What God ?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By 'Science' with a capital S, do you mean the academic/experimental discipline, or the album by Norwegian singer-songwriter Thomas Dybdahl?

[afleitch]

By 'Science' with a capital S, do you mean the academic/experimental discipline, or the album by Norwegian singer-songwriter Thomas Dybdahl?

Too contrived. Trying TOO hard Nathan. Too hard.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By 'Science' with a capital S, do you mean the academic/experimental discipline, or the album by Norwegian singer-songwriter Thomas Dybdahl?

Too contrived. Trying TOO hard Nathan. Too hard.

That was my fear, actually. My original idea for a post in this thread was 'ok' with no capitalization, elaboration, or punctuation, but I think realisticidealist already covered that genre of response.

[The Mikado]

There are few things I am less likely to believe in than capital S Science.  Read Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge and The Birth of the Clinic.

[afleitch]

There are few things I am less likely to believe in than capital S Science.  Read Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge and The Birth of the Clinic.

And now Mikado comes on and mentions Foucault. I should have put a bet on

[DC Al Fine]

[© tweed]

God as the Ground of Being

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

God as the Ground of Being

I should have put a bet on

[DemPGH]

Haha, that revolting pic that DC Al Fine posted reminds me of that great line in Ghostbusters when Winston asks Ray if he believes in God. Ray, in a perfect tone, says, "Never met him."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Haha, that revolting pic that DC Al Fine posted reminds me of that great line in Ghostbusters when Winston asks Ray if he believes in God. Ray, in a perfect tone, says, "Never met him."

I get that you wouldn't have any reason to find that picture sympathetic or amusing but I don't understand what's 'revolting' about it.

[DemPGH]

Haha, that revolting pic that DC Al Fine posted reminds me of that great line in Ghostbusters when Winston asks Ray if he believes in God. Ray, in a perfect tone, says, "Never met him."

I get that you wouldn't have any reason to find that picture sympathetic or amusing but I don't understand what's 'revolting' about it.

Old World smugness and vanity are among the things I most dislike. "Revolting" is a slight overstatement if we're to parse words, and I know we do that. Sometimes it's appropriate to understate, other times to overstate.

Oh, I'm amused by it very much, but for a different reason. In my circle that would be viewed as self-ridiculing. You know, like if you have a cartoon of a priestly sort of fellow who adheres to Ptolemy or Aristotle or maybe the Flat Earth Society, looks down his nose at you, and pronounces that he has never heard of Dawkins. It would be very funny and rather appropriate. I don't think that was DC's intent.

And I've said before that I'm no fan of Dawkins mainly because of his style of debate and that I don't like to be preached to by really anyone. Although I do basically appreciate what he is trying to do.

[afleitch]

Haha, that revolting pic that DC Al Fine posted reminds me of that great line in Ghostbusters when Winston asks Ray if he believes in God. Ray, in a perfect tone, says, "Never met him."

I get that you wouldn't have any reason to find that picture sympathetic or amusing but I don't understand what's 'revolting' about it.

Old World smugness and vanity are among the things I most dislike. "Revolting" is a slight overstatement if we're to parse words, and I know we do that. Sometimes it's appropriate to understate, other times to overstate.

Oh, I'm amused by it very much, but for a different reason. In my circle that would be viewed as self-ridiculing. You know, like if you have a cartoon of a priestly sort of fellow who adheres to Ptolemy or Aristotle or maybe the Flat Earth Society, looks down his nose at you, and pronounces that he has never heard of Dawkins. It would be very funny and rather appropriate. I don't think that was DC's intent.

And I've said before that I'm no fan of Dawkins mainly because of his style of debate and that I don't like to be preached to by really anyone. Although I do basically appreciate what he is trying to do.

People who can't think of anyone other than Hitchens or Dawkins either in support of or trying to ridicule atheists/ism (which is an ancient view of the world in itself) are intellectually lazy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Haha, that revolting pic that DC Al Fine posted reminds me of that great line in Ghostbusters when Winston asks Ray if he believes in God. Ray, in a perfect tone, says, "Never met him."

I get that you wouldn't have any reason to find that picture sympathetic or amusing but I don't understand what's 'revolting' about it.

Old World smugness and vanity are among the things I most dislike. "Revolting" is a slight overstatement if we're to parse words, and I know we do that. Sometimes it's appropriate to understate, other times to overstate.

Eh, Richard Dawkins is from the Old World too and seems pretty smug and vain to me, but I understand that that's not really the point. In any case I understand what you mean but personally this kind of posturing doesn't really bother me all that much. It sort of comes with the territory. I try not to be guilty of it myself, but I'm aware that I don't always succeed in that.

People who can't think of anyone other than Hitchens or Dawkins either in support of or trying to ridicule atheists/ism (which is an ancient view of the world in itself) are intellectually lazy.

This much is certainly true. At least spring for Lucretius (with whom, entirely incidentally, I think Aquinas would probably have been familiar).

