wrt the "philosopher of the moment" stuff, I was under the impression that reading Chalmers was your main reason for being dissatisfied with physicalism (based on your mention of that dissatisfaction in your conversion most and your comment about Chalmers in this post, which might be a bit tenuous, I admit). So, I was a bit concerned that your conclusions didn't agree with what I've read about Chalmers.
Anyway, I'm not an an expert and it's possible that Chalmers has himself changed his mind at some point. I wonder whether gjm11 knows more about this stuff (as I think he's read far more philosophy than me) and would be able to tell us.
I'm not stating that your God is evil as if it were an agreed point, I'm referring to myself using the majestic plural (or perhaps just using "we" the way it tends to be used in mathematical explanations: "if we do this, we can see that").
There's good reason to think the God you're portraying here is evil. gjm11's chess analogy is a good one: there might be other explanations for the way that God plays, but the moves evangelicals say he makes don't seem to tie up with goodness, quite the reverse in fact. I'm surprised you're finding this difficult to see, because you've made the same points yourself before your re-conversion. From the outside, the decision to believe that God is good no matter how he behaves looks like abdication of your moral faculties, in the way that more than one person has likened to toleration of an abusive partner.
I'm not sure what you mean by "get away with". I can, if I want, say that I haven't got enough evidence to believe in God and then be a humanist, a Buddhist or whatever. A weak atheist who's never really considered God at all (because they've never been taught about God and never seen anything like evidence, a position a lot of younger people in this country might be in today, I suppose) might have all sorts of other superstitions which are incompatible with scientific materialism. I'd say a scientific attitude was actually pretty rare in weak atheists, more's the pity, although you're probably right to say it's more common among those who have considered it seriously.
The New Atheists are fond of criticising theists who at one point make big claims, then when the light of enquiry is shone on them say "well, we don't really believe something like that". Weak atheists AFAICT are guilty of a similar crime.
I don't what sort of thing you're criticising here. Can you give an example?
I don't understand why you think the doctrine of Hell forces you in to making a decision where there is insufficient evidence.
It forces (which is probably too strong a word, let's fall back to the traditional Christian "encourages") the person considering Christianity (which I didn't make clear) into making that decision, because making no decision is equivalent to saying no and risking Hell, so the temptation is to take Pascal's Wager.
The fact that you're convinced there's ample evidence doesn't really help: the main evidence you've shown so far is a personal experience which is not accessible to anyone else, which seems to override any arguments anyone else makes. I think both gjm11 and I have made good arguments that evangelical Christianity is incoherent: most recently, Gareth in the comments here, and me on the evangelical tradition thread in your journal. I don't think your answers hold up, so I don't understand how you can then say that it is reasonable to believe it, as you do on the conversion posting. To me it looks like you've got a feeling God is real and are looking for reasons, whether in the works of Chalmers or elsewhere. But I would say that, of course :-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-05-30 12:21 am (UTC)Anyway, I'm not an an expert and it's possible that Chalmers has himself changed his mind at some point. I wonder whether
I'm not stating that your God is evil as if it were an agreed point, I'm referring to myself using the majestic plural (or perhaps just using "we" the way it tends to be used in mathematical explanations: "if we do this, we can see that").
There's good reason to think the God you're portraying here is evil.
I'm not sure what you mean by "get away with". I can, if I want, say that I haven't got enough evidence to believe in God and then be a humanist, a Buddhist or whatever. A weak atheist who's never really considered God at all (because they've never been taught about God and never seen anything like evidence, a position a lot of younger people in this country might be in today, I suppose) might have all sorts of other superstitions which are incompatible with scientific materialism. I'd say a scientific attitude was actually pretty rare in weak atheists, more's the pity, although you're probably right to say it's more common among those who have considered it seriously.
The New Atheists are fond of criticising theists who at one point make big claims, then when the light of enquiry is shone on them say "well, we don't really believe something like that". Weak atheists AFAICT are guilty of a similar crime.
I don't what sort of thing you're criticising here. Can you give an example?
I don't understand why you think the doctrine of Hell forces you in to making a decision where there is insufficient evidence.
It forces (which is probably too strong a word, let's fall back to the traditional Christian "encourages") the person considering Christianity (which I didn't make clear) into making that decision, because making no decision is equivalent to saying no and risking Hell, so the temptation is to take Pascal's Wager.
The fact that you're convinced there's ample evidence doesn't really help: the main evidence you've shown so far is a personal experience which is not accessible to anyone else, which seems to override any arguments anyone else makes. I think both