Rob Callander - 25 February 2008 11:30 PM

And please do not refer to me as ‘token’. I have explained (yet again) on this thread, the reason for it’s application.

I am happy to engage with you.

I merely ask for a little respect.

Rob,

Perhaps you should remove “token” atheist from your signature.

Generally we don’t demand respect from one another, but rather in the general cut and thrust of debate try not to misrepresent one another or be abusive.

If you are happy to engage with me, then I look forward to you reading some Christian apologetics just as we read atheist literature. (and Lennox is a good example of Christian apologetics, equally Budziszewski, “What we can’t not know") That would be a good first start.

Cheers

David

Rob Callander - 25 February 2008 11:30 PM

But science is simply a mechanism, a means whereby we can evaluate competing explanations of observable phenomena.

As you said, science is used to evaluate observable phenomena. So if you want to find out the truth of something or someone that is not observable you can’t use science. And even science rests on a philosophical base that is not provable by the scientific method. If we believe in only what we can see, then why believe the scientific method has validity?

If I cannot utilise science, which is the only mechanism I know of which may provide something approaching an objective assessment - How am I to avoid self-delusion?

Great question. We must remember that science is limited though - as by definition almost it deals only with the material. I think we ultimately need revelation (from God) to find the truth - we can’t find it though our own reason. (And I like reason ... but I accept it is also limited ...)

Hi Rob,

I trust you are getting the respect you deserve!

It certainly takes guts to keep coming back here. I rarely enjoy hanging out on atheist sites for too long!! You are certainly right about FSM - its not used by those who genuinely want to engage.

If I cannot utilise science, which is the only mechanism I know of which may provide something approaching an objective assessment - How am I to avoid self-delusion?

You could start with my favourite subject - history.

I wonder if you are creating a false dichotomy between scientific method (used to test the observable universe) and blind faith which encompasses every other aspect of reality. There are plenty of other areas of objective study that use different epistimologies to science.

As someone else mentioned, I think you are asking science to do more than it can.

Indeed, you said before that pointing to Christ is no different to pointing to the revelations of Mohammed or Joseph Smith… that’s all blind faith.

Even if I did prove to you that God existed using evidence from the physical world, science couldn’t solve the question as to whether the revelation of Muhammed, Jesus or Joseph Smith was the correct revelation from that God.

To work out that question, I personally started by asking which of these ‘revelations’ had historical credibility.

I understand your fear of self-delusion. I feel it far too often ;)

However, I’m not sure that the atheist escapes the risk of ‘self-delusion’.

As Richard Dawkins admits in his recent book the ‘God Delusion’ the physical laws of our universe are so improbably ‘designed’ to sustain life on earth that there is only two alternatives -
1. there is a creator
2. there are multi-verses.... and ours just happens to be the 1 in a million that sustains life

Now, I’m not saying this proves God exists (though it lends theism some credibility) as it is possible that scientists will discover alternative universes.

My point is that to sustain his worldview, Dawkins holds onto his faith that scientists must find alternative universes.

I recently bought a book for two of my sons who are not yet believers called Corner Conversations. It was highly recommended to me, but I don’t yet own a copy. But I have been reading excerpts at Amazon, through their look inside feature. It is a series of imaginary conversations between a believer and an unbeliever, but not always the same two imaginary people. [Why have just one imaginary friend when you can have a whole bunch?]

The book is by Randy Newman [not the composer of songs in Toy Story and of the song Short People]. He previously wrote a book called Questioning Evangelism which is written to help Christians talk to non-Christian friends about Christ.

I think you would find both books very helpful in thinking about how to approach those who don’t believe and I think that Corner Conversations would be a very good book to gve someone who is asking questions about Christian faith.

Hi Rob,

I wasn’t intending to sound rude, if that’s the way you took my previous post. I just wanted to know what your background in science is for someone making big claims for science.

Rob Callander - 25 February 2008 11:30 PM

Oh, and Jason

Am I to be favored with an apology?

