Re: [asa] Francis Collins shows mild signs of dementia, NA snark

Heya Merv,

One reason that question of 'decency and reason versus revelation' is more
complicated is because, in the west, our "decency and reason" owes quite a
lot to our cultural, philosophical, and intellectual traditions - and for a
very long time Christianity was a dominant force in all three spheres. On
the order of centuries rather than years or decades. Even the non-Christian
influences (I think here particularly of Plato and Aristotle in
philosophical contexts, though they're just examples) were not taken as they
were, but heavily considered and reinterpreted in light of distinctly
Judaeo-Christian thought and teaching. So when it's insisted that "decency
and reason" can lead to conclusions similar to what Christians tend to argue
for, there's a powerful explanation why that's the case - because so much of
our "decency and reason" is itself broadly influenced by Christianity
anyway.

For my part, I think the influence of revelation (here broadly meaning both
a theistic/teleological worldview, and adherence to some basic fundamental
truths of religion/Christianity in particular) means that, for the believer,
'reason and decency' detached from 'revelation' only minimally possible.
Even with a basic theistic/non-naturalist framework there is still this
impetus to seek out, discover, and adhere to 'the good' because it's within
those frameworks that 'the good' is possible to pursue as something real and
objective. When the universe is argued to be devoid of purpose - either in
the form of teleological force like the Tao, or in the ultimate
transcendence via God and divinity - there is no 'the good' out there to
discover. It's just a subjective description one person attaches to an idea
or object, and it can be whatever they please, whenever they like.

I get the impression that some atheists think standards like truth, justice,
freedom, etc will inevitably and always be valued by humans - even when the
reality of objective purpose, morality, values, etc are denied. Sometimes I
wonder if that's because, for all the claims of atheism or naturalism, many
atheists actually are committed to a teleological and still basically
non-naturalist view of reality (One example here would be transhumanists),
generally are not thinking things through, or actually don't care whether
these values can really survive such a change because they simply want to be
rid of social/political opponents. It can't be because history and "science"
have shown such results to be certain (and that would, again, be very close
to admitting the reality of teleology), because one good look at the 20th
and even 21st century speaks against that. Of course, maybe that look isn't
taken.

So to throw an interesting spin on this conversation, I'll pose the
following question: Has anyone on this list ever suspected that, perhaps,
some or many atheists aren't really atheists, and some or many naturalists
are, when you get right down to it, not really naturalists?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:46 PM, <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:

