tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7346951614540726095..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The Avengers and classical theismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger163125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69703649649062648682022-08-29T14:24:04.531-07:002022-08-29T14:24:04.531-07:00New comics are nihilistic, perverted, occult, undu...New comics are nihilistic, perverted, occult, unduly dark and sadistically violent. For example, old superhero comics have little blood, now superhero comics have blood splashing everywhere. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40744750001680397542018-07-14T02:08:09.832-07:002018-07-14T02:08:09.832-07:00Another thing I find funny. I've never viewed ...Another thing I find funny. I've never viewed the characters in these comics as overthrowing the concept of the monotheistic god. In fact I've never seen that at all in any marvel comic I've read. If anything characters, like Loki, odin and thor are lesser deities. So are characters like Eternity and the living tribunal. They've even had a monotheistic god in one story with Thano's and Adam Warlock who created everything including the multiverse and deities like Eternity and death etc. Also, i'd like to argue that characters like Thor and Odin have been christinized in the marvel comics. Even though Thor isn't literally jesus, they tend to symbolically portray him as an allegory for Jesus and Odin as the holy father. I guess with Loki being a lucifer figure. And, before you disagree with this. You have to understand such allegories aren't "literal" they are loose allegories. For example, Captain America is sort of a sun myth hero. Usually sun myth heros like captain America and Superman are allegories for jesus. The problem is Christians tend to not catch onto these things and find it offensive because of the obvious technical differences. No one is saying these characters are jesus they just represent the allegorical concept of Christ. Just in a more super hero type of way instead of a spiritual teacher and son of the god of the entire creation. I'll give a few characters that are like this. Optimus prime, Superman, Luke Skywalker, Captain America. You have to understand though that it isn't literal. It's a loose similarity. Heck actualy I'd argue Optimus Prime is more St Michael and a character like Megatron is lucifer but still Optimus and Megatron do have that whole jesus vs satan thing going on with them. This doesn't mean the characters are those beings. But they do loosely symbolize those concepts in an allegorical fashion. For example, the transformers god Primus tends to represent Jehovah and Unicron represents the Saturn god el. But if people explained this stuff it would fly over your heads. Of course I do not consider these characters to actually represent the Christian god or jesus. But I understand the loose association. Primus is really Jupiter which is pretty much zeus and Jehovah. Possibly we can gleam from this that Primus is really an angel who works for god but isn't the god of the universe. Just to give an example of how comics and cartoons do reflect both monotheism and polytheism. But Christians tend to look at it from a limited perspective due to their interpretation of the Christian god. No offense. I respect the classical theist viewpoint. It doesn't mean a concept isn't allegorically simalir despite being different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15099187082173605902018-07-14T01:46:58.682-07:002018-07-14T01:46:58.682-07:00I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I'...I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing I've read... Why the hell are you assuming that atheists don't understand the Classical theism concept of the judeo Christian god. Do you really think we are that fucking stupid? When we say one god less we are not saying that you're god is necessarily the same like the ones in polytheism. We just feel that the universe might not be a sentient god like entity. Mostly because we have not seen concrete proof of that. Usually it's you guys the theists who don't understand the atheist arguments. You think that when we say god doesn't exist that we think the universe came from nothing. No we didn't say it came from nothing we just don't think the universe is a sentient aware being. We feel that the universe formed through chaos, which lead to structures that seem like ordered patterns to the human mind. I'm sorry but your assumption that we don't understaned classical theism utter toss. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62662390773927170442013-12-01T14:34:18.651-08:002013-12-01T14:34:18.651-08:00This is merely more assertionist wibble of the sor...This is merely more assertionist wibble of the sort we see all the time from supernaturalists. It's a classic example of a favourite bait and switch amongst supernaturalists, namely, asserting blindly the existence of various fantastic magic properties (without, of course, ever supporting that assertion), followed by asserting blindly in turn that the supernaturalist's pet choice of invisible magic man is purportedly the only candidate for the possession thereof.