigestion). Tell me, how is it that we get an "ought" from an "is"? How do the laws of physics, clearly in the natural realm, tell us what we ought to do morally, clearly an abstract concept (and, btw, this is one of the points of my post).

And note this: I have NEVER ONCE stated that you or any other atheist is incapable of acting morally because of your worldview. Quite the contrary - My entire argument depends on the reality of the fact that you are entirely aware of the existence of morality - laws written on the heart of every human being.

If your confusion is that I've stated morality is dependent on faith then let me clarify that I am stating that the abstract concept of morality has no naturalistic basis and cannot be grounded by an atheistic worldview.

As I asserted in my initial post, if an atheist is to remain true to his worldview, then any comfort in times of human suffering, any reason for the claim of true morality, any explanation for characteristics of reality that are abstract MUST come from a purely naturalistic framework. You have not only provided no naturalistic basis for any of those notions, but you continue to utilize moral language as if it has some transcendent meaning in reality (which, btw, it really does). Consider your diatribe against my statements, concluding with some ridiculous accusation of hate speech. Don't you get it? You are the one shoplifting moral notions into the equation and tossing them about; and you're shoplifting them because your worldview has no means to justify them.

More to the point are a couple of posts I wrote a few years ago:

http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/05/god_santa_claus.html

http://newcovenant.blogspot.com/2004/08/theisms-burden-of-proof.html

tildeb

How come I can't comment with my response?

Rusty

I don't see anything in the spam list. Don't know why your response won't go through.

tildeb

Rusty, come on... You can't prove that an invisible pink elephant does NOT live in your left nostril. All you can do is point out that there are no good reasons for believing one does. Similarly, I will never be able to provide you with evidence to your satisfaction for the infinite number of things that do not exist including, I presume, your god for which it shares the inglorious stage of those beliefs that have no evidence. Admitting my 'failure', however, does not alter the fact nor improve the evidence that there remains no good reasons for believing that god does exist. That burden still falls on you if you want to pretend the claim is true.

You attempt to use morality as evidence for your god, whereas I explain that there is strong evidence that behaviour we call moral has its roots in our biology. No god is necessary to explain its natural origins and is simply an unnecessary complication. Even a short path of honest inquiry reveals this to be so, starting with understanding what the term 'morality' means.

You pretend it's a noun, an independent 'thing' floating about waiting to be imprinted on one's heart. This is silly. Infants show moral behaviour, revealing preferences to favour mutual cooperation over selfish behaviour. Other species also show moral behaviour. Notice I keep inserting the word behaviour after the word moral because morality is not a thing in itself (unless you can show it is) but a descriptive term we use to show where in a spectrum we bookend with the terms right and wrong (and this is somewhat a relative area of defined edges) of behaviours based on choice an act falls. Trolley studies show that common morality is in practice quite flexible (so much for the highly touted moral law proposed by the theologically impaired) based on circumstance independent of such effects we assume are of dominant importance like culture and language and religion and so forth.

In support of a biological explanation for our moral behaviours are brain-based impairments that directly reveal to us how physical damage and lesions directly affect not only our behaviour but how we judge its morality.

You pretend being offended that I call you on your vile assertion that non believers in your god must inhabit a 'vacuous wasteland' when it comes to empathizing and being compassionate in the face of suffering, as if an understanding of plate tectonics is used as an appropriate substitute by non believers. This is a classical example of muddled thinking for a comeback by the esteemed Doctor Lane. The assertion of course is a disgusting innuendo that such feelings only come from god and that non belief must somehow reject empathy and compassion to remain firmly committed to respecting what is true. It's disgusting because it paints those who respect what's true, and how we can honestly know what's true, as hypocrites, which is a bald-faced lie and an insult. You see, Rusty, I can show you the physiological transfer of input from your senses through your mirror neurons to the activation of a limbic response in your brain preceding your reported feelings of empathy. In other words, understanding biology reveals the cause and effect by a natural mechanism that which you claim to be of supernatural origins. That's much more than you can offer in return and that matters.

