Is God dead?
There is a public debate today organised by the Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society. It will take place (Monday 4 August) at 6pm in Rutherford House at Victoria University (Lecture Theatre Two).
The motion is “That God is Dead”
Affirming is:
Kent Stevens – Humanist Society of NZ
Udayan Mukherjee – Philosophy and economics student at Vic
Tom Mathews – Philosophy and politics student at Vic
Negating is:
Gordon Copeland MP (Independent)
Tim McKenzie (Chaplain, VUW Anglican Chaplaincy)
Joe Connell (champion Vic student debater)
Chair: Professor Paul Morris, Religious Studies Department at VUW
There’ll be tea and coffee after the debate for those who want to keep arguing! Gold coin donation appreciated at the door.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: debating
August 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Oh that’s easy, I could tell them the answer to that question: no.
Any other questions?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:23 am
“There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus”
Blaise Pascal (French Mathematician, Philosopher and Physicist, 1623-1662)
August 4th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Oh that’s easy, I could tell them the answer to that question: no.
Any other questions?
Why does he like beetles so much?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Why does he like beetles so much?
Their wings are crunchy.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:45 am
God can’t be dead, otherwise he wouldn’t have been given a name in the first place.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
God’s not dead, or else who wrote the Bible?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
God’s not dead, or else who wrote the Bible?
The first bits were written by good old ‘I am the worlds most humble man’ Moses, who also wrote a moving account of his own funeral. God probably helped him though.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Not dead, but he’s been quite crook for a while now.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:33 am
The more pertinent question is: was God ever alive?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
how can something that never existed now be dead? unless you count being alive in the fervent imagination of a bunch of people as actually being alive?
“He’s not the messiah he’s a very naughty boy”
August 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Ryan Sproull, you asked Kimble on another thread, what he thought your ideology was. I was too late to the thread to bother commenting, but here is how I sum you up: Devil’s Advocate.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
PhilBest,
Well, I only really asked him that to shine a spotlight on him having no clue about me whatsoever.
Devil’s advocate…
Is there some kind of third party in that analogy? Neither God nor the Devil, but… Bob? I tend to be Bob’s advocate.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
“That God does not exist, I cannot deny, but that my whole being cries out for God, I cannot forget”
Jean Paul Sartre, Athiest, novelist & existentialist philosopher
August 4th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The person of Jesus in the accounts of the gospels is compelling. But perhaps more compelling is the behaviour of his disciples after his death. Had it not been true, Jesus’ disciples would have dispersed, stayed in hiding, and gone back to fishing and tax collecting etc.
But they stood up and preached his life, death and resurrection boldly – even to their deaths, which were fairly extreme. They were so very convinced by what they themselves had seen – all of them. Had it not been true, we would not even know who Jesus was today. I find it highly suspect that they would all, to a man, go to their deaths for something they knew first hand to be a falacy. They claimed, as well as many other witnesses, to have seen Jesus alive after his rather public death.
Also for those interested in the general topic of faith in God, octagenarian Billy Graham has a nice speech here at TED 1998:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/billy_graham_on_technology_faith_and_suffering.html
August 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Mav,
Who says they preached boldly and were martyred?
August 4th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Hmmm, re-post as original is held in moderation (i think…)
:
:
“That God does not exist, I cannot deny, but that my whole being cries out for God, I cannot forget”
:
Jean Paul Sartre, novelist & atheist
August 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
“I asked them directly if they were Christians…those who persisted, I ordered away… Those who denied they were or ever had been Christians…worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god… All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination, and hastened to consult you…on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger…” Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
# Ryan Sproull >(666)< Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
“Mav,
Who says they preached boldly and were martyred?”
How incredibly appropriate, questions like that coming from “Ryan Sproull”, (SIX-SIX-SIX)………….
August 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I think Satan would’ve come up with something better, but that is totally freaky
August 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Easy, ask the affirming to bring along three sinners that have had their lives turned around by Atheism, and the negating will be able to bring one hundred sinners who have had their lives turned around through God.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
How incredibly appropriate, questions like that coming from “Ryan Sproull”, (SIX-SIX-SIX)………….
Haha, man! I should have noticed that and made post 666 count.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
mavxp: Great post.
Ryan: “Who says…”
Generally known by historians for the last 2,000 years, gleaned partly from the Bible (which contains the accounts of some of their deaths) and partly from external sources. Of the 12 disciples, 11 were martyred for their faith. This period of history is well documented both within and outside the bible. One example of an outside source:
Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3:
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
August 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
OllieGI , what about people who had their lives turned around by Tony Robbins?
August 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Generally known by historians for the last 2,000 years, gleaned partly from the Bible (which contains the accounts of some of their deaths) and partly from external sources. Of the 12 disciples, 11 were martyred for their faith. This period of history is well documented both within and outside the bible. One example of an outside source.
a) the authenticity of Josephus is a matter of contention;
b) that doesn’t say anything about the martyrdom of the disciples.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Of course, there are still motivational speakers that get people hyped about life, but that is very different to changing murders into disciples. Tony Robbins is very good at changing peoples mind-set, but thats very different to changing the heart. I don’t know much about him, but does he turn sinners into good people? and if so does he ask for reward (remuneration) in return for his help? God doesn’t
August 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Well OllieGI god’s bureaucracy on earth might ask for a bit of remuneration, but that’s not really the point. My point really was that no one is saying atheism will change your life for the better, it is that one does not need god to change one’s life for the better.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am
OllieGI
God may not, but his churches certainly do! (particularly the Christian ones!)
