»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Antony Flew the Theist
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Antony Flew the Theist |
|
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash 
|
Just interested in our resident athiest and agnostic thoughts on Antony Flew's recent change of heart regarding atheism: http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf Interestingly, he upholds several points raised by me, Stephen, and Ron in previous threads. So ... when such a prominent atheist such as Flew determines that atheism is untenable, what does that mean to current atheists? Jim |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Jim Bouder - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Not much. He doesn't offer anything particularly new. It's the argument from complexity all over again. Though I'm struck by how many actually think this shift is significant. He's moved to a Deist position. I've said it before, I think, but at that level of metaphysics, you can pretty much believe whatever you want. We don't have a clue. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But many (especially of the intelligensia) often pass through a sort of "deism" on the way to a more Christian belief (C.S. Lewis did something similar to this). And it's certainly nothing to disparage. It's a step closer. Brad, how do you have universal knowledge of "we", in saying "we don't have a clue"? If you're saying "there may be a right answer ... but we can't know it." Why are you so sure? If you're saying "there is no right answer to know", then aren't you undermining your own metaphysical assertions, though they be in the negative? And again, why are you so sure? And also, what's significant may not be Flew's manner or choice of argumentation. What's significant is the manner of the man, who has taken such a turn. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Judging from this, Flew's belief doesn't seem to be characteristic of a set and hardened deism, (or agnostic theism), but rather strikes me as the belief of someone who has come to one conclusion only in the matter, and is therefore non-commital, for the time being, about the rest. But if he's friends with Gary Habermas, he certainly may be considering special revelation (from the standpoint of historical narrative) in the near future. Stephen |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
It's significant, Brad, because of Flew's history and prior works. If an atheistic thinker of Flew's caliber concludes that atheism is no longer tenable given recent scientific findings, then it follows that this "argument from complexity" you seem to be dismissing ought not be so easily dismissed. Flew's problem with revelatory theism, interestingly, is not so much with the evidences presented by Christianity (he actually acknowledges the resurrection miracle as a higher class of miracle), but with the problem of evil. Stephan is right, I think, in that Flew is treading the path C.S. Lewis traveled years ago, and the one the Apostle described at the beginning of Romans. I believe it is only a matter of time before Flew follows Lewis's lead - Flew is a rational man and Christianity is not antithetical to reason. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And what recent findings would those be? True, he may have a stronger argument somewhere, but in the interview, it basically comes down to, "We don't know how this happened, therefore God must have done it." But the next step, a perfectly legitimate question in metaphysics, is what is the nature of God, how did He do it, but once you add God, you are told be many that such questions are off limits. That is, you switch from an interrogative that we don't know the answer to, to an imperative that says you can't ask the question. This is progress? Stephan, how is "we don't have a clue" undermining my position when "we don't have a clue" is precisely my position.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I don’t see how the idea of a god is in itself comforting. Various civilizations had beliefs in one, except it was one that had to be appeased with blood. If one looks at Nature one could make the case, assuming a god, that he enjoys the slaughter. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Belief by itself already betokens the existence of what is believed in; for there may be no belief, unless there is that existing to be believed in. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-18-2004 02:56 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Belief by itself already betokens the existence of what is believed in; for there may be no belief, unless there is that existing to be believed in.” Well the Flat Earth Society will be relieved. Also Zeus, Venus, Apollo, unicorns, centaurs, etc. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It makes more sense to me to believe in flat earth, Zeus, Venus, Apollo, unicorns, and centaurs than to say any belief is in something that is nonexistant. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
