Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#31

Post by unalone »

amichail wrote: post #9
unalone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts an…

What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?

Logic came originally from philosophy. Your question's like asking why we ever bothered with the Model T when Porsche is such a better vehicle.

Modern philosophy is important because it targets common assumptions and attempts to debate and verify them. The whole point of common assumption is that if you believe something that's wrong, you don't necessarily realize it without a lot of work. Philosophy attempts to shine light in those unknown recesses.

But "accomplishments"? I'd say the biggest casual accomplishment is that it serves as a great topic of discussion for people, gets people thinking together, and as a result brings them closer together. Might as well ask what accomplishments Shakespeare gave us, or Hitchcock. Not everything can be verified with an award and a metric.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#32

Post by foldr »

unalone wrote: post #28
foldr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God That's just not true. There's plenty of theology which you can enter into without a prior assumption of the existence of god. The most obvious example would be arguments _for_ the existence of God! But in general, most of theology can be appreciated while taking God's existence as a hypothetical. E.g. you can consider whether or not the existence…

I have. I took a course on religion last semester. Generally, I agreed with and loved the various sociological theories—the things that tried to explain the psychological origins of religion, for instance, were fascinating. But past a certain point, I find that I lose interest. I can't entertain a debate over whether evil could exist under a good God, because I don't believe in God or in evil.

If you don't find it interesting then you don't find it interesting, but that's quite a retreat from what you were claiming in your initial comment.

>because I don't believe in God or in evil.

You don't believe that evil things happen?

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#33

Post by unalone »

foldr wrote: post #32
unalone wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have. I took a course on religion last semester. Generally, I agreed with and loved the various sociological theories—the things that tried to explain the psychological origins of religion, for instance, were fascinating. But past a certain point, I find that I lose interest. I can't entertain a debate over whether evil could exist under a good God, because I don't believe in God or in evil.

If you don't find it interesting then you don't find it interesting, but that's quite a retreat from what you were claiming in your initial comment. >because I don't believe in God or in evil. You don't believe that evil things happen?

I believe that calling something evil is gross oversimplifation. Terrible things happen. Evil has overtones that I disagree with, if that makes sense.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#34

Post by foldr »

unalone wrote: post #33
foldr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't find it interesting then you don't find it interesting, but that's quite a retreat from what you were claiming in your initial comment. >because I don't believe in God or in evil. You don't believe that evil things happen?

I believe that calling something evil is gross oversimplifation. Terrible things happen. Evil has overtones that I disagree with, if that makes sense.

It makes a little bit of sense, but I don't see how it's relevant to the problem of evil. You can pose the problem with pretty much whatever notion of evil you like: "If there is a good, omnipotent God, why do terrible things happen?"

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#35

Post by unalone »

foldr wrote: post #34
unalone wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that calling something evil is gross oversimplifation. Terrible things happen. Evil has overtones that I disagree with, if that makes sense.

It makes a little bit of sense, but I don't see how it's relevant to the problem of evil. You can pose the problem with pretty much whatever notion of evil you like: "If there is a good, omnipotent God, why do terrible things happen?"

Well, yeah. That's why nonbelief hurts the debate also. My response is a simple "There isn't." Kind of a flat debate.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#36

Post by foldr »

unalone wrote: post #35
foldr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a little bit of sense, but I don't see how it's relevant to the problem of evil. You can pose the problem with pretty much whatever notion of evil you like: "If there is a good, omnipotent God, why do terrible things happen?"

Well, yeah. That's why nonbelief hurts the debate also. My response is a simple "There isn't." Kind of a flat debate.

As I said, whether or not God exists, the question remains whether or not the existence of God is _compatible_ with the existence of evil. That's what theologians actually discuss. Stating God's non-existence just doesn't address the question at issue.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#37

Post by jamesbritt »

foldr wrote: post #36
unalone wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah. That's why nonbelief hurts the debate also. My response is a simple "There isn't." Kind of a flat debate.

As I said, whether or not God exists, the question remains whether or not the existence of God is _compatible_ with the existence of evil. That's what theologians actually discuss. Stating God's non-existence just doesn't address the question at issue.

Well, it does in that before looking at the relationship of gods and evil, you first have to establish what, exactly, are the characteristics of gods, how many gods are there, etc.

Do theologians consider the case for all of concievable gods? Multiple gods? Only one god?

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#38

Post by unalone »

foldr wrote: post #36
unalone wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah. That's why nonbelief hurts the debate also. My response is a simple "There isn't." Kind of a flat debate.

As I said, whether or not God exists, the question remains whether or not the existence of God is _compatible_ with the existence of evil. That's what theologians actually discuss. Stating God's non-existence just doesn't address the question at issue.

If God doesn't exist, it's not worth arguing Him. It's like asking if God can make a boulder so heavy He Himself cannot lift it. It's a worthwhile debate if omnipotence exists, but it doesn't, so the argument is moot.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#39

Post by pbhjpbhj »

khafra wrote: post #25
amichail wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying that the major accomplishment of religion is that it led to science.

I don't disagree with that by much. Religious institutions in the past have preserved or advanced scientific discovery at times. The difference is that Philosophy consists of seeking the truth, institutionalized religion usually consists of defending the truth. Religions may spawn some scientific inquiry, but they have a lot of trouble letting their children go off and live their own lives, so to speak.

Suppose you discover that you can get nasty illnesses from being exposed to other peoples germs which are spread in their bodily emissions, indeed some of those illnesses can kill.

You then have kids.

Do you defend that truth by instructing them to wash their hands, cover their mouths when they cough, avoid contact with faeces, etc., to stop germs spreading? Or, do you have to wait until that child is old enough to discover germs for themselves?

The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry as Christians believe that knowing more about the created enables us to know more about the creator.

Re: Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments

#40

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Ha, he's going to have to rewrite that opening para for his kids book if he wants to base it on evidence. The evidence no more shows that Earth moves than it shows that it is static, unless you assume that humans and simplicity in our mathematical system is special.
Post reply on HN