The Twilight of Atheism

[T'ai Chi]

Has anyone read this book:

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World

It looks interesting.

[Mojo]

They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/they_let_anybody_onto_the_facu.php), don't they?

[Hawk one]

Still not bothering to present any arguments for why it's interesting, eh?

And Tai, since the author doesn't seem to want to answer this, maybe you can:

Why can't we approach the possibility of God's existence (or lack thereof) scientifically?

[wollery]

http://www.icebin.net/upload/cat.jpg

[CFLarsen]

Has anyone read this book:

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World

It looks interesting.

Going from "It's interesting" to "Looks interesting"?

Next: "It might look interesting."

[Taffer]

It looks interesting.

No, not really.

[Dancing David]

The reports of atheism's death are greatly exagerated.

[Gurdur]

They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/they_let_anybody_onto_the_facu.php), don't they?

Caveats, before we go on:

1) I am an atheist, and have been a hard atheist for over two decades.
2) I run a board for non-theists, which translates out to mostly atheists with some agnostics.
3) I realise Tai Chi has a certain reputation here, which leads to skepticism regarding his motives for the OP etc.. However, I only want to address certain very concrete points here, I do not want to be seen as backing Tai Chi up or anything like that.
4)PZ, the author of Pharyngula, is a remarkably unpleasant person with regard to the atheist broad community; he's flounced off two seperate, unconnected atheist boards because he simply could not bear people being allowed to disagree with him.
5) PZ makes a most stunning garbage statement in that blog entry, which I will get to below.

And Tai, since the author doesn't seem to want to answer this, maybe you can:

Why can't we approach the possibility of God's existence (or lack thereof) scientifically?

We can certainly approach all the "Natural Theology" side of things scientifically; and Catholicism for example depends a good deal on Natural Theology, while the more extreme Protestantism prevalent in the USA depends on a kind of "miracle theology", which is also adddressable scientifically to a large degree.

However, not all aspects of theology nor of belief can be addressed "scientifically". To see what and why, let's examine a statement PZ makes in his Pharyngula blog entry:

PZ, the author of Pharyngula, is a remarkably unpleasant person with regard to the atheist broad community; he's flounced off two seperate atheist boards because he simply could not bear people being allowed to disagree with him.

Also, I'd like to know what he means by this category of "scientific objects". Everything is a scientific object, from distant stars to grains of dirt, from the first picoseconds of the Big Bang to pillow talk between lovers. If we can ask a question about it, it can be science.

This, bluntly, is garbage, and shows PZ's rather willful deep ignorance concerning science.

Science concerns itself with intersubjectively verifiable phenomena; that makes it already hazy, when you consider that purely abstract concepts can also be likewise treated, and therefore theoretical mathematics is a part of science, and theoretical mathematical models with no apparent connection to the real world can also be and are addressed "scientifically".

That gives us a huge leeway in defining what science is, and what science can address; but even with that huge leeway, PZ's statement is simply false.

For example, ethics.

Now, the only way you can at all address ethics scientifically is to study what ethics obtain, who holds them, when they are held, and possible biological bases for ethics.

But science cannot tell you what ethic to hold. That is because science cannot make value judgments for you.

And among all the reasons for that, the most pertinent reason is one Hume described hundreds of years ago, to wit:
There is no logical way to make a prescriptive statement using descriptive premises;
which can be said otherwise, to wit:
You cannot in any logical way derive a "should" from an "is".

This means science can never tell you what your ethics should be. That means the essence of ethics is not a scientific question.

That takes us onto other examples, such as aesthetics:
No way on Earth can science tell you if The Ninth Symphony is any good or not. You must decide that for yourself, and it's not a question to be addressed scientifically.

No way on Earth can science tell you if you should prefer strawberries or bananas.

And PZ knows this all already (after all, the subject comes up with monotonous regularity), yet he still evades it; not at all inspiring, and rather ironic when he accuses McGrath of evasion.

Going on, the subject of subjectiveness and subjective perception is also a question that in the end can only be addressed philosophically, not scientifically, which means some aspects of overall theology can only be addressed philosophically --- that is, atheism utilises and must utilise philosophy just as much as science.

[quixotecoyote]

So Gurdur, how would you rephrase it, because I'm not seeing how your objection applies to the Pharyngula quote. I didn't see where he was saying you can derive a 'should'. If you can ask a question about it, it can be science. If you can ask a question about how we should feel about it, not necessarily science.