You won't be the last theologically impaired person to be fooled into thinking you have 'knowledge' through your beliefs when in fact all you have is an empty assertion. This is the gift that religious belief continues to bestow on people who respect what they believe is true over and above what is true. This biological process for our morality is strong evidence against your claim that morality comes from some oogity boogity source like your god. What I suspect you will do is pretend that your biology is really a temporal expression of this magical creative force you call god (but evolution puts that belief to bed) and undergo mental gymnastics to keep your belief in oogity boogity alive... not because it's true (after all, if we're being honest we have to agree that you have provided not a shred of evidence that there is this magical transfer you claim causes our and other species altered behaviour we call 'moral') but because you wish to maintain your belief in spite of contrary evidence. This is revelatory. To defend your baseless claims in the central importance of oogity boogity for our actual knowledge tested against the world and found acceptable, you attempt to reduce non believers who respect what's true by undermining that which allows us to understand the world: knowledge itself. Is this a worthwhile accomplishment to sacrifice to maintain faith-based belief? Well, it may be to you, and you have every right to be as deluded as you want, but when you attempt to paint the non deluded as hypocrites by engaging in lying, you need to be called on it. Lying for god does not make the activity any more moral than killing for him does. If you wish to question my moral integrity on the basis of my belief in your oogity boogity, you're going to need something other than the wasteland of empty assertions and vacuous assumptions.

Rusty

Rusty, come on... You can't prove that an invisible pink elephant does NOT live in your left nostril. All you can do is point out that there are no good reasons for believing one does. Similarly, I will never be able to provide you with evidence to your satisfaction for the infinite number of things that do not exist including, I presume, your god for which it shares the inglorious stage of those beliefs that have no evidence. Admitting my 'failure', however, does not alter the fact nor improve the evidence that there remains no good reasons for believing that god does exist. That burden still falls on you if you want to pretend the claim is true.


You're still missing the point of my original post and that of default positioning. Not only am I not arguing for an invisible pink elephant in my nostril, I'm not arguing for the existence of the God of the Bible either. Read my post again. I've offered no arguments (for which there are, by the way) for the existence of God. You cling to the notion that the default position is to not believe in God (or... for someone who does believe in God to have to prove or offer proof for their position), yet you still offer no reason why - no reason within your worldview, by the way. Since it appears you rely on the scientific method, all within a world comprised only of physical properties, please use the scientific method to demonstrate why the default position is to not believe in a supernatural being. Oh, while you're at it, also demonstrate why the scientific method is a valid method to observe the natural realm (of course, since you're limited to using the scientific method, you'd be left with using the method to prove itself - a bit self referential). In fact, if you honestly look deep within yourself, you should find that some of the most important things in your life - such as the love you have for your children (assuming you have children) - are not definable strictly in terms of the laws of physics.


You attempt to use morality as evidence for your god, whereas I explain that there is strong evidence that behaviour we call moral has its roots in our biology. No god is necessary to explain its natural origins and is simply an unnecessary complication. Even a short path of honest inquiry reveals this to be so, starting with understanding what the term 'morality' means. You pretend it's a noun, an independent 'thing' floating about waiting to be imprinted on one's heart. This is silly. Infants show moral behaviour, revealing preferences to favour mutual cooperation over selfish behaviour. Other species also show moral behaviour. Notice I keep inserting the word behaviour after the word moral because morality is not a thing in itself (unless you can show it is) but a descriptive term we use to show where in a spectrum we bookend with the terms right and wrong (and this is somewhat a relative area of defined edges) of behaviours based on choice an act falls. Trolley studies show that common morality is in practice quite flexible (so much for the highly touted moral law proposed by the theologically impaired) based on circumstance independent of such effects we assume are of dominant importance like culture and language and religion and so forth. In support of a biological explanation for our moral behaviours are brain-based impairments that directly reveal to us how physical damage and lesions directly affect not only our behaviour but how we judge its morality.


If you think that there is credible, substantial evidence that biology (the physical) has created morality (an abstract), then I suggest you run to get your paper published. No, my friend, other than using "suggests" or "perhaps" or "may be" or other wiggle words, scientists have no clue as to how neo-Darwinistic change, occurring across genes over time, could produce abstract notions of ought within the human species. Sure, there are a lot of ideas how it should occur within the evolutionary framework (including the ridiculous emergent properties - aka POOF! - notion), but no one has demonstrated how it occurs. What's more, have you considered the ramifications of the world we'd live in if that were true? In a world of relative morality, because that's what you are indeed proposing, who's to say which morality is to be followed? Hitler's? Stalin's? Every man for himself? Tell me - is it wrong to torture innocent infants for pure pleasure? Has it always been wrong? Will it always be wrong? A consistent moral relativist cannot ground themselves on any answer but NO. And don't try to tap-dance away with notions of the common good, or survival factors, or species betterment, etc. Every one of those arguments depends on some objective notion of right and wrong - Morality. You see, if morality were simply a matter of biological interactions, then "I ought" has the same basis as "I have indigestion". Tell me, what civilizations have considered lying, stealing, cheating, rape, cowardice, or murder to be acts of virtue? (and I'm not asking which civilizations have practiced such acts, but which have revered them)


You pretend being offended that I call you on your vile assertion that non believers in your god must inhabit a 'vacuous wasteland' when it comes to empathizing and being compassionate in the face of suffering, as if an understanding of plate tectonics is used as an appropriate substitute by non believers. This is a classical example of muddled thinking for a comeback by the esteemed Doctor Lane. The assertion of course is a disgusting innuendo that such feelings only come from god and that non belief must somehow reject empathy and compassion to remain firmly committed to respecting what is true. It's disgusting because it paints those who respect what's true, and how we can honestly know what's true, as hypocrites, which is a bald-faced lie and an insult.


