Scriptural Interpretation

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course an atheist can lament the non existence of God just like an a leprechaunist can lament a world devoid of happy leprechauns or an a jiminy cricketist lament the absence in the world of the chirpy chap.

You’re shifting ground down to weasel out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself. Your previous claims involved atheists “being troubled by not meeting god” and being “angry” at god. You can’t do either though if you have no reason to think there to be a god in the first place.

Your ground shifting is changing from “troubled” and “angry” to “lament” – ie, thinking something like, “wouldn’t it be nice though if there (some reason to think there) was a god?”. That’s a highly dubious thought in any case given the scumbag that god would also have to be if he did exist, but it’s a different argument from the one from which you’ve now resiled.

The other possibility is of course is that we are all Goddodgers.

And Thor dodgers, and leprechaun dodgers, and Ra dodgers, and…

...you must be exhausted what with all that dodging you're doing!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not dodging what they represent Hillside.... stabs of various comprehensiveness at what the divine is.

Did that mean something in your head when you typed it?

If you want to accuse people of "god dodging" and then use exactly the same arguments to validate your non-belief in countless other superstitious claims then the "dodging" tag applies to you to, however stupid it is.   

You have a shockingly limited almost dawkinsian knowledge of the arguments IMHO read some books on the subject.

And you have a shockingly limited grasp of the basic logic that invalidates your claim that knowledge of theology has anything to do with the assumptions on which it rests. If you seriously think theology has something useful to say about that just tell us what it is and when you've had your claim checked we'll campaign together to have it taught as fact in schools alongside physics and chemistry.

What's stopping you?

Oh hang on though - doesn't "faith" come into it somewhere?

Damn, it was all going so well until then too...

[bluehillside Retd.]

lad,

Thanks for this post Hillside which can be quoted whenever you accuse people of dodging the truth of whatever it is you believe in....Thus revealing yourself as a big minty brown stripey one.

Evasion noted.

I think it was Wiggs who commented a while back that I find it difficult to process your blatant dishonesty.

You know what? He was right about that, so I think I'll stop trying.

[jeremyp]

It's a shit hyperbolic analogy. Jeremby.

You mean it's one that you cannot answer. It's actually a pretty good analogy and destroys the "he doesn't know any theology therefore he can't comment on the existence or otherwise of God" whiney non argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean it's one that you cannot answer. It's actually a pretty good analogy and destroys the "he doesn't know any theology therefore he can't comment on the existence or otherwise of God" whiney non argument.

He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.
The Courtiers reply is therefore merely a rhetorical tool designed to bolster a felt immunity from scrutiny by New Atheists.

[ProfessorDavey]

He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.

And in what way is that different to the theology associated with any of the thousands of deities purported to exist for you.

Either you have detailed knowledge of every theological proposition, linked to every religion and every deity or you are just as guilty as those you criticise.

Or is it only ignorance when associated with atheists?

[jeremyp]

He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.
The Courtiers reply is therefore merely a rhetorical tool designed to bolster a felt immunity from scrutiny by New Atheists.

Do you need to be informed on the finer points of the difference between cotton and linen in order to tell if somebody is naked? No.

Christianity is naked in the sense that it can't show its god exists. whether it is triune or not is irrelevant and your pretence otherwise is laughable.

[ProfessorDavey]

If it isn't the No true atheist thing...it's because there are no true atheists.

Are you really suggesting that there aren't people who don't believe in god or gods, because that is all it takes to be a 'true atheist'.

And do you know what - there are loads and loads of true atheists - stating with the guy you are currently debating with.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the point is that he realises himself as another atheist who protesteth too much methinks.

Nope I think he recognised that he was a believer who, for whatever reason, was trying to fool himself into thinking that he didn't believe, hence the phrase 'I maintained that God did not exist' rather than the obvious one that an atheist would use, namely 'I did not believe that god exists'.

And of course it works in reverse - for a while I tried to believe, I kind of pretended to myself that I believed in god. But I didn't, I was fooling myself and that why I talk about coming to recognise that I was an atheist, rather than becoming an atheist. Point being that when I came to recognise that I was an atheist it was obvious that I never believed all along however much I might have tried to make out that I did.

So I guess I'm a Lewis in reverse - an atheist all along who for a while 'maintained that I believed in god' like Lewis, a believer all along who for a while 'maintained that God did not exist'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Worth noting too that during his supposed 'atheist' phase C S Lewis became preoccupied with occultism. The whole point about atheism is that we don't believe in a supernatural deity, why then would an atheist believe in the occult which is firmly embedded in the concept of supernaturalism and is fair more aligned with the principles of theism than it is with atheism.

