Where in the properties of the carbon atom and in the underlying physics before there was one, for hundreds of millions of years in to the BB, which Hoyle denied, can we point to divine intervention?
The triple-alpha process is ineffective at the pressures and temperatures early in the Big Bang. One consequence of this is that no significant amount of carbon was produced in the Big Bang.
So there was some, just not very much. Unlikely to be have been enough for life? We *are* stardust.
Where in the properties of the carbon atom and in the underlying physics before there was one, for hundreds of millions of years in to the BB, which Hoyle denied, can we point to divine intervention?
The triple-alpha process is ineffective at the pressures and temperatures early in the Big Bang. One consequence of this is that no significant amount of carbon was produced in the Big Bang.
So there was some, just not very much. Unlikely to be have been enough for life? We *are* stardust.
Naturally. 3rd generation. As always. Everywhere. In the infinite multiverse.
I think it is a mistake to suppose that the Big Bang is understood well and in detail.
The Planck Epoch cannot be, by definition, let alone the quantum perturbation that started it all, it all being our infinitesimal of a mediocre universe, not the at least 5D infinite hyperspatial multiverse. Which cannot cast any rational doubt whatsoever that it is all perfectly naturally mediocre forever and ever. Bloody gobsmackingly queer mind you. There is no God gap. Let alone Love gap.
And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Except in Christian theology the laws of nature aren't necessarily "prevenient" at all, assuming you mean, "The act or condition of occurring earlier, of being antecedent," as per Wiktionary, since this would be something in the nature that God made in the first place. God is "prevenient" to nature itself, in Christian theology.
And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Except in Christian theology the laws of nature aren't necessarily "prevenient" at all, assuming you mean, "The act or condition of occurring earlier, of being antecedent," as per Wiktionary, since this would be something in the nature that God made in the first place. God is "prevenient" to nature itself, in Christian theology.
He's not prevenient to logic, mathematics and the rules of quantum mechanics, for a start, whether they're instantiated by him as the ground of being or not.
Why would they 'want' to answer those in the first place?
If they don't have a theistic worldview then such questions hold no relevance or interest for them other than on a purely academic level.
I'm not an atheist but I have a lot of sympathy with how they must feel frustrated at theistic expectations that they should engage in 'our' theistic questions on our own terms rather than theirs.
Sure, and @Mousethief could undoubtedly do the same if he so wished but I don't think that was the essence of his question/challenge to @Caissa who seemed - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - to imply the atheists don't want to address these questions because they can't face doing so.
As if they haven't faced them already if they have adopted an atheist position from holding a faith position previously.
I may not share your position or Mousethief's but I wouldn't accuse either of you of 'bad faith' in doing so.
Caissa wrote: »
I think it is more correct to say there are questions "atheists" ( a theistic term) don't want to answer rather than cannot answer.
Mousethief: Such as?
Caissa responds: Questions that arise from a theistic worldview.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
Sure, and @Mousethief could undoubtedly do the same if he so wished but I don't think that was the essence of his question/challenge to @Caissa who seemed - and he can correct me if I'm wrong - to imply the atheists don't want to address these questions because they can't face doing so.
As if they haven't faced them already if they have adopted an atheist position from holding a faith position previously.
I may not share your position or Mousethief's but I wouldn't accuse either of you of 'bad faith' in doing so.
Caissa wrote: »
I think it is more correct to say there are questions "atheists" ( a theistic term) don't want to answer rather than cannot answer.
Mousethief: Such as?
Caissa responds: Questions that arise from a theistic worldview.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
Well, you've spent a fair bit of time contributing to that particular thread ...
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. How else are Christians, or theists in general, supposed to address an issue such as the Incarnation without reference to the particular belief system or 'truth-claims' of such a doctrine?
If people, atheists or theists alike, 'don't want' to debate an issue like that then they don't have to engage with the thread.
As a theist I don't claim to 'know' with absolute certainty that what I believe to be true is the case when it comes to matters of religion.
I don't see where I have done so on that thread. That's not how faith works.
What are the believers on that thread supposed to do? Say, 'Well, there is no possible way of verifying any of this with absolute 100% certainty so we won't even bother discussing it in the first place lest we annoy, upset or offend those who don't share the same world-view as us'?
If you don't want to discuss that particular issue then find another thread or topic that you feel more comfortable with.
It seems a bit much to expect theists to debate something without drawing on their particular beliefs.
I can see what you are driving at but I don't expect atheists here to alter their line of argument to suit me or to adopt a stance that compromises their particular position.
Caissa wrote: »
I think it is more correct to say there are questions "atheists" ( a theistic term) don't want to answer rather than cannot answer.
Mousethief: Such as?
Caissa responds: Questions that arise from a theistic worldview.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
Well, you've spent a fair bit of time contributing to that particular thread ...
