Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Over at WEIT, reader Ben Goren asks: “Why doesn’t Jesus call 911?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at Why Evolution Is True, New Atheist Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a letter he received from one of his regular readers, Ben Goren, regarding a major theological flaw which (he claims) undermines not only Christianity, but any religion that worships a God (or gods) who is both omniscient and good: why doesn’t such a being (or beings) assist the police, firefighters and ambulance workers by calling 911 whenever someone is in danger? Goren writes:

Imagine you find yourself in one of any number of calamitous situations — somebody you’re with clutches her chest in pain and falls to the floor; you hear, coming from the far end of a dark alley, the voice of a frightened old man crying for help; a tree falls as you’re driving down a lonely road, missing you but smashing the car following you.

In all such cases, the very first thing you — or anybody else — would do is call 9-1-1…

Now, imagine that it’s not just a single incident you observed and yet stood silently by, but every such case everywhere. Never mind the fact that you’d be a pervert for looking in everybody’s bedroom windows, but to look in a bedroom window, see a lit cigarette fall from sleepy fingers and catch the curtains on fire and then not call 9-1-1 to get the firefighters on the scene before the baby in the crib burns to death in uncomprehending screaming agony, well, that would go unimaginably far beyond mere perversion and move solidly into the worst brand of criminal psychopathy…

And that, at last, brings us to the question that nobody from any religion can satisfactorily answer — at least, not if at least one of its gods (however many there are) has enough awareness and ability to answer the simplest of prayers — or, for that matter, merely has a cellphone and the compassionate instincts of even a young child.

Why doesn’t Jesus ever call 9-1-1?

Goren is not impressed with theologians who respond by making “obfuscatory excuses” and by raising “obscure questions of ‘freedom of the will’ or placing the blame on an ancient ancestral maternal progenitor who procured culinary counseling from a speaking serpent.” Still less is he impressed by the claim that God dispenses justice in the hereafter – “as if post-mortem divine retribution is of any help to the person bleeding out by the side of the road after running into a falling tree, or of any comfort to the umpteenth victim of a serial criminal who enjoys continued success despite the desperate efforts of investigators hoping for a lead or even the slightest hint of a clue.”

Goren is particularly incensed at crimes committed by religious leaders against innocent members of their own flock – for instance, crimes such as child abuse. Goren expresses his astonishment at the fact that “not once in all of history has any deity ever alerted any civil authority to the misdeeds of one of its official representatives.” Crimes such as clerical child abuse, which are committed by God’s “official representatives,” would surely warrant a Divine telephone call to emergency assistance, argues Goren.

In this short post, I’m not going to put forward an answer to Ben Goren’s question: why doesn’t Jesus (or God) call 911? Instead, I’d like to identify a few background assumptions that Goren makes, in his argument. Remember that if even one of these assumptions turns put to be incorrect, then Goren’s argument collapses:

(i) the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;

(ii) the assumption that, if God is responsible for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress, He is directly responsible, and that He cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel;

(iii) the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress;

(iv) the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;

(v) the assumption that anyone – in particular, anyone on 911 – would be capable of hearing the voice of God, if He wanted to leave an important message for them.

Finally, here are a few brief comments of mine regarding these “background assumptions” that Goren makes:

(i) God is not a mere passerby, but the very Author of our being. On the one hand, this fact increases His obligation towards individuals in distress: since He is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, God is obliged to dispense perfect justice. But on the other hand, the fact that God maintains everyone – good and bad alike – in existence may also prevent Him from dispensing justice now. (Think of the parable of the wheat and the tares.) Goren has not explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right away. As far as I can tell, the only obligation that God has towards suffering individuals here and now is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. However, we should always bear in mind that what appears to be “irreparable damage” to us, may not appear so to God;

(ii) if God has delegated the responsibility for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress to some angel (or some other super-human intelligence), then we have to consider the possibility that this intelligence – call it Lucifer if you like – has “gone rogue” and is working to sabotage God’s original plan;

(iii) if God’s always alerting 9-1-1 whenever someone is in distress would interfere with the moral development of the human race as a whole (e.g. by making them apathetic about assisting crime victims, leading to a hardening of people’s hearts towards suffering individuals), then it is at least arguable that God’s obligation not to hinder the moral development of the human race as a whole would over-ride His obligation to help those individuals who are in distress;

