Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is PZ Myers the Future of Secular Humanism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD moderator Clive Hayden referred UD readers to an article at SuperScholar.org titled “The Future of Secular Humanism.” The article itself focused on a rift between the secular humanism old guard, represented by Paul Kurtz, and the new guard, represented by Ron Lindsay, who apparently ousted Kurtz from the various humanist organizations he had founded. The rift was over the place of religion in society and whether secular humanism should take a harsh line against it.

Hayden sees this rift as representing a deep-seated internecine conflict, with the implication that such conflict will undercut the effectiveness of secular humanism as a cultural force (though he doesn’t draw that implication explicitly). My own view is that secular humanism is being co-opted by the new atheism and that Kurtz’s humanist vision is on the way out.

Paul KurtzI’ve been party to at least two debates that Kurtz organized and have met him personally. He’s a gentleman and sees civility as a prerequisite to free and open discussion. As a humanist, he values humanity.  The problem is that he views religion as irrational and counterproductive to society, so it’s hard to justify civility vis-a-vis religion (is it possible to have a civil discussion with a holocaust denier?). And without religion, it’s hard to justify a high view of humanity — humans, in that case, become merely evolved animals.

PZ MyersAnd so, Kurtz, who’s in his 80s, passes the baton to his spiritual son … PZ Myers, who’s a generation younger and in a better position to follow out the logic of Kurtz’s vision. Actually, I could have chosen any number of younger humanists/atheists, but Myers is emblematic of what we are seeing and can expect to see. Instead of Kurtz, who established Prometheus Press to get a fully articulated secular humanist vision before the public, Myers has the blog Pharyngula, in which he trades in sound-bites and insults.

In a Facebook/Twitter culture where people’s attention span is down to zero, Myers’ blog represents the new face of secular humanism, or perhaps I should say the new atheism. Indeed, I have to wonder how long the phrase “secular humanism” will be around. If it stays, it will be through inertia, because the new generation of humanists/atheists divides humanity into us and them — the enlightened vs. the idiots — and despises the outsiders. They take pleasure in hatred. Paul Kurtz didn’t.

By the way, here are the YouTube videos referred to on the SuperScholar.org site in which Kurtz is lectured on why he was shown the door. It’s not often that we see the other side’s dirty laundary (or our own side’s, for that matter). It’s 20 minutes and some of it requires wading through, but it has some high points and is quite instructive:

Comments
LarTanner,
We’re not talking about truth (capital t or otherwise). We’re talking about reasoning and whether there is any necessary relationship between (a) the existence of deities and (b) the value of human life.
You should be talking about truth.Clive Hayden
December 8, 2010
December
12
Dec
8
08
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
LarTanner: I find no good reason to consider “ultimate meaning” as anything more than theoretical. The fact that humans can intuit the very idea of ultimate meaning, or ultimate anything, is a clue that ultimate meaning exists. You say that there is no ultimate meaning. But that's kind of like a world with only blind entities saying the psychological experience of color does not exist. If all entities were blind, the notion of color would not be debated. "Color" would have no meaning at all among them. If ultimate meaning didn't exist, we wouldn't be here arguing about it. Nobody would have such a notion in the first place.mike1962
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
"His pharyngula blog has a large following, but in large part that is because of PZ’s wit." Perusing his website, I've only seen half of his wit. Where's the other half???mike1962
December 3, 2010
December
12
Dec
3
03
2010
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
First and foremost, let's be clear that humanism in Western culture has its roots in Theism. Even if that was not the case, it would be practically impossible to defend humanism at the backdrop of atheism as the latter dehumanizes mankind. Simply put, one cannot be a humanist and an atheist at the same time. Now as far as pz being the face of atheism, I can think of no better clown to wear the crown. He will surely drive people as far away from him and his ilk as anyone can imagine. Apart from vile insults, irrationalities and ignorance has this man produced anything of value?above
December 2, 2010
December
12
Dec
2
02
2010
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
Zeroseven: Apology accepted. Let me now tell you about the real Steve (not another hypothetical Steve). The real Steve writes that he resolved the struggle over his faith the night daughter died before he left the ER. Here is what he wrote in his book:
“If God is all powerful and all-knowing, none of this is happening without his knowledge or permission. This had to be part of His plan for Stephanie and for us… This had to be part of the story God was writing for our lives. It was an excruciating chapter in our story, but I suddenly found I believed that somehow-- beyond our ability to comprehend-- this terrible trauma would eventually and mysteriously prove to be the cornerstone of God’s plan for out lives.”