It's the darnedest thing, no matter how hard my kids believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, I always get stuck playing the part.  (Not that I don't enjoy the heck out of it) Essorant, would that you actually could believe things into existence, but your statement, if not necessarily your meaning, is utterly false. Believing something does not make it true, nor does something necessarily have to be true to be believed in. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If you are able to believe in something or not believe in it, call it true or false, existant or not existant, I think those are all enough tokens to show that something exists. How do you call something "nonexistant" unless it exists? [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-19-2004 11:14 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I believe nonexistance exists by being the only thing not existing. In order to exist nonexistance must not exist. And it does, which is tokened by existance itself; therefore everything exists and everything counts, even nonexistance |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: For example: A pig that sprouts wings and flies is nonexistant. Certainly you can argue that the image or the idea of a flying pig might be brought into existance by the mere mention of it, but it doesn't make the idea nor the image a reflection of reality. If, for example, you are arguing that God is an idea, and that idea exists merely by virtue of having been conceived, then I agree with you. But stating that belief = existance without some qualifier is still false. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Here we go again. It's interesting that you, Essorant, used the word token. Tokens are examples of types. Types, however, are abstractions, and don't exist as tokens. Therefore, types don't exist as tokens. If they did, they wouldn't be types and then types wouldn't exist. The only reason you get away with this kind of 'everything exists' attitude is that you aren't being clear enough in you language. It's a bit of a shame, you know, for someone who respects and love language as much as you do (and you have my utmost respect because of that) should fall for such a trick. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: quote: Naturally, science cannot answer these questions for us. Only revelation, by God's initiative and at His discretion, can answers beyond those of Flew's be ascertained. I'm not sure who is spouting the "off limits" rhetoric, but I think a more accurate response would be that such answers have not been revealed. Science can ascertain certain Godly attributes (e.g., power and knowledge) but defining his moral attributes requires a careful vetting of revelatory traditions. "What is the nature of God" (in terms of his substance) and "How did he do it" must ultimately take a back seat to "Why did he do it?" Answers to the "what" and "how" questions might satisfy our intellectual curiosity, but don't answer the questions that are more important to us, especially the "why" questions, which are potentially of eternal significance. A God who is there but silent is more problematic to me than a God who is there and has not only made Himself known to man in space and time, but has also revealed the means by which our separation from the personal God can be remedied. Take, for example, your daughter. One might ask how a sperm and ovum could result in such a remarkably complex person, how her genes know when to trigger neurological development at certain intervals to enable her to walk, begin to speak, and develop the ability to reason. Science may be able to answer these questions, but what about why she makes you smile when you come home from work, or the pride you feel for her when she says her first complete sentence? The love God has for His "children" can be known, but not from data gathered from a space telescope or under a microscope. While His moral attributes are evident in our own, they are only known to us through His specific revelation. An important starting point is the factual resurrection of Christ in history. That the resurrection happened is difficult to dispute - why it happened is revealed, and with the answer to that "why" question lies an important answer to Flew's hesitance over the problem of evil (which, in my mind, isn't the real problem - the real problem is the problem of good ... if good is a perfect standard and we have not met it, why would God want us to have any place in His creation to begin with?). Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Skyfyre It may help to approach it this way. "Flying" and "pigs" are like the roots, and "flying pigs" is a branch that grew from those roots. If those roots weren't there to begin with, those branches wouldn't be there either. The roots are existant, and the branches are too. The tree of existance grows in all planes, and all branches are supported by roots that are underneath the tree and the roots are supported by the branches too. It grows into into the physical earth and into the spiritual sky. Everything is root or branch or leaf of existance, and may even be all three of those at the same time. That is the wonder-tree of existance. We can't know or say everything; but everything is still there. And even when we refer to it wrongly or mistakenly, we are still refering to it. Flying (existant) + Pigs (existant) = Flying Pigs (existant) This doesn't mean that we meet "flying pigs" physically as we may meet "flying" and pigs" But it is from meeting those things in any way, thro life and thro lore, that we have the "timber" with which unphysically put together those two