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. How else are Christians, or theists in general, supposed to address an issue such as the Incarnation without reference to the particular belief system or 'truth-claims' of such a doctrine?
If people, atheists or theists alike, 'don't want' to debate an issue like that then they don't have to engage with the thread.
As a theist I don't claim to 'know' with absolute certainty that what I believe to be true is the case when it comes to matters of religion.
I don't see where I have done so on that thread. That's not how faith works.
What are the believers on that thread supposed to do? Say, 'Well, there is no possible way of verifying any of this with absolute 100% certainty so we won't even bother discussing it in the first place lest we annoy, upset or offend those who don't share the same world-view as us'?
If you don't want to discuss that particular issue then find another thread or topic that you feel more comfortable with.
It seems a bit much to expect theists to debate something without drawing on their particular beliefs.
I can see what you are driving at but I don't expect atheists here to alter their line of argument to suit me or to adopt a stance that compromises their particular position.
Or am I missing something?
There you go again, acting in good faith ; ) As a naturalist I don't feel excluded at all from faith discussion. If I did, I'd looks at what I'm projecting.
Caissa wrote: »
I think it is more correct to say there are questions "atheists" ( a theistic term) don't want to answer rather than cannot answer.
Mousethief: Such as?
Caissa responds: Questions that arise from a theistic worldview.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
Well, you've spent a fair bit of time contributing to that particular thread ...
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. How else are Christians, or theists in general, supposed to address an issue such as the Incarnation without reference to the particular belief system or 'truth-claims' of such a doctrine?
If people, atheists or theists alike, 'don't want' to debate an issue like that then they don't have to engage with the thread.
As a theist I don't claim to 'know' with absolute certainty that what I believe to be true is the case when it comes to matters of religion.
I don't see where I have done so on that thread. That's not how faith works.
I know how faith works. I used to have it. Theists saying they don't know with 100% certainty, a commendable trait, may be a hallmark of your Big-O worldview, but I can assure you that the opposite is true down here in buckle of the evangelical bible belt of America. In fact, if you don't affirm that you "know that you know that you know" (a real theological position here), chances are you aren't viewed as a Christian.
What are the believers on that thread supposed to do? Say, 'Well, there is no possible way of verifying any of this with absolute 100% certainty so we won't even bother discussing it in the first place lest we annoy, upset or offend those who don't share the same world-view as us'?
Well, maybe leading with the first part about uncertainty isn't worst idea in the world, perhaps in proportion to the esoteric value of the subject. Say whatever you like, of course. The "annoy, upset, or offend" issue can cut both ways, and less-than-theists are wont to question and challenge.
If you don't want to discuss that particular issue then find another thread or topic that you feel more comfortable with.
It seems a bit much to expect theists to debate something without drawing on their particular beliefs.
I don't mind discussing it. There's no need to be dismissive. But at some point, especially when the high weeds are seemingly beyond foreheads, I'll generally sense a need to remind that it's all pretty much pure conjecture, however inspiring of comforting.
I can see what you are driving at but I don't expect atheists here to alter their line of argument to suit me or to adopt a stance that compromises their particular position.
I think it's time, @Caissa, you shared a question that epitomizes your clarification. Just post a question you think a- or anti-theists "don't want to answer" (rather than cannot answer). It may even be a questions that "arise[-s] from a theistic worldview." Please give it a shot.
I think the idea is that Protestantism started the decoupling civil authority from religious authority. Reading Luther's On Secular Authority, and whatever Calvin's similar treatise was, one can see that their views were quite different from what western societies hold now, but were also vastly different from the tight union between church and government that existed before.
Protestantism started with the decoupling of religious belief from community.
Almost the exact opposite. It started with communities deciding they could decide religion. Early Protestant centre were all cities. You can name the cities: Calvin of Geneva, Zwingli of Zurich, Luther of Wittenberg and so on. The only real exception is Knox of Scotland though St Andrew's claims him, and he worked on developing what was a city bound model to a nation. Calvin was invited back to Geneva not by the religious authorities but by the town Burgesses. There are even a project to build links today in the cities of the Reformation.
It is, of course, wrong to think of cities as today's large metropolis' holding millions of people. Thing rather of places with 10s of thousands as St Andrew's is to this day. Urbanisation was taking place but on a small level. In conurbations of this size you still know your neighbours, interact with them and so on. It is small enough to have a single unitary authority albeit one with more beaureacracy than in a village where everything could be settled or not at the local pub. The seeds of modern hyper-urbanisation of today is some two hundred years away from the Reformation. Remember Columbus was only trying to circumnavigate the globe around the time of the Reformation. It is the hyper-urbanisation that I think is at the root of the breakdown between Religion and Community.
By "community" I was not referring to cities and earthly kingdoms, but the community of the Church. All protestantism devolves to "every man a pope."
No that is the enlightenment for you. Yes it comes from the academic circles where the thought of the individual is plied against the tradition of thought. So scientific method actually leads to individualism
Protestantism leads to individualism. Is borne of individualism.