[Gurdur]

So Gurdur, how would you rephrase it, because I'm not seeing how your objection applies to the Pharyngula quote. I didn't see where he was saying you can derive a 'should'. If you can ask a question about it, it can be science. If you can ask a question about how we should feel about it, not necessarily science.


PZ claimed everything but everything is addressable scientifically, and that everything you can ask a question about is therefore a scientific object. That simply is false (see my above post). That should be clear as being my objection.

[fromdownunder]

Has anyone read this book:

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World

It looks interesting.

Here is a refutation:

www.icantthinkformyselfandiwontdiscussanythingsoiw illjustpostalink.com (http://www.icantthinkformyselfandiwontdiscussanythingsoiw illjustpostalink.com)

Norm

[T'ai Chi]

Ya gotta love and be amused by those who say "can't" and "won't". Wonder why their world is filled with such negativity and absolutism?

[CFLarsen]

Ya gotta love and be amused by those who say "can't" and "won't". Wonder why their world is filled with such negativity and absolutism?

Yeah, believers (like yourself) are so negative in their absolutism.

[Nick Bogaerts]

PZ claimed everything but everything is addressable scientifically, and that everything you can ask a question about is therefore a scientific object. That simply is false (see my above post). That should be clear as being my objection.

The debate over moral naturalism has no bearing on the existence of God.

[Gurdur]

The debate over moral naturalism has no bearing on the existence of God.

No? Really? Why not? It sometimes does; as it is, Martin Gardner, skeptic supreme, would probably disagree with you.

[CFLarsen]

No? Really? Why not? It sometimes does; as it is, Martin Gardner, skeptic supreme, would probably disagree with you.

In what way? Does Gardner claim an existing god?

[quixotecoyote]

PZ claimed everything but everything is addressable scientifically, and that everything you can ask a question about is therefore a scientific object. That simply is false (see my above post). That should be clear as being my objection.

I think you're nitpicking. You've already said that ethics can be addressed scientifically, only the specific ethic one should choose isn't. So the exemption you seem to be claiming is choice of ethics. But then the choice of ethics can be viewed scientifically taking into account from a behaviorist perspective, so we'll need to pare our language down again to an even greater level of specificity. Even "What should we do?" can be scientific if you give the base assumptions and data.

[Gurdur]

In what way? Does Gardner claim an existing god?

He certainly expresses a belief in one. The reasons for that are ones that should be addressed, not evaded.

Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.

I think you're nitpicking. You've already said that ethics can be addressed scientifically, only the specific ethic one should choose isn't.
Very wrong indeed.

To spell it out in small words:

Science can only address ancillary issues of ethical questions, science cannot address central ethical questions themselves.

That is bloody clear. My previous post was bloody clear. An ethical question is a clear question; is it OK to murder traffic wardens? Science cannot answer that question for you.

That is no nitpick, that is a central category difference.

So the exemption you seem to be claiming is choice of ethics. But then the choice of ethics can be viewed scientifically taking into account from a behaviorist perspective, so we'll need to pare our language down again to an even greater level of specificity. Even "What should we do?" can be scientific if you give the base assumptions and data.

You of course have utterly failed to address the central point that you simply cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is"; no matter how much evidence you collect, the ethical question and decision is still not a scientific one.

Fallacy of is-ought. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem)

[Foster Zygote]

Ya gotta love and be amused by those who say "can't" and "won't". Wonder why their world is filled with such negativity and absolutism?

Yes, I too wonder why McGrath claims that we can't approach the possibility of God's existence scientifically. Why is he so negative and absolute.

[Hourglassmemory]

I think Science doesn't apply its time to questions like God, but until now we have been able to explain things without the need of God.
The most likely is that it'll keep happening and we'll need god less and less. Why then, turn around in such an abrupt way and now consider that evolution might have begon because of God's will? If that is so every atomic movement is in the will of God. But we can explain thing without having to go up another step and say it's a god doing it. It's an unecessary step when the previous one, Scientific explanation without God, is enough.
Science would spend its time on God if there was any shred of creible evidence for such.
It's the same for big Foot, fairies, or any other creature we invent to explain some unknown phenomenon.

If God is supposed to be a subjective emotional experience, why do only a select few get it? And why can scientists imitate the same feelings in controled environments?

[CFLarsen]

He certainly expresses a belief in one. The reasons for that are ones that should be addressed, not evaded.

Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.

Let's address what is claimed, then.

Where does Gardner claim his god as source for morality? Does this morality extend beyond himself?

[Nick Bogaerts]

No? Really? Why not?
Because if reduction of moral judgments to the natural fails (the naturalistic fallacy), then appeal to the supernatural also fails. The is-ought problem cuts both ways.

It sometimes does;
Where?

as it is, Martin Gardner, skeptic supreme, would probably disagree with you.
Appeal to authority.

[quixotecoyote]

That is bloody clear. My previous post was bloody clear. An ethical question is a clear question; is it OK to murder traffic wardens? Science cannot answer that question for you.

That is no nitpick, that is a central category difference.
is-ought.[/URL]

Lets cut to right here. Is it OK to murder traffic wardens?

Lets see how science would approach that questions.

First is the matter of defining OK.

If by OK we mean legal, then it is a simple matter of research, finding the fact and applying it to the situation.

If it is a matter of morality, we turn to sociology, identify the moral norms of the community and compare the action to the norms.

If it is a matter of ethics, we identify the ethic frameworks in use by the participants in the conversation and work deductively from the principles of that framework to reach the answer.

If it is a matter of personal preference, than it's more a question of what the person wants rather than if its ok.

[Dancing David]

He certainly expresses a belief in one. The reasons for that are ones that should be addressed, not evaded.

Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.

God as a source of morality is irrelevant.

What would be the difference if

a. There is no god there are morals.
b. There is a god and there are no morals.
c. There is a concept of god and there are morals but the morals are not dependant upon a god.
d. There is a concept of god and morals are dependant upon the concept of god but there is no god.
e. There is a concept of god and morals are dependant upon god and there is a god.
f. There is a god and there are morals but they are not dependant upon god.
g. There is a god and there are morals and they are dependant upon god.

1.} a. , c. , f. there are morals regardless of whether there is a god and morals are dependant upon a god.


What tests would be used to determine if morals are dependant upon a god or the concept of a god. Just because some people, including pan and poly theists believe that morals depend upon god makes no difference. Just as there can be theists, pan theists and poly theists that don't believe morals are dependent upon god or the concept of god.

Therefore what difference would it make if there was a god or if there was a concept of god?

There is no way to say that any human concept is beyond science and observation. If so then people are just being vague as to what they are talking about.

I can generate a harm reduction model of morals based upon economic and social exchange. What value does god or the concept of god play in economic and social exchange that necessitates a belief in god or the concept of god?

What would be different in the system?


Science can only address ancillary issues of ethical questions; science cannot address central ethical questions themselves.

Oh jolly, that is a nice assertion of a personal belief isn't it?

If language can encompass the concept of morals then which aspects of morals do not resolve in terms that can be described in economic/social exchange terms and game theory?

What is so special about morals that they can not be observed?

If they can't be observed then they can't be defined. If they can't be defined then they are not even concepts.




You of course have utterly failed to address the central point that you simply cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is"; no matter how much evidence you collect, the ethical question and decision is still not a scientific one.

You have totally failed to demonstrate that, I would like to see your work. What makes you think that morals can not be observed and that they are not subject to science?

You can generate probability and cost benefit grids for the different choices and show that patterns will either have personal economic benefit, overall benefit and social exchange benefit.

[RandFan]

Here is a refutation:

www.icantthinkformyselfandiwontdiscussanythingsoiw illjustpostalink.com (http://www.icantthinkformyselfandiwontdiscussanythingsoiw illjustpostalink.com)

Norm Damn near stuck my foot in my mouth again accusing you of posting a dead link. Duh. :D

Good post Norm.

[Jekyll]

Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.
...
That is bloody clear. My previous post was bloody clear. An ethical question is a clear question; is it OK to murder traffic wardens? Science cannot answer that question for you.
...
You of course have utterly failed to address the central point that you simply cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is"; no matter how much evidence you collect, the ethical question and decision is still not a scientific one.
Fallacy of is-ought. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem)


So what?
You can not move from an 'ought' to an 'is'. "God gave us our morals." is an 'is'. If you're truly convinced by Hume's argument you should find the theologians' arguments largely irrelevant in deciding what you should do.

On the other hand God is not an 'ought', God is either an 'is' or an 'isn't', and your objection to a single sentence in P.'s blog is irrelevant to the central thrust of his argument.

