Gods Not Dead

[danielwoods]

Unbelievable.

You really cannot see the difference? Read the op please. This thread is about whether or not "God is dead" and what that means.

It is not about abortion or gay marriage or any symptoms of immorality. I'm done with you on this thread.

The thread is about the movie which is a defense of a persons faith under attack.

The usage of the phrase "god is dead" is simply another way of saying that God is irrelevant.

[boblloyd91]

Just so people know...My religious beliefs dealing with God and the bible get attacked constantly even by people on these boards. I am of the firm belief that even some good ol LDS are siding with the atheists and attacking those of us who believe in the Creator and that He was essential for life. There are even BYU professors now who do not know where God could possibly fit into nature other than perhaps god is the very result of nature itself!

 

I like what you said Rob, having had bad experiences with certain types of Evangelicals, I feel that sometimes it's easier to side with atheists because like them, we are sometimes mocked and derided by Evangelicals. Having said this, I feel that I am sometimes guilty of making a straw man out of the Evangelicals. The Atheist channel over at Patheos has many responses to the movie, here is one:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/03/final-thoughts-inspired-by-gods-not-dead-what-makes-some-evangelicals-so-intolerable/ I think the problem is twofold: Objective truth makes people uncomfortable and also different people come to very different conclusions of what objective truth is. 

[mfbukowski]

Here's how a philosophy professor views the film- he thinks it's more damaging to Evangelicals than it is to atheists.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/03/how-gods-not-dead-makes-christians-look-even-worse-than-atheists/

 

I disagree with his philosophy- most philosophers do not view religious belief as "irrational", and if they do , I would suggest that they look at other philosophers who would strongly disagree, like Rorty.  Rorty is himself was agnostic but finds that religious belief is indeed "rational".  Rorty was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. 

 

Rorty is also a Nietzsche scholar and understands what he "really meant"

 

Time to insert my favorite video again- it's long but it could be a life changer for someone so here goes:

 

Edited April 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The thread is about the movie which is a defense of a persons faith under attack.

The usage of the phrase "god is dead" is simply another way of saying that God is irrelevant.

And this cartoonish movie does nothing to fix that, and probably makes it even worse by making such a poor argument.  Surely EV's can do better?

 

Not so far.

Edited April 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[danielwoods]

And this cartoonish movie does nothing to fix that, and probably makes it even worse by making such a poor argument.  Surely EV's can do better?

 

Not so far.

 

Have you seen the movie? 

[danielwoods]

Here's how a philosophy professor views the film- he thinks it's more damaging to Evangelicals than it is to atheists.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2014/03/how-gods-not-dead-makes-christians-look-even-worse-than-atheists/

 

I wouldn't expect an atheist to like or agree with the movie. 

 

His review is actually sort of amusing. My favorite is his "... It is anti-human. It is profoundly intellectually irresponsible. It is deeply morally repulsive and evil."

[cinepro]

It's good, but it's no "Day of Defense".

[MiserereNobis]

Here's a quote from Jonathan Edwards I got from another thread:

 

Here is some preaching from Jonathan Edwards. A popular revivalist and relevant contemporary of Joseph Smith.

He was best known perhaps for his sermon that every early American schoolchild had read: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” He told his audience:

The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present. . . .

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you.

And, for the unregenerate, he continued:

When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so vastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you . . . ; there shall be no moderation or mercy.1

THAT is the god Nietsche knew.

 

Yes, those puritans and protestants sure got some things wrong about God.  Edwards was teaching heresy (though he had some interesting mystical experiences that he also wrote about).

[mfbukowski]

Yes, those puritans and protestants sure got some things wrong about God.  Edwards was teaching heresy (though he had some interesting mystical experiences that he also wrote about).

Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran minister.

[mfbukowski]

 

I wouldn't expect an atheist to like or agree with the movie. 

 

Why not?

[MiserereNobis]

Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran minister.

 

If only, like Wittgenstein, he had been Catholic...

[The Nehor]

It's good, but it's no "Day of Defense".

It still amazes me that someone who had money saw this pitch and decided to fund it. It's enough to make you lose your faith in humanity and I have seen "Birdemic: Shock and Terror".

[danielwoods]

Why not?

 

Why? Because Atheists start with different assumptions, and therefore end up with different conclusions (those that are logical). Others who are atheists for emotional reasons, or more "anti-Theists" than atheists, and they generally oppose anything that mentions god. 

[mfbukowski]

If only, like Wittgenstein, he had been Catholic...

I maintain that W remained a "closet" Catholic for his entire lifetime.

 

And then of course we have his close confidant GEM Anscombe who was a Catholic theologian in her own right.  W made her one of the executors over his unpublished papers, to make decisions about how to deal with them.

 

So clearly W saw his position as totally compatible with his understanding of Catholicism, but certainly not with Scholastic philosophy.  But unfortunately you cannot remain an institutional Catholic with those philosophical beliefs

 

I wish some on this board would understand that when I come down on Aquinas, that it is a philosophical position, not a religious one.  But it seems you are the only one who gets that.

