If There Is No God

[rjamortega]

Food for thought?...
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/08/19/if_there_is_no_god
7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed that men's and women's natures are basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all socially induced. Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.

8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can humans have free will.

13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America's Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.

As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God. "Which God?" the secularist will ask. The God of Israel, the God of America's founders, "the Holy God who is made holy by justice" (Isaiah), the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands love of neighbor, the God who endows all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the God who is cited on the Liberty Bell because he is the author of liberty. That is the God being referred to here, without whom we will be vanquished by those who believe in less noble gods, both secular and divine.

[JD3]

While I do believe there is a God, I think the This I believe With that Penn and Teller fellow was more accurate that Prager. Prager always disappoints me when I read him. He holds a lot of prejudicial views that limit him as a thinker. I see nothing that would justify the conclusions he reaches. I have free will if there is no God. My mind thinks, I decide, I have no threat over me, for example.

[rjamortega]

Your prejudice point is interesting. I think it is possible that what you view as prejudice in his thinking, is actually descrimination. And in descrimination there is both positive and negative.

"Limits" is also a very big part of Prager's ideology. He thinks they are a necessity in human behaviour.

I'd be interested to understand your view of your particular God. What is He (It) really all about. What is His capability. Depending on what those answers are, I wonder how you can then turn around and say if there is no God you still have free will. Because, how would you know?!

[Groucho]

What a load of crap. I started to respond and decided it isn't worth acknowledging. "Without God, there are no inalienable human rights." Absolute nonsense.

[steveksux]

Praeger must be a closeted atheist then. Cause everything someone posts here by him turns out to be irrrational.

He believes God grants inalienable rights, therefore without God there are no rights. No way to refute that argument. A circle doesn't have a weak spot to attack... :lol:

God is required for free will? That's one of the more bizarre things I've heard. Whether man was created by God, or evolution, our brains with their current structure and function make the choices that comprise free will. guess I missed the part in logic class where one could assert magical stuff a priori to make an argument. It the magic stuff God gave us that makes our decisions that constitute free will...

Without God there are no inalienable rights... cause someone had to give them??? Same stupid argument that people exist so they must have been created. There are no inalienable rights. Lots of people don't have rights. So they are entirely alienable. If the pursuit of happiness was really an inalienable right, the same Christians would be supporting gay marriage if that was what made them happy.

Of course, the reality is the only rights that turn out to be inalienable, are the ones they decide are inalienable, and only apply to those they deem worthy, and only in the way they deem acceptable.

Praeger is consistent, he never fails to fail to put out a coherent piece of logic...

Randy

[rjamortega]

You know, the reason I commonly turn to Prager in so many issues, is because I find him to be the most open-minded and tolerant of thinkers (just the opposite of you).:lol: He even admits to not being sure about his own God. He freely admits where he is not sure, and he doesn't seek to change minds. He only hopes to clarify truth and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm impressed, anyway.:rolleyes:

[rjamortega]

Praeger must be a closeted atheist then. Cause everything someone posts here by him turns out to be irrrational.

He believes God grants inalienable rights, therefore without God there are no rights. No way to refute that argument. A circle doesn't have a weak spot to attack... :lol:

God is required for free will? That's one of the more bizarre things I've heard. Whether man was created by God, or evolution, our brains with their current structure and function make the choices that comprise free will. guess I missed the part in logic class where one could assert magical stuff a priori to make an argument. It the magic stuff God gave us that makes our decisions that constitute free will...

Without God there are no inalienable rights... cause someone had to give them??? Same stupid argument that people exist so they must have been created. There are no inalienable rights. Lots of people don't have rights. So they are entirely alienable. If the pursuit of happiness was really an inalienable right, the same Christians would be supporting gay marriage if that was what made them happy.

Of course, the reality is the only rights that turn out to be inalienable, are the ones they decide are inalienable, and only apply to those they deem worthy, and only in the way they deem acceptable.

Praeger is consistent, he never fails to fail to put out a coherent piece of logic...

Randy

Jeesh ma boy...you can really get torqued over these things, eh?:rolleyes: :)

[Lumpen Prole]

The existence of Thomas Jefferson provides us with a quick and easy refutation of the points brought up in the OP. Marxism rejected the existence of God, therefore atheism is irrational? The existence of God (at least the God of the major monotheistic religions) doesn't pose serious problems for the concept of free will? Spare me.

[steveksux]

Jeesh ma boy...you can really get torqued over these things, eh?:rolleyes: :)
who's torqued? He's consistently not just wrong, but embarrassingly so... I'm laughing at him. What part of ":lol: " don't you understand???? ;) :D

Nice deflection though, it neatly avoids having to respond to any of my arguments..

Randy

[rjamortega]

What a load of crap. I started to respond and decided it isn't worth acknowledging. "Without God, there are no inalienable human rights." Absolute nonsense.

I suppose humans can profess their own rights as a group or individual. But then we can't really call them inalienable, can we? Unless we change the definition of 'inalienable'.(?) Because other men can repudiate your rights.
And while God given rights may also be repudiated, the whole concept to begin with is that "inalienable" rights are supposed to be unretractable by man.

[steveksux]

I suppose humans can profess their own rights as a group or individual. But then we can't really call them inalienable, can we? Unless we change the definition of 'inalienable'.(?) Because other men can repudiate your rights.
And while God given rights may also be repudiated, the whole concept to begin with is that "inalienable" rights are supposed to be unretractable by man.So inalienable rights really means "rights everyone ought to have". Doesn't have the same mandatory sounding ring to it.