(iv) it is entirely possible that God, after revealing His existence to the first human beings at the dawn of human history, then asked them, as representatives of the human race as a whole, how much Divine assistance they would like to receive in the future. And it is entirely possible that these “privileged” human beings opted for little or no Divine intervention, thinking that it would give them more personal freedom and enable them to escape from the suffocating embrace (as they saw it) of a Deity Who loved them too much. It’s also entirely possible that God may have promised to comply with their decision, which would “tie His hands” until the end of human history, insofar as He cannot break a promise;

(v) finally, it may turn out to be the case that our ability to hear a message from God depends on our spiritual condition, and that bad or spiritually lukewarm people are simply incapable of hearing detailed 911 messages from the Almighty, due to their poor relationship with God. In that case, it would be our fault, not God’s, that we don’t receive 911 calls from Him, about individuals in distress.

Well, that’s about all I want to say, in response to Ben Goren’s question. The ball is now in his court.

Meanwhile, what do readers think?

Comments
Vaal
"I’m not particularly a fan of “eternity” so I would prefer the option to opt out should I desire.
Newsflash sugar! That is exactly why you are here, to opt in or opt out! As we say in our daily prayer "Thy will be done" God will say to you one of these days "Thy will be done"Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Vaal
Each time I show why my version is more coherent and morally consistent than yours
In the absence of any objective love how is subjective love more consistent? This has got to be the most incoherent illogical and unreasonable statement I've ever read from an atheist, proclaim that subjective morals are consistent..... Do you even know what subjective means? meaning; Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut. That Earth has one moon is objective — it's a fact. Whether the moon is pretty or not is subjective — not everyone will agree. Facts are objective, but opinions are subjective. So please help me here how on Gods green earth is your subjective love more consistent than objective love? The puniness of the atheist logic is breathtaking!Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Box, I appreciate the link. However, it leads me to all the same old arguments that I have never found to be convincing. (I'm around 30 years or so into my interest in philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science etc, so it's rare to encounter a new argument, though I love it when it happens). "Would you like ‘another’ God to exist? Can you think of a God that would be ‘ideal’?' I can imagine a different God existing that I would much prefer existed vs the Abrahamic God. I don't need to be able to come up with the "ideal" version to be able to image a better more desirable version IMO. Off the top of my head, I'll propose a rather modest version of God with features I'd prefer if He existed: A God who substantially reduces suffering in the world by ridding us of earthquakes, major catastrophic diseases, birth defects, cancer etc. Basically, all the things humans are working on reducing or combatting because we agree life would be better for more people without them. Providing a world where we are not distracted from our flourishing by such horrors and afflictions. (And before someone wants to say "but if you remove X then it may have bad unintended effects on the ecosystem or whatever, I am talking about a God powerful enough to do anything logically possible. Those would be contingent facts under his control and hence God could achieve these good results without contingently-based compromises). God would be actually fair and Just and compassionate, without fits of murderous, avenging pique. Heaven would be an option for anyone who desire it (and if it's great up there, surely everyone will desire it). God would be EVIDENT to all and available for consultation or consolation, rather than the hidden peek-a-boo Christian God who has left the world in religious confusion, and cries of "where is God?" when people pray into the emptiness. I'm not particularly a fan of "eternity" so I would prefer the option to opt out should I desire. That kind of God would be immediately better than the Christian God IMO. (BTW, I decided to contemplate how this God would change the world as we find it, vs talking of a world that such a God might originally have created).Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
Ben, The way I like to put it is that life after death is indistinguishable from life before birth. If you’re not distressed at the fact that you weren’t alive for the first baker’s dozen billion years after the Big Bang, you shouldn’t be any more distressed at the fact that you won’t be alive either for the next baker’s dozen billion years and more. b& Ben, not that I can tell you what type of thoughts console you. But for me the logic of that has never really worked to address the real worries about death. (Putting aside for now the worries about the pain of dying) True, if speaking only of the states of our non existence before and after death, they are equivalent. But they are not equivalent to us NOW while we are alive, and it is the distress NOW while we are alive that we are looking to alleviate. And from the perspective while we are alive, death has significantly different implications than before we existed. Before we existed, we never had any desires feelings or goals. NOW we do. And