 

Teilhard de Chardin was definitely not a Scholastic thinker either, but Joseph Ratzinger (guess who?   ) eventually defended his position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Controversy_with_church_officials

 

So can one be a Catholic and be actively opposed to Scholasticism?  I don't see how since the Trinity and Transubstantiation hinge on it.  But I find Mormonism as far more compatible with humanism anyway.

 

I also have trouble seeing how some of the left-leaning concepts of Catholics interested in "social justice" are compatible with a Neoplatonic transcendent God, but I have not studied out how they pull that off.

 

I like Teilhard a lot.

[mfbukowski]

Why? Because Atheists start with different assumptions, and therefore end up with different conclusions (those that are logical). Others who are atheists for emotional reasons, or more "anti-Theists" than atheists, and they generally oppose anything that mentions god. 

No, in fact most atheists agree with fundamentalist Christians that science and religion are incompatible- any fundy will typically be against scientific views of evolution for example.

 

Many atheists make science into a near religion.

 

So both tend to agree that either science OR religion are "correct"- so their most basic assumptions are identical-  they just come down on different sides of which is "true".

 

You see discussions all the time about the Bible being incompatible with science from both sides!  In fact that was the position of the fictional philosophy professor in the movie.  And of course EV's go off all the time about "Godless science".

 

The point is that both are wrong- it's just that science and religion are talking about different things and so are perfectly compatible.

 

But honestly, I don't expect you to ever understand that argument.

[MiserereNobis]

I maintain that W remained a "closet" Catholic for his entire lifetime.

 

And then of course we have his close confidant GEM Anscombe who was a Catholic theologian in her own right.  W made her one of the executors over his unpublished papers, to make decisions about how to deal with them.

 

So clearly W saw his position as totally compatible with his understanding of Catholicism, but certainly not with Scholastic philosophy.  But unfortunately you cannot remain an institutional Catholic with those philosophical beliefs

 

I wish some on this board would understand that when I come down on Aquinas, that it is a philosophical position, not a religious one.  But it seems you are the only one who gets that.

 

Teilhard de Chardin was definitely not a Scholastic thinker either, but Joseph Ratzinger (guess who?   ) eventually defended his position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin#Controversy_with_church_officials

 

So can one be a Catholic and be actively opposed to Scholasticism?  I don't see how since the Trinity and Transubstantiation hinge on it.  But I find Mormonism as far more compatible with humanism anyway.

 

I also have trouble seeing how some of the left-leaning concepts of Catholics interested in "social justice" are compatible with a Neoplatonic transcendent God, but I have not studied out how they pull that off.

 

I like Teilhard a lot.

 

Interestingly enough, this actually draws out some of the issues between current Catholicism and traditional Catholicism.  For example, Teilhard would be considered dangerous by some traditional Catholics, because of his rejection of Scholasticism and his incorporation of evolution into religion (the Omega Point), but at the same time Teilhard is lauded by other Catholics for those exact reasons.  Joseph Ratzinger, (yes, our beloved Pope Emeritus, whose picture I still have on my wall, next to Pope Francis -- we've got two living Popes, ha!) is simultaneously praised and eyed with suspicion by many traditional Catholics.  Praised, because he opened the traditional Latin Mass to all without restriction and brought back some reverence in the liturgical ceremonies of the Papacy, and eyed with suspicion because of his association with liberal-leaning German theology, which includes his support of Teilhard.  Cardinal Ratzinger was also the mediator between the Society of St. Pius X and Pope John Paul II in some difficult days, too, which involved an episcopal consecration without Papal mandate and a subsequent excommunication of those involved.  Interestingly enough, when Joseph Ratzinger ascended to the Papacy, he lifted those excommunications in an attempt to bring about reconciliation.

 

There is a tug-of-war going on in the Catholic Church, blatantly ever since Vatican II, between conservative and liberal factions.  3DOP might want to weigh in on this if people are interested.  I have traditional leanings (I attend the traditional Latin Mass and have no problem with Mass with the SSPX, nor their affiliated monasteries), but I am not a partisan.  I honor Archbishop Lefebvre for what he did, and I honor all those Catholics who held on to their faith, too, including the FSSP, ICRSP, etc., and all whose hearts lay with Rome.  (I say these things mainly for the Catholics who read this board -- thank you, LDS friends, for indulging me yet again on a Catholic topic).

 

Anyways, back to the topic.  Mark, I have placed that book you recommended about Wittgenstein and Catholicism on my amazon wish list/queue, so I will get to it shortly.  You know how it goes -- so many books, so little time!  I am truly intrigued.

 

As always, I appreciate a philosopher's voice on this LDS board, even if we don't agree and even if things get heated here and there.  Too bad this is only a virtual hang-out, otherwise you could pull out a poker and attack us opposing philosophers

Edited April 3, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

I wish some on this board would understand that when I come down on Aquinas, that it is a philosophical position, not a religious one.  But it seems you are the only one who gets that.

