Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

..... This - believing all this - is absolutely and utterly incomprehensible to me. Whether this intellectual and temperamental divide is basically genetic I have no idea; something has to explain it.

Genetics may well have some influence, but I am sure your pre-disposition is not cast in stone.  It is possible to change track, as CS Lewis did - after rejecting his religious upbringing, he concluded that there was no God, and could not understand why some of his close friends at Oxford still adhered to their Christian beliefs.  In his book, "Surprised by Joy", he describes how he reluctantly had to discard his well thought out atheist philosophy and become what he describes as "the world's most reluctant convert".

It's doubtful as to whether he ever was really an atheist at all. Firstly as you say he had a religious upbringing; but in the book you mention he also revealed that he had been "very angry at God for not existing." (Perhaps you know the passage; it's quite famous). A person angry at God is not an atheist. To be an atheist you only have to not believe in any gods. Somebody who claims anger at God believes in a God, therefore is not an atheist. There are other descriptive terms for such a person - a maltheist is one, or a dystheist - but an atheist they are not.

[Shaker]

In her more recent book "The Case for God" she does a very good job in illustrating the shallow thinking of most prominent atheists.

And how does she achieve this? (Remember Alan; there's only one thing you need to do to show all atheists everywhere to be wrong ).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In her more recent book "The Case for God" she does a very good job in illustrating the shallow thinking of most prominent atheists.

And how does she achieve this? (Remember Alan; there's only one thing you need to do to show all atheists everywhere to be wrong ).

Also Shaker read Theodore Dalrymple, Michael Ruse, Julian Baggini, Alain de Botton. Thinking atheists not swivelled eyed antitheists.

[Shaker]

Also Shaker read Theodore Dalrymple, Michael Ruse, Julian Baggini, Alain de Botton. Thinking atheists not swivelled eyed antitheists.

I've read them all at one time or another - unfortunately in the case of Ruse and the ludicrously-pseudonymed Dalrymple, who's an ultra-right-wing spittle-flecked nutcase. De Botton - too wishy-washy to bother with. Good on Proust; not bad on philosophy generally. Religion, meh. Baggini is a smart cookie though - just finished reading one of his only the other day.

[Nearly Sane]

Very strange Vlad supporting an extreme neo liberal

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also Shaker read Theodore Dalrymple, Michael Ruse, Julian Baggini, Alain de Botton. Thinking atheists not swivelled eyed antitheists.

I've read them all at one time or another - unfortunately in the case of Ruse and the ludicrously-pseudonymed Dalrymple, who's an ultra-right-wing spittle-flecked nutcase. De Botton - too wishy-washy to bother with. Good on Proust; not bad on philosophy generally. Religion, meh. Baggini is a smart cookie though - just finished reading one of his only the other day.

Aside from the ''well you would say that, Shaker'' their main beef as I understand it is that The Dawkinses of this world make ignorance of religion a virtue which is strange since they would not allow the same slapdash approach in their professional studies.

I think they would also baulk at the ridiculousness of equating God with Leprechauns or it's modern variant...God equals King Kong.

Basically an antitheist calling de De Botton wishy washy is chuckleable.

Thank goodness for the thinking atheists......like a hot shower after the mire of angry antitheism.......but then that brings us back to C.S.Lewis.

[Shaker]

Aside from the ''well you would say that, Shaker'' their main beef as I understand it is that The Dawkinses of this world make ignorance of religion a virtue which is strange since they would not allow the same slapdash approach in their professional studies.

If I understand you aright, "professional studies" - I assume you mean things like evolutionary biology and the like - are ones that stand or fall on the intellectual/academic rigour of their evidence. We're all still waiting for anything even remotely like the same degree of rigour in theology. Tell me Vladdles: are there bad/wrong/false ideas about God, and how do you know that they are?

I think they would also baulk at the ridiculousness of equating God with Leprechauns or it's modern variant...God equals King Kong.

Their baulking does not equal "this comparison is wrong." I'm sure you knew that already though, Vlad.

Basically an antitheist calling de De Botton wishy washy is chuckleable.

No doubt this meant something to you when you typed it.

Thank goodness for the thinking atheists......like a hot shower after the mire of angry antitheism.......but then that brings us back to C.S.Lewis.

Purlease ... anything, anything but bringing us back to C. S. bloody Lewis 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Aside from the ''well you would say that, Shaker'' their main beef as I understand it is that The Dawkinses of this world make ignorance of religion a virtue which is strange since they would not allow the same slapdash approach in their professional studies.

If I understand you aright, "professional studies" - I assume you mean things like evolutionary biology and the like - are ones that stand or fall on the intellectual/academic rigour of their evidence. We're all still waiting for anything even remotely like the same degree of rigour in theology

Plenty of rigour in theology and sensible atheists recognise this.

Anybody who is intellectually rigorous in science has a far easier job given the simple and limited rules under which the profession works.
What leaves thinking people like me and the thinking atheists aghast is how easily rigour is abandoned to make broad, vague and yes, hysterically ignorant statements about religion.......and that saps like you drink it all in.

