Theist VS atheist

[PaulSacramento]

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/07/theist-v-atheist/

A fascinating read.

Exert:

I have been exploring some argument for and against theism and atheism in my biweekly columns at EveryJoe. Unfortunately, the constraints of time and patience do not allow me to state each argument at length, and so, as a gift to my readers, I here publish some of the discussion that did not see print. Make of it what you will.

The strongest argument in favor of one model over another is how much it explained, how clearly, without recourse to special pleading, lapses in logic, or ad hoc. I propose that while the Christian religion contains mysteries certain to daze even the most patient of theologians, it is nonetheless the more robust, on the grounds that it requires fewer assumptions and leaves far less unexplained. For the atheist, nearly everything his worldview seeks to explain is left unexplained, marked off with a mere somehow.

While it is possible (in that it is not a logical self contradiction) that we live in a universe where irrational and non-deliberate chemical and evolutionary processes gave rise to creatures like ourselves capable of reason and deliberation, and that our reason somehow is able to deduce and predict correctly some of the processes of that material universe as well as the imponderable truths of logic, aesthetics, law and ethics, which just so happen somehow to apply to and work inside the material universe as well, it requires a leap of faith to believe that this is the case here in the real universe in which we actually live.

Where is the proof that the real universe behaves in this way?

Where is even a single example?

We have never seen any irrational process lead to a rational result, nor any non deliberate process give rise to a deliberate conclusion, and so our assumption that this somehow happened in the past rests on no evidence, and involves a seeming paradox of something arising from nothing, the paradox of beauty coming from randomness, of ethics springing from remorseless Darwinian struggles to survive, of logic and science arising from unintentional by products of brain chemistry.

And somehow, nearly every human being who has ever lived has had a joy for music and a fear of ghosts, two things which Darwinian selection could not possibly select into existence.

What natural process made it so that natural processes derive order out of chaos without any intention of creating order is also an unanswered somehow...

[Kenny]

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/07/theist-v-atheist/

A fascinating read.

Exert:

I have been exploring some argument for and against theism and atheism in my biweekly columns at EveryJoe. Unfortunately, the constraints of time and patience do not allow me to state each argument at length, and so, as a gift to my readers, I here publish some of the discussion that did not see print. Make of it what you will.

The strongest argument in favor of one model over another is how much it explained, how clearly, without recourse to special pleading, lapses in logic, or ad hoc. I propose that while the Christian religion contains mysteries certain to daze even the most patient of theologians, it is nonetheless the more robust, on the grounds that it requires fewer assumptions and leaves far less unexplained. For the atheist, nearly everything his worldview seeks to explain is left unexplained, marked off with a mere somehow.

While it is possible (in that it is not a logical self contradiction) that we live in a universe where irrational and non-deliberate chemical and evolutionary processes gave rise to creatures like ourselves capable of reason and deliberation, and that our reason somehow is able to deduce and predict correctly some of the processes of that material universe as well as the imponderable truths of logic, aesthetics, law and ethics, which just so happen somehow to apply to and work inside the material universe as well, it requires a leap of faith to believe that this is the case here in the real universe in which we actually live.

Where is the proof that the real universe behaves in this way?

Where is even a single example?

We have never seen any irrational process lead to a rational result, nor any non deliberate process give rise to a deliberate conclusion, and so our assumption that this somehow happened in the past rests on no evidence, and involves a seeming paradox of something arising from nothing, the paradox of beauty coming from randomness, of ethics springing from remorseless Darwinian struggles to survive, of logic and science arising from unintentional by products of brain chemistry.

And somehow, nearly every human being who has ever lived has had a joy for music and a fear of ghosts, two things which Darwinian selection could not possibly select into existence.

What natural process made it so that natural processes derive order out of chaos without any intention of creating order is also an unanswered somehow...

I will admit I didn’t read the entire article, but the parts I did read gave me the impression the author made a few obvious mistakes about atheism.

*I noticed he sometimes seemed to use “Darwinism” and Atheism interchangeably as if they were the same thing; ignoring the fact that most of the people who accept the theory of Evolution are theists.

