Re: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article by Dawkins

Not to mention that the idea can be turned around on the atheists. Atheism
(particularly the stern materialism of Dawkins, etc) entails belief that
what is responsible for the introduction and sustaining of humanity, the
universe, morality, etc is at heart a blind, purposeless, unconscious,
ateleological force. If theism (or even some varieties of non-naturalism) is
correct, then atheists believe in something as unreal as Santa Claus and the
Easter Bunny as well - what they believe to be the true power and nature of
reality does not exist as they think it does.

So Bernie's point, if he has one here, isn't exciting. "If someone believes
in something, and that thing does not actually exist, it's the equivalent of
believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny." Or, "If someone believes in
something, and they're wrong, they're wrong." Great. If we're going to go a
step further and say "If someone believes in something, and they're wrong,
they're wrong - and people who believe in things that are wrong are
looneys", alright - the majority of people, and the majority of scientists,
have all been a bunch of looneys.

Either way, I'm not sure this is a 'blunder' made by atheists. My guess
would be that it's a conscious smear tactic, an oversimplification made in
the interest of stifling reasonable debate and inquiry. I'm pretty sure I
recall Dawkins, as well as Dennett, explicitly mentioning that they have no
interest in rational debate or persuasion on these issues, but hope to
belittle, humiliate, and shame people out of their religious beliefs.
Interesting tact for people who talk about the prime importance of reason.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>wrote:

> Hi Bernie,
>
> Approaching this somewhat tangentially;
>
> I think one of the biggest blunders made by certain vocal atheists is to
> ignore the fact that there is a venerable tradition of philosophical
> argument in favour of theism while, at the same time, a total absence of any
> serious philosophical engagement with existence claims for Santa Claus.
>
> This being the case, it should be obvious that intelligent, mature adults
> have, for centuries, taken seriously the claim "God exists" - making
> concepts such as Santa, the Easter Bunny, faeries at the bottom of the
> garden, invisible pink unicorns, orbiting teapots, and so on, totally
> dis-analogous.
>
> So I agree with what I understand to be your original rejoinder to Ted;
> that the seriousness with which people meet the claim "God exists" (as
> evidenced by so many having faith in God) makes the difference between God
> and Santa. My only point in response was that I think this fact was
> precisely the basis upon which Ted made HIS remark about God and Santa Claus
> not being close equivalents.
>
> I'll only add that the dis-analogy remains even if theists are wrong: even
> if the philosophical arguments all prove utterly fallacious, it is STILL the
> case that intelligent, mature results take the claim of God's existence
> seriously in a way quite different from their approach to the supposedly
> analogous examples.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>> Murray said:
>> "I think I missed the distinction between Ted's argument and yours. ;)"
>>
>> Here's the argument: Ted said:
>> "God and Santa Claus are not close equivalents. Period."
>>
>> My point- they are EXACT equivalents if atheists are correct. If atheists
>> are right, Jesus doesn't exist anymore than Zeus does. If Christians are
>> right, of course, there are no similarities.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:59 PM
>> To: ASA
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: (Santa?) [christians_in_science] Brilliant article
>> by Dawkins
>>
>> Bernie,
>>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>>> Ted said:
>>> "God and Santa Claus are not close equivalents. Period."
>>>
>>> I think you are missing the point. Obviously you believe in God, so for
>>> you, they are totally different.
>>>
>>
>> And THEN;
>>
>> Where the analogy breaks down is that many people really do believe in
>>> God. But no adult really believes in the E.B.
>>>
>>
>> I think I missed the distinction between Ted's argument and yours. ;)
>>
>> Blessing,
>> Murray
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 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 Mon Aug 31 21:42:32 2009