Does Man Have Free Will?

[Gorilla King]

II Timothy Chapter 3:7: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I'd forgotten that one. Thanks Pen.

[PrinceMyshkin]

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

[Gorilla King]

From the same article:

"when Terry Eagleton, a British critic who has been a professor of English at Oxford, lambasted Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” in the London Review of Books, he wrote that “card-carrying rationalists” like Dawkins “invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.”


This is true. What's more, I just so happen to be a theology student. Thank you for making me wince.

[JGL57]

From the same article:

"when Terry Eagleton, a British critic who has been a professor of English at Oxford, lambasted Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” in the London Review of Books, he wrote that “card-carrying rationalists” like Dawkins “invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.”


This is true. What's more, I just so happen to be a theology student. Thank you for making me wince.

G.K., I don't think Dawkins in his infamous best-selling book is particularly concerned with addressing the "arguments" of those "christians" and other nominal religionists who constitute the ivory-tower academics, professional charlatans, or the large per cent of "christians" and other religionists who are so liberal and so non-literal that they pose no threat to anyone.

Dawkins is instead addressing the problem of christians and similar religionists who take the mythos seriously and are proselytizers and promoters of theocracy. There is no caricature needed. These very common type of christian caricature themselves every day, so no help is needed from Dawkins.

The same goes for Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens in their respective infamous best-selling books. If you actually read all three of their books, you would see, contrary to the reviews of asses like the one you quoted, that all three say nice things about people who are not political and who use poetic language to describe their personal experiences and feelings of awe and wonder at the mystery of life and existence, e.g., the nice things Dawkins says about the Spinoza’s god and Einstein's "cosmic religious feelings", Hitchens similar comments concerning agnosticism regarding the mystery of existence, and Harris giving the Buddhists and other Eastern Wisdom Traditions their due, regarding the reality of meditation and it's potential to produce a beneficial transformation of consciousness (whether his interpretation of such is pantheistic or merely psychological is unclear to me, but I that issue is trivial).

This idea that certain columnists and others are spreading - that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are all just reincarnated Madalyn Murry O'Hairs, but with penises - is a load.

But believe what you will, G.K. I want you to be happy.

[weepingforloman]

As one of those "proselytizing theocracy-advocates who take their mythos seriously," I would like to say that we don't particularly care what Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. have to say about us, except as far as it goes to influence those who are as yet undecided.

[JGL57]

I would be surprised to hear you say differently.

Obviously those of your ilk will not be affected in the least, and present out-of-the-closet atheists are the choir, so to speak, that requires no further preaching.

Dawkins, et. al., during Q. & A at recent various debates and talks, have all expressed the fact that their target audience is the agnostic and the mildly religious, in an attempt to convince them that "atheism" is not necessarily the kiss of death, and that the time has come now, esp. after the events of 9/11, to take a stand against rampant theocratic mentality - before it becomes too late for those of us who think secular government is best, for one and all.

[PrinceMyshkin]

As one of those "proselytizing theocracy-advocates who take their mythos seriously," I would like to say that we don't particularly care what Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. have to say about us, except as far as it goes to influence those who are as yet undecided.

1 Corinthians 1: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is Patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Emphasis added. On the other hand, there is always "Sauve qui peut" or "I'm all right, Jack."

[PrinceMyshkin]

From the same article:

"when Terry Eagleton, a British critic who has been a professor of English at Oxford, lambasted Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” in the London Review of Books, he wrote that “card-carrying rationalists” like Dawkins “invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.”


This is true. What's more, I just so happen to be a theology student. Thank you for making me wince.

Are you perhaps majoring in Sneering or Sarcasm 101?

[weepingforloman]

I would be surprised to hear you say differently.

Obviously those of your ilk will not be affected in the least, and present out-of-the-closet atheists are the choir, so to speak, that requires no further preaching.

Dawkins, et. al., during Q. & A at recent various debates and talks, have all expressed the fact that their target audience is the agnostic and the mildly religious, in an attempt to convince them that "atheism" is not necessarily the kiss of death, and that the time has come now, esp. after the events of 9/11, to take a stand against rampant theocratic mentality - before it becomes too late for those of us who think secular government is best, for one and all.

The events of 9-11 are the result of religion gone bad, not religion practiced correctly. Even Islam, an honor/shame religion (which tend to be somewhat less opposed to violence), firmly rejects the actions of the radical Jihadists. How much more so does Christianity reject violence? "Do not resist an evil person," "If a man strikes you on one cheek, I say to you to offer the other to him as well," etc.

1 Corinthians 1: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is Patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Emphasis added. On the other hand, there is always "Sauve qui peut" or "I'm all right, Jack."

Love is, of course, the center of Christian morality. But there is still place for intellect. I'm not quite sure how you intended to connect this to my comment on Dawkins, Hitchens, and their brethren.

[NikolaiI]

1 Corinthians 1: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is Patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Emphasis added. On the other hand, there is always "Sauve qui peut" or "I'm all right, Jack."

That was a wonderful post, Myshkin. Thank you for sharing.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Love is, of course, the center of Christian morality. But there is still place for intellect. I'm not quite sure how you intended to connect this to my comment on Dawkins, Hitchens, and their brethren.

It was intended as a response to your: "As one of those "proselytizing theocracy-advocates who take their mythos seriously," I would like to say that we don't particularly care what Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. have to say about us, except as far as it goes to influence those who are as yet undecided."

I equate caring with love - or at least respect.

[weepingforloman]

Ah, I meant that we do not have to overly concern ourselves with their OPINION. The men themselves are of great importance, just as every man is. If a man is redeemed, well, the Bible calls him a god (literally, I just can't remember the passage). If he is not, then he becomes a being corrupted and miserable beyond our current comprehension.

[Pendragon]

Ah, I meant that we do not have to overly concern ourselves with their OPINION. The men themselves are of great importance, just as every man is. If a man is redeemed, well, the Bible calls him a god (literally, I just can't remember the passage). If he is not, then he becomes a being corrupted and miserable beyond our current comprehension.

I am wondering about that. Romas 12-14. This warns one not to think of himself as better than he really might be, and to prefer (give honor) to one another. It also speaks of "doubtful disputations", further clairfied as agruments over what one may or may not do. And it says not to judge each other. If one is happy with the way he is, and believes himself or herself OK with God, leave that person alone, don't try to make them conform to your vision. And you, if you are happy and feel that you please God, don't change because someone else isn't totally pleased.

I think we should face fact: We are not going to please everyone. Aseop's parable of the Man with the donkey who ends up losing all by trying to please everybody. But we do not have to fight. We can learn from even the smallest thing there is, if we are willing to watch or listen without pre-judgement that it has nothing to share.

A mole makes great tunnels. Man learned a lot from those little guys. Think about it,

God bless.

Pen.

[weepingforloman]

I don't mean to sound arrogant, and I apologize if I do. I mean only to say that I need not care what others say, after all, "sticks and stones...". I believe it is a mistake to leave people who are complacent with regards to their position with God alone. I believe Christianity is right (if not, I would not be a Christian), and I want anyone who can to come to Christ. As Paul said, "Though I am free, and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, TO WIN AS MANY AS POSSIBLE." The capitals are, of course, mine alone.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

1 Kings 7:23