[QUOTE=Quercus]
Which I see nothing wrong with, logically or ethically.
[/quote]
I see a huge ethical problem with choosing to avoid doing something because it might offend somebody. For example, Uhara’s kiss with Captain Kirk probably drew a lot of criticism, but from a Consequentialist’s standpoint the brief revulsion felt by racists was worth loosening a little of the subjugation felt by African Americans. One can forward a logical argument along the lines of “In x country, saying y leads to z in n number of cases”, but then one has to introduce Hume’s “Is” and “Ought” distinction. For example, in Afghanistan, declaring that one is no longer a Muslim can lead to execution. Ought it lead to execution, based solely on the fact that it does?
[QUOTE=Quercus]
But the poster did NOT argue against character. He said nothing at all about Dawkin’s character (maybe you can point to exactly where he did?). The poster simply said that Dawkin’s book is bad. Which is an unsupported assertion (a bad thing in argument) but is certainly not ad hominem.
[/quote]
It’s implied. Given that Dawkins was brought up, speculating on whether Cecil thought it would be reasonable to include a reference to his arguments would be a valid point of contention. However, only one person brought up the “God Delusion” as far as I can tell, many other posters referenced a variety of sources that it would be remiss to leave out. Bringing up Dawkin’s name only in order to smear it (not an intelligent or well-reasoned book… will only be read if education deteriorates further) is part Strawman and part Ad Hominem, since none of Dawkin’s arguments were provided or refuted. As an aside, the reason why people probably reference Dawkin’s book is because it provides a compendium of most of the criticisms atheists or other secularists have of religion, with some specialist fields being treated in an accessible manner (game theory being brought up somewhere within IIRC), along with several original insights (such as his scale, or the entire first chapter on his near numinous appreciation of the universe). I may be mistaken, but I think it refers to Kant’s dismantling of the teleological argument too (as well as more modern, physics based criticisms of the teleological argument - though perhaps the former was in “History of Western Philosophy”). In the past Cecil has provided commentary from the zaniest sources in order to establish a sort of consensus, but in this instance Aquinus really is the only authority.
Normally I’d skip posts that are entirely devoid of logical argument, but in his case there wasn’t even a provisio about opinions.
In a longer column Cecil might have had the space to point out that an understanding of non-duality is precluded by dialectic methods, and so any attempt at proving the question is doomed to failure from the word ‘go’.
He might also have pointed out that the question ‘Is there a God’ is kind of begging the question, especially if the Cosmological Argument is basically his answer. Cecil doesn’t try too hard to yoke the First Cause to content implied by the word ‘God’, but might have been more clear that a First Cause could set the universe in motion, yet (perhaps- I mean, who knows?) somehow not be a god at all.
The major refutations to the cosmological argument are given by Hume and Kant. These at least should have been provided if straight dope is what is being dispensed.
For example see the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
“The cosmological argument came under serious assault in the 18th century, first by David Hume and then by Immanuel Kant. Hume (1993) attacks both the view of causation presupposed in the argument (that causation is an objective, productive, necessary relation experienced as power that holds between two things) and the Causal Principle—every contingent being has a cause of its being—that lies at the heart of the argument. Kant contends that the cosmological argument, in identifying the necessary being, relies on the ontological argument, which in turn is suspect.”
The fact remains that no one knows anything about “God”, it is just belief,so one believes some other human’s idea of what or who God is. There are as many translations of the word" God", as there are religions, and it seems there were differnt meanings through the history of humans. It seems the ideas have evolved. Thousands of years ago God was said to have direct contact with some people,but not others. It seems to me, that no one can say in truth, they know anything about God, just belief.
My understanding of Cecil’s reply was as follows(from the original thread that asked the question) -
"If I understand Cecil’s reply correctly - a ‘sustaining first cause’ phenomenon for the universe, in the manner of the sun for life on earth, would be God, and it is reasonable to think that some such exists, although no serious argument can be made for a personal God that takes any interest in our matters. "
What he’s essentially done is made a case for a naturalistic phenomenon that you can choose to call God, and summarily(perhaps too summarily) dismissed the common religious notion of a God that cares about people.
