I’m going to piggyback on a point made by Patrick Chan. If it’s logical to judge Christianity by Harold Camping, then it’s logical to judge atheism by Kevin Bacon, Jeffrey Dahmer, Larry Flynt, Barry Manilow, Marilyn Manson, Keanu Reeves, Howard Stern, &c.
But Christianity is not monolithic, and neither is atheism. There are as many Christianities as there are groups that separate from each other because they disagree on what is the "true" Christianity. And, there might even be as many "atheisms" as there are atheists, because atheism is by definition the absence of religious beliefs in deities. In fact, I think it's harder to compare a version of "Christianity" with "atheism" since the various Christianities by their very nature are socially collective, and atheism is not necessarily so (depends on the individual).
But Christianity is not monolithic, and neither is atheism. There are as many Christianities as there are groups that separate from each other because they disagree on what is the "true" Christianity. And, there might even be as many "atheisms" as there are atheists, because atheism is by definition the absence of religious beliefs in deities. In fact, I think it's harder to compare a version of "Christianity" with "atheism" since the various Christianities by their very nature are socially collective, and atheism is not necessarily so (depends on the individual).
1. Steve is responding to atheists in a previous post. These atheists are saying that Harold Camping makes us as Christians look crazy. For example, here's what atheist David Shores said:
"Camping will be reported by the media as a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian loony. When the news reports his end times prophecy failure on May 22nd your image will be tarnished by association.
"And rightfully so. You want people to believe in virgin births, resurrections, talking animals, global floods, and an earth that is 6K years old, but when someone comes along and attaches a date to the 'end of times' - well that's just crazy! Ha!
"Nope. It's all crazy."
In short, this post has reference to the earlier post. Steve is responding to their argument (such as it is).
2. It's interesting you say "the various Christianities by their very nature are socially collective, and atheism is not necessarily so." If so, given atheism and neo-Darwinism, then this would seem to be a strike against atheism and a point in Christianity's favor insomuch as what you suggest about atheism could tend toward undermining the survival of the human species whereas what you suggest about Christianity could tend toward our survival. Of course, this assumes species tend to better survive collectively than individually. I could be mistaken but I wouldn't think most evolutionary biologists would dispute this point overmuch. In other words, if atheism tends against social collectivity, while Christianity tends toward it, then, even if atheism is true, it'd seem better for most people (or at least enough people fit to propagate the species to a population wide sustainable replacement rate) to believe in Christianity for the sake of the survival of our species, according to what's implied in your statement.
Patrick Chan, that's an excellent point which I have to concede. However, it is my understanding that atheism is rather young historically, right? I'm not well versed in history, but assuming that an increased sense of social belonging would be more helpful to the human species as whole (which sounds reasonable and fair, against my own position of atheism), it is possible that the popularity of atheism could grow significantly and if it does so, might develop into something with greater social benefits as a whole.
Incidentally, I disagree with the atheist argument. I believe it is unfair because it does not consider Christian theology (orthodox) as a whole, and then accuses it unfairly of weakness without providing sufficient evidence to back that claim. However, as an atheist, I don't really enjoy admitting that, but the truth is more important than what makes me comfortable. It is my opinion that Christianity is no longer as cohesive as it once was, and could be considered in terms of being "multiple Christianities" rather than a singular religion if (and only if) one focus excessively on the details of specific beliefs. I mean, I wouldn't consider Harold Camping to be orthodox (in historic and popular context), but I do consider him and his followers to be an offshoot or a sect of Christianity (though given Harold Camping's beliefs, perhaps his religion should be called something other than Christianity).
Jonathan, sure. Atheism, or at least agnosticism, is probably the default position. But in that particular case, I would say only humans can truly be atheists in the sense of the definition.
I'm with you. That would seem to me to be consistent within a materialistic worldview and I'm inclined to expound:
Not all atheists are materialists given that there are a few atheists who entertain the notion that there is a spiritual realm making hauntings, etc, possible. But most atheists are materialistic. I'll call this Materialistic Atheism (MA).
Therefore, there is little difference materially between a person and a tire iron. Both boil down to piles of the same subatomic particles. A person with a non-belief is theoretically the same as an object of somewhat simpler form that also has the same non-belief.
Intelligence, materialistically, is a mere happenstance of natural chemical reactions. If MA is mere non-belief, then these chemical reactions are unimportant to the status of atheism since MA would be intrinsic to all material things.
Theists would therefore be the oddballs of the universe if that definition of MA were true, and would be seen by MAs as being delusional.