Jeremy’s point above is what I was alluding to - but he put it more plainly. It’s a question of epistemology. And, frankly, we’ve done the whole, “Let’s use science as the only basis of our knowledge” centuries ago. Science isn’t the only way to establish knowledge.

I must say I feel some of the sparkle has gone out of the forum with the banning of anything to do with climate, dead horsed I believe, in the murky depths in which of all people I have just discovered Rob Callander lurking.

Come back Rob! Come up, get some air!

I must apologise, for my absence on this topic though I think I ruffled a few feathers on one of the other threads.

I had to lay aside fossicking amongst the new atheists, other duties called, but the last day or two I’ve been getting my house in order to bend my mind again to the topic and I promise to make a start on Dawkins on Tuesday, the last remaining new atheist I wish to read.

I have come across quite a few good articles, one by John Haught I recommend to everyone as a ‘must read’.

Haught’s point is basically that the new atheists are a bunch of wusses who are pale imitation of real atheists like Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre. Soft-core atheism he calls it which actually hasn’t broken with theism when it comes to morality. He sees them avoiding the hard yards Nietzsche et all put in, in descending into nihilism, even if only briefly. “Are you willing to risk madness” asks Haught, “if not, then you are not really an atheist”.

I think Haught is on to something. Leaving aside the Dawkins, Hitchens, et al arguments of how bad God, the Bible and believers are and how wonderful and all encompassing naturalism and materialism are, the glaring deficiency in their respective books is their lack of compelling, even lack full stop of any clear answer to the question, “how then shall we live”. Banishing God leaves the question of authority open which leads to the issue of who’s got the power. Great! Basically as we can see in our post 1960’s society they are parasitically living off 2,000 years of Christian civilisation. Part of their problem of course is that theism holds centre stage, a-theism is a denial and therefore they are lunging, trying to toss theism (us) off its (our) perch!

Anyway I digress.

My goal is to understand the new atheists, assess their argument and answer them both by writing and seeking occasions to debate within my capabilities and as opportunity provides. They are certainly not invincible. I am not Robinson Crusoe in this. There are great Christian champions out there who have done hard yards. My point is that by careful investigation we all need to be able to give a good defence and on the front foot as well (1 Peter 3:15). Preachers and teachers who ignore answering atheism for the benefit of their congregations and classes are fools, derelict in their duty. Even my sister, who should know better but probably has read either Dawkins or Hitchens says to my daughter, “religion is the root of all evil”. That kind of statement needs to be combated by all of us and shown up for what it is - utterly asinine troll rhetoric!

Methodologically, if we are to get anywhere, I think any response we make has to employ basically four voices: the prophetic, the academic/professional, the persuasive and the artistic. We need all four voices working for us.

The materials I am/will be working with are:

Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity”, “Historical Consequences of Monotheism”, “The Victory of Reason”, (all great reads) and “Discovering God”, the last of which I have still to read

Christopher Dawson’s “Religion and the Rise of Western Culture”, an older book

Stove’s “Darwinian Fairytales”

Charles Taylor, “A Secular Age”, far too long a book

Alec Fisher’s “The logic of real arguments”

John Haught’s “God and the New Atheism” and David Marshall’s “The Truth Behind the New Atheism” and I might also see what Anthony Flew has to say.

John Lennox’s, “God’s Undertaker – has science buried God” (must be about the 3rd time I’ve referred to this great little book)

Ravi Zacharias’ website has many good links including Craig, Moreland, etc and I like the guys at Christian Cadre as well .

If I you don’t hear from me by the end of the year, please come and rescue me, because I ask you, just how long is a piece of string?”!

David asked:

“...just how long is a piece of string?”!

David, I’m surprised - Everyone knows the answer is

‘A banana this colour’

As for my venturing/ living in DH - during the years I have visited here I have come to have a deep affection for many of the members, and have no desire to disturb or upset them unneccesarily - this is their website; not mine; and no matter how many years I may participate here, I shall always be a visitor.