<br /><br />Feser has it completely backwards. <b>Until the existence question is settled in a suitably rigorous manner first, all assertions about fantastic magic powers possessed by this entity are mere speculation and fantasy</b>.<br /><br />Trying to conjure your pet magic entity into existence by asserting the existence of special, privileged attributes and properties, without bothering to support <i>this</i> assertion, then trying to use this to conjure your pet magic man into existence, as well as being farcical, is a duplicitous discoursive bait and switch.<br /><br />Needless to say, I suspect this comment will be sent to the bin shortly after posting, because supernaturalists have a habit of trying to delete things that don't conform to their presuppositions. <i>Index librorum prohibitorum</i>, anyone?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13640513873997585374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66543537094853045632012-11-13T09:52:58.148-08:002012-11-13T09:52:58.148-08:00I think we're sort of in violent agreement. My...I think we're sort of in violent agreement. My sole point is that you can't conclude someone isn't divine simply because they can be defeated in battle. (Which, of course, <i>was</i> a historic objection to Jesus being divine - 'what kind of God dies on a cross'?)<br /><br />So you need some <i>other</i> information to conclude Loki wasn't also Being Itself. All I'm saying is that Feser's analysis in this post is incomplete at best, facile at worst.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13281711417716293052012-11-12T21:44:48.444-08:002012-11-12T21:44:48.444-08:00Ray Ingles: Now, you can say that it was God the U...Ray Ingles: <i>Now, you can say that it was God the Ultimate Cause that really did those things</i><br /><br />I almost did; after all, that's the whole point. <br /><br /><i>Because if you substitute 'Jesus' for 'Loki' in the syllogism, suddenly I'd assume Feser (along with all other Christians) would reject it.</i><br /><br />We have to be more precise in our formulation: Jesus's human nature got beaten; God cannot get beaten; therefore Jesus's human nature is not divine. You can equally conclude that Loki's Asgardian nature is not divine. The relevant difference is that Jesus has two natures, while Loki has only one. (At least, that's how the story is presented in the comics/movie. As I already said, Loki is not called a god in the comic books because he's supposed to be Being Itself incarnated in some extraterrestrial body; he's called <i>a</i> god because he's supposed to be one of many beings with the ability to fly (or whatever his powers are). I guess you could say, "But what if he <i>was</i> supposed to be Being Itself, and what if really he's meant to look like a lion, and what if he lived in Narnia instead of Asgard?" ... but I think I already addressed that too.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1787847431076287842012-11-12T06:46:20.289-08:002012-11-12T06:46:20.289-08:00being also God didn't make [Jesus] a man with ...<i>being also God didn't make [Jesus] a man with superpowers</i><br /><br />You mean no 'superpowers' aside from <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+4%3A35-41&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">commanding the weather</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A1-11&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">transmutation</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A13-21&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">matter duplication</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">healing</a> up to and including <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">resurrection</a>, etc?<br /><br />Now, you can say that it was God the Ultimate Cause that <i>really</i> did those things, and God-As-Jesus just <i>asked</i> for them. But how do we know that Loki, say, didn't just pray for the effects he produced?<br /><br />My point is, you can't - say as Feser does - 'Loki got the beatdown from the Hulk, therefore he wasn't God (or even God incarnate)'. I mean, the centurions <a href="http://bible.cc/luke/23-37.htm" rel="nofollow">came awfully close</a> to saying <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19%3A19-20&version=NIV;KJV" rel="nofollow">'puny God'</a>... yet they were allegedly wrong.<br /><br />The syllogism:<br /><br />1. Loki got the beatdown.<br />2. God can't get a beatdown.<br />3. Therefore, Loki isn't God.<br /><br />...is invalid. Because if you substitute 'Jesus' for 'Loki' in the syllogism, suddenly I'd assume Feser (along with all other Christians) would reject it.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25992278151751596092012-11-11T16:16:39.042-08:002012-11-11T16:16:39.042-08:00Ray Ingles: By this logic, would it not be the cas...Ray Ingles: <i>By this logic, would it not be the case that, whatever God Jesus may have been, he could not be "the God of classical theism"?