An imagined world--it's own thread

[dastardly stem]

One big difference between Hart and Dawkins is that Dawkins doesn’t know what he is talking about on the topic of religion.

It only seems that way because religion eats it. once someone accepts that religion is great any criticism appears as if the criticizer doesn’t know what he’s talking about. that's how I’d explain Hart and his demonizing of Dawkins. And many apologists for that matter.

[Rivendale]

One big difference between Hart and Dawkins is that Dawkins doesn’t know what he is talking about on the topic of religion.

It only seems that way because religion eats it. once someone accepts that religion is great any criticism appears as if the criticizer doesn’t know what he’s talking about. that's how I’d explain Hart and his demonizing of Dawkins. And many apologists for that matter.

Hart also didn't limit his criticism to Dawkins. It seems like a punch down technique when someone describes what someone else is thinking or should think.

It never crosses his mind that the question of creation mightconcern the very possibility of existence as such, not only of this universe but of all the laws andphysical conditions that produced it, or that the concept of God might concern a reality not temporallyprior to this or that world, but logically and necessarily prior to all worlds, all physical laws, allquantum events, and even all possibilities of laws and events. From the perspective of classicalmetaphysics, Hawking misses the whole point of talk of creation:

[Gadianton]

Atheism changed substantially between A. J. Ayer and Bertrand Russell, and Carl Sagan. Old school atheism was philosophical. Now it's science popularizers. Christian apologists have an advantage because philosophy is their last respectable holdout. On the rare occasion I pull up a debate between some Christian guy and some atheist guy on YouTube, usually the Christian guy comes out of the gate stronger and most of the conversation is talking past each other. Granted it's been a few years, but as of a few years ago, it seemed the science guys arguing against religion thought of themselves as "naturalists" rather than atheists. Harris and Dennett are actually philosophers so they can be "new atheists" easier. I think 'naturalist' fits pretty well. If I want to believe that the only possible knowledge comes from studying the natural world, and I take that as common sense that doesn't need to be justified, then disbelieving in God falls somewhere between the inductive fallacy and just being silly. Why would Gemli spend too much time thinking about the non-existence of God vs. the non-existence of pixies and gnomes?

God is different theologians want to say, because God is prior to the physical world in first causes, ontology, and presuppositions. And that's all apologists want to talk about, while science guys (classical Gemli) want to talk about what science says and not even acknowledge a discussion that requires justifying science. Why would you justify something that nobody disputes works so well? They have their own presuppositionalist points here: How can religionists question science when the entire enterprise of apologetics (YouTube etc.) requires the wonders of science for modern apologetics to happen at all in the first place? You have to go almost all the way just to bring your apologetics to the world, how many more steps is it from there to Gemli?

On the other hand, while God might be lurking in that space of first causes, ontology, and presuppositions, it's sketchy. I haven't seen any convincing arguments of those kinds. Apologists (DCP included) want to say God must be presupposed in order for rationality to exist. These arguments are terrible. Sure, there are mind-boggling questions in these spaces that science can't address but logic hasn't solved either, but while religion might be justifiably interested in those spaces, it's not good at making God the answer.

It may be mind-reading to suggest Hawkins has never considered metaphysics, because he probably has to some degree and just thinks it's pointless to talk about. Sean Carroll is a good example of a science-based religion skeptic who has put the four hours of study required in to meet the typical theologian on his own ground explicitly.

I saw Stephen Wolfram on Lex a while back, he struck me as having the opposite problem of the typical science-guy religion skeptic. He's a theoretical physicist who discovered Aristotle, and boom. He says our world of physics is created by other-worldly automata, and that other world is the necessary world.

[drumdude]

Lex also interviewed someone about a very interesting theory of complexity. Lee Cronin. He is pioneering research into the study of self assembly and complexity. It’s very possible we will have an explanation to almost everything except the creation of the Universe at some point. If that becomes true, then God simply retreats into a first cause that had no input into the universe after that point. You can believe it if you wish but it has no explanatory power and no power to make any useful predictions.

[Physics Guy]

As I’ve mentioned in a couple of threads before, control of initial conditions is tantamount to intervention at any time. That’s close to a theorem. Any arbitrary state of the universe will quickly relax into some state that is macroscopically indistinguishable from equilibrium; and time reversal symmetry holds to a very good approximation. So all kinds of very unusual things could suddenly happen without warning, even under rigidly deterministic causality.

If they happen, they happen as inevitable consequences of initial conditions long before. The initial conditions that led to them inevitably didn’t look as though they were leading to anything special at all. A God who foresaw and planned is indistinguishable from a God who heard a prayer and responded.

On some relevant time scale, at least. If you want planets to collide, the time scales for “warning” are millions of years, and the chances even then are near zero. Not quite zero, however. They’re in the ballpark for miracles, which are supposed to be rare. A fluke of aerodynamics, or a cancerous cell dying, can happen much faster. Nothing to do with theology. Physics.

The distinction between deism and theism is essentially zero as far as I can see. It seemed big in the 19th century but that’s just out of date.

[Kishkumen]

Atheism changed substantially between A. J. Ayer and Bertrand Russell, and Carl Sagan. Old school atheism was philosophical. Now it's science popularizers. Christian apologists have an advantage because philosophy is their last respectable holdout. On the rare occasion I pull up a debate between some Christian guy and some atheist guy on YouTube, usually the Christian guy comes out of the gate stronger and most of the conversation is talking past each other. Granted it's been a few years, but as of a few years ago, it seemed the science guys arguing against religion thought of themselves as "naturalists" rather than atheists. Harris and Dennett are actually philosophers so they can be "new atheists" easier. I think 'naturalist' fits pretty well. If I want to believe that the only possible knowledge comes from studying the natural world, and I take that as common sense that doesn't need to be justified, then disbelieving in God falls somewhere between the inductive fallacy and just being silly. Why would Gemli spend too much time thinking about the non-existence of God vs. the non-existence of pixies and gnomes?

God is different theologians want to say, because God is prior to the physical world in first causes, ontology, and presuppositions. And that's all apologists want to talk about, while science guys (classical Gemli) want to talk about what science says and not even acknowledge a discussion that requires justifying science. Why would you justify something that nobody disputes works so well? They have their own presuppositionalist points here: How can religionists question science when the entire enterprise of apologetics (YouTube etc.) requires the wonders of science for modern apologetics to happen at all in the first place? You have to go almost all the way just to bring your apologetics to the world, how many more steps is it from there to Gemli?

On the other hand, while God might be lurking in that space of first causes, ontology, and presuppositions, it's sketchy. I haven't seen any convincing arguments of those kinds. Apologists (DCP included) want to say God must be presupposed in order for rationality to exist. These arguments are terrible. Sure, there are mind-boggling questions in these spaces that science can't address but logic hasn't solved either, but while religion might be justifiably interested in those spaces, it's not good at making God the answer.

It may be mind-reading to suggest Hawkins has never considered metaphysics, because he probably has to some degree and just thinks it's pointless to talk about. Sean Carroll is a good example of a science-based religion skeptic who has put the four hours of study required in to meet the typical theologian on his own ground explicitly.

I saw Stephen Wolfram on Lex a while back, he struck me as having the opposite problem of the typical science-guy religion skeptic. He's a theoretical physicist who discovered Aristotle, and boom. He says our world of physics is created by other-worldly automata, and that other world is the necessary world.

If philosophy is the last holdout of the theologians, it’s a damn important one. It is the single most important intellectual development after literacy, in my opinion. Without it, there would be no science, or much intellectual discourse of any kind.

[Gadianton]

If philosophy is the last holdout of the theologians, it’s a damn important one. It is the single most important intellectual development after literacy, in my opinion. Without it, there would be no science, or much intellectual discourse of any kind.

Right, but let me clarify just in case. I'm guessing theologians are overrepresented in philosophy majors. I want to make sure I didn't sound like I was saying Christians theologians are keeping the flame of philosophy burning, however, that's not true at all. All of the big ideas I'm aware of in analytic philosophy come from non-religious philosophers. I'm certain Stak could tell us better where Christian theologians have contributed to philosophy in the last 50 years. I think there have been some respectable and innovative responses to atheists who went too far; Alvin Plantinga's response to the argument from evil is probably the most important Christian contribution to philosophy in our times. Philosophers who happen to be Christian? I'm sure there are some good ones, but as far as stuff that pushes the conversation along for everyone, I haven't seen anything.

In fact, I believe Stak posted some stuff a few years ago showing that in particular, the philosophy of mind as it is being hashed out by unbelievers primarily, has greatly influenced Christian philosophers and it's becoming less respectable to hold positions like DCP does about the afterlife, the mind-body problem is just too difficult to solve. Christian intellectuals are gravitating toward bodily resurrection rather than a detached soul with a life of its own that may or may not one day reclaim a body.

What I'm saying is that all of these non-religious philosophers driving the subject simply aren't interested in debating Christians, for whatever reasons. It is more likely for science popularizers to be the ones who get on YouTube and have it out with Christian apologists.

[Kishkumen]

Right, but let me clarify just in case. I'm guessing theologians are overrepresented in philosophy majors.

I would be surprised if that were true.

I want to make sure I didn't sound like I was saying Christians theologians are keeping the flame of philosophy burning, however, that's not true at all. All of the big ideas I'm aware of in analytic philosophy come from non-religious philosophers. I'm certain Stak could tell us better where Christian theologians have contributed to philosophy in the last 50 years. I think there have been some respectable and innovative responses to atheists who went too far; Alvin Plantinga's response to the argument from evil is probably the most important Christian contribution to philosophy in our times. Philosophers who happen to be Christian? I'm sure there are some good ones, but as far as stuff that pushes the conversation along for everyone, I haven't seen anything.

In fact, I believe Stak posted some stuff a few years ago showing that in particular, the philosophy of mind as it is being hashed out by unbelievers primarily, has greatly influenced Christian philosophers and it's becoming less respectable to hold positions like DCP does about the afterlife, the mind-body problem is just too difficult to solve. Christian intellectuals are gravitating toward bodily resurrection rather than a detached soul with a life of its own that may or may not one day reclaim a body.

What I'm saying is that all of these non-religious philosophers driving the subject simply aren't interested in debating Christians, for whatever reasons. It is more likely for science popularizers to be the ones who get on YouTube and have it out with Christian apologists.

OK. But I am not really getting your point. I am not all that interested in the perceived contest between atheists and theists. I don’t care whether atheists or theists are making the best forward strides in philosophy of mind or what have you. Whatever helps us understand the world and our place in it better is welcome in my book. That does not mean someone won the game and now we should definitely listen to them over everyone else.

Maybe I am just missing your point.

[Gadianton]

My point was that by saying philosophy as the last respectable holdout for apologists meant that there are glimpses of quality work in that venue, not that the venue depends substantially on Christians to drive it.

When you restated my original point back to me, I wondered if you'd misunderstood me to say that Christians are keeping the subject of philosophy alive, and that's not what I meant.

[Kishkumen]

My point was that by saying philosophy as the last respectable holdout for apologists meant that there are glimpses of quality work in that venue, not that the venue depends substantially on Christians to drive it.

When you restated my original point back to me, I wondered if you'd misunderstood me to say that Christians are keeping the subject of philosophy alive, and that's not what I meant.

Uh, no. That is not what I intended to suggest at all.