Yes many people were indeed very obstinate and arrogant in times of the middle ages in ways that got in the way of progress. That is another characteristic of the people of that time that we should NOT emulate. There is no excuse to not be rigorous and fair. If you honestly think the time for honest argument is over, and it's time to pull out the clubs to get through our "thick skulls" then you have become the monster you hate. I will reason with you and I will keep an open mind, lets talk.
What is a "new" atheist actually? This is pretty fuckin stupid since atheism is just no belief in a god.Its been around since man walked on the planet.
Ward, as so many other theists, defines his god in a particular way. Some call it "ground of being." He says "intelligent consciousness." At the end of his talk, Ward simply makes assertions and appeals to authority to justify his idea. Ultimately, Ward's ideas do not compel me at all. They are based in wishful thinking without any evidence at all. Typical of theists, he asserts that magic exists! New atheists do NOT reduce the humanities to the sciences!!!!!! What a silly statement!!!!
A belief in an invisible, imaginary agency (invisible sky wizard) requires evidence, however "natural" it may seem. One of the most powerful things about science is "truth" is always provisional. Again: Ward should consult with physicists. It's always so frustraing to listen to scientifically illiterate people tell scientists what science is---and then use that to justify the existence of their invisible friends!
@Nodelusionnow Yeah ofcourse, I as a Christian believe in a 'invisible sky wizard'.... Go and read a "Philosophical" heavy weight book like The God Delusion if you love it so much. There are arguments for Gods existence, if you don't find them convincing, then okey, but stop your ridicule and try to build a rational case without Ad-Hominem.
Ward focuses much too much on physics as an example of science. What a ridiculous assertion that we can't know what is real! With that idea, ANTYTHING is an option. Science offers explanations that WORK. Ward simply re-hashes the Thomistic first cause stuff. He ought to consult with Frank Krauss before getting so far over his head in all of this. For Ward to use quantum theory to justify miracles is simply RIDICULOUS. Ward is repeatedly completely out of his league here.
Who is to say that "natural" is the defined in the way Ward says? Not Dawkins! Ward knows little of science, typical of so many philosophers. No wonder so many scientists find philosophers so lacking. Ward somehow knows exactly what his god is like. How? Through argument? No evidence? Of course not. When I hear a guy like this, I'm reminded of delusional psychotics! Ward and others constantly change what they mean by god, but it's always merely imaginary.
Bertrand Russell is the real founder of the New Atheism. Why would it be a mystery that people today are examining religion and the existence of a god or gods. Of course belief in a god is "natural"---we've evolved a large degree of tendency to accept invisible agency for comfort and explanation. Ward is undoubtedly an atheist---he doesn't believe in Zeus or Thor or any of thousands of other gods. For some reason, he likes a particular god. Why? Typical of philosophers, he alters definitions.
where theirs no laws of nature in the bible or anything about the outside universe because no-one back then would have gotten what it meant. We just found out this centuary there is a place outside our solar system. How do you think people 2,000 years ago would have thought if they were told about the universe? They would have had no idea what it ment.
Talk of Sky God and flying spaghetti monsters, it is not meaningful at all as Dr. Ward points out, it is only scorn.
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." Psalm 1:1
"Behold, YE DESPISERS, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." (Acts 13:41) <-- ref. death, burial, and Resurrection of Christ.
Keith Ward here says the quantum vacuum is outside of space and time. But it actually has its own spacetime fabric and its own past spacetime boundary, according to Stephen Hawking's new book.
Keith has a great photo on his Wikipedia page! This is an engaging and intelligent talk, but he dropped the ball at the beginning by dismissing russell's teapot so flippantly. It's a common error to present Russell's analogy as merely criticising the QUALITIES of religious belief, when it's main thrust is really how religious belief QUALIFIES itself (or rather fails to).
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Do you have any justification for the proposition that "the only reasonable approach in not to believe in God unless you have a reason to"? You seem to base that on faith.
Gotta love theists, they have no rational argument, no evidence to backup their beliefs, and instead insert conversation stopping words like "faith" to try and convince people that their position is somehow respectable. Faith isn't a respectable notion. Faith, in theism terms at least, is a belief based on zero evidence. That's an affront to our critical thinking values, and to rationalism. Faith opens the door for all zany religions, b/c we then abandon the use of evidence.
@coil311 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
What is delusional about not believing in invisible sky magicians? What is delusional about requiring evidence to form beliefs? Sorry, you're not really convincing me why theists are not deluded, unless of course, you provide evidence of some sort of deity. Good luck with that, though. Theists have been trying to prove a god exists for about 5000 years, and have never provided one single shred of evidence in all those millenia. Hence, they insert the word "faith" - no evidence.
@coil311 There's plenty of evidence. I just don't see why you can't be open minded enough to agree with it except flippantly waving it off and saying "nope, you have no evidence."
@coil311 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
Do I have any evidence to show that theists don't have any evidence? Sorry, the burden of proof is upon those making extraordinary claims. Those who claims an invisible magician exists much therefore provide the evidence. You apparently have a fundamental misunderstanding about burdens of proof, and who has the responsibility. Those that believe in deities must provide the evidence. Thus far, none have, ever. Therefore, I remain a non-believer until evidence is shown.
@coil31 It is you who do not understand my argument. So your atheist clichés are irrelevant. I am arguing that "I can trust my experience X, if there isn't any external reason that should make me doubt X". For example, I am rationally entitled to believe that I see a tree, if I don't have any reason to suppose that my experience is incorrect. For example because of bad eyesight. So If I believe that God exist, and I have no external reason to doubt that experience then I am rationally justified
@leidenhag What a joke. Are you saying that because humans can experience the undefined or unexplained, that it is OK to define that very undefined thing? A 'definition' that only you create and accept for your self is a delusion. You will not find any two people who 'define' this 'undefined' the same way. It therefore becomes 'mass delusion' . This sometimes known as self-fulfilling prophecy. Problem is, self-fulfilling prophecy is much easier to run in the entropic direction (you=reverse).
@agentssith "You will not find any two people who 'define' this 'undefined' the same way." Well, I believe that´s obvioulsy false. I know many Christians, Muslims, and Jews who carries similar conceptions of God. Hence, religions. So if a monotheist has an experience of a being that is transcendent, all knowing and all loving, and has no external reason to doubt that belief, then he is rational in adopting that belief. Why wouldnt he be? Give an argument.
@leidenhag "...and has no external reason to doubt that belief". You have no external reason to *confirm* this belief save for a fellow delusional or delusional institutions and tradition. Therefore it is irrational to adopt the belief to be 'publicly' defended. Such a belief can at most be 'institutional' and is indefensible outside the institution. 2 things are required for rational reality: It must be observable to *any* rational observer and it must be universally communicable to the same.
@agentssith "You have no external reason to *confirm* this belief save for a fellow delusional or delusional institutions and tradition." You still don't get the argument. A person P is rationally entitled to believe X, if and only if, if X is not undermined by any known argument/discovery/known fact. If you claim that we have to have evidence for all our beliefs, then provide some evidence for that belief. I'm pretty sure you cant. Hence the fallacy of evidentialism.
@leidenhag You don't get your own argument. "rationally entitled" ≠ "rational".
As to your challenge. Try this on for size: suppose you were born with no senses whatsoever. No sight, no hearing, smell, taste, touch. Please specify what your beliefs would be in the absence of the capacity for evidence or observation, and prove that you could 1. assemble the belief to begin with and 2. hold and maintain the belief. Please supply your communicable empirical evidence (personal or otherwise).
