Friday 5 October 2007
Houston we have a problem
Had a coffee with Billy yesterday and recommended an excellent little book, Philosophy of Religion, one of a series called Contours of Christian Philosophy - and I'd recommend it to you too Jonathan. Don't be put off by the 'Christian' bit. The book gives a very clear, full and unbiased overview of the key issues and qs behind this discussion. It's also just 190 pages. I'll explain why I mention it now. I've been reflecting a little, and I have to say the q remains inescapable: what do we all want most here, the challenge of a debate, or to find more of the truth? This has of course come up before, when I said if you were really curious you'd go out, find and read the best material out there from the view you oppose. J, you said that you cd do that if you wanted to debate with them, but you want to debate with me. While I appreciate the compliment, it still begs the q, what do you really want, to seek understanding, or a good debate? I originally started a blog to explore my own thoughts and qs. You guys have raised some, eg about OT morality, that I am interested to explore. But, blogging as I do just a few min a day, it's an uphill task. We have hugely different starting convictions and presuppositions, and I believe if you read and reflected on a book like this, you wd be obliged to more deeply question some of yours. I've been reading TGD, so I'd suggest it's fair to ask. Billy, I can lend you my copy when I'm done. There's also A McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
12 comments:
Bruce, I think we seek truth through debate. They are not unconnected. We have discussed presuppositions before, and we dont have any in the way that christians would like to believe we have. We are pragmatic skeptics. You make the claim that god is real, so that is for you to demonstrate. You have to show the the idea of god is not only a philosophically sound one, but you have to justify why it is then reasonable to make the leap from philosophical plausibility to an actuall reality. As we agreeed last night, the concept of the flying spaghetti monster is a philosophical possibility.
However, I'm sure such questions are not the reason why you believe, but it is good for you to think about such things, and I will read your book, but from our discussion last night on it, you already know some of the problems I have concerning philosophy and reality, as well as the validating of philosophy with reality. If you cant do that, then the philosophy is useless in terms of evidence.
We are drifting off course somewhat, and there is much still remaining to be answered on the morality debate. Since this a challenge to you too, I suggest that it is more profitable all round to stick to this for the moment
Billy
Bruce I appreciate your concerns too. Engaging on these issues is something that requires much time. Billy's most recent email to me has remained un-responded to simply because I've not found the time to dedicate to a full, measured and researched response. (Sorry Billy. I will get around to it, and I hope this doesn't offend)
The truth is that there are so many issues between atheists and Christians which could (and do) take a lifetime of academic discussion, and sadly not all of us are in that vocation.
To stop this degenerating or stagnating, can I suggest the following?
A Question and Answer format. The Christian asks a question to be answered by the atheist, the atheist answers, the Christian offers a brief rejoinder (less than 100 words). Then the process is reversed for another subject of the atheist's choosing. So the person asking gets the first and last word in each topic.
This would give us a chance to get away from reinventing the wheel a little by constantly coming up with our own metaphors, only to have them picked at by the opposite side, and then clarified, then complicated, misunderstood etc...
You could try not to make the question refer to previous discussions too much, to keep things clear and accessible for the new reader.
People would have the opportunity to reply with links or references to sites/resources which discuss the viewpoint of the responder more succinctly. Then it is up to the reader whether to go off and look it up.
Internet debates can be really stressful because there is sometimes no end in sight, and I think it can be counterproductive to learning if you know that every time you check your feedreader you'll see someone has attacked what you feel you have to defend. It sucks you in.
So if we put a cap on it at
Question
Answer
Questioner's response
In the questioner's response, I suggest summarising what you think the answer was, where you agree, where you disagree. If the person who answered felt that was unjust, then that's their bad luck. They can bring up the issue framed as another question when it's their turn.
Is this a good idea?
How about doing it in such a way as to have someone be an "editor" for each side, so they can discuss who would like to respond to the message, aggregate responses from any other individuals and decide which one to go with.
I think that this might actually make for an interesting site, as well, and keep things good natured and brief.
Whaddaya think, you crazy intellectuals?
