Everyone single one of my young, urban, cosmopolitan atheist friends is angry at God. Seriously not one of them is a joyful person who is generally optimistic and at peace. Some of them are so angry with God that they've been able to delude themselves into believing that he doesn't actually exist.

SOME atheists MAY have (nor may nort have) started as theists ... who became angry God. But let's look at other possibilities.

Some are angry at ... the God they were told to believe in. Because ... God was not making good on his alleged promises. We were often (if not consistently), promised that God would help us even with miracles; "all" and "whatever" we "ask"ed. And yet many asked, and prayed .. and did not get what was promised. So tht the first stage of atheism - for some - is anger at ... the apparently false picture of God, taught to us by many priests.

Some atheism therefore, MAY start with a belief in what many CALL God ... shading into anger at his nature. But then, note, all that shades into ... belief that the God we are given in church, is the foretold, false Christ; a false "delusion." In such cases, though, we are not angry at God as he really is; but an evidently false "image" of God taught to us by say, false or hypocritical Catholics.

By the way, Joe Carter here is trying to, for all practical purposes, take away/obscure, a major doctrine of the Church: the doctrine of "Invincible Ignorance." The doctrine that after all, some who do not believe, might bne forgiven. Because they might not believe, only because they were never presented with adequate or convincing evidence of God. Note by the way, that by this standard, most of us can claim this status: since few of us have for example, seen the massive miracles often promised, historically, by the Church. Many do not follow the CHURCH,because its idea of God was never supported by convincing evidence.

Finally too, against Joe Carter, 1) one CAN be angry at things that don't exist, in a sense; one can be angry at unicorns, after all. Or rather, angry at the myth of the unicorn. At common myths.

Many might 2) be especially, angry too, at those who perpetrate false ideas, as if they were absolutely holy.

In that case, contrary to what Joe Carter claims here, 3) atheism does NOT begin with anger at God; rather it begins with simple disbelief, from lack of convincing evidence. Or 4) it begins with anger at a false image of God; and 5) at the many people, who pose a false "image" of a "god," to us.

But finally, such persons can be forgiven to say the least: if you are angry at a false "God," then you have never been angry at the true God, at all. Indeed, you are to be commended ... for not follow a false Christ.

So that, Joe Carter's disingenuous attempt to take forgiveness away from millions of people, to cancel the Church's doctrine of Invicible Ignorance, will not stand; millions of us remain true, Invicible Ignorants.

Humbly accepting our "ignorance" too, by the way. Rather than pretending to "know" things, an image of "god," that are clearly, simply, false.

Instead, many of us know and follow, quite a different God, than the false image Joe Carter apparently follows.

Christians can certainly take some of the blame for atheists being angry at God, because some of us (or all of us at times) have misreprented His nature to the world. Entire churches neglect wisdom literature, excepting only the fun parts of the Psalms or a stray Proverb or two.

Yet I don't think we need accept all the blame in this. As they used to say on the X-Files, "The Truth Is Out There." Horrible things happen to people, and in fact to most of us at some point, and some ability to stand outside ourselves, if only for a moment, may be a necessary prerequisite for opening doors we have locked from the inside.

Yet there are those who have endured far worse than I, and we might pray God's mercy on those whose road has been harder than ours, that grace might be given to see when visibility is poor - or evn when dark has come.

But if you do get angry at unicorns, you can always eat them.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/caffeine/wacky-edibles/e5a7/

"And yet many asked, and prayed .. and did not get what was promised."

You make atheists sound like spoiled whiners.

@Billy ***In such cases, though, we are not angry at God as he really is; but an evidently false "image" of God taught to us by say, false or hypocritical Catholics.***

That seems reasonable enough. It’s akin to people who worship a false conception of God. Of course, it still require that one believe in the existence of *a* God.

***By the way, Joe Carter here is trying to, for all practical purposes, take away/obscure, a major doctrine of the Church: the doctrine of "Invincible Ignorance.”***

Not at all. I didn’t even mention invincible ignorance, only vincible ignorance. My buddy Jimmy Akin has a good explanation of the differences here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907chap.asp

***Because they might not believe, only because they were never presented with adequate or convincing evidence of God.***

I think you are wholly confused about that doctrine. As I understand it, the fact that you have been presented with the truth claims of the Catholic Church shifts the ignorance from invincible to vincible. And even under basic Christian doctrine, according to St. Paul, there is no one that has not been presented with adequate and convincing evidence of God.

***Finally too, against Joe Carter, 1) one CAN be angry at things that don't exist, in a sense; one can be angry at unicorns, after all. Or rather, angry at the myth of the unicorn. At common myths.***

Really? I’ve never heard of anyone that is angry at a myth, especially not angry enough to blame a myth for what actually occurs in the real world. You can be angry at someone for believing a myth but I can’t think of one single example of people being angry *at* the myth itself as opposed to angry *about* the myth. Can you provide an example of what you are referring to?

***So that, Joe Carter's disingenuous attempt to take forgiveness away from millions of people, to cancel the Church's doctrine of Invicible Ignorance, will not stand; millions of us remain true, Invicible Ignorants.***

I’ll leave it to my Catholic friends to convince you of your error on their doctrine. But I will add that your statement is one of the clearest expressions of vincible ignorance that I’ve ever seen someone make. I pray that you won’t cling to this thin reed, thinking you can deny God and yet still be saved.

@Assistant Village Idiot ***Yet I don't think we need accept all the blame in this***

Oh, I don’t think we are really to blame at all. My point is merely that if those of us who are interested in apologetics want to be more persuasive, we need to recognize that theism isn’t merely (or even mostly) and intellectual problem.

I understand Mr. Carter’s frustrations at many things – been there, done that. Let’s talk about computers. Well, let’s just say that I’ve confessed to the priest many times, over a period of decades, all the many “interesting” things I’ve said to many stubborn computers. They may yet be my undoing. However, computers exist (although at times I lament that fact).

I know that the ancient Greek gods never existed, therefore I have never been angry at Zeus, Hera, or Heracles. In addition, if I knew someone believed in and worshipped Zeus and Hera, I wouldn’t be angry at them. I probably would look at them out of the corner of my eye and pray that they never purchase a firearm. But, I would never be angry with them.

However, the jest of the commentary – I wonder if people may be angry with God because, to a point, they do believe in God and He did not prevent some tragedy in their lives. I pride myself as a cradle Catholic that goes to mass, does charity work, yada, yada, yada. However, if I had experienced a horrible tragedy such as losing a child or whatever, would I have had a similar reaction? Could I have a similar reaction in the future if some tragedy should occur in my life? I don’t know. I pray it doesn’t happen to me or anyone else who reads this column. I hope we all can remember we have a loving God who gave His only begotten Son, and that He is with us through it all.

Thus, I agree with Carter’s conclusions about a type of emotional understanding apologetics based on understanding of the human person. That’s easy for me to say, but I’m sure would be a challenge to implement. But, it may well be worth pursuing.

JOe:

I know Jimmy Akins of EWTN/EWTN all too well, from hearing him constantly on the radio; he, like most of the staff on EWRN, is not a good Catholic, but a conservative ideologue pretending to be one. His notion of "vincible" ignorance, specifically, is a conservative perversion of the true Church doctrine - of "INvincible ignorance." There the Church suggests that there might be many who were not given adequate evidence of God (either the CHurch's account, or I add, a convincing version of that account). THerefore the CHurch itself says - as opposed to Jimmy Akins - since many people were never given adequate evidence of God, or an adequate account of the Church, they should not be blamed, for not believing. Therefore ,the Church itself says - against Akins- there are many who can be excused if they do not believe in The Church, and/or even God.

Stressing "Vincible" ignorance, lays the stress where the Church has never laid it; the Church stresses forgiveness, and "invincible" ignorance. Ignorance which can be forgiven. Why stress unforgiveness? Seems potentially uncharitable. And inaccurate, inapplicable, given the preceding.

You were never mad at the myth of Zeus? For being a false image? Were you never annoyed at a cartoon? Even though the characters portrayed by them did not exist?

@Billy ***is notion of "vincible" ignorance, specifically, is a conservative perversion of the true Church doctrine - of "INvincible ignorance." There the Church suggests that there might be many who were not given adequate evidence of God ***

I've never heard this before. What's the reference for this position. If it's a piece of Catholic doctrine then it should be easy enough to find online.

***You were never mad at the myth of Zeus? For being a false image? ***

Um, no, I never have been. I could possibly be mad at the people who knew the concept was false and spread it to others, but I've never been mad at a myth.

Never been mad at a cartoon? Just as an annoying object? Even though the cartoon characters are not real ... the cartoon is itself, has a physical reality: a bit of film; bits of light on a screen. It can be an annoying object; like a mosquito. For that matter, the Bible warned of false "images." As if false images can be, just in themselves, annoying.

Anger against God though, especially an alleged atheist's anger, would simply be a confused and improper way of thinking about it; since an atheist does not believe in God, he logically could not be angry at him.

No one should angry at something that does not exist, strictly speaking. Probably those who say that, have not thought it all through yet; more properly they might say 1) some DO or DID believe there is a GOD - but don't like him. More properly still, 2) they didn't find the things claimed for God - "all" the miracles we want,s ay - to be true. Therefore, many eventually, simply feel he doesn't really exist; they don't believe in him.

In such a case, they are not mad at God. Rather, they dislike constantly being presented with "his" false image, as if it was real and good. In this latter case, they are not mad "at God"; they are mad at those who presented a false image of God to us all. And who deceived the whole world, thereby.

"Invincible ignorance," is indeed, an extemely well-established Catholic phrase, and doctrine. It should be easy enough to find, online. Or in say, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997/2000 2nd ed.

Mike, I think we all wonder how we would react and what would be the effect on our faith if some unspeakable evil visits us personally.

For this, I pray I am a carrot and not an egg, because the same boiling water that softens the carrot hardens the egg.

@Billy ***"Invincible ignorance," is indeed, an extemely well-established Catholic phrase, and doctrine. It should be easy enough to find, online. Or in say, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997/2000 2nd ed.***

I agree that its is a well-established Catholic doctrine. The disagreement is with your claim that the doctrine says that you will be forgiven for refusing to believe in God because, as you said, you have not seen "massive miracles often promised, historically, by the Church."

I don't know a single theologian that would agree with your understanding of invincible ignorance. Again, I could be mistaken but your view of that doctrine seems to be very unorthodox.

Do you have any source for your particular interpretation of that doctrine? Do you agree that the Catholic Church does not agree with your reading of the term?

The 1) Church has not usually articulated the doctrine of I.I. in exactly the way I have expressed it; but 2) neither has it opposed it. While 3) my view, I hold, is implicitly contained, logically, within the conventional formulation.

'Many atheists do, of course, proceed to their denial of God based solely on rational justifications.' Funny, that!

I'm trying desperately to get hold of this study, but can't find it anywhere. I'm interested in how the questions were asked, how they were framed, and whether there is a meaningful distinction made between religion/church/and God as a concept. Because I strongly suspect the questioning was much looser than your analysis might think. And, from personal experience, I'd have to say that any anger is usually directed at actual people and institutions, not at the abstract, which religious people often interpret as 'anger at god'.

Why do I get the impression that Joe Carter and so many other theists have a "thing" against atheists? It reminds me of that saying, "It's not enough that I succeed; my friends must fail." It's not enough to think you are right about your faith. You have to make the case that others are not only wrong, but intellectually defective and emotionally scarred.

Hatred of something you don't believe in seems no more mysterious to me than fear of something you don't believe in. I don't believe in ghosts, but I can imagine that if someone dared me to spend the night in a morgue surrounded by dead bodies and hearing sounds I couldn't identify, I would be afraid. Does that mean I actually *do* believe in ghosts? Well, there's intellectual belief, and there's emotional reaction based on what we acquired in childhood before we were old enough to make rational, intellectual judgments.

For many who were raised in the Catholic faith (or any other faith), all traces do not necessarily vanish if you come to the conclusion that you don't believe any more. Many believers struggle with doubt, so why would nonbelievers be expected to be absolutely firm in their convictions? Believing in God is, emotionally, a matter of faith, but I would say that intellectually it's a judgment about likelihoods or probabilities. People are not computers with binary switches that are either definitively on or definitively off. Religious belief and unbelief most likely are two ends of a spectrum, with a great many people nearer the center than either of the two extremes.

I think it is fine to attempt to help people who "hate God" because they have been emotionally hurt or they have suffered some fate that seems grossly unjust. But I think it should be undertaken to help their mental and emotional well being, not to convert them back into theists. It's like feeding the hungry or caring for the sick. If your primary motive isn't to feed the hungry or care for the sick but to make converts, it's not charity; it's manipulation.

Joe,

Have you read much Graham Greene? Specifically, The End of the Affair?

His novels directly address the ironies associated with serving God's purposes within our own iniquities.

Justin, also "The Power and the Glory."

"You have to make the case that others are not only wrong, but intellectually defective and emotionally scarred"

Are you implying that atheists are not intellectually defective and emotionally scarred?

"But I'm beginning to suspect that emotional atheism is far more common than many realize."

Actually, I've realized that long ago.

"We need a new apologetic approach that takes into account that the ordinary pain and sufferings of life leads more people away from God than a library full of anti-theist books."

Given the emotionalism of many atheists, there is a chance or a likelihood that any new apologetic approach might be interpreted by atheists as patronizing or condescending.

For whatever reason, some atheists are hardened into their emotionalism.

"We need a new apologetic approach that takes into account that the ordinary pain and sufferings of life leads more people away from God than a library full of anti-theist books."

Eh, Christians just need to be man enough to laugh at their pain. Stop mollycoddling them already.

"Except unicorns. I’ve never been angry at unicorns."

I have. They pretty much ruined science fiction and fantasy writing.

I don't really find atheists to be scarred or immoral, taken as a group. We can give them that claim.

But I do find nearly all of them to be Last Men, and that's far worse than being scarred or immoral.

"Except unicorns. I’ve never been angry at unicorns."
I have. They pretty much ruined science fiction and fantasy writing."

How can you be angry at such beautiful creatures, with the way they glide over rainbows and frolic among the stars???

Buzz, I love your carrot metaphor. I pray too that I am a carrot and not an egg.

On another matter, are unicorns better grilled or fried?

Suppose we begin as children, as good loyal Catholics ... but then, even though we were "good," our equally good sister, aged 8, is found to have terminal cancer; and dies in horrible pain within a year. In such cases, we might indeed have 1) an emotional response; anger at God, who would allow innocents to die horribly. (By the way; isn't this emotional response "natural," and therefore, part of natural law? And therefore, not culpable?)

What is more, furthermore, we are responding here not just to the emotions; there is an intellectual content in all this too. NOte that 2) God in the Bible, often (if not always) promised that if we folowed him, we would get "prosperity," wonders, long "life," and so forth. Even Job, who suffered for a while, in the end found "twice as much" material good, prosperity. But what happens when WE follow God, but do NOT get these things? What happens when good people, die in suffering, never having experiened the many goods promised to us in the name of God? Here many might reasonably conclude, that the common idea of God is just false.

What happens when we or others follow the rules of God outlined to u s by the CHurch say, yet we do not get the positive things promised to us by many parts of the Bible, and certainly countless sermons and homilies? When indeed, instead of good things, we get suffering? Then we might simply come to the LOGICAL conclusion, that the promises made by God were simply, false.

In that case, the victim might go through a two-stage process. At first, he or she might continue for a while to believe in God; but believe that God was not as good as promised; being angry at God. But then finally - as the study above seems to acknowledge - next, many would simply pass on to another stage. And simply deduce - and rather logically too - that God did not exist. Or at least, did not exist as commonly presented by most churches, and in the Bible itself.

Rejection of God therefore, might take many forms. One of which is emotional. But note for that matter, that there is a kind of Reason behind this motivation too. Then too, note taht even the emotional rejection, has a kind of moral logic to it; if we are given moral sense naturally, as Paul and the Catechism suggest, then our natural anger and disbelief ... may be correct.

Mike,

'On another matter, are unicorns better grilled or fried?'

When it comes to unicorns, the only real question is, "Which are better, pink or purple?"

I'm a purple unicorn man, myself.

"But what happens when WE follow God, but do NOT get these things? What happens when good people, die in suffering, never having experiened the many goods promised to us in the name of God?"

Well, I guess at that point they should man up.

Mike, Do 'em over a pit of hot coals, and don't be stingy with the barbecue sauce!

Well, there are definitely some differences between the idea of unicorns and ideas about God(s). After all, there's no "Office of Unicorn-Based Programs" at the White House.

Like bznss, I'd be very curious to see how it's worded. If people spent signifcant amounts of money making woodlands attractive to unicorns, and required licenses to lose one's virginity because it might upset the unicorns... I'd expect a lot more people would show some annoyance at the idea of unicorns.

BTW, I'm perfectly willing to concede that there are a lot of people out there who decide on atheism for emotional reasons, not rational/philosophical ones. However, in my experience, it's not as large a fraction as those who adhere to theism for emotional reasons.

"Eh, Christians just need to be man enough to laugh at their pain. Stop mollycoddling them already."

I won't laugh at their pain. But I will laugh at their intellectual pretensions that they throw up as a smoke screen to cover their emotional anger at God.

Whiny, emotional atheists. At least they're good for a laugh.

Thanks Sean. Purple it is!

TUAD,

"I won't laugh at their pain. But I will laugh at their intellectual pretensions that they throw up as a smoke screen to cover their emotional anger at God."

Their 'pain' is their way of putting themselves on a pedestal. The pedestal is best knocked over by mocking them.

Personally, it was my own anger at Christians that was influential to my own conversion from agnosticism to Christianity. I realized at some point that while I was completely indifferent to Buddhists, Hindus, the Hare Krishna's and Moonies, I was constantly incensed every time I heard a Christian speak about his or her faith.

It finally begin to dawn on me that what really bothered me was that I heard truth in their words, and it was an indictment of the way I had chosen to live my life.

Reminds me of one adolescent of my acquaintance who complained about going to church - "I don't believe in God and I know I'm going to Hell anyway."
[you don't believe in God but you do believe in Hell?]

Joe - You might want to take another run at this paragraph:
"The most striking finding was that when Exline looked only at subjects who reported a drop in religious belief, their belief was least likely to recover their faith if anger toward God was the cause of their loss of belief. In other words, anger toward God may lead people to atheism cause a person to cling to their disbelief. "

Otherwise a fine and cogent article.

On one level, I thought of the warning the father gave to his son: "Do not despise the LORD’s discipline, and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines those he loves" (Proverbs 3:11-12). Outlining for him what life with God looks like: Trust God with all your heart, acknowledge Him in all your ways, fear God, honor Him with your wealth, and then: "Do not despise....do not resent...." I see the father saying, "Son, life won't always turn out the way you want it to. When it gets tough, watch your attitude toward God." Interestingly, many centuries later, the write to the Hebrews picks this passage up and applies it as God's enduring word for his people (see: Hebrews 12). The five admonitions in Proverbs 3 would make a nice outline for basic Christian discipleship.

On another level, I've thought that people like Richard Dawkins (the Ayatollah of Atheism) and Sam Harris (his publicist) are frustrated that science didn't pull off the removal of God as expected. In the face of the most advanced scientific knowledge, religion has grown!

Several years ago, I spoke at a conference for church leaders in Florida on the theme of unbelief. I asked the question, “Why do people refuse to believe the gospel?” We explored the issue from four perspectives:

Theological (the work of theologians): creation, the fall and redemption.

Epistemological (the work of philosophers and apologists): cognitive issues and the noetic effects of sin.

Missiological (the work of missiologists): evangelistic and cultural issues.

Practical (the work of pastors): barriers like ego and lifestyle.

Perhaps I could include the issue you raise under the heading "Practical." Suffering. And perhaps part of the problem is what Christopher Wright identified as a loss of the language of lament in the Church. He suggested that, "Lament is not only allowed in the Bible; it is modeled in abundance. God seems to want to give us as many words with which to fill out our complaint forms as to write our thank-you notes.”

For more: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/tucson-arizona-and-the-language-of-lament/

@Steve *** You might want to take another run at this paragraph:***

Thanks. Looks like that one got mangled in the editing process. That's now fixed.

Billy says:
Suppose we begin as children, as good loyal Catholics ... but then, even though we were "good," our equally good sister, aged 8, is found to have terminal cancer; and dies in horrible pain within a year. In such cases, we might indeed have an emotional response; anger at God, who would allow innocents to die horribly.

YOS
Or even suppose that it was a brother and he was 16. Yet it never occurred to any of us in the family to be mad at God; or to turn our sorrow into anger. Media vita in morte sumus. One must come to grips with the world as it is, not as we wish it would be.
+ + +
Billy
"But what happens when WE follow God, but do NOT get these things?

YOS
Then we conclude that God is not adequately modeled by a candy vending machine.

If to follow him, you must "take up your cross," you cannot logically expect all rainbows and fluffy bunnies... and pink unicorns.

As for the last, these are not unicorns, but obviously some close relative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXoYK4b_q24&feature=player_embedded

"Personally, it was my own anger at Christians that was influential to my own conversion from agnosticism to Christianity. I realized at some point that while I was completely indifferent to Buddhists, Hindus, the Hare Krishna's and Moonies, I was constantly incensed every time I heard a Christian speak about his or her faith.

It finally begin to dawn on me that what really bothered me was that I heard truth in their words, and it was an indictment of the way I had chosen to live my life."

That's the fact, Jack!

Your comment is my favorite comment on this whole thread.

The only thing that could surpass it is if some ex-atheist says that he or she became a Christian because Christians mocked and laughed at their atheism and he or she was tired of being mocked and laughed at.

@bnzss
"I'm trying desperately to get hold of this study, but can't find it anywhere."

I have it. Email me and I'll send you the pdf.

I think it was Kierkegaard who wondered if perhaps a significant amount of the time spent on intellectual doubt might be better spent on considering one's moral rebellion. And I think this relates to the "emotional" argument made above. I've seen my elementary aged children express "irrational" anger at their mother or myself over nothing more than our catching them in a lie, or stealing or antagonizing their sibling, not to mention things that are intended to protect them or help them flourish such as getting to bed on time, wearing enough clothes to stay warm outside in winter weather, or brushing their teeth. Mortimer Adler isn't the only philosopher and intellecual to convert to Christianity and confess that the moral implications were really more of an issue than intellectual doubts. And it is also interesting to contrast the "apostates" who so often seem to have a moral issue associated with their supposed intellectual doubts. A lot of the anger I see is along the lines of "nobody is going to tell me how to live my life. I'm free to choose whatever I like. " How convenient to be one's own god, accountable to nobody but oneself.

Whether it is a politician or even a pastor covering up a sexual liason, or an employee financial fraud or a scientist fudging the evidence for a drug study, none of us even needs to look past our own failures to know that we are creatures that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Perhaps we ought to spend more time doubting just how good we think we are. Such an experience just might allow some of the intellecual dust to settle enough to at least make us honest about our sinful condition and open to the remedy intellecual Christian sinners explain.

Truth Unites... and Divides says: "I won't laugh at their pain. But I will laugh at their intellectual pretensions that they throw up as a smoke screen to cover their emotional anger at God. Whiny, emotional atheists. At least they're good for a laugh."

Sean says: "Their 'pain' is their way of putting themselves on a pedestal. The pedestal is best knocked over by mocking them. "

How convenient that Christian love and charity requires you to be snide and condescending!

Actually, unicorns are all over the place in King James. God himself mentioned them in Job. Plenty of inerrants of the Young Earth stripe would challenge the "myth of the unicorn."

Billy writes: "NOte that 2) God in the Bible, often (if not always) promised that if we folowed him, we would get "prosperity," wonders, long "life," and so forth. Even Job, who suffered for a while, in the end found "twice as much" material good, prosperity. But what happens when WE follow God, but do NOT get these things? What happens when good people, die in suffering, never having experiened the many goods promised to us in the name of God?"

Well, if we listen to Jesus, the first thing we learn is that there is none good but God alone.

And the second thing we learn is that the "good people [who] die in suffering" are following their Master, who was obedient to God for 33 years and then died in the cruellest and darkest suffering imaginable, betrayed by one of his closest friends, deserted by almost all his other followers, rejected by his own people and - finally - calling out to his Father: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"

And the third thing we learn is that - that wasn't the end. Nor is it for those who follow Jesus.

"Sean says: "Their 'pain' is their way of putting themselves on a pedestal. The pedestal is best knocked over by mocking them. "
How convenient that Christian love and charity requires you to be snide and condescending!"

Nice try, mr. emo. I'm not condescending to anyone, I'm talking about knocking them down to our level, not raising ourselves above them.

I was angry at the Klingons once. But then I realized it was just a TV show.

"God himself mentioned them in Job. Plenty of inerrants of the Young Earth stripe would challenge the "myth of the unicorn.""

I see evidence for unicorns all over the place, particularly in metaphysical book stores.

This article puts me in mind of C S Lewis' description of his emotional and intellectual state, looking back on when he was an atheist. He said something like, I was angry at God for allowing all the pain and evil in the world. I knew God must not exist. And I was angry at God for not existing. (No quotes because it's a paraphrase.)

As in all his writings, Lewis displays a keen introspective sense in this passage. His thoughts and emotions were all real and sincerely held. At the same time, he deftly reveals the internal dissonance in the atheistic character, illustrating from his own personal history the paradox which is pointed out by Joe Carter in this article. Remember, Joe didn't make it up--he's just commenting on some curious results found in an empirical study: disbelief in God coupled with anger at God, both existing side by side inside a presumed rational creature. (Well, maybe I offend by calling him 'creature'--perhaps I should say 'rational being.')

A curious manifestation of this paradox is how evangelical many atheists are about their disbelief. How can a non-entity excite so much energy and passion that people are moved to write whole books about it, and make speeches, and endlessly prattle on about how important it is for everyone else to join in their disbelief? Evangelical atheism is a sure sign that there is something at work different from simple unbelief.

For Billy et al regarding vincible and invincible ignorance. They are both taught by the Catholic Church, and both referred to in a concise passage: see Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3 (Life in Christ [about the moral law]), Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 6. IV "Erroneous Judgment". This section comprises 1790-94, and in particular 1791: "This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility...In such cases the person is culpable for the evil he commits." This is vincible ignorance, without the Catechism using that phrase. Further, 1793: "If--on the contrary--the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience."

Referring to 1791, it is thus a teaching of the Church (and I would say common sense) that ignorance can be (indeed, often is) "vincible." (That's a clumsy word in 21st-Century American English, so I would prefer to say there are times when one can be blamed for one's moral ignorance.) This principle is not only written into the moral law, but finds its way into our civil jurisprudence, hence "ignorance of the law is no excuse." The teaching dates back at least to Aquinas in the 13th Century, who declared that it is each person's duty to seek out and know the moral law as it pertains to him in his state in life and surrounding circumstances.

I think you need to consider a different set of atheists: people angry at God because of how they perceive Christians. Basically all the reasons that justify a face-lift ( http://www.changingthefaceofchristianity.com/ ) in their current public perception as: Intolerant / Hypocrite / Judgmental / Political (as in material, opposed to spiritual) / Homophobic.

When that's what they're angry at, and those things become what "God" represents for atheists, then we have a whole different problem in our hands.

Anger among atheists is actually something I've pondered doing this type of RESEARCH on since it's so visible in debate: it severely undermines their allegedly superior rational prowess. "Emotional atheism", that really sounds like an appropriate classification.

I was initially intrigued by the title of this article, atheist and anger side by side?
All the discussions I have had through the years with atheists or at least people
who want to sound like them, these proponents have always brandished
philosophical arguments, an intellectual 'bold front', almost bereft of feelings
like anger. In fact, they are the first who caution against resorting to emotional
outbursts during the discussions (do not use CAPS!). All of a sudden there are atheists "angry at God" and sundry. Ooops! Somebody forgot that anger and emotion are irrationally and illogically unsound, ask Mr. Spock (the vulcan).

Anyway, I am sure that even if God gave the atheists 100% of what was in their
wishlists they would still quibble either because He granted their wishes
at the wrong time of the day or because the Jag was not the right color or maybe
because his new I-phone 4G was made in china or because Apple just announced
the release of 5G model (God should've seen this coming!!!).

JAO,

"I think you need to consider a different set of atheists: people angry at God because of how they perceive Christians. Basically all the reasons that justify a face-lift ( http://www.changingthefaceofchristianity.com/ ) in their current public perception as: Intolerant / Hypocrite / Judgmental / Political (as in material, opposed to spiritual) / Homophobic."

Changing christianity (i.e. 'intolerant' and 'homophobic') does nothing but suck up to liberals who will still feel no need to convert. Please don't tell us that we should angle for atheists' approval, because we don't need it.

One is reminded of the truism that "the very last thing a fish discovers is water." Water is such a given, such a persistent and constant Presence, that taking it for granted the fish fails to even perceive its existence, much less grasp its meaning.

Whoever noted this about fish, of course, wasn't really speaking of fish but of us. The atheist recites his show stopper, "I'll believe in God when you show me the evidence." And the theist concedes the point (!) and mutters something about the gift of faith, which is real enough, but doesn't quite answer.

Here I sit writing this in the pre-dawn of a cold January day, the Morning Star shining brightly in the southeast, presaging the dawn. How many thousands of times have we all seen these wonders, and all the others, this persistent and constant "evidence", without ever noticing or beginning to ponder what they mean?

Joe DeVet - "the atheistic character"

There's only one "atheistic character"? No variation? C.S. Lewis is the archetype for all?

"Evangelical atheism is a sure sign that there is something at work different from simple unbelief."

Or it can be a response to a widespread belief of others that impacts everyone. Again, as soon as there's an Office of Unicorn-Based Programs at the White House, your point will be much more convincing.

Sean - "Nice try, mr. emo."

That alone tells me you're not actually trying to understand who you're responding to. :) I'm the upbeat, optimistic guy who's always pointing out how much better things are getting:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/10/the-desiristrsquos-unsatisfiable-desires
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2009/11/03/more-thoughts-on-christianity-and-post-christianity/

"I'm not condescending to anyone, I'm talking about knocking them down to our level, not raising ourselves above them."

That's what 'laughing at' and 'mocking' means? Okay, then.

@edmond
Your experience of atheists seems remarkably limited. Try the web.

@others
Thanks for all the advice on purple unicorn comestibles! I'm seeking recipes on the Food Network as we speak. Maybe ground in a nice berbere sauce eaten on and with a bed of injira. It's hard to be angry at something so delicious.

1) Strictly speaking, the study did not just cover atheists; but also agnostics, and those alienated from Christianity. So that there is no necessary implication that atheists, per se, contradicted themselves, by being angry at God. Or no doubt, those who once were angry ... eventually realized the contradiction, and simply ... cease to believe. Or became angry at those - like those here? - who perpetuate a false religion.

As for 2) whining? Note that a) no one whines more than Christians, begging for peace and understanding. While b) ultimately, the insensitivity of many conservatives here, to pain, finally proves conclusively proves, that Conservatives are not Christians, but merely posing as such.

Then too, of course, 3) the existence of Evil, the question of "why bad things happen to good people," IS a serious subset of theology; known as Theodicy. And it is not simply emotional, but is a good logical objection to Christianity: if God promises those who follow, good, and prosperity, but the good do not always get it? Then God, logically, is false.

Did 3) Jesus give up on the promises of OT prosperity, and glamorize suffering? Then a) Jesus gave up on the Old Testament and God; and b) invented a new religion. One that glamorizes death, and suffering.

Maybe that does account for the bullying, Sado-Masochistic character of Conservatives, to be sure.

Ray,

"That alone tells me you're not actually trying to understand who you're responding to. :) I'm the upbeat, optimistic guy who's always pointing out how much better things are getting"

Great, this place could use less doom and gloom. :)

"I'm not condescending to anyone, I'm talking about knocking them down to our level, not raising ourselves above them."
That's what 'laughing at' and 'mocking' means? Okay, then.

Yeah, it's not just laughing at them for its own sake. Laughter was one of the Fathers' great weapons against the pagans, as well as Nietzsche's great weapon against Christianity. It works.

Billy,

"As for 2) whining? Note that a) no one whines more than Christians, begging for peace and understanding."

Beg for peace and understanding is whining? Huh? How exactly do Christians whine, we get to worship the same beautiful God that atheists apparently cry about rejecting.

"While b) ultimately, the insensitivity of many conservatives here, to pain, finally proves conclusively proves, that Conservatives are not Christians, but merely posing as such."

Nah, it just means that some of us are immune to melodrama masquerading as a serious argument. :)

Mike,

"It's hard to be angry at something so delicious"

Truer words were never spoken.

I have observed this process, a person of faith becoming an agnostic or atheist as the result of a personal tragedy. I often wondered why someone claims to be a believer knowing there are terrible tragedies everyday throughout the world and then becomes an atheist when a tragedy strikes close to home. As believers we should consider the problem of pain so that we are prepared when it becomes a personal matter. Nevertheless I am also aware of the person who becomes a vocal and zealous atheist as a way of getting back at God for allowing a personal tragedy to occur and teaching God a lesson. Based on the information in the lead article, this phenomenon may be more widespread than I thought.

Finally, the Church does not really fully hold you responsible if you don't believe in God, because you have never been exposed to a convincing account of the Church; in such a case, you are considered an "Invinciple Ignorant" in effect.

One reader here, userfully excerpts the Catechism on this. Sec. 1793: "If--on the contrary--the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience."

To be sure, when one unknowingly does something the Church considers wrong, that is an "privation"; but one is not technically, "responsible" for it.

Many Catholics readers want to make everyone else guilty. But finally they cannot do so according to the Catechism itself: "Referring to 1791, it is thus a teaching of the Church (and I would say common sense) that ignorance can be (indeed, often is) "vincible." Here, even our reader has to admit that ignorance merely "can" be, or "often" is -culpable, or blamable, or vincible. But he cannot say that it always or usually is.

And furthermore, the resort to secular jurisprudence and the "law," telling us that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," has no relevance to the Catechism after all.

Catholics long to condemn everyone who does not obey them, to Hell. But even the Cathechism itself, seems to allow that there are many who might escape their continual condemnations.

Sean: "Please don't tell us that we should angle for atheists' approval, because we don't need it."

Sean, read this theologian-scholar who looks to be angling for atheist's approval on this post here:

http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/for-since-the-creation-of-the-world-on-the-wickedness-of-atheism/

This fellow Rauser also wrote a post titled "The Parable of the Good Atheist."

Your buddy Ray Ingles comments over there.

Joe, I really appreciate your article. You brought up some interesting points, many of which I will explore more fully when I have time.

I actually have a teenager (very angry teenager) who is trying really hard to deny our Catholic faith and to deny God exists. He hasn't had any great tragedy happen. From what I can figure he is extremely dissatisfied with his "lot in life" and blames me and God for that. What's the famous quote? something like "I didn't know how good I had it until it was gone".

If you don't mind, please include my son in your prayers.

This writer's dirty little secret is that at times in his life he has been mad at, disappointed by or hated God himself. In fact this is EVERY Christian’s dirty little secret. Lee Strobel has claimed that when he was an “atheist” he really believed in the Christian God but wanted to reject him because he didn’t want to face up to his own “sinful” nature. He tops off this absurd claim with another idiotic claim that all atheists do the same thing. How would he know that? He couldn’t and he doesn’t and like most of what Strobel says, it simply is not true. Of course that is NOT the definition of an atheist. However this is the biblical definition of what an atheist is and so Christians are stuck with it. This is just one of many examples of how the Bible distorts reality and makes the real world impossible for Christians to comprehend.

Ed writes that Lee Stobel's claim about himself extended to all atheists is simply false as he couldn't know. Then Ed claims to know that the Bible makes "the real world impossible for Christians to comprehend."

I agree with Ed that no human can make a specific claim covering all in a class of fellow humans. I believe that wisdom also applies to Ed.

@Billy
CCC:"1790 ... Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest. "

It is clear that invincible ignorance is the exception, not the rule - we have a responsibility to seek truth that is written on our heart, and which we can not dodge. Ignorance is invincible when, despite acknowledging that we must, and attempting to, seek the truth, we find ourselves in a position where finding the truth is not possible.

Vincible ignorance may reduce culpability for a specific action, but the ignorance itself is sinful and must be accounted for as well.

The doctrine may give some little hope that not all of the "angry atheists" are condemned, but to see if it was enough for the salvation of any particular person would require an insight into the mind/heart of the person that only God has. I certainly wouldn't put it forward as a sure, or nearly sure, thing.

Also, I take exception to your categorization of the Jimmy Atkin, etc, as bad Catholics and nothing more than conservative ideologues. Surely you can disagree with someone without also attacking their character?

@Ed

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what you're talking about. It is no secret that all Christians have times when they struggle with their faith. It may not always go so far as extreme anger at God, but there are high and low points for all of us. It is in fact discussed quiet openly, because we do not want each other to despair and give up in the low points. Read C.S. Lewis.

I would like to respond more in depth, but aside from deducing that you don't have much respect for some fellow named Lee Strobel, and that you're not terribly found of the bible, I don't really know what it is you're trying to say.

I am somewhat amused that you think that "the real world impossible for Christians to comprehend," though. I think, as a group, we comprehend it as well as anyone. Unless you are referring to those atheist regimes which like to butcher people all the time; clearly, those people have got a handle on things.

Now that I've looked at the actual study (thanks very much, Charles Hackney!), I'm, er, not totally surprised that Mr. Carter may be overstating his case a tad. Quoting from the summary:

"These studies suggested that anger toward God is a relevant concept for some atheists, agnostics, and nonaffiliated persons. However, there was a lack of precision in how we assessed anger toward God among these individuals. In Studies 2 and 3, we used broad prompts that were intended to allow people to participate even if they did not believe in God. We asked participants to recall a negative incident for which they had either (a) attributed responsibility to God or (b) reasoned that the harm would not have occurred if God existed. The second option could be interpreted quite differently from the first. For example, thoughts along the lines of “If God existed, this terrible thing never would have happened” seem to imply belief that if God exists, this God is loving and all-powerful. In Study 3, we asked participants who did not believe in God to imagine what their thoughts and emotions would be if God did exist. This option could have created conceptual problems as well: Believers were describing their actual perceptions and feelings regarding God, whereas nonbelievers were giving reports that were more based on hypothetical, speculative thinking. Clearly, future studies that focus specifically on anger “toward God” among nonbelievers will need to be more systematic in terms of assessment."

