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

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

[GunRunner]

More God of the gaps straw men. Even if it were true that linguistics experts "had no clue" about the origin of language, it doesn't prove theism.

It's an old, debunked argument. God is not a satisfactory explanation for everything that we don't understand any more than it was an explanation for lightning and viruses before we understood electricity and microorganisms.

[PieterCasparzen]

I keep making points that you keep avoiding.

You keep boasting how benevolent you are to your family and the rest of humanity.

Atheism is a religion to you.

You are your own god.

And you just never go away.

You keep posting nonsense.

[PieterCasparzen]

There are so many straw men in your arguments I haven’t even addressed them at all because it would take too long.

Now you have an ad hominem straw man, that I’m wrong because I have a bitchy step mom or an absent father.

You must be at least marginally smart based on what you’re posting, but you’re coming up with very weak reasoning in your posts.

Of course, if you’re trying to simply flood FR with atheist spam, you’re accomplishing that.

Which branch of government do you work for ? Or is the the “Ford Foundation” or something like that ?

[PieterCasparzen]

Here's a neat example of the standard pathetic attempts to reverse the truth you've been using, in our long-running back-and-forth where you say you are:

... here to speak on behalf of a non-theist justification for morality.

Really, you claim that you have secular humanist, atheist "righteousness".

To wit, you ask me:

Do you only help people because it's a commandment, or do you also do it because you have an innate human aversion to suffering.

Sans question mark, but still a question, nonetheless.

You thus imply that in your athiestic "holiness", you have "an innate human aversion to suffering".

But in that same post of mine you quoted from, I was actually pointing out the folly of a person claiming their own righteousness based on the fact that they help the poor if the help they gave cost them relatively very little. Immediately following what you quoted I wrote:

"That's being done for me, not them.

Real love is sacrifice, and it's difficult for people to even understand let alone do."

That is to say, if the "help" is only a tiny fraction of one's wealth or income, the giver has not had to make any significant sacrifice - it was nothing. In some languages, a phrase equivalent in meaning to "you're welcome" literally says "it's nothing". In Spanish, de nada.

"It's nothing" is a HUMBLE response as opposed to a boastful response to someone expressing their appreciation for something we've done that helped them. "It's nothing" GIVES UP the claim to righteousness based on the "good deed" done, because they reply that the deed was not asking much of them, it was no trouble.

So the excrutiatingly obvious point I made was that your holy athiest claim to be righteous based on how you would alleviate the suffering of the poor is actually shameless boasting on the internet of how benevolent you are. You said nothing about your giving being a real hardship for you, a real sacrifice.

And, in any case, by posting your tale of "innate human aversion to suffering" on the internet - you're boasting about whatever "good works" you've done or would do, even if they were significant. If I donate all the money needed to put up a wing on a children's hospital, then my name is put up in a bronze sign over the front door, the sign is a boast that taints the donation. There is seemingly no end of wealthy Americans, indeed, wealthy persons in every country of the world, who bask in the glow of their own well-publicized benevolent tax credits and deductions.

Jesus taught on this subject clearly:

Mark 12

"41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

Back to my response to your question, you conveniently ignore the line prior to the one you responded to when you imply that you have the "innate aversion":

"If I helped someone because I had an innate human aversion to their suffering, I'd be actually helping them in order to satisfy my own desire to avoid my aversion."

when you reply:

So you're telling me, that you could give someone something that is of little consequence to you (a tiny bit of food), and that in helping that person, you could receive some spiritual comfort and joy. You would both benefit from the simply act of giving? Holy cow! That's almost like, "do unto others as they would do unto you."

Of course, the answers are no, no, no and no, but I'll move on to once again make the same point I was making (probably so you can ignore it again).

You're deliberately missing the point I made about the giver "having an aversion to human suffering" which causes them to "give".