things; and I think there is a great likelihood that we may imagine from those three things that the universe may actually put them together physically as well, even if the "flying" and the "pigs" are not exactly the same as the flying and pigs that we ever see on our branch of the Tree . But again, whether it does or not, I don't think there must be an amount of physicalness as prequisite for the existance of anything. I believe everything whether more closely or more distantly is still in with "communication" everything else. Anything more spiritual therefore is always "connected" to anything more physical, and more physical to more spiritual. Everything seems to come out in the end as physical and spiritual , or if there is one word for it all, perhaps "natural" |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Brad, Types exist as types. Tokens exist as tokens. If you refer to types as tokens, then you are still referring to existant types. If you refer to tokens as types, you are still referring to existant tokens. |
||
|
Michael
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-13
Posts 7666California |
quote: Essorant, I am not sure any of your arguments are helping here but they certainly, and constantly amuse me for one... Note, I am not speaking for Linda here but this reply seemed so out of left field I felt compelled to reply. Have you ever actually conceived, in this topic, or any other that someone else could be right? If pigs can fly, after all, wouldn't that be a possibility? Having never personally approached a flying pig though, I cannot tell you or even fathom where its roots my lead. How you can be so sure they lead to your “tree of existence” I cannot fathom either for you pose no proof to back your argument. I for one am more likely to base my beliefs on reality, and give heed to arguments that actually have some backing. That you, or anyone, can envision something certainly does not make it real, or the term “fantasy’ would never have been created. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Essorant: Notice I never said that flying didn't exist, nor that pigs didn't exist. Nor even that the saying "when pigs fly" as a synonym for impossibility doesn't exist. I am saying: "Pigs that sprout wings and fly do not exist." Regardless of roots, branches, apples, xylem and phloem, or any other parts you care to name of some metaphorical tree, flying pigs do not exist. I am not referring to them wrongly or mistakenly; I am not at all mistaken nor wrong in my assertion that there is no such thing as a flying pig. Your logic is flawed. Not to mention convoluted, almost entirely unclear, and bearing little relevance to the topic you claim to address. Poetic license does not apply here. I challenge you to be concise and still support your argument. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Micheal The only thing I think is wrong about Skyfyre's and others' words above is the suggestion that someone's belief is in something nonexistant. How would you like it if you lived as long as Christianity and people tried to make out the center of your belief as in something nonexistant, which is basically like trying to say "you believe in nothing" as if you never earned what you believe from life and learning too? There is also the wrong of one theistic religion treating another theistic religion as if it's belief is in things nonexistant as well. When atheism or theism try to make out certain things as nonexistings or nothings that is where they are no longer atheism or theism but they are both become one and the same: nihilism. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-20-2004 05:17 PM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I have seen flying pigs. You see, that's what is depicted on every check in the book of the account that my husband opened for me after we married. I wish I were kidding, but I'm not. Seasons greetings to all, and I can only add that my personal belief system is in constant evolution, and to my limited understanding of a "God", that definition is somewhere beyond "true" and "false". and yeah, I know it's annoying, but I do like the quote from Lost Horizon: "Most religions are moderately true." Yep. Even atheism.  peace |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
quote: How would you like it if you lived as long as Judaism (longer than Christianity, that is) and some upstart guy who was later executed as a criminal by the Roman empire claimed to be the Son of the God you believed in, and subsequently rewrote about 90% of the rules you believed in and lived by? Religions, and people, disagree. The basic nature of monotheism is that there is one, true God and that the rest are false. Is being a false God somehow better than being a nonexistant one? If someone says they believe that Allah is waiting for them in the afterlife with seventy virgins, I'll happily leave them to that belief. I can disagree with them without discrediting what they believe in, can I not? Or am I the center of the universe, so that my beliefs negate the differing beliefs of all others? The human race is not some hive mind. It is our individuality that defines and uplifts us, and our beliefs and opinions are a vital and healthy part of our identity as individuals as well as the identity of the race as a whole. quote: So wait ... you are saying that religions are wrong for saying other religions' beliefs are wrong? By that logic, would you not also be wrong for declaring their beliefs wrong? In which case, who is right? EDIT: Diction is my friend, I know Nan is watching. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, I'll come back to that excellent response in a moment. The only thing I'll ask right now is why is why more important than how? Essorant, Tokens exist as tokens. Types exist as types. Types as tokens do not exist. "Type" is a type. "Token" is a type. "Types as tokens" exist as words but not in reference to anything. Your last comment belies the problem. You're need to be politically correct blinds you to the need to understand the distinction. I already know you know the difference. Otherwise you'd be dead crossing bridges that don't exist. And on your way down, you'd be screaming, "But bridges exist!!" |
||
|
Michael
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-13
Posts 7666California |
OMG --- I am afraid to see how far down we are headed into the rabbit hole now. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Stephan? "But many (especially of the intelligensia) often pass through a sort of "deism" on the way to a more Christian belief (C.S. Lewis did something similar to this). And it's certainly nothing to disparage. It's a step closer." Um...this "intelligensia"? explain please? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Skyfyre, You challenged me to be concise. I think Christopher said it best here: Post #36 "What is Reality" With the exception of where he says "seperate" where perhaps "distinct" would be a bit more accurate. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Types as tokens" exist as words but not in reference to anything." Brad, I think the way we use "types as tokens" here is basically the same as saying "types are tokens" which sounds like a metaphor: referring to types in the word "types" and refering to types in the term of something else as well "tokens" Even though our central reference is types there is a sub-reference to token used metaphorically. Therefore "types as tokens" if it does mean the same as "types are tokens" I think may have three existant references to two existant referents: "Types" literally refers to types "Tokens" literally refers to tokens and And metaphorically refers to types. It is just like saying "the sun is a candle" The "sun" literally refers to the sun, and the "candle" literally refers to a candle, but metaphorically refers to the sun too. I hope that makes sense. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-22-2004 05:29 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: As I'm thinking this through, I think the "how" and "why" questions, depending on the answer, can both be important questions to ask. In questions of metaphysics, however, I think the "why" questions lead to the "what do I do now?" In my own experiences with my son, I've always said: quote: http://www.thewgalchannel.com/health/3302031/detail.html In questions of parenting, "what caused this" or "how did this happen" are not nearly as important as "where do we go from here?" They may be more important in cases such that answers to the "how" are ascertainable, but if the answer to "how" is silence, then we are left with doing nothing or doing something. By analogy, our knowledge of God ought to prompt us to prioritize questions that lead to action over those that do not. If God, the creator of the universe, acted in space and time to reconcile me to Him, how He did it may be important in a credal sense, but if I don't respond to His action in a way that expresses gratitude to Him, then I don't believe my priorities are in the right order. We bark because we are dogs, we don't bark to become dogs. We do good things because we are Christians, we don't do things to become Christians. In a similar sense, we don't do what good parents do to become good parents - we do what good parents do because we are parents. For me (and I'm willing to wager that this is also the case with you), I provide for my children because they are my children. Not out of cold duty or obligation, but because of my love for them and the sense of gratitude that I feel for simply having them around. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Of course. I disagree slightly in that I see no negative connotation to "obligation". It's what I what I want to do. I don't need God to do that. If it works for you, great. But I see no reason to worry about ultimate metaphysics when I'm worried about how my daughter deals with other children. And if God cares that He's not a part of that, he's a narcissitic pig! |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
But aren't you assuming He is not part of it? Providence can be either direct or concurrent ... and, most often, I believe it is concurrent. God operates both outside and through His creation ... and His creation includes you. Jim |
||
|
JoshG Member
since 2004-11-16
Posts 127TX, USA |
I would also like to point out that a lack of belief does not constitute as a lack of existence. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