@agentssith So instead I propose that P is rational in adopting belief X if there isn't any evidence that contradicts X, which would mean that a god-belief is rationally justified for P, if it doesn't exist any known facts that should contradict that god-belief. You are claiming that a theist is irrational if he cant provide any argument for a theistic belief, and you don´t offer any justification for that claim. You are merely stating an opinion right now, and an unjustified opinion.
@leidenhag paradoxical beliefs are precisely self contradictory. I will sit back and watch and laugh as you attempt another undefinition along the lines of: God is outside of space and time (and thus not subject to anthropocentric DEFINITION), blah blah blah....
@leidenhag Therefore, the burden of proof is on you once again to prove that atheists are irrational. With all of your babbling, this is what your message boils down to: your claim that atheism is irrational while theism is not. As a so-called spiritual atheist, I believe in transcendent being (with no guarantees), not *a* transcendent being (complete with guarantees) as you would. Please stop embarrassing yourself and learn the difference. And give a proper argument, not garbage.
@agentssith I've never claimed that atheists are irrational! Try reading my comments!! I am claiming that a theist is rational in adopting a theistic belief,(the proposition that God exist) if there isn't any external reason to doubt that belief. Thats it. Not very hard to understand. If you deny that then show why, a theist is irrational in adopting a theistic belief.
@leidenhag Well I am saying that theism is irrational. You can't even succinctly state your belief and keep it in well defined boundaries. Such a non-specific open ended belief which has no evidentiary basis *IS* irrational. Look, nobody said you can't hold an irrational belief. Just stop trying to rationalize it, because you never will. As soon as you keep it well defined it will be debunked. If you leave it open ended, you have no way of establishing its veracity except by 'faith'.
@agentssith You´re still not getting the argument. You are just claiming that a person is irrational if he adopts a belief without evidence. The trouble is that we would all be irrational if we follow that criteria. We cannot prove logical laws, or the existence of mathematical abstract objects, the existence of an external world, that other people have minds (do I need to go on?).
@leidenhag We have evidence for all of what you listed. These concepts are both communicable and can have predictive effects. What we do not have is evidence for an integral, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, super-spacetime pre-existing deity called God® which is evidentiary enough to be predictive (inductive) in ANY WAY.
@agentssith You are not getting the point. We don´t have any evidence "against" the classical theistic god-definition. Therefore a theist is rational in accepting that belief. But, if new discoveries comes up that would show that the the classical concept of God is mistaken, then a theist is no longer rational in believing in God.
@leidenhag Wrong. There is no evidence against your undefinition of God®, which is why you keep going back to it. As far as the classical definition, how many married bachelors are there in the world? The reductio ad absurdum of Epicurus represents your contradiction. Now I suppose you want to posit the unfounded claim that an extra-paradoxical free will (which you also have not proven exists) is of a higher virtue than the elimination of evil? Where is your proof of this?
@leidenhag : At most, what we know about the universe implies a pantheistic / pandeistic God like we find in eg. Advaita Vedanta. There is no rational reason whatsoever to suggest the existence of a big daddy in the sky as presented by Abrahamic religion. Only by taking a huge leap of faith and ignoring rational thought can one take such a belief seriously.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker First of all. The god-conception of Advaita Vedanta, expressed by Shankara, is meaningless since god is equivalent with nature. God becomes just another name for the universe, Why just not call it the universe?.... Second; theism is not the belief in a big daddy, but a Supreme Being that is the cause of everything that exists. Third; there are rational arguments for the existence of God. For example the Cosmological argument is a pretty good one.
@leiden "Third; there are rational arguments for the existence of God. For example the Cosmological argument is a pretty good one."
That argument could apply to either a deist,or theist God.It's illogical to use the cosmological argument for the existence of God, then make a 'quantum leap' to linking it to a theist God(s).These types of arguments are always ladened with dishonesty,since the religious always have to resort to 'special pleading' when faced with the question of what created God.
@pillsareyummy Deism (the proposition that there exists a God, but that God doesn't interact with humans) is a form of theism (the proposition that God exists). A theist does not claim that the cosmological argument can prove the existence of a "personal" God, and that is not the point of the argument. To prove that we have a personal rather than a impersonal God, we can add additional arguments, such as the argument for the resurrection of Jesus, or the moral argument.
(Oops) A theistic God is one that not only created the universe,but also interferes with it(a personal God of prayer for example).That is different from the concept of a deistic God, that although created the universe, doesn't interfere with it in any way.There is no evidence,outside of the bible,that Jesus resurrected(not to mention,there are identical stories,that predate Christ).Morals don't come from god,they are based on 'synergy' between biology,and social ideology(a moral zeitgeist).
@Jugglable That is absolutely false. I promise you. With a masters degree I can assure you that you will not find any philosophical textbook that makes the claim that theism is a form of deism. If you believe that, then you have to back it up with facts.
@pillsareyummy "These types of arguments are always ladened with dishonesty,since the religious always have to resort to 'special pleading' when faced with the question of what created God."
If you're asking what caused God, you haven't grasped most arguments for God's existence. They are saying we must come to an ORIGINAL being, a beginning, a necessarily existing being that contains within itself the reason for its own existence. It doesn't make sense to ask what's before the origin.
@Juggl.. Yes, I've 'grasped' the arguments. My point, is that those who make them state that 'everything' must have a cause, and they use that logic to argue for the existence of God. However, when it comes to God, the conveniently toss that logic out the window (special pleading) by placing God outside any meaningful paradigm of measurement, in short they place him in the realm of the 'supernatural'. Also, the mind is hardwired to think like that, so we're biased toward that way of thinking.
If you're going to state that complexity ensures a 'creator', then what created 'it'?You can't use that logic for the existence of God,then discard it when you come to God.That's special pleading pure and simple. Further,you can't make the 'leap' and state that it was your particular God.Those that make these types of arguments, like WLC, pander to our reason and intuitions.However, science has repeatably shown us, the universe seldom behaves in ways that we would call reasonable or intuitive.
@pillsareyummy WLC usually offers a bunch of arguments that could be accepted by ANY believer in ANY monotheism. Or even by a generic deist! That's not a "leap" to his religion. He does offer one uniquely Christian argument, though, based on the resurrection, but that's straightforwardly an argument for the Christian God without "leaping" to it or smuggling it in.
@Jugglable You can't use the bible, that has NO historical evidence for it's supernatural claims (like the resurrection) outside of Christian theology. Thus, you can't say that because the universe 'appears' to be designed, therefore there is a God, then argue it's your God because of scripture found in some ancient 'story book' written over two thousand years ago in the Bronze age.
@pillsareyummy " that has NO historical evidence for it's supernatural claims (like the resurrection) outside of Christian theology" Well, if somebody believed in the resurrection, they'd be Christian. So to say nobody believes in the resurrection outside of Christianity is pretty obvious. Even atheist scholars will use the Bible to determine historical facts. The same documents they use to determine those facts also report miracles, so they reject them based on philosophical grounds.
@pillsareyummy "then argue it's your God because of scripture found in some ancient 'story book' written over two thousand years ago in the Bronze age." Well, even atheist historians will call those "story book" gospels historical documents. And what does the Bronze Age have to do with it? Atheists like to throw that around (Hitchens started it) because they want to sound like they know something about history. An idea isn't true or false based on what CONTINUED...
