- If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
If he has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?
If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest? - Nature rejects the monarch, not the man;
The subject, not the citizen; for kings
And subjects, mutual foes, forever play
A losing game into each other’s hands,
Whose stakes are vice and misery. The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys.
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate’er it touches; and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and of the human frame
A mechanized automaton. - Fear not the future, weep not for the past.
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
-
Archives
- October 2010
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
-
Categories
-
Meta
This is silly.
Percy Bysshe Shelly missed a few things, like “Why bother to follow his arbitrary rules if he’s just going to forgive you in the end?”
But other than that, I like it!
Someone has never studied metaphysics of ANY kind.
It is very foolish of philosophize about something you’ve never even studied.
Wait, anonymous… you’re saying that Shelley isn’t qualified to talk about metaphysics? WTF, you moron.
well said, but people will believe what they want in the face of the most convincing arguments and compelling logic. but thank you, it was nice to hear shelly say it; i was not aware that these were his views.
I agree with Shelley.
I’m curious. What if Shelley *is* wrong? What if God really is? Even the scientific method’s aim is to push aside all prejudice to get at reality- that that is. I mean, how do over 5000 extant documents of the New Testament alone go for nothing? They alone answer each of his questions listed here.
Look on my works ye mighty and despair!
“I’m curious. What if Shelley *is* wrong? What if God really is? Even the scientific method’s aim is to push aside all prejudice to get at reality- that that is. I mean, how do over 5000 extant documents of the New Testament alone go for nothing? They alone answer each of his questions listed here.”
The scientific method itself is without “aim,” but the purpose for which it is used, which is what I suppose you mean, is in fact to reveal truth. However, simply saying “what if you’re wrong?” doesn’t pose any statement or stance in any meaningful way. In fact, the scientific method has revealed no evidence of anything one could deem a god, thus even wondering if in the background is the workings of intelligence is a presupposition (a.k.a. a prejudice) that there be an intelligence or god. This supposition is “The God of the Gaps” is one that is only backed by the Bible (or whatever holy book is ascribed to the God of the Gaps in question), and so you’ve now stepped into the realm of using this Book as a source when entering into rational/scientific debate.
If this book is used as a source then one must scrutinize the validity of the source. Now, do you believe every fact as presented to you in the Bible? Do you understand how and why rational people use texts/books/documents as sources of information?
Either way, one must realize that the most common prejudice is one which many, many of us given from the beginning: the belief in the metaphysical.
Also, just because there’s so damn many documents in the New Testament doesn’t give it one iota more credence. In fact that’s a complete logical fallacy. The more text there is, the more likely it is the be incorrect. And the only possible way there being more text could make it more likely to be correct is statistically. That’s the same s saying: There’s so many documents, one of them’s gotta be right!
Thank you Patrick. Great response.
All quite valid questions whose answer to a good number of people is..
-plug ears-
Lalalalalalala….
And, following my incredibly lazy response, I would like to applaud Patrick’s excellent and well spoken counter to lance.
[insert golf-clap here]
Patrick,
Your response is well spoken, and clearly stated. And you are right when you say there is no prima facia case to be made in the face of mere quantity. I think Kant was the first to suggest successfully that the metaphysical is, above all, other than the physical. And it would appear you agree.
However, I need to clarify one point. I truly detest (as I am almost certain you do also) dogma. It is the bane of our existence. It is born of ignorance and nourished by pride. I suspect this is the image most people have of any religious person. I almost have in my mind the image of an ignorant but passionate preacher thundering away on his points, with none of them couched in reality. In my soul I it all sounds nauseating and sweet. So, trust me, I intent to make no arguments from mere quantity.
Further, playing what if games will also waste time.
And now my rant. Our discussion is about whether something called metaphysics is dead. Science is clearly alive and vibrant precisely in so far as it has followed the trail of facts. Indeed, some are beginning to cast a wary eye at string theory because there are no apparent tests to validate any of it. Now, that discussion is far above my head, intelligence, or experience. My only point is that good rock solid science follows the trail of facts. Imagination and ingenuity, and a great deal passion, are sometimes necessary produce new theories, but those theories are at some level useless until proven.
Here’s my question. If science is striving to understand the real, does the totality of the real appear to the eye of science? Or, does science only apprehend part of the real?
