Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Can Theology Rebut the Attacks of the 'New Atheists'?
64 Answers
Urged on by the likes of Richard Dawkins and others, telling the audience to "dare to use its common sense", the modern theologian and layman theist has to ask them to listen to some very large and strange ideas, and attempt to show that this issue is both interesting and resistant to simplistic certainties. Showing for example, that the God attacked by atheism is a modern construct produced by Enlightenment rationalism, and that previous theism remains untouched by such concepts.
Descartes being the key initiator of this modern conception which implies that God is an object of thought: a being who exists in the same way as other things exist. For pre-modern theology God was not a 'thing' at all, but as expressed by Aquinas ; God is transcendent, beyond our categories, something of which we can have no understanding.
With the insights of postmodernism, is not this earlier conception, not a freer one from the 'Idol-God' of the Enlightenment ?
Descartes being the key initiator of this modern conception which implies that God is an object of thought: a being who exists in the same way as other things exist. For pre-modern theology God was not a 'thing' at all, but as expressed by Aquinas ; God is transcendent, beyond our categories, something of which we can have no understanding.
With the insights of postmodernism, is not this earlier conception, not a freer one from the 'Idol-God' of the Enlightenment ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro , it depends on what you mean by everything. If you mean by everything, what each subatomic particle in the universe is doing and how it is interacting with all the other subatomic particles then it is highly unlikely that mankind could ever know that. As for a general understanding on a larger scale, then the bigger the scale the more can be seen and the more is there to be understood. The saying 'the more we know the more we realise how little we know,' seems to sum things up fairly accurately, so yes it is a probable 'no'.
-- answer removed --
Jom.
//If you mean by everything, what each subatomic particle in the universe is doing and how it is interacting with all the other subatomic particles// -- You know damn well that's not what I mean :-)
Unless you accept that homo sapiens has a 'special place' in the order of life on this planet ; and that would be putting close to conventional religious orthodoxy. You may have to come to terms with the notion that the human brain - even amalgamated with that of others, may be limited in it's cognitive capacity.
The snail, out at night devouring my basil, knows of moonlight. The fox has a greater understanding, i.e. that it doesn't shine when it rains, perhaps even that there is a regular sequence to it's luminosity and position, and all sentient beings have some way of accommodating this phenomena up to the apes and then us; we know, by analysis, exactly what it is. Why should we believe that we stand in a position of neutrality, from which we can observe the limitations of understanding of other related species, and be exempt from similar limitations ourselves?
//If you mean by everything, what each subatomic particle in the universe is doing and how it is interacting with all the other subatomic particles// -- You know damn well that's not what I mean :-)
Unless you accept that homo sapiens has a 'special place' in the order of life on this planet ; and that would be putting close to conventional religious orthodoxy. You may have to come to terms with the notion that the human brain - even amalgamated with that of others, may be limited in it's cognitive capacity.
The snail, out at night devouring my basil, knows of moonlight. The fox has a greater understanding, i.e. that it doesn't shine when it rains, perhaps even that there is a regular sequence to it's luminosity and position, and all sentient beings have some way of accommodating this phenomena up to the apes and then us; we know, by analysis, exactly what it is. Why should we believe that we stand in a position of neutrality, from which we can observe the limitations of understanding of other related species, and be exempt from similar limitations ourselves?
I don't understand your question, Khanzo: what does "freer" mean?
I agree with you that we have no way of knowing whether or not the Thomistic God "of which we can have no understanding" exists; speculation about such a being seems as pointless as speculating about alternative universes. But, by the same sleight of hand as the learned scholast, you've muddied the waters by suggesting that this "transcendent" God is the very same being as the "God" who doesn't like ham, ordains the mutilation of baby boys, impregnates virgins, likes the smell of animals slaughtered and burnt in His honour, calls himself Dad but is only happy when the kids are on their knees (or bellies, Sith) mouthing nonsense in praise of Him, and will torture them forever if they upset him. You don't need to prove such a God doesn't exist - it's all in the CV.
I've signed up with Phil Forums and will check the answers there.
