h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Recumbentman,

Well I have taken the plunge into the 'Atheist Fundamentalist' conversation!

In some ways I have taken the Sam Harris position, excepting that :

a)I must try and make folks reflect on their own fundamentalist tendency, in the likely unreflected faith based 'atoms' that they have in their worldview.
b)I beleive in tolerant and moderate dialog. Whilst targetting Fundamentalist Misologist as people we need to 'open-up', I do not feel challenging them in ways other than tolerant dialog will work. Though we can put in place laws to outloaw certain Misological activity and push on community leader to enforce that.

I hope you can agree and support me on this. I am expecting some flack.

Regards - Pilgrim4Truth

They're not a vicious bunch by any means. I'll keep an eye out.

The "faith in atoms" question is treated well in a book by Duncan Kennedy, "Rethinking Reality". It is a study of Lucretius's "De Rerum Natura" by a classicist who is not afraid to tackle philosophy.

I don't have much impression there are open minds there. I feel like the "voice in the wilderness", though I have no hope that anyone there is willing to listen - it seems rather futile. Even had one party reminding me it was for 'invitees only'!

That is a bit rich, all right. Do you have to be baptized an atheist?

Atheism / Theism - IMO both have faith-based elements, with different position on the BIG question.

When I see someone saying that is not so, I tend to get argumentative. When people tell me they can prove it's not so - I tend to have a , since there are so many broken hearts down that road, the hubris of fundamentalists is a hallmark.

Anyway - as someone said in the forum its mostly for people to talk about what they believe in (and bitch at Theists being so stupid). It may make people more comfortable I suppose - but it's not really as open a dialog as you think.

Please have a re-look at some of the responses - so dismissive and comfortable.

You come across as someone who not only wishes to believe but also wishes others would believe.

I really don't see a lot of value in pointing out to atheists that they are indulging in faith. I see Berkeley's point, that 17th-18th century materialists had blind faith in matter, but surely that point has been taken on board by now. Materialists go out of their way to posit the minimum; that is the lure of the search for a unified theory.

Maybe there is a mission in my tone - Whilst I dont wish to be preachy, its probably just a defense mechanism when I feel that important things in my worldview are both being unfairly criticized, as well as being ridiculed. It seems to me that this lack of sensitivity is revelled in by some.

Look back at some of the comments in the train of that conversation, and see if you cannot see my point. For example comments about scripture and 'american psycho', such lampooning is not helpfull and brings about a demonization of the 'other' POV. This is a kind of misology, it upsets my sensitivity - you would not be racist, sexist or otherwise insensitive in this modern world, why is the last acceptable intolerance of the liberal secular mind a kind of blanket anti-theism?

I beg to differ on your point though about it being a moot point to make about faith in Atheistic worldviews. Not only is it not always accepted, but the extent to which it is deeply embedded is missed. It is a crucial point to debate on. It comes down to how to get at truth; bottom-up, top-down, level-personal experience, or all three (my choice). And if this is a something that needs new thought - I think it does. There are folks out there who fundamentally differ and would have us only look at one aspect.

Such Misology is Anathema to me - How about you?

If the faith you defend is Christian, it has earned a good deal of opposition. I was reared in a liberal Anglican way, and never had a particular gripe against the church or its teaching, but I have taken to reading around the subject and what I find is less than attractive. You can't help loving the bloody man, it's the corporation that stinks.

I recently re-read the Epistle to the Romans, and was dismayed to find all the mindset of sectarianism already deeply intrenched there. My admiration for Berkeley once made me wish to believe that Christianity had a claim as an attempt at a universal religion, but that appears to me now to have been wishful thinking. My story went that a set of neo-Platonists in 3rd century Rome looked for a more attractive figure to take the place of the excessively garrulous Socrates, and decided on Jesus as the ideal candidate. But the fatal flaws were there from the start.

An egregious example of Christian rottenness is the crucifix on the Charles Bridge in Prague. There is no shortage of other examples.

There are hundreds and thousands of clear abuses of privilege in the church(s) over the centuries, but 99% of the day by day work of the parish is in simple human caring, support, consolation, counselling, charity and service. The millions of daily examples and saintly actions outweigh the imperfections - there is reason to hope and not despair (though it is hard sometimes I know)

But still the Kingdom of Heaven is mostly in the mind and heart of individuals IMO. Real Christian virtues seem to not be applied in real-politik, if it was things would be different.

Nevertheless I think Christinaity has a claim to being a universal catholic faith (small c). But we need a new enlightenment. One that tolerates others as Christ clearly instructed us to. One that respects the reason and faith of "logos", the word that when uttered by God became flesh. One that really looks to love our enemies and neighbors to bring about a revolution in peace. That has NOT been applied - if it was the Kingdom would be here on earth.

Read 1 Corinthians Chapter 17 with me please!

God bless.

