Atheists vs Christians: Who makes the better claims ?

_{Otangelo
January 20, 2023

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I am covering in this video some of the main talking points in debates between atheists and Christians.

Comments

Bornagain77/9
And yet I cited your hero Dawkins to show that Darwinian materialists, whether they honestly admit it or not, are inextricably wedded to that “that form of extreme reductionism”
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

That "pitiless indifference" passage is not a defense of reductionism, it is simply arguing that the Universe as we observe it appears to be indifferent to our existence. The following passage, however, shows that Dawkins takes the opposite view of reductionism to the one you impute to him.
For those that like '-ism' sorts of names, the aptest name for my approach to understanding how things work is probably 'hierarchical reductionism'. If you read trendy intellectual magazines, you may have noticed that 'reductionism' is one of those things, like sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it. To call oneself a reductionist will sound, in some circles, a bit like admitting to eating babies. But, just as nobody actually eats babies, so nobody is really a reductionist in any sense worth being against. The nonexistent reductionist - the sort that everybody is against, but who exists only in their imaginations - tries to explain complicated things directly in terms of the smallest parts, even, in some extreme versions of the myth, as the sum of the parts! The hierarchical reductionist, on the other hand, explains a complex entity at any particular level in the hierarchy of organization, in terms of entities only one level down the hierarchy; entities which, themselves, are likely to be complex enough to need further reducing to their own component parts; and so on. It goes without saying - though the mythical, baby-eating reductionist is reputed to deny this - that the kinds of explanations which are suitable at high levels in the hierarchy are quite different from the kinds of explanations which are suitable at lower levels. This was the point of explaining cars in terms of carburettors rather than quarks. But the hierarchical reductionist believes that carburettors are explained in terms of smaller units . . ., which are explained in terms of smaller units . . . , which are ultimately explained in terms of the smallest of fundamental particles. Reductionism, in this sense, is just another name for an honest desire to understand how things work. The Blind Watchmaker (1986), Richard Dawkins
Seversky_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Sev: "Nobody really believes in that form of extreme reductionism." And yet I cited your hero Dawkins to show that Darwinian materialists, whether they honestly admit it or not, are inextricably wedded to "that form of extreme reductionism"
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Sev: "As for our conscious awareness of objective reality, I don’t see it as an illusion but neither is it the whole picture." Of course you don't believe that consciousness is a 'neuronal illusion' because it is blatantly obvious that consciousness can't possibly be a 'neuronal illusion'.
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
And in so far as you disagree that consciousness is a 'neuronal illusion' of the material brain you are in fact, whether you honestly admit it or not, disagreeing with the reductive materialism that lies at the foundation of your Darwinian worldview,,, a worldview which holds that consciousness is some kind of 'emergent illusion' of the unconscious material particles of the brain.
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3
Sev, you really need to get honest with yourself and realize just how insane your worldview actually is. You can't keep reaching over into the Christian's worldview, and, (ahem), 'borrowing' things, in order to make up for the gross deficiencies that are found in your atheistic worldview.bornagain77_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

This is the equivalent of the high school locker room game of “mine’s bigger than yours.” You just can’t make this stuff up…..chuckdarwin_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Relatd/6
When man can only reference man then there is no higher standard. But man is not perfect, as we can see all around us.
Man can be set as a standard for purposes of comparison. We can conceive of beings that embody our worst aspects so are worse than we are on average but we can also conceive of beings that embody our best aspects and are thereby better than we are on average. The question is how do we decide what is better or worse.
In an ordered world that is based on a standard that does not come from man but revelation, man has a context, a place from which to compare truths, including those from science, observation and Divine revelation. The natural man who excludes the latter is trapped in an environment where advances in science, for example, might help him live or do certain things, but that’s it. Death is the end and nothing lies beyond it. But we are told that death is not the end.
That may be true or it may be a narrative we have developed over time to comfort ourselves in the face of a Universe that appears to be pitilessly indifferent to us.Seversky_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/4
Seversky, “How do you judge “better”?” Sev, ought not you, a Darwinian materialist, ask yourself that very question? I mean really, under Darwinian materialism, where particles, the void, and selfish genes, run the show, there really is no way for you to judge whether anything is worse or better than anything else is. At the base of your worldview there is “nothing but pitiless indifference”
You are beating up a strawman of your own - dare I say - creation. Particles, the void, and selfish genes are a part of the picture but they do not run the whole show by themselves. Nobody really believes in that form of extreme reductionism.
I mean really Seversky, the best you could ever hope to claim from your atheistic Darwinian worldview of ‘pitiless indifference’ is that evolution somehow gave you the ‘illusion’ that some things are better than other things.
Another strawman. The absence of a God does not prevent us from deciding which is the better of two alternatives by our own criteria. For example, military aviators might decide which of two fighter designs are better by comparing features such as speed, maneuverability, range and armament but those would not be appropriate to determining which of two medications is the more efficacious. Whether the Universe is one of pitiless indifference or a divine Creation is largely irrelevant. As for our conscious awareness of objective reality, I don't see it as an illusion but neither is it the whole picture. It is better understood as model in that it is created as a functional representation of what we observe via our senses but, like any model, it is not the same as the thing modeled. We know our senses can only abstract a limited range of data from all that is available out there but we use it to create a workable model that enables us to navigate that external reality reasonably well.
In other words, your atheistic worldview is bankrupt as to ever providing a real and true standard to judge whether anything really is better or worse than anything else.
If by that you mean that atheism alone does not provide moral guidance, I would agree. That is something we have to work out for ourselves and we have the ability to do that whether or not there is a God.
Whereas in Christian Theism, we do not suffer from such catastrophic epistemological failure. We have the infinite goodness of God as the real and true standard to judge whether anything is better or worse than anything else.
Are you talking about epistemology or morality? If you are referring to morality then, by the evidence of the Bible which is the only documentary record we have concerning God's teachings and behavior, the picture is inconsistent and even contradictory. That is one reason why we have apologetics.
In short Seversky, for you to even coherently answer your question “How do you judge “better”?” you must first presuppose the existence of an ultimate standard of goodness to judge by, i.e. you must presuppose the existence of God.
Are you saying that you only know whether something is good or bad is if your God tells you? If one human being shoots and kills another is that good or bad? If the killing is committed in the course of a robbery or out of malice we would say it was bad but if it was done in self-defense or to protect the life of another we might judge it to be good. However, the Sixth Commandment is usually expressed as "Thou shalt not kill". There are no caveats, qualifications or exceptions. It is we who choose the narrower interpretation of "Thou shalt not murder" Unfortunately, there appears to be no God around today who we could consult directly to clarify the issue.Seversky_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Otangelo/3
Better = more likely to be true.
Good, now how do you assess which is more likely to be true?Seversky_{January 21, 2023
January
01
Jan
21
21
2023
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

When man can only reference man then there is no higher standard. But man is not perfect, as we can see all around us. There are some who lead lives of virtue and criminals. But man has the capacity to learn and observe and make statements about what he sees to his fellow man. He might say 'the world is like this' while someone else might say, 'no, the world is actually like this.' Then men create scientific instruments and perform experiments. Why? To find out the truth. Deep down, most men prefer the truth. But some do not or would prefer an atmosphere of confusion. Choice #1 In a world of “nothing but pitiless indifference,” what value does any claim for the truth have? Does anyone live in a world of pitiless indifference? Live or die, it's all the same? Choice #2 In an ordered world that is based on a standard that does not come from man but revelation, man has a context, a place from which to compare truths, including those from science, observation and Divine revelation. The natural man who excludes the latter is trapped in an environment where advances in science, for example, might help him live or do certain things, but that's it. Death is the end and nothing lies beyond it. But we are told that death is not the end. Summary: Much can be said about the work of men from ages past that inform our understanding of the present and the great scientists and inventors that made cars and computers possible. Yet there is something - a person - beyond ourselves. Romans 2:15 "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them"relatd_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

“Atheists vs Christians: Who makes the better claims ?”
Honestly? Do you want my honest opinion? Atheists make the better claims, by far. They are so rational, these atheists. That we theists all know, right? I mean, let’s be honest for once. They are so objective. Unlike us, they are driven by science and not by personal preference. For atheists, it’s about facts, science, logic, truth, and nothing else. If there was any evidence of intelligent design in nature, a fight would break out among them to be the first ones to tell the world about it. The only reason this hasn’t happened yet is that there isn’t the slightest indication of intelligent design in biology. None whatsoever. Honestly. There is really nothing to report. Learn to trust science and reason, fellow theists. Similarly, if there was any indication of our universe being fine-tuned, the slightest whisper of an indication would suffice, they would shout it from every rooftop they could find. However, it is simply not the case that there is any indication of the universe being fine-tuned. They tell us how it is with compassion. We should understand that they have to tell the truth, right? We don’t want them to lie, do we? Let's get some self-control here. The same thing with philosophy. Suppose that atheistic philosophers would experience even the slightest problem to come up with a naturalistic explanation of a rational free person, they would loud and clearly point out that this is the case. But the reality is that they don’t experience any such problems. Blind particles in the void easily explain the existence of rational free persons and all the rest. What problems could there possibly be? There are just no problems to report. ~ Good night all.Origenes_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Seversky, "How do you judge “better”?" Sev, ought not you, a Darwinian materialist, ask yourself that very question? I mean really, under Darwinian materialism, where particles, the void, and selfish genes, run the show, there really is no way for you to judge whether anything is worse or better than anything else is. At the base of your worldview there is "nothing but pitiless indifference"
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
I mean really Seversky, the best you could ever hope to claim from your atheistic Darwinian worldview of 'pitiless indifference' is that evolution somehow gave you the 'illusion' that some things are better than other things. In other words, your atheistic worldview is bankrupt as to ever providing a real and true standard to judge whether anything really is better or worse than anything else. Whereas in Christian Theism, we do not suffer from such catastrophic epistemological failure. We have the infinite goodness of God as the real and true standard to judge whether anything is better or worse than anything else. As Jesus himself said, “No one is good – except God alone”
Only God is good A man once came to Jesus to ask him a question. The man called him “Good teacher”, but Jesus responded: “Why do you call me good? No one is good – except God alone” (Mark 10:18). Jesus didn’t respond like this because Jesus was saying he wasn’t good (we’ll come onto that in the final session!). But he wanted the man to think about what he was saying. Who is truly good? Only God is truly good. If we want to see and know what true goodness is, we need to look to the Lord. He alone has true goodness. He is 100%, pure good. https://understandthebible.uk/posts/god-is-infinitely-good/
In short Seversky, for you to even coherently answer your question "How do you judge “better”?" you must first presuppose the existence of an ultimate standard of goodness to judge by, i.e. you must presuppose the existence of God.bornagain77_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Better = more likely to be true.Otangelo_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

How do you judge "better"?Seversky_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

These videos are creepy.whistler_{January 20, 2023
January
01
Jan
20
20
2023
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply