Re: Explanatory Power of God

"Paul" <pgrieg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174484051.939345.207140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|> | Do you put ... Kant in the stunningly naive group?
| >
| > It has been argued that Kant was really an atheist, somewhat
| > understandably assuming the religious conventions of the time (eg
New
| > Humanist, July 06 - A.C. Grayling -http://tinyurl.com/2cqaa8).
|
| I spent last summer reading Kant's CPR (and lots of supporting
| literature!) and came to no secure conclusion about Kant's beliefs --
| this article, although interesting, does not provide it. CPR confirmed
| my atheist tendencies, but enabled me to see how theists can find room
| for God, if they feel the need, or get the inpiration, for a leap of
| faith. Grayling doesn't mention that Kant admired the Argument from
| Design, and doesn't stress the admiration he had for his parents
| simple piety. These two points incline me to belive that Kant was a
| believer - but, as I say, this is a far from secure conclusion.
| Eitrher way, theist or atheist, Kant is not naive.

Indeed, and I didn't suggest that he was. Philosophers, deontologists of
the period such as Kant, were predictably religious - you mention the
Argument from Design, and I suggest Kant would have been one of the
first to jump ship had he been around when Darwin came along. His
respect for his parents notwithstanding, Grayling refers to "his
swingeing dismissal of arguments for the existence of a deity in his
Critique of Pure Reason. There the standard cosmological, teleological
and ontological arguments (respectively: from first cause, design and
the concept of a necessary being) are conclusively refuted. He
accordingly argues that the idea of a deity is a "transcendental
illusion" resulting from the mistaken endeavour of reason to apply
concepts outside their proper scope - that is, making trans-empirical
use of concepts whose sole and proper application is to empirical
experience alone." Hardly a Christian apologetic then.

| > ...and as for the argument from design....
|
| Before Darwin this was an entirely respectable view to take, and not
| naive. Even now it has something going for it -- why do those
| universal constants have the particular values that allow us to exist?
| The AfD provides one answer, some really weird ideas about multiple
| Universes eveolving a la Darwin provides another.

Respectable, but flawed as we now know. The 'proofs' being discredited,
one by one...

How does the argument you refer to go? Design is evident in the fact
that conditions are - against immense odds - perfect for life on earth?
Just like a puddle of water pointing to the fact that it fits the shape
of a depression perfectly, as evidence of purposeful design. Quick
search, here it is, the original Douglas Adams quote - he puts it much
much better...

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and
thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in-an interesting
hole I find myself in-fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits
me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is
such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats
up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still
frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be
alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to
have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by
surprise."

It fact it's such an excellent speech from Adams, here's a link to the
original (he even touches on the quantum multiple universe view):

http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

|
| > Picking and choosing which propositions are to be determined true or
| > false when alternatives are at least as viable involve a degree of
| > self-deception.
|
| Fish&chips or spag.bol. You need to choose one or you don't get
| dinner. Maybe 'scepticism stew' (no chooice) is your choice, but
| that's just another meal on the menu -- you have to choose something,
| even by default.

I need food to survive. I don't need to select at random a metaphysical
explanation of existence to do so. Far better to spend the last half
hour in fact that I've spent composing a couple of replies here getting
the dinner in the oven in fact, which will a) stop the kids from moaning
at me constantly and b) considerably reduce the chance of a minor
bollocking from the wife when she gets in. Spag bol it is then.

| Perhaps the suggestion of the deliberate advocacy of a
| > position known to be false is going a little too far (although by no
| > means unknown) - I take that back.
| >
| > | > And maybe your concentration on a leafy, well-tended forest with
easy,
| > | > well-trodden paths, surrounded by a high fence to keep out wild
animals,
| > | > is blinding you to a possibly harsh, inhospitable, unseeing,
| > | > inconceivably immense 'whole' that lies beyond, where the
self-centred
| > | > concept of the individual is utterly meaningless. Who knows. I
don't -
| > | > but certainly neither do the theists. My version is at least
feasible as
| > | > yours.
| > |
| > | Dianelos' universe sounds more 'human' and humane than your
'harsh,
| > | inhospitable, unseeing, meaningless' universe. If both are equally
| > | feasible why not adopt Dianelos' instead?
| >
| > What, some kind of diluted form of Pascal's Wager, without the
eternal
| > hell fire? Feigning belief might make some feel more comfortable.
Not
| > for me, though. (PS - it's not "my" universe, nor have I adopted it.
| > It's a possibility - I'm not attributing comparative truth value to
any
| > theory - otherwise my position would itself be self-contradictory).
|
| Dianelos' universe also sounds more humane than fence sitting.

What's this, the Argument from Uncomfortable Pointy Fences?
|
| > But what if, as Dawkins put it,
| > "non-fundamentalist, 'sensible' religion... is making the world safe
for
| > fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that
| > unquestioning faith is a virtue"?
|
| Britain *is* relatively safe, with its stew of religions from
| fundamentalist to none. And we do want to talk about a real society
| don't we? Not some fundaentalist bogey country of Dawkin's
| imagination? Look at China and Russia they got rid of religion and
| are hardly safe (even now when they are starting to let people do what
| they like again - although what the Chinese are still doing to the
| Tibetans and other is still severe abuse of human rights.)

I don't know what you've read of Dawkins, but the above is something of
a parody of his argument - there are no suggestions of "fundamentalist
bogey countries". He is a touch pugnacious at times, but he argues
carefully. The outrage we have seen from some sources suggests that his
views have touched a few raw nerves...

pga
+++
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: and who made god?
    ... > Has nothing to do with so called intelligent design. ... have no idea who Immanuel Kant is. ... are heavier than their liquid forms and so would sink to the bottom ... necessary for -- at least -- aquatic life. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: and who made god?
    ... >>insisting that he could prove the existence of God. ... Have you read Kant, then? ... > design" is wholly dependent on Bible Babble. ... for -- and against -- intelligent design. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_R=FCckf=FChrungen_in_fr=FChere_Leben.....?=
    ... schon wieder lieber an ein "intelligent Design". ... Kant ging nicht in die Kirche, ... das was in der Kirche über Gott gelehrt wurde, ...
    (de.soc.senioren)
  • Re: Lovely Spam
    ... in Universe A observes that a particle has decayed, ... presenting us with quantum phenomena such as those seen in the ... The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is pretty obvious when you think ... read Kant, and you'll see that Kant came up with the same thing in ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Explanatory Power of God
    ... It has been argued that Kant was really an atheist, ... | inhospitable, unseeing, meaningless' universe. ... "non-fundamentalist, 'sensible' religion... ... Britain *is* relatively safe, with its stew of religions from ...
    (uk.religion.christian)