(Oh, and the standard deviation for the atheist/agnostic/nones was noticeably higher than the religious... seems to be more of a spread there.)

Not sure about denial of existence of God; but many catholics have abandoned their faith during their college or "young adult" years, a/c they developed some habit of sin, resented others pointing out that this was sinful, then rationalized that arguments existed AGAINST the Catholic church. "I don't want to hear what you are saying, because I don't want to give up ... (whatever), so I will rationalize that you have no right to tell me that what I am doing is sinful!"
(Sex outside of marriage is a common affliction; so is casual sex with anyone available.)
If I don't want to give up a bad habit, I may rationalize an intellectual reason for the lack of status of those telling me that I am doing wrong.
TeaPot562

Jacob - I recognize the theology you're talking about, but I have to admit I see some irony between:

"...ignorance itself is sinful and must be accounted for as well. The doctrine may give some little hope that not all of the "angry atheists" are condemned, but... I certainly wouldn't put it forward as a sure, or nearly sure, thing."

and

"Surely you can disagree with someone without also attacking their character?"

I am angry at Santa Claus. I despise that my parents lied to me about him. And every Christmas, when I see that red-suited fatso, my blood boils. Bah humbug!

Mike you suggested: "Your experience of atheists seems remarkably limited.
Try the web." Hey buddy, this is the web. Btw, I have been to those websites
under different names they cannot accept the fact that the big bang was discredited
by eminent scientists years ago, talk about evidence gathering, sheesh!

My take simply is this, that atheists base their very existence on a string of logical
arguments. Emotional responses are not logical because there are no launching
bases for emotions such as anger. An atheist can be valid only, only and only within
the realm of perfect syllogisms, inductive or deductive. However when something
illogical from outside of the "crib" comes creeping in, like flying off the handle for no
reason at all happens, this is highly illogical. What makes it worse here is that
atheists are angry at God,someone that they conclude does not exist. Angry bird seems to make more sense..

Is it possible that there are no meopausal atheists? (any gender?) If there are,
when they do cease to be logical (i hate your face today!) does that become an
exception to their rationality and therefore a pause in the thought-life cycle? OMG!

Ray - I think you may have unfairly edited the first quote. Specifically, you made a statement about vincible ignorance appear to be about ignorance in general, and left out the distinction between a group and an individual.

Also keep in mind that I was writing in response to some posts that seemed to present the normal Catholic understanding of things as nearly universalist (not the case), and so was focused on opposing that. This would not lend itself to writing something without seeming harsh.

But even so, I fail to see the irony. I do not believe I insulted the character of a particular person or even a group (if I unwittingly did so, I apologize), I was merely pointing out that the Catholic idea of Invincible Ignorance is not so easily applied as has been suggested.

The thing is, from a Christian perspective, denying God is a "bad thing" (I'm all about the technical terms) which means that it is sinful if the person has either the knowledge or the responsibility to have the knowledge that it is bad (as well as the intent to commit the action). When speaking of ignorance, all we are speaking of is to what extent a person is responsible for the knowledge that a bad act is bad. We are speaking of (part of) a person's responsibility for a specific (possibly prolonged) action and not of the person himself. When it comes to an action that some people tend to at least partially define themselves by, it may be hard to see that we are in fact discussing the action and not the person, but we are.

Note also that the idea of vincible ignorance is essentially that a person, either purposefully or through negligence, is preventing himself from seeing (or ignoring) the knowledge he does not have. A person (in full command of reasoning faculties) saying "God can't exist because if He did, He wouldn't let this happen," and responding to any further questioning with "He just can't" or "He just wouldn't," is by definition (from the point of view of the Catholic, of course) in a state of Vincible ignorance - the argument does not make sense and there is a refusal to even admit to the possibility. I'm sure you've seen it, I know I have - people go red in the face at the mere suggestion that a good God would allow something to happen and never move beyond that. Fortunately, when I've seen it, it has passed.

Of course, as the CCC says, "The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense" (and hence mitigate some responsibility), so the emotional nature of such things MAY in some cases suffice. But you can see how, again, from a Catholic point of view, which desires the spread of truth and the sure salvation of souls, we can't really rely on such things as a matter of course.

It's not even that we can't do so because we know whether ignorance is likely to be applied in many cases or not; what I'm getting at here is the sheer fact that we, being incapable of seeing into each others' hearts and minds (and ill equipped to handle the knowledge gained even if we were capable) have absolutely no way of knowing where a particular person falls in the whole vincible/invincible/how much responsibility is mitigated because of emotional trauma scale.

If the specific cases are completely unknown to us, we cannot very well rely on the generality to help a specific person if we want that specific person to be helped. Even if it were true that in 99% of the cases ignorance would apply and save people, we still could not rely on it when confronting a specific person because there is no way of knowing if that person is one of the 99%. And I somehow doubt that the number is 99%, considering that that the path is narrow and all that.

So we cannot just sit back idly and hope that all these people we know who reject God because they are hurting or what have you will get by ok. They might. But if they don't, and they could have with a little friendship or a sympathetic ear which we did not provide, that is, to put it lightly, no good.

And there's my 2 cents. On a per word basis, a bargain, but I'll leave the pricing per idea to you.

Many atheists do not have strong convincing arguments for their atheism either... most of the ASSUMES materialism is true a priori and ignore the evidence that points into the other direction.

---

@ Billy

If an atheist considers himself a "seeker of truth" (as they usually like to refer to themselves with no little smugness) he/she will look for the good argument that support the existence of God and the truthfulness of the Church. These arguments are out there and they are not hidden.

That is how some of my formerly atheist friends (some of the life-long atheists) became Catholic.

At the same time you have atheists who continue to criticize religion without even understanding it (most atheists IMO, but I could be wrong...).

Laziness to seek the truth is not an excuse, and most atheist just do not care to know the truth about religion.

@edmond: "An atheist can be valid only, only and only within
the realm of perfect syllogisms, inductive or deductive."

Ah, edmond, here is your problem. There are no such people. You have described a machine, as I think you further note. If you have not found hatred in atheist web sites, you haven't looked very hard. Atheists are, like the rest of us humans, at base tribal. And when your tribe is based on what you don't believe or, at least, say you don't believe, you open a wide world of other possible belief.

I have heard atheists claim they are all about reason. But reason has to start somewhere. That starting point is one's beliefs or assumptions. Rather than compare assumptions, they hide those behind the curtain while arguing that they cannot arrive at other people's assumptions through reason. So we get those, like Daniel Denkins proposing "Brights", who think this is their defining feature.

edmond - "An atheist can be valid only, only and only within the realm of perfect syllogisms, inductive or deductive."

You're going to need to unpack that. A lot. What do you mean by 'valid', for example? On another tack, what if emotions are not considered irrational (against reason), but rather nonrational (orthogonal to reason) or prerational (in effect an axiom that feeds into reason)?

"Is it possible that there are no meopausal atheists?"

Interesting that you apparently consider 'menopause' to be the archetype of unreason.

@ billy: blessing is not all that God promises in the bible; he also promises trial and woe. (you gotta read the whole book, not just the candy-vending part.) fortunately, he also promises to use the latter for good in those who trust him.
fortunately, if most of us were to look at our lives, humans by and large ARE blessed in their daily living, if they can only notice it.

@ emotions: I see them as a biochemical reaction resulting from comparing how we perceive things to be versus how we believe they ought to be. hard to say whether 'rationality' is involved.

Jacob - I didn't intend any unfairness, and I apologize if it came across that way. I'm making a different point. What you say is:

"Even if it were true that in 99% of the cases ignorance would apply and save people, we still could not rely on it when confronting a specific person because there is no way of knowing if that person is one of the 99%. And I somehow doubt that the number is 99%, considering that that the path is narrow and all that."

Bear in mind that Mr. Carter's position, and the Church's in general as you've outlined, is that disagreement about the existence of God is a moral failing. That, quite literally, it is (almost?) impossible to "disagree with someone" who doesn't believe in God "without also attacking their character." 'Cause, y'know, if their character were correct in this regard they just couldn't be atheists.

Hence the irony.

Even if that's true (which I - ahem - doubt, whatever that says about my character)... let's face it, that's not exactly an approach likely to win friends and influence people.

If you're "confronting a specific person", I'd go with Sydney Hook's advice: "Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments."

Edmonds
they cannot accept the fact that the big bang was discredited by eminent scientists years ago

YOS
This will come as big news to my physicist friends. Granted there have always been those, like Sir Fred Hoyle, who proposed fanciful alternatives simply because their atheism demanded an eternal, unchanging universe. (But as deSitter might have said, "Yet it still moves!") Sometimes they mention as an "argument" against the big bang model the fact that it was first proposed by a Catholic priest. Einstein's reaction both to deSitter and Lemaitre was to concoct a fudge factor for the sole purpose of preserving the Riemannian 4-sphere as a static universe. Likewise, proponents of the oscillating universe, fish-smacked by the demonstrations that the oscillations must eventually damp out, proposed as an epicycle the periodic infusions of "new" matter-energy from "outside" the universe. No evidence, of course, and they glossed over the source of their new energies. The calculated mass of the universe is about 1% that needed to contract and oscillate; so the search was on for the "missing matter," notwithstanding that it was missing only if you presumed the oscillating universe a priori. The heavy neutrino was supposed to do it; but if it existed in sufficient quantity to accomplish the task, the universe would have been such as no galaxies, stars, or solar systems would have formed. Bummer. Likewise, other candidates from neutron stars to black holes. The one thing no one seems to have considered is that the "missing matter" is missing because it isn't there.
+ + +
TeaPot
If I don't want to give up a bad habit, I may rationalize an intellectual reason for the lack of status of those telling me that I am doing wrong.

YOS
Bestimmt. Aquinas and the medievals taught the primacy of the intellect over the will. Something must be known before it can be desired. But Nietzche preached the triumph of the will over the intellect, and since then pleasure-seeking has been de mode. Nietzsche wanted to visit whores without feeling guilty and so he rationalized the primacy of desire. But for the will to triumph, temperance must be tossed overboard; and to discard temperance means ignoring prudence; and prudence is the linchpin connecting the intellect and the will. Neurologically, this results in neural patterns emerging from the brain stem becoming "vulcanized" and interfering with neural patterns emerging from the cerebral cortex. This is the modern scientific way of saying the intellect has been disconnected from and made servant to the will.
+ + +
Bob
@ emotions: I see them as a biochemical reaction resulting from....

YOS
Either that or we might see biochemical reactions as resulting from emotions.

Ray - "Bear in mind that Mr. Carter's position, and the Church's in general as you've outlined, is that disagreement about the existence of God is a moral failing."

Not exactly, if I understand what you mean by "moral failing". Lets phrase things in a more neutral way: it is a moral failing to purposefully or negligently refrain from seeking the truth, whatever that may be, and it is a moral failing to purposefully or negligently skew your perception of the truth for whatever reason.

Obviously, we believe the truth is that God exists. Obviously again, therefore if someone disagrees with us we believe that he is wrong. This can be because either: 1) he's fooling himself, 2) he's lazy, or 3) invincible ignorance (ie wrong through no fault of his own) 4) something that isn't as bad as 1 or 2 but isn't quite 3. I tend to think that an honest reasoned un-prejudiced (but still, of course, wrong according to my beliefs) atheism would be part of group 3 (maybe 4, depending). But claiming to be (and believing that one is) an honest reasoned un-prejudiced ____ does not in fact make it so, whether the ____ is atheist, Christian, or anything else.

But again, saying that an act (such as disbelieving in God) is bad does not directly imply that it's a moral failure (sin).

An exaggerated example: if I back out of my driveway and run over a kind who was jumped out behind my car from behind some bushes chasing a ball or something and kill him, then I just ran over a kid. That's bad. But it's not a moral failing (so long as I was exercising due caution, etc.). Whereas if I see him in my mirrors and purposefully decide to hit him, that's both bad and a moral failing on my part.

Whether disbelief in God is a "moral failing" or not is impossible for us to determine for a particular individual. My point is solely and simply that because we cannot tell, we cannot rely on the fact that it might not be in any particular case. That is, the surest way to make sure a bad thing does not become/stay a moral failing, a sin, is to remove the bad thing. To teach the truth, in this case, though it does not have to be presented in the stereotypical walk up to an atheist and say "you might be going to hell, you know" format. I personally don't have much truck with that approach. (Of course, even were it not an issue of sin/salvation/etc I would think we ahould to teach the truth for it's own sake, but that's unrelated.)

Note also that there is a teaching of Salvation "Outside" the Church (where outside means outside of visible earthly communion, but not in fact outside in the true sense of what the Church is), so while the Church is not as universalist as some make it out to be, it is not as quick to condemn as others (at times Catholics, perhaps myself included) make it out to be. Ideas of this sort, of course are extremely entangled with what we're discussing now.

And lastly, even if I came up to you and said "what you're doing is bad and possibly (in some cases, probably) sinful" that's not an attack on your character along the lines of "you think sin is a good thing and revel in spreading it and false ideas to others, and your professed beliefs are nothing but a cover to enable you to do so." I think what annoys me are baseless attacks on a person's conscience motives more than anything else.

Which may in fact be exactly what your last quote was getting at, and which I agree with. However, the motives are important and do effect things - the discussion has been on how certain motives, should they exist, do. I do not think we were trying to assign specific motives to specific people, though we may have guessed about certain motives that may exist within certain groups based on our knowledge/experience. I do see where you were coming from now though.

One can, of course, be angry with a non-existent object, at least in the sense of having an idea about that object that arouses anger. But, ex hypothesi, if the object does not exist, then anger fails to grasp it or to be directed towards it, just as any other sense perception would fail to connect with it...for the simple reason that there is nothing to connect to. I rather doubt that atheists are angry with God, as such. It seems to me much more likely that they are angry at religious people or religious communities, especially those they may once have belonged to or which may have played an important role in any earlier religious life they may have had (if any). Such anger might also extend to religious traditions, depictions of God, or the like, that belong to those communities.

Okay, actual atheist here.

First, I think I've seen the survey and some of the questions ask, for people who once believed but are now atheist, whether at the time they believed they ever felt angry towards God. So, there isn't necessarily an issue of people feeling angry with something they claim not to believe in.

Second, I have to say that my growth towards atheism wasn't caused by any trauma that I felt was caused or should have been prevented by a deity. For me at least, the more I thought and read about religious belief the less plausible it seemed to me.

Lastly, I've read comments from some here (and elsewhere, of course) that suggest that the existence of God is really obvious if one looks. I have to say, not to me. I remember being at a park admiring a very beautiful view. An older lady turned to me and said something about how could anyone look at that and deny the creator's hand in it (or words to that effect). Being a polite atheist, I didn't point out to her that what I saw was the work of water on certain types of rock and soil, and some very nice human effort in the landscaping. It was beautiful, but not a beauty that could only be created by some supernatural being. I'm not an astrophysicist, so I don't really have any theories as to how the universe began, but I'm okay with not knowing. Unlike Bill O'Reilly I don't think my lack of knowledge is somehow proof of God's intervention.

Martha

P.S. Moz, I'm sorry to hear that all of your atheist friends are so unhappy. Most of the atheists I know are pretty cheerful sorts who quite enjoy life.

Billy said:

"You were never mad at the myth of Zeus? For being a false image? Were you never annoyed at a cartoon? Even though the characters portrayed by them did not exist?"

You are referring to the suspension of disbelief which occupies us when we watch a movie, cartoon, play a game or read a book. One can be engrossed in the story and identify with the characters and be angry with them (e.g. at a villain who gets his way) or even sad when a favourite character is killed off. Such anger is short lived. One could be angry at the director or screenwriter for misinterpreting a character or the whole fictional story in the way some people were upset about the 60s Brothers Karamazov film being a rather poor rendition of the book. The latter idea is more likely to persist and is more rational.

I have never been angry at person I knew not to exist. It would be irrational and just never occurred to me, although I have been angry at many people and institutions my whole life. I have never really been angry at God however, but I believe in Him. I just don't blame Him for my shortcomings and the shortcomings of others.

Jacob said: "Obviously, we believe the truth is that God exists. Obviously again, therefore if someone disagrees with us we believe that he is wrong. This can be because either: 1) he's fooling himself, 2) he's lazy, or 3) invincible ignorance (ie wrong through no fault of his own) 4) something that isn't as bad as 1 or 2 but isn't quite 3. I tend to think that an honest reasoned un-prejudiced (but still, of course, wrong according to my beliefs) atheism would be part of group 3 (maybe 4, depending)."

Would you rather not put agnosticism in that category? Atheism by definition is the belief that there is no God as opposed to agnosticism which has no firm opinion either way - there may be a God and the subject is undecided either way. I guess one could think too concretely and exclude God because God's heavenly hands don't landscape gardens from clouds, God can't be found by telescope, we don't have a video of Jesus' Resurrection or one could be deceived by others into pseudo-skepticism about God. Atheism knows that there is no God. Often atheists brush off any further thinking about the matter. It's not even the idea that one concept is more or less plausible, it's just that there simply is no God and anything pointing towards God must be false by definition.

Christopher Hitchins once said that "not only do I not believe in God, Iwould be against any God that did exist". Now he may have been saying this for dramatic effect but I choose to take him at his word. Him saying this would seem to indicate that while intellectually he can find no cause to believe and many reasons to not believe these take a back seat to a visceral distain for even the idea of God. Assume, for a moment, that whatever he claims to be the source of his atheism , lack of convincing evidence, reams of examples of horrors committed by believers were all true he seems to be saying that even if they were not, he would not believe in or be against any God. When I heard him say this years ago on a program with Andrew Sullivan I understood why he said what he said in the first part. It was the second part that intrigued me because it pointed to reasons that were not apparent. I guess existential rebellion could have been part of it, Europe was rife with this kind of thing but the more I thought of it the answer seemed to come out of something more personnal. Maybe it was as mundane as he saw a God as an impediment to freedom, his freedom. In the end I concluded that I could not know. Your article addresses what I guessed to be the answer, anger rooted in who knows what and in all likelyhood only secondarily to his given reasons. Since he is one of the modern worlds leading faces of agressive atheism I'm inclined to think that his reasons are largely, if not exclusively, their reasons.

As an atheist, who was raised an atheist I find this an exceptionally strange concept. Both of my parents were raised religious, but quickly decided it was rubbish. I know loads of atheists, and the last thing they are is angry at god.

People who may be perceived to be angry at god are much more likely to in fact be angry at the ideology. Particularly if they have been agrieved by religion.

Now as for being able to be angry at something that doesn't exist? I get angry quite often at truly impossible characters in stories. When I hear OT stories for example, then I get mad at the charachter that is 'god', because he is so revered, but appears to lack any real morality.

Jacob - "Lets phrase things in a more neutral way: it is a moral failing to purposefully or negligently refrain from seeking the truth, whatever that may be, and it is a moral failing to purposefully or negligently skew your perception of the truth for whatever reason."

I'm on board with that, sure... but how do you square that with Romans 1:20? It seems a pretty blanket statement that all atheists are "without excuse"... and therefore I'm having a hard time seeing how you can think their atheism could, at least in some cases, not be a sin. They don't have an excuse, right?

Puragu - "Would you rather not put agnosticism in that category? Atheism by definition is the belief that there is no God as opposed to agnosticism which has no firm opinion either way - there may be a God and the subject is undecided either way."

Well, technically and historically agnosticism is the position that the existence of a deity is undecidable, not merely undecidable.

Martha
I've read comments ... that the existence of God is really obvious if one looks. I have to say, not to me. I remember being at a park admiring a very beautiful view. An older lady turned to me and said something about how could anyone look at that and deny the creator's hand in it ... I didn't point out to her that what I saw was the work of water on certain types of rock and soil

YOS
That is like listening to the Waldstein Sonata and hearing the work of vibrating strings on air waves. It is true, so far as it goes; but it does not go all that far.

Duh. "...undecidable, not merely undecidED." Apologies.

"... but how do you square that with Romans 1:20? It seems a pretty blanket statement that all atheists are "without excuse"..."

Rom 1:20 is preceded by Rom 1:18 which runs "18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of [this part --->] those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:[

"They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him."

No, actually, we get angry at liars such as you, who presume to know exactly what we believe with no actual knowledge or even research. Your only intent is to libel and demonize.

There is no "god" for us to be angry at. We can be angry at Christians who constantly lie about us, angry at the false doctrines of religion which compel the unbalanced to murder or simply justify their bad behavior. We can be angry at politicians who try to make religion-based laws which strip us of our rights and humanity. You see, those things are real, so we can be angry at them. "God" is not.

Perhaps you should try writing an objective article instead of starting from your own particular place of prejudice.

It seems that my last comment got truncated. Take two:

"... but how do you square that with Romans 1:20? It seems a pretty blanket statement that all atheists are "without excuse"..."

Rom 1:20 is preceded by Rom 1:18 which runs "18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of [this part --->] those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:[

Hmm. Perhaps there is a problem with the symbols in the original comment's text.

In any case, the "those men that detain the truth of God in injustice" from 1:18 (also translated as "those who suppress the truth by their wickedness" and could perhaps be read as "those who willfully remain ignorant of the truth") appears to limit the people discussed in Rom 1 to the intentionally ignorant as we've been discussing earlier. It is possible that I am misreading it, but I don't think so.

Two other things I would like to throw out there:

From Gaudium et Spes (the name's in Latin, so it must be good) via Catholic Answers:

"Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation . . . To the extent that they [believers] neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion. (19)"

That is, we can hardly expect everyone to believe what we teach if we go around messing it up all the time.

From Mathew, during judgment after Christ tells the righteous that they helped Him out a lot, "the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40)."

This is often presented as just another time when Christ is telling us to be generally decent people, but I think it is more than that. "The righteous" very specifically did not know that they were serving God. But they were. So it seems that it is possible to serve God without knowing it.

This is also where we link up with the idea of Salvation "Outside" the Church (where "outside" does not actually mean outside, but only that the membership in the Church did not come about in the standard way and is not visible to those of us on earth).

Since all that is good is from God, a person who decides to follow what he knows to be good is to some extent following God, even if he does not associate the two. Of course, the next question is "to what extent and to what end?" at which point we've come full circle and are back at the whole "it depends on what the person has accepted and why and a whole bunch of other stuff we can't know" thing.

Lowell
we get angry at liars

the false doctrines of religion which compel the unbalanced to murder or simply justify their bad behavior.

YOS
Is any of that anger self-directed?

YOS-"Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory
against observation. " Check out http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Ray-Valid as in logically correct vs. irrational behavior

Mike- Thanks for agreeing with me: "I have heard atheists claim they are all
about reason".

Emjay: Getting angry with characters in stories? That doesn't sound logical and
therefore falls short of being atheistic....

edmond - "Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation."

Ehhhh... not really. Resources are finite and have to be prioritized, and people simply MUST evaluate probabilities. Should we put some obstetrics research money into the Stork Theory?

As to "Valid as in logically correct vs. irrational behavior"... you also say "That doesn't sound logical and therefore falls short of being atheistic...." to Emjay.

Apparently you think that someone has to be 'all logical, all the time', or they can't claim to be an atheist? That's a really interesting idea... but you have to admit, it's pretty idiosyncratic. You don't have to be right about EVERYthing to be right about SOMEthing.

Besides, you haven't addressed the point about 'irrational' vs. 'nonrational'. I may not have a rational reason for preferring ice cream to pie... but if I do, then it's perfectly rational to choose ice cream for dessert. It would be irrational NOT to choose ice cream, in fact.

Another example. Looked at from a purely rational standpoint, there must be SOMEthing sexually attractive about guys. After all, billions of women throughout history have thought so. Me, I can't see, it; indeed, I can't really comprehend why the vast majority of women aren't lesbians.

Perhaps BOTH men and women are objectively sexually attractive, but most people have a gender-selective blindness? Or, perhaps neither men NOR women are 'really, rationally' sexually attractive, but most people have a specific delusion?

Anyway, since I do in fact find women sexually attractive, am I irrational for seeking congress with my wife?

Jacob - That's pretty clear, and sensible enough. It does, however, contradict Mr. Carter's position: "...I firmly believe all forms of atheism are instances of both vincible ignorance and an obstinacy of will..."

Mr. Carter, what do you think of what Jacob's written?

I do disagree with Mr. Carter on that point, yes. I'm sure atheists of that form exist, but I am hesitant to claim that all or any particular fall into that category.

I imagine that Mr. Carter and I do agree on the idea that whether or not the possibility exists that some people would "be ok" without it, we still should try to spread (what we see as, if I'm being tactful) the truth. It may, of course, be that our understanding of this sort of thing influences the way we go about this, but there you go.

Ray, you may disagree with the quote from the big bang being debunked, that's you
vs. 33 scientists, good luck!

On atheists being logical all the time, thanks for bringing that point out because
that's what atheists believe sets them apart from the faithful. As I said they premise
their very existence on logical processes. If atheists didn't hide behind the apron
strings of "if, then" how could they debunk the existence of God? By faith? or anger?

You claim"You don't have to be right about EVERYthing to be right about SOMEthing."

"A tree is known by its fruits" If you are right half the time your credibility is in
question. If you cannot muster enough logic to control your emotions then you are
either dr. jekyl or sister hyde. Duplicitous in short. So how do I know that an atheists logic is warped or not? By faith in the atheist or his logical prowess?

I don't need to get into non-rational, because the point I made is that atheists are
asflawed as anybody else. They cannot explain away irrational behavior but they
can, with bold strokes explain away God? Another unexplained phenomenon!

"you may disagree with the quote from the big bang being debunked, that's you
vs. 33 scientists, good luck!"

Of course, the Standard Model has the advantage of far more than 33 scientists supporting it. It may be wrong -- it is science, after all -- but it is not wrong because Fred Hoyle thought it sounded too much like a moment of creation and it was developed by a priest. As Fr. Lemaitre himself pointed out, the beginning of a space-time manifold is not the same thing as creation in any case.

The Steady State and the Oscillating Universe were the two main rivals, but they have been pretty much put to bed. The Big Bang does have the advantage of requiring far fewer imaginary and undetectable entities.

The weird thing is that I have seen here and there atheists defending the Big Bang because creationists disbelieve it; and here and elsewhere atheists declaring it debunked because religious folk accept it. Very peculiar. One might almost think that the science itself does not matter.

The natural position to take on any subject is unbelief until something has been proved. Therefore the natural position to take on the existence of God is atheism. After all we're all born atheists and would stay that way if it weren't for frightened delusional people forcing their absurd superstitions on their children. "If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending search for truth." - H.P Lovecraft. Theists are just people who never learned the art of critical thinking.

Belief in the Christian God also requires a belief in all of this God's invisible friends and enemies for which there also exists not a shred of evidence. Demons, devils, angels, seraphs, Satan, Jesus, talking animals, talking vegetation... it's all a big bunch of nonsense. You Christians are deluding yourselves if you think atheists actually believe that all or even any of these things actually exist. This article by Joe Carter is nothing more than a propaganda piece written by a very desperate and intellectually dishonest man.

YOS - "The weird thing is that I have seen here and there atheists defending the Big Bang because creationists disbelieve it; and here and elsewhere atheists declaring it debunked because religious folk accept it. Very peculiar. One might almost think that the science itself does not matter. "

I know. I've seen theists saying that all atheists are just being obstinate, and theists saying that atheists can be genuine seekers who just haven't found God yet. Almost like theology doesn't matter.

Oh, wait. Those weren't the *same* theists, those were *different* theists. Maybe they *were* being consistent, they simply disagreed!

But naturally, it's impossible that anything like that could conceivably apply to atheists.

edmond - "On atheists being logical all the time, thanks for bringing that point out because that's what atheists believe sets them apart from the faithful."

Er... uh... no.

Atheists aren't required to believe - and, er, generally *don't* believe - that they are "logical all the time". Mainly they believe they are being more logical than the theists about a particular subject - theism.

"If you are right half the time your credibility is in question."

Depends. If you're willing to work with other people who are also right half the time, *and* you can compare and test answers, the chances of getting the right answer rise - quite literally - exponentially.

"If you cannot muster enough logic to control your emotions then you are
either dr. jekyl or sister hyde. Duplicitous in short."

Just so you know, Mr. Spock is a character on a T.V. show. You might want to start with something simple: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

"So how do I know that an atheists logic is warped or not? By faith in the atheist or his logical prowess?"

No, by checking their logic. By either following the argument and deciding that the conclusions follow from the premises, or finding an error in the logic. Go to it, son, and good luck!

Ed says "Belief in the Christian God also requires a belief in all of this God's invisible friends and enemies for which there also exists not a shred of evidence. Demons, devils, angels, seraphs, Satan, Jesus, talking animals, talking vegetation... it's all a big bunch of nonsense. You Christians are deluding yourselves if you think atheists actually believe that all or even any of these things actually exist. This article by Joe Carter is nothing more than a propaganda piece written by a very desperate and intellectually dishonest man."

I have to admit that I'm somewhat amused.

Let me see if I get this. There seem to be two statements involved in your comment, though they are not clearly separated. The first, if I'm reading it correctly, is that "Christianity is nonsense and highly tangled up in intellectual dishonesty."

The second appears to be "shame on Christians for saying 'atheism is nonsense and highly tangled up in intellectual dishonesty'."

See why I'm amused?

If atheists are angry at something, it's not such a hypothesized metaphysical deity who would, defy human comprehension,

but rather those who claim to be privy to such a deity's thoughts and intents and then further claim to be acting on said deity's behalf.

There is a fundamental distinction between the two that is studiously avoided in the article.

That is one of the two intrinsic flaws, from the onset, in the line of argument of the author of the FT article.

As for unicorns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS3Olh9DnaE

YOS - "The weird thing is that I have seen here and there atheists defending the Big Bang because creationists disbelieve it; and here and elsewhere atheists declaring it debunked because religious folk accept it. Very peculiar. One might almost think that the science itself does not matter. "

Ray Ingles says:
I've seen theists saying that all atheists are just being obstinate, and theists saying that atheists can be genuine seekers who just haven't found God yet. Almost like theology doesn't matter.

YOS
Actually, there is no contradiction between someone being obstinate and someone being a seeker; not like there is between saying "scientists agree that the Standard Model is sound" and "scientists have debunked [sic] the Big Bang." Since the Big Bang is either essentially correct or not, while the obstinate man may be the most ardent seeker. (Or sought.) In the "theist" case, at least, one is not undermining the scientific enterprise in order to advance one's beliefs.

Jacob,
No I don't see why you are amused. Atheism is just a lack of belief in any gods. It isn't a big pack of lies disguising itself as a religion like Christianity is.

Ray do you speak for all the atheists? Yes, I gave the example of spock remember?
It was in caricature of what I observed atheists want to sound like to non-atheists.

Finding an error in their logic? That's just it Ray, if I do find errors in their logic what
does it do for them?

Ed said: "Theists are just people who never learned the art of critical thinking."

I believe that statements fits atheists better since critical thinking does not
happen past logical inference. There is little reflection possible because the thought
processes are stunted into logic, being the only perspectives. You can't forget the
big bang hoax which was backed by so many "critical thinkers". Perhaps the problem was that their critical thinking was not critical enough to explain something that could not be quantified by the human thought process.

So if you equate atheists with critical thinking and seem to be so smug about it, why
does the American Journal of Psychiatry report that higher suicide rates come from
non-theists.

"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and
more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a
religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral
objections to suicide." -Am J Psychiatry 161:2303-2308, December 2004

Too much critical thinking can be hazardous to your health!

Don't do it Pops! God loves you!

Edmund.

You said: I believe that statements fits atheists better since critical thinking does not happen past logical inference. There is little reflection possible because the thought processes are stunted into logic, being the only perspectives.

Response: What’s the alternative to logical thinking? Without logic we don't have a viable means for knowing the truth or arriving at sound beliefs. Without logic we can’t see through the lies of religion. Religion purposely stifles critical and independent thinking. The Bible is full of defenses against critical thinking and free inquiry.

You said: You can't forget the big bang hoax which was backed by so many "critical thinkers". Perhaps the problem was that their critical thinking was not critical enough to explain something that could not be quantified by the human thought process.

Response: What is the Big bang “hoax” exactly? Bible thunpers insisting another scientific discovery or theory is incorrect? That’s always a hoot. When have scientists ever had to revise one of their theories or hypotheses in the face of the never-ending denials and claims of Bible believers? Never, and they never will either.

You said: So if you equate atheists with critical thinking and seem to be so smug about it, why does the American Journal of Psychiatry report that higher suicide rates come from
non-theists.

"Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide." -Am J Psychiatry 161:2303-2308, December 2004

Response: There are studies posted on the Internet that show that children are under the greatest risk of sexual abuse, and women under the greatest risk of physical spousal abuse in fundamentalist Christian families than in any other. Look them up. It’s always interesting that Bible thunpers will question long-standing, well-established scientific explanations for things but when some survey comes along that seems to support their point of view they’ll accept that without any questions at all. After all, it’s supported by science! Don’t look now but your hypocrisy is showing. Again.

You said:Too much critical thinking can be hazardous to your health!

Response: That is open for debate. However, that too much religion is hazardous to your and everyone else’s health is not.

Ed says:
What’s the alternative to logical thinking?

YOS
It's not the alternative that's lacking; it's the extension. Too many folks stop with logic and do not pass on to reasoning. In fact, all too many stop short even of logic! That is why Aristotle wrote both the Prior Analytics and the Posterior Analytics.

Remember, it was Popper who pointed out that all of [natural] science was based on a logical fallacy: asserting the consequence.

Ed
Without logic we don't have a viable means for knowing the truth

YOS
Logic does not arrive at the truth. Logic enables us to make a valid argument, not necessarily a true one. A valid argument is true only if the premises are true.

Ed
Religion purposely stifles critical and independent thinking.

YOS
That explains all those treatises on logic and reason during the middle ages.

How logical is it to ignore the empirical evidences of history? To accept stereotypes and monistic theories of history rather than the local and particular details of actual events? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ed you said:"There are studies posted on the Internet that show that children are under the greatest risk of sexual abuse, and women under the greatest risk of physical spousal abuse in fundamentalist Christian families than in any other. Look them up. It’s always interesting that Bible thunpers will question long-standing, well-established scientific explanations for things but when some survey comes along that seems to support their point of view they’ll accept that without any questions at all. After all, it’s supported by science! Don’t look now but your hypocrisy is showing. Again."

Ed the "studies" you speak of would probably fall short of your standards as an
atheist. Remember, atheists worship at the feet of empirical data. The American
Journal of Psychiatry is a research journal that is crammed to the hilt with empirical
data, (in awe?) in fact that article I cited had eight doctors sign into it
(shudder please). So this is not a survey, it is (brace yourself!) scientific research. As for questioning scientific well established explanations, count on us to do that everytime scientists arrogate unto themselves the right to explain something they have not the faculties and competencies to fathom.

There is no hypocrisy in being prudent about the stuff you titrate into your brain, it is
an inalienable right of seeking right.

Science has its uses, it really just re-discovers and articulates what God has created
long before atheists existed to fail to appreciate His handiwork, that is about
all I think of it.

YOS: It's not the alternative that's lacking; it's the extension. Too many folks stop with logic and do not pass on to reasoning. In fact, all too many stop short even of logic! That is why Aristotle wrote both the Prior Analytics and the Posterior Analytics.

Response: All logic is reason, but not all reason conforms to the standards of logic because reason does not always follow a logical path. Sometimes people come to incorrect conclusions about the world. In the quest for knowledge and truth, logic is what gets us all speaking the same language and following the same directions.

YOS: Remember, it was Popper who pointed out that all of [natural] science was based on a logical fallacy: asserting the consequence.

Response: Creationists love to quote and misquote Karl Popper in their attacks on science but they ignore the fact that Popper later retracted his criticism after he learned that he was mistaken. Karl Popper was a philosopher not a scientist, but he demonstrated the scientific mindset because he changed his mind about a conclusion he reached once he was shown new information that contradicted his beliefs. This often isn't easy for people to do because no one likes to be wrong. However with a little work and humility, a person can learn to accept their own fallibility. We can contrast this with the creationists who love to cite Popper and make the same arguments. When confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs, the creationists always refuse to change their minds. Instead, they deny the evidence or rationalize ways to ignore anything they don't like. Creationists want to benefit from the thinking of Karl Popper without committing themselves the consequences of his skeptical, philosophical, and critical mindset. Of course the creationists have no idea what any of this means. Sad but true.

YOS: Logic does not arrive at the truth. Logic enables us to make a valid argument, not necessarily a true one. A valid argument is true only if the premises are true.

Response: That’s absurd. How do we know if an argument is valid without using logic? Obviously you don’t realize you are attempting to use a line of logic to prove an argument against logic! In other words you are using logic to disparage the value of logic. There is a term in philosophy to describe this. It is called "cheating". But let’s say there is some other method or source of data for discerning the truth about things. For instance suppose that the source of this data were divine revelation. Does this change the necessity of logic for validating it? Nope. Even if the data is divine, the mind must correlate it with reality for it to be understood or believed.

YOS: That explains all those treatises on logic and reason during the middle ages.

Response: You’re kidding right? Those Christian writings are study in anti-logic and flawed reasoning. For example the First Cause argument is moronic. "Ockham's razor," is the principle that led to a breakdown in the supposedly harmonious relationship between theology and philosophy envisioned by Aquinas, Scotus and other Christian theologians.

YOS: How logical is it to ignore the empirical evidences of history? To accept stereotypes and monistic theories of history rather than the local and particular details of actual events? Inquiring minds want to know.

Response: You tell me. There is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed yet you ignore these facts and believe this figure was a real person. Without using the Bible but only “historical” sources tell me all you can about Jesus of Nazareth. Since the town of Nazareth didn’t even exist in the first century this should be really entertaining.