I’ve always liked ‘musty’ areas (attics, basements, etc.) and quite fancy myself as an expired equine.

Satre? Niettzsche? Camus?

What: No Koestler; Husserl; Heidegger..., not to mention Foucault or Derrida?

And our old friend Soren?

Today I visited ‘Borders’ and looked in the *Religious* section; and must say I was surprised.

It was dominated by the books of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al (and many I had not heard of). Now I suspect that Borders has no interest in promoting / dismissing religion - only in stocking what sells.

Wusses? What; because they communicate in a straight forward fashion and engage Christianity directly?

When The Philosophers Magazine ran a poll on the most influential philosophical text; ‘Origin of the Species’ came in at number three.

Darwin’s work has upended much of philosophical thought.

‘SUM...ergo cogito’

It has made Husserl’s phenomenological project misguided at best, and rendered much existential thought irrelevant.

Wusses? Is that the best you can do?

How about actually refuting their arguments

Or are you only capable of name calling (Sorry mate - couldn’t resist)

Basically as we can see in our post 1960’s society they are parasitically living off 2,000 years of Christian civilisation

You’re kidding, right? Family, dwellings, roads - all predated Christianity - not to mention Democracy, theatre, poetry, mathematics…

Scientific achievements usually came about despite religion - not because of it.

And as for the emancipation of women!

...

...the glaring deficiency in their respective books is their lack of compelling, even lack full stop of any clear answer to the question, “how then shall we live”.

But that is a different subject!

And there is no definitive answer - that is the lesson of Natural Selection.

But I agree it is an important question,

Forget pieces of string -

How many years have you got?

Rob

Hi Rob
Good to see you back!

I’ve always liked ‘musty’ areas (attics, basements, etc.) and quite fancy myself as an expired equine.

:)

Today I visited ‘Borders’ and looked in the *Religious* section; and must say I was surprised.

It was dominated by the books of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al (and many I had not heard of). Now I suspect that Borders has no interest in promoting / dismissing religion - only in stocking what sells.

Wusses? What; because they communicate in a straight forward fashion and engage Christianity directly?

Do you find their answers satisfying Rob. ISTM a lot of modern philosophy is used to push a view that life is meaningless. A philosophy that says that meaning and the search for meaning is meaningless is not very satisfying to me ...

When The Philosophers Magazine ran a poll on the most influential philosophical text; ‘Origin of the Species’ came in at number three.

Darwin’s work has upended much of philosophical thought.

Definitely has had a huge effect on modern culture. He was a superb rhetorician. Doesn’t make his core thesis correct though.

Scientific achievements usually came about despite religion - not because of it.

Hmmm I’m not sure that famous scientists of the past : eg Newton, Maxwell, Pascal would agree that religion was irrelevant. I think this idea is more a modern re-interpretation of history.

And as for the emancipation of women!

The idea that women should be emancipated is based on ideas such as women like men having value - where did these ideas come from? If there is no moral reference then such ideas have no value either.

...the glaring deficiency in their respective books is their lack of compelling, even lack full stop of any clear answer to the question, “how then shall we live”.

But that is a different subject!

And there is no definitive answer - that is the lesson of Natural Selection.

Depends on your presuppositions how you answer that question doesn’t it.

cheers mate

…
...the glaring deficiency in their respective books is their lack of compelling, even lack full stop of any clear answer to the question, “how then shall we live”.
But that is a different subject!
And there is no definitive answer - that is the lesson of Natural Selection.
But I agree it is an important question,
Forget pieces of string -
How many years have you got?

Actually Rob, different subject but hard to drive a wedge between the two of them, and the “how then shall we live” is where these guys stumble. The fact that natural selection says there is no definitive answer should alert you to the fact that you might be looking in the wrong place.

I forgot to mention J Budziszewski’s “What we can’t not know” as a further conversation partner, I know Gordon has his head stuck in Budziszewski and expect an article from him sometime soon in The Briefing on natural law.

