10 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellIf someone says "this tree is green" they are referring to a scientific property of that tree which can be proved correct . Beauty cannot be measured scientifically . You can say "this painting is made of oil and canvas" but there is no essential quality of the painting that makes it a 'fact' that the painting is beautiful. One could equally say that the painting is ugly and there is nothing in the property of the painting to dispute it. If I say "this tree is blue" I can be shown to be wrong. You have made an error of context here. You cannot begin to prove that a painting is beautiful unless you believe that beauty is something more than a human concept , but if you do that then you are on the way to saying something very radically different from what most Atheists believe.
Don't get carried away with the "built in" thing; it was just a suggested way of thinking about it. Certainly wasn't meant to imply there was anything doing the building.
Let me explain another way. It may be true that our language and concepts have developed for some evolutionary reason; I don't know. But, given the language we have, when someone utter ...[text shortened]... reference to the particles in my brain. They are outward-directed, not inward-directed.
10 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is no error of context. The point is that both colour and beauty are properties of objects. (Although speaking of paintings, presumably the beauty or ugliness of a painting is supervenient on its physical properties.) At any rate, you have to show why the atheist is committed to the view that all properties must be scientifically verifiable. You haven't. Why should this be the case?
If someone says "this tree is green" they are referring to a scientific property of that tree which can be proved correct . Beauty cannot be measured scientifically . You can say "this painting is made of oil and canvas" but there is no essential quality of the painting that makes it a 'fact' that the painting is beautiful. One could equally say that t on the way to saying something very radically different from what most Atheists believe.
Take your view; that beauty, value, etc., are "things" that were created by God. Why could the exact same situation not be created by the Big Bang?
10 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe word 'Love' has many different meanings. According to C.S. Lewis (a well respected Christian), love can be categorised into four different types. He wrote a really good book on them called the four loves. Buy it and read it.
Atheists are always talking about love and meaning for their lives , and whilst not seeking to devalue anyone's meaning I can't help but think that it just can't be the same love and meaning that Christians are on about.
The Christian vision for the end of the world in terms of love and meaning is that the very fabric of existence is waiting to vi ...[text shortened]... the same thing as when a Christian uses them. It's not the same , it never can be.
I dont think that any two people talking about love or meaning have exactly the same understanding of them and for you to claim that all Christians agree with you is rather far fetched.
I do think however that my understanding of love and meaning is more valid than that of most Christians and my behaviour in life shows that I tend to take both more seriously than most Christians I know.
Interestingly I dont think that the Dictionary would agree with what appears to be your definition of love so I suggest you consider making up a new word so as to avoid confusion.
10 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellI think Atheists are committed to the view that if something has a property then it is at least hypothetically verifiable. I'm afraid you are blurring the distinction between reality and subjectivity. If you are saying beauty , love etc are actual things then say it and say more about what you think they are, if you are saying that they are subjective perceptions then say this. But you need to stop confusing the two.
There is no error of context. The point is that both colour and beauty are properties of objects. (Although speaking of paintings, presumably the beauty or ugliness of a painting is supervenient on its physical properties.) At any rate, you have to show why the atheist is committed to the view that all properties must be scientifically verifiable. You have ...[text shortened]... that were created by God. Why could the exact same situation not be created by the Big Bang?
Actually I don't think beauty ,value etc are created by God ,they are just part of him. What I believe is that God is the source of all love and value. We perceive beauty in the universe because it reminds us of God , we see a bit of God in his creation. We place value on love because God instills this value in us by giving a bit of his love to us.
Even if you believe these things are created or part of the big bang then you are still miles away from many atheists. You could be saying that there is a moral,or value, quality or property set into the universe from the start. In which case human beings are at anytime either in step with or out of step with this value, meaning, beauty (human history suggest we are in deep need of these values) Given that we humans often fall well short of this value and beauty maybe we need to change direction (repent?) or find a way of getting in touch with this. We need to wake from our slumber and discover that value, morality , and value are not 'mere opinions' but facts , but who decides what these facts are , you? me? the big bang? How do you get in touch with them?
You see your view is much closer to Christianity than say, existentialism or Atheism because you cannot be a moral relativist or believe the universe to be meaningless if you say these things actually exist as properties. Man does not 'make up' his own meaning , he needs to bend to a higher value?
You sound like an Atheist who is trying to have his cake and eat it. (IE - All the meaning and moral truth and value that come with a Theistic view but just take the God bit out please)
10 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou need to remember that atheism does not hold any belief structure, being as it is a denial of belief in just one thing; god. It says nothing about beliefs in other things.
I think Atheists are committed to the view that if something has a property then it is at least hypothetically verifiable. I'm afraid you are blurring the distinction between reality and subjectivity. If you are saying beauty , love etc are actual things then say it and say more about what you think they are, if you are saying that they are subjective ...[text shortened]... moral truth and value that come with a Theistic view but just take the God bit out please)
10 May 06
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think Atheists are committed to the view that if something has a property then it is at least hypothetically verifiable.