*It seemed he assumed Atheists believe everything science says (I’ve noticed this error with many theists) almost as if refuting science is a refutation against atheism. Atheists could be just as critical of scientific claims as they are of theistic claims.

*Because his form of theism claims to have answers to the Universe, he assumes Atheism must provide answers as well. The response “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable reply to any question one doesn’t have answers to. I am under the impression a wrong answer is worse than no answer at all.

Well that’s all for now, I plan to read the rest later; perhaps I will have more responses after reading more.

Ken

[FlawedIntellect]

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/07/theist-v-atheist/

A fascinating read.

Exert:

I have been exploring some argument for and against theism and atheism in my biweekly columns at EveryJoe. Unfortunately, the constraints of time and patience do not allow me to state each argument at length, and so, as a gift to my readers, I here publish some of the discussion that did not see print. Make of it what you will.

The strongest argument in favor of one model over another is how much it explained, how clearly, without recourse to special pleading, lapses in logic, or ad hoc. I propose that while the Christian religion contains mysteries certain to daze even the most patient of theologians, it is nonetheless the more robust, on the grounds that it requires fewer assumptions and leaves far less unexplained. For the atheist, nearly everything his worldview seeks to explain is left unexplained, marked off with a mere somehow.

While it is possible (in that it is not a logical self contradiction) that we live in a universe where irrational and non-deliberate chemical and evolutionary processes gave rise to creatures like ourselves capable of reason and deliberation, and that our reason somehow is able to deduce and predict correctly some of the processes of that material universe as well as the imponderable truths of logic, aesthetics, law and ethics, which just so happen somehow to apply to and work inside the material universe as well, it requires a leap of faith to believe that this is the case here in the real universe in which we actually live.

Where is the proof that the real universe behaves in this way?

Where is even a single example?

We have never seen any irrational process lead to a rational result, nor any non deliberate process give rise to a deliberate conclusion, and so our assumption that this somehow happened in the past rests on no evidence, and involves a seeming paradox of something arising from nothing, the paradox of beauty coming from randomness, of ethics springing from remorseless Darwinian struggles to survive, of logic and science arising from unintentional by products of brain chemistry.

And somehow, nearly every human being who has ever lived has had a joy for music and a fear of ghosts, two things which Darwinian selection could not possibly select into existence.

What natural process made it so that natural processes derive order out of chaos without any intention of creating order is also an unanswered somehow...

I will admit I didn’t read the entire article, but the parts I did read gave me the impression the author made a few obvious mistakes about atheism.

*I noticed he sometimes seemed to use “Darwinism” and Atheism interchangeably as if they were the same thing; ignoring the fact that most of the people who accept the theory of Evolution are theists.

*It seemed he assumed Atheists believe everything science says (I’ve noticed this error with many theists) almost as if refuting science is a refutation against atheism. Atheists could be just as critical of scientific claims as they are of theistic claims.

*Because his form of theism claims to have answers to the Universe, he assumes Atheism must provide answers as well. The response “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable reply to any question one doesn’t have answers to. I am under the impression a wrong answer is worse than no answer at all.

Well that’s all for now, I plan to read the rest later; perhaps I will have more responses after reading more.

Ken

Problem:
1) You're responding to PaulSacramento, whose creation position is explicitly Theistic Evolution. He's well aware that there are Theists out there who believe that Evolution is true, because he is such a Theist. Just goes to show you how much you've been paying attention, Ken.
2) Most atheists claim that they place their trust in science. Darwinism isn't being equated with atheism, but rather being presented as a belief commonly held by most atheists.
3) The text above in no way tries to refute science, period. Nor does it deny any inherent truth in evolution. (As that is beyond the scope of the topic.)
4) It's the goal of any worldview or philosophy to provide answers and an explanation for the nature of the universe. Atheism is no different. Explanatory power is an essential part of any worldview, and the greater and more logically airtight the explanatory power, the better. "I don't know" as a response to the most basic, important, and foundational questions of reality is simply not going to cut it. It's a non-answer. If a philosopher wants to be taken seriously on questions like this, "I don't know" is not going to convince or persuade anyone. If that's really atheism's answer to the most foundational questions of reality, then it makes atheism sound cheap and shallow. What's the point in a worldview that doesn't even try to explain anything?