</i><br /><br />I see — yes, in that sense, it's certainly possible for God to become incarnated in some creaturely form. But of course, that's not the scenario presented in the comic books. Thor's godly powers consist of being able to pick up dump trucks and fly or whatever, so clearly he is only "a" god. Jesus was weak because <i>as</i> a man, he was just that — a man; being also God didn't make him a man with superpowers. If you wanted, you could have a fictional character who was also supposed to be the infinite God (as Lewis did with Aslan).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40328419249172997442012-11-07T12:44:03.072-08:002012-11-07T12:44:03.072-08:00Mr Green, you miss my point. Loki and Thor could &...Mr Green, you miss my point. Loki and Thor could "get knocked around by Iron Man", and Feser states that therefore they could not be "the God of classical theism".<br /><br />OK, fine. But Jesus was reportedly knocked around - in fact, killed - by Roman centurions. And yet, Jesus was <i>also</i> 'fully human and fully divine'.<br /><br />By this logic, would it not be the case that, whatever God Jesus may have been, he could not be "the God of classical theism"? Why couldn't the centurions have said "puny god" about Jesus?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11682536346683202392012-11-05T17:49:26.882-08:002012-11-05T17:49:26.882-08:00Ray Ingles: I just have one question: Why couldn&#...Ray Ingles: <i>I just have one question: Why couldn't someone be fully Asgardian and fully divine?</i><br /><br />Depends what we mean by "divine". If "a" god means not the Ultimate Cause but some being with certain (great) powers, then sure, a god could be Asgardian or Olympian or anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11375090569773908662012-10-31T08:31:49.124-07:002012-10-31T08:31:49.124-07:00I've stayed away from here while I (slowly) wo...I've stayed away from here while I (slowly) work through TLS, but I saw a link to this.<br /><br />I just have one question: Why couldn't someone be fully Asgardian and fully divine?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48307914846932401092012-10-15T08:59:03.195-07:002012-10-15T08:59:03.195-07:00Crude: Oh, I think some measured preaching can be ...Crude: <i>Oh, I think some measured preaching can be effective. If you get too subtle, you won't be noticed by any but the most piercingly detail-oriented people.</i><br /><br />Agreed. I just think it's difficult to do that without getting schlocky. But I guess that kind of refinement is a luxury reserved for societies that aren't coming apart at the seams.<br /><br /><i>The little, incidental-seeming things - who's the hero and who's the villain in a given cartoon, the number of sympathetically portrayed orthodox Christians there are in a story that has little to nothing to do with religion, etc - matter a lot. They communicate, they shape imagination and day to day experience.</i><br /><br />I don't know how much of this is deliberate plotting (er, in both senses of the word!), and how much is a self-perpetuating stereotype (i.e. some people write religious characters that way because they actually think that's how religion is, even when they're portraying the rare sympathetic figure, because actual religious people themselves believe it nowadays). You do occasionally see, say, a priest appearing as an "ordinary" character (not a villain or a caricature) where you didn't a few decades ago, but you won't see him appearing in a way that support or defends or explains orthodoxy. <br /><br />However, there are lots of little details that don't make an explicit statement but that imply all sorts of sneaky things; part of being a writer is knowing how to handle these subtleties, but they aren't handled honestly. It's hard to pick out: one can always respond, "Hey, they never said ALL religious people are psycho killers, obviously it was just one character" or "Maybe you can interpret that as meaning faith is just a feeling, but they didn't actually SAY that." But a lot of people pick up on the attitude without stopping to analyse it (or being able to).<br /><br />There's also the cheating: outright misrepresentation (deliberate or not), but also word-games, such as calling religious people "anti-scientific". I've certainly never met anyone who was against "science"; it's tempting to label those who ignore the plain biological facts about abortion, sexuality, etc. as being against science (and with at least a smidgen of truth!)... but of course that wouldn't be right.<br /><br /><i>My understanding of Spinoza-style pantheism is that it's radically different from what most people seem to mean when they discuss pantheism ('sexed up atheism' goes the Dawkins quote.)</i><br /><br />Hah. Interesting that Dawkins would note the connection, even if tries to make it point backwards.<br /><br /><i>As for scientism - you know, I actually reject the claim that scientism is at all prevalent, even among New Atheists.</i><br /><br />Well, I was taking it for granted that the "science" being worshipped couldn't be real science, but maybe that's not quite standard usage. (It's hard to make even a pseudo-religion out of true science, because it so obviously isn't up to the job.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34072682378040401842012-10-12T12:26:02.086-07:002012-10-12T12:26:02.086-07:00Mr.Green,