Faith is described by skeptics as something irrational, something that opposes reason. But the faith the Steve is describing here was something that goes “beyond our ability to comprehend“ , or beyond reason. In other words, rather than faith conflicting with reason, it compliments it. While he was thinking about these things another doctor, somewhat nervously, approached Steve and Ginny. Steve knew what he was about to ask. He was there to ask Steve and his wife if they would permit the organs from Stephanie’s still living body be made available for transplant. The grieving couple gave the young doctor their consent. But then Ginny whispered in her husbands ear, “Please don’t let them take her heart.” That was it. It was now final. But both Steve and Ginny accepted their daughter loss. They had let her go. Steve concludes his account by writing, “As our precious daughter’s organs were taken so others could live, Ginny and I walked out of the hospital holding hands and at peace. It was a totally absurd reaction to what was happening in our lives.” Now that you have seen how the real Steve responded would you still counsel him the same way? Would you consel him that his belief that his daughter’s death, “had to be part of the story God was writing for our lives” was mistaken? Was Steve rationalizing? Was he guilty of wishful thinking? If you know with certainty that what he believed is a fairy tale, then you also know that his thinking about his daughter’s untimely death is erroneous. Of course you’re not his friend, but shouldn’t somebody help him straighten out his thinking? Clearly, this man is using faith as a crutch, right?john_a_designer
December 2, 2010
December
12
Dec
2
02
2010
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
Summary of where the discussion ended: Information, Materialism, and the Basis of Reality Best, LTLarTanner
December 2, 2010
December
12
Dec
2
02
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
I would add tgp, that the type of false hope and consolation that prevents one from experiencing necessary suffering is an impediment to a fulfilling life.zeroseven
December 2, 2010
December
12
Dec
2
02
2010
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
tgpeeler; I think the opposite of false hope is actually often no hope rather than true hope. I've got to say, I think hope is overrated. The lifeline Steve is holding on to in the story is that somehow the pains and disappointments of his life will all be miraculously fixed by a higher being and some underlying purpose will be shown to him. Then there is the childish hope of meeting up again with everyone we love who has died. I have no such hope. I simply accept my pains and disappointments and endure the suffering that sometimes arises in life. You might think this sounds bleak. In fact, it is the only way to be free and I largely lead a contented and happy life.zeroseven
December 2, 2010
December
12
Dec
2
02
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Z7 "I believe we are always better to face the world honestly, and without false hope." I completely agree. What is "true" hope in your world view and how do you justify it?tgpeeler
December 1, 2010
December
12
Dec
1
01
2010
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
The falsification for local realism (materialism) was just greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. By performing an experiment in which photons were sent from one Canary Island to another, physicists have shown that two of three loopholes can be closed simultaneously in a test that violates Bell's inequality (and therefore local realism) by more than 16 standard deviations. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.htmlbornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Hi JAD, sorry, I am not calling you a bully. We are talking about a hypothetical situation. My answer to your question is yes, I would tell him he is better off without it if he asked for my opinion. That would involve loss as he gives up something that he has held on to all his life. Giving things up always involves loss, and sometimes loneliness and despair, whether the thing you are giving up is a good thing or a bad thing. But in my opinion he has been holding on to something that is false, and no matter how hard it is, and how uncomfortable it makes us feel, I believe we are always better to face the world honestly, and without false hope.zeroseven
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Neil Rickert at #14: You are fooling yourself if you believe that those who follow PZ Myers do so because of anything to do wit his "wit". Not to be blunt, but generally speaking, garbage atracts like-minded garbage. Those people on that blog who resort to the worst kind of insults do so *only* because it is who they really are and PZ gives them a forum in which to do it.gleaner63
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Zeroseven: This what I originally wrote @ #58 (please read it carefully):
Let’s take the same scenario but replace believing Steve with a hypothetical unbelieving Steve. Everything else about the story is the same except rather than struggling with doubt and unbelief Steve has some questions about what his daughter believed. Remember Stephanie was a Christian, she believed that this life was not all there was. She believed that if she died that her soul, her real self, would live on. You don’t think I wouldn’t tell Steve about that and why we, especially his daughter, believed that to be true? That’s something good and positive, isn’t it? I believe Steve would see his daughter again if he was willing to accept what she believed.
