GIVE Richard Dawkins a child for a week’s summer camp and he will try to give you an atheist for life.
The author of The God Delusion is helping to launch Britain’s first summer retreat for non-believers, where children will have lessons in evolution and sing along to John Lennon’s Imagine.
The five-day camp in Somerset (motto: “It’s beyond belief”) is for children aged eight to 17 and will rival traditional faith-based breaks run by the Scouts and church groups.
Budding atheists will be given lessons to arm themselves in the ways of rational scepticism. There will be sessions in moral philosophy and evolutionary biology along with more conventional pursuits such as trekking and tug-of-war. There will also be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn.
Instead of singing Kumbiya and other campfire favourites, they will sit around the embers belting out “Imagine there’s no heaven . . . and no religion too”.
I have no issue with people advancing their worldview, though Dawkins et al don’t feel that way. They think it is child abuse to teach your religion to your children. Religious freedom is anathema to them, which is ironic considering that in their worldview all religions are the product of pure materialism. You see, I just “think” that I see all this evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but their “truth” is that it is just a function of macro-evolution. Sure.
They really tip their hand with the unicorn bit. I ignore atheists who try to equate the evidence for God (see thisfor starters) with the evidence for unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.. It shows that they have such poor criticial thinking skills or are so blinded by their worldview that they think that is a serious argument.
Do they do nature hikes where they explain how things aren’t really beautiful, you just “think” they are beautiful because you, as a bag of chemicals, have evolved with some defects like that?
Hopefully their training will address scientific facts such as the Cambrian Explosion and its mockery of the Darwinian worldview.
Methinks they protest too much.
Hat tip: Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee
Filed under: Apologetics | Tagged: atheist, camp, dawkins, evolution, God, ID, Jesus, kids, religion
Dawkins does not think it’s child abuse to teach your religion to your children. In fact he thinks all children should be taught about religion. What he believes is that children should not be told they are Christian, or Muslim before they have reached the age where they can understand what that means. Either way, I don’t think it’s child abuse to give your children knowledge that you believe is true, especially if you teach them why you believe what you do.
I tried to explain the Cambrian Explosion to you in another thread, but you still think it disproves evolution? Evolution deniers talk about the cambrian explosions as if it was a crazy weekend. It took 95 millions years, and in the past 30 years or so, countless fossils of animals thought to have appeared in the Cambrian layer have been uncovered in older rock, dampening the “explosion”.
Dawkins does both think and believe that teaching children is child abuse:
Here http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
Here http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252
Normally I don’t cite WND, but they’re citing a publicly broadcast BBC interview, so I’m pretty sure they go that right.
Militant evangelical atheism and militant evangelical darwinism (which elevates darwin’s theories to the level of a religious belief and metaphysical explanation) are a religion.
Didn’t hit preview button. *Teaching children religion is child abuse
Sounds to me like this summer camp is nothing more than a continuation of the public school system.
LOL! That’s exactly what it is – for those who are not getting enough indoctrination in the government-run classrooms.
Great point Timothy!
Well maybe they will be taught how to think, instead of what to think. I hope so anyway.
I am all for teaching kids how to think. That is one of the major flaws in our school system, regardless of the topics.
I wonder if I owned and ran my own plumbing business, which I took over from my father, who in turn took it over from his father, if I taught my son the ways of my business if Mr Dawkins would also consider this child abuse?
Or what if I was a militant atheist, owning every book and having read every essay published by Richard Dawkins? Would not Mr Dawkins be required to still say I was abusing my child if this is all that I taught him?
Would not either constitute “long term mental abuse” according to Dawkins? After all, my child may develop a fear of leaky pipes – a new phobia – such that it paralyses him later in life and undermines his source of income? Or, my son, if taught only militant atheism, may spend his life harassing honest theists and making other people’s lives an utter misery and in turn making him very disliked.
I’ve heard atheists call Mr Dawkins to be a very smart man. Blanketing religion as a form of child abuse, however, seems to me to be nothing but blatant idiocy.
Honestly, I don’t like the teaching of religion labelled as child abuse, since I think that most parents who indoctrinate their children are doing their best to raise their child properly.
Dawkins’ point is that teaching a child that the Bible is an infallible truth at a young age will put that child at a disadvantage when learning scientific concepts that run contrary to the Bible.
Are you sure that’s his point?
That’s not the vibe his books give off at all.
Sorry, that’s utter nonsense. Any person with normal intelligence can understand the theoretical concepts of macro evolution, even if they don’t personally believe it. To claim otherwise is anti-religious bigotry.
If I could demonstrate complete knowledge of Christian theology, but remain an atheist, would you want me to be your pastor?
It’s important to embrace the ideals of science to be qualified for certain professions. Since you have seemed to differentiate between macro and micro evolution, you apparently do not understand that the concepts behind each are exactly the same. Thus, you would not be in the group of people qualified for many scientific professions.
By the way, what the heck is “anti-religious bigotry”? I don’t like the idea of religion, or think anyone should be religious. Does that make me a bigot?
“If I could demonstrate complete knowledge of Christian theology, but remain an atheist, would you want me to be your pastor?”
No, because being a pastor requires more than simply knowledge of the facts. There’s a faith element that comes into play –
“It’s important to embrace the ideals of science to be qualified for certain professions. Since you have seemed to differentiate between macro and micro evolution, you apparently do not understand that the concepts behind each are exactly the same. Thus, you would not be in the group of people qualified for many scientific professions.”
That’s a good thing, as I do not have a degree in science. Besides, it was only an example, and not meant to be taken in such a pedantic manner.
“By the way, what the heck is “anti-religious bigotry”? I don’t like the idea of religion, or think anyone should be religious. Does that make me a bigot?”
When you use it to determine what one is capable of regardless of any other considerations, yes, it does.
Tug of war? I love tug of war. I see nothing wrong here.