If born in Individualism then it can't be the origin, because then the order is changed around. That which bears something must precede it, so you have a problem with your statement for if Protestantism is born of Individualism then Individualism cannot be born of Protestantism.
I didn't say it was the origin. I said it leads to it. Look this is not hard. Individualism gives rise to Protestantism. Now everyone who encounters Protestantism is lead to Individualism.
Ok, @The_Riv - I understand that you used to have faith and yes, even though I don't live near the buckle of the Bible belt I have come across, 'When you know that you know that you know...'
I'd tried to forget that position but remember a preacher who used to say it all the time. I used to be a church which was heavily influenced by all that malarkey.
The Big O Orthodox aren't immune from this sort of thing either, unfortunately. It may be packaged differently but there's similar fundamentalist schtick around.
Anyhow, I apologise if I sounded dismissive.
It is hard, though, to talk about faith positions without using terms that convey a sense of certainty or conviction unless we surround them with some many caveats that it impedes discussion.
And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Except in Christian theology the laws of nature aren't necessarily "prevenient" at all, assuming you mean, "The act or condition of occurring earlier, of being antecedent," as per Wiktionary, since this would be something in the nature that God made in the first place. God is "prevenient" to nature itself, in Christian theology.
He's not prevenient to logic, mathematics and the rules of quantum mechanics, for a start, whether they're instantiated by him as the ground of being or not.
Quantum mechanics, at very least, would depend on the nature of whatever universes He choose to create.
And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Except in Christian theology the laws of nature aren't necessarily "prevenient" at all, assuming you mean, "The act or condition of occurring earlier, of being antecedent," as per Wiktionary, since this would be something in the nature that God made in the first place. God is "prevenient" to nature itself, in Christian theology.
He's not prevenient to logic, mathematics and the rules of quantum mechanics, for a start, whether they're instantiated by him as the ground of being or not.
Quantum mechanics, at very least, would depend on the nature of whatever universes He choose to create.
How? Quantum mechanics creates universes. And as there have always been an infinity of them, what is there to choose? Unless he custom builds just one (tuning what?) every hundred trillion years (order of magnitude for when all the stars burn out, not how long then lifeless universes take to cease to be, which is practically eternity; meaninglessly long. Unless he transcends the whole universe. A long time for its dead to wait. What do all the transcendent saviours do all day until then?).
Are you being disingenuous, Mousethief. I have a former roommate who would not partake in any discussions that assumed there was a G-d.
I am not answerable for your roommate's predilections. I'd say you're being disingenuous. You imply there are questions atheists cannot or will not answer, but you will not state a single one. Put up or sh*t up.
It seems the only questions that atheists can't ask, or rather they can till they're blue in the face, are what questions they can't ask. Let alone can't answer.
I think it is probably difficult for atheists to answer questions about the character of specific deities. Maybe not impossible, particularly if they were believers in that religion in the past.
I obviously have no difficulty answering questions about the character of specific deities whether I ever believed (which I didn't), or not. Why would any other atheist?
I obviously have no difficulty answering questions about the character of specific deities whether I ever believed (which I didn't), or not. Why would any other atheist?
Well because an individual's interaction with a belief system is individual.
So if I asked "who would win a fight between Ancasta (the Celtic deity) and Lakshmi" that's probably a question that almost nobody can answer other than "dunno, don't care".
So, are there questions that a theist can answer in a cognitively biased manner, that are objectively, absolutely, disinterestedly metaphysically more sound than the cognitively unbiased manner atheists should answer in? That theists can win on a level playing field?
So, are there questions that a theist can answer in a cognitively biased manner, that are objectively, absolutely, disinterestedly metaphysically more sound than the cognitively unbiased manner atheists should answer in? That theists can win on a level playing field?
Its not about being "sound", it's about talking in a worldview with others of the same or similar worldview.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
I'm trying to work out where on that thread you see the claims of truth go beyond the bounds of Christianity.
And with respect to the above reference to what theists "know", also on the flat earth thread:
My takes remain that there's nothing that faith and belief can't rationalize, and that you all still don't actually know any of these things (nor do some even really want to) any better than the people who invented such concepts. Both of those things are completely fine, of course. I just can't join-in.
I think that one of the issues is that there are several ways in which "know" is used.
* Knowing what the orthodox Christian position is about a given doctrine is just a question of reading up on the subject (and occasionally picking a side).
* Knowing in the sense of confessing it to be true is different. eg "I know that my redeemer liveth".
* Knowing in the sense of taking it to be a reasonably accurate description of reality is another thing altogether.
With regard to being able to join in, my take is that different people in these discussions put different emphases on these types of knowing, to the extent that we can inadvertently shut down debate around the aspects of knowing that we're not interested in, or maybe that we don't think matter.
