Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

[DavidRoss]

I'm amazed at your grasp of this subject matter, Florestan.  I wasn't required to study the scholastics at university and gave them a wide berth, since I held the same arrogant anti-ecclesiastic prejudices back then that many of the posters here still cling to.  I did, however, study the philosophy of science.  Your account of the development of science and the scientific method broadly coincides with my recollection of its historical development.  Believing Reason to be a principal attribute of God and one of humankind's noblest endowments, devout Christians like Bacon, Newton, and Descartes had faith in the rational order of creation and in human ability to discover that order via rigorous observation and reasoning.  The facts are so clear and well documented that denying them is like denying the Nazi Holocaust.  Of course there's no dearth of cranks whose prejudices against Jews cause them to dispute that, too. 

In this context I see no point in hypothetical speculation whether it were possible for science to have developed in a culture not guided by Christian values.  The question is completely irrelevant to a discussion of what, in fact, did happen.

As you pointed out elsewhere, Florestan, there is a considerable gulf between reason and rationalization.  How sad that a glimpse at virtually any news publication (or internet forum!) will quickly disclose that the former is lamentably rare whereas the latter proliferates like kudzu.

[karlhenning]

Thank you, gents, for worthwhile contributions to this thread.

[Florestan]

I'm amazed at your grasp of this subject matter, Florestan.  I wasn't required to study the scholastics at university and gave them a wide berth, since I held the same arrogant anti-ecclesiastic prejudices back then that many of the posters here still cling to.  I did, however, study the philosophy of science. 

Thank you for your kind appreciation of my modest knowledge. Actually, I studied this subject, i.e. the history of science in relation with the history of Christianity, not because I was required to at university (I graduated as a Mechanical Engineer) but because I was inexorably drifted towards it by my interest in philosophy. Later, I realized that it is also my duty as a Christian to be able to refute the myths and fabrications that are so often presented as evidence against my religion.

Your account of the development of science and the scientific method broadly coincides with my recollection of its historical development.  Believing Reason to be a principal attribute of God and one of humankind's noblest endowments, devout Christians like Bacon, Newton, and Descartes had faith in the rational order of creation and in human ability to discover that order via rigorous observation and reasoning.  The facts are so clear and well documented that denying them is like denying the Nazi Holocaust.  Of course there's no dearth of cranks whose prejudices against Jews cause them to dispute that, too. 

As I said above, I don't understand why a rational and reasonable atheist would want to deny this fact.

[DavidRoss]

As I said above, I don't understand why a rational and reasonable atheist would want to deny this fact.

Well, as I explained on a couple of other threads in the past, atheism (claiming that God does not exist) is neither rational nor reasonable, whereas agnosticism (claiming that ones does not know whether God exists) is both.  Thus, "rational atheist" is an oxymoron, whereas rationalizing atheism is utterly commonplace.

[Josquin des Prez]

The facts are so clear and well documented that denying them is like denying the Nazi Holocaust.

If the facts are so clear and well documented, why do we need laws to silence and persecute dissenting point of views?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA456Fmu9FU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErHWLrJvWPg

[bwv 1080]

If the facts are so clear and well documented, why do we need laws to silence and persecute dissenting point of views?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA456Fmu9FU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErHWLrJvWPg

the laws are unneccessary and violate fundamental civil liberties.  It would be equivalent to banning 911 consipiracy theories or alien abduction stories

[Josquin des Prez]

For those interested, here's the book in question:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/

If you live in Germany, be sure not to download the book. Your free democracy in action.

[aquablob]

Well, as I explained on a couple of other threads in the past, atheism (claiming that God does not exist) is neither rational nor reasonable, whereas agnosticism (claiming that ones does not know whether God exists) is both.  Thus, "rational atheist" is an oxymoron, whereas rationalizing atheism is utterly commonplace.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, although I see where you're coming from and have heard this argument before.

There are degrees/levels of belief or surety. Your definition of atheism ("claiming that God does not exist") implies that atheists, by definition, exhibit a 100% surety level regarding the non-existence of god(s). But isn't there a difference between lacking a belief in something and claiming with certainty that that something does not exist?

I consider myself an atheist because I do not believe in any god or gods. I don't think this means that I claim to know with 100% certainty that no gods exist—a claim that would be, as you say, irrational and unreasonable, as proving the non-existence of something is impossible.

I think it all comes down to definitions of certain concepts and terms. If you'd prefer to label me an "atheistic agnostic," I'd have no problem with that; but according to my personal experience and observations, most people that consider themselves "atheists" are like me in that, rather than claiming with certainty that no gods exist, they simply lack belief in a god or gods. There is a difference.