Great find. I look forward to meeting one of these little atheists and debating them. It would be easy. Not because they’ll be much younger than me…but because of unicorns and dinosaurs…
Dinosaurs??
Echoing Racing Boo’s sentiment. If you truly believe that dinosaurs never existed, man oh man, do you have another thing coming.
Can I offer maybe this is sattirical?
On the surface religion could be considered child abuse by passivists, think about it..
“Do this or that and you go to hell”
“Believe in my son or you will NEVER see your loved ones again”
“Give 10 percent of your funds or the gates of hell will open and swallow you whole…”
People with a negative view of religion would most certainly see it this way. The God of Tough Love.
What Dawkins missed? His line of reasoning makes any behavior modification in children is child abuse. Balance is the key to child rearing! Good and bad.
“Give 10 percent of your funds or the gates of hell will open and swallow you whole…”
Most of us gave that up with the Reformation…
I really think Dawkins overstates his case. Most parents don’t teach their children enough to qualify as teaching them religion. Unfortunately, what he is saying is a red herring.
Good of you to try and see hell from an unbeliever’s perspective, mizclark.
mizclark said: His line of reasoning makes any behavior modification in children is child abuse.
Except that the doctrine of hell has nothing to do with behavior modification, with being good. It isn’t “be good or you’ll go to hell,” it’s “you *can’t* be good enough to avoid hell: repent and believe and *hope* your name is recorded in the ledgers of pardon. Your Jewish/Mormon/Confucian friends are doomed, however nicely they share their new toy with you.”
Adults can delude themselves with subtleties into believing that “repent and believe” and substitutionary atonement are anyway fair, or that eternal torment for the smallest infraction is anyway reconcilable with a loving God. Such subtleties are quite inaccessible to kids, which ought to tell us something. Kids are overwhelmingly likely, upon hearing the doctrine of hell, to envision a brutally and unpredictably vengeful order of things. Both terrifying and incomprehensible. God apparently punishes the failure to share one’s snack a million times more harshly than parents or teachers do: incomprehensible, inconsistent. God apparently doesn’t care how lovely or bullying their Jewish friends are — he’ll be burning them forever regardless: incomprehensible, terrorizing.
Good child rearing requires consistent, well-explained and well-proportioned penalties. A time-out for grabbing a friend’s toy meets these requirements. A lake of fire for grabbing the toy — unless the grabber is Christian, in which case: no penalty — doesn’t.
You misrepresent Christian doctrine.
It is therefore no surprise that you reach erroneous and incorrect conclusions, since you are using erroneous and incorrect information.
Care to elaborate?
Nice straw man and question begging, Seas. At least the comment was short
.
How about you, Neil, care to elaborate on what my misrepresentations and question-beggings were? Else I might be tempted to think I actually gave a perfectly fair rundown.
Speaking in terms that kids can understand, it shouldn’t be too time-consuming.
Misrepresentation: You don’t understand or note the concept of original sin and you ignore that Christianity teaches that all people rebel against their creator.
Question begging: You assume it isn’t true. News flash: You don’t get to vote on what God is like. Whether you think it is “fair” is irrelevant.
Hi Neil,
Neil said: Misrepresentation: You don’t understand or note the concept of original sin and you ignore that Christianity teaches that all people rebel against their creator.
I didn’t have original sin in mind, it’s true, though it only strengthens the case for injustice and absurdity. I had in mind the doctrine that God wants us to be perfect (“even as your father in heaven” etc.) while for all practical purposes this is impossible; thus we need Jesus if we so much as bogart the Gummi Bears. It slipped my mind, however, that even a spotless record in thought and deed won’t do the trick: we’ve got substitutionary guilt as well as atonement. Only logical, really. One entirely clears the way for the other.
But I was well aware of the “all people rebel against their creator” bit. That’s what escalates hogging the Gummi Bears to a lake of fire offense, right? Not because it makes the other kid cry, but because it’s rebelling against God, who is hypersensitive. (“Offenses against a perfectly holy God rise to a high standard” is how you put it, more or less. Very weird. Why, exactly, should offenses against an invulnerable being rise to a higher standard than offenses against those who can actually be victimized)?
–
Neil said: Question begging: You assume it isn’t true. News flash: You don’t get to vote on what God is like. Whether you think it is “fair” is irrelevant.
I must say, that sounds suspiciously like you don’t find it obviously fair either. If you could think of an explanation for why it’s fair, I would think you’d offer it. And God’s fairness or unfairness is very relevant to who God is supposed to be — just, loving etc. If you find it mystifying, or even just hard to express your thoughts about, you should say so. That’s what people do when they’re unafraid to go wherever inquiry might take them.
But you don’t have that freedom, because if any part of a revealed religion is wrong, the whole thing is wrong. The same is not true of philosophies we work out for ourselves, with a constant eye to *all* the evidence pro and con. It’s a very different approach to evidence-and-conclusion than “I credit the testimony for the resurrection, THEREFORE … I have a soul; heaven, hell, satan and angels are real; homosexuality is wrong; Jesus will return and all will be as described in the prophetic books; etc.”
I’m going to presume that you are being sincere in seeking dialog.
Firstly, considering what seem to be Buddhist/Hindu leanings, do you believe that logic and reason exist and function?
Secondly, do you acknowledge and understand that in Christian belief God is infinite?
Hi LCB, I’m sincere about dialogue in the sense that I’ll try to understand and not misrepresent your position, and in the sense that I’m interested in how people think, whether they’re wrong or right. But I can’t say I have many sincere doubts that Jesus might actually be the savior, or that logic or morality might best be accounted for by a “celestial dictatorship” (Hitchens).
Certainly logic and reason exist and function. I’m less confident that human reason functions *everywhere*: take quantum weirdness; also possibly, mystical (so-called) experience, which I don’t think is *essentially* illogical, but at least a little trickier to express without paradox.
