Religous debates and questions

Was on Fox News (again- its like crack cocaine- not good for you but sort of morish)- when I found this gem-

'Angels are bodiless and spiritual, so how do they deliver their messages to people of flesh and blood? One answer is noetically—that is, through our thoughts.
Christians should know that angels speak to us. As messengers of God, it’s one of their primary tasks, and the scripture and teaching tradition of the early Christian church testify to the fact.'

On a 'News' site? Its also ironically and typically of Fox, inaccurate- the version of Angels represented here is pure NT and Pauline with a flavour of the Middle ages about it- Angels in the OT are very much physical- the people of Sodom try to have sex with them for example- when they first arrive in the city they require food and water and somewhere to sleep.
Or to put it another way- Tolkien got it a lot closer- when in the physical world they have to take on the a physical form that is suseptable as any other physical form.

Not to disparage anyones religous beliefs but in my view if you hear voices in your head and think its not your own- you are probably suffering from a mental illness.

Ooo - I have to go back and read my Sodom and Gomorrah. I thought it was just a few sentence throw-away story, but it sounds much juicier.

Genesis chapter 19 Halfwise

'And there came two angels to Sodom at even.....and (the angels) entered his (Lots) House; and hemade them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
But before they lay down, th emen of the city...compassed the house round...and they called for Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, and we may know them.
And Lot went out the door....and said, I pray you, brethern, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.


The men of Sodom then try to force entry intothe house and Angels temporarly blind them so they 'wearied themselves to find the door'.

Big of Lot to offer up his two daughters to the crowd though- classic Biblical parenting that is!

Oh-ho .... trying to sodomize male angels, were they? If the angels were female you might argue they were falling for the girl-next-door heavenly wholesomeness, the way any gobsmacked teenage boy would; but this...this is outright free-wheeling depravity.

I'm starting to like these Sodomites.

Reading 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins (yet again). Got me thinking about things (yet again).


Two quotes pinched from Wikipedia:

Quote 1: In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god is a delusion which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

Quote 2 Dawkins identifies himself repeatedly as an atheist, while also pointing out that, in a sense, he is also agnostic, though "only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden".

Richard appears to be a bit dismissive of agnosticism. But my personal logic leads me to see any wavering (at all) from 'atheism' (or 'theism' for that matter) as being a tacit admission of one's 'agnostiscism'.

In the first quote above, I blue-lighted 'almost certainly' to highlight that even Richard the Arch-atheist is actually an 'agnostic', even though he seems always to proffess his purity on the issue.

I quoted the second one mainy for fun to be honest, it having a good joke about people's credulous belief in fairies (), but it does seem a bit defensive and miscievous on his part. For, on one level, believing in 'fairies' may be as ridiculous as believing in 'gods', yes; but trying to parralell belief in fairies with belief in gods seems like a cheap shot at best. Does Richard really think religious folk believe in 'fairies' any more than he does? It is not a reasoned comment in my opinion as much as a useful (and evil) point to make in his debating strategy. That is, condescend your opponents, not by presenting actual facts, just febrile distortions, so as to make them look stupid to begin with. Once you've established your opponent's 'belief' in fairies, then anything they say must be a bit dodgy, what! That's not gonna lead one to a good discussion, but it might win you a debate whenever the audience you're pitching to votes. (This is why I prefer 'discussion' to 'debate' btw. )

What think you guys?

(And, pleeeeeeeease, NO boring arguments about the existence or non-existence of Jehovah or Krishna or Allah or Marduk, (or Istarte, for the ladies! ) I'd like to hear what you think of my hypothesis that Richard Dawkins is actually an 'agnostic' and not, as he proclaims from the rooftops, an 'atheist'!)

Dawkins is quite frank about being both an agnostic and an atheist in The God Delusion. I'm not sure how far in you are, but in his discussion of agnosticism in chapter two (page 73 in my edition; very close to the fairies comment) he proposes a sliding scale of theism, agnosticism, and atheism. I quote:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
   
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.
   
