tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post305234464859574200..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Answering Baggini's Short Intro to AtheismJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-766175604901433082013-02-07T12:06:49.930-08:002013-02-07T12:06:49.930-08:00I am going to answer these in the main blog spot t...I am going to answer these in the main blog spot too on Friday. thanks for the material.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37230505164076363262013-02-07T08:52:22.786-08:002013-02-07T08:52:22.786-08:00Thank you sir. I'll add a few more questions q...Thank you sir. I'll add a few more questions questions.Answer WHENEVER you wish. <br /><br />I just read this atheist's book and because Im busy with some other things, I need to post fast what I search, to an expert. Of course youre not forced to answer fast, but at the end we will have a powerful list of answers against atheism.<br />Its a shame I hadnt dealt with humanism so much. It looks more interesting to know its' opinions rather than the ones of hateful atheism, which I can easily debunk.<br /><br />You can comment on these<br />1)He says that Christians equate "meaning of life" with belief in God. He wonders why they are so slavish waiting for others to set for them the meaning of life.<br /><br />2)He then says some things I agree, for example dont live your life just to see an aim accomplished but be excited and satisfied by the whole effort no matter the result. Or other things like the fact that pleasure is temporary. But saying that pleasure is temporary I think he tries to water down his previous statement of hailing pleasure: "drink,eat and dont ask why you do it cause you lose the game and you exchange this unique life you have with a nonexistent "promised afterlife".<br /><br />3)Something we forgot! Morality! He makes a subtle argument about it. He says that morality exists apart from God or laws and that if it was coming from God, then He would consider good or bad whatever he wishes. He gives the example of human laws that come after morality exists and are usually based upon morality. That is to say, laws can be moral but they are not the creator of morality. The same as saying God is moral, but He didnt create morality. Then that we make on our own our moral choices, no matter if we obey to the command of God, as Abraham did. And finally, I think he considers our personal experience the creator of morality. For example we know what pain is if we have subjectively experienced it, so we want to help others and we dont want others to suffer in the same way we dont want ourselves to suffer. We dont want to do to others what we dont like other doing to us.<br /><br />Some of my thoughts. <br />But he says not a word about how a mechanistic unconscious universe would bear consciousness and morality. How a simple or complex unconsciousness can bear consciousness and intelligence, the ability to dinstict from what is good and bad, useful or harmful.<br />For example a house doesnt care if someone brings it down. How and why then an unsconscious "life"(if we accept the lie of abiogenesis) would be conscious and moral? Is morality a property arising from chemicals? Lol.<br /><br /><br />Ok. I hope I wrote interesting things for study. I also want to study your notion of "metaphysical". Just a question on this. Why its not also a literal place we just cant go or see with our current machines?(our bodies who are sensitive to a specific range of frequencies) Do you remember Paul saying he was caught on the 3rd heaven? This seems above the physical heaven. I may say you some details about it another time.<br /><br />As for me, I believe in the geocentric model although I respect other beliefs, but I dont rush to bown down to atheistic science and marry it with religion. <br /><br />Have a good day and thank you very much for your help<br /><br />Chris AndreaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48200468987236094772013-02-07T07:11:19.680-08:002013-02-07T07:11:19.680-08:00thanks for your comments. I'm going to answer ...thanks for your comments. I'm going to answer this in the major blog piece for today. Just look for it by Metacrock's blog.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79171927325229126972013-02-06T22:04:39.793-08:002013-02-06T22:04:39.793-08:00Hello sir. Yesterday I read this atheistic book in...Hello sir. Yesterday I read this atheistic book in greek translation, so I was searching for an answer. Glad I found you. Even it would be possible I could slightly disagree in details, this must be considered physical and acceptable. Atheists too, disagree with each other in details.