Proselytizing

[PyramidHead]

Auto text fanged my post - I meant to write teleological not theological.
...just sayin

If certain atheists wish to gaze at some randomly chosen aspect of nature (like the night sky) and subjectively speak of it in reverence and awe - while simultaneously maintaining that the matter of fact, ho hum, appearance of the entire physical universe is the result of blind chance - that's their business. Sand dune. Yawn. Sand sculpture. Yawn. Trees are green. Yawn. But show Carl Sagan or Brian Cox a supernova and they start talking about our origins and existential, why are we here, stuff.

I agree completely with Tigers. If none of it was intentionally designed/caused then I see no reason to be impressed by entirely natural phenomena that happen for no reason in a past-eternal, uncaused universe.

On at least a mechanical level, something that looks designed but isn't actually designed is impressive at least for that reason alone, merely because it seems unlikely to us. What would impress you more, a person writing their name in the sand with a stick, or their name being naturally generated by the arbitrary movement of rocks along the sand over millennia? Humans are wired to appreciate things that seem to be the result of an improbability.

Much of what we find aesthetically pleasing isn't by choice anyway. The night sky in its vastness inspires feelings of individual smallness because we are better equipped to deal with things on our scale. So, knowing a little bit about the actual size and depth of the sky relative to ourselves has given us a little power over that feeling, and we often express that in an emotional way, without regard for origins. I think you're laboring under the misimpression that people choose what to be awestruck by and how to respond to it, when it's largely a non-cognitive response like tasting something delicious.

And as such it can't be policed by arguments. Sure, I feel the same way you do about secular reverence, which picks up after the emotional reaction and tries to formulate something objectively worthy. That's just making noise about what gives people a pleasant feeling inside, so I don't treat it as anything inherent about the universe. But nor would I use it to argue for or against the existence of any particular thing.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion IRC's "gratitude deficit" argument turned out to be a fizzer.

1. Accuse the atheist of illogically feeling gratitude.
2. ???
3. Atheist converts to Christianity.

I agree completely with Tigers. If none of it was intentionally designed/caused then I see no reason to be impressed by entirely natural phenomena that happen for no reason in a past-eternal, uncaused universe.

Clearly you don't understand how irreligious people feel about the world.

It's not a gratitude deficit argument. It's more about inexplicable gratitude.
See Tigers' post - no strawman has said atheists cannot express (apparent) gratitude.
Quite the opposite. Some do.

And it's those vestiges of seeming gratitude and existential awe shown by folks like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox which stands out like a sore thumb.

The biblical theist knows why atheists feel the secular, quasi-pantheist equivalent of grateful awe when they look into the microscope or telescope. They can't help it. They are made in God's likeness just the same as everyone. God particle, hallowed be thy name.

But the ideological tension consists in saying, on the one hand, gratitude is neither owed nor deserved because there's no God and teleology (design intent) is nothing more than some... Trompe L'oel. Yet, meanwhile on the other hand, cherry picking individual praise worthy aspects of the natural landscape and singling them out for special mention. You drive thru a barren desert for miles bored out of your brain by all that undesigned geology and evolutionary lifelessness. Then you stop and take selfies at the scenic road stop where there's a spectacular/awesome undesigned canyon or river or herd of bison.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Yes; emotions are absurd. It's part of the human condition.

Lion denies atheists are human beings who have emotions, hence why I've been calling him out constantly on that. He still doesn't get it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes; emotions are absurd. It's part of the human condition.

Lion denies atheists are human beings who have emotions, hence why I've been calling him out constantly on that. He still doesn't get it.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. If we don’t actually have emotions, how can we get all butt hurt by his trolling? Seems weird to even bother to say anything to us if that’s the case.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Yes; emotions are absurd. It's part of the human condition.

Lion denies atheists are human beings who have emotions, hence why I've been calling him out constantly on that. He still doesn't get it.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. If we don’t actually have emotions, how can we get all butt hurt by his trolling? Seems weird to even bother to say anything to us if that’s the case.

We secretly believe in God so we have emotions. That's why we get mad at his trolling. Duh. Flawless logic.

 

[abaddon]

Lion denies atheists are human beings who have emotions, hence why I've been calling him out constantly on that. He still doesn't get it.

The formula is: life-enriching emotions = a "Why" for all existence = a supernaturalist metaphysics = meaningfulness. Supposedly a human needs all 4 or he has none.

"I can't imagine feeling wonder at a godless universe", theists say. If they'd stop there it'd be ok. But they don't. After having failed to imagine our viewpoint, they'll go on to say "Here's what your viewpoint is....", and even "Here's how you have to feel...".