And that’s right, I have Buddhist-Hindu leanings. Particularly the so-called “nondual” traditions like Advaita Vedanta (Hindu), Dzogchen (Tibetan), some Zen. I don’t subscribe to many Buddhist or Hindu metaphysical beliefs. I’m fanatical about meditation, about what you might call the “natural meditation” found particularly in the above traditions. I find it deepens the beauty and lightness of life month after month, year after year without end.
And I’m sure “infinite” has been frequently used to describe God. Whether anyone had a clear conception of what they meant by it is another matter.
But wait! If you’re sincere in wanting dialogue, shouldn’t you answer one or two of my questions above also? For instance, how a loving God could torment for eternity the vast majority of people who have ever lived — making him single-handedly responsible for more suffering than all human cruelty combined?
(Meet you down at the bottom of the page, where there’s a little more leg room)?
http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/atheist-kids-camp/#comment-31518
Posted at bottom of thread.
Seas, as usual you are less than coherent and just repeat your initial fallacies.
If there is a God then He defines fair. Duh.
Gummi bears illustration = silly straw man. You rebel far worse than that each time you deny God’s existence and make up your own god in his place.
I have no idea what you mean by “substitutionary atonement guilt.”
Gotta run till late, probably tomorrow, but I’ll answer your question quick. Substitutionary atonement = Jesus takes my guilt away. Substitutionary guilt = Adam & Eve make me guilty in the first place.
Urm, I make me ‘guilty’, not Adam and Eve. If I am not accountable for my wrongs (or ‘guilt’ as you put it) then there is no need for the substitutionary atonement, either.
You may wish to review and reconsider your understanding of the sinful human nature from a biblical point of view.
Seas, have you ever considered the possibility that you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do about Christianity and our beliefs?
Because you seem to be in this habit of INSISTING that Christians believe X, Y or Z, when we do not infact believe such things.
Hi LCB & Matthew, of course I get Christian beliefs wrong, I’ve been corrected here before. I assumed I was safe in testing my understanding — that there were one or two Christians lurking around these parts who I could count on to set me straight. But y’all don’t seem to have much interest in educating me! You seem to prefer just chiding me and alluding to unnamed errors.
But LCB, where have I insisted that anyone believes something once they’ve make it clear they don’t? I *do* however, often find that what people claim are errors in understanding are actually distinctions without a difference. That’s not the same thing as refusing to hear corrections.
Of course I don’t use the same language a Christian would use to describe his beliefs, since I’m trying to reduce those beliefs to what I consider their cruder reality, what they come down to *in effect* behind their prettier spin. So for instance, a Christian might prefer to emphasize that Jesus offers his free gift of salvation to all, “but he won’t make you accept it” — while preferring to under-emphasize the great injustice this inevitably entails: that the vast majority of people will burn in hell even if they lead much more beautiful lives than do some of the saved. They may even repent (anyone of mature conscience repents), but still, BELIEVING a particular historical proposition is the decisive virtue, for some weird weird reason.
In any case, I invite you. What offenses earn hell? What does Jesus’ sacrifice do with our guilt? What is the doctrine of original sin? (You say it’s not inherited sin)?
I have always cared about the kids, in fact – kids first is my motto. I think the sooner the kids realize they are the product of random, purposeless, impersonal, unpredictable natural processes, the better. For God’s sake, these kids’ self esteem is at stake. The sooner they learn to avoid where all the scientific evidence leads them, the better they will feel.
The Sistine Chapel ceiling is made of nothing but pigments and stone. The Ode to Joy is made of nothing but notes. It doesn’t mean our eyes and ears deceive us about their beauty. Nor do our feelings deceive us about the nobility of purposes such as loving; relieving suffering; envisioning new forms; realizing the peace of uncontrived consciousness; grokking the mind-blowing properties of wilderness. It doesn’t matter what love, society, Himalaya are made of, they really exist.
To feel that humans, society, nature are not sufficient for nobility and purpose is ultimately anti-human, anti-nature. I do think it would be unfortunate if that feeling about things rubbed off on kids.
seas – what color is your crack pipe?
just curious…
Seas,
His comment was sarcastic
Sure. Poorly aimed satire, I felt.
how a loving God could torment for eternity the vast majority of people who have ever lived — making him single-handedly responsible for more suffering than all human cruelty combined?
You have obviously not met Mr. Man, and you are obviously oblivious to the historical fact God has suffered more than all combined human suffering you could possibly fathom.
take quantum weirdness; also possibly, mystical (so-called) experience, which I don’t think is *essentially* illogical, but at least a little trickier to express without paradox.
Again, do you mind telling us what color your crack pipe is? You do know at some point, casting “pearls” before swine becomes boring, no matter who is doing the casting, right?
forgive me LCB, but seajuice makes me ill mannered.
You guys are pretty unreasonable sometimes. Seas asks valid questions, and mostly gets ridiculed for them. If the Bible’s account of God and hell are true, then a massive majority of all humans who walked the Earth are in hell, being punished for “thoughtcrimes”.
It’s a historical fact that God has suffered more than all combined human suffering? If you believe that then you are not equipped for any sort of debate.
Seas rambles with what is, by his own admission, a collection of whatever he likes to think is true. Any correspondence to reality is purely coincidental.
“By his own admission” — you’re referring to the bit where I praised working things out for oneself, versus adopting someone else’s dogma wholesale? That’s a breathtakingly narrow view, Neil. You are, in effect, dismissing every thinker who’s done more than defend an orthodoxy as having just made stuff up, proceeded by sheer whim without any measurement.
No, I just pointed out how you are making a God (or no God) in your own image.
Would those of you who are religious please take five minutes of your time and watch this video?
Richard Feynman on Doubt and Religion
How do you feel about Dr. Feynman’s view on life?
He seems to make a huge mistake in assuming that just because we’re a small part of the universe that we can’t have special value.
He mistakenly assumes we don’t question religion. Read the book of Romans and tell me that Paul isn’t carefully laying out Christian theology. Read Augustine, Lewis or other great Christian thinkers.
He seemed to go in circles. Where did his universal good of doubting and asking come from? Reveling in uncertainty and desiring to stay there is not admirable. The fact that you seek truth implies that truths can be found.
Can I have the 5 minutes of my life back?
Well, thanks for watching it a least.
If you think that listening to one of the greatest minds of the last century is a waste of time, then there’s really no point trying to get MY point across. Feynman was an incredibly brilliant man, responsible for some huge advances in science, but obviously you know better.
By what criteria to you judge great?
I don’t think I need to justify calling Richard Feynman a great mind any more than I do for Einstein, Hawking, Bohr, Newton, or Darwin, et al.
Look him up and tell me why he isn’t.
It’s a simple question.
By what criteria do you judge greatness?
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I like the socratic method, I’m going somewhere with this.
By what criteria do you judge greatness?
His contributions to science, and human knowledge stand alone as great accomplishments. He came up with many of the formulae that make up the current theories of quantum mechanics and fluid dynamics. He is also a pioneer in quantum computing, and nanotechnology.
That is a good start, but what I admire about him is the way he lived his life. He was curious, and not afraid of the answers to any of the questions he pondered. He was not afraid to try something new. Near the end of his career, already a world renowned physicist, he took up biology out of pure interest. He was not in it for the money, or for the fame.
I’ve read his books, and know a lot about him. In my opinion, he was a great man, and I’ve never known anyone to disagree with that.
So greatness is merely a matter of human opinion?
I appreciate your fondness for the Socratic method, and I share it, but it does not translate well to an online forum. I’d rather you just make a point, and let me think about it and respond instead of “leading me to a conclusion”. If I say someone is great, then what else could that be but my opinion, and yes I am human, so it is a human opinion.
No one said he wasn’t a nice guy. I’m glad you admire him for his work. The problem is that you are overly defensive about someone criticizing his views, and those that are outside his field. You also have the not-so-hidden implication that we don’t try new things or that we’re afraid of answers to our questions. That is just plain old anti-religious bigotry by people who have run out of logical arguments themselves.
Neil, I wasn’t defensive about his views. I called him great because I really feel he is, and LCB started in on asking me what defines great. I posted the link because he is one of the many people that has influenced my view of the world, and he explains it better than I do. That’s all. I’m interested in your criticism of his views – that’s why I posted it.
So, then his greatness is not neccessarily related to the content of his ideas?
He may still be a great man, but have wrong ideas.
Similarly, he may be a great scientist, but a poor philosopher.
Philosophy is, after all, quite different from science.
And reaching non-scientific conclusions about scientific things is more of an at of philosophy than natural science.
Yup, you’re right about all those things, but must you challenge everything I say? I happen to admire his views on philosophy as well as his scientific accomplishments. Philosophy is much different that science, but I think for one to have made great progress in theoretical quantum physics, one must exhibit an extraordinary capacity for imagination and deduction, and that is why there is a large overlap among great scientists and philosophers throughout history.
I’d very much like to hear your opinion of him, and why you feel you have a better grasp of science or philosophy than he does.
Ryan, why are 50% of your comments so ridiculous? You are this close [fingers held close together] be being moderated / banned. It is like you have multiple personalities. You are reasoned for a period, then make statements like, “Feynman was an incredibly brilliant man, responsible for some huge advances in science, but obviously you know better.” What’s the point? I watched the video and pointed out the flaws in his reasoning. He may have been brilliant at many things but his philosophical views were gibberish. So spare me the petty replies.
That was a bit rude, so I apologize for that. There are a lot of shots taken at me too you know. You don’t need to ban me, just ask me to leave and I will respect that.
I get defensive about scientists who put their ideas in the public domain, up for all to scrutinize, only to have people to are not even well versed in their field dismiss their ideas because they do not fit with a belief system. I think that scientists should be some of the people that kids look up to, and to be taught that they are to criticize science on their own, before they have studied the field themselves is the same as a eight year old kid telling his football coach how to throw a ball.
I’m a bit confused by your analogy– only those with certain creditential are permitted to question scientists, and scientists decide who get those credentials? And those that lack those credentials are like 8 year olds?
That’s certainly more dogmatic than religious belief, and far more controlling.
Come on LCB, you’ve heard of analogies haven’t you? I didn’t say they are like eight year olds, I was comparing the two situations based on the difference in experience. An eight year old football player does not have the experience to question his coach, just like Kirk Cameron does not have the experience to question Richard Dawkins. I’m sure you understood what I meant. Please try to debate without nit-picking the way I make my points.
Scientists can be questioned by anyone, and most welcome it, since most love to talk about their area of study. The only dogma in science is in the scientific method, and the strict adherence to openness and the peer review process. The beauty in science is that in its pure form, it is not swayed by anything but actual evidence. A scientist who formulates a hypothesis, and after testing his hypothesis finds it to be completely false, has succeeded in every sense of the word. He has furthered knowledge, and that is a benefit to his fellow scientists, and our species.
But the root of this is the scientist’s philosophical views, which are outside the area of his expertise. Maybe he is right, maybe not. But either way we can question his points.
In the same way, Dawkins makes philosophical statements that are less than sophomoric.
Yes, in its pure form science is only swayed by evidence. But sin gets in the door there just as it does everywhere else — http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/do-biology-textbooks-lie-to-pr ove-evolution/ .
I’ll give you a pass on your first paragraph saying Cameron can’t question Dawkins and your second saying anyone can
.
I meant to clarify that use of the word “question”. Anyone can question a scientist. But I think when someone claims to be a debunker of the scientists work without any experience in the field, he is being irresponsible.
As for his philosophies, they are certainly open to debate, and he readily admits he has no proof.