Beat Attitude
I personally prefer the debate as it is. Ideally it should force people deeper into an issue through repeated exchanges. I feel that limiting something to a few brief exchanges does not address the issues properly - especially if all concerned are really interested in the truth. Both our opposing views can not be right - one or even both of us are whong on the existence of God(s). In my opinion, capping things makes the debate pointless and does not allow for proper challenges.
I also think the Athiest should ask the questions. This is because we remain to be convinced that any evidence for god exists. Unless of course you mean the christian asking questions like "why don't you accept claimed prophetic fulfilment as evidence for god?"
For example dont actually have to have an explanation for morality to challenge the thinking that moral values come from God. No one has produced a convincing argument that they do. These arguments by their very nature are flawed because the believer can not rule out other possibilities - even if we had no other explanation. However, if you have been following this, you will know there are other good explanations that do not require a god. Questions like this can not be given a fair discussion by capping.
Jonathan and I both know the christian view of many things already, so a few exchanges would do us no good, and your view would not be sufficiently challenged. By taking that approach, you are also not going to give us new food for thought either.
In summary, I propose such an approach would be a waste of everyones time.
Out of interest, what issues were you alluding to?
Billy
Billy
I'm trying to stay self-controlled about this, but Billy, I have to say when I read what you write, asking the same qs over and over again eg give me evidence God exists... I just want to say, please please please read and engage with some decent Cn apologetics, certainly like the one I've told you about yesterday/today. Because I do feel very strongly that behind your qs and criticisms of faith there are powerfully entrenched attitudes, convictions, presuppositions that need to be challenged and I think wd be if you gave this stuff a fair reading - that if you have such a hunger for answers you shd be devoting more time to engaging with such excellent, measured, informed, comprehensive, cool, objective FAIR stuff than to going on the attack in an amateur blog like mine. And I wd draw a very sharp contrast with TGD, which while interesting comes across as uninformed, unbalanced, unobjective and unfair polemic (its own inside cover calls it polemic). And I speak as someone who's read a good bit of both. I wanted to know what your atheists' main man RD had to say, to allow my beliefs to be put to the test. If you really want solid material to wrestle with, to really get you thinking you so you don't need to keep coming back with the same old qs, you shd be doing the same, reading some stuff I recommend. I know you're willing to read the Contours one I've mentioned, so I'll give you that next time we meet.
Yes, I did write that feeling frustrated. I'm frustrated knowing there's this intellectually rigorous stuff out there and you're not using your own considerable intellect to engage with it, wasting time repeating qs that you cd go and find solid answers to. I'm an amateur theologian at best, I'm looking for a job! Other people, professors and the like, have written these great books. Why ask me? Why not go and ask them??
Oh boy, I've written my own polemic now. I'll need to go and calm down.
Thanks for your suggestion Beat and we can think about it(!)
Bruce,
May I respectfully request that you answer the questions put to you rather than move on to a different topic ech time. You have not really contributed anything to back up your claims concerning moral absolutes. I do sometimes feel that you run when challenged. I have been challenging you on the OT laws for months and it appears that you never go beyond "well, you raise some questions".
I personally find this very frustrating.
Maybe you could look beyond the polemic aspect of TGD and concentrate on how he dismantles the ontological and teleological arguements - totally for example.
It seems that you dont really want your position challenged. Why is that? That appears quite obvious from your ad hominem concerning attitudes. Sorry if this irritates you, but what is it about my PERCIEVED ATTITUDE that leaves me sickened by the killing of Egypts first born or demanding homosexuals be stoned that stops me from seeing theses things are justified? If I sound frustrated, it is because you have never dealt with these questions.
If you dont want me here, just say! Otherwise, dont hide behind your prejudices towards non christian views and actually answers the challenges. All I am hearing is you dont believe because you dont want to. If that is your attitude, that needs challenged.
Billy
Billy, I suppose I'm frustrated for all our sakes. Believe me, I am not afraid of the qs and challenges, because I am not afraid of truth. I have always been intellectually curious, and actually inclined to q my faith. I'm frustrated by the slowness of the transfer of thoughts and ideas - yes, maybe I'm partly frustrated by my own slowness - but also, very much picking up what Greg's said, I'm frustrated by the sense of trying to rehash in inferior form stuff that has been far better said elsewhere. I honestly feel like I'm dealing with a hungry dog - hungry for answers, engagement - and it's like I can only feed bones very slowly, but I can see this great pile of succulent bones - ie good reading material - and I just want to say, there it is, go and chew on that, then you won't be frustrated either by the slowness or lack of answers from me! You'll have something to satisfy your intellectual speed and energy.
