One of my biggest problems with self-proclaimed "former athiests" is my judgement (subjective) that it is impossible to be an athiest without knowing of the God of which you claim to not exist. If it was upon studing christianity that you converted, you can't claim to be an athiest, simply uninformed. Athiesm is the rejection of the idea that there is a God, based on (lack of) evidence. Athiesm is a choice, not a position to be temporarily held until unsubstantiated beliefs overtake you.
Does anyone out there know how I can intentionally get cancer? You see, I want to study it, and test it, and possibly cure it, and I can't do that without living it, apparently, so, can someone help me? Anyone?
Yes. They can be sincerely wrong, but they are honest with what they do. If they know that what they are doing is all wrong they won't be Christian. In Gods That Fail Vinoth Ramachandra has written an essay on comparism between Scientific epistemology & Christian epistemology. He discussed the works of Descartes-Kuhn- Polanyi-Newbegin et al.
Christian writers like Alasdair McIntyre & Alvin Plantinga have written much on it. Alister himself has written much on Epistemology of Science/Theology.
Alister's book Scientific Theology which is a series of three fat books published by Cambridge University Press is one of the important books on the subject.
You can also see Denver Seminary's journal and check out how the prof there review others' works. Even otherwise books are published back and forth to challenge other's position. There is Counterpoints series where diff scholars holding diff positions debate. In fact, age of the earth is also a hotly debated issue within Christian family.
@ Daniel, Christianity has built in mechanisms like peer review etc.
I think critiquing each religion individually does much justice to that particular religion. One just can't say that religious people fly planes into building and then go on to critique Buddhism or Christianity.
3.I think that there are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism, of all the species: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as countless smaller infections. Is there a conflict between science and religion here? There most certainly is. [Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea]
I would like to know exactly why you think that, because from my perspective as a Christian I don't see any incompatibility between the natural sciences and my belief in God. How are they incompatible?
The answer is a no brainer. There are thousand of religions and gods each making claims that are mostly incompatible with one another and you dont have any way of pondering the truth behind them.
Science on the other hand as a method work in the opposite direction clarifing wich statement about a certain phenomena is more likely to be true. At the core of science works a mechanism that is not only incompatible but destructive to religion and belief in the supernatural.
I couldn't disagree more. As much as I appreciate the natural sciences they clearly have their limits. Questions about the existence of God and the supernatural are not questions that science can answer so how could the scientific method, which only searches for natural causes disprove the supernatural? It cannot simply because it transcends the methodological constraints of science.
First i find rather interesting that you like many other believers i encounter avoid the contradiction in within and in between beliefs. You just address a point the pleasent and not the unpleasant points i arise.
First at all you need to show that there is such a thing as the supernatural to even begin to argue special pleas for what science can or cannot do in respect of it.
No one has ever show that such a thing as the supernatural exist, so to begin with your point is arid.
Moreover you or your belief are not supernatural, there are within the scope of science (take neurobiology or neuropsycology) and it could be capable of explaining why you or anybody else believe in god.
If belief can be explained within the framework of science, making the asumption of god is superflous. Some antropologist have pointed out with certain mockery that one can build any belief system keeping the form of it and changing the subject of it, take for example scientology or mormonism
Theology and the likes have failed to provide any epistemological method capable of solving issues like wheater any proposition including "god exist" is meaninful and more likely to be true or not.
My point was simply that the existence of God is beyond the scope of science. I don't find your argument very persuasive because even if our capacity for religion could be explained it would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore the belief is false. You might say that belief in God is simply wishful thinking or the result of fear and anxiety, and maybe for some people that's true, but that doesn't mean that God does not exist. The problem is that you are presupposing that atheism it true.
"fallacy to conclude that therefore the belief is false." good thing i never say that.
"You might say that belief in God is simply ...."
never say that.
The problem is that you are presupposing that atheism it true.
I presuppose nature is real, and that to accept anything you must show me that such thing exist. Otherwise I can assume it doesnt until you provide a coherent description of it and evidence for it.