The richest organisation in the world is still, on double entry book keeping measures, the Church of Rome. Followed closely (I would estimate) by one of the TV churches based in the USA, probably the one with the Crystal Cathedral.
The only ‘faith’ I have found that does not ask for money (or its equivalent in goods) is true Gaianism – probably because it has no meetings, no organisation and no ministers. All the rest, including buddhists, ask for remuneration, whatever term they might choose for it!
August 4th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
There are expenses that have to be covered to look after the churches themselves, anyone that knows anything about well… anything.. would know that. It’s not remuneration, it’s covering expenses to allow greater audience. I totally agree with you that yes, some arms of the church have been asking more than required. Of course a lot of this money goes to big Christian charities; Remember, Ministers don’t live plush lifestyles! Making generalizations about all Christian churches just wanting money is foolish. I would suggest looking at it the other way and ask, as a whole, would a church turn people away because they were poor people? The church is there to spread gods word, give hope to millions, and bring people to light.
Don’t get confused between Christians and Catholics..
August 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
God’s not dead, he’s just extremely busy right now, working overtime taking the tally at NZ First meetings
Actually, that raises an even greater philosophical question: WWGVF? (Who would God vote for?). I’m sure Brian Tamaki thinks he’s got the big celestial tick all sewn up, but if there were a deity I doubt s/he would be that simple.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
God would form his own political party and own every body with his godliness! He’d be too disgusted to vote.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Oddly enough God is probably the founder of democracy. He gave us a free will !
August 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
God can’t give free will any more than he can give square circles.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Demonstrated in Matthew 2, I personally believe that God does give us free will, however, He knows what decisions we will make before we make them.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
If it’s free, it’s not willed. If it’s willed, it’s not free. God may have given us will, but it’s the opposite of “freedom” in the sense of “free will”. We are free to do what we will, but are not free to do anything but what we will. Freedom in that sense would negate the very nature of choice.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
If this whole God / karma / “whatever non-chaotic belief system you choose” thing was working, wouldn’t Winston have had a good smiting by now? Or at very least a plague of boils? (and Ron Mark doesn’t count since he’s not actually on Winston).
August 4th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Humanity has free will, God knows everything
August 4th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
As seen here: http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_172review.php
“Solzhenitsyn was a writer whose vast body of work, beginning with the great artistic achievement of the stories and novels, but also of course the essays and speeches, was guided by a great moral imagination. The writer who took the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath as his great theme and life’s work, could only understand what happened to Russia in terms of good and evil. Those who engineered and imposed the Bolshevik and Soviet nightmare were not merely ideologues, they were evildoers.”
Are there not such people, or at least people who unreservedly supported Bolshevik ideals, in control of the NZ government today?
Here was one result:
“Russian historian George Vernadsky estimated that between the years 1917-1920 “several hundred bishops, priests, and monks were either shot or starved to death in prisons.” In 1922, the Soviets confiscated religious art and liturgical items, citing the need to raise funds to combat a famine, and in the process, Vernadsky wrote, “many priests were arrested and a number executed, among them the bishop of Petrograd, Benjamin.” To this day, the Russian Orthodox Church holds an annual memorial service in Butovo, the location of a former secret police camp now known as Russia’s Golgotha. No one knows exactly how many died at the “shooting field” in 1937-38, although the official number tops 20,000 people. Among them were more than 1,000 clergymen, including seven bishops. Witnesses said “enemies of the people” were brought to the shooting range in food vans marked “MEAT.” Shootings went on non-stop day and night in the later stages.
The Russian exile theologian Vladimir Lossky defined evil as “nothing other than an attraction of the will towards nothing, a negation of being, of creation, and above all of God, a furious hatred of grace against which the rebellious will puts up an implacable resistance.”
Solzhenitsyn, now eighty-eight and for a long time back in his native land, understands this. If he had only written history, his contribution to our understanding of political terror and totalitarianism would be incalculably great. But he also gave us the artist’s moral vision. And that is something that Russia—and the West—need now more than ever.”
RIP Solzhenitsyn………..this day ! RIP NZ when???
August 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
How do you know?
August 4th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Stephen,
As stated, Matthew 2, God knew of what Herods actions would take as sinister as they were, He took no action to stop them happening for the children were killed. In that instance, even against great lose of life He allowed free will. However the angel warned Jesus to flee to Egypt before this happened, showing He knows what actions we will take (Herod would take) before it happened. I know thats very rough, but its only meant to be a brief over view.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Righty-o
August 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“My God believes your choices are wrong” has been the root of almost every big public protest in this country that has ever tried to stop the legal privileges of the white, straight majority being granted to minorities:
* Coalition of Concerned Citizens protest against Homosexual Law Reform Bill, 1985
*Catholics & Destiny Church protest against Civil Union Bill, 2004
Basically I have no problem with people believing in a creator-spirit if doing so makes them feel better about life, and as long as it fulfills a positive role in the nation’s life. And as long as it doesn’t lead to people judging and condemning each other and fighting with each other on the basis of what their various God(s) tell them about how to live.