[Shaker]

Plenty of rigour in theology

How do you know that there is, Vladster? I mean, for this statement to be true there has to be some external yardstick, some measure of rigour - of truth and demonstrable truth - to be able to say this.

Note that I'm not referring to anything like an "objective" morality or any such - we have a thread here on R & E on that subject which has been going longer than The Archers, without any sign of resolution. I just want to know what methodology you're using for you to be able to claim that there is "plenty of rigour in theology" and how the disinterested observer can confirm this.

I await your response with as much interest as I can summon up.

and sensible atheists recognise this.

Ah yes. These sensible atheists are the nice, cosy, tame atheists who don't give Vlad a fit of the vapours by coming across all anti-theistic, like, who have the audacity, nay, the temerity to say disobliging things about religion.

What leaves thinking people like me

I beg your pudding? Who are we discussing now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Plenty of rigour in theology

How do you know that there is, Vladster? I mean, for this statement to be true there has to be some external yardstick, some measure of rigour - of truth and demonstrable truth - to be able to say this.

Note that I'm not referring to anything like an "objective" morality or any such - we have a thread here on R & E on that subject which has been going longer than The Archers, without any sign of resolution. I just want to know what methodology you're using for you to be able to claim that there is "plenty of rigour in theology" and how the disinterested observer can confirm this.

I await your response with as much interest as I can summon up.

and sensible atheists recognise this.

Ah yes. These sensible atheists are the nice, cosy, tame atheists who don't give Vlad a fit of the vapours by coming across all anti-theistic, like, who have the audacity, nay, the temerity to say disobliging things about religion.

What leaves thinking people like me

I beg your pudding? Who are we discussing now?

All disciplines start with a premise. A motivation. The mystery is not that God is a premise from which the practice of theology flows but that methodological materialism somehow morphs into philosophical materialism.

in terms of cosy atheists I'm afraid Shaker you really prefer a fuck you attitude and that for you is the appeal of antitheism rather than the intellectual content we know it doesn't have.

[Shaker]

Looks like English, reads (more or less, in brief flashes) like English, comes across as total bollocks.

Can anyone help?

[Nearly Sane]

Other than Vlad seems to be arguing for a position that means astrology can have intellectual rigour, nope.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Other than Vlad seems to be arguing for a position that means astrology can have intellectual rigour, nope.

Well that(astrology) is about material bodies having material effects, testable by science and falsifiable claims I would have thought.
They used to cover that in first year at secondary school Sane....Unlike you making an elementary error like that.

[Nearly Sane]

Other than Vlad seems to be arguing for a position that means astrology can have intellectual rigour, nope.

Well that(astrology) is about material bodies having material effects, testable by science and falsifiable claims I would have thought.
They used to cover that in first year at secondary school Sane....Unlike you making an elementary error like that.

If they covered it in that way at any school you went to then they were being very stupid. It is specifically non replicable in its claims and non defined in any forces. 

I can only hope they charged you money for your education because at least that way the idiocy you just reproduced would be something that I didn't pay for and that they could then have laughed about down the pub afterwards.


Are you actually going to attempt to produce any statements on the 'intellectual rigour' of theology or will you just continue your usual attempts at avoiding it by attempting to and miserably failing to indulge in banter?

Oh and while you are at it, any chance in why you want to claim support from Dalrymple as a thinking atheist when he is a right wing neo liberal?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Other than Vlad seems to be arguing for a position that means astrology can have intellectual rigour, nope.

Well that(astrology) is about material bodies having material effects, testable by science and falsifiable claims I would have thought.
They used to cover that in first year at secondary school Sane....Unlike you making an elementary error like that.

If they covered it in that way at any school you went to then they were being very stupid. It is specifically non replicable in its claims and non defined in any forces. 

I can only hope they charged you money for your education because at least that way the idiocy you just reproduced would be something that I didn't pay for and that they could then have laughed about down the pub afterwards.


Are you actually going to attempt to produce any statements on the 'intellectual rigour' of theology or will you just continue your usual attempts at avoiding it by attempting to and miserably failing to indulge in banter?

Oh and while you are at it, any chance in why you want to claim support from Dalrymple as a thinking atheist when he is a right wing neo liberal?

Pretty light stuff since there are theology departments in the Major Universities but no astrology departments and that just makes your equation ridiculous.

Just a note about your own intellectual rigour it is possible to agree with someone on one point and disagree over others. That Dalrymple is mistaken over the intellectual vacuity of antitheism because he is a right wing liberal is a poor equation to make.

[BashfulAnthony]

Also Shaker read Theodore Dalrymple, Michael Ruse, Julian Baggini, Alain de Botton. Thinking atheists not swivelled eyed antitheists.

I've read them all at one time or another - unfortunately in the case of Ruse and the ludicrously-pseudonymed Dalrymple, who's an ultra-right-wing spittle-flecked nutcase. De Botton - too wishy-washy to bother with. Good on Proust; not bad on philosophy generally. Religion, meh. Baggini is a smart cookie though - just finished reading one of his only the other day.

I wonder if there's any book you haven't read?  Lucky to have so much time for it all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also Shaker read Theodore Dalrymple, Michael Ruse, Julian Baggini, Alain de Botton. Thinking atheists not swivelled eyed antitheists.

I've read them all at one time or another - unfortunately in the case of Ruse and the ludicrously-pseudonymed Dalrymple, who's an ultra-right-wing spittle-flecked nutcase. De Botton - too wishy-washy to bother with. Good on Proust; not bad on philosophy generally. Religion, meh. Baggini is a smart cookie though - just finished reading one of his only the other day.

I wonder if there's any book you haven't read?  Lucky to have so much time for it all.

Actually, Baggini wrote an Oxford reference on Atheism.....A world away from the disturbed Paranoia of Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens.

[Alan Burns]

In her more recent book "The Case for God" she does a very good job in illustrating the shallow thinking of most prominent atheists.

And how does she achieve this? (Remember Alan; there's only one thing you need to do to show all atheists everywhere to be wrong ).

Sorry, but I do not feel up to the task of summarising over 400 pages in a forum post.  You will have to add it to your "to read" pile.

[BashfulAnthony]

In her more recent book "The Case for God" she does a very good job in illustrating the shallow thinking of most prominent atheists.

And how does she achieve this? (Remember Alan; there's only one thing you need to do to show all atheists everywhere to be wrong ).

Sorry, but I do not feel up to the task of summarising over 400 pages in a forum post.  You will have to add it to your "to read" pile.

Don't worry, Alan;  he'll probably have read it by this time tomorrow.       

[Sassy]

Sass has really had me giggling at her nonsense posts this morning!

Do you know how ridiculous and heartless your post appears when mocking a post which contains the url of a starving child?

Your finding that amusing shows two things:-

1, You never read the last post or even clicked onto the web page given.
So showing how ignorant and heartless your post appears.

2, You did click on read the post and are really as heartless and mocking the child starving thinking and stating it to be funny.

This is why everyone has not replied to your post... They are waiting for you to realise how stupid your reply and how heartless it really appears...

[Shaker]

Don't worry, Alan;  he'll probably have read it by this time tomorrow.     

Fast reader that I am, since we're talking about Karen Armstrong, highly unlikely.

[Shaker]

Sorry, but I do not feel up to the task of summarising over 400 pages in a forum post.

No ... somehow I didn't think you would, Al

[SusanDoris]

Baggini is a smart cookie though - just finished reading one of his only the other day.

He was a speaker some years ago at one of the local Humanist Group meetings and I read something of his. However, there seemed to be a touch of hypocrisy in his views...
I would listen when he was on the radio, but gave up after a while as he wasn't clear enough for me!

[Alan Burns]

Sorry, but I do not feel up to the task of summarising over 400 pages in a forum post.

No ... somehow I didn't think you would, Al

Here is a little taster from the introduction chapter:
Religion, therefore, was not primarily something that people  thought but something they did. Its truth was acquired by practical  action. It is no use imagining that you will be able to drive a car if you  simply read the manual or study the Highway Code. You cannot learn  to dance, paint or cook by perusing texts or recipes. The rules of a  board game sound obscure, unnecessarily complicated and dull until  you start to play, when everything falls into place. There are some  things that can only be learned by constant, dedicated practice, but if  you persevere you find that you achieve something that seemed  initially impossible. Instead of sinking to the bottom of the pool, you  can float. You may learn to jump higher and with more grace than seems humanly possible, or sing with unearthly beauty. You do not  always understand how you achieve these feats, because your mind  directs your body in a way that bypasses conscious, logical  deliberation. But somehow you learn to transcend your original  capabilities. Some of these activities bring indescribable joy. A  musician can lose herself in her music, a dancer becomes inseparable  from the dance, and a skier feels entirely at one with himself and the  external world as he speeds down the slope. It is a satisfaction that goes  deeper than merely ‘feeling good’. It is what the Greeks called ekstasis,  a ‘stepping outside’ the norm.  Religion is a practical discipline that teaches us to discover new  capacities of mind and heart. This will be one of the major themes of  this book. It is no use magisterially weighing up the teachings of  religion to judge their truth or falsehood, before embarking on a  religious way of life. You will only discover their truth — or lack of it —   if you translate these doctrines into ritual or ethical action. Like any  skill, religion requires perseverance, hard work and discipline. Some  people will be better at it than others, some appallingly inept, and  others will miss the point entirely. But those who do not apply  themselyes will get nowhere at all. Religious people find it hard to  explain how their rituals and practices work, just as a skater may not be  fully conscious of the physical laws that enable her to soar over the ice  on a thin blade.        
So to summarise just this bit - Don't knock it until you have tried it

[floo]

Even if some humans have a need for an entity out there somewhere, they sing from different hymn sheets when it comes to their idea of a deity, even ones of the same religion! They don't have the same religious reasoning, which one might expect if a deity actually existed.