My point is why else would someone invoke the label “God” except in order to invoke that “common religious notion of a God that cares about people”?
The Big Bang is just the Big Bang. Calling it “God” only serves to ascribe some conscious intent to the process. What is the justification for the conscious intent?
That’s GD material I guess. Cecil at least has dismissed the ‘conscious intent’ part, although he’s probably given it such short shrift that it’s unlikely to satisfy atheists. But I suppose the idea is so patently unsupported that it doesn’t ask for much more than the two sentences he’s devoted to it.
“God” has been and still is used to control masses of people by those who would exploit the concept of a supreme being. “god”, which is taken from Germanic “Gud” or basicly Good. It is also a way of structuring morality amongst societies. The basics of uncorrupted faith is usually a good thing but then again man is involved so greed and wishes of power have always corrupted good. Why do I believe in God? Probably because I witness so much greed and corruption in societies that I wish there was a peaceful way of life. Why is death necessary? Could you imagine how crowded this world would be if humans didn’t die. Could you imagine how a corrupt dictator could enslave all of us if he lived for three hundred+ years and remained in power. We would be trained over generations to call him god. I know many people who consider sciences interpretations of evidence as the only answer. I see much corruption in the communities of sciences and am not sure they are worth praise. It’s like giving big banks control over our economy. If you put all you’re faith in man you usually lose everything
No, the word “God” isn’t etymologically related to the word “good”:
Incidentally, it’s not necessary to tell us that a lot of English words come from Proto-Germanic and before that from Proto-Indo-European. We know lots of things about historical linguistics. Some of us, for instance, have master’s degrees in linguistics and know what are reliable sources for etymology. I’m sorry. I don’t mean to insult you, but the source you cite is not a reliable one for the etymology of English words.
Animals die as well as plants,so it is hard to think of death as a punishment for anything. It is a natural way of renewal(in my opinion) Humans do not like to think of themselves as any better than animals,but they are one..like it or not!
If one burns a dried plant or any thing it returns to carbon etc. human’s decay and in my thinking( I don’t claim to know) just return to the elements that made them up to begin with. Since the word God has many meanings, and if God were a being he would first need a place, everything that exists is in existence, or it doesn’t exist, to me that is the meaning of the word God.All that exists. I think the meaning of the word God evolved to what it is called today.
It’s strange how a sort of pagan name “god” got into the bible. The name of the Hebrew god is Yahwey or something like that. It was considered bad to know the pronounciation because knowing how to say gods name gave you power over him according to some things I have read. Sounds like a Rumpleskiltzen fairytail. The name Woden or Odin seems closer to the word god. I suppose if you brought a religion into Europe it would be easier to spread it if the pronounciation was similar to the present god. Think of how hard it would have been for someone without teeth to correctly pronounce the hebrew name of god.
The interjection comes from the card game. The word itself probably came into Middle English from Middle Dutch; analogs are found throughout the West-Germanic family.
“Yahweh” is the usual English spelling. But Christianity eventually decided to go with θεός, in the belief that God, being one of a kind, needs no personal name.
As a rule, fairies don’t have tails. But never mind that. The notion that to know the name of something is to have power over it is extremely widespread, and it probably had something to do with the traditional Jewish prohibition on speaking the Name except when the High Priest did it in special ritual circumstances.
So many errors, so little time.[ol]
[li]The word “god” and its ancestors already existed in Old English.[/li][li]It was accepted as the proper translation of the Latin word “deus”, which was the accepted Latin translation of the Greek word θεός. The early Christians generally spoke Greek, and Greek is the language of the New Testament (and, in the early Church, of the Old Testament, too).[/li][li]Christian missionaries had no interest in speaking the name “Yahweh” in England, because Christians never pronounced it anywhere.[/li][li]No serious Christian would ever identify the Christian God with any god that has an origin story.[/li][/ol]