The above three uses refer to what human beings might or might not say we know. But there's a fourth, which is the question of what God might "know". My conjecture is that is so utterly different as to make the word "know" inappropriate. For example, in relation to the flat earth question: Human beings know that the earth is spherical because we've photographed it (and before that, have made calculations based on observations, etc). God "knows" the earth is spherical because He ordains it.
NB It is just as possible to write the above from a non-theist perspective eg "the question of what an orthodox Christian position would be on what ‘God’ would know". But these are the forums of Christian unrest, so I don't think it unreasonable to address these issues from the perspective of believers.
I think it is probably difficult for atheists to answer questions about the character of specific deities. Maybe not impossible, particularly if they were believers in that religion in the past.
I obviously have no difficulty answering questions about the character of specific deities whether I ever believed (which I didn't), or not. Why would any other atheist?
I suggest that some ex-believers might find it painful (or at least uncomfortable) to approach issues from the perspective of a believer.
So, are there questions that a theist can answer in a cognitively biased manner, that are objectively, absolutely, disinterestedly metaphysically more sound than the cognitively unbiased manner atheists should answer in? That theists can win on a level playing field?
Its not about being "sound", it's about talking in a worldview with others of the same or similar worldview.
Not a question atheists as such can't answer, but one to which the secular rationalists whom most Westerners think of when they think of atheists don't have any good answer, is metaethics.
That is what is the status and basis of ethical statements. There are three rough categories of answer (*), all somewhat unsatisfactory.
One is to argue that ethical statements are wishes or commands or otherwise expressions of emotion with no grounds outside the speaker's mindset. The problem is we don't treat ethical statements in the same way as we treat other such statements.
A second is to argue that ethical statements have a naturalistic basis in the way humans have evolved or in enlightened self-interest or so on. The problem is human nature and self-interest underdetermine any ethical code to the point that "so what" is a reasonable response.
A third is to argue that ethics has a non-natural component, but that rather undermines the standard secular rationalist metaphysics.
(*) that I am aware of; but I have a degree in secular ethical philosophy so it's unlikely there are answers out there I'm not aware of.
What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question.
One can however explore the logical implications of ideas.
Arguably all of modern theoretical physics is arguing about things that physicists can't actually know until they can afford unfeasibly expensive and technically advanced equipment.
Rather rude, Mousethief.
I am not answerable for your roommate's predilections. I'd say you're being disingenuous. You imply there are questions atheists cannot or will not answer, but you will not state a single one. Put up or sh*t up.
Caissa responds: First, I would suggest there are not a class called "atheists" who can or will not answer questions. Second, there are questions individuals who theists call "atheists would choose not to answer". Third, one such question is " What is the nature of G-d?" or any other question who presupposes the existence of a G-d.
I would have thought my third point would have been obvious.
It is hard, though, to talk about faith positions without using terms that convey a sense of certainty or conviction unless we surround them with some many caveats that it impedes discussion.
I can appreciate the conviction part, just not the certainty. Maybe it would benefit the religious to occasionally remind themselves, as well as others around them, that what they believe is, while hopeful, essentially hypothetical. And I appreciate your good will. Thanks.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
I'm trying to work out where on that thread you see the claims of truth go beyond the bounds of Christianity.
Perhaps I worded that poorly. Maybe it's more to do with metaphysical aspects of it, like the tangent there about Jesus keeping his 100% human nature after the ascension. That seems to me to be something none of us, however holy, could know. I mean, c'mon. How does one make a claim that such a thing *is so?* Thomas couldn't get as far as the resurrection without direct, firsthand, conclusive empirical evidence, but you're sure about Jesus' own post-ascension nature in heaven -- another metaphysical unknowable?
And with respect to the above reference to what theists "know", also on the flat earth thread:
My takes remain that there's nothing that faith and belief can't rationalize, and that you all still don't actually know any of these things (nor do some even really want to) any better than the people who invented such concepts. Both of those things are completely fine, of course. I just can't join-in.
I think that one of the issues is that there are several ways in which "know" is used.
* Knowing what the orthodox Christian position is about a given doctrine is just a question of reading up on the subject (and occasionally picking a side).
* Knowing in the sense of confessing it to be true is different. eg "I know that my redeemer liveth".
* Knowing in the sense of taking it to be a reasonably accurate description of reality is another thing altogether.
With regard to being able to join in, my take is that different people in these discussions put different emphases on these types of knowing, to the extent that we can inadvertently shut down debate around the aspects of knowing that we're not interested in, or maybe that we don't think matter.
The above three uses refer to what human beings might or might not say we know. But there's a fourth, which is the question of what God might "know". My conjecture is that is so utterly different as to make the word "know" inappropriate. For example, in relation to the flat earth question: Human beings know that the earth is spherical because we've photographed it (and before that, have made calculations based on observations, etc). God "knows" the earth is spherical because He ordains it.