The New Testament is, purportedly, a collection of 27 books written during the first century AD. Scientifically, the New Testament we have today *is* an accurate copy of those original books. There are copies of it going back to the early 4th century, and fragments back to the early second century, less than 100 years after the original. No other ancient writing in history can make such a claim. None.
Now, I don’t expect anything other than your honest answer. No dogma. If a meteor impacted the earth 2000 years ago, and 1000s of copies of the eye witness reports are with us today, all of the copies agreeing, and all the reports agreeing, even the calendar bearing its mark, would science ignore it? Would you dismiss it outright?
Patrick, please excuse me while I make ten thousand detailed manuscripts all written from scratch, regarding the flying spaghetti monster.
Well, if the flying spaghetti monster really means that much, you probably would.
Food for though. If religion is wrong, does it matter? Probably not as much as if atheism is wrong.
I cannot remember where I read it but I remember something like this: Science to modern man must appear to be magic to the primitive.
Something like that.
So ruling out a benevolent (or otherwise if you go with the Old Testament version) simply because you cannot prove the existence of said being is rather foolish and just as short sighted as the reaction you might get from a fundamentalist believer.
That said, Shelly is questioning the dogma behind the church in his writing, not faith and not belief. This is about not taking for granted what you are told, not something to spark another sad debate over the validity of religion.
As for the whole copies back to the 2nd century and all that, well, that’s fine and a good argument for consistency of message which should be applauded. However, the New Testament as it is is just a gathering of what the prevailing church of the time decided must be the message of God, leaving out whatever parts that might disagree, contradict or otherwise pollute the message they had decided would be the one that would be spread.
In the end, the message was simple. Love one another. Shelly was making the point that everything else is just man deciding to add his flawed bit and everything should be questioned.
In response to Raunie:
If religion is wrong then countless numbers people have suffered and died for nothing.
In fact they still are. If religion is wrong then there is a lot of deluded people making deluded decisions about polices effecting all of our lives, polices effected by religious dogmas and “religious morals”.
Perhaps the president of the USA wouldn’t be sending all these people (my wife included) to Iraq because “god spoke to him”.
I would love to know there is a guy in the sky who loves me and will party on with my spirit after my death, but I’m a rationalist and would like to see one iota of proof.
I do know however that santa bring my pressies and the Easter Bunnie brings me chocolate eggs, I don’t need proof for that I just have “Faith” so it’s true. (plus I’v seen Santa claus the movie and it was in colour, so therefore real).
Religion is almost always wrong because it starts with man and his thinking. When has truth ever cared what I think? Christ, when He came to earth, was both man and God. He explained the truth with authority. Religion is man’s attempt to reach God. Christ came to reach man.
I would say, rather, that Religion is Man’s (somewhat lazy) attempt to explain that which they do not understand. Science is the way Man attempts to (actively) explain that which they have very little understanding of.. This said, Neither by definition can be 100% accurate.. Both are based on a collection of information that we have attained, by either Man’s own means (scientifically) or by being divinely inspired (religion).
So it is up to each person to decide which path to follow. I believe religion is the easy path. You dont need proof, Only to have faith. It requires no searching for answers, as they have all been written. You can not fail, because as long as you believe, and worship, you will find that end which you seek. You do not need to prove your actions as just, because you only answer to God.
Science on the other hand, Is a rocky road. You must provide proof of everything. You constantly must challenge what is generally taken as truth. You must provide answers for things that no one has ever been able to experience first hand. And after devoting your life to your cause, you die and simply rot in the ground.
Therefor, it is no small wonder, so many people devote there lives to Religion. It is human nature to find the easy way out of any situation.. appearently even life itself..
I sort of agree. Its just that currently most religion is in such an advanced state of rot that nearly everyone can see through it. But true science (and isn’t junk science another example of taking the easy way out?), like true religion, is hard. I’ve heard it said that, its not that Christianity was tried and found wanting, rather it was examined and found difficult.
The truth always is difficult, but always rewards fantastically.
Percy Shelley wrote his essay “The necessity of Atheism” and other texts NOT to say there were or could be no gods, but to criticize government, rulership, and authority that tells you how and what to believe because they (or any holy book or whatever) say so.
