Originally posted by lucifershammer
I agree. But the naturalist who denies the supernatural is under a similar burden of proof to justify his a priori rejection.

You're still shadow-boxing against the great hard-atheist bogeyman, I see.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I suppose one could put to some theists the counter-question: “Do you find my rejection of the supernatural offensive because it is so exclusive (i.e., that it categorically excludes the whole basis for your religious beliefs)?”

I don't find it offensive. Incoherent, maybe -- depending on what you replace the supernatural with in your syste ...[text shortened]... s the supernatural is under a similar burden of proof to justify his a priori rejection.

I don't find it offensive.

I know you don’t.

...depending on what you replace the supernatural with in your system.

Why should it need to be replaced with anything? The rest of N (the natural category, the universe simply as we find it) remains once G is dropped. To suggest that G (the supernatural category: there is no supernatural theism without it, even if that is the only element in it) must be replaced with something is to claim that N is not sufficient—not sufficient for what? For me to form beliefs and draw conclusions about N and my existence as part of N?

I agree. But the naturalist who denies the supernatural is under a similar burden of proof to justify his a priori rejection.

This seems like the old “weak atheist / strong atheist” issue. I corrected my “strong” position yesterday in response to LJ’s post.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What makes it a weakness? And what makes it craven?

It's the same sentiment that breeds fascism. The desire for a strong authority figure who will convey a sense of self worth upon the individual who is either too weak minded or cowardly to craft one for himself.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Why is the 'naturalist' as you put it under a similar burden of proof? If the naturalist can explain most phenomena by natural means (and by explain here I mean 'can explain and has evidence to support (and importantly no evidence to contradict)) and has a reasonable expectation of explaining what remains be natural means, given that there was a point be ...[text shortened]... proof lie with the people claiming the existence of the supernatural to prove it exists?

A "naturalist" who categorically denies the existence of the supernatural is asserting a universal negative - which cannot be proved unless the absence of the supernatural is demonstrated in every single instance. Even if a naturalist can 'explain' most phenomena by natural means, it does not necessarily imply he can explain all phenomena thus.

Here's an analogy - most words in the dictionary can be defined using other words. Those explanatory words, in turn, can be defined using further words. But you cannot continue the process indefinitely -- you will eventually come to a circular definition. In other terms, you will come across a word (or group of words) that require you to "step outside the dictionary" to get a precise idea of.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's the same sentiment that breeds fascism. The desire for a strong authority figure who will convey a sense of self worth upon the individual who is either too weak minded or cowardly to craft one for himself.

The key word there is "desire," I think. It can be the product of cultural indoctrination (indeed, it may be part the the sole cultural reality one grows up and lives in and "absorbs" ); it is only when one can see outside that box that the question of courage or weakness comes in. Nevertheless--

Quit describing me so accurately, dammit!

Originally posted by rwingett
You're still shadow-boxing against the great hard-atheist bogeyman, I see.

It's not a bogeyman - many atheists are, indeed, strong atheists (what you call the "great hard atheist"😉.

I didn't claim you were; I don't see why you have to feel offended.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's the same sentiment that breeds fascism. The desire for a strong authority figure who will convey a sense of self worth upon the individual who is either too weak minded or cowardly to craft one for himself.

It's also the same sentiment that breeds love (or perhaps it is love in a different guise). You cannot truly love someone until you have opened yourself up to being vulnerable, relinquishing at least some implicit authority of the relationship to the other. In a loving relationship, there is such a mutual expression of vulnerability to the other and voluntary giving up of authority.

You can be in control, or be in love - not both.

EDIT: vistesd - I hope you're reading this.

Originally posted by vistesd
The key word there is "desire," I think. It can be the product of cultural indoctrination (indeed, it may be part the the sole cultural reality one grows up and lives in and "absorbs" ); it is only when one can see outside that box that the question of courage or weakness comes in. Nevertheless--

Quit describing me so accurately, dammit!

My wife and I took a trip to rural, southern Illinois last year and I was shocked at how thoroughly permeated the culture is in christianity. Quite a bit different from the urban/liberal/blue state lifestyle I'm used to. I wondered how rarely it was that any dissenting point of view ever entered their consciosness. So if they truly "don't know any better", then I guess they are deserving of pity rather than scorn.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A "naturalist" who categorically denies the existence of the supernatural is asserting a universal negative - which cannot be proved unless the absence of the supernatural is demonstrated in every single instance. Even if a naturalist can 'explain' most phenomena by natural means, it does not necessarily imply he can explain all phenomena thus.

Her ...[text shortened]... oup of words) that require you to "step outside the dictionary" to get a precise idea of.

Even if a naturalist can 'explain' most phenomena by natural means, it does not necessarily imply he can explain all phenomena thus.

Depends on what you mean by “explain.” “How things are” is a different question from “Why things are the way they are.”

Suppose you ask: “Why is there anything at all.”

Suppose I answer: “Well, it just seems like a brute fact to me.”

Does my response now entail some burden of proof? If so, is that burden of proof commensurate with the burden that would be entailed by saying: “It’s the green goblin’s dream?”

Suppose I respond instead by asking: “Why do you ask that question? Why should that “why” be of any concern to me?”

In other terms, you will come across a word (or group of words) that require you to "step outside the dictionary" to get a precise idea of.

So—can you give me a non-verbal, ostensive definition of the term “God”?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not a bogeyman - many atheists are, indeed, strong atheists (what you call the "great hard atheist"😉.

