|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:02 am Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
 |
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
It's an improvement...refreshingly so.
Thanks for that link. |
The pseudointellectual conceit that seems to have infected recent atheist philosophy is an improvement over nothing. Replacing bad logic with different bad logic should not be praised. |
Agreed. Biblical literalism is still biblical literalism, be it of the atheist or creationist variety. But it seems Dawson's strand of atheism insists more stridently of its certitude, but anchors it to a more uncertain tether, which is reason. Faith, at least, appears to be honest about its assumptions, and is nearly as intrinsically compatible with doubt as reason, despite Dawson's claims to the contrary. Reason has yet to disprove the existence of God, show that godlessness is more healthy, or even prevail in its assertion that education correlates with godlessness.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110808124245.htm
| Quote: |
[T]he study found higher levels of education eroded Americans' viewpoints that their specific religion is the "one true faith" and that the Bible is the literal word of God. At the same time, education was positively associated with belief in the afterlife. And while more highly educated Americans were somewhat less likely to definitely believe in God, it's because some of them believed in a higher power, not because they were particularly likely to not believe at all.
The research also found that disaffiliating, or dropping religion altogether, was not a popular option for highly educated Americans -- in fact, having a greater level of education was associated most often with converting to mainline, non-evangelical Protestant denominations.
Also among the study's findings:
�Education had a strong and positive effect on religious participation. With each additional year of education, the odds of attending religious services increased 15 percent.
�Increases in education were associated with reading the Bible. With each additional year of education, the odds of reading the Bible at least occasionally increased by 9 percent.
�Education was related to respondents' switching of religious affiliations. The odds of switching to a mainline Protestant denomination increased by 13 percent for each year of education.
�The more educated respondents were, the more likely they were to question the role of religion in secular society. Yet, they were against curbing the voices of religious leaders on societal issues and supported those leaders' rights to influence people's votes.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Reason has yet to disprove the existence of God, show that godlessness is more healthy, or even prevail in its assertion that education correlates with godlessness. |
Does reason need to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist?
That hardly sounds reasonable.
What do you mean by healthier? (more healthy)
That study is hardly worthy of discussion.
Americans are religious...and so?
Doesn't Dawkins already make a point about Americans and their beliefs?
Didn't Hitchens state that Obama chose his religion to become President...does that make his religious faith 'honest'?
I dare say most 'educated Americans' choose their religions more for commercial reasons than 'honest' spiritual ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITsYUjv_aEA
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The pseudointellectual conceit that seems to have infected recent atheist philosophy is an improvement over nothing. Replacing bad logic with different bad logic should not be praised. |
Why pseudointellectual conceit?
Dawkins is not enough of an intellectual for you?
Perhaps either or both of you have greater intellect on this subject?
Feel free to share your views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Reason has yet to disprove the existence of God, show that godlessness is more healthy, or even prevail in its assertion that education correlates with godlessness. |
Does reason need to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist?
That hardly sounds reasonable.
|
No, but practioners of reason need to admit the limits of reason. And Kant, at least, did. The existence or non-existence of God was his Fourth Antimony. Antimonies are contradictions stemming from our attempts to imagine transcedent reality. In other words, they are limits on reason.
Again, Dawkins' condescension can be easily turned back on him, and also his followers, as disciples of a third-rate thinker. Hence, geldedgoat's apt description of Dawkins as a pseudo-intellectual thinker.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
That study is hardly worthy of discussion.
Americans are religious...and so? |
The study shows that education correlates positively with religiousity, whereas Dawkins believes the more educated are more likely to give up religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:31 am Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Again, Dawkins' condescension can be easily turned back on him, and also his followers, as disciples of a third-rate thinker. Hence, geldedgoat's apt description of Dawkins as a pseudo-intellectual thinker. |
Dawkins is a third-rate thinker...but Mariano Grinbank is the height of intellectual discourse? 
Best of luck with that.
| Quote: |
Kuros wrote:
Reason has yet to disprove the existence of God, show that godlessness is more healthy, or even prevail in its assertion that education correlates with godlessness. |
It was you that said reason has yet to disprove the existence of God.
And then with an interesting albeit circuitous logic, you cite Kant as a source putting limits on reason?
What is your point?
My point is that reason is not required to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist...that is unreasonable.
If your first-rate thinkers can prove the existence of God...then do so...please.
The world over has been waiting for this proof for millennia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:37 am Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Again, Dawkins' condescension can be easily turned back on him, and also his followers, as disciples of a third-rate thinker. Hence, geldedgoat's apt description of Dawkins as a pseudo-intellectual thinker. |
Dawkins is a third-rate thinker...but Mariano Grinbank is the height of intellectual discourse?