@pillsareyummy ...continued: based on what age it originated in. Pythagoras is also from the Bronze Age. I suppose everything he said is false?
My reasons for believing in the resurrection are based upon facts I've heard atheists accept. The conversion of Paul, the origin of the Christian faith and belief in the resurrection despite great predisposition to the contrary, the empty tomb of Jesus, and the beauty of the message.
@pillsareyummy "because the universe 'appears' to be designed, therefore there is a God" I think that's quite the straw man. Look up the principle of charity.
"how do you know that you're not being biased with regards to your 'logic' concerning it" I am biased. Everybody approaches this issue with some bias.
@Jugglable And as I alluded to in my previous comment, we appear to be hardwired to see agency, due do what we learn as we grow, and no doubt do to genetics that we inherited from our distant ancestors (might want to brush up on your biological psychology). Thus, we are biased toward teleological arguments, even though it's more logical to hold to more anthropic arguments until true evidence (not philosophical woo woo) discredits them.
@pillsareyummy Yeah, we are hardwired to see agency in the universe. But beware the genetic fallacy, which is trying to discredit a view by talking about how one comes to hold it (brush up on your logic). I'm hardwired for my eye to tell me there is light. That doesn't undermine the existence of light.
And again, you are only criticizing one form of one kind of argument for God's existence.
If you're hard wired for it (seeing agency),then how do you know that you're not being biased with regards to your 'logic' concerning it?Much of what we have learned about the universe didn't/doesn't make logical nor intuitive sense to us . And what 'genetic fallacy' are you speaking of? Also,your light analogy doesn't apply,especially if you're going to use it as a rebuttal to my previous comment.Light, unlike God,can be 'measured'! God can only be inferred (via "interpretation" of nature).
@JugglableThe reports of miracles are rejected because of 'lack of evidence'. When it comes to the claims of, for example, the origins of the universe or life itself, the time in which the claims were made are relevant. The fact that nobody understood biology or physics (for example) at the time these "facts" were written plays a rather large role concerning there validity.
@pillsareyummy "The fact that nobody understood biology or physics (for example) at the time these "facts" were written plays a rather large role concerning there validity."
The reasons why the disciples made a big deal out of their belief in the resurrection wasn't because they didn't understand they dead people don't come back to life. They made a big deal out of it because they DID understand that.
@JugglableAs I said, stories of resurrections weren't uncommon during the time that Christianity was being created. For example, many Asian 'sun Gods' played with this motif. However, I'm no expert in this area of discourse, so... However, people 'coming back from the dead' was a concept that predates Christ. The best example I can give is the concept of 'vampirism' (which predates Stoker's Dracula by thousands of years). It wasn't something new during the time of Christ.
@pillsareyummy "people 'coming back from the dead' was a concept that predates Christ."
Sure. But an eschatological resurrection is different than coming back from the dead. Before the resurrection of Jesus many Jews didn't believe in life after death, and only the most hopeful Jews hoped for a general resurrection of all humanity at the end of time. One thing they certainly weren't expecting was an incarnation, or an executed messiah. Or after that, a resurrected one.
@pillsareyummy They didn't understand a lot of things, like disease, but they could still give an account of a sick person. Whether they were telling the truth about saying they saw Jesus risen from the dead doesn't really depend on their scientific knowledge.
@JugglableI was speaking of the accounts of the bible that address things that they couldn't have known about at the time (like the universe). I wasn't commenting on the Resurrection, and as I stated, those stories weren't new at the time. And there is a difference between stating that one is ill, and 'what' is causing the illness.
@pillsareyummy I'm surprised to hear you used to be a Catholic but then to hear you criticize the Bible's commentary on the universe. The Catholic tradition offers such a rich interpretation of differing genres of Biblical text. I cannot urge you strongly enough to check out /watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
@Jugglable I would agree that Catholicism is the best out of all the Christian sects as far as science is concerned. I learned about evolution, an ancient universe, etc from my classes (I went to catholic schools for a while). Ironically, it wasn't until I became an atheist that I became aware that certain Christians hold other, shall we say, silly views. However, the church has some pretty strange practises (like celibacy); not to mention all the rape that goes unchecked (that is s 'sin').
@pillsareyummy " the church has some pretty strange practises (like celibacy); not to mention all the rape that goes unchecked (that is s 'sin')."
Well, celibacy is what's called a discipline. It can be overturned and is something we do for now, not an aspect of Catholic doctrine. And yes, there has been corruption in the church, but when people mistreat children it does not call into question Catholic dogma and in fact is against the teachings of Christ.
@pillsareyummy "what 'genetic fallacy' are you speaking of?"
The genetic fallacy: to try to disprove a belief by talking about how one comes to hold it. If we come to belief in God based on the wiring of our brains, that doesn't call into question the truth of the belief. In fact it fits squarely with my worldview, which says we are made for God.
@JugglableThe 'origin' of the Christian faith can be traced back to other beliefs that came before it. Virgins births(which appears to be a typo from the Hebrew of the book of Isaiah to the Greek of the Septuagint), Crucifixions, claims of miracles, Resurrections,just to name a few, aren't relegated to Christianity,similar stories exist (Apolnoius of Tyana for example).And as I stated, there is no historical consensus for the supernatural claims of Christianity outside of christian theology.
@pillsareyummy Apollonius of Tyana post-dates Jesus. And Jesus is not based on prior pagan mythology. That idea has been dead, at least in academia, since the 19th century. Even atheist historians will say Jesus was crucified. If you think the crucifixion of Jesus is based on prior stories, give me a primary source.
@Jugglable Stories of those being put to death for their beliefs wasn't new during the time of Christ either (whether or not they were crucified is irrelevant). For example, the trail and death of Socrates has a similar motif (without the miracles, virgin births,etc). Whether or not he existed, or was just a character of Plato is another story. However, miracle claims, virgin births,etc, again weren't new at the time of Christ. However, I'm no expert in this area of discourse either, so...
@pillsareyummy I also strongly urge you to check out the atheist podcast called Reasonable Doubts. Yes, I'm recommending an atheist podcast! Listen to their podcast on whether Jesus is based on prior mythology. They are smart, informed atheists, and think that when people say Jesus is based on prior stories it makes it hard to take atheists seriously. In any case, I am enjoying our conversation, and thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
@Ju. Many of the motifs found in Christianity weren't new,however,I can't comment beyond that since I'm no theologian.It's not that I disregard the concept of God out of hand.However, when it comes to the religion, all religion, even as a child I was starting to recognize that God, at least the christian version, was a little too anthropomorphic. God acts like we do, and if there is a God, I would think that it would be so far advanced from us (in every way), it would be incomprehensible to us.
@pillsareyummy I certainly agree that God is incomprehensible. I can't understand this computer. Not even one molecule of it. If I could understand God, that's not much of a God. However, it doesn't mean we can't trust THAT God exists, with good reason, or that we can't experience God somewhat in this life. If we take an infinite God and try to squeeze it into finite concepts, we always come up short. However, to say that God is a mind, etc. does gesture toward the divine reality.
@pillsareyummy I have watched the atheist experience. I really like hearing smart atheists because they force me to think and a faith worth having is worth questioning. I don't like the new atheists, though, unless they're actually philosophers. Also, it feels good to know that I haven't shied away from criticism, that I've sought out the smartest critics, and that my faith, in my view, still emerges head and shoulders over the brightest atheists.