death will mean that some of our desires and goals may/will go unfulfilled. For instance I hope to live long enough to see my kids at least become independent and to be able to leave some substantial money to contribute to their well being after I'm gone. Dying early threatens the fulfillment of those goals. That's entirely different than before I was born and had no goals to fulfill. To say "but when you are dead, even if you leave your kids destitute you won't be bothered then about it any more than before you were born" would miss the point. We are talking about what thoughts ought to console us NOW while we are alive, and the thought that I will feel nothing when dead does nothing to console whatever worries I have NOW about dying and it's implications for my kid's future, etc. (I think there are ways to be somewhat accepting about death, but that particular meme doesn't do it for me). Cheers, (See folks, us atheists aren't in lock step agreement on everything).Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
StephenB, Re Heaven being a place where love is experienced in the absence of peril Now that I have explained to you three times that the Christian view of heaven is not like that, and that my view is not like that, Not the case. I have described the typical Christian conception of heaven correctly. Christians are to love God/Jesus with all their heart, and in heaven will be joined with this God Of Love in an eternal relationship. As opposed to this wretched earth full of sin, our affections and thoughts contaminated by sin and base impulses, joining God in His realm is generally held to be a vastly higher, more desirable level of existence, of bliss, joy, love. Being in Heaven is the end game, this is purportedly the BEST POSSIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS to be in, and that state of affairs is one in which love exists without suffering, evil and peril. You can not deny this as substantially accurate characterization of the Christian heaven. You've even said yourself there will be no moral dilemmas or temptations in heaven…and yet there will be love. You HAVE made the claim that God requires us to pass a "test" to get into heaven, and that on this view love is something that must "pass this test" through demonstrations of peril and sacrifice. But I've been QUESTIONING that premise on the grounds of everyday, moral consistency! So you can't just assert it as if it makes your position compelling or coherent. As I said, I've explained why, appealing to our moral sentiments on earth, this demand is actually screwed up and leads to immoral ideas - e.g. that my being in love with my family can not suffices as "love" or be good in of itself - that you or your God demand it be accompanied by peril, suffering, sacrifice. That's screwed up big time and I see every reason to reject it. (BTW, I'm feeling like I've spent enough time here and likely will be on my way....) Thank you.Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
StephenB, I'm afraid you are not reading me carefully enough, and this is leading you to continually re-assert the same false dichotomy, strawmanning my position while adding question begging. Remember: we are debating the nature of love at the moment. I'm thus far rejecting your concept of love, and arguing for mine. (Each time I show why my version is more coherent and morally consistent than yours). Therefore when you demand this: "Please take one position or the other: Agape love requires action or Agape love does not require action."… you are begging the question - taking the position that Love must be your concept of "agape" love, when that is EXACTLY what I'm arguing against. Ok, on to putting out the fire in the straw man. "You are in self-contradiction: Your position is: [a] Love requires action: [b] Love does not require action. The first is your premise, not mine. Neither premise captures specifically what I've argued. Look more carefully at what I wrote. I'll add emphasis: Vaal: I’m saying that Love (X) has implications for possible scenarios (Y) of loved ones being in peril – e.g. it predicts certain outcomes/actions IF scenario Y occurred. But the fact of my love does not entail the existence of Y – the actualization of my loved ones coming into peril. See those carefully chosen words "implications for" and "predicts?" Notice they do not say "obligate" or "require?" Remember my appeal to the common usage of "love" (dictionary definitions) as describing an emotional, mental disposition toward another person? Notice how they do not mention "require" and other such language of obligation? See where you are drawing false assumptions in your claim of spotting a contradiction? If I need to lay this out further… I have explicitly rejected that love "requires" action in the form of "physical peril and sacrificial action. " And I reject the concept that love "requires" action in the sense of an obligation. Love, in my view is not moral obligation. It is a mental attitude i.e. "an intense feeling of deep affection." It therefore has implications for - PREDICTS - how someone in love would likely act in various situations, but it is not itself a form of "requirement" or "obligation." That I love my wife suggests, predicts, I would save her in peril. But it is itself not the obligation (the obligation comes from morality). Just as someone being scared of snakes may predict their behavior when in the presence of snakes, but it is not an "obligation" that they act that way in the presence of snakes. Nor can we be, on this view, "morally obligated to love." Because as anyone knows, love (again as the word is commonly used) is not something one is entirely in control of, and you can not just "love" someone - feel deep affection - on command. Love can be encouraged, to the extent anyone can widen their affection for others. But to command as obligatory something that is not possible for us, is irrational and incoherent. Moral obligation, on the other hand, gets across this problem as it directs us to moral action, and acting for the welfare of others *whether we can summon feelings of love while we do it or not.