Ed the "studies" you speak of would probably fall short of your standards as an atheist.

Response: Well at least you acknowledge that we atheists have higher standards than believers and this is especially true in the field of ethics and morals. The studies I speak of are scientific studies. Why do you uncritically accept science that seems to support your presuppositions and automatically deny any study that seems to refute them? Religious brainwashing perhaps?

Remember, atheists worship at the feet of empirical data.

Response: Atheists don’t worship anything. Worship is degrading.

The American Journal of Psychiatry is a research journal that is crammed to the hilt with empirical data, (in awe?) in fact that article I cited had eight doctors sign into it (shudder please). So this is not a survey, it is (brace yourself!) scientific research. As for questioning scientific well established explanations, count on us to do that everytime scientists arrogate unto themselves the right to explain something they have not the faculties and competencies to fathom.

Response: What makes you qualified to criticize the work of scientists? Bible thumpers have been fighting science ever since the Bible was voted on by men to be the Bible. I shouldn’t have to remind you that Bible thumpers have been on the wrong side of every scientific discovery and theory of the last 2000 years even the ones made by other Christians. When have scientists ever had to revise one of their theories in the face of denials by Bible believers? Never and they never will. Frustrating isn’t it?

There is no hypocrisy in being prudent about the stuff you titrate into your brain, it is an inalienable right of seeking right.

Response: Your problem is that you certain OTHER PEOPLE put stuff into your brain.

Science has its uses, it really just re-discovers and articulates what God has created long before atheists existed to fail to appreciate His handiwork, that is about all I think of it.

Response: What an ingrate! If it weren’t for science and in particular our knowledge of evolution by natural selection you would very likely be dead already from some disease that has since been rendered extinct or at least curable by evolutionary biologists in the last 120 years. That’s right, our knowledge of evolution by natural selection has doubled the human lifespan in the last 120 years. And our knowledge of science has proved the Christian God does not exist and that Jesus Christ never existed. No wonder you hate and fear science.

Edmond - "Ray do you speak for all the atheists?"

Nope. I'm pointing out that *you* don't, either. You set standards for atheists that not all of them (and heck, in my experience, *none* of them) actually claim or espouse.

YOS - "Actually, there is no contradiction between someone being obstinate and someone being a seeker; not like there is between saying 'scientists agree that the Standard Model is sound' and 'scientists have debunked [sic] the Big Bang.'"

Those *positions* are contradictory, sure... but to have self-contradiction, the *same person* needs to espouse both.

Mr. Carter imputes moral failure to all atheists. Jacob thinks people can be atheists without a sin on their part. Those positions are contradictory, but neither of them is being inconsistent.

Likewise, some atheists are down with the Standard Model, and some diss it. But only an (at this point hypothetical) atheist that *both* espoused the Standard Model *and* derided it would be hypocritical.

Your observation was that you'd seen some atheists say one thing and other atheists say something else. I'm sure this is true... but the relevance of it is, er, rather small.

I'm beginning to suspect that the exchange between Ed and YOS is a put on.

Ed keeps lofting ignorant softballs for YOS to hit out of the park!

It's just an Abbot & Costello routine, right?

Tell the truth, boys.

Ed:
There is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed yet you ignore these facts and believe this figure was a real person. Without using the Bible but only “historical” sources tell me all you can about Jesus of Nazareth.

Andre:
The New Testament is a compilation of 27 different historical documents, generally believed to have been composed by 8 separate authors. So what you are asking for is a 28th document composed by a 9th author?

OK. How about Josephus....I know, now you are going to ask for a 29th document by a 10th author, right?

I believe Tacitus mentions Christ too...as do a number of other pagan sources...I forget the others, but yes, the list is finite, and we would eventually reach it's end, at which point you would probably say "See? Not shred of historical evidence."

Joe, being and Atheist myself and spending so much of my time with a community of Atheists, I can assure you that we are not angry at any purported deity. Many of us are, however, angry at religion for its continuing work to keep people ignorant of the facts, or worse, to fill heads (usually children's heads) with unevidenced opinion as if fact, or yet even worse, to preach what is known to be false as fact. We don't hate your deity any more than we hate Thor; that is, any more than you would hate Thor when the idea that Thor is real was being forced upon you.

Never been angry at god, even when I believed... Now I feel sad for god because it doesn't have freewill and I have...

Ed:
Creationists love to quote and misquote Karl Popper in their attacks on science but they ignore the fact that Popper later retracted his criticism after he learned that he was mistaken.

YOS
Popper never "retracted" his demolition of logical positivism. Today even scientists declare a proposition "scientific" iff it is "falsifiable." And everyone now agrees that [natural] science leads only to tentative conclusions, and not to certainty. From no finite set of consequential facts can you draw a certain theoretical conclusion. That is:

IF (Theory) THEN (fact, fact, fact...) AND confirmation of (fact, fact, fact...) does NOT prove (Theory)
really is the fallacy of asserting the consequence.

+ + +

Ed:
Creationists want to benefit from the thinking of Karl Popper without committing themselves the consequences of his skeptical, philosophical, and critical mindset.

YOS
I doubt too many creationists have even heard of Popper. Or that many anti-creationists grasp his critique.
+ + +

YOS: Logic does not arrive at the truth. Logic enables us to make a valid argument, not necessarily a true one. A valid argument is true only if the premises are true.

Ed:
That’s absurd. How do we know if an argument is valid without using logic?

YOS
Read it again. Logic is precisely what we use to establish the formal validity of an argument. (However, another atheist on this board earlier questioned whether logic would be valid earlier or elsewhere in the universe, so you see to what extremes fervid belief may drive someone.) But, as many atheists have asserted elsewhere, a valid argument need not be true. But apparently this is something that may be either denounced or asserted, depending on the argumentum ab hodie.

An example is:
1. All humans are green.
2. Ed is a human.
/: Ed is green.

This is a perfectly valid argument; but it is not true. At least, I don't think it is true. IOW, we need "material logic," we need "facts" (which are not always evident), we need a "metaphysic" (under which the facts "make sense," which indeed informs us as to which facts are relevant and important to gather), and above all we need reason.
+ + +

Ed:
Obviously you don’t realize you are attempting to use a line of logic to prove an argument against logic!

YOS:
Obviously you don’t realize that I was not making an argument against logic!

+ + +
Ed:
But let’s say there is some other method or source of data for discerning the truth about things.

YOS
Logic is not a source of data. It is a way of handling the data formally.
+ + +

Ed:
suppose that the source of this data were divine revelation. Does this change the necessity of logic for validating it? Nope. Even if the data is divine, the mind must correlate it with reality for it to be understood or believed.

YOS
Read the Summa Theologica and you will realize that folks realized that a long time ago.

(You realize, too, that other atheists have argued that the mind does not exist.)
+ + +

YOS: That explains all those treatises on logic and reason during the middle ages.

Ed:
You’re kidding right? Those Christian writings are study in anti-logic and flawed reasoning. For example the First Cause argument is moronic.

YOS
Is "the First Cause argument is moronic" one of thos logical arguments of which you spoke? Please demonstrate using logic that the argument is "moronic." Or do you mean that Dawkins' distorted version is moronic, in which case I'll agree.

Also discuss the curriculum of that great medieval invention, the university. What subjects constituted the entire undergraduate curriculum?
+ + +

Ed:
"Ockham's razor," is the principle that led to a breakdown in the supposedly harmonious relationship between theology and philosophy envisioned by Aquinas, Scotus and other Christian theologians.

YOS
You seem obviously unaware that Thomas Aquinas and the others used the metaphysical Principle of Parsimony long before it was tagged with the name of a Franciscan monk. I'm going to make a self-bet that you cannot even state the principle as Br. Ockham used it and its context.

BTW, you realize that Ockham's Eraser is not provable by means of [natural] science. Or for that matter that the nominalism that his followers developed is subversive of the entire scientific enterprise.
+ + +

YOS: How logical is it to ignore the empirical evidences of history? To accept stereotypes and monistic theories of history rather than the local and particular details of actual events? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ed: You tell me. There is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed yet you ignore these facts and believe this figure was a real person. Without using the Bible but only “historical” sources tell me all you can about Jesus of Nazareth.

YOS
Oddly, there is no serious historian of the era who takes the "Jesus Myth" legend seriously. It seems to exist primarily on the Internet, among people who credulously believe their favored sites. Even atheist historians roll their eyes when the cranks come out. Without using Cato the Elder, tell me all you can about Hannibal of Carthage. Without using Porphyry, tell me all you can about Plotinus. Without using Plato, tell me all you can about Socrates. There are virtually no historical sources for anyone from ancient times, let alone accounts of carpenters or other working men among conquered peoples. But that you may be made happy, here is one brief mention:

Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.
-- C. Cornelius Tacitus, Annala, Liber XIV

However, your tu quoque to the side, I had more in mind the legends and myths of the Early Modern Ages regarding events of the past. As Norman Cantor, the eminent medievalist, once wrote: their accounts tell us more about the concerns of the Early Modern Age than about the Middle Ages themselves. The same may be true about modern atheists who, in their need to deny God, begin to deny all sorts of other things.

"One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who has the lack of common sense to hang around on atheist discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level." -- Tim O'Neil at Armarium Magnus 2009/10

I think O'Neil is an optimist and many of the atheists who worship something they call Science have not actually studied, let alone practiced it.

I really would like to hate a god. Hate, they say, is better than being ignored. So I try and find this god to hate.

I look through the scriptures and see a burning bush, a carver of stones, then a wise man begging his father for reprieve from mortality. But then I peer more closely at the cross and see only echoes of Amen-Ra, Mithras, Dionysus, beneath Alexander's halo.

I look in my mind but I find no trace of soul sitting and watching a reality show in the Cartesian Theatre. As the Buddha would say - not-I, not-self, anatta.

I look for this god in science and see the elegant dance of atoms with no space for spirit, just the natural miracle of mindless matter falling gently through billennia.

I look for this god in philosophy but I see only the poetry of reason and the beauty of logic, and so the corrupting folly of theology.

The hate is gone. I can no more hate god than I could show anger at Santa. I don't believe, and so I am the one reprieved; I'm free, of immortality. My life has meaning because it will end, with a full stop, not an eternal sentence.

Steve
I look in my mind but I find no trace of soul sitting and watching a reality show in the Cartesian Theatre.

YOS
What can you expect? Descartes was a scientist and he got it all wrong.

Steve
I peer more closely at the cross and see only echoes of Amen-Ra, Mithras, Dionysus, beneath Alexander's halo.

YOS
How do you "see" and "echo"? You also need to learn more about Egyptian religions, Mithraism, the Bacchanal, and artistic conventions. Perhaps you did not peer closely enough?

YOS,
Wow! Thanks for all the attention to my post. I’m married with children and I usually just post comments on Christian blogs so I’m not used to anyone paying any attention to anything I say.

YOS: Popper never "retracted" his demolition of logical positivism. Today even scientists declare a proposition "scientific" iff it is "falsifiable." And everyone now agrees that [natural] science leads only to tentative conclusions, and not to certainty. From no finite set of consequential facts can you draw a certain theoretical conclusion.

Response: Right. Science has proof without certainty and creationism has certainty without any proof.

That is: IF (Theory) THEN (fact, fact, fact...) AND confirmation of (fact, fact, fact...) does NOT prove (Theory) really is the fallacy of asserting the consequence.

Response: We don’t need to prove things absolutely. We can prove them with a high enough degree of certainty that we don’t need to worry of we are incorrect unless we see some new evidence that we are. Otherwise we could never get on with our lives.

YOS: I doubt too many creationists have even heard of Popper. Or that many anti-creationists grasp his critique.

Response: Anti-creationists? That would include almost 7 billion people although most of them have never even heard of creationism. Creationism, like Mormonism is pretty much an American version of Christianity.

YOS: Logic is not a source of data. It is a way of handling the data formally.

Response: Read what I said again. I didn’t say logic was source I said it was a method.

(You realize, too, that other atheists have argued that the mind does not exist.)

Response: Atheists are just people who don’t believe in any gods. What do you think the word for a person who doesn’t believe in minds would be?

YOS: Is "the First Cause argument is moronic" one of thos logical arguments of which you spoke? Please demonstrate using logic that the argument is "moronic." Or do you mean that Dawkins' distorted version is moronic, in which case I'll agree.

Response: Here’s just one of the many problems with this argument. The First cause argument is based on the assumption that universe was created ex- nihilo – out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that? We have well-confirmed empirical observations that mass-energy cannot appear ex-nihilo. Until we get some contradicting evidence we can safely assume our universe of mass-energy always existed in one form or another. Something creationists never seem to realize however is that arguments are not evidence, and in these types of discussions they’re a good indication that the person presenting the argument has no evidence. The cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from morality – are all arguments, not evidence and a very good indication that there isn’t any evidence.

Also discuss the curriculum of that great medieval invention, the university. What subjects constituted the entire undergraduate curriculum?

Response: Well right now other than at Jerry Falwell U., every private Christian college and university in the world with a science department teaches evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology, old earth geology and a lot of other science you seem to have a big problem with. Any comment?

YOS: You seem obviously unaware that Thomas Aquinas and the others used the metaphysical Principle of Parsimony long before it was tagged with the name of a Franciscan monk. I'm going to make a self-bet that you cannot even state the principle as Br. Ockham used it and its context.

Response: Who cares? It’s how this principle is applied today that matters.

BTW, you realize that Ockham's Eraser is not provable by means of [natural] science. Or for that matter that the nominalism that his followers developed is subversive of the entire scientific enterprise.

Response: Eraser? Scientific method hasn’t been “proved” either. In science things don’t have to be proved, they have to be useful. Ockham’s razor (or eraser - whatever) has proved itself to be useful, as has scientific method.

YOS: Oddly, there is no serious historian of the era who takes the "Jesus Myth" legend seriously. It seems to exist primarily on the Internet, among people who credulously believe their favored sites. Even atheist historians roll their eyes when the cranks come out.

Response: This is a mixture of logical fallacies known as “An Appeal to Authority” and “Ad homenim” (the use of the words “legend”, “crank”, “credulously” and sadly “Internet”). No serious historian will touch the Jesus story because historians need evidence to write their accounts and there isn’t any evidence for a historical Jesus. I know I are one. Or at least my degree says I are. It’s from a private Christian college (where I failed Freshman English) so it must be true.

Without using Cato the Elder, tell me all you can about Hannibal of Carthage.

Response: Cicero and Livy tell us that Hannibal was extremely cruel.

Without using Porphyry, tell me all you can about Plotinus.

Response: I think Eunapius wrote about Plotinus also.

Without using Plato, tell me all you can about Socrates.

Response: Nothing, because Socrates is a fictional character, a mouthpiece for Plato’s own ideas. If you knew how to discern the difference between fiction writing and history writing in antiquity you would know this too.

There are virtually no historical sources for anyone from ancient times, let alone accounts of carpenters or other working men among conquered peoples. But that you may be made happy, here is one brief mention:

Response: I’d be happy if Christians would stop insisting that there is extra-biblical evidence for a historical Jesus. If there really was we wouldn’t get smokescreens like this:

Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.
-- C. Cornelius Tacitus, Annala, Liber XIV

Response: That’s the best you can do? Tacitus wasn’t even born until several decades after Jesus was supposedly crucified. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time, so the passage, even if it were genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus’ existence. Except that there isn’t any evidence for it.

However, your tu quoque to the side, I had more in mind the legends and myths of the Early Modern Ages regarding events of the past. As Norman Cantor, the eminent medievalist, once wrote: their accounts tell us more about the concerns of the Early Modern Age than about the Middle Ages themselves.

Response: I’m a history major. I got my degree from a private Christian college. The non-historian never seems to understand that the past no longer exists for us and history belongs to those who wrote it.

The same may be true about modern atheists who, in their need to deny God, begin to deny all sorts of other things.

Response: What sorts of things do atheists deny exactly? Do you mean like angels, demons, Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell, seraphs, talking animals and vegetation and the rest of the things Christians believe in besides the various versions of God described in the Bible? What do atheists deny besides those particular superstitions may I ask?

"One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who has the lack of common sense to hang around on atheist discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level." -- Tim O'Neil at Armarium Magnus 2009/10

Response: Some historians and literary critics know the difference between historical narratives and fictional narratives. Historical narratives never contain word for word dialogs or conversations between people, people and talking animals or vegetation, people and angels or people and a god, all speaking in complete sentences. Only fictional narratives contain these kinds of conversations. This is how historians and literary critics know the Bible is fiction. When we hold the Bible to standard literary criticism it fails every test for historicity there is and passes all the tests for fiction with flying colors.

I think O'Neil is an optimist and many of the atheists who worship something they call Science have not actually studied, let alone practiced it.

Response: I doubt many atheists worship anything that isn’t dressed in full pirate regalia. As for your problems with science, when have Bible believers ever NOT had a problem with the latest scientific discovery, hypothesis or theory?

Andre,
The purpose of the Second Book of John is to warn believers about people who were saying Jesus never even existed. In other words people were denying the existence of Jesus Christ pretty much as soon as it was asserted. Any comment?

Ed
The purpose of the Second Book of John is to warn believers about people who were saying Jesus never even existed. In other words people were denying the existence of Jesus Christ pretty much as soon as it was asserted. Any comment?

Andre
Well, I'm certainly not a New Testament scholar (hah!), but I'm fairly certain that your characterization of 2 John is inaccurate. The false teachings that John was warning of was the heresy of Docetism, which maintained that the crucified Christ had not risen in the flesh but that he had only risen in the spirit. The controversy was about Jesus's nature, but no one had disputed that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, had lived and had been crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Ed
...our knowledge of science has proved.... that Jesus Christ never existed.

Andre
Oh really? I must have missed that episode of Nova...please provide the details.


Ed
...our knowledge of evolution by natural selection has doubled the human lifespan in the last 120 years.

Andre
Huh, whad'ya know, and I would have bet the farm that most of the credit would have gone to the Germ Theory of Disease and the ensuing improvements in personal hygiene and public sanitation. Please explain in detail how I was so mistaken.

Ed
...when have Bible believers ever NOT had a problem with the latest scientific discovery, hypothesis or theory?

Andre
Well, for starters, how about when they were the ones who first proposed them?

Just off the top of my head:Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo (yes, THAT Galileo): all "Bible believers".

Mendal, the father of genetics, was an Augustinian monk.

Lemaitre, who was the first to propose what eventually came to be known as the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest.

The list could go on and on and on. YOS could provide a much more comprehensive accounting. Sorry to be treading on your turf, YOS (I am not worthy...)

Andre: Well, I'm certainly not a New Testament scholar (hah!), but I'm fairly certain that your characterization of 2 John is inaccurate. The false teachings that John was warning of was the heresy of Docetism, which maintained that the crucified Christ had not risen in the flesh but that he had only risen in the spirit.

Response: Read verse 7. In the Greek it talks about Jesus coming into the world in the flesh. It says nothing at all about any dying and rising again in any form. Don’t you think you should have read the Bible and found out what it really said BEFORE you let other people convince you that you must believe it or else? I’m not surprised. Studies show that the average Christian fundamentalist has only read about 10 percent of the text of the Bible.

The controversy was about Jesus's nature, but no one had disputed that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, had lived and had been crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Response: Nazareth wasn’t even a town in the first century and history knows nothing of Pontius Pilate.

Andre: Oh really? I must have missed that episode of Nova...please provide the details.

Response: Well since you missed the History Channel’s show about the non-existence of Jesus Christ may I suggest The Messiah Myth by Thomas Thompson, The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur or a visit to Jesusneverexisted.com?

Andre
Huh, whad'ya know, and I would have bet the farm that most of the credit would have gone to the Germ Theory of Disease and the ensuing improvements in personal hygiene and public sanitation. Please explain in detail how I was so mistaken.

Response: The ancient historical view was that disease was spontaneously generated instead of being created by microorganisms that grow by reproduction. It was from our discovery of natural selection that we learned how diseases grow, how they evolve and what we must do to eradicate them.

Ed
...when have Bible believers ever NOT had a problem with the latest scientific discovery, hypothesis or theory?

Andre: Well, for starters, how about when they were the ones who first proposed them?

Response: Up until the 17th century if a person became ill in Europe, there wasn’t much use in turning to the “physicians” of the time, since illnesses were supposedly God’s punishment and not anything to be tampered with. The application of herbs and other supposed healing remedies were subject to harsh penalties from the Church. At the same time in the Arabic hemisphere, medical science flourished together with several other sciences, inspired by the thinkers of Antiquity and their works. While the Christian church either burned or hid away the great works of the “pagan” Greek and Roman minds, the same works were widely read, used and preserved in the Arabic world. So it’s the Arabic world that actually saved the remains of Antiquity’s great intellectual legacy. It is the Arabic world, NOT the Christian world that led the modern scientific movement. The works of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) one of the foremost philosophers and medical practitioners of Islamic tradition were published in 1020 and later translated into Latin, greatly influencing the European "reawakening" after the Dark Ages and this had a lasting impact on medical history. Those are the facts and they are very easy to verify.

Just off the top of my head:Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo (yes, THAT Galileo): all "Bible believers".

Response: You’re talking about men who professed Christianity when one either did that or faced harassment, persecution, arrest, torture and murder – from Bible believers. Now Bible believers and the Church persecuted each of the scientists you mentioned and the Church denied their findings or in the case of Copernicus hid them for decades. "...In the discussion of natural problems we ought not to begin with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations." - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Do you agree with Galileo, Andre? Nope. See, you Bible believers are STILL disagreeing with Galileo to this day!

Mendal, the father of genetics, was an Augustinian monk.

Response: Mendel's work was rejected at first, and it was not widely accepted until after he died. At that time most biologists held the idea of blending inheritance. Mendel's ideas were rediscovered in the early twentieth century when Mendelian genetics were combined with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Sorry but you can’t have Mendel without Darwin.

Lemaitre, who was the first to propose what eventually came to be known as the Big Bang theory, was a Catholic priest.

Response: Lemaitre also accepted evolution by natural selection as the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. How do you like him now?

The list could go on and on and on. YOS could provide a much more comprehensive accounting. Sorry to be treading on your turf, YOS (I am not worthy...)

Response: Oh please. The list of scientists that have been persecuted by Christians reads like a Who is Who of science.

Tone says:
I'm beginning to suspect that the exchange between Ed and YOS is a put on.

Ed keeps lofting ignorant softballs for YOS to hit out of the park!

Response: Strike Three!

YOS: Logic is not a source of data. It is a way of handling the data formally.

Ed: Read what I said again. I didn’t say logic was source I said it was a method.

YOS
What you wrote was "But let’s say there is some other method **or source of data** for discerning the truth about things." What is the subject predicated as the "source of data"?
+ + +

Ed:
Here’s just one of the many problems with this [First Cause] argument. The First cause argument is based on the assumption that universe was created ex- nihilo – out of nothing.

YOS
See? You do not even know what the arguments are based on. The first is based on the fact that there is motion in the world [Gr. kinesis includes all motions, not merely motion of location]. The second is based on the ordering of efficient causes. The first leads to an Unmoved Mover, the second to an Uncaused Cause. Neither argument even assumes the universe is even finite in time.

+ + +
Ed:
We have well-confirmed empirical observations that mass-energy cannot appear ex-nihilo. Until we get some contradicting evidence we can safely assume our universe of mass-energy always existed in one form or another.

YOS
That's weird. Previous atheists right here have argued precisely that mass-energy *does* appear out of nothing, vaguely citing "quantum physics." I guess being ever so rational takes a toll.
+ + +
Ed:
all *arguments*, not evidence and a very good indication that there isn’t any evidence.

YOS
But so what, even if true? The same charge can be laid against mathematics. There is no physical measurement you can perform that will demonstrate the value of pi, or the irrationality of SQRT(2), or that a function space topology is both conjoining and splitting on S^Y iff Y is locally fully compact, where S is the Sierpinski space.
+ + +

YOS: What subjects constituted the entire undergraduate curriculum [of the medieval university]?

Ed: Well right now other than at Jerry Falwell U., every private Christian college and university in the world with a science department teaches evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology, old earth geology and a lot of other science you seem to have a big problem with. Any comment?

YOS
a) You dodged the actual question.
b) What empirical evidence do you have that I "have a big problem with" any of that? The only one on the board who argued that the Big Bang was "debunked" was, IIRC, an atheist.
c) Now: what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?
+ + +
YOS: I'm going to make a self-bet that you cannot even state the principle as Br. Ockham used it and its context.

Ed:
Who cares? It’s how this principle is applied today that matters.

YOS
It always matters when folks get things wrong and/or misuse them. Especially a thing that is not even an "argument", let alone "evidence."
+ + +

YOS: you realize that Ockham's Eraser is not provable by means of [natural] science.

Ed:
Eraser? Scientific method hasn’t been “proved” either. In science things don’t have to be proved, they have to be useful. Ockham’s razor (or eraser - whatever) has proved itself to be useful, as has scientific method.

YOS
IOW, there really are things you accept on faith. And based on nothing more than naked utilitarianism, no less! Oddly enough, that's what they told Galileo: his theory was simply a useful set of calculations that were marginally easier to perform; but there was no empirical evidence that it was physically true.

The medievals used razors to scrape the parchment clean or to scrape off errors; hence: razor->eraser. Its use for the Principle of Parsimony was metaphorical.

Ed:
[That no serious historian of the era takes the "Jesus Myth" legend seriously] is a mixture of logical fallacies known as “An Appeal to Authority”

YOS
First consider the distinction between formal logic and material logic. Appeal to authority is no more a formal fallacy than is a reference in a scientific paper. Whether it is a material fallacy depends on the authority. It goes to credibility. To cite Einstein or Lemaitre on general relativity is perfectly fine. But to cite Dawkins on a matter of philosophy or Einstein on barbecue sauce would not be, as there is no reason to suppose them any better informed on such things than Joe Schmoe from Kokomo. Here we have: "professional historians" vs. "Internet cranks." You really think that is a tough call?
+ + +

Ed: my degree ... from a private Christian college

YOS
Let me guess: a fundamentalist one?
+ + +
YOS
Without using Cato the Elder, tell me all you can about Hannibal of Carthage. Without using Porphyry, tell me all you can about Plotinus. Without using Plato, tell me all you can about Socrates.

Ed:
Cicero and Livy tell us that Hannibal was extremely cruel. I think Eunapius wrote about Plotinus also. Socrates is a fictional character...

YOS
Cicero was born seventy some years and Livy a century and a quarter after the supposed Hannibal allegedly died. They depended on Cato's work for their knowledge. Did you know there is not a single Cathaginian record that mentions Hannibal?

Eunapius was another supposed disciple of the mythic Plotinus. That's like citing John in support of Mark.

Re Socrates: Apparently other historians have not caught on to this gnosis of yours. Curious: Why you are a Socrates-denier, but not a Plotinus-denier or a Hannibal-denier?
+ + +

Ed
Tacitus wasn’t even born until several decades after Jesus was supposedly crucified.

YOS
But that is closer in time than Livy and Cicero to Hannibal. Yet you confidently accept the latter and derisively dismiss the former. Very curious. This leads to suspicion that you start with the conclusion you want to reach, and then deploy whatever "evidence" falls to hand.

Did you know that James M. McPherson was born as many decades after the US Civil War as Cicero after Hannibal - roughly 70+ years later? Whereas Tacitus was born a mere 23 years later than the events of the Crucifiction? IOW, there would have been middle-aged men in his day who had been young legionairres or quaestors at the time.

YOS posted: [[Steve:
I look in my mind but I find no trace of soul sitting and watching a reality show in the Cartesian Theatre.

YOS:
What can you expect? Descartes was a scientist and he got it all wrong. ]]

YOS, "Cartesian Theatre" is a term of art in brain science. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

It has nothing to do with what Descartes got right or wrong.

Ed, your posts are so full of inaccuracies, half-truths, and completely unwarranted and erroneous assumptions, that I don't quite know where to begin!

In no particular order:

Ed
Nazareth wasn’t even a town in the first century and history knows nothing of Pontius Pilate.

Andre
The truth is that both of those statements represent fringe theories rejected by the majority of professional historians and archeologists who judge the weight of the currently existing evidence, though limited, as defeating both of them.
That you would so misleadingly and dogmatically present them as somehow solidly established irrefutable facts, indicates to me that you are not an honest seeker of the truth, but rather more an angry partisan with a chip on his shoulder(yawn).

It may be an unwarranted and possibly elitist prejudice on my part, but citing the sensationalist Pop History Channel and websites like jesusneverexisted.com, only reduces your credibility in my eyes ( I'm sure you are devastated).

It is hardly surprising that a small insignificant town like Nazareth should go so largely unnoticed by the wide world. If not for it's association with Christ, then it probably would have remained completely forgotten, as presumably countless other small towns and hamlets throughout world history have been. Archeological evidence shows various levels of human habitation there over thousands of years. If there is currently a paucity of uncovered artifacts that can be definitively dated to the exact decades of the Gospel accounts, then that is ,at least, just as likely to confirm the veracity of the Gospels descriptions of what a nowheresville it was, as it is to indicate the far less likely alternative that it was completely uninhabited at that time.

It is interesting to observe that in the quote provided in an earlier post by YOS, Tacitus mentions Pilate by name, identifying him as the Prefect of Judea at the time of Christ's crucifixion. As a Roman Senator and historian, who lived most of his life in the very same century as Christ and Pilate, he would certainly have been in an excellent position to comment on the veracity of the Christian account. Now it could be argued that he may have been just repeating the Christian accounts verbatim without caring or bothering to check the details, but at least we can safely say that he didn't challenge them on that point. He,at least, found no reason to doubt the existence of Pilate. It is perhaps unfortunate for him that you weren't available back then to set him straight.

Google search "Pilate stone" for a recent(1963) archeological discovery confirming the historical existence of Pontius Pilate.


Ed
The ancient historical view was that disease was spontaneously generated instead of being created by microorganisms that grow by reproduction. It was from our discovery of natural selection that we learned how diseases grow, how they evolve and what we must do to eradicate them.

Andre
The basic frame work of the germ theory was formed well before Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. As early as 1668, the Jesuit educated Francesco Redi devised experiments to disprove the spontaneous generation theory. You did say you had a degree in History, did you not? I'm guessing it was not in the History of Science.


Ed
In the Greek it talks about Jesus coming into the world in the flesh. It says nothing at all about any dying and rising again in any form. Don’t you think you should have read the Bible and found out what it really said BEFORE you let other people convince you that you must believe it or else?

Andre
You are certainly free to interpret any particular Bible passage in any way you desire, in whatever creatively novel or contrarily revisionist way best suits your particular agenda, but I am rather more interested in how the early Church interpreted this passage, and in that context I can find no evidence that it was not interpreted exactly as I portrayed it. If you have actual evidence (other than your assertion) to the contrary, I would be delighted to consider it.



Ed
Studies show that the average Christian fundamentalist has only read about 10 percent of the text of the Bible.

Andre
O.K....I'm sure that's very interesting, but I fail to see what relevance it has to our discussion.


Ed
Don’t you think you should have read the Bible and found out what it really said BEFORE you let other people convince you that you must believe it or else?

Andre
That strikes me as a very strange comment for someone to make in this context. If I had been the one who had first cited 2 John, I would naturally assume that the first thing you would probably do is to go and read it (or re-read, as the case may be). And yet you make a completely different assumption, as if it would not even occur to me to read the original source material cited. Weird. What a bizarre mental world you seem to inhabit.

I suppose the direct answer to your question would be Yes, of course, why would it ever even occur to you that I wouldn't do that?

But of course I wouldn't stop there. I would not just assume that by merely reading a Biblical passage that I completely understood it. My next step would be, and in fact was, to do at least a brief, preliminary survey, (as much as time and circumstance allow) of learned exegesis on the text in question so that I may begin to get some idea of the background and context of the passage. It was as a result of that exercise that I stated:

"The false teachings that John was warning of was the heresy of Docetism, which maintained that the crucified Christ had not risen in the flesh but that he had only risen in the spirit. "

I stand by that statement. If I am in error I shall graciously accept and appreciate your correction, but it will require that you provide evidence and argument, not just "Well I read it too and I think it means something else".



Ed
Up until the 17th century if a person became ill in Europe, there wasn’t much use in turning to the “physicians” of the time, since illnesses were supposedly God’s punishment and not anything to be tampered with.

Andre
From Wikipedia (I know, I know...but it's quick): "Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances."
Looks like there might be a little more to the story than your simplistic cartoon version.


Ed
The application of herbs and other supposed healing remedies were subject to harsh penalties from the Church.

Andre
Prove it.
(and no; "But I've seen it portrayed that way in countless Hollywood movies." doesn't count as proof.)


Ed
The works of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) one of the foremost philosophers and medical practitioners of Islamic tradition were published in 1020 and later translated into Latin...

Andre
Gee, I wonder who translated it into Latin?


Ed
Lemaitre also accepted evolution by natural selection as the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. How do you like him now?

Andre
I offered Lemaitre (and others) in answer to your question "...when have Bible believers ever NOT had a problem with the latest scientific discovery, hypothesis or theory? " Your question has been answered. . Additionaly, I offer you this list (and this is just priests!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics

BTW: Why should I have less respect for Lemaitre because of his openness to the concept pf natural selection? Where does that come from? That's a Protestant hang up, not a Catholic hang up ( you can find a proto-evolutionary theory of the emergence of new species in St. Augustine. I don't have the quote handy, but ask YOS for it, he'll have it at his fingertips).


Ed
The list of scientists that have been persecuted by Christians reads like a Who is Who of science.

Andre
OK...name a dozen by name and specify how exactly they were persecuted (tip: having your ideas or theories publicly challenged does not qualify as "persecution").

Sorry, all. Last installment.

Ed
As for your problems with science...

YOS
What problems with science do I have? You are merely expressing your deeply held beliefs, not any empirical evidence of my "problems." My formal education was in mathematics and physics, and my practice has been in applied statistics. What is your scientific background?

Ed
when have Bible believers ever NOT had a problem with the latest scientific discovery, hypothesis or theory?

YOS
Pretty much never have. Although I notice your peculiar locution "Bible believers." This leads me to suppose that you are a fundamentalist by background.

Ed
Well since you missed the History Channel’s show about the non-existence of Jesus Christ

YOS
That would be the same History Channel with the series about the predictions of Nostradamus and the visits of UFOs?
+ + +

Ed
Up until the 17th century if a person became ill in Europe, there wasn’t much use in turning to the “physicians” of the time, since illnesses were supposedly God’s punishment and not anything to be tampered with. The application of herbs and other supposed healing remedies were subject to harsh penalties from the Church.

YOS
See what I mean about you credulous believers swallowing all sorts of myths? Why not look up St. Hildegarde of Bingen or Herrad of Lansberg regarding herbal remedies. Try also Charles Talbot's chapter on medicine in Lindberg's SCIENCE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. The ancients, Arabs, and medievals believed illnesses were the result of an imbalance of humors in the body. It was a wrong theory; but it was a wrong scientific theory.

Ed
the Christian church either burned or hid away the great works of the “pagan” Greek and Roman minds, the same works were widely read, used and preserved in the Arabic world.

YOS
Ditto re swallowing myths. The Roman works were never lost to the West and were found in most libraries of which we know. Hroswitha, the abbess of Gandersheim, wrote plays in imitation of Terence, for example; and the cathedral schools used the old Roman encyclopedias (Macrobius, Pliny) as their primary texts. The Latin heritage was lost to the East because (wait for it) very few spoke Latin any more; so copyists focused on Greek works. The Byzantine Christians were not known as "the World's Librarian" for nothing.

In the West, most Greek works in philosophy never were available in Latin, as the pagan Romans had little use for them (and those who did could read Greek). Knowledge of Greek faded among the post-Romans and never existed among the Franks, Goths, and others. Boethius began translating Aristotle in Late Antiquity, but ran afoul of Gothic/Byzantine politics. It was called the Old Logic and was one of the basic texts in the cathedral schools.

Jacques of Venice brought Aristotle to Mt. St.-Michel directly from Byzantium; as did William of Moerbeke later, when the jihad had ebbed and Byzantine Sicily freed. Gerard of Cremona did the same after Toledo was liberated and Archbishop Raymundo set up a translation school there. But comparing the Arabic texts to the Greek texts revealed a host of copyist and translation errors in the Arabic that had accumulated in those lines.

Greek works were not "widely read" in the House of Submission and those that did read them - al-Hazen, ibn Sinna, ibn Rushd - were sporadically persecuted. Al-Kindi was publicly flogged, for example. "Greek studies" aka "foreign studies" were never formally taught in schools, but were the private enthusiasms of a few faylasuf, viewed with suspicion by the mutakallimun (who in turn were suspect in the eyes of the mujtahid). The works of ibn Sinna and ibn Rushd circulated more widely and to greater acclaim in Latin Christendom than in the House of Submission itself. Don't forget, too, that as late as the first crusade, half of Egypt was still Christian, and similar percentages applied elsewhere in the conquered lands. The Arabs had conquered a land with a layer of Hellenism a thousand years thick, and very nearly half that Christian. Old habits of thought die hard.

Ed
So it’s the Arabic world that actually saved the remains of Antiquity’s great intellectual legacy.

YOS
Nope. It was the Byzantine Christians - whom fundamentalists always seem to forget about. And the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, which did the translations (from the Greek copies and Syriac translations the Christians had made) was started and run by Syriac Christians - Hunayn ibn Ishaq and his nephews. Al-Ghazali's occasionalism pretty much put paid to the sporadic efforts of those scattered few faylasuf. Recall the big hoo-hah between Ghazali and ibn Rushd!
+ + +

Ed: Bible believers and the Church persecuted each of the scientists [Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo] and the Church denied their findings or in the case of Copernicus hid them for decades.

YOS
See comment above about believing in myths. Who persecuted Kepler? Copernicus' "findings" were not hidden, but published. He hesitated because of the ridicule he expected from the astronomers and physicists, whose models he was contraverting, but a cardinal of the church and his fellow clerics finally convinced him. The Pope read his book with great interest, and it circulated for seventy years to some buzz and no opposition. Galileo got in trouble because he insisted on playing theologian when he had no evidence to back his claim. But he is the one and only case that has a smidgen of support for your thesis.

