just faith
Locked
 
|
Reading http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defends-religion/ was a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the Salafists, the zombies, and whatever.
The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga believes in, wasn't helping us along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything about the truth?
As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist—an outlook with which many of them will not be familiar."
-- rec --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own
faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these models are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this list. My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the world which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown by the butchers of each community). India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty). America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop a sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily influenced by Islamic models. OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: > Reading > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defends-religion/ > was > a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the Salafists, > the zombies, and whatever. > > The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, written > by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though he doesn't > believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so he gets very > precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and his beliefs do for > him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand slam of creationism: we > wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how the world works if the deity, > more specifically the deity that Plantinga believes in, wasn't helping us > along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything about > the truth? > > As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for secular > readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of view of a > philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist—an outlook with > which many of them will not be familiar." > > -- rec -- > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Sarbajit, Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for your reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, are we atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term? In what ways? Nick -----Original Message----- Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these models are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this list. My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the world which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown by the butchers of each community). India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty). America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop a sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily influenced by Islamic models. OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: > Reading > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen > ds-religion/ > was > a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the > Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. > > The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, > written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though > he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so > he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and > his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand > slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how > the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga believes in, wasn't helping us > along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything about > the truth? > > As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for > secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of > view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist—an > outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." > > -- rec -- > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)
Nick,
I too am interested in Sarbajit's reply, but I can tell you there are developing differences in the U.S. In the current becoming-adults generation there is a growing number of what sociologists have labeled "nones". This is a group that is not religious, but also Atheism is not a particularly salient part of their identity. That is, if given a list of religious to choose from, with "Agnostic" and "Atheist" appended to the list, they would still prefer to check "None of the Above". (The more common phenomenon is a survey in which they check or say "No" for all options, hence, "none"s.) I hypothesize that, in America, in the recent past, this group would have been quite small. For the past group, which I assert includes you (and me), Atheism was a deeply held belief, that could easily be understood as a "religion" in and of itself. However, for this new group, it does not seem to be like that at all. Eric P.S. Nicholas Rowland, a sociologist, and I have collaborated on some undergraduate research regarding these issues. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 09:32 AM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My
religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God (or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant whether a car (or religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot air. My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 million "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute reality). Having done that very successfully we were forced to go underground in the previous century, and a not insignificant portion of our adherents became "godless" Communists. Today we don't have a conception of a God as a father / creator figure. Instead we conceive God as "the" principle which regulates existence/ the uinivers/ multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is the "mechanism behind the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is whether atheists also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or set of laws) which govern "their" universe. I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in philosophical systems any more or artificial religious categories. There are too many other things going on in their lives. On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sarbajit, > > Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for your > reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, are we > atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term? > In what ways? > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf > Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > > Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own faith > even > though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own models of > reality, > apparently the trick is to ensure that these models are robust enough > accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, zombies, or maulvis and > still > continue to function. > > > > I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this > list. > My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular > country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the > world > which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by > foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider > themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim > countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of > communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown > by the butchers of each community). > > > > India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty). > America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop a > sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily > influenced by Islamic models. > > > > OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in > the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban > and Al Qaeda. > > > > Sarbajit > > > > On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Reading > >> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen > >> ds-religion/ > >> was > >> a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the > >> Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. > >> > >> The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, > >> written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though > >> he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so > >> he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and > >> his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand > >> slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how > >> the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga > believes in, wasn't helping us > >> along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything >> about > >> the truth? > >> > >> As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for > >> secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of > >> view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist-an > >> outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." > >> > >> -- rec -- > >> > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
This may be relevant to the US situation: I was brought up Baptist and
fled in my late teens. Among the reasons for fleeing was esthetic: the worldview was constricted and stifling -- it deliberately ruled out the sense of wonder and delight that comes with a science-based view of the world (evolution, cosmology, etc.). A more banal reason for flight was deep dissatisfaction with all the mumbo-jumbo. I became a Unitarian (now called Unitarian-Universalist, or UU). For those on this list unfamiliar with UUs, it's a non-credal "religion" that includes atheists, Christians, Buddhists, pagan, whatever -- there is a set of excellent principles but no creed. UU was a place that people like me, born when I was (1938), fled to. Only very recently was it brought to my attention that nowadays new UUs typically are NOT fleeing a Christian upbringing. Rather they come from the "not-affiliated", a rapidly growing group in the US. They come with little or no Christian baggage of the kind that I still drag around like Marley's chains. God or no god isn't a big deal with them. They're just looking for a community in which the deep questions of life can be thought about together in a serious, unloaded way. Bruce ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Sarbajit,
The question your definition raises is how does God, defined as " 'the' principle which regulates existence/the uinivers/multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever" differ from what science is looking for?