OK Essorant... Chris says: quote: You say: quote: I said: quote: What Chris and I provided, and you did not, were the qualifiers I mentioned. Certainly you could conceptualize having $100,000 all day long, and therefore the idea of it would exist in your mind, but it wouldn't buy you that Mercedes at the dealership. So in this case, as in many cases, the "conceptual reality" means next to nothing (and I'm being kind here) without the "solid reality." In fact, you will find very few instances in which conceptual reality is useful unless it is eventually translated into solid reality in some form. Even God, the ultimate abstract, has His "solid reality" media in the form of the Bible. JoshG also makes a very good point. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, But if he's already working through me, if it is indeed concurrent, why appeal to something outside? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Skyfyre Here is the qualifier: Everything Who may give a better qualifier than that? |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Essorant, Once again I have no idea what you're talking about. Oddly, I am not surprised. [This message has been edited by Ron (12-22-2004 05:42 AM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: quote: Good question. That depends on the importance and nature of the issues at stake. If good parenting is a component of God's design, then little else besides verification of what He has revealed about good parenting is of much value. Most of us know, intuitively, that a child who is loved and cared for adequately is most likely to develop into a happy, healthy, adult human being. Issues that are, by nature, spiritual (e.g., sin, reconciliation, propitiation, sanctification, etc.), require outside appeals. Jesus' death may not satisfy the tough-minded of the necessity of belief, but His resurrection raises important questions regarding the relevence of Christian teaching on soteriology to everyone - including Brad and his daughter. Certainly, I believe the religious instruction I give to my children to be true - but in terms of usefulness, I would choose the liberation of faith over the liberation of deconstruction any day of the week ... ESPECIALLY if I had a daughter ~shiver~. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: Brad, sorry not to respond earlier. Things have been busy enough for me that philosophy 101 has become a rare indulgence. And I hate "peeping" into deep subjects and conversations, which deserve so much more. But here goes another "peep" In response to your question, I want to ask another one. With an epistemology which so denies absolute knowledge of any kind (especially of the metaphysical kind), how can believing "no one has a clue" escape the ignominy of being that very same kind of universally applied (and non-empirical I might add) knowledge? The kind of reply I might imagine, is that such a belief is not dogmatic in nature, but existential ... a hunch, a felt certainty, and a mere lack of belief as opposed to a positive assertion. But I would say that it's been my experience that it is not treated at all as if it were only a particular individual belief, but as an over-arching universalist claim to truth, albeit a negative one. The doctrine which dispells all metanarratives, has itself become the grand monolithic story of (as Betrand Russell called it) Omnipotent matter. My personal evidence for this is from my reading. Many expressions of these ideas have smelt and tasted of the very dogmatism, mysticism and even ardent devotion which they tend to oppose. And really that's all I was saying. For a particular, atomistic individual in a closed cosmic machine to have mystical knowledge of the transecdent nature of the whole, which is more than purely autobiographical, is amazing indeed and almost worthy of worship ... and that according to it's own assumptions. Karen: quote: It seems to me that there are many people living, who though not incredulous or gullible, do not require a strict measure of empirical immediacy in order to believe spiritual things. What I meant by "intelligensia" (though I know I'm stereotyping, and that can always get you in trouble) is a population largely influenced by the principles and assumptions of the Renaissance Enlightenment. That was the period when closed-naturalism and the strictest demands of empiricism were made the standards for human knowledge. Anything beyond either the purely mathematical, or purely logical, cannot and should not be believed (as the story goes). It just so happens that in the world of acedemia, these presuppositions have taken root more deeply than anywhere else. And therefore many "intellectuals" have unquestionably accepted the first principle, that no first principle is valid. Only tested hypothesis is valid, according to this mindset. Therefore, when it comes to believing in God ... When one comes to see evidence which is not mathematically quantifiable, (By the way, whether or not love exists, is not mathematically quantifiable either, but the testimony of countless poets and lovers suggests otherwise), one may view God as impersonal force, or the semi-personal God of physics. Einstein did this very thing. He saw a marvelous design, and what would be intuitive evidence for intelligent personality. And yet he constantly denied any "personal" God. And though some simpler people may take God for granted, and believe in him seemingly as easily as breathing air they do not see, for some it is not so easy. For some the wrangling of philosphers, is just that ... wrangling. For others, their observations have been assumed for so long, that their dogmatic agnosticism is more difficulat to elude. But God has inroads to many many different kinds of minds and hearts, and that is a comfort. I just didn't want you to think that I was equating Christian conversion with being an "intellectual". I'm sure that the intelligensia, as well as more modest minds (like mine), have their own peculiar benefits and struggles when it comes to faith. (It's late, please forgive if I've rambled) Stephen. |
