No wise man, and no great artist, leaves God out

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

No wise man, and no great artist, leaves God out
Paul Johnson

I can perfectly well understand why someone should be an agnostic. But to be an atheist — to deny flatly and without qualification the existence of God — is to me wholly unsympathetic. The depth of folly, indeed, and not without malice to us all. It makes little sense in reason. For if it is difficult, even strictly speaking impossible, to ‘prove’ the existence of God, in the sense in which we prove a theorem in geometry or the second law of thermodynamics, it is much more difficult to prove that he does not exist. More seriously, atheism necessarily demeans humanity. The point was powerfully made by Francis Bacon: ‘They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.’ To be an atheist is to take a low view of human life. It is not surprising that among the small but extremely noisy group of atheists that exist today, most take the view that modern science shows no essential difference in purpose or significance between Homo sapiens and a chunk of rock or a puff of dust — all are subject to the same inexorable laws of futility.

It is frightening to think what will become of our progeny if, in the not-too-distant future — say about mid-century — these destructive notions get a grip on a large part of the human race and become the received wisdom, as their protagonists strongly desire and are doing all in their power to achieve. I fear a world not just where respect and reverence for God has disappeared, but where all trace of his image has vanished from human minds, and more important, hearts. What kind of terrible creatures will we become? It is not as though the world is standing still, leaving time for reflection. It is racing ahead, piling on the wealth and technology.

According to Forbes magazine, in the five years since terrorists blew up the World Trade Center, an act which they hoped would fatally damage the US economy, it has actually grown by 30 per cent, adding $3 trillion to America’s gross domestic product. That increase alone is bigger than the entire GDP of China, the new giant. The world as a whole grew even faster, by $15 trillion a year. These rates of growth may well accelerate. While the human race thus adds to its riches and knowledge and abilities to create and destroy, what if the last moral restraints on our power, our respect and fear of a being greater than ourselves, should finally go? The giant gorillas would then all be out of their cages. Or rather, as the German Jesuit Karl Rahner put it, we would become merely ‘a race of fantastically clever animals, and our ultimate fate would be too horrible to contemplate’.

We need the idea of God, not so much as an emollient or placebo for life’s harshness, but in a much more fundamental sense. We know that humanity has huge physical potential. We demonstrate it daily until the mind reels with the startling march of progress. But progress to what? All of us also feel strongly that we have moral potential too, if only we could make our hearts work warmly as easily as we get our machines to function.

[Not_Just_DNA]

Interesting read.

It is not surprising that among the small but extremely noisy group of atheists that exist today, most take the view that modern science shows no essential difference in purpose or significance between Homo sapiens and a chunk of rock or a puff of dust — all are subject to the same inexorable laws of futility.

In the grand scheme of the entire universe perhaps our little floating rock and the diversity of life that exists upon it isn’t wholly uncommon. But the differences between us and the dirt in my garden aren’t in the purpose or in significance of human life per se, or even in how common it is or isn’t, but in the value of life itself.

As far as evidence is concerned humanity is unique. As much as this might frustrate those who want to identify us with cosmic dust it is true. We can define life as we know it with a set a parameters, but can’t create it from scratch- at least not yet. Science tells us everything resulted from the nothingness that existed prior to the Big Bang. Something from nothing, life from non-life? Simple questions with complex answers. I just can’t take that dismal view that humanity is the bottom of the barrel. Individuals might be, but as a whole human life is really quite miraculous- both in form and function. Perhaps this sort of miraculous evolution from just matter to life is quite common in the universe, but whether it is or not still doesn’t answer why. The answer that a God of some sort might answer the 'why' but of course then leads to 'who or what created God.'

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

I can perfectly well understand why someone should be an agnostic. But to be an atheist — to deny flatly and without qualification the existence of God — is to me wholly unsympathetic.The depth of folly, indeed, and not without malice to us all. It makes little sense in reason. For if it is difficult, even strictly speaking impossible, to ‘prove’ the existence of God, in the sense in which we prove a theorem in geometry or the second law of thermodynamics, it is much more difficult to prove that he does not exist.