Both alienable and inalienable rights seem to be those deigned to be allowed by the ruling class on their subjects.

Randy

[rjamortega]

who's torqued? He's consistently not just wrong, but embarrassingly so... I'm laughing at him. What part of ":lol: " don't you understand???? ;) :D

Nice deflection though, it neatly avoids having to respond to any of my arguments..

Randy

Sorry! I wasn't attempting to "nicely deflect" anything.

So you say that rights are alienable if some people don't have them. That is true if man is the giver of rights. But I think that is what a God is all about in the first place. Whether or not I am allowed to practice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights are inalienable if they are from a source higher than man. If these rights are only bestowed from man, then yeah, they are rights that only exist when practiced. They are as limited as man himself.

[rjamortega]

So inalienable rights really means "rights everyone ought to have". Doesn't have the same mandatory sounding ring to it.

Both alienable and inalienable rights seem to be those deigned to be allowed by the ruling class on their subjects.

Randy

Well, we are only human, and we have our limitations.

I think what really bothers a lot of people on discussions like this is that they harbor their old childhood fears of the mysterious god that was used to shame and intimidate us into proper behaviour. For me, God is merely something higher than you and me. So high in fact, I don't have to worry if I don't have It all figured out.

[rjamortega]

The existence of Thomas Jefferson provides us with a quick and easy refutation of the points brought up in the OP. Marxism rejected the existence of God, therefore atheism is irrational? The existence of God (at least the God of the major monotheistic religions) doesn't pose serious problems for the concept of free will? Spare me.

I don't think Prager said Marxism is irrational. He said it spawned irrational acts and policies.

(sorry if this reply doesn't spare you):( :confused:

[rjamortega]

You know, the reason I commonly turn to Prager in so many issues, is because I find him to be the most open-minded and tolerant of thinkers (just the opposite of you).:lol: He even admits to not being sure about his own God. He freely admits where he is not sure, and he doesn't seek to change minds. He only hopes to clarify truth and let the chips fall where they may.

I'm impressed, anyway.:rolleyes:

JD3, when I said "the opposite of you", I meant the opposite of what you think of Prager.;)

[Groucho]

Well, we are only human, and we have our limitations.

I think what really bothers a lot of people on discussions like this is that they harbor their old childhood fears of the mysterious god that was used to shame and intimidate us into proper behaviour. For me, God is merely something higher than you and me. So high in fact, I don't have to worry if I don't have It all figured out.

No, some of us just feel that it is just as ridiculous to say that without God there would be no ethics or free will as it is to say that without Zeus or Xenu or Tooth Fairy there would be no ethics or free will.

[steveksux]

Sorry! I wasn't attempting to "nicely deflect" anything.

So you say that rights are alienable if some people don't have them. That is true if man is the giver of rights. But I think that is what a God is all about in the first place. Whether or not I am allowed to practice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights are inalienable if they are from a source higher than man. If these rights are only bestowed from man, then yeah, they are rights that only exist when practiced. They are as limited as man himself.
Who decides which rights are inalienable and which aren't? Hint: Man.

Randy

[Scaryclouds]

7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational.

9/11, godhatesfags.com, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquistion, I could go on...



8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will.

Well if God already knows the future (which many religions preach) then we don't have free will

He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment.

We are either robots or puppets...

Without God, there are no inalienable human rights.

Rubbish. We have rights that are necessary in order to maintain a free and just society.

[roderic]

It is just a collection of unsubstantiated claims and half-cooked thoughts - an irrational piece of writing with no rhyme nor reason.

[MikeD4o7]

7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational.


Even though this line is begging for it, I don't think it would be fair for me to start listing the irrational beliefs that religion encompasses. It wouldn't be fair because religions in general don't even make the claim that they're rational. The idea that God keeps human being rational just doesn't follow any sort of logic when you look at the very nature of religion itself


It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism.


It did so happen that many supporters of a failed political doctrine were also non religious. Proving how irrelevant this is to the subject would be as easy as creating a laundry list of failed political states where most of the supporters were religious. It just doesn't logically follow from one to the other.


It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed that men's and women's natures are basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all socially induced.


The line of thinking he's referring to came in response to overly patriarchal attitudes that have been ingrained in most societies for thousands of years. It's like a pendulum that swings with popular opinion. When one side of an argument starts gaining traction, the opposite side swings back. I'm pretty sure that's a regular part of society that you can see with almost any controversial issue.


Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.


There's really nothing objective at all about this statement, and I don't think Prager realized this, but look what he did. In one paragraph, not only did he make an argument, but he quite impressively provided strong evidence against his argument at the same time.

Look at this sentence: while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm

He's arguing that those who believe in God restrict their irrationality to religion, yet he uses completely irrational pseudo-hippie'ish-psychology that he pulled from thin air in an attempt to show that one segment of society is doing great harm. I mean... wow... just wow.



8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can humans have free will.


Materialism, as a scientific theory, died a long time ago. The idea of anything in this universe as working simply like a clock with a set of gears, is simply a century behind.

Second, it's actually the existence of God that would logically put free will in danger. If God is omniscient, then it means he knows every decision you're going to make. If he knows what decision you're going to make, then you can't possibly make any different decisions besides what he has in his omniscient mind. To do so, would render God less than omniscient... which according to those who believe in him, is impossible.