@Jugglable Quantum mechanics (the standard model) can be tested (measured) to an astounding degree of accuracy. Not to mention, it plays a practical role as well, in the form of modern technology (like the computer you're using right now). Again, it's something that can be tested and even applied; you can't say the same thing about the concept of God,since there is no evidence that can be tested, in any meaningful way, to confirm the 'God hypothesis'. Only inferences can be made.
@pillsareyummy "Only inferences can be made." I'd agree. I don't think belief in God is a hypothesis and I don't think it offers predictive power. Doesn't really say anything about whether inferring God's existence is a legitimate inference.
@Jugglable Also, I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I'm open to the concept of God, however, I don't 'believe' in the Gods of religion, simply because the stories that are told in them, are to me at least, silly. However, there is good evidence that Christ existed, however, there is no evidence for the claims of the supernatural that surround him. I also used to be a Catholic, and I quite enjoyed hearing about the teachings of Christ. In many ways he was a great man, however, to me, he was only a man.
@Jugglable If our brains our hardwired to see agency, then it's logical to assume that those ancient instincts are playing a role in how we 'see' ourselves and the universe. It also explains why we have had so many different Gods throughout history (as well as the present), which of course were/are all different. Thus, it's more logical to assume that we created the concept of God(s) based on our predispositions, molding them to fit the social scripts available at the time they were created.
@agentssith Btw. this talk of non-specific open ended belief is just gibberish. Classical theism is not non-specific, it consists of a collection of propositions, or attrubutes, that are clearly definable, such as omnipotence, omniscience etc. A proposition such as "God exist" is clearly not non-specific since it excludes the proposition "God does not exist". One again you are just claiming certain things to be true, without offering any justification. Hence, blind faith.
@leidenhag "clearly definable, such as omnipotence, omniscience etc." ....and paradoxical, therefore irrational. As I said, if you define it, you run into paradox, if you don't define it you are left with conjectured and highly suspect 'faith' a very overrated virtue. Why not offer evidence that Epicurus' famous argument is not paradoxical and thus reductio ad absurdum? You can't. I therefore proved that your proofs of your definable God are paradoxical and thust irrational.
@agentssith You have not shown that the traditional god-attributes are paradoxical. You are still just claiming things to be true. You are only claiming that the act of definition runs into a paradox, but you don´t offer any justification. As long as you don´t offer any argument against the traditional monotheistic view of God then a theist is rational in having that theistic belief.
@leidenhag@leidenhag "You have not shown that the traditional god-attributes are paradoxical" LOL. Don't have to. Epicurus already did. A long time ago. Perhaps you have not heard of it?
No 'free will', monism, or Euthyphro fallacy gets you out of it.
Good video, a breath of fresh air over against the stifling materialism so many view as uniquely scientific. Nice to see it all pulled together by a philosopher of Ward's calibre too - very eloquent, makes Dawkins and his ilk look quite archaic.
BTW, anyone else think the guy introducing Ward looks/sounds like Jack Straw? :P
@heeh2 Well, I would certainly agree with Ward. If there isn't any external reason to doubt my belief in the existence of God, then why should I do it?
@leidenhag The hideous stories of murder, death and punishment by a petty jealous and immature god, is more than enough reason to know it is totally man-made. The other clincher, is that there are 1000s of religions. Just what you'd expect if religion was created by humans.
@heeh2 You obviously did not understand my comment. I can hold to a belief X if you do not have any external reason to disbelieve X. Your comment fail since we have many scientific reasons to disbelieve the proposition "the world is flat". The god-belief, on the other hand, does not conflict with any empirical findings. Thus, I can hold the belief that God exist.
@heeh2 I am not proposing a non overlapping magesteria. This view that "we are entitled to believe X, if there isn't any external reason to disbelieve X", is a part of reason. Our reason, our capacity to draw logical conclusion, to do basic and advanced math, to respond to different sense perception, is a part of science. Reason, however cannot be proven, we have to trust in our ability to reason correctly. So in science too, there is a dimension of trust, just as in the area of religion.
beautifully said - this would also be a really good answer for those who equate Santa Clause with God. We have plenty of evidence that suggest Santa doesn't exist - so there is no need to believe in him - God on the other hand...
@heeh2 I was going through your entire video until I realized, "Wow, you're an idiot! The title of this video mentions God in it. Are you so intellectually shallow that you haven't even realized that Keith Ward was a theist while speaking in this video." Please, ask mother nature to give you a better evolved brain.
The problem is that a guy defending Theism starts with a complete bull statement like that. He also gets the flying teapot wrong. The idea of the teapot isn't to be used as an analogy to God. The purpose of the teapot is to show where the burden of proof lies.
Also, you'd think a defense of "theism" would amount to more than a deist argument. The "new-atheists" in general talk about dogmatic claims about the nature of god, not about people who "feel" there might be a consciousness.
just a thought, if humans but had another sense, that "saw" as much as our eyes, we'd likely solve this and many other debates
gr8vibes2 3 months ago
Keith Ward for the win.
gr8vibes2 3 months ago
Yes many people were indeed very obstinate and arrogant in times of the middle ages in ways that got in the way of progress. That is another characteristic of the people of that time that we should NOT emulate. There is no excuse to not be rigorous and fair. If you honestly think the time for honest argument is over, and it's time to pull out the clubs to get through our "thick skulls" then you have become the monster you hate. I will reason with you and I will keep an open mind, lets talk.
thirdcreed 4 months ago
Ah! You're right.
Jugglable 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What is a "new" atheist actually? This is pretty fuckin stupid since atheism is just no belief in a god.Its been around since man walked on the planet.
Killer0fTheSun 6 months ago
@Killer0fTheSun
Just another way to try and split people up Id say.
Stupid people in large groups are dangerous. But Intelligent people in a sizable group would be catastrophic to their cause.
Marazish 4 months ago
Ward, as so many other theists, defines his god in a particular way. Some call it "ground of being." He says "intelligent consciousness." At the end of his talk, Ward simply makes assertions and appeals to authority to justify his idea. Ultimately, Ward's ideas do not compel me at all. They are based in wishful thinking without any evidence at all. Typical of theists, he asserts that magic exists! New atheists do NOT reduce the humanities to the sciences!!!!!! What a silly statement!!!!
Nodelusionnow 7 months ago
A belief in an invisible, imaginary agency (invisible sky wizard) requires evidence, however "natural" it may seem. One of the most powerful things about science is "truth" is always provisional. Again: Ward should consult with physicists. It's always so frustraing to listen to scientifically illiterate people tell scientists what science is---and then use that to justify the existence of their invisible friends!
Nodelusionnow 7 months ago
@Nodelusionnow Yeah ofcourse, I as a Christian believe in a 'invisible sky wizard'.... Go and read a "Philosophical" heavy weight book like The God Delusion if you love it so much. There are arguments for Gods existence, if you don't find them convincing, then okey, but stop your ridicule and try to build a rational case without Ad-Hominem.
TheisticThinker 7 months ago 2
Ward focuses much too much on physics as an example of science. What a ridiculous assertion that we can't know what is real! With that idea, ANTYTHING is an option. Science offers explanations that WORK. Ward simply re-hashes the Thomistic first cause stuff. He ought to consult with Frank Krauss before getting so far over his head in all of this. For Ward to use quantum theory to justify miracles is simply RIDICULOUS. Ward is repeatedly completely out of his league here.