So he doesn’t seem to be against spirituality etc. but against the shackles of religion (or science or any other authority that wants to go unquestioned)
He was more of an intellectual anarchist than an “un-believer”.
Make up your own mind, choose yourself.
Lance, dude, think man! Please think! Don’t let your bias throw off your reason. The 27 books of the New Testament were not the only Christian writings. They only happen to be the 27 that survived as supposed “scripture”. And who made the decision that they were the “truth”? Well, it wasn’t God, I can tell you that. It was the same church that was trying to sell their version of Christianity. Now, I happen to like the version of Christianity that survived, except that it allows doom-and-gloom, except-or-burn-forever teaching. Even so, a much worse version could have survived. But think, man. Do some more research on how your Bible came to be, and you’ll see the same as I did. Christianity is a man-made religion, and Christ is not much more than the made-up gods and goddesses of the past.
“What if Shelley *is* wrong?” What if Catholicism is wrong? What if Islam is wrong? How about you prove which religion is right compared to the others, then come back and we’ll compare it to atheism.
If I’m wrong not believing in God, then either I’ll be forgiven for my atheism by a benevolent God, rewarded for living a moral life (despite noone threatening me to do so), or else I’ll burn forever for refusing to give up my life to a despicable tyrant (I think they used to call that martyrdom).
Well said John. It’s ironic though, that your black-and-white argument wouldn’t hold water with many evangelists that preach black-and-white, heaven or hell. So long as religion manipulates and clouds people’s brains, we’ll never win them over with logic.
The goal of science is not to disprove belief, but to provide the truth using evidence.
Since science cannot prove or disprove experience (which is the base of all that we understand),
it is possible that someone can understand something which cannot be proven.
Furthermore, the existence of God depends entirely on the understanding of the definition of
“God”. Since almost all religious texts explicitly say that God is unfathomable, it can be
easily construed that any person attempting to disprove God might as well try to disprove
the existence of invisible extra-dimensional unicorns (or anything else unfathomable).
Since atheists cannot provide evidence that God does not exist, it’s really just another religion.
My lifes-long conclusion is that knowledge of God is irrelevant, since the path that you
choose will be taken regardless of the information provided to you.
Why must people get all defensive about their beliefs?
If you truly believe something, the fact that someone else doesn’t believe should not affect you in any way, and you should not need to justify it.
A persons religion, or lack thereof, is their own business, and strictly between them and their choice of god.
In answering the following: “No other ancient writing in history can make such a claim. None.”
I am reading the Iliad my friend and it does. In fact there is a myriad of Greek writings that do … more so there are older texts to Greek that also do.
As for accuracy … the second oldest bible still in existence was recently sold and it is different to the oldest held in the Vatican. One of the gospels is missing the resurrection story.
Finally … exodus 20:21
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
“Since atheists cannot provide evidence that God does not exist, it’s really just another religion”
Proving the negative is pretty tricky …
I wear a huge clove of garlic around my neck to protect me from vampires. It works
?!?
PS: Scientists are simply perusing the truth. They don’t much care about the existence of God. They simply give rational reasoning to things that was once the domain of religion. It’s like I am going about my work, and you demand attention and ask me to stay out of your territory. Sorry, there is only one truth
“Proving the negative is pretty tricky …
I wear a huge clove of garlic around my neck to protect me from vampires. It works
?!?”
Take the garlic off, do the vampires attack? If not, then the garlic isn’t doing anything. But that still doesn’t disprove the existence vampires.
As I said, trying to understand, prove or disprove God is as utterly pointless as your comment on vampires.
Who said they could disprove the existence of God? Either you’re putting words in our mouths, or you’ve been talking to some stupid atheists. No atheist I know of claims that they can disprove the existence of God; they simply lack the belief in a God. Just like I lack the belief in vampires. I can’t disprove the existence of vampires, but given the fact that there’s insufficient credible evidence for the existence of vampires, I don’t feel the need to believe in them.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the existence of a creator. I could even argue that the universe itself IS God. But, as I said, it all depends on how we define God.
Vampires have a very specific identity, which can be (quite easily) scientifically disproved. God isn’t anywhere near as simple to identify or understand. For example – If God wanted to create a universe and leave no trace of himself, he could do it. That does not mean that God didn’t make the universe, just that we will never know exactly what happened.