13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America's Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.


Maybe evolution does in fact confer rights. Actually, to be more specific, maybe it's intelligence that does. With the capacity of our brains, our ability to interpret symbols, our ability to create thoughts about situations that we're not even necessarily experiencing... those things seem to me like they could be the root of what we call "empathy". When we talk about inalienable rights, what are we really talking about? It seems to me that what we recognize as inalienable rights are things that we believe that no person should be deprived of, or that everybody should be granted. The right to life, to freedom, to pursuing happiness. Those are all things that we can come to through a combination of reason and empathy for others rather than through a God.

In fact, thinking of it as the result of reasoning and empathy actually fills the gaps to moral questions where simply turning to "God" would fail. For example, if you've ever seen the movie Short Circuit... you probably had a strong sense by the end of the movie that Johnny 5 should have some rights. From a religious standpoint, that makes absolutely no sense. Johnny 5 was not created by God, there is nowhere in any sacred scripts that says robots made of metal and wiring have any rights. Yet not a person that watches that movie thinks people should be able to come in and just take Johnny 5 apart. It's pretty clear that our inalienable rights, and the reason we agree that people should have them has everything to do with characteristics. Characteristics that we can observe without God having to point them out to us.

For those that do think that morality and inalienable rights were actually created by God, I don't understand how they're not disturbed by that idea. Doesn't it beg the question of "why" God chose the rules he did? the rights he did? What makes you sure that what God chose is good? Because he's the most powerful thing that exists? Seems like a crappy way to get the standards you live by if you ask me.

[mataj]

7. Marxism is very rational doctrine, far too rational to be believed in. This is the reason why people who believe in Marxism do insane things. Marxism was not meant to be believed in. If someone has to believe into something, Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is as good as anything else.

8. Free will is purely religious concept, it has no meaning outside religion. Basically, free will is sort of excuse for creator god's incompetence.

13. There is no such thing as "inalienable human rights". Rights can only be


taken
exacted
negotiated
won by fighting

There is no other option. Rights can not be given. If you are not ready to figtht for your rights at all times, you don't really have them, they are just an illusion. Believing, that your rights are inalienable, god given, is therefore the best way of losing them.

[serenity]

As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God.

AH, well, this is a bit of a conundrum, isn't it? What he is saying--quite literally--is that there are practical matters that are more important than truth. It's not that God exists--as he says, he hasn't proven it--it's that "we" need to believe he exists for the sake of a good society.

In fact, this was rather the view of Leo Strauss, often named the Grandfather of the neocons. It's a theory of social order and social cohesion as aided by religious faith. Whether the faith has any objective merit--whether it speaks to the truth about the world--is simply not important.

What galls here is that it is also an admittal of an elitist view. An embracing of an elitist view, actually.

The masses must believe in God, because it's a "necessity"--for a strong, good, just and moral society. That's its primary purpose (and it is invoked by implication in every word Prager writes here). The elites, however, are made of sterner, tougher stuff--they can handle the truth--and the truth is the profound possibility that there is no God.

This doesn't matter, Prager tells us, and Strauss tells us.

It's one thing for them--since they're wise and all--and another thing for humanity in general, whom Prager and Strauss look down upon with frustrated affection. Fathers watching their none-too-bright children.

Strauss' most famous student, Allan Bloom, was explicit about the differences between the masses and the elites as well. For example, he wrote of the necessity of Religious faith for society--not as "truth," but as a doctrinal necessity to keep us all in line. He said marriage was an important tool of social order, for example; but he said whether or not people were happy in marriage was "irrelevant."

And meanwhile, he personally was an unmarried, promiscuous homosexual, who slept with his male-student acolytes, Greek philosopher-style.

Such things are terribly destructive for society, they tell us--but perfectly fine for the elites who otherwise preach order and "conservative values."

Good Christ, how can Prager admit that we don't know God exists, yet insist we SHOULD believe in Him for the sake of society?

I would think God would prefer the search for truth over pretence, but what do I know?

[JD3]

Your prejudice point is interesting. I think it is possible that what you view as prejudice in his thinking, is actually descrimination. And in descrimination there is both positive and negative.

"Limits" is also a very big part of Prager's ideology. He thinks they are a necessity in human behaviour.

I'd be interested to understand your view of your particular God. What is He (It) really all about. What is His capability. Depending on what those answers are, I wonder how you can then turn around and say if there is no God you still have free will. Because, how would you know?!

Free will means I decide what I do, what I believe, what actions I take. I can still decide whether there is a god or not. In fact, some views of god, in which there is predetermination, would do more to limit my free will than there not being a god.

I'm not sure I can articulate my view of God very well. I don't see God as the authoritarian rule giver that we must appease. Instead, a creator who wants us to be the best we can be. I see religion not as something that proves all the answers, but provides a place to search. The Bible not as a rules book that ends the discussion, but as a place to begin.

[rjamortega]

No, some of us just feel that it is just as ridiculous to say that without God there would be no ethics or free will as it is to say that without Zeus or Xenu or Tooth Fairy there would be no ethics or free will.

That is my point. Typically in such discussions the mention of "God" is taken to be a force or diety with all the majesty of Zues and Tooth Fairy. I agree, not very impressive. But in calling out "God" I only mean something greater than man that gives the "gift" something worth striving towards. That only men like you or myself say something is so does not make it truly grand. Certainly you and I as a group has the power to grant something inalienable.