Nodelusionnow 7 months ago
Who is to say that "natural" is the defined in the way Ward says? Not Dawkins! Ward knows little of science, typical of so many philosophers. No wonder so many scientists find philosophers so lacking. Ward somehow knows exactly what his god is like. How? Through argument? No evidence? Of course not. When I hear a guy like this, I'm reminded of delusional psychotics! Ward and others constantly change what they mean by god, but it's always merely imaginary.
Nodelusionnow 7 months ago
Bertrand Russell is the real founder of the New Atheism. Why would it be a mystery that people today are examining religion and the existence of a god or gods. Of course belief in a god is "natural"---we've evolved a large degree of tendency to accept invisible agency for comfort and explanation. Ward is undoubtedly an atheist---he doesn't believe in Zeus or Thor or any of thousands of other gods. For some reason, he likes a particular god. Why? Typical of philosophers, he alters definitions.
Nodelusionnow 7 months ago
where theirs no laws of nature in the bible or anything about the outside universe because no-one back then would have gotten what it meant. We just found out this centuary there is a place outside our solar system. How do you think people 2,000 years ago would have thought if they were told about the universe? They would have had no idea what it ment.
beardigady 8 months ago
Talk of Sky God and flying spaghetti monsters, it is not meaningful at all as Dr. Ward points out, it is only scorn.
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." Psalm 1:1
"Behold, YE DESPISERS, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." (Acts 13:41) <-- ref. death, burial, and Resurrection of Christ.
Enoch2 8 months ago
this is a brilliant talk. (this is coming from an agnostic btw)
ttasi7 8 months ago
Keith Ward here says the quantum vacuum is outside of space and time. But it actually has its own spacetime fabric and its own past spacetime boundary, according to Stephen Hawking's new book.
Jugglable 11 months ago
Keith has a great photo on his Wikipedia page! This is an engaging and intelligent talk, but he dropped the ball at the beginning by dismissing russell's teapot so flippantly. It's a common error to present Russell's analogy as merely criticising the QUALITIES of religious belief, when it's main thrust is really how religious belief QUALIFIES itself (or rather fails to).
beerathon 11 months ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Do you have any justification for the proposition that "the only reasonable approach in not to believe in God unless you have a reason to"? You seem to base that on faith.
leidenhag 1 year ago
"The faith of Cosmology"? Yeah... I'm gonna stop there.
robolith 1 year ago
What is the word he uses, that sounds like NONOLOGY? How is it spelled. I just don't know the word.
YaxisX 1 year ago
@YaxisX I think it's nomological.
beerathon 11 months ago
Thanks for the upload
imkluu 1 year ago
What is the difference between the New Atheist and an Old Atheist?
MewCat100 1 year ago
@MewCat100 the new atheist are more aggressive but less sophisticated, than the old atheists.
leidenhag 1 year ago 2
@leidenhag That seems a rather arbitrary distinction. What makes them less sophisticated?
MewCat100 1 year ago
@leidenhag
The times in general are less supportive of sophisticated actions, but more to the heart of the issue,
One needs a large club to get threw a thick skull.
Hundreds or thousands of years of "I told you so's", evidence, and even proof, have us standing in this situation.
anyways It's time to just decide we don't want to wait around and let religion to continue holding us back any longer.
They had their turn, It was called the dark ages; Not exactly a shining example of prosperity.
Marazish 5 months ago
@Marazish Dark ages were the result of poor arguments, people stopped trying to seek the truth fairly. Never be on the side of unreasonableness.
thirdcreed 4 months ago
@thirdcreed
Last i heard it was because a bunch of nuts went out and burned heretics a books.
around that time, people were dieing from the plague because it was "unchristian" to try and figure out how to treat the wound.
Didn't we lose like 2/3'rds of our population?
It seems medicine is an uphill battle but once the research is complete, everybody is willing to use it if it will save their life.
Marazish 4 months ago
Sorry Dr. Ward. When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.
tristan9812 1 year ago
Gotta love theists, they have no rational argument, no evidence to backup their beliefs, and instead insert conversation stopping words like "faith" to try and convince people that their position is somehow respectable. Faith isn't a respectable notion. Faith, in theism terms at least, is a belief based on zero evidence. That's an affront to our critical thinking values, and to rationalism. Faith opens the door for all zany religions, b/c we then abandon the use of evidence.
Theism FTL.
coil311 1 year ago
@coil311 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh
What is delusional about not believing in invisible sky magicians? What is delusional about requiring evidence to form beliefs? Sorry, you're not really convincing me why theists are not deluded, unless of course, you provide evidence of some sort of deity. Good luck with that, though. Theists have been trying to prove a god exists for about 5000 years, and have never provided one single shred of evidence in all those millenia. Hence, they insert the word "faith" - no evidence.
coil311 1 year ago
@coil311 There's plenty of evidence. I just don't see why you can't be open minded enough to agree with it except flippantly waving it off and saying "nope, you have no evidence."
rfvidz 1 year ago
@coil311 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?
How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@coil311 Do you have any evidence to back up your ranting, or do you take it on faith?
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag
Do I have any evidence to show that theists don't have any evidence? Sorry, the burden of proof is upon those making extraordinary claims. Those who claims an invisible magician exists much therefore provide the evidence. You apparently have a fundamental misunderstanding about burdens of proof, and who has the responsibility. Those that believe in deities must provide the evidence. Thus far, none have, ever. Therefore, I remain a non-believer until evidence is shown.
coil311 1 year ago
@coil31 It is you who do not understand my argument. So your atheist clichés are irrelevant. I am arguing that "I can trust my experience X, if there isn't any external reason that should make me doubt X". For example, I am rationally entitled to believe that I see a tree, if I don't have any reason to suppose that my experience is incorrect. For example because of bad eyesight. So If I believe that God exist, and I have no external reason to doubt that experience then I am rationally justified
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag What a joke. Are you saying that because humans can experience the undefined or unexplained, that it is OK to define that very undefined thing? A 'definition' that only you create and accept for your self is a delusion. You will not find any two people who 'define' this 'undefined' the same way. It therefore becomes 'mass delusion' . This sometimes known as self-fulfilling prophecy. Problem is, self-fulfilling prophecy is much easier to run in the entropic direction (you=reverse).
agentssith 1 year ago
@agentssith "You will not find any two people who 'define' this 'undefined' the same way." Well, I believe that´s obvioulsy false. I know many Christians, Muslims, and Jews who carries similar conceptions of God. Hence, religions. So if a monotheist has an experience of a being that is transcendent, all knowing and all loving, and has no external reason to doubt that belief, then he is rational in adopting that belief. Why wouldnt he be? Give an argument.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag "...and has no external reason to doubt that belief". You have no external reason to *confirm* this belief save for a fellow delusional or delusional institutions and tradition. Therefore it is irrational to adopt the belief to be 'publicly' defended. Such a belief can at most be 'institutional' and is indefensible outside the institution. 2 things are required for rational reality: It must be observable to *any* rational observer and it must be universally communicable to the same.
agentssith 1 year ago
@agentssith "You have no external reason to *confirm* this belief save for a fellow delusional or delusional institutions and tradition." You still don't get the argument. A person P is rationally entitled to believe X, if and only if, if X is not undermined by any known argument/discovery/known fact. If you claim that we have to have evidence for all our beliefs, then provide some evidence for that belief. I'm pretty sure you cant. Hence the fallacy of evidentialism.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag You don't get your own argument. "rationally entitled" ≠ "rational".
