³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

As a Christian it would be pretty stupid of me to fail to celebrate humankind as I believe that we are the image bearers of the divine.

Humanity is a great thing. People are wonderful.

I suspect however that the paths of the theist and the atheist or believer and non-believer will diverge when we ask wether it is God or humanity which is preeminent.

The thing is this, however great we are, christians believe that God calls us to pray, Thine (not mine) is the Kingdom, the power and the glory...

Peter

Here I suspect we will definitely disagree! I am not so sure that humanity is a great thing - we are an evolutionary accident: probably at best thinking monkeys whose greatest achievements are structured curiosity and sophisticated delivery of pleasure.

We have subjugated and exterminated other species, changed the face of the earth and altered its climate. None of that really matters though - just as we don't really matter that much either. We have no ultimate significance and life has no meaning but neither of those things should prevent us from experiencing joy and love in our lives and sharing them with others.

You just hang out a shield that proclaims it to the world and suddenly you are a humanist, even if you also happen to be a mass murdering Communist. If you are an atheist, no matter what else you are you have to reject religion as fundimentally flawed in logic, misleading, irrational, and self serving. That some of them throw crumbs to the materially impovrished doesn't begin to compensate for what they steal from those who are intellectually impovrished, the chance to see and think clearly, rationally. Is religion still the opiate of the masses? Not everywhere. In some places it's been replaced by sports.

Well, Jesus was a wonderful humanist - the parable of the Good Samaritan (as I keep banging on about) is one of the most powerful anti-religious, although admittedly not anti-theistic, stories in the bible. It's a pity he wasn't aware that there isn't actually a god.

However, if religious folks want to co-opt humanism, that's maybe a good thing. Perhaps it is a dawning realisation that morality does not come from the gods, but is part of our evolved framework.

Now, if only we could see that core humanism being put into practice...!

I've tried to point out on many occasions that there is a fundamental contradiction between the faith in Reason that Free-thinking was founded on, and the Atomist view of reality that contemporary atheism seems to endorse. It's a contradiction that Natural Selection will not paper over.

GV

Marc
William Rowe would be one fine philosopher who is atheistic, but who would not dismiss Theism as irrational.

GV

Graham:

Your post 5 sets up a false dichotomy based upon certain
definitions and assumptions you have employed to make it.

1. Freethought doesn't have to be rational. Its only criterion is that it recognises no authority but its own. It could be irrational, or its reasoning could be deductive from questionable premises, as with Shakespeare's villains, who are all excellent reasoners but act according to self-interest.

2. 'Faith in reason' is well founded on the nature of our brain. But most 'freethinkers' don't rely on reason alone. Historically, they were motivated by sympathy for others and a desire to defeat ignorance, stupidity, poverty etc. Reason was a method towards that end, but not the only one.

3. Contemporary atheism does not endorse any view of reality, other than being against 'theism'. It is, by definition, negative.

4. The 'atomist view of reality' is an accurate description of the physical universe, but it does not describe the social world which we have constructed for ourselves as a species. In this sense, we are the true gods. We create worlds out of our 'imagination' (a part of our brain).

5. Theism, on the other hand, is a fictional creation which extends beyond the social world and claims to embrace all of 'reality', alive or dead, before or after, finite or infinite, physical or 'spiritual'. If you are looking for fundamental contradictions, you should take a peep into your own thoughts.

gveale, isn't William Rowe a Christian? I thought he was a evangelical philosopher of some sort.

See:

Hi Brian

Welcome back.

First of all, "we are the true gods", I see you agree with at least part of my post 1.

Now the 'imagination' bit. Or it could be love, or thought, or passion, or hate, or respect or whatever, you get the drift I'm sure.

I'd be real interested if you could take me through, step by step, the process from atom to imagination.

Hi Peter:

Why don't you do it yourself, since presumably you believe in both?

Hi Brian

You appear to be feeling refreshed, good answer!

Let me see. I think I would start with, "In the beginning." It's a very good place to start you know!! (and yes, I know, there's probably a good joke in there about a hill and a lonely goat herd)

Then maybe I'd go from there!

Brian
Good to hear from you again - at the moment I'm saving the world by ticking little boxes. The Bureaucratic Religion - I love it. On paper, we inexorably move to the best of all possible worlds. I'll give your post a read at lunch.

GV

Augustine
He was a fundamentalist in his youth, but now calls himself a "friendly atheist" - Thomas Nagel would be another example, (but I think he's dead).

GV

Peter (#11):

I might have guessed that you would have made the synthesis by referring to a biblical cliché which explains precisely nothing. How about YOUR OWN explanation in your own words of the link between atoms and imagination?

#1
"I believe we are the image bearers of the devine."

I've always found this an interesting idea. If we were created in gods image at what point in our evolutionary development did he create us in his image ?
Or am i being too literal - maybe it's more wishy washy than that.