Dawkins last book did stray occasionally into the philosophical, which is fine, but he has another book coming out in September strictly on the plain evidence for evolution. I will buy it for you if you agree to read it
Seas,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Dialog requires an agreement on basic definitions, and so I wanted to establish that before attempting to answer your questions. People must use the same words in the same way for communication to work.
You write: And I’m sure “infinite” has been frequently used to describe God. Whether anyone had a clear conception of what they meant by it is another matter. [paragraph break] But wait! If you’re sincere in wanting dialogue, shouldn’t you answer one or two of my questions above also? For instance, how a loving God could torment for eternity the vast majority of people who have ever lived — making him single-handedly responsible for more suffering than all human cruelty combined?
I reply: It seems that you do, then, acknowledge (tepidly) that Christians believe that God is infinite.
So, if God is infinite, would not an offense against him be an infinite offense? (What I’m trying to show you is that the Christian belief is a logically tenable one, and at this point laying the foundations for that argument).
I look forward to your reply so we can address these and all other matters you have brought up.
Your logic on that is wrong. If God is infinite, then an offense against him would be infinitely small.
How so? please demonstrate as a syllogism. Your conclusion does not seem to follow at all from the foundation.
Try this: Push a friend. Push your wife. Push a neighbor. Push your boss. Push the Governor. Push a policeman. Push the President of the U.S.
Think the consequences will all be the same? God is so far above all of those it isn’t measurable, and offenses against him are great.
Hi LCB — agreed that a consensus on definitions is most respectful and civilized, if a luxury at times. I do appreciate the civilized pace you set, though I agree with Ryan’s comments about Socratic dialogue per se online.
LCB said: So, if God is infinite, would not an offense against him be an infinite offense?
That doesn’t begin to follow: what Ryan said.
I find it an extremely odd idea that infinity should render a slight scratch infinite and eternal, rather than *healing* all wounds in its limitless waters. I mean what damn good is being infinite if all it does is magnify harm? Shouldn’t God stay as far away from us as he possibly can, if this is the effect that contact with infinity has on finite beings: to make them infinitely guilty for finite deeds?
If God were merely an infite sea of pudding or water, you would be correct.
However, He is a Person,it is precisely contact and relationship with Him that fixes the problem and often lack of relationship with Him that creates it.
LCB said: If God were merely an infite sea of pudding or water, you would be correct.
Well but surely it’s fair to characterize God as an infinite sea of Good Stuff? Salt in wounds just doesn’t strike me as good stuff.
I have serious doubts whether y’all would find the argument that “finite offenses against an infinite being are infinitely grave” even faintly persuasive if you came across it in a different context, where you didn’t require it to justify Christian doctrine, justify hell. Infinite forgiveness just does not gibe psychologically with infinite grudge-holding. They’ve rather tended to displace each other in anyone I’ve ever met.
If my neighbor happened to be infinite — not God, not the first last and only; just happened to be an infinite dude — then blasting my music while he’s trying to sleep would be an infinite offense? Punishable only by eternity? And if my boss was also infinite, and my wife, and my hairdresser, I’d just be racking up the consecutive eternal-life sentences? Strange, strange math, this hell.
If hell is about God’s perfect justice, that he’s bound by his own nature to balance the scales perfectly, then why are the punishments for Gandhi and Hitler, and for everyone ever, exactly equal? Surely exact justice would acknowledge *some* difference in the degree of their rebellion?
Punishments are not exactly the same for those in Hell, nor are rewards all the same in Heaven. You will be judged based on what you did.
Revelation 20:11-12 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
The key difference is whether you face God on your own for your sins and end up in Hell or with Jesus’ righteousness imputed to you and spend eternity in Heaven. If you don’t accept God’s pardon, which was accomplished through great cost, you can hardly blame him.
I would encourage you to do a quick read through the Bible, or at least the New Testament, keeping an eye out for themes you are most interested in. I think you’ll be surprised by what you find and what what you don’t find.
Ryan,
Since God is infinite and eternally Holy – your offense against Him is by no means “infintely small.”
btw – are you sure we are having a “logical” conversation here? Or is your biological mass called the brain just shooting electrons randomly about making you think you are?
You shouldn’t use words like infinite if you don’t understand them. Any finite action against an infinite entity is infinitely small. That’s just math.
And my electrons are are not random.
We are dealing with meaning and offense.
What scientific unit measures meaning and offense?
The unit is not required when the scale is infinite. For the record, it’s also not required when the scenario is make-believe.
Units most certainly matter even when discussing uncountable infinite sets.
Secondly, so meaning and offense don’t actually exist?
So, by what you are saying, there is no meaning at all?
They don’t matter when comparing two sets where the units are the same.
My point is that if God is infinite, then nothing finite can really hurt him that much.
Does meaning exist at all?
Is the following statement true:
There is no meaning.
yes
no
Get to your point, and stop asking me questions to which we both know the answer.
So if meaning exists it is either physical or metaphysical.
It is clearly not physical, as you yourself admit it can not be measured or evaluated in the way physical objects can.
Therefore it follows that it is metaphysical.
The laws of the physical world do not apply to metaphysical realities, since they are quantified in a different way. Therefore there can be no logical doubt that your previous assertation is incorrect (and possibly meaningless, in that it states nothing), since it was an attempt to apply a physical law to a metaphysical reality.
This whole thread started when someone tried to use math to explain part of God. I showed that his math was faulty, and I was right. I agree that you can’t use math (or anything for that matter) to describe God.
And my electrons are are not random.
then who designed ‘em?
God did, obviously. He designed all the electron in his little electron shop.
how can you describe something as infinitely small? Isn’t that like saying a thing is very greatly much larger than small?
Infinitely small is defined as “approaching zero” to mathematicians. The number 0.0000…(infinite amount of zeros here)….0001 is infinitely small. If I have a infinitely large bucket of eggs, and there is one brown egg, and an infinite amount of white eggs, the probability that I will find a brown egg is infinitely small.