<br /><br />If Im not a weight on your back and youd like to provide some more help, then it will be highly appreaciated. I have a few more questions. <br />You can contact me at manowarking2001@yahoo.gr sending me your email.<br /><br />A main question I have(reply here if you wish) is about his statement that the idea of "eternal life" cancels the notion of a purposeful life. He says that this is true for 2 reasons<br />1)Everything that has a beginning must have an end in order to be meaningful, for example a movie, a book, a football match<br />2) If life was eternal and not short, we would cancel things for the next day. We wouldnt run to accomplish aims in our lives and maybe it would be boring.<br /><br />Also something I thought on my own. If everyone was happy, full and satisfied and no wars or fights for spiritual or material goods (that we were missing) were held, would it be boring then? I mean does "fight" for something gives a meaningful life, in contrast with someone who already lives in paradise and possesses whatever it wants? Could life in paradise be boring?<br /><br />Your brother in Christ,<br />Chris AndreaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3628260335323182512008-11-18T20:34:00.000-08:002008-11-18T20:34:00.000-08:00I'm not impressed with Baggini. I have tried to fi...I'm not impressed with Baggini. I have tried to find stuff about this book. It's mentioned a lot on atheist sties but no real cogent reviews except a couple. Based upon that I don't think he really says anything I can't hear on a message board.<BR/><BR/>glad you liked by piece. We need to do a lot on the SN. I'm convinced people have hold of the wrong concept.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-19668874821345578302008-11-18T19:51:00.000-08:002008-11-18T19:51:00.000-08:00Meta,This is a very good response. Lots of food fo...Meta,<BR/>This is a very good response. Lots of food for thought. Many of the same objections were arising in my mind as I wrote the review. I particularly like your 'so what' response to the argument from the regularity of nature and the success of science. That's exactly what I was thinking: theists can even point to nature's regularity as evidence of God's faithfulness and constancy. I also agree that we need a better understanding of the word 'supernatural'. I'm hoping that more detailed books than the one I'm reviewing now will clarify what we're talking about. Great stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3908823057513049252008-11-18T13:58:00.000-08:002008-11-18T13:58:00.000-08:00here's an interesting report, Julian Baggini condu...here's an interesting report, Julian Baggini conducting himself in a debate on the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>on bethinking.org.<BR/><BR/>http://www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/intermediate/this-house-believes-god-is-a-delusion.htm<BR/><BR/><BR/>Board Room<BR/> “This House Believes God is a Delusion”<BR/> Peter May<BR/><BR/> * Photo of: Peter May Peter May serves on the General Synod of the Church of England and on the Trust Board of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF). He is a retired GP. View all resources by Peter May<BR/><BR/> * Print this Page<BR/> * Send comments<BR/> * Send to a friend<BR/> * Save PDF<BR/><BR/>A Report on the Birmingham University Debating Society meeting, 22nd November 2007<BR/><BR/>On 22 November 2007, the Birmingham University Debating Society considered the motion: “This House Believes God is a Delusion”.<BR/><BR/>Guild Council Chamber<BR/>The debate took place in the Guild Council Chamber of the University of Birmingham. Two years ago, the Birmingham University Christian Union was disaffiliated from their Guild as they refused to allow non-Christians to become formal members. This debate provided them with an opportunity to raise the profile of Christianity in a Guild event.<BR/><BR/>The Debating Society<BR/>Normally 30-40 people attend debates in the Guild. On this occasion, an unprecedented attendance of around 250 people packed the Chamber, with many having to sit on the floor.<BR/><BR/>Debate format<BR/>Four speakers were invited to give 10 minute speeches. After that the student audience were invited to make 3 minute speeches or ask questions. In the event, speeches continued for nearly an hour and no questions were asked of the panel. Each side was allowed a 5 minute closing speech.<BR/><BR/>Proposing the motion<BR/>Yujin Nagasawa is a lecturer in the university’s Department of Philosophy, where he teaches Philosophy of Religion. He is currently writing a book on The Existence of God. (Dr. Nagasawa stepped in at 48 hours notice to replace Susan Blackmore, who was unable to take part due to illness.)<BR/><BR/>Julian Baggini edits The Philosopher’s Magazine and writes articles for the national press. Among the many books he has written is A Very Short Introduction to Atheism (OUP).