Ship of fools

[Matty]

So, to summarise. Johnny doesn't actually have 'proof' as the rest of us would define it, what he has are a series of unquantifiables such as "nature is beautiful and powerful and the creatures within it have intelligence" and "limit of language to express the transcendent" and uses these as grounds for his beliefs.

Well, with all due respect Johnny, I need more than that to convince me there is an all powerful being that created everything and everyone and looks over us. The limit of language to explain the transcendent isn't a surprise at all, the entire reason for people believing in God and 'transcendence' is because they needed an answer to things they couldn't grasp for themselves, and God was what they cam up with. By definition you're not going to be able to fully explain something that you've made up. How do you fully explain something that, in reality, doesn't actually happen or exist?

You're never going to convince me or, I'd suspect, any of the other people posting in this thread so I really don't know why you continue to try. The fact that religious people see it as their "moral and spiritual duty" to try and convert non-believers and "save them" is one of my major issues with organised religion. You believe, we don't, just leave it at that, your attempts to make me a believer are a waste of your time, and my time. They're unwanted, unneeded and unconvincing.

For me much of organized religion has always been about social control, that seems undeniable. Whether or not there is a God is a different and, I believe supremely important, question. It is also very complex and as an open-minded atheist I would welcome your thoughts on the pilgrimage of Anthony Flew from atheism to theism. He was a key figure in my own early scepticism and his later writings have influenced me a great deal. Apart from the Wiki references there is a another useful link here.<a class="postlink" href="http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf</a>

He wouldn't be the first person who, upon reaching his later years, suddenly started having belief issues/changes. He was into his 80's before he came out and said he now felt there was a God, one could argue this is in part due to a decline in his mental faculties and in part the encroaching inevitability that death isn't too far away.

I'll go down the quote route a little here:-

"the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

That was Antony Flew. So he only reason, it wouls seem, is that he can't explain something through conventional methods. That position would, in my opinion, be the same position man took several milleniums ago. Where an explanation isn't readily available then one must be sought, where the seeking fails to find something then that is unacceptable so an answer, however far fetched and unrealistic, has to be reached. That answer is God.

His journey from atheism to theism isn't one that particularly convinces me of anything.

 

[johnny crossan]

For me much of organized religion has always been about social control, that seems undeniable. Whether or not there is a God is a different and, I believe supremely important, question. It is also very complex and as an open-minded atheist I would welcome your thoughts on the pilgrimage of Anthony Flew from atheism to theism. He was a key figure in my own early scepticism and his later writings have influenced me a great deal. Apart from the Wiki references there is a another useful link here.<a class="postlink" href="http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf</a>

He wouldn't be the first person who, upon reaching his later years, suddenly started having belief issues/changes. He was into his 80's before he came out and said he now felt there was a God, one could argue this is in part due to a decline in his mental faculties and in part the encroaching inevitability that death isn't too far away.

I'll go down the quote route a little here:-

"the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

That was Antony Flew. So he only reason, it wouls seem, is that he can't explain something through conventional methods. That position would, in my opinion, be the same position man took several milleniums ago. Where an explanation isn't readily available then one must be sought, where the seeking fails to find something then that is unacceptable so an answer, however far fetched and unrealistic, has to be reached. That answer is God.

His journey from atheism to theism isn't one that particularly convinces me of anything.

Is there a difference between our "conventional" explanations and those of 2000 years ago? In terms of explanatory power to the layman, molecular biology or steady state physics is as mysterious as elephants standing on turtles or whatever the cosmic myths were then. When we can’t find an explanation for the fact of existence, the fact of intelligence, the fact of beauty, the fact of evil - why is the existence of God as far-fetched or unrealistic as nothing?
Dawkins’ answer to Flew’s problem, albeit travelling in the opposite direction, was alien visitors. Our unsurprising, commonsense world is an incomprehensible part of an utterly staggering mystery. I think this man’s intellectual journey is an important lesson but I suspect you are with Peter Atkins, an atheist and professor of chemistry at Oxford University. He is also not impressed by Flew’s reasoning. “It’s absurd to think that because something is improbable it’s impossible,” he said. As for evidence of divine design, he observed: “There are several faults in nature’s design. If I were God I would expect the current design to be sent back to me “for improvement.”
It seems we will have to agree to differ.

 

[tonea2003]

He wouldn't be the first person who, upon reaching his later years, suddenly started having belief issues/changes. He was into his 80's before he came out and said he now felt there was a God, one could argue this is in part due to a decline in his mental faculties and in part the encroaching inevitability that death isn't too far away.

I'll go down the quote route a little here:-

"the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

That was Antony Flew. So he only reason, it wouls seem, is that he can't explain something through conventional methods. That position would, in my opinion, be the same position man took several milleniums ago. Where an explanation isn't readily available then one must be sought, where the seeking fails to find something then that is unacceptable so an answer, however far fetched and unrealistic, has to be reached. That answer is God.

His journey from atheism to theism isn't one that particularly convinces me of anything.

Is there a difference between our "conventional" explanations and those of 2000 years ago? In terms of explanatory power to the layman, molecular biology or steady state physics is as mysterious as elephants standing on turtles or whatever the cosmic myths were then. When we can’t find an explanation for the fact of existence, the fact of intelligence, the fact of beauty, the fact of evil - why is the existence of God as far-fetched or unrealistic as nothing?
Dawkins’ answer to Flew’s problem, albeit travelling in the opposite direction, was alien visitors. Our unsurprising, commonsense world is an incomprehensible part of an utterly staggering mystery. I think this man’s intellectual journey is an important lesson but I suspect you are with Peter Atkins, an atheist and professor of chemistry at Oxford University. He is also not impressed by Flew’s reasoning. “It’s absurd to think that because something is improbable it’s impossible,” he said. As for evidence of divine design, he observed: “There are several faults in nature’s design. If I were God I would expect the current design to be sent back to me “for improvement.”
It seems we will have to agree to differ.

just to jump in her if i may. the where we come from question is the most brain busting of them all as you can keep going and going forever saying what created/made this and keep going back
correct me if i'm wrong here but you are saying because we dont know that answer there must be a higher being
which to me is just absurd and a cop out
one day if the human race lasts long enough we may find that ultimate of answers scientificly and not divinely
and us fools are still waiting for your proof which you seem hard to come by

 

[johnny crossan]

just to jump in her if i may. the where we come from question is the most brain busting of them all as you can keep going and going forever saying what created/made this and keep going back
correct me if i'm wrong here but you are saying because we dont know that answer there must be a higher being
which to me is just absurd and a cop out
one day if the human race lasts long enough we may find that ultimate of answers scientificly and not divinely
and us fools are still waiting for your proof which you seem hard to come by

"the where we come from question is the most brain busting of them all as you can keep going and going forever saying what created/made this and keep going back
correct me if i'm wrong here but you are saying because we dont know that answer there must be a higher being"

That bit I wholeheartedly agree with, but would add that if we did know the answer there must still be a higher being.

"which to me is just absurd and a cop out"

Why is that absurd, why is it a cop out? That's the whole point isn't it. We don't know for sure, so there must be nothing. It doesn't follow.


"one day if the human race lasts long enough we may find that ultimate of answers scientificly and not divinely"

Ultimately there is no difference. Science and belief are not in conflict, they are ways of understanding which IMO will gradually converge.

"and us fools are still waiting for your proof which you seem hard to come by"

We're all fools.

 

[Matty]

We're all fools.

Get you own feckin' ship!!!

 

[Cheltblue]

46 pages on and i still understand virtually f*ck all on this thread.

So this fool is shippin out!

 

[yep]

Come on people better climb on board
Come on babe were going home.
Ship of fools, ship of fools.

Dear “Bright” people,

The Doors and Dawkins Travel company is pleased to announce that the details of the itinerary and the departure for the “Ship of Fools” cruise.
We will be sailing from Southampton on the 2nd of August and hope to dock at Barcelona on the way home for the CITY clash with European Champions Barcelona at the Camp Nou in a friendly on Wednesday August 19.

I am pleased to say that the questionnaire we sent out about how you could disprove the heinous statement that “There are no Atheists in foxholes,' was full of suggestions but the majority of you suggested an itinerary with excursions to very dangerous places would be the best way to disprove this.
We can now announce that the Republic of Chechnya, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan and of course Iraq will be visited. Any air travel needed will be by Angola airlines.

While at sea we will have some exciting activities.
We will be asking you to prove Naturalism; all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
For those of you whom seem to like Anglo Saxon expletives, we will be asking you to see if there was a subjunctive case used by the Anglo Saxons. Exciting or what? And there is more! There is also a lecture on the six diphthongs in Anglo-Saxon: ea, éa, eo, éo, ie, and íe.

We will also be organising an experiment, all in the name of science, you understand, which some Christians claim that has given people an experience of the presence of “God”. We will be reciting the “Our Father” with the clause, “If you exist” after each phrase and hope conclusively that this experiment will not offer anyone the experience of the presence of “God”. A delusion of the grand order!

There will be the writings of Democritus, Diagoras of Melos , Epicurus, Theodorus the Atheist, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand, Noam Chomsky, Francis Crick and Daniel Dennett, to name but a few, for your perusal.
Music by well know atheists such as Mick Jagger, David Jon Gilmour, Brian Eno and Richard Georg Strauss will be available.
The videos of George Carlin and the films of Bruce Lee will be shown.
There will be internet connection and a sat phone so you will be able to converse with your families.

Do not be deluded, of course there may be fatalities but every reasonable thing has been planned to care for your safety. We will have Russell T Davies on board who as well as giving lectures on Torchwood will also act as a witness when we come across life threatening events and record any statements we will utter. It is hoped to ascertain that any evocations to God will be dismissed as meaningless but if there are any “conversions” then they will be asked to leave the ship and make their own way back to the UK assuming they are not killed.

If you have any further queries, please let me know and I hope to see you on board.

Yours sincerely,

Higgs Boson
On behalf of the Cum Grano Salis organisation.