Where was the persecution of Bacon, Grosseteste, Heytesbury, d'Oresme, Buridan, Theodoric of Fribourg, de Cusa, et al. who made a study of nature during the middle ages?
+ + +

Ed
Mendel's work was rejected at first, and it was not widely accepted until after he died.

YOS
It was ignored by secular scientists on the basis that Mendel was a monk. But that's rationalism for you.

Ed
Mendelian genetics were combined with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Sorry but you can’t have Mendel without Darwin.

YOS
Actually, the opposite. You can't have Darwin without Mendel. Darwinism was steadily losing ground among scientists until Mendel's work was rediscovered. Genetics has proven a far more fruitful explanation of evolution than has the struggle for existence among conspecifics.
+ + +
Ed: Lemaitre also accepted evolution by natural selection as the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. How do you like him now?

YOS
No problem. Even if natural selection is not as potent as once was thought. A favorite Lemaitre quote:

"The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less - some more than others - on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them. The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all."
+ + +
Ed
The list of scientists that have been persecuted by Christians reads like a Who is Who of science.

YOS
Then you should have no problem naming any beside Galileo who even remotely qualifies. No counting Lavoissier, who was guillotined by the rational atheists of the French Terror.

Quine
"Cartesian Theatre" is a term of art in brain science. It has nothing to do with what Descartes got right or wrong.

YOS
And it is derived from Dennett's notions of Descartes' "scientific" dualism. Since Descartes got it wrong in the first place, Dennett's imagery is misplaced from the get go. The reason for not "seeing a soul" in the "Cartesian theater" is that there is no Cartesian theater.

Also, since "soul" is a translation of the Latin "anima" and the Latin means "alive," I have seen souls countless times in normal daily life, and do not need Dennett's imaginary theater.
+++++++++++++++++++

@Andre
What Augustine pointed out was that since God had created space and time, he had created instantaneously, and that included what was to be from our point of view as time-bound creatures:
"It is therefore, causally that Scripture has said that *earth* brought forth the crops and trees, in the sense that it *received the power* of bringing them forth. In the earth from the beginning, in what I might call the roots of time, God created what was to be in times to come."
"On the literal meanings of Genesis," Book V Ch. 4:11

The term he used has been translated as "rational seeds", but the Latin sense is that in matter there are principles (reasons/rationes) from which new things might come forth (hence: seeds). The modern term for these rationes is "scientific law." Thus, a new species might come forth from an old species because the old species contains within itself some rationis for producing the new species. We now know this as the genome, where the old genome contains the new genome in potency, to be realized by a mutation, transposition, etc.

Aquinas also mentioned in passing the emergence of new species when asking if creation had ended with the "eight days." He cited as causes of new species things like putrefaction of matter and the influence of stars, whereas we talk of the mutation of matter and (in Sagan's words) that we are made of star-stuff. But that is mere coincidence. He was simply using the best science of the day for his illustration (which was that new developments are rooted in the past. It is interesting to note that the only causes he suggested were material causes. No poofing new species into existence, but an emergence from existing forms.

Mainstream theology agreed on the doctrine of secondary causation, as exampled by Thomas:
"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move towards a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could **move by themselves** to produce the form of the ship."
-- Commentary on Physics II.8, lecture 14, no. 268

YOS:
[[And it is derived from Dennett's notions of Descartes' "scientific" dualism. Since Descartes got it wrong in the first place, Dennett's imagery is misplaced from the get go. The reason for not "seeing a soul" in the "Cartesian theater" is that there is no Cartesian theater.]]

That there is no Cartesian Theater is Dennett's position. Have you, actually, read his work? And, there is nothing scientific about Cartesian dualism; what in the world are you talking about?

Ye Olde Statistician says:
Sorry, all. Last installment.

This guy knows when he’s beaten and so he leaves us hoping to fight another day – on a blog where some atheist isn’t going to refute everything he says. That’s okay. It’s the brave man who surrenders when he knows all hope is lost hoping to live to fight another day. It’s the coward who fights on when all hope is lost afraid to face the consequence of defeat.

YOS: What you wrote was "But let’s say there is some other method **or source of data** for discerning the truth about things." What is the subject predicated as the "source of data"?

Response: For the sake of argument I left open the possibility of the Christian superstition of divine revelation as a source of data.

YOS: See? You do not even know what the arguments are based on. The first is based on the fact that there is motion in the world [Gr. kinesis includes all motions, not merely motion of location]. The second is based on the ordering of efficient causes. The first leads to an Unmoved Mover, the second to an Uncaused Cause. Neither argument even assumes the universe is even finite in time.

Response: The idea that everything has a strict mechanistic explanation has works very well in classical mechanics but it fails in quantum theory. Quantum Mechanics says that reality is full of uncaused causes (the 'quantum foam). So the notion of an uncaused cause being a deity is untenable. Neither argument explains anything, which is one reason scientists reject them. How does something that doesn’t move get things to move? With Christian boogy magic or magic words? ROFL! This is just the same old biblical creation story very poorly disguised.

YOS: That's weird. Previous atheists right here have argued precisely that mass-energy *does* appear out of nothing, vaguely citing "quantum physics." I guess being ever so rational takes a toll.

Response: First define nothing. What are its properties? If it has properties then that makes it something. Vacuum fluctuation physics is still an esoteric field of study. However, the reason that this does not violate the mass-energy conservation law is that matter produced in this way would be composed equally of positive and negative energy or from a previously existing energy field.

YOS: But so what, even if true? The same charge can be laid against mathematics. There is no physical measurement you can perform that will demonstrate the value of pi, or the irrationality of SQRT(2), or that a function space topology is both conjoining and splitting on S^Y iff Y is locally fully compact, where S is the Sierpinski space.

Response: Are you implying that the Bible got the value of pi right? Because it didn’t. This is just one of the many major blunders in your book of magic and fairies.

YOS
a) You dodged the actual question.

Response: You dodged my response.

b) What empirical evidence do you have that I "have a big problem with" any of that? The only one on the board who argued that the Big Bang was "debunked" was, IIRC, an atheist.

Response: In detective work your bashing of science and scientists would be considered a clue.

c) Now: what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?

Response: Let me guess. Witch burning, heresy hunting and lying for Jesus?

YOS: It always matters when folks get things wrong and/or misuse them. Especially a thing that is not even an "argument", let alone "evidence."

Response: This is why I’ve taken the time to correct all of your false statements. You’re welcome.

YOS: IOW, there really are things you accept on faith.

Response: Please don’t try to conflate faith with religious faith. They are two completely different things. I know what it would take to change my mind about the various things I happen to believe at the present. Contrasting that we both know that no amount of evidence or proof can change your mind about certain religious dogma and doctrines. That is an entire world of difference.

And based on nothing more than naked utilitarianism, no less! Oddly enough, that's what they told Galileo: his theory was simply a useful set of calculations that were marginally easier to perform; but there was no empirical evidence that it was physically true.

Response: There’s a quite a bit more to the story than that. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII personally gave the order that Galileo should be threatened with torture if he did not renounce the heresy that the earth revolved around the sun. After repeated threats of torture, Galileo finally renounced his findings. He was then placed under house arrest, and not freed even after he went blind. The Church censored and prohibited all books supporting his scientific findings for over 200 years. This censorship was placed in the Index of Prohibited Books, which was signed by every pope who renewed it. Historically Protestants have been even more anti-science than the Catholics. Every Protestant church before 1800 bitterly opposed the findings of Galileo. Up until 1835 every Protestant denomination held to a flat, immovable Earth on a foundation supported by pillars and orbited by the sun just the way the Bible describes it. Then Charles Darwin came along and gave them a lot more to worry about.

YOS: First consider the distinction between formal logic and material logic. Appeal to authority is no more a formal fallacy than is a reference in a scientific paper. Whether it is a material fallacy depends on the authority. It goes to credibility. To cite Einstein or Lemaitre on general relativity is perfectly fine. But to cite Dawkins on a matter of philosophy or Einstein on barbecue sauce would not be, as there is no reason to suppose them any better informed on such things than Joe Schmoe from Kokomo. Here we have: "professional historians" vs. "Internet cranks." You really think that is a tough call?

Response: Well I’m a professional historian and you’re an…..?

YOS: Let me guess: a fundamentalist one?

Response: Muhlenburg.

YOS: Cicero was born seventy some years and Livy a century and a quarter after the supposed Hannibal allegedly died. They depended on Cato's work for their knowledge. Did you know there is not a single Cathaginian record that mentions Hannibal?

Response: Yes and Cato was a propagandist as well as a historian. Still historians think Cato’s accounts are fairly reliable because these accounts are supported by archaeological evidence. More importantly Cato’s accounts do not contain a bunch of conversations with people all speaking in complete sentences. Cato doesn’t record Hannibal standing on a mountaintop with a supernatural being discussing the land he is about to conquer. Cato doesn’t record Hannibal feeding his entire army with a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread. In fact nowhere in Cato’s accounts do we find the kind of supernatural claptrap and implausible stories that we find in the gospel accounts about Jesus. See the difference?

Eunapius was another supposed disciple of the mythic Plotinus. That's like citing John in support of Mark.

Response: Not really because John and Mark tell completely different stories. Mark claims Jesus did not start his ministry until after JBap was arrested. John disagrees. Mark says Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten. John says Jesus died the day before the Passover meal was eaten. Read your Bible carefully this time.

Re Socrates: Apparently other historians have not caught on to this gnosis of yours. Curious: Why you are a Socrates-denier, but not a Plotinus-denier or a Hannibal-denier?

Response: We have word for word conversations from Socrates and we don’t have anything like this from Hannibal. The stories about Socrates are written in the style of fiction and the accounts of Hannibal are not.

YOS: But that is closer in time than Livy and Cicero to Hannibal. Yet you confidently accept the latter and derisively dismiss the former. Very curious. This leads to suspicion that you start with the conclusion you want to reach, and then deploy whatever

Response: No, that’s what YOU do. You’re the Bible believer remember?

YOS: What can you expect? Descartes was a scientist and he got it all wrong. ]]

Response: ROFL! Your hatred and fear of science and scientists is just of the charts. When has any theologian ever been right about anything? The most important theological discussion there has ever been is the argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Andre: The truth is that both of those statements represent fringe theories rejected by the majority of professional historians and archeologists who judge the weight of the currently existing evidence, though limited, as defeating both of them.

Response: Really? Name’ em and claim ‘em then. Who exactly? This is the logical fallacy known as “An Appeal to Authority.” It does nothing to hide the fact that you did not and cannot present any evidence that Nazareth really did exist in the first century. What you essentially said was the blah blah was rejected by the blah blah and so this defeats the blah blah blah. Oh really? How so?

Andre: That you would so misleadingly and dogmatically present them as somehow solidly established irrefutable facts, indicates to me that you are not an honest seeker of the truth, but rather more an angry partisan with a chip on his shoulder(yawn).

Response: This is the logical fallacy known as “Ad homenim. You can’t argue against what I said so you attempt to discredit me. This is very lame and transparent. The fact is that neither Christianity nor the gospels originated in Palestine but in Rome. There were never any Christians in Palestine in the first century. Now prove there were.

Andre: It may be an unwarranted and possibly elitist prejudice on my part, but citing the sensationalist Pop History Channel and websites like jesusneverexisted.com, only reduces your credibility in my eyes ( I'm sure you are devastated).

Response: Ad homenim. Let’s see you refute something printed on the Jesusneverexisted.com website. Until you do that you’ve said exactly nothing. Do you think all this smoke and mirrors really works?

Andre: It is interesting to observe that in the quote provided in an earlier post by YOS, Tacitus mentions Pilate by name, identifying him as the Prefect of Judea at the time of Christ's crucifixion… He,at least, found no reason to doubt the existence of Pilate. It is perhaps unfortunate for him that you weren't available back then to set him straight.

Response: The entry in Tacitus is a rank forgery. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century--six hundred years after Tacitus' death. Guess who had this only copy. The Church. I don’t believe anything that comes from the Christian Church, especially its own history of itself.

Andre: Google search "Pilate stone" for a recent(1963) archeological discovery confirming the historical existence of Pontius Pilate.

Response: How do you know it isn’t just another Christian fraud like the James ossuary or the Fraud of Turin? I mean the list of Christian fakes and frauds begins in the second century and continues right through until today.

Andre: The basic frame work of the germ theory was formed well before Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. As early as 1668, the Jesuit educated Francesco Redi devised experiments to disprove the spontaneous generation theory. You did say you had a degree in History, did you not? I'm guessing it was not in the History of Science.

Response: Ancient Near Eastern History.

Andre: You are certainly free to interpret any particular Bible passage in any way you desire, in whatever creatively novel or contrarily revisionist way best suits your particular agenda, but I am rather more interested in how the early Church interpreted this passage, and in that context I can find no evidence that it was not interpreted exactly as I portrayed it. If you have actual evidence (other than your assertion) to the contrary, I would be delighted to consider it.

Response: Okay I got out my UBS Fourth Edition Greek New Testament and I have translated it directly from the Greek for you. “For many deluded ones entered into the world, the ones not acknowledging Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This is the deluded one, the antichrist.” Where does it say anything about Jesus leaving the world or resurrecting? It only talks about Jesus coming in the flesh, not leaving or rising in the flesh. What English translation are you looking at?

Andre: O.K....I'm sure that's very interesting, but I fail to see what relevance it has to our discussion.

Response: You’re telling me what the Bible says and you haven’t even read it.

Andre: That strikes me as a very strange comment for someone to make in this context. If I had been the one who had first cited 2 John, I would naturally assume that the first thing you would probably do is to go and read it (or re-read, as the case may be). And yet you make a completely different assumption, as if it would not even occur to me to read the original source material cited. Weird. What a bizarre mental world you seem to inhabit.

Response: You read it, found out I was correct and then tried to reinterpret the passage. Christians always do this when confronted with the many problems and blunders in the Bible. What a bizarre, intellectually dishonest world you seem to inhabit.

Andre: "The false teachings that John was warning of was the heresy of Docetism, which maintained that the crucified Christ had not risen in the flesh but that he had only risen in the spirit. "

Response: Adding to the Bible is a no no.

Andre: I stand by that statement. If I am in error I shall graciously accept and appreciate your correction, but it will require that you provide evidence and argument, not just "Well I read it too and I think it means something else".

Response: I’m waiting.

Andre: From Wikipedia (I know, I know...but it's quick): "Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances." Looks like there might be a little more to the story than your simplistic cartoon version.

Ed: The application of herbs and other supposed healing remedies were subject to harsh penalties from the Church.

Andre: Prove it.

Response: The church angrily denounced the introduction of medicines, antibiotics, anesthesia, surgery, blood transfusions, birth control, transplants, in vitro fertilization and most forms of painkillers. This is a matter of record. Supposedly, these scientific tools interfered with nature and therefore were against God's will. Today, the Church is fighting stem-cell research, cloning technology and genetic engineering. But when cloning laboratories provide an unlimited supply of transplant tissue for dying children, and when genetic engineering cures all forms of cancer, people like you will once again forget their initial opposition and hail these achievements as evidence of god's love for mankind.

Andre: (and no; "But I've seen it portrayed that way in countless Hollywood movies." doesn't count as proof.)

Response: The Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burning and heresy hunting have been portrayed in Hollywood movies too. Will you deny those atrocities as well?

Andre: Gee, I wonder who translated it into Latin?

Response: Arabs. The Christians then burned them.

Andre: I offered Lemaitre (and others) in answer to your question "...when have Bible believers ever NOT had a problem with the latest scientific discovery, hypothesis or theory? " Your question has been answered. . Additionaly, I offer you this list (and this is just priests!):

Response: By Bible believers I mean people who take the Bible literally. Catholics don’t do that and neither do any Christians who accept evolution and other scientific explanations.

Andre: BTW: Why should I have less respect for Lemaitre because of his openness to the concept pf natural selection? Where does that come from? That's a Protestant hang up, not a Catholic hang up ( you can find a proto-evolutionary theory of the emergence of new species in St. Augustine. I don't have the quote handy, but ask YOS for it, he'll have it at his fingertips).

Response: YOS has bailed apparently. I wish I had a dollar for every Bible thumper I have frightened off a blog. YOS is just another notch on my gun now. Augustine was just repeating a very old idea. “Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.” Anaximander (c.610-546 BCE), Greek philosopher, journalist, and media personality; Proto-Darwinian of the year 561 BCE

Andre: OK...name a dozen by name and specify how exactly they were persecuted (tip: having your ideas or theories publicly challenged does not qualify as "persecution").

Response: I’m not jumping through any hoops for your entertainment buddy. Ill list a few of the better-known cases and you can look up the hundreds of other scientists Christians have persecuted yourself.

When Bruno publicly defended Copernicus, the Inquisition arrested him and then tortured and burned him at the stake. That’s about as persecuted as one can get.

In 1633 Pope Urban VIII personally gave the order that Galileo should be threatened with torture if he did not renounce the heresy that the earth revolved around the sun. After repeated threats of torture, Galileo finally renounced his findings. He was then placed under house arrest, and not freed even after he went blind. The Church censored and prohibited all books supporting his scientific findings for over 200 years. This censorship was placed in the Index of Prohibited Books, which was signed by every pope who renewed it.

Descartes was called an atheist, and his works were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books. Protestant theologians in his resident Holland wanted him tortured and put to death.

After Campanella wrote a defense of Galileo he was tortured seven times by the Inquisition.

The Church forced Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon to resign from his Sorbonne University position and recant his views. The Church then humiliated him by publishing his recantation.

YOS: What problems with science do I have?

Response: I’m not sure but you seem bothered that things cannot be proved scientifically.

You are merely expressing your deeply held beliefs, not any empirical evidence of my "problems." My formal education was in mathematics and physics, and my practice has been in applied statistics. What is your scientific background?

Response: Well my formal education included the study of archaeology especially that of the Near East, which is one way I know archaeology does not support Christian claims about the historicity of the Bible. I haven’t used my degree for much but the knowledge I gained earning it such has learning to read Ancient Greek comes in handy when debating Bible believers.

YOS: Pretty much never have. Although I notice your peculiar locution "Bible believers." This leads me to suppose that you are a fundamentalist by background.

Response: Nope. Like everyone else I as born an atheist and I have always remained one.

YOS: That would be the same History Channel with the series about the predictions of Nostradamus and the visits of UFOs?

Response: Yep, the same History Channel that often treats the Bible as if it is somewhat historical. When it does Christians eagerly use the History Channel in support of their religious claims. Funny how that works isn’t it?

YOS: See what I mean about you credulous believers swallowing all sorts of myths?

Response: I shouldn’t have to remind you that I pointed out the difference between historical and fictional or mythological narratives to you - a difference you were previously oblivious to.

YOS: Ditto re swallowing myths…. The Byzantine Christians were not known as "the World's Librarian" for nothing.

Response: Oh please. That’s just ludicrous! Who burned the library in Alexandria? Was it angry Christians or angry librarians? Christian book burning is well documented and still goes on today.

YOS: See comment above about believing in myths. Who persecuted Kepler? Copernicus' "findings" were not hidden, but published.

Response: Yeah 70 years after he died. Where were they before that? Uh, hidden. By who I wonder. Satan perhaps?

…Galileo got in trouble because he insisted on playing theologian when he had no evidence to back his claim. But he is the one and only case that has a smidgen of support for your thesis.

Response: Huh? So you agree with the Christians at Fixedearth.com, The Flat Earth Society and The Association for Biblical Astronomy then, that the Earth is stationary and orbited by the sun just as the Bible clearly says it is. They have hundreds of Bible passages to “prove” this point. Not much science though. I guess too much rational thinking is still better than too much biblical thinking. Right?

Where was the persecution of Bacon, Grosseteste, Heytesbury, d'Oresme, Buridan, Theodoric of Fribourg, de Cusa, et al. who made a study of nature during the middle ages?

Response: What happened to hundreds of thousands of innocent women (and some men) who dabbled with natural remedies and in the study of nature itself? They were branded as witches and murdered by angry Christians as they are directed to do in the Bible. Pointing to few scientists who escaped persecution because they were Protestants or whatever hardly excuses the atrocities against all the other people who dared study nature when Christianity ruled the Western world with a bloody fist.

YOS: It was ignored by secular scientists on the basis that Mendel was a monk. But that's rationalism for you.

Response: Even Mendel himself could not see any application for his discovery. That came later and exactly how is a matter of debate.

YOS: Actually, the opposite. You can't have Darwin without Mendel. Darwinism was steadily losing ground among scientists until Mendel's work was rediscovered.

Response: “Darwinism” is a bogus term used by people who are willfully ignorant of science.

YOS: Genetics has proven a far more fruitful explanation of evolution than has the struggle for existence among conspecifics.

Response: Evolution is the explanation, not genetics.

YOS: No problem. Even if natural selection is not as potent as once was thought.

Response: Natural selection is omnipotent. Always has been, always will be.

YOS: A favorite Lemaitre quote:

"The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less - some more than others - on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them. The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all."

Response: Insightful for a believer. However the doctrines of immortality and salvation are ridiculous fear-based superstitions, which of course, is the reason one must be indoctrinated with them, rather than presented with evidence for them. So essentially the authors of the Bible got nothing right. But they weren’t trying to. They were just writing down ancient oral traditions they had heard somewhere else. In other words, no one wrote the Bible, at least not in the sense that books are written today.

YOS: Then you should have no problem naming any beside Galileo who even remotely qualifies. No counting Lavoissier, who was guillotined by the rational atheists of the French Terror.

Response: Copernicus, Bruno, Descartes, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, Hubble, Bertrand Russell. William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, and Adam Sedgewick….

Ed
YOS has bailed apparently. I wish I had a dollar for every Bible thumper I have frightened off a blog. YOS is just another notch on my gun now.

This guy knows when he’s beaten and so he leaves us hoping to fight another day – on a blog where some atheist isn’t going to refute everything he says.


Andre
Thanks for the good laugh, Ed. I'll say this much for you, you certainly have a great sense of humor. You are beginning to remind me of the Black Knight from Monty Python:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Henceforth, in gratitude for the entertainment you have provided, I shall affectionately address you as Sir Ed.

Alas, no time now; more later...

The apology was to the others for posting three rather long responses to your random comments avoiding the topic of the essay for this thread: viz., Hawking ineptness at philosophy. Your wishful thinking did the rest.

++++++++++++++++++++

Ed: Quantum Mechanics says that reality is full of uncaused causes (the 'quantum foam).

YOS
Not according to quantum physicists. I notice that you changed the topic. You had stated "The First cause argument is based on the assumption that the universe was created ex- nihilo – out of nothing." I pointed out that it was not in fact the assumption made.

Ed:
How does something that doesn’t move get things to move? With Christian boogy magic or magic words?

YOS
Actually, Aristotle was not a Christian.
+ + +

Ed: First define nothing. What are its properties? If it has properties then that makes it something.

YOS
You got something right!

Ed: Vacuum fluctuation physics ... does not violate the mass-energy conservation law is that matter produced in this way would be composed equally of positive and negative energy or from a previously existing energy field.

YOS
Which means it is not nothing. Hence, virtual particles from the vacuum energy is not "creation from nothing." Besides, Hawking was referring to something else.
+ + +

YOS: The same charge can be laid against mathematics. There is no physical measurement you can perform that will demonstrate the value of pi....

Ed: Are you implying that the Bible got the value of pi right? Because it didn’t.

YOS
Is there a special class you take to learn how to dodge the subject? You had dismissed a line of argument as being "arguments, not evidence" and I simply pointed out that you had thereby dismissed all of mathematics. No physical measurements will ever establish the value of pi. (And why do you suppose the Bible is even supposed to be a Hebrew edition of Euclid's Elements?)
+ + +

Ed: Well right now other than at Jerry Falwell U., etc.

YOS: You dodged the actual question.

Ed: You dodged my response.

YOS
The response was off the question. I asked you if you knew "What subjects constituted the entire undergraduate curriculum [of the medieval university]?" Your response involved something called "Jerry Falwell U." and other present day stuff. Now: what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?

Ed: Let me guess. Witch burning, heresy hunting and lying for Jesus?

YOS
At last an answer. A wrong answer, but an answer nonetheless. Don't guess, gather data. C'mon, dude, show some respect for empiricism!

Ed: Well I’m a professional historian and you’re…?

YOS
Referencing other professional historians who are considered the premier experts in the field of history of science. Let me know what books you have written so I can compare them with the ones in my library.

+ + +
YOS: Let me guess: a fundamentalist [college]?

Ed: Muhlenburg.

YOS
No fooling? You're a Valley Dawg? Don't tell me you still live around here.
+ + +

Ed: The most important theological discussion there has ever been is the argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

YOS
Well, no; there never was such an argument. It's another one of those myths that Moderns credulously believe.

+ + +

Ed: The entry in Tacitus is a rank forgery. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century--six hundred years after Tacitus' death. Guess who had this only copy. The Church. I don’t believe anything that comes from the Christian Church, especially its own history of itself.

YOS
Just about every copy of every ancient Greek or Latin manuscript was preserved and copied (and re-recopied) by Syriac, Byzantine, and/or Latin Christians over the centuries. Now you have only to explain why the Evil Christian Conspiracy would forge a passage that refers to Christians as "a class of men, loathed for their vices," to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition," a "disease" that first broke out "in Judea," and says that most were rounded up not for alleged arson, but for their "hatred of the human race."

Sulpicius Severus wrote at the turn of the 5th century of "Cornelius Tacitus, who composed the history of these times with the greatest care" and in a fragment evidently transcribed from the Histories quotes Titus arguing in favor of destroying the Temple in Jerusalem "in order to wipe out more completely the religion of the Jews and the Christians; for they urged that these religions, although hostile to each other, nevertheless sprang from the same sources; the Christians had grown out of the Jews: if the root were destroyed, the stock would easily perish."

Ed: The church angrily denounced the introduction of medicines, antibiotics, anesthesia, surgery, blood transfusions, birth control, transplants, in vitro fertilization and most forms of painkillers. This is a matter of record.

YOS
No, except for birth control, which was a political policy aimed at suppressing the untermenschen, and in vitro fertilization, which removed human love from procreation. The others are myths. If it's a matter of record, cite the records.

Interesting, though, that political programs seem to get mixed in with actual science in these discussions.

Ed: Today, the Church is fighting stem-cell research

YOS
No, she is fighting the use of embryonic stem cells, in which human beings are brought into existence simply to harvest their substance for profit, the only result of which so far has been runaway cancers. Adult stem cells, placental stem cells, and other non-destructive sources have been used effectively for decades, and are showing promising results today. The Japanese developed a method for regressing adult stem cells to pluripotency. There is no objection to this since no one has to be killed to do it.
+ + +
Andre: Gee, I wonder who translated [Greek works] into Latin?

Ed: Arabs. The Christians then burned them.

YOS
Another myth. The Arabs did not study Latin, and had no intellectual interest in The House of the Sword. Some Greek works did get translated [by Syriac Christians] because the conquered lands had been Greek for a thousand years and most of the population was still Egyptian, Greek, Syrian, Roman, and so forth. They or their recent ancestors had all been Hellenized Christians. There is no record of any Arabs being burned, or translations from the Arabic being burned. On the contrary, they circulated more widely and to greater acclaim than they did in the House of Submission.

Also: translators like William of Moerbeke and Jacques of Venice translated directly from Byzantine sources once the jihad had paused and travel in the Med was safe once more.
+ + +

Ed: Augustine was just repeating a very old idea.

YOS
Which puts paid to the notion that Christians rejected pagan learning, doesn't it?

+ + +
Ed: Like everyone else I as born an atheist

YOS
Like everyone else I was born ignorant as a baby, not only in mathematics but in physics, as well. Why is this an excuse for remaining ignorant?
+ + +

YOS: The Byzantine Christians were not known as "the World's Librarian" for nothing.

Ed: Who burned the library in Alexandria?

YOS
According to the ancient pagans, it was Julius Caesar. Certainly, there are no present-tense references to it afterward; and Plutarch dismisses the story that Antony plundered Pergammon to replenish Alexandria as a vile slander on Antony by an enemy. Strabo gives a detailed description of the Palace district and the Museum without mentioning the Library; and our only list of librarians ends in the reign of Ptolemy Psychon, when all the Greek scholars were driven out (and, it was said, started libraries in Athens and elsewhere with the books they had taken with them). Whatever may have been left of the Royal Library by the 3rd century most likely perished when the entire Palace District went up in flames during the wars of Aurelian.

Copernicus' "findings" were not hidden, but published.

Ed: Yeah 70 years after he died.

YOS
No. It was just before he died. Why do you persistently make errors of fact that could be corrected with a minimum of "desk-top research"?

He had been reluctant to publish something that went against the consensus of the scientists of his age, but was persuaded by Cardinal Baronius and other fellow clerics. He dedicated it to the Pope, who read it with great interest. It then *circulated* for 70 years to modest interest until it got caught up in the Galileo controversy. The problem was, the Copernican system was no more accurate at predicting the positions of the heavenly bodies than the Ptolemaic system - better in some respects, worse in others - and this was largely because Copernicus used the same corrupted tables of data that the Ptolemaics had used. (Copyist errors had accumulated over the centuries.) That is why the hero of the story imho was Tycho Brahe, who declared a program to make new, more meticulous, and more exact measurements of planetary and stellar motions. It was this new set of tables that enabled Kepler to discern an elliptical orbit for Mars. Using the old data, the eccentricity would have been mathematically undetectable.

In the end, the Ptolemaic system was scrapped, the Copernican system faded away, and the two main rivals were the "Ursine" and the Keplerian systems. Kepler eventually triumphed when Newton provided a rationale for *why* it ought to be physically true. Don't forget: astronomy in those days was mathematics, not physics. The Ptolemaic astronomers did not expect that their mathematical model was physically real. In fact, they knew it contradicted Aristotelian physics. But "It Works!" was good enough for them as it is (you have said) for you. When it ceased to work as well as other models, they dropped it. By the time Galileo wrote his famous Dialogue, the Ptolemaic system had been scrapped, and the Tychonic and Ursine systems were in favor. Somewhat dishonestly, Galileo never mentioned them. And he never mentioned Kepler's [correct] system, either.

The Jesuits were already teaching the Copernican system when Galileo made it political. They continued to do so afterward with the [quite proper] disclaimer that it was as yet no more than a convenient mathematical hypothesis. Empirical evidence was not found until the late 1700s and early 1800s.
+ + +

YOS: Where was the persecution of Bacon, Grosseteste, Heytesbury, d'Oresme, Buridan, Theodoric of Fribourg, de Cusa, et al. who made a study of nature during the middle ages?

Ed: Pointing to few scientists who escaped persecution because they were Protestants or whatever hardly excuses the atrocities against all the other people who dared study nature when Christianity ruled the Western world with a bloody fist.

YOS
A bloody fist, no less! You evidently have no idea who those individuals were or what they did. Hint: all of them lived prior to the Protestant Revolution. Four of them were bishops, and one of those a cardinal. Galileo cribbed from one of them, in fact. You want some more names? Burleigh, Swineshead, Albert of Saxony, Albertus Magnus, ....

Ed: What happened to hundreds of thousands of innocent women (and some men) who dabbled with natural remedies and in the study of nature itself?

YOS
Pretty much nothing. If she was Hildegarde of Bingen, author of Physica and Causes and Cures, then she was canonized.

+ + +
Ed: “Darwinism” is a bogus term used by people who are willfully ignorant of science.

YOS
Actually, it was a term used quite widely in the late 19th and early 20th century. It distinguished his theory of evolution from Lamarck's theory of evolution, and continues to distinguish it from the genetic theory of evolution, Kimura's theory of evolution, Shapiro's theory of evolution, et al. Or for that matter Blyth's theory of evolution by natural selection.

+ + +

Ed: Evolution is the explanation, not genetics. Natural selection is omnipotent.

YOS
No. Evolution is a fact, not an explanation. It is simply change in species over time.

The explanations are things like genetics, natural selection, neutral selection, and so forth put forward to try to account for evolution. Natural selection is hardly omnipotent. As used by camp followers and fanboys, it is tautological. Survivors survive. It does not even account for all of biological evolution, let alone for electrodynamics or galactic structure. Physicists seem to be far more humble on this account than biologists still stuck in a 19th century paradigm of nature.
+ + +

Ed: When Bruno publicly defended Copernicus, the Inquisition arrested him and then tortured and burned him at the stake. That’s about as persecuted as one can get.

YOS
And if Bruno had been a scientist instead of a hermetic mystic, this would be good evidence. There were eight charges in the indictment, and none of them related to astronomy. The translator of his ASH WEDNESDAY SUPPER commented that if the Copernicans had bothered to read the tract, THEY would have burned Bruno. Bruno gets the astronomy wrong, shows he is out of touch with current astronomical thinking, and then bad-mouths Copernicus himself for not getting everything right. And your timing is off. Bruno fled Rome one step ahead of a murder indictment and managed to get himself excommunicated by the Lutherans and the Calvinists, and expelled from Oxford by the dons. (Hence, his hatred for university professors.) Even after he was turned over to the Inquisition, his fellow Dominicans spent seven years trying to talk him down; hardly evidence of blood-lust.

Ed: After Campanella wrote a defense of Galileo he was tortured seven times by the Inquisition.

YOS
Another Dominican! Actually, Fra Campanella was tortured by a secular court, and it was for leading a revolutionary conspiracy against Spansish Hapsburg rule in Naples. The Spaniards sentenced him to life in 1603 -- long before Galileo was a player. He was freed in 1626 on the personal intervention of Pope Urban VIII. In 1634, one of his followers instigated a fresh conspiracy, but with the aid of Cardinal Barberini (the Pope's nephew) and the French ambassador, Brother Tomasso was smuggled into France, where he was given a liberal pension, and resided in a Dominican convent. The politics of the Hapsburg-Bournon struggle explains matters a great deal better than a quibble over an unproven astronomical theory.
+ + +

YOS: Then you should have no problem naming [a list of scientists that have been persecuted by Christians.]

Ed: Copernicus, Bruno, Descartes, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, Hubble, Bertrand Russell. William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, and Adam Sedgewick….

YOS
Oppenheimer was persecuted, too; but for being a communist, not for being a physicist. Russell was not a scientist. (Neither was Copernicus, come to that.) And most of those you list received high honors, which is a rather peculiar form of persecution. Aside from Bruno [see above] none ever faced even the possibility of persecution. Hubble? Persecuted by the Church? I hope you don't think that someone is "persecuted" if he faces disagreement or criticism! In that were so, the Count of Buffon persecuted Newton and Jay Stephen Gould persecuted Dawkins!

@YOS
Yikes! Put a fork in him......HE IS DONE!

And so am I; after that magnificent display of erudition and just plain common sense, my paltry scratchings sound like little more than an idiots drooling babble. I'm just going to shut up now and listen.

(I wish that just one time you would have an off moment and write something just slightly stupid. You know, for us mortals, you freak!)


@Sir Ed
I'd say that you have far more than you can handle with YOS, so I'm bowing out. I've got lots of reading to do anyway (some of which you have inspired, thank you very much).

If you want to claim to have chased me away with your brilliance and carve me in as a another notch on your gun, then have at it. You have my blessing.

But please, PLEASE, keep writing long replies to YOS (if anything, turn up that snotty, arrogant tone you sometimes have just a few more notches and really provoke him) so I can continue to have the pleasure (and education) of his long replies back to you.

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

@Sir Ed,

I know, I know...I said I was done, but then I came upon this in my reading today and it was just too on-topic to ignore.

First the set up:

Ed
The works of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) one of the foremost philosophers and medical practitioners of Islamic tradition were published in 1020 and later translated into Latin...

Andre
Gee, I wonder who translated it into Latin?

Ed
Response: Arabs. The Christians then burned them.

Andre
Today I was reading from "The Beginnings of Western Science; the European Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. To A.D.1450" (University of Chicago Press, 1992) by David C. Lindberg (Hillsdale Professer of the History of Science, University of Wisconsin - Madison).

You can evaluate his bona fides for yourself here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Lindberg

If you will indulge me, I would like to draw your attention to the following excerpt from Chapter 7, The Revival of Learning in the West. (I'm sorry that it's rather long, but there was little I could bear to edit out);

"The earliest translations from the Arabic - several treatises on mathematics and the astrolabe - were made late in the tenth century in Spain. A century later a North African become Benedictine Monk, named Constantine (fl. 1065-85), made his way to the monastery of Monte Cassino in southern Italy. There he began to translate medical treatises from Arabic to Latin, including the work on Galen and Hippocrates, which would supply the foundation of medical literature on which the West would build for several centuries.
These early translations whetted the European appetite for more. Beginning in the first half of the twelfth century, translation became a major scholarly activity, with Spain as the geographical focus....Spain had the advantage of a brilliant Arab culture, an ample supply of Arabic books, and communities of Christians (known as Mozarabs) who had been allowed to practice their religion under Muslim rule and who could now help to mediate between the two cultures. As a result of the Christian reconquest of Spain, centers of Arabic culture and libraries of Arabic books fell into Christian hands; Toledo, the most important center, fell in 1085, and in the course of the twelfth century the riches of its library began to be seriously exploited, thanks in part to generous patronage from the local bishops.
Some of the translators were native Spaniards, fluent in Arabic from Childhood; such a man was John of Seville (fl. 1133-42), probably a Mozarab, who translated a number of astrological works; another was Hugh of Santalla (fl. 1145), from one of the Christian states in the north of Spain, who translated texts on astrology and divination; yet another, and one of the ablest, was mark of Toledo (fl.1191-1216) who translated several Galenic texts. But others came from abroad: Robert of Chester (fl. 1141-50) came from Wales; Hermann the Dalmation (fl. 1138-43) was a Slav; and Plato of Tivoli (fl. 1132-46) was an Italian. These men came to Spain, presumably without prior knowledge of Arabic. Once there, they found a teacher, learned Arabic, and began to translate. Occasionally they joined forces with a bilingual native (perhaps a Mozarab of a Jew who knew Arabic and the vernacular language) and proceeded to translate cooperatively.
The greatest of the translators from Arabic to Latin was undoubtably Gerard of Cremona (ca 1114-87). Gerard, from northern Italy, came to Spain in the late 1130s or early 1140s in search of Ptolemy's *Almagest*, which he had been unable to locate elsewhere. He found a copy in Toledo, remained to learn Arabic, and eventually rendered it into Latin. But he also discovered texts on all manner of other subjects, and over the next thirty-five or forty years....produced translations of many of these. His output is absolutely astonishing: at least a dozen astronomical texts, including the *Almagest*; seventeen works on mathematics and optics, including Euclid;s *Elements* and al-Khwarizmi's *Algebra*, fourteen works on logic and natural philosophy, including Aristotle's *Physics*, *On the Heavens*, *Meteorology*, and *On Generation and Corruption*; twenty four medical works, including Avicenna's great *Canon of Medicine* and nine Galenic treatises. The total comes to seventy or eighty books, all translated carefully and literally by a man who possessed a good command of the languages as well as the subject matter.
Translation from the Greek had never entirely ceased: recall Boethius in the sixth century and Eriugena in the ninth. But translation from the Greek resumed and dramatically accelerated in the twelfth century. Italy was the principal location, especially the south (including Sicily), where there had always been Greek speaking communities and libraries containing Greek books.
Italy also benefited from ongoing contact with Byzantine philosophers, who translated a collection of Aristotle's works. A series of important works on mathematics and mathematical science appeared in Greco-Latin translations about the middle of the century; Ptolemy's *Almagest* (whether before or after Gerard's translation from the Arabic cannot be determined) and Euclid's *Elements, Optics,* and *Catoprics*.
Greco-latin translating activity continued in the thirteenth century, most notably the work of William of Moerbeke (fl. 1260-86). Moerbeke set out to provide Latin Christendom with a complete and reliable version of the Aristotlean corpus, revising translations where he could, producing new translations from the Greek where that was required. Moerbeke also translated some of the major Aristotelian commentators, a variety of Neoplatonic authors, and some mathematical works by Archimedes."


