Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Hitchens Unhinged Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_unhinged_part_i#6844 Post contents: @ Ms Kipley, Alright, now I'll jump in, in the spirit of what the proverbial Irishman said, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?" :-) You wrote: "clearly these things are perhaps only awe-inspiring to the human mind" 1. As far as we know, there are no other kinds of minds, anywhere in the universe, let alone any life anywhere else in the universe. (Even a non-theist, or perhaps ESPECIALLY a non-theist, ought to take that fact as all the more reason to treat this fragile Earth with special care.) 1.a. "Mind" is not necessarily the same thing as consciousness (but that's semantically debatable.) Mushrooms have a kind of consciousness; arguably so does a stone; but at least you have agreed that there is something extraordinary about Human consciousness. "An oil pipeline carving it’s way through the Alaskan tundra may be ugly to us, but it seems unlikely a bird or a fox finds it aesthetically disagreeable." Correct, because there's little or no evidence that birds care about any aesthetics at all. "We are stuck with our human minds; this is the eternal dilemma." It's true that we're "stuck" with our human minds, but what makes it a dilemma? We're "stuck with" gravity too, but that's not a dilemma; it's just how things are. If anything, it's the opposite of a dilemma, because a dilemma presupposes alternatives. Assuming the reality of the Holy Trinity (as I do), it's not a "dilemma" for the Three Persons of God to be what they are - not a dilemma for THEM, anyway. No dilemma at all; it is what it is, and there is no alternative (although we Christians believe Satan would like there to be an alternative - and that's very anti-scientific of Satan...HA! :-) "It just so happens that up to this point in my existence my thoughts have haven’t lead me, in any way, to conclude that there has to be anything as preternaturally huge as a ‘God’." Objections: 1. The Christian God isn't "preternatural", but supernatural; 2. Dimensional adjectives like "huge" are inapplicable to the supernatural; 3. Isn't an absolute faith in the exclusive reality of the "natural" (excluding the supernatural) a kind of willful idolatry in its own way? Furthermore, as the supernatural (if it exists as Christians believe) ENCOMPASSES and subsumes and superordinates the natural - and as the supernatural is qualitative, a "what kind" instead of a "how much" - then even a reverence for, and wonderment about, "Nature" will logically tend TOWARD a contemplation of the supernatural instead of a categorical rejection of it (as Hitchens illogically does.) In other words, if "Nature" REALLY inspires you toward "wonder" and awe - as it should - then it's more logical to at least SUSPECT the existence of "supernatural" qualities than to deny them categorically. 3.a. Alright, one could object that "my human mind contemplates the possibility of the supernatural, and is awed by Nature, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE of my Human mind." Fine, so far so good and logical. But then if the nature of Man's mind tends toward contemplation of supernatural qualities, isn't that evidence that the Human Mind has capacities which are NOT TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH NATURE? (Hey, Zmirak and other better logicians/theologians than me, out there, help me out here!) "I know that I don’t know for sure one for or another, but it seems logical, from my narrow human perspective, to conclude that the more audacious claim is the more unlikely." Objections: 1. Is your "human perspective" "narrow" because it's Human? Or because it's yours personally? WHAT OTHER PERSPECTIVES ARE THERE, OTHER THAN HUMAN? None, as far as we know. So, tell me, what is "scientific" about assuming the existence of ANY non-human perspectives? Nothing. All the empirical evidence we have, is that there are no perspectives other than Human ones. Anywhere in the universe. As far as we know, this Planet Earth - and Man - is the CONSCIOUS centre of the universe - and it's anti-scientific to assume otherwise. (Well, we could ask some non-human creatures for their perspectives. I've just asked my Cockapoo puppy, Sam Gamgee, for his "perspective" on God, and his response was to sniff my beer bottle - typical Australian male, he is.... :-) "You haven’t made any comments regarding my remarks about people who believe in ufos, ghosts and other silly things." Personally I don't believe in UFOs or in life on other planets, but I might be wrong. But what's so silly about ghosts? I lived in a haunted house when I was a boy (it was built in 1770, and among its "ghosts" was some residue of a man who committed suicide there around year 1900, hanging himself from a barn rafter), and experienced some phenomena there which were, well, "ghosts." Were they disembodied spirits? I don't know. But isn't it possible that some kinds of "memories" become "recorded" into a place's atmosphere, in a way we don't yet understand? 250 years ago it would have sounded "magical" and "unscientific" if someone suggested that voices could be recorded on material discs, or that we could look into a box and watch men walking on the moon. Maybe "ghosts" are a kind of DVD memorised in a place's atmosphere in a way we don't yet understand? And if things like DVDs and TV scenes of men walking on the moon seemed contrary to "science" in year 1750, then what other, greater mysteries have we not yet even begun to discover - about "consciousness" and its relation to materiality? In 16th century Europe, anyone who described communications like we're having now - over the internet - would have been burned at the stake for witchcraft. So, today, who are the REALLY anti-scientific people? Those who keep open minds - humbly - about the essential mysteriousness and weirdness of life, or those who, like Hitchens, preach like Muhammed did on one of his bad days (Muhammed had good AND bad days, and said bad AND good things), that "the canon is now closed, and now we know all we can ever know about the nature of consciousness, or of "God." "Human beings are scared of dying. This is where theism springs from." No. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that you're more scared of your own limitations than of dying. Atheist Communists don't want to die, but they pretended to become like "gods" in their own lifetimes. Man isn't so much afraid of death, as he is of acknowledging his limitations. The ancient Greeks didn't believe in life after death (other than as mere shadows), but they DID believe (and so did the ancient Germans) that eternal fame was a kind of eternal life. Hitchens is one of their pagan kindred spirits - and, once again, a very anti-scientific one. "Why, of all things, would God concern Himself with our absurd sexual activities?" Because God is, well, a very Sexy being, and He doesn't like any of his Gifts to be wasted or under-appreciated. On this blog I've often admitted that I don't believe in or practice 100 percent of Catholic doctrine or morals - but ya gotta admit, that the more sex is tossed around without any acknowledgement of its sanctity, the less pleasurable - and less Human - it becomes. One more thing: As Australia is my newly adopted country and I'm fast becoming a serious Australian patriot, I gotta say, the platypus convinces me of the "existence" of God. As the Scottish comedian Robin Williams said: "Imagine God smoking some weed (toke, puff), and he says, 'I'm gonna take a beaver and attach a duck's bill to it. Hey, I'm God, what are you gonna do?'" :-) And I'm serious about that. God is the ultimate, Divine Comedian, and no one who has a shred of a sense of humour can ever categorically deny God. :-) Sent at: 2008 05 16