> For all our ganging up on Bernie here (I think we must at least credit you
> Bernie with sticking it out this far with our little Christian
> 'infestation'
> here) I do think he has a serious edge for us that is not easily dismissed.
> To
> what extent do we Christians really base our morality on 'decency and
> reason' as
> opposed to other revelation? How much overlap is there? These are
> different
> questions than our wrangling over what ultimate grounding any moral
> statement
> has. If we are willing to put that aside for the moment (& yet don't think
> for
> a moment, Bernie, that I haven't noticed you left my 'conversation with
> Stalin'
> challenge go unanswered) -- aside from all that, this conversation over the
> practical source (not ultimate grounding) for our ethics could be an
> interesting
> conversation here. I'd love to hear more from all parties involved --with
> the
> exception of the nihilist at Murray's computer. Make sure he's dead,
> Murray.
>
> --Merv
>
> Quoting Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>:
>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > And this was precisely Merv's point;
> >
> > Bernie wants to argue that Christians have no moral basis, AND that they
> are
> > hypocrites for not following it.
> >
> > But I guess this is understandable given Bernie's confusion on the entire
> > question at hand.
> >
> > He no responded to George's remark that "many atheists have no clear
> basis
> > for their ethics" with "neither do Christians".
> >
> > But no sooner has he acknowledged that "neither" many atheists nor
> Christians
> > (Who? Bernie? Sweeping generalization? Never...) have no clear basis for
> > ethics then he jumps up with the claim that we can together establish an
> > ethical understanding on the basis of "decency and reason".
> >
> > So what is it? "We" do, or we don't have a basis? The basis is, or it
> isn't,
> > "decency and reason"?
> >
> > You work it out, mate - I'm trying to get some obstreperous 19th century
> > German nihilist away from my computer. Logical consistency (there's that
> > concept again!) suggests that he at least can't make any moral complaint
> > about my choice of method.
> >
> > Scene cuts to Murray's computer where a frazzled German philosopher sits
> > furiously typing away.
> >
> > Murray approaches with something hidden behind his back;
> >
> > Murray: "Now, come here Friedrich, and see the nice base-ball bat..."
> >
> > Nietszche: "But you can't...!"
> >
> > Murray: "Can't"? What do you mean "can't"? I am the Übermensch...
> >
> > Scene closes with the sound of baseball bat striking Friedrich square on
> the
> > noggin...
> >
> > Blessings,
> > Murray
> >
> > Bill Powers wrote:
> > > Bernie:
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.
> > >
> > > You say, as I understand it, that
> > >
> > > 1) Some Christians, believing Israel is God's Chosen People, give that
> a
> > > higher priority than some moral evaluation on some particular behavior.
> > >
> > > 2) That they aren't making their judgments on the basis of "equality."
> > >
> > > I assume by the last that you are saying that their judgments are not
> > > fair in some sense, but they are applying their judgments according to
> > > whom is doing something.
> > >
> > > Let's assume that (1) and (2) are true. Do they imply that they have
> no
> > > "basis" for their morality, as you claim?
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you postulate a basis in (1). You object that this
> > > is immoral on some other basis, one I presume you hold to. It is not
> > > clear on what "basis" you evaluate the "basis" given in (1).
> > >
> > > Isn't this part of the problem?
> > >
> > > bill
> > >
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> > >
> > >> George said:
> > >> "I've tried to bear in mind. & one weakness of the position of many
> > >> atheists is that they have no clear basis for their ethics."
> > >>
> > >> Neither do Christians.
> > >>
> > >> Take any controversial subject and there are different opinions with
> > >> Christians. Of course, those who disagree are the "wrong" Christians
> > >> or don't interpret the Bible correctly.
> > >>
> > >> Sometimes Christians are the enemy to peace, such in Israel where they
> > >> are one-sided pro-Israel because Israel is God's chosen people.
> > >> Morals and ethics go out the window on that one with Pastor John
> > >> Hagee's CUFI (and they say they have a clear Biblical basis for
> > >> this). The Israeli's can do no wrong because they are God's people
> > >> and that is their land, they say. There is no sense of doing what's
> > >> right or fair from an equality standpoint. Of course, some Christians
> > >> rightly rebuke Hagee and CUFI. But CUFI makes a lot of noise, and I
> > >> don't think there is a counter Christian group standing up and
> > >> shouting for real justice. In this way, the Christians are creating
> > >> havoc in the world, because so much terrorisms etc., stems from the
> > >> Israeli issue. Even Christians suffer in Israel, something pro-Israel
> > >> Christians seem to be indifferent or blind to.
> > >>
> > >> ...Bernie
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> > >> On Behalf Of Ted Davis
> > >> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 7:39 AM
> > >> To: ASA; Dave Wallace; gmurphy10@neo.rr.com; Gregory Arago
> > >> Cc: David Opderbeck
> > >> Subject: Re: [asa] Francis Collins shows mild signs of dementia, NA
> snark
> > >>
> > >> I echo George' point, Gregory. I don't think you are an ASA member.
> > >> If you were (say) a member for a few years (or more), you would
> > >> realize that the ASA has for decades been about a much broader range
> > >> of issues related to science and religion than you seem to be aware
> > >> of. Also, a broader range of disciplines and perspectives than is
> > >> often reflected on this list. You ought to consider becoming a
> > >> member, Gregory. A lot of good things have been published in our
> > >> journal and discussed at our meetings.
> > >>
> > >> Ted
> > >>
> > >>>>> <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> 10/19/2009 10:29 AM >>>
> > >> Bob Russell pointed out some years ago that the area usuaully referred
> > >> to as "science and religion" is more accurately
> > >> "science-religion-technology-ethics," a point I've tried to bear in
> > >> mind. & one weakness of the position of many atheists is that they
> > >> have no clear basis for their ethics. Of course that doesn't mean
> > >> that they can't be nice people but their worldview provides no reason
> > >> why they should be nice.
> > >>
> > >> Shalom,
> > >> George
> > >>
> > >> ---- Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > >>> Hi Dave,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the link!
> > >>>
> > >>> I liked these lines:
> > >>>
> > >>> "while we talk about the clash between God and science, in practice
> > >>> it often comes down to disagreements about man and morals. The
> > >>> boundaries are not always neat." - William McGurn
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe it is time that the 'narrow' (as Ted Davis has just said to me)
> > >>> discussion of 'science and religion' opened itself up a bit to
> > >>> involve areas of importance that it has not yet sufficiently
> considered?
> > >>>
> > >>> - G.A.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>> From: Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
> > >>> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> > >>> Cc: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > >>> Sent: Mon, October 19, 2009 4:04:07 PM
> > >>> Subject: [asa] Francis Collins shows mild signs of dementia, NA snark
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> God vs. Science Isn't the Issue
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704429304574467320574576460.html
> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Dave W
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > >>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> __________________________________________________________________
> > >>> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >
> >
> > 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 Oct 19 23:19:01 2009