I agree, most religious believers view their God as a selfish diety that demands all adherence to its dictates. But that is for them. My God is far more mysterious, and at the same time, simple to me. I only know that its laws and gifts are far greater than what they are if this life we live is only an event in the physical universe.

[rjamortega]

Who decides which rights are inalienable and which aren't? Hint: Man.

Randy

You are correct. But then those rights aren't really so profound. Some day the next man can come along and change what civil rights should be. In the end we are all left saying "mine were better".

But also, again, if you are correct, how then can you use the word "inalienable"?

[rjamortega]

9/11, godhatesfags.com, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquistion, I could go on...

Well if God already knows the future (which many religions preach) then we don't have free will

We are either robots or puppets...

Rubbish. We have rights that are necessary in order to maintain a free and just society.

Yeah, we have rights. But they are not inalienable. They are quite open to repudiation.

[rjamortega]

Even though this line is begging for it, I don't think it would be fair for me to start listing the irrational beliefs that religion encompasses. It wouldn't be fair because religions in general don't even make the claim that they're rational. The idea that God keeps human being rational just doesn't follow any sort of logic when you look at the very nature of religion itself

...

But don't you see, Prager has said exactly what you just said. He admits religious belief is irrational (read it again). What he then says is that all humans will live with some irrational element in their lives. The religious, because they worship in irrationality, then live outwardly more rational.

Whereas, the secular tend to practice their irrationality outwardly amongst society through social and legislative policies. Was eliminating millions of jews rational? Are welfare policies that actualy eliminate stay at home fathers rational?

[rjamortega]

7. Marxism is very rational doctrine, far too rational to be believed in. This is the reason why people who believe in Marxism do insane things. Marxism was not meant to be believed in. If someone has to believe into something, Judeo-Christian-Islamic god is as good as anything else.

8. Free will is purely religious concept, it has no meaning outside religion. Basically, free will is sort of excuse for creator god's incompetence.

13. There is no such thing as "inalienable human rights". Rights can only be


taken
exacted
negotiated
won by fighting

There is no other option. Rights can not be given. If you are not ready to figtht for your rights at all times, you don't really have them, they are just an illusion. Believing, that your rights are inalienable, god given, is therefore the best way of losing them.

Thanks go to mataj. This is the perfect example of what Prager is explaining.

[rjamortega]

AH, well, this is a bit of a conundrum, isn't it? What he is saying--quite literally--is that there are practical matters that are more important than truth. It's not that God exists--as he says, he hasn't proven it--it's that "we" need to believe he exists for the sake of a good society.

In fact, this was rather the view of Leo Strauss, often named the Grandfather of the neocons. It's a theory of social order and social cohesion as aided by religious faith. Whether the faith has any objective merit--whether it speaks to the truth about the world--is simply not important.

What galls here is that it is also an admittal of an elitist view. An embracing of an elitist view, actually.

The masses must believe in God, because it's a "necessity"--for a strong, good, just and moral society. That's its primary purpose (and it is invoked by implication in every word Prager writes here). The elites, however, are made of sterner, tougher stuff--they can handle the truth--and the truth is the profound possibility that there is no God.

This doesn't matter, Prager tells us, and Strauss tells us.

It's one thing for them--since they're wise and all--and another thing for humanity in general, whom Prager and Strauss look down upon with frustrated affection. Fathers watching their none-too-bright children.

Strauss' most famous student, Allan Bloom, was explicit about the differences between the masses and the elites as well. For example, he wrote of the necessity of Religious faith for society--not as "truth," but as a doctrinal necessity to keep us all in line. He said marriage was an important tool of social order, for example; but he said whether or not people were happy in marriage was "irrelevant."

And meanwhile, he personally was an unmarried, promiscuous homosexual, who slept with his male-student acolytes, Greek philosopher-style.

Such things are terribly destructive for society, they tell us--but perfectly fine for the elites who otherwise preach order and "conservative values."

Good Christ, how can Prager admit that we don't know God exists, yet insist we SHOULD believe in Him for the sake of society?

I would think God would prefer the search for truth over pretence, but what do I know?

Yes. But don't forget, Prager also does not say God can be disproven.

In fact, Prager does believe finding the truth is prefered...in things dealing with the physical world. But be careful. It seems that you may be edging over towards that profile of a god that is jealous and angry all the time. That character always manages to muck up the works as far as concerns these sort of discussions.

[rjamortega]

Free will means I decide what I do, what I believe, what actions I take. I can still decide whether there is a god or not. In fact, some views of god, in which there is predetermination, would do more to limit my free will than there not being a god.

I'm not sure I can articulate my view of God very well. I don't see God as the authoritarian rule giver that we must appease. Instead, a creator who wants us to be the best we can be. I see religion not as something that proves all the answers, but provides a place to search. The Bible not as a rules book that ends the discussion, but as a place to begin.

Now I'm starting to feel very akin to your thinking.

I think where Prager is going with the free will thing is that without God all we do and think is limited within the physical elements that make us up. Your view of granduer is no more impressive than mine.

[rjamortega]

That is my point. Typically in such discussions the mention of "God" is taken to be a force or diety with all the majesty of Zues and Tooth Fairy. I agree, not very impressive. But in calling out "God" I only mean something greater than man that gives the "gift" something worth striving towards. That only men like you or myself say something is so does not make it truly grand. Certainly you and I as a group has the power to grant something inalienable.

