Belief in God, higher power, or neither

11/04/2008 02:25:13 PM · #151

Well crap, I can't even be right about the number of people arguing against me! :)

11/04/2008 02:28:57 PM · #152

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Instead of knee-jerking to discredit Lewis, just read the quote. It was a logical attempt to show the fallacy of some quasi-belief between "religion" (here he simply means theism) and materialism. I don't think it was a big controvertial passage and I'd think you'd rather agree with it.

I'm also not sure why you say he "claimed" to be an atheist. Are you infering he's somehow lying just to gain street cred? You sell the man quite short.

I read the quote. And you're right, it's neither controversial, and I actually agreed with it. On a totally unrelated topic, how do you feel about giving Dawkins a hug today? :-P In short, Lewis' general absurdity and fifties-era old codger attitudes to sex thwart my ability to take anything from him seriously.

I was inferring that his claim to atheism was just that, yes. His atheism seems to have been nothing more than a slovenly teenager's reaction to having some chore to finish.

11/04/2008 02:34:12 PM · #153

Originally posted by Louis:

I was inferring that his claim to atheism was just that, yes. His atheism seems to have been nothing more than a slovenly teenager's reaction to having some chore to finish.

Well, I'd say that wasn't the impression I got when reading The Narnian (a biography). But to each his own I guess.

Well, I can't give Dawkins a hug, but don't I get any kudos for reading 25 pages of your book and responding? The thread could get back more on topic then... :)

11/04/2008 02:37:57 PM · #154

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He's saying that you cannot claim that there is a force behind evolution that has will and purpose and not claim that force is somehow akin to a god.

Correct (although I was saying he's wrong, too). Nobody really makes that claim anymore, and Jamie was talking about belief, not a life-force, thus it's irrelevant.

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 14:41:53.

11/04/2008 02:40:02 PM · #155

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, I can't give Dawkins a hug, but don't I get any kudos for reading 25 pages
of your book and responding? The thread could get back more on topic then... :)

Hm? What book?

11/04/2008 02:48:59 PM · #156

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I can't give Dawkins a hug, but don't I get any kudos for reading 25 pages
of your book and responding? The thread could get back more on topic then... :)

Hm? What book?

The End of Faith by Harris. You asked me to read it and I read the first 25 pages. See post above.

11/04/2008 02:51:05 PM · #157

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He's saying that you cannot claim that there is a force behind evolution that has will and purpose and not claim that force is somehow akin to a god.

Correct (although I was saying he's wrong, too). Nobody really makes that claim anymore, and Jamie was talking about belief, not a life-force, thus it's irrelevant.

I think I was reacting to this line..."I look at my daughter every day and believe that I was blessed in having her in my life and feeling that she came from not only natural creation but, also from something Higher. I just don't know how to define that Higher Source. I likely never will."

11/04/2008 03:09:00 PM · #158

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Fair 'nuff. I was going by the summary right after that: "Perhaps, belief itself, is "God"? in other words, it's not that "something higher" actually exists, but that the belief itself exists. That's probably pretty close to the truth.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/04/2008 03:14:26 PM · #159

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Mousie:
...should I refrain from calling it as I see it? Well, I won't be shamed into walking on eggshells, not when my convictions back up my statements, and certainly not when the 'other side' shows no such restraint themselves.

no comment needed.

Then why did you, Flash? What is the purpose of your passive-agressive meta-comment?

After all, DrAchoo, to whom I was directly responding, felt like a comment was merited, and even offered me praise for my explanation! Yet you dismiss me outright, and do it publicly.

Are you just trying to pick a fight? Why not, you know, contribute something meaningful?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/04/2008 03:15:08 PM · #160

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, I can't give Dawkins a hug, but don't I get any kudos for reading 25 pages
of your book and responding? The thread could get back more on topic then... :)

Hm? What book?

The End of Faith by Harris. You asked me to read it and I read the first 25 pages. See post above.

Oh I missed that for some reason, sorry.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/04/2008 03:25:24 PM · #161

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Mousie:
...should I refrain from calling it as I see it? Well, I won't be shamed into walking on eggshells, not when my convictions back up my statements, and certainly not when the 'other side' shows no such restraint themselves.

no comment needed.

Then why did you, Flash? What is the purpose of your passive-agressive meta-comment?

After all, DrAchoo, to whom I was directly responding, felt like a comment was merited, and even offered me praise for my explanation! Yet you dismiss me outright, and do it publicly.

Are you just trying to pick a fight? Why not, you know, contribute something meaningful?

Flash is saving his meaningful comments for the forums on Hummer websites.

11/04/2008 03:29:52 PM · #162

I'd like to answer your reading in more detail, but I don't have the book with me. While I may agree he is preaching to the choir, your cursory read probably isn't sufficient, because some of the questions he poses in the first half of the book are actually addressed in the last quarter or so. I really think your read is biased. I don't see how it couldn't be, I suppose, but while I was reading it, I found so much of interest that I kept wanting a highlighter pen to mark the book up. It's really not possible to read this book and not understand the position; it's easy to dismiss his arguments as baseless when they are diametrically opposed to your world view, but it's an unfair thing to do (despite what I did to Lewis up there).