I think Atheists are committed to the view that if something has a property then it is at least hypothetically verifiable. I'm afraid you are blurring the distinction between reality and subjectivity. If you are saying beauty , love etc are actual things then say it and say more about what you think they are, if you are saying that they are subjective moral truth and value that come with a Theistic view but just take the God bit out please)
Bluntly, you have not shown why. At the moment it looks like mere prejudice on your part.
If you are saying beauty, love etc are actual things then say it and say more about what you think they are, if you are saying that they are subjective perceptions then say this.
They are certainly not "subjective perceptions", but I'd be careful with the expression "real things". What I am saying is that beauty, for example, is a property of an object. It is, if you like, a "real" property, whatever "real" means in that use. It is obviously not a property like (for example) height and weight. It is not a "real thing" in the same way as (for example) a tree or water.
We perceive beauty in the universe because it reminds us of God , we see a bit of God in his creation.
So you see beauty, in your own words, as a "subjective perception"? The only difference between you and your idea of "the atheist" is whether the subjective value we place on an object is (a) God-made, or (b) a biological impulse? Curious.
Even if you believe these things are created or part of the big bang then you are still miles away from many atheists.
Whether that's true or not, the "subjective perception" view you have spoken of is not one the atheist has to hold. And it seems - from your description of your own position - that the Christian can hold that view, too.
Who decides what these facts are , you? me? the big bang? How do you get in touch with them?
If they are facts, then no one decides them in the sense you mean. We just hope our appreciation of beauty, and our morality, get more sophisticated. I'd suggest (with some exceptions) that they have, over the decades. We don't burn witches anymore, do we?
10 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseNo it doesn't. A complete nihilist is necessarily an atheist and not a naturalist, because xe cannot believe in god and cannot believe in any inferences made from sense-data, since the latter would require belief in the truth of the sense-data.
True, but atheism implies an assertion of Naturalism.
10 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellA great many modern artists and performers would agree with you there. Naturalism is essentially a critical stance (Zola), quite old-fashioned by now. There are many others. High modernism included theists (David Jones) and atheists (James Joyce). I sense a great confusion of categories.
...and therefore beauty can't be a property of an object? Moral facts cannot exist? An atheist is not committed to naturalism of that sort.
10 May 06
1 edit
Really, taking God out of the equasion doesn't limit your philosophical options all that much.
Anyway, people confuse the existence/development of language with what our words actually mean. Beauty is a property of objects. If humans had never existed then there would have had no concept of beauty; nonetheless - God or no god - there would still have been beautiful sunsets.
10 May 06
Originally posted by dottewellFor one, the Big Bang isn't an act of creation is it?
There is no error of context. The point is that both colour and beauty are properties of objects. (Although speaking of paintings, presumably the beauty or ugliness of a painting is supervenient on its physical properties.) At any rate, you have to show why the atheist is committed to the view that all properties must be scientifically verifiable. You have ...[text shortened]... that were created by God. Why could the exact same situation not be created by the Big Bang?
Kelly
10 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterI do believe when God reveals reality the dispelling of lies
Atheists are always talking about love and meaning for their lives , and whilst not seeking to devalue anyone's meaning I can't help but think that it just can't be the same love and meaning that Christians are on about.
The Christian vision for the end of the world in terms of love and meaning is that the very fabric of existence is waiting to vi ...[text shortened]... the same thing as when a Christian uses them. It's not the same , it never can be.
and falsehoods will be one of the grandest things during the
time of judgment. Personally, I think that judgment will simply
be a matter of how we dealt with reality in this world now
revealed, if we lied we broke the truth of reality; if we stole we
broke the truth of ownership and we can go down the list of sins.
While the love and compassion shown to each other will be
hallmarks of how life should have been lived, not the exception,
but the rule. Where we lifted ourselves up with pride when we
should have walked humbly, when we judge others to be
wrong, if we found we ourselves also did those same things we
will also be condemning ourselves by our own judgments. I don't
think anything false will survive, the Kingdom of God when it is
revealed we will no longer looking at life as in a glass darkly.
Kelly
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, it doesn't. Read G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica. Anyway, 'naturalism' is commonly construed as merely a commitment to a) an ontology that exludes non-natural elements, and b) a view of epistemic justification that largely denies any substantial or necessary role to the a priori. So, naturalism is commonly construed as a combination of both a metaphysical and epistemological thesis. Note that the term 'non-natural' in the first thesis need not be read as 'non-physical'. This is the point that commonly confuses theists, who want to say that atheism commits one to physicalism. They are wrong on this point, as there may be natural, non-physical properties (e.g. normative properties of reasons).
True, but atheism implies an assertion of Naturalism.