I need help!
I recently posted a Carl Sagan quote to my facebook profile in honour of their 'A' week. Since posting this quote, my old "southern baptist minister" has made several comments which I am attempting to rebuttal. He is a very smart man and I am honestly afraid that he may outwit me. I could use any support/advice that anyone would be willing to share. I am still new to being an atheist, s my knowledge is on the subject is not as highly tuned as I would like. Anyway, here is what has transposed thus far:
Me: "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in
delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." ~ Carl Sagan
Pastor: How true. And how ironic that Carl Sagan persisted in the satisfying and
reassuring delusion that he could grasp the universe as it really is.
Me: I tend to disagree. He looked upon the universe with no pretensions and drew his conclusion upon evidence. To see something as it really is based upon what you can observe and test is truly the furthest from delusion that a man could be. The delusion would be in somebody believing something they have been told without question and never seeing what the evidence shows.
Pastor: It is not only delusional, but arrogant, to believe for a moment that we can "grasp the universe." There is no evidence to support such a belief. Indeed, all the evidence runs to the contrary. And to establish what is observable and testable as the only measure of what "really is" is both nihilistic and silly. Is love real?
Me: It is neither arrogant nor delusional to "believe" that we can "grasp" theuniverse. The ability of people to do this very thing allows you to communicate with me over the internet. Perhaps you have a different definition of "grasp"? I view Sagan's use of "grasp" as "working towards a thorough understanding of". There is much we know and have learned about the world and the universe around us. Also, what do you mean by, "All the evidence runs to the contrary"? As for love, love is an emotional state, and there is plenty of evidence that this emotional state exists. People who claim to be "in love" behave in markedly different ways from people who do not. Studies of the brain show that certain areas are activated by feelings of love. The process by which the mind loves another is a complex chemical cocktail of endorphines that acts as a reward mechanism for spending time with your loved one or offspring. The reward mechanism fills the lovers with a profound sense of peace and contentment. This essentially becomes an addiction, which is understandable.
Pastor: Grasp means to comprehend, not to move toward comprehension. If we merely observe the world around us, all evidence points to the reality that we do not understand ourselves, much less the cosmos. Sagan is considered a genius for merely scratching the surface of astronomy! I think it's self-congratulatory to define ultimate enlightment as the mastery of that one subject in which you happen to be an expert. What hubris! You think he grasped love? None of his three wives thought so. No wonder he wanted to reduce love to some chemical reaction! Do you think reducing such things as love, or peace, or contentment, down to a chemical compound is "grasping the universe as it really is?" If so, I
feel sorry for you, my friend, and sorrier yet for anyone with the misfortune of loving you.
BTW - Sagan was not an athiest, but an agnostic. He argued that science was ill-equipped to answer the question of God's existence, and that for science to disprove God would require undeniable evidence of an infinitely old cosmos.
Well, here's wishing you the best chemical reactions possible. :-)
Me:
Me: "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in
delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." ~ Carl Sagan
Pastor: How true. And how ironic that Carl Sagan persisted in the satisfying and
reassuring delusion that he could grasp the universe as it really is.
Me: I tend to disagree. He looked upon the universe with no pretensions and drew his conclusion upon evidence. To see something as it really is based upon what you can observe and test is truly the furthest from delusion that a man could be. The delusion would be in somebody believing something they have been told without question and never seeing what the evidence shows.
Pastor: It is not only delusional, but arrogant, to believe for a moment that we can "grasp the universe." There is no evidence to support such a belief. Indeed, all the evidence runs to the contrary. And to establish what is observable and testable as the only measure of what "really is" is both nihilistic and silly. Is love real?
Me: It is neither arrogant nor delusional to "believe" that we can "grasp" theuniverse. The ability of people to do this very thing allows you to communicate with me over the internet. Perhaps you have a different definition of "grasp"? I view Sagan's use of "grasp" as "working towards a thorough understanding of". There is much we know and have learned about the world and the universe around us. Also, what do you mean by, "All the evidence runs to the contrary"? As for love, love is an emotional state, and there is plenty of evidence that this emotional state exists. People who claim to be "in love" behave in markedly different ways from people who do not. Studies of the brain show that certain areas are activated by feelings of love. The process by which the mind loves another is a complex chemical cocktail of endorphines that acts as a reward mechanism for spending time with your loved one or offspring. The reward mechanism fills the lovers with a profound sense of peace and contentment. This essentially becomes an addiction, which is understandable.