Did you understand the sentence in bold? Here it is again. “Steve has some questions about what his daughter believed”. In other words, Steve is asking me about his daughters faith. I am not pushing anything on him. I am answering his questions. How is that by any stretch of the imagination bullying? Now let’s put the shoe on the other foot. You’re a friend of a second hypothetical Steve based more closely on the real Steve. Let’s call him "the more real Steve". A few weeks after his daughters death he meets with you and expresses the same thoughts that the real Steve expressed in his book: that as a “black cloud of despair shrouded me I could feel my faith slipping away… I felt my lifeline trust in God’s power and protection slip through my numb fingers… The great blackness was covering me. The cord of faith I had trusted and followed since my dad had been jerked from life was running out. The end would soon pull through my hand and I would be lost.” Then he tells you that he really needs to hold on to his faith because he really needs to believe that his daughter is in a better place and he really wants to see her again someday. What do you tell him? That it is all wishful thinking? That it is all a fairy tale? If that is really the truth, why wouldn’t you? My point again is that atheism is a negative belief. It has nothing to offer to anyone. The more I learn about it the worse it appears to be. I am sorry but I don’t think the same is true of my belief. That’s why Jesus called it the Good News. Atheism just doesn’t work for the real issues that real people struggle with in their real lives. It is absurd to make it the basis of any kind of evangelism. If there is any bullying being done it is by you and Larry who have decided to gang up on me. You’re the ones who showed up here. (I don’t visit atheist sites and pick fights with people.) You’re the one that challenged my comments. Then you took those comments and twisted them into something I never said or meant. If what I said was unclear all you had to do is ask me what I meant. I’d be happy to oblige and clarify anything that I said. You have no right to distort what I mean or presume what I mean when I am available to answer your questions.john_a_designer
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
1. Yes 2. Yes, It, immaterial information, is the only solution that satisfies all requirements necessary for the first cause, first mover, by empirical confirmation and moreover satisfies the questions of origins without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the absurd materialistic conjectures of the multiverse and many worlds do.bornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
BA77 (80)--Ah... I think I'm seeing your point. Your claim is that the universe is made of immaterial information rather than material particles. You are drawing on quantum mechanics to make the case here. Correct? If so, I take it that you see John 1:1 as a statement that "in the beginning" immaterial information was present before the macro-particles making up the visible universe. Again, correct?LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
LarTanner, 'the basis of reality' is not a solid material particle as materialism had originally postulated but 'the basis of reality' is instead reducible to transcendent information as Theism had originally postulated. i.e. John 1:1 (Wheeler, Zeilinger). That transcendent information is its own independent entity, separate from matter/energy was confirmed with the refutation of the hidden variable argument (EPR; Bell, Aspect). That transcendent information exercises dominion of 'material' was established by quantum teleportation experiments (Zeilinger). That the transcendent information is 'alive' is established by the fact that a 'decision' must be made to create a temporal universe from that 'timeless' transcendent eternal reality that infinite transcendent information occupies (Craig), as well as by the necessity for a transcendent 'first mover' to explain quantum wave collapse to each point of unique observation in the universe (Planck). etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
I've jumped into this debate a little late, but I have a few questions, as I'm a little confused... Lar, you said 'The honest, direct answer is that we don’t know with perfect certainty if something is true.' Okay... So if we cannot be certain anything is true, how can you claim what John said earlier is evil? How did you come to the conclusion what he was doing was evil? Why, if we are not certain anything is true, are you able to discern anything is true at all, including your own senses? Also, on John's 'bullying' tactic, what moral framework are we working with here? As you have said you're an atheist, aren't we straying into moral subjectivity now? If so, how can you claim what John said was evil at all? With this in mind, I don't see how (by what you've said) we are able to discern anything at all...Manable
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
JAD, I want to endorse LarTanner's reaction to your "unbelieving Steve" story. If I was Steve and you took it upon yourself to tell me about what you believed in a situation like that I would be insulted and upset. In fact I have been in that very situation when a grandparent died and my religious aunt tried to tell me he was in heaven and happy now. This is a cruel and selfish thing to do. The best you can do with a grieving friend is try and stay with them in the place they are in, not to try and force them into another place.zeroseven