But too often you hear arguments of the form “My God says what you are doing is JUST WRONG, therefore you (are wrong / are immoral / should be in jail / should be denied legal rights that I enjoy).”
August 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
It’s hard to state this without sounding like a “my god” type person, instead, I will speak from my own perspective, essentially being, that I don’t judge people, I don’t practice that. I don’t force my knowledge on others, although I like to share with people, (if you get that distinction?)
Personally, I believe in the Civil Union, because its not a “union under god” its a union under the law. affirming the same rights as marriage, but not a marriage as in a man and a woman under God. It helps avoid judgment of others. I also disagree with any form of discrimination.
For me it’s about accepting reality of what is happening. However, embracing God as my Saviour. You cannot define my believe by “Protestant, Anglican, Methodist” for I simply read the bible, and attend a Presbyterian church and a bible church. I have only been a Christian for 2 months and its already changed my life.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Okay look if God’s too busy to conjure up a round of boils, I’d settle for haemorrhoids…
I mean, seriously, you’ve got lightning bolts and suchlike at your disposal and you look through the celestial armoury and decide on haemorrhoids. Now that’s what I call a vengeful God!
August 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
How can God be dead when He is the Creator of Life and He is Eternal- life and death as man knows it were of His Own Creation.
-mere mortals such as man cannot comprehend who He is unless they submit to His Eternal Authority over them as Creator.
Rev Ch 20 [Verse 12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
[V13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
[V14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
[V15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
mere mortals such as man cannot comprehend who He is unless they submit to His Eternal Authority over them as Creator.
That reminds me. You should become my slave and do whatever I say. You won’t understand why until you do it.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
In the words of Neitzsche’s Madman:
“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”
What Nietzsche is concerned at in relating the above is that God is dead in the hearts of modern men – killed by rationalism and science. This same God however, before becoming dead in men’s hearts and minds, had provided the foundation of a “Christian-moral” defining and uniting approach to life as a shared cultural set of belief fully within which people had lived their lives.
It has become an assumption of secular society that truth claims relating to the existence of God cannot be verified, and the historical basis of the Christian faith in particular has been discredited.
However such assumptions are themselves highly suspect. At the vanguard of science we do not find endless affirmations of materialism but expressions of wonder at the complexities and deep mysteries of “Creation”. When one examines the circumstances and documents surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, one finds a wealth of evidence to support his claim to divinity. How does a Universe arise from nothing? How does Mind arise from chaos? Historically, the majority of philosophers (e.g. Antony Flew) have believed in God in some form.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
At the vanguard of science we do not find endless affirmations of materialism but expressions of wonder at the complexities and deep mysteries of “Creation”.
Spent a lot of time at the ‘vanguard of science’ have you Ropata?
In my limited experience mostly what you find at the vanguard of science is lots and lots of really hard math.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
How does a Universe arise from nothing?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
How does Mind arise from chaos?
What do you mean by “mind” and what do you mean by “chaos”? (Save capital letters for when they’re needed.)
Historically, the majority of philosophers (e.g. Antony Flew) have believed in God in some form.
Fallacious appeal to tradition. Fallacious appeal to authority. Unclear what you mean by “in some form”.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Danyl, Ryan: Failed to engage any of my points… resorting to mockery. I hope the other debate rises above the level of Kiwiblog. I’m making philosophical statements yet you appear unable to think beyond the circularity of empiricism.
The vanguard of science is not just complex math but also has some interesting metaphysical implications –
August 4th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Ryan Sproull
One could say that sort of response would make Winston Peters proud.
But try answering them. Their meaning is completely understandable.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
# Danyl Mclauchlan (313) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“At the vanguard of science we do not find endless affirmations of materialism but expressions of wonder at the complexities and deep mysteries of “Creation”.
Spent a lot of time at the ‘vanguard of science’ have you Ropata?
In my limited experience mostly what you find at the vanguard of science is lots and lots of really hard math.”
I forget who said recently, something to the effect that it’s the people who DO LOTS AND LOTS OF HARD MATH who end up believing in the existence of an intelligent designer. It is people like Hitchens with no knowledge of hard math at all, who make assertions that everything could be explained by random chance. The people who actually DO the hard math on probability and the like, say that even in the biggest universe we could imagine, it is improbable that all the necessary variables for life like that of man on earth, could have been fulfilled by the operations of random chance.
But that is just interesting reading to a person of faith. It was not a necessary ingredient in their belief in God in the first place, unlike the Antony Flew type of hard-math expert who came by way of the math. And maybe now have faith as well.
But what would you make of someone colour-blind who refused to believe anyone who told them that colours existed? Wouldn’t that be like refusing to respect ANYBODY, no matter how intelligent or reasonable? Thus it is with the Atheist. If we are to choose whether or not Antony Flew is a fool and/or a knave, based on the assessment of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, rather than a person whose judgement we can trust, what can we say? And can you not trust the judgement of ANYONE of faith? Have you never met even one such person who you would “trust with your life”, as the saying goes? Why regard them as a fool concerning their faith, if you trust everything else about them? And would their faith have nothing to do with their trustworthiness in all the other things?
August 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Danyl, Ryan: Failed to engage any of my points… resorting to mockery. I hope the other debate rises above the level of Kiwiblog.