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
   
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
   
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
   
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
   
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Dawkins is far more reasonable than his detractors give him credit for, and if he is confrontational, then all I can say is that has no bearing on the merit of his arguments (whatever you think that merit is). Dawkins' main point about agnosticism is that it deals with knowledge, whereas atheism and theism deal with belief. It is completely possible and self-consistent to believe (or disbelieve) in God while admitting that you do not know for sure one way or another. I think that most people fall into categories two, three, five, and six on Dawkins' scale. There are certainly some religious people who claim to know for certain that God exists (though as Dawkins points out, there aren't as many atheists of corresponding conviction), but there are certainly others. I haven't looked for any data on the topic, but speaking anecdotally most of my Christian friends don't claim absolute knowledge of spiritual truths. I will admit though that my sample is probably biased since many of those friends are Universalist Quakers.

As for the fairy analogy, well, I won't deny that Dawkins can be condescending. However, his central point is sound. We do not (and can not) have absolute knowledge of the truth or falsity of every alleged supernatural phenomenon that is out there. However, the default assumption that most people (including religious people) make in the evidence of absence is that such phenomenon are false until demonstrated otherwise. Of course, rigorous scientific thinking requires us to admit that we cannot be absolutely sure even in the presence of evidence, although if the evidence is overwhelming this distinction is almost entirely academic.

[EDIT: Let me add that the fairy comment is part of a running analogy he uses, based on a quote by Douglas Adams that is used as the book's epigraph.]

It's been a while since I've read The God Delusion so I can't guarantee that I'm representing Dawkins' points exactly as he said them (except the sliding scale, which is a direct quote). Dawkins had a major impact on my way of thinking when I was younger and questioning my religious beliefs though, and I think he makes a number of solid points. I know a lot of people find Dawkins to be overly abrasive and while I don't, I understand that everyone has different standards. I just hope that people take Dawkins' arguments for what they are worth rather than getting hung up on the way he delivers them.

I am no 5 on that list.

Eldorion wrote:Dawkins is quite frank about being both an agnostic and an atheist in The God Delusion. I'm not sure how far in you are, but in his discussion of agnosticism in chapter two (page 73 in my edition; very close to the fairies comment) he proposes a sliding scale of theism, agnosticism, and atheism...

I did say 'yet again' Eldo. I wish you'd pay attention.

As to the rest of your response, I say, "Yes, well and good."

Buuuut.... (NB I am not going to be diverted from my purpose by all that superfluous stuff (to the point I'm making) that you throw so gaily about the netosphere - this Thread that is! )

Anything less than 'full knowledge' is 'agnostiscism' in my view.

And I'm not being a intellectual wimp here either!

Let me explain by way of example (so as you'll 'know' what I mean when I talk about 'knowledge'! )

I have a 1994 Toyota sedan and it has a steering wheel. I'm prepared to say, I 'know' it has a steering wheel and that it's not just a belief but a fact of nature. The facts as I (scientifically) know them encourage me to shout it from the rooftops: "I know my car has a steering wheel! Hurrah!"

Does anyone (other than an existentialist maybe ) doubt it?

Of course, you may have to choose a car of your personal knowledge to concede the point. Think of your family car, Eldo. Does it have a steering wheel? It does! Good, then I trust you 'know' your car has a steering wheel. Indeed, you know you have a whole car! (Your knowledge enlarges! ) You are in no way agnostic about it, and I trust in your knowledge. It may be your belief but I know your belief is true! It's a scientic fact you have a car - or at least, you know cars exist (just in case your family doesn't actually have a car of their own. I feel for you if that's the case - cars being so practical, real, and status building. )

If all Richard's facts lead him to believe God or gods don't exist, then he 'believes' they don't exist. He doesn't 'know'. If he doesn't know, then he is an agnostic. (This doesn't mean he's weak minded, just that he needs to be intellectually honest). So, Richard IS an agnostic who doesn't 'believe' in God or gods. Rationally an 'agnostic' that is, and spiritually (for want of a better expression) a Non-believer. If he 'believes' gods don't exist then he is as delusional (in a sense) as god-believers are. Maybe it's true, Richard is ALSO an atheist, but that's not very scientific of him, now is it?