It seems to me that your are trying to shift the burden of proof entirely over to me. I would agree that I share some epistemic responsibility to give good grounds for thinking that God exists, but I don't think you can just sit back and play the skeptic. You are making a knowledge claim "God does not exist". This proposition certainly requires justification. So you would need to give some good reasons to think that God does not exist to support your position.
I don't think I am misrepresenting the contentions that atheism makes. According to the Encyclopedia of philosophy; An atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God; that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition.
"First, an atheist is one who does not believe in God. Additionally, the atheist may or may not actually deny the existence of God. Second, agnosticism has two main streams. The soft agnostic does not know whether or not there is a God. The hard agnostic says one cannot know about the existence of God. Some people term this hard agnosticism as agnostic atheism. "
And even before that, since the word "god" is and empty placeholder i maintain the position of an ignostic. That is you must provide a meaninful and coherent definition of the word "god", more desired, a functional one.
If you provide that, then i consider the position of an agnostic (i have no knowldage of your propostion) , you must provide ways to justify your proposition, according to the type and magnitude of it.
If you fail i claim atheism, that is i dont believe in your proposition because it lacks of justificaction.
No proposition that has ever been presented to me, even if its barely coherent and meaningful to pass the ignostic test has ever been able to be justified properly, therefore i disbelief the general proposition that god or gods exist. period.
Dennett is stuck in a room full of strutting fools and blustering morons.
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
Comment removed
huwrj 1 month ago
One of my biggest problems with self-proclaimed "former athiests" is my judgement (subjective) that it is impossible to be an athiest without knowing of the God of which you claim to not exist. If it was upon studing christianity that you converted, you can't claim to be an athiest, simply uninformed. Athiesm is the rejection of the idea that there is a God, based on (lack of) evidence. Athiesm is a choice, not a position to be temporarily held until unsubstantiated beliefs overtake you.
judomuerte 1 year ago
Does anyone out there know how I can intentionally get cancer? You see, I want to study it, and test it, and possibly cure it, and I can't do that without living it, apparently, so, can someone help me? Anyone?
jamesharrel 2 years ago
@jamesharrel msg?
danxiie 1 year ago
Yes. They can be sincerely wrong, but they are honest with what they do. If they know that what they are doing is all wrong they won't be Christian. In Gods That Fail Vinoth Ramachandra has written an essay on comparism between Scientific epistemology & Christian epistemology. He discussed the works of Descartes-Kuhn- Polanyi-Newbegin et al.
Christian writers like Alasdair McIntyre & Alvin Plantinga have written much on it. Alister himself has written much on Epistemology of Science/Theology.
amairaja 2 years ago
Alister's book Scientific Theology which is a series of three fat books published by Cambridge University Press is one of the important books on the subject.
You can also see Denver Seminary's journal and check out how the prof there review others' works. Even otherwise books are published back and forth to challenge other's position. There is Counterpoints series where diff scholars holding diff positions debate. In fact, age of the earth is also a hotly debated issue within Christian family.
amairaja 2 years ago
@amairaja Scientific Theology? That is an oxymoron
nontheistdavid 8 months ago
@ Daniel, Christianity has built in mechanisms like peer review etc.
I think critiquing each religion individually does much justice to that particular religion. One just can't say that religious people fly planes into building and then go on to critique Buddhism or Christianity.
amairaja 2 years ago
Do you feel that Christianity's peer review is as credible as science's? If so, can you point me to some articles explaining how this is so?
klalkity 2 years ago
@klalkity I would say that it is generally as credible as atheism's. I wouldn't imagine that either are as credible as science's.
Lahi53 2 months ago
That sounds like Roger Scruton at 5:45.
polymath7 2 years ago
3.I think that there are no forces on this planet more dangerous to us all than the fanaticisms of fundamentalism, of all the species: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as countless smaller infections. Is there a conflict between science and religion here? There most certainly is. [Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea]
clubharrypotter 2 years ago
I would like to know exactly why you think that, because from my perspective as a Christian I don't see any incompatibility between the natural sciences and my belief in God. How are they incompatible?
astronomer747 2 years ago
The answer is a no brainer. There are thousand of religions and gods each making claims that are mostly incompatible with one another and you dont have any way of pondering the truth behind them.
Science on the other hand as a method work in the opposite direction clarifing wich statement about a certain phenomena is more likely to be true. At the core of science works a mechanism that is not only incompatible but destructive to religion and belief in the supernatural.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
I couldn't disagree more. As much as I appreciate the natural sciences they clearly have their limits. Questions about the existence of God and the supernatural are not questions that science can answer so how could the scientific method, which only searches for natural causes disprove the supernatural? It cannot simply because it transcends the methodological constraints of science.
astronomer747 2 years ago
First i find rather interesting that you like many other believers i encounter avoid the contradiction in within and in between beliefs. You just address a point the pleasent and not the unpleasant points i arise.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
First at all you need to show that there is such a thing as the supernatural to even begin to argue special pleas for what science can or cannot do in respect of it.
No one has ever show that such a thing as the supernatural exist, so to begin with your point is arid.
Moreover you or your belief are not supernatural, there are within the scope of science (take neurobiology or neuropsycology) and it could be capable of explaining why you or anybody else believe in god.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
If belief can be explained within the framework of science, making the asumption of god is superflous. Some antropologist have pointed out with certain mockery that one can build any belief system keeping the form of it and changing the subject of it, take for example scientology or mormonism
Theology and the likes have failed to provide any epistemological method capable of solving issues like wheater any proposition including "god exist" is meaninful and more likely to be true or not.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
My point was simply that the existence of God is beyond the scope of science. I don't find your argument very persuasive because even if our capacity for religion could be explained it would be a fallacy to conclude that therefore the belief is false. You might say that belief in God is simply wishful thinking or the result of fear and anxiety, and maybe for some people that's true, but that doesn't mean that God does not exist. The problem is that you are presupposing that atheism it true.
astronomer747 2 years ago
"My point was simply that the existence of God is beyond the scope of science. "
Gremlins are outside science too, that aint gonna make it more real, on the contraire.
"I don't find your argument very persuasive"
Im not in the business of persuading people, i leave that to apologist.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
"fallacy to conclude that therefore the belief is false." good thing i never say that.
"You might say that belief in God is simply ...."
never say that.
The problem is that you are presupposing that atheism it true.
I presuppose nature is real, and that to accept anything you must show me that such thing exist. Otherwise I can assume it doesnt until you provide a coherent description of it and evidence for it.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
It seems to me that your are trying to shift the burden of proof entirely over to me. I would agree that I share some epistemic responsibility to give good grounds for thinking that God exists, but I don't think you can just sit back and play the skeptic. You are making a knowledge claim "God does not exist". This proposition certainly requires justification. So you would need to give some good reasons to think that God does not exist to support your position.
astronomer747 2 years ago
"God does not exist"
where did i say that?
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
Are you an agnostic then?
astronomer747 2 years ago
sure, im agnostic atheist. An following your next reply, i think you misunderstand what is the proposition an agnostic and/or an atheist make.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
I don't think I am misrepresenting the contentions that atheism makes. According to the Encyclopedia of philosophy; An atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God; that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition.
astronomer747 2 years ago
"First, an atheist is one who does not believe in God. Additionally, the atheist may or may not actually deny the existence of God. Second, agnosticism has two main streams. The soft agnostic does not know whether or not there is a God. The hard agnostic says one cannot know about the existence of God. Some people term this hard agnosticism as agnostic atheism. "
Another definition you might find useful.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
And even before that, since the word "god" is and empty placeholder i maintain the position of an ignostic. That is you must provide a meaninful and coherent definition of the word "god", more desired, a functional one.
If you provide that, then i consider the position of an agnostic (i have no knowldage of your propostion) , you must provide ways to justify your proposition, according to the type and magnitude of it.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago
If you fail i claim atheism, that is i dont believe in your proposition because it lacks of justificaction.
No proposition that has ever been presented to me, even if its barely coherent and meaningful to pass the ignostic test has ever been able to be justified properly, therefore i disbelief the general proposition that god or gods exist. period.
DemokritosAbdera 2 years ago