.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« Je pense que celui qui s'approche de Dieu doit croire qu'il existe et qu'il récompense ceux qui le cherchent. » (I think that he who approaches God must believe he exists and that he recompenses those who seek him).
.

You reminds me of what I wrote to Craig just two posts above :

« Religion has always been a self-serving trade-off with the forces of the unknown in order to obtain some desired advantage (though the pious would never admit it). That was why it was invented and remains its essential “raison d’être”. »

You ask :

« …Il y a ceux qui se proclament non-croyants (Banjo et Craig) qui souhaitent discuter avec des croyants. Pourquoi prendre la peine? Qu'est-ce qu'ils cherchent par cet engagement? » (There are those who declare that they are non-believers (Banjo and Craig) who wish to discuss with believers. Why bother ? What are they looking for by doing this ? »
.

I am happy to discuss with anybody, whether he is a believer or not, including Craig, for example, who indicated that he is atheist. I have had numerous discussions with George who is a “believer” and whose opinions I appreciate.

Religious beliefs and biases are present everywhere in our daily lives. There is no escaping them whether we like it or not. We all have to deal with that. It’s better if we try to understand each other rather than simply ignore each other.

In Peter’s case, I should be more than happy to discuss his articles with him but, apparently, he does not wish to discuss them with me.

As regards «l'apparence du dessein» (the apparent design) in nature, as you suggest, it is evident. But to conclude that there must be a “designer” is not so evident.

I have seen an object fall off a tree hanging over the still water of a lake and “design” a series of perfect circles – but there was no “designer”. It was just the result of a series of random circumstances and events.

.

Banjo,
It is interesting that those such as yourselves, Banjo, Pericles, Craig, self proclaimed atheists, want to come here and discuss religion in some detail. In some ways, it's a healthy thing; discussion promotes understanding, I suppose.

Yet I still find the deal a bit mystifying. If atheists truly thought that there was no God, then wouldn't they think all religions as all a little absurd, and all religionists wasting their time? Wouldn't they also consider chatting to them consequently a waste of their time. Unless maybe they hold some doubt about their stance or position? Or maybe they're trying to win the religionist over to the atheist position? Maybe you can explain it. I don't always understand.

With regard to design in nature, we might both appreciate that circles on the surface of a pond display the beauty of perfect symmetry. Yet those circles can easily be explained by the physical properties of the elements involved: water and energy, etc. What would be more interesting would be if the ripples on water caused by a random event dispersed waves towards the bank which wrote a coded message on the sand. What if ripples from water cut ordered letters of the alphabet into the beach? That might be an example of what some people call specified complexity.

This is more to the point of what design arguments are about. Design arguments, such as Paley's watch found on the beach, are not new. The intricacies of life, to our continual discovery and amazement go well beyond watches or other human technologies.

What I was suggesting about Dawkins was that he was fighting against the evidence rather than going with the flow. Going against the flow of evidence may be considered an aspect of time wasting. So thanks for your efforts in declaring yourself an atheist who sees value in spending time discussing religion. Sometimes in discussions I find the gulf in thinking between atheists and believers can seem pretty big, a bridge too far. But a bridge over anything can be built, I suppose, with sufficient willpower and ingenuity.

.

Dear Dan,

.

You wrote :

« It is interesting that those such as yourselves, Banjo, Pericles, Craig, self proclaimed atheists, want to come here and discuss religion in some detail. »
.

There are quite a number of people on OLO of both sexes who declare themselves to be atheist. In fact, I think there are probably more atheists than those who declare themselves to be believers.

That is not surprising as OLO is not a religious platform. It is predominantly secular, its forum having been created by Australia’s National Forum, as “an area for deliberative democracy” (http://portal.nationalforum.com.au/about.asp).

The platform is composed of 9 main themes ( Economics, Environment, Features, Health, International, Leisure, People, Politics, Technology ) and 13 sub-themes ( Arts, Cartoons, Humour, Media, Sport, Education, Indigenous, Infrastructure, Law & Liberties, Religion, Society, Domestic Politics, Philosophy). Religion is a sub-theme of People.

I suspect that the atheists and other non-believers (such as myself) “come here and discuss religion in some detail” because they have taken religion very seriously at some point in their lives and given it a lot of critical thought – which is not always the case of believers. Their atheism derives from a considerable personal effort – not necessarily to reject it, but, perhaps, to seek confirmation of it (which was my case).

Whereas, I think you will find that the atheists and other non-believers who are totally indifferent to religion and not interested in discussing it come from families that have never exposed them to a religious environment of any sort.

But as I wrote to Craig on page 7 of this thread :

[ Having finally arrived at the conclusion that there is no god, I nevertheless reject the label of “atheist”. It makes no sense to me to define myself by reference to something that I consider does not exist.

I prefer the appellation “just a very ordinary person”. ]

Thank you for introducing me to Paley’s teleological argument; It’s quite amusing.

I am not a fan of Dawkins. I have an aversion to militant atheism and militant religious belief

.

Banjo,
If I'm hearing you correctly, you've decided a long time ago (after making much personal effort) that there was no god. And you come to this Forum to seek to have that confirmed. How would you or have you had this confirmed?

Why do you find Paley's argument amusing?

.

Dear Dan,

.

You ask :

« If I'm hearing you correctly, you've decided a long time ago (after making much personal effort) that there was no god. And you come to this Forum to seek to have that confirmed. How would you or have you had this confirmed? »
.
No. What I wrote was :

« … atheists and other non-believers (such as myself) … have taken religion very seriously at some point in their lives and given it a lot of critical thought… Their atheism derives from a considerable personal effort – not necessarily to reject it, but, perhaps, to seek confirmation of it (which was my case). »

The "personal effort" is made to decide whether to reject or “confirm” religious belief. It has nothing to do with OLO.

My personal quest lasted almost a lifetime. I investigated religion during my youth then left it in abeyance during my working years and took it up again after my retirement. I was determined to settle the question, before I died, of the “whys and wherefores” of religion, and especially the question of the existence of a god or gods and the supernatural.

My expectation was that, at the end of my quest, it would all become much clearer in my mind, that everything would fall into place, and that I would finally arrive at the conclusion that there was good reason to believe that god and the supernatural really did exist.

After several more years of intense research and reflexion, to my surprise, I arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. I finally saw the light. It came as a revelation. All the pieces finally came together. It was quite an exhilarating experience. There was neither god, nor supernatural. The whole concept had been invented by primeval man as an explanation of the awesome beauty and dreaded hostility of nature. Through submission, worship and sacrifice, he sought to show his appreciation to the gods and appease their wrath.

The concept has been handed down to us, always as a trade-off to obtain some desired advantage.

.

Dear Banjo,
I'm still wondering about my question. If you've come to the conclusion that there is no God, then wouldn't all believers be wasting their time in believing? Wouldn't chatting to them about their beliefs consequently be a waste of time. Maybe you think it worth your time discussing these things for the goal of trying to win some people over to the enlightened position held by you or your fellow unbelievers? I still don't understand why you bother.

And I think the answer to this question may go part of the way to giving a reason why Peter hasn't bothered answering your question.

And also, why do you find Paley's argument amusing?