George Will: ‘I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist’

Daily Caller ^ | 9:10 PM 05/03/2014 | Jamie Weinstein

[Olog-hai]

Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]

“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”

“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …

[reasonisfaith]

The claim that the names of Zeus, Allah, Thor or Odin are interchangeable with God is only true if none of them exist in an ontological sense.

But if God exists and the rest are only myths, then they are not interchangeable and your statement is necessarily false.

As for the freezing point of water—if the only important questions are the what questions, and meanwhile the why questions and the how questions don’t add anything to the discussion, then we should do away with half of all university departments. I know you can see the absurdity of your comment on this.

An important distinction here—perhaps you’ve run across this in referencing Lennox—is that between mechanism and agency.

God provides the explanation for agency. Science is the means to our understanding of mechanism. But it is a separate idea from agency. Please think about this.

[reasonisfaith]

I’d like you to understand the difference between mechanism and agency. If you do, you’ll have an intellectual advantage over a very large number of prominent scholars involved in advancing the ideology of atheistic naturalism.

See post # 561.

[GunRunner]

As for the freezing point of water—if the only important questions are the what questions, and meanwhile the why questions and the how questions don’t add anything to the discussion, then we should do away with half of all university departments.

Please provide the "why" and "how" questions that involve "God" that add to the discussion of the freezing of water in any way.

In fact, we can broaden it. Name one instance where invoking God has helped add to the scientific process in any way.

[reasonisfaith]

I wouldn’t be surprised if George Will has not fully, if at all, contemplated the distinction between mechanism and agency and how it relates to the context of the debate on divine existence.

I say this to call attention to the irony that the atheist position has always tended to label itself as the more intellectual side of the debate—meanwhile atheism looks more and more to be the position reached via a lower caliber of thinking.

[GunRunner]

...the difference between mechanism and agency.

Sounds like a creationist prop, a lot like "kind". Never heard it in scientific nomenclature.

[reasonisfaith]

Why do you not understand that to posit God as the agent of the universe has nothing to do with man’s attempts to explain the working of various parts of the universe through the use of science?

Example. After the fifteenth century, the production of books was greatly multiplied because of a new invention. And to explain the mechanism of movable type is entirely separate from and independent of any mention of the person, Johannes Gutenberg.

Is movable type an explanation for the printing press? Yes.

Is Johannes Gutenberg an explanation for the printing press? Yes.

Mechanism on the one hand, agency on the other.

[reasonisfaith]

The real test is how the atheist will respond to this—the atheist learning for the first time about the distinction between mechanism and agency.

I could be wrong, but it seems this concept is fairly new relative to the debate on divine existence.

[GunRunner]

I get it. So mechanism and agency is the newest buzz term for the creator regression.

So what is the agency for bone cancer?

[right way right]

That explains why he NEVER smiles.

[Olog-hai]

I find it funny that this thread’s a month old now.

Will has already established himself as a phony conservative going way back to the 70s. Admission of atheism is just icing, now.

[reasonisfaith]

The same as the agency for any evil.

[GunRunner]

So your terminology is nothing new.

Good things are the work of God and bad things are the work of the devil.

Meanwhile, nothing helpful or scientific comes out of these ridiculous regressions except another opportunity for you to play expert on another issue you're clueless about.

My challenges stands. Name one scientific instance where invoking God has helped explain anything.

[reasonisfaith]

If we first assume God doesn’t exist, then God doesn’t explain anything.

But if we assume he does exist, then he explains everything.

To bring another example: let’s say you go out for a night to see a live band with your favorite companion. You’re not going to give much thought to the mechanism of how the music interacts with your body and your brain to produce pleasure. You’re going to be focused on the band members who are the agents of the performance.

And you’re not going to ponder the physical or psychological mechanism of how the company of your friend or spouse produces enjoyment for you. You’re simply going to enjoy that person’s company. The agent of companionship.

[reasonisfaith]

For the record—an agent is a person.

[PieterCasparzen]

So the Christian is exhorted by God's Word, the Bible, in so many verses like Psalm 41, to care for the truly poor and the sick.

So is it possible for non-Christians to be charitable as well?

Unbelievers frequently do what could be described as charitable acts in the secular sense.