||
|
~DreamChild~ Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544in your dreams |
i believe i'll hit the lotto... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, And yet, the serious questions you mention are already within the accepted metaphysical framework (Supernatural Dualism). Everything I see and think, inner and outer, seems to point in a different direction (barring some fortuitous coincidences now and then ).It is, however, the 'common' sense idea these days. Stephan, Are you arguing the hoary old, "if everything is relative, then 'everything is relative' is absolute" conundrum? Still? First, we don't have a clue doesn't mean we can't have a clue. Second, the problem with absolutes isn't that there aren't any, it's that people use the idea of absolutes to promote arbitrary designations. "Murder is wrong" as an absolute is a usual culprit. You have two ways to go: 1. Killing Bin Laden is not wrong because you can't murder a murderer. That is, change the definition to suit your purpose. A real example of this is Mao Tse Tung's famous, "My father is not a father," line. 2. Limit the proposition to a specific time and place: It is universally wrong to murder Mother Theresa when she was still alive. So, absolutes are fine. They just don't always have a lot to offer. When it comes to Deism, the mistake, I think, is that we stop there. That's just an initial assumption. My daughter, as all children, realize intuitively that there is no reason to stop there. Why does the earth exist? Because God said so. Why did he say so? [No answer] How did he do it? [No answer] Insofar as Deism leads in this direction (and I don't know why it should, it just seems to), I'm not satisfied. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Half the puzzle is in the House of Science and the other half is in the House of Religion. Either house may only ever have a "whole" that is a "half" but neither house even sees that whole half because it divides its own pieces into so many seperate chambers therein. Now every chamber has a "whole" piece, but now every chamber may little see that whole piece for grinding it into so many smaller pieces. Thus the "puzzle" is for ever more divided into houses, chambers and specifications so that it is almost impossible to see a "whole" or more whole, or more general whole, of all the pieces thro so many specifications and divisions for every minute difference. University is the same thing. Every grain of lore is divided into a new "expertise" and put into a new house of learning, so that things are not very much learned generalization and conjunction with each other very much anymore. But are scattered into "islands" and one needs to hop from one island to another, and then finally try to imagine what Landscape those islands were or may be if they were all put together like puzzle pieces. The more lore is milled into smaller grains all the time, the less we are able to see our the body of lore in a oneness that all men give to. We may have such puzzle pieces as could show us a whole picture, but we are too divided for our differences, too divided for our specifications and too fixed and fond of our own seperate "wholes" to put the puzzle piece with our differences included, into a more whole and general lore. It is too much for men too overlook some differences and specifications to hold onto a more "whole" picture. A "fire, water, air, earth" philosophy that most men may remember and most men may have a sense or understanding of elemental wholness with, if it has some flaws and lack of specification, is still more helpful I believe than a periodic table of too many specifications that most people forget many things about; and that is difficult to ever find a wholeness about because there are always more specifications to be made about everything; especially about the things we forget over and over again. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Brad, I'm not sure how you feel that deism/theism doesn't propose answers to such questions. It seems that almost all forms of deism/theism offer symbols, lores, beliefs, literature, all in attempts to give an answer of the wonders of existance, not a "[no answer]" If you aren't content with the answers that deism/theism gives than you are free to amend it where it is wrong or give anything better or refer to something better. Saying that a nothing or [no answer] is there though, I think is an ungrounded saying in respect to deism/theism. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Offer an answer and I'll show the problem. tfreddtytst577797ree trt6t86t7ie7il hhyyiu6ii8yu;tyuu l |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I will answer your first question. "Why does the earth exist?" The earth exists for the same reason a poem exists. Because a Shaper exists to shape it and influence thro it and give it grace. Earth is God's work, as a poem is Poet's work. And it is worked for all things at this earth, and for a more universal work too. Earth is shaped because a Shaper wished to give more shape to the universe. Without earth we should not have solid thing to live upon and stand upon, build a garden upon, have a family upon, build a civilization upon. For all these things and much more God shaped this part of the universe into what we know as Earth. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