NB It is just as possible to write the above from a non-theist perspective eg "the question of what an orthodox Christian position would be on what ‘God’ would know". But these are the forums of Christian unrest, so I don't think it unreasonable to address these issues from the perspective of believers.
I appreciate you fleshing this out again, and I'll confess an ongoing frustration about my struggle to move a step in either direction from the 3rd example of "knowing" as you've defined it. All I can say is that I think "conjecture" is the appropriate word in terms of God knowing by ordination.
I need to try to stop posting my simple objections based on the idea "knowing." And I agree that the DNA of this site is Christian, and that perspectives largely derive from that place. No harm there, of course. Thanks, @pease.
What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question.
One can however explore the logical implications of ideas.
Arguably all of modern theoretical physics is arguing about things that physicists can't actually know until they can afford unfeasibly expensive and technically advanced equipment.
Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria" notwithstanding, reality is always at the core of scientific discovery and explanation. I don't understand the same re: religion. That's not to say that there may not be value in arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but YMMV relative to the increasing scope and depth of meaning that science confirms. Or, I suppose, it may not.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
I'm trying to work out where on that thread you see the claims of truth go beyond the bounds of Christianity.
Perhaps I worded that poorly. Maybe it's more to do with metaphysical aspects of it, like the tangent there about Jesus keeping his 100% human nature after the ascension. That seems to me to be something none of us, however holy, could know. I mean, c'mon. How does one make a claim that such a thing *is so?* Thomas couldn't get as far as the resurrection without direct, firsthand, conclusive empirical evidence, but you're sure about Jesus' own post-ascension nature in heaven -- another metaphysical unknowable?
Thanks - that makes sense.
Having just posted some more on that thread about the post-ascension nature of Christ, I suppose it might help to point out that I'm looking at orthodox Christian doctrine from the perspective of the purpose it serves for believers (amongst other things). Also, to echo an earlier post of yours on that thread, I wouldn't say I currently need any of it to be true.
It is hard, though, to talk about faith positions without using terms that convey a sense of certainty or conviction unless we surround them with some many caveats that it impedes discussion.
I can appreciate the conviction part, just not the certainty. Maybe it would benefit the religious to occasionally remind themselves, as well as others around them, that what they believe is, while hopeful, essentially hypothetical. And I appreciate your good will. Thanks.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
I'm trying to work out where on that thread you see the claims of truth go beyond the bounds of Christianity.
Perhaps I worded that poorly. Maybe it's more to do with metaphysical aspects of it, like the tangent there about Jesus keeping his 100% human nature after the ascension. That seems to me to be something none of us, however holy, could know. I mean, c'mon. How does one make a claim that such a thing *is so?* Thomas couldn't get as far as the resurrection without direct, firsthand, conclusive empirical evidence, but you're sure about Jesus' own post-ascension nature in heaven -- another metaphysical unknowable?
And with respect to the above reference to what theists "know", also on the flat earth thread:
My takes remain that there's nothing that faith and belief can't rationalize, and that you all still don't actually know any of these things (nor do some even really want to) any better than the people who invented such concepts. Both of those things are completely fine, of course. I just can't join-in.
I think that one of the issues is that there are several ways in which "know" is used.
* Knowing what the orthodox Christian position is about a given doctrine is just a question of reading up on the subject (and occasionally picking a side).
* Knowing in the sense of confessing it to be true is different. eg "I know that my redeemer liveth".
* Knowing in the sense of taking it to be a reasonably accurate description of reality is another thing altogether.
With regard to being able to join in, my take is that different people in these discussions put different emphases on these types of knowing, to the extent that we can inadvertently shut down debate around the aspects of knowing that we're not interested in, or maybe that we don't think matter.
The above three uses refer to what human beings might or might not say we know. But there's a fourth, which is the question of what God might "know". My conjecture is that is so utterly different as to make the word "know" inappropriate. For example, in relation to the flat earth question: Human beings know that the earth is spherical because we've photographed it (and before that, have made calculations based on observations, etc). God "knows" the earth is spherical because He ordains it.
NB It is just as possible to write the above from a non-theist perspective eg "the question of what an orthodox Christian position would be on what ‘God’ would know". But these are the forums of Christian unrest, so I don't think it unreasonable to address these issues from the perspective of believers.
I appreciate you fleshing this out again, and I'll confess an ongoing frustration about my struggle to move a step in either direction from the 3rd example of "knowing" as you've defined it. All I can say is that I think "conjecture" is the appropriate word in terms of God knowing by ordination.
I need to try to stop posting my simple objections based on the idea "knowing." And I agree that the DNA of this site is Christian, and that perspectives largely derive from that place. No harm there, of course. Thanks, @pease.
What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question.
One can however explore the logical implications of ideas.
Arguably all of modern theoretical physics is arguing about things that physicists can't actually know until they can afford unfeasibly expensive and technically advanced equipment.
Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria" notwithstanding, reality is always at the core of scientific discovery and explanation. I don't understand the same re: religion. That's not to say that there may not be value in arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but YMMV relative to the increasing scope and depth of meaning that science confirms. Or, I suppose, it may not.
A lot to go at there and with @Pease's comments too.
I s'pose I'm working with the premise of, 'Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.'
So, yes, however people on the clasp of the buckle of the Bible-belt may express these things, I'm well aware that we can't stick any of this stuff in a test-tube and 'prove' it.
I'm also very reluctant to sit in judgement on anyone who loses their faith. We could all do so. I've known it happens with all sorts of people.
I am also very conscious, as others have observed, that 'God-talk' can be painful or uncomfortable for those who have believed but do so no more, for whatever reason. That can be particularly so if that talk is presented in a way which sounds smug or self-satisfied.
It's a tricky thing, though, this God discourse. I've come across monks and nuns who talk about God in a very 'real' and down-to-earth way without any apparent hint of self-consciousness or embarrassment, nor any sense of holier-than-thou-ness either. Rather like where it says in the OT that Moses conversed with God like someone talking to his friend.
Conversely, I've also come across people who do the same thing but in a highly irritating way as if the Almighty is so intimately involved in their lives to the extent that 'God said this, or God said that,' and the Bible becomes some kind of horoscope directing them what to have for breakfast each morning.
How do we speak about these things?
We can't go around prefixing every statement about religious belief with, 'Well, hypothetically, I believe that ...' or, 'According to some people X ...'
I'm not sure what the answer is other than whether we are believers, ex-believers, never-ever-been-believers, we should conduct ourselves respectfully towards one another and find common ground where we can.
It's a tricky thing, though, this God discourse. I've come across monks and nuns who talk about God in a very 'real' and down-to-earth way without any apparent hint of self-consciousness or embarrassment, nor any sense of holier-than-thou-ness either. Rather like where it says in the OT that Moses conversed with God like someone talking to his friend.
Conversely, I've also come across people who do the same thing but in a highly irritating way as if the Almighty is so intimately involved in their lives to the extent that 'God said this, or God said that,' and the Bible becomes some kind of horoscope directing them what to have for breakfast each morning.
How do we speak about these things?
And this is indeed where the difficulty lies—because for a hypothetical poster, say one of your monks, to speak honestly about his experience on the Ship, he’s going to end up accused of either overstating (that is, lying) or else of being a self deluded sanctimonious jerk. There generally isn’t room for “this is just my experience, and others saying “oh.” People leap to conclusions about the moral state of someone who claims to have had such experiences. And in general the conclusions aren’t charitable. (Where they are, they also tend to be wrong—I’ve heard a couple of people say “X must have done something to deserve such a gift,” which is also wrong.)
Or it could also be that the monk - or nun, I included them - might not claim any particular or special 'experience' beyond that which any of us might claim - but simply use language in such a way that implies to the rest of us that they have.
That needn't imply diaungenuity or sanctimony on their part, it might simply be the way they choose to frame their discourse about God, spirituality etc.
So things may even be more tricky than that.
Which doesn't mean that any form of God-talk is so tricky and fraught with difficulty that we shouldn't even attempt it, of course.
Comments
Naturally. 3rd generation. As always. Everywhere. In the infinite multiverse.
The Planck Epoch cannot be, by definition, let alone the quantum perturbation that started it all, it all being our infinitesimal of a mediocre universe, not the at least 5D infinite hyperspatial multiverse. Which cannot cast any rational doubt whatsoever that it is all perfectly naturally mediocre forever and ever. Bloody gobsmackingly queer mind you. There is no God gap. Let alone Love gap.
Such as?
Except in Christian theology the laws of nature aren't necessarily "prevenient" at all, assuming you mean, "The act or condition of occurring earlier, of being antecedent," as per Wiktionary, since this would be something in the nature that God made in the first place. God is "prevenient" to nature itself, in Christian theology.
He's not prevenient to logic, mathematics and the rules of quantum mechanics, for a start, whether they're instantiated by him as the ground of being or not.
I think it is more correct to say there are questions "atheists" ( a theistic term) don't want to answer rather than cannot answer.
Mousethief: Such as?
Caissa responds: Questions that arise from a theistic worldview.
If they don't have a theistic worldview then such questions hold no relevance or interest for them other than on a purely academic level.
I'm not an atheist but I have a lot of sympathy with how they must feel frustrated at theistic expectations that they should engage in 'our' theistic questions on our own terms rather than theirs.
As if they haven't faced them already if they have adopted an atheist position from holding a faith position previously.
I may not share your position or Mousethief's but I wouldn't accuse either of you of 'bad faith' in doing so.
I don't think there are any questions atheists can't address. What atheists don't want to do is argue about things theists can't actually know, but claim to be true beyond the bounds of the religion in question. The current discussion in the Did Jesus think the earth is flat? thread are one such example.