Yet from a philosophical viewpoint (weak) atheism is the default position. It is correct to disbelieve in the proposition that God exists in the absence of any indisputable proof to confirm that he does. A rejection of God's existence is logically sound, therefore it makes perfect "sense in reason". The author of course already knows this but he's relying on the fact that the readers of his article don't.




More seriously, atheism necessarily demeans humanity. The point was powerfully made by Francis Bacon: ‘They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.’ To be an atheist is to take a low view of human life.

This is a misrepresentation of atheism. Weak atheism is straightforward disbelief and demeans no one and makes no comment whatsoever on human existence or ethics. Religion arguably demeans humanity because it removes the idea of personal responsibility for morality etc. and reduces us to the level of helpless automatons controlled by a deity.





It is not surprising that among the small but extremely noisy group of atheists that exist today, most take the view that modern science shows no essential difference in purpose or significance between Homo sapiens and a chunk of rock or a puff of dust — all are subject to the same inexorable laws of futility.

It is frightening to think what will become of our progeny if, in the not-too-distant future — say about mid-century — these destructive notions get a grip on a large part of the human race and become the received wisdom, as their protagonists strongly desire and are doing all in their power to achieve.



Yet these "destructive notions" are what science reveals to be true. I fear for the future of our progeny if we are allowed to ignore the findings of science and rely on theology-what a bleak and depressing prospect that would be.



I fear a world not just where respect and reverence for God has disappeared, but where all trace of his image has vanished from human minds, and more important, hearts. What kind of terrible creatures will we become? It is not as though the world is standing still, leaving time for reflection. It is racing ahead, piling on the wealth and technology.

According to Forbes magazine, in the five years since terrorists blew up the World Trade Center, an act which they hoped would fatally damage the US economy, it has actually grown by 30 per cent, adding $3 trillion to America’s gross domestic product. That increase alone is bigger than the entire GDP of China, the new giant. The world as a whole grew even faster, by $15 trillion a year. These rates of growth may well accelerate. While the human race thus adds to its riches and knowledge and abilities to create and destroy, what if the last moral restraints on our power, our respect and fear of a being greater than ourselves, should finally go? The giant gorillas would then all be out of their cages. Or rather, as the German Jesuit Karl Rahner put it, we would become merely ‘a race of fantastically clever animals, and our ultimate fate would be too horrible to contemplate’.

We need the idea of God, not so much as an emollient or placebo for life’s harshness, but in a much more fundamental sense. We know that humanity has huge physical potential. We demonstrate it daily until the mind reels with the startling march of progress. But progress to what? All of us also feel strongly that we have moral potential too, if only we could make our hearts work warmly as easily as we get our machines to function.




We don't need God-we need to get away from anachronistic ideas about deities and religious dogma completely. Humanity does have great potential but the biggest barrier to achieving that potential is religion. Scientists not clerics will be the theologians of the future. Europe is already secular-the US will become increasingly secular in coming years and the Mr Johnsons of this world will need to live with that fact. Belief in God and theology has been a millstone round the neck of humanity for centuries-it has to be rooted out and consigned to to the history books because it is incompatible with modern liberal democratic ideals.

[bell-the-cat]

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

No wise man, and no great artist, leaves God out
Paul Johnson

I can perfectly well understand why someone should be an agnostic. But to be an atheist — to deny flatly and without qualification the existence of God — is to me wholly unsympathetic. The depth of folly.... blah blah blah

However, also a - because postings like the above are extremely valuable in any forum. They are such a good way to clearly distinguish who the cretins are, something that is usually only possible to decide upon by the time-consuming noticing of a myriad of little points spread out over many postings.