Guys, guys, guys.
No sweeties for anyone tonight, you’ve all been too naughty.
Seriously, I think non-believers should take Christian apologetics more seriously (although that does imply having to take a more serious look at other religion’s apologetics too), if for no other reason than some very clever people have put a lot of work into some very convincing arguments.
And believers shouldn’t get too excited every time a philosophical point tips in their favour; every argument for both sides has a convincing counter-argument. And it’s still a long way from some of them to the god of the bible.
Like anything else, Christian apologetics has some very good arguments, and some very weak ones. For every argument you can find a counter-argument, again, some good, some bad. In my own mind I’ve declared a draw. Which means personal experience gets the deciding vote.
Sorry, no god there yet.
For what it’s worth, Racing Boo (and I do appreciate your posts here), I find the existence of metaphysical objects and realities a tipping point argument. Would be interested in your thoughts on that.
If we could find something which you not only do not doubt to be, but also to be more excellent than our reason itself, will you hesitate to call that, whatever it is, God? (Not neccessarily the Christian God, but a god).
LCB,
blessings
The moment you step away from the utter reality of Christ, the apex of all truths, you will always encounter a problem. Resist the temptation if it leads others only to the acknowledgment of a false god. Just saying..
No, because those things are abstracts that only make sense if there is a physical world to prove them true, and a biological mind to imagine or comprehend them. If I was going to call them God, what is the definition of a god?
Read your comment too quickly, LCB, my comment above should begin with: Yes, I would hesitate……
Working on a definition is a good idea.
If we could find that there was nothing above our reason except what is eternal and immutable, would you agree to call that god?
Not something physical, but something discernable only by our reason, that is eternal and unchanging, and at the same time is also superior to our reason.
Would you agree to call that god?
I can believe in absolute truths, because I believe in reality. I can believe in abstract concepts that are not physical, but see no point to their existence other than their relevance to a physical world.
The law of Pythagoras exists as an abstract whether I exist or not. It has no relevance or power other than in a place where lines can be drawn, or a mind can imagine those lines. If nothing exists, the law is powerless.
If that’s your definition of God, then I agree that God exists. Powerless, other than in the minds that can imagine him.
Excellent. This is a most fruitful dialog.
I am going to assume you would agree with me that 7 and 3 are ten, and not only now, but always; nor have seven and three in any way at any time not been ten, nor will seven and three at any time not be ten. This incorruptible truth of numbers is common to me and you and anyone at all who reasons.
In other words, we all share perception of this truth, and it does not change from person to person, place to place, or time to time.
Further, I am sure you agree with me (from what you have said) that these are truths that are discovered not by the senses, but by the mind.
Now, it can be seen clearly that we use reason to know truth, because reason looks upon truth in a way the senses can not. Reason does not judge truth, rather, reason uses truth to provide the criteria to judge. And further, we all have access to that same truth.
Therefore, since reason depends upon truth but truth does not depend upon reason, would you agree in saying that truth is superior to reason?
Truth is meaningless unless the capacity to reason exists. How do you demonstrate to a child that 7+3 =10?
It’s after midnight here, I’m going to bed.
It may be meaningless without humans to apply it to the physical world, it may not be.
But would you say it is superior to reason, since reason depends on it but it does not depend upon reason?
Sorry, wasn’t running away, I’ve been away last night and am now back home.
I’m not sure if I’m equipped to take you on regarding these points, but for the sake of reaching some sort of comclusion, yes, I would allow that truth is superior to reason, for the reason you mentioned.
No worries, 4th of July & all that.
I was just laying out what is essentially St. Augustine’s argument for God, infact most my posts were just direct quotes from him.
Intellectually, I find it to be a tipping point argument. We can know that metaphysical things exist, and that truth is superior to reason From there it’s a short logical chain to the existence of some sort of god (not necessarily the God of Christianity).
How does the existence of an intelligent God follow from the existence of truth? I find it much more difficult to believe that there is an eternal God than to believe that there are eternal truths (which I’m not convinced of yet either). I’m also not clear on truth being superior to reason, but I could be convinced. Isn’t it necessary to use reason to determine a truth? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Thanks LCB, see my comment at the bottom of the thread, it’s hard to type when you can’t see half of what you’re writing.
Just a quick note, not trying to trap you, I saw your edit a few posts above, and fully acknowledge that edit (I make typos all the time).
Just trying to get to the point where I understand you and we have common definitions and agreements.
Hi LCB, “superior” seems not an ideal word, since it begs the question of in what respect is truth superior. “Prior,” “more fundamental,” these seem a little more just. You’re arguing that reason depends on truth, while truth doesn’t depend on reason? I dunno man, I think all we’re saying there is that truth is the object of the sentence and reasoning is the verb. Every object is “superior” to its verb, since the verb requires an object to act upon. (In sentences where the verb IS one that acts on an object, of course). Sights are superior to seeing, knowledge to knowing, etc. Truth is the object of reason; there would be no such thing as reason without something about which to reason. Neither would there be truth if it wasn’t possible to reason about it. They assume each other.
But what is it we reason about, what is truth? Regularities. I don’t think you can have regularities without time and space, i.e. a universe.
It’s not that logical axioms or mathematical laws are *false* without a universe, just that they’re *meaningless*. They describe objects in space-time relations, do they not? Even abstractly mental objects operate in a kind of mental space-time.
So many apologetic strategies seem to be chicken-and-egg arguments, aiming to isolate and glorify a chicken or an egg. Cosmological argument, arguments from reason or morality or what-have-you… all you’re saying is that there are rules by which our universe operates. How could it be otherwise? Even if we lived in a universe where logical axioms and mathematical theorems changed moment to moment, that would itself be a rule, something observable about our universe. And lawlessness would require a lot more energy than regularity, I’d think; it’s damned hard work never doing the same trick twice. Actually *that* sort of universe might make me wonder if someone was pulling the strings.