I smile as I write that, it's not at all meant to be insulting, just the first image that came to mind. I can address your qs, it's just that it's painfully slow, such patience required on all sides... There is also the issue that I have thoughts and qs that I want to say and explore that are my own, that have not been tackled elsewhere - that's why I started my blog; whereas so many qs in this debate HAVE been tackled very well elsewhere. I would have to go and do some reading to answer some of the qs properly eg about OT morality, so I feel, why can't you too? You'd get it from the horse's mouth so to speak, and as quick as you like.
Anyway, I think it's good to get a bit angry sometimes, I feel better for it. I'm too cool calm and collected a lot of the time. Come on Bruce! Harness the rage! Yeah!
Can't wait to give you the Contours book - you'll love it.
Far too much blogging today.
Bruce,
Most people set their blogs up in away to keep a topic to a certain thread, that way they can explore other topics simultaneously on other threads. Why dont you set one up specifically for the morality debate and keep that for morality. What seems to be happening is that you comment be starting a new thread. Keep it all on one thread and it will make it neater, and you can open up threads for new things too. No one will complain if it takes you a few days to reply. One suggestion is that you could write a post on what you consider moral absolutes and we will keep the morlity stuff in there. It is important that you address this question anyway, as you claim it is evidence for god. So far you have given no examples, but is essential to define what you consider to be an absolute. We have demonstrated there is no need for god in explaining morality (what do you make of the moral monkeys?) Your case would at least be more specific if you could demonstrate absolutes exist.
By the way, I have read many and varied responses on certaim OT atrocities, none of them satisfy - often you get innane answers like "god knows best and we have to trust that he is right". Some folk talk of a purpose (although they have difficulty defining it), but I still dont see how that could justify certain things.
Like Jonathan says, our debate is with you, not with mcgrath or Robertson (Boo) or plantagina
Billy
PS, do the Burds go for the new angry look? (hopefully not, that wouldn't be very christian of them) :-)
The Contours book has excellent balanced stuff on the classical arguments for God's existence, assessing both their value and limitations: ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral. Absolutely key is it stresses they are not proofs, but that doesn't stop them having power and value. And that's just chapter 3 of 8.
I'll consider your suggestions, cheers.
Bruce-
I'm well aware that there is a lot of apologetic material out there. But again the point remains that I'm debating you, and your views are not necessarily those of the apologisers (couldn't resist). I could quite easily read some material, write a detailed comment on it, only for you to say, "that's not what I believe". Since I'm here to debate you, that's just a waste of all our time.
You ask if I'm looking for understanding, or a good debate. Both! The two aren't mutually exclusive. Debating your position makes you think about it, so it can promote greater understanding on both sides of the divide.
Sorry, Beat Attitude, but I've got to agree with Billy. It's a good idea, but I don't think it's appropriate here.
Bruce, you mention the thoughts and questions of your own- fair enough. I suggest to move the morality debate along, we could do the following. Billy's challenged you for examples of moral absolutes, and I've asked my "parallel universe" question. If you can come up with some answers to those then we can discuss them before moving on. I obviously respect your right to set the topic on your own blog, but it can be difficult to move the debate on when there are unanswered questions hanging in the air. Then perhaps we'll have to answer your questions!
Jonathan.
I take your points Jonathan. Actually I don't think I'd just say 'that's not what I believe' if you read some stuff and commented on it, because I do believe in the value of discussion and debate. A big part of my frustration though has been that some of the key issues we're talking about are, particularly in this book in the Contours series, very directly and well addressed. And a lot of what I wd have to say on them in the next few posts wd be pretty much saying what is said there. So actually, if you read a chapter of such a book and responded to it, I wd at that point be very keen to have a discussion about it, because I wouldn't first feel I had to cover a lot of ground that had already been covered in the book. I suppose I cd also be quite interested to do the opposite, say I read a chapter of TGD and we discuss that.
I will say what I can at this stage about the qs on the table, but I might well have to go away and research them further along the way, at which point I might address another q in the blog while I did that.