 

I do get it, but it is also important for people to know that in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church wedded Herself, more or less, to Aquinas.  At the incredible and most important Council of Trent, it was the Bible AND the Summa which were laid on the altar.  Now, when I say "more or less," what I mean is that the underpinnings of the explanations of dogma in the Middle Ages and especially in response to the protestant revolt (sometimes it's hard for Catholics to call it a reformation) have been based primarily on Aquinas, which is based primarily on Aristotle and neo-Platonism.  That doesn't mean that the solemn dogmas themselves, as declared by ecumenical councils, are inextricably tied to pre-modern philosophy, but often the explanations are.

 

The Catholic Church is an excellent place to look for the conflict between pre-modern and (post-)modern philosophy.  I would hope that, no matter one's views on the truth of the Catholic Church's claims, one could at least see how the Church has been the bearer of Western Civilization since the fall of the Roman empire up to and including the current day.  Perhaps this incredible power and influence in our intellectual, emotional, and spiritual lives is one reason why some non-Catholic Christians feel the need to vilify Rome.

[mfbukowski]

Interestingly enough, this actually draws out some of the issues between current Catholicism and traditional Catholicism.  For example, Teilhard would be considered dangerous by some traditional Catholics, because of his rejection of Scholasticism and his incorporation of evolution into religion (the Omega Point), but at the same time Teilhard is lauded by other Catholics for those exact reasons.  Joseph Ratzinger, (yes, our beloved Pope Emeritus, whose picture I still have on my wall, next to Pope Francis -- we've got two living Popes, ha!) is simultaneously praised and eyed with suspicion by many traditional Catholics.  Praised, because he opened the traditional Latin Mass to all without restriction and brought back some reverence in the liturgical ceremonies of the Papacy, and eyed with suspicion because of his association with liberal-leaning German theology, which includes his support of Teilhard.  Cardinal Ratzinger was also the mediator between the Society of St. Pius X and Pope John Paul II in some difficult days, too, which involved an episcopal consecration without Papal mandate and a subsequent excommunication of those involved.  Interestingly enough, when Joseph Ratzinger ascended to the Papacy, he lifted those excommunications in an attempt to bring about reconciliation.

 

There is a tug-of-war going on in the Catholic Church, blatantly ever since Vatican II, between conservative and liberal factions.  3DOP might want to weigh in on this if people are interested.  I have traditional leanings (I attend the traditional Latin Mass and have no problem with Mass with the SSPX, nor their affiliated monasteries), but I am not a partisan.  I honor Archbishop Lefebvre for what he did, and I honor all those Catholics who held on to their faith, too, including the FSSP, ICRSP, etc., and all whose hearts lay with Rome.  (I say these things mainly for the Catholics who read this board -- thank you, LDS friends, for indulging me yet again on a Catholic topic).

 

Anyways, back to the topic.  Mark, I have placed that book you recommended about Wittgenstein and Catholicism on my amazon wish list/queue, so I will get to it shortly.  You know how it goes -- so many books, so little time!  I am truly intrigued.

 

As always, I appreciate a philosopher's voice on this LDS board, even if we don't agree and even if things get heated here and there.  Too bad this is only a virtual hang-out, otherwise you could pull out a poker and attack us opposing philosophers

Well I enjoy our discussions as well. I have some friends who are fairly "up there" in Catholicism and maybe I can get them to join the board to weigh in- one of them was the fellow who introduced me to Teilhard while I was still RC and he was also a John Dewey guy- which is virtually the same as Rorty, and he was also Catholic and still is, and teaches philos. in a Catholic high school, and is a deacon in the church. The other is an assistant to a high placed bishop, though he is a layman. Both of them are incredibly bright guys, and since I am an "arrogant jerk" as I have been told, I guess that is a high recommendation that I would think they are bright.

[danielwoods]

No, in fact most atheists agree with fundamentalist Christians that science and religion are incompatible- any fundy will typically be against scientific views of evolution for example.

 

Many atheists make science into a near religion.

 

So both tend to agree that either science OR religion are "correct"- so their most basic assumptions are identical-  they just come down on different sides of which is "true".

 

You see discussions all the time about the Bible being incompatible with science from both sides!  In fact that was the position of the fictional philosophy professor in the movie.  And of course EV's go off all the time about "Godless science".

 

The point is that both are wrong- it's just that science and religion are talking about different things and so are perfectly compatible.

 

But honestly, I don't expect you to ever understand that argument.

You didn't make an argument. You made a statement.

[mfbukowski]

You didn't make an argument. You made a statement.

That is correct.

And I was also correct apparently.

[danielwoods]

That is correct.

And I was also correct apparently.

 

Your statement:

 

The point is that both are wrong- it's just that science and religion are talking about different things and so are perfectly compatible.

Is only true if science doesn't make religious statements (which it does frequently) and if religion doesn't make claims about history and science (which it does frequently as well).

[Bikeemikey]

 

Your statement:

 

Is only true if science doesn't make religious statements (which it does frequently) and if religion doesn't make claims about history and science (which it does frequently as well).

 

It is true even if such statements are made...

 

However, the observer needs to be able to realize when such entities are making statements beyond their per-view and realize that such statements are no long science and religion but something else instead.

 

Science can talk about religion, it just can't talk scientifically about most aspects of religion. Therefore, in most instances when science is talking about religion it is actually not science.