<BR/><BR/>Opposing the motion<BR/>Krish Kandiah was formerly Director of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is currently Director of the Churches in Mission department of UK Evangelical Alliance.<BR/><BR/>Peter May is a former GP, author of Dialogue in Evangelism and is Chairman of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF).<BR/><BR/>The debate<BR/>Yujin Nagasawa proposed the motion claiming that atheism or agnosticism is the natural default position for humanity. He defined a delusion as an irrational belief and therefore the onus was on those who opposed the motion to provide good arguments for the existence of God. He indicated that he knew of no good grounds for believing in an immaterial, timeless, omnipotent and omniscient perfect being. If such a being existed, why does he allow natural disasters and the killing of innocent children? The idea of such a God is incoherent. Furthermore, if God is immaterial, how could he produce matter?<BR/><BR/>Peter May replied not knowing in advance that Dr Nagasawa would be taking part. However, he had read Julian Baggini’s book on Atheism. In it he states that the Cosmological Argument is a “disgrace to philosophy” (p.94). However, he mis-states this argument and sets it up as ‘straw man’. He claims that the argument states that everything that exists has a cause. To conclude therefore that God exists merely asserts that God also must have a cause! As developed by William Craig, the argument starts with the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is not just playing with words. If the uncaused, first cause exists outside of time, nothing could have preceded him. Furthermore, Baggini claims that morality is entirely independent of God, so that Dostoevsky was wrong to assert that without God, anything is permitted (p.37). Peter was therefore keen to test him on both arguments.<BR/><BR/>Julian Baggini, speaking without notes, initially tried to restate the cosmological argument in his own terms but then admitted that Peter’s version had changed it significantly. He did not then attempt to rebut either the cosmological argument or address the moral argument. Instead he did something which was quite remarkable for a philosopher; he quit the field of argument. Refusing to tackle the two serious arguments that had been put forward, he said that most people’s opinions about God are set at a very early age and are not driven by argument. Rather it depends where in the world you live and what you are brought up to believe. “Faith” drives the argument. Religious people just “know” they are right and arguments can’t beat experience.<BR/><BR/>Krish Kandiah followed. He stated that ‘proof’ can only be found in the field of mathematics. Christian belief was not a blind, irrational leap but a reasonable trust. He then appealed to the evidence about Christ, the experience of trusting him and the explanatory power of the Christian worldview, which makes sense of our lives and gives meaning and purpose to human existence.<BR/><BR/>Fourteen short speeches from the floor then followed. The first speaker said the burden of proof was on the theists. He argued that we can believe in the holocaust because it was recent but not in events which were 2000 years ago. He failed to appreciate that the New Testament documents were written close to the events and that such evidence does not weaken with the passage of time. Two thousand years later, they were still written within living memory of the events they describe! Another speaker quoted Sartre as saying that the meaning of our life is what we give it and that Jesus’s existence only means that Jesus existed. Another claimed that morals are relative. Several speakers complained about the wording of the motion, saying that the word ‘delusion’ was insulting. Someone asked what made us what we are, answering that there has to be someone there. Another pointed out that human nature is inclined to self-interest. It is our lack of humility that separates us from God.<BR/><BR/>Julian Baggini then gave the closing statement for the proposition. He reverted to his theme that you cannot persuade believers. Citing Hinduism and Roman Catholicism, he claimed most religious ideas are vague and mutually contradictory. God is supposed to be everywhere but “I can’t find him”. He confessed that he might be wrong about atheism but a Christian would never admit that he might be wrong about God.<BR/><BR/>Krish Kandiah concluded for the opposition. He said that the strongest argument he had heard against the existence of God was the fact of suffering. He explained that the Christian understanding is that there are things God cannot do. He cannot make a square circle and he cannot give us free will and at the same time control our actions. They are mutually incompatible things. Furthermore, God does not stand by and watch our suffering but entered our world and endured terrible suffering in Christ to redeem us. Furthermore, he sends us into the world to care for those who are suffering.