[audio file removed]
1. Alvin Plantinga claims to have a what? 55
2. What is "the fundamental question of metaphysics," and what did Wittgenstein say about it? 63
3. How is "falling in love with God" supposed to be different? 74
4. Ruse rejects (wants "no part of ") what sort of God? 84
5. Why does Ruse say religious "Meaning" is not for him? 95
DQ
- Have you read Jerry Coyne's books or blog posts? Do you find him "brilliant," reasonable, dogmatic, ...?
- "Truth cannot be opposed to truth." 55 What does that mean?
- What do you think of the concepts of original sin and "substitutionary atonement"? 57 Do you agree that they're pagan, disgusting, and ludicrous?
- What do you think of Stephen Jay Gould's concept of "Non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA)? 59
- COMMENT: "It happened, and it mattered." 60 What happened? Why did it matter?
- Was Wittgenstein right about "the fundamental question of metaphysics"? 63
- Is love in a human context fundamentally different from divine love? How would we know?
- Why is faith so easy for some, so hard for others? Do you wish you had more of it? Or do you agree with Kurt Vonnegut (see sidebar...)
- What do you think of the "Buddhist alternative"? 85ff.
- What does it mean for a Buddhist, or anyone, to reject the concept of having or being a "self"? (See ** below)
- Any thought on Rudolf Steiner and Waldorf Schools? 93
- Do you feel patronized or insulted when religious people say they'll pray for you, that they fear for your soul, or that you're bound for eternal torment?
- What do you say to religious people who don't understand "why you bother to get up in the mornings" if you don't believe in God? Or, if you're one of those people, what do you say to Richard Dawkins's answer (see Unweaving the Rainbow)?
#198 — April 16, 2020
18 hours ago · 59 min
==
*Th 23. [audio file removed]
1. How is Ruse distinguishing Darwinism from Darwin's theory? 99
2. In what sense is evolution epic and mythic? 103
3. What does E.O. Wilson say, as a secular humanist, about heaven and hell? 108
4. What is ZFEL? 119
5. There is no progress unless what? 130
5. There is no progress unless what? 130
DQ
- Do you agree that religions generally take an objectivist approach to meaning, but that only a "subjectivist world picture" will do? 98
- Are New Atheists "in the religion business"? 99
- What do you think of the opening of The God Delusion ("The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction...")? 100
- COMMENT: "This new story, everybody's story, is full of potential for uniting our species around a common apprehension of how things are and which things matter. United by a shared story, we may come to possess a sense of solidarity and cooperation..." Everybody's Story: Wising Up to the Epic of Evolution
- COMMENT: ... Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife by Bart Ehrman
- Do you agree that ZFEL is comparable to the tooth fairy? 122
- Was Hardy right? 131
- "We are on our own!" 131 Do you also exclaim this statement? Do you celebrate it? Do you regret it?
- Is Ruse's position really an endorsement of "Darwinism as religion"? Or would it better be described as a Darwinian/scientific/naturalistic alternative to religion with spiritual ("meaningful") implications?
My summer course "Evolution in America," last offered summer 2018, is coming up again this summer -- online this time, but I'm still hopeful we'll be able to do another field-trip to Dayton TN in July for their annual community theater re-enactment of the Scopes Trial. I guess that's looking dubious at this point, but if it happens you're all invited to join us.
The books we'll read:
What do you say to religious people who don't understand "why you bother to get up in the mornings" if you don't believe in God? Or, if you're one of those people, what do you say to Richard Dawkins's answer
ReplyDeleteI feel this question speaks more of the questioner than the questionee. Someone who asks this question, in my opinon, has no love for life outside of God or their religon. There is more to the world than praise for a mythical being, and indulging in reality is where you can truly live to the extent that all life has to offer. Someone who is constantly living in a reality that's part of their minds instead of what is actually happening in the world, to me, is someone that could not get up out of bed if their belief in reality is shattered. God should not be the driving force in life to get out of bed, what of those in third-world countries who have no notion of our God, or those who were exposed to some other religion from birth? Should they not be able to get out of bed because one person's reality differs from theirs? I think its an absurd question.
I think Dawkin's explanation is right on, how his purpose is to know the world, not simply exist in it.
Discussion Question: What do you say to religious people who don't understand "why you bother to get up in the mornings" if you don't believe in God?
ReplyDeleteI hate to say this at this point in the game, but I still don’t have a good understanding of what people mean when they say that they need God to give their life meaning. I can appreciate that belief in God can give meaning to someone’s life; that the belief itself can deliver the benefits offered; i.e., a peace that passeth all understanding. But I don’t understand the argument for the NECESSITY of God for a peace beyond understanding. I can imagine that if I lived in 13th century Europe, when the Church dominated all aspects of life and all people were believers, that no one would question the need for God to give life meaning. People lived their lives with the constant presence of God. But as Nietzsche recognized, from a sociological perspective, we killed that God. Our experience shows that people find meaning without God. God is simply not a constant presence in our lives today, even among those who claim the necessity his existence for meaning. Therefore he is not necessary. That’s a logical argument.
That is a very interesting observation that societies before us may not have had a perspective on what a "godless" life looked like, but these days there are a growing number of nonreligious people who find meaning without god. I have always wondered why god must exist in order for people to find meaning, but I suppose it is because it was what they were probably taught from a young age. It can be really hard to reevaluate deeply held beliefs, especially as we get older and make a lot of choices based on those beliefs. So, I think it is difficult for people to even imagine making those life decisions or experiencing major life events without god being involved in some way.
DeleteWhy is faith so easy for some, so hard for others? Do you wish you had more of it? Or do you agree with Kurt Vonnegut (see sidebar...)
ReplyDeleteI am not 100% sure. For me, faith has always been incredibly difficult. I found myself constantly asking "why" while others didn't feel so much of a need. I figure that level of curiosity or need to know may have some sort of influence. I think some people may be more comfortable trusting that their beliefs are true, while others need more evidence or information in order to feel comfortable. At least that seems to be the case for me. I don't necessarily wish I had more faith. I have grown a lot in my experience pondering over the universe, and I don't think I would have done so much of that if I continued to believe in my childhood religion.
Discussion Question: Why is faith so easy for some, so hard for others? Do you wish you had more of it? Or do you agree with Kurt Vonnegut (see sidebar...)
ReplyDeleteIs there a psychology of faith? Does faith meet a psychological need in some people? Is there an emotional basis for the need for the security that there is a loving personal God? There is a psychology of faith. In this article, ‘Faith and the Psychologists: What do psychologists say about faith?’ (https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20130611_1.htm), this comment: “what all of these (psychological) accounts (of faith) have in common is that they regard faith as a natural phenomenon, a function of our psychological nature, and thus, in effect, are critical of the Christian view of faith as a supernatural encounter.” It’s a good article; read it and see that Freud and others have an answer to why people have faith in a supernatural father or mother. I believe that many people “find God” in times of trouble, when Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be. God provides a “higher power” than ourselves to conquer our failures and fears. I’d posit that faith in a supernatural power, like a resurrected Jesus, is difficult for those who question the existence of the supernatural, and who don’t need a supernatural power find this higher power within themselves.
There does seem to be a correlation between happiness and religious believers. Assuming faith is a natural psychological need, perhaps faith is the reason for this increased level of happiness? It is hard to say since there isn't a causal link, I don't believe. There could be other factors contributing to happiness levels that have nothing to do with our natural affinity toward religious faith/belief. I will try to find the research and post it on the site.
DeleteIs faiththe more universal human need, or hope? Secularists seem far more driven by the latter, if we define faith as belief without evidence, and hope as an unsecured confidence in the possibilities of amelioration and a better future that steadily works to create the conditions of its own fulfillment. In this sense, hope builds the evidence for its own assertion. Faith, on the other hand, awaits deliverance from beyond itself. Is that fair?