Ropata,
That wasn’t mockery. It was pointing out which of your points were fallacious. I’ll explain for you further.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam – argument from ignorance. “You can’t answer this question, therefore my answer is correct.” This is fallacious because it could equally be used to support any answer to the question. “You don’t know where the universe came from, and I say it was created by a supercomputer, so I’ve got an answer and you don’t.”
Asking what you mean by “mind” and “chaos”. Firstly, you capitalised “mind” in a possibly unconscious attempt to make it sound more special than it is. There is no such actual thing as “a mind” or “mind” in general. What we call minds are processes, series of events. The question is not “how does a mind arise from X?” but “how does X perform the process of mind-ing?” Phrasing the question more accurately like this demonstrates that the question isn’t so enormous – or perhaps that it’s equally enormous to asking, “How does stuff happen?” Either way, your God answer is unnecessary.
And as for chaos, I ask what you mean by it because this universe is not chaotic in any way that would make the question meaningful. There are laws of physics. Events conform to them. When you call the universe chaotic, what are you contrasting it against? What would order be like?
Fallacious appeals to tradition and authority, because you claim the “majority” (you name a single, recent philosopher) of philosophers believed in God “in some form”. Firstly, just because people have believed something in the past, doesn’t mean they’re right (consider what, historically, the majority of doctors have believed about various medical issues). Secondly, even if I concede that philosophers are experts on whether or not God exists, you can’t really appeal to expert authority unless there is an almost complete consensus amongst the experts on the issue.
And finally, “in some form” is (intentionally?) vague. How far does this stretch? Does that include Kant’s inaccessible thing-in-itself? Does it include Schopenhauer’s Will? Does it include Bergson’s elan vital? Does it include the laws of physics? Does it include river spirits and ghosts?
If you don’t consider a rundown of fallacies in your argument to be engaging that argument, there’s not much I can do to change your mind. And if you consider a critical examination of your arguments to be “mockery”, you might want to find new ones.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“who make assertions that everything could be explained by random chance”
If that’s what you think evolution/natural selection is Philbest, I suggest you go and find out what evolution/natural selection is.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Amen to that.
String Theory suggests 10^500 universes existing in an 11 dimmensional megaverse.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
NO, stephen, YOU misunderstand me when I said:
“it is improbable that all the necessary variables for life like that of man on earth, could have been fulfilled by the operations of random chance.”
The Earth’s atmosphere, mass, gravity, temperature, seasons, etc, etc, etc, did not “evolve” or “select” because life like ours was going to result. Did they?
August 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I suspect you boys are going to have that argument until the cows come home! I’ve said on other threads before that I suspect a lot of atheists are in a similar boat to me, in that their *belief* in Darwinian evolution is probably not a lot different than your average Believer’s faith in The Big Guy – more buoyed by the reassuring appearance of sense in the words than by much real understanding of what is a very complex science.
But more to the point, you have never seen a legion of atheists camped out on the parliament lawn demanding that, for example, the right to a civil union must NOT be extended to law-abiding Roman Catholic individuals, or Lesbians. Only organised religion seems to bring you groups that feel entitled to judge other people’s sexuality on the grounds that “My God Does Not Approve”.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Ryan, thanks for a more detailed reply.
The First Cause, probably the biggest question of philosophy, is traditionally called God but a deist or “supercomputerist” may prefer other terminology. As an uncreated being God is prior and transcendent to the material realm. This position is bolstered by the Big Bang theory, which materialist scientists originally resisted greatly due to its metaphysical implications. It seems to me that speculations about parallel universes are an attempt to insinuate the eternal/infinite cosmos back into physics.
By capitalising Mind I was referring to a class of objects with the capacity for rational abstract thought and the ability to appreciate the wonders of the world around them. For example, the work of physicist Paul Davies heralds the motto ‘We were meant to be here.’ Despite your claim, the emergence of mind is not simple problem. Also I am not stating “God did it” as a simplistic answer to such mysteries. But the existence of such mysteries makes a Designer inference more plausible.
You seem to think I was making a false appeal to authority or trying to put the existence of God to a vote. But is an appeal to authority such a bad thing? To me it is useful to know that many brilliant intellects share my belief in a Creator of all, so I will take your offhand dismissals with a grain of salt.
I think I addressed “in some form” with the paragraph about the First Cause above. I’m not a trained philosopher so I can’t comment about Kant & co. But I recommend to you Keith Ward’s recent book “God: A Guide for the Perplexed” which examines such approaches.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Yes RRM the great atheist regimes of the 20th century were so much more enlightened, let’s start the purges!
August 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
But that is just interesting reading to a person of faith. It was not a necessary ingredient in their belief in God in the first place, unlike the Antony Flew type of hard-math expert who came by way of the math. And maybe now have faith as well.
I believe Flew studied Japanese before he became a philosophy lecturer; I’ve never seen the slightest inclination towards mathematics in his work at all.
Moreover, most of the prominent mathematical physicists of the 20th century (Einstein, Feynman, Wheeler, Dirac et al) held views that were in direct opposition to any notions of intelligent deisgn; to quote Dirac:
I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and as scientists honesty is our precise duty—we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination…. I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another….
August 4th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Perhaps I did misunderstand you philbest – but like RRM said ’til the cows come home’!
“Yes RRM the great atheist regimes of the 20th century were so much more enlightened, let’s start the purges!”