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
BA77--Per the beginning of my post (77): My phrasing ought to be revised. I don't mean to imply that your are "my" student or "a" student. No offense or disrespect intended in the way I wrote the first 2 paragraphs.LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
BA77 (74), I always ask my students to be courteous and answer the question that's been asked before going off into the explanation and detail. So I'd like to ask you, please, to provide me the completed statement and then give me the data dump to all the articles and videos you think are pertinent. That statement starts, “The term ‘basis of reality’ refers to….” If you want to re-phrase the statement, that's fine. I'm not setting you up or anything. I simply want to know what exactly it is you are referring to when you say "basis of reality." By basis do you mean something physical? Are you talking about a set of equations, laws, or constants? Do you mean, instead, a logical or physical basis? Or do you mean something like "prior"? Please don't think I'm being difficult or obtuse, but I need to ask for you to be clear about the answer. Often, I don't see the connection between your claims and the sources you then cite. For example, you say "Your story is wrong in its presupposition, since God is the basis of reality. A basis which can be ‘measured’, contrary to your preconception." Your first source is a video I cannot access that purports to present the scientific evidence for God-as-Logos having created the universe. The second is an article by Armond Duwell on information transfer in quantum teleportation. Since the connection isn't clear, I can only guess that you are essentially using "basis" as "reason." Thus, the video will explain that God is the reason we have a universe, and that's because Big Bang sounds kind of like Genesis, and six "days" are not actual days, and so on. And thus, the article--although not itself addressed to cosmogeny (right?)--allows us to speculate that quantum teleportation is a mechanism by which creation could have happened. As I said, I'm guessing here without your clarification. As for the "predictions" that you say materialism makes, I think some of them don't pass the laugh test. #1: Materialism predicts an eternal universe. OK, I get your reference to the long, long history of materialism and its use to support the view of matter's eternity. But, is a Big Bang Cosmology inconsistent with materialism? I don't think so, but maybe you disagree. In any case, we already have a better sense of the timeline of matter in our universe. Theism still has a big prediction where the jury remains out: the existence of one or more eternal divinities with personal desires.LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
LT @ 55 "we don’t know with perfect certainty if something is true" We do know some things for certain to be true. They are called the laws of thought or right reason or first principles. The world of sensation is the world where knowledge is uncertain. We know our senses can deceive us, do we not? So it follows that empirical knowledge is necessarily uncertain and in the words of Stephen B needs to be "informed by reason." "The perspective offering the greatest number of sufficiently robust explanations for the greatest amount of data “wins.”" I can agree with this statement. What perspective do you think offers that?tgpeeler
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
further note here: the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. Steps of the Scientific Method http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml For a quick overview, here are a few: 1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation. - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted that material has always existed, Theism predicted 'material' was created. - 'Material' was created in the Big Bang. 5. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 6. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 - 2 Timothy 1:9)- 7. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 9. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 10. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 11. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 12. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 13. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 14. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 15. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity: General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & the Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5070355 further note here: http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.htmlbornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
already addressed here: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/is-pz-myers-the-future-of-secular-humanism/#comment-368032bornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
BA77 (72)--One interesting thing you say:
The complete failure of the predictive power of materialism/naturalism to explain the basis of reality should by all rights of science completely exclude naturalistic explanations for any debate in origins science.