You also seem to be under the assumption that Christianity is automatically the wrong answer, rather than actually bothering to look at things fairly.

[Kenny]

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/07/theist-v-atheist/

A fascinating read.

Exert:

I have been exploring some argument for and against theism and atheism in my biweekly columns at EveryJoe. Unfortunately, the constraints of time and patience do not allow me to state each argument at length, and so, as a gift to my readers, I here publish some of the discussion that did not see print. Make of it what you will.

The strongest argument in favor of one model over another is how much it explained, how clearly, without recourse to special pleading, lapses in logic, or ad hoc. I propose that while the Christian religion contains mysteries certain to daze even the most patient of theologians, it is nonetheless the more robust, on the grounds that it requires fewer assumptions and leaves far less unexplained. For the atheist, nearly everything his worldview seeks to explain is left unexplained, marked off with a mere somehow.

While it is possible (in that it is not a logical self contradiction) that we live in a universe where irrational and non-deliberate chemical and evolutionary processes gave rise to creatures like ourselves capable of reason and deliberation, and that our reason somehow is able to deduce and predict correctly some of the processes of that material universe as well as the imponderable truths of logic, aesthetics, law and ethics, which just so happen somehow to apply to and work inside the material universe as well, it requires a leap of faith to believe that this is the case here in the real universe in which we actually live.

Where is the proof that the real universe behaves in this way?

Where is even a single example?

We have never seen any irrational process lead to a rational result, nor any non deliberate process give rise to a deliberate conclusion, and so our assumption that this somehow happened in the past rests on no evidence, and involves a seeming paradox of something arising from nothing, the paradox of beauty coming from randomness, of ethics springing from remorseless Darwinian struggles to survive, of logic and science arising from unintentional by products of brain chemistry.

And somehow, nearly every human being who has ever lived has had a joy for music and a fear of ghosts, two things which Darwinian selection could not possibly select into existence.

What natural process made it so that natural processes derive order out of chaos without any intention of creating order is also an unanswered somehow...

I will admit I didn’t read the entire article, but the parts I did read gave me the impression the author made a few obvious mistakes about atheism.

*I noticed he sometimes seemed to use “Darwinism” and Atheism interchangeably as if they were the same thing; ignoring the fact that most of the people who accept the theory of Evolution are theists.

*It seemed he assumed Atheists believe everything science says (I’ve noticed this error with many theists) almost as if refuting science is a refutation against atheism. Atheists could be just as critical of scientific claims as they are of theistic claims.

*Because his form of theism claims to have answers to the Universe, he assumes Atheism must provide answers as well. The response “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable reply to any question one doesn’t have answers to. I am under the impression a wrong answer is worse than no answer at all.

Well that’s all for now, I plan to read the rest later; perhaps I will have more responses after reading more.

Ken

Problem:
1) You're responding to PaulSacramento, whose creation position is explicitly Theistic Evolution. He's well aware that there are Theists out there who believe that Evolution is true, because he is such a Theist. Just goes to show you how much you've been paying attention, Ken.

If YOU had been paying attention to what I wrote, you would have noticed I was NOT responding to PaulSacramento, but rather to the article he said was a fascinating read.

2) Most atheists claim that they place their trust in science.

Most Atheists place their trust in science? How many Atheists have you talked to? Just the ones that frequent debate sites? Just as most christians are not like the ones who frequent these type of sites, neither are most atheists.

Darwinism isn't being equated with atheism, but rather being presented as a belief commonly held by most atheists.

Then it should also be held as a belief commonly held by most Theists as well

4) It's the goal of any worldview or philosophy to provide answers and an explanation for the nature of the universe. Atheism is no different.

Here you make the same mistake the Author makes, as well as many of your fellow theists as well. You claim Atheism is a “worldview” It is not. It is not the goal of atheism to provide answers and an explanation for the nature of the Universe. That’s why the honest reply of “I don’t know” is the best answer

You also seem to be under the assumption that Christianity is automatically the wrong answer, rather than actually bothering to look at things fairly.