Or is everyone who doesn't think like you just doing it for selfish, a-holish reasons?

First, regarding "think like me"; these ideas are not mine, they're from the Bible. So I take it you mean "those who think like me" to be believers and those who don't to be unbelievers.

So, are unbelievers only doing charitable acts for selfish reasons ? Some are doing this, however but many unbelievers do charitable acts with their best intentions.

Those not well versed in the Bible frequently don't understand charity from a Biblical perspective. A fundamental part of the gospel message is that salvation rests in "by the Grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ"; the believer's tithe does not merit them anything towards their salvation, that is, escaping damnation.

Once the believer believes, what comes with that is Jesus' command to follow God's Law, thus to conform our image to Christ's.

God's Law includes the tithe, so the believer tithes, out of their faith comes love of and obedience to Christ and God's Law.

But the tithe, or charity, is not viewed Biblically as imputing righteousness to the person giving. True believers do not believe that their tithing "makes them better" than anyone else. If you go back carefully and review my posts, you'll see that I was never claiming that Christians were better, or good, or righteous because of charity. I was responding to your posts where you asserted a definition of morality which included taking care of your family and helping people who suffer, and I was trying to get you to see how low the bar is set with such a definition, as compared to the whole counsel of God, the Bible.

Mark 8

"36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Psalm 9

"1 I will praise thee, O Lord, with my whole heart; I will shew forth all thy marvellous works.
2 I will be glad and rejoice in thee: I will sing praise to thy name, O thou most High.
3 When mine enemies are turned back, they shall fall and perish at thy presence.
4 For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right.
5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.
6 O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them.
7 But the Lord shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment.
8 And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.
9 The Lord also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble.
10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, Lord, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.
11 Sing praises to the Lord, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.
12 When he maketh inquisition for blood, he remembereth them: he forgetteth not the cry of the humble.
13 Have mercy upon me, O Lord; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, thou that liftest me up from the gates of death:
14 That I may shew forth all thy praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion: I will rejoice in thy salvation.
15 The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.
16 The Lord is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.
17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. For the needy shall not always be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever.
19 Arise, O Lord; let not man prevail: let the heathen be judged in thy sight.
20 Put them in fear, O Lord: that the nations may know themselves to be but men. Selah."

[GunRunner]

If we first assume God doesn’t exist, then God doesn’t explain anything.

But if we assume he does exist, then he explains everything.

Neither assumption is helpful or explanatory. You're not explaining anything by assuming either way.

Even IF we assume a creator, and I ask you how something works, saying "God did it" explains nothing. Even if we use the favorite theist example of the watch, if I said ,"Hey, cool watch. How does it work?" If you kept saying "Timex made it", I'd say "I know, but how does it work?" "Timex made it." "I know, but how does it work." "Timex made it." "I know, but how does it work?" Ad infinitum.

"God did it" is not a useful observation or assumption in any sense. The assumptions are irrelevant at best. I challenge you to provide any example which proves otherwise.

[GunRunner]

Unbelievers frequently do what could be described as charitable acts in the secular sense.

Ok, at least you're making sense now.

The disconnect remains that being compelled to help someone by supernatural decree is morally neutral outside the realm of theism, even if the act itself is moral.

[reasonisfaith]

I think the best way to reach an understanding of a new concept is repetition.

Mechanism is one thing. Agency is another.

Let this ring back and forth in your mind for a while. Then, remember that explanation of agency is never meant to provide explanation of mechanism. This is where atheists most often become confused.

As for the underlying assumption of whether or not God exists, you and I can only choose between the two. There are no other possibilities.

[GunRunner]

Who came up with the mechanism vs. agency exercise? Is it a new theistic device or a rehash of an old one, like that guy who kept cutting and pasting Greg Bahnsen quotes?

What scientific disciplines use it? It doesn't seem to make much sense as you describe it.

As for the underlying assumption of whether or not God exists, you and I can only choose between the two.

I don't need to choose either. I can freely look at the evidence and see that all of the evidence supports the latter.

[GSWarrior]

I know little about anything. But I do believe that God speaks to many people in many languages so that as many as possible can have access to His voice.

I have chosen to believe this.