[tsig]

Has anyone read this book:

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World

It looks interesting.

10,633 posts.

No content.

[Dr Adequate]

Has anyone read this book:

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World

It looks interesting. I for one shall be fascinated to see if it manages to get anywhere near the sales figures of, for example, Richard Dawkins.

I'm also curious to know which will happen first: the final decline of atheism, or the Second Coming. I mean, you guys have been waiting for that for the past two thousand years --- good luck with that, BTW --- so aren't you a little worried that your latest prophet might also be promising you "jam tomorrow", or, indeed, "pie in the sky"?

[Cello Man]

Believers around the world indoctrinate, even brainwash children in order for their religions to survive. But despite their best efforts throughout all of recorded history, atheism always keeps popping up. The shackles of imaginary gods are constantly thrown off in all corners of the world, and it always happens for the same reason.

Now that's interesting.

[T'ai Chi]

10,633 posts.

No content.

Where by "no content" you no doubt mean things you disagree with and cannot debate rationally.

[Dr Adequate]

Where by "no content" you no doubt mean things you disagree with and cannot debate rationally. Is there anything you're not wrong about?

What tsig's referring to is the fact that you're too much of a crawling cringing snivelling coward to actually state your views and seek to justify them.

[strathmeyer]

Why state your actual views when you can pretend to be somebody else and get much more attention?

[Gurdur]

So what?
You can not move from an 'ought' to an 'is'. "God gave us our morals." is an 'is'. If you're truly convinced by Hume's argument you should find the theologians' arguments largely irrelevant in deciding what you should do.
Truly weird post of yours -- are you not paying attention?

To spell it out all over again:
whether or not you think morality etc. should not be part of the god debate, it is.

Whatever I decide for myself has no bearing at all on that whatsoever.

At some stage you yourself must decide whether you are being an analyst or an apologist; are you describing the situation, or trumpeting what you think should be the case?

It looks to me that you're doing the second.

On the other hand God is not an 'ought', God is either an 'is' or an 'isn't', and your objection to a single sentence in P.'s blog is irrelevant to the central thrust of his argument.

Since the "central thrust" of his argument IS precisely the point I'm objecting to, then your assertion is ridiculous. I think perhaps you better re-read my first post there; you seem to have badly missed some points.

[Gurdur]

I for one shall be fascinated to see if it manages to get anywhere near the sales figures of, for example, Richard Dawkins.


Not to get inbetween you and Tai Chi, but your argumentum ad populum doesn't take into account that Dan Brown (http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-9217060-5785612?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Dan+Brown&Go.x=11&Go.y=13), author of books like The Da Vinci Code and The Illuminati, outsells BOTH Behe and Dawkins. Do we really want to do that kind of thing? Is that a road which we really want to go down?

[T'ai Chi]

Good point. I think the Bible pretty much outshines all of them in terms of sales.

[Hawk one]

So Tai, why does creationists say such things as "you can't find God with the scientific method" in such absolute terms?

And why can't God be subject to scientific experimentation and observation?

And why won't you answer my questions?

[Dr Adequate]

Not to get inbetween you and Tai Chi, but your argumentum ad populum doesn't take into account that Dan Brown (http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-9217060-5785612?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Dan+Brown&Go.x=11&Go.y=13), author of books like The Da Vinci Code and The Illuminati, outsells BOTH Behe and Dawkins. Which is one of the many reasons why I haven't started a thread entitled "The Twilight Of Woo-Woo".

The argumentum ad populum is claiming that something's right because it's popular; I'm just pointing out that atheism is, apparently, quite popular.

[Dr Adequate]

Good point. I think the Bible pretty much outshines all of them in terms of sales. And yet I don't see it on the bestseller lists.

[strathmeyer]

Good point. I think the Bible pretty much outshines all of them in terms of sales.

Oh? Which one?

[Dancing David]

Where by "no content" you no doubt mean things you disagree with and cannot debate rationally.


Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle, Mr. Kettle meet Mr. Pot.

Dear Tai , I have responded to many a thought and post of yours and you are the one who refuses to debate.

That is why I go


BAM BAM- another driveby posting.

[Kochanski]

Personally, I'd like to see the word interesting banned. Then T'ai will have to actually say something (or at least sort of say something) or just not post his trollings at all.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Still not bothering to present any arguments for why it's interesting, eh?


Because T'ai said so, that's why!