[DavidRoss]

I don't think this is necessarily the case, although I see where you're coming from and have heard this argument before.

There are degrees/levels of belief or surety. Your definition of atheism ("claiming that God does not exist") implies that atheists, by definition, exhibit a 100% surety level regarding the non-existence of god(s). But isn't there a difference between lacking a belief in something and claiming with certainty that that something does not exist?

I consider myself an atheist because I do not believe in any god or gods. I don't think this means that I claim to know with 100% certainty that no gods exist—a claim that would be, as you say, irrational and unreasonable, as proving the non-existence of something is impossible.

I think it all comes down to definitions of certain concepts and terms. If you'd prefer to label me an "atheistic agnostic," I'd have no problem with that; but according to my personal experience and observations, most people that consider themselves "atheists" are like me in that, rather than claiming with certainty that no gods exist, they simply lack belief in a god or gods. There is a difference.

Indeed, the difference is considerable.  I've seen others refer to your brand of agnosticism as "soft atheism."  My point exactly is that most who regard themselves as "atheists" are really agnostics.  They do not know that God exists, thus don't believe in his existence.  That is one perfectly rational form of agnosticism, but it is not really atheism, which is the positive affirmation of God's non-existence.  As you note, lack of belief in something is not at all the same as positive belief in its contrary. 

[aquablob]

Indeed, the difference is considerable.  I've seen others refer to your brand of agnosticism as "soft atheism."  My point exactly is that most who regard themselves as "atheists" are really agnostics.  They do not know that God exists, thus don't believe in his existence.  That is one perfectly rational form of agnosticism, but it is not really atheism, which is the positive affirmation of God's non-existence.  As you note, lack of belief in something is not at all the same as positive belief in its contrary. 

We're in agreement, then. Clear definitions—not only of terms like "theism," "atheism," and "agnosticism," but also (and perhaps even more importantly) of "belief" and "knowledge"—are absolutely necessary for these discussions. Everyone must be "on the same page," so to speak.

Out of curiosity, would you classify "theism" as "rational" and/or "reasonable" (to use your own terms)?

[Herman]

Believing Reason to be a principal attribute of God and one of humankind's noblest endowments, devout Christians like Bacon, Newton, and Descartes had faith in the rational order of creation and in human ability to discover that order via rigorous observation and reasoning.  The facts are so clear and well documented that denying them is like denying the Nazi Holocaust. 

So what are these facts you're referring to, since there aren't any facts mentioned in the previous sentence?

[drogulus]

In respect with the topic at hand, this assertion boils down to claiming that the grandson is essential, not the grandfather. This might be true in some respects, but at least the grandfather must be given credit for engendering the grandson's father and thus, ultimately, the grandson itself. Recognizing this simple historical fact would not mean from the radical atheist camp a conversion or a surender, but a homage paid to the reality (to which they pretend to be so reverent). Why it is so hard to accept it I can only too well understand in the case of ideological fanatics, but why it is so hard to accept it for reasoning and intelligent people like you and others here, it's beyond me.

     I'm glad to acknowledge the grandfather. Ideas do give birth to other ideas that in time overthrow their antecedents. And it's clear that I didn't misunderstand you.

     It isn't necessary to believe that what we think of as scientific confirmation or refutation sprang up full blown in the case of Aristotle. Scientific empiricism must have developed in stages. I'm merely saying that discarding the apriorism behind the idea that there could be a theological refutation of physical theories was part of the development process for which the Church ought to be given credit, that is, for not preventing this realization, now fundamental to all knowledge, from arriving. Could they have prevented it? They could have tried harder, I suppose.

     

To summarize: reconstructing the scientific rejection of Aristotle as being simultaneous with, or even preceding,  his theological refutation is an anachronism at best and an attempt at distorting history at worst.

     Theological refutation is a contingent historical fact. It probably came first, and it's irrelevancy to anything scientific came much later. What was wrong with Aristotle from a scientific standpoint is in addition a matter of what is true about the physical propositions. We don't say, for instance, that the divinity of nature counts against him, nor does it count against his Church opponents that they maintained the opposite. The core of the scientific worldview you wish to credit in part to the Church thinkers is how this is irrelevant to the issue of whether Aristotle is right. We understand that theological refutation has disappeared completely* and this took time to develop. It seems curious that you wish to take credit for the Church for this even though, as I say, they did contribute to it's development.

