Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Campbell v. Owen revisited in light of Dziubla v. Baty!

Expand Messages
  • Robert
    I think the following also supports my position regarding this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions ... Sincerely, Robert Baty
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I think the following also supports my position regarding this matter:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

      > When humans first became religious
      > remains unknown...

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      Todd,

      As you should be aware, my position is reinforced by the following observation:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20071014110013/http://fluidimagination.com/blog/2007/\
      \
      07/25/of-dawkins-darwin-dennett-and-the-deity/

      > The argument is much more subtle than this,
      > of course, and riddled with competing and
      > unproven theories, but (Daniel) Dennett's
      > point is NOT that science knows how religion
      > evolved naturally, but that it has several
      > ideas, and that all of them are more plausible
      > than the existence of a supernatural entity.

      You indicated earlier that you might be trying to follow up on that, but your
      latest messages do not deal with it.

      What you have said most recently provides no reason for thinking that the above
      is not a reflection of the current state of the science regarding the origin of
      the idea/concept of God.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in
      part:

      > Campbell's argument isn't just wrong,
      > it's a really horrible argument.

      If so, Todd, you haven't shown that that is the case. I rather think such
      complaints, unproven assertions, by you and the JREF folks are indicative of
      just how strong the argument is. However, my approach is a little different
      from Campbell's and my interest is, primarily, in using Campbell as a reference
      and to defend my argument and the claims I make for it.

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in
      part:

      >> A man, some say, may imagine the idea of a
      >> First Cause, and may originate spiritual
      >> ideas. But this is impossible from anything
      >> yet known in experience or philosophy.
      >
      > The claim isn't just false, but it's obviously false.

      I don't know much about the philosophy (though I have an opinion about that),
      but I have had some experience with experience and Campbell's claim is
      consistent with my experience and I will propose that, consistent therewith,
      Todd cannot find anyone who can document that they originated the idea/concept
      of God in their own mind.

      Todd didn't.
      I didn't.
      Neither Todd nor I know anyone that did.

      Todd, et al, believe it's possible and that it did, in fact, happen just that
      way.
      I believe otherwise.

      That's the point/conclusion of the exercise.

      No, the claim is not obviously false and Todd has not shown that it is false in
      any way.

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:

      > Both mathematics and science (let alone philosophy)
      > involve people using human imagination - i.e.,
      > human thinking - to develop all sorts of concepts
      > utterly unique in human culture.
      >
      > In mathematics, we have all kinds of examples such as
      >
      >> negative square roots;
      >> the development of group theory...
      >> Georg Cantor's work...on the concept of infinity...
      >
      > in physics,
      >
      >> all sorts of concepts in quantum mechanics;
      >
      > in biology,
      >
      >> the concept of the discrete, particulate inheritance
      >> of characteristics (i.e., genetics);
      >
      > in astronomy/astrophysics/physics,
      >
      >> our concepts of the stellar production
      >> of energy (by fusion); and so on.
      >
      > The fact of the matter is that people make up all kinds
      > of ideas about all kinds of things (let alone just
      > "spiritual", i.e., superstitious, ideas).

      Can anyone say "Gish Gallop"!

      Thanks for the demonstration, Todd.

      Nothing in your demonstration supports your notion or leads to the conclusion
      that,

      > "therefore, man's powers of imagination could
      > have originated the idea/concept of God"

      If you wish to further pursue your assertion on that, I would propose you pick
      one that you think best illustrates your claim about the powers of imagination
      to have originated the idea/concept of God, provide the on-line references as
      you so often are so quick to do regarding other issues of interest to you, and
      I'll try to consider the merits of your claims and respond.

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in
      part:

      > I would also emphasize to you, Robert, the use of
      > the word "impossible" by Campbell here, which is
      > what I've been pointing out all along, as an obvious
      > error of the argument, which you've objected, saying
      > it isn't part of the argument, but right there it is, an
      > inherent element of the argument.

      I think, for this discussion, you are too hung up on the use of "impossible";
      much like the JREF folks got all worked up about my proposal that my argument
      was an "inference" of atheism.

      Campbell appears to have believed it was impossible; and he explained why he
      held that belief. Owen certainly had no convincing rebuttal to Campbell's
      belief on that.

      You, Todd, believe that it's possible that man's powers of imagination account
      for the origin of the idea/concept of God and that it does account for the
      origin of the idea/concept of God.

      That's the point of the exercise.

      The science isn't there, Todd, to demonstrate the idea/concept of God could have
      and did originate from man's powers of imagination.

      If so, someone needs to get it to the media so they can get the word out. I
      keep checking the headlines and haven't seen the news.

      --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in
      part:

      > (W)e know that's what people have done
      > (made up ideas about spirits and different
      > kinds of spirits with different kinds of powers),
      > and since if we didn't have the capacity to
      > imagine these ideas in the first place then we
      > wouldn't have the capacity to imagine these
      > ideas at all.

      That looks like the it needs to be added to the "Gish Gallop" above if we are
      going to pursue it further. Otherwise, I propose that what you are referring to
      there cannot be shown to be an example of anyone originating the idea/concept of
      God.

      I do not dispute that folks have made up and do make up ideas about spirits
      (e.g., imagining something you can't see and giving it characteristics with
      which you are familiar is not originating the idea/concept of God.).

      Here's a reminder of where I am coming from in the discussion, and I don't think
      you, Todd, have said anything to rebut my positions on the matter:

      Major Premise:

      > IF (A) man was able to originate the idea/concept of
      > God through the power of imagination, as opposed
      > to reason and/or revelation,
      > THEN (B) man did originate the idea/concept of God
      > through the power of imagination.

      Minor Premise:

      > (A) Man was able to originate the idea/concept of
      > God through the power of imagination, as opposed to
      > reason and/or revelation.

      Conclusion:

      > (B) Man did originate the idea/concept of God through
      > the power of imagination.

      I have proposed the following regarding the above argument:

      (1)

      The argument is so constructed that if its premises
      are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom.

      (2)

      The major premise is explicitly and/or implicitly
      believed to be true by one or more atheists.

      (3)

      I do not believe the major premise to be true.

      (4)

      The minor premise is explicitly and/or implicitly
      believed to be true by one or more atheists.

      (5)

      I do not believe the minor premise to be true.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.