Two part question on "god"

[Suezoled]

Firstly, I was reading a fictional novel about this poor guy who was trying to get revenge because a lawyer sent his son to prison, and that son was beaten to death and dismembered by his prison pals. Anyway, the two, at the end, get into a talk about theology:
The lawyer believes in god, and uses the watchmaker is the example. The evil psychiatrist hell-bent on revenge (and he's bipolar to boot, which of course makes him eviler) asks why a watch can be compared to god. The lawyer explained it was because the watch "can't comprehend its creator" meaning the foresight that went into making it, how it works, what it's necessarily there for. Then the lawyer's daughter comes up behind the evil psychiatrist and shoots him. The lawyer and his daughter then end up on Beleze on a vacation to catch up on the time he spent working and neglecting her when she was growing up.
Comments on the watchmaker thing? (again?)

The second part really has nothing to do with the first part.
I had been thinking the other day that the Pilgrims were sent from their own country (or they left, whichever) so that they could live in peace, and follow their own religious and lifestyle beliefs, and to be just as intolerant in their own country as others were to them.
I have noticed that there are people who say they're reluctant to mention they believe in god, because, it seems they get met with a certain amount of contempt and spite in those words. Don't get me wrong; I think many atheists and agnostics aren't intolerant at all; they're good friends and relatives of people who believe in god or a deity. Yet, somehow, I wonder if, because this a board that appears friendlier to atheists and agnostics, it means some people aren't practicing that intolerance as well?

Ps:
I do ask you keep this civil. I'm not here to flame, I'm not posting this to stir your emotions or soothe your ego. It's a discussion, and I ask you keep it the way you'd want others to treat a thread that you have a genuine curiousity about.
Or just post pics of kittens.

[wollery]

Firstly, I was reading a fictional novel about this poor guy who was trying to get revenge because a lawyer sent his son to prison, and that son was beaten to death and dismembered by his prison pals. Anyway, the two, at the end, get into a talk about theology:
The lawyer believes in god, and uses the watchmaker is the example. The evil psychiatrist hell-bent on revenge (and he's bipolar to boot, which of course makes him eviler) asks why a watch can be compared to god. The lawyer explained it was because the watch "can't comprehend its creator" meaning the foresight that went into making it, how it works, what it's necessarily there for. Then the lawyer's daughter comes up behind the evil psychiatrist and shoots him. The lawyer and his daughter then end up on Beleze on a vacation to catch up on the time he spent working and neglecting her when she was growing up.
Comments on the watchmaker thing? (again?)Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty crap story.

As to the watch, I assume you mean that the watchmaker was compared to God (I don't think it makes sense otherwise). The argument is that a watch must have been designed and made because it's too complex to have come into being by chance, which is similar to how humans are too complex to have been produced by evolution. Of course, watches don't procreate which means that there's no way they could evolve, so the argument falls down at the first hurdle, since it's a false analogy.

The second part really has nothing to do with the first part.
I had been thinking the other day that the Pilgrims were sent from their own country (or they left, whichever) so that they could live in peace, and follow their own religious and lifestyle beliefs, and to be just as intolerant in their own country as others were to them.
I have noticed that there are people who say they're reluctant to mention they believe in god, because, it seems they get met with a certain amount of contempt and spite in those words. Don't get me wrong; I think many atheists and agnostics aren't intolerant at all; they're good friends and relatives of people who believe in god or a deity. Yet, somehow, I wonder if, because this a board that appears friendlier to atheists and agnostics, it means some people aren't practicing that intolerance as well?I'm always amazed at how people who've been persecuted, if they escape the persecution en masse, can themselves become extremely intolerant and oppressive towards others. I don't actually think this was the case with the Pilgrims, since they lived harmoniously with the local natives for quite a long time, and it was (as I understand it) the influx of later settlers that ruined the peace.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that point, I didn't study US history at school.