As to your challenge. Try this on for size: suppose you were born with no senses whatsoever. No sight, no hearing, smell, taste, touch. Please specify what your beliefs would be in the absence of the capacity for evidence or observation, and prove that you could 1. assemble the belief to begin with and 2. hold and maintain the belief. Please supply your communicable empirical evidence (personal or otherwise).
agentssith 1 year ago
@agentssith So instead I propose that P is rational in adopting belief X if there isn't any evidence that contradicts X, which would mean that a god-belief is rationally justified for P, if it doesn't exist any known facts that should contradict that god-belief. You are claiming that a theist is irrational if he cant provide any argument for a theistic belief, and you don´t offer any justification for that claim. You are merely stating an opinion right now, and an unjustified opinion.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag paradoxical beliefs are precisely self contradictory. I will sit back and watch and laugh as you attempt another undefinition along the lines of: God is outside of space and time (and thus not subject to anthropocentric DEFINITION), blah blah blah....
agentssith 1 year ago
@leidenhag Are you stating that it is rational to believe something so long as there is no evidence contradicting it?
MewCat100 1 year ago
@MewCat100 Yes, that is correct. It is rational to believe X, if X is not contradicted by any empirical discovery, known fact, or sound argument.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag Therefore, the burden of proof is on you once again to prove that atheists are irrational. With all of your babbling, this is what your message boils down to: your claim that atheism is irrational while theism is not. As a so-called spiritual atheist, I believe in transcendent being (with no guarantees), not *a* transcendent being (complete with guarantees) as you would. Please stop embarrassing yourself and learn the difference. And give a proper argument, not garbage.
Good luck.
agentssith 1 year ago
@agentssith I've never claimed that atheists are irrational! Try reading my comments!! I am claiming that a theist is rational in adopting a theistic belief,(the proposition that God exist) if there isn't any external reason to doubt that belief. Thats it. Not very hard to understand. If you deny that then show why, a theist is irrational in adopting a theistic belief.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag Well I am saying that theism is irrational. You can't even succinctly state your belief and keep it in well defined boundaries. Such a non-specific open ended belief which has no evidentiary basis *IS* irrational. Look, nobody said you can't hold an irrational belief. Just stop trying to rationalize it, because you never will. As soon as you keep it well defined it will be debunked. If you leave it open ended, you have no way of establishing its veracity except by 'faith'.
agentssith 1 year ago
@agentssith You´re still not getting the argument. You are just claiming that a person is irrational if he adopts a belief without evidence. The trouble is that we would all be irrational if we follow that criteria. We cannot prove logical laws, or the existence of mathematical abstract objects, the existence of an external world, that other people have minds (do I need to go on?).
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag We have evidence for all of what you listed. These concepts are both communicable and can have predictive effects. What we do not have is evidence for an integral, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, super-spacetime pre-existing deity called God® which is evidentiary enough to be predictive (inductive) in ANY WAY.
agentssith 1 year ago
@agentssith You are not getting the point. We don´t have any evidence "against" the classical theistic god-definition. Therefore a theist is rational in accepting that belief. But, if new discoveries comes up that would show that the the classical concept of God is mistaken, then a theist is no longer rational in believing in God.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag Wrong. There is no evidence against your undefinition of God®, which is why you keep going back to it. As far as the classical definition, how many married bachelors are there in the world? The reductio ad absurdum of Epicurus represents your contradiction. Now I suppose you want to posit the unfounded claim that an extra-paradoxical free will (which you also have not proven exists) is of a higher virtue than the elimination of evil? Where is your proof of this?
agentssith 1 year ago
@leidenhag : At most, what we know about the universe implies a pantheistic / pandeistic God like we find in eg. Advaita Vedanta. There is no rational reason whatsoever to suggest the existence of a big daddy in the sky as presented by Abrahamic religion. Only by taking a huge leap of faith and ignoring rational thought can one take such a belief seriously.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker First of all. The god-conception of Advaita Vedanta, expressed by Shankara, is meaningless since god is equivalent with nature. God becomes just another name for the universe, Why just not call it the universe?.... Second; theism is not the belief in a big daddy, but a Supreme Being that is the cause of everything that exists. Third; there are rational arguments for the existence of God. For example the Cosmological argument is a pretty good one.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leiden "Third; there are rational arguments for the existence of God. For example the Cosmological argument is a pretty good one."
That argument could apply to either a deist,or theist God.It's illogical to use the cosmological argument for the existence of God, then make a 'quantum leap' to linking it to a theist God(s).These types of arguments are always ladened with dishonesty,since the religious always have to resort to 'special pleading' when faced with the question of what created God.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy Deism (the proposition that there exists a God, but that God doesn't interact with humans) is a form of theism (the proposition that God exists). A theist does not claim that the cosmological argument can prove the existence of a "personal" God, and that is not the point of the argument. To prove that we have a personal rather than a impersonal God, we can add additional arguments, such as the argument for the resurrection of Jesus, or the moral argument.
leidenhag 11 months ago
Comment removed
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
Comment removed
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
(Oops) A theistic God is one that not only created the universe,but also interferes with it(a personal God of prayer for example).That is different from the concept of a deistic God, that although created the universe, doesn't interfere with it in any way.There is no evidence,outside of the bible,that Jesus resurrected(not to mention,there are identical stories,that predate Christ).Morals don't come from god,they are based on 'synergy' between biology,and social ideology(a moral zeitgeist).
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@leidenhag You've got it backwards. Theism is a kind of deism, not vice-versa.
Jugglable 11 months ago
Comment removed
leidenhag 6 months ago
@Jugglable That is absolutely false. I promise you. With a masters degree I can assure you that you will not find any philosophical textbook that makes the claim that theism is a form of deism. If you believe that, then you have to back it up with facts.
leidenhag 6 months ago
@pillsareyummy "These types of arguments are always ladened with dishonesty,since the religious always have to resort to 'special pleading' when faced with the question of what created God."
If you're asking what caused God, you haven't grasped most arguments for God's existence. They are saying we must come to an ORIGINAL being, a beginning, a necessarily existing being that contains within itself the reason for its own existence. It doesn't make sense to ask what's before the origin.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Juggl.. Yes, I've 'grasped' the arguments. My point, is that those who make them state that 'everything' must have a cause, and they use that logic to argue for the existence of God. However, when it comes to God, the conveniently toss that logic out the window (special pleading) by placing God outside any meaningful paradigm of measurement, in short they place him in the realm of the 'supernatural'. Also, the mind is hardwired to think like that, so we're biased toward that way of thinking.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
If you're going to state that complexity ensures a 'creator', then what created 'it'?You can't use that logic for the existence of God,then discard it when you come to God.That's special pleading pure and simple. Further,you can't make the 'leap' and state that it was your particular God.Those that make these types of arguments, like WLC, pander to our reason and intuitions.However, science has repeatably shown us, the universe seldom behaves in ways that we would call reasonable or intuitive.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy WLC usually offers a bunch of arguments that could be accepted by ANY believer in ANY monotheism. Or even by a generic deist! That's not a "leap" to his religion. He does offer one uniquely Christian argument, though, based on the resurrection, but that's straightforwardly an argument for the Christian God without "leaping" to it or smuggling it in.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable You can't use the bible, that has NO historical evidence for it's supernatural claims (like the resurrection) outside of Christian theology. Thus, you can't say that because the universe 'appears' to be designed, therefore there is a God, then argue it's your God because of scripture found in some ancient 'story book' written over two thousand years ago in the Bronze age.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy " that has NO historical evidence for it's supernatural claims (like the resurrection) outside of Christian theology" Well, if somebody believed in the resurrection, they'd be Christian. So to say nobody believes in the resurrection outside of Christianity is pretty obvious. Even atheist scholars will use the Bible to determine historical facts. The same documents they use to determine those facts also report miracles, so they reject them based on philosophical grounds.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy "then argue it's your God because of scripture found in some ancient 'story book' written over two thousand years ago in the Bronze age." Well, even atheist historians will call those "story book" gospels historical documents. And what does the Bronze Age have to do with it? Atheists like to throw that around (Hitchens started it) because they want to sound like they know something about history. An idea isn't true or false based on what CONTINUED...