No mention of Arab translators (Although it's not mentioned, I suppose it might be imaginable that a Latin speaking churchman might hire an Arab to translate a work into Latin, but how many Arabs knew Latin? Beyond that hypothetical possibility, what conceivable motivation would there be for an Arab to translate a work from Arabic to Latin in the first place? ).

And, of course, no mention of burnings.

Andre
The greatest of the translators from Arabic to Latin was undoubtably Gerard of Cremona

YOS
You might be interested in the opening section of the following alternate history story:
http://faculty.ugf.edu/jgretch/syllabi/psy450Quaestiones.pdf

In it, Gerard of Cremona discovers the text of John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotle about a century before Billy Moerbeke did. A quick scroll-through reveals one page missing in the scan.

@YOS

Thanks, I look forward to reading it.

As I was first reading about Gerard in the Lindburg book, I was thinking wow, what a great story...it would make a fabulous basis for an epic historical novel.

I just love the idea of a guy traveling through medieval Europe on a quest for an existing copy of a particular book, with all the dangers and travails that such a journey could include, and then not only attaining the Euclid, but also in the process coming upon an intellectual treasure trove beyond his wildest imaginings.

The Hollywood screenplay would probably be a tough sell, though.

YOS: Not according to quantum physicists. I notice that you changed the topic. You had stated "The First cause argument is based on the assumption that the universe was created ex- nihilo – out of nothing." I pointed out that it was not in fact the assumption made.

Response: It’s the same flawed argument. The argument from motion says that only actual motion can convert potential motion into actual motion. Perhaps but we don’t know this. This doesn’t account for the quantum world. The flaw is the assumption that nothing such as a sequence of motion (or the universe) can extend infinitely into the past. This is an argument from ignorance as are the rest of Aquinas’ arguments. You make and defend arguments from ignorance and then imply atheists are ignorant because they don’t believe in magic and fairies or buy into your flawed arguments.

YOS: Actually, Aristotle was not a Christian.

Response: Actually anyone can look at our posts and see very clearly that it’s YOU who keeps ducking comments and questions. Would you like me to repost some of the ones that embarrassed you? I don’t care what Aristotle was. How do you Christians think Jesus, I mean the unmoved mover moves things or got them moving in the first place? I predict you’ll either duck the question again or refuse to answer it truthfully.

YOS: Is there a special class you take to learn how to dodge the subject?

Response: No, but apparently you feel qualified to teach such a class because you seem to think I don’t notice you carefully avoiding some of my questions and comments. Cherry-pick away, I don’t care. We both know what you’re doing and NOT doing even if no one else does.

You had dismissed a line of argument as being "arguments, not evidence" and I simply pointed out that you had thereby dismissed all of mathematics. No physical measurements will ever establish the value of pi. (And why do you suppose the Bible is even supposed to be a Hebrew edition of Euclid's Elements?)

Response: Well according to the fundamentalists I come in contact with the Bible is infallible and many say, “…if it ain’t in the Bible it ain’t worth knowin,” or something like that.

YOS: The response was off the question. I asked you if you knew "What subjects constituted the entire undergraduate curriculum [of the medieval university]?" Your response involved something called "Jerry Falwell U." and other present day stuff. Now: what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?

Response: Who cares? What’s the point of your question? They taught the Bible as history, so there’s no reason to think they did a good job in any other subjects either. Judging from the ignorance of most of their students we’d have to say they didn’t.

YOS: At last an answer. A wrong answer, but an answer nonetheless. Don't guess, gather data. C'mon, dude, show some respect for empiricism!

Response: Gather data to debate someone who tries to defend the lies of religion? Dude, I’m winging it here. What are you doing? Looking up a defense of everything I say on Christian apologetic websites. I can do that myself.

YOS: Referencing other professional historians who are considered the premier experts in the field of history of science. Let me know what books you have written so I can compare them with the ones in my library.

Response: Sure, right after I get a list of books you’ve had published. At least I’ve written a book that will eventually get published. I’d be happy to Email a sample chapter to you and would welcome your thoughts on it.

YOS: No fooling? You're a Valley Dawg? Don't tell me you still live around here.

Response: I haven’t heard or read that in a while. I think the Valley Dawgs are at Lehigh. Anyway you know I’m a Mule. I live in Richmond Virginia, born in California.

YOS: Well, no; there never was such an argument. It's another one of those myths that Moderns credulously believe.

Response: You’re the one who belongs to a cult of myth believers, not me. There is a mountain of nonsense written about angelology and you know it. The same men like Aquinas who made all the arguments you defend wrote about angels. I say there are no angels. Now defend Christian angelology. Humiliating isn’t it?

YOS: Just about every copy of every ancient Greek or Latin manuscript was preserved and copied (and re-recopied) by Syriac, Byzantine, and/or Latin Christians over the centuries.

Response: Still no one mentioned this passage until about 1500 years after it was supposedly written. Why? I think we both know.

Now you have only to explain why the Evil Christian Conspiracy would forge a passage that refers to Christians as "a class of men, loathed for their vices," to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition," a "disease" that first broke out "in Judea," and says that most were rounded up not for alleged arson, but for their "hatred of the human race."

Response: Sure. The Christian church invented a lot of nonsense about early Christians being persecuted by the Romans. The supposed persecution of early Christians is all mythology. The early Christians WERE the Romans and these stories were made up to sort of make an excuse for all the persecution done by the Church, the true mother of all persecutors.

Sulpicius Severus wrote at the turn of the 5th century of "Cornelius Tacitus, who composed the history of these times with the greatest care" and in a fragment evidently transcribed from the Histories quotes Titus arguing in favor of destroying the Temple in Jerusalem "in order to wipe out more completely the religion of the Jews and the Christians; for they urged that these religions, although hostile to each other, nevertheless sprang from the same sources; the Christians had grown out of the Jews: if the root were destroyed, the stock would easily perish."

Response: That Christianity grew from Judaism is a myth. No Jew I’ve ever met believes that. These two religions are as different as night and day. I know, my relatives are Jewish.

YOS: No, she is fighting the use of embryonic stem cells, in which human beings are brought into existence simply to harvest their substance for profit, the only result of which so far has been runaway cancers.

Response: Embryos are not human beings. They might be potential human beings but that’s it.

Adult stem cells, placental stem cells, and other non-destructive sources have been used effectively for decades, and are showing promising results today. The Japanese developed a method for regressing adult stem cells to pluripotency. There is no objection to this since no one has to be killed to do it.

Response: You can’t kill something that hasn’t been born yet. The Vatican is currently opposed to condom use even to prevent the spread of HIV from one married partner to another. Are we to believe that the Christian Church has all of a sudden become very backward in just the last few years or decades and before that they weren’t?

YOS: Another myth. The Arabs did not study Latin, and had no intellectual interest in The House of the Sword.

Response: Are you saying that no Arab in the world ever studied Latin?

Some Greek works did get translated [by Syriac Christians] because the conquered lands had been Greek for a thousand years and most of the population was still Egyptian, Greek, Syrian, Roman, and so forth. They or their recent ancestors had all been Hellenized Christians.

Response: You just exposed your vast ignorance of the past. No group of people had ALL been anything.

There is no record of any Arabs being burned, or translations from the Arabic being burned. On the contrary, they circulated more widely and to greater acclaim than they did in the House of Submission. +

Response: Next you’ll tell me there’s no record of the Crusades or Inquisitions either. You’re in deep denial.

YOS: Which puts paid to the notion that Christians rejected pagan learning, doesn't it?

Response: Hardly. Just because some Christians accepted certain things doesn’t mean the majority did. I love it when you Christians say, “See, there’s a rational Christian!” or something to that effect every time some believer accidentally blurts out something that actually makes sense or seems to anyway.

YOS: Like everyone else I was born ignorant as a baby, not only in mathematics but in physics, as well. Why is this an excuse for remaining ignorant?

Response: The world has suffered far less from ignorance than it has from people like you and their pretensions to knowledge. Unbelief is the natural position to take on any subject until something has been proved. The existence of God hasn’t been proved so why believe in God?

YOS: According to the ancient pagans, it was Julius Caesar. Certainly, there are no present-tense references to it afterward; and Plutarch dismisses the story that Antony plundered Pergammon to replenish Alexandria as a vile slander on Antony by an enemy.

Response: You know that isn’t true so why would you post it? Perhaps it’s your now well-documented reckless disregard for the truth?

Strabo gives a detailed description of the Palace district and the Museum without mentioning the Library; and our only list of librarians ends in the reign of Ptolemy Psychon, when all the Greek scholars were driven out (and, it was said, started libraries in Athens and elsewhere with the books they had taken with them). Whatever may have been left of the Royal Library by the 3rd century most likely perished when the entire Palace District went up in flames during the wars of Aurelian.

Response: So Christian book burning is just another myth like Christian witch burning huh? Sure.

YOS: No. It was just before he died. Why do you persistently make errors of fact that could be corrected with a minimum of "desk-top research"?

Response: Unlike you, I don’t do my “desk-top research” on the Internet at Christian apologetic websites. I’m more interested in facts and facts have no place in religion and especially in the defense of it.

The Jesuits were already teaching the Copernican system when Galileo made it political. They continued to do so afterward with the [quite proper] disclaimer that it was as yet no more than a convenient mathematical hypothesis. Empirical evidence was not found until the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Response: Which is why no Protestant denomination accepted a round earth that orbited the sun until 1835. And of course millions of Protestants in the United States (where it’s always okay to be wrong) still believe that the earth is flat, never moves and is orbited by the sun because the Bible says so.

YOS: Pretty much nothing. If she was Hildegarde of Bingen, author of Physica and Causes and Cures, then she was canonized.

Response: You’re obviously deeply humiliated by the crimes against humanity committed by your fellow Christians. In a relatively short period of time, America killed more suspected witches than several European countries, including Iceland, Portugal, Ireland, and Russia. Of course you’ll say it’s all a myth.

YOS: No. Evolution is a fact, not an explanation. It is simply change in species over time.

Response: Evolution is a fact but also an explanation of the facts.

The explanations are things like genetics, natural selection, neutral selection, and so forth put forward to try to account for evolution. Natural selection is hardly omnipotent. As used by camp followers and fanboys, it is tautological. Survivors survive. It does not even account for all of biological evolution, let alone for electrodynamics or galactic structure. Physicists seem to be far more humble on this account than biologists still stuck in a 19th century paradigm of nature.

Response: That’s just rich! You are still stuck with a first century paradigm.

YOS: And if Bruno had been a scientist instead of a hermetic mystic, this would be good evidence. There were eight charges in the indictment, and none of them related to astronomy. The translator of his ASH WEDNESDAY SUPPER commented that if the Copernicans had bothered to read the tract, THEY would have burned Bruno. Bruno gets the astronomy wrong, shows he is out of touch with current astronomical thinking, and then bad-mouths Copernicus himself for not getting everything right. And your timing is off. Bruno fled Rome one step ahead of a murder indictment and managed to get himself excommunicated by the Lutherans and the Calvinists, and expelled from Oxford by the dons. (Hence, his hatred for university professors.) Even after he was turned over to the Inquisition, his fellow Dominicans spent seven years trying to talk him down; hardly evidence of blood-lust.

Response: That’s a nice piece of fiction. Did you make it up all by yourself or did you have help from some lying for Jesus website?

YOS: Oppenheimer was persecuted, too; but for being a communist, not for being a physicist. Russell was not a scientist. (Neither was Copernicus, come to that.) And most of those you list received high honors, which is a rather peculiar form of persecution. Aside from Bruno [see above] none ever faced even the possibility of persecution. Hubble? Persecuted by the Church?

Response: Hubble received death threats from angry Christians. Just because the church didn’t make this particular persecution official doesn’t mean Hubble wasn’t persecuted. Christians often use violence to silence their critics even when it isn’t condoned by their church and religion.

If any of the claims you’ve made in defense of your religion were actually true there would be no need for the field called apologetics. We atheists have nothing like apologetics because we aren’t the ones promoting a big fat lie.

@Sir Ed

Oh man...me and my big mouth...when I made that wisecrack about you turning up "that snotty, arrogant tone you sometimes have just a few more notches..." I was just indulging in some good natured ribbing. I never suspected that you would take me seriously: I WAS JUST KIDDING!

Seriously though, dude, you need to calm down and take a few breaths. You are becoming unglued. Your previous arguments, such as they were, ranged from poor to borderline kooky, but at least some of them were recognizably arguments. Now it seems like you've given up even trying. You are just waving your hands around wildly and shouting out "This is the way it is and I don't give a damn about the evidence!"

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good rant as much as the next guy. It can be very cathartic at times. But come on.... go splash some cold water on your face, have a cup of coffee, and regroup.

And then come back with your A-game, because this ain't it.

You can do better.

Ed maybe you need to be guided by the words of Prof. Antony Flew:

FLEW: "I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are
supported BY RECENT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalamcosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I thinkthe argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."-DR. ANTONY FLEW,Professor of Philosophy-Former atheist, author, and debater

Andre,
I could do better but you can't do ANYTHING. Until you can refute something Ive said you've said exactly nothing. The fact is that if you could refute something I've posted you would. But you can't and you know it. Neither can your hero YOS and he knows it too.

Edmund,
Intelligent Design Magic has been rejected by every private Christian college and university in the world that teaches science. Not only that these CHRISTIAN schools continue to distance themselves from this obvious religious hoax and the two crackpots in their midst, William Dembski and Michael Behe who continue to promote it. In fact I think Baylor already fired Dembski for his nonsense. Before you try to sell a hoax like ID Magic to atheists perhaps you should first try to get your own Christian academic community to buy it. Perhaps you can explain why they haven't and they never will. Or perhaps not. Anyway thanks for the laughs. Oh BTW, Anthony Flip-Flop Flew is back to being an atheist again.

@Sir Ed

I think you are conflating biological ID with cosmological ID. The two are superficially similar, but completely separate areas of thought.

While I would generally agree with your assessment regarding the majority status among informed opinion of biological ID, the status with cosmological ID however, is far different.

Cosmological ID is a widely considered and respected group of ideas, observations, and theories. Unlike biological ID, the empirical, scientific, and philosophical case for it is compelling enough to draw the sustained and serious attention of many of the most brilliant minds in science and philosophy today. Unlike biological ID, it is acknowledged by its opponents that cosmological ID has made observations and raised questions that cannot be ignored, and which demand to be addressed.

I would refer you to Robert Spitzer's "New Proofs for the Existence of God; Contributions from Contemporary Physics and Science" for a rigorous and challenging introduction.

Good review of the book here: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2010/schall_spitzerbook_dec2010.asp

I was unaware that Anthony Flew had reverted to atheism, before his death in April of last year. I'm surprised that I didn't hear about that, especially in any of the obituaries that I read, but it is certainly possible that I missed it (curiously, a quick web search brings up no mention of any such reversion). Would you please provide me with some references to support that claim?

YOS: Actually, Aristotle was not a Christian.

Ed: I don’t care what Aristotle was. How do you Christians think Jesus, I mean the unmoved mover moves things or got them moving in the first place? I predict you’ll either duck the question again or refuse to answer it truthfully.

YOS
a) You asserted that Aristotle's argument depended on some Christian "boogie magic". I simply pointed out that you are starting from a false premise.
b) Given that the act of creation is incomprehensible to us, I have not the foggiest notion of "how." The question of HOW is a question for natural science, and that immediately assumes that something already exists and has a nature. The question of IS is one for metaphysics. In any case, the logical conclusion was that ultimately all kinesis originates with a being that is entirely in Act. This is a logical deduction from kinesis, not an empirical hypothesis invoked to explain kinesis.
+ + +
Ed
The flaw is the assumption that nothing such as a sequence of motion (or the universe) can extend infinitely into the past.

YOS
a) It is not an assumption but a logical necessity, and it applies only to essentially-ordered series.
b) Aquinas pointed out that accidentally-ordered series could logically go on infinitely long.
c) That an accidentally-ordered series cannot extend infinitely into the past is due to modern physics, which demonstrates a beginning to space and time. But Aquinas did not know of general relativity or its consequences.

+ + +
Ed: according to the fundamentalists I come in contact with the Bible is infallible and many say, “…if it ain’t in the Bible it ain’t worth knowin,” or something like that.

YOS
Your dismissal of logic as "arguments, not evidence" disposes of all of mathematics. It seems a trifle doctrinaire. How your fundamentalist friends misunderstand the Bible is of no relevance. They "try to extract scientific certainty out of Sacred Scripture by reading it as a legal tract." That's what happens when you separate yourself and start indulging in amateur theology.
+ + +

Ed: Gather data to debate someone who tries to defend the lies of religion?

YOS
I had asked you "what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?" and you answered, "Let me guess. Witch burning, heresy hunting and lying for Jesus?" This is a matter of plain historical fact, not religion, and can be found in books on the history of science.

You still have not answered or provided facts.
+ + +

YOS: another one of those myths that Moderns credulously believe.

Ed: You’re the one who belongs to a cult of myth believers, not me.

YOS
Yes, the fallacy of "tu quoque." Even so, that does not preclude your belief in myths. Myths are stories that give meaning to a cultural arrangement, confirm the rightness of the existing structure. Everyone has 'em. Mary Midgley gives a nice account of the myths of modernism in her book MYTHS WE LIVE BY.
+ + +

YOS: Just about every copy of every ancient Greek or Latin manuscript was preserved and copied (and re-recopied) by Syriac, Byzantine, and/or Latin Christians over the centuries.

Ed: Still no one mentioned this passage [in Tacitus] until about 1500 years after it was supposedly written. Why? I think we both know.

YOS
Sure. The medievals were far more interested in ancient works on logic, reason, mathematics, natural philosophy, and medicine than they were in ancient works of history, literature, poetry, etc. They did not think it was necessary to go quote mining.
+ + +
Ed: The supposed persecution of early Christians is all mythology. The early Christians WERE the Romans. That Christianity grew from Judaism is a myth. No Jew I’ve ever met believes that.

YOS
Egad. This grows weirder and weirder. Actually, the early Christians were mostly Jews, and then Greeks, Syrians, and Egyptians. Then Armenians, Romans, Ethiopians, Gauls, Germans, Irish, Keralans, Scandanavians, Slavs, You realize that your Secret Conspiracy Theory of Intelligently Designed History is growing like goat barbecue. Soon everything will be a Conspiracy, and we shall have to send our secret ninja albino Jesuit assassins to take care of you.
+ + +

Ed: Embryos are not human beings.

YOS
Human ones are. Or perhaps you believe they are canine beings. Hey, let's do science! First we could check if they exist materially, that is, have being. If so, we could weigh or locate one. Then maybe we could check their DNA or something; and then we could observe whether in the common course of nature they either self-organize based on internal information or are constructed as an artifact by another with external information.

Used to be that it was supposed to be "being born" and "breathing air" that we were told made people [somehow] human; but now we have that abortionist in West Philadelphia who delivered babies alive and THEN severed their spines. PZ Meyer spoke up in his defense. "They are "only meat." So we see what direction things are going. I guess now even a newborn is only "potentially" a human being.
+ + +

Andre:
I think you are conflating biological ID with cosmological ID. The two are superficially similar, but completely separate areas of thought.

Response: This is just more moving of the goalposts. Scientists refuted your ID Magic claims about biology so you say okay now refute these claims about cosmology.

While I would generally agree with your assessment regarding the majority status among informed opinion of biological ID, the status with cosmological ID however, is far different.

Response: How so?

Cosmological ID is a widely considered and respected group of ideas, observations, and theories.

Response: Considered and respected by who exactly? If William Dembski and William Lane Craig are some of the people who respect CID Magic (I think I just coined a phrase) then it’s definitely NOT a widely respected group of ideas, observations and theories. Can you name a Christian research university or any university for that matter that is currently studying Cosmological ID? I didn’t think so and until that happens CID Magic is still biblical creationism disguised in a lab coat. I think I’ll call Cosmological ID “Creationist Lite.”

Unlike biological ID, the empirical, scientific, and philosophical case for it is compelling enough to draw the sustained and serious attention of many of the most brilliant minds in science and philosophy today.

Response: Again, name ‘em and claim ‘em. Who? Do any of these minds NOT work at the Discovery Institute? Don’t compare science with philosophy. Scientists have done what the philosophers could not do because philosophers sit on their hands and DO nothing.

Unlike biological ID, it is acknowledged by its opponents that cosmological ID has made observations and raised questions that cannot be ignored, and which demand to be addressed.

Response: Okay, what are these questions and who is demanding they be addressed. You and these people making demands obviously don’t realize that scientists are not at our beck and call - they aren’t required to answer our questions. They do it out of the kindness of their hearts knowing full well the majority of us have no clue what they are talking about and never will. What you are really implying is that if scientists cannot answer some questions then that gives some validity to various Intelligent Design hypotheses. It doesn’t.

I would refer you to Robert Spitzer's "New Proofs for the Existence of God; Contributions from Contemporary Physics and Science" for a rigorous and challenging introduction.

Response: Oh great a Jesuit priest from a school founded on woo woo with more woo woo about how God must exist because he doesn’t understand how he couldn’t. And then you direct me to a book review on a Christian website. There’s an unbiased opinion. More woo woo.

YOS: a) You asserted that Aristotle's argument depended on some Christian "boogie magic". I simply pointed out that you are starting from a false premise.

Response: No Christian arguments depend on magic and miracles and the gullibility of those who hear them, which to me is the real miracle.

b) Given that the act of creation is incomprehensible to us, I have not the foggiest notion of "how." The question of HOW is a question for natural science, and that immediately assumes that something already exists and has a nature.

Response: If creation is beyond human comprehension, then the hypothesis that it occurred cannot explain anything. So it certainly cannot fill explanatory gaps that exist in any scientific theories of cosmology. If something literally passes all understanding, then nothing at all can be said or thought about it by humans and so it is utterly meaningless to us. By offering this as a causal explanation you are offering exactly nothing.

The question of IS is one for metaphysics. In any case, the logical conclusion was that ultimately all kinesis originates with a being that is entirely in Act. This is a logical deduction from kinesis, not an empirical hypothesis invoked to explain kinesis.

Response: Just saying that this is the logical deduction is once again saying nothing. Why is this the logical deduction?

c) That an accidentally-ordered series cannot extend infinitely into the past is due to modern physics, which demonstrates a beginning to space and time. But Aquinas did not know of general relativity or its consequences.

Response: The “Loop Theory” solves time before the Big Bang thus supporting the Big Bounce. Mr. Physicist. Why am I telling YOU this? You should already be aware of this if you are what you say you are.

YOS: Your dismissal of logic as "arguments, not evidence" disposes of all of mathematics. It seems a trifle doctrinaire.

Response: What you are really saying is that we have no evidence that mathematical formulas actually work but rather only arguments that they work. Tell that to a Geometry teacher and see how well it goes over with them. Then get back to me.

How your fundamentalist friends misunderstand the Bible is of no relevance. They "try to extract scientific certainty out of Sacred Scripture by reading it as a legal tract." That's what happens when you separate yourself and start indulging in amateur theology.

Response: That’s really funny because a five-year old child knows as much about God as anyone else. Theology isn’t even a subject. It’s the study of nothing. People who believe in angels and demons calling themselves “scholars” is just so ludicrous.

YOS: I had asked you "what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?" and you answered, "Let me guess. Witch burning, heresy hunting and lying for Jesus?" This is a matter of plain historical fact, not religion, and can be found in books on the history of science.

You still have not answered or provided facts.

Response: Again what is the point of the question?

YOS: Yes, the fallacy of "tu quoque." Even so, that does not preclude your belief in myths. Myths are stories that give meaning to a cultural arrangement, confirm the rightness of the existing structure. Everyone has 'em. Mary Midgley gives a nice account of the myths of modernism in her book MYTHS WE LIVE BY.

Response: I studied ancient history in college but I guess I was absent on the day they discussed mythology. I knew more about mythology by the time I was 12 than most people will ever know. I mean when I was five I knew a star can’t lead someone to a particular building. Millions of adults can’t even figure that out.

YOS: Sure. The medievals were far more interested in ancient works on logic, reason, mathematics, natural philosophy, and medicine than they were in ancient works of history, literature, poetry, etc. They did not think it was necessary to go quote mining.

Response: The arguments between pagan critics and Christian apologists over things like the supposed existence of Jesus Christ are fairly well documented. Of course we don’t have much of anything that pagan critics actually wrote because as everyone in the world knows except you, angry Christians burned all the pagan literature they could find. However we do have some Christian responses to these criticisms. Origen tells us there were no mentions of Jesus Christ in the works of Josephus. Then in the fourth century CE Church propagandist and admitted liar Eusebius magically produced a copy, ONE copy of Josephus with the now famous golden paragraphs all about Jesus in it, totally out of place in the manuscript. This disproves your claim and is just one example of a rank Christian forgery. The entire New Testament is another.

YOS: Egad. This grows weirder and weirder. Actually, the early Christians were mostly Jews, and then Greeks, Syrians, and Egyptians.

Response: Christians can’t seem to understand that Judaism is NOT a belief system the way Christianity is. It’s a system of traditions. One’s opinion of God is not important and is of no consequence whatsoever. There’s no carrot and stick, no reward or punishment and there’s definitely no afterlife in Judaism. You obey God because he’s God, not because he’s going to punish you if you don’t or if you question his existence. I don’t think I know any Jews who don’t question the existence of God. Most Jews are who still keep the traditions are what you might call respectively skeptical. That kind of thinking certainly isn’t allowed in Christianity.

Then Armenians, Romans, Ethiopians, Gauls, Germans, Irish, Keralans, Scandanavians, Slavs, You realize that your Secret Conspiracy Theory of Intelligently Designed History is growing like goat barbecue. Soon everything will be a Conspiracy, and we shall have to send our secret ninja albino Jesuit assassins to take care of you.

Response: Many people have known and know that Christianity evolved from sun worshiping cults rather than Judaism. “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” – Thomas Paine. “The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion which was already in existence began to be called Christian.” Augustine, Retractiones. Religions evolve from other older religions. They don’t just pop into the existence with the appearance of some prophet or wondering wonder-worker or some talking vegetation.

YOS: Human ones are. Or perhaps you believe they are canine beings. Hey, let's do science! First we could check if they exist materially, that is, have being. If so, we could weigh or locate one. Then maybe we could check their DNA or something; and then we could observe whether in the common course of nature they either self-organize based on internal information or are constructed as an artifact by another with external information.

Response: Let’s examine this argument. Using your special anti-logic acorns are trees and eggs are chickens. Acorns are not trees. Eggs are not chickens. So why are embryos human beings? They aren’t. Why do we change the language when it comes to human embryos? I think Mr. Dictionary has failed you. In Christian apologetics many words are redefined and become so overburdened with ponderous, contrived, dissonant meanings that they are put out of commission entirely as vehicles for articulate thought or communication. This is just one example. We could also examine the distortion of the words life, death, truth, wisdom, righteousness, bondage, love, hate, will, justice, witness, word and many others by Christians. By changing the meanings of words such as “human” you intend to manipulate people’s thoughts. That’s called “logicide.” You can’t make your case without doing this. Since you really have no case you can’t play by the rules so you make your own.

Used to be that it was supposed to be "being born" and "breathing air" that we were told made people [somehow] human; but now we have that abortionist in West Philadelphia who delivered babies alive and THEN severed their spines. PZ Meyer spoke up in his defense. "They are "only meat." So we see what direction things are going. I guess now even a newborn is only "potentially" a human being.

Response: I can’t help but think of you as Ye Ole Logical Fallacy. To those of us who have actually studied logic (as opposed to those who torture it the way you do) that is what is known as the Slippery Slope Argument.

Andre
Cosmological ID is a widely considered and respected group of ideas, observations, and theories.

Sir Ed
...Considered and respected by who exactly?..... Can you name a Christian research university or any university for that matter that is currently studying Cosmological ID? I didn’t think so...

Andre
I am not aware of any overtly Christian research universities where cosmological ID is a hot topic (although I do not doubt they exist), most of the scientists that I am familiar with (undoubtedly a tiny percentage) that have made contributions in this area are associated primarily with what would have to be called secular institutions, such as:

Roger Penrose: Oxford University (original a "Christian" institution;still?)

Paul Davies: Arizona State University (previously Cambridge, University
of London, and others)

Owen Gingerich: Harvard

John Polkinghorne: Cambridge

Brandon Carter: Laboratoire Univers et Théories (previously: Cambridge)

Fred Hoyle: Cambridge

John Barrow: Cambridge

John Lennox; Oxford

Stephen Barr: University of Delaware

Again, these are just a few that I know about , and I'm just an unemployed carpenter (and high school drop out! ) who just likes to read a lot.




Andre
Unlike biological ID, the empirical, scientific, and philosophical case for it is compelling enough to draw the sustained and serious attention of many of the most brilliant minds in science and philosophy today.

Sir Ed
Response: Again, name ‘em and claim ‘em. Who? Do any of these minds NOT work at the Discovery Institute?

Andre
Ok, let's go straight to the top; Leonard Susskind of Stanford, the father of string theory, and victor in the famous 10year "Black Hole War" debate with Stephen Hawking, states in his latest popular publication *The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design* that if his theory proves to be inconsistent, physicists will be left without any alternative to intelligent design.

I would say that is taking it pretty damn seriously.



Andre
I would refer you to Robert Spitzer's "New Proofs for the Existence of God; Contributions from Contemporary Physics and Science" for a rigorous and challenging introduction.

Sir Ed
Response: Oh great a Jesuit priest from a school founded on woo woo with more woo woo about how God must exist because he doesn’t understand how he couldn’t. And then you direct me to a book review on a Christian website. There’s an unbiased opinion. More woo woo.

Andre
Yeah, after all, the Jesuits have no experience in scientific research, or in teaching, do they?

I must say that for someone who so loudly waves the banner of science (more correctly: scientism), you seem to take a radically unscientific approach to, well, just about everything....you consistently reject and ignore any evidence that challenges your preconceived prejudices and belief system, while at the same time you're primary defense of those beliefs amount to little more than than a constant and belligerent assertion of their truth. It is the Argument From The Authority of Ed, and little else.

Physical evidence is rejected out of hand as obvious forgeries, as are any line in any ancient text that contradicts you.

Citations of numerous historical counter-examples to your claims are completely ignored.

Basically, any writings by any scholar in any field, no matter how respected and learned those scholars may be, are simply rejected out of hand, if they disagree with you.

It's not even that you consider them and reject them; you refuse to even consider them (on second thought, don't bother with the Spitzer book, most of it will go over your head anyway).

Are any of your beliefs falsifiable in any way?

That famous example of the Inquisitors refusing to look through Galileo's telescope may be apocryphal, but as the example you are providing demonstrates, it is at least true in the mythic sense, illustrating the near fanatical resistance to evidence of closed minded ideologues.



Sir Ed
...Anthony Flip-Flop Flew is back to being an atheist again.

Andre
I was unaware that Anthony Flew had reverted to atheism, before his death in April of last year. I'm surprised that I didn't hear about that, especially in any of the obituaries that I read, but it is certainly possible that I missed it (curiously, a quick web search brings up no mention of any such reversion). Would you please provide me with some references to support that claim?

Sir Ed
( sound of crickets chirping )

YOS to Ed
I had asked you "what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?" and you answered, "Let me guess. Witch burning, heresy hunting and lying for Jesus?" This is a matter of plain historical fact, not religion, and can be found in books on the history of science.

You still have not answered or provided facts.


Ed to YOS
Response: Again what is the point of the question?


Andre to Ed
I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that the point of YOS's question was to find out if you knew the answer.

Given that he has asked the question numerous times and you have not as yet provided an answer, I am left with considering only three possible explanations for why this is so:

1. You don't know the answer and are embarrassed to admit it.

2. You know the answer, but are reluctant to provide it because you perceive the damage it will do to your overall position vis a vis the medieval Church.

3. You are just gratuitously being a butt-head.

I would guess that originally it was #1; you didn't know the answer, but since it is not a difficult subject to research, and a short search on the web would quickly bring you the facts, it quickly morphed to #2.

So, what am I left to conclude?

Do the math: 1 + 2 = 3

@Ed

Forget about that 1+2=3 crack. I thought that was really witty for about four seconds (just long enough to hit the SEND button...d'oh!).

What I originally meant to say in that post, and what I was leading up to, was that you should not be embarrassed just because you don't know some particular fact, or the answer to some question that comes up suddenly in some com-box debate. We are all learning new things constantly (or at least we should be) and none of us arrive here knowing everything about everything (well, YOS might, but like I said before, he is a freak of nature).

Remember, that no single refutation is necessarily fatal to your larger argument, yet to stubbornly persist in trying to maintain an image of factual infallibility, in the face of overwhelming evidence (a single counter factual is overwhelming if you have zero to rebut it) not only does not strengthen your case, but actually weakens it by giving people the impression (rightly or wrongly) that might not really know what you are talking about.

Just something to consider.

Oh,yeah....one other thing: I have found that if you are truly and primarily interested in the search for the TRUTH, it is always best to engage an opponents arguments in their strongest presentation. Too many people waste their time trying create silly caricatures of opposing views, but to what end? If you create a straw man only to knock it down, great, you've knocked down a straw man....so what? What have you gained? What have you learned?

On the other hand, if you intentionally seek out your opponents ideas in their most persuasive and complete form, then you've really got something to work on, and even if you are unable to overcome them, you stand to learn and grow substantially from the encounter.

That's all....

Prof. Flew passed away after writing his last book, "There is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" In his book, Prof flew wrote:

"I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith’ (p. 93)."

"Res ipsa loquitur"

Ed: The supposed persecution of early Christians is all mythology. The early Christians WERE the Romans. That Christianity grew from Judaism is a myth. No Jew I’ve ever met believes that.

Edmond- Ed, you are mostly incorrect. MInutely correct. In the Acts of the Apostles
at pentecost, Peter describes who the first Christians were:

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 -Acts 2:5

As for the Jews you've ever met, jews really don't take a touchy-feely attitude to Christian faith, they don't recognize Christ as the messiah so don't expect them to recognize
christianity.

Ed: If creation is beyond human comprehension, then the hypothesis that it occurred cannot explain anything. So it certainly cannot fill explanatory gaps that exist in any scientific theories of cosmology.

YOS
It is not intended to do so. Does music appreciation "fill in the gaps" of the scientific theory of acoustics? How does evolution by natural selection fill the explanatory gaps in auto mechanics? It is common for camp followers and fanboys of X to assume that everything that everyone else does is a flawed attempt to do X. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. A methodology based on the goal of dominating and exploiting nature will necessarily focus on those aspects of nature that are metric and controllable. The metaphysical trap is that one then begins to believe that because one's favored instrument can only "see" the metric and controllable aspects of nature that those are the only aspects that are "real." Hence, the modernist paradoxes, the denial of the qualia, the denial of the mind, the denial even of the universe itself.
+ + +
Ed: Why is this the logical deduction?

YOS
Because it is a series of arguments constructed according to the rules of logic. You may, if you like, contest the validity of the argument; but you have to make an argument, not simply jump up and down, call it moronic, and hold your breath until you turn blue.

Ed: The “Loop Theory” solves time before the Big Bang thus supporting the Big Bounce. Mr. Physicist. Why am I telling YOU this?

YOS
So does the Great Gnome Theory. The big bounce went out in Einstein's day. Every now and then, someone tries to revive it, or revive Hoyle's steady state. Often, the motives are simply uneasiness with what is perceived as the implications of the Big Bang. But do not worry. Lemaitre himself warned that the beginning of a space-time manifold is not the same thing as creation.

I'm not a physicist, but an applied statistician, former mathematician. However, some of my best friends are physicists. I'm curious where you get your science info from.
+ + +
Ed: What you are really saying is that we have no evidence that mathematical formulas actually work but rather only arguments that they work. Tell that to a Geometry teacher and see how well it goes over with them.