This is a practical problem, because pe...Mr.Green,<br /><br /><i>This is a practical problem, because people are generally so out of touch with the intellectual background that merely presenting stories with a Christian context (e.g. Tolkien) will be misinterpreted. (Perhaps a certain amount of preachiness is a necessary evil?)</i><br /><br />Oh, I think some measured preaching can be effective. If you get too subtle, you won't be noticed by any but the most piercingly detail-oriented people.<br /><br /><i>But that's a problem if you want to reform the media, because you need to be more honest about the views you're presenting, and not simply "trick" people into buying them. So I think you're right that the intellectual aspect is not the most important in analysing what currently happens, but doesn't it need to be in developing any response?</i><br /><br />The intellectual side absolutely needs to be developed. But I think that emotional pull and association, sans argument, is also something that needs to be done. Or even more simple associations, as simple as 'have the traditionalist priest / the orthodox christian be a person worthy of respect or friendly or positive in the story'. These are things that can actually be communicated in a film or comic or tv show that's meant to otherwise entertain, and they need to be done.<br /><br />Detailed arguments and a solid intellectual foundation are great things, important things. But culture is a lot more than that. The little, incidental-seeming things - who's the hero and who's the villain in a given cartoon, the number of sympathetically portrayed orthodox Christians there are in a story that has little to nothing to do with religion, etc - matter a lot. They communicate, they shape imagination and day to day experience.<br /><br /><i>And let me add: to those who object that "maybe the first cause isn't God, why not the universe?", before we even get to studying the attributes of the First Cause, the answer is that if it is the universe, that is still what men would call "God". And such a person is a pantheist.</i><br /><br />Part of the problem there is that the word 'pantheism' itself has been watered down to basically mean 'I like nature documentaries' for a lot of people. Or better yet, 'I want to think of myself as deep and spiritual, or at least get other people to think of me as that'. My understanding of Spinoza-style pantheism is that it's radically different from what most people seem to mean when they discuss pantheism ('sexed up atheism' goes the Dawkins quote.)<br /><br />As for scientism - you know, I actually reject the claim that scientism is at all prevalent, even among New Atheists. It suggests that these are people who believe science is the only valid route to knowledge, or worse, 'people who are inordinately respectful of or devoted to science' - I think the latter is demonstrably false, and the former gets amended into oblivion. (See Jerry Coyne and company defining science down to the point where a plumber or even a squirrel is a scientist.)Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26165741623219640052012-10-12T08:29:11.997-07:002012-10-12T08:29:11.997-07:00Crude: If we're being frank, then absolutely a...Crude: <i>If we're being frank, then absolutely anyone discussing any topic that has an 'intellectual side' in popular media is absolutely abysmal and shallow.</i><br /><br />Or indeed, any topic that doesn't have an intellectual side! I would note that this is not the fault of the medium itself, although a story (as opposed to a documentary or a filmed lecture) does not by its nature lend itself to explicit preaching or academic discussion. This is a practical problem, because people are generally so out of touch with the intellectual background that merely presenting stories with a Christian context (e.g. Tolkien) will be misinterpreted. (Perhaps a certain amount of preachiness is a necessary evil?)<br /><br /><i>As I said with the LGBT thing, the cultural success of that group had little to nothing to do with arguments. Yes, they made and make strawmen out of Christians in all media, but their own views were paper tigers anyway</i><br /><br />Well, that argument was pretty much lost before it began. But it can be pushed emotionally to seal the deal. And appealing to (or subtly shaping) emotions and instincts can be more effective than an intellectual argument because one doesn't need to worry about one's audience failing to follow the argument, or responding with a counter-argument. But that's a problem if you want to reform the media, because you need to be more honest about the views you're presenting, and not simply "trick" people into buying them. So I think you're right that the intellectual aspect is not the most important in analysing what currently happens, but doesn't it need to be in developing any response?<br /><br /><i>My view is that both the simulation argument and the multiverse arguments that make simulated universes a certainty result not in atheism, but in a bizarre form of theism/polytheism.