Therefore, MA and theism boil down to a question of epistemology. Non-belief requires no need of knowledge where theism does. So how would a MA know a theist is wrong since they have no knowledge of such things?
Yet, if MA does require knowledge, then it is limited to material experience. Since we experience very little of all there is to experience, then MA is founded on relatively little knowledge. Therefore, MA as a presupposition requires some faith that all things one does not experience are not greater than those few things one does experience. If there is just one experience of the supernatural out there somewhere, materialism is proven false and some sort of theism is necessary to explain it. To say that that knowledge from that experience is flawed is to deny that there can be any certain knowledge from material experience.
Therefore, we are back to square one: that perhaps MA really is a non-belief that is not founded on knowledge - and that your tire iron really is an atheist.
However, it is my understanding that atheism is rather young historically, right?
Some forms of Buddhism have atheistic elements (e.g. Theravada). They may not explicitly deny God, per se, although they may deny a God who creates. Others think the question of God's existence has no value for us. Although at the same time they might accept supernatural beings (e.g. devas). Buddhism has been around for quite a long time.
Or take classical Greek philosophers like Diagoras or Protagoras. They questioned or denied the existence of God or gods. These philosophers are dated to c. fifth century BC.
Of course, the Bible itself has been around for thousands of years. It notes there have been people who have denied God's existence in their hearts (if not more expressly). For example, take Psalm 14:1: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good."
Patrick, I'd say that you are espousing a self defeating argument:
Christianity may be superior as a belief that promotes survival, but that turns Plantinga's argument on its head: you believe Christianity because such beliefs have selected for such as you. Your belief has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
And to contradict your view: I think Christianity is detrimental to survival in these current times.
Harold Camping and Fred Phelps are very clever individuals, perhaps geniuses. And yet when they fell into believing Christianity they marginalized themselves. Couldn't these people have done a lot more good if they had not become obsessed with Christianity? I say this as an atheist who is a social, fiscal and political conservative. I see a continual pattern of gifted Christians who intentionally marginalize themselves and let society go to pot. Do you agree this is a problem?
Paul Hoffer is always accusing James White of being a really good lawyer.
What if James White had actually gotten a law degree?
There are lots of sleazy judges that Obama has appointed that do not respect the rule of law, and this really frightens me. Why couldn't more clever Christians have gone into law and prevent this system from being dominated by people who do not respect the rule of law, but do nothing but concoct self-serving sophistries? You people have dropped the ball, and we will all suffer because of it.
what about Pink Floyd? I'd admit 400 years ago, Christians wrote the best music, but now, Christian music stinks. It's the worst. Currently, atheist/secular music is the only music that has any artistic merit.
You said: Currently, atheist/secular music is the only music that has any artistic merit.
A rather broad sweeping statement. You should try a more diverse listening diet. I've always felt that the popular mainstream music in any genre (nowadays) is either boringly bland or grossly caricatured (and sometimes both). Go off the beaten track a little and you'll find a lot of interesting music by both Christians and non-Christians ... though I'm not personally aware of anything of merit that is being put forward by atheists, per se.
Paul Manata, on the other hand, has a great appreciation for the work of certain godless rockers. Alas, music is a deeply subjective business!
Christianity may be superior as a belief that promotes survival, but that turns Plantinga's argument on its head: you believe Christianity because such beliefs have selected for such as you. Your belief has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
1. Plantinga has used multiple arguments in his life. So when you say "Plantinga's argument," to which are you referring? It sounds like you're referring to his EAAN. So that's what I'll assume here.
2. Since I never said otherwise, you're tilting at windmills. My original point was in response to Byron's point on his terms. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that atheism, neo-Darwinism, and so forth are true. I'm not arguing Christianity is true. So raising Plantinga hardly invalidates the argument since I never made the argument in the first place. In other words, I was replying to Byron strictly in terms of adaptive survival given atheism, neo-Darwinism, and the like, not truth.
3. BTW, you're incorrectly using the phrase to turn something on its head. Here you're trying to deploy Plantinga's argument against what you perceive to be my position. But to turn Plantinga's argument on its head would instead suggest you're trying to fault or overturn his argument in some way.
And to contradict your view: I think Christianity is detrimental to survival in these current times.
1. A naked assertion to the contrary doesn't contradict my view. You'd have to provide supporting argumentation if you want to do that.
2. Plus, even if it did contradict my view (which isn't really "my" view), it wouldn't matter since it's not as if I actually subscribe to the point. Again I'm just responding to Byron on his own terms.
Harold Camping and Fred Phelps are very clever individuals, perhaps geniuses. And yet when they fell into believing Christianity they marginalized themselves.