How many failings of the imagination does it take to make a theist?

'I can't imagine how you atheists could feel deep feelings about nature'.
They're the same feelings, just not misdirected from tangible nature toward fantasies about it.

'I can't imagine how things can become complex without God'.
It's described in science books so you could skip failing to imagine it, and learn instead.

'I can't imagine how or why existence exists unless God caused it'.
That's right, you can't. And you can't imagine God causing it either, so be honest enough to admit the ignorance and leave it at that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I did have the Jehova's Witnesses come to my door regularly. Some of them are still willing to approach me.

One of them started their spiel with "What do you believe about the dead coming back to life?"

It took me all of one second to reply with "Uh, yeah, of course. I have to keep burying them again. They won't stay down, it's annoying."

 

[Rhea]

Yet, meanwhile on the other hand, cherry picking individual praise worthy aspects of the natural landscape and singling them out for special mention. You drive thru a barren desert for miles bored out of your brain by all that undesigned geology and evolutionary lifelessness. Then you stop and take selfies at the scenic road stop where there's a spectacular/awesome undesigned canyon or river or herd of bison.

I have driven through 48 US states, 7 Mexican ones, and 7 Canadian Provinces. I’ve put 100,000 miles on my van and never once been bored out of my mind by the scenery. I have camped in vast grasslands of the midwest and the endless forests of Maine and the deserts of the southwest and the piney woods of the south.

I have never once been bored out of my mind on any one of these trips.

You demonstrate once again that you don’t know us, and perhaps can’t.

 

[Rhea]

It is so interesting talking to you (and Tiger, and Learner) and I'm glad you keep talking because it is fascinating to study how you think. In all this time you are not a single step closer to understanding us because you seem incapable of putting yourself in our shoes. Every time you try to reflect what we say or paraphrase, you warp it back through your "there is no joy without god" filter, even while we tell you unambiguously that we feel plenty of joy.

I have wandered back through a lot of my posts and cannot find anywhere where I said or implied that atheists cannot experience joy, wonder etc. If you know where I said or implied that then I would be obliged.

But you admit you just cannot understand.

It's fascinating.

You think we're all making it up, or something. You seem to actually think that we don't believe what we're saying. Or that it's impossible, even while we sit in front of you being all possible.

You cannot discover us, even though we sit before you and talk to you.

Again I have never said or implied (IIRC) that you are making up or do not experience joy, wonder etc.
You seem to be addressing a caricature (straw man ?) of me.

While I wrote that it was fascinating to talk to you three, the specifics were pointed mainly at Lion, but you were included based on your statment that you were unable to imagine our point of view.

You seem to want to downplay the value of anything not caused by God.

AS theists we accept that whilst God might nor be the proximate cause of many events he is the ultimate cause of all events or things.

Explain what's less wondrous about nature if it wasn't caused by God.

As a theist I would find it next to impossible to explain what could be wondrous about about nature if it wasn't caused by God.
I can try to explain, how poorly, about the wondrous nature created by God but am ill equipped to do the opposite.
I will leave that task to you. You will do a much better job that I.

I imagine it must be terrifying to be one faith-crisis away from finding no wonder in all of nature.

 

[bigfield]

The biblical theist knows why atheists feel the secular, quasi-pantheist equivalent of grateful awe when they look into the microscope or telescope. They can't help it. They are made in God's likeness just the same as everyone. God particle, hallowed be thy name.

I know that you hold these beliefs, but as a hypothetical preacher, how are you going to convince the atheist who's listening to your pitch that you are right?

So far we've got:
1. Accuse the atheist of illogically feeling gratitude.
2. Claim that the feeling exists because we're made like the creator god and we can't help it.
3. Hope the atheist says "yeah, that makes sense".

It needs work. You're trying to convince a sceptical listener to accept a supernatural explanation of a human behaviour that already has a natural explanation.

 

[steve_bank]

Yet, meanwhile on the other hand, cherry picking individual praise worthy aspects of the natural landscape and singling them out for special mention. You drive thru a barren desert for miles bored out of your brain by all that undesigned geology and evolutionary lifelessness. Then you stop and take selfies at the scenic road stop where there's a spectacular/awesome undesigned canyon or river or herd of bison.

I have driven through 48 US states, 7 Mexican ones, and 7 Canadian Provinces. I’ve put 100,000 miles on my van and never once been bored out of my mind by the scenery. I have camped in vast grasslands of the midwest and the endless forests of Maine and the deserts of the southwest and the piney woods of the south.

I have never once been bored out of my mind on any one of these trips.

You demonstrate once again that you don’t know us, and perhaps can’t.

I am standing here with my thumb out looking for a ride. I have gas money. I made my first cross country trip in 1979 in a VW van with two cats for company.

 

[steve_bank]

Auto text fanged my post - I meant to write teleological not theological.
...just sayin

If certain atheists wish to gaze at some randomly chosen aspect of nature (like the night sky) and subjectively speak of it in reverence and awe - while simultaneously maintaining that the matter of fact, ho hum, appearance of the entire physical universe is the result of blind chance - that's their business. Sand dune. Yawn. Sand sculpture. Yawn. Trees are green. Yawn. But show Carl Sagan or Brian Cox a supernova and they start talking about our origins and existential, why are we here, stuff.

I agree completely with Tigers. If none of it was intentionally designed/caused then I see no reason to be impressed by entirely natural phenomena that happen for no reason in a past-eternal, uncaused universe.

Seriously, looking at reality if it was designed by spume super being then I would not give he, she. it much respect. The design sucks. To me you are empty and devoid of real feeling when you are thinking everything in your life is due to god. How can there be human meaning and wonder when everything is created, and owned, by god and you are just a plaything bred to worship god?

 

[Tigers!]

Can you understand how someone who doesn't believe in your God could also feel that sense of wonder?

I have never thought otherwise.

 

[Tigers!]

I did have the Jehova's Witnesses come to my door regularly. Some of them are still willing to approach me.

One of them started their spiel with "What do you believe about the dead coming back to life?"

It took me all of one second to reply with "Uh, yeah, of course. I have to keep burying them again. They won't stay down, it's annoying."

I do like that. May I use some time?

 

[Tigers!]

While I wrote that it was fascinating to talk to you three, the specifics were pointed mainly at Lion, but you were included based on your statment that you were unable to imagine our point of view.

I have never claimed that I could not understand your view

I imagine it must be terrifying to be one faith-crisis away from finding no wonder in all of nature.

Your imagination is quite vivid. There is no need to be terrified for me. The wonder of nature is always around me wherever I look.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I did have the Jehova's Witnesses come to my door regularly. Some of them are still willing to approach me.

One of them started their spiel with "What do you believe about the dead coming back to life?"

It took me all of one second to reply with "Uh, yeah, of course. I have to keep burying them again. They won't stay down, it's annoying."

I do like that. May I use some time?

If they actually ask the right lead-in question, it is worth it to see the looks on their faces. Go ahead.

 

[Lion IRC]

Tigers said he would find it hard/impossible to explain what could be 'wondrous' about about nature if it wasn't caused by God.

Like me, he is asking the atheist to explain - in rational terms - why an uncaused, deterministic natural event would cause a lump in your throat. Secular tears of joy.

He didn't say atheists can't burst into song...The Hills Are Alive With The Sound of Music. He just wants atheists who do, to explain what the big deal is about few mountains in Switzerland.

The irony is there are millions of theists (who are scientists) and for whom scientific discovery reinforces their thanksgiving and worship of The Creator.

DNA is God's intellectual property. He deserves praise. But if you claim DNA is the unintended, accidental result of random/spontaneous evolution then why get excited?

 

[steve_bank]

Tigers said he would find it hard/impossible to explain what could be 'wondrous' about about nature if it wasn't caused by God.

Like me, he is asking the atheist to explain - in rational terms - why an uncaused, deterministic natural event would cause a lump in your throat. Secular tears of joy.

He didn't say atheists can't burst into song...The Hills Are Alive With The Sound of Music. He just wants atheists who do, to explain what the big deal is about few mountains in Switzerland.

The irony is there are millions of theists (who are scientists) and for whom scientific discovery reinforces their thanksgiving and worship of The Creator.

DNA is God's intellectual property. He deserves praise. But if you claim DNA is the unintended, accidental result of random/spontaneous evolution then why get excited?

Ok. Bit how does a question of atheist feelings and emotions vs theist feelings and emotions factor into a proof of god in any way?

As an elderly man I live with here likes to say, every day you wake up is a wondrous day.

Why be happy at all? If I had a church it would be outside on a clear night in the middle of Montana seeing the Milky Way. I uses to a picture of the Milky Way in my office for inspiration. The one made up of thousands of individual photos. I also had a model of Chuck Yeager's X1 the Glamorous Glynis named after his wife.

Looking at the Miley Way poster realizing we are but one tiny spec in all of it for me involes humility. All our human pettiness is essentially bulshit in the universe.

Or the first time I soloed in a small plane on a clear night with without light p9olution. One can have a religious experience without being religious. Theist attribute to natural feelings to a deity.