Ps:
I do ask you keep this civil. I'm not here to flame, I'm not posting this to stir your emotions or soothe your ego. It's a discussion, and I ask you keep it the way you'd want others to treat a thread that you have a genuine curiousity about.
Or just post pics of kittens.Sorry, no kitten pics, will these do?

http://www.hart90.org/2005-07-July/Puppies-Border-Collie-Mix.jpg

[chriswl]

I have noticed that there are people who say they're reluctant to mention they believe in god, because, it seems they get met with a certain amount of contempt and spite in those words.
In the US? Well that's a good sign. Maybe there's hope for you guys yet. Christianity is spectacularly silly and, in its fundamentalist variants at least, quite vicious. What is a reasonable way to respond to someone's declaration that they believe in that stuff?

[Jess]

The watchmaker analogy is really, really old. It wasn't invented for this book, and it's pretty much been argued to death at this point. If you'd like to read more about it, check out Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

ETA: Okay, I had to laugh when I scrolled down and saw the caption for a photo of a gold watch that stated: "A gold pocket watch clearly made by humans." Yes, clearly. ;)

On Pilgrims, do you really mean the Pilgrims? Or the Puritans?

Anyway, to be honest, I have found various posts on this forum to be unsettling. Why? Because some of them, I think, are unnecessarily cruel. I tend to avoid threads that make me feel this way, though. (Yes, I'm chicken.) When I teach, I wouldn't mock a student because they had a skewed version of history. I would prefer to divest someone of misconceptions kindly, if possible.

[steve s]

Firstly, I was reading a fictional novel about this poor guy who was.....

I like the way you felt the need to point out that story was fictional.:rolleyes:


I have noticed that there are people who say they're reluctant to mention they believe in god, because, it seems they get met with a certain amount of contempt and spite in those words.

:confused: You're joking, right? In a country that's overwhelmingly religious, with churches on every street corner, where athiests are regarded as the most distrusted minority? Who are these people you speak of?

Steve S.

[Suezoled]

Sorry, but that sounds like a pretty crap story.

As to the watch, I assume you mean that the watchmaker was compared to God (I don't think it makes sense otherwise). The argument is that a watch must have been designed and made because it's too complex to have come into being by chance, which is similar to how humans are too complex to have been produced by evolution. Of course, watches don't procreate which means that there's no way they could evolve, so the argument falls down at the first hurdle, since it's a false analogy.



No, the WATCH was being compared to how it could comprehend a creator.
It was a fixed object with a purpose, and the lawyer was saying that people were like watches where they could not understand.

I'm sorry, I should have stated that I know very well the watchmaker argument itself. I thought it was interesting about how the perspective is suddenly on an object in an anthropomorphic sense.

And yes, I did feel the need to clarify this was a work of fiction, because there's a lot stranger stuff out there that's being passed out as fact.
Oh, and if you're curious (or even if you're not), the lawyer neglected his daughter because he found out that she wasn't even his kid; his wife slept with his brother-in-law and out came Megan. And the evil psychiatrist had kidnapped her to become a replacement for the son who was killed in prison. Don't ask me how. He was killed, anyway.

You're joking, right? In a country that's overwhelmingly religious, with churches on every street corner, where athiests are regarded as the most distrusted minority? Who are these people you speak of?

I'm not joking. In a country overwhelmingly religious and superstitious, there are people here on this board who have said they're afraid to profess belief in any god, because they'll be attacked here on this board the way non-believers are attacked in real life. I certainly don't see what the poll on atheists being the most distrusted minority has to do with other people not feeling comfortable enough to speak out about their religious beliefs without concern of being dog piled.

ps: Wollery: I adore those puppies!

[Kopji]

On the first part, the notion of a bipolar psychiatrist seeking vengeance seems a weak literary vehicle to make a point. Vengeance is a very single minded task, so a bipolar character seems to present a bit of a challenge on the surface: We have a character who wakes up one morning burning with an insane desire to kill, and the next morning not caring. Tricky to say the least.