I meant Chapter 13 (but I'll look at 17 as well now since I believe in "synchronicity")!

17 is nice and short.

It's like an aspect of reality - the journey continues, and the future is unwritten!

The alternative way of looking at 1 Corinthians 17 (since 17th chapter does not exist ) is looking to Corinithians 1:17...

"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. Christ the Wisdom and Power of God. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

Now that is synchronous with our philosophical dialog! Of course we can say skeptically that its just 'data-mining', looking for a message by being flexible with the framework. But if you are of a mindset that everthing has a purpose, though not always straightforward in the discernment, then perhaps there is a message for us both in the text above?

For Berkeley the objective world was sustained in the subjective perceptions of man, via God's agency (consistent with the classical theists perception of the role of the holy spirit). Johnson said "I refute it thus", kicking the stone in the road, but that is hardly a refutation. Rather a demonstration that there was a stone in the road when he looked for one for his purpose.

If we have faith in the naturalistic assumptions of random behavior and a meaningless futility to our being - then (perhaps) that's exactly what we get. Or (perhaps) if we look to see the providence of God then it may be around us all the time, but in an subtle, non-overpowering way.

CS Lewis said (when thinking about salvation and the question of theodicy) ...

'There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'

We live with the consequences of our choices to the BIG questions of life.

Yes but yes but yes but -- the willingness to find meaning everywhere (sermons in stones and the rest) is fine and dandy but doesn't have any theory to it. It's an attitude. It is precisely the use of language that TLP calls "meaningless" with the clear implication that it may not be mixed up with factual statements. People's objection to blandishments from the faithful are generally just that: that non-facts are presented on an equal footing with facts.

I've just read Terry Eagleton's refutation of Dawkins in the London Review of Books (19 October). It's a sorry attempt: he starts well, but overstates his case from early on, making it simply untenable. No better than Johnson's kick.

If you refuse to look, you will not find.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:7-8&version=31 )

The skeptic knows the answer before the investigation. But suspend your disbelief as a thought experiment - what if it was true? That God was talking to you now in a quiet whisper

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2019:11-13;&version=31

Taking care not to overpower your free-will, giving you the choice to consider if it just another random synchronicity. How would you know given that possibility? Are you taking care to listen anymore - have you given up, hardened your heart to stone?

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=36&verse=26&version=31&context=verse)

Remember it's easier to say the world is futile, brutish and cruel, since that is what it is unless we make a difference.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:7-8;&version=31;

(is the link about seeking and finding - not to say the 1st one in inappropriate, but this is the one I had in mind)

Thanks for putting me onto the link about the Terry Eagleton review.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

Funny I took the 180 degree opposite POV about the Johnson/Berkeley aspect. You can see how Dawkins operates is all about "winning an argument", useing fluster, rhetoric and distraction, and not exposing error in logic of the best arguments (that are simply avoided so as to not confuse the reader!).

The quote about the Theist and Atheist Fundamentalist comparison is exactly the point I was making earlier in the link we have been discussing here. I hope you dont mind my posting it for the folks there to see that I am not alone as a voice in the wilderness crying for some sense to be brough back to the "Logos" and "Mythos" question.

One very great difference remains between us, it appears: I see "top-down" understanding as dangerous. The intentional stance is always a shortcut, necessary, but treacherous as it is easily misled. An example of its being misled is the sudden descent into hilarious error from the otherwise excellent psychology of Tobit (8:3). The murderous bride's neurosis is banished by burning fish-innards. So far so good; it could work.

And the neurosis goes away!

Where?

Into the utmost parts of Egypt!

Top-down understanding demanded that an evil spirit should have a location.

There is a certain danger in top down thinking, you can recklessly get things wrong. So you need to make sure that whatever top-down approach you adopt it maps neatly and to the bottom up and personal experience (subjective experience) approaches, and you keep your faculties engaged.

Bottom-up has its flaws as well. It is arguable that some the atrocities of the 20th century arose that way. Abandoning top-down morality and useing the reductive 'eugenics' and 'historical science' of nazism and marxism respectively supported some great evils of our fathers time.

In any case you proabably do adopt top-down reasoning when it suits you. You do so when picking a home, a spouse, a restaurant, etc. Whn your whole being is involved in a decision, the rational part is merely a component for decision for most people. When you compose or enjoy music or art you recieve the message of the composer/artist at many levels, as he intended, but you need to cultivate the eye and ear and listen/look out for the signals.

Think about it Recumbentman - given all we have said what is holding you back?

I'm all for top-down in kife, choosing, appreciating, the rest. It just doesn't magnify well. Seeing design in nature naturally made people speak of a designer. Mind is what delivers futures, as Dan Dennett puts it. Fine for calendars, getting better for weather forecasts, hopeless for eternity.

And no, I'm not teetering on that particular brink just now, thank you.