Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> David Clounch said:
> “Imagine if materialism became the dominant world view: if a tsunami
> kills a billion people, why should anyone send aid? Its just another
> spontaneous reaction. Like rust. Questions of purpose are irrelevant.
> Materialists just really wouldn't care (if they are following their beliefs
> to their logical conclusion). “
>
>
>
> That is over simplistic. You say “why should anyone send aid?” then just
> supply one answer, instead of many.
>
You missed the point. Many people (who claim to be materialists) would send
aid - because they are not following their beliefs to the corresponding
logical conclusions. I didn't say they wouldn't. Read my statement again
with the qualifier at the end.

It is like an anti-Christian saying that Christians believe that Christ is
> going to return very soon, like tomorrow, so why bother taking care of the
> environment? It is like re-arranging deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.
> However, other Christians also have other viewpoints.
>
>
>
If you want to tell us about all the various viewpoints within scientific
materialism, ok, go ahead.

> There are those who don’t believe in God but still get a purpose out of
> this transient life.
>
First, not believing in God is *not* the same thing as being a materialist.

BUT....keep in mind Miller's argument with Behe in Dover is based on
refuting "purpose" in the mousetrap. Showing that the parts and their
combination dont have purpose - they are just there without any aboriginal
purpose - to Miller this shows that Behe is wrong. And here you are arguing
that people find purpose in places ummm...well...just because they want to?
  After the fact? In spite of the facts? I'd say that is a bit of delusion.
You need to explain why this "purpose delusion" as Dawkins would put it
represents any sort of "true" purpose.

> Agreed- the end result is still nothingness, going to the same place we
> came from, nothing, but there’s still meaning in living life in the vapor.
>
How do you know thats not an existential leap of faith? Satre said man
needs an infinite integration point. Materialism denies there is one.

You are going to have to show us how the tenets of materialism allow for the
idea that humans are anything but a bucket of chemical reactions.

> The idea of eternal life is much better if true- but it is a delusion if
> not true- so it isn’t a matter of which we WANT but which is TRUE. As a
> truth-seeker, I value truth over my desire for what I want to be true.
>
Again, why does feeling there is purpose actually create that purpose?
Sounds like nonsense to me. It doesn't have the ring of truth.

It doesn't matter what I think of materialism. You need to show how the
questions you challenge Christianity with are answered better by
materialism. I don't think you have done that.

What you do seem to be saying is materialists would follow some random
fantasy or feeling they hold - ignoring the logical conclusions of their
belief system. I can accept that. But why is that then an argument in
favor of materialism? Seems to me it argues the other way - that
materialists don't believe their own story. I wasn't going to accuse them
of that - seems to me you have done so. What about the possibility they
claim materialism only because they don't like the alternatives?

-Dave

>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Clounch
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:08 AM
> *To:* Dave Wallace
> *Cc:* Murray Hogg; ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] (ancient theodicy, 'ancient theology') Deism,
> Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments
>
>
>
> Fork #2
>
>
> 2) On the materialist position itself: Bernie has been challenging
> traditional Christian views on the problem of pain, implying they are
> inadequate and this will cause believers to reject their faith. And I
> perceive what Bernie to be asserting is that from the view of a casual
> observer it sure looks like random purposeless death is what is going on
> rather than a grand overall purposeful plan. But...lets assume materialism
> is correct. If one asks the same questions of materialism that Bernie asked
> of Christianity, what do we get?
> What conclusion can anyone reach other than:
>
> "pain and suffering then is purposeless because individual human lives and
> even the entire human race is purposeless."
>
> Imagine if materialism became the dominant world view: if a tsunami kills
> a billion people, why should anyone send aid? Its just another spontaneous
> reaction. Like rust. Questions of purpose are irrelevant. Materialists
> just really wouldn't care (if they are following their beliefs to their
> logical conclusion). Contrast this with the Christian view of humans that
> each human is made in the image of God and is something God cares deeply
> about.
> That is the reason to help alleviate people's suffering. They have ultimate
> worth.
>
> I think almost everybody on earth thinks human have worth and more meaning
> that rocks on the beach.
>
> A materialist could always say "well I care. I'll send aid. Its an
> existential thing." But he would be abandoning the logical conclusion of
> his own world view when he says that.
>
> So it seems to me the best way to kill evolution is to associate evolution
> with materialism.
> Is this really what Bernie is trying to do?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Murray Hogg wrote:
>
>
> But as for the alternate responses, I personally think it's a very hard
> question: why WOULD God choose to create through evolution when the process
> is intrinsically competitive and contrary to the command to love one's
> neighbour?
>
> Sometimes I wonder if, given all the constraints, God's creating through
> evolution was the only way he could get the kind of people he ultimately
> wanted. The kind of constraints I am thinking of are things like moral
> imperatives. As I see it God does not want determinism to rule the people
> he looks for although our freedom is quite limited.
>
>
> Again, "I don't know" is, to me, an appropriate response and one I can live
> with.
>
> I think we often have to live with I don't know. Too often we attempt to
> go beyond our limitations, not only in science but it theology, some things
> are simply mysteries. I do think that mankind's breaking of the law has
> made the situation worse, much worse and that the results of such sin go
> down through the generations.
>
> Dave W
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 26 22:26:17 2009