Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[_EAllusion]

It's a very common evangelical apologetic to argue that the existence of common virtues or advances in human understanding such as science are dependent on a specific Christian cultural context and atheists only can enjoy them by being parasitic upon it. These are done with varying levels of sophistication with subs comment here being on the low end. They're all painfully stupid, but some at least go through the trouble of having a superficial sheen to them.

Take some aspiring evangelical apologist armed with a Ph.D. and aiming for a Templeton prize, hit him over the head with a hammer, and you get subs assertion.

[_honorentheos]

It's a very common evangelical apologetic to argue that the existence of common virtues or advances in human understanding such as science are dependent on a specific Christian cultural context and atheists only can enjoy them by being parasitic upon it. These are done with varying levels of sophistication with subs comment here being on the low end. They're all painfully stupid, but some at least go through the trouble of having a superficial sheen to them.

Take some aspiring evangelical apologist armed with a Ph.D. and aiming for a Templeton prize, hit him over the head with a hammer, and you get subs assertion.

To be fair to someone who rejects evolution of species from common ancestry as subbie does, he's left with little else to explain the world as he sees it other than the gods, fickle as they are, give and take away as they please. It's an interesting demonstration of how a person beginning from a certain position with hand-me-down beliefs, such as there being a sort of Ur-religion in the form of God having taught Adam directly, is essentially rendered blind to evidence and the broader scope of human history.

Now, SPG might get pleasure out of this comment, wishing to point out that it is exactly what he's been saying regarding the blind spots caused by assuming the views of a more materialistic, science-fixated parent culture. And he might insist his claim of being open to alternative views is an intellectual virtue precisely because it means every path should theoretically be available to him such that REAL TRUTH or the world of perfect forms is more available to him than to others who aren't open to the broadest selection of available theories. To which I would suggest Lewis Carroll be given consideration:

My First is singular at best:
More plural is my Second:
My Third is far the pluralest -
So plural-plural, I protest
It scarcely can be reckoned!

My First is followed by a bird:
My Second by believers
In magic art: my simple Third
Follows, too often, hopes absurd
And plausible deceivers.

My First to get at wisdom tries -
A failure melancholy!
My Second men revered as wise:
My Third from heights of wisdom flies
To depths of frantic folly.

My First is ageing day by day:
My Second's age is ended:
My Third enjoys an age, they say,
That never seems to fade away,
Through centuries extended.

My Whole? I need a poet's pen
To paint her myriad phases:
The monarch, and the slave, of men -
A mountain-summit, and a den
Of dark and deadly mazes -

A flashing light - a fleeting shade -
Beginning, end, and middle
Of all that human art hath made
Or wit devised! Go, seek HER aid,
If you would read my riddle!

[_canpakes]

Yes, humility and gratitude as virtues do not and did not exist outside of (western) Christian cultures.

This is Dinesh Souza level stupidity.

It’s very much a two-dimensional view of the world he lives in. And he’ll take his crippled point of view and hold it up as if it is somehow smarter than all of the other things he simply refuses to consider or understand.

I don’t even think there’s a semi-rational way to support his POV, but subs likes to dabble in irrationality. I think that he has tried to defend it in threads prior, and failed.

[_canpakes]

... use some measure of healthy skepticism ...

... Evolution of sexual reproduction

Ceeboo, healthy skepticism works in many directions.

Ignoring any unexplained ‘natural’ evolution into a system that relies on sexual reproduction between a male and female organism, why would any God decide that such a system was the fair and/or preferable option, given other circumstances that affect that arrangement?

I’m not being facetious; this is a serious question intended to explore the logic of why this exists.

Ceebs, no thoughts on this?

[_Jersey Girl]

Better late than never, I say!

I think that the gratitude (or thankfulness) implies a relationship. Those are inner qualities or emotions that we typically express via outward actions or words. So how do you express your gratitude for all the things in the Universe or do you feel any need to express what you feel via your actions at all? If you express them in words, who is the listener?

Voof. Those are profound questions that I'm sure most people could write books worth of sentiments on. Despite what our friend subgenius asserts, I think humility can be an innate human attribute that has arisen from cooperative relationships and existential needs being met. This:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humility

demonstrates that humility itself is emergent and expressed throughout a variety of cultures and philosophical thought.