Again and again apologists claim as proofs of God’s existence, cosmic arrangements to which it’s almost impossible to imagine alternatives. This is all that’s left to them, claiming the ground we stand on, since there’s no *special* sign of a god in ten trillion galaxies and in all our days.
Morality too is meaningless without the existence of beings who suffer and enjoy. And it’s unimaginable, once you’ve got beings who suffer and enjoy, that it *wouldn’t* be unjust to dismiss one being’s interests for capricious and non-objective reasons.
Can’t say I share your tolerant appreciation for theist apologetics, Boo. I find them a somewhat interesting intellectual lab specimen, and of course I tolerate/sympathize with/am curious about the individuals who find them persuasive. But the arguments themselves, I find essentially obfuscatory. My first objections to interventionist theism are actually spiritual: in directing hearts forever to the hidden, the abstract, the later, the separate, the hoped-for and guessed-at, the unimaginable-yet-which-can-only-be-found-in-imagination — they delay experience of simple being. The stunning simplicity and finality of it, here, now, nothing hidden from the beginning. Everything mysterious in a sense, irreducibly wonderful, but nothing hidden. Being shines forth as everything.
(The words are fancy, the experience isn’t. It’s at the base of every ordinary moment. But infinite reconciliation to the utterly ordinary is an experience of rapturous emotional impact, and humor. Well, sometimes! Other times it’s just quiet and natural).
To be honest, your posts don’t make much sense… and if there is some sense in them it’s tricky to find because of the length and rambly nature of many paragraphs.
You might find your communication more effective if you picked a specific quote, highlighted it, explained your disagreement, and presented your counter argument in syllogism form.
And reverting to a form of pure skepticism is generally considered a weak argument.
I hope this helps.
Hi LCB, can’t deny it: I too often let myself be tempted by multiple angles and fleshings-out of some point, thus making the point itself harder to find. Apologies. My ideal style would be a readable alternation of bullet points and persuasive foliage; I know I’m far from it.
Some of the more bullety points from my previous comment might include:
–There could be no such thing as reason without something (truths) about which to reason; neither could there be a truth which it wasn’t possible to reason about. They assume each other. If neither can exist without entailing the other, then, it doesn’t make any deep sense to claim one is more fundamental or superior.
–But what is it we reason about, what is truth? Regularities. I don’t think you can have regularities without time and space, i.e. a universe.
–It’s not that logical axioms or mathematical laws are *false* without a universe, just that they’re literally *meaningless* without the matters they describe: objects in space-time relations.
–I dislike apologists’ various attempts to separate two dependently-arisen things, such as math/logic and the situation it describes (namely space-time), or morality and the situation it describes (sentient beings). It seems of a piece somehow with directing all one’s thoughts to a God who is entirely other, hidden, un-visualizable yet can’t be felt in any way except visualization; it offends my sense of the indivisibility and immediacy of everything.
What are you calling pure skepticism? Denying that it makes sense to speak of logic etc. as “true” in the absence of a universe? I really don’t think my position is skepticism, if you consider it carefully. I’m not denying (at least at the moment!) the universality of logic etc.; I’m denying their TRANS-universality — again, not saying it’s false without a universe, just meaningless.
Golly boo – thanks for the “wisdom” a moron could have offered, not saying you are one, but…ya know, you really said nothing, if “nothing” actually exists in your mind.
Which means personal experience gets the deciding vote.
I rape your mother and your daugher, tie you up and make you watch, then I kill them…slowly. (Of course these things never “really” happen). I love the pleasures of a personal experience based morality, don’t you?
I’ll give you this, at least your an honest moron, if there is such a thing.
Why, thank you Mark, for your thoughtful comment. Next time someone says “ad-hominem”, I’ll remember you with fondness.
I wasn’t talking about morality, which we can all agree exists, even if we may differ on the origin of it.
I’m talking about the existence of God. Do you agree that personal experience counts when someone is weighing that up in their mind? Or does all your experience of God come from what other people say?
Twit (an honest one, to be sure).
My apologies Boo – I was way out of line. Forgive me; I think you ask legitimate questions and my emotions “experiences” took over.
I do not think one’s personal experiences define truth; I think God’s word is self evident – it holds it s own authority. It is not a human determination, nor the churches; Man recognizes it as God’s word and accepts it because it is authenticated by the message that is given and the power it has to change lives of depraved men. God’s word is like an old saying “How do you protect a Lion? You let him out of his cage”
There is nothing that man or any church/faith/religion does to make God’s word authoritative, it comes with a message unlike any other “Thus says the Lord…” and men confirm by experience, science, history, etc.. That in the beginning was indeed divine knowledge, and it became flesh and walk among us. I would at least listen to that message – again, my apologies for being an ass when you were asking sincere intelligent questions. As every day, I fall once again upon His grace at the foot of His cross.
No worries, Mark, thanks for the apology, and I in turn apologise for insulting you.
Thanks for the clarification about differential penalties Neil, I should have remembered Dante. So you’re saying that although everyone suffers eternally, thus infinitely, the intensity of torment throughout that time differs from soul to soul? That’s a real difference, though I still don’t think the math works out: everyone’s suffering is still infinite.
That sounds about right, though I never read Dante and can’t assess how close he was to the truth of the Bible.
Yes, it appears to be infinite, which is all the more reason to take God’s gracious pardon seriously.
Whoops, sorry Neil, posted that reply at the bottom of the whole thread where it’s confusing, so I’ve posted it again in the right place. Would you be so kind as to delete the one at the bottom?
I glance at the Bible sometimes, I’ll do it again, probably not tonight.
I deleted the 2nd one, which is hopefully the one you meant.
