Thursday, January 13, 2011
Arguments with Atheists
I take it you're familiar with philosophy.
what did you have in mind
Needed to try out an argument against atheism on you
Well, on someone
Eh, not so much a direct argument, more of a challenge.
sure, go ahead
Well, it seems to me that part of the problem for the atheist, if he wishes to engage in debate, will be to convince me, not that his view is correct, but that I should accept his position.
In other words,
It is all fine and well for an atheist to say, I do not believe in God and here is why.
But what, within the atheist belief system, obliges me to accept his position?
hmmm... well, no one can PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of God... Kant mentions this as one of the Antinomies (stuff you can argue about forever and never get anywhere
Sure
I guess what I'm asking about is something like ought-ness.
Why ought I to believe this?
I often say that ever learned person must admit they are agnostic
and i am reminded of Hume's gap : that no IS implies an OUGHT
Exactly
and it was Hume who awoke Kant out of his dogmatic slumber
There is also Moore's helpful Open Question argument
now, my take is that in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, when it says "if God does not exist, all is permitted" is obviously wrong even in a Godless random universe
But any theist engaging in debate must be doing so because he believes he's right and thinks that other people should agree with him. Wouldn't you say?\
atheist**
because actions have consequences
They do
i mean, moderation makes sense even if there is no God
Sure, it is a seemingly rational thing to do
and, if one is an alcoholic, they can pray and beg and plead for forgiveness, but unless they stop drinking, which only they can do, they remain a forgiven, drunken alcoholic
Gandhi rejected Christianity saying "I do not desire simply to escape the consequences of my wrong-doing but if possible I seek to stop wrong-doing at its source
which of course is very Pelagian
Pelagius and Augustine argued, and Augustine won in the West, but Augustine laid down the foundations for the Reformation
but no one noticed until Luther took all his ammunition from Augustine
and the Counter-Reformation took a closer look at Augustine
Mmhmm
i realize this is not what you came to ask
But my original query is about what, in the mechanics of the atheist universe, obliges me to accept the position that the atheist is correct?
but it is helpful if i lay down the foundations of how i see things
Oh, heh
but, yours is an excellent question
i mean, you are taking it from the point of view that you are engaged in a debate and that each wants to persuade the other
Correct
This would need to be placed in a certain context, yes.
ok... now... we should look at Maximos the Confessor of the 6th century who took the OPPOSITE view from Aquinas of the 12 century
and that made all the difference between east and west
I'm familiar with St Maximos\
Aquinas in the summa states that UNDERSTANDING comes first, and faith follows from understanding...
Maximos quotes from Isaiah or Jeremiah, "Unless you believe you shall not understand"
and states that FAITH comes first as a GIFT from God, given only to some and not to others, based upon God's foreknowledge of how each individual will accept the gift with their free will
now I can give you my blog post to the essay "River of Fire and Gift of Faith"
Which writing is this?
That would be good
let me dig up the link... but bottom line...
IF maximos is right that faith is a gift to some, and not to others,... and understanding is added AFTER that gift,... then syllogistic reasoning goes out the window
but consider how often aquinas quotes aristotle
consider Pascals ARGUMENTS to persuade
I dig Pascal
but what does Jesus say "no man has told you these things but the Father in heaven has revealed to you
and Paul, saying to avoid vain disputation
and the greek notion of d