[english-curious]

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

No wise man, and no great artist, leaves God out
Paul Johnson

I can perfectly well understand why someone should be an agnostic. But to be an atheist — to deny flatly and without qualification the existence of God — is to me wholly unsympathetic. The depth of folly, indeed, and not without malice to us all. It makes little sense in reason. For if it is difficult, even strictly speaking impossible, to ‘prove’ the existence of God, in the sense in which we prove a theorem in geometry or the second law of thermodynamics, it is much more difficult to prove that he does not exist. More seriously, atheism necessarily demeans humanity. The point was powerfully made by Francis Bacon: ‘They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts, by his body; and, if he be not kin to God, by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.’ To be an atheist is to take a low view of human life. It is not surprising that among the small but extremely noisy group of atheists that exist today, most take the view that modern science shows no essential difference in purpose or significance between Homo sapiens and a chunk of rock or a puff of dust — all are subject to the same inexorable laws of futility.

It is frightening to think what will become of our progeny if, in the not-too-distant future — say about mid-century — these destructive notions get a grip on a large part of the human race and become the received wisdom, as their protagonists strongly desire and are doing all in their power to achieve. I fear a world not just where respect and reverence for God has disappeared, but where all trace of his image has vanished from human minds, and more important, hearts. What kind of terrible creatures will we become? It is not as though the world is standing still, leaving time for reflection. It is racing ahead, piling on the wealth and technology.

According to Forbes magazine, in the five years since terrorists blew up the World Trade Center, an act which they hoped would fatally damage the US economy, it has actually grown by 30 per cent, adding $3 trillion to America’s gross domestic product. That increase alone is bigger than the entire GDP of China, the new giant. The world as a whole grew even faster, by $15 trillion a year. These rates of growth may well accelerate. While the human race thus adds to its riches and knowledge and abilities to create and destroy, what if the last moral restraints on our power, our respect and fear of a being greater than ourselves, should finally go? The giant gorillas would then all be out of their cages. Or rather, as the German Jesuit Karl Rahner put it, we would become merely ‘a race of fantastically clever animals, and our ultimate fate would be too horrible to contemplate’.

We need the idea of God, not so much as an emollient or placebo for life’s harshness, but in a much more fundamental sense. We know that humanity has huge physical potential. We demonstrate it daily until the mind reels with the startling march of progress. But progress to what? All of us also feel strongly that we have moral potential too, if only we could make our hearts work warmly as easily as we get our machines to function.

What utter rubbish.

[bell-the-cat]

Originally Posted by english-curious

What utter rubbish.

True

But it's not clear - did Gypsum_Fantastic write it and "No wise man, and no great artist, leaves God out" is a quote by one "Paul Johnson", or did this "Paul Johnson" write it.

Not that either option absolves it of its crappyness.

[Rob_Roy_Kowalski]

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

I can perfectly well understand why someone should be an agnostic. But to be an atheist — to deny flatly and without qualification the existence of God — is to me wholly unsympathetic.

Much as, in the same way, to believe unreservedly in a greater being, for whom there is no hard proof of existence, is to me wholly illogical.

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

It makes little sense in reason. For if it is difficult, even strictly speaking impossible, to ‘prove’ the existence of God, in the sense in which we prove a theorem in geometry or the second law of thermodynamics, it is much more difficult to prove that he does not exist.

Then, surely, in the absence of proof either way, we must each be allowed tae base our opinion, as to his existence, on logic. My logic tells me that your staement aboce is fallacious. In what way is it "more difficult to prove he does not exist"?

If, as you say above, it is "strictly speaking impossible" to prove his existence, how can it be harder than impossible to disprove? What, pray tell, is harder than impossible?

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

To be an atheist is to take a low view of human life.

On the contrary, to believe that we have developed, particularly in terms of technology, without the existence of a greater being, is to take the view that the, "human life", of which you speak, is a remarkable, self-developing species indeed.

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

We need the idea of God, not so much as an emollient or placebo for life’s harshness, but in a much more fundamental sense.

Ah! Now you've grasped the nettle. We need the idea of a God as a comfort blanket, an' insurance policy, a get out of jail free card. To need the idea is not to need the God.

Man's greatest frailty lies in the inability to live as one race. As long as we can't prove the existence of any one God, we will continue to believe in different Gods. As long as we believe in different Gods, we will continue to make war on their behalf.

Imagine no religion......