     _{*Except from intellectual history, and the minds of theologians in some cases.}

[drogulus]

     Incidentally I wouldn't call myself a radical at all. By today's standards I'm a little old fashioned with all the talk about truth and the real world, as well as my faith in materialism. Today a really advanced thinker rejects all that as no more believable than religion. It's all a big light show put on by the powers that be to keep us in ignorance, I guess.

     OK, how about this:

     The Church belief in a rational order inspired exploration of nature. That rational order, it turned out, is intrinsic and rationality descriptive. The universe is rationally described, not rationally constructed. That's how we understand it now. We no longer displace our descriptive powers onto other entities. Another way of saying this is that there are no rules for a universe to obey. The rules are what we bring to bear on our observations. This gives the Church credit that's worth taking.


     Oohh, I got one:

     It's occurred to some critics that even empiricism has axioms in science, logic, and mathematics and they take from this that sci/mat is just another belief. I say that these axioms can't be got rid of, unlike the religious apriorisms, so they stay in. That's the only measure of their necessity we can have, and all we need. The advantage of a system based on observation and description is that it is modest. Truth becomes operational and not a metaphysical postulate bossing theories around. The question "Yeah, but what is it really?" then can be seen as not something answerable. The overlordship of metaphysics is gone, and it's merely speculative until some observation says otherwise.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Given the giant aesthetic achievements of devout Christians, the answer is obviously no.


Jesus Christ never said anything about the arts, yet these are activities in which devout Christians engaged with religious fervor and divine achievements (pun intended).

O.k. Andrei, to get back to my original question for a moment    :

In an introductory book on Platonism by Bryan Magee I read the following:

"Plato believed that for an intelligent person the ultimate aim of life should be to pierce the surface of things and penetrate to the level of underlying reality. To achieve this a person would have to see through the decaying ephemera that constitute the world of our senses, to free himself from their attractions and seductions. He views the arts as being of their nature representational and as making a powerful appeal to the senses. Music makes an enormous appeal to our senses, and of course the more beautiful it is the more powerful the appeal. Works of art are, in his view, doubly deceptive because they are illusory semblances of things that are illusory semblances... They glamorize the fleeting things of this world, and they enrich our emotional attachment to them, thereby holding us back from our true calling, which is to soar above their level altogether to the timeless and non-sensory reality beyond. So they are a major distraction to our souls..."

******

Do you see this ?

That is why it surprises me that Christianity does not show at least  some  hostility to music and the arts.

[DavidRoss]

We're in agreement, then. Clear definitions—not only of terms like "theism," "atheism," and "agnosticism," but also (and perhaps even more importantly) of "belief" and "knowledge"—are absolutely necessary for these discussions. Everyone must be "on the same page," so to speak.

Out of curiosity, would you classify "theism" as "rational" and/or "reasonable" (to use your own terms)?

Absolutely!  Otherwise in these discussions (as usual, here and elsewhere) we're not only talking apples and oranges, but often with fellows who've never even seen an orange but think they're experts on all things orangish.

And theism is indeed rational.

[aquablob]

Absolutely!  Otherwise in these discussions (as usual, here and elsewhere) we're not only talking apples and oranges, but often with fellows who've never even seen an orange but think they're experts on all things orangish.

And theism is indeed rational.

Why is theism (perhaps we must define it? ) rational but atheism irrational?

[drogulus]

     Theism is excessive rational, and profoundly anti-empirical.

     Kant has an idea about this:


    INTRODUCTION

1. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PURE AND EMPIRICAL
KNOWLEDGE

THERE can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with
experience. For how should our faculty of knowledge be
awakened into action did not objects affecting our senses
partly of themselves produce representations, partly arouse
the activity of our understanding to compare these
representations, and, by combining or separating them, work
up the raw material of the sensible impressions into that
knowledge of objects which is entitled experience? In the
order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to
experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins.
But though all our knowledge begins with experience,
it does not follow that it all arises out of experience.