* These are some of the reasons to keep the concept of "love" carefully distinguished from moral obligation. From conjoining it to moral-like "demands for action." It is good to love because love will motivate moral action, but it is not the obligation itself. Again: Morality will recommend action to help someone *whether someone can summon feelings of affection/love or not!" (Which is one of several reasons I'm giving to reject your concept of love). So you have still got it wrong. I do not say love requires action in the sense of obligation. And I reject that love requires the SPECIFIC types of actions or scenarios we've been discussing. It does NOT require the loved one to be put in physical peril in order for love to exist or be demonstrated. Love only *predicts* such actions because you care for a person and wouldn't want them to suffer. But "requirement/obligation" is the domain of morality.Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
Aleta, Christianity is the only 'religion', i.e. metaphysical worldview, which brought forth the modern scientific revolution. Thus the success of modern science is in fact strong evidence that the Christian worldview is true:
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pantheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
bornagain77
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Ben Guron Why do you care? If there is no rhyme or reason for the universe your caring about it is what's incoherent. Can you give me a single reason for your caring?Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Aleta, do you think consciousness, specifically your conscious experience of 'you', is emergent from a material basis? i.e. That your mind is merely your brain? If so, you must hold that 'you', as you consciously experience yourself, and which is the most sure thing a person can know about reality, must be a 'neuronal illusion'. There simply is no other alternative given the materialistic premises that 'you' prefer to be true.
There is only one sort of stuff, namely, matter-the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology-and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain. Daniel Dennett "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994
David Chalmers is semi-famous for getting the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness across to lay people in a very easy to understand manner:
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
Supplemental note:
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”. J. B. S. Haldane ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Materialism Ought to be Judged as Much by the Ignorance It Demands as by the Knowledge It Purports to Afford - Michael Egnor - December 6, 2014 Excerpt: Materialism, properly understood, purports to afford knowledge, but its salient contribution to modernity is the ignorance it demands. Materialism is a denial of reality. It's an impoverished superstition, hardly more than magical thinking. Materialism is an amalgam of unexamined presuppositions, delusions of explanatory relevance, smug scientism, self-refuting pretense, and witless non-sequiturs posing as "scientific" conclusions. The fact is that the world is plainly more than atoms in the void and man is plainly more than an evolved meat machine. Our beliefs and judgments and insight -- all that make us human -- are immaterial, and it is obvious that transcendent purpose permeates nature.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/materialism_oug091771.html
bornagain77
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
to ba77: I don't know anything about what Dawkins, Coyne, and Rosenberg (whoever he is) think that the self "I" is, but "neuronal illusion" is certainly not a phrase I would use.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT
Religious beliefs are stories. The Spanish philosopher Santayana said something to the effect that religion is sacred literature. People since before the dawn of history have made up overarching stories for several purposes: to explain the mysteries of things we don't understand or know about, to provide a worldview structure for social cohesion, and so on. Through the process of socialization, each generation buys into those stories as true. However, the truth of religious stories is one of affirmation, not confirmation - people essentially say, more or less explicitly, I commit to seeing the world this way, and to believing these things. Religious beliefs are not confirmed "scientifically", or by empirical evidence in general. They are affirmed by the members of the society as a shared agreement about how to see the world, and how to act in the world. They are not empirically true.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Aleta: Metaphysics can’t be proven scientifically... So? "Scientifically" can’t be proven scientifically.Mung
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
Well Aleta, thanks for your evidence-free 'personal' belief. By the way, do 'you' think the person of 'you' is a neuronal illusion like Dawkins, Coyne, Rosenberg, and other militant atheists think? If so, why should I care one iota what 'you' believe since 'you' are not real but are merely an illusion?
"What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession 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. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
at 37:51 minute mark of following video, according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a person: (the unity of Aristotelian Form is also discussed) i.e. ironically, in atheists denying that God really exists, they end up denying that they themselves really exist as real persons.
Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
bornagain77
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
I should make it clear that my working belief is that we don't have any non-material spirit that survives, even of the Buddhist kind that Alan Watts describes. When we're dead, we're dead. That's it. I like the Buddhist story better than those of other religions, but that's essentially a literary preference, not a statement about truth.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
"Metaphysics can’t be proven scientifically" Well 'proof' is in the eye of the beholder, but regardless of that, science, as I have shown, can certainly strongly support one worldview over another. Or do you deny even that self evident truth because of your atheistic bias? If you do, then it will simply be even more evidence that atheists are severely and unfairly biased towards atheism no matter what the evidence says to the contrary.bornagain77
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Metaphysics can't be proven scientifically, neither yours nor any that I might like. That's why I wrote, "If I were to commit ...", not "I believe ..."Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
Aleta, actually your comment is rather embarrassing in itself. You act as if worldviews are not decided by what is true scientifically, but by what is preferable personally. As far as I can tell, atheists constantly let there personal preferences dictate what worldview they are willing to believe is true. They never allow the scientific evidence to have its fair say. Atheists claim to be rational and scientific, but I have found that that is the complete opposite of the truth. Their personal preference and desire for an atheistic worldview is always, no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, given primary consideration over the evidence. Which really is quite a shame, since science is suppose to primarily be about the unbiased pursuit of truth:
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity:
The overturning of the Copernican Principle and the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as the correct solution for the 'theory of everything': https://docs.google.com/document/d/17u0srH9x3kUiei43aOHoKolLsRERhPpUfI9WNhxyLrE/edit
bornagain77
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
What a silly comment. Your dislike for me is causing you to embarrass yourself.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
Aleta,
If I were to commit myself to a metaphysical belief, I could go with this.
The arrogance implicit in this statement is breathtaking. Aleta speaks as if all of the competing metaphysical claims are waiting for him, all atwitter, breathlessly hoping "pick me! oh please pick me!" Barry Arrington
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Aleta, you have believed a lie. There is far more observational evidence that the 'you', the 'you' that is the unified individual soul that constitutes 'you' as a 'person', continues on after death than there is observational evidence for Darwinian evolution:
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
In the following study, researchers who had a bias against NDEs being real, set out to prove that they were merely hallucinations by setting up a questionnaire that would prove that the memories of NDEs were merely hallucinatory in nature. They did not expect the results that they got:
'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
Don Piper, whose movie on his experience, '90 Minutes In Heaven', was just released last Friday, made the following rather startling comment:
"More real than anything I've experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death." - Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven," 10 Years Later - video (2:54 minute mark) https://youtu.be/3LyZoNlKnMM?t=173
This following video interview of a Harvard Neurosurgeon, who had a Near Death Experience (NDE), is very interesting. His NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy altogether to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold.
A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ASWnPJSf7o
Here is a neat quote that I like:
"I think death is an illusion. I think death is a really nasty, bad lie. I don’t see any truth in the word death at all" – Pam Reynolds Lowery (1956 – May 22, 2010) http://christopherlovejoy.com/2011/03/20/who-you-really-are/
Supplemental note:
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings picture - What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? http://cdn-4.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/harvardd-2.jpg
bornagain77
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
When you die, it’s like throwing a drop of water back into the ocean.
The way I like to put it is that life after death is indistinguishable from life before birth. If you're not distressed at the fact that you weren't alive for the first baker's dozen billion years after the Big Bang, you shouldn't be any more distressed at the fact that you won't be alive either for the next baker's dozen billion years and more. b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Alan Watts (google him if you don't know who he was) once wrote, and I paraphrase,
When you die, it's like throwing a drop of water back into the ocean.
This has stuck with me for over 40 years. In this view, individuality is a property of a living biological organism, not a property of the spirit that lies within. When we die, that spirit goes back to being an indistinguishable part of the unified cosmic spirit. No individual "I" goes on after death even though the essential spark of the divine that dwelt within me does continue as an undifferentiated part of the one spirit that animates the world. I like this. If I were to commit myself to a metaphysical belief, I could go with this.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Ben Goren:
…but infinite anything is my idea of Hell.
Yes, please turn off the respirator, unplug the electricity and let me sleep. Forever.Daniel King
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while
Dylan, "Visions of Johanna"Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
I’m no member of an established religion. I simply believe that there is a God, because there is excellent evidence for it. For me it’s perfectly clear that, without a God, — without life after death — life is meaningless.
Yes. Your life has no meaning other than whatever meaning you give to it. I'm sorry that this makes you feel uncomfortable, but the fact that it is true remains. No matter how hard you clap your hands, Tinkerbell does not live; she remains a fictional character in a faery tale, in the same Neverland as all the gods ever invented.
Let’s say that you are going to die tomorrow and on your deathbed are given a choice: ‘lights out’ or heaven, you would choose ‘lights out’ because you “have no reason to want anything more”?
If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets. And, frankly, I have no desire whatsoever to spend an infinite amount of time in the company of the sort of petty, vindictive, heartless, childish incompetent as are all the gods being advertised in this thread. For that matter...all who claim to look forward to eternal life have no clue what that actually entails. Even the most incomprehensibly spectacular orgasmic bliss is going to get boring after the first few hundred trillion years -- and you still haven't made it across the lobby yet; the opening act is infinitely far away, and the curtain is never coming down on the show. Sure, I'd love more -- much more, even -- than the few score years I'm likely to have...but infinite anything is my idea of Hell. Let me check out on my own schedule, whenever I've decided I've had enough. b&Ben Goren
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Vaal: It’s not that I “refuse” to believe, it’s that I don’t believe because I find arguments for God unconvincing.
The arguments for atheism pale in comparison. In order to see this, here — an article by WJMurray — may be a good place to start.
Vaal: I both don’t believe the Christian God exists and wouldn’t want it to be true that the Christian God exists (..)
Would you like 'another' God to exist? Can you think of a God that would be 'ideal'?
Aleta: I appreciate that I have this life to lead, and I accept the arc of human life as it goes from birth to death – I have no reason to want anything more, or to believe that there is anything more.
Let's say that you are going to die tomorrow and on your deathbed are given a choice: 'lights out' or heaven, you would choose 'lights out' because you "have no reason to want anything more"? If you have to make this choice for your loved ones, would you make the same decision?Box
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
SB: “Well, you need to make your mind. Love either implies action or it does not. If it does, then it is not limited to a feeling. You can’t have it both ways. Love either requires loving actions or it does not.” Vaal
I have already explained why that is a false dichotomy. Simply re-stating the false dichotomy is not a rebuttal.
No, you haven't. A statement cannot be true and false at the same time. Law of Non-Contradiction. Please take one position or the other: Agape love requires action or Agape love does not require action. What is your answer?
This is IF/THEN reasoning.
I know how it works. It appears that you do not. I am using If/Then reasoning to rebut your claims.
You may argue against this, but I am not in self contradiction.
You are in self-contradiction: Your position is: [a] Love requires action: [b] Love does not require action. My question persists: Are you loving your wife [agape love] if you abandon her and put her in a nursing home at her hour of greatest need on the grounds that having feelings of love are enough. Are you loving her if you refuse to pay the price of sacrificing your time? Or, it is enough to have "feelings" of love for her when you abandon her? SB: “Christians are permitted to define love as agape love and the Christian God is the one you are presuming to scrutinize. When I use the term “love,” therefore, I mean Christian love.”
Sure. But remember you are supposed to be able to give an argument for why another rational person – i.e. me – ought to accept your premises.
Of course. That is why I am asking you rational question grounded in my argument. I am asking you to show that you are a rational person by giving me an honest answer to my questions. SB: That tells us nothing about how you will act when things are not going so well.
Sure it does. As I’ve already said, if you love someone it would have implications for various *possible* scenarios, but that doesn’t entail those scenarios must occur for there to be actual love.
Implications? Possible scenarios? I want to know if you really believe what you say? If you love your family, does love require you to come to their rescue if they are being abused in the way you described? Or, would that not be a requirement and simply be a "possible scenario?" ----"I know how I feel about my wife and what I’d do if she was in peril. But if you hold that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH and that rather, you must put my wife in peril so I can demonstrate my care for my wife to you or some other observers, or that you must put her in harm’s way or else my love really isn’t valid, then you are demonstrating a monstrous moral vision that no one actually accepts put to real life."--- Nope. I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth. I asked you if love requires you to perform loving acts or if you think it is enough to simply have feelings of love even as you refuse to perform loving acts. So far, you have taken both sides of the issue. This is a contradiction.
And, again, the concept of Christian Heaven shows this – Christians think the best state of love is one in which it is felt without the existence of peril, evil and suffering.
Now that I have explained to you three times that the Christian view of heaven is not like that, and that my view is not like that, I can only assume that you are so desperate that you feel the need to say something that you know isn't true. Why would you knowingly make a false statement? Is that your idea of good faith dialogue? Again, there is no need to prove love or to suffer in heaven. The proving is over and the suffering is over. Is it necessary for me to explain this to you yet a fourth time. SB: The question is this: Are you going to rescue your family (or try) from the torturers, or are you going to say, “I have feelings of love for my family and that is enough.”
So here you are, actually adopting the morality of the evil guy in my story. I tell you I love my wife and kid, but that’s not enough. It’s “nonsense” UNLESS it is demonstrated by putting my family in peril and forcing the sacrifice upon me.
So, again, you appear afraid to answer a simple question. Clearly, you do not have much confidence in your position. You come here trying to scrutinize the Christian religion, but when your scrutiny is put under scrutiny, your attitude seems to change.StephenB
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Thanks, Box. You write,
I simply believe that there is a God, because there is excellent evidence for it. For me it’s perfectly clear that, without a God, — without life after death — life is meaningless.... “No God” is an unspeakable sad state of affairs. So I do understand sad atheists. I understand the atheist who says: of course I want there to be God and a heavenly hereafter, but I cannot believe it is so. What I don’t understand is the willful atheist, who doesn’t want there to be a God.
It may be perfectly clear to you that "without a God, — without life after death — life is meaningless", but I definitely do not believe my life is meaningless because it will come to an end at my death, and I am definitely not sad that there is no God and attendant life after death. I don't "want there to be God and a heaven thereafter." I appreciate that I have this life to lead, and I accept the arc of human life as it goes from birth to death - I have no reason to want anything more, or to believe that there is anything more. That's why I don't think "refusing to believe" applies to me.Aleta
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Aleta,
I don’t think you’d say that, but then I don’t know why you’d say I was willfully refusing to believe in the Christian God.
Box has seen you operate here at UD. And from that observation he has concluded that you frequently fail to act in good faith. For example, you pointed to the fact that 2+2=4 does not work when one is adding velocities, all the while knowing (as a math teacher) that 2+2=4 is meant to work only in the context of adding sets each with a cardinality of two to arrive at a set with a cardinality of four. To use the map/territory metaphor you are so found of, you pointed to Arizona and hooted about how a map of Texas is insufficient to describe it. Now if you were a mathematics layman like me, I might pass this off as a mistake. But any competent math teacher would know better. I infer, therefore, that you were not acting in good faith. Therefore, it is only natural to infer that you did not engage in a good faith evaluation of the evidence for Christianity. Thus, Box's statement.Barry Arrington
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Box, "My question for those people “who willfully refuse to believe” is: Why?" I personally don't know any atheist who fits that description so I'm guessing you'll be waiting a long time for an answer. It's not that I "refuse" to believe, it's that I don't believe because I find arguments for God unconvincing. I both don't believe the Christian God exists and wouldn't want it to be true that the Christian God exists, just as I don't believe ISIS have a Doomsday Device but certainly wouldn't want it to be true they had one. I"m inferring from the Nagel quote that he is describing a similar mind set about the Christian God. So I don't think Nagel is expressing the idea his disbelief in God is due to an act of "willful disbelief" rather than reasoned assessment of the arguments. No atheist I've ever met thinks like that, and I'm sure Nagel is far too smart to endorse such a mind-set.Vaal
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 13

Leave a Reply