I agree, most religious believers view their God as a selfish diety that demands all adherence to its dictates. But that is for them. My God is far more mysterious, and at the same time, simple to me. I only know that its laws and gifts are far greater than what they are if this life we live is only an event in the physical universe.

EDIT-CORRECTION: in my reply to Groucho I meant to say;

"Certainly you and I as a group (or individual) do not have the power to grant something inalienable."

[serenity]

Yes. But don't forget, Prager also does not say God can be disproven.

In fact, Prager does believe finding the truth is prefered...in things dealing with the physical world. But be careful. It seems that you may be edging over towards that profile of a god that is jealous and angry all the time. That character always manages to muck up the works as far as concerns these sort of discussions.


You're right about the last point, which only serves to muddy the point i was trying to make.

Which was this: Prager seems to be saying the religiosu faith is salutary in and of itself, that it's good for society--whether or not it's true.

I have no truck with people who genuinely think it's true.

I have a problem with people who admit it might not be true..but that we should believe anyway, for the sake of social order. I would hope that truth is more important. The other view is the slipperiest of slopes.

[MikeD4o7]

But don't you see, Prager has said exactly what you just said. He admits religious belief is irrational (read it again). What he then says is that all humans will live with some irrational element in their lives. The religious, because they worship in irrationality, then live outwardly more rational.

Whereas, the secular tend to practice their irrationality outwardly amongst society through social and legislative policies. Was eliminating millions of jews rational? Are welfare policies that actualy eliminate stay at home fathers rational?

Yes, but I addressed that later on in my post, and pointed out the irony of the fact that there's no rational reason to believe that there's some "well of irrationality" that every person has to outlet into one thing or another.

[JD3]

Now I'm starting to feel very akin to your thinking.

I think where Prager is going with the free will thing is that without God all we do and think is limited within the physical elements that make us up. Your view of granduer is no more impressive than mine.

I'm not sure what to make of the granduer comment, and I'm also not sure the concept of God limits or expands me either way. I can imagine anything regardless of whether I believe in a god or not. I have known more than a few creative, intelligent, and imaginative people who did not believe in god. And they often stepped outside of physical limits.

[roderic]

... What he then says is that all humans will live with some irrational element in their lives. The religious, because they worship in irrationality, then live outwardly more rational.

Whereas, the secular tend to practice their irrationality outwardly amongst society through social and legislative policies. Was eliminating millions of jews rational? Are welfare policies that actualy eliminate stay at home fathers rational?That's what he says, yet I see nothing but selective anecdotal evidence to support this.

"Humans will live with some irrational element in their lives." That's certainly a general truism.
But what makes him think that this irrationality will predominantely be expressed in one area, i.e. religious beliefs or, in the absence of this, through social and legislative policies?
What a bizarre assertion! Are there no 'irrational' social or legislative policies pursued by religious people or in religious societies?
Even the most superficial look at any Islamic Republic will prove this notion to be utter nonsense.

[rjamortega]

You're right about the last point, which only serves to muddy the point i was trying to make.

Which was this: Prager seems to be saying the religiosu faith is salutary in and of itself, that it's good for society--whether or not it's true.

I have no truck with people who genuinely think it's true.

I have a problem with people who admit it might not be true..but that we should believe anyway, for the sake of social order. I would hope that truth is more important. The other view is the slipperiest of slopes.

Oh I think Prager is most definately siting the case that religious faith is good for society. What he isn't saying is that having no belief automatically makes all non-believers bad people.

Truth's importance really only plays in the physical world. As I said, truth cannot be established where we can't prove or disprove something. God is a matter of faith and nothing else.

[rjamortega]

Yes, but I addressed that later on in my post, and pointed out the irony of the fact that there's no rational reason to believe that there's some "well of irrationality" that every person has to outlet into one thing or another.

Please excuse me Mike, I only read about half of your post (I'll finish it later when I have more time).

Irrationality is a general fact of the human condition. It would be difficult to find a person who has always been rational, never irrational.

Remember (and Prager even admits this), he usually speaks in generalities. He even has a saying that goes something like; Generalization is the mother of knowledge.

[rjamortega]

One thing I'd like to say; As of this Page-3 dialog, everyone has become a lot less strident, with little or no defensiveness and name calling as was seen in Page-1.

I like that. Thank you.

[rjamortega]

I'm not sure what to make of the granduer comment, and I'm also not sure the concept of God limits or expands me either way. I can imagine anything regardless of whether I believe in a god or not. I have known more than a few creative, intelligent, and imaginative people who did not believe in god. And they often stepped outside of physical limits.

I may have misused the word, but I meant "granduer" to mean ideals we hold most high.

Even Prager admits the existance of highly respectful secularists.

How did they step outside physical limits?

[rjamortega]

That's what he says, yet I see nothing but selective anecdotal evidence to support this.

"Humans will live with some irrational element in their lives." That's certainly a general truism.
But what makes him think that this irrationality will predominantely be expressed in one area, i.e. religious beliefs or, in the absence of this, through social and legislative policies?
What a bizarre assertion! Are there no 'irrational' social or legislative policies pursued by religious people or in religious societies?
Even the most superficial look at any Islamic Republic will prove this notion to be utter nonsense.

Keep in mind Prager speaks in support of Judeo/Christian values and faith. Islam is a different matter and problem.

