Ask an Atheist
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
A
If you want to see a scholarly view of dualism from the Christian form rather than the non sequitur one being used in this thread by atheists which lacks contact/unity/interaction with soul and body, confuses dimensions with parts, leads to an untenable asceticism and otherworldliness, posits a platonic representation of human nature that is not biblical, etc...); read Richard Swinburne, JP Moreland, Dean Zimmerman, William Hasker, Charles Taliaferro, Stuart Goetz, Robin Collins and Alvin Plantinga whom have all produced novel and rigorous arguments in defense of dualism forms that align with Christian interpretation.
The Christian worldview asserts a hylomorphism which holds that there is a form/matter unity between soul and body. The roots of the view are found in the Old Testament though Aristotle and other Greek philosophers held a flawed version of it. Modern defense of this view began with Thomas Aquinas. The evidence for hylomorphism can be divided into biblical, philosophical, and scientific (especially with the advent of quantum physics).
Human beings are described as a soul/body unity from the very beginning. Soul and body are a unity, not an identity so the survival of the soul without a body is not impossible or contradictory. If they were identical, then of course one could not survive without the other. Again, by way of analogy, the soul is to the body what thought in the mind is to words on paper; the concept remains when the material perishes. Human beings are reducible neither to pure matter nor to pure spirit.
Human beings are described as a soul/body unity from the very beginning. Soul and body are a unity, not an identity so the survival of the soul without a body is not impossible or contradictory. If they were identical, then of course one could not survive without the other. Again, by way of analogy, the soul is to the body what thought in the mind is to words on paper; the concept remains when the material perishes. Human beings are reducible neither to pure matter nor to pure spirit. They have two dimensions: body and soul.
Nevertheless, these two aspects form one nature composed of form and matter, and they are a form/body: not an identity. The soul survives the dissolution of the body and is conscious. In addition to being one in nature (soul/body) and two in dimension (inner and outer), human beings are three in direction: They have self consciousness, world consciousness, and God consciousness. Only one of these dimensions, world consciousness, is lost in the intermediate state between death and resurrection. The resurrection will restore the wholeness and completeness of a human being as created by God-in unity.
The human person embodied in flesh possesses intellect, emotion, will, and conscience. That is, he or she is capable of choosing, and also has the moral capacity to know right from wrong. As such, humans are morally responsible to the Moral Lawgiver-God, the Creator.
The Christian worldview asserts a hylomorphism which holds that there is a form/matter unity between soul and body. The roots of the view are found in the Old Testament though Aristotle and other Greek philosophers held a flawed version of it. Modern defense of this view began with Thomas Aquinas. The evidence for hylomorphism can be divided into biblical, philosophical, and scientific (especially with the advent of quantum physics).
Human beings are described as a soul/body unity from the very beginning. Soul and body are a unity, not an identity so the survival of the soul without a body is not impossible or contradictory. If they were identical, then of course one could not survive without the other. Again, by way of analogy, the soul is to the body what thought in the mind is to words on paper; the concept remains when the material perishes. Human beings are reducible neither to pure matter nor to pure spirit.
Human beings are described as a soul/body unity from the very beginning. Soul and body are a unity, not an identity so the survival of the soul without a body is not impossible or contradictory. If they were identical, then of course one could not survive without the other. Again, by way of analogy, the soul is to the body what thought in the mind is to words on paper; the concept remains when the material perishes. Human beings are reducible neither to pure matter nor to pure spirit. They have two dimensions: body and soul.
Nevertheless, these two aspects form one nature composed of form and matter, and they are a form/body: not an identity. The soul survives the dissolution of the body and is conscious. In addition to being one in nature (soul/body) and two in dimension (inner and outer), human beings are three in direction: They have self consciousness, world consciousness, and God consciousness. Only one of these dimensions, world consciousness, is lost in the intermediate state between death and resurrection. The resurrection will restore the wholeness and completeness of a human being as created by God-in unity.
The human person embodied in flesh possesses intellect, emotion, will, and conscience. That is, he or she is capable of choosing, and also has the moral capacity to know right from wrong. As such, humans are morally responsible to the Moral Lawgiver-God, the Creator.
I wish you would have said this right away…Maybe I somehow missed it.
Emotions… parents…. Biological… and social conditions.. This is all irrelevant.. Why? Moral ontology (questions about the reality of moral values) is what I’m addressing and moral epistemology (questions about how we come to know moral values) is what you are addressing. When we are talking about objective moral values and duties, the argument is about the objective reality of moral values, not how we come to know them.
This is where you and I disagree.. I believe there are objective moral principles. I believe even if every single human being on earth was brainwashed into believing raping children was good, it would still be objectively wrong. Not all moral issues are objective… And there is no need for an exhaustive list of objective morals to claim that they exist.
It makes a huge difference
There is a massive difference in saying it is subjectively wrong to chop up a 6 month old baby and it is objective wrong to do so.
I don’t deny that. I do believe humans developed a concept of morality from biology and social construct… again moral ontology not moral epistemology.
Did I ever say it didn’t benefit society? You’re comparing math to morality? Let me explain… even if humans did not exist, the laws of physics still would. Without humans, does morality exist? We both agree that the laws of physics would still exist right? Therefore, not illusory. However, you would say morality did not exist without humans right? Therefore, illusory.
Yup because that's the cold hard truth of it. I think Bertrand Russell put it much more eloquently than I could.