We know. You're a person of good faith ; )
Such as?
Well, you've spent a fair bit of time contributing to that particular thread ...
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. How else are Christians, or theists in general, supposed to address an issue such as the Incarnation without reference to the particular belief system or 'truth-claims' of such a doctrine?
If people, atheists or theists alike, 'don't want' to debate an issue like that then they don't have to engage with the thread.
As a theist I don't claim to 'know' with absolute certainty that what I believe to be true is the case when it comes to matters of religion.
I don't see where I have done so on that thread. That's not how faith works.
What are the believers on that thread supposed to do? Say, 'Well, there is no possible way of verifying any of this with absolute 100% certainty so we won't even bother discussing it in the first place lest we annoy, upset or offend those who don't share the same world-view as us'?
If you don't want to discuss that particular issue then find another thread or topic that you feel more comfortable with.
It seems a bit much to expect theists to debate something without drawing on their particular beliefs.
I can see what you are driving at but I don't expect atheists here to alter their line of argument to suit me or to adopt a stance that compromises their particular position.
Or am I missing something?
There you go again, acting in good faith ; ) As a naturalist I don't feel excluded at all from faith discussion. If I did, I'd looks at what I'm projecting.
I know how faith works. I used to have it. Theists saying they don't know with 100% certainty, a commendable trait, may be a hallmark of your Big-O worldview, but I can assure you that the opposite is true down here in buckle of the evangelical bible belt of America. In fact, if you don't affirm that you "know that you know that you know" (a real theological position here), chances are you aren't viewed as a Christian.
Well, maybe leading with the first part about uncertainty isn't worst idea in the world, perhaps in proportion to the esoteric value of the subject. Say whatever you like, of course. The "annoy, upset, or offend" issue can cut both ways, and less-than-theists are wont to question and challenge.
I don't mind discussing it. There's no need to be dismissive. But at some point, especially when the high weeds are seemingly beyond foreheads, I'll generally sense a need to remind that it's all pretty much pure conjecture, however inspiring of comforting.
We'll see.
read your quote above
Like what?
I'd tried to forget that position but remember a preacher who used to say it all the time. I used to be a church which was heavily influenced by all that malarkey.
The Big O Orthodox aren't immune from this sort of thing either, unfortunately. It may be packaged differently but there's similar fundamentalist schtick around.
Anyhow, I apologise if I sounded dismissive.
It is hard, though, to talk about faith positions without using terms that convey a sense of certainty or conviction unless we surround them with some many caveats that it impedes discussion.
Quantum mechanics, at very least, would depend on the nature of whatever universes He choose to create.
How? Quantum mechanics creates universes. And as there have always been an infinity of them, what is there to choose? Unless he custom builds just one (tuning what?) every hundred trillion years (order of magnitude for when all the stars burn out, not how long then lifeless universes take to cease to be, which is practically eternity; meaninglessly long. Unless he transcends the whole universe. A long time for its dead to wait. What do all the transcendent saviours do all day until then?).
I am not answerable for your roommate's predilections. I'd say you're being disingenuous. You imply there are questions atheists cannot or will not answer, but you will not state a single one. Put up or sh*t up.
Well because an individual's interaction with a belief system is individual.
So if I asked "who would win a fight between Ancasta (the Celtic deity) and Lakshmi" that's probably a question that almost nobody can answer other than "dunno, don't care".
Its not about being "sound", it's about talking in a worldview with others of the same or similar worldview.
And with respect to the above reference to what theists "know", also on the flat earth thread: I think that one of the issues is that there are several ways in which "know" is used.
* Knowing what the orthodox Christian position is about a given doctrine is just a question of reading up on the subject (and occasionally picking a side).
* Knowing in the sense of confessing it to be true is different. eg "I know that my redeemer liveth".
* Knowing in the sense of taking it to be a reasonably accurate description of reality is another thing altogether.
With regard to being able to join in, my take is that different people in these discussions put different emphases on these types of knowing, to the extent that we can inadvertently shut down debate around the aspects of knowing that we're not interested in, or maybe that we don't think matter.
The above three uses refer to what human beings might or might not say we know. But there's a fourth, which is the question of what God might "know". My conjecture is that is so utterly different as to make the word "know" inappropriate. For example, in relation to the flat earth question: Human beings know that the earth is spherical because we've photographed it (and before that, have made calculations based on observations, etc). God "knows" the earth is spherical because He ordains it.
NB It is just as possible to write the above from a non-theist perspective eg "the question of what an orthodox Christian position would be on what ‘God’ would know". But these are the forums of Christian unrest, so I don't think it unreasonable to address these issues from the perspective of believers.
Indeed.
That is what is the status and basis of ethical statements. There are three rough categories of answer (*), all somewhat unsatisfactory.