YOS
It would go over well with my old geometry teachers, since they spent considerable effort to pound logic and mathematics into my brain. Those "arguments" are what we call "proofs" of theorems or propositions. I still have my old plane geometry text, and it consists entirely of a series of such proofs, starting from a set of postulates. Chapter I is definitions. Chapter II is entitled "Reasoning and Proof." On pp. 52-53, we have the elements of a formal proof. Then follows a book-full of theorems and their formal proofs, some as exercises. The first is that "Complements of the same angle are equal," which follows from two definitions, Postulate 9 and Axioms 6 and 2. I also have, as it happens, a translation of Euclid's ELEMENTS, and it is organized in a similar fashion; so it's not like this is a new fashion. If I move down the shelf, I have Copi's SYMBOLIC LOGIC and, ah, Dugundji's TOPOLOGY. Let's look at the latter, opening at random: Theorem: The continuous image of a connected set is connected, followed by an argument: If f(X) were not connected, there would be [by a previous theorem] a continuous surjection g:f(X)->2. The g.f:X->2 would also be a continuous surjection, contradicting the connectedness of X. (2 is the topological space consisting of the set {a,b} with the fine topology.) This argument is classical modus tollens, that Popper made so famous. Provided the logic is correct and the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

I am curious what you mean by "work" and how this overturns all of mathematical practice.
+ + +

YOS: I had asked you "what subjects comprised the undergraduate curriculum of the medieval university?" and you answered, "Let me guess. Witch burning, heresy hunting and lying for Jesus?" This is a matter of plain historical fact, not religion, and can be found in books on the history of science. You still have not answered or provided facts.

Ed: Again what is the point of the question?

YOS
You had asserted contrary to fact that medieval writings "are study in anti-logic and flawed reasoning." And then presented as an example of your own flawless reasoning: "For example the First Cause argument is moronic." I was just curious to know if you had even the slightest clue what you were talking about, and you have only demonstrated that you don't.
+ + +
Ed: I studied ancient history in college but I guess I was absent on the day they discussed mythology. I knew more about mythology by the time I was 12 than most people will ever know.

YOS
Congratulations. Many anthropologists spend a lifetime to achieve what a twelve year old child came to know by some sort of epiphany. I hope you don't equate mythology with stories about the Greek gods and so forth.
+ + +

Ed: (1) The arguments between pagan critics and Christian apologists over things like the supposed existence of Jesus Christ are fairly well documented.

YOS
Then you should have no trouble documenting it.

Ed: (2) Of course we don’t have much of anything that pagan critics actually wrote because as everyone in the world knows except you, angry Christians burned all the pagan literature they could find.

YOS
If your (2) is true, then your (1) is false.

If the great burning of pagan literature that "everyone knows" is so well documented, you should have no trouble actually documenting it. Give me a time, a place, and a source.

What am I saying?! Ed has not documented a single claim so far! That is quite a record for someone who claims to champion empiricism and facts and to oppose unquestioning belief.

+ + +
Ed: Christians can’t seem to understand that Judaism is ... a system of traditions. One’s opinion of God is not important ... There’s no carrot and stick, no reward or punishment and there’s definitely no afterlife in Judaism. You obey God because he’s God, not because he’s going to punish you if you don’t or if you question his existence.

YOS
Heh. That's like saying a dog could not have evolved from a beardog because the beardog is different from the dog.

Of course. It has been said that Judaism (and Islam) are orthoprax (right practice), while Christianity is orthodox (right belief). The former regards its scriptures as a series of laws and commandments and just follows those orders. Orthodoxy regards its scriptures as a set of principles that form a basis for reasoning about the world.

However, there were many sects of Jews in the first century. In Alexandria, the largest population of Jews, were the Therapeutes described by Philo. The Beth Hillel school was very close to Christianity, and many Christian teachings can be found in it. The Hellenized Jews in Alexandria wrote several books in Greek, some of which referred to the afterlife. These books were included in the Septuagent of the Alexandrian Jews, but were later dropped from the Masoretic text put together by the Palestinian Jews. This was partly because some of the Greek Jewish texts referred favorably to the Romans and by the time the Masoretic text was put together the Romans were viewed with fear and loathing.
+ + +

Ed: Church propagandist and admitted liar Eusebius

YOS
Heh.

Ed: Many people have known and know that Christianity evolved from sun worshiping cults rather than Judaism. “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” – Thomas Paine.

YOS
Ah, the old sun-worship thingie that fundamentalists trot out against the Ol' "Whore of Babylon" in the Vatican. Why is it that atheists swallow these fundamentalist tropes so credulously? Or believe that Paine knew what he was talking about?

That Christianity was prefigured in Jewish and pagan beliefs was always a matter of doctrine. If something is true, it is not surprising if others caught glimpses of it. Otherwise the Church would not have preached a "baptism of desire" or "the naturally Christian man." The Latin word "Retractationes" does not mean what you think it does.
+++++++++++++++
Ed: Using your special anti-logic acorns are trees and eggs are chickens. Acorns are not trees. Eggs are not chickens. So why are embryos human beings?

YOS
A human embryo is a human being for the same reason that a fertile acorn is an oaken being. The acorn is not a "tree," and the embryo is not an "adult." You must keep your parallelism intact. Different stages of development often have different names: an oak may be acorn, sprout, sapling, tree; a human may be embryo, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult. But you are confusing a difference in stage along a continuum with a difference in kind.

An egg is not a chicken because it might be a snake or an alligator or a bald eagle. It depends on what kind of egg it is, and that being the case, there is a chicken-ness to the [fertilized chicken] egg. Perhaps you have experienced only unfertilized cooking eggs. These are indeed not chickens, and never will or can be chickens. You could try smashing a bunch of bald eagle eggs and see what the Wildlife Service makes of your argument.

Ed: By changing the meanings of words such as “human”

YOS
I suggested that a human is a self-organizing subsistent being possessing a human genome. I am curious to hear your definition -- and who it excludes. Based on the events in West Philadelphia and legislative votes against the "born alive" bills, it no longer includes just being born. Pete Singer suggests children up to two years old could still be aborted by their parents.

Ed: To those of us who have actually studied logic that is what is known as the Slippery Slope Argument.

YOS
The so-called "slippery slope" is not a formal fallacy, but may or may not be a material fallacy depending on the [subject] matter. Besides, it's easy to spot a slippery slope after you've tumbled halfway down. IOW, if Joe says "This is a slippery slope" at the top of the slope, you may doubt him; but when he says it after sliding down, you are yourself on unfirm ground.

+ + +
Andre
That famous example of the Inquisitors refusing to look through Galileo's telescope may be apocryphal

YOS
It is. There was a physicist who refused to look; but he was a secular figure. I have the account in a book here, but I'm too busy to read through the book and find it.

And BTW the physicists were not pure boneheads. The telescope was a) the first instrument whose results could not be directly verified by humans senses; and b) the images were low resolution, partial fields, tinted green [from impurities in the glasses], and upside down. So there were reasonable grounds for doubting whether instrument-mediated observations of the heavens were reliable. This was not the case among the Jesuits, who were building their own telescopes, or Harriott, Fabricius, or any of the many others who were busily telescoping back in the day. A nice site for the history is The Renaissance Mathematicus: http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/extracting-the-stopper/

Andre to Ed:
While I would generally agree with your assessment regarding the majority status among informed opinion of biological ID, the status with cosmological ID however, is far different.

Ed:
Response: How so?

Andre
Behe's arguments, and the examples he has claimed for his version of the theory of "irreducible complexity" are certainly interesting and provocative, and whether ultimately proved incorrect or not, I see nothing inherently "crackpot" about them.

I haven't followed the debate very closely ( barely at all), but the two main streams of that debate that I do find rather interesting are:

1) Is Behe's theory falsifiable?

and

2) Has it in fact been falsified?

I have read claims and counter claims, back and forth, and I am certainly in no position to come to any judgments about the answers to either of those two questions, so I remain an agnostic in regards to both of them.

I can say though that I have never got too excited about Behe's work, or the ID project ,ala Discovery Institute, in general, because it does smack of "God of the gaps" pleading. Even if it were to be the case that no one has been able to refute Behe's examples completely yet, it certainly conceivable that it may happen eventually.

I am more interested and intrigued by the Thomistic arguments against the ID project. If you are interested, you can find a good exposition of them by Edward Feser here:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html


What we have been calling the Cosmological ID arguments are far more compelling. Although I am in no better position to make any final judgments here than I am in regards to the Behe controversy, I can not help but notice when of the leading opponents of these theories publicly state (as in the Susskind example I mentioned earlier) that if there own highly speculative theories are unable to explain the Universal Fine Tuning, then Intelligent Design (for lack of a better term) becomes by default the leading hypothesis.

I follow with fascination the development of the multi-verse theories, and I can not help but wonder if their proponents would be so frantically pursuing those theories, if they were not feeling the relentless pursuit of some version of cosmological ID at their heels.

"It is a very curious circumstance that materialist, in an effort to avoid what Laplace called the unnecessary hypothesis of God, are frequently driven to hypothesize the existence of an infinity of unobservable entities."
- Stephen Barr, *Modern Physics and Ancient Faith*

Andre: I am not aware of any overtly Christian research universities where cosmological ID is a hot topic (although I do not doubt they exist), most of the scientists that I am familiar with (undoubtedly a tiny percentage) that have made contributions in this area are associated primarily with what would have to be called secular institutions, such as:

Response: CID Magic isn’t being taught or even discussed at any universities, Christian or secular. Intelligent Design is religion and a science stopper. There isn’t any evidence of design or for a designer.

Andre: Again, these are just a few that I know about , and I'm just an unemployed carpenter (and high school drop out! ) who just likes to read a lot.

Response: Sounds vaguely familiar. Hey why don’t you start a religion?

Andre: Ok, let's go straight to the top; Leonard Susskind of Stanford, the father of string theory, and victor in the famous 10year "Black Hole War" debate with Stephen Hawking, states in his latest popular publication *The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design* that if his theory proves to be inconsistent, physicists will be left without any alternative to intelligent design.

I would say that is taking it pretty damn seriously.

Response: That is the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Andre: I must say that for someone who so loudly waves the banner of science (more correctly: scientism), you seem to take a radically unscientific approach to, well, just about everything....you consistently reject and ignore any evidence that challenges your preconceived prejudices and belief system, while at the same time you're primary defense of those beliefs amount to little more than than a constant and belligerent assertion of their truth. It is the Argument From The Authority of Ed, and little else.

Response: What new evidence for the existence of God was presented in Spitzer’s book exactly? Exactly nothing. Neither the Jesuits nor anyone else has found any new evidence for any God. This book you are talking about just repackages the same old worn out and long refuted arguments for God. As I have already pointed out, arguments are NOT evidence and they are a pretty good indication that the person making the argument has no evidence. When is Spitzer going to get his Nobel Prize for discovering God? See what I mean? He’s discovered absolutely nothing.

Andre: Physical evidence is rejected out of hand as obvious forgeries, as are any line in any ancient text that contradicts you.

Response: Even conservative Christian scholars have said the entries in the works of Tacitus and Josephus I discussed are forgeries.

Andre: Citations of numerous historical counter-examples to your claims are completely ignored.

Response: Name just one.

Andre: Basically, any writings by any scholar in any field, no matter how respected and learned those scholars may be, are simply rejected out of hand, if they disagree with you.

Response: Of course if I am right about what I say then the people who disagree with me must be wrong. Right?

Andre: It's not even that you consider them and reject them; you refuse to even consider them (on second thought, don't bother with the Spitzer book, most of it will go over your head anyway).

Response: From the Discovery Institute: “Jesuit Father Robert Spitzer wants to challenge the minds of college students who ‘are being bombarded with specious arguments that attempt to dissuade them from belief in God.’” So Spitzer’s own stated goal has nothing to do with science but rather the religious indoctrination of college students. Spitzer has a long association with the Discovery Institute, which as you know is a creationist and conservative Christian political organization that has absolutely nothing to do with science. According to their charter filed with the IRS the Discovery Institute is a non-scientific organization. I have read other books just like Spitzer’s book. I have read The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross (most of it anyway) and The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzales. Both Ross and Gonzales are senior fellows at the Discovery Institute. Their books, like Spitzer’s have nothing to do with science.

Andre: Are any of your beliefs falsifiable in any way?

Response: They pretty much all are I think. Which beliefs in particular?

Andre to Ed: I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that the point of YOS's question was to find out if you knew the answer.

Response: Of course it wasn’t. YOS knew that if I didn’t know the answer I could look it up. There was a point he was trying to make. What is it?

Andre: What I originally meant to say in that post, and what I was leading up to, was that you should not be embarrassed just because you don't know some particular fact, or the answer to some question that comes up suddenly in some com-box debate. We are all learning new things constantly (or at least we should be) and none of us arrive here knowing everything about everything (well, YOS might, but like I said before, he is a freak of nature).

Response: There isn’t anything you, YOS or any other Christian is going to post that I haven’t seen before ad nauseam. The only thing that varies a little is the presentation of the arguments and the way people react when they see their favorite arguments, the ones OTHER PEOPLE used to indoctrinate them utterly destroyed by an atheist the way say YOS has.

Andre: Remember, that no single refutation is necessarily fatal to your larger argument, yet to stubbornly persist in trying to maintain an image of factual infallibility, in the face of overwhelming evidence (a single counter factual is overwhelming if you have zero to rebut it) not only does not strengthen your case, but actually weakens it by giving people the impression (rightly or wrongly) that might not really know what you are talking about.

Response: Well I keep asking for evidence but so far all I’ve gotten is lame arguments that as I said I’ve seen before so I know how to refute them.

Ed
Many people have known and know that Christianity evolved from sun worshiping cults rather than Judaism. “The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.” – Thomas Paine.

YOS
That Christianity was prefigured in Jewish and pagan beliefs was always a matter of doctrine. If something is true, it is not surprising if others caught glimpses of it.

Andre
Here is another way to approach this question: If the Old Testament accounts are true then we can safely assume that the first post-Edenic human populations must have had a far more complete and accurate knowledge of God then all the generations that were to follow. After all, mom and pop used to "walk in the garden in the cool of the day" with the Big Man.

However you interpret that line from Genesis, it certainly seems to imply a very direct and intimate familiarity with God.

We could also safely assume that Adam and Eve (whatever number of people those two names might signify) would have passed on much of this first hand knowledge to their children, and they to theirs, and so on and so on down through all the generations to follow.

Who knows how long this first tradition remained pure and undistorted, but eventually, with the passing of time and the exponential increase of the human population and its continuing diaspora over the globe, the tradition would inevitably begin to be diluted. Details would be forgotten, links in the chain would be broken among populations by social or natural upheavals and catastrophes, errors would begin to creep in.

In this context it is interesting to note that in Hinduism, the oldest and most continuous, organized religious tradition on the planet of which we are aware, the further back in it's history you go, the LESS polytheistic it appears. Bede Griffiths points out that it is in the first book of the Rig Veda, the oldest of the Hindu traditions, and among the oldest continuously used religious texts in the world, that we find:

"Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti"

"the one being the wise call by many names"

Could this not be seen as perhaps a memory of that first, original religious tradition of man, born of direct experience and contact with the Divine?

Thus it would not only be through the use of Reason, and an innate intuition of Natural Law, that the pagans would have come to a knowledge of God, but also through some faded remnant of that first inherited primordial Revelation.

Seen from this perspective, the prefiguring of elements of Christianity, far from being a defeater of the Judeo-Christian tradition, could be seen a direct and historical result of it.

What do you think?

BTW: came up with this angle all by myself, thank you very much (now watch YOS point out to me that this idea was already laid out in detail in some obscure 6th century treatise. If that's the case, just do me a favor and don't quote it to me in Latin!)

Andre to Ed
Citations of numerous historical counter-examples to your claims are completely ignored.

Ed
Name just one.

Andre
In response to your assertion that it was Arabs who translated the Greek scientific texts from Arabic to Latin, I supplied you with a long excerpt from David Lindberg's book on the history of that period, in which he documents many of the Christian scholars who translated these texts.

These Christian scholars included:
Constantine (fl. 1065-85)
John of Seville (fl. 1133-42)
Hugh of Santalla (fl. 1145)
Mark of Toledo (fl. 1191-1216)
Robert of Chester (fl. 1141-50)
Hermann the Dalmatian (fl. 1138-43)
Plato of Tivoli (fl. 1132-46)
Gerard of Cremona (ca. 1114-87)
Roger the Shrubber (oops, I think that's Monty Python again)

You have completely ignored this, and to date have provided not one single piece of evidence in support of your claim (not even the name of a single Arab translator).

( Isn't it time for you to just man-up, and admit that you were just blowing smoke on this one, so we can just put it to bed and move on? )


BTW: Do you have any intent to provide the evidence that I have requested (this would be the third time) to back up your assertion that Anthony Flew reverted to atheism before his death last year?

Or were you just blowing smoke on that one, too?

Edmond- Ed, you are mostly incorrect. MInutely correct. In the Acts of the Apostles at pentecost, Peter describes who the first Christians were:

Response: Oh boy. Do you really think the fantasy novel known as Acts of the Apostles gives an accurate description of the origins of Christianity? My point is that without using the Bible no one can tell us a single thing about Jesus or any of the apostles. These figures exist nowhere in the historical record. What can you tell me about the apostles without using the Bible? Not a single thing. You can’t use the Bible to prove the claims in the Bible are true. They would have to be corroborated with some kind of historical evidence and they can’t be.

YOS: That Christianity was prefigured in Jewish and pagan beliefs was always a matter of doctrine. If something is true, it is not surprising if others caught glimpses of it.

Response: When things are not a matter of fact they are a matter of doctrine. The reason you have to BELIEVE Christianity came from Judaism is because it isn’t true. Where’s the evidence for this claim? In the Bible? No dice.

@Edmond

Don't bother.

Any historical document that supports the claims of Christianity will be rejected by Ed as fraudulent. Whether those documents were penned by Christians, Jews, or pagans, they all by definition must be lies if they disagree with what Ed wants to believe is the truth.

As was the case with the Pilate stone, he has also shown that he automatically reject any physical, archeological evidence as "fake" too.

Citing any number of acknowledged experts in any of the related fields is also a waste of time because Ed has already said that they are all wrong and he is right.

There is no evidence even theoretically conceivable which he would accept.

He is the stereotypical True Believer whose beliefs are entirely faith based and completely unfalsifiable, and thus completely unscientific.

Like trying to reason with any other fanatical cult follower, it's just a big waste of time.

Andre to Ed: I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that the point of YOS's question was to find out if you knew the answer.

Ed: Of course it wasn’t. YOS knew that if I didn’t know the answer I could look it up. There was a point he was trying to make. What is it?

YOS
At this point, I would have to say that it is to demonstrate that you have no interest in empirical facts. (The original purpose was that you could verify for yourself that your stereotypes and bigotries were factually wrong.)
+ + +

Ed: There isn’t anything you, YOS or any other Christian is going to post that I haven’t seen before ad nauseam.

YOS
Nah. If you had seen them that often, you would be able to state them correctly when you refute them.

YOS: It is not intended to do so. Does music appreciation "fill in the gaps" of the scientific theory of acoustics? How does evolution by natural selection fill the explanatory gaps in auto mechanics? It is common for camp followers and fanboys of X to assume that everything that everyone else does is a flawed attempt to do X. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. A methodology based on the goal of dominating and exploiting nature will necessarily focus on those aspects of nature that are metric and controllable. The metaphysical trap is that one then begins to believe that because one's favored instrument can only "see" the metric and controllable aspects of nature that those are the only aspects that are "real." Hence, the modernist paradoxes, the denial of the qualia, the denial of the mind, the denial even of the universe itself.

Response: Nonsense. That the universe was created is a human fantasy. Creationism is a human invention that is intended to be a science stopper.

YOS
Because it is a series of arguments constructed according to the rules of logic. You may, if you like, contest the validity of the argument; but you have to make an argument, not simply jump up and down, call it moronic, and hold your breath until you turn blue.

Response: I Proved it was moronic by showing that the mass-energy that comprises the universe probably always existed. That Aquinas himself was a babbling moron is a clue as well. You may, if you like, contest the validity of the argument; but you have to make an argument, not simply jump up and down and say it isn’t moronic, and hold your breath until you turn blue.

YOS: So does the Great Gnome Theory. The big bounce went out in Einstein's day. Every now and then, someone tries to revive it, or revive Hoyle's steady state. Often, the motives are simply uneasiness with what is perceived as the implications of the Big Bang. But do not worry. Lemaitre himself warned that the beginning of a space-time manifold is not the same thing as creation.

Response: Should I remind you that you do not have a magical wonder-working rod that can just wave things into non-existence. Where’s your evidence? Poof. ROFL!


YOS: You had asserted contrary to fact that medieval writings "are study in anti-logic and flawed reasoning." And then presented as an example of your own flawless reasoning: "For example the First Cause argument is moronic." I was just curious to know if you had even the slightest clue what you were talking about, and you have only demonstrated that you don't.

Response: I know enough to blow up your ridiculous arguments though don’t I?

YOS: Congratulations. Many anthropologists spend a lifetime to achieve what a twelve year old child came to know by some sort of epiphany. I hope you don't equate mythology with stories about the Greek gods and so forth.

Response: The Bible is mythology. Get over it.

Ed: (1) The arguments between pagan critics and Christian apologists over things like the supposed existence of Jesus Christ are fairly well documented.

Response:

YOS
Then you should have no trouble documenting it.

Ed: (2) Of course we don’t have much of anything that pagan critics actually wrote because as everyone in the world knows except you, angry Christians burned all the pagan literature they could find.

YOS
If your (2) is true, then your (1) is false.

If the great burning of pagan literature that "everyone knows" is so well documented, you should have no trouble actually documenting it. Give me a time, a place, and a source.

What am I saying?! Ed has not documented a single claim so far! That is quite a record for someone who claims to champion empiricism and facts and to oppose unquestioning belief.

Response: Sine you haven’t documented even one of your claims this is just rich.



YOS: Heh. That's like saying a dog could not have evolved from a beardog because the beardog is different from the dog.

Response: No it isn’t. For example Jews would never drink blood even symbolically. Have a rabbi explain why Christianity did not come from Judaism.

"Our Hands Are Stained With Blood" by Christian apologist Dr.Michael Brown should cure anyone of the delusion that Christianity has not been a violent blood thirsty religion until just a few centuries ago. It was the rise of skepticism and secular humanism that gave Christianity its new set of morals and ethics and made the world safe from violent Christians.

Ed: "These figures exist nowhere in the historical record. What can you tell me about the apostles without using the Bible? Not a single thing. You can’t use the Bible to prove the claims in the Bible are true. They would have to be corroborated with some kind of historical evidence and they can’t be. "

Edmond- What kind of histroical evidence do you want? The cave drawings of the paleolithic era are historically accepted to say that man existed during this period.

The dead sea scrolls are historical evidences just as valid:

"The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1946 and 1956 in 11 caves in and around the ruins of the ancient settlement of Qumran on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea in the West Bank.

The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include the oldest known surviving copies of Biblical and extra-biblical documents and preserve evidence of great diversity in late Second Temple Judaism."

Ed:"Christianity has not been a violent blood-thirsty religion until just a few centuries
ago."

Edmond- Sure it was bloody, with Christ's blood among the martyrs and saints persecuted by non-believers to begin Christianity with.

Edmond
The dead sea scrolls are historical evidences just as valid:

Andre
The Dead Sea Scrolls have no relevance to Ed's theory that Christianity was created by gentiles in Rome because the Dead Sea Scrolls are all Old Testament documents, and thus have no direct relationship the early Christianity.

Edmond
Sure it was bloody, with Christ's blood among the martyrs and saints persecuted by non-believers to begin Christianity with.

Andre
Anticipating Ed, he has already claimed that there were no martyrs and no persecutions: all those stories were just made up as part of a Christian con job propaganda campaign.

You could try searching out and presenting him with persecution accounts from Roman writers but he would just claim that those were forgeries, inserted into the texts later by Christian copyists.

It's sort of like trying to argue with Holocaust-deniers, or the handful of freaks who still claim that the moon landing was faked. You can make history say anything you want it to say if you are merely willing to discount every single piece of evidence that contradicts you.

The TRUTH is that we were all planted here by space aliens in 1928 and all the evidence of human history on Earth prior to that is all an elaborate forgery, painstakingly devised in every detail and planted here just to mislead us as to our true origins. ( Why? Don't ask. Trust me, you don't want to know). You don't believe me? Prove that I'm wrong.

Ed
Up until the 17th century if a person became ill in Europe, there wasn’t much use in turning to the “physicians” of the time, since illnesses were supposedly God’s punishment and not anything to be tampered with. The application of herbs and other supposed healing remedies were subject to harsh penalties from the Church.

YOS
See what I mean about you credulous believers swallowing all sorts of myths? Why not look up St. Hildegarde of Bingen or Herrad of Lansberg regarding herbal remedies. Try also Charles Talbot's chapter on medicine in Lindberg's SCIENCE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. The ancients, Arabs, and medievals believed illnesses were the result of an imbalance of humors in the body. It was a wrong theory; but it was a wrong scientific theory.

Andre
Well, according to Lindberg at least,you are BOTH telling just part of the story. YOS's account is factual, but incomplete ( I'm sure YOS knows the full picture and was just constrained more by time in his off the cuff combox comments), and Ed, while there is a kernel of truth to part of what he said (see below)he surrounds it with so much overstatement and outright falsehood, that I am again given the impression that in this case , as in so many others, he is just swallowing modern myths whole, and/or making it up as he goes along.

If you can stand a few more quotes from Lindberg's excellent book (The Beginnings of Western Science):

"...increasingly the most hospitable settings for medical practice seem to have been religious ones, particularly monasteries, where the care of sick members of the community was an important obligation. Our earliest evidence comes from Cassiodorus (ca. 480-575), founder of a monastery at Vivarium, who instructed his monks to read Greek medical works in Latin translation, including the works of Hippocrates, Galen, and Dioscorides (possibly a reference to *Ex herbis femininis*), Other evidence reveals a high level of medical practice, including the use of secular medical literature, in such monastic centers as Monte Cassino, Reichenau, and St. Gall. It is probable that substantial medical expertise could be found in most monasteries, except the very smallest, throughout the Middle Ages...."

However, there is a kernal of truth in Eds cartoon version:

"As medieval Christianity matured, it became common for sermons and religious literature to teach that sickness is a divine visitation, intended as punishment for a sin or a stimulus for spiritual growth. The cure, in either case, would seem to be spiritual rather than physical....there developed a widespread tradition of miraculous cures, associated especially with the cult of saints and relics....we have the concrete evidence of religious leaders denouncing the secular medicine for it's inability to produce cures."

Would it be unfair of me to suspect, that if Ed were providing this reference, that we would only get the paragraph quoted above? Perhaps, but he has shown a proclivity for indulging in gross, simplistic anti-Christian stereotypes (usually of the most banal and conventional type). For one who claims a background in History, nay, who actually claims to be a "professional historian" he seems to show remarkably little awareness of the true complexity of any given historical period:

"It is fairly easy to inflate such beliefs and attitudes into a general portrayal of the Christian church as an implacable opponent of Greek and Roman medicine, resolutely committed to belief in supernatural causation and to the exclusive use of supernatural remedies. Unfortunately, such attitudes seriously misrepresent the real historical situation. Although it is true that sickness was widely understood to be of divine origin, this did not rule out natural causes, for most medieval Christians shared the view, COMMON SINCE THE HIPPOCRATIC WRITERS (upper case added), that an event or a disease could be simultaneously natural and divine....Within a Christian context, it made perfectly good sense to believe that God customarily employs natural powers to accomplish divine purposes....The vast majority of Christian leaders looked favorably on the Greco-Roman medical tradition, viewing it as a divine gift, an aspect of divine providence, the use of which was legitimate and perhaps even obligatory. Basil of Caesarea (ca. 330-79) spoke for many of the church fathers when he wrote that " we must take great care to employ this medical art, if it should be necessary, not as making it wholly accountable for our state of health or illness, but as redounding to the glory of God." Even a writer as hostile to Greco-Roman learning as Tertullian (ca 155-230) revealed his appreciation of the value of Greco-Roman medicine. The denigrating accounts of conventional medicine that appear in saint's lives served an obvious polemical function - namely, to authenticate and magnify the power of the saint in question by demonstrating how he or she had healing abilities that transcended those of the secular healer. That we can not take such denunciations as representative of the views of the author (let alone the remainder of medieval society) toward secular medicine is evident from the fact that many of these same authors, in other contexts or even in the same context, reveal a large measure of respect for conventional healing practices. What the church fathers were eager to denounce was not the use of secular medicine, but the tendency to overvalue it and the failure to recognize and acknowledge its divine origin."

If found it particularly interesting the line (which I put in upper case) about the Christians carrying on the pagan Greek supposition that illness (and other things) could simultaneously have a natural and a divine cause. I suspect, that when I get around to reading more about Islam, I shall find that they had the same attitude. This goes to the point, previously made, that in areas of non-purely theological revelation, the Christians were as wise or foolish as the surrounding cultures of their day.

I would also like to point out that, in my understanding of Catholic doctrine, it is still the case today, as it was in the Middle Ages, that human sin remains in a real and true sense the primordial root of any physical illness ( as indeed, of all our misfortunes and tribulations) , in that while any particular illness may be accounted for by a completely natural process (and thus treated by natural medicines and techniques) it is only as a result of the Fall that we are made susceptible to such processes in the first place.

I am not in any way attempting to convince Ed of the truth of this doctrine. I am merely pointing out that within the internal logic of such a doctrine there is absolutely no conflict between natural and spiritual healing. Thousands of people go to Lourdes every year seeking healing for all sorts of afflictions. Some find it and some don't, but the point is that although they go there with the Church's blessing, that does not mean that the Church encourages them to leave their doctor prescribed medicines at home.

Andre: Here is another way to approach this question: If the Old Testament accounts are true then we can safely assume that the first post-Edenic human populations must have had a far more complete and accurate knowledge of God then all the generations that were to follow. After all, mom and pop used to "walk in the garden in the cool of the day" with the Big Man.

Response: That is way too big of an “if.” There is no evidence that any of the stories in the Old Testament even might be historical and plenty of evidence that they are not. The stories are all fiction and were part of other older cultures that existed long before the Hebrews did. “Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament” by Theodor Gaster shows where and from who the Hebrews got all of their stories and traditions. In his book, “Mythic Past, Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel” eminent scholar Thomas Thompson makes the case that the nations of Israel and Judah and their kings (David and his 40 “sons”) described in the Bible are fictional kingdoms and kings.

However you interpret that line from Genesis, it certainly seems to imply a very direct and intimate familiarity with God.

Response: Yes but that doesn’t mean this god actually existed.

We could also safely assume that Adam and Eve (whatever number of people those two names might signify) would have passed on much of this first hand knowledge to their children, and they to theirs, and so on and so on down through all the generations to follow.

Response: Our genus is estimated to be about 2.5 million years old, evolving from Australopithecine ancestors with the appearance of Homo habilis. So what kind of Hominids were Adam and Eve? Were they Neanderthal, Homo hablis, Homo erectus, Geico erectus, Homo Sapien?

Could this not be seen as perhaps a memory of that first, original religious tradition of man, born of direct experience and contact with the Divine?

Response: No. God talks to people, interferes with the lives of people, sends them to war, commands them to murder unbelievers and then when man finally figures out how to record things for posterity God stops talking, stops interfering, stops warring and stops telling people to kill unbelievers. And you don’t think that’s even a little suspicious?

Thus it would not only be through the use of Reason, and an innate intuition of Natural Law, that the pagans would have come to a knowledge of God, but also through some faded remnant of that first inherited primordial Revelation.

Response: The pagans believed in multiple gods.

Seen from this perspective, the prefiguring of elements of Christianity, far from being a defeater of the Judeo-Christian tradition, could be seen a direct and historical result of it.

Response: There really is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian anything.

What do you think?

Response: I think if you really think about it you won’t think it any more. That’s what I think.

Any historical document that supports the claims of Christianity will be rejected by Ed as fraudulent. Whether those documents were penned by Christians, Jews, or pagans, they all by definition must be lies if they disagree with what Ed wants to believe is the truth.

Response: I don’t want to believe, I want to know.

As was the case with the Pilate stone, he has also shown that he automatically reject any physical, archeological evidence as "fake" too.

Response: I didn’t reject the Pilate stone I asked how you or anyone else knows it isn’t one of the many Christian fakes and forgeries. I think Pontius Pilate is a fictional character and the name is eponymous. Caiaphas means inquisitor and Iscariot basically means ‘man of the lie.” I think the name Pontius Pilate has something to do with piercing. Anyway the story is obviously religious fiction. Pilate left no records at all. The Bible portrays Pilate breaking Roman Custom, practice and most importantly law and this is very unlikely to have happened. Nothing could be more implausible or unlikely than the story of Christ's crucifixion. At that time the civilization of Rome was the most advanced in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known and their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial and he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty.

Citing any number of acknowledged experts in any of the related fields is also a waste of time because Ed has already said that they are all wrong and he is right.

Response: That’s really funny and very hypocritical of you Andre. I said, “If I’m right those who disagree must be wrong.” You told me not to make straw man arguments (which I don’t) and then YOU post a straw man argument. If you can’t argue against what I actually said then you should say nothing or do the right thing and admit that you have no argument and that I am likely correct.

There is no evidence even theoretically conceivable which he would accept.

Response: Why don’t you try presenting some actual evidence instead of all these lame arguments? Again, arguments are NOT evidence.

He is the stereotypical True Believer whose beliefs are entirely faith based and completely unfalsifiable, and thus completely unscientific.

Response: This makes no sense. If I won’t accept your claims then that makes me an UNBELIEVER NOT a believer. Yikes!

Like trying to reason with any other fanatical cult follower, it's just a big waste of time.

Response: Except that you are the member of a cult, not me.

YOS: At this point, I would have to say that it is to demonstrate that you have no interest in empirical facts. (The original purpose was that you could verify for yourself that your stereotypes and bigotries were factually wrong.)

Response: Facts? “A prayer in a public school! God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion.” – Superintendent Chalmers (The Simpsons)

YOS: Nah. If you had seen them that often, you would be able to state them correctly when you refute them.

Response: It’s difficult to debate people who hold irrational beliefs because you theists will simply expand your beliefs beyond the boundaries one might try to set for you whether it makes sense or not. Why wouldn't you? Your beliefs are irrational in the first place. Christians usually make the argument to me that the universe was created from nothing and so it must have had a cause. You know that argument can easily be refuted so you move the goalposts a little and say motion must have a cause. It’s the same flawed argument.

Edmond- What kind of histroical evidence do you want? The cave drawings of the paleolithic era are historically accepted to say that man existed during this period.

Response: Yes but much more recent drawings of Egyptian gods inside of pyramids are not accepted as evidence that these gods really exist. What Bible critics are asking for is evidence from OUTSIDE of the Bible that could corroborate something INSIDE the Bible. The various mentions in the Bible of historical places and people don’t prove anything. Almost all fiction is put in a historical setting and mentions real places and people. For instance we know Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar and Herod were real kings. However nowhere but the Bible do we have supposed word for word conversations in which these figures actually speak and seem to come to life. These real kings are simply grist for the Bible’s story mill. None of them ever said or did any of the things the Bible says they did.

Andre: I would also like to point out that, in my understanding of Catholic doctrine, it is still the case today, as it was in the Middle Ages, that human sin remains in a real and true sense the primordial root of any physical illness ( as indeed, of all our misfortunes and tribulations) , in that while any particular illness may be accounted for by a completely natural process (and thus treated by natural medicines and techniques) it is only as a result of the Fall that we are made susceptible to such processes in the first place.

Response: Leave it to religion to give us a ridiculous explanation for illness as well as of course death. We have satisfactory naturalistic explanations for these things.

Edmond-Andre, thanks for the heads up, but referring to the dead sea scrolls was meant to respond to Ed's claim:

"You can’t use the Bible to prove the claims in the Bible are true. They would have to be corroborated with some kind of historical evidence and they can’t be. "

Edmond- Therefore the DS Scrolls are historical evidences that corroborate the
existence of the bible.

Ed:"It’s difficult to debate people who hold irrational beliefs because you theists will simply expand your beliefs beyond the boundaries one might try to set for you whether it makes sense or not. Why wouldn't you? Your beliefs are irrational in the first place."

Ed-C'mon, Ed irrationality isn't only with theists, irrationality sits pretty well with
atheists too.

Just one initial comment (more later):


Ed
Nothing could be more implausible or unlikely than the story of Christ's crucifixion. At that time the civilization of Rome was the most advanced in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known and their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial and he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty.

Andre
It is my understanding that only Roman citizens were guaranteed a trial. Thus we see that Paul, who was a Roman citizen, when arrested was able to avoid the summary judgment and execution that befell many of the other first Christians, by claiming, by virtue of his Roman citizenship, his right to trial and appeal to the Emperor. He was thus shipped off to Rome, and spent some number of years in prison awaiting trial. No one has ever claimed that Jesus Christ held Roman citizenship, and given his lowly background it would be highly unlikely that he would, in any event.

You need to get the stars out of your eyes about the Romans. The Romans valued power above all else. Rome maintained it's vast empire through an extremely well organized and ruthless administration of it's subject peoples. To think that extra-judicial and summary executions of non-citizens was unheard of, specially of lower class riff-raff who were branded as rebels or just plain troublemakers, would be spectacularly naive to say the least.

The main occupation of a Roman provincial Governor or Prefect was his own personal enrichment through various forms of bribery, corruption, and plunder of his area of control. It is just silly to think that a provincial Prefect would be overly concerned about the niceties and formalities of judicial process for some smelly, illiterate, Jewish peasant, especially one whose agitation of the people was a potential threat to the smooth and efficient operation of that greedy ruler's cash flow machine.

Get real.

Ed
Leave it to religion to give us a ridiculous explanation for illness as well as of course death. We have satisfactory naturalistic explanations for these things.

Andre
The Doctrine of Original Sin may in fact be ridiculous, or it may be profound, but whatever your personal opinion (or mine) is on the matter is completely irrelevant in the context of this conversation and as regards the point to which I was applying it; which was that you had made a number of statements about the attitude of medieval Christianity towards illness, medicine, and the healing arts which were inaccurate and historically uniformed.