Jugglable 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy ...continued: based on what age it originated in. Pythagoras is also from the Bronze Age. I suppose everything he said is false?
My reasons for believing in the resurrection are based upon facts I've heard atheists accept. The conversion of Paul, the origin of the Christian faith and belief in the resurrection despite great predisposition to the contrary, the empty tomb of Jesus, and the beauty of the message.
Jugglable 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pillsareyummy "because the universe 'appears' to be designed, therefore there is a God" I think that's quite the straw man. Look up the principle of charity.
"how do you know that you're not being biased with regards to your 'logic' concerning it" I am biased. Everybody approaches this issue with some bias.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy "If you're going to state that complexity ensures a 'creator', then what created 'it'?"
OK, this is a criticism of the teleological argument (though not a good one!). That's just one kind of argument.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable And as I alluded to in my previous comment, we appear to be hardwired to see agency, due do what we learn as we grow, and no doubt do to genetics that we inherited from our distant ancestors (might want to brush up on your biological psychology). Thus, we are biased toward teleological arguments, even though it's more logical to hold to more anthropic arguments until true evidence (not philosophical woo woo) discredits them.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy Yeah, we are hardwired to see agency in the universe. But beware the genetic fallacy, which is trying to discredit a view by talking about how one comes to hold it (brush up on your logic). I'm hardwired for my eye to tell me there is light. That doesn't undermine the existence of light.
And again, you are only criticizing one form of one kind of argument for God's existence.
Jugglable 11 months ago
Comment removed
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
If you're hard wired for it (seeing agency),then how do you know that you're not being biased with regards to your 'logic' concerning it?Much of what we have learned about the universe didn't/doesn't make logical nor intuitive sense to us . And what 'genetic fallacy' are you speaking of? Also,your light analogy doesn't apply,especially if you're going to use it as a rebuttal to my previous comment.Light, unlike God,can be 'measured'! God can only be inferred (via "interpretation" of nature).
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy "Light, unlike God,can be 'measured'!"
You've missed my point. The point that I'm making is that if we are hard-wired to believe something, that doesn't make it untrue.
"God can only be inferred (via "interpretation" of nature)."
The same can be said of the quantum realm. So what?
Jugglable 11 months ago
@JugglableThe reports of miracles are rejected because of 'lack of evidence'. When it comes to the claims of, for example, the origins of the universe or life itself, the time in which the claims were made are relevant. The fact that nobody understood biology or physics (for example) at the time these "facts" were written plays a rather large role concerning there validity.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy "The fact that nobody understood biology or physics (for example) at the time these "facts" were written plays a rather large role concerning there validity."
The reasons why the disciples made a big deal out of their belief in the resurrection wasn't because they didn't understand they dead people don't come back to life. They made a big deal out of it because they DID understand that.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@JugglableAs I said, stories of resurrections weren't uncommon during the time that Christianity was being created. For example, many Asian 'sun Gods' played with this motif. However, I'm no expert in this area of discourse, so... However, people 'coming back from the dead' was a concept that predates Christ. The best example I can give is the concept of 'vampirism' (which predates Stoker's Dracula by thousands of years). It wasn't something new during the time of Christ.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy "people 'coming back from the dead' was a concept that predates Christ."
Sure. But an eschatological resurrection is different than coming back from the dead. Before the resurrection of Jesus many Jews didn't believe in life after death, and only the most hopeful Jews hoped for a general resurrection of all humanity at the end of time. One thing they certainly weren't expecting was an incarnation, or an executed messiah. Or after that, a resurrected one.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy They didn't understand a lot of things, like disease, but they could still give an account of a sick person. Whether they were telling the truth about saying they saw Jesus risen from the dead doesn't really depend on their scientific knowledge.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@JugglableI was speaking of the accounts of the bible that address things that they couldn't have known about at the time (like the universe). I wasn't commenting on the Resurrection, and as I stated, those stories weren't new at the time. And there is a difference between stating that one is ill, and 'what' is causing the illness.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy I'm surprised to hear you used to be a Catholic but then to hear you criticize the Bible's commentary on the universe. The Catholic tradition offers such a rich interpretation of differing genres of Biblical text. I cannot urge you strongly enough to check out /watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable I would agree that Catholicism is the best out of all the Christian sects as far as science is concerned. I learned about evolution, an ancient universe, etc from my classes (I went to catholic schools for a while). Ironically, it wasn't until I became an atheist that I became aware that certain Christians hold other, shall we say, silly views. However, the church has some pretty strange practises (like celibacy); not to mention all the rape that goes unchecked (that is s 'sin').
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy " the church has some pretty strange practises (like celibacy); not to mention all the rape that goes unchecked (that is s 'sin')."
Well, celibacy is what's called a discipline. It can be overturned and is something we do for now, not an aspect of Catholic doctrine. And yes, there has been corruption in the church, but when people mistreat children it does not call into question Catholic dogma and in fact is against the teachings of Christ.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy "what 'genetic fallacy' are you speaking of?"
The genetic fallacy: to try to disprove a belief by talking about how one comes to hold it. If we come to belief in God based on the wiring of our brains, that doesn't call into question the truth of the belief. In fact it fits squarely with my worldview, which says we are made for God.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@JugglableThe 'origin' of the Christian faith can be traced back to other beliefs that came before it. Virgins births(which appears to be a typo from the Hebrew of the book of Isaiah to the Greek of the Septuagint), Crucifixions, claims of miracles, Resurrections,just to name a few, aren't relegated to Christianity,similar stories exist (Apolnoius of Tyana for example).And as I stated, there is no historical consensus for the supernatural claims of Christianity outside of christian theology.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy Apollonius of Tyana post-dates Jesus. And Jesus is not based on prior pagan mythology. That idea has been dead, at least in academia, since the 19th century. Even atheist historians will say Jesus was crucified. If you think the crucifixion of Jesus is based on prior stories, give me a primary source.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable Stories of those being put to death for their beliefs wasn't new during the time of Christ either (whether or not they were crucified is irrelevant). For example, the trail and death of Socrates has a similar motif (without the miracles, virgin births,etc). Whether or not he existed, or was just a character of Plato is another story. However, miracle claims, virgin births,etc, again weren't new at the time of Christ. However, I'm no expert in this area of discourse either, so...
