02 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet's see:
I am still waiting for your 'orderly progression' to get to the point where you actually answer my questions.
To remind you of the first two most important ones:
1. Did you actually read what you posted?
2. Do you disagree with me that what you posted contains some obvious glaring logical errors?
TW: If you actually want to learn anything, then why not answer my questions?
GB: I'll avail myself of both asking and answering your questions in due time. Let's take it in an orderly progression. Okay?
TW: So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the contents of the quotations you post.
GB: "Very smart people can come to wrong conclusions." -PsychoPawn January 29, 2014 Thread 157670 (Page 3)
Perhaps the "wrong conclusion" that you came to, was that GB might actually have the integrity to live up to his word.
02 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"31 Jan '14 03:09 So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the contents of the quotations you post." -twhitehead
Let's see:
TW: If you actually want to learn anything, then why not answer my questions?
GB: I'll avail myself of both asking and answering your questions in due time. Let's take it in an orderly progression. Okay?
TW: So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the co ...[text shortened]... clusion" that you came to, was that GB might actually have the integrity to live up to his word.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see:
TW: If you actually want to learn anything, then why not answer my questions?
GB: I'll avail myself of both asking and answering your questions in due time. Let's take it in an orderly progression. Okay?
TW: So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the contents of the quotations you post.
GB: "Very smart people can come to wrong conclusions." -PsychoPawn January 29, 2014 Thread 157670 (Page 3)
Perhaps the "wrong conclusion" that you came to, was that GB might actually have the integrity to live up to his word."
31 Jan '14 ........ it's only been a short while, ThinkOfOne; may I have your permission to ponder his questions?
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"The Causes of Atheism Written by James Spiegel January 2010.
5) "God delivers the sexually immoral over to a depraved mind. Jones sums it up well: “Sexual sins are corrupting. . . . The most insidious corruption brought about by sexual sin, however, is the corruption of the mind. One moves all too easily from sexual sins, which are probably the most common to mankind, [i]to intellectual sins, which are the most p ...[text shortened]... hp?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:the-causes-of-atheism&catid=96:bonus-content&Itemid=80
6) "In this chapter we have considered Paul Vitz’s thesis that a broken relationship with one’s father is often involved in this process. But this is at most a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for atheism. It appears that the psychological fallout from a defective father must be combined with rebellion—a persistent immoral response of some sort, such as resentment, hatred, vanity, unforgiveness, or abject pride. And when that rebellion is deep or protracted enough, atheism results."
7) "But what of the role of the will when it comes to atheism? Recall Paul Vitz’s emphasis on freedom when it comes to moving toward or away from God. Recall also Huxley’s remark that “We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence.”
8) "Perhaps what is most remarkable about James’s study is that, despite his empirical bent, he not only remained open to the veracity of the hundreds of reports of spiritual encounters chronicled in his research, but he actually concludes by noting his belief in the supernatural:"
9) "Name it the mystical region, or the supernatural region, whichever you choose. So far as our ideal impulses originate in this region . . . we belong to it in a more intimate sense than that in which we belong to the visible world."
10) "But it wasn’t only positive evidence for the supernatural that persuaded William James. There was a more basic psychological insight that drove him. James argued that there are significant truths in life, many of them practical in nature, which cannot be seen or understood until one believes. Likewise, one may willfully refuse to believe certain truths, even when there is strong evidence for them."
11) "James makes his point using the illustration of a mountain climber who is unsure as to whether he can make it safely across a difficult pass. If he succeeds, he will go on to safety. But if he fails, death awaits. Can he make it? He will never know either way until he actually ventures."
12) "James makes his point using the illustration of a mountain climber who is unsure as to whether he can make it safely across a difficult pass. If he succeeds, he will go on to safety. But if he fails, death awaits. Can he make it? He will never know either way until he actually ventures. James makes a similar point about many philosophical issues, where the evidence alone is inconclusive. The lesson he draws is that faith is practically necessary. He concludes: “In the average man . . . the power to trust, to risk a little beyond the evidence, is an essential function. . . .We cannot live or think at all without some degree of faith.” James’s insight on the practical necessity of faith points to the crucial role played by the will and personal desires when it comes to belief. One of the absurd dogmas of the modern period—which, alas, remains alive and well in the academy today—was that the will is or, at any rate, can be perfectly neutral when it comes to the formation of belief. As a master psychologist, James saw the foolishness of this notion. In his short but influential essay, “The Will to Believe,” James explains how this is especially the case when it comes to belief in the reality of moral values. He declares, “If your heart does not want a world of moral reality, your head will assuredly never make you believe in one.”
13) "More than a century after these words were penned, James’s insight is not very controversial, especially in our postmodern intellectual milieu, which prizes the diminution of reason in the formation of beliefs. But, of course, the new atheists are anything but postmodern. In fact, they are fierce modernists who regard the scientific method as the final tribunal of all truth claims. To them, James’s thesis about the will to believe (or to disbelieve) is no doubt bothersome. How much more so, then, must be the words of fellow atheists who confess this psychological dynamic in themselves when it comes to God. Recall the candid reflections of philosopher Thomas Nagel: “I want atheism to be true. . . . It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God, and, naturally, hope that I’m right about my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Nagel is to be commended for his honesty, though it is a shame that as a philosopher he should so blatantly subjugate his quest for truth to his personal desires. One can only wonder why he doesn’t want the universe “to be like that.”
14) "There is also the popular author and educator Mortimer Adler, who recognized that the nature of religious belief is such that it “lies in the state of one’s will, not in the state of one’s mind.” Adler rejected religious commitment because it “would require a radical change in my way of life, a basic alteration in the direction of day-to-day choices as well as in the ultimate objectives to be sought or hoped for. . . . The simple truth of the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious person.” Happily, Adler did not reject the faith his entire life but converted to Christianity in his eighties."
15) "Recently Slate editor David Plotz provided another confirmation of James’s thesis. Reflecting on his reading of the Old Testament, Plotz says, “How do I as a Jew cling to a God who seems to be so unmerciful so much of the time and so cruel so much of the time? That’s very troubling. Do I want such a God to exist? I don’t know that I do.” In one sense, Plotz’s point is quite understandable. Who wants to believe in an unmerciful and cruel deity? But notice his apparent willingness to reject belief even if such a deity does exist. This is a conscious choice on his part and another case in point when it comes to the will to deny God. To the frank testimonies of these intellectuals we can add many of the cases chronicled by Johnson and Jones that well illustrate the “will to believe”—or, in this case, the will to disbelieve—when it comes to God and religious faith."
16) "Atheists ultimately choose not to believe in God. But, as we have seen, this choice does not occur in a psychological vacuum. It is made in response to deep challenges to faith, such as defective fathers and perhaps other emotional or psychological trials. Nor is the choice made in a moral vacuum. Sin and its consequences also impact the will in significant ways (as will be discussed further in the next chapter).These moral-psychological dynamics make it possible to deny the reality of the divine without any (or much) sense of incoherence in one’s worldview. This constitutes the general pattern of the rejection of God and all things religious."
17) "Therefore, however much an atheist scholar, celebrity, or layperson might insist that his or her foundational “reason” for rejecting God is the problem of evil or the scientific irrelevance of the supernatural or some other “rational” consideration, this is only a ruse, a conceptual smokescreen to mask the real issue—personal rebellion. Admirably, some thinkers, such as Nagel and Adler, have admitted that their spurning of faith is based in the will, not reason. Most atheists refuse to admit this. However, as we will see shortly, there are factors involved in the psychology of atheism that make it surprising that anyone would recognize their own will to disbelieve." (4 of 4 excerpts)
https://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:the-causes-of-atheism&catid=96:bonus-content&Itemid=80[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf you require time to ponder the questions then there is something wrong with you.
may I have your permission to ponder his questions?
Either you remember that you read the quotes you posted or you do not. Pondering will likely not help you remember - just say you can't remember.
If you did not read them, then you cannot answer question 2. If you did read them, then you either noticed the obvious logical errors, or they are not obvious - and hence the question is easy to answer.
I can only conclude that ThinkOfOne has you pegged and you are pondering a way to avoid answering honestly without loosing face. But I am afraid its too late for that.
Originally posted by twhitehead"31 Jan '14 03:09 So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the contents of the quotations you post." -twhitehead
If you require time to ponder the questions then there is something wrong with you.
Either you remember that you read the quotes you posted or you do not. Pondering will likely not help you remember - just say you can't remember.
If you did not read them, then you cannot answer question 2. If you did read them, then you either noticed the obvious logica ...[text shortened]... g a way to avoid answering honestly without loosing face. But I am afraid its too late for that.
Intent was to complete the presentation of the review and the four excerpts from Jim Spiegel's "The Causes of Atheism" as well the selected passages (numbered 1-17) from the excerpts prior to delving into thoughtful replies. "Why?", you ask. Fair question-- the answer to which is, as I've already stated, because I'm feeling my way with these insights and findings which happen to represent virgin intellectual turf for me. New impressions and thoughts require assimilation before new or revised rationales can be applied in fielding random questions. Of course you're free to "conclude" whatever you wish from the comments from others or from your own observations. "Saving face" only becomes a necessity when low self esteem and immaturity are in play. In no way does peripheral hostility alter my objectivity or appreciation of conversation with you.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
Sorry, but the little bit I read was so stupid, I didn't want to bother reading more. I am frankly amazed that you bothered posting such nonsense. What did you expect?