Well I'm sounding a lot more diplomatic now than I did earlier. Might have been something in my lunch.
Good night, have a good w/e cos I don't think I can get back till Mon.
Billy said:
"I also think the Athiest should ask the questions. This is because we remain to be convinced that any evidence for god exists. Unless of course you mean the christian asking questions like 'why don't you accept claimed prophetic fulfilment as evidence for god?'"
That might be one question, sure.
I would suggest that the Christian could ask questions such as (top of my head)
"Do you believe that everything in existence was caused by something which in itself had no scientific cause?"
Or "Does an atheist hold much stock in the terms 'right' and 'wrong', and if so, what is the basis for this?"
Or "Is there a scientific way to explain the phrase 'it is good to be alive'?"
Or
'Scientific discovery has little to do with proving or disproving the existence of God.' do you agree with this statement?
Or
"What are your sources for disbelieving the gospel accounts of Jesus ministry?"
I could go on, I'm sure there are plenty of questions. There's obviously a lot of frustration in these discussions and I think that it's better to know what we all believe first before debating, and this is a way to do that. You've mentioned that Bruce has made presuppositions about your standpoint, and I know that you've made presuppositions about his. I think this method would provide a chance to deal with these issues in isolation: scientifically, if you will.
Are you sure I can't convince you to give it a try? I'm not saying you have to give up on your current tack if you are enjoying it. I just think that perhaps this would prove a more worthwhile framework, less messy, and certainly one that I personally could contribute to and learn from.
Of course, a Q, A, R (tm), approach won't always get to the bottom of the issues, but it gives a chance for each party to highlight what they think is at the root of the issue, with a chance to go away and study it further without having to conjecture on the fly in order to keep up with the debate. I mean, we're even starting to talk in txt msg shorthand here. That's a bad sign...
We're getting more heat than light in here. I suggest that to continue in this manner is more about keeping yourself warm rather than seeing a way out.
Beat Attitude
I have no problem with asking and addressing simple questions as long as it allows continued exchange.
Should you be desperate for some brief answers to your questions though
"Do you believe that everything in existence was caused by something which in itself had no scientific cause?"
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, that is the most reasonable position. Without evidence for an uncaused entity, any argument using an uncaused entity is nothing more than an arguument from personal ignorance. Whether such an entity exists or not, it most certainly is not positive evidence of one.
"Does an atheist hold much stock in the terms 'right' and 'wrong', and if so, what is the basis for this?"
Yes, we believe in laws and justice, but they are man made things shaped by society nurture and evolution (already covered here - read the monkeys for justice link yet). Many atheists are "moral" people, some christians can best be described as "evil" (also applicable to some atheists)
"Is there a scientific way to explain the phrase 'it is good to be alive'?"
Yes, serotonin receptors.
'Scientific discovery has little to do with proving or disproving the existence of God.' do you agree with this statement?
Depends on your definition of god. If you are talking about a relational one that sends floods, earthquakes, heals the sick, makes prophecies, talks to people, gives out charismatic gifts, performs miracles, then yes. If your idea of god is more deistic, then thats harder, but for both, evolution certainly erodes the argument from design. Science certainly has something to say here.
"What are your sources for disbelieving the gospel accounts of Jesus ministry?"
Sources? firstly, there are no reliable extrabiblical references to Jesus - I really dont know if Jesus actually existed, the evidence is that poor and the "good stuff" is most likely made up (eg the testimonium flavium). Other sources are the gospels themselves. They are inconsistent There was also debates about their cannonisation, and many other gospels were left out. Reading the prophecies that they claim jesus fulfilled in context, they are clearly not about jesus. Then jesus breaks some of the OT laws and does not live up to the OT definitions of the messiah.
Historically, they are at odds, Matt and Luke have jesus' birth at c. 4BCE and c.6CE respectivly. Because ofthe death of herod around 4 BCE, they are totally incompatible. We know this from sources such as Josephus and roman documents relating to the career of Quirinius
I can anticipate points you will make, that will need answered, and then further point and so on. That is why I think capping is a waste of time.
If Bruce wants to open some question threads, then that could be good. Alternatively, you could do it on your blog
Billy
Post a Comment