On an old Travis Smiley show I listened to a neuroscientist who was investigating religious experience. He did brain scans of theist while praying and communing with god.

It wasn't intended but he ended up with secular scientists in the control group. To make a long story short what he found was theists contemplating god and scientist's contemplating the universe both lit up the same area of the brain.

His conclusion was that secular scientific awe or majesty was the same feeling as a religious experience. The difference being subjective interpretation of the experience.

That is what makes sense to me in general. If we did not all have the same feelings and emotions then communication would be impossible.

Religions claim a special unique experience.

 

[abaddon]

He didn't say atheists can't burst into song...The Hills Are Alive With The Sound of Music. He just wants atheists who do, to explain what the big deal is about few mountains in Switzerland.

Awe and wonder aren't necessarily bursting into song. Awe is deep respect with a tinge of fear -- the rest of nature is bigger than we smaller facets of it. Even a plague virus can be awesome. Wonder is a mix of surprise with admiration and can be more general. One might feel wonder at something on a shelf in a store. Depends on the person, doesn't it? (and not his ideology).

So what's the big deal about a few mountains anywhere? They're big, for one thing. In the context of the landscape they tend to be quite aesthetically pleasing. For some personalities, the origins matter -- and in the case of mountains, they're formed by ancient and powerful geological forces. The intricacies of nature are such that nothing's a stand-alone item. For each "thing" there's a web of connections through time and space. Big Bang to galaxy formation to star-systems to evolved organisms on some planets to awareness of beauty. Even a highly pessimistic person should admit the whole shebang is pretty damn amazing whether they like it or not. IOW, it's really hard to not imagine an 'atheistic' appreciation of godless nature. It'd take a highly dogmatic ideology to blind someone to how that must happen for most humans regardless of their philosophy.

The irony is there are millions of theists (who are scientists) and for whom scientific discovery reinforces their thanksgiving and worship of The Creator.

Ok, so they needlessly mixed some extra, optional metaphysical stuff into it...

If atheist scientists were all dismal people going "yawn" at nature (though it doesn't much look like it, does it?) then is that supposed to be evidence for God? Or a good reason to assume a God without evidence?

DNA is God's intellectual property. He deserves praise. But if you claim DNA is the unintended, accidental result of random/spontaneous evolution then why get excited?

Why not?

Don't be such a dogmatist that you confuse your reason for a sense of meaning as the only reason that there is.

Naturalists observe that we are facets of nature. We 'grow from the soil' so to speak, within nature. So we are awesome and wondrous nature too. That means if nature is ho-hum, one's own self is ho-hum.

All through your posts you assume humans and "it", that very different sort of thing: nature. But in naturalism, nature is not "given" to humans. It's not an 'I-it' relation to nature, and obviously no "I-Thou" relation to God. In a monistic naturalist view, it's a 'We' inter-relationship.

Now let's look at the schizotypal ideation that underlies your argument about gratitude: the dualism of spirit vs. matter...

The preacher at my cousin's funeral said he had prayed for Bill's healing. But the next morning Bill was dead. What did the preacher conclude from this? That God heard the prayer and healed Bill of life here in the material realm, and his spirit was "taken home" to a spirit realm. We were to feel grateful for Bill's life and that his death had come at that time (and in that rather awful way) too. In this view, humans are spirits "given" bodies till a big spirit in the sky takes the spirit "home"... somewhere better than this material "realm" which, by contrast to heaven, is a dark and dismal place.

So I wonder, are you really professing a greater feeling towards nature among theistic supernaturalists, than what atheistic naturalists can feel? No... you're really preaching atheists should feel something for God, right? We're not grateful enough towards God? Ok, 100% guilty...

 

[bilby]

The biblical theist knows why atheists feel the secular, quasi-pantheist equivalent of grateful awe when they look into the microscope or telescope. They can't help it. They are made in God's likeness just the same as everyone. God particle, hallowed be thy name.

I know you have difficulty grasping the fact that many people use the word 'God' in an entirely metaphorical way, but they do - and the person who originally coined the name 'God particle' wasn't doing so in a reverent way, nor was he making any kind of theological argument.

This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: the God Particle. Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one...

- Leon Lederman The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question pp25 (my bold).

Connecting a "blasphemous" insult very loosely to the book of Genesis is hardly support for your oft-repeated implication that there is some theological significance to the nickname 'God particle'.

So now that's something you know - but which will doubtless not prevent you from continuing with your dishonest implication that this nickname somehow suggests that physics supports theology.

It's pathetically needy; But it appears to be your preferred modus operandi.