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy I also strongly urge you to check out the atheist podcast called Reasonable Doubts. Yes, I'm recommending an atheist podcast! Listen to their podcast on whether Jesus is based on prior mythology. They are smart, informed atheists, and think that when people say Jesus is based on prior stories it makes it hard to take atheists seriously. In any case, I am enjoying our conversation, and thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Ju. Many of the motifs found in Christianity weren't new,however,I can't comment beyond that since I'm no theologian.It's not that I disregard the concept of God out of hand.However, when it comes to the religion, all religion, even as a child I was starting to recognize that God, at least the christian version, was a little too anthropomorphic. God acts like we do, and if there is a God, I would think that it would be so far advanced from us (in every way), it would be incomprehensible to us.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy I certainly agree that God is incomprehensible. I can't understand this computer. Not even one molecule of it. If I could understand God, that's not much of a God. However, it doesn't mean we can't trust THAT God exists, with good reason, or that we can't experience God somewhat in this life. If we take an infinite God and try to squeeze it into finite concepts, we always come up short. However, to say that God is a mind, etc. does gesture toward the divine reality.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable Oh, nice talking with you as well. Another good atheist program is the 'atheist experience'. Which can be found on You Tube.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy I have watched the atheist experience. I really like hearing smart atheists because they force me to think and a faith worth having is worth questioning. I don't like the new atheists, though, unless they're actually philosophers. Also, it feels good to know that I haven't shied away from criticism, that I've sought out the smartest critics, and that my faith, in my view, still emerges head and shoulders over the brightest atheists.
Jugglable 11 months ago 2
@Jugglable Quantum mechanics (the standard model) can be tested (measured) to an astounding degree of accuracy. Not to mention, it plays a practical role as well, in the form of modern technology (like the computer you're using right now). Again, it's something that can be tested and even applied; you can't say the same thing about the concept of God,since there is no evidence that can be tested, in any meaningful way, to confirm the 'God hypothesis'. Only inferences can be made.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@pillsareyummy "Only inferences can be made." I'd agree. I don't think belief in God is a hypothesis and I don't think it offers predictive power. Doesn't really say anything about whether inferring God's existence is a legitimate inference.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable Also, I'm an Agnostic Atheist. I'm open to the concept of God, however, I don't 'believe' in the Gods of religion, simply because the stories that are told in them, are to me at least, silly. However, there is good evidence that Christ existed, however, there is no evidence for the claims of the supernatural that surround him. I also used to be a Catholic, and I quite enjoyed hearing about the teachings of Christ. In many ways he was a great man, however, to me, he was only a man.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@Jugglable If our brains our hardwired to see agency, then it's logical to assume that those ancient instincts are playing a role in how we 'see' ourselves and the universe. It also explains why we have had so many different Gods throughout history (as well as the present), which of course were/are all different. Thus, it's more logical to assume that we created the concept of God(s) based on our predispositions, molding them to fit the social scripts available at the time they were created.
pillsareyummy 11 months ago
@agentssith Btw. this talk of non-specific open ended belief is just gibberish. Classical theism is not non-specific, it consists of a collection of propositions, or attrubutes, that are clearly definable, such as omnipotence, omniscience etc. A proposition such as "God exist" is clearly not non-specific since it excludes the proposition "God does not exist". One again you are just claiming certain things to be true, without offering any justification. Hence, blind faith.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag "clearly definable, such as omnipotence, omniscience etc." ....and paradoxical, therefore irrational. As I said, if you define it, you run into paradox, if you don't define it you are left with conjectured and highly suspect 'faith' a very overrated virtue. Why not offer evidence that Epicurus' famous argument is not paradoxical and thus reductio ad absurdum? You can't. I therefore proved that your proofs of your definable God are paradoxical and thust irrational.
agentssith 1 year ago
@agentssith You have not shown that the traditional god-attributes are paradoxical. You are still just claiming things to be true. You are only claiming that the act of definition runs into a paradox, but you don´t offer any justification. As long as you don´t offer any argument against the traditional monotheistic view of God then a theist is rational in having that theistic belief.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag @leidenhag "You have not shown that the traditional god-attributes are paradoxical" LOL. Don't have to. Epicurus already did. A long time ago. Perhaps you have not heard of it?
No 'free will', monism, or Euthyphro fallacy gets you out of it.
agentssith 1 year ago
Fantastic easy to understand logical sensible breakdown. I like this guy, similar sort of arguments to Dr. WLC =)
cyberdems 1 year ago
good video. thank you
lilrat489 1 year ago
Haha, "reasonable to believe in God unless you have no reason not to"...I love how he's calling other people shallow with logic like that.
lokhtar 1 year ago
Good video, a breath of fresh air over against the stifling materialism so many view as uniquely scientific. Nice to see it all pulled together by a philosopher of Ward's calibre too - very eloquent, makes Dawkins and his ilk look quite archaic.
BTW, anyone else think the guy introducing Ward looks/sounds like Jack Straw? :P
ScottyVOR 1 year ago 2
I was going to sit through this entire video.....and then he said "its reasonable to believe in god unless you have a reason not to".
heeh2 1 year ago
@heeh2 Well, I would certainly agree with Ward. If there isn't any external reason to doubt my belief in the existence of God, then why should I do it?
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag The hideous stories of murder, death and punishment by a petty jealous and immature god, is more than enough reason to know it is totally man-made. The other clincher, is that there are 1000s of religions. Just what you'd expect if religion was created by humans.
Futureplanet 1 year ago
@leidenhag
Keep thinking the world is flat then....
heeh2 1 year ago
@heeh2 You obviously did not understand my comment. I can hold to a belief X if you do not have any external reason to disbelieve X. Your comment fail since we have many scientific reasons to disbelieve the proposition "the world is flat". The god-belief, on the other hand, does not conflict with any empirical findings. Thus, I can hold the belief that God exist.
leidenhag 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@leidenhag I mean "I can hold to a belief X if I do not have any external reason to disbelieve X
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag
Then call it non overlapping magesteria.... do NOT call it reason or logic, because it is anything but that.
heeh2 1 year ago
@heeh2 I am not proposing a non overlapping magesteria. This view that "we are entitled to believe X, if there isn't any external reason to disbelieve X", is a part of reason. Our reason, our capacity to draw logical conclusion, to do basic and advanced math, to respond to different sense perception, is a part of science. Reason, however cannot be proven, we have to trust in our ability to reason correctly. So in science too, there is a dimension of trust, just as in the area of religion.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag
You've said enough lol....
heeh2 1 year ago
@heeh2 "lol". Typical atheist response when they run out of one-liners.
leidenhag 1 year ago
@leidenhag
beautifully said - this would also be a really good answer for those who equate Santa Clause with God. We have plenty of evidence that suggest Santa doesn't exist - so there is no need to believe in him - God on the other hand...
aveyowyns 1 year ago
@heeh2
no objective or verifiable basis for such belief seems like a good reason not to
MillySimonneandJames 1 year ago
@heeh2 I was going through your entire video until I realized, "Wow, you're an idiot! The title of this video mentions God in it. Are you so intellectually shallow that you haven't even realized that Keith Ward was a theist while speaking in this video." Please, ask mother nature to give you a better evolved brain.
rfvidz 1 year ago
@rfvidz
The problem is that a guy defending Theism starts with a complete bull statement like that. He also gets the flying teapot wrong. The idea of the teapot isn't to be used as an analogy to God. The purpose of the teapot is to show where the burden of proof lies.
Also, you'd think a defense of "theism" would amount to more than a deist argument. The "new-atheists" in general talk about dogmatic claims about the nature of god, not about people who "feel" there might be a consciousness.
TumshieX 1 year ago
@heeh2 Bad excuse
MetaphysicsAddict 1 year ago