One is to argue that ethical statements are wishes or commands or otherwise expressions of emotion with no grounds outside the speaker's mindset. The problem is we don't treat ethical statements in the same way as we treat other such statements.
A second is to argue that ethical statements have a naturalistic basis in the way humans have evolved or in enlightened self-interest or so on. The problem is human nature and self-interest underdetermine any ethical code to the point that "so what" is a reasonable response.
A third is to argue that ethics has a non-natural component, but that rather undermines the standard secular rationalist metaphysics.
(*) that I am aware of; but I have a degree in secular ethical philosophy so it's unlikely there are answers out there I'm not aware of.
Arguably all of modern theoretical physics is arguing about things that physicists can't actually know until they can afford unfeasibly expensive and technically advanced equipment.
I am not answerable for your roommate's predilections. I'd say you're being disingenuous. You imply there are questions atheists cannot or will not answer, but you will not state a single one. Put up or sh*t up.
Caissa responds: First, I would suggest there are not a class called "atheists" who can or will not answer questions. Second, there are questions individuals who theists call "atheists would choose not to answer". Third, one such question is " What is the nature of G-d?" or any other question who presupposes the existence of a G-d.
I would have thought my third point would have been obvious.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Perhaps I worded that poorly. Maybe it's more to do with metaphysical aspects of it, like the tangent there about Jesus keeping his 100% human nature after the ascension. That seems to me to be something none of us, however holy, could know. I mean, c'mon. How does one make a claim that such a thing *is so?* Thomas couldn't get as far as the resurrection without direct, firsthand, conclusive empirical evidence, but you're sure about Jesus' own post-ascension nature in heaven -- another metaphysical unknowable?
I appreciate you fleshing this out again, and I'll confess an ongoing frustration about my struggle to move a step in either direction from the 3rd example of "knowing" as you've defined it. All I can say is that I think "conjecture" is the appropriate word in terms of God knowing by ordination.
I need to try to stop posting my simple objections based on the idea "knowing." And I agree that the DNA of this site is Christian, and that perspectives largely derive from that place. No harm there, of course. Thanks, @pease.
Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria" notwithstanding, reality is always at the core of scientific discovery and explanation. I don't understand the same re: religion. That's not to say that there may not be value in arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but YMMV relative to the increasing scope and depth of meaning that science confirms. Or, I suppose, it may not.
Having just posted some more on that thread about the post-ascension nature of Christ, I suppose it might help to point out that I'm looking at orthodox Christian doctrine from the perspective of the purpose it serves for believers (amongst other things). Also, to echo an earlier post of yours on that thread, I wouldn't say I currently need any of it to be true.
A lot to go at there and with @Pease's comments too.
I s'pose I'm working with the premise of, 'Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief.'
So, yes, however people on the clasp of the buckle of the Bible-belt may express these things, I'm well aware that we can't stick any of this stuff in a test-tube and 'prove' it.
I'm also very reluctant to sit in judgement on anyone who loses their faith. We could all do so. I've known it happens with all sorts of people.
I am also very conscious, as others have observed, that 'God-talk' can be painful or uncomfortable for those who have believed but do so no more, for whatever reason. That can be particularly so if that talk is presented in a way which sounds smug or self-satisfied.
It's a tricky thing, though, this God discourse. I've come across monks and nuns who talk about God in a very 'real' and down-to-earth way without any apparent hint of self-consciousness or embarrassment, nor any sense of holier-than-thou-ness either. Rather like where it says in the OT that Moses conversed with God like someone talking to his friend.
Conversely, I've also come across people who do the same thing but in a highly irritating way as if the Almighty is so intimately involved in their lives to the extent that 'God said this, or God said that,' and the Bible becomes some kind of horoscope directing them what to have for breakfast each morning.
How do we speak about these things?
We can't go around prefixing every statement about religious belief with, 'Well, hypothetically, I believe that ...' or, 'According to some people X ...'
I'm not sure what the answer is other than whether we are believers, ex-believers, never-ever-been-believers, we should conduct ourselves respectfully towards one another and find common ground where we can.
And this is indeed where the difficulty lies—because for a hypothetical poster, say one of your monks, to speak honestly about his experience on the Ship, he’s going to end up accused of either overstating (that is, lying) or else of being a self deluded sanctimonious jerk. There generally isn’t room for “this is just my experience, and others saying “oh.” People leap to conclusions about the moral state of someone who claims to have had such experiences. And in general the conclusions aren’t charitable. (Where they are, they also tend to be wrong—I’ve heard a couple of people say “X must have done something to deserve such a gift,” which is also wrong.)
That needn't imply diaungenuity or sanctimony on their part, it might simply be the way they choose to frame their discourse about God, spirituality etc.
So things may even be more tricky than that.
Which doesn't mean that any form of God-talk is so tricky and fraught with difficulty that we shouldn't even attempt it, of course.