I agree with you that we have no way of knowing whether or not the Thomistic God "of which we can have no understanding" exists; speculation about such a being seems as pointless as speculating about alternative universes. But, by the same sleight of hand as the learned scholast, you've muddied the waters by suggesting that this "transcendent" God is the very same being as the "God" who doesn't like ham, ordains the mutilation of baby boys, impregnates virgins, likes the smell of animals slaughtered and burnt in His honour, calls himself Dad but is only happy when the kids are on their knees (or bellies, Sith) mouthing nonsense in praise of Him, and will torture them forever if they upset him. You don't need to prove such a God doesn't exist - it's all in the CV.
I've signed up with Phil Forums and will check the answers there.
//^ No, but it rules out the ability of emphatically stating that there is no such possibility, as atheists do.//
Just to keep the facts straight, for one thing, not all atheists (in fact it might well be a minority, me for one) do rule out the possibility of the existence of a creator, first cause, 'god' (big G or little g) although admittedly the Abrahamic (with the possible exception of the AB god ;o) version does not seem to be in fashion with many of the posters in this forum.
Atheism only defines ones lack of belief, not necessarily that one rejects the possibility of the existence of a ‘god’ of some form or another. What I find most peculiar is the assertion that in lieu of proof to the contrary, belief in the existence of ‘G/god' is justifiable, if not a shoe in . . . with the rejection of such a belief often deemed a mortal sin, with some even going so far as to believe killing unbelievers is a moral obligation and the failure to do so a ‘sin against god'.
Believing in something without rational justification, sets one on a course down a slippery slope to ugly ville where the imaginary being you believe exists is in reality a monster feeding and thriving on your ignorance and arbitrary world view. It's not so much believing in 'god' that I find objectionable as the inevitable consequences of traveling down that road to its ultimate destination . . . a dead end. Based on my personal observations, belief in the arbitrary follows from a refusal to accept an unpleasant fact of reality in the hope that belief has some mysterious power to negate or rewrite, if only in ones own mind, an undesirable truth, that reality can somehow be bargained with by a divine overseer whose only demand is ones own unquestioning and unwavering belief.
The consequences of turning ones hopes away from the reality that is, in favour of a comforting delusion, is the sacrifice of what might have been to an actualisation of what should and otherwise would never be, a reality made only worse by ones refusal to confront it head on. In believing in ‘god’ and you in fact create the ‘devil’.
Just to keep the facts straight, for one thing, not all atheists (in fact it might well be a minority, me for one) do rule out the possibility of the existence of a creator, first cause, 'god' (big G or little g) although admittedly the Abrahamic (with the possible exception of the AB god ;o) version does not seem to be in fashion with many of the posters in this forum.
Atheism only defines ones lack of belief, not necessarily that one rejects the possibility of the existence of a ‘god’ of some form or another. What I find most peculiar is the assertion that in lieu of proof to the contrary, belief in the existence of ‘G/god' is justifiable, if not a shoe in . . . with the rejection of such a belief often deemed a mortal sin, with some even going so far as to believe killing unbelievers is a moral obligation and the failure to do so a ‘sin against god'.
Believing in something without rational justification, sets one on a course down a slippery slope to ugly ville where the imaginary being you believe exists is in reality a monster feeding and thriving on your ignorance and arbitrary world view. It's not so much believing in 'god' that I find objectionable as the inevitable consequences of traveling down that road to its ultimate destination . . . a dead end. Based on my personal observations, belief in the arbitrary follows from a refusal to accept an unpleasant fact of reality in the hope that belief has some mysterious power to negate or rewrite, if only in ones own mind, an undesirable truth, that reality can somehow be bargained with by a divine overseer whose only demand is ones own unquestioning and unwavering belief.
The consequences of turning ones hopes away from the reality that is, in favour of a comforting delusion, is the sacrifice of what might have been to an actualisation of what should and otherwise would never be, a reality made only worse by ones refusal to confront it head on. In believing in ‘god’ and you in fact create the ‘devil’.
Khandro, in this instance there can be no ‘buts’. It’s a straightforward question that can only be answered with a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There is no rational reason whatsoever to attribute the unknown to the unknown. I may as well claim there’s some computer boffin existing far beyond the realms of this universe who long ago decided to create another which he is now controlling by feeding in data and pushing buttons. I’m willing to bet no one would take me seriously because I have no evidence to support my assertion and therefore it would make just as little sense.