Sigh. They didn’t do any of that in the name of atheism though did they ropata! They did it because they were total bastards!
August 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
They may have claimed to have been atheists, but I think they just hated God (or the idea of God).
August 4th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
The reality is it is imposible to prove/disprove God through intellectual reasoning, and this is by Gods design.
It is clearly stated in the bible that it is impossible to come to God with out faith, intellectual proof of his existance is counter to the pre requisite of faith.
The bible also refers to a higher plane of reasoning that only God has, which would imply that our intelligence is not enough to fully comprehend God, which is completely logical.
The christian walk is a process of the renewing of the mind, which aetheists would call progressive delusion, but others call progressive restoration from the effects of the curse of sin.
You do not have to commit intellectual suicide to be a christian.
Using our flawed intellect to try to commprehend God is pointless, we are reasoning from the “knowledge of good and evil” that humanity gained in the garden of eden.
Thats why when the apostle Paul went to the intellectuals of the day, the Greeks, he said he did not use wise and persuasive words (their form of reasoning) but a demonstration of the spirits power so their belief would be based on the power of God and not on their intellectual reasoning.
I would suggest a similar environment exists today, what some christians call a “Greek spirit” and a similar demonstration of the spirits power is required today.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am
“But more to the point, you have never seen a legion of atheists camped out on the parliament lawn demanding that, for example, the right to a civil union must NOT be extended to law-abiding Roman Catholic individuals, or Lesbians. Only organised religion seems to bring you groups that feel entitled to judge other people’s sexuality on the grounds that “My God Does Not Approve”.”
In reply to RRM — we actually do see legions of atheists demanding that the law be changed to suit their preferences. The civil union’s act is extended to all people and indeed discrimination against homosexuals is the law of the land.
The existence of the civil union’s act is, in my eyes anyway, an offence against God and against all previously held notions of common decency. That homosexual ‘marriage’ is the equivalent of marriage is an abomination in my view. Therefore the type of society that I want is being destroyed by atheists who want something different. Any piece of legislation imposes its view on everyone.
Indeed the last 20 or 30 years has seen a steady erosion of our previously held Christian consensus and the godless have been imposing their view on everyone else. The anti-smacking act would be another example. The Bible clearly says “spare the rod and spoil the child”. However Sue Bradford, who I understand believes that religion is the cause of most of society’s ills, has imposed her view on everybody else. Essentially the legislation tells us that parents do not have the authority over their children, that now rests with the state.
So actually the godless legislation of the last 20 or 30 years has been very judgemental. Thinking homosexuality is a sin is evidence of homophobia. Surely that is judgemental? Smacking your children is now abuse. Surely that is making a judgement?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:22 am
From Prof. Antony Flew’s review of Dawkins “The God Delusion”:
Professor Antony Flew writes:
“The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).
The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life (the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends); and finally on Einstein’s religious views. But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it. (I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology.)
Of course many physicists with the highest of reputations do not agree with Einstein in this matter. But an academic attacking some ideological position which s/he believes to be mistaken must of course attack that position in its strongest form. This Dawkins does not do in the case of Einstein and his failure is the crucial index of his insincerity of academic purpose and therefore warrants me in charging him with having become, what he has probably believed to be an impossibility, a secularist bigot……..”
August 5th, 2008 at 9:38 am
The First Cause, probably the biggest question of philosophy, is traditionally called God but a deist or “supercomputerist” may prefer other terminology. As an uncreated being God is prior and transcendent to the material realm. This position is bolstered by the Big Bang theory, which materialist scientists originally resisted greatly due to its metaphysical implications. It seems to me that speculations about parallel universes are an attempt to insinuate the eternal/infinite cosmos back into physics.
That is a pretty broad definition of God. If this universe was created by an alien from another universe, would that then make it God? Is that what the word “God” refers to?
By capitalising Mind I was referring to a class of objects with the capacity for rational abstract thought and the ability to appreciate the wonders of the world around them. For example, the work of physicist Paul Davies heralds the motto ‘We were meant to be here.’ Despite your claim, the emergence of mind is not simple problem. Also I am not stating “God did it” as a simplistic answer to such mysteries. But the existence of such mysteries makes a Designer inference more plausible.
There’s no link there from consciousness to designer, except for the inability to answer the question, “How do thoughts happen?” Why does our inability to answer a question make a designer more plausible?
You seem to think I was making a false appeal to authority or trying to put the existence of God to a vote. But is an appeal to authority such a bad thing? To me it is useful to know that many brilliant intellects share my belief in a Creator of all, so I will take your offhand dismissals with a grain of salt.
It can be useful to you, perhaps inspiring, but it’s not much good in an argument. Plenty of brilliant intellects are atheists.
I think I addressed “in some form” with the paragraph about the First Cause above. I’m not a trained philosopher so I can’t comment about Kant & co. But I recommend to you Keith Ward’s recent book “God: A Guide for the Perplexed” which examines such approaches.
Well, most of the examples I gave could be considered God by some people. But again, as I said, it’s a broad definition. You worship God. Isn’t there something more to that than being a first cause?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:33 am
If this universe was created by an alien from another universe, would that then make it God?
Any being able to create a vast Universe with all its grandeur and complexity, might as well be God.
Why does our inability to answer a question make a designer more plausible?