If I'm giving because I can't stand to see poor hungry people, because the thought of it bothers me, I'm giving for reasons of self-centeredness, to get those nagging thoughts that bother me out of my mind. That's like offering a dirty houseguest a bath because they're stinking up your house. You're not offering the bath because you want to help your houseguest, you're offering the bath because they're stinking up your house and you don't like the stink. Once they've bathed, you won't have to deal with their stink. Once I feed the poor hungry people, I won't be bothered by the sight or thought of them any more. IF THOSE ARE THE REASONS A PERSON HELPS SOMEONE ELSE, THEN THE CLAIM OF PURE ALTRUISM IS FALSE.

I could of course discuss the Biblical doctrine of sin-tainted works, but I'll leave that for the reader who is so moved to research for themselves. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a good place to start:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XVI.html

[reasonisfaith]

What you’ve missed is that language is not reducible in the way material things are. So it’s not explainable in terms of mass-energy. This is why I say it’s a real problem for naturalism. The few naturalists smart enough to know they can’t escape this are the ones who realize they have no choice but to resort to the absurd claim that language and thought do not really exist.

And as for the “God of the Gaps” argument, if you think it hasn’t itself been debunked, you’re not up to date on the latest debates. John Lennox of Oxford has this to say about God of the gaps:

“That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a ‘God of the gaps’, he is God of the whole show.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/

[reasonisfaith]

The strength of novel argumentation by scholars like John Lennox, Alvin Plantinga, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, Frank Turek and many others has transformed the growl of the old recycled atheist arguments into little more than a whimper.

[GunRunner]

Sorry, I don't see helping people in order to appease an innate aversion to suffering as inferior to helping people to appease your responsibility to a theistic God.

Even in your realm, charity helps you personally satisfy your celestial requirements, so there's a selfish aspect to both ways.

You seem to want to go out of your way to make it clear that you take no satisfaction in helping people at all, as that would require no "sacrifice" and helping people to appease your own conscience would only amount to "offering a dirty houseguest a bath because they're stinking up your house".

Your views on charity are almost as creepy as your views on family.

But I want to be clear on this, so read carefully: I feel no shame that helping people makes me feel good.

Also, this absurd idea that I'm broadcasting my charitable acts is ridiculous, since all of my examples have been rhetorical.

I honestly think you need help. I've never heard people express such twisted ideas about family and charity.

[GunRunner]

The few naturalists smart enough to know they can’t escape this are the ones who realize they have no choice but to resort to the absurd claim that language and thought do not really exist.

This type of absurd claim is only rendered more absurd by you posting something from the "Christian Post" as evidence.

Look, you're exhibiting the God of the Gaps argument right now. The God of the Gaps argument says that anything that can't understood by current science is the work of "God".

It's a nonsensical argument as I said before.

You might as well say "language can only come from Allah."

Lennox is a believer, so he has no prerogative to debunk his own beliefs. It's ridiculous to think he would. I wouldn't expect to read an article in the "UFO Post" debunking UFOs, or an article in "Islam Today" debunking Mohammed's night flight.

Time to branch off outside of your wheelhouse.

[reasonisfaith]

If you see something I took from another post, please let me know because it happened without my knowledge.

Remember, God of the gaps argument is made by the atheists. I’m arguing against atheism.

Think of it this way: atheistic arguments have attempted to establish that science somehow replaces God. This shows an inexplicable failure to understand the definition of God. God has always been understood as creator of everything, so that anything discovered by scientists is merely one more piece of the creation puzzle.

Atheism falls flat when challenged to explain how to reduce language according to their ideology of scientism. To understand the problem takes a bit more focus than some atheists might be used to. But get on with it, stop being lazy.

[GunRunner]

I'm afraid Lennox has done you a disservice in that he's given a false impression as to what the God of the gaps is.

While it was originally a theist term, it's now a euphemism for what theists do when they claim a lack of scientific knowledge proves God.

A perfect example is your comment about language, and saying that since science and linguistics can't explain everything about language, than that lack of knowledge proves God.

Theists do the same things in cosmology, biology, physics, and just about everywhere else. Where there's a lack of scientific knowledge (a gap), they insert God. Hence, To them God exists in the gaps in knowledge.

The problem for theists in using this argument is that science closes gaps all the time. Also, a gap in knowledge does not prove the supernatural, only that science has not yet come up with a satisfactory, natural explanation.