Again, you miss my argument. Please show me where I have stated that only believers are capable of empathy or acting morally. Try reading my posts for what I have actually said.


You see, Rusty, I can show you the physiological transfer of input from your senses through your mirror neurons to the activation of a limbic response in your brain preceding your reported feelings of empathy. In other wor ds, understanding biology reveals the cause and effect by a natural mechanism that which you claim to be of supernatural origins. That's much more than you can offer in return and that matters.


Once again, you attempt to explain the abstract with the concrete. Note how impulses in the brain remain impulses until you get the "reported feelings". Who is reporting the feelings but the person being tested. Shouldn't that be a clue to you that the actual empathy is distinct from the impulses? Haven't you ever thought of asking the question, after hearing such evolutionary based explanations, why am I able to comprehend the fact that my act of comprehension is nothing more than particles in motion? In other words, if evolution has now demonstrated that there is no such thing as true meaning to life (because that's what it really means to equate the experience of abstract notions with that of the experience of burping), then how is it I understand that there is no meaning to life?


You won't be the last theologically impaired person to be fooled into thinking you have 'knowledge' through your beliefs when in fact all you have is an empty assertion. This is the gift that religious belief continues to bestow on people who respect what they believe is true over and above what is true. This biological process for our morality is strong evidence against your claim that morality comes from some oogity boogity source like your god. What I suspect you will do is pretend that your biology is really a temporal expression of this magical creative force you call god (but evolution puts that belief to bed) and undergo mental gymnastics to keep your belief in oogity boogity alive... not because it's true (after all, if we're being honest we have to agree that you have provided not a shred of evidence that there is this magical transfer you claim causes our and other species altered behaviour we call 'moral')


That takes some stones to accuse me of not providing evidence when I've been asking you to do just that (and you haven't responded) for your assertion that non belief is the default view. Oh, and regarding evolutionary change and our belief structures, consider Plantinga's point that if evolutionary processes can derive abstracts like morality, or thinking like religion, which we believed for a while (but now supposedly know to be false / relative); then exactly why should we believe what evolution has derived for us at present? Given that it provided false information in the past, how do we know that our views now are not also false?


but because you wish to maintain your belief in spite of co ntrary evidence. This is revelatory. To defend your baseless claims in the central importance of oogity boogity for our actual knowledge tested against the world and found acceptable, you attempt to reduce non believers who respect what's true by undermining that which allows us to understand the world: knowledge itself. Is this a worthwhile accomplishment to sacrifice to maintain faith-based belief? Well, it may be to you, and you have every right to be as deluded as you want, but when you attempt to paint the non deluded as hypocrites by engaging in lying, you need to be called on it. Lying for god does not make the activity any more moral than killing for him does. If you wish to question my moral integrity on the basis of my belief in your oogity boogity, you're going to need something other than the wasteland of empty assertions and vacuous assumptions.


Again, and for the last time, you continue to accuse me of something I did not do. Please take the time to read the words I wrote.

And I'll leave you with this interesting note about your last paragraph. How is it that in a world of moral relativism - which is what the world must be if morality was derived by evolutionary processes - how is it that you accuse me of moral failures? In your world, if you are to be consistent, then you have no objective basis to make such accusations.

But, then again, that was my original point.

tildeb

Look, Rusty, when atheists point out the obvious discrepancy of how a benevolent and all powerful god could allow so much suffering, it is meant to show that questioning such assertions have merit. It is a problem fatal to such a belief. A benevolent and loving god who is all powerful - powerful enough to design the world as it really is and which is full of suffering - is incoherent. Therefore, the belief is wrong. For you to suggest that the observation that shows why the belief is wrong is somehow wrapped up in physics having to provide as comforting an answer as the christian fairytale misses the point entirely. The problem of suffering is still fatal to the belief that god is both benevolent and powerful.

You ask In like manner, whenever anyone questions God after a natural disaster, would it not be prudent to ask the individual how they propose to explain the suffering, strictly in terms of naturalism?