Because the human mind is capable of observing phenomena and making conclusions. Although methodological naturalism has served science well, it seems the universe was rigged for life to emerge. The tools of science have limits when approaching such questions.
It can be useful to you, perhaps inspiring, but it’s not much good in an argument. Plenty of brilliant intellects are atheists.
Ahh, I’m not trying to provide a conclusive proof of God, merely arguing that faith in God is not blind, but is a logical inference based on evidence. Many find the evidence compelling, others do not.
You worship God. Isn’t there something more to that than being a first cause?
Certainly. Love, joy, peace, fellowship, kindness are why I worship Him. Also because the claims of Christ are authentic and He is actually the truth.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Any being able to create a vast Universe with all its grandeur and complexity, might as well be God.
Does being very powerful make someone worthy of worship?
Because the human mind is capable of observing phenomena and making conclusions. Although methodological naturalism has served science well, it seems the universe was rigged for life to emerge. The tools of science have limits when approaching such questions.
It’s always going to seem that the universe was rigged for whatever is true to be true. The universe “seems rigged” for Saturn to have rings and Alpha Centauri to be burning. In other words, along with life, that’s what happened. What makes the emergence of life different from any other event in the universe?
Ahh, I’m not trying to provide a conclusive proof of God, merely arguing that faith in God is not blind, but is a logical inference based on evidence. Many find the evidence compelling, others do not.
You make it sound like a matter of personal taste. But the strength of an argument is not a purely subjective matter.
Certainly. Love, joy, peace, fellowship, kindness are why I worship Him. Also because the claims of Christ are authentic and He is actually the truth.
If the universe was created by a powerful alien, what would Jesus’ relationship to that alien be?
August 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Ryan
“It’s always going to seem that the universe was rigged for whatever is true to be true. The universe “seems rigged” for Saturn to have rings and Alpha Centauri to be burning. In other words, along with life, that’s what happened. What makes the emergence of life different from any other event in the universe?”
That is not quite correct Ryan, the people that spend their lives studying the universe are the ones that sugested something amazing has taken place in our fine tuned universe. It is only really darwinists like Dawkins that start to challenge these conclusions, and even they end up talking about alien intellegence!!!
Why defer debate to alien intellegence? Its the same old tactic of chopping reality back a notch to make God look less impressive than he is, reducing God to a more palatible form for our minds to digest, as per my last post above.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Ryan,
Does being very powerful make someone worthy of worship?
No, but being very good does. It blows my mind to think that the Creator of all is also the epitome of goodness and grace.
What makes the emergence of life different from any other event in the universe?
The emergence of life is suffused with meaning; most people consider their lives meaningful, the claim that “it just happened” is not very useful in the quest for the reason why.
Paul Collins writes: “Even in its most primitive forms [matter] is impregnated with a purposive energy that constantly evolves toward ever-greater complexity. Matter is not static; it is in constant evolution … into deepening consciousness and increasing complexity. In humankind consciousness, more or less, becomes conscious of itself; we not only know, but know that we know. Theology is ultimately our attempt to articulate spiritual experience
and express it in cultural terms … we experience a lurking transcendent presence, particularly in the natural material world”
Lucy Tatman suggests: “in the face of an onslaught of such dogmatic, extremist belief, it may well be the case that religious faith, broadly understood, and painstaking scientific practice are each others’ closest allies. Put simply, I have yet to discern a difference between the wonder, awe, and mystery of faith and the wonder, awe, and mystery of life, the universe, and everything that is presented by science. Frighteningly, at this particular historical juncture neither an open-minded faith nor evidence-based science are secure.”
August 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The fool says in his heart there is no God. – Psalm 12:1
Without God everything is legal. – Dostoyevsky
The atheists argue you can have a basis for a legal system and morality without God. I am not convinced.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
the people that spend their lives studying the universe are the ones that sugested something amazing has taken place in our fine tuned universe.
Can you guys cite any names for these ‘people’, except for Anthony Flew, the ‘expert-mathematician’ who has never written or talked about math?
August 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
No, but being very good does. It blows my mind to think that the Creator of all is also the epitome of goodness and grace.
If God is simply whatever created the universe (assuming it had a cause), what makes it good?
August 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Ryan Sproull playing devil’s advocate again.
“What makes the emergence of life different from any other event in the universe?…………”
Ryan, Ryan, Ryan. Saturn might have rings, but can Saturn reason like you do?
August 5th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
The fool says in his heart there is no God. – Psalm 12:1
“If you disagree with me, you’re a fool.” Am I allowed to say that too?
Without God everything is legal. – Dostoyevsky
The atheists argue you can have a basis for a legal system and morality without God. I am not convinced.
No? What difference would God make to the equation?
August 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Ryan, Ryan, Ryan. Saturn might have rings, but can Saturn reason like you do?
Nope. Can you orbit all of Saturn at once?
August 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ryan, Danyl
If you guys really believed what you say you do, without the tinyist bit of doubt, why are you discussing these issues with people you consider deluded and irrational?
Surely a strong belief in such issues would remove a desire to debate with an ignoramus such as myself?
It reveals that as long as you continue to debate, the question of the existance of God is relevant, and a belief in God is far from being established as delusional.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Shunda,
What did I say I believe?
August 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
If you guys really believed what you say you do, without the tinyist bit of doubt
I don’t believe anything without the tiniest bit of doubt. Actually it would be very easy to convince me that God existed; pretty much any clear-cut miracle would do it.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
No offence to the Negative Team but talk about a rigged debate. Lay people up against Philosophers is not a debate. I suggest a re-match where the negative team is Drs MA Flannagan, GA Peoples and S Kumar.
Then you will get a real debate.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
No offence to the Negative Team but talk about a rigged debate. Lay people up against Philosophers is not a debate. I suggest a re-match where the negative team is Drs MA Flannagan, GA Peoples and S Kumar, NZ’s top Christian Philosophers.
Then you will get a real debate.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Danyl
“I don’t believe anything without the tiniest bit of doubt. Actually it would be very easy to convince me that God existed; pretty much any clear-cut miracle would do it.”
May be able to arrange that for you Danyl, but it probably wouldn’t change your mind. I have seen people healed of serious disease and called it a miracle form God without it making any difference to their beliefs. People will always say there must be a rational explanation ,even when they don’t have one.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
May be able to arrange that for you Danyl, but it probably wouldn’t change your mind. I have seen people healed of serious disease and called it a miracle form God without it making any difference to their beliefs. People will always say there must be a rational explanation ,even when they don’t have one.
That’s force of habit, since just about everything people used to think were supernatural have now been explained as having rational natural causes.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Ok Ryan
There is a phenomenon that some christians call “a word of knowledge” it involves somebody gaining knowledge about an individual that is impossible for them to know. There are degrees of this phenomenon and some people fake it by generalizing, how ever it is remarkable to witness this when it is the real deal.
And when say the real deal there have been examples of people giving remarkable detail, in one instance a man was told his phone number, street address, and the names of all his children, and several other details in order to verify a word of encouragement to him.
This phenomenon is recorded in the bible in several places, one being when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well.
How can you explain this phenomenon or test it with the scientific method?
August 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Madeleine, there are two students on the affirmative side, plus one ‘expert’ vs one student, one expert and one whatever-Copeland-is but chances are he’s a fairly devout Christian. Looks like a fair match. Anyway, the question ‘Is God dead?’ is not one that needs to be answered by Philosophers only, if my suspicion that it will be about god’s relevance is correct, that is….
August 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/
How relevant of Danyl
August 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
There is a phenomenon that some christians call “a word of knowledge” it involves somebody gaining knowledge about an individual that is impossible for them to know. There are degrees of this phenomenon and some people fake it by generalizing, how ever it is remarkable to witness this when it is the real deal.
And when say the real deal there have been examples of people giving remarkable detail, in one instance a man was told his phone number, street address, and the names of all his children, and several other details in order to verify a word of encouragement to him.
This phenomenon is recorded in the bible in several places, one being when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well.
How can you explain this phenomenon or test it with the scientific method?
I’d have to see it before I went suggesting any explanations.
To test it with the scientific method, I’d first have to ask – can it be done on request?
August 5th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
And when say the real deal there have been examples of people giving remarkable detail, in one instance a man was told his phone number, street address, and the names of all his children, and several other details in order to verify a word of encouragement to him.
Since (a) the miracle cannot be performed at will and (b) it is identical to a trick performed by stage magicians all over the world my explanation would be that it is yet another in an infinite line of pious frauds. (Read Hume’s ‘On Miracles’ for furthur details).
Feel free to prove me wrong though Shunda; I have written a ten digit number down on a piece of paper and hidden it inside a book in my office. If God decides to give you ‘word of knowledge’ and tells you what this number is then I will be hard pressed to deny that it is a miracle.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Ryan
“I’d have to see it before I went suggesting any explanations.”
And this is the problem.
The “word of knowledge” is just one of many examples of srange phenomena WITHIN christianity, how can a fair defense of my faith be made if the argument from experience is inadmissable?
Dawkins just dissmisses this argument, presumably because that is where aetheism is at its weakest, which is intellectually dishonest.
The greatest proof for God is in his dealings with humanity yet these are not something the scientific community a prepared to admit as evidence for his existance.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The “word of knowledge” is just one of many examples of srange phenomena WITHIN christianity, how can a fair defense of my faith be made if the argument from experience is inadmissable?
Dawkins just dissmisses this argument, presumably because that is where aetheism is at its weakest, which is intellectually dishonest.
The greatest proof for God is in his dealings with humanity yet these are not something the scientific community a prepared to admit as evidence for his existance.
I’m happy to see it for myself. But if I believed every report of supernatural phenomena, I’d believe that Shirley MacLaine talks psychically to aliens, that tarot cards can tell the future, that Mohammad spoke to God, that the Sensing Murder scammers speak to spirits of dead people, and so on.
The Randi Foundation offers $1 million to anyone who can display supernatural powers under test conditions, and no one has managed it in the decades the offer has been around. (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html)
Your examples sound a little like the Invisible Boy in the movie The Mystery Men, whose superpower is to turn invisible only when no one is looking at him.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Danyl
Here is a personal example for you.
As a young christian I was very confused as to divisions in the church I was sruggling with some beliefs that others were trying to force upon me, in the end I asked/begged God for very specific answers to these issues before I went to a leadership camp.
In one meeting the guy taking the service picked me out of the congregation and said “I believe God has a word of encouragement for you” and proceeded to answer every question, in order, as I had asked them. No one new about my frustration, there was no way the guy that spoke to me could have, he didn’t even know me.