Best of luck with that. |
Who is Mariano Grinbank and why should I care?
| Quote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Reason has yet to disprove the existence of God, show that godlessness is more healthy, or even prevail in its assertion that education correlates with godlessness. |
It was you that said reason has yet to disprove the existence of God.
And then with an interesting albeit circuitous logic, you cite Kant as a source putting limits on reason?
What is your point?
My point is that reason is not required to disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist...that is unreasonable.
If your first-rate thinkers can prove the existence of God...then do so...please.
The world over has been waiting for this proof for millennia. |
Your assumption is that God doesn't exist. This is an assumption. It is not a product of either logic or evidence. Logic tells us no evidence will ever exist for God. Therefore, any assertion, for or against the proposition that God exists, may not be established by reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:06 am Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Who is Mariano Grinbank and why should I care?
|
Precisely my point...and yet you cited him to prove Dawkins as a third-rate thinker.
| Quote: |
| Your assumption is that God doesn't exist. This is an assumption. It is not a product of either logic or evidence. Logic tells us no evidence will ever exist for God. Therefore, any assertion, for or against the proposition that God exists, may not be established by reason. |
My 'assumption' is that Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny, etc... don't exist too.
Your logic can sort those out, too.(just fill in the blank with any one)
Therefore, any assertion, for or against the proposition that _________ exists, may not be established by reason.
Anyway...this is far enough off topic.
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
To preface, I've never read Dawkins' anything, but I've always been concerned about some sort of "Church of Atheism" emerging. That happens when someone begins to preach atheism, and maybe Dawkins is culpable for that.
BUT:
| Quote: |
| Your assumption is that God doesn't exist. This is an assumption. It is not a product of either logic or evidence. |
It IS a product of evidence (and therefore logic). Douglas Adams sums that up in the Hitch-Hiker's guide: the evidence for God? Poof!
| Quote: |
| Logic tells us no evidence will ever exist for God. |
Oh really? Now, who told you that?
First and foremost, logic is logic. LOGIC didn't tells you simply this: there is no evidence. LOGIC DOES NOT TELL YOU THERE WILL EVER BE ANY EVIDENCE FOR GOD, because logic cannot make that claim. Or rather, we cannot make such a claim, because logic serves us rather than the other way around.
And allow me to logically explain the implications of your claim:
There is no evidence for god.
Done. That's it. Logic doesn't suddenly start to coddle the illogical.
The sun is my god. It makes me feel good, and my faith is that we'd be screwed without it. Logic can explain both of those positions without any need for mysticism. And while I say that it's my god, I really think our human goal is to be able to live beyond it. Unless we make it to another star, everything we've ever done will be erased. It IS the "holistic" human endeavor that will hopefully make it possible for us to accomplish this.
If you're a Deist, I hope that you pray for it to happen! I have no quarrel with you.
Provided you respect my beliefs as an atheist.
If you want to get personal and say it's arrogant to be an atheist, then I'll point to 2000+ years of your own arrogance.
Does Dawkins bother you? Well, he shouldn't any more than ________ insert the religions that you don't follow. Do you worship Zeus? No? Then what's the difference (aside from rhetoric) for atheism to be any worse than pantheism or whatever you lack faith in?
And, if we're talking arrogance, then the worshippers of Zeus might take issue with you.
Which brings us back to logic. There is no logical reason to worship Jehovah over Zeus. There is no logic that tells us they're one and the same.
Specifically:
| Quote: |
| There is no logic that supports the existence of god. |
Your claim:
| Quote: |
Logic tells us no evidence will ever exist for God. |
is not supported by logic, so please leave logic alone when you go about assailing atheists.
Bottom line: it does not support you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
First and foremost, logic is logic. LOGIC didn't tells you simply this: there is no evidence. LOGIC DOES NOT TELL YOU THERE WILL EVER BE ANY EVIDENCE FOR GOD, because logic cannot make that claim. Or rather, we cannot make such a claim, because logic serves us rather than the other way around. |
See Kant's Fourth Antimony, which I referenced earlier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:53 am Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Who is Mariano Grinbank and why should I care?
|
Precisely my point...and yet you cited him to prove Dawkins as a third-rate thinker.
|
Let me tell you something that irks me: when someone claims I cited someone I have never cited. Now go back and show your work. When have I EVER cited this man?!? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:56 am Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Your assumption is that God doesn't exist. This is an assumption. It is not a product of either logic or evidence. Logic tells us no evidence will ever exist for God. Therefore, any assertion, for or against the proposition that God exists, may not be established by reason. |
My 'assumption' is that Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny, etc... don't exist too.