1. What do you mean by "marginalized"? In terms of Christianity? In terms of society? Something else?
2. Plus, just because someone is "marginalized" doesn't necessarily imply anything negative about them. But that's what you're suggesting. (Of course, I wouldn't support either Camping or Phelps, to put it mildly.)
3. But in terms of society, atheists could be said to be "marginalized." Should we infer something negative by saying atheists are "marginalized"?
Couldn't these people have done a lot more good if they had not become obsessed with Christianity? I say this as an atheist who is a social, fiscal and political conservative. I see a continual pattern of gifted Christians who intentionally marginalize themselves and let society go to pot. Do you agree this is a problem?
1. I wouldn't say Camping and Phelps' problem was "becom[ing] obsessed with Christianity." Rather I'd say it was veering away from Biblical Christianity.
2. No, I don't agree with you. For one thing, your point is vague. You'll have to be more specific. For another, it's tendentious to frame the question the way you've framed it.
Why couldn't more clever Christians have gone into law and prevent this system from being dominated by people who do not respect the rule of law, but do nothing but concoct self-serving sophistries? You people have dropped the ball, and we will all suffer because of it.
This is dumb on multiple levels. Out of charity, I'll assume you're just flamebaiting and not respond.
What if Fred Phelps were a member of the ADF? Why is that flamebaiting? I think he could have done a lot of good. He won his case in the Supreme Court, as he should have.
What if Fred Phelps were a member of the ADF? Why is that flamebaiting? I think he could have done a lot of good. He won his case in the Supreme Court, as he should have.
1. For starters, it sounds like you've already made up your mind by the time you reach the end of your series of questions: "Why couldn't more clever Christians have gone into law and prevent this system from being dominated by people who do not respect the rule of law, but do nothing but concoct self-serving sophistries? You people have dropped the ball, and we will all suffer because of it."
If you've already made up your mind, then your intention in asking wouldn't be to find an answer from us.
2. For another thing, using a phrase like "You people have dropped the ball" is hardly conducive to reasonable and fair querying.
But Christianity is not monolithic, and neither is atheism. There are as many Christianities as there are groups that separate from each other because they disagree on what is the "true" Christianity. And, there might even be as many "atheisms" as there are atheists, because atheism is by definition the absence of religious beliefs in deities. In fact, I think it's harder to compare a version of "Christianity" with "atheism" since the various Christianities by their very nature are socially collective, and atheism is not necessarily so (depends on the individual).
ReplyDeleteByron said:
ReplyDeleteBut Christianity is not monolithic, and neither is atheism. There are as many Christianities as there are groups that separate from each other because they disagree on what is the "true" Christianity. And, there might even be as many "atheisms" as there are atheists, because atheism is by definition the absence of religious beliefs in deities. In fact, I think it's harder to compare a version of "Christianity" with "atheism" since the various Christianities by their very nature are socially collective, and atheism is not necessarily so (depends on the individual).
1. Steve is responding to atheists in a previous post. These atheists are saying that Harold Camping makes us as Christians look crazy. For example, here's what atheist David Shores said:
"Camping will be reported by the media as a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian loony. When the news reports his end times prophecy failure on May 22nd your image will be tarnished by association.
"And rightfully so. You want people to believe in virgin births, resurrections, talking animals, global floods, and an earth that is 6K years old, but when someone comes along and attaches a date to the 'end of times' - well that's just crazy! Ha!
"Nope. It's all crazy."
In short, this post has reference to the earlier post. Steve is responding to their argument (such as it is).
2. It's interesting you say "the various Christianities by their very nature are socially collective, and atheism is not necessarily so." If so, given atheism and neo-Darwinism, then this would seem to be a strike against atheism and a point in Christianity's favor insomuch as what you suggest about atheism could tend toward undermining the survival of the human species whereas what you suggest about Christianity could tend toward our survival. Of course, this assumes species tend to better survive collectively than individually. I could be mistaken but I wouldn't think most evolutionary biologists would dispute this point overmuch. In other words, if atheism tends against social collectivity, while Christianity tends toward it, then, even if atheism is true, it'd seem better for most people (or at least enough people fit to propagate the species to a population wide sustainable replacement rate) to believe in Christianity for the sake of the survival of our species, according to what's implied in your statement.