A cloud of letters: tfreddtytst577797ree trt6t86t7ie7il hhyyiu6ii8yu;tyuu l A question mark: dtytfred tst7 97ree 577 trt6 t86 6t7 ie7 ilh hyy iu6 ii8 yu;t yuul Do you see now how all the same (existant) things (in this case letters) from one shape to a very different and more meaningful shape, may be shaped? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
[sorry, double post] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sorry, about the nonsense -- that was my daughter. Your example points to the problem, anthropocentrism. You offer no motivation for the shaper except that he or she or it provides for us, does what it does for us. I know you know that poet means the same thing as maker. And no doubt poets don't have to give reasons for their work, yet the question, why did you write that poem, isn't answered if one responds, "Just because." or "It just happened." or "I don't know." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: In simplest terms, yes. Because it still presents a problem for those who want to assert that their agnosticism is more than just a personal state of mind. Your second sentence only illustrates my point because it is so different (in degree of ambition) from what things I've read regarding anti-foundational philosophies, and the like. But, in pondering what you've said, I wonder, is there that much of a difference between saying "We CAN'T have a clue", and "We may have a clue, but surely never have, and probably never will"? As I've said before, one is indeed theoretically dogmatic, but the other is at least pragmatically dogmatic and achieves the same nixing effect. It is the projecting of a personally existential state of mind, onto the whole. And when it is questioned as to it's overly ambitious goal, the concession IS usually there that such a stance of certainty is not what was meant. But then come those modifying phrases, looks, and innuendos, which clearly communicate that it is more than ridiculous to not accept this universal negation as absolutely true ... at least in the real world. Same end, different method. That's why existentialists best communicated themselves in films, sharing and giving expression to their moods. If they had attempted to do so under the auspices of systematic philosophy or whatever, the contradiction would have been too obvious. quote: People use math to come up with wrong answers too, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of math. Most often even political criticisms (including some of yours I've previously read, and which I don't wholly disagree with) are based upon one or more moral objection. And these are at least argued as if the concerns were more than just arbitrary espousals, forwarded merely for the sake of a different political agenda or slant. quote: That is really problematic. I often mistrust such justifications too, and therefore am closer to your way of thinking about such matters, than you might think. Because I live in America doesn't mean that I necessarily support what her Governmental agents decide to do in a crisis. Regardless of whether such actions are at all justifiable (because I think at least some weight must be given the idea that God has granted rulers to have the power of their sword to protect their own) I do not think it is the best or highest way. And it is certainly not the Christian way as taught by Jesus. quote: It seems murder, by it's nature, would HAVE to be limited to a specific time and place. After all, how could anyone murder mother Theresa when she's dead? The principle still retains it's universality in a universe where life is the theme. Just like math itself is pure theory until you add two and two pecans to make four pecans, moral directives are meant to be "limited" by actual experience. Where is the problem here? quote: This is where I disagree. You posted a thread a while back which basically told us that "terrorism" is an irrational kind of action, and one which may claim to have "reasons", but which really doesn't. People kill because they want to. They kill out of hatred and internal darkness and turmoil. If there's any truth to that, then might it also be true of those who claim to slaughter in the name of divine decree? In which case, a belief in absolutes cannot blamed for what extremists do. In my experience, people who most believe in the binding nature of moral responsibility coming from a righteous Heavenly authority, act accordingly (even if not perfectly). Someone who fears and respects the judgement of God against murder, typically has more of an aversion to murder than someone who doesn't. A man who feels he will lose tenfold for stealing, doesn't steal as much. Likewise a man who feels certain that good behavior will be in some way rewarded, will be more likely to act in a good way rather than not. How much of Neo-Darwinian theory (for example), might also