Let's walk through this, shall we? Not pretending to be scholarly here, but trying make sure we're on the same page. What exactly does "the basis of reality" mean? If possible, I'm looking for an answer in this form: "The term 'basis of reality' refers to...."LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
LarTanner you state: 1) I take it my position on John’s “bullying” tactic is clear. His is an objectionable approach, and you’ve not offered a perspective that makes it seem more appropriate or moral. I think this sub-topic is closed. You have simply denied, as a matter of your personal opinion, that the evidence I have presented against you as 'not compelling', even though the evidence against your position is overwhelming. Thus the only sub-topic that is closed in this matter is your mind! You then state: '(2) I’ve avoided a direct atheism versus theism argument because–what’s the point? Seriously, why have that argument? I simply want you to know my positions because I feel that’s the best way to have a productive dialogue on those matters where our positions are less fixed or more unclear.' That is the whole point LarTanner, your atheistic/naturalistic presupposition is wrong. The complete failure of the predictive power of materialism/naturalism to explain the basis of reality should by all rights of science completely exclude naturalistic explanations for any debate in origins science. But this complete failure for predictive power of naturalism is completely ignored by you, because you claim it is 'non-productive', yet in reality. if you were truly concerned about the finding the truth, you would find it very productive, yet since you probably full well know it is very futile for you to go down that alley, you ignore it completely as if just denying its relevance will make what you hold to be true reasonable. you then state,,, (3) Do I think that atheism is probably more accurate relative to reality than any theism? Yes, I do. But I’m just one humanities dude with an opinion. I’m not particularly interested in rehearsing here the arguments and data that make atheism the more likely scenario scientifically, philosophically, and historically–and that make theism or deism less likely. If you want to have that conversation, go to my blog. I like hits. But I’m here in this forum for conversation and a few LOLs. with your own words you have undermined any credibility you had with me since you yourself admit to blatant personal prejudice instead of rigid inquiry using reason and evidence. you then state,,, (4) I understand your arguments against materialism, but they don’t hold up under scrutiny. See, for instance: http://larrytanner.blogspot.co.....re-is.html. That Turek video, by the way, is hilarious. The “self-defeating” gambit he uses is always good for a laugh. That other “proof of god” site uses the same kind of gambit. It may stupefy a class of first-year philosophy students, but it’s really a lesson in being very careful about words and concepts. See Tarski, Quine, and Kripke for three examples. But do you hold what you just said to be a absolute transcendent truth so as to deny that absolute transcendent truths exist??? you then state,,, (5) You seem irked that I don’t buy into your NDE links. Look, I understand that people claim to have had them. I have no reason to doubt that such people are sincere. But I don’t happen to have a full-fledged theory of NDEs in my back pocket. Am I therefore obligated to believe that there’s an afterlife and a place where the eternal souls of people and who-knows-what-else go either to get fried or to get bathed in celestial light? The evidence for NDE's is consistent and compelling, and if you were truly as scholarly as you like to pretend to be you would at least try to quote Blackmore or some other person who has been dealt with in this matter,,, but to give you a benefit of a doubt Here is another article that is far more nuanced in its discerning of our 'transcendent mind' from our material brain, than the 'brute' empirical evidence I've listed so far: The Mind and Materialist Superstition - Six "conditions of mind" that are irreconcilable with materialism: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super.htmlbornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
John (69)--
Irredeemably evil, Larry? How can you make such a judgement? You don’t even know me. What is the word we use when we prejudge a person without even getting to know him?
I have not judged or pre-judged you. I have commented only on the behavior that you have approved. You say
If our hypothetical unbelieving Steve had wanted to talk to me about what his daughter believed I certainly would have been willing to do that. If he didn’t, I wouldn’t push it.