[reasonisfaith]

But you forget—atheistic scientism was the johnny come lately.

God and our knowledge of God precedes the infantile attempts of atheists to wipe him out of their mind.

It’s the mind of the 18 month old which needs concrete reassurance to avoid the phenomenon of “out of sight out of mind.” Atheists are not happy because when they look up into the sky the don’t see an old bearded man giving them the thumb’s up. (Actually their real problem is they know God is there but they don’t want to follow God’s rules.)

The only explanation for anything and everything is God. It’s atheism, not theism, that claims science replaces God.

This is why atheism collapses in the face of questions like what is the metaphysical explanation for language or information.

[GunRunner]

The only explanation for anything and everything is God.

The problem is that that doesn't explain ANYTHING.

You might as well say that the only explanation for anything and everything is the Great JuJu in the Sky.

The way you insert God into this process is only as a placeholder; the same place where scientists say "I don't know". That's why you're actually exhibiting the God of the Gaps argument right now.

Saying that God created the Bubonic Plague doesn't help you cure it.

Saying that God created Dark Matter doesn't help explain what it is or how it functions.

No scientists has ever contributed to science or mankind by saying "God did it". It's a meaningless statement.

[PieterCasparzen]

Oh, you're back trolling.

But I want to be clear on this, so read carefully: I feel no shame that helping people makes me feel good.

That is you posting on the internet the fact that you do charitable acts.

Also, this absurd idea that I'm broadcasting my charitable acts is ridiculous, since all of my examples have been rhetorical.

That is you saying you don't publicize your charitable acts.

[PieterCasparzen]

You seem to want to go out of your way to make it clear that you take no satisfaction in helping people at all, as that would require no "sacrifice" and helping people to appease your own conscience would only amount to "offering a dirty houseguest a bath because they're stinking up your house".

Psalm 41:1 "Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble."

Proverbs 22:16 "He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want."

Many wealthy people are actually greatly profiting from their charitable activities through tax reductions and free publicity. That is oppressing the poor; profiting from their misery. The poor have become an industry, as have the sick. It's disgraceful. Billions of tax dollars are spent on government programs that are rung up as sales for by companies, all in the name of the government "helping the poor". In a recent year, charitable donations, i.e., tax deductions, topped $300 billion. With hundreds of billions flying around, there is no excuse that any person would still be poor. Of course, what is going on in reality is that many of the wealthy are, in fact, profiting off of the "helping the sick and poor" industry to a staggering degree. Cures for diseases are purposely never found, only lifelong costly ways to "live with sickness". The poor are encouraged to never seek taxable income and profitable work for themselves; this then keeps them poor. Often they have off-the-books schemes so in fact they are not poor at all, but have cars, fine clothes, jewelry, etc. It's a corrupt mess.

The believer in Jesus Christ is compelled to live according to the whole counsel of God, given in his Word, as he is bought with a price:

1 Corinthians 6:20 "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

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.

[GunRunner]

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

[reasonisfaith]

The only way to get to “God’s existence doesn’t explain anything,” or to say that “God did it” is a meaningless statement is first to accept the assertion that God doesn’t exist.

Because if God does exist, then he is the explanation for everything and all meaning comes from him.

But your premise that God doesn’t exist pretends to be an priori statement. This is an error—and it’s where your entire argument breaks down—because the statement doesn’t meet criteria for being a priori.

[GunRunner]

Because if God does exist, then he is the explanation for everything and all meaning comes from him.

But God is not an "explanation" for anything.

This is basically your thesis:

Saying that "God did it" doesn't tell us anything. Nothing.

That's why your thesis that "God did it" is interchangeable with "Zeus did it", "Odin did it", or "Allah did it".

The names for the theistic Gods are interchangeable because they don't add anything to the discussion.

Saying that "God causes water to freeze when it drops below 32 F" doesn't add anything to the discussion. "Water freezes at 32 F" does just fine.

[The_Media_never_lie]

Did we ask, George?

[GunRunner]

Here's an easier exercise for you:

How has "God created it" ever cured a disease, or solved a scientific problem?

One example will do.

[Olog-hai]

This thread’s still going?