Brian
Good to see you back with a very insightful post. I should start by admitting that point 1 is spot on. "Free-thinking" was a poor term to use. It would rule out Thomas de Quincy, and we don't want that.(Getting a copy of "Confessions of an English Opium Eater" seems to be more difficult than acquiring the "Anarchists Cook-Book").
To your other points - I'd previously mentioned Anthony O'Hear as an atheist critcial of atomism (appreciate the assonance). So I'm aware that atheism and atomism are not necessarily linked. However atomism does seem to be very popular in contemporary atheism.
Is atomism credible? I don't think so - not if we want to keep faith with reason and morality. You mention the nature of the brain. Now I can see how Natural Selection might equip us with true beliefs about danger and food. But quantum physics and philosophy?
Can Reason even function practically in a situation it was not equipped for? The ancient savannahs of Africa (I should versify this post) would be a radically different environment than the globalised urban surroundings we contend with. I doubt Global Warming and Nuclear Power were of great concern to the first hunter gatherers.
You also use an idea promoted by John Searle - that our social world is as "real" as the physical world. (Searle gives the example of the value of money).
I see two problems. First, we seem to create radically different social worlds. The problem of incommensurability arises. As Pidgen pointed out, this would leave us in the odd position of saying that Thatcher and Guevara did not really disagree on ethics - they just belonged to different communities.
It also would mean that there is no rational way to assess moralities. They are social conventions/creations. It would be rather like comparing Rembrandt and Rothko. Moral views would be incommensurable as they would not refer to any extra-mental reality.
Could we assess their practical usefulness? I can't see how if we can't agree on ends. And it is not obvious what ends humanity should pursue. Heroism? Equality? Community? Individualism? Should we give in to Schopenhaurian pessimism and conclude that it would have been better for the earth that it had remained as lifeless as the moon?
One more point concerning morality. I cannot see how morality retains it's "oughtness" or it's prescriptive power once we realise that our universe is not ordered towards rational or moral ends. Certainly I can see how explanations for moral beliefs could be given (I'm not saying they're convincing). But those explanations give us no reason to be moral.
They seem analogous to atheistic explantions of religion. They may show that religion was/is socially useful - but they undercut reasons for being religious.
Whether or not that analogy holds, as an individual I have to make choices. Why should I factor in morality if moral beliefs refer to fictions? Shouldn't I just consider what is practically useful to me or to my kin? Couldn't I order my "sympathy" in a more selfish manner, and be none the worse off?
Our created social worlds do not help us, as we cannot predict their outcomes for our species or our kin. As our environments (all too rapidly) change, so will their practical value.

Anyway, all that seems to be a problem for many atheists. However, I don't know if it's a problem for you because I can't find anything on this chap Lecky you keep mentioning. There isn't anything online, or a short book you could point me too.

GV

PS
I've had a glance at Freeman's "AD 381". It looks very good, and judging from the preface I'll disagree on some points, but agree with some of his main contentions.

Thanks
GV

Hi Oliver (post 15)

"I've always found this an interesting idea. If we were created in gods image at what point in our evolutionary development did he create us in his image?"

Interesting too that, when questions like this are asked, God is always cast in the mould of precision watchmaker, and nothing else, with the presumption being that there must be a point. Maybe we might think of God as an artist too. Just a thought.

Anyway on the idea of image of God, maybe it's best if we don't think of it as a bit of us, like a finger, or a toe. Maybe we ought to think of it in terms of the sum total of who we are, a description of, among other things, rationality, morality, linguistic ability, capacity for social interaction, compassion, what it means to be human and so on.

We could of course go on to discuss what 'image' meant in the historical context of the bible, what it might mean in the context of human worth, dignity, purpose, the reason for being here, and what it might mean in relation to Jesus, but I'll save you the theology!


Hi Brian (post 14)

I might have guessed that a christian would refer to the bible too!

When you ask for MY OWN explanation, do you mean I shouldn't refer to the bible?

Peter:

It is not obligatory for a Christian to refer to the Bible, is it? Especially when it makes no mention of atoms, even though it is replete with imaginings!

You offered no explanation of the link between atoms and imagination but proferred a biblical riddle. Do what you want, but don't expect me to find any meaning in a phrase like 'in the beginning'. If you are saying that god created both, this is not an explanation of the connection, merely a claim about their creation. It evades the question. .

Brian
How can atoms produce thought? Was that the gist of Peter's question?

GV

Brian

I was simply pointing out that if one begins with the impersonal then everything has to be explained in terms of the impersonal which means that anything personal is merely a useful 'appearance' or 'illusion' which makes a 'meaningful' life possible. The 'I' I see in the mirror is not an 'I' at all, it is a chimera, just 'smoke and mirror'!

But, as I said before, no one I have ever met actually lives as if they are an atom's prestidigitation.