Fair enough, but you don't really know what his daughter believed, do you? You cannot speak for her or in her stead. Sure, I get the idea that understanding a person's thinking and beliefs requires an understanding of relevant contexts. But why make a wild leap to ultimate meaning and purpose? You don't need to do this at all. And there are many Hebrew words for God (whether that's the monotheistic God most people think of today or one of the local Gods of ancient Israel's neighbors). "Saints" come in all shapes and sizes. There are even plenty of secular saints. You don't need to tether living a good and moral life to "faith." If you do this, then do you get to say anyone who doesn't behave in a certain way doesn't have "real faith"? Is this not the famous "No True Scotsman" fallacy, as in only people with real faith (True Scotsmen) live in the certain way you approve while anyone who claims to be faithful but acts differently must not have "real faith"?LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
BA77 (68)--Let's keep our eye on the proverbial ball, shall we?: (1) I take it my position on John's "bullying" tactic is clear. His is an objectionable approach, and you've not offered a perspective that makes it seem more appropriate or moral. I think this sub-topic is closed. (2) I've avoided a direct atheism versus theism argument because--what's the point? Seriously, why have that argument? I simply want you to know my positions because I feel that's the best way to have a productive dialogue on those matters where our positions are less fixed or more unclear. (3) Do I think that atheism is probably more accurate relative to reality than any theism? Yes, I do. But I'm just one humanities dude with an opinion. I'm not particularly interested in rehearsing here the arguments and data that make atheism the more likely scenario scientifically, philosophically, and historically--and that make theism or deism less likely. If you want to have that conversation, go to my blog. I like hits. But I'm here in this forum for conversation and a few LOLs. (4) I understand your arguments against materialism, but they don't hold up under scrutiny. See, for instance: http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/06/materialism-and-all-there-is.html. That Turek video, by the way, is hilarious. The "self-defeating" gambit he uses is always good for a laugh. That other "proof of god" site uses the same kind of gambit. It may stupefy a class of first-year philosophy students, but it's really a lesson in being very careful about words and concepts. See Tarski, Quine, and Kripke for three examples. (5) You seem irked that I don't buy into your NDE links. Look, I understand that people claim to have had them. I have no reason to doubt that such people are sincere. But I don't happen to have a full-fledged theory of NDEs in my back pocket. Am I therefore obligated to believe that there's an afterlife and a place where the eternal souls of people and who-knows-what-else go either to get fried or to get bathed in celestial light?LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
LarTanner,
(#61) I find your approach to unbelieving Steve sick and offensive. You are basically trying to bully him into religious conformity through the use of a dead loved one, at a time of his greatest grief and turmoil. And then you have the gall to blame him for possibly being cynical and angry at God should your plot fail. (#67) I’m criticizing the approach, but I can see that the intentions of John may be good. His approach is irredeemably evil for the reasons I gave. If you really want to disagree with me, try to argue that John’s not advocating opportunistic proselytizing. Try to sell me on the idea that he’s not talking about taking advantage of a situation. Persuade me that converting a friend is more important than being one.
Irredeemably evil, Larry? How can you make such a judgement? You don't even know me. What is the word we use when we prejudge a person without even getting to know him? You completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) my approach. According to the dictionary to proselytize is “to make a convert.” I cannot convert anyone. I can only explain to someone what I believe and why I believe it. If our hypothetical unbelieving Steve had wanted to talk to me about what his daughter believed I certainly would have been willing to do that. If he didn’t, I wouldn’t push it. When I said “if he was cynical and angry at God there isn’t much that I could do there except be with him and console him as a friend,” I wasn’t saying that if he didn’t want to talk that that meant he was being cynical and angry. I was saying that if he expressed words that indicated that he had cynical and angry feelings towards God I would still be a friend and still be willing to listen. I think that is what it means to be a friend. In his book the real Steve describes faith as lifelong journey. For example, to understand his faith you need to begin when he was five years old when he learns that his father, a missionary, had been murdered by the tribal people he was trying to help. Years later he learned the identity of the man who killed his father and was able to forgive him. Not only was he able to forgive him but they became best of friends. Ironically that man, Mincaye, was visiting Steve and his wife when his daughter Stephanie came home from her tour. He was also with them in the ER when she passed away. If anyone had an excuse to be bitter and angry towards God, in my opinion, it was Steve. But he has rejected that path. He has chosen to continue to believe, and continue to have faith because he really believes that there is an ultimate purpose and meaning to life. Even the untimely death of his daughter has a purpose and meaning. The point that I am trying to make here Larry is that to understand Steve’s faith and why he believed there was a ultimate purpose and meaning to it all you have to put his life, as he does in his book, into context. But that context itself is meaningless unless behind it all there is ultimate meaning and purpose to existence and that is because there is something, indeed I believe it’s a someone, who transcends finite existence. I find it interesting that the Hebrew word for God is I AM or I EXIST. Steve, in my opinion, is a real living 21st saint. From the talks of his that I attended I learned a lot about what a life of faith really is. Some critics claim that faith is only about the “here-after“. By the way he lives his life Steve has demonstrated that real faith is really about how we live our lives in the here and now.john_a_designer