Atheists BELIEVE there is no God because they lack the ability to see past the dogmatic definitions of God. It would be much better for atheists to say that they don’t believe in the existence of SPECIFIC Gods, instead of saying there is NO God at all. To think that you know enough about the universe to conclude that there is no God is as egotistical as saying that you know exactly what God is (or wants).
Anyway, I already said I think knowledge of God is irrelevant, since the path that you choose will be taken regardless of the information provided to you.
Don:
You’re just putting words in our mouths rather than listening to us. As I said earlier — specifically said — atheists don’t “believe there is no god.” You chose to ignore that point because it ruins your narrow and ignorant view of atheists. Atheists just lack the belief in any of the existing gods.
“I could even argue that the universe itself IS God.” <– That’s a nice thought, but there’s absolutely no evidence for that, unless you twist the accepted definitions of god to the point that you might as well be using a different word. If you want to believe that, fine. But it’s stupid to bring that up in this argument.
No atheist thinks that it’s impossible that a god could ever exist. Atheists don’t say they believe adamantly that no gods could exist. If someone showed me convincing proof that a god existed, I’d believe in it. The point is, all the current definitions of “god” that I’ve heard have little or no real evidence (you said there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence, but failed to actually provide any, unless your “universe is god” idea counts as evidence in your mind), so I feel no reason to believe in them. But again, people like you will ignore whatever I say about this.
“If God wanted to create a universe and leave no trace of himself, he could do it.” <– So, if this were true, then in a practical sense, believing in god would be stupid, because having no trace of god anywhere would mean that there would be no good reason to believe in god.
Atheists do no support the belief of God in any form. If you aren’t sure whether or not there is a God, that makes you an AGNOSTIC, not an atheist.
The current definition of God is (pulled directly from the dictionary) – 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
There are literally THOUSANDS of more specific definitions of God. Which are the ones that you “accept”?
Since some people can’t read my entire post, I’ll say this again – Knowledge of God is irrelevant (and so are all of your arguments for or against Gods existence).
You’re confusing your definitions. Agnostics believe that it’s impossible to know whether god exists or not, and it’s entirely possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist, because they answer different questions. In fact, most atheists are also technically agnostics. Agnosticism answers the question of whether it’s possible to know whether god exists or not, and atheism answers the question of whether you actually believe or not.
Belief in god is a yes-or-no question. It doesn’t matter how much you justify it with semantic argument; at the end of the day, you believe in a god or you don’t.
As for your thousands of specific definitions of god, so what? Do you expect us to say “oh, there are THOUSANDS… one of them MUST be right”? That sort of logic doesn’t fly, here. Besides, do YOU believe in every one of those thousands of specific definitions of god? I doubt it. I just believe in one less god than you do.
Where did you get this idea? I assume you’ve never actually talked to a real atheist before.
Did you miss the part about it being impossible to prove a negative? We can never prove that vampires can’t exist. We’ve just gotten to the point that the existence of vampires is so unlikely that it is absurd to believe in them. So, while I will admit that it is possible that a vampire could exist, I’ve seen no evidence to suggest they do, and thus I don’t believe in them.
Show me one with enough evidence supporting it, and I’ll believe it. So far, I’ve yet to see one.
What gave you the idea that anyone was trying to disprove the existence of god? And even if they were, do you really think “the bible says he’s unfathomable” is worthwhile evidence?
“There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the existence of a creator. I could even argue that the universe itself IS God. But, as I said, it all depends on how we define God.”
So, basically your argument is that we can’t disprove it because there are so many different definitions. So? When a normal person says “god” they have specific things in mind. Look at a dictionary and see the first definition of “god.” That’s what atheists don’t believe in. If you want to define god differently, go ahead. Good for you. Just don’t try to bring it up in a philosophical argument. “I define god as life! Are you saying you don’t believe in life?!?!”
“Anyway, I already said I think knowledge of God is irrelevant, since the path that you choose will be taken regardless of the information provided to you.”
You’ve said that several times, but not explained it. WTF do you mean by “path?”
We exist.
this is mental masturbation at its best. people trying to puff up their fur to show they have brains. forums like this are examples of why this world is going to shit. everybody is so caught up in mental bullshit to have the brains left over for social skills.