Mitch Cronin Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I dunno if I'm the culprit of last night's outage, but as I hit the post button for a response to Greg in the "Athiests 123" thread, I got a data base error message and that seemed to be it for the night....and now that thread seems to have vanished.... ? In any case, if that's the only thing lost, I guess that's still pretty flippin' good... could have been a lot worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Hi Mitch, Don't know if that was the post, but we did remove a couple due to errors in the database. We think it is working properly now. Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I dunno if I'm the culprit of last night's outage, but as I hit the post button for a response to Greg in the "Athiests 123" thread, I got a data base error message and that seemed to be it for the night....and now that thread seems to have vanished.... ? In any case, if that's the only thing lost, I guess that's still pretty flippin' good... could have been a lot worse. Mitch ... Yeah, funny thing ... I hadn't had time to post lately but I wanted to jump back in on that topic but when I went to do so the thread was gone ... poof! Anyway, the conversation didn't exactly go where I had expected it to (to me the more relevant question is not the right or wrong of atheism versus theism but the role of atheism and the aetheistic "ethic" in basically theistic societies) but it did turn out to be a good break from the usual fare on the AEF. It was nice to see a spirited (!) debate without the usual us vs. them rancor that seems to get into many of the topics here. Cheers, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Pete... (to me the more relevant question is not the right or wrong of atheism versus theism but the role of atheism and the aetheistic "ethic" in basically theistic societies) I think so. Arguing "right or wrong" makes no sense in the present context. Its like arguing whether a tree or a flower is "right or wrong". There is a sociological aspect to your question too..."inclusion vs exclusion" in theistic societies. This fundamental need to belong exercises great power in an individual's "weltanschauung", (def). Both the Sociology of Knowledge and the Soc. of Religion speak to this independantly of the religious or spiritual dialogue. I think most would agree that the "border" or boundary (if one may be vernacular for a moment!) between the religious (not necessarily the spiritual) dialogue and the scientific dialogue is the phenomena, notion, fact, of faith. When one "believes", the rules of evidence are entirely different than in a scientific dialogue. I know the argument of the atom and have we ever "seen" one, is invoked to say, "well, you've taken that on faith, so where's the difference?" That question does not "do its job" and beg the existence of an atom (which is proven beyond a doubt) but instead pleads a case which sets aside scientific capabilities beyond the empirical senses. Ultimately, the entire enterprise of life, living on the earth and doing things is "faith-based" of course because we even have "faith" in the laws of physics. The key difference in the dialogue is independant inspectability, and the willingness to be constantly, even harshly scrutinized with the expectation that the resulting dialogue permits general agreement on proceeding. Again, this definition is fraught with peril as we recall the heated disagreements between Bohr and Einstein but the "rules" of engagement were mathematics. Again, we know of spiritual crises and the fundamental questions which arise both for individuals and for societies on the verge of becoming secular. But the nature of this profound "loss of confidence" (and the resulting questioning of God) is a different mode of questioning than the scientific enquiry. It is the intent towards independant verifiability which divides the two. The two have different "weltanschauung's". One is not "better" than the other. A Douglas Fir is no "better" than an Oak. Belief in God does not provide us with the knowledge and the means to explore the universe, (although one may derive enormous and very meaningful support for such a noble quest, as Einstein did). Knowing, however, that the laws of physics apply equally in one's kitchen as they do on the far side of the moon etc permits such collaborative endeavours to succeed with predictability and reliability. One may have profound faith or one may have absolutely no belief in a spiritual world whatsoever; - the world still "works" the same way for everyone. The connection to a Maker is again a matter of belief and not independant validation. That does not "invalidate" faith at all. For many, "the works of the universe" are enough. For many others, the works are not enough and there is no way to independantly demonstrate "The Proof" one way or the other, even though, from a human point of view, the argument seems, on the surface anyway, to make so much sense. Science cannot deny the possibility of God, nor can it demonstrate the possibility; Faith cannot prove the existence of God, it can only respond to fundamental human urgencies towards meaning-making. I don't intend disrespect nor am I making a "patronizing" statement here; I am acknowledging that for humans, making sense of the world is THE one endeavour with which we constantly are engaged. The mind sees patterns and connections everywhere for that is how it has "succeeded" in keeping us alive...so far. The two are not mutually exclusive. But the moment one "sees" God in science, the discussion is no longer a scientific one, it is a belief-based one and that needs to be acknowledged before proceeding on the theological discussion. The quest, and the question, are personally for me, a private endeavour, but the exporatory path is not. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 The quest, and the question, are personally for me, a private endeavour, but the exporatory path is not. Don Don Don Don I'm just leaving the house to go to Saltspring for the day so I can't respond but exporatory had me scrambling for my dictionary and I have a Webster's that is 6 inches thick and it ain't there. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Hi Greg; Yeah, saw the typo and thought, ahgh...folks'll know what the word is without the 'l'. Just think! A proper dictionary would have all the mis-spelled words in it as well as the right ones (think of the ratio! ), and would be termed The Vast Dictionary You'll Ever Need ! Saltspring on a day like today is valhalla...enjoy your day there Greg. - Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Science cannot deny the possibility of God, nor can it demonstrate the possibility; Faith cannot prove the existence of God, it can only respond to fundamental human urgencies towards meaning-making. Mostly I agree Don but I do think that science can demonstrate the possiblity, and I would even say that it demonstrates the probability, but I certainly agree that it doesn't prove the existence of God. We also agree that religion does not fall under the umbrella of being scientific. It is a matter of faith. I don't intend disrespect nor am I making a "patronizing" statement here; I am acknowledging that for humans, making sense of the world is THE one endeavour with which we constantly are engaged. The mind sees patterns and connections everywhere for that is how it has "succeeded" in keeping us alive...so far. Just maybe it is because that is how we are designed. The two are not mutually exclusive. But the moment one "sees" God in science, the discussion is no longer a scientific one, it is a belief-based one and that needs to be acknowledged before proceeding on the theological discussion. The quest, and the question, are personally for me, a private endeavour, but the exporatory path is not. I would agree with that. As I said, I do see God in science, but that is a matter of faith and not of science. Saltspring is beautiful but it is somewhat isolated. Great day though. Happy Easter Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Don ... Stated far more eloquently than I can ever imagine doing. You've captured the essence of having a belief in the way of things that both allows for the order that one perceives to exist while accepting that what is as yet unknown may mean that that order represents only part of a greater picture in which the context of what we know and what we believe may change. Certainly, I would hope that most thinking people, theists or not, would concede that our understanding does not yet run from one edge of the canvas to the other and that there is much yet to be explained by either faith or science. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many societies, and even to an extent in our our own as the first of the three articles I posted suggested. The second article by Slavoj Zizek was making the case for the atheist "Weltanschauung", as you've put it, being valuable to society for allowing a space within which multiple concepts of how the world/universe might be explained by science or by faith to co-exist within a society. Given the current state of discourse on religious subjects in most parts of the world I think that Zizek's points are very timely ones that are not given due consideration by the much of the theistic majority in their dismissal and disapproval of atheism (as was illustrated in the first article). I'd actually felt Zizek's article to be pretty compelling on its own and had thought to post it a couple weeks earlier, however, it was not until handyman's complaint and the timely arrival of the other two other articles, which I felt created a conceptual string about several facets of atheism and its place in society, that I actually got to it and put the group together and posted them for a change of pace. In truth I thought they'd die a very quick death and be relegated to the second page with only a comment or two, so I'm quite impressed by the debate that followed. It seems to me, though, that that debate mostly pursued the question of the correctness of atheism or theism in explaining life and meaning (or lack thereof). This more followed the line of just the last article of the three in which the author sought to take the same approach to theism that most religions have traditionally taken when considering atheism by questioning why we should be tolerant of theistic beliefs at all given the great amount of grief such beliefs have provoked and the lack of empirical evidence to support the ultimate truth of any particular religion. I knew that article was bound to stir a response from some with religious faith, but really my purpose in including it was not so much to open up that debate but rather to illustrate how a fairly accepted attitude among theists about the value of having a religious belief versus non-belief would appear when the shoe was placed on the other foot. In any event, the discussion that has followed has certainly been worthwhile and conducted in the best spirit that I might imagine. Thanks to everyone who added their thoughts and in doing so broadened mine. Cheers, Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Hi Pete Actually I would agree that Atheism has improved our situation in many ways. My understanding of history is that the concept of there not being a god started at the time of the French revolution and came about because of politics. The church had become the ruling class of the French. That in my view was a recipe for disaster because people rise to power through political manoeuvring in the church. This of course means that you those that become part of the church, not out of a will to serve God but out of a desire for political power. That situation is obviously not desirable for either church or state. In order to be able to attack the idea that an attack on the political power of the church was an attack on God the leaders of the revolution claimed that there was no God. This concept in time spread and opened up new lines of thought and allowed for greater academic freedom. It also made people of faith seriously consider just what it was they believed. In my view this was positive for both the church and society. Over time society became more democratic and the church consisted more, (although not always), of people who chose faith as opposed to having faith by default. This of course was all about politics and not about truth. What is truth is another issue altogether. Cheers Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.