Pastor: Grasp means to comprehend, not to move toward comprehension. If we merely observe the world around us, all evidence points to the reality that we do not understand ourselves, much less the cosmos. Sagan is considered a genius for merely scratching the surface of astronomy! I think it's self-congratulatory to define ultimate enlightment as the mastery of that one subject in which you happen to be an expert. What hubris! You think he grasped love? None of his three wives thought so. No wonder he wanted to reduce love to some chemical reaction! Do you think reducing such things as love, or peace, or contentment, down to a chemical compound is "grasping the universe as it really is?" If so, I
feel sorry for you, my friend, and sorrier yet for anyone with the misfortune of loving you.
BTW - Sagan was not an athiest, but an agnostic. He argued that science was ill-equipped to answer the question of God's existence, and that for science to disprove God would require undeniable evidence of an infinitely old cosmos.
Well, here's wishing you the best chemical reactions possible. :-)
Me:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mr Good Without God on -
Here is my final comment to the Pastor (unless he has the urge to push on):
Keith,
I would have to agree that Science cannot speak to the Metaphysical. There is no evidence to test. Science says nothing about any god, only the claims made by their followers. Conversely, the metaphysical cannot address the Natural World. If it could, you would agree that science could find it testable and observable and then speak about it.
I hope that from this discussion you take away that I haven't arrived at this position without thought. Even if we disagree about the conclusions. I respect your desire to worship and look to a better tomorrow. Conversely, I hope that you don't see me as a fool, for it may endanger that future. "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." - Matthew 5:22 Thank you for all that you have tried to do for me over the years and this discussion.
I sincerely wish you and your family a safe and happy Easter weekend.
Peace
-
Permalink Reply by Gaytor on -
It'll be pretty hard to challenge you back without looking like a douche. He ends up looking like he's insulting you and like a Christian leader whom doesn't know the Bible or the natural world. I love watching religionists paint themselves into a corner.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
Why isn't a 14 year old girl old enough to consent to sex?
Started by Unseen in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Unseen 8 minutes ago. 2 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
God spared our church...
Posted by Keith Konecny on May 24, 2013 at 9:30pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
"Ultimate enlightenment"? Could you please define what you mean? I never claimed anything about an ultimate enlightenment. Grasping something means to have an understanding of it. It need not be complete understanding or "ultimate enlightenment". If we had that, science would stop.
through such reactions, we are able to adjust peoples emotions.
As for your claims on Sagan, he was indeed an atheist. He did not believe or accept the God hypothesis. Most atheists are agnostic and many theists are, too.
1. Agnostic atheist: does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists
2. Gnostic atheist: believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. Agnostic theist: believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic theist: believes a god exists and claims to know that this
belief is true
Also, Sagan's marriages have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It could be argued that Sagan had three times the love as somebody married only once. This is nothing more than a silly
swipe that is besides the point.
The claims being made without evidence comes from one side of the discussion. While facing a mountain of evidence such as evolution, astronomy, Red shift, Geology, etc, you hold up one book and yell hubris. It may get you a few points in Scrabble, but it will gain you nothing in this discussion.
Also, thanks for the pity, but I really don't require it. :)
Pastor: Kyle, I know it is en vogue for this kind of psuedo-intellectual jibber jabber to pass for intellegince, but in then end it is nothing more than willful ignorance. Sagan made a name for himself by doing exactly what you do above -- redifining, speculating, presuming, and ignoring the arguments and evidence that inconveniently work against the predetermined conclusions.
Who died and made sceince king? Why is scientific proof (as opposed to legal proof, forensic proof, logical proof, or mere intuition for that matter) the standard that we would apply to the question of God's existence? Why would anyone assert that physical science is even capable of addressing metaphysical questions?
It is a fool who says in his heart that there is no God, and fools may not wish to be pitied, but I do pity them.
This may have begun as a disucssion, but has obviously has degenerated to a debate, one producing heat but no light. So I'm done. The last word is yours, until that day we stand before the God who made the cosmos, and us.
Me: Keith, I would have to agree that Science cannot speak to the Metaphysical. There is no evidence to test. Science says nothing about any god, only the claims made by their followers. Conversely, the metaphysical cannot address the Natural World. If it could, you would agree that science could find it testable and observable and then speak about it.
I hope that from this discussion you take away that I haven't arrived at this position without thought. Even if we disagree about the conclusions. I respect your desire to worship and look to a better tomorrow. Conversely, I hope that you don't see me as a fool, for it may endanger that future. "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." - Matthew 5:22 Thank you for all that you have tried to do for me over the years and this discussion.
I sincerely wish you and your family a safe and happy Easter weekend.
Peace