11 Jan 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou're right on that account: definitely no new ideas. But the way he contorts, twists and manipulates the old stuff makes it all appear as though it is new stuff. Heck, he's so open to anything BUT God, he'll resort to fantasyland--- the same kind of make-believe we made when we were kids and weren't constrained by such things as logic and reason, rules and absolutes.
Fascinating stuff, really, and all very entertaining. Not many folks have the humility or the courage necessary to make such a public spectacle (read: fool) of themselves.
14 Jan 07
Originally posted by HalitoseHi, Hal. Nice to see you around.
[/b]Sorry for the long delay in replying LJ; and as always, I appreciate your candour.
Part of my misunderstanding occurred because the word logically has no business being in there. I don't think you intend to say that the conjunction of atheism and some other descriptive theories related to origins is logically inconsistent with moral re ...[text shortened]... n and time to conclusions of obligation and duty, the theist is not held by such concerns.
So, basically, my point is not that atheism and moral realism are “logically” mutually exclusive, but rather that they are metaphysically phobic if not completely irreconcilable.
Right, I thought as much. I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment here; I just deny that the theist has at his disposal any more plausible realist account(s) than the atheist.
I suggest to you that this is a false dilemma with the age-old contention that God by His very nature is righteous, i.e. “good” (and therefore normative).
I'm not sure I understand. Are you arguing for divine simplicity*? I'm inclined to think that divine simplicity is incoherent. And I certainly don't think it is compatible with the idea that God is a personal creator or any other sort of causal agent. However, as the article I cite below discusses, whether or not one will view divine simplicity as coherent may have a lot to do with one's own "ontological framework".
-----------------------
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
14 Jan 07
I have not read the book, but these arguments all look very framiliar to me. My reply is that it is the inadequacies of humans that create religion and not religion that creates the faults of man. I've spent a lot of time blaming religion for things in much the same way, but then came to realize that religion is merely a reflection of culture and human nature, and that if it could somehow be abolished, similar circumstances would still plauge us.
15 Jan 07
Originally posted by hoven5thDawkins' "ideas" about religion have been around for centuries. I'm reading Montaigne at the moment--parts of his "Apology for Raymond Sebond" (which addresses exactly such points as yours) could have been written with Dawkins in mind.
I have not read the book, but these arguments all look very framiliar to me. My reply is that it is the inadequacies of humans that create religion and not religion that creates the faults of man. I've spent a lot of time blaming religion for things in much the same way, but then came to realize that religion is merely a reflection of culture and human nature, and that if it could somehow be abolished, similar circumstances would still plauge us.
Dawkins fans, what's new about "The God Delusion"?