be partially responsible for the moral slide we now see? When survival of the fittest was repeatedly taught as the highest ideal, moral obligations become no longer obligatory. Morality itself is no longer an end, but a means to an end, as easily shed as a cumbersome tail, or a third leg. Moral innovation is permitted, whether individual or corporate. And egoism doesn't really save the day, in my view. quote: Why does the Earth exist? What type of answer are you looking for? You are assuming one does not exist. Even the phrase "Mother Earth" hints at it. And the Bible, though not giving a full mathematical, business-like, prosaic answer, gives us answers that will appease the poet in us all. Let the child begin to learn now, and the engineer later. Suspend your disbelief and ponder the word "Creator" for a start. It contains a depth of insight that an artist and lover like yourself ought to find quite genial and satisfying. It's not an end, but a beginning. The fact that you're not satisfied is not a bad thing. But someone who is hungry doesn't rule out the existence of food as a solution to his hunger. Gastrectomies are overrated. Maybe what you are so sure is a stone, might turn out to be bread? But at least there can be answers with a theistic view. The only consolation in your presently chosen view, is that there shouldn't have to be answers, therefore hankering after them is an irrationality that can be parted with (even if it's a bit painful, like telling a loved imaginary friend to leave for good). But I somehow doubt that that satisfies you much more than Deism.Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: Brad, it seems your answer is more subject to your own criticism than Essorant's. At least a poem demands a poet. Whether or not he wants to, or even should give an answer to your question, is another topic. But "It just happened" is more like the thoroughgoing naturalist's answer about nature, than any other answer. The answer "A poet", coming from someone other than the poet himself may be too little for satisfaction. But it's still better than, "no one", or "it just happened", because it answers more. And theoretically it leaves the possibility open for future interaction with that very poet, the personal discovery of what others have said. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No time right now, but I'll try to answer that last bit first. Yes, "it just happened" is an unsatisfying answer. Dawkins, Putnam and no doubt many others have pointed out that you don't explain how men and women reproduce by talking in terms of quantum mechanics. Behe makes a joke about how you don't explain how a stereo works by describing the speakers, the CD player, the tuner and whatnot. Uh, yeah, Michael, that's exactly where you start. The basic premise is then that you move one level down reductively. Jumping doesn't get you anywhere. Thus, "It just happened," is really just a substitute for, "I don't have a clue, let's talk about something else instead." I don't know which anti-foundationalists your reading, but the basic premise is fairly solid though there are different responses: Fish might say, "Yeah, but that's not what you do." Derrida might say, "But doesn't the what of your question already presuppose and answer and that answer must be something that you already expect and is therefore not a true answer to the question, in fact the question is not a true question if you already know the answer . . . ." Rorty, "Well, this is how we see it." Davidson, "Anything can be questioned though not all things at all times." I'm just throwing these out lightly, they aren't real quotes. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm going to have to pick and choose for a couple of days: quote: quote: You don't see the problem? The only way a morality can be an end in itself is by choosing to live morally. Fear of retribution or anticipation of reward is morality as means to an end. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, As I recall, Behe wasn't referring to how the stereo works, but rather to how it was made. Plugging a tuner, CD player, and speakers together might simplistically answer the first question, but not the second. In short, he was saying that in earlier times science only presented (due to ignorance) the cell as a kind of "black box". Therefore the earlier scientific authorities (confident of Darwinistic explanation) gave answers to the "how" which were akin to saying that a stereo is made by connecting unit A to unit B, etc ..., when the real problem was about making those systems which are hid behind the grey plastic boxes with "BOSE" on them. His argument hinges on the complexity and specificity of biological systems. That's for a whole other thread. And that's really not what I'm here to argue now. But I just wanted you to keep the context right when quoting him, to be fair. I'll try address your other points soon maybe. PS, Brad, I'm glad you told me that was your daughter. I thought maybe you were really upset at someone named "Freddy". $#@! Or either your were trying to express your deconstructionism in a more vivid way. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ah, take your time. I'm done with your points yet. You can let me finish and then you can spend two or three weeks responding to me. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