For evidence, I believe it is in the attached Prager essay that he mentions early on how far more people have been murdered, killed and tortured for the sake of secular ideologies than for religious beliefs. The suffering of the North Korean people is the result of secular irrationality.

[steveksux]

Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.Except for the fundies belief that a draft dodgeing dry drunk with a string of utter failures in business would make a good President merely because he claimed to find Jesus in the bottom of a whisky bottle. Their irrationality caused quite an immense amount of damage.

Randy

[roderic]

One thing I'd like to say; As of this Page-3 dialog, everyone has become a lot less strident, with little or no defensiveness and name calling as was seen in Page-1.I have done neither, but reluctantly engage now, though I still maintain Prager's article holds no merit.

Keep in mind Prager speaks in support of Judeo/Christian values and faith. Islam is a different matter and problem.There are no Judeo/Christian theocracies that I know of in the present time, a look at history will confirm the irrationality of Christian societies as well.

For evidence, I believe it is in the attached Prager essay that he mentions early on how far more people have been murdered, killed and tortured for the sake of secular ideologies than for religious beliefs. The suffering of the North Korean people is the result of secular irrationality.
Ah, I knew this would come up.
1)It is not a numbers game, and if it were, one also needs to consider the population size and means of destruction available during modern "secular ideologies" compared to earlier religious societies.
2)"Secular irrationality" would need to be defined and shown to be the specific cause in North Korea, as a paramount one in relation to other possible causes.
Claiming it to be so is not enough.

I suspect that there would be no meaningful distinction between religious and secular irrationality if one were to examine such concept with sincerity. What's been brought up so far has been exceedingly easy to disqualify.

[mataj]

Thanks go to mataj. This is the perfect example of what Prager is explaining.Yea, I'm perfect example of devastating spiritual consequences of godlessness to an individual. Because I don't believe in god, I'm totally godless, and all. I don't even reflectively start to boil with rage when Marx is mentionend. Terrible, isn't it?

[rjamortega]

Except for the fundies belief that a draft dodgeing dry drunk with a string of utter failures in business would make a good President merely because he claimed to find Jesus in the bottom of a whisky bottle. Their irrationality caused quite an immense amount of damage.

Randy

Enjoy 'W.', Randy. :D

[rjamortega]

I have done neither, but reluctantly engage now, though I still maintain Prager's article holds no merit.

There are no Judeo/Christian theocracies that I know of in the present time, a look at history will confirm the irrationality of Christian societies as well.

Ah, I knew this would come up.
1)It is not a numbers game, and if it were, one also needs to consider the population size and means of destruction available during modern "secular ideologies" compared to earlier religious societies.
2)"Secular irrationality" would need to be defined and shown to be the specific cause in North Korea, as a paramount one in relation to other possible causes.
Claiming it to be so is not enough.

I suspect that there would be no meaningful distinction between religious and secular irrationality if one were to examine such concept with sincerity. What's been brought up so far has been exceedingly easy to disqualify.

I look at it more from the perspective that major religions did their worst damage in primitive times. Secular atrocities have happened in more recent, "enlightened" times.

[rjamortega]

Yea, I'm perfect example of devastating spiritual consequences of godlessness to an individual. Because I don't believe in god, I'm totally godless, and all. I don't even reflectively start to boil with rage when Marx is mentionend. Terrible, isn't it?

I'm not pointing to your "godlessness", as you refer to it. I was considering your very valid opinions in light of your secular ideology. In fact, I am in total agreement with you, if in fact there is no God.

Don't be so defensive. I understand you were criticizing some points with cynicism. But your last part of that post was very sensible to me.

[massa]

As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God.
I think that by the age of 12 or so most people are able to figure out that this kind of "logic" just doesn`t work. I mean, the religious ones want (or need) something to exict and so it must exist? No, it doesn`t work in the reality. Our wants and needs often remain unsatisfied, this is just how it is. Tough s..t!

[rjamortega]

I think that by the age of 12 or so most people are able to figure out that this kind of "logic" just doesn`t work. I mean, the religious ones want (or need) something to exict and so it must exist? No, it doesn`t work in the reality. Our wants and needs often remain unsatisfied, this is just how it is. Tough s..t!

Not sure how you can be so emphatic. Even without the existance of God some believers do in fact live good decent lives precisely because of their irrational religious faith. What is it you are saying "doesn't work"?

And what is your point about "wants and needs"? Are you assuming that all God is to any believer is a source for answering ALL their demands?

You know, it seems that some of you only want to discuss this subject from the perspective of the lowest common denominator. Well then I can see why there is so much animosity and discounting.

[massa]

Not sure how you can be so emphatic. Even without the existance of God some believers do in fact live good decent lives precisely because of their irrational religious faith. What is it you are saying "doesn't work"?
Even if they are happy it says absolutely nothing about the existence of God.
This thread is called "If there is no God", right? Well, if there is no God, it is still possible to believe in his existence, I agree :)
Some people believe they are Napoleons, and are very happy. It`s cool to be a great man ;)

And what is your point about "wants and needs"? ?
It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God

Are you assuming that all God is to any believer is a source for answering ALL the demands
Why ALL? Maybe just SOME :)

You know, it seems that some of you only want to discuss this subject from the perspective of the lowest common denominator.
And what do you WANT? :)

[mataj]

I'm not pointing to your "godlessness", as you refer to it. I was considering your very valid opinions in light of your secular ideology. In fact, I am in total agreement with you, if in fact there is no God.