Dawkins identifies himself as number six on his own scale, though leaning towards number seven, so he would absolutely agree with you. I think his point is that if you have firm enough belief to be a de facto theist or atheist, then you don't have to actually go around saying "de facto" all the time. I tend to agree with this.

EDIT: I'm not sure why you think it's unscientific to identify oneself as both an agnostic and an atheist. Could you elaborate?

Eldorion wrote:Dawkins identifies himself as number six on his own scale, though leaning towards number seven, so he would absolutely agree with you. I think his point is that if you have firm enough belief to be a de facto theist or atheist, then you don't have to actually go around saying "de facto" all the time. I tend to agree with this.

So in other words he says, "I'm an agnostic." Why doesn't he just come clean? I'm an agnostic and can live with it.

He's pretty clear about being an agnostic, so I don't know what there is to come clean about. I'm not sure why that is problematic in your view. (This ties into my edit of my previous post, which I made while you were posting. )

Eldorion wrote:EDIT: I'm not sure why you think it's unscientific to identify oneself as both an agnostic and an atheist. Could you elaborate?

It lacks intellectual rigour that's why. Surely we shouldn't let him get away with being both intellectually rigourous and intellectually rigourless. Let's play by his own avowed (unwritten) rules about intellectual rigour!

Eldorion wrote:He's pretty clear about being an agnostic, so I don't know what there is to come clean about. I'm not sure why that is problematic in your view. (This ties into my edit of my previous post, which I made while you were posting. )

I'd argue you can't be both - not if you want to be seen as intellectually consistent. Also it smells a bit dishonest.

EDIT: To be clear about what I mean, I don't think you can be an atheist and an agnostic. Simple as that. You are either one or the other.

I disagree. As I wrote in my first response, agnosticism is about knowledge, where as atheism and theism is about belief. I certainly don't assume that every religious person I meet is claiming -- implicitly or otherwise -- to have absolute knowledge of the existence of God. By that measure, most people are technically agnostic to some extent. However, in everyday usage agnosticism more commonly refers to people without strong beliefs one way or another (number five on Dawkins' scale). For the purposes of clear communication, it is better to identify oneself by whatever you are de facto if you have a firm opinion.

Actually, if Richard believes he's an atheist, then he becomes a Fundamentalist, which he denies in his book! His atheism stems from his 'faith.' He becomes a religionist.

When he says he is almost certain that gods don't exist, then he unmistakably proffesses his agnostiscism.

Which one is it, Ricard! Come clean!

Orwell wrote:Actually, if Richard believes he's an atheist, then he becomes a Fundamentalist, which he denies in his book! His atheism stems from his 'faith.' He becomes a religionist.

That's making a completely unjustified assumption about people who identify as atheist -- or theist. See my previous post.

Eldorion wrote:I disagree. As I wrote in my first response, agnosticism is about knowledge, where as atheism and theism is about belief. I certainly don't assume that every religious person I meet is claiming -- implicitly or otherwise -- to have absolute knowledge of the existence of God. By that measure, most people are technically agnostic to some extent. However, in everyday usage agnosticism more commonly refers to people without strong beliefs one way or another (number five on Dawkins' scale). For the purposes of clear communication, it is better to identify oneself by whatever you are de facto if you have a firm opinion.

I never knew you were an intellectual coward, Eldo!

Edit: I know, let's compromise, Eldo. You say 'defacto-atheist', I'll say 'agnostic'! They are synonyms, methinks.

You're welcome to disagree with the usage of the words, but you can't criticize someone of intellectual cowardice if their usage is reasoned and consistent. Besides, for Dawkins to identify as an agnostic, while technically accurate -- which he says himself! -- would be very misleading given the colloquial usage of the word "agnostic".

EDIT:

Orwell wrote:Edit: I know, let's compromise, Eldo. You say 'defacto-atheist', I'll say 'agnostic'! They are synonyms, methinks.

I wouldn't say they're synonyms, but 'de facto-atheist' is definitely a sub-category of agnosticism. I haven't disagreed with that at all.

A sub-catergory of agnosticism is it?