I had no idea how complex a question I was asking until I read your link and I am sure that's only the tip of the iceberg. I'll admit that I skipped over most of the religious content though I was interested in Buddhism and Taoism (no clue why) and near the end, I forced myself to read Nietzsche but only because I'm somewhat familiar with who he is/what he has written and I wanted to keep myself from gravitating to what is most comfortable to me. People do not give me near enough credit for my willingness to intentionally jam intellectual toothpicks under my fingernails to reach the other side of what I personally think and believe.

To your questions:

"So how do you express your gratitude for all the things in the Universe or do you feel any need to express what you feel via your actions at all?"

I do feel the need quite often, and that can admittedly be because of how I was raised. It could also just be a part of my fundamental makeup. My mother, when I was a child, used to remark often enough that I had a kind heart and a good nature. Perhaps some people are just imbued with a predisposition toward gratitude and a lack of arrogance, which I think create a sense of humbleness. Not totally sure.

Here I think you are aligning yourself with this from the link:

Humility, in various interpretations, is widely seen as a virtue which centers on low self-preoccupation, or unwillingness to put oneself forward, so it is in many religious and philosophical traditions, it contrasts with narcissism, hubris and other forms of pride and is an idealistic and rare intrinsic construct that has an extrinsic side.

As to how I do it? Honestly it varies from moment to moment. I know it's founded in mindfulness and focus, though. Stopping to smell the roses, and then focusing in on the moment to observe the miracle of the rose creates awe and then is itself a catlyst toward humility. You do that often enough you realize soon enough how everything is essentially beauty and art, despite an absence of fundamental meaning. The universe is an endless expanse to be discovered and honored.

You all never see my personal writings. Particularly those about how I feel when I'm near the ocean. Though there is one post in Terrestrial where I did eek out on that limb in full public view. It's near identical to what you wrote using the rose as an example and the magnitude of the universe.

Here, you say that you believe or think that (in part) the universe is to be honored. I don't know how to honor something where there is no reciprocal relationship in place. In my mind, there has to be a giver and that, I think, is the greatest difference between my own thinking and that of a person who is atheistic.

I can well imagine a universe without a god that caused it. I can't fully grasp feelings or expressions of gratitude without that involving a giver that I am grateful to. I can't say that I understand how to be grateful to the universe. I can say that I'm grateful for the universe, but in my mind that implies a giver to be grateful to.

"If you express them in words, who is the listener?"

You know. Sometimes I think this reality is a simulation,

I've read your comments to that effect.

and I talk to my mother who may be on the other side of it.

I do the same thing and not just with my mother. I don't know if it is because we cannot fathom them not existing or that we simply take a chance that they do continue to exist. This isn't in keeping with Biblical teachings, but I talk to the deceased quite frequently as if they continue to be part of my world. It's almost like breaking the fourth wall when I do it.

Sometimes I revert to the sense there is a god and I discuss the moment with it. Sometimes I think the universe is a totality and I emote toward it or whisper something in case it's aware.

That right there puts me in mind of Karen Armstrong's History of God and what she says about the Sky God. Whether there exists a god in some form or another, a higher power of simply the forces of the Universe, what this tells me is that the notion of something higher and/or outside of ourselves is fully human.

I can't know if that is a carry over from your previous religious belief or not. So far as I am concerned, it simply is what you sense some times.

Sometimes, well, most of the time, I think this reality is what it is, and I think think good thoughts or think good words and send them on their way into the ether.

I can't make myself get there in my head. I can't make myself send thoughts on their way without imagining a receiver.

Whatever the case may be, and whatever the ultimate nature of this reality is, I still feel various virtues and I feel a need to act upon them in my own way.

Because your mother was right about you.

Did this address your questions? I know get irritated when I ask specific questions from board members and they gloss over them, so I hope I gave you an adequate response.

- Doc

Yes it did. I also think that I unknowingly posed a question the answer(s) to which are so complex and cumbersome as to make it an impossible exchange on a message board.

I want to make an observation. It seems to me that you are an atheist who leaves room open to the possibility of something "out there" and are willing to take a chance now and then, to try to communicate with it in some way. If that is the case, you are a rare atheist at least in my experience.

Before you all ever laid eyes on this screen name of mine, I spent approximately 10 years engaging atheists and allowing myself to be engaged by them. You're more candid than most in your comments. In my eyes, your ability to make yourself vulnerable is one of your greatest strengths.

It was always a case of all or nothing. "See? No god needed!" (That's a direct quote). Okay fine. But I do think that humans are wired to seek relationships and you can call that survival based biology or a necessary product of evolution or whatever you want to call it, I just do think we're wired to relationships. Of course I think that. My entire orientation is about relationships and behavior patterns. I don't deny that I might have a blind spot on account of it.

Thank you for letting me interview you and answering my questions without condescension or mockery. If it snows again and I have power, I think I might want to take this up again with you.

[_Jersey Girl]

Part of this has to do with finding out how you (or other atheists) think about things and developing further my own self awareness. For example, I think there may be a way to think about humility and gratitude that has nothing to do with a belief in a higher power but since I'm oriented to God belief, I have no experience with it and want to hear how atheists think and see the world. I'll try to work some of this into the reply that I make to your post above.

I really admire and appreciate your perception on this point. I think you would agree with me that our mutual friend, the scientist Craig Criddle, though an atheist, is one of the humblest, most compassionate and appreciative people on earth. We both have learned much from him, and despite his own great learning and intelligence, he acknowledges and appreciates insight he has gained even from us.

Yes, he is exactly who you say he is. I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that there are times that I'd like to have another go at you, Craig and JAK all at the same time again or let you have a go at me, twenty years later and see what came of it.

But, I'm afraid you all ruined me for life.

:-)

[_SPG]

I would never accept that you understand it all.

Oh, nor would I. Perhaps the difference between us is that I pretty sure where the boundary between my knowledge and my ignorance lies, and (given that life is finite) I don't spend a lot of time in vague speculations about what lies beyond that boundary. After all, all I have is a few litres of mildly electrified live porridge in my skull, and it would be unfair to expect it to be able to contain the answer to everything, or even to be able to formulate all the relevant questions needed to get even 1% of the way there. Of what one does not know, thereof one must remain silent. (I didn't say that, by the way. Guy called Ludwig Wittgenstein.)

Here is a little present for you, Try reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Things-Lu ... way&sr=8-2

That's just one edition: others are available. A man in Rome wrote it 2,000 years ago, with the huge ambition of explaining how everything in the universe worked, on the basis that everything was made of atoms, and that is all there is. Try it. It has the same effect on the mind as a sharp mouthwash has on the teeth and gums.

So Chap, at your recommendation, I got this book, went through it over the weekend.

It doesn't say anything that I haven't said here, which is perspectives change over time. I'm familiar the old cults the Stoics and the Atoms, a little. A lot of our philosophy was sort of hashed out by these guys and I think that we leaned towards the Stoics, even though as a cult, they died out.

While some things seemed really familiar and relatable, other things (spoken with the same conviction) were just completely wrong. Some things, key points, I think are still used today that I think is wrong. Another old group, Sanskrit, also had a "nature of things" sort of text. I like theirs more on some points. In stead of "atoms" they had a "primary substance" which I think speaks to some beliefs I had. What they called Akasha (primary substance) sound more like a quantum stuff, something so sensitive it records all things.

But the point, we think something and we realize that we are wrong. His take on the some of the substances, like spirit and identity, I think is wrong and there are many possibilities based on new data that we have. Like, 97% of our universe is in a "higher quantum" dimension. We explain this by imagining that a neutrino being so small that it can shoot through our planet, between the atoms and electrons and never hit anything.

Energy in a high dimension is maybe the same sort of things, like electrons and protons, but more energized. Their vibration is so tight, it almost doesn't exist in our universe. They still have mass, I guess, but we cannot see them or really detect them.

What we consider soul and spirit can easily exist in energy form we simply cannot see with our instruments. I don't say, "cannot see," because there are millions of accounts where people have seen.

[_Res Ipsa]

Do you have a reference to 97% of our universe being in a higher quantum dimension? How are neutrinos an explanation for this? And isn’t it true that neutrinos can pass through the earth?

[_Chap]

Do you have a reference to 97% of our universe being in a higher quantum dimension?

Wanna bet that he does?

So Chap, at your recommendation, I got this book [Lucretius, De Rerum Natura], went through it over the weekend.

It doesn't say anything that I haven't said

Erm, the point in suggesting that you should read this 2,000 year old book was not that you should think of its author as some kind of competitor for whatever prize it may be that you are going in for ...

[_Res Ipsa]

Chap, I hope he does. I’d like to read up.