[/quote]
You seem to be under the impression I have not bothered to look at things fairly; that I automatically assumed Christianity as the wrong answer. Sir I assure you; you couldn’t be further from the truth.

Ken

[FlawedIntellect]

Problem:
1) You're responding to PaulSacramento, whose creation position is explicitly Theistic Evolution. He's well aware that there are Theists out there who believe that Evolution is true, because he is such a Theist. Just goes to show you how much you've been paying attention, Ken.

If YOU had been paying attention to what I wrote, you would have noticed I was NOT responding to PaulSacramento, but rather to the article he said was a fascinating read.

I was paying attention. You think that PaulSacramento didn't notice what the article was saying?

2) Most atheists claim that they place their trust in science.

Most Atheists place their trust in science? How many Atheists have you talked to? Just the ones that frequent debate sites? Just as most christians are not like the ones who frequent these type of sites, neither are most atheists.

Kenny, how many atheists can you think of at the top of their head that openly and blatantly reject science? I haven't heard of any atheist that tosses science out the window entirely. Some may disregard philosophy, but not science.

Darwinism isn't being equated with atheism, but rather being presented as a belief commonly held by most atheists.

Then it should also be held as a belief commonly held by most Theists as well

No, it shouldn't necessarily be a belief commonly held by most Theists. There's nothing in Theism that requires belief in Darwinian Evolution. It's simply enough that some Theists hold to Darwinism as being true. Are you even trying to make a point? Because you're failing horribly. There's no reason to take your above claim seriously.

4) It's the goal of any worldview or philosophy to provide answers and an explanation for the nature of the universe. Atheism is no different.

Here you make the same mistake the Author makes, as well as many of your fellow theists as well. You claim Atheism is a “worldview” It is not. It is not the goal of atheism to provide answers and an explanation for the nature of the Universe. That’s why the honest reply of “I don’t know” is the best answer

Wrong. Atheism is a worldview. Oh? It's not the goal of atheism to provide answers and an explanation for the nature of the universe? Tell that to Bill Nye. Tell that to Richard Dawkins. Tell that to Stephen Hawking. That's not what they're claiming. They do think that it's the job of Atheism, through science, to explain the nature of the universe and provide answers. Though sure, they answer some questions with "I don't know", but they seriously do think that Atheism holds explanatory power for the nature of the universe: they just claim that they haven't quite found that explanation yet. The very word, Atheism, itself refers to a claim about the nature of reality. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Plain and simple. That is a claim about reality. That is enough to make it a worldview.

You also seem to be under the assumption that Christianity is automatically the wrong answer, rather than actually bothering to look at things fairly.

You seem to be under the impression I have not bothered to look at things fairly; that I automatically assumed Christianity as the wrong answer. Sir I assure you; you couldn’t be further from the truth.

Ken

I couldn't be further from the truth? Is that so? The many conversations you've had on this forum say otherwise.

[Kenny]

FlawedIntellect
I was paying attention. You think that PaulSacramento didn't notice what the article was saying?

Ken
Did you notice the only thing PaulSacramento said was “fascinating read”? Not much to respond to is there is there!


FlawedIntellect
Kenny, how many atheists can you think of at the top of their head that openly and blatantly reject science? I haven't heard of any atheist that tosses science out the window entirely. Some may disregard philosophy, but not science.

Ken
I don’t know of any Atheists who blatantly reject science; nor do I know of any that place all their trust in science. There is a huge middle ground in there ya know!

FlawedIntellect
No, it shouldn't necessarily be a belief commonly held by most Theists. There's nothing in Theism that requires belief in Darwinian Evolution.

Ken
And there’s nothing in Atheism that requires belief in Darwinian Evolution either! What's your point? Do you even have one? If so you're failing horribly.

FlawedIntellect
Wrong. Atheism is a worldview. Oh? It's not the goal of atheism to provide answers and an explanation for the nature of the universe? Tell that to Bill Nye. Tell that to Richard Dawkins. Tell that to Stephen Hawking.