I doubt you’ll find many atheists who rule out the possibility altogether – but that doesn’t mean they’re agnostic. Atheism equates to an absence of belief in any god, and until evidence to the contrary is provided, atheists have no reason to think otherwise.
Yes, I have got the book, and I’ve started reading it, but within the first few pages reservations began to rear their insistently critical heads, firstly because some of the historical claims I’ve come across simply cannot be supported in any way whatsoever, but moreover because the assertion that the book offers ‘irrefutable evidence’ is clearly not true. I was quite excited when I read that, but since I’ve gained the impression that the documents the book is based on are not available for examination, that excitement swiftly turned to disappointment because the author appears to be expecting the reader to take his word for it – and that simply isn’t good enough. Nevertheless, I’ll read on and see if anything else comes to light. I’m still on Moses and the Israelites at the moment, but I need to re-read that bit because, despite the similarity in place names, etc., I can’t quite work out how the Exodus has any connection with India, and how Moses supposedly came to be buried there, so maybe I’ve misunderstood it.
I doubt you’ll find many atheists who rule out the possibility altogether – but that doesn’t mean they’re agnostic. Atheism equates to an absence of belief in any god, and until evidence to the contrary is provided, atheists have no reason to think otherwise.
Yes, I have got the book, and I’ve started reading it, but within the first few pages reservations began to rear their insistently critical heads, firstly because some of the historical claims I’ve come across simply cannot be supported in any way whatsoever, but moreover because the assertion that the book offers ‘irrefutable evidence’ is clearly not true. I was quite excited when I read that, but since I’ve gained the impression that the documents the book is based on are not available for examination, that excitement swiftly turned to disappointment because the author appears to be expecting the reader to take his word for it – and that simply isn’t good enough. Nevertheless, I’ll read on and see if anything else comes to light. I’m still on Moses and the Israelites at the moment, but I need to re-read that bit because, despite the similarity in place names, etc., I can’t quite work out how the Exodus has any connection with India, and how Moses supposedly came to be buried there, so maybe I’ve misunderstood it.
Khandro, what else is 'everything' but everything? you may have meant something else but my simple philosophy of going for the obvious meaning of what someone says appears to have let me down. If there was some other meaning, philosophical or metaphysical then you had best make it clear and say what you mean in clear language.
You're a sly b*****r, Khanzo. I most certainly do not have an open mind about Yahweh and Allah. any more than you have about Baal and Moloch. Open-mindedness in both cases according to me, but in only one case according to you is more accurately called gullibility. You do concede that point, don't you?
I'm sorry if you find some of the atheists tiresome. Your correspondent tries, possibly unsuccessfully, to educate and entertain and hopes for similar from other contributors of whatever complexion. By and large I enjoy these threads.
I'm sorry if you find some of the atheists tiresome. Your correspondent tries, possibly unsuccessfully, to educate and entertain and hopes for similar from other contributors of whatever complexion. By and large I enjoy these threads.
Khandro, do you find it tiresome when your unjustifiable assertions are challenged? Perhaps you should be grateful that you have been made aware of flaws in your thinking and redouble your efforts to perfect your arguments. It may be more difficult, but it does have more force than cut and paste philosophy.
Jom //cut and paste philosophy.// now you are getting nasty! what do you mean by that?
Naomi; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes is that what you mean.
Naomi; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes is that what you mean.
Khandro, perhaps my 'cut and paste philosophy' remark was overstating my point somewhat, however I don't think it is sufficent to refer to philosopher's (such as Descartes and Aquinas) conclusions without clarifying their supporting reasoning otherwise there is no point in the reference. Of course you could precis their arguments if you wish.
Jimmy Joyce & Sam Beckett were sitting finishing a bottle or two of wine in a Left Bank café.
'Right,' that's me,' says Joyce. 'I'm away to the knocking shop. Are you coming?'
'I can't,' says Beckett. 'I've a bit of philosophical research that needs doing.'
'Sure that's not a bit like you', says Joyce, 'to put Descartes before the hoors.'
'Right,' that's me,' says Joyce. 'I'm away to the knocking shop. Are you coming?'
'I can't,' says Beckett. 'I've a bit of philosophical research that needs doing.'
'Sure that's not a bit like you', says Joyce, 'to put Descartes before the hoors.'
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.