I pointed those inaccuracies out to you, and provided an expert reference to back it up (of which you you have so far made no effort to refute).

Now, if that issue is settled, we will move on to some of the others:

Andre
Here is another way to approach this question: If the Old Testament accounts are true then we can safely assume...

Ed
That is way too big of an “if.”

Andre
Excuse me, this is my thought experiment, I will set the parameters, thank you very much.

And it begins with the "if" because the question that I was interested in exploring was exactly that: how the history of mankind, especially its relationship and understanding towards the Divine might have unfolded "if" the Genesis accounts were true, in some sense (it would not have to necessarily mean literally true).

Remember, what stimulated this speculative exercise of mine in the first place was your reference to the numerous "prefiguring" of certain Biblical stories and motifs (both Old & New Testament) in other surrounding cultures and traditions.

If we begin with the assumption that the Hebrew Bible is all false; nothing more than a bunch of made up and borrowed stories, then there is nothing to explain, which, whether that position is true or not, is certainly rather boring.



Andre
However you interpret that line from Genesis, it certainly seems to imply a very direct and intimate familiarity with God.

Ed
Yes but that doesn’t mean this god actually existed.

Andre
Of course it doesn't, but as I have just explained above, that wasn't what I was arguing.



Ed
Our genus is estimated to be about 2.5 million years old, evolving from Australopithecine ancestors with the appearance of Homo habilis. So what kind of Hominids were Adam and Eve? Were they Neanderthal, Homo hablis, Homo erectus, Geico erectus, Homo Sapien?

Andre
That's an easy question to answer: I don't know.

Fascinating question, though. Let's apply reason to the dreaded "if" and see if that gets us anywhere (given the obvious combox space constraints, this going to have to be fast and truncated, but you are a bright boy, you can probably fill in the gaps).

IF there is substantial truth content to the Genesis accounts, then what can we know about this question?

We are told that Adam was the first man, and we are also told that Adam was created "in the image of God". What does that mean?

Well, let's try to answer the first question; what is Man? Some kind of material being? Clearly. An animal? Seems so. Different than other animals? In some ways, maybe, in others ways, not so different. A man is not a goose, a goose not a turtle, a turtle is not a lion, but they are all animals.

In the image of God? What's that? We only see that phrase applied to man, so maybe that's a clue. In what way or ways is a man different from a goose, that is not like the way a goose is different from a turtle, or a turtle is different from a lion? Or to put it another way, are there any qualities that man inherently possesses that differentiates him from all other animals? (I'll give you a hint; the answer is YES, but I'm not going to insult your intelligence any further by spelling out what those things are, because I know that you know what they are already).

Next question: can we determine where along that particular evolutionary chain that lead to modern man that these qualities first appeared? I don't believe we do yet, and I'm not sure if we will every be able to know for certain or not, but answer that question and I think you will have answered your original question about Adam & Eve ( I'm guessing Homo sapiens, but that's just a guess).


Andre
Could this not be seen as perhaps a memory of that first, original religious tradition of man, born of direct experience and contact with the Divine?

Ed
Response: No. God talks to people, interferes with the lives of people, sends them to war, commands them to murder unbelievers and then when man finally figures out how to record things for posterity God stops talking, stops interfering, stops warring and stops telling people to kill unbelievers. And you don’t think that’s even a little suspicious?

Andre
I do not see anything in your response that directly (or even indirectly) answers the question.

BTW: What makes you think that God "stops talking". Certainly Catholics don't believe that. Although the public revelation ended with the Apostles (why? how should I know?), private revelation continues.


Andre
Thus it would not only be through the use of Reason, and an innate intuition of Natural Law, that the pagans would have come to a knowledge of God, but also through some faded remnant of that first inherited primordial Revelation.

Ed
Response: The pagans believed in multiple gods.

Andre
Of course they did, that was a key part of my speculative theory of a first true Adamic tradition, degrading through time. Careful though, you teetering dangerously close to the edge of simplistic historical misrepresentation and inaccuracy again. The most sophisticated of the Pagans had strong monotheistic inclinations. Although it appears late in the Greeks, as I pointed out, it is an early conception in the far more ancient Hindu tradition.

AND, come to think of it, do not almost all of the pagan mythologies begin with a single all encompassing divine being, who subsequently gives birth to, or is critically otherwise involved with the creation of the later pantheons? Check it out, I think you will find that is substantially correct.

(This is getting long. I better post it and then continue later.)

Any person angry at God can't be an atheist, now can they?
Your argument fails in its title.
Mr. Carter you really are just plan silly.
It was worth the read though for the humor I found.

You think your argument is logical?
If I were you, I would not give my self so much credit to rate myself an "amateur apologetic."
You didn't even come close.

gjsterp
Any person angry at God can't be an atheist, now can they?

Andre
gisterp: I think you should slowly and calmly reread the article. You give the impression from your comments that you have not understood it.

Or am I perhaps misunderstanding you? Are you pointing out that an "atheist" could not, by definition, be angry at God, since they make the claim to the label of "atheist" precisely because they do not believe in the existence of any God to be angry at?

If that is your meaning (and my apologies if I am misunderstanding you) then you need to reread the quote from Julie Exline, one of the lead researchers whose studies formed the basis of Joe Carters comments:

"At first glance, this finding seemed to reflect an error. How could people be angry with God if they did not believe in God? Reanalyses of a second dataset revealed similar patterns: Those who endorsed their religious beliefs as “atheist/agnostic” or “none/unsure” reported more anger toward God than those who reported a religious affiliation."

That is the phenomenon under discussion: self described atheists who retain a high level of anger at God. Now you can make the argument, if you wish, that technically this might not allow them to claim to actually be atheists, but so what? The fact is that they do make that claim, and their numbers are not insignificant.

Joe goes on the speculate about the relative roles of emotional/psychological factors, as opposed to purely intellectual objections, that drive many people to claim to be atheists/agnostic.

What exactly is so "silly" about that?

gjsterp: Any person angry at God can't be an atheist, now can they?

Response: Since there is no God, no person can be angry with God. As the article pointed out people are only angry at a hypothetical image of God created in their own minds.

Andre: gisterp: I think you should slowly and calmly reread the article. You give the impression from your comments that you have not understood it.

Response: He laughed at the article, which proves he understood it a lot better than any theists have including the guy who wrote it.

That is the phenomenon under discussion: self described atheists who retain a high level of anger at God. Now you can make the argument, if you wish, that technically this might not allow them to claim to actually be atheists, but so what? The fact is that they do make that claim, and their numbers are not insignificant.

Joe goes on the speculate about the relative roles of emotional/psychological factors, as opposed to purely intellectual objections, that drive many people to claim to be atheists/agnostic.

Response: Nothing drives people to claim to be atheists or agnostic. All people are born atheists and stay that way unless they get indoctrinated with religious beliefs by their parents or peers. So there are emotional/psychological factors that cause people to become theists but there are no factors of any kind that cause people to remain atheists. Unbelief is the natural position to take on any subject unless and until something is proved. The existence of God has not been proved and the existence of the Christian God has been scientifically refuted.

Here’s the crux of Joe’s argument: “I've argued elsewhere that, according to the Christian tradition, atheism is a form of self-imposed intellectual dysfunction, a lack of epistemic virtue, or—to borrow a term from my Catholic friends—a case of vincible ignorance.

Vincible ignorance is intentional suppression of knowledge that is within an individual’s control and for which he is responsible before God. In Romans, St. Paul is clear that atheism is a case of vincible ignorance: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Acknowledging the existence of God is just the beginning—we must also recognize several of his divine attributes. Atheists who deny this reality are, as St. Paul said, without excuse. They are vincibly ignorant.

Andre: What exactly is so "silly" about that?

Response: I’ll show you exactly how silly it is by turning this argument on its head: How would theists feel if they were told that they really knew that their god did not exist, but that they were in denial because they were afraid to face a world where they are on their own and have to think about difficult issues all by themselves? I've argued elsewhere that, according to experts such as Sigmund Freud, theism is a form of self-imposed intellectual dysfunction, a lack of virtue, or to borrow a term from my humanist friends a case of willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is intentional suppression of knowledge that is within an individual’s control and for which he is responsible to himself and society. Acknowledging the improbability of God is just the beginning we must also recognize several of our own attributes. Theists who deny this reality are, as Freud said, without excuse. They are willfully ignorant.

Ed
I’ll show you exactly how silly it is by turning this argument on its head: How would theists feel if they were told that they really knew that their god did not exist, but that they were in denial because they were afraid to face a world where they are on their own and have to think about difficult issues all by themselves?

Andre
Theists are told that all the time. How does that make it a silly argument? As a matter of fact, I have little doubt that for many theists, that description is spot on. So what?

I have known many people in my life, some theists, some agnostics, some atheists, who have not spent much time thinking very deeply about why they attach those labels to themselves (how do I know that? I've asked them and that's what they've told me). They self-identify the way they do for some reason, and if it's nor from intellectual discernment, then it must be from emotional/psychological/social reasons.

Is this really controversial? I would have assumed it was just common knowledge.

The larger point is that people believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Someone might be drawn to theism for the existential comfort that it brings. Likewise someone might be drawn to atheism for the liberation from moral constraints that it brings ( certainly it was the liberation from what I viewed as confining sexual restraints that made atheism so appealing to be in my misspent youth! - BTW; that alone refutes your statement that "...there are emotional/psychological factors that cause people to become theists but there are no factors of any kind that cause people to remain atheists."). There are many other non-intellectual reasons that one might be drawn one way or another, but they tell us nothing about the truth or falsehood of either theism or atheism. That's why we need Philosophy.


Ed
All people are born atheists and stay that way unless they get indoctrinated with religious beliefs by their parents or peers.

Andre
Are sure about that? Can you provide any references to any peer reviewed scientific studies to support it? You may be right, but there are sure plenty of atheists who argue the opposite. See "The "God" Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper, for example.

Andre: Theists are told that all the time. How does that make it a silly argument? As a matter of fact, I have little doubt that for many theists, that description is spot on. So what?

Response: Then they’re not really theists are they?

I have known many people in my life, some theists, some agnostics, some atheists, who have not spent much time thinking very deeply about why they attach those labels to themselves (how do I know that? I've asked them and that's what they've told me). They self-identify the way they do for some reason, and if it's nor from intellectual discernment, then it must be from emotional/psychological/social reasons.

Response: The fact is most atheists care so little about whether a god even exists that they don’t even bother to label themselves atheists. This is especially true in the scientific community where about 97 percent of scientists do not believe in a personal god and 92 percent don’t believe in any god.

The larger point is that people believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Someone might be drawn to theism for the existential comfort that it brings.

Response: The only comfort accepting Christian dogma brings is comfort from the fear of hell. Sometimes. “Christianity, above all, consoles; but there are naturally happy souls who do not need consolation. Consequently, Christianity begins by making such sould unhappy, for otherwise it would have no power over them.” – Andre Gide (1869-1951), French author

Likewise someone might be drawn to atheism for the liberation from moral constraints that it brings ( certainly it was the liberation from what I viewed as confining sexual restraints that made atheism so appealing to be in my misspent youth! - BTW; that alone refutes your statement that "...there are emotional/psychological factors that cause people to become theists but there are no factors of any kind that cause people to remain atheists.").

Response: That is a big load of nonsense. Religious superstitions don’t stop Catholic priests who molest small children and Christian fundamentalist parents who sexually and physically abuse their spouses and children. “The Catholic Church is the only organization on record to dispense money from a slush fund set up solely for the paying off of abused children’s families. So always remember you cannot judge a man by his collar.” – Harvey Fierstein

There are many other non-intellectual reasons that one might be drawn one way or another, but they tell us nothing about the truth or falsehood of either theism or atheism. That's why we need Philosophy.

Response: Philosophy, perhaps, but not religion. Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered; religion gives answers that my never be questioned. What we can do is decide which one of these things theism or atheism is superior to the other. In the book, “An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Atheism” the author, Daniel Harbour from MIT does just that. I highly recommend this book to anyone who still labors under the delusion that there is a God.

Andre: Are sure about that? Can you provide any references to any peer reviewed scientific studies to support it? You may be right, but there are sure plenty of atheists who argue the opposite. See "The "God" Part of the Brain" by Matthew Alper, for example.

Response: I have my own personal experience and that of my brother to draw my own conclusions from. The fact is that no one is bon with ANY beliefs so by definition everyone is born an atheist. The Bible is simply wrong, AGAIN.

Ed
Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered; religion gives answers that my never be questioned.

Andre
Cute. That's a catchy phrase. Inaccurate, but catchy. Nice play on words.
Of course for someone to actually believe it they would have to be spectacularly ignorant of the history of religion and theology. Oh yeah,right.....


Ed
The only comfort accepting Christian dogma brings is comfort from the fear of hell.

Andre
I would have thought it was the other way around. I mean, why would you fear the Christian conception of Hell, if you were an atheist and thought it all just a bunch of hooey?

On the other hand, if you are a sincere believing Christian, you understand (if well catechized, at least) that if Hell did not exist, the Freedom of the human soul would not be possible ( if God truly gave us the gift of Free Will, then the possibility must exist that a soul could choose to reject God completely, and definitively sever any relationship with him....that severing being the literal definition of "Hell")

I don't mean to be snooty here, but I really prefer to discuss/debate important issues online with people who at least make the effort to put a little thought into what they are typing on the keyboard. That's not too much to ask, is it? I mean, am I really to believe that the "only reason" that you can imagine someone might be emotionally/psychologically attracted to Christianity is the fear of hell? Is your imagination really that stunted? Are you even too lazy to crib something from one of your atheist books?

Let me help you out: how about the fear of the annihilation of the soul? How about the desperate yearning of the heart to be reunited with lost loved ones? How about the heartbreaking fear of being eternally lost to our children? How about the realization that if naturalistic atheism is true then all of life is ultimately meaningless and absurd?

I could go on and on, but why do I have to make your argument for you (apart from the fact that you're making such a total cock-up of it)?


Ed
...about 97 percent of scientists do not believe in a personal god and 92 percent don’t believe in any god.

Andre
Are you just making this stuff up?

I did a quick internet search on this and according to one review of the poling data that I read it claimed that about 1/3 of scientists identify as atheist,; 1/3 identify as agnostic; and 1/3 identify as some form of theist.

Here is one specific poll from the much respected Pew organization which shows 41% claiming atheism, and 51% either believing in God (33%) or a "universal spirit or higher power" (18%), and 7% declining to answer ( I wonder how many of those are theists who fear that their careers might be unfairly thwarted if they admitted to a belief in God?).

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

I'm not particularly interested or concerned by the number of scientists who believe in God or not. I would just assume that there would naturally be a relatively high rate of atheism among scientists in general, because of the self selecting nature of such a demographic sample (I have to admit I am surprised at the high number of believers in these polls, I wouldn't have expected that). I only bothered to look into it at all because of 1) the suspicion that the numbers that you proffered sounded more like a bit of wishfull thinking on your part; and 2) your well documented (see just about any of your above posts) tendency to just assume that your own personal opinion is by definition a self-evidently majority opinion and a "fact" to be submitted as evidence.

I am not surprised to see this suspicion confirmed (yet again).


Andre
Can you provide any references to any peer reviewed scientific studies to support it? (your contention of atheism being the natural state that men are born to)

Ed
I have my own personal experience and that of my brother to draw my own conclusions from.

Andre
Oh well, that's it then, case closed. Ed and his brother have spoken, who needs any stinking scientific evidence?

Ed
The fact is most atheists care so little about whether a god even exists that they don’t even bother to label themselves atheists.

Andre
Huh, that's weird, because after half a lifetime of being an atheist myself, most of that time spent surrounded by other atheists, and as a life long voracious reader, having read many atheist writer's works, etc., I would have thought the "fact" of the situation would be far more complex and nuanced one than that.

I suppose it would be a waste of time for me to ask for any evidence in support of that statement? I know, I know...that's what you and your brother think about it so that must be how every other atheist thinks about it too, right?

Never mind, forget I asked.

Andre: Cute. That's a catchy phrase. Inaccurate, but catchy. Nice play on words.
Of course for someone to actually believe it they would have to be spectacularly ignorant of the history of religion and theology. Oh yeah,right.....

Response: Just saying something is inaccurate is saying exactly nothing. On top of that you commit the ad homenim fallacy by saying someone would have to be “spectacularly ignorant” and then you commit the appeal to authority fallacy by implying that history and the non-subject of theology somehow support your complaint which of course is about as far from the truth as one can get. Let me demonstrate. Can you question the virginity of Mary, the deity of Christ or the “truth” of the Bible and still be a Christian? Case closed.

Andre: I would have thought it was the other way around. I mean, why would you fear the Christian conception of Hell, if you were an atheist and thought it all just a bunch of
hooey?

Response: What in the world makes you think I’m talking about atheists? Atheists don’t fear things they know for sure don’t exist. Christian Hell-hoaxers prey on people who already believe that there is some kind of God and they do it by torturing logic. The obvious fallacy in the “logic” that proves Hell is real is that it blindly assumes the conclusion that it sets out to prove. If you begin your argument by assuming (1) that God exists, (2) that He is the God of the Christian Bible (rather than a Greek god or the god of Islam), (3) that He always behaves fairly, (4) that He is omnipotent and omniscient, (5) that He created the universe, Earth, mankind, Heaven, Hell, and, (6) that all of His actions are purposeful, then of course your subsequent “logically deduced” conclusions will identically parrot these premises, which you have already accepted uncritically by blind faith. Such “logic” is identical to “proving” Batman’s existence by citing the eyewitness testimony of Robin, the Boy Wonder. One’s conclusions are meaningless if the “supporting” premises are themselves the articles of faith or figments of the imagination. In other words all of your religious beliefs are a big bunch of nonsense because they are supported by imaginary hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo. .

On the other hand, if you are a sincere believing Christian, you understand (if well catechized, at least) that if Hell did not exist, the Freedom of the human soul would not be possible ( if God truly gave us the gift of Free Will, then the possibility must exist that a soul could choose to reject God completely, and definitively sever any relationship with him....that severing being the literal definition of "Hell")

Response: The literal definition of Hell is Gehenna, which is an actual piece of real estate just outside of Jerusalem. Now what does the supposed existence of hell have to do with people having freedom of choice exactly?

I don't mean to be snooty here, but I really prefer to discuss/debate important issues online with people who at least make the effort to put a little thought into what they are typing on the keyboard. That's not too much to ask, is it? I mean, am I really to believe that the "only reason" that you can imagine someone might be emotionally/psychologically attracted to Christianity is the fear of hell? Is your imagination really that stunted? Are you even too lazy to crib something from one of your atheist books?

Let me help you out: how about the fear of the annihilation of the soul? How about the desperate yearning of the heart to be reunited with lost loved ones? How about the heartbreaking fear of being eternally lost to our children? How about the realization that if naturalistic atheism is true then all of life is ultimately meaningless and absurd?

Response: Let me help YOU out: Okay so you mentioned a few more fears and some desperation as well as some completely unfounded and indefensible superstitions. So which of these fears or what kind of desperation convinced YOU to believe in your angry vengeful God? I mean fear is fear dude. I don't mean to be snooty here, but I really prefer to discuss/debate important issues online with people who at least make the effort to put a little thought into what they are typing on the keyboard. That's not too much to ask, is it? ROFL!

I could go on and on, but why do I have to make your argument for you (apart from the fact that you're making such a total cock-up of it)?

Response: You should be more concerned with what I have done and am able to do to YOUR absurd arguments dude. Hahahaha, If my arguments were so bad how come they refute everything you post and how did they humiliate YOS right off of this blog? That poor guy couldn’t make a post without committing a boatload of logical fallacies and he could no longer stand having an atheist pick apart everything he said. Bye bye.

Andre: I did a quick internet search on this and according to one review of the poling data that I read it claimed that about 1/3 of scientists identify as atheist,; 1/3 identify as agnostic; and 1/3 identify as some form of theist.

Here is one specific poll from the much respected Pew organization which shows 41% claiming atheism, and 51% either believing in God (33%) or a "universal spirit or higher power" (18%), and 7% declining to answer ( I wonder how many of those are theists who fear that their careers might be unfairly thwarted if they admitted to a belief in God?).

Response: Did you purposely avoid the most prominent study from the Academy of Science, which of course is where I got my figures? Here’s some good advice: Don’t believe anything posted on Christian apologetic websites. Everything there is meant to deceive. EVERYTHING. Every Christian apologist is a liar. There are and can be NO exceptions.

Andre: Can you provide any references to any peer reviewed scientific studies to support it? (your contention of atheism being the natural state that men are born to)

Response: I don’t have to. The person making the ridiculous claim is the one with the burden of proof and that would be you. You’re the one claiming babies are born believing in God so prove it. My only claim is that babies are not born with any beliefs, which makes them all atheists.

Andre: Huh, that's weird, because after half a lifetime of being an atheist myself, most of that time spent surrounded by other atheists, and as a life long voracious reader, having read many atheist writer's works, etc., I would have thought the "fact" of the situation would be far more complex and nuanced one than that.

Response: I live in the south where ignorance and religious superstitions reign supreme. I meet people all the time who don’t even know what an atheist is. When I tell them I often hear, “Oh, I’m one of those.” Again personal experience confirms the existing scientific studies done on this subject.

“How about the realization that if naturalistic atheism is true then all of life is ultimately meaningless and absurd?”

Response: Yes life is inherently meaningless. So what? Why is that a bad thing? Each person may give whatever meaning and purpose they want to their own lives. Don’t bother looking for a response to this in any of your Christian literature. There is no satisfactory response.

Ed
Can you question the virginity of Mary, the deity of Christ or the “truth” of the Bible and still be a Christian? Case closed.

Andre
Case closed, alright: you continue to confirm my suspicion that are an extremely shallow and unimaginative thinker, blinded by bigotry and prejudice. Either that, or you just really need to get out more.

The answer to your question is : Yes. Almost every Christian that I know, whom I have discussed the issue with, admits to frequent questioning and doubts about various aspects of their Faith. For most of them it is an ongoing, continuing process of study and discernment. It certainly has been in my case. You will find the same questioning and internal debate in the writings of the Saints, but as far as the evidence from the history of religion and theology goes, it's not my responsibility to educate you (I've got more than enough on my hands trying to study it myself), if you want to continue to brag about your ignorance by continually referring to theology as a "non-subject" , then have at it. I'm really not that interested in such childish petulance.

Ad hominem? Fine...whatever.


Andre: Can you provide any references to any peer reviewed scientific studies to support it? (your contention of atheism being the natural state that men are born to)

Response: I don’t have to.

Andre
I have given you two opportunities to provide evidence to back up your claim and on both occasions you have declined. I shall consider that your answer is 'No, I can not provide any evidence."

Ed
Here’s some good advice: Don’t believe anything posted on Christian apologetic websites.

Andre
Pew, a Christian organization? Who knew?

My other info on the polling came from Wikipedia, that well known conservative Christian apologetic website!


Ed
The person making the ridiculous claim is the one with the burden of proof and that would be you. You’re the one claiming babies are born believing in God so prove it. My only claim is that babies are not born with any beliefs, which makes them all atheists.

Andre
I made no such claim. I merely challenged you to provide some scientific evidence to back your claim and you were unable to do so. Additionally, I refuted your absurd claim that "all" atheist agree with you by citing a well known published work by an atheist who does take a position different than yours on this issue.


Ed
The fact is most atheists care so little about whether a god even exists that they don’t even bother to label themselves atheists.

Andre
Huh, that's weird, because after half a lifetime of being an atheist myself, most of that time spent surrounded by other atheists, and as a life long voracious reader, having read many atheist writer's works, etc., I would have thought the "fact" of the situation would be far more complex and nuanced one than that.

I suppose it would be a waste of time for me to ask for any evidence in support of that statement?

Ed
Response: I live in the south where ignorance and religious superstitions reign supreme. I meet people all the time who don’t even know what an atheist is. When I tell them I often hear, “Oh, I’m one of those.” Again personal experience confirms the existing scientific studies done on this subject.

Andre
Would those be the same "existing scientific studies" which, after repeated requests, you have been unable to produce? They must be hidden somewhere along with the evidence supporting your claim that Anthony Flew reverted back to atheism before his death (you have completely ignored my three previous requests for you to back that claim up...consider this number four).

So my anecdotal evidence leads me to believe one thing, and your anecdotal evidence leads you to believe the opposite. Gee, some scientific studies would really come in handy right now, huh?

Ed
If my arguments were so bad how come they refute everything you post and how did they humiliate YOS right off of this blog? That poor guy couldn’t make a post without committing a boatload of logical fallacies and he could no longer stand having an atheist pick apart everything he said. Bye bye.

Andre
You're quite the self-deluded fellow, aren't you? I suspect (but cannot prove) that YOS's patience for fools is limited, and that he has much better things to do; but mostly I suspect that he just grew bored with you. Come to think of it, you're beginning to bore my socks off too.

Ed
Don’t believe anything posted on Christian apologetic websites. Everything there is meant to deceive. EVERYTHING. Every Christian apologist is a liar. There are and can be NO exceptions.

Andre
Come on , Ed. Stop beating around the bush; tell me how you really feel.

All joking aside, dude, you sound like a freaking lunatic. You worry me. You sound like a really bitter angry man, and that's no good way to live (been there, done that).

Ed
Yes life is inherently meaningless. So what? Why is that a bad thing? Each person may give whatever meaning and purpose they want to their own lives.

Andre
Great, how's that working out for you?

The best unsolicited advice that I could give you would be to go find a quiet church and just go inside and sit for awhile. Be quiet. Take a few deep breaths. Relax. And then slowly begin to have a conversation with God...yeah, I know, but humor me....just try it. You've got nothing to loose.

Andre: Case closed, alright: you continue to confirm my suspicion that are an extremely shallow and unimaginative thinker, blinded by bigotry and prejudice. Either that, or you just really need to get out more.

Response: This from a person who can’t imagine his own God but must adopt beliefs from the imaginations of OTHER PEOPLE. Talking to you sure lets me know what unthinking people are thinking.

The answer to your question is : Yes. Almost every Christian that I know, whom I have discussed the issue with, admits to frequent questioning and doubts about various aspects of their Faith. For most of them it is an ongoing, continuing process of study and discernment. It certainly has been in my case. You will find the same questioning and internal debate in the writings of the Saints, but as far as the evidence from the history of religion and theology goes, it's not my responsibility to educate you (I've got more than enough on my hands trying to study it myself), if you want to continue to brag about your ignorance by continually referring to theology as a "non-subject" , then have at it. I'm really not that interested in such childish petulance.

Response: I should have used the word “deny” instead of the word “question” in my post. Now replace “question” with “deny” and answer my post again.

Andre: I have given you two opportunities to provide evidence to back up your claim and on both occasions you have declined. I shall consider that your answer is 'No, I can not provide any evidence."

Response: Again, I’m just stating the obvious. When you can provide a video or reliable eyewitness accounts of a baby popping out of its mother’s womb and shouting, “Praise Jesus, I’m born right the first time!” or something like that then you will have won this argument. Short of anything like that your argument remains refuted – forever. BTW this is why atheists don’t need to be “born again.” We got it right the first time.

Andre: I made no such claim. I merely challenged you to provide some scientific evidence to back your claim and you were unable to do so. Additionally, I refuted your absurd claim that "all" atheist agree with you by citing a well known published work by an atheist who does take a position different than yours on this issue.

Response: Let me simplify this so you can grasp it. People are either atheists or theists. You have a belief in God or you don’t. Are babies born theists? No, they aren’t. Now, how many more different ways do you have to lose this argument before this concept penetrates your skull?

Andre: Huh, that's weird, because after half a lifetime of being an atheist myself, most of that time spent surrounded by other atheists, and as a life long voracious reader, having read many atheist writer's works, etc., I would have thought the "fact" of the situation would be far more complex and nuanced one than that.

Response: When you were an “atheist” how often were you angry with God?

So my anecdotal evidence leads me to believe one thing, and your anecdotal evidence leads you to believe the opposite. Gee, some scientific studies would really come in handy right now, huh?

Response: Since you can’t produce any yourself, it’s kind of unethical to keep demanding I produce them.

Andre: You're quite the self-deluded fellow, aren't you? I suspect (but cannot prove) that YOS's patience for fools is limited, and that he has much better things to do; but mostly I suspect that he just grew bored with you. Come to think of it, you're beginning to bore my socks off too.

Response: Do worry and bore mean the same thing to you? Because unless they do you are being extremely dishonest.

All joking aside, dude, you sound like a freaking lunatic. You worry me. You sound like a really bitter angry man, and that's no good way to live (been there, done that).

Response: Theists always claim atheists must be angry, bitter or have had some bad experience with Christians. This is because believers can never accept the real reasons for unbelief – logic and common sense.

The best unsolicited advice that I could give you would be to go find a quiet church and just go inside and sit for awhile. Be quiet. Take a few deep breaths. Relax. And then slowly begin to have a conversation with God...yeah, I know, but humor me....just try it. You've got nothing to loose.

Response: The best unsolicited advice that I could give you would be to go find a quiet Mosque and just go inside and sit for awhile. Be quiet. Take a few deep breaths. Relax. And then slowly begin to have a conversation with Allah...yeah, I know, but humor me....just try it. You've got nothing to loose. If you are able figure out why you won’t do that you’ll then understand why I won’t go into a church looking for any God.

Ed
Let me simplify this so you can grasp it. People are either atheists or theists. You have a belief in God or you don’t. Are babies born theists? No, they aren’t. Now, how many more different ways do you have to lose this argument before this concept penetrates your skull?


Andre
Rather than taking such an obnoxious, condescending tone, why don't you first make an attempt to understand what the actual argument is, before you go off on such rude, ill mannered rants?

The argument, which BTW is one made by some atheists, not by me, is that humans are born with a "prewired" inclination to believe in God. That is the thesis put forward by Matthew Alper in his popular book "The "God" Part of the Brain" which I had referenced earlier. Unlike yourself, Alper appears to be a fairly well read and educated man who couldn't help but notice the seemingly universal inclination among humans everywhere, and at all stages of human history, to believe in the existence of a higher being. It was apparent to him that this inclination was present at birth and thus required an explanation beyond mere cultural socialization. As an atheist himself, Alper was dissatisfied with the common theistic argument that the obvious explanation for this observed inclination was that since we are created by God, then it is not surprising that some awareness of this fact would be with us at birth. Instead, Alper sought to develop and present a explanation for this phenomenon based solely on naturalistic Darwinian principles.

Now the apparent fact that you were completely unaware of this theory (again, a common theory among atheist intellectuals, Alper's being just one particular version of this theory) comes as no great surprise to me.

I'm not claiming that Alper's thesis is correct or false (I don't know). I merely questioned the basis of your dogmatic declaration that everyone was born an atheist, and pointed out to you the fact that there are at least some thoughtful and educated atheists who believe the opposite. I suspected that your position was based on purely personal prejudice and ignorance, so I repeatedly invited you to prove my suspicion wrong by providing any evidence, beyond your mere assertion, that there was any reason to believe that your position was correct. This you have utterly failed to do.

That was all I wanted to know.

Ed
Since you can’t produce any (evidence) yourself, it’s kind of unethical to keep demanding I produce them.

Andre
Again, why is it unethical for me to ask you to provide evidence for an assertion that you make? Isn't the burden of proof on you if you are the one making an assertion? You made a claim, I asked you to provide evidence to support it and so far the only evidence that you have provided is "Well, because I say so!" The only claim that I made on this matter was that there are well known published atheists who disagree with you, and I provided evidence to support that claim.

Ed
Now,how many more different ways do you have to lose this argument before this concept penetrates your skull?

Andre
Exactly.


***

Ed
Theists always claim atheists must be angry, bitter or have had some bad experience with Christians. This is because believers can never accept the real reasons for unbelief – logic and common sense.

Andre
Yeah, that must be the reason (all the angry bitter atheists hurling insults on the internet and going off on ignorant frothing rants is purely coincidental).

The best unsolicited advice that I could give you would be to go find a quiet church and just go inside and sit for awhile. Be quiet. Take a few deep breaths. Relax. And then slowly begin to have a conversation with God...yeah, I know, but humor me....just try it. You've got nothing to loose.

Ed
Response: The best unsolicited advice that I could give you would be to go find a quiet Mosque and just go inside and sit for awhile. Be quiet. Take a few deep breaths. Relax. And then slowly begin to have a conversation with Allah...yeah, I know, but humor me....just try it. You've got nothing to loose. If you are able figure out why you won’t do that you’ll then understand why I won’t go into a church looking for any God.

Andre
As are so many of your posts, this one too is chock full of unwarranted assumptions and prejudices. My concern and advice was that you make an effort to connect with God. As a Christian and a Catholic, I naturally would encourage you in that direction since I obviously believe that is where the fullest expression of that experience could be found (if I believed it was more accessible elsewhere then that is where I would go too...duh!). That God has revealed himself to all people in all places is standard Catholic doctrine. I have no doubt that you could experience the presence of God in a Mosque or a Synagogue or a Hindu Temple or any number of other places.

If you are carrying so much emotional and psychological baggage that you lack the strength, courage, or humility to enter a Church, then by all means try some other venue.

(One additional piece of advice though, if you do go to a Mosque make sure you check it out ahead of time. Although it's usually not an issue in the USA, I do know that some interpretations of Islam (unlike Christianity or Judaism) forbid atheists to enter a mosque. )

The argument, which BTW is one made by some atheists, not by me, is that humans are born with a "prewired" inclination to believe in God….

Response: I made a statement of fact and you countered with someone else’s argument. This argument is easily refuted by the fact that the God a person believes in as a child anyway, can be accurately predicted by the religion of their parents and the place where they live. It is no surprise that 77% of Americans are Christian, 97% of Saudis are Muslim, 95% of Thais are Buddhist, 80% of Indians are Hindu and 85% of Swedes
have no religion. The Buddhists have no gods and the Hindus have many. So I guess some children are pre-wired to believe in multiple gods but how do you explain hundreds of millions of Buddhist children with no god belief? How about all the atheist Swedish children? One again you lose this argument. Religionists like you do not want to admit that everyone is born an atheist because if they admit religion is learned, people will realize that it can be unlearned.

Andre: As are so many of your posts, this one too is chock full of unwarranted assumptions and prejudices. My concern and advice was that you make an effort to connect with God. As a Christian and a Catholic, I naturally would encourage you in that direction since I obviously believe that is where the fullest expression of that experience could be found (if I believed it was more accessible elsewhere then that is where I would go too...duh!). That God has revealed himself to all people in all places is standard Catholic doctrine.

Response: Wherever there is a claim with no evidence to support it we can always find “standard Catholic doctrine” or some kind of doctrine.

I have no doubt that you could experience the presence of God in a Mosque or a Synagogue or a Hindu Temple or any number of other places.

Response: My lack of any experience of God is just as good evidence that there is no God as your or anyone else’s supposed experience of God

If you are carrying so much emotional and psychological baggage that you lack the strength, courage, or humility to enter a Church, then by all means try some other venue.

Response: What you are really implying is that atheism is due to some psychological baggage or lack of strength, courage, or humility – exactly the reasons you’re a Christian.

Ed
What you are really implying is that atheism is due to some psychological baggage or lack of strength, courage, or humility – exactly the reasons you’re a Christian.

Andre
Careful Ed, you are stumbling dangerously close to the truth: the lack of strength, courage, and humility are exactly the reasons that I am a bad Christian.

I am still searching for the strength, courage , and humility to be a good Christian...but it's a slog.

All religion is just guilt with different holidays.

Ed
All religion is just guilt with different holidays.

Andre
Well, not "just" guilt, of course, there is much more to it than that. If you had instead just proffered the simple statement that - "All religion is guilt with different holidays" - then I would agree that, although limited and far from comprehensive, the statement would by itself not be factually incorrect.

Of course, given your much demonstrated penchant for a rather shallow, reactionary, monistic form of thinking, I suspect that you offered the statement merely out of the mistaken belief that it represented some kind of insightful witticism against theism. Ho-hum, par for the course. I am afraid to say that I would not have expected better from you.

However, what I DO find interesting about that statement is that is does actually point to some deeper truths, though not the ones you likely intended it to point to, and again, I regret having to say, truths that in all likelihood would have gone right over your head in any event. Yet, as I have observed before, you do seem to have a knack for "stumbling dangerously close to the truth" ( who knows, in the end, that may prove to be your saving Grace).

Yes, guilt is important. Guilt is information. In the same way that physical pain is information that damage is being done to our body, so also guilt is information that damage is being done to our soul. It functions as a sort of warning alarm that we are transgressing the Moral Law.

That most religions would so prominently address the topic of guilt is thus highly appropriate and exactly what one would reasonably be lead to conclude that they would do, if they were truly in touch with any fundamental truths.

This is an intuitive insight that even most thoughtful secularists can not avoid. When this innate human faculty is so damaged that it no longer functions in a person, social scientists may refer to that individual as a "sociopath".

So, far from discrediting religion, a strong focus of the value and importance of guilt, can more reasonably be interpreted as additional evidence for the value of religion, and of religions grounding in fundamental truths of human existence.

Ed
...about 97 percent of scientists do not believe in a personal god and 92 percent don’t believe in any god.

Andre
I just happened to stumble upon this review of two new books which deal with this very subject. I thought you might find it interesting:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-scientists-believe

Actually Christianity uses guilt to fill its coffers and Islam uses shame but it’s really the same old game. There’s guilt and there’s false guilt which is feeling guilty about things that aren’t really immoral or aren’t your fault. That’s what religion does especially with its unhealthy preoccupation with sex. The source of false guilt is an overactive conscience, which is what religion instills in people. There are many consequences to an overactive conscience but the main one is that it does just what religious leaders want it to: produces weak, hollow, compliant believers.