Yeah, I'm confused too. :confused:

[Achán hiNidráne]

Wonder why their world is filled with such negativity and absolutism?

I don't know about "absolutism" but I would be a lot less "negative" if I knew that superstitious cretins--like yourself--weren't wasting our oxygen, food, or space.

[Mobyseven]

To spell it out all over again:
whether or not you think morality etc. should not be part of the god debate, it is.

Really? How did you determine that?

It seems that morality is only accepted as being part of the 'god debate' because a large number of people think it should be. Unless of course you have a scientific paper at hand that show me how morality and god are inextricably linked?

[Mojo]

Personally, I'd like to see the word interesting banned. Then T'ai will have to actually say something (or at least sort of say something) or just not post his trollings at all.


He's already got plan B (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81096&highlight=itneresting) ready in case "interesting" is banned.

[Jekyll]

Since the "central thrust" of his argument IS precisely the point I'm objecting to, then your assertion is ridiculous. I think perhaps you better re-read my first post there; you seem to have badly missed some points.

I have. I still don't think you are responding to the central thrust though.
You can not place god in a privileged position simply because it is associated with questions of morality.
Global warming is associated with questions of morality, and the existence of it should be addressed scientifically. Similarly "Does God exist?" is not a moral question, but an empirical one.

Incidentally, if it's not to much a derail could you perhaps explain why you don't believe in god, if you don't think it's a question that can be answered empirically.

[bujin]

No way on Earth can science tell you if you should prefer strawberries or bananas.

Really?

No way on Earth?

The only way that could be true is if our perception of what we like and do not like occur in a realm outside the natural world, if our minds are separate entities from our brains.

[slingblade]

Ya gotta love and be amused by those who say "can't" and "won't". Wonder why their world is filled with such negativity and absolutism?

Because empty-headed sycophants, toadies, and yes-men are repugnant?

[RandFan]

Really?

No way on Earth?

The only way that could be true is if our perception of what we like and do not like occur in a realm outside the natural world, if our minds are separate entities from our brains.I think you miss Gurdur's point.

Science could tell us if a person has a predisposition to like one fruit over an other. If science could understand and isolate all of the variables that shaped the prefrences of any individual the could theoretically predict what an individual would like.

"Should" is in the moral sense. Should a sociopath not kill? Society would say yes. The sociopath might say no. Science could not say one way or the other based on genetics or enviornmental factors. Morality isn't an absolute and what we "should" do is the result of many variables.

[T'ai Chi]

Mark, you seem a little hostile here for some reason. Why the inability to rationally discuss things? Oh well.

You should just have an open mind and read the book, then get back to us.

[CFLarsen]

Mark, you seem a little hostile here for some reason. Why the inability to rationally discuss things? Oh well.

You should just have an open mind and read the book, then get back to us.

"Us"? Who is that?

[Mojo]

The Organized Skeptical MovementTM.

[CFLarsen]

The Organized Skeptical MovementTM.

Of course.

[Kochanski]

He's already got plan B (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81096&highlight=itneresting) ready in case "interesting" is banned.

Plan 9 from Outer Space is better :p

[VulcanWay]

Mark, you seem a little hostile here for some reason. Why the inability to rationally discuss things? Oh well.

You should just have an open mind and read the book, then get back to us.
Have you read the book?

[Foster Zygote]

Mark, you seem a little hostile here for some reason. Why the inability to rationally discuss things? Oh well.

You should just have an open mind and read the book, then get back to us.

Yeah Mark, you should show your willingness to rationally discuss things by putting anyone who demonstrates the weaknesses of your arguments on 'ignore'.

[Robin]

Has anyone read this book:

The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World

It looks interesting.
Haven't read the book but I have read an article by the author in which he summarises some of his themes. His arguments are, to say the least, peculiar.

For example he calls atheism a "tired philosophy". Well atheism is not actually a philosophy and even if it was it could be down-right exhausted and this would not be evidence for the existence of God.

He also says that Christianity provides a better "meta-narrative" than atheism. No doubt it does and this would account for it's popularity, but that would still not be evidence for a God.

He mentions that Freud was an atheist and Freud's theories are now discredited. Wow. Freud's psychoanalytic theories are discredited, therefore everything Freud believed was false, including stuff having nothing to do with psychoanalysis - ergo - God exists. Brilliant.


And look at this classic shifting of the burden of proof from another article:

Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis.

(From http://www.beliefnet.com/story/172/story_17216_1.html)
So this would mean, presumably, that I have no evidence for not believing in God - so God exists.

Nowhere in the article does he give even a hint of why he believes in God other than the illogical implication that if the reasons he had for disbelieving in God were flawed then God must exist.

And of course Twilight is just more of the same old Christian apologetics that we have been hearing for years:
The belief that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief that there is a God. If "faith" is defined as "belief lying beyond proof," both Christianity and atheism are faiths.
(Yawn) So it is faith when you believe and also faith when you don't believe. I am still waiting for someone to explain this.
While this suggestion might seem astonishing to some atheists, it is not only philosophically correct but also illuminating in shedding light on the changed fortunes of atheism in recent years.
All in all a fine example of the type of woolly thinking that intelligent Theists must engage in to take there minds from the fact that they believe in something for which they have no evidence.

[Robin]

But science cannot tell you what ethic to hold. That is because science cannot make value judgments for you.
All you are saying here is that science is descriptive and not prescriptive. Science cannot tell evolution which features to select for, it cannot tell a hurricane which way to head.

Are these phenomena also beyond science?

[UnrepentantSinner]

He's already got plan B (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81096&highlight=itneresting) ready in case "interesting" is banned.

Hah!
-----------
I heard on the radio this morning that the International Bible Society is going to distribute 250,000 New Testaments with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram come Dec 20th.

Seems they're a little short on cash for completing the project (http://www.ibs.org/cityreachers/project.php?id=2).

(does anyone think this might warrent its own thread?)

[Dr Adequate]

Please remember to attack the argument, not the arguer. Civility is the more difficult path, but we are equal to the task.

[Beerina]

The reports of atheism's death are greatly exagerated.

It's on the march, historically, when you look at it across decades and centuries. The past few years have seen the release of the first popular books questioning faith since Thomas Paine. It's reaching a critical mass.

[plumjam]

If it is a matter of morality, we turn to sociology, identify the moral norms of the community and compare the action to the norms.



So, if you'd been living in Germany between 1933 and 1945 you'd have concluded that persecuting jews was perfectly moral

[lionking]

Good point. I think the Bible pretty much outshines all of them in terms of sales.
Tangental to this thread, but does anyone actually buy the Bible, as distinct from having it given to them at a wedding ceremony (as happened to me), or taking it from a hotel room?

[Civilized Worm]

I've flicked through the book in question, it seems to be more of the sophistic waffle that McGrath specialises in. I had a good laugh at the bit where he tried to argue that the burden of proof is split 50-50 to theists and atheists.

Still, if you're going to read McGrath on atheism you may as well read Twilight, as his two books on Dawkins are just rehashes of the same arguments he uses there.


So Tai, why does creationists say such things as "you can't find God with the scientific method" in such absolute terms?


To be fair, McGrath isn't a creationist and has a background in molecular biophysics.

[RandFan]

Going on, the subject of subjectiveness and subjective perception is also a question that in the end can only be addressed philosophically, not scientifically, which means some aspects of overall theology can only be addressed philosophically --- that is, atheism utilises and must utilise philosophy just as much as science. I just wanted to thank you for your posts. I'm lurking in this thread and thinking intently on the arguments. You've made some good ones.

Again,

Thanks

[T'ai Chi]

Bookstores do sell them. Even mainstream ones. So my guess is Yes.

[RandFan]

Bookstores do sell them. Even mainstream ones. So my guess is Yes.My guess is maybe, but then I don't know what the question is.

[Safe-Keeper]

So, if you'd been living in Germany between 1933 and 1945 you'd have concluded that persecuting jews was perfectly moralPerhaps I would. Just like you would perhaps conclude that the burning of witches was perfectly moral had you lived in the Dark Ages. Like it or not, society, churches and other religious institutions included, has a huge impact on moral values.

Oh, and for the Christians who say you get morals from church, not from family, instinct and community: Did it never occur to you that churches are part of your community and that you're thus no different from atheists in that respect?

[Dr Adequate]

How's that "twilight of atheism" going?

Is there any noticeable decrease in the number of atheists?

No, thought not.

[RandFan]

How's that "twilight of atheism" going?Let's see, Dawkins' God Delusion: Best Seller.
Hitchens' God is not Great: Best Seller.

The twilight is not so great.

[CFLarsen]

Sam Harris: The End of Faith. Bestseller.

Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation. Bestseller.