Maybe the author is hoping to continue and promote the long tradition of linking insanity to evil. If so, this does seem a time for kittens.

I find the persistence of the watch metaphor curious. It just does not seem all that compelling, at least to me. We can't grow a watch. The little watch parts say "made in china" and are all pretty much the same size and shape. So where is God's China?

The Pilgrims were one of many waves of immigrants that came to America. They do not even seem to be very typical of their time, and were quickly overwhelmed by more moderate thinkers. I don't understand what your point is on tolerance, but it is a more complex idea than appears on the surface.

As I see it, tolerance is not a vice or a virtue. Tolerance is a quality we discover by living in the world and being exposed to the richness of it. The more we live, the more nuanced our tolerance is.


What is tolerance? -- it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly -- that is the first law of nature. - Voltaire

[aargh57]

I'm not joking. In a country overwhelmingly religious and superstitious, there are people here on this board who have said they're afraid to profess belief in any god, because they'll be attacked here on this board the way non-believers are attacked in real life. I certainly don't see what the poll on atheists being the most distrusted minority has to do with other people not feeling comfortable enough to speak out about their religious beliefs without concern of being dog piled.

ps: Wollery: I adore those puppies!


OK, I think this is where some of the confusion comes in. If I'm reading you right you're talking about theists coming forward with their beliefs on this particular forum, correct? You're arguing that on this board that there is intolerance in practice by some of the members here towards theists. You're not arguing that the general American public is intolerant of theists. Am I correct in what you're arguing here?

[Suezoled]

OK, I think this is where some of the confusion comes in. If I'm reading you right you're talking about theists coming forward with their beliefs on this particular forum, correct? You're arguing that on this board that there is intolerance in practice by some of the members here towards theists. You're not arguing that the general American public is intolerant of theists. Am I correct in what you're arguing here?

Yup

Kopji: I didn't say it was a good book. I wanted something mindless to indulge in since my Chem class ended a few days ago. And no, the evil bipolar psych overcame his down periods with sheer WILLPOWER. And beer. Ayyup. And he also managed to turn all the lawyer's friends against him (except his x-wife) or have them all sent to jail.

Oh, and the watch thing: I thought the author was saying "WE are the watch, not the creator" sort of deal.

After this book, I grabbed my copy of The Blind Watchmaker and have appreciated it more since.

[Ladewig]

OK, I think this is where some of the confusion comes in. If I'm reading you right you're talking about theists coming forward with their beliefs on this particular forum, correct? You're arguing that on this board that there is intolerance in practice by some of the members here towards theists. You're not arguing that the general American public is intolerant of theists. Am I correct in what you're arguing here?

Yep

I can easily find examples of Christians who flounced in here proclaiming the Truth™ and could not understand how skeptics would not accept Christ's sublime love for us (e.g. KuriousKathy, 1inChrist). These folks weren't shown intolerance immediately, they had to ignore all posts showing their errors in logic, to insult the the intellegence of the members, to preach incessantly, and to insist that their version of God was the only possible one before they were labeled as unwelcome.

There are other members of this board who find a belief in God useful but make no testable claims about God. I have not seen these posters treated in an intolerant manner, but perhaps that is because I do not read every thread in the R&P sub-forum.

So, with that in mind, can you provide some examples where people who believe in God (and don't act like a-holes) are treated in an intolerant manner?

[wastepanel]

Oh, and if you're curious (or even if you're not), the lawyer neglected his daughter because he found out that she wasn't even his kid; his wife slept with his brother-in-law and out came Megan.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the lawyer's brother in law be his wife's brother? This is one messed up book.

[Jon.]

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't the lawyer's brother in law be his wife's brother? This is one messed up book.

Not necessarily. Could be his sister's husband.

[Beerina]

Not necessarily. Could be his sister's husband.

On the other hand, he could now nail who he thought was his own daughter, with a clear conscience.

Ya gotta think logically about this stuff!