</i><br /><br />Yes, that does need to be said. And let me add: to those who object that "maybe the first cause isn't God, why not the universe?", before we even get to studying the attributes of the First Cause, the answer is that if it is the universe, that is still what men would call "God". And such a person is a pantheist. Pantheism arguably has a more respectable pedigree than atheism, why not just come out and admit it? An impersonal pantheistic god is perhaps less likely to be seen as a valid object of veneration, but then again, some atheists boast that they can feel the same awe and thankfulness towards …nature?… that theists do, which is either delusional (if there is no such object of their thanks and admiration), or else worship of their universe-god. (Surely "scientism" is a thinly-veiled religion for modern pantheists.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82136857359707912012012-10-10T22:59:21.137-07:002012-10-10T22:59:21.137-07:00then absolutely anyone discussing any topic that h...<i> then absolutely anyone discussing any topic that has an 'intellectual side' in popular media is absolutely abysmal and shallow.</i><br /><br />Before someone hits me for being too extreme with this - I'm sure, in some situations, the ideas and arguments are presented better.<br /><br />But far and away most of the time? Not really. Especially in anything live action or animated, most of the time you're getting the most boiled down strawman/paper tiger matchup. "Here's a creationist, as all Christians are. He believes dinosaur bones were hidden in the ground by mischievous elves. Now watch as the smart scientist proves him wrong: he's going to say the words 'natural selection', and then call the creationist fat. Everyone's going to laugh at the creationist, and agree that the scientist is very smart and right and all the evidence is on his side."Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56469128130742034072012-10-10T22:49:42.288-07:002012-10-10T22:49:42.288-07:00Mr. Green,
Sometimes, absolutely. But things are ...Mr. Green,<br /><br /><i>Sometimes, absolutely. But things are so bad nowadays that even sincere Christians are appallingly ignorant of their cultural heritage (including the intellectual side). So I think there are plenty of people who attack strawmen without knowing it (or who attack caricatures of the strawmen!).</i><br /><br />Really, there are times when I think this doesn't matter so much. If we're being frank, then absolutely anyone discussing any topic that has an 'intellectual side' in popular media is absolutely abysmal and shallow. Even 'secular/atheist' ideas - darwinism, liberalism, atheism itself - are presented in such watered-down, incorrect, schlocky ways whenever they are, in fact, presented. Even sympathetically!<br /><br />As I said with the LGBT thing, the cultural success of that group had little to nothing to do with arguments. Yes, they made and make strawmen out of Christians in all media, but their own views were paper tigers anyway (to keep up with the arts and crafts metaphors.) It's not like they put up powerful intellectual arguments against weak Christian/dissenting rejoinders.<br /><br />In fact, that's part of my complaint here. The arguments, the intellectual aspect, these things are all important in many ways. But not all ways. Not even most ways.<br /><br /><i> And speaking of Zeus-worship [in the other thread], Bostrom's simulation argument implies that naturalists likely all ought to be theists, since the programmer-creator of our (probably) simulated world qualifies as a god, and deserves some (non-transcendental) reverence.</i><br /><br />I am overjoyed that someone aside from me is making this point, without prompting. My view is that both the simulation argument and the multiverse arguments that make simulated universes a certainty result not in atheism, but in a bizarre form of theism/polytheism. We should say as much.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32511253058598752152012-10-10T22:18:14.556-07:002012-10-10T22:18:14.556-07:00JHall: Book responds with something along the line...JHall: <i>Book responds with something along the lines of, well (paraphrasing), it may not make any logical sense, but that's not what the Bible is really about. It's about having faith and something to believe in (the standard, very modern, conception of faith). </i><br /><br />Ouch. I think that's even worse than a flat-out attack or airbrushing out of the picture. Uninformed Christians — which is most of them — will naively see that as some form of support, as an attempt to present a balanced view, thus reinforcing their mistakes in a way that the alternatives would not. Without large amounts of television rooted in true philosophy, I don't know how this sad state of affairs will get reversed. (Well, there's always catastrophic economic collapse and Chinese take-over, or whatever is due for the next civilisational collapse!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28208813315900137642012-10-10T22:16:16.630-07:002012-10-10T22:16:16.630-07:00Crude: Sadly, no. I'm just one guy with meager...Crude: <i>Sadly, no. I'm just one guy with meager skills. But I'd like to be the guy making games and media where Christians and Christianity show up in proper and positive lights, and is seen by enough people.