I. THE IDEA OF TRANSCENDENTAL PHILOSOPHY A1
Experience is, beyond all doubt, the first product to which
our understanding gives rise, in working up the raw material
of sensible impressions. Experience is therefore our first
instruction, and in its progress is so inexhaustible in new
information, that in the interconnected lives of all future
generations there will never be any lack of new knowledge
that can be thus ingathered. Nevertheless, it is by no means
the sole field to which our understanding is confined. For it
may well be that even our empirical knowledge is made up of
what we receive through impressions and of what our own
faculty of knowledge (sensible impressions serving merely as
the occasion) supplies from itself. If our faculty of knowledge
makes any such addition, it may be that we are not in a position
to distinguish it from the raw material, until with long B2
practice of attention we have become skilled in separating it.
This, then, is a question which at least calls for closer
examination, and does not allow of any off-hand answer: --
whether there is any knowledge that is thus independent of
experience and even of all impressions of the senses. Such
knowledge is entitled a priori, and distinguished from the
empirical, which has its sources a posteriori, that is, in
experience.Experi-ence tells us,
indeed, what is, but not that it must necessarily
be so, and not otherwise. It therefore gives us no true
universality; and reason, which is so insistent upon this
kind of knowledge, is therefore more stimulated by it than
satisfied. Such universal modes of knowledge, which at the
same time possess the character of inner necessity, must in
themselves, independently of experience, be clear and certain.
They are therefore entitled knowledge a priori; whereas, on
the other hand, that which is borrowed solely from experience
is, as we say, known only a posteriori, or empirically.

Now we find, what is especially noteworthy, that even into
our experiences there enter modes of knowledge which must
have their origin a priori, and which perhaps serve only to
give coherence to our sense-representations.


     Kant is always difficult, but here he says there must be something a priori in knowledge since sense impressions can't tell you how to interpret them. But isn't he also saying that the a priori is used to interpret experience perhaps (....) only?

     After all, didn't he entitle his work the Critique of Pure Reason?

     Maybe I don't know how to interpret Kant, and I'll have to be right without his assistance. 

     So, me and Kant say that apriori concepts are good only for what they provide in interpreting sense impressions. IOW they are like arithmetic. The apriorisms of addition are kind of hard to do without, right? So, whatever you think about the metaphysical status of 2+2=4 the truth value we all agree on is just that and no more. We don't, for example, say 2+2+theological proof=4, do we? Or E=MC²+The Pink Hippo Over There. Pure reason says we can't rule out the Pink Hippo, so isn't it a little unfair to leave him out, poor thing? No, because scientific and mathematical propositions are put into the most compressible form, so they are statements stripped to the essentials. Inert elements like hippos and theological guarantees hovering above aren't included. They are inert not because we are prejudiced against them, but because there is no power on earth that can make their appearance in the equation anything other than decorative. So, I take my theory of truth from that. Or, I say the scientific revolution consists in great part in the realization that our descriptions conform to that and therefore so do truth conditions.
     



     

[Bulldog]

Why is theism (perhaps we must define it? ) rational but atheism irrational?

It isn't.  If one end of the spectrum is bonkers, so is the other.  To set the record straight, I don't feel that either end is irrational.  There's much to be said for pure faith.

[aquablob]

It isn't.  If one end of the spectrum is bonkers, so is the other.

In my opinion, the "bonkers" part is claiming knowledge or truth about the existence or non-existence of "things" for which there is no known evidence. The lack of tangible evidence is why I do not believe; along the same lines, the lack of evidence that there is no god is why I have never attempted to assert that position with certainty. That said, I don't consider the two propositions (1. There is a god or gods; 2. There is/are no god(s)) equally probable (I don't regard it as a 50-50 scenario). That's why I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic, although (again) this comes down to semantics/definitions.

But I don't think that knowledge and belief are the same. Religious belief is not something I can personally relate to, but there is a qualitative difference between regarding one's religious beliefs as faith-based and regarding one's religious beliefs as evidence-based (more along the lines of knowledge). The former I find peculiar (because I cannot relate to it) but not "bonkers"; the latter I find somewhat "bonkers" (or at the very least a completely untenable position).

But definitions are crucial. I would not presume to put words into DR's mouth keyboard, so I eagerly await his response, which I trust will be articulate and fun to read! 

[Bu]

But I don't think that knowledge and belief are the same. Religious belief is not something I can personally relate to, but there is a qualitative difference between regarding one's religious beliefs as faith-based and regarding one's religious beliefs as evidence-based (more along the lines of knowledge). The former I find peculiar (because I cannot relate to it) but not "bonkers"; the latter I find somewhat "bonkers" (or at the very least a completely untenable position).

Why?  Ok, maybe you find it bonkers because you aren't personally convinced by the evidence presented or offered, but wouldn't you agree that at least providing some kind of proof for a religious conviction is better than not giving one at all?  It seems that the other approach is far more blind (and, perhaps, dangerous).  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote. (It happens a lot to me--bear kindly if so!)