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote: This may be relevant to the US situation: I was brought up Baptist and ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)
I am closer in age/experience to Nick/Eric than the presumed youth
generation in question but am also, myself, more a "None" than an "Athiest". It is not (in my case) that I have too many other things going on (though I do have plenty), it is rather, that I'm not a joiner. Perhaps I "would not be a member of any club that would have me", but more to the point, I have always found even the most *inclusive* clubs to be *exclusive* at the end of the day. I took a short run at attending the Los Alamos "Universal Unitarians" only to find that the binding feature was "more tolerant than though" and I frankly could not tolerate that kind of intolerance! Ultimately clubs are not defined by what you believe in but defined by what you don't. Or in the case of MonoTheistic religions, it may seem that belief in their "one true GOD" is the defining factor, it is really the complement... that you are excluded by lack of belief in their God/Prophet/GravenImage/etc. In the case of Athiesm... I was drawn to it the first time I heard of it.. *I* wanted to belong to a club whose definition was the *lack* of belief in "One True God" but it didn't take long for me to discover that the existing "card carrying Athiests" also defined their "club" in the exclusive... to wit, you had to firmly (and vehemenently) *disbelieve* in any and all Gods to keep your good standing. Card carrying Athiests, when confronted with the likes of me had to force-fit me into the club of "Agnostics" because if I wasn't as anti-God as they were then I must be a wishy washy fence-sitter (e.g. Agnostic). These distinctions may seem subtle, but they are very real for me. I share what I understand to be Doug's position regarding Religion only not so strongly... and occasionally (only when Doug writes or speaks on the topic) suspect him of being a proselyte from the Reformed Church of Cynicism. As with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Sikhs, Musims and Adi Dharmists, I am much more inclined to let card-carrying Cynics through my door to try to complete my conversion (as I do have and express sympathies with all the above Religions from time to time) if they are also carrying a nice bottle of Whiskey, Bourbon, Gin or Tequila to lubricate the conversation. Oddly, only a very few proselytes of any religion seem to allow or the ingestion of strong spirits (poisoning the body, mind, soul?). This is what draws me most perhaps to "the modern Cynics" (as opposed to the classical version with which I think I have even more affinity in their pursuit of "Virtue in alignment with Nature"). If I were a true child of the sixties, I would perhaps require them to be carrying some yet-more-toxic and mystical-experience-inducing substances... but I'm not. It all started perhaps when I refused a draft card, now it is tamer as I refuse the AARP card I suppose, but the principle holds. I only wish I'd had the temerity to refuse the Social Security card. - Steve > Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My > religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise > I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God > (or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant > whether a car (or religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot > air. > > My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 > million "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute > reality). Having done that very successfully we were forced to go > underground in the previous century, and a not insignificant portion > of our adherents became "godless" Communists. Today we don't have a > conception of a God as a father / creator figure. Instead we conceive > God as "the" principle which regulates existence/ the uinivers/ > multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is the "mechanism behind > the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is whether atheists > also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or set of laws) > which govern "their" universe. > > I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in > philosophical systems any more or artificial religious categories. > There are too many other things going on in their lives. > > On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Sarbajit, >> >> Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for your >> reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, are we >> atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term? >> In what ways? >> >> Nick >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On >> Behalf >> Of Sarbajit Roy >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith >> >> Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own faith >> even >> though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own models of >> reality, >> apparently the trick is to ensure that these models are robust enough >> accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, zombies, or maulvis and >> still >> continue to function. >> >> >> >> I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this >> list. >> My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular >> country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the >> world >> which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by >> foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider >> themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim >> countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of >> communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown >> by the butchers of each community). >> >> >> >> India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty). >> America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop a >> sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily >> influenced by Islamic models. >> >> >> >> OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in >> the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban >> and Al Qaeda. >> >> >> >> Sarbajit >> >> >> >> On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Reading >>> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> >> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen >> >>> ds-religion/ >>> was >>> a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the >>> Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. >>> The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, >>> written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though >>> he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so >>> he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and >>> his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand >>> slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how >>> the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga >> believes in, wasn't helping us >> >>> along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything >>> about >>> the truth? >>> As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for >>> secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of >>> view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist-an >>> outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." >>> -- rec -- >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >> >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)
Sarbajit, I think I believe that everybody HAS a philosophical system. The variables are how explicit it is and whether the holder of the system is capable of engaging in analysis and critique. If somebody says they don’t have a philosophical position, it generally means that they have one and they don’t want to talk about it. A non-philosophical person is just a person who is rigid in his philosophy. As to religion, can I be religious if God plays no part in my thought or discourse, either as an assertion or a denial? Here I am prone to confusion because I may confuse religion with metaphysics. I definitely believe that there are principles operating in the universe that are not in my immediate experience yet can be called upon to explain my experience. I would be hard pressed to say what those principles ARE, but I am pretty sure they are back there somewhere. Some of them are the kind of things that physicists know, but I don’t. But not all. One of them might be The World is an OK Place, and that, if we keep tinkering and poking at it, things will get better. Another is the idea that, on average, thinking about stuff is better than not thinking about it. A third is the idea that Things Have Causes. These are all certainly elements of metaphysics, but are they religion? Nick I think that this way of being -----Original Message----- Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God (or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant whether a car (or religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot air. My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 million "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute reality). Having done that very successfully we were forced to go underground in the previous century, and a not insignificant portion of our adherents became "godless" Communists. Today we don't have a conception of a God as a father / creator figure. Instead we conceive God as "the" principle which regulates existence/ the uinivers/ multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is the "mechanism behind the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is whether atheists also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or set of laws) which govern "their" universe. I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in philosophical systems any more or artificial religious categories. There are too many other things going on in their lives. On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sarbajit, > > Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for > your reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, > are we atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term? > In what ways? > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On > Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > > Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own > faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own > models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these models > are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, > zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. > > > > I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this > list. > My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular > country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the > world > which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by > foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider > themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim > countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of > communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown > by the butchers of each community). > > > > India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty). > America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop a > sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily > influenced by Islamic models. > > > > OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in > the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban > and Al Qaeda. > > > > Sarbajit > > > > On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < <[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Reading > >> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen > >> ds-religion/ > >> was > >> a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the > >> Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. > >> > >> The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, > >> written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though > >> he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so > >> he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and > >> his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand > >> slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how > >> the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga > believes in, wasn't helping us > >> along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything >> about > >> the truth? > >> > >> As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for > >> secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of > >> view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist-an > >> outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." > >> > >> -- rec -- > >> > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve, I am happy to drink, but not because it improves the quality of my thought. There is an idea lurking in this discourse about Whiskey, roughly In vino veritas Do you think that you think better, in some respects, when you are drinking? Nick -----Original Message----- I am closer in age/experience to Nick/Eric than the presumed youth generation in question but am also, myself, more a "None" than an "Athiest". It is not (in my case) that I have too many other things going on (though I do have plenty), it is rather, that I'm not a joiner. Perhaps I "would not be a member of any club that would have me", but more to the point, I have always found even the most *inclusive* clubs to be *exclusive* at the end of the day. I took a short run at attending the Los Alamos "Universal Unitarians" only to find that the binding feature was "more tolerant than though" and I frankly could not tolerate that kind of intolerance! Ultimately clubs are not defined by what you believe in but defined by what you don't. Or in the case of MonoTheistic religions, it may seem that belief in their "one true GOD" is the defining factor, it is really the complement... that you are excluded by lack of belief in their God/Prophet/GravenImage/etc. In the case of Athiesm... I was drawn to it the first time I heard of it.. *I* wanted to belong to a club whose definition was the *lack* of belief in "One True God" but it didn't take long for me to discover that the existing "card carrying Athiests" also defined their "club" in the exclusive... to wit, you had to firmly (and vehemenently) *disbelieve* in any and all Gods to keep your good standing. Card carrying Athiests, when confronted with the likes of me had to force-fit me into the club of "Agnostics" because if I wasn't as anti-God as they were then I must be a wishy washy fence-sitter (e.g. Agnostic). These distinctions may seem subtle, but they are very real for me. I share what I understand to be Doug's position regarding Religion only not so strongly... and occasionally (only when Doug writes or speaks on the topic) suspect him of being a proselyte from the Reformed Church of Cynicism. As with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Sikhs, Musims and Adi Dharmists, I am much more inclined to let card-carrying Cynics through my door to try to complete my conversion (as I do have and express sympathies with all the above Religions from time to time) if they are also carrying a nice bottle of Whiskey, Bourbon, Gin or Tequila to lubricate the conversation. Oddly, only a very few proselytes of any religion seem to allow or the ingestion of strong spirits (poisoning the body, mind, soul?). This is what draws me most perhaps to "the modern Cynics" (as opposed to the classical version with which I think I have even more affinity in their pursuit of "Virtue in alignment with Nature"). If I were a true child of the sixties, I would perhaps require them to be carrying some yet-more-toxic and mystical-experience-inducing substances... but I'm not. It all started perhaps when I refused a draft card, now it is tamer as I refuse the AARP card I suppose, but the principle holds. I only wish I'd had the temerity to refuse the Social Security card. - Steve > Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My > religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise > I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God > (or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant > whether a car (or religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot > air. > > My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 > million "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute > reality). Having done that very successfully we were forced to go > underground in the previous century, and a not insignificant portion > of our adherents became "godless" Communists. Today we don't have a > conception of a God as a father / creator figure. Instead we conceive > God as "the" principle which regulates existence/ the uinivers/ > multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is the "mechanism behind > the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is whether atheists > also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or set of laws) > which govern "their" universe. > > I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in > philosophical systems any more or artificial religious categories. > There are too many other things going on in their lives. > > On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Sarbajit, >> >> Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for >> your reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, >> are we atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term? >> In what ways? >> >> Nick >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On >> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith >> >> Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own >> faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own >> models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these >> models are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, >> devils, zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. >> >> >> >> I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on >> this list. >> My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a >> secular country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate >> anywhere in the world which will take them in - not many do. India's >> Muslims when asked (by foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually >> volunteer they consider themselves to be better off in India >> vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim countries like Pakistan or Iran >> (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of communal frenzy which >> develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown by the butchers >> of each community). >> >> >> >> India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty). >> America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to >> develop a sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series >> was heavily influenced by Islamic models. >> >> >> >> OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent >> discipline in the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the >> world of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. >> >> >> >> Sarbajit >> >> >> >> On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < <[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Reading >>> >>> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-de >>> fen> >> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defe >> n >> >>> ds-religion/ >>> was >>> a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the >>> Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. >>> The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, >>> written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even >>> though he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic >>> philosophy, so he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that >>> his faith and his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is >>> sort a grand slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly >>> figure out how the world works if the deity, more specifically the >>> deity that Plantinga >> believes in, wasn't helping us >> >>> along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything >>> about >>> the truth? >>> As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for >>> secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of >>> view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed >>> theist-an outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." >>> -- rec -- >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >> archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> >> >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
I found that I became more vocal in expressing my anti-religion leanings after having noticed that I was being bombarded by nauseating little missives like these insipid "On This Day God Wants You To Know" postings.
Message from fucking god my ass. If god is as all-powerful as advertising would lead you to believe, he would not need an internet web site to pass his little "Messages From God" along. So totally idiotic. --Doug
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: I am closer in age/experience to Nick/Eric than the presumed youth generation in question but am also, myself, more a "None" than an "Athiest". ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
mfg.png (36K) |
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick, you asked Steve, specifically, but I'm happy to chime in.
I like drinking. It brings me out of my shy, reticent shell, helping me to become less hesitant in expressing myself. I also like having a couple of beers before a gig, because either 1) I play better with a couple of good brews in me, or 2) I care less about precision and more about relaxing into the spontaneity of performing live in front of an audience.
--Doug
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Interesting. It would seem that this would translate into “thinking better”, on some problems in some circumstances. Unless “thinking” is defined as “that cognitive activity that is never improved by drinking.” Of course, one possibility is that alcohol improves your sense of performance but not your actual performance. Or, for a time, it might actually improve your performance by improving your sense of performance. But there is a real interesting problem here given that alcohol is known to damage people’s driving ability while often increasing their sense of the quality of their own driving. Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Nick, you asked Steve, specifically, but I'm happy to chime in. I like drinking. It brings me out of my shy, reticent shell, helping me to become less hesitant in expressing myself. I also like having a couple of beers before a gig, because either 1) I play better with a couple of good brews in me, or 2) I care less about precision and more about relaxing into the spontaneity of performing live in front of an audience. --Doug On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Steve, I am happy to drink, but not because it improves the quality of my thought. There is an idea lurking in this discourse about Whiskey, roughly In vino veritas Do you think that you think better, in some respects, when you are drinking? Nick -----Original Message----- I am closer in age/experience to Nick/Eric than the presumed youth generation in question but am also, myself, more a "None" than an "Athiest". It is not (in my case) that I have too many other things going on (though I do have plenty), it is rather, that I'm not a joiner. Perhaps I "would not be a member of any club that would have me", but more to the point, I have always found even the most *inclusive* clubs to be *exclusive* at the end of the day. I took a short run at attending the Los Alamos "Universal Unitarians" only to find that the binding feature was "more tolerant than though" and I frankly could not tolerate that kind of intolerance! Ultimately clubs are not defined by what you believe in but defined by what you don't. Or in the case of MonoTheistic religions, it may seem that belief in their "one true GOD" is the defining factor, it is really the complement... that you are excluded by lack of belief in their God/Prophet/GravenImage/etc. In the case of Athiesm... I was drawn to it the first time I heard of it.. *I* wanted to belong to a club whose definition was the *lack* of belief in "One True God" but it didn't take long for me to discover that the existing "card carrying Athiests" also defined their "club" in the exclusive... to wit, you had to firmly (and vehemenently) *disbelieve* in any and all Gods to keep your good standing. Card carrying Athiests, when confronted with the likes of me had to force-fit me into the club of "Agnostics" because if I wasn't as anti-God as they were then I must be a wishy washy fence-sitter (e.g. Agnostic). These distinctions may seem subtle, but they are very real for me. I share what I understand to be Doug's position regarding Religion only not so strongly... and occasionally (only when Doug writes or speaks on the topic) suspect him of being a proselyte from the Reformed Church of Cynicism. As with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Sikhs, Musims and Adi Dharmists, I am much more inclined to let card-carrying Cynics through my door to try to complete my conversion (as I do have and express sympathies with all the above Religions from time to time) if they are also carrying a nice bottle of Whiskey, Bourbon, Gin or Tequila to lubricate the conversation. Oddly, only a very few proselytes of any religion seem to allow or the ingestion of strong spirits (poisoning the body, mind, soul?). This is what draws me most perhaps to "the modern Cynics" (as opposed to the classical version with which I think I have even more affinity in their pursuit of "Virtue in alignment with Nature"). If I were a true child of the sixties, I would perhaps require them to be carrying some yet-more-toxic and mystical-experience-inducing substances... but I'm not. It all started perhaps when I refused a draft card, now it is tamer as I refuse the AARP card I suppose, but the principle holds. I only wish I'd had the temerity to refuse the Social Security card. - Steve > Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My > religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise > I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God > (or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant > whether a car (or religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot > air. > > My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 > million "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute > reality). Having done that very successfully we were forced to go > underground in the previous century, and a not insignificant portion > of our adherents became "godless" Communists. Today we don't have a > conception of a God as a father / creator figure. Instead we conceive > God as "the" principle which regulates existence/ the uinivers/ > multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is the "mechanism behind > the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is whether atheists > also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or set of laws) > which govern "their" universe. > > I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in > philosophical systems any more or artificial religious categories. > There are too many other things going on in their lives. > > On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Sarbajit, >> >> Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for >> your reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, >> are we atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of that term? >> In what ways? >> >> Nick >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On >> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith >> >> Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own >> faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own >> models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these >> models are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, >> devils, zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. >> >> >> >> I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on >> this list. >> My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a >> secular country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate >> anywhere in the world which will take them in - not many do. India's >> Muslims when asked (by foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually >> volunteer they consider themselves to be better off in India >> vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim countries like Pakistan or Iran >> (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of communal frenzy which >> develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being thrown by the butchers >> of each community). >> >> >> >> India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan dynasty). >> America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to >> develop a sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series >> was heavily influenced by Islamic models. >> >> >> >> OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent >> discipline in the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the >> world of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. >> >> >> >> Sarbajit >> >> >> >> On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < <[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Reading >>> >>> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-de >>> fen> >> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defe >> n >> >>> ds-religion/ >>> was >>> a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the >>> Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. >>> The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, >>> written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even >>> though he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic >>> philosophy, so he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that >>> his faith and his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is >>> sort a grand slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly >>> figure out how the world works if the deity, more specifically the >>> deity that Plantinga >> believes in, wasn't helping us >> >>> along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything >>> about >>> the truth? >>> As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for >>> secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of >>> view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed >>> theist-an outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." >>> -- rec -- >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >> archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> >> >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
As regards to the quality of my music with/without beer lubrication. I may not, in fact sound any better after having had a couple.
But I don't care. Because I'm enjoying it more.
--Doug
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
Hi Russ
The question doesn't differ The answer(s) may. Our own answer (or belief) is that the answer (to the question) is so beyond the comprehension of mere mortals that its "unknowable". ie. "There is universal law "dharma" to explain everything but we can never know all of it. ... (and God does play dice) ... so it cannot be simple and Turing-computable (like science wants with all rational numbers lined up in a row) ... so it must be complex (the "i" factors") .. as Rosen describes ... " Incidentally and to put things in perspective, the Mr "Bose" of the Higgs-Boson "God" particle, was of our faith and his main teachers were also of our faith. So yes, we also live in the world of science, and acknowledge science in all its developments are paths (very expensive paths) to come closer to "God" by. Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sarbajit, > > The question your definition raises is how does God, defined as " 'the' > principle which regulates existence/the uinivers/multiverse/ parallel > worlds or whatever" differ from what science is looking for? > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > *** Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 > Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ > * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach > *_____________________________________________* > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Dear Steve
3 quick interjections. 1) You will never find an ":Adi Dharmist" (??) knocking at your door, bugging you at an airport or selling / dumping you literature. Adi Dharm does not proselytise .. period. My own occasional statements on this mailing list are only to test whether "your" models work with "our" data / beliefs. Just FYI, Adi Dharm does not have priests (or popes) or their analogues, no "churches", no holy books, no prophets (or prophesies), etc. etc. 2) In Adi Dharm you are allowed to consume anything. In turn we believe that all life exists to be consumed. Nothing which has/had "life" is inedible, but nobody is forcing you to consume anything either. PS: Coconut 'feni' is an amazing liquid if you can get the genuine (triple distilled) article. Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: > I am closer in age/experience to Nick/Eric than the presumed youth > generation in question but am also, myself, more a "None" than an > "Athiest". > > It is not (in my case) that I have too many other things going on > (though I do have plenty), it is rather, that I'm not a joiner. Perhaps > I "would not be a member of any club that would have me", but more to > the point, I have always found even the most *inclusive* clubs to be > *exclusive* at the end of the day. I took a short run at attending the > Los Alamos "Universal Unitarians" only to find that the binding feature > was "more tolerant than though" and I frankly could not tolerate that > kind of intolerance! Ultimately clubs are not defined by what you > believe in but defined by what you don't. Or in the case of > MonoTheistic religions, it may seem that belief in their "one true GOD" > is the defining factor, it is really the complement... that you are > excluded by lack of belief in their God/Prophet/GravenImage/etc. > > In the case of Athiesm... I was drawn to it the first time I heard of > it.. *I* wanted to belong to a club whose definition was the *lack* of > belief in "One True God" but it didn't take long for me to discover that > the existing "card carrying Athiests" also defined their "club" in the > exclusive... to wit, you had to firmly (and vehemenently) *disbelieve* > in any and all Gods to keep your good standing. Card carrying Athiests, > when confronted with the likes of me had to force-fit me into the club > of "Agnostics" because if I wasn't as anti-God as they were then I must > be a wishy washy fence-sitter (e.g. Agnostic). > > These distinctions may seem subtle, but they are very real for me. > > I share what I understand to be Doug's position regarding Religion only > not so strongly... and occasionally (only when Doug writes or speaks on > the topic) suspect him of being a proselyte from the Reformed Church of > Cynicism. As with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Sikhs, Musims > and Adi Dharmists, I am much more inclined to let card-carrying Cynics > through my door to try to complete my conversion (as I do have and > express sympathies with all the above Religions from time to time) if > they are also carrying a nice bottle of Whiskey, Bourbon, Gin or Tequila > to lubricate the conversation. > > Oddly, only a very few proselytes of any religion seem to allow or the > ingestion of strong spirits (poisoning the body, mind, soul?). This is > what draws me most perhaps to "the modern Cynics" (as opposed to the > classical version with which I think I have even more affinity in their > pursuit of "Virtue in alignment with Nature"). If I were a true child > of the sixties, I would perhaps require them to be carrying some > yet-more-toxic and mystical-experience-inducing substances... but I'm not. > > It all started perhaps when I refused a draft card, now it is tamer as I > refuse the AARP card I suppose, but the principle holds. I only wish > I'd had the temerity to refuse the Social Security card. > > - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Dear Nick
I think the both of us are talking at cross purposes here. I know next to nothing about philosophy. Perhaps somebody like Richard Dawkins could help you here. In my faith (I do wish the Islamists, Mormons, Sikhs, etc on this list would speak out) . the "Devil" is all that is "known" (and hence wrong) whereas "God" is that which is "unknown" / unknowable. The more we become knowledgeable the less wise/efficient we are. Islam apparently has a similar view (although perhaps not for the same reasons as us). Images on Television are "devilish" (whereas those gazillion black and white pixellated dots on a blank channel are "God"). I recall a SF short story about a programmer who starts off decoding this seemingly random white noise with a BASIC progam on an Apple II and works it up eventually to a supercomputer where he starts getting pseudo-gibberish possibly from God. In sum: Philosophy falls in the realm of Devils ... and your name is very apt. Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sarbajit, > > I think I believe that everybody HAS a philosophical system. The variables > are how explicit it is and whether the holder of the system is capable of > engaging in analysis and critique. > > If somebody says they don't have a philosophical position, it generally > means that they have one and they don't want to talk about it. A > non-philosophical person is just a person who is rigid in his philosophy. > > As to religion, can I be religious if God plays no part in my thought or > discourse, either as an assertion or a denial? Here I am prone to > confusion > because I may confuse religion with metaphysics. I definitely believe that > there are principles operating in the universe that are not in my immediate > experience yet can be called upon to explain my experience. I would be > hard > pressed to say what those principles ARE, but I am pretty sure they are > back > there somewhere. Some of them are the kind of things that physicists > know, > but I don't. But not all. One of them might be The World is an OK Place, > and that, if we keep tinkering and poking at it, things will get better. > Another is the idea that, on average, thinking about stuff is better than > not thinking about it. A third is the idea that Things Have Causes. These > are all certainly elements of metaphysics, but are they religion? > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > I think that this way of being > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf > Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:42 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > > > > Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My > religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise I > have > no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God (or Gods or > gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant whether a car (or > religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot air. > > > > My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 million > "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute reality). Having done > that very successfully we were forced to go underground in the previous > century, and a not insignificant portion of our adherents became "godless" > Communists. Today we don't have a conception of a God as a father / creator > figure. Instead we conceive God as "the" principle which regulates > existence/ the uinivers/ multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is > the "mechanism behind the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is > whether atheists also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or > set > of laws) which govern "their" universe. > > > > I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in philosophical > systems any more or artificial religious categories. > > There are too many other things going on in their lives. > > > > On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson < <mailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Sarbajit, > >> > >> Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for > >> your reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, > >> are we atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of > that term? > >> In what ways? > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > >> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy > >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > >> > >> Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own > >> faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own > >> models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these models > >> are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, > >> zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. > >> > >> > >> > >> I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this > >> list. > >> My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular > >> country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the > >> world > >> which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by > >> foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider > >> themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim > >> countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of > >> communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being >> thrown > >> by the butchers of each community). > >> > >> > >> > >> India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan >> dynasty). > >> America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop > a > >> sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily > >> influenced by Islamic models. > >> > >> > >> > >> OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in > >> the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban > >> and Al Qaeda. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sarbajit > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < < <mailto:[hidden email]> mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Reading > >> > >>> < > <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > >> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen > >> > >>> ds-religion/ > >> > >>> was > >> > >>> a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the > >> > >>> Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, > >> > >>> written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though > >> > >>> he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so > >> > >>> he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and > >> > >>> his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand > >> > >>> slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how > >> > >>> the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga > >> believes in, wasn't helping us > >> > >>> along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything > >>> about > >> > >>> the truth? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for > >> > >>> secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of > >> > >>> view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist-an > >> > >>> outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- rec -- > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > >> unsubscribe, maps at < <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org> > <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org > >> > >> > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> > http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Sarbajit,
Trying to make things succinct, I think the argument Nick is trying to make goes something like this: To act a certain way in a certain situation is to "have a belief." Thus, our lives are full of beliefs, which are variously consistent or inconsistent depending on how you examine our lives. When people claim to lack deeply held beliefs, either 1) they don't know what they believe (i.e., lack meta-awareness), or 2) they just don't want to talk about their beliefs (i.e., are lying). Thus, in general, the claim to not be philosophical indicates a rigidity of belief, rather than a lack of belief. Nick's beliefs include (i.e., Nick acts as if the following things were true): The world can be improved. Thinking is virtuous. Things have causes. His eventual question seemed to be: Do these beliefs make me religious, in some general sense? Eric On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 02:25 PM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Nick I think the both of us are talking at cross purposes here. I know next to nothing about philosophy. Perhaps somebody like Richard Dawkins could help you here. In my faith (I do wish the Islamists, Mormons, Sikhs, etc on this list would speak out) . the "Devil" is all that is "known" (and hence wrong) whereas "God" is that which is "unknown" / unknowable. The more we become knowledgeable the less wise/efficient we are. Islam apparently has a similar view (although perhaps not for the same reasons as us). Images on Television are "devilish" (whereas those gazillion black and white pixellated dots on a blank channel are "God"). I recall a SF short story about a programmer who starts off decoding this seemingly random white noise with a BASIC progam on an Apple II and works it up eventually to a supercomputer where he starts getting pseudo-gibberish possibly from God. In sum: Philosophy falls in the realm of Devils ... and your name is very apt. Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sarbajit, > > I think I believe that everybody HAS a philosophical system. The variables > are how explicit it is and whether the holder of the system is capable of > engaging in analysis and critique. > > If somebody says they don't have a philosophical position, it generally > means that they have one and they don't want to talk about it. A > non-philosophical person is just a person who is rigid in his philosophy. > > As to religion, can I be religious if God plays no part in my thought or > discourse, either as an assertion or a denial? Here I am prone to > confusion > because I may confuse religion with metaphysics. I definitely believe that > there are principles operating in the universe that are not in my immediate > experience yet can be called upon to explain my experience. I would be > hard > pressed to say what those principles ARE, but I am pretty sure they are > back > there somewhere. Some of them are the kind of things that physicists > know, > but I don't. But not all. One of them might be The World is an OK Place, > and that, if we keep tinkering and poking at it, things will get better. > Another is the idea that, on average, thinking about stuff is better than > not thinking about it. A third is the idea that Things Have Causes. These > are all certainly elements of metaphysics, but are they religion? > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > I think that this way of being > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf > Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:42 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > > > > Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My > religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise I > have > no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God (or Gods or > gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant whether a car (or > religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot air. > > > > My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 million > "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute reality). Having done > that very successfully we were forced to go underground in the previous > century, and a not insignificant portion of our adherents became "godless" > Communists. Today we don't have a conception of a God as a father / creator > figure. Instead we conceive God as "the" principle which regulates > existence/ the uinivers/ multiverse/ parallel worlds or whatever. Deus is > the "mechanism behind the clock" and not the "clock maker". The issue is > whether atheists also acknowledge that there is a principle (or law . or > set > of laws) which govern "their" universe. > > > > I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in philosophical > systems any more or artificial religious categories. > > There are too many other things going on in their lives. > > > > On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson < <mailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]> wrote: > > Sarbajit, > > > > Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for > > your reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, > > are we atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses of > that term? > > In what ways? > > > > Nick > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > > Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy > > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > > > > Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own > > faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own > > models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these models > > are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, > > zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. > > > > > > > > I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on this > > list. > > My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a secular > > country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in the > > world > > which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked (by > > foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they consider > > themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in Muslim > > countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts of > > communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being > thrown > > by the butchers of each community). > > > > > > > > India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan > dynasty). > > America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to develop > a > > sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was heavily > > influenced by Islamic models. > > > > > > > > OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent discipline in > > the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the Taliban > > and Al Qaeda. > > > > > > > > Sarbajit > > > > > > > > On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < < <mailto:[hidden email]> mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Reading > > > > < > <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > > <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen > > > > ds-religion/ > > > > was > > > > a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the > > > > Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. > > > > > > > > The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, > > > > written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though > > > > he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so > > > > he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and > > > > his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand > > > > slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how > > > > the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga > > believes in, wasn't helping us > > > > along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything > > about > > > > the truth? > > > > > > > > As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for > > > > secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of > > > > view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist-an > > > > outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." > > > > > > > > -- rec -- > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > unsubscribe, maps at < <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org> > <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> > http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2
As a youngster, I read a (stunning :-) book that contained this:
“What the hell are you getting so upset about?” he asked her bewilderedly in a tone of contrite amusement. “I thought you didn’t believe in God.” “I don’t,” she sobbed, bursting violently into tears. “But the God I don’t believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He’s not the mean and stupid God you make Him out to be.” Yossarian laughed and turned her arms loose. “Let’s have a little more religious freedom between us,” he proposed obligingly. “You don’t believe in the God you want to, and I won’t believe in the God I want to. Is that a deal?” (for a more extended quote: http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/the-god-i-dont-believe-in-is-a-good-kind-god/ ) If you haven't read (or haven't recently . . .) Heller's book, you really should :-) Thanks . . . tom On Sep 17, 2012, at 1:52 AM, Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote: > Reading http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defends-religion/ was a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. > > The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even though he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, so he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that Plantinga believes in, wasn't helping us along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything about the truth? > > As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed theist—an outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." > > -- rec -- > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)
Wow. I have to get behind myself! Nick
-----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 2:26 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith Dear Nick I think the both of us are talking at cross purposes here. I know next to nothing about philosophy. Perhaps somebody like Richard Dawkins could help you here. In my faith (I do wish the Islamists, Mormons, Sikhs, etc on this list would speak out) . the "Devil" is all that is "known" (and hence wrong) whereas "God" is that which is "unknown" / unknowable. The more we become knowledgeable the less wise/efficient we are. Islam apparently has a similar view (although perhaps not for the same reasons as us). Images on Television are "devilish" (whereas those gazillion black and white pixellated dots on a blank channel are "God"). I recall a SF short story about a programmer who starts off decoding this seemingly random white noise with a BASIC progam on an Apple II and works it up eventually to a supercomputer where he starts getting pseudo-gibberish possibly from God. In sum: Philosophy falls in the realm of Devils ... and your name is very apt. Sarbajit On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sarbajit, > > I think I believe that everybody HAS a philosophical system. The > variables are how explicit it is and whether the holder of the system > is capable of engaging in analysis and critique. > > If somebody says they don't have a philosophical position, it > generally means that they have one and they don't want to talk about > it. A non-philosophical person is just a person who is rigid in his philosophy. > > As to religion, can I be religious if God plays no part in my thought > or discourse, either as an assertion or a denial? Here I am prone to > confusion because I may confuse religion with metaphysics. I > definitely believe that there are principles operating in the universe > that are not in my immediate experience yet can be called upon to > explain my experience. I would be hard pressed to say what those > principles ARE, but I am pretty sure they are back > there somewhere. Some of them are the kind of things that physicists > know, > but I don't. But not all. One of them might be The World is an OK > Place, and that, if we keep tinkering and poking at it, things will get > Another is the idea that, on average, thinking about stuff is better > than not thinking about it. A third is the idea that Things Have > Causes. These are all certainly elements of metaphysics, but are they religion? > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > I think that this way of being > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 10:42 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > > > > Well atheism would only convey a negation of belief (in God) to me. My > religious model has no problem accommodating atheists, and contrawise > I have no problem with an atheist's belief model built around no-God > (or Gods or gods or GOD ...). As long as it functions its irrelevant > whether a car (or > religion) runs on gasoline or horse-manure or hot air. > > > > My religion (loosely called "Adi Dharm") originally reduced the 330 > million "gods" of Hinduism down to one ("Brahma" the absolute > reality). Having done that very successfully we were forced to go > underground in the previous century, and a not insignificant portion of > Communists. Today we don't have a conception of a God as a father / > creator figure. Instead we conceive God as "the" principle which > regulates existence/ the uinivers/ multiverse/ parallel worlds or > whatever. Deus is the "mechanism behind the clock" and not the "clock > maker". The issue is whether atheists also acknowledge that there is a > principle (or law . or set of laws) which govern "their" universe. > > > > I agree with Eric, newer generations are not interested in > philosophical systems any more or artificial religious categories. > > There are too many other things going on in their lives. > > > > On 9/17/12, Nicholas Thompson < <mailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Sarbajit, > >> > >> Given your range of experiences with the religious, I am curious for > >> your reflections on atheism as a religion. When push comes to shove, > >> are we atheists any the less religious, in the very broadest senses >> of > that term? > >> In what ways? > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > >> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy > >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 8:51 AM > >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] just faith > >> > >> Platinga's view is fairly well aligned with the beliefs of my own > >> faith even though our "God" may be different. We all develop our own > >> models of reality, apparently the trick is to ensure that these >> models > >> are robust enough accommodate everybody else's gremlins, devils, > >> zombies, or maulvis and still continue to function. > >> > >> > >> > >> I probably know more Muslim's personally then half the members on >> this > >> list. > >> My neighbour is a Muslim and I also employ Muslims. India is a >> secular > >> country whose 13% Muslim population is free to migrate anywhere in >> the > >> world > >> which will take them in - not many do. India's Muslims when asked >> (by > >> foreigners such as the BBC or the NYT) usually volunteer they >> consider > >> themselves to be better off in India vis-a-vis their brethren in >> Muslim > >> countries like Pakistan or Iran (notwithstanding the occasional bouts >> of > >> communal frenzy which develop over pigs feet or beef entrails being >> thrown > >> by the butchers of each community). > >> > >> > >> > >> India was ruled for over 200 years by Muslims as was China (Yuan >> dynasty). > >> America probably needs to experience Muslim rule for some time to >> develop > a > >> sustainable and robust reality model. The "Dune" SF series was >> heavily > >> influenced by Islamic models. > >> > >> > >> > >> OT: Interestingly, "Islamic science fiction" is an emergent >> discipline in > >> the Arabic world to attract younger followers to the world of the >> Taliban > >> and Al Qaeda. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sarbajit > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9/17/12, Roger Critchlow < < <mailto:[hidden email]> >> mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Reading > >> > >>> < > <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defe > n> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen > > > >> >> <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-def >> en> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/philosopher-defen > >> > >>> ds-religion/ > >> > >>> was > >> > >>> a rather odd experience this week, mixed in with Sam Bacile, the > >> > >>> Salafists, the zombies, and whatever. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The review is by a non-believer (Thomas Nagel) who finds the book, > >> > >>> written by a believer (Alvin Plantinga), very interesting, even >>> though > >> > >>> he doesn't believe it. Plantinga's day job is analytic philosophy, >>> so > >> > >>> he gets very precisely into what he thinks it is that his faith and > >> > >>> his beliefs do for him. Finally, the main argument is sort a grand > >> > >>> slam of creationism: we wouldn't be able to correctly figure out how > >> > >>> the world works if the deity, more specifically the deity that >>> Plantinga > >> believes in, wasn't helping us > >> > >>> along the way. Why would natural selection by itself care anything > >>> about > >> > >>> the truth? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As the reviewer says: "The interest of this book, especially for > >> > >>> secular readers, is its presentation from the inside of the point of > >> > >>> view of a philosophically subtle and scientifically informed >>> theist-an > >> > >>> outlook with which many of them will not be familiar." > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- rec -- > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> ============================================================ > >> > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > >> > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >> archives, > >> unsubscribe, maps at < <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org> > <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org > >> > >> > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> > http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |