Comments on: Richard Dawkins on Religion http://www.bloggernacle.org/richard-dawkins-on-religion/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:10:36 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jeffrey Giliam http://www.bloggernacle.org/richard-dawkins-on-religion/#comment-2629 Jeffrey Giliam Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:48:16 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=239#comment-2629 Matt's point is a good one. I'll have to think about that. Matt’s point is a good one. I’ll have to think about that.

]]> By: Clark Goble http://www.bloggernacle.org/richard-dawkins-on-religion/#comment-2610 Clark Goble Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:19:40 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=239#comment-2610 I think I have to agree with Matt here Jeffrey. Immortality, if true, certainly does affect meaning. The problem with your response on universalisms is that it avoids the central issue. Are the universals real. To merely call them relationships avoids the question of what kind of relationship. If one is a nominalist (as I actually think most atheists tend to be) then I think the meaning criticism holds. If you are an atheist and accept real universals of some sort (say atheists like Heidegger or Derrida) then I have a hard time believing they are really atheists. They just reject the Christian or Jewish God. I think I have to agree with Matt here Jeffrey. Immortality, if true, certainly does affect meaning.

The problem with your response on universalisms is that it avoids the central issue. Are the universals real. To merely call them relationships avoids the question of what kind of relationship. If one is a nominalist (as I actually think most atheists tend to be) then I think the meaning criticism holds. If you are an atheist and accept real universals of some sort (say atheists like Heidegger or Derrida) then I have a hard time believing they are really atheists. They just reject the Christian or Jewish God.

]]> By: Matt Witten http://www.bloggernacle.org/richard-dawkins-on-religion/#comment-2609 Matt Witten Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:19:28 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=239#comment-2609 I think eternal consequences give our actions more meaning than temporary consequences. After all, If I have to see you every day for the rest of forever, I may be more inclined than if I can Kill you now and never see you again becasue you have ceased to exist. I think eternal consequences give our actions more meaning than temporary consequences. After all, If I have to see you every day for the rest of forever, I may be more inclined than if I can Kill you now and never see you again becasue you have ceased to exist.

]]> By: Jeffrey Giliam http://www.bloggernacle.org/richard-dawkins-on-religion/#comment-2595 Jeffrey Giliam Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:05:58 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=239#comment-2595 "If the Atheist starts believing in universals ala Plato or Plotinus they simply aren’t atheists." I'm not sure that I agree with this. Of course if one accepts these universals as these men did then of course they are no longer atheists. But most of these universals are simply mathematical relationships that couldn't have been any other way. I don't think that if an atheist rejects the logical possibility of mathematics being wrong this make him a theist. I do agree with Clark's response to Matt. As I mentioned in a post theists can claim that atheist's don't have anything to give their lives meaning, but I don't think that Mormon's have any better footing in this matter. After all, what is the meaning of our eternal existence? Any answer that can be given here can almost certainly be given to the atheists question of "what is the meaning of our temporary existence?" "conveniently assuming their desired conclusion" I don't accept this at all. Science rejects the supernatural not as an axiom but because it is unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable. If we could actually observe the supernatural in action then we would be in business but we can't so we aren't. Surely this can lead some people to wonder if there is anything supernatural at all. “If the Atheist starts believing in universals ala Plato or Plotinus they simply aren’t atheists.”

I’m not sure that I agree with this. Of course if one accepts these universals as these men did then of course they are no longer atheists. But most of these universals are simply mathematical relationships that couldn’t have been any other way. I don’t think that if an atheist rejects the logical possibility of mathematics being wrong this make him a theist.

I do agree with Clark’s response to Matt. As I mentioned in a post theists can claim that atheist’s don’t have anything to give their lives meaning, but I don’t think that Mormon’s have any better footing in this matter. After all, what is the meaning of our eternal existence? Any answer that can be given here can almost certainly be given to the atheists question of “what is the meaning of our temporary existence?”

“conveniently assuming their desired conclusion”

I don’t accept this at all. Science rejects the supernatural not as an axiom but because it is unobservable, unrepeatable and unfalsifiable. If we could actually observe the supernatural in action then we would be in business but we can’t so we aren’t. Surely this can lead some people to wonder if there is anything supernatural at all.

]]> By: Dave http://www.bloggernacle.org/richard-dawkins-on-religion/#comment-2572 Dave Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:26:57 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=239#comment-2572 The problem with evangelizing atheists is the same as with any other sort of evangelist: they subordinate their discipline or beliefs or even simple facts to the conversion project. Thus Dawkins and others with his agenda will talk as if science entails atheism (conveniently assuming their desired conclusion) and as if there is broad agreement among scientists to this position. In fact, at least half of scientists are firmly committed to some sort of belief, often traditional religious beliefs of one denomination or another. He just ignores that inconvenient fact, which doesn't do much for his credibility. The problem with evangelizing atheists is the same as with any other sort of evangelist: they subordinate their discipline or beliefs or even simple facts to the conversion project. Thus Dawkins and others with his agenda will talk as if science entails atheism (conveniently assuming their desired conclusion) and as if there is broad agreement among scientists to this position. In fact, at least half of scientists are firmly committed to some sort of belief, often traditional religious beliefs of one denomination or another. He just ignores that inconvenient fact, which doesn’t do much for his credibility.

]]> By: Clark Goble http://www.bloggernacle.org/richard-dawkins-on-religion/#comment-2559 Clark Goble Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:24:45 +0000 http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=239#comment-2559 Matt, not all atheists feel that way. After all, if I enjoy my children, then they matter. Life isn't pointless if I can enjoy it now. So I don't think atheism entails what you suggest it does. Now some people might <i>psychologically</i> need theism to give meaning. And I agree with that. But it doesn't follow that they <i>logically</i> need theism. And indeed there are plenty of philosophers who provide fairly compelling reasons to not fall into that trap. Now as to why someone should be a theist, I certainly agree with you that the experience of God and communicating with God is an excellent reason to believe. Indeed I feel it the best reason to believe. But not everyone has or at least doesn't recognize such experiences. Matt, not all atheists feel that way. After all, if I enjoy my children, then they matter. Life isn’t pointless if I can enjoy it now. So I don’t think atheism entails what you suggest it does. Now some people might psychologically need theism to give meaning. And I agree with that. But it doesn’t follow that they logically need theism. And indeed there are plenty of philosophers who provide fairly compelling reasons to not fall into that trap.

Now as to why someone should be a theist, I certainly agree with you that the experience of God and communicating with God is an excellent reason to believe. Indeed I feel it the best reason to believe. But not everyone has or at least doesn’t recognize such experiences.

]]>