Nope… never said that. Where are all these assumptions coming from... can we stay on topic? God does exist, therefore we can "appreciate" things. All humans have that ability because they were created in the image of God regardless of whether they believe He exists or not. With your example... and claiming morality is subjective... the man only does that which is good if the humans around him perceive his act as good. If they deemed it wrong or evil… It would be evil. It’s subjective. I would say it was good regardless of whether the people around him agreed or not. You asked, "What difference does it make?" That's the difference right there.
Yes and the context didn’t change anything. I know Dawkins was referring to objective good and evil… that was the point.
Yes. You've made your stance perfectly clear now. Just understand the consequences of that statement.
Again, I said our senses were reliable in helping us survive. We trust our rationality concerning the existence of God, morality, and questions like these, because…..? I’m not talking about empirical data. I’m talking about knowledge… philosophy… other means of attaining knowledge. Science is not the only way to get knowledge. You cannot use the scientific method to figure out morality. History, for that matter, cannot be studied by the scientific method. Science is an incredible tool, but not the only source of knowledge. =)
Emotions… parents…. Biological… and social conditions.. This is all irrelevant.. Why? Moral ontology (questions about the reality of moral values) is what I’m addressing and moral epistemology (questions about how we come to know moral values) is what you are addressing. When we are talking about objective moral values and duties, the argument is about the objective reality of moral values, not how we come to know them.
This is where you and I disagree.. I believe there are objective moral principles. I believe even if every single human being on earth was brainwashed into believing raping children was good, it would still be objectively wrong. Not all moral issues are objective… And there is no need for an exhaustive list of objective morals to claim that they exist.
It makes a huge difference
There is a massive difference in saying it is subjectively wrong to chop up a 6 month old baby and it is objective wrong to do so.
I don’t deny that. I do believe humans developed a concept of morality from biology and social construct… again moral ontology not moral epistemology.
Did I ever say it didn’t benefit society? You’re comparing math to morality? Let me explain… even if humans did not exist, the laws of physics still would. Without humans, does morality exist? We both agree that the laws of physics would still exist right? Therefore, not illusory. However, you would say morality did not exist without humans right? Therefore, illusory.
Yup because that's the cold hard truth of it. I think Bertrand Russell put it much more eloquently than I could.
Nope… never said that. Where are all these assumptions coming from... can we stay on topic? God does exist, therefore we can "appreciate" things. All humans have that ability because they were created in the image of God regardless of whether they believe He exists or not. With your example... and claiming morality is subjective... the man only does that which is good if the humans around him perceive his act as good. If they deemed it wrong or evil… It would be evil. It’s subjective. I would say it was good regardless of whether the people around him agreed or not. You asked, "What difference does it make?" That's the difference right there.
Yes and the context didn’t change anything. I know Dawkins was referring to objective good and evil… that was the point.
Yes. You've made your stance perfectly clear now. Just understand the consequences of that statement.
Again, I said our senses were reliable in helping us survive. We trust our rationality concerning the existence of God, morality, and questions like these, because…..? I’m not talking about empirical data. I’m talking about knowledge… philosophy… other means of attaining knowledge. Science is not the only way to get knowledge. You cannot use the scientific method to figure out morality. History, for that matter, cannot be studied by the scientific method. Science is an incredible tool, but not the only source of knowledge. =)
I use to make this same analogy quite a lot until I came to understand that it only hurt my argument with conservative Christians. What you need to realize, however, is that for the atheist the comparison is not silly at all. In the mind of the atheist God is no more real than Santa, which means that asking us to choose to believe in God is equivalent to asking you to believe in Santa. That's why atheists frequently make this comparison, hoping it will help you understand the difficulty. Presumably many Christians think that atheists just wake up one morning and decide no longer to believe in God. If that is the case then it should be a simple matter of reversing the decision and choosing once more to believe. Josh’s point, and I’ve made the same one frequently, is that faith is not lost that way, nor can it be won back that simply. You may think that comparing God to Santa is silly, but perhaps that’s the true meaning of the analogy – the atheist thinks that the assumption that he can choose to believe in God is as silly as you choosing to believe in Santa. Perhaps this serves to drive home just how implausible belief in God is to most atheists.
Not really. Your statement just rubbed me the wrong way because it often happens if I'm reading a book by some christian thinker on some subject, one of my christian acquaintances comes along and tells me to read the Bible like I never read the Word. Gets old...Maybe it's because they have a 'holier than thou' tone about it when they say it. But you're right. You can't exhaust the wisdom and truth found in Scripture.
T
Whether or not you believe in God, there's plenty of historical evidence to back up much of the Bible as a reliable book. Yes, I'm well aware that it's much more involved when it comes to falling away from faith or not considering it at all. Still, the comparison is silly. Although, not as silly as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Pegasus/Zeus comparisons. None of them have anything approaching historical backing. In fact, Zeus was likely a deified ancestor of the Greeks, perhaps Noah's son Japheth, if not one of his sons.
Wow! Recent.
I must tell you I too am an atheist. I was also raised in a Protestant household but experienced my first doubts about age ten. I was an atheist by age sixteen. I find that there are quite a variety of experiences that cause people to lose their belief in God. Many Christians think we must have suffered abusive upbringings or had other traumatic experiences that led to the atheism, but I haven't yet come across any atheist whose claimed that type of experience.
I must tell you I too am an atheist. I was also raised in a Protestant household but experienced my first doubts about age ten. I was an atheist by age sixteen. I find that there are quite a variety of experiences that cause people to lose their belief in God. Many Christians think we must have suffered abusive upbringings or had other traumatic experiences that led to the atheism, but I haven't yet come across any atheist whose claimed that type of experience.
... but who knows. Doesn't matter I suppose.- Status