As for his claims about science, don't dismiss him as a mere dilettante. In addition to being a studied philosopher, he's going for a doctorate in neuroscience. I mention this because he's no science slouch. :-P

Lastly, I have an opinion about books. I'm old. (Well, I'm 44, but I feel old sometimes.) I believe that in order to properly read a book, one must live with it for a while. In book form. To read and understand a book, a person has to digest not just the words it contains, but the form itself, the pages and paper and ink and all the rest. Reading text on the screen is fine when consulting some arbitrary fact, or when asked to read small passages of an author, but you've got to eat a book (metaphorically, of course) in order to get the most out of it.

All of this may just be an excuse for my shopaholic consumption of books, of course, but there you are.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

11/04/2008 04:20:00 PM · #163

Well, I certainly can't claim some superiority and say, "hey, I read your whole book and dwelt on it". I didn't do that at all. But actually having perused 25 pages is a step up in most of these threads. ;) I hear you and I feel the same way you do about good books. Lewis, for example, probably comes up a lot in these threads because I've read him a lot. I can't count the number of times I've read Mere Christianity. When some specific situation comes up I can often conjure up what Lewis said about it and often think he is much more eloquent than I could ever be so why try to reinvent the wheel?

Of my criticisms of Harris, I think the first one is the most easily supported factually (the argument would revolve around whether religion does, in fact, cause most war with factual evidence presented on both sides). The second criticism is harder to flesh out (religious knowledge does progress in the same way scientific knowledge does) while the third is one I've already argued many times on these threads (science cannot answer all questions worth asking).

Just as a jab at Shannon I should ask whether Harris also writes fiction and what his degrees were in college... :P

Message edited by author 2008-11-04 16:21:16.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

11/04/2008 04:22:37 PM · #164

I don't believe in a higher power of any kind outside of chaos/pure random chance, but that's not a belief, it's simply a theory I enjoy.

I enjoy a lot of theories. I especially like the theory that we're an experiment by an advanced alien species. It'd be really cool if it were true.

No debate from me either. I prefer the "live and let live" approach. Believe what you want. If you feel better for it, all the better. Just keep it out of my own life, and I'll keep aliens out of yours ;)

11/04/2008 04:44:38 PM · #165

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just as a jab at Shannon I should ask whether Harris also writes fiction...

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that questioning his knowledge of fictional literature as a qualification for debating religion wouldn't be a jab at me... ;-)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/04/2008 04:56:53 PM · #166

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just as a jab at Shannon I should ask whether Harris also writes fiction...

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that questioning his knowledge of fictional literature as a qualification for debating religion wouldn't be a jab at me... ;-)

Touche. :)

Apple iPhone 5

11/04/2008 05:28:25 PM · #167

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by C.S. Lewis:
People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet "evolved" from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the "striving" or "purposiveness" of a Life-Force.

Welcome to DPC, Mr Lewis!

11/04/2008 06:21:23 PM · #168

Originally posted by JH:

Welcome to DPC, Mr Lewis!

LOL At least I upgraded him from "SomeWriter" earlier today. ;-P

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/05/2008 04:58:13 PM · #169

accused of paling around with atheists considered defamation and libelous.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/05/2008 05:02:41 PM · #170

Originally posted by Gordon:

accused of paling around with atheists considered defamation and libelous.

Idiocy upon idiocy. "She responded with an ad Thursday in which she forcefully declares her belief in God and cites the Bible's 9th Commandment in decrying Dole for 'bearing false witness against fellow Christians.'"

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/05/2008 05:07:51 PM · #171

Well, the original ad was fraudulent, regardles of the basis of the fraud. It would be no different if the accusation was that the opposing candidate was vegetarian and had attended a party at the home of a PETA member, and then (illegally) impersonated the candidate's voice decrying hot dogs, when in fact she's an omnivore.

The defamation is based of the known falsity of the content and the deliberate attempt to misrepresent reality.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/05/2008 05:46:54 PM · #172

Originally posted by GeneralE:

The defamation is based of the known falsity of the content and the deliberate attempt to misrepresent reality.

Are we back talking about religion and atheism here ? :)

11/05/2008 06:00:57 PM · #173

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
The defamation is based of the known falsity of the content and the deliberate attempt to misrepresent reality.

Are we back talking about religion and atheism here ? :)

Man Gordon, you are sooooo funny! ;P

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/05/2008 06:18:11 PM · #174

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
The defamation is based of the known falsity of the content and the deliberate attempt to misrepresent reality.

Are we back talking about religion and atheism here ? :)

Man Gordon, you are sooooo funny! ;P

I never said which one it was ;)