</i><br /><br />Good! I think part of the problem is that Christians simply aren't producing enough good Christian material. It's one thing to exercise a degree of accommodation in a secular society; it's another to give up and leave producing such works to others. (Which is how a historically Christian society gets so secular in the first place…) Of course, the Internet also makes it possible for more rubbish to spread as well, but if good material is made available, I think people will find it.<br /><br /><i>Note that I don't mean 'Christian media'. I can think of some exceptions, but whenever I see something branded as that, it tends to be kind of schlocky.</i><br /><br />Yup. Some of that is technology making it easier to produce and distribute schlock (when you had to copy out your books by hand, you made sure they were worth it!). Some of it is giving in to the "professionals" (if you want Hollywood production-values, then you go along with Hollywood attitudes). Some of it is trying too hard (any time you produce for a goal that isn't "good art", it probably will turn out badly — e.g. sentimental or preachy, in this case). And the general decline of artistic standards, and, heck, lots of reasons.<br /><br /><i>Throw a very theologically liberal or social liberal of the right bend behind a project, and you're going to get the same result.</i><br /><br />And there's another reason: artists seem to tend to be liberal. I'm not sure if this is just an accident of our present moment in history, or there is some sort of selection going on. (The type of person who is drawn towards creating art vs. the type who is drawn to creating products or services?) Turning art on its head, inverting (perverting) its purpose from inspiration to self-expression, has had unsurprisingly horrible results, and drives away people who would make constructive contributions.<br /><br /><i>I think most of the creators who attack these things know they're attacking or presenting primitive caricatures and straw men.</i><br /><br />Sometimes, absolutely. But things are so bad nowadays that even sincere Christians are appallingly ignorant of their cultural heritage (including the intellectual side). So I think there are plenty of people who attack strawmen without knowing it (or who attack caricatures of the strawmen!).<br /><br /><i>New Scientist is running a special on reality. […] I have severe trouble believing that whoever made this story simply forgot 'theism' was a live option, philosophically defended, for an 'ultimate' answer. </i><br /><br />It is kinda surreal. (If numbers are ultimate, aren't we returning to a Pythagorean matheism??) And speaking of Zeus-worship [in the other thread], Bostrom's simulation argument implies that naturalists likely all ought to be theists, since the programmer-creator of our (probably) simulated world qualifies as a god, and deserves some (non-transcendental) reverence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85286243976473622692012-10-10T16:46:05.138-07:002012-10-10T16:46:05.138-07:00Well since we are talking about pop culture, I fou...Well since we are talking about pop culture, I found these quotes interesting. They're from Advance Wars: Days of Ruin, a game which I completed recently.<br /><br />Caulder: The man in the armored tank speaks of rights! How very tiresome...<br />Whatever you may think of me, I have always been faithful to my curiosity. I<br />am not motivated by greed, or fame, or the interests of society. If my<br />research causes suffering or moral quandaries, I care not. I seek only to<br />learn. In that sense, I am a pure and simple man.<br /><br />Caulder: Pah! Spare me your overworn lectures and tired morality. You have<br />simply been conditioned to accept the values of society. And now you<br />unthinkingly spout those same values to me. Do you not fight? Do you not<br />kill? Is this not for selfish reasons? You cannot justify your war while<br />condemning my research!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59176729303034819192012-10-10T15:17:01.657-07:002012-10-10T15:17:01.657-07:00Crude
Yes - isn't it odd that Bostrom's o...Crude<br /><br />Yes - isn't it odd that Bostrom's or Tegmark's universe is deemed plausible to secularists, while a theistic universe is deemed implausible? <br /><br />Step2 <br />Yes - the "metaphysics" of Marvel and DC became decidedly odd in the 1980s. As I understand it, Thanos becomes God, but then quits because it's boring. Or something. <br />I don't think the films will play Thanos that way - you probably needed to smoke something illegal in the 1960s to find that storyline entertaining. <br /><br />Maolsheachlann<br />The Bash Street Kids win every time! Gnash, Gnash. <br />I remember reading 2000AD as a young teen and feeling decidedly rebellious. There was enough political satire to make the comic feel a little "grown up"; but, basically, it was still aimed at kids. <br />I can't help feeling that my son has been robbed of similar experiences. Comics can be so grim and violent and sexual - there's so little restraint, nothing interesting can happen. <br /><br /><br />Graham Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38863359979564706852012-10-09T23:07:36.725-07:002012-10-09T23:07:36.725-07:00By the way - not animation/comics/games, but here&...By the way - not animation/comics/games, but here's a timely example of theism getting the Stalin treatment.