Ken
“News Flash!!!” Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Hawking do not speak for all atheists; they speak for themselves.

Ken

[RickD]

Atheism is a worldview. Kenny, you need to think about that.

People who are atheists look at the world through their atheistic beliefs. In general, since atheists don't believe God created the world, they look at the world through naturalistic glasses.

And as I keep saying, some atheists try to claim atheism isn't a belief, or a worldview, so they don't have to defend their beliefs. They feel better trying to shift the burden of proof to theists. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[Kenny]

Atheism is a worldview. Kenny, you need to think about that.

No it is not; you need to recognize that.

People who are atheists look at the world through their atheistic beliefs. In general, since atheists don't believe God created the world, they look at the world through naturalistic glasses.

Atheism does not require they look at the world through naturalistic glasses.

And as I keep saying, some atheists try to claim atheism isn't a belief, or a worldview, so they don't have to defend their beliefs.

Wrong. As an atheist I defend my beliefs all the time. Most of my beliefs has nothing to do with being an atheist. What you fail to realize is Atheism is not a replacement for Christianity; you can pretend it is all you want and it doesn’t make it true.

I think Madalyn O’Hare said it best when she said; “trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats!

They feel better trying to shift the burden of proof to theists

If the theist is the only one making the claim, the burden of proof IS on them.


Ken

[FlawedIntellect]

Atheism is a worldview. Kenny, you need to think about that.

No it is not; you need to recognize that.

Your denial does not make it so, Kenny.

People who are atheists look at the world through their atheistic beliefs. In general, since atheists don't believe God created the world, they look at the world through naturalistic glasses.

Atheism does not require they look at the world through naturalistic glasses.

Uh, yes it does, unless you can propose some sort of non-naturalistic atheistic worldview? (P.S. Buddhism doesn't count, as Buddhism is agnostic.)

And as I keep saying, some atheists try to claim atheism isn't a belief, or a worldview, so they don't have to defend their beliefs.

Wrong. As an atheist I defend my beliefs all the time. Most of my beliefs has nothing to do with being an atheist. What you fail to realize is Atheism is not a replacement for Christianity; you can pretend it is all you want and it doesn’t make it true.

Again, wrong. You've failed to defend your beliefs, and you've been trying to hide behind the false assertion that your worldview somehow isn't a worldview, in order to get out of defending your beliefs.

I think Madalyn O’Hare said it best when she said; “trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats!

It just so happens that I'm extremely proficient at herding cats! It just comes naturally to me!

They feel better trying to shift the burden of proof to theists

If the theist is the only one making the claim, the burden of proof IS on them.

Ken

Except, you're making claims about various things that you haven't even succeeded in backing up. Oops.

[Kenny]

Flawed Intellect
Uh, yes it does, unless you can propose some sort of non-naturalistic atheistic worldview? (P.S. Buddhism doesn't count, as Buddhism is agnostic.)

Ken
I can come up with countless perceptions/POV/worldviews that do not include God. Just because you can’t doesn’t mean nobody else can. BTW what makes Buddism agnostic?

Flawedintellect
Again, wrong. You've failed to defend your beliefs, and you've been trying to hide behind the false assertion that your worldview somehow isn't a worldview, in order to get out of defending your beliefs.

Ken
When have I ever failed to defend my beliefs? Heck I’m doing it now!

Flawed Intellect
Except, you're making claims about various things that you haven't even succeeded in backing up. Oops.

Ken
Such as???



Ken

[PaulSacramento]

It is a article that is generalizing, which is the only way to discuss things in a GENERAL way.
It is never a good idea to put out the "specification issues" in something that is making a generalized statement.

EX:
Canadian love hockey.
This is a generalization since there are many that don't BUT in general Canadians love hockey.

To counter that statement by saying some do not does NOT invalidate the generalization at all.

[Kenny]

It is a article that is generalizing, which is the only way to discuss things in a GENERAL way.
It is never a good idea to put out the "specification issues" in something that is making a generalized statement.