Your logic can sort those out, too.(just fill in the blank with any one)
Therefore, any assertion, for or against the proposition that _________ exists, may not be established by reason. |
You're not taking Kant seriously enough here. Kant does not discuss finite, contingent imaginary beings. Kant discusses God as a "necessary being." See also Aristotle's Prime Mover.
I suppose we shall see if you (or Dawkins) have anything beyond cheap rhetorical tricks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Who is Mariano Grinbank and why should I care?
|
Precisely my point...and yet you cited him to prove Dawkins as a third-rate thinker.
|
Let me tell you something that irks me: when someone claims I cited someone I have never cited. Now go back and show your work. When have I EVER cited this man?!? |
Don't get too bent out of shape over it.
Though, quite frankly, your tone is a bit much.
Here is your link.
http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/is-as-per-richard-dawkins-education-the-only-antidote-to-religion
| Quote: |
You're not taking Kant seriously enough here. Kant does not discuss finite, contingent imaginary beings. Kant discusses God as a "necessary being." See also Aristotle's Prime Mover.
I suppose we shall see if you (or Dawkins) have anything beyond cheap rhetorical tricks. |
If you believe that Kant and Aristotle, whom I assume you have granted first-rate thinking status, have proved the existence of God...then we don't have much to discuss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
For Mariano, I didn't even notice the author. I only linked for the quotation from Dawkins himself, namely:
| Quote: |
| There seems to be a correlation with education. It�s certainly true within the US � the more educated people are more likely to give up religion. |
I didn't read any of the rest of it.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Quote: |
You're not taking Kant seriously enough here. Kant does not discuss finite, contingent imaginary beings. Kant discusses God as a "necessary being." See also Aristotle's Prime Mover.
I suppose we shall see if you (or Dawkins) have anything beyond cheap rhetorical tricks. |
If you believe that Kant and Aristotle, whom I assume you have granted first-rate thinking status, have proved the existence of God...then we don't have much to discuss. |
Uh, no. Never said that Kant or Aristotle proved the existence of God.
I think we're done here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| See Kant's Fourth Antimony, which I referenced earlier. |
The problem with the 4th antimony is that it's perhaps the broadest cloze test of all time.
Allow me to demonstrate:
The Fourth Antinomy (of ____)
Thesis:
There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, _____that is absolutely necessary.
Anti-thesis:
___________________ nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.
You can put whatever you want into that slot.
And, I understand the time it was written in, but who suddenly decided God is a "necessary" being?
Either way, if we input "Flying Spaghetti Monster", does that give the FSM some higher accord because we can't disprove it?
This looks a lot like the essential conceit being widely (and wildly) bantied about in America because creation and evolution are essentially on a level playing field. Is that really your position?
Just say yes and I'll leave it at that, but I can't imagine how you can assail Dawkins without seriously considering your own arrogance.
If Dawkins is just hoopla, why so serious?
Speaking from a pragmatic viewpoint, the US (in the New American Century, lol) is lagging behind other developed countries while we play games to appease religiosity.
I haven't seen the studies you refer to, but how do you suppose religiosity influences education in the Middle East? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The pseudointellectual conceit that seems to have infected recent atheist philosophy is an improvement over nothing. Replacing bad logic with different bad logic should not be praised. |
Why pseudointellectual conceit?
Dawkins is not enough of an intellectual for you? |
On issues of philosophy and theology, no. The same goes for anyone who pretends any sort of anti-theism is somehow logical and reasonable. Now, if we're talking about evolutionary biology, then yeah, he's more than intellectual enough, and I would likely not find myself challenging him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:42 pm Post subject: Re: pseudo-intellectual atheism |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The pseudointellectual conceit that seems to have infected recent atheist philosophy is an improvement over nothing. Replacing bad logic with different bad logic should not be praised. |
Why pseudointellectual conceit?
Dawkins is not enough of an intellectual for you? |
On issues of philosophy and theology, no. The same goes for anyone who pretends any sort of anti-theism is somehow logical and reasonable. Now, if we're talking about evolutionary biology, then yeah, he's more than intellectual enough, and I would likely not find myself challenging him. |
Yeah...the waters get pretty muddy mixing science and theology.
But those waters are best left alone here at Dave's...as the next step is the miracle of the disappearing threads.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