Do you find their answers satisfying Rob. ISTM a lot of modern philosophy is used to push a view that life is meaningless. A philosophy that says that meaning and the search for meaning is meaningless is not very satisfying to me ...

To be frank David this is beside the point… and is a common misunderstanding of atheism by theists that really doesn’t hold on close examination

Indeed, we’ve been down this track before on these threads and think Rob has answered this question numerous times.

Read Neitzche or Camus… you find in them a sense of exhilaration - dare I say a sense of power - in courageously confronting the meaningless of the universe to create your own meaning.

Now there are problems with their philosophies but its hard to sustain the view that they find the ‘void’ of atheism unsatisfying

What we all need to recognise is that there is actually more than one atheism.

There is at least two major streams of atheist thought if not more… and they critique each other.

There is the largely English speaking world stream of liberal utilitarianism that runs through Bentham, Mill down to Peter Singer etc.

Dawkins fits, for example, in the English utilitarian stream.

Then there is the radical critique of liberalism from Neitzche and the French post-modern theorists.

Making Rob defend every atheistic philosophy is not fair.

I’m sensitive to this cause I’ve seen it happen the other way round on atheist threads… ‘hey religious nut… those Muslims blew up the world trade centre… you can’t defend them can you?.. therefore you are wrong and God is dead.”

Stupid stuff really… since I think Muslims are wrong too!

There has to be recognition on both sides that there are different theisms and different atheisms.

Rob et al,

No doubt Dawkins is a good biologist but he is about as cluey about history, philosophy, sociology, political theory, ethics, biblical scholarship as I am with evolutionary biology.

When it comes to working out how we are supposedly meant to live based on ‘recent’ scientific findings, Dawkins chucks logic out the window.

And Ironically he goes and rips off the theistic-based ethics of Jesus Christ for a start!

The problem with Dawkins is that he is not familiar with any of the philosophic critique of social-Darwinism post-1860 so he goes and rehashes old arguments in overblown language… he may not be wussy but he is ignorant.

To paraphrase the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov his ethics can be summed up as:

“Man descended from the apes, therefore love thy neighbour”

Hi David Palmer,

Given what I’ve said above.. The way to make your project both coherent and workable is to focus on the stream of secular (not necessarily atheist as such) thought that dominates here in Australia. I think the most helpful approach to your project is to look at the recent scientific positivist writing and how they assume a liberal ethic informed by a foundational Christian civilization.

Its worth emailing/talking to Greg Clarke at the Centre for Public Christianity as he is doing a similar survey of atheism… why reinvent the wheel!

Angela Crittle - 18 February 2008 06:52 PM

Geoff,

You’ve finally scored a whoops moment on these forums. Welcome to my world!  I’ve lost count of the number of embarrassing contributions I’ve made over the years including one or 2 on old thread to do with Californication. 

:)
Angela

What’s this? Geoff has lots of “Whoopsies” on these forums, especially after shift work, and they always make me laugh. Especially when he comes into a heated debate and says “I can write in really big letters!” or something to that effect. ;-)

Jeremy Halcrow - 10 March 2008 10:37 AM

Hi David Palmer,

Given what I’ve said above.. The way to make your project both coherent and workable is to focus on the stream of secular (not necessarily atheist as such) thought that dominates here in Australia. I think the most helpful approach to your project is to look at the recent scientific positivist writing and how they assume a liberal ethic informed by a foundational Christian civilization.

Its worth emailing/talking to Greg Clarke at the Centre for Public Christianity as he is doing a similar survey of atheism… why reinvent the wheel!

Thanks Jeremy, that’s helpful.

I will contact Greg, not immediately, but when I’ve got my mind around what I’m trying to do. Setting limits to my project will be important. Can you PM Greg’s email address please.

My problem is that while I’m reasonably well read, my pre-theological background is in science/engineering/business - I’m not philosophical trained and so I really need a well directed crash course, so any help you or others can offer I’d appreciate.