May the Muslims stand up
In my earlier postings, I wrote about what Cicero says in the Tusculian disputations about death, wisdom, grief and virtue as being sufficient for a happy life.
In this post, we look at the discussion on the gods, whether they exist, what their nature is and whether the government of the universe is in their hands, so to speak.
It has been said by others, wiser than yours truly, that there is nothing new under the sun. And the disputations on the gods is a good example. I think the discoveroids have failed to cite their sources in their arguments for complexity and teleological arguments. These two propositions are expounded so clearly and eloquently in this work than by Behe or William Paley.
In this disputation,Cotta, a priest responds to the arguments of Velleius who argued for the being of gods, claiming the government of the universe is in their hands, that we cannot see a beautiful house and assume it wasn’t designed and finally that the gods are eternal and happy. He begins his response thus
In the question concerning the nature of the Gods, his first inquiry is, whether there are Gods or not. It would be dangerous, I believe, to take the negative side before a public auditory; but it is very safe in a discourse of this kind, and in this company. I, who am a priest, and who think that religions and ceremonies ought sacredly to be maintained, am certainly desirous to have the existence of the Gods, which is the principal point in debate, not only fixed in opinion, but proved to a demonstration; for many notions flow into and disturb the mind which sometimes seem to convince us that there are none. (emphasis mine).
Believers are wont to argue that it is the general assent of all men that there is a god. Platinga even went further to argue there is a god shaped hole in our hearts that only god can fill. To this Cotta says
You have said that the general assent of men of all nations and all degrees is an argument strong enough to induce us to acknowledge the being of the Gods. This is not only a weak, but a false, argument; for, first of all, how do you know the opinions of all nations?
Regarding those who deified birds and other animals, Cotta says
I could speak of the advantage of the ichneumon, the crocodile, and the cat; but I am unwilling to be tedious; yet I will conclude by observing that the barbarians paid divine honors to beasts because of benefits they received from them; whereas your gods not only confer no benefit, but are idle, and do no single act of any description whatever.
Cotta continues to ask
Where is the habitation of the deity? What motive is it that stirs him from his place, supposing he ever moves? Since it is peculiar for animated beings to have an inclination to something that is agreeable to their natures, what is it that the deity affects, and to what purpose does he exert the motion of his mind and reason?
He tells Velleius, that if he attempts to answer any of the above points, he will come off lamely. This he says is because
For there is never a proper end to reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation; for you asserted likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine nature to be happy and everlasting.(emphasis mine)
At this point, I am hoping believers reading this can answer us
What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity?
And Cotta concludes his disputation by saying
Therefore our friend Posidonius has well observed, in his fifth book of the Nature of the Gods, that Epicurus believed there were no Gods, and that what he had said about the immortal Gods was only said from a desire to avoid unpopularity. He could not be so weak as to imagine that the Deity has only the outward features of a simple mortal, without any real solidity; that he has all the members of a man, without the least power to use them—a certain unsubstantial pellucid being, neither favorable nor beneficial to any one, neither regarding nor doing anything. There can be no such being in nature; and as Epicurus said this plainly, he allows the Gods in words, and destroys them in fact; and if the Deity is truly such a being that he shows no favor, no benevolence to mankind, away with him! For why should I entreat him to be propitious? He can be propitious to none, since, as you say, all his favor and benevolence are the effects of imbecility.
And yours truly agrees.
Robert Nielsen has this very interesting review of a book about the strange death of Europe by Douglas Murray. You all should read it. In the past, Robert has written this, on the threat posed by Islam to Western values and there was a discussion here on what are these western values. Maybe it is time to resurrect the debate and hear what y’all think about this issue.
And if your overtly religious folks want to convert you by any many means, you blame a whole nation. You’d think the states in Africa conspired to forcefully convert one poor atheist to Islam!
Of caricaturing the worst of religion’s malpractices or its worst practioneers, such as the Phelps of this world or the self appointed Pat who has a direct channel to god, in their attempts to argue, as Hitchens did, that religion poisons everything?
When atheists reference data showing the areas with most religiosity are also most dysfunctional, could it be that we don’t look at the entire data? Data that, according to D Myers, show that those most devoted live longer, smoke less, divorce less, donate more- to both religious and secular charities-, are much happier and much more?
Or when we concentrate on the god of the OT, we overlook the sermon on the Mount and all other peace messages that on the surface demonstrate a benevolent and loving god?
And finally, are experiments on intercessory prayer begun with the foreknowledge they will fail? Is the Christian justified in the case of negative or no confirmatory results to say god is not to be tested? Is it a valid response?
For Sunday reflection.
A few days ago I read this post by Robert Nielsen on the threat posed to the western values by Islam or rather by immigrant Muslims and it occurred to me there are many groups of people who could say that the world is always in a flux. Recall the Europeans posed a threat to values of everyone they colonized. In fact, it was not just a threat to values, it included wholesale murder, rapine, dispossession, enslavement and I don’t know what else.
Well, let’s hope the murderous few heading ISIS or members don’t go beyond Iraq forcing all of us to learn Arabic and show our other faces five times a day if not more to an imaginary being with a pedo for a prophet.
This article says there is a scholar who believes it is ok.
2 weeks ago a shopkeeper was killed somewhere in the UK. The murder suspect has issued he killed him because of difference of opinion.
Today or late yesterday, a secular blogger, I think the fifth one in a short span was hacked and then shot to death for insulting the prophet.
Is it too much to ask that the prophet takes care of his shit. We are tired of this shit. I would understand, not excuse, conflict arising from inability to share resources. But to kill for god or her prophets is inexcusable.
If you are an atheist, you may need to be careful as you make travel plans around the world, especially if your itinerary may land in a Muslim majority country.