DeleteWe could also
(Started to say) We could also quibble about exactly what religious and secular people mean when they report themselves as "happy" -- the kind of happiness available to those who renounce otherworldly salvation seems qualitatively different to me from the kind that hinges on the prospect or "grace" of an eternal afterlife;v and if Hagglund's analysis is right, we shouldn't even call the latter happiness at all.
DeleteBut again, I'm all for people being happy by their own lights in any way they can, insofar as they can do so without impeding anyone else's pursuit.
Vonnegut: "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile."
ReplyDeleteAnd in a less inflammatory spirit, “We Humanists behave as well as we can, without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an Afterlife. We serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any real familiarity, which is our community.”
What do you think of the opening of The God Delusion?
ReplyDeleteIt certainly sets the bar for what to expect from the rest of the book... that being said, I agree, for the most part. What a way to begin a discussion that would be, though.
What do you say to religious people who don't understand "why you bother to get up in the mornings" if you don't believe in God?
This is my favorite question to receive as far as my beliefs go. My answer, unwavering: because I am hungry.
What do you think of the concepts of original sin and ‘substitutionary atonement’? (pg. 57) Do you agree that they're pagan, disgusting, and ludicrous?
ReplyDeleteI find the idea that everyone is “inclined to evil” or born with original sin ludicrous, what makes it even more ridiculous is the underlying story; claiming that a man created from dust and a woman created from that mans rib were tricked by a serpent into eating some fruit they weren’t supposed to and that's why everyone is “tainted” with original sin. The idea that Jesus had to be punished for sinners in order for God to forgive the sinners was always something that I struggled with when I was a Christian. It made me think that I didn’t want to follow a God that had that perverse of a sense of what justice is.
It happened, and it mattered.’ (pg. 60) What happened? Why did it matter?
ReplyDeleteI feel like the larger point of this is to not discount the “religious” experiences people have, because whether the cause of the experience was divine intervention or psychological it still happened and was experienced by that person which matters. To me the cause of these experiences do matter though and is certainly worth study because many people have them regardless of religion but the experience is often tied to the religious beliefs held by the person.
Do you feel patronized or insulted when religious people say they'll pray for you, that they fear for your soul, or that you're bound for eternal torment?
ReplyDeleteI’m not necessarily insulted if someone says they’ll pray for me, unless it’s in the context of praying that I “save my soul”. I’m definitely insulted and patronized if they say they fear for my soul or that I’m bound for eternal torment. The certainty that some people speak with when it comes to religion absolutely blows my mind.
What do you think of the ‘Buddhist alternative’? (pg. 85ff).
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me to just be a less dogmatic religion but it still makes significant appeals to mysticism. I’ve always viewed it like many other religions in that it has some useful pieces of wisdom but you have to look past an awful lot of mystical appeal to get there.
Do you agree that religions generally take an objectivist approach to meaning, but that only a ‘subjectivist world picture’ will do?
ReplyDeleteReligions almost always take an objectivist approach to meaning in my experience by claiming that because of the way they believe certain things are there is a certain and correct way to live a life of meaning or substance. I’m not sure if only a subjective world picture will do either though because what is meaningful varies greatly due to social and physical experience.
What do you think of the opening of The God Delusion (‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction…’)?
ReplyDeleteThe God of the Old Testament is certainly one of the most unpleasant characters in any fiction I’m familiar with. Whether it's God ordering Joshua to essentially commit a genocide of Canaanites or the fact that God “revealed” to Moses that “though shall have no other Gods before me” which to me implicitly acknowledges the existance of other Gods but essentially says that I’m the most important. Overall the God of the Old Testament is extremely unpleasant.
Do you agree that ZFEL is comparable to the tooth fairy?
ReplyDeleteZFEL makes absolutely no sense to me and seems to be completely incomprehensible and lacks pretty much any scientific evidence so yeah I guess it is comparable to the tooth fairy.
'We are on our own!’ (pg. 131) Do you also exclaim this statement? Do you celebrate it? Do you regret it?”
ReplyDeleteI definitely celebrate the fact that we aren’t constantly being viewed and our world isn’t being controlled by any God because to me that would be horrifying and totalitarian.