Lewis believed and was searching for an alternative outlet for his belief while trying to convince himself he didn't believe. I've never seen anything about Lewis that convinces me that he ever really didn't believe in god or gods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you need to be informed on the finer points of the difference between cotton and linen in order to tell if somebody is naked? No.

Alright I concede it and admit it......Dawkins, Myers and you are bollock naked.

You didn't see that coming did you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you really suggesting that there aren't people who don't believe in god or gods, because that is all it takes to be a 'true atheist'.

All I am saying prof is that you can be a true atheist and lament that there isn't  God or feel angry that he isn't there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And in what way is that different to the theology associated with any of the thousands of deities purported to exist for you.

Either you have detailed knowledge of every theological proposition, linked to every religion and every deity or you are just as guilty as those you criticise.

Or is it only ignorance when associated with atheists?

I'm sorry but the position is that I agree with everything you can come up with....and then some. No appeal to science can gainsay my 'extra' ......because it just er, doesn't.

In terms of theological proposition. I work on the principle of comprehensiveness. and that there is something that is the fulfilment of all theological positions.
Indeed Bluehillside demonstrates this beautifully when one argues Leprechauns with him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Worth noting too that during his supposed 'atheist' phase C S Lewis became preoccupied with occultism. The whole point about atheism is that we don't believe in a supernatural deity, why then would an atheist believe in the occult which is firmly embedded in the concept of supernaturalism and is fair more aligned with the principles of theism than it is with atheism.

Lewis believed and was searching for an alternative outlet for his belief while trying to convince himself he didn't believe. I've never seen anything about Lewis that convinces me that he ever really didn't believe in god or gods.

Theism is about God. One can believe in beings thrown up naturally with supernatural powers.
Indeed a belief that has an eternal self perturbed universe is supernatural since none of it can be proved naturally.

[bluehillside Retd.]

He can comment on it but an uninformed opinion is always going to be that.

In which Vlad again fails to grasp that it's only necessary to be informed on the relevant issues to reach a well-founded conclusion. If theology had anything epistemically meaningful to say about the various assumptions it takes as articles of "faith" then he or anyone else would only need to produce it.

So far though, no-one ever has.

The Courtiers reply is therefore merely a rhetorical tool designed to bolster a felt immunity from scrutiny by New Atheists.

Another non sequitur. The premise fails, so so does the conclusion. 

[jeremyp]

Alright I concede it and admit it......Dawkins, Myers and you are bollock naked.

You didn't see that coming did you.

Yes and no.  I was pretty certain you'd come back with some useless piece of twatterey, but not that particular piece of useless twattery.

[jeremyp]

A belief that has an eternal self perturbed universe is supernatural since none of it can be proved naturally.

Nope. The World is clearly not supernatural because it is here and it exists. You may choose to claim the means by which it came into existence is supernatural, I prefer to admit I don't know how it came into existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. The World is clearly not supernatural because it is here and it exists. You may choose to claim the means by which it came into existence is supernatural, I prefer to admit I don't know how it came into existence.

I don't think non existant was ever a definition of the word supernatural whereas not susceptible to scientific investigation is.

What you seem to be suggesting is you don't know how the universe came into being but you know it was natural.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry but the position is that I agree with everything you can come up with....and then some. No appeal to science can gainsay my 'extra' ......because it just er, doesn't.

In terms of theological proposition. I work on the principle of comprehensiveness. and that there is something that is the fulfilment of all theological positions.

So effectively you are saying that you hold a position (principle of comprehensiveness) which, in your view, means you don't need to know theological details of all religions.

Why is that any different from saying that I hold a position (atheism) which, in my view, means I don't need to know theological details of all religions.

It isn't yet you criticise the latter while you personally subscribe to the former - I'd suggest that is gross double standards.

[ProfessorDavey]

All I am saying prof is that you can be a true atheist and lament that there isn't  God or feel angry that he isn't there.

Indeed, but that isn't what Lewis is saying. He didn't feel angry (in a general sense) because there isn't a god. No he clearly said he was angry with god - you cannot be angry with something that doesn't exist - it makes no sense.

He was directing his anger at god and therefore he must have believed that god existed. No atheist directs their anger, or anything else, at god for the simple reason that they don't think that god exists.

[ProfessorDavey]

Theism is about God. One can believe in beings thrown up naturally with supernatural powers.
Indeed a belief that has an eternal self perturbed universe is supernatural since none of it can be proved naturally.

A theistic mindset is one that accepts supernatural entities, whether god (necessarily) or the many other supernatural entities and phenomena that are part and parcel of religions - such as angels, miracles etc etc.