I didn't claim you were; I don't see why you have to feel offended.

I don't see why you only want to argue against hard/strong atheists.

Actually I do, but that's another issue...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's also the same sentiment that breeds love (or perhaps it is love in a different guise). You cannot truly love someone until you have opened yourself up to being vulnerable, relinquishing at least some implicit authority of the relationship to the other. In a loving relationship, there is such a mutual expression of vulnerability to the other and v ...[text shortened]... ou can be in control, or be in love - not both.

EDIT: vistesd - I hope you're reading this.

There's a difference between surrendering totally and meeting someone halfway. I am not a worthless sinner to my wife, but an equal partner. Neither of our authority exceeds the other's. The same cannot be said for you and your hypothetical big pal in the sky.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's also the same sentiment that breeds love (or perhaps it is love in a different guise). You cannot truly love someone until you have opened yourself up to being vulnerable, relinquishing at least some implicit authority of the relationship to the other. In a loving relationship, there is such a mutual expression of vulnerability to the other and v ...[text shortened]... ou can be in control, or be in love - not both.

EDIT: vistesd - I hope you're reading this.

vistesd - I hope you're reading this.

I am. I don’t know if we’re in disagreement or not, as I would use a wholly different terminology (without regard to the dictionary here)—

Love: a passionate concern and caring for the beloved. I agree that that is antithetical to “controlling” the beloved, but it is not antithetical to seeing the beloved with the utmost possible clarity.

Intimacy: two people through a process of mutual self-disclosure creating a “third person,” called the “we,” which takes on a life of its own.

Well, that’s the way my wife and I speak of it; it may be too personal and “poetic” (even “mystical” ) to convey outside that relationship, or to be useful to anyone but us in the context of our personal loving relationship. It is, however, not one of submission to the other, even each to the other. (Think of the point in intimate love-making where one’s awareness of any self-identity momentarily vanishes—but if that self-identity disappears forever into the “we,” then there is no more relationship as such. It is the rhythm of “form and fullness and form,” not a surrender into permanent formlessness—that is the error some people commit in talking about Zen Buddhism.)

EDIT: In light of Rob's post above, I'm going to offer "sharing" as the alternative to "submission."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You cannot truly love someone until you have opened yourself up to being vulnerable, relinquishing at least some implicit authority of the relationship to the other. In a loving relationship, there is such a mutual expression of vulnerability to the other and voluntary giving up of authority.

You can be in control, or be in love - not both.

EDIT: vistesd - I hope you're reading this.

I don't agree with any of that.

As consequence: God didn't really love anyone until he made Himself vulnerable through the human form of Jesus, I presume. And God loves us; ergo He cannot be in control.

EDIT: Nevermind, God's lack of control may be explained with the existence of human free will, I presume.

I always sorta thought that if an all-good God created us, then it would be in some sense an act of love; but clearly not, unless the act of creating is itself an act of vulnerability? Besides, creation implies control, doesn't it?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Even if a naturalist can 'explain' most phenomena by natural means, it does not necessarily imply he can explain all phenomena thus.

Depends on what you mean by “explain.” “How things are” is a different question from “Why things are the way they are.”

Suppose you ask: “Why is there anything at all.”

Suppose I answer: “Well, it just seems ise idea of.[/b]

So—can you give me a non-verbal, ostensive definition of the term “God”?[/b]

“How things are” is a different question from “Why things are the way they are.”

The first is merely descriptive ("Things that are thrown up come down" ). The second presumes a coherent and rational structure to the Universe ("Things that are thrown up come down because of gravity" ).

Suppose you ask: “Why is there anything at all.”
Suppose I answer: “Well, it just seems like a brute fact to me.”
Does my response now entail some burden of proof?

No, it doesn't. But it does mean that you are conceding that the contingent Universe you inhabit really has no reason for being what it is; it is an effect without a cause. You are, effectively, conceding that fundamental notions of reason such as causality don't apply to your Universe. Such a Universe is irrational, incoherent.

Further, you end up destroying the notion of reason itself. Why would an irrational universe generate a rational mind such as yours? And how can you know that the use of your reason allows you to know any truths at all?

So—can you give me a non-verbal, ostensive definition of the term “God”?

Sure. Just give me time till the Final Judgment. 😉

Originally posted by rwingett
There's a difference between surrendering totally and meeting someone halfway. I am not a worthless sinner to my wife, but an equal partner. Neither of our authority exceeds the other's. The same cannot be said for you and your hypothetical big pal in the sky.

Earlier you said:

I get the impression that you think atheists are rebelling against a god, whom they know, deep in their hearts, to be true.

Considering how you cannot help but be disagreeable on the topic of God (even when He hasn't been part of the discussion for some time), I wonder if there isn't an element of truth to this.


In any case, if all love is to you is "meeting someone halfway", then I must say you're missing the point entirely. Meeting people halfway is what we do in business, in politics, at the supermarket. Loving parents don't meet their kids "halfway" -- they go all the way. Love isn't conditional; it doesn't come with strings attached. Partnerships are for business contracts.

And, no, I am not just a "worthless sinner" to my "big pal in the sky" (funny; I encountered that expression in a book on the Philosophy of Religion yesterday -- as an example of people you shouldn't try discussing philosophy with) either. I am, objectively, a worthless sinner but, since my "big pal" wants to save me anyway, He endows me with worth by his saving action.