Don't be so defensive. I understand you were criticizing some points with cynicism. But your last part of that post was very sensible to me.Oh :o Guess it was a misunderstanding then.

[rjamortega]

Even if they are happy it says absolutely nothing about the existence of God.
This thread is called "If there is no God", right? Well, if there is no God, it is still possible to believe in his existence, I agree :)
Some people believe they are Napoleons, and are very happy. It`s cool to be a great man ;)
The essay has nothing to do with proving or disproving God's existance. It suggests that things like inalienable rights and free will are only possible if God exists, and that judeo/christian values have actualy been good for western societies.

Why ALL? Maybe just SOME :)
Okay. "Some" works. I almost used that when I posted.

And what do you WANT? :)
I want to consider the full realm of judeo/christianity, not just the old, bearded ,jealous,self-centered, angry supernatural being who generaly scares, irritates and angers people.

[massa]

The essay has nothing to do with proving or disproving God's existance. It suggests that things like inalienable rights and free will are only possible if God exists
OK. This is an interesting point of view and we can talk about it too.
First, I want to ask you a question. Does it work the other way around? For example, if there are no inablienable rights, does it mean that there is no (judeo-christian) God?

and that judeo/christian values have actualy been good for western societies
The essay says something about the God of America's founders
Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America's Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we
The White People?
are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.
As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God. "Which God?" the secularist will ask. The God of Israel, the God of America's founders
Were the rights of Negros and Amerindians alienated?
Or were their inalienable rights just ignored?

Okay. "Some" works. I almost used that when I posted.
Give us this day our daily bread

[rjamortega]

OK. This is an interesting point of view and we can talk about it too.
First, I want to ask you a question. Does it work the other way around? For example, if there are no inablienable rights, does it mean that there is no (judeo-christian) God?
I say yes. That means specifically there is no judeo/christian God.

Of course that doesn't mean there can't be some other god who does not doll out inalienable rights.
The White People?
Given different circumstances in history it could have been a different shade of flesh.

Were the rights of Negros and Amerindians alienated?
Or were their inalienable rights just ignored?
Their inalienable rights were subverted by the primitive, unenlightened mortal ideals of the day.
Of course, that assumes there is this j/c God. Otherwise, as mataj states, there are no inalienable rights and man was simply exercising his power over other men.

[massa]

I say yes. That means specifically there is no judeo/christian God.
It`s hard (maybe even impossible) to figure out whether our will is free or not. So it`s probably better to talk about our rights.

Their inalienable rights were subverted by the primitive, unenlightened mortal ideals of the day.
Can we just say that for all practical purposes the slaves and natives had no rights to speak of?
I think "inalienable" mean that the rights cannot be alienated no matter what?
If you are a slave, what happend with your rights? Were are they?
Of course, that assumes there is this j/c God. Otherwise, as mataj states, there are no inalienable rights and man was simply exercising his power over other men.
It`s pretty clear to me that the rights are not inalienable, they are artificial and can be alienated without much trouble. The universal human rights are a very new invention.

By the way, what does the Bible (the New Testament in particular) says about slaves? I thought that the slaves were supposed to obey their masters, according to the Bible.

[rjamortega]

It`s hard (maybe even impossible) to figure out whether our will is free or not. So it`s probably better to talk about our rights.
What needs to be remembered when talking about God is that God opens to man a path beyond the physical universe. God makes it possible for man to aspire to a more holy path beyond his own physical and biological limitations.
Without a higher moral authority, man is only driven by and given authority by the physical elements that make up our universe. The choices we make then carry no greater significance.

Can we just say that for all practical purposes the slaves and natives had no rights to speak of?
I think "inalienable" mean that the rights cannot be alienated no matter what?
If you are a slave, what happend with your rights? Were are they?

It`s pretty clear to me that the rights are not inalienable, they are artificial and can be alienated without much trouble. The universal human rights are a very new invention.
Universal human rights are man's attempt to annoint man with a higher quality of life. But since they are proclaimed only by men, then they do not possess any higher authority than those men are able to protect. Other men can denounce those rights with equal authority.

If there is a God who grants rights to man, those rights remain inalienable regardless of how men are treating each other in the physical world.

By the way, what does the Bible (the New Testament in particular) says about slaves? I thought that the slaves were supposed to obey their masters, according to the Bible.

I am not a biblical scholar by a long shot. I have heard scholars say that we must take into account historical context. Then a given scripture can make better sense and can be adapted to today's world.

[massa]

Universal human rights are man's attempt to annoint man with a higher quality of life. But since they are proclaimed only by men, then they do not possess any higher authority than those men are able to protect. Other men can denounce those rights with equal authority.
Yes, for example in American history the Southern men denounced the rights of the Africans, and the Nothern ones objected. This dispute was not settled in churches... it was settled in the way such disputes were usually settled - by killing lots of people on battlefields. In the end, might made right, not higher authority. Feudalism was eliminated in the capitalist USA and I just don`t see what exactly all this has to do with God. Feudalism was just less efficient, that was why it eventually lost.

If there is a God who grants rights to man, those rights remain inalienable regardless of how men are treating each other in the physical world.
But rights are rights only when they are enforced, no? If I`m a slave, maybe I can think I have some "right" to be free, but my master says "No, you are not free" and God is silent, and I must work, otherwise my master will punish me.
Maybe I`m talking "from the perspective of the lowest common denominator" but I just can`t see how human rights are inalienable when then can be alienated, were alienated, are alienated (just ask those terrorists in Abu-Ghraib) and will be alienated in the foreseeable future.