While I accept it is possible not to believe in god but to believe in other supernatural things this requires a level of cognitive dissonance which doesn't sit easy with atheist thinking.

So if someone who was brought up as a Christian then rejects the religion of their upbringing, claiming to be an 'atheist', but being angry with god and signing up to all sorts of supernatural entities and phenomena of the occult I think the pretty easy conclusion is that they aren't atheist, merely a rebelling and somewhat confused theist.

And don't forget that the occult is generally considered to be theistic. I accept that occultism isn't well defined, but in most cases it includes the divine, gods and other deities.

[Dicky Underpants]

Indeed, but that isn't what Lewis is saying. He didn't feel angry (in a general sense) because there isn't a god. No he clearly said he was angry with god - you cannot be angry with something that doesn't exist - it makes no sense.

He was directing his anger at god and therefore he must have believed that god existed. No atheist directs their anger, or anything else, at god for the simple reason that they don't think that god exists.

Yes indeed, Prof.    Lewis' "Surprised by Joy" (from which the above references come, I think) is full of this kind of confused thinking - as is that tawdry little volume "Mere Christianity", which is riddled with puerile non-sequiturs. It is one of the wonders of publishing and radio broadcasting that this 10th-rate thinker ever became a major spokesman for Christian thought in the English-speaking world, whatever his virtues as an imaginative writer may have been. That his religious prosings seem to have been a significant element in Vlad's conversion speaks volumes.
Still, I'll forgive Lewis quite a lot for having written "Till We Have Faces".

[wigginhall]

Yes, Dicky, I think 'Mere Christianity' is still touted as some kind of brilliant work, when as you say, it seems very poor.   He spends a lot of time on objective morality, with the usual non-arguments.   The fact that it is still often recommended, shows how poor Christian apologetics is today. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes, Dicky, I think 'Mere Christianity' is still touted as some kind of brilliant work, when as you say, it seems very poor.   He spends a lot of time on objective morality, with the usual non-arguments.   The fact that it is still often recommended, shows how poor Christian apologetics is today.

Indeed, wiggi.

Non-believers here have been criticised by you-know-who for their lack of acquaintance with theological writing. I wonder how much virtue there is in subjecting oneself to this kind of thing? Paul Tillich was a major influence on modern liberal Christian thinking, and his views formed a significant part of Bish Robinson's "Honest to God". His "Systematic Theology" has been hailed as a monumental work. I've tried to read bits in the past, and wondered just how much was waffle or whistling in the dark.
I don't know whether this is within the forum rules, but I'm going to append a fairly long quote from Book 1:

The same situation prevails with regard to historical research. Theologians need not be afraid of any historical conjecture, for revealed truth lies in a dimension where it can neither be confirmed nor negated by historiography. Therefore, theologians should not prefer some results of historical research to others on theological grounds, and they should not resist results which finally have to be accepted if scientific honesty is not to be destroyed, even if they seem to undermine the knowledge of revelation. Historical investigations should neither comfort nor worry theologians. Knowledge of revelation, although it is mediated primarily through historical events, does not imply factual assertions, and it is therefore not exposed to critical analysis by historical research. Its truth is to be judged by criteria which lie within the dimension of revelatory knowledge.

Psychology, including depth psychology, psychosomatics, and social psychology, is equally unable to interfere with knowledge of revelation. There are many insights into the nature of man in revelation. But all of them refer to the relation of man to what concerns him ultimately, to the ground and meaning of his being. There is no revealed psychology just as there is no revealed historiography or revealed physics. It is not the task of theology to protect the truth of revelation by attacking Freudian doctrines of libido, repression, and sublimation on religious grounds or by defending a Jungian doctrine of man in the name of revelatory knowledge.”

Well, to me this seems no more than an ultimate appeal to subjectivity: "God has spoken to me, so I know". In my mystic days, I would have endorsed such musings. However, Russell summarily dismissed arguments like this. No matter how apparently devastating the 'revelations' may be, ultimately they remain true for the individual only. And 'true for me means true for you' is certainly a position built on sand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Yes, Dicky, I think 'Mere Christianity' is still touted as some kind of brilliant work, when as you say, it seems very poor.   He spends a lot of time on objective morality, with the usual non-arguments.   The fact that it is still often recommended, shows how poor Christian apologetics is today.

That's interesting. I too find the go to guys touted for Christian apologetics these days (WLC, Feser etc) to be pretty hopeless. Is that it though - aren't there any hotshots out there with arguments worthy of the name that would be rewarding to consider and, if there are, who are they?

I'd be genuinely interested to read some apologetics that aren't re-treads of the old fallacies but I'd have no idea where to find it.