Patrick Chan, that's an excellent point which I have to concede. However, it is my understanding that atheism is rather young historically, right? I'm not well versed in history, but assuming that an increased sense of social belonging would be more helpful to the human species as whole (which sounds reasonable and fair, against my own position of atheism), it is possible that the popularity of atheism could grow significantly and if it does so, might develop into something with greater social benefits as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I disagree with the atheist argument. I believe it is unfair because it does not consider Christian theology (orthodox) as a whole, and then accuses it unfairly of weakness without providing sufficient evidence to back that claim. However, as an atheist, I don't really enjoy admitting that, but the truth is more important than what makes me comfortable. It is my opinion that Christianity is no longer as cohesive as it once was, and could be considered in terms of being "multiple Christianities" rather than a singular religion if (and only if) one focus excessively on the details of specific beliefs. I mean, I wouldn't consider Harold Camping to be orthodox (in historic and popular context), but I do consider him and his followers to be an offshoot or a sect of Christianity (though given Harold Camping's beliefs, perhaps his religion should be called something other than Christianity).
""atheisms" as there are atheists, because atheism is by definition the absence of religious beliefs in deities."
ReplyDeleteMy tire iron is an atheist?
Jonathan, sure. Atheism, or at least agnosticism, is probably the default position. But in that particular case, I would say only humans can truly be atheists in the sense of the definition.
ReplyDelete@Jonathan
ReplyDeleteI'm with you. That would seem to me to be consistent within a materialistic worldview and I'm inclined to expound:
Not all atheists are materialists given that there are a few atheists who entertain the notion that there is a spiritual realm making hauntings, etc, possible. But most atheists are materialistic. I'll call this Materialistic Atheism (MA).
Therefore, there is little difference materially between a person and a tire iron. Both boil down to piles of the same subatomic particles. A person with a non-belief is theoretically the same as an object of somewhat simpler form that also has the same non-belief.
Intelligence, materialistically, is a mere happenstance of natural chemical reactions. If MA is mere non-belief, then these chemical reactions are unimportant to the status of atheism since MA would be intrinsic to all material things.
Theists would therefore be the oddballs of the universe if that definition of MA were true, and would be seen by MAs as being delusional.
Therefore, MA and theism boil down to a question of epistemology. Non-belief requires no need of knowledge where theism does. So how would a MA know a theist is wrong since they have no knowledge of such things?
Yet, if MA does require knowledge, then it is limited to material experience. Since we experience very little of all there is to experience, then MA is founded on relatively little knowledge. Therefore, MA as a presupposition requires some faith that all things one does not experience are not greater than those few things one does experience. If there is just one experience of the supernatural out there somewhere, materialism is proven false and some sort of theism is necessary to explain it. To say that that knowledge from that experience is flawed is to deny that there can be any certain knowledge from material experience.
Therefore, we are back to square one: that perhaps MA really is a non-belief that is not founded on knowledge - and that your tire iron really is an atheist.
Byron said:
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is my understanding that atheism is rather young historically, right?
Some forms of Buddhism have atheistic elements (e.g. Theravada). They may not explicitly deny God, per se, although they may deny a God who creates. Others think the question of God's existence has no value for us. Although at the same time they might accept supernatural beings (e.g. devas). Buddhism has been around for quite a long time.
Or take classical Greek philosophers like Diagoras or Protagoras. They questioned or denied the existence of God or gods. These philosophers are dated to c. fifth century BC.
Of course, the Bible itself has been around for thousands of years. It notes there have been people who have denied God's existence in their hearts (if not more expressly). For example, take Psalm 14:1: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good."
Yes, and to make sure we didn't miss the point, again in Psalm 53. -Sigh-
ReplyDeletePatrick, I'd say that you are espousing a self defeating argument:
ReplyDeleteChristianity may be superior as a belief that promotes survival, but that turns Plantinga's argument on its head: you believe Christianity because such beliefs have selected for such as you. Your belief has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
And to contradict your view: I think Christianity is detrimental to survival in these current times.
Harold Camping and Fred Phelps are very clever individuals, perhaps geniuses. And yet when they fell into believing Christianity they marginalized themselves. Couldn't these people have done a lot more good if they had not become obsessed with Christianity? I say this as an atheist who is a social, fiscal and political conservative. I see a continual pattern of gifted Christians who intentionally marginalize themselves and let society go to pot. Do you agree this is a problem?
Paul Hoffer is always accusing James White of being a really good lawyer.
ReplyDeleteWhat if James White had actually gotten a law degree?
There are lots of sleazy judges that Obama has appointed that do not respect the rule of law, and this really frightens me. Why couldn't more clever Christians have gone into law and prevent this system from being dominated by people who do not respect the rule of law, but do nothing but concoct self-serving sophistries? You people have dropped the ball, and we will all suffer because of it.
Barry Manilow is an atheist??? Seriously? At least that explains why his music is so bad.
ReplyDeletetheoparadox:
ReplyDeletewhat about Pink Floyd? I'd admit 400 years ago, Christians wrote the best music, but now, Christian music stinks. It's the worst. Currently, atheist/secular music is the only music that has any artistic merit.
Thnuh:
ReplyDeleteYou said: Currently, atheist/secular music is the only music that has any artistic merit.
A rather broad sweeping statement. You should try a more diverse listening diet. I've always felt that the popular mainstream music in any genre (nowadays) is either boringly bland or grossly caricatured (and sometimes both). Go off the beaten track a little and you'll find a lot of interesting music by both Christians and non-Christians ... though I'm not personally aware of anything of merit that is being put forward by atheists, per se.
Paul Manata, on the other hand, has a great appreciation for the work of certain godless rockers. Alas, music is a deeply subjective business!
Thnuh Thnuh said:
ReplyDeleteChristianity may be superior as a belief that promotes survival, but that turns Plantinga's argument on its head: you believe Christianity because such beliefs have selected for such as you. Your belief has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
1. Plantinga has used multiple arguments in his life. So when you say "Plantinga's argument," to which are you referring? It sounds like you're referring to his EAAN. So that's what I'll assume here.
2. Since I never said otherwise, you're tilting at windmills. My original point was in response to Byron's point on his terms. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that atheism, neo-Darwinism, and so forth are true. I'm not arguing Christianity is true. So raising Plantinga hardly invalidates the argument since I never made the argument in the first place. In other words, I was replying to Byron strictly in terms of adaptive survival given atheism, neo-Darwinism, and the like, not truth.
3. BTW, you're incorrectly using the phrase to turn something on its head. Here you're trying to deploy Plantinga's argument against what you perceive to be my position. But to turn Plantinga's argument on its head would instead suggest you're trying to fault or overturn his argument in some way.
And to contradict your view: I think Christianity is detrimental to survival in these current times.
1. A naked assertion to the contrary doesn't contradict my view. You'd have to provide supporting argumentation if you want to do that.
2. Plus, even if it did contradict my view (which isn't really "my" view), it wouldn't matter since it's not as if I actually subscribe to the point. Again I'm just responding to Byron on his own terms.
Harold Camping and Fred Phelps are very clever individuals, perhaps geniuses. And yet when they fell into believing Christianity they marginalized themselves.
1. What do you mean by "marginalized"? In terms of Christianity? In terms of society? Something else?
2. Plus, just because someone is "marginalized" doesn't necessarily imply anything negative about them. But that's what you're suggesting. (Of course, I wouldn't support either Camping or Phelps, to put it mildly.)
3. But in terms of society, atheists could be said to be "marginalized." Should we infer something negative by saying atheists are "marginalized"?
Couldn't these people have done a lot more good if they had not become obsessed with Christianity? I say this as an atheist who is a social, fiscal and political conservative. I see a continual pattern of gifted Christians who intentionally marginalize themselves and let society go to pot. Do you agree this is a problem?
1. I wouldn't say Camping and Phelps' problem was "becom[ing] obsessed with Christianity." Rather I'd say it was veering away from Biblical Christianity.
2. No, I don't agree with you. For one thing, your point is vague. You'll have to be more specific. For another, it's tendentious to frame the question the way you've framed it.
Why couldn't more clever Christians have gone into law and prevent this system from being dominated by people who do not respect the rule of law, but do nothing but concoct self-serving sophistries? You people have dropped the ball, and we will all suffer because of it.
This is dumb on multiple levels. Out of charity, I'll assume you're just flamebaiting and not respond.
I'll assume you're just flamebaiting
ReplyDeleteWhat if Fred Phelps were a member of the ADF? Why is that flamebaiting? I think he could have done a lot of good. He won his case in the Supreme Court, as he should have.
Thnuh Thnuh said:
ReplyDeleteWhat if Fred Phelps were a member of the ADF? Why is that flamebaiting? I think he could have done a lot of good. He won his case in the Supreme Court, as he should have.
1. For starters, it sounds like you've already made up your mind by the time you reach the end of your series of questions: "Why couldn't more clever Christians have gone into law and prevent this system from being dominated by people who do not respect the rule of law, but do nothing but concoct self-serving sophistries? You people have dropped the ball, and we will all suffer because of it."
If you've already made up your mind, then your intention in asking wouldn't be to find an answer from us.
2. For another thing, using a phrase like "You people have dropped the ball" is hardly conducive to reasonable and fair querying.