The answers I got are significant to the beliefs I currently hold, and I latter learned that some of the confusion I had, and the answers I recieved, were to do with a contentious doctrine that has been in christianity for some time.
This was a faith building exercise for me (among many) and proved to me that God is concerned for both people and false doctrine in the church.
Ps is the number 7947689601? Just kidding! I have never really done the word of knowledge thing very well!!!!!
August 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
As Ryan has suggested, miracles are not some rare phenomenon that only occur within the Christian church – they happen in all religions. New-agers are particularly prone to having loads of miracles happen to them but they’re also a very big deal in Islam. And if you ever go to India you’ll find everyone you meet has witnessed dozens of miracles involving Lakshmi or Hanuman or Rama or whoever.
The only place miracles don’t happen EVER is in a scientific laboratory or in front of a group of skeptical experts. There’s an inevitable conclusion to be drawn from this.
(And I know that you think YOUR miracles are real while all the muslim ones are satanic, or faked or whatever. They think the same about yours.)
August 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
So because the creator of the universe dosen’t reveal himself to a group of “skeptical experts” in a lab on their terms, on their demand, means God is not real?
If for a moment you accept the possibility God existed, wouldn’t this be considered just a smidgin arogant?
I am not asking anyone to believe in God , just to conceed that the scientific method cannot easily explain some of the seemingly abundant supernatural evidence in the world around us.
The “word of knowledge” example I gave in my previous post is not easy to put down to coincidence, there are to many variables.
You may not believe it but I am actually a fairly skeptical person, especially so when I first became a christian. Skepticism can actually be a good thing when it is tempered properly, it can be a good tool to establish the truth in a matter.
As far as miracles in other faiths, I personally wouldn’t be prepared to say they definately were or were not God, I think christians need to have a healthy respect for the spiritual relm, regardless of where it shows up.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:45 am
So because the creator of the universe dosen’t reveal himself to a group of “skeptical experts” in a lab on their terms, on their demand, means God is not real?
No. Because your arguments from experience for the God you describe are indistinguishable from any number of other such claims, many of them incompatible with your god, they are not a good argument for God.
If for a moment you accept the possibility God existed, wouldn’t this be considered just a smidgin arogant?
I accept the possibility. The fact remains that it is a flawed argument.
I am not asking anyone to believe in God , just to conceed that the scientific method cannot easily explain some of the seemingly abundant supernatural evidence in the world around us.
I am not asking that the scientific method easily explain seemingly supernatural phenomena. I am just asking that it have a chance to.
The “word of knowledge” example I gave in my previous post is not easy to put down to coincidence, there are to many variables.
You may not believe it but I am actually a fairly skeptical person, especially so when I first became a christian. Skepticism can actually be a good thing when it is tempered properly, it can be a good tool to establish the truth in a matter.
Again, I would have to see this word of knowledge in action, in controlled conditions. Stage magicians do the same trick. It could blow your mind how accurately they describe your house, when you’ve never met these people before. It turns out that weeks earlier, after you’d booked your ticket, an assistant to the magician knocked on your door and said her car had broken down, and could she use your phone to call AA. You took her into your house, where she got a good look at everything and memorised it all, and reported back to the stage magician. Weeks later, he calls you up on to the stage and blows your mind.
I’m certainly not saying this is what happened with your or anyone else’s “word of knowledge” experience. What I am saying is that until these things are put in a controlled situation, they can’t be properly tested. And it seems awfully convenient that the only examples of supernatural phenomena people can come up with are ones that work “only when no one is watching”, so to speak.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Those that deny the creator are the most miserable of all things. –Kepler Sings
[H]umanistic culture, insofar as it functions as an ideology and therefore as a religion, consists essentially in being unaware of three things: firstly, of what God is, because it does not grant primacy to Him; secondly, of what man is, because it puts him in the place of God; thirdly, of what the meaning of life is, because this culture limits itself to playing with evanescent things and to plunging into them with criminal unconscious. In a word, there is nothing more inhuman than humanism, by the fact that it, so to speak, decapitates man: wishing to make of him an animal which is perfect, it succeeds in turning him into a perfect animal; not all at once… but in the long run, since it inevitably ends by “re-barbarizing” society, while “dehumanizing” it ipso facto in depth. –F. Schuon
Instead of “I am your God and you shall have no other gods before me,” the flatland secularist begins with “there is no Absolute and you shall be absolutely subject to the sacred relativities we have inserted in His place.”
Many implications follow from this initial inversion. In fact, author Eric Raymond writes, “There is no truth, only competing agendas,” “All Western claims to moral superiority are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism,” and “There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.” Ironically, each of these is a false and repressive absolute disguised as a relativity. Their real purpose is to undermine and subvert the Absolute.
Two things that the reconstructed mind knows for certain: that the world is intelligible, and that man is free. Take away either, and the world is simply an absurdity, a monstrosity, a mistake. For to say that we may know is equally to say that we are free, otherwise it is not knowledge at all. Knowledge proves freedom, freedom proves knowledge, and both prove the Creator, for the hierarchy of being disclosed by the free intellect leads back to its nonlocal source above.
Therefore, the second commandment follows logically from the first: you shall not turn the cosmos upside down and inside out and worship created things.
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/07/infinite-stupidity-of-liztardian-mind.html