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/special/reality%22" rel="nofollow">New Scientist is running a special on reality</a>. We're talking open metaphysical speculation about what is 'ultimate'. Not even physically ultimate necessarily, but straight up 'foundation of the universe in philosophical terms, they even brought in philosophers for this' talk.<br /><br />Check the list of what they cover. At a glance: the idea that the universe is 'made of numbers', or that 'nothing' really exists, or that consciousness produces reality a la Copenhagen, or we're living in a computer simulation, or maybe solipsism is true, or maybe it's all matter and energy.<br /><br />I have severe trouble believing that whoever made this story simply forgot 'theism' was a live option, philosophically defended, for an 'ultimate' answer. That's not post-theist "oops it just didn't even occur to us" behavior. In this case, it's cultural Stalinism - theism was there, but was edited out of the picture.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60745673930584690012012-10-09T15:47:06.308-07:002012-10-09T15:47:06.308-07:00rank,
I think it's more what McGinn calls &qu...rank,<br /><br /><i>I think it's more what McGinn calls "post-theism". It just isn't an issue to these people anymore--particularly the kids. That's the part I find scariest.</i><br /><br />Of course, Ed argues rather persuasively that McGinn's 'post-theism' is actually 'pre-theism'.<br /><br />And... I highly doubt it manifests the way those words would suggest. Post-theism, a la McGinn, is a kind of atheism of the conviction that God clearly doesn't exist and the issue is settled, such that there's nothing to argue about anymore. I think there are far fewer resolute atheists than people think.<br /><br />(I noticed today that 30% of people under 30 in the US have no religion. For a laugh, check out how many of the self-declared atheists/agnostics - not the merely irreligious, but the actual atheists/agnostics - 'believe in God or a higher power'.)<br /><br />And thanks for the encouragement.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49324403531492437052012-10-09T11:06:45.295-07:002012-10-09T11:06:45.295-07:00To use a comparison, Half-Life 2 makes a fairly ov...<i>To use a comparison, Half-Life 2 makes a fairly overt criticism of eugenics, and has a priest show up in a ... positive role. I mean, he was a shotgun-wielding alien-killing Rasputin sort of priest, but c'mon, let's take what we can get here.</i><br /><br />True enough. I loved Father Grigori.<br /><br /><i>It depends on your standard. I think you have to do some serious reading in to come to the interpretation you just said with Wall-E. And I won't say that animation is completely bereft of Christian influence. But the proportional influence and presence is pretty small.</i><br /><br />I agree. But that information comes from the creators themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WALL-E#Themes<br /><br /><i>At this point, that would have to be nearly willful ignorance. Of course, why should I doubt there are willfully ignorant people, or just plain intellectually lazy people.</i><br /><br />I think it's more what McGinn calls "post-theism". It just isn't an issue to these people anymore--particularly the kids. That's the part I find scariest.<br /><br /><i>Whatever the case, the culture I think is in a rotten state on this question, and is in need of better change and influence. To paraphrase something I heard long ago, I'd give 10 William Lane Craigs for 1 popular series with an orthodox Christian portrayed prominently and positively, without any overt apologetics in play. At least in terms of cultural effect.</i><br /><br />I think I'd have to agree. Craig hits a certain demographic, but he can't reach out to the general population like a Christian character could. <br /><br />In any case, I wish you luck with your attempts to reshape the world.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69807349352992918192012-10-08T17:27:51.096-07:002012-10-08T17:27:51.096-07:00The problem here is that a cosmic force is about t...The problem here is that a cosmic force is about to appear in the movie series, and it won't be pretty when it happens. Google The Avengers and The Infinity Gauntlet to see what I mean. Long story short: Thanos wants the Infinity Gauntlet to court Death herself, and in the comic books the gauntlet gives him total mastery over reality, not simply unlimited power but the ability to transcend every law in the universe.Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91669082676061095632012-10-08T14:25:00.842-07:002012-10-08T14:25:00.842-07:00I think 2000 AD was always pretty nihilistic. I ag...I think 2000 AD was always pretty nihilistic. I agree with you, Mr. Veale (at least I think I do)-- the more "grown-up" comic books seek to become, the more infantile they actually become. Personally I can take the Bash Street Kids a lot more seriously than Arkham Asylum.Maolsheachlannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09406722311993627528noreply@blogger.com