I have done so. Many times over. Having justified confidence in methodological naturalism provides me with a sound epistemology to explain how suffering occurs. It's a biological response to impaired well-being. No oogity boogity is required. Rather than deal with an honest exploration of why suffering is fatal to a belief in a benevolent and powerful god, you further write Wouldn't it be fair to inquire how they propose to deal with the very real heartache, all in terms of the laws of physics? That's very silly, isn't it? Yet you seem to think this point has merit, as if atheists would try to do so. In fact you believe atheists must do so if they are to remain true to methodological naturalism, which you describe as ultimately exposes the vacuous wasteland which atheists must inhabit, if they are to remain true to their worldview. You really are accusing atheists who respect what's true, which is revealed by MN, as having no means to be compassionate in the face of suffering. And that's vile. It's vile because it's not true, and it's not true because atheists and believers come biologically equipped to be empathetic, to be sympathetic, to be compassionate. None of these natural biological characteristics humans possess is in any way related to comforting beliefs in supernatural agencies or religious scripture. But they can be knowingly suppressed by each of us if we feel we have cause. And one of the suppressors of respect for our fellow humans are anti-human death cult beliefs like christianity and many other like-minded religious tyrannies. These religions do not offer us knowledge, although they may offer us a comfort based on unknowable assertions. Questioning the assertions and pointing out their incoherence is not a refusal to offer comfort but a means by which honest compassion can be exercised. By suggesting that this honest compassion cannot come from those who respect what's true - atheists who adhere to MN - is a low blow that is not only unfair and mean-spirited but at its root a lie. There simply is no evidence that compassion comes from any other 'realm' - supernatural or otherwise - but this one. Methodological naturalism allows us the means to explore this realm we inhabit and gain knowledge whereas faith-based beliefs try to filibuster this inquiry in the name of some god by attacking those who call for it while asserting truth claims that have no merit.

Rusty

Notice how you've never really addressed, in a strictly naturalistic worldview, the William Lane Craig rebuttal to the Bertrand Russell concern? If you completely reject any form of theism, then at least be consistent in your application (along the lines of William Provine).

tildeb

The rebuttal is obvious: you treat a sick child as best you can with best medical practices, honest caring, honest kindness, honest concern, honest compassion. You don't feed people intentionally incoherent lies and excuse them on the grounds of so-called comfort.

What Russell was saying is that the unexamined belief of a benevolent and powerful god is shown to be incoherent in the face of suffering of one you love. How can such a god allow this tragedy to continue and not intervene? Something's out of whack here and it's not the reality of suffering.

The truth of that incoherence is revealed to each parent and sibling who has also suffered through this dreadful experience. It's a net loss even if some good comes from it. But the kinds of responses from the faithful are telling. Usually, the best answer that can be offered is with a shrug and say that god works in mysterious ways, that everything happens for a reason even if we don't know what that reason is, that the child is off to a better place, and other thoroughly unsatisfactory theological dribblings. These are inadequate to justify the suffering.

Lane fails - as usual - to address the problem of suffering brings to the belief in a benevolent and powerful god by a "Quick, look over there..." strategy of replacing the need to face the incompatibility of that belief with the brutal option of choosing a "Tough luck." But that's not the only option for a response lacking belief in a benevolent and powerful god, is it, even if bad luck has everything to do with the source of the suffering. That you think that Lane's response is adequate shows you've thought very little about the fatal problem suffering introduces to the belief in a benevolent and powerful god.

Rusty

I suppose we've come to an end here. You still don't see that your proposal of "honest" compassion smuggles in the very abstract values that cannot exist in your worldview. Hence you attempt to fool the sick child with platitudes of compassion which, again - if you're consistent with naturalism, is nothing more than a nice way of saying "tough luck". By the way, you also smuggle in the abstract when you acknowledge the existence of suffering. Simply put, the Christian response to the question of suffering is unsatisfying; the atheist response is void.

tildeb

You write abstract values that cannot exist in your worldview. I have thoroughly debunked this wrong-headed notion of yours. Of course abstract values exist in my worldview as they do in yours... as they do in everyone's. I just don't attribute them to belief in oogity boogity as you feel compelled to do. You need to get over this bias.

tildeb

Maybe this will help:

You don't believe Poseidon exists. However, being that he is the source of the sea, you don't believe the sea exists.

Do you see the problem with your assertion that my 'worldview' means I cannot allow for abstract values? If you insist that the existence of the sea is dependent on the truth of the Poseidon claim, that you insist that the existence of abstract values is on the truth of the god claim, then you are not thinking well. In fact, your thinking is broken.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Important Info

Feeds

New Covenant



  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from imagoarticulus. Make your own badge here.