<BR/><BR/>Conclusion<BR/>The most unsatisfactory aspect of this enjoyable event was that real debate did not take place. Many different statements were made. The main speakers had no opportunity to engage with one another and press home their arguments. Why, for instance, is atheism assumed to be the default position for mankind, when the entire history of humanity shows that every culture has defaulted to religious belief? Neither did the audience use their opportunity to challenge them, preferring instead to make their own speeches. This had a very post-modern feel to it.<BR/><BR/>The proponents asked for good arguments, but then failed to respond to them! This refusal to engage with them meant they deserved to lose the debate. A show of hands was counted at the beginning and again at the end; the ‘swing’ determined the result. The motion was lost but a great many conversations were started.<BR/><BR/>The text of Peter May’s opening speech is available here.<BR/><BR/>Krish Kandiah’s report on the debate was published in the Evangelical Alliance's idea magazine.<BR/><BR/> * © Peter MayJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66175290232464316092008-11-18T09:18:00.000-08:002008-11-18T09:18:00.000-08:00Metacrock, you contradict yourself about the mind/...Metacrock, you contradict yourself about the mind/soul.<BR/><BR/>First, you mock mind/body dualism as the "Casper the Friendly Ghost" view, but then you turn around and assert mind-body dualism and mind being separable from body, which are what you had earlier mocked.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>No the Casper thing is totally different from either property dualism or even calssical mnid-body dualism. It's the idea of a discrete substance and this is neither mind nor body and lives on and contiains it's own sort of conscousness in addition to the mind, which is emergent of brain.<BR/><BR/>My view is property dualism which posits two aspects to the same property. Different from classical mnid/body dualism</B><BR/><BR/>Either mind is composed of some special, nonphysical stuff that can be separated from physical objects, or else it is an emergent property of physical objects and possibly other nonmental things.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Yes it is an emergent property but that does not mean it's reducible. Emergent means it emerges as a separate property.</B><BR/><BR/>I think that the latter is the most likely possibility, because of the inability to isolate any special mind-stuff and the increasing superfluity of that hypothesis (brain research, etc.).<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>mind is not dependent on "Mind stuff." Its' a dimension not a substance.</B><BR/><BR/>Consider what happened to vitalism. It used to be a respectable hypothesis, but a century ago, it came to look like some "vital force of the gaps" hypothesis, and more recently, molecular biologists have failed to find even a tiny bit of vital force in their labs.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>what I'm saying is not analogous to vitalism</B><BR/><BR/>So I suspect that mind-body dualism will go the same way, with rejection of "mind-stuff of the gaps".<BR/><BR/><B>classical yes, property no</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-87582413024336472462008-11-18T08:12:00.000-08:002008-11-18T08:12:00.000-08:00Metacrock, you contradict yourself about the mind/...Metacrock, you contradict yourself about the mind/soul.<BR/><BR/>First, you mock mind/body dualism as the "Casper the Friendly Ghost" view, but then you turn around and assert mind-body dualism and mind being separable from body, which are what you had earlier mocked.<BR/><BR/>Either mind is composed of some special, nonphysical stuff that can be separated from physical objects, or else it is an emergent property of physical objects and possibly other nonmental things.<BR/><BR/>I think that the latter is the most likely possibility, because of the inability to isolate any special mind-stuff and the increasing superfluity of that hypothesis (brain research, etc.).<BR/><BR/>Consider what happened to vitalism. It used to be a respectable hypothesis, but a century ago, it came to look like some "vital force of the gaps" hypothesis, and more recently, molecular biologists have failed to find even a tiny bit of vital force in their labs.<BR/><BR/>So I suspect that mind-body dualism will go the same way, with rejection of "mind-stuff of the gaps".Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.com