I am not a biblical scholar by a long shot. I have heard scholars say that we must take into account historical context. Then a given scripture can make better sense and can be adapted to today's world.
But the words of (christian) God must be absolute truth. How can they be true 2000 years ago and not true today? If it is so, then maybe his other words and advices are also outdated. Maybe we should kill and torture our enemies now instead of loving them.

[steveksux]

Enjoy 'W.', Randy. :D
Is it really a documentary? :D

Randy

[Scaryclouds]

Yeah, we have rights. But they are not inalienable. They are quite open to repudiation.

Well apparently God does a pretty piss poor job of defending our "inalienable rights" Not to mention the bible nor religious leaders in general totally agree on what these "inalienable rights" are.

[roderic]

I look at it more from the perspective that major religions did their worst damage in primitive times. Secular atrocities have happened in more recent, "enlightened" times."Secular atrocities"?
Do you mean like mass-murdering people on the basis of their 'race', nationality, belief etc. without invoking the name and blessing of a god for doing so?

Maybe this "irrationality" persists regardless of the presence or absence of religion?

I do not see any indication that Christian religiousness makes a difference, i.e. directs this "irrationality" away from the socio-political and contains it in the sphere of religion, as Prager suggests.
A different, but related question is, if perhaps the absence of a single accepted ideology, or rather the presence of several competing ideologies is instrumental in preventing this irrationality from manifesting, as in modern democratic societies?

[JD3]

I may have misused the word, but I meant "granduer" to mean ideals we hold most high.

Even Prager admits the existance of highly respectful secularists.

How did they step outside physical limits?

Many have very abstract notions of the world and the universe. In art, and science, they ask questions that transend the known, envision more than we know about the physical world. They are not limited. Some are not even practical. ;)

What can the Christian or religious person possibly envision that the secularist, the atheist cannot? Many engage in fanasty. In sci-fi. In science in which creative and new discoveries are found and made. They seek explanations outside of a god. This requires a lot of creativety and persistence sometimes, where as saying god did it is easy at some levels, and less imaginative.

Again, I happen to believe in God, but I often find these arguments that people like Prager make to be uninsightful and limited. It plays to the choir without really asking any tough questions, and almost no self inspection or self questioning.

[Ethos]

I confess to being confused over how a man who makes so many absolute statements (ie there can be no free will without a god) can be seen as "open minded".

One can make just about any statement concerning the existence (or lack thereof) of god and frame it in such a way as to automatically dismiss criticisms, which does not make such statements either accurate nor open-minded.

As evidence against the existence of a god, I propose if there were in fact a god, Prager would not be afforded such widespread popularity. Certainly no universe in which an all-knowing, supposedly caring creator spends its time looking after said creation would allow such unfortunate individuals to prosper.

Ethos

[JD3]

I confess to being confused over how a man who makes so many absolute statements (ie there can be no free will without a god) can be seen as "open minded".

Ethos

I agree.

[rjamortega]

Many have very abstract notions of the world and the universe. In art, and science, they ask questions that transend the known, envision more than we know about the physical world. They are not limited. Some are not even practical. ;)

What can the Christian or religious person possibly envision that the secularist, the atheist cannot? Many engage in fanasty. In sci-fi. In science in which creative and new discoveries are found and made. They seek explanations outside of a god. This requires a lot of creativety and persistence sometimes, where as saying god did it is easy at some levels, and less imaginative.

Again, I happen to believe in God, but I often find these arguments that people like Prager make to be uninsightful and limited. It plays to the choir without really asking any tough questions, and almost no self inspection or self questioning.

Well, remember, we are reading an essay. It is not a debate where points can be scrutinized more deeply.

[JD3]

Well, remember, we are reading an essay. It is not a debate where points can be scrutinized more deeply.

You're a good man rj, a reasonable fellow, but an essay is an argument and as such open for debate.

[rjamortega]

You're a good man rj, a reasonable fellow, but an essay is an argument and as such open for debate.

Gosh, I'm a bit embarassed that you might think me a real simpleton from my last statement. What I meant was the Prager piece lays down ideas but of course won't explain in detail (due to space). However, the debate does and is taking place after reviewing it.

I assume for a more comprehensive study an author would need to write a book or journal and not just a brief op-ed.

[JD3]

Gosh, I'm a bit embarassed that you might think me a real simpleton from my last statement. What I meant was the Prager piece lays down ideas but of course won't explain in detail (due to space). However, the debate does and is taking place after reviewing it.

I assume for a more comprehensive study an author would need to write a book or journal and not just a brief op-ed.

Never thought you were a simpleton. Never, ever. But he does need to lay more of a foundation than he does. And he has a body of work that you have shared a lot of. I never heard of him before you, and what you have shared speaks poorly to his reasoning skills. While I doubt he is a simpleton either, he does not present well reasoned arguments.

[rjamortega]

Never thought you were a simpleton. Never, ever. But he does need to lay more of a foundation than he does. And he has a body of work that you have shared a lot of. I never heard of him before you, and what you have shared speaks poorly to his reasoning skills. While I doubt he is a simpleton either, he does not present well reasoned arguments.

How reasoned his arguments are I think is probably a function of perspective. In any event, I would love to hear him questioned by folks like yourself to hear his response. There are some debates available with various thinkers. I should check them out.

Thanks for your comments, Joe.