As a bit of a tangent. This conversation reminds me of a discussion I had about 30 years ago. A friend at that time said to me, "If you're an agnostic, then does that mean you sit on the fence. Sometimes you believe in God and sometimes you don't." I wasn't quick enough to say, "Your fence is a delusional fence!" He got clean away that day!

Mind, it's true 'beliefs' can fluctuate, but 'agnosticism' is always about saying, "I don't know." Yes, it's a 'belief' you don't 'know', but let's not collapse this discussion completely into the fuzzy realm of existentialism. (I actually 'know' existentialists exist btw and stand completely committed to that 'belief'! )

Perhaps sub-category isn't the best word, but you have agnostics who lean towards theism, agnostics who lean towards atheism, agnostics who can't make up their minds, and agnostics who just don't give a fuck (I may have missed a bit of nuance here). I think it's misleading to just lump all of them together without any distinction.

THE FIRST WIVES CLUB HAS ARRIVED ON NETFLIX INSTANT AHHHHHHHH.

Oh Eldo. Stop it now or I'll start saying rude remarks about your intellectual rigour!

There is no distinction. Ultimately one knows or one doesn't. I know I'm getting down and dirty and prosaic here, but I mean it when I say I can (ultimately) have (actual) knowledge of my steering wheel but not (ultimately, as yet) have knowledge of the existence or non-existence of gods. Alright, we may only ever 'believe' we 'know'. I only 'believe' my steering wheel exists. Yet, I fully don't 'believe' that I 'know' gods do or don't exist. If that puts me in a basket full of others who can or can't commit themselves to agnosticism, then so be it.

Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins says he wants atheists to come out of the closet while (in my opinion) disparaging those agnostic types (like me! ) who can or can't or will or won't commit themselves to atheism (even to 99 percentage points ). He's a bad person in that regard in intellectual terms - maybe indeed he's one of those Fundamalists he so readily derides after all.

EDIT: I had to edit as I put words I didn't mean to put and had to change them! (My own intellectual riguour, when it comes to reading my own posts properly, is not always as good as it should be. )

Carly Castle wrote:THE FIRST WIVES CLUB HAS ARRIVED ON NETFLIX INSTANT AHHHHHHHH.

You're being boring now, Carly. And that's against the unwritten rules of Forumshire. Though I admire you're willingness to try at being cheeky and distracting and dismissive and nonsensical and off the wall at the same time. But sadly, as I said, ultimately boring. There, I said it!

"... to quote Weezer." it is a dummy pronoun

Orwell wrote:Oh Eldo. Stop it now or I'll start saying rude remarks about your intellectual rigour!

There is no distinction. Ultimately one knows or one doesn't. I know I'm getting down and dirty and prosaic here, but I mean it when I say I can (ultimately) have (actual) knowledge of my steering wheel but not (ultimately, as yet) have knowledge of the existence or non-existence of gods. Alright, we may only ever 'believe' we 'know'. I only 'believe' my steering wheel exists. Yet, I fully don't 'believe' that I 'know' gods do or don't exist. If that puts me in a basket full of others who can or can't commit themselves to agnosticism, then so be it.

Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins says he wants atheists to come out of the closet while (in my opinion) disparaging those agnostic types (like me! ) who can or can't or will or won't commit themselves to agnosticism. He's a bad person in that regard in intellectual terms - maybe indeed he's one of those Fundamalists he so readily derides after all.

...And you're accusing me of a lack of a intellectual rigor?

I have no idea why the idea of having a firmly held personal belief about something you don't know for sure is so hard to accept. Frankly, the comparison of "knowledge of ones steering wheel" and "knowledge of the great spiritual mysteries of the universe" is so far-fetched that I'm at a loss as to what more to say in response to it. I would think it obvious why it is much easier to have certain knowledge of the former than of the latter. If you don't believe that agnosticism and atheism can overlap, well, I know I can't change your mind, but you're not making a convincing case. You keep throwing around the term "intellectual rigor" but I don't see what's rigorous about lumping people with widely divergent opinions together into categories based on uncommon definitions of everyday terms.