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
LarTanner, you state, 'The complaint of “bullying” holds true regardless of the “truth” of theism.' Had to Get that pesky truth of Theism thing out of the way first and foremost didn't you LarTanner? But then you claimed to have 'superior truth', so as to disallow Theism as you did, though your philosophical naturalistic foundation that you hold yourself allows no such conclusion for 'truths'!!! LarTanner, Absolute Transcendent Truth is not even possible in a 'consistent' naturalistic worldview in the first place!!! This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ The following is a fun video showing that absolute truth exists: Absolute Truth - Frank Turek - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaGNRP6Q-6Q You as so incorrect in your presuppositions as to correctly deducing whether Theism or Naturalism is true it is hard to know where to start,,, Here is a site that defeats materialism/naturalism from its failed predictions in science: Predictions of Materialism compared to Theism within science: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 Here is a video that lays out the sheer poverty for naturalism to account for the staggering levels of information/complexity we find in life: Is Undirected Naturalism Sufficient? - Don Johnson http://vimeo.com/11827337 Here is a book that exhaustively lays out the reason why naturalism is hopelessly bankrupt at even the first stage of explaining how life got on earth: Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer http://www.signatureinthecell.com/about-the-book.php Here is a paper that gives a broad outline of the plethora of reconciled problems of naturalism: http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html Here is a 101 type introduction to the unfounded 'dogmatism' of naturalism: Darwinism: Science or Philosophy (4 of 4) - Phillip E. Johnson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5g8FPIoVkk LarTanner, you go on to state: 'Finally, I want to acknowledge all those links you have given on NDEs. I’m sorry but I don’t find them particularly compelling for your argument.' But of course LarTanner, do not cite any evidence that coherently explains why they happen, but merely 'choose' that they are not compelling and WA LA the problem disappears,,, Sorry LarTanner, your personal preference does not have near as much weight with me as you seem to think it should carry! :)bornagain77
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
BA77 (65)--The complaint of "bullying" holds true regardless of the "truth" of theism. You're position is a bit too Machiavellian. I'm criticizing the approach, but I can see that the intentions of John may be good. His approach is irredeemably evil for the reasons I gave. If you really want to disagree with me, try to argue that John's not advocating opportunistic proselytizing. Try to sell me on the idea that he's not talking about taking advantage of a situation. Persuade me that converting a friend is more important than being one. Do I really need to lay out the scientific, philosophical, and historical case for atheism? Really, there are plenty of books and blogs that will do a far better job than I. For books, I recommend Dawes, "Theism and Explanation," and Oppy, "Arguing About Gods." For blogs, well, I assume you know many. I like the blogs of Myers, Coyne, and Rosenhouse. On my own blog and in my own brief way, I have laid out summaries of the best case(s) for atheism. These are not dissertations, mind you, but the support is easily available: http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/05/best-case-for-atheism.html
In sum, the real problem with God is -- It cannot really be explained, it cannot be proved, it fits nicely into a human strength for creating imaginary characters, it is deeply undermined by the problem of indiscriminate evil, it is not the best explanation for anything, and it’s the most improbable cause of observed reality.
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/05/best-case-for-atheism-christianity.html
So, we don’t know much of anything at all about the historical Jesus. All we can say for certain is that the New Testament reports on him as a teacher, executed rebel, and religious icon. Given that the case for God is so weak, it makes little sense to grant any credibility at all to supernatural claims with respect to Jesus. If there was a real Jesus, he was born and died as a human being, and that's it. He’s gone.
http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-bible-is-false.html http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/05/evolution-very-basic-overview.html
In sum, the difference between the definition of evolution and the alternate hypothesis is that the first gives a way to solve a problem while the second one gives more problems. The descent with modification hypothesis may ultimately fail, but the hypothesis itself articulates how to go about reinforcing or falsifying it. The special creation hypothesis is less clear in its articulation and depends on unestablished categories such as global Flood and God. When we compare evolution to creationism, then, we can fairly conclude that Whatever the gaps in evolution, the gaps in creationism are substantially bigger and badder. Indeed, this conclusion seems to me so obviously sensible and accurate that I really wonder why anyone would prefer creationism to evolution.
Enjoy! Finally, I want to acknowledge all those links you have given on NDEs. I'm sorry but I don't find them particularly compelling for your argument.LarTanner
November 30, 2010
November
11
Nov
30
30
2010
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply