/lit/ - Literature

>The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.
https://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/09/dawkins-confusion.html
The Dawkins Confusion | Dr. Alvin Plantinga

>>16866526
>Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.

>>16018966
> I only believe in what I see and understand, nothing else is true
Materialism, atheism, and scientism are also abstract ideas, unproven philosophical positions.

>>15469268
>The Dawkins Confusion
Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/DawkinsGodDelusionPlantingaReview.pdf

>>15417648

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8tvzgZPuAs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY

>>15030864
>more educated
Secular influence plus pride of learning culminating in worship of intellect and rejection of God (often leading to nihilistic despair).

But religious people are healthier, happier, with better mental health:

>The majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse.
CONCLUSIONS:
There is evidence that religious involvement is usually associated with better mental health.

>Religiousness and mental health: a review.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16924349

>>14964947
Of course. Creationism is only a fringe theistic belief, misguided literalism of Old Testament allegory.


81:6.10.Science teaches man to speak the new language of mathematics and trains his thoughts along lines of exacting precision. And science also stabilizes philosophy through the elimination of error, while it purifies religion by the destruction of superstition.


98:2.12.Religions have long endured without philosophical support, but few philosophies, as such, have long persisted without some identification with religion. Philosophy is to religion as conception is to action. But the ideal human estate is that in which philosophy, religion, and science are welded into a meaningful unity by the conjoined action of wisdom, faith, and experience.

Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, ontological belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of metaphysical and epistemological deductions. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.
- Francois Tremblay

>>14775598
>absolutely BTFO Dawkins and his God delusion

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins’ main argument seriously.

The Dawkins Confusion
Naturalism 'ad absurdum'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfA8mWGRv0w

>>14671985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8tvzgZPuAs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY

>>14640548
Rational concepts of God exist, the existence of God is a plausible possibility, belief in God rationally justifiable.

If you say there is no evidence there are an even number of stars, it is irrational to conclude it means there must be an odd number of stars, but this is exactly what atheists do.

>>14609821
Its hypocritical to have such strong faith in the unproven theory of atheism and then act as if your position is based on scientific certainty.

>>14606943
Its foolish to rule out all conceptions of God, sophisticated rational conceptions, just because poor and irrational conceptions also exist.

Just because you havent experienced God that is not proof God does not exist.

If you are to say there is no evidence there are an even number of stars, its irrational to conclude that it means there must be an odd number of stars; but thats what atheists do when they act as if they know God does not exist.

>>14572727
The conception of God in the Urantia papers is the most sophisticated and advanced I have come across so far.


1:2.1.God is primal reality in the spirit world; God is the source of truth in the mind spheres; God overshadows all throughout the material realms. To all created intelligences God is a personality, and to the universe of universes he is the First Source and Center of eternal reality. God is neither manlike nor machinelike. The First Father is universal spirit, eternal truth, infinite reality, and father personality.

1:2.2.The eternal God is infinitely more than reality idealized or the universe personalized. God is not simply the supreme desire of man, the mortal quest objectified. Neither is God merely a concept, the power-potential of righteousness. The Universal Father is not a synonym for nature, neither is he natural law personified. God is a transcendent reality, not merely man's traditional concept of supreme values. God is not a psychological focalization of spiritual meanings, neither is he "the noblest work of man." God may be any or all of these concepts in the minds of men, but he is more. He is a saving person and a loving Father to all who enjoy spiritual peace on earth, and who crave to experience personality survival in death.

Masters of Philosophy

27:6.1.Next to the supreme satisfaction of worship is the exhilaration of philosophy. Never do you climb so high or advance so far that there do not remain a thousand mysteries which demand the employment of philosophy in an attempted solution.

27:6.2.The master philosophers of Paradise delight to lead the minds of its inhabitants, both native and ascendant, in the exhilarating pursuit of attempting to solve universe problems. These superaphic masters of philosophy are the "wise men of heaven," the beings of wisdom who make use of the truth of knowledge and the facts of experience in their efforts to master the unknown. With them knowledge attains to truth and experience ascends to wisdom. On Paradise the ascendant personalities of space experience the heights of being: They have knowledge; they know the truth; they may philosophize—think the truth; they may even seek to encompass the concepts of the Ultimate and attempt to grasp the techniques of the Absolutes.

>>14511805
>>14511889