[DemPGH]

Yeah, and I understand that there's a degree of posturing in this debate that's probably unavoidable, but by Old World I don't mean place as much as time. Like, a time when the pope was infallible, scripture was holy writ, the Church and its clergy possessed Wisdom and Knowledge, and so on. You know, those religious edifices are so spectacularly grand for a reason.

Also, and you guys might be better versed particularly in the history of philosophy than I am, but while there were non-theistic schools (and certainly schools like the atomists), I think it's an understatement to say that they didn't exactly take over. The work that survived was lucky to have done so. And, I don't think religions, holy orders, divine instructions, papal offices, or Inquisitions were the result of non-theistic thought: that's what I mean by Old World vanity.

Absolutely, Dawkins is vain and smug. Some of it is performance, some of it is genuine. He had  a series of discussions that I caught on his website or somewhere with a priest, and I have to say that I was impressed at his seriousness and by the respect that he showed this person. Wish I could be more specific but I don't have time to go looking for it. So he's trying to be a rock star. And I agree that attacking him and the more outrageous things he's said off topic (like, about women) as the spokesperson for "Atheist-dom" is a major straw man argument.

[afleitch]

Absolutely, Dawkins is vain and smug. Some of it is performance, some of it is genuine. He had  a series of discussions that I caught on his website or somewhere with a priest, and I have to say that I was impressed at his seriousness and by the respect that he showed this person. Wish I could be more specific but I don't have time to go looking for it. So he's trying to be a rock star. And I agree that attacking him and the more outrageous things he's said off topic (like, about women) as the spokesperson for "Atheist-dom" is a major straw man argument.

Of course. Dawkins' academic body of work is phenomenal but he's the go to person for the William Lane Craigs of the world who want a 'rumble with an atheist'. The same is true of Chris Hitchens who spent most of the 80's and 90's writing terse pieces about geopolitics until he suddenly realised he could make a career having the same debate every time with money rich  evangelists in generously funded bible colleges with a crappy book to sell. So why not? Nothing that has ever been argued by a 'New Atheist' was ever new, nor anything countered by a Christian apologist never framed that way before. Debate hasn't really moved on from the days of Celsus.

[DC Al Fine]

Oh, I'm amused by it very much, but for a different reason. In my circle that would be viewed as self-ridiculing. You know, like if you have a cartoon of a priestly sort of fellow who adheres to Ptolemy or Aristotle or maybe the Flat Earth Society, looks down his nose at you, and pronounces that he has never heard of Dawkins. It would be very funny and rather appropriate. I don't think that was DC's intent.

And I've said before that I'm no fan of Dawkins mainly because of his style of debate and that I don't like to be preached to by really anyone. Although I do basically appreciate what he is trying to do.

When Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, he spent a mere 3 pages on Aquinas' proofs. Christians got pissed that he more or less ignored our biggest asset while spending page after page attacking arguments that he admitted aren't in everyday use by apologists anymore. It was a bit like disproving atomic theory by only addressing the Ancient Greeks. The picture is a dig at Dawkins ignoring Aquinas.

Debate hasn't really moved on from the days of Celsus.

Proving theism/atheism to the other side is like proving the Earth's speed of rotation to someone who is convinced the Earth a disk on the back of a very large turtle.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Proving theism/atheism to the other side is like proving the Earth's speed of rotation to someone who is convinced the Earth a disk on the back of a very large turtle.

So is a postliberal theologian be one who argues the turtle is whirling around in place like a dervish?

[DemPGH]

Oh, I'm amused by it very much, but for a different reason. In my circle that would be viewed as self-ridiculing. You know, like if you have a cartoon of a priestly sort of fellow who adheres to Ptolemy or Aristotle or maybe the Flat Earth Society, looks down his nose at you, and pronounces that he has never heard of Dawkins. It would be very funny and rather appropriate. I don't think that was DC's intent.

And I've said before that I'm no fan of Dawkins mainly because of his style of debate and that I don't like to be preached to by really anyone. Although I do basically appreciate what he is trying to do.

When Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, he spent a mere 3 pages on Aquinas' proofs. Christians got pissed that he more or less ignored our biggest asset while spending page after page attacking arguments that he admitted aren't in everyday use by apologists anymore. It was a bit like disproving atomic theory by only addressing the Ancient Greeks. The picture is a dig at Dawkins ignoring Aquinas.

To be fair, Dawkins categorically attacks Aquinas, as have other writers. Aquinas wrote like five or six volumes just on his Summary of Theology. No one would ever sit down and critique the whole thing because that would take about 20 standard-length books, probably excepting digressions and examples. It would be an almost impossible task. Rather, people break down what Aquinas says into logical fallacies. Aquinas, from a secular standpoint, is just a series of fallacies (Begging the question, appeal to scripture, circular reasoning, and two others). He really doesn't warrant a lot more than a chapter, because people who are inclined to accept Aquinas as an authority figure will probably not listen to a thorough critique from a secular point of view anyway.

[Gustaf]

Since an actual discussion sprang out of the troll thread I split it. Please feel free to carry this on.