No problem at all. I have mixed emotions on the WordPress Reply feature. It makes it much easier to reply via email and such and results in less copying/pasting of quotes, but the threads seem to get confusing.
I have learnt a lot through this, I have read (or should I say suffered through) Plato’s “Republic” and also an abridged version of “City of God”.
Plato laid out a philosophical case for God (although the Judeo-Christian concept of God would have been alien to him). Augustine built on that, and Christianity as we understand it today (in the west) rests upon that framework.
I must say I never really understood that properly until now.
Hmmm.
City of God (unabridged) is on my shelf, first in the queue.
About that abridged version . . .
I think it’s Etienne Gilson’s translation; I stand to be corrected, we’re moving house at the end of July, and everything’s in boxes at the moment.
Unabridged would be more than one book, surely?
Unabridged = one really, really thick book.
Good luck with the move! We hope to be moving around the same time. We’ve come to terms with the house we want and need to agree on a figure with the buyers of our house. What. A. Pain.
As a slight correction to your overall correct post.. and to provide a bit of context
Augustine built heavily on the framework of Plato (really those that came slightly after Plato, but close enough). That stood until Aquinas. Augustine was primarily a theologian,his works of philosophy being very limited. He is in a very real sense similar to St. Paul, in that the bulk of his life’s work was dedicated to addressing issues as they came up, so he expands and refines the Church’s understanding on a lot of issues that were very important, and remain important today.
The City of God, in that pattern, is a response to the most stunning development in the ancient world: the fall of Rome, so once again Augustine is reacting to events.
With modern science starting to emerge, the first rumbles of the Renaissance starting up, and the rediscovery of Aristotalian philosophy, there were some difficulties with the Augustine synthesis holding together. Augustine was coherent, but it wasn’t a coherent philosophical & theological system, as the ever-refined philosophy of the era was requiring.
And that’s where Aquinas comes in. Aquinas serves as the systematic, moral, philosophical, and theological framework for what is ‘modern’ Christianity (modern meaning since 1400 or so). He obviously borrows unabashedly from Augustine, but he also uses Aristotle’s philosophy to construct a truly Christian philosophy, and then places the best of Augustine into that system. Also included is the 1000 or so years of theological and philosophical development that came after Augustine.
One of the issues that anyone faces when they attempt to create a synthesis of the Faith is that the Faith is an infinite mystery, and so you can have two very different systems and approaches (Augustine, Aquinas), so each approach will be both incomplete and sometimes seemingly contradictory (when in reality they are expressing the same mystery in what are simply very different terms).
As a lover of the Patristic era, I am always glad to discuss Augustine. If, however, you are trying to understand Christianity better I would not recommend that as your starting point.
Ultimately, Christianity can only be understood from the inside-out because at its core is an authentic encounter with the person of Jesus Christ, and through Him entering into friendship with God.
To that end, if one wants to understand Christianity, one needs to make an attempt to enter into that relationship in some fashion. It may be a failed attempt, but it’s an attempt none the less.
Concerning the Republic, did you read the Republic outright, or did you read the dialogs first? The Republic really makes almost no sense without first reading the Socratic Dialogs.
Always get a bit verbose on these topics… but I can’t help myself
Anyways, concerning the Faith, Aquinas, and Augustine:
When a person really starts to consider the Faith in a serious intellectual way (and these things are true cross-denominational), one really begins a twofold process that consists of
1) Entering into adulthood as a Christian
2) Finding out that the content of our Faith is often very difficult than we first thought.
When we, as individuals seriously engaging the Faith in an adult way, ask serious questions we often find serious and surprising answers. These answers are the deep and abiding truths of our Faith that are beyond the grasp of those who are ‘children in the Faith’, and beyond the grasp of those who seek only strawmen to joust with.
Aquinas lays a lot of these out clearly intellectually, and great writers like John of the Cross (The Dark Night of the Soul) or John Bunyan (Pilgrim’s Progress) express these in a more allegorical sense.
And so the hecklers will say “Where is your God, you pray and he does not act or answer”, but even though we beseach our God for many things, the core of prayer is not to change God… but to change us to be conformed to His will. That’s just one sample.
When Christ talks about “Not giving the pearls to the swine”, it can also mean things like that. A young child (either biologically or in the Faith) won’t really understand that, nor will an outsider. But when a man (or woman) has really and earnestly walked with the Lord, and begun that transition into the adulthood of Faith, these things are discovered.
And that’s why one must at least attempt to enter into the mystery of Faith in order to understand it, because without at least an attempt at entering in, the words that describe the Faith really lose most their meaning.
No worries, be as verbose as you like, it’s not my bandwidth!
I don’t know much about Aquinas, but I’ll do some homework and we can discuss him too.
I seem to remember that pretty much the whole thing is dialogue. I’ll have to dig it out and take another look at it.
The Republic often is used to mean “the major Socratic Dialogs followed by The Republic proper”, but these days it is often (mistakenly) sold as simply the Republic without the Socratic Dialogs.
The Republic can not be properly understood without the Dialogs, and most especially one must first have read Socrates’ Apologia and Death. Otherwise the concept of Statecraft= Soulcraft and vice versa really makes no sense.
Racing Boo,
Augustine really didn’t build on “that” (western framework) – historically even pagans had knowledge of God’s wisdoms (Truths) built into creation itself long before scripture. Plato’s own idea about injustice and undeserved inflictions does however become a historical reality in Christ. Even in Pagan mythologies there was the concept of killing and being raised again to be transformed. humm indeed
A plea for judgment, justice etc.. is in essence a plea for God to be true to something He has already promised; judgment upon the wicked. That promise was not only recorded in scripture, but built into life itself. In a way, Plato knew God, but not really. Plato, pagan or who ever knew truth, just not the ultimate source of all Truth – and that knowledge requires divine intervention, and what better intervention than Christ Jesus?
I’d be glad to tell you, but I don’t want to challenge everything you say
.