EX:
Canadian love hockey.
This is a generalization since there are many that don't BUT in general Canadians love hockey.

To counter that statement by saying some do not does NOT invalidate the generalization at all.

I agree. My problem with the article was that I disagreed with much of the generalized statements he made about Atheists, and the generalized statements he was right about I believe applies not only to most Atheists, but to most Christians as well. example; do most atheists depend upon science? Yes; but so do most Christians as well!

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

It is a article that is generalizing, which is the only way to discuss things in a GENERAL way.
It is never a good idea to put out the "specification issues" in something that is making a generalized statement.

EX:
Canadian love hockey.
This is a generalization since there are many that don't BUT in general Canadians love hockey.

To counter that statement by saying some do not does NOT invalidate the generalization at all.

I agree. My problem with the article was that I disagreed with much of the generalized statements he made about Atheists, and the generalized statements he was right about I believe applies not only to most Atheists, but to most Christians as well. example; do most atheists depend upon science? Yes; but so do most Christians as well!

Ken

Of course Christians trust science and they should, not to the same degree that they trust God of course.
As a mechanical engineer I love and trust science for what it IS, not what I want it to be or others think it is ( the answer to all of life's questions).
As a "theologian" ( I don't view myself as one BTW just using the term as an example) I love an trust God BUT I know that I am NOT able to fully grasp and understand ALL that God is.
So, science helps me to understand what I "see" and God helps me to understand what I "feel and know" and TOGETHER ( because God sustains all and as such science points to Him) I get a better, though incomplete, picture of the universe and God.

And Wright's generalizations of atheist are, from my many years of experience and IMO, quite correct.

[Kenny]

It is a article that is generalizing, which is the only way to discuss things in a GENERAL way.
It is never a good idea to put out the "specification issues" in something that is making a generalized statement.

EX:
Canadian love hockey.
This is a generalization since there are many that don't BUT in general Canadians love hockey.

To counter that statement by saying some do not does NOT invalidate the generalization at all.

I agree. My problem with the article was that I disagreed with much of the generalized statements he made about Atheists, and the generalized statements he was right about I believe applies not only to most Atheists, but to most Christians as well. example; do most atheists depend upon science? Yes; but so do most Christians as well!

Ken

Of course Christians trust science and they should, not to the same degree that they trust God of course.
As a mechanical engineer I love and trust science for what it IS, not what I want it to be or others think it is ( the answer to all of life's questions).

That's my point. It seems Theists are convinced Atheists perceive science as knowing the answers to all of life's questions. I have never heard of an atheist that feels this way but I've heard plenty of theists (Christians) who claim atheists feel this way. All of the atheists I know of (myself included) recognize science do not know all the answers, but they believe science knows more than anyone else; theism included.

[ And Wright's generalizations of atheist are, from my many years of experience and IMO, quite correct.

I think his generalizations of atheists are typical of what most Christians believe them to be.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

The truth hurts and it offends people but the difference between a theist and an atheist is the atheist chooses to defy logic,reason and reality in order to deny God.Atheists choose to live by 100% pure imagination and lives by this imagination instead of believing in God.

But it gets worse because they think living by imagination is easier than believing in God,and even when you point it out to them that they are living by imagination?They get defensive and hard headed and still choose to by blind faith believe in their imagination and they think they are so smart and have evolved out of a belief in God.

This is before we even get into evidence which atheists lack which is why they try to make us prove God exists,then no amount of evidence you give them for God works because they reject it and always revert back to their imagination they live by.

Everybody who believes in God lives within logic,reason and reality,but atheists's imagination surpasses logic,reason and reality.

These are facts of logic,reason and reality that theist's believe and atheists reject.

ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause ARE caused by something else and all things are willed into existence. The atheists reject these facts and use imagination,while people who believe in God live in logic,reason and reality.

It requires far,far more faith to be an atheist and live by imagination instead of logic,reason and reality but it is blind faith too which is why they don't have evidence for their atheism and cannot name one thing in our world that does not apply to the facts of logic,reason and reality yet try to make us prove God is real.Logic,reason and reality alone prove God exists.