Atheist versus former atheist debate

Cypress said:
One of the questions discussed is whether we need Christianity, whether or not there is an afterlife.

Richard Dawkins himself although atheist, claims to be a cultural Christian because his ethos, his values, his cultural milieu originates from the immersion of western civilization into Christianity for 2000 years, and that the west itself would be unrecognizable without the Christian tradition.
Click to expand...
Dawkins always liked playing a bit to both sides to maximize his profits.
 
Cypress said:
Science*, capitalism, individualism, and democracy didn't develop in the Buddhist civilizations of southeast and east Asia. I don't think it is completely by accident that those events and practices developed almost uniquely during the history of western civilization.


* China had technology, but not the empirical scientific method of the West
Click to expand...
Disagreed only in that there's a difference of degree. Obviously, the Chinese had science, commerce and individual freedom*. I'll give you democracy although I wouldn't rule out the idea was shared by some Asian cultures.

I don't know enough about Chinese methods of science, but agree the west refined the scientific method and was several hundred years ahead of the East.

*as much freedom as Western feudal lords allowed their peasants.
 
Cypress said:
No, I don't think we leave morality up to the popular vote or to opinion. That leads to moral relativity.

We don't have to know what all the answers are or how it works, but we can surmise that are certain kind of objective moral truths that are either etched onto the human consciousness or which can make appeals to the human consciousness - even though they cannot be easily explained by either Darwinian evolution or the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Agreeing to surmise that, C, is essentially leaving it to popular opinion, I would think.
I could, of course, be wrong, but I honestly can't imagine what else it is.
What other mechanism or dynamic is in play?
If it isn't popular consensus, then it's imposed by something or somebody,
and that certainly doesn't make it true.

Unless I'm forgetting something, which is always possible,
just about everything that I know for certain is relatively easy to explain.
If it isn't, then it goes into the category of "Maybe it's true--I just don't know."

That's how my mind works, anyway.
But you've observed that by now.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Disagreed only in that there's a difference of degree. Obviously, the Chinese had science, commerce and individual freedom*. I'll give you democracy although I wouldn't rule out the idea was shared by some Asian cultures.

I don't know enough about Chinese methods of science, but agree the west refined the scientific method and was several hundred years ahead of the East.

*as much freedom as Western feudal lords allowed their peasants.
Click to expand...
The experimental science we are familiar with is strictly a western civilization phenomenon. The Chinese were talented in technology, but not in the kind of experimental science that began in the West.

The Confucian traditions that historically permeated East Asian cultures puts a premium on hierarchy and deference to authority. Not to individualism and democracy. A Confucian education as provided to the elites and civil servants did not have a focus on math, astronomy, geometry. A Confucian education was first and foremost a moral education. That's why the Chinese fell so far behind Europe scientifically and technically.

All human societies have commerce. The market capitalism of the West was unique to western civilization. I'm pretty sure the commercial macroeconomy of the Tang and Ming dynasties were deliberately run and regulated by the State and operated for the benefit of the Imperial State.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Agreeing to surmise that, C, is essentially leaving it to popular opinion, I would think.
I could, of course, be wrong, but I honestly can't imagine what else it is.
What other mechanism or dynamic is in play?
If it isn't popular consensus, then it's imposed by something or somebody,
and that certainly doesn't make it true.

Unless I'm forgetting something, which is always possible,
just about everything that I know for certain is relatively easy to explain.
If it isn't, then it goes into the category of "Maybe it's true--I just don't know."

That's how my mind works, anyway.
But you've observed that by now.
Click to expand...
Lots of things that used to be run by opinion and popular consensus - slavery, massacring Jews, child labor - were eliminated over a long period of time because there is something etched on the human conscience which can be appealed to. That's not something that can be readily explained by Darwinian principles, or to just random changes in the whims of people. I think we have to be honest and just say we don't have a scientific or empirical explanation at this time.
 
Cypress said:
Lots of things that used to be run by opinion and popular consensus - slavery, massacring Jews, child labor - were eliminated over a long period of time because there is something etched on the human conscience which can be appealed to. That's not something that can be readily explained by Darwinian principles, or to just random changes in the whims of people. I think we have to be honest and just say we don't have a scientific or empirical explanation at this time.
Click to expand...
Things etched on the human conscience is certainly more of a faith concept than an empirical one,
and we either have faith or we don't.

It could also be the gradual realization over time that once accepted principles, allowed to be perpetuated,
were being counterproductive to the collective quality of life.

Another theory can be that everything that occurs in our universe is totally random.

I'm obviously not trying to prove that all faith is in vain.
I wouldn't know how to do that, nor am I sure that it can be done.
I'm just revealing an alternate track on which my mind runs.
 
Cypress said:
The experimental science we are familiar with is strictly a western civilization phenomenon. The Chinese were talented in technology, but not in the kind of experimental science that began in the West.

The Confucian traditions that historically permeated East Asian cultures puts a premium on hierarchy and deference to authority. Not to individualism and democracy. A Confucian education as provided to the elites and civil servants did not have a focus on math, astronomy, geometry. A Confucian education was first and foremost a moral education. That's why the Chinese fell so far behind Europe scientifically and technically.

All human societies have commerce. The market capitalism of the West was unique to western civilization. I'm pretty sure the commercial macroeconomy of the Tang and Ming dynasties were deliberately run and regulated by the State and operated for the benefit of the Imperial State.
Click to expand...
Agreed the West was ahead of the East in that regard. Do you think it was only matter of time or a matter of genetics?

All good ideas seem to travel well in the human sphere. I think Jesus picked up some Eastern ideas by traveling east along the Silk Road. Western ideas similarly traveled east. I'd have to study it more to have a better idea of why science would never work in Confucian-based societies. Off hand, though, I'm disinclined to believe societies do not evolve, especially when facing facts.

re capitalism, again, I'm inclined to go with social evolution since the main constant, human beings, remains the same.
 
Trumpet said:
If you can believe that, then you can believe anything.
Click to expand...
If you have an open mind to other dimensions, then existence become infinite.

I'm not a physicist, much less a quantum physicist, but quantum physics is exploring human consciousness.

https://scitechdaily.com/groundbrea...-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature

Groundbreaking Study Affirms Quantum Basis for Consciousness: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Human Nature​

A groundbreaking study has provided experimental evidence suggesting a quantum basis for consciousness.

...More broadly, a quantum understanding of consciousness “gives us a world picture in which we can be connected to the universe in a more natural and holistic way,” Wiest says....
 
Cypress said:
Debate between Richard Dawkins, high priest of the New Atheism, versus an erstwhile New Atheist colleague Ayann Hirsi Ali who converted to Christianity

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realization that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes (radical Islamisism, etc.).
Click to expand...
I am not fooled. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was never an atheist. He doesn't even know what atheism is.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
If you have an open mind to other dimensions, then existence become infinite.

I'm not a physicist, much less a quantum physicist, but quantum physics is exploring human consciousness.

https://scitechdaily.com/groundbrea...-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature

Groundbreaking Study Affirms Quantum Basis for Consciousness: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Human Nature​

A groundbreaking study has provided experimental evidence suggesting a quantum basis for consciousness.

...More broadly, a quantum understanding of consciousness “gives us a world picture in which we can be connected to the universe in a more natural and holistic way,” Wiest says....
Click to expand...
I don't really know about heaven, but I don't have any problem imagining a reality beyond the three spatial dimensions we can see.

The preeminent theoretical physicists Alexander Vilenkin and Alan Guth have said they believe that universal mathematical laws of physics have an independent and objective existence beyond the three dimensional physical space.

Some versions of string theory propose we live on a three spatial dimensional brane embedded in a higher dimensional hyperspace which we cannot see.
 
Cypress said:
Debate between Richard Dawkins, high priest of the New Atheism, versus an erstwhile New Atheist colleague Ayann Hirsi Ali who converted to Christianity


Summary:

"Richard Dawkins claim is that we have rational humanism to offer as an antidote to not just Islam but all forms of religious delusion. Dawkins asks is faith merely a comforting fantasy for those not brave enough to face the 'blind, pitiless indifference' that lies, in Dawkins’ view, at the foundations of reality? Dawkins, it seems, believes that this is the choice on offer: truth or comfort. And he has chosen truth."

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realization that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes (radical Islamisism, etc.). I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: What is the meaning and purpose of life? Of course, I still have a great deal to learn about Christianity. But I have recognized, in my own long journey through a wilderness of fear and self-doubt, that there is a better way to manage the challenges of existence than either Islam or unbelief had to offer.”



https://www.premierunbelievable.com...irsi-ali-the-clash-of-our-times/17772.article
Click to expand...

I wonder why life has to have "meaning and purpose"? It just is. We exist for a while, then we don't.
 
Cypress said:
I think the idea with these people was that a moral law had to come from a law-giver.

Otherwise, there is no objective moral truth, and morality just becomes a matter of human opinion or popular consensus.
Click to expand...

It always has been that way. Example: We find the thought of incest morally repugnant. Yet in ancient Egyptian, it was expected that royal siblings marry. Another one: We find cannibalism morally reprehensible. Yet in some cultures, eating one's defeated enemy honored him and gave you his power and courage. Slavery, which is in the Bible as a perfectly acceptable practice, is another example of how morality changes over time.


WE are the "law givers."
 
Cypress said:
Western civilization's science, art, ethos, its capitalism, democracy, and cultural scaffolding came in some very real sense out of the West's immersion into the Christian tradition, either directly or indirectly.

The question is, whether or not there is an afterlife, was/or is there value in having Christianity regardless of whether or not you will ever meet Saint Peter at the Pearly gates.
Click to expand...
That's up to you! Here is your choice,pick a position343778305_565962215624967_4437225646682599945_n.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed the West was ahead of the East in that regard. Do you think it was only matter of time or a matter of genetics?

All good ideas seem to travel well in the human sphere. I think Jesus picked up some Eastern ideas by traveling east along the Silk Road. Western ideas similarly traveled east. I'd have to study it more to have a better idea of why science would never work in Confucian-based societies. Off hand, though, I'm disinclined to believe societies do not evolve, especially when facing facts.

re capitalism, again, I'm inclined to go with social evolution since the main constant, human beings, remains the same.
Click to expand...
I think Western values, Western democracy, western capitalism, western individualism can largely be explained by our unique legacy with democratic Athens, the Roman Republic, Christianity, and the Protestant Reformation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top