"By predicating a First Cause [God, the uncaused Cause], the theist removes the mystery a stage further back... Such a belief is a logical absurdity, and is an example of the ancient custom of creating a mystery to explain a mystery... Moreover, if it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always existed? To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." - David Brooks

"The influences that have lifted the race to a higher moral level are education, freedom, leisure, the humanizing tendency of a better-supplied and more interesting life. In a word, science and liberalism... have accomplished the very things for which religion claims credit." - E. Haldeman-Julius

"I believe it is the imposition of a dictatorship that increasing numbers on the Christian Right now wish to construct in the United States... Fundamentalist Christian [who] believe that the Bible is reliable as history and science are no longer content with teaching their freely-gathered congregations... When they insist on having historical and scientific errors taught in our nation's public schools, then they must be opposed by all legal means." - Steve Allen (1921-2000), American comedian, musician, songwriter, screenwriter, creator and original host of NBC's Tonight Show, and author of 43 books, including three on his rejection of biblical religion.

The important thing is that what scientists believe today, everyone else will believe tomorrow. And that spells the end of religion.

David Brooks
"...if it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always existed? "

Andre
It's not unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe have always existed. As YOS pointed out on an earlier post, Aquinas famously made that very assumption the starting point in his formulation of the Cosmological Argument (he believed from revelation that the universe had not eternally existed, but he saw no way to prove that through unaided reason). Today however, we have access to scientific knowledge and research which Aquinas did not have access to in the thirteenth century, which leads us to believe that the Universe did have a beginning and so could not have been the First Cause (it sounds like David Brooks doesn't know what the actual arguments are).

David Brooks
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."

Andre
So much for the Multiverse then ( and most of Darwinism too, come to think of it ).

E. Haldeman-Julius
"...science and liberalism... have accomplished the very things for which religion claims credit."

Andre
And where did science and liberalism come from? Is it purely coincidental that the only place in the world that science and liberalism were able to germinate and flower was in the Christian West? Dig deeper, there's much more to the story than the cartoon version.

Steve Allen
"I believe it is the imposition of a dictatorship that increasing numbers on the Christian Right now wish to construct in the United States..."

Andre
Gee Ed, you do have a tendency to roam all over the place, don't you? I don't know what this Steve Allen quote has to do with anything we have been discussing. Perhaps you accidentally sent it to me, when you meant to send it to a Fundamentalist Christian instead?

from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."

Steve Allen
"When they insist on having historical and scientific errors taught in our nation's public schools, then they must be opposed by all legal means."

Andre
Of course, when ANYBODY insists on having historical and scientific errors taught in our nation's public schools, then they must be opposed by all legal means. Wouldn't you agree?

Ed
The important thing is that what scientists believe today, everyone else will believe tomorrow. And that spells the end of religion.

Andre
That assumes that the findings of science are somehow in fatal and irreconcilable contradiction to what religion believes, and I just don't see that to be the case, nor do a great many scientists ( the findings of science might very well be fatal to many literal Fundamentalist religious beliefs, but so what; cartoons are cartoons; philosophy had dealt those lethal blows long before science came along to pile on).

You are also making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions as to what the future discoveries of science might be. For all you know, they may further strengthen the case for certain religious beliefs, rather than undermine them. We have mentioned a perfect example of that here in our discussion about whether or not space/time had eternally existed. For thousands of years the Judeo/Christian tradition had claimed that they were not eternal, and after centuries of first Pagan, and then scientific claims to the contrary, the majority of scientists finally agreed in the 1960's that : "Oh yeah, the Jews and the Christians were correct when they claimed that the Universe had not existed eternally".

Not too shabby. Who knows what other aspects of Biblical metaphysics might receive further support from future scientific research?

Now physicists say that there could be something that "exists" outside of Space/Time. Gee, where have I heard that before?

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/materialism-and-its-discontents

Andre: It's not unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe have always existed. As YOS pointed out on an earlier post, Aquinas famously made that very assumption the starting point in his formulation of the Cosmological Argument (he believed from revelation that the universe had not eternally existed, but he saw no way to prove that through unaided reason). Today however, we have access to scientific knowledge and research which Aquinas did not have access to in the thirteenth century, which leads us to believe that the Universe did have a beginning and so could not have been the First Cause (it sounds like David Brooks doesn't know what the actual arguments are).

Response: The jacket blurb on Lee Strobel’s “Case for a Creator” states: “Cosmologists agree that the universe arose suddenly out of absolute nothingness. But how? And how did it unfold with such painstaking precision?” This jacket blurb is the worst conceivable misrepresentation of fact. Cosmologists emphatically DO NOT assert that “the universe arose suddenly out of absolute nothingness.” Strobel’s mischaracterization is not only a total distortion of current cosmological thought, but it is typical of the ID Magic movement’s use of the logical error known as “suppressed quantification.” Look it up because it is a very common Christian hoax – and you fall for it hook, line and sinker, over and over and over and over again and again and again.

Christian hoaxers purposely miss entirely the relevant questions about the universe which are: 1) what evidence is there that the universe emerged from nothing? 2) What evidence is there that the mass-energy that constitutes the universe always existed? Answer: We have no evidence that mass-energy appeared ex-nihilo; and we have well-confirmed empirical observations that mass-energy cannot appear ex-nihilo. So if we adhere to scientific method we are led to only one conclusion, which is that, our universe of mass-energy always existed in one form or another.

“Theologians hardly predicted the Big Bang… Even if a beginning for the universe is a successful prediction of one version of theism, this is still not that impressive. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The Big bang becomes strong support for God only with an argument showing that such a beginning requires a Creator.” – Taner Edis

There are three transparent blunders with this First Cause argument. First, the argument that God exists and has always existed is a biblical doctrine. So ID Magic is “proving” God’s existence by constructing an argument that ASSUMES God’s eternal existence based on nothing but the Bible. And ID hoaxers “know” that the Bible is true because it’s the Bible! The second problem with the First Cause argument is the utterly dishonest claim that, “cosmologists agree that the universe arose suddenly out of absolute nothingness.” Here we can easily see how one flawed premise quickly requires other flawed and dishonest arguments as supporting props. The third fallacy involves the identity of the god whose existence is allegedly “proved” by the First Cause argument. Why couldn’t the Intelligent Designer be Zeus, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is nothing is the First Cause argument that even addresses this question. Yet, without any rational explanation whatsoever, believers “know” in their hearts that the intelligent Creator is Jesus’ father. How?

Andre: So much for the Multiverse then ( and most of Darwinism too, come to think of it ).

Response: The hypothesis that there are other universes is NOT an explanation of our universe or anything else. FYI “Darwinism” doesn’t really exist. The theory of evolution by natural selection most certainly DOES explain the unknown by the known. God, on the other hand, explains absolutely nothing.

Andre: And where did science and liberalism come from? Is it purely coincidental that the only place in the world that science and liberalism were able to germinate and flower was in the Christian West? Dig deeper, there's much more to the story than the cartoon version.

Response: Oh please! ROFL! Liberal thinking comes from the Christian religion? Since when? Science and liberalism arose only after Christianity lost its iron grip on the West.

Andre: Gee Ed, you do have a tendency to roam all over the place, don't you? I don't know what this Steve Allen quote has to do with anything we have been discussing. Perhaps you accidentally sent it to me, when you meant to send it to a Fundamentalist Christian instead?

Response: Bible believers are Bible believers. It doesn’t matter how you twist the scientific blunders and outright lies in the Bible to fit your personal beliefs.

from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."

Response: From the author of the Declaration of Independence: “In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty, he is always in allegiance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own… History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government… political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves [of public ignorance] for their own purpose.” –Thomas Jefferson. “From the polluted fountain [of] that absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather raving, which claims and defends liberty of conscience for everyone… comes, in a word, the worst plague of all – liberty of opinions and free speech.” – Pope Gregory VI

Andre: Of course, when ANYBODY insists on having historical and scientific errors taught in our nation's public schools, then they must be opposed by all legal means. Wouldn't you agree?

Response: Okay but why do you support having historical and scientific errors taught in our nation's Catholic schools?

Andre: That assumes that the findings of science are somehow in fatal and irreconcilable contradiction to what religion believes, and I just don't see that to be the case, nor do a great many scientists ( the findings of science might very well be fatal to many literal Fundamentalist religious beliefs, but so what; cartoons are cartoons; philosophy had dealt those lethal blows long before science came along to pile on).

Response: "How many times have religions of the world been damaged by some discovery or other only to move the goalposts and carry on as before as though nothing had happened." - Captain Sensible. When have scientists ever had to revise one of their theories in the face of claims by Bible believers? Never and they never will either and you know it.

You are also making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions as to what the future discoveries of science might be. For all you know, they may further strengthen the case for certain religious beliefs, rather than undermine them. We have mentioned a perfect example of that here in our discussion about whether or not space/time had eternally existed. For thousands of years the Judeo/Christian tradition had claimed that they were not eternal, and after centuries of first Pagan, and then scientific claims to the contrary, the majority of scientists finally agreed in the 1960's that : "Oh yeah, the Jews and the Christians were correct when they claimed that the Universe had not existed eternally".

Response: That is just a lie. Scientists have NEVER said that. Ever. No scientific consensus has ever confirmed ANY religious beliefs, especially those of Bible thumpers.

Not too shabby. Who knows what other aspects of Biblical metaphysics might receive further support from future scientific research?

Response: ROFL! Name something. ANYTHING in the Bible supported by scientific research.

Now physicists say that there could be something that "exists" outside of Space/Time. Gee, where have I heard that before?

Response: Yeah, other universes but not a magical fairy and his magic happy land for disembodied spirits.

I google all the sites you mention. Now do me a favor and google: “A Universe From Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss,” AAI 2009 Youtube Video. It’s a long video but it is very informative and Mr. Krauss is the Woody Allen of cosmologists, so it’s very entertaining as well. After you watch it let me know what you think. You might as well, since you’ve just seen your best arguments for your religious beliefs totally annihilated by an atheist.

By the way, the study published in Nature (July 23, 1998) revealed that, of the membership of the national Academy of Sciences, only 7 percent of its leading scientists believed in a personal God and a much smaller percentage in the “evidence” of the ID Magic crusade.

Ed
There are three transparent blunders with this First Cause argument.

First, the argument that God exists and has always existed is a biblical doctrine. So ID Magic is “proving” God’s existence by constructing an argument that ASSUMES God’s eternal existence based on nothing but the Bible. And ID hoaxers “know” that the Bible is true because it’s the Bible!

Andre
No, the existence of a First Cause is the conclusion of the argument, not one of the premises.

Actually, I am not aware of any formulation of the First Cause argument that even mentions the Bible. Certainly Aristotle doesn't ( we have no indication that Aristotle was even aware of the Hebrew scriptures). Nor does Aquinas in his formulation of the argument. I am not very familiar with the formulations of the Cosmological Argument by the Islamic philosophers, but it would be quite surprising to me if they cited the Christian Bible in that context (do they?).

Ed
The second problem with the First Cause argument is the utterly dishonest claim that, “cosmologists agree that the universe arose suddenly out of absolute nothingness.”

Andre
While it is true that some contemporary proponents of the First Cause argument have incorporated implications of modern cosmogony into their versions of the argument (BIG topic...more later), it is important to remember that in it's classical formulation, it was assumed that the Universe was eternally existing. Aristotle believed in an eternal universe, and Aquinas, while believing in an non-eternal universe, accepted, for the sake of the argument, an eternal universe.

Ed
The third fallacy involves the identity of the god whose existence is allegedly “proved” by the First Cause argument. Why couldn’t the Intelligent Designer be Zeus, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Andre
I see no reason why you couldn't apply any name you wish to the First Cause, other than the obvious reason that if you apply a name that has already been used in human history to describe another being (real or fictional) than you risk creating confusion (which may be your intent?).

If one were to insist on applying a name from human history to the First Cause, then at least it would be wise to select one that shares common characteristics. Thus Zeus would be a poor choice since, since the Zeus of Greek mythology was portrayed as a a creation of the Universe, rather than the creator of the Universe. Additionally, while commonly believed to be the most powerful of the Olympians, Zeus was not considered omniscient and omnipotent, nor was it ever claimed that he existed outside of time/space.

Allah may be a perfectly appropriate appellation.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is name given to an imaginary being by a group of people whose understanding of the First Cause/Cosmological Argument is so superficial that they cannot grasp the comical inappropriateness and contradiction of implying that an immaterial being might be "made of" spaghetti. Well, they could grasp that if they tried, but their arrogant prejudice and intellectual laziness blinds them to such obvious distinctions.

Ed
There is nothing is the First Cause argument that even addresses this question.

Andre
Yes. That's why asking that question is not a refutation of the First Cause argument.

Ed
Yet, without any rational explanation whatsoever, believers “know” in their hearts that the intelligent Creator is Jesus’ father. How?

Andre
That's a different set of arguments altogether. We could explore them if you wish, but being as they are logically separate arguments, they obviously can not be "blunders with this First Cause argument" as you have claimed.


More later ( I'll definitely watch the Krauss video that you recommended, but it might take me a few days to get to it).

Andre
No, the existence of a First Cause is the conclusion of the argument, not one of the premises.

Response: Wrong. The First Cause IS the major premise of the argument. When your conclusion is your major premise you have a circular argument.

Andre: Actually, I am not aware of any formulation of the First Cause argument that even mentions the Bible. Certainly Aristotle doesn't ( we have no indication that Aristotle was even aware of the Hebrew scriptures). Nor does Aquinas in his formulation of the argument. I am not very familiar with the formulations of the Cosmological Argument by the Islamic philosophers, but it would be quite surprising to me if they cited the Christian Bible in that context (do they?).

Response: I am not aware of any modern formulation of the First Cause argument that is ever mentioned by anyone besides Christian apologists. Like the Intelligent Design Magic argument, the First Cause argument is not meant to advance scientific thought and experimentation but to prevent them, and so like ID magic, the First Cause argument is a science stopper.

Andre: While it is true that some contemporary proponents of the First Cause argument have incorporated implications of modern cosmogony into their versions of the argument (BIG topic...more later), it is important to remember that in it's classical formulation, it was assumed that the Universe was eternally existing. Aristotle believed in an eternal universe, and Aquinas, while believing in an non-eternal universe, accepted, for the sake of the argument, an eternal universe.

Response: Aristotle and Aquinas are totally irrelevant in any discussion about the universe. Neither were scientists and Aquinas was a theologian so he’s always been irrelevant anyway. Any first year cosmology or astronomy student knows much more than Aristotle and Aquinas did about the universe – but so does any fifth grade public school student for that matter.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is name given to an imaginary being by a group of people whose understanding of the First Cause/Cosmological Argument is so superficial that they cannot grasp the comical inappropriateness and contradiction of implying that an immaterial being might be "made of" spaghetti. Well, they could grasp that if they tried, but their arrogant prejudice and intellectual laziness blinds them to such obvious distinctions.

Response: If you knew anything at all about Pastafarianism you would know that this movement was started to mock the Intelligent Design Magic movement, not Christianity. However since the ID Magic is really just Christian creationism in disguise you can consider the hits Christianity has taken (and it has) because of this new religion sort of collateral damage.

Andre: That's a different set of arguments altogether. We could explore them if you wish, but being as they are logically separate arguments, they obviously can not be "blunders with this First Cause argument" as you have claimed.

Response: The First Cause argument is a classic example of ad hoc reasoning. If everything needs a cause to account for its existence then what caused God (or the First Cause) to exist? If the First Cause (or God) always existed and therefore needs no causal explanation, then the major premise of the cosmological (or Kalam) argument is erroneous. If everything except God (or the First Cause) requires a cause, the First Cause argument is ad hoc (inconsistent and prejudicial) which makes it logically flawed and impermissible as an argument. This is why only Christians make this argument. Everyone else knows better.

Ed
I am not aware of any modern formulation of the First Cause argument that is ever mentioned by anyone besides Christian apologists.

Andre
Ah, but that's not really true, is it? You're just being lazy and not thinking hard enough. Hint:you've already mentioned one well known non-Christian theist yourself in an earlier post (and then subsequently played dumb every time I asked a follow up question about him...oh yeah, now you remember).

But let's put that aside for now, and for the sake of argument, let us grant that only "Christian apologists" propose formulations of the First Cause argument as valid (your casual wording that they are the only ones who "mention" it is of course obviously false, since many atheists mention it, if only in the process of trying to refute it). Wouldn't that just be saying that "those who believe the argument is valid, argue that it is valid, while those who believe the argument is invalid, argue that it is invalid? O.K., but so what? That alone tells us nothing about the validity of the argument...unless you were resorting to the Genetic Fallacy...was that your intent?. (yawn)


Ed
...the First Cause argument is not meant to advance scientific thought and experimentation but to prevent them...

Andre
Isn't the purpose of any formal argument to establish a conclusion based on the premises? Whether the First Cause argument succeeds or fails in that endeavor, how could that even conceivably "prevent" the advancement of scientific thought and experimentation? Seriously, explain that to me. I find that statement completely baffling.

Ed
...it (the First Cause argument) is a science stopper.

Andre
How can that be, since from Copernicus to Newton (and beyond) modern science was substantially "started" by the very people (Christian theists) who naturally accepted the First Cause argument as valid?


Ed
Any first year cosmology or astronomy student knows much more than Aristotle and Aquinas did about the universe – but so does any fifth grade public school student for that matter.

Andre
Gee, you think? It's also quite likely that any first year cosmology or astronomy student (or fifth grader!) knows much more than Aristotle or Aquinas did about auto mechanics, rock'n'roll, and text messaging. So what? Why would that lead you to believe that they would understand the First Cause argument better than two of the greatest philosophers in Western history? Very strange reasoning.

+++

Andre
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is name given to an imaginary being by a group of people whose understanding of the First Cause/Cosmological Argument is so superficial that they cannot grasp the comical inappropriateness and contradiction of implying that an immaterial being might be "made of" spaghetti. Well, they could grasp that if they tried, but their arrogant prejudice and intellectual laziness blinds them to such obvious distinctions.

Ed
Response: If you knew anything at all about Pastafarianism you would know that this movement was started to mock the Intelligent Design Magic movement, not Christianity. However since the ID Magic is really just Christian creationism in disguise you can consider the hits Christianity has taken (and it has) because of this new religion sort of collateral damage.

Andre
Your "response" refutes and contradicts absolutely nothing that I said. You merely assumed things that were not in evidence (which, I must say, seems to be a repetitive habit of yours).

+ + +

Ed
The First Cause argument is a classic example of ad hoc reasoning. If everything needs a cause to account for its existence then what caused God (or the First Cause) to exist? If the First Cause (or God) always existed and therefore needs no causal explanation, then the major premise of the cosmological (or Kalam) argument is erroneous. If everything except God (or the First Cause) requires a cause, the First Cause argument is ad hoc (inconsistent and prejudicial) which makes it logically flawed and impermissible as an argument. This is why only Christians make this argument. Everyone else knows better.

Andre
Yikes! That sounds like something your proposed fifth grader would write.

You continue to enthusiastically demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of the First Cause argument (tip: "everything needs a cause to account for its existence" is not a premise of any formulation, classical or contemporary, of the First Cause argument). May I sincerely suggest that you take some time to actually learn what the arguments are before we continue?

Here is a good place to begin:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/11/24/the-first-cause-by-edward- feser/

But let's put that aside for now, and for the sake of argument, let us grant that only "Christian apologists" propose formulations of the First Cause argument as valid (your casual wording that they are the only ones who "mention" it is of course obviously false, since many atheists mention it, if only in the process of trying to refute it). Wouldn't that just be saying that "those who believe the argument is valid, argue that it is valid, while those who believe the argument is invalid, argue that it is invalid? O.K., but so what? That alone tells us nothing about the validity of the argument...unless you were resorting to the Genetic Fallacy...was that your intent?. (yawn)

Response: How come only non-scientists make this flawed argument? Scientists know that arguments are NOT evidence while theists cannot ever grasp this fact. Now let’s see you support your First Cause, Unmoved Mover or whatever argument with some empirical evidence. Poof, there goes your argument. You have no evidence – only a lame argument.

Andre: Yikes! That sounds like something your proposed fifth grader would write.

Response: I always have to remind you Christians that you don’t have magic wands. You can’t just dismiss an argument you don’t know how to refute with a goofy claim “that sounds like something your proposed fifth grader would write.” Either refute the statement the way I have done with all of yours or what I posted stands and remains unchallenged. That’s how it works in a debate. I really think dishonest Christian debating ethics such as yours and those of YOS are a good indication of the rest of your Christian morals and ethics. You people should know that the rest of society sees you Catholics as moral midgets and extremely dangerous.

You continue to enthusiastically demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of the First Cause argument (tip: "everything needs a cause to account for its existence" is not a premise of any formulation, classical or contemporary, of the First Cause argument). May I sincerely suggest that you take some time to actually learn what the arguments are before we continue?

Response: Let’s see you state the argument yourself. I dare you. I say you won’t because you know very well that I will destroy the argument no matter how you state it or where you cut and paste it from. The First Cause argument is a classic example of moving the goalposts every time a skeptic dropkicks one of your versions of this argument into oblivion. When we refute the claim that everything must have a cause by asking what caused God then you theists simply restate the argument. Then you’ll say that well, ur, ahhh, motion needs a cause! Yeah that’s the ticket. Eventually you’ll tell me you’re married to Morgan Fairchild and THAT proves there’s a First… uh… something! It’s ridiculous.

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/11/24/the-first-cause-by-edward- feser/

Response: Thanks for that site. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while. God is what keeps things moving in the universe. ROFL! Prove it!

Anthony Flew: still an atheist
Archive: Skeptics & Atheists

Anthony Flew rebuts the rumors that he has ceased to be an atheist:

Those rumours speak false. I remain still what I have been now for over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the initial letter in the word ‘atheist’ in the way in which everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as ‘atypical’ and ‘amoral’. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion happily described as “the religious hypothesis

Satisfied now?

Ed
Satisfied now?

Andre
Hardly.
The quote you provided from Anthony Flew was from 2004. Since his book describing his reasons form abandoning atheism was published in 2007, then I think it is fair to say that you have not supplied any evidence to support your claim that Anthony Flew reverted to atheism before his death in 2010.

It is my personal opinion that either 1) you just made the claim up out of whole cloth, or 2) you read it on some polemical atheist website and just accepted the veracity of the claim purely on faith alone, simply because it conformed to your intellectual prejudices.

That either of those two options may be true does not particularly surprise or bother me. Certainly we are all susceptible to such errors in off-the-cuff combox remarks (especially in the"heat of battle").

What annoys me is your stubborn refusal to concede even the possibility that you may have been in error, in the face of all the available evidence, or lack thereof ( especially on such a relatively minor and unimportant point). That strikes me as, among other things, a curiously unscientific methodology for such a partisan cheerleader of Scientism to take (or not, since the metaphysical foundations of scientism are fundamentally irrational at their core). Whatever happened to "following the evidence where it leads"?

To compound the error by then providing an irrelevant quote from a period before Flew's "conversion", smacks of either inexcusably sloppy research, or simple desperation.

But whatever...I'm done beating you up about it. I won't mention it again. Besides, we've got more important things to argue about.

I am chomping at the bit to respond to some of your other recent comments, and I did watch the Krauss lecture, which I found quite entertaining. I have some comments to make about that too, but, because of time constraints and other commitments, it may take me a few days to get around to it. Stay tuned.

Ed
You can’t just dismiss an argument you don’t know how to refute with a goofy claim “that sounds like something your proposed fifth grader would write.” Either refute the statement the way I have done with all of yours or what I posted stands and remains unchallenged.

Andre
Pointing out that the sophomoric cartoon version of the Cosmological Argument that you presented sounded like something a fifth grader would write was merely an empirical observation ( it DOES sound like something a fifth grader would write), and nothing more. It was not presented as, nor intended to be, a refutation of your claim. The refutation was contained in the Edward Feser piece that immediately followed and which you claim to have read. If you did not understand it, well then I'm sorry, I have neither the time nor the patience to take you by the hand and explain each sentence to you. Try reading it again. This time take the ideological wax out of your ears.

You said it made you laugh, and yet I notice that you did not cite a single error of fact, or point out a single flaw in his chain of reasoning.

Ed
I really think dishonest Christian debating ethics such as yours and those of YOS are a good indication of the rest of your Christian morals and ethics. You people should know that the rest of society sees you Catholics as moral midgets and extremely dangerous.

Andre
I find it particularly rich that you would accuse me of "dishonest" debating tactics after having been so recently caught out yourself in a blatant fabrication (oops, I said I wouldn't mention that again, sorry).

That I am a "moral midget" is probably the only completely accurate statement that you have made yet.

That the Culture of Death feels so threatened by the continued existence of the Catholic Church is merely another piece of evidence that, whatever slim chance may exist for my own personal moral redemption, it most likely lies within her embrace.

Ed
When we refute the claim that everything must have a cause by asking what caused God then you theists simply restate the argument.

Andre
You are merely displaying your ignorance of the historical development of this argument. The claim that "everything must have a cause" is a straw man restatement of one premise of the argument by certain intellectually impaired atheists, not a premise of any serious philosophical formulation of the First Cause argument at any time in it's history.

It's bad enough that they constantly misstate the argument, but when it is pointed out to them that they are misstating the argument, they then feebly respond by claiming that, something which is in truth the actual historical fact of the matter , is really just "a classic example of moving the goalposts every time a skeptic dropkicks one of your versions of this argument into oblivion".

It quickly becomes quite clear that these are not serious people interested in a serious discussion of the facts.

This has been pointed out to you a number of times now and yet you still persist in promoting a falsehood as a truth Why do you do that? What could you possibly think that you could gain by such a blatant misrepresentation? Don't you see what a self-intentional ignoramus it makes you look like?


A more correct formulation of that Premise (it is actually the 2nd Premise in the Argument) might go something like this:

2. All contingent things have a cause or explanation for their existence.

Ed
Now let’s see you support your First Cause, Unmoved Mover or whatever argument with some empirical evidence. Poof, there goes your argument. You have no evidence –

Andre
Just off the top of my head I can offer two pieces of evidence in support of the above stated Premise:

1. The evidence of common experience: everything that we are aware of in the entire Universe supports the validity of that premise. No counter-examples have be shown to exist. There are no counter-examples that you can provide.

2. The evidence of the existence of Science. Science is based on the validity of that Premise. If the premise is false then science would be impossible. The ability to do scientific investigation of the natural world is only made possible by the Principle of Sufficient Reason embodied in the Premise.

If the premise is false then the possibility of making successful predictions based on scientific theories would not be possible. The ability to make successful predictions based on scientific theories has been shown to be possible, therefore the Premise must be true.


More later (maybe)...

You said it made you laugh, and yet I notice that you did not cite a single error of fact, or point out a single flaw in his chain of reasoning.

Response: Oh puleeese! The guy claims God is what keeps things moving in the universe. The universe is expanding and the claim that God is causing this is absurd.

That the Culture of Death feels so threatened by the continued existence of the Catholic Church is merely another piece of evidence that, whatever slim chance may exist for my own personal moral redemption, it most likely lies within her embrace.

Response: What Culture of Death? You mean people who oppose turning women into government controlled breeding animals? Abortions have been performed in every society that has been studied. The Catholic Church is the Culture of Pedophilia and homophobic homosexuality. It’s the sickest most perverse organization that has ever existed and the worst human tragedy to ever come upon this planet. BTW the Bible is hardly pro-life. It gives instructions on how to give an abortificant to suspected adulteresses. Oops, It looks like you got caught with your citations down again.

A more correct formulation of that Premise (it is actually the 2nd Premise in the Argument) might go something like this:

2. All contingent things have a cause or explanation for their existence.

Response: Around and around we go. If God isn’t a thing what is it? What is the explanation for God? Poof! ROFL! This argument fails no matter how you word it dude. What causes radioactive decay? Poof there it goes again. How many times does this ridiculous argument have to blow up in your face before you’ll stop making it?

1. The evidence of common experience: everything that we are aware of in the entire Universe supports the validity of that premise. No counter-examples have be shown to exist. There are no counter-examples that you can provide.

Response: Nothing supports that premise. I already provided the alternative. The mass-energy that comprises the universe always existed in one form or another. Bang, I just blew it up again!

2. The evidence of the existence of Science. Science is based on the validity of that Premise. If the premise is false then science would be impossible. The ability to do scientific investigation of the natural world is only made possible by the Principle of Sufficient Reason embodied in the Premise.

Response: There isn’t one cosmologist or astronomer other than widely discredited Christian hoaxer G. Gonzales who holds that view.

If the premise is false then the possibility of making successful predictions based on scientific theories would not be possible. The ability to make successful predictions based on scientific theories has been shown to be possible, therefore the Premise must be true.

Response: The whole idea that all of science is based on the Christian First Cause hoax is so ludicrous I can’t believe anyone, even you, would make up such a blatant lie.

More later (maybe)...

Response: I really don’t think your fragile ego can take another intellectual beat down from an atheist.

Ed
Theists always claim atheists must be angry, bitter or have had some bad experience with Christians.

Andre
Gee...I wonder why?

Andre
Science is based on the validity of that Premise (All contingent things have a cause or explanation for their existence). If the premise is false then science would be impossible. The ability to do scientific investigation of the natural world is only made possible by the Principle of Sufficient Reason embodied in the Premise.

Ed
There isn’t one cosmologist or astronomer other than widely discredited Christian hoaxer G. Gonzales who holds that view.

Andre
Are you really such a belligerent contrarian that you can't even acknowledge that one of the primary purposes of science is to attempt to explain causality in Nature? Is this most simple and basic premise truly controversial?

Does science exist merely to describe and catalog natural phenomenon, or does it not also attempt to explain such phenomenon?

What would be the point of even trying to discover the causal chains behind natural phenomenon if you did not accept that such causality exists in the first place? To deny such causality would be to reduce science to folk-lore.

I'm suddenly occurs to me that perhaps you don't actually know what science is, or how it works. From the way you talk about it you give the impression that you view it as just some form of magic that is used in opposition to some other forms of magic.

If you can't even grasp the basic metaphysical assumptions behind the scientific endeavor, then it's no wonder that Philosophy and Theology are so incomprehensible to you. I think you need to go back and start all over again at the beginning.

Here is a good starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Science-Knows-How/dp/1594032076/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I13H6I30NVP2U8&colid=101RWLO3QX39A

Ed
What causes radioactive decay?


Andre
I've got no idea (way above my pay grade), but over at Ed Feser's blog, someone else asked this same question, and Biochemist Albrecht Moritz supplied this answer (it's long, but there may not be a shorter way to adequately answer this question):

"Are there ‘uncaused’ events in science? Let us look at science in practice. As far as I know, being a scientist myself, in the tens of thousands scientific laboratories around the world the principle of looking for natural causes to natural effects is still very much alive. In fact, science as it is currently practiced and will be in the foreseeable future, is firmly based on this central principle. It obviously includes the broader assumption that every effect has a cause.

There appears to be some confusion, however, as to whether the findings from quantum mechanics suggest a loosening of the bond between cause and effect. Such a loosening does not really take place. Yet what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a *deterministic* effect anymore, but a *probabilistic* effect. That the bond between cause and effect is unbroken is proven by the fact that the statistical distribution of the effects can be represented by exact mathematical formulas.

This can be well illustrated by radioactive decay: The cause for radioactive decay is the instability of certain types of atom which triggers them to loose a particle, e.g. a beta-particle, and in the process to convert into another element. Yet radioactive decay is also a quantum process.

If you have an agglomeration of 32-Phosphorus (32-P) atoms, or an agglomeration of molecules containing 32-P atoms, it is impossible to tell which one of the 32-P atoms will decay next to give stable 32-Sulfur (32-S). However, it is known that the half-life of 32-P is 14.28 days, i.e. after this time half of the material has decayed to 32-S, regardless which precise molecules out of the agglomeration of atoms do the decaying. This holds for any quantity of 32-P that is more than unimaginably miniscule. Even a chemically barely detectable trace amount of 1 femtomol still has 600 million atoms 32-P atoms. Obviously, this is still such a huge number that, statistically, also this tiny trace amount will always decay with a half-life of precisely 14.28 days. The cause for the decay is the instability of the 32-P nucleus, and the effect is always this precisely determinable half-life. Thus, there is a clear correlation between cause and effect, a probabilistically determined correlation. Certainly, on the local level of the lowest imaginable quantities, statistics cease to work, but the correlation between cause and effect is still there. Let us assume, hypothetically, that we have an agglomerate of just three 32-P atoms. One may decay in, let’s say, the next two minutes, one in 4 weeks, and another one in 10 months. Obviously, a statistically determined half-life of 14.28 days will only work on a global level of many atoms, but not on the local level of these three atoms. The effect is random – who can predict when exactly these three atoms will decay? Nobody can. But is the cause for the decay different from that for a larger agglomeration of 32-P atoms, for which a half-life of precisely 14.28 days could be determined? No, of course not. The cause is still the exact same instability of the 32-P nucleus.

Thus, the effect of decay is still tied to that cause, even though the factor of precise statistical determinability falls away. *The cause is the same,* regardless if the effect is that the decay takes place within 2 minutes, or after 10 months.

***

It should be clear from this that the concepts of ‘random effect’ and ‘cause-less effect’ are two very different things. ‘Random’ in science means ‘by chance’, ‘unpredictable’, ‘indeterministic’ but *not*‘uncaused’. "

@Ed

May we take a short break from our spit ball contest to send a joint shout out to our pal YOS?

He has conquered Japan!

http://m-francis.livejournal.com/191101.html

Way to go Mr. Wizard!

My father died on Tuesday of last week. So I've been busy and haven't felt like arguing with anyone. However I am going to post something about it that relates to this thread.

Hi Ed,

I just returned to this thread today, after having lost the link for awhile, to find this very sad news about your dad. I'm very sorry for your loss. You have my deepest, most sincere, condolences.

I can understand a bit of what you must be going through, since as it happens, my girlfriend's father passed away just a day before yours.

It has been a difficult, challenging month for so many people. . . I hope you are hanging in there.

From Mathew, during judgment after Christ tells the righteous that they helped Him out a lot, "the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40)." What I originally meant to say in that post, and what I was leading up to, was that you should not be embarrassed just because you don't know some particular fact, or the answer to some question that comes up suddenly in some com-box debate. We are all learning new things constantly (or at least we should be) and none of us arrive here knowing everything about everything (well, YOS might, but like I said before, he is a freak of nature).

THis is rot pure and simple, atheist means, does not believe in gods or supernatural, How then could I hate god. What I do regard as a pestilence is the dogma that accompanies god belief. The stealing of money from the gullible to support so called journals like this to be quoted on yahoo answers by those naive enough to believe that your words are somehow sanctioned by a body of knowledge, rather than a body of archaic legends

I don't hate god, because I don't believe in any god. I don't believe in the Sheriff of Nottingham as portrayed in the books about Robin Hood, but I have always hated him.

If one is to believe what most Christians tell me, their god, as portrayed in the OT, hated Baal and many other gods. However, I am told by my Christian friends that none of the those other gods existed. Why would their god hate a non-existent god? Does the fact that Yahweh hated Baal prove the existence of Baal?

I was raised a Christian and graduated from a Christian college with a minor in Religion. While I consider myself an atheist, I grant that it is possible that a god may exist. What I am very confident of is that if a god does exist, it can't be Yahweh. I am going through the OT again. That god is nothing more than an ancient tribal war god who teaches murder and brutality.

In my opinion, we atheists are actually angry at Christians, not at what we consider to be their imaginary friend. Why? Because, in nearly every online argument I have ever had with a Christian, he/she normally gets around at some point to pointing out that I am a fool or ignorant while trotting out a Bible text to prove it. Rather than admit they feel this way, they hide behind their god's robe and say, "I didn't say. He did." You repeated it. That means you said it too.

Most Christians believe that because I don't believe in the efficacy of the supposed sacrifice of Jesus, that I will burn forever in the fires of hell. I will be tortured forever for the sin of unbelief. They actually worship a god who treats his creation in that way. It is hard to see how their god differs from Baal or any other of the gods mentioned in the OT. In my younger days I prayed for hundreds of hours seeking god. I never found him. Yet, you tell me that my failure to find him, or perhaps his failure to reveal himself to me, makes me deserve eternal torture? How can you worship such a god? Do you really love this alleged being or are you just frightened of him? You believe that this god is perfectly just and (are you kidding me?) perfectly loving. That tells me that you believe I deserve to burn forever. I know you will say that the decision is god's and that you trust him to make the right decision, but you are endorsing and praising the "great dictator in the sky."

Christians often tell us stories of their persecution for their beliefs. Frank Turek told us about his persecution for writing publicly about his anti-gay agenda. I can't publicly express my beliefs either because, as a professional, I would lose my livelihood. Christians would not come to me. I can't run for political office and be honest about my lack of belief. Why? Because no group is despised more or hated more by the Christian community than atheists. We are the pariahs of American society. No wonder we are angry.

A human embryo is a human being for the same reason that a fertile acorn is an oaken being. The acorn is not a "tree," and the embryo is not an "adult." You must keep your parallelism intact. Different stages of development often have different names: an oak may be acorn, sprout, sapling, tree; a human may be embryo, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult. But you are confusing a difference in stage along a continuum with a difference in kind. That Christianity was prefigured in Jewish and pagan beliefs was always a matter of doctrine. If something is true, it is not surprising if others caught glimpses of it. Otherwise the Church would not have preached a "baptism of desire" or "the naturally Christian man." The Latin word "Retractationes" does not mean what you think it does.

I am just really curious as to why angry at Gun Barrel City -- What a wild and out of no where comment... help a curious girl out...

"We need a new apologetic approach that takes into account that the ordinary pain and sufferings of life leads more people away from God than a library full of anti-theist books."

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cABPPdMSPjc


http://theresurgence.com/2011/12/08/if-jesus-isnt-real-how-can-you-be-mad-at-a-myth

I noticed not a single post above attempted to offer an argument against the existence of God, or challenge the arguments for God's existence that already there. This is crucial. If one's loss of belief was the result of a serious consideration of the arguments for and against God rather than the result of a purely emotional hangup over God's failing to come through like some trained monkey (apparently no one has read the Book of Job), then can someone who lost belief in God please give me those allegedly argumentative reasons? I remain unconvinced most people's rejection in these cases was not purely emotional.