I do want an answer as to whether or not you yourself have read it, or are you too exercising judgmental restraint by not reading what you post?
Do you dispute my objection? If so, explain why. If not, explain why you posted something containing such obvious flaws.
"Sorry, but the little bit I read was so stupid, I didn't want to bother reading more. I am frankly amazed that you bothered posting such nonsense. What did you expect?
I do want an answer as to whether or not you yourself have read it, or are you too exercising judgmental restraint by not reading what you post?
Do you dispute my objection? If so, explain why. If not, explain why you posted something containing such obvious flaws."
_______________________________________________
"What did you expect?" I gingerly expected you as well as all other readers and prospective contributors to recognize the scope of the original post installments; to exercise a measure of patience; to approach the text objectively and to give the thread's conversational dynamics a fair chance before rushing to judgment. Yes; I read the entire text on the author's site as well as the biog thumbnail a day before deciding it might be relevant and provide an opportunity for lively conversation; having slept on it, decided the idea would become a deed. "Do you dispute my objection?" Please identify the objection?
02 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby (page 2)
If you actually want to learn anything, then why not answer my questions?
"Greetings from afar, twhitehead. Though I'm pleased that you're weighing in I'd hoped you'd extend the courtesy of a fair shake to the lengthy original post. Please exercise judgmental restraint until you've assimilated the entire excerpt. Thanks."
I'll avail myself of both asking and answering your questions in due time. Let's take it in an orderly progression. Okay?
Pajama Time Postscript: An esteemed Oriental PHD Professor once told twenty something gb that "The confusion of knowledge was worse than ignorance". That sententious remark in his office late that afternoon stuck. Good night.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis is what happens when you take so long to respond to a few simple questions. You get so bogged down into dodging answering that you forget where it all started.
Please identify the objection?
My objection is very simple: The quotes suggest that because some atheists have fathers who died young, this good evidence that the one caused the other. This is ridiculous. If I pointed out that there are theists whose fathers died young, you would not conclude that they were theists because their fathers died young, or worse, that it is a general trend that people are theist because their fathers died young. Yet you seem quite comfortable with such ridiculous logic when it comes to atheists.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyA simple 'yes' would have sufficed. But even your more lengthy answer hardly required 'pondering'. You seem to have no great difficulty making up excuses for not answering questions.
Yes; I read the entire text on the author's site as well as the biog thumbnail a day before deciding it might be relevant and provide an opportunity for lively conversation; having slept on it, decided the idea would become a deed.
02 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
This is what happens when you take so long to respond to a few simple questions. You get so bogged down into dodging answering that you forget where it all started.
My objection is very simple: The quotes suggest that because some atheists have fathers who died young, this good evidence that the one caused the other. This is ridiculous. If I pointed out ...[text shortened]... died young. Yet you seem quite comfortable with such ridiculous logic when it comes to atheists.
"My objection is very simple: The quotes suggest that because some atheists have fathers who died young, this good evidence that the one caused the other. This is ridiculous. If I pointed out that there are theists whose fathers died young, you would not conclude that they were theists because their fathers died young, or worse, that it is a general trend that people are theist because their fathers died young. Yet you seem quite comfortable with such ridiculous logic when it comes to atheists."
Please read the text again: "a broken relationship with one’s father is often involved". This unfortunate defective context is contributive. An individual's volition is directly involved: ".... rebellion-- a persistent immoral response of some sort, such as resentment, hatred, vanity, unforgiveness, or abject pride." A child in early formative stages of maturing is neutral, neither theist nor atheist. You assume incorrectly that I'm "quite comfortable": I'm not the least comfortable truncating that reality.
"The Causes of Atheism Written by James Spiegel January 2010.
6) "In this chapter we have considered Paul Vitz’s thesis that a broken relationship with one’s father is often involved in this process. But this is at most a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for atheism. It appears that the psychological fallout from a defective father must be combined with rebellion—a persistent immoral response of some sort, such as resentment, hatred, vanity, unforgiveness, or abject pride. And when that rebellion is deep or protracted enough, atheism results."
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
A simple 'yes' would have sufficed. But even your more lengthy answer hardly required 'pondering'. You seem to have no great difficulty making up excuses for not answering questions.
"A simple 'yes' would have sufficed. But even your more lengthy answer hardly required 'pondering'. You seem to have no great difficulty making up excuses for not answering questions."
Respectfully, you seem to walk around with an exceedingly short fuse attached to your emotional cluster. Please calm down.
02 Feb 14
7) "But what of the role of the will when it comes to atheism? Recall Paul Vitz’s emphasis on freedom when it comes to moving toward or away from God. Recall also Huxley’s remark that “We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence.”