Comments on: The Atheist Crusade http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/ This is where Fr Antonios writes his contemplations Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:57:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on The Atheist Crusade by: mathmethman http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-22 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:24:39 +0000 http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-22 Thanks for these insights about prejudice - whether recognised or not. I am part way through "The God Delusion" and have been reflecting on some of the arguments Dawkins presents. (see my blog for example.) I wouldn't say my faith has been shaken, but I am struggling at some points to come up with reasonable justification for my belief, so I found your comments very encouraging. Thanks for these insights about prejudice - whether recognised or not. I am part way through “The God Delusion” and have been reflecting on some of the arguments Dawkins presents. (see my blog for example.) I wouldn’t say my faith has been shaken, but I am struggling at some points to come up with reasonable justification for my belief, so I found your comments very encouraging.

]]> Comment on The Atheist Crusade by: Tony http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-21 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:21:39 +0000 http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-21 I came by a rather interesting Hasidic story by Rabbi Nachman- one that I think speaks for itself. I think you would enjoy it. “The king had sent a letter to a wise but skeptical man, who, in his faraway province, refused to accept it. He was one of those men who think too much, who complicate their lives by complicating small things. He couldn’t understand, not in the slightest, what the king might want of him: ‘Why would the sovereign, so powerful and so rich, address himself to me, who am less than nothing? Because he takes me for a philosopher? There are more important ones. Could there be another reason? If so, what reason?’ “Unable to answer these question, he preferred to believe the letter a misunderstanding. Worse: a fraud. Worse yet: a practical joke. ‘Your king,’ he said to the messenger, ‘does not exist.’ But the messenger insisted: ‘I am here, and here is the letter; isn’t that proof enough?’—‘The letter proves nothing at all; besides, I haven’t read it. And by the way, who gave it to you? The king in person?’—‘No,’ confessed the messenger. ‘It was given to me by a royal page. In his name.’—‘Are you sure of that? And how can you be sure that it comes from the reigning sovereign? Have you ever seen him?’—‘Never. My rank does not permit or warrant it.’—‘Then how do you know that the king is king? You see? You don’t know any more than I.’ “And without unsealing the letter, the sage and the messenger decided to learn the truth once and for all. They would go to the end of the world, they would question the very last of mortals, but they would know. “At the marketplace, they accosted a soldier: ‘Who are you and what do you do?’—‘I am a soldier by trade and I am in the king’s service.’—‘What king?’—‘The one to whom we swore allegiance; this land is his. We are all here to serve him.’—‘Do you know what he looks like?’—‘No.’—‘Then you have never seen him?’—‘Never.’ “The two companions burst into laughter: ‘Look at him! This man in uniform insists upon serving someone he has never seen and will never see!’ “Further on, they met an officer: yes, he would willingly die for the king; no, he had never had the honor of seeing him, neither from close by nor from afar. “A general: same questions, same answers, clear and precise. He, too, thinks of nothing but to serve the king, he lives only for him and by him; and yet, even though he is a general, he cannot boast of ever having set his eyes upon the king. “‘You see?’ says the skeptical sage to the messenger. ‘People are naďve and credulous, and rather foolish; they live a lie and are afraid of the truth.’” I came by a rather interesting Hasidic story by Rabbi Nachman- one that I think speaks for itself. I think you would enjoy it.

“The king had sent a letter to a wise but skeptical man, who, in his faraway province, refused to accept it. He was one of those men who think too much, who complicate their lives by complicating small things. He couldn’t understand, not in the slightest, what the king might want of him: ‘Why would the sovereign, so powerful and so rich, address himself to me, who am less than nothing? Because he takes me for a philosopher? There are more important ones. Could there be another reason? If so, what reason?’

“Unable to answer these question, he preferred to believe the letter a misunderstanding. Worse: a fraud. Worse yet: a practical joke. ‘Your king,’ he said to the messenger, ‘does not exist.’ But the messenger insisted: ‘I am here, and here is the letter; isn’t that proof enough?’—‘The letter proves nothing at all; besides, I haven’t read it. And by the way, who gave it to you? The king in person?’—‘No,’ confessed the messenger. ‘It was given to me by a royal page. In his name.’—‘Are you sure of that? And how can you be sure that it comes from the reigning sovereign? Have you ever seen him?’—‘Never. My rank does not permit or warrant it.’—‘Then how do you know that the king is king? You see? You don’t know any more than I.’

“And without unsealing the letter, the sage and the messenger decided to learn the truth once and for all. They would go to the end of the world, they would question the very last of mortals, but they would know.

“At the marketplace, they accosted a soldier: ‘Who are you and what do you do?’—‘I am a soldier by trade and I am in the king’s service.’—‘What king?’—‘The one to whom we swore allegiance; this land is his. We are all here to serve him.’—‘Do you know what he looks like?’—‘No.’—‘Then you have never seen him?’—‘Never.’

“The two companions burst into laughter: ‘Look at him! This man in uniform insists upon serving someone he has never seen and will never see!’

“Further on, they met an officer: yes, he would willingly die for the king; no, he had never had the honor of seeing him, neither from close by nor from afar.

“A general: same questions, same answers, clear and precise. He, too, thinks of nothing but to serve the king, he lives only for him and by him; and yet, even though he is a general, he cannot boast of ever having set his eyes upon the king.

“‘You see?’ says the skeptical sage to the messenger. ‘People are naďve and credulous, and rather foolish; they live a lie and are afraid of the truth.’”

]]> Comment on The Atheist Crusade by: Tony http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-17 Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:11:23 +0000 http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-17 *post-modernist *post-modernist

]]> Comment on The Atheist Crusade by: Tony http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-16 Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:52:51 +0000 http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-16 Perhaps, I forgot about your contention that “we can ask ourselves honestly, “If I didn’t have that prejudice, would I see this evidence differently? And if so, how?” because we do not ignore, but acknowledge and embrace our bias. Possibly, I have been drawn into a semi-modernist view of truth? As a medical student, I was taught that 60% (I don’t recollect the exact number now) of the information I am being taught will become outdated. This makes me rather skeptical whether we have even the faculties to elucidate truth with our ‘technology’. The world is surely a playground, or better yet, a battleground with people trying to clear conceptions with misconception and vice-versa. It just makes me wonder, as the fool and dim-witted person that I am, whether I can trust my abilities to discern the authenticity of any argument or fact. Perhaps, I forgot about your contention that “we can ask ourselves honestly, “If I didn’t have that prejudice, would I see this evidence differently? And if so, how?” because we do not ignore, but acknowledge and embrace our bias. Possibly, I have been drawn into a semi-modernist view of truth?
As a medical student, I was taught that 60% (I don’t recollect the exact number now) of the information I am being taught will become outdated. This makes me rather skeptical whether we have even the faculties to elucidate truth with our ‘technology’. The world is surely a playground, or better yet, a battleground with people trying to clear conceptions with misconception and vice-versa. It just makes me wonder, as the fool and dim-witted person that I am, whether I can trust my abilities to discern the authenticity of any argument or fact.

]]> Comment on The Atheist Crusade by: Tony http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-15 Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:38:04 +0000 http://www.stbishoy.org.au/modules/wordpress/2007/09/16/the-atheist-crusade/#comment-15 I certainly take the point that prejudice is inescapable. However, doesn’t this imply a sort of preconception theory of faith in the development of man? - something remarkably and markedly similar to the idea of predestination? Or does it just justify the necessity of our belief in the Holy Ghost to have the unparalleled power to delineate the essence of Christianity to the earnest spiritual seeker? It also makes me rather hesitant whether the abolition and enforcement of laws unethical and ethical is a better realization than Anarchy, when variance and deviance of innate prejudice is so rampant and prevalent? I mean, we know we have prejudice and they have prejudice (I am assuming for the case of argument that this is a polarized debate on a certain law): how can we meet to ensure that law enforces an ideal that both parties will in general abide by? I have yet to think this completely and in every part, however, I have a sinking feeling that this can not be resolved, except for trusting in innate consciousness. Yet, it is clearly evident that innate consciousness is prone to developmental molding, and is thus a unbecoming way to meet. Must we contend with the majority? How can we, when “ it consists of a few strong men who lead, of knaves who temporize, of the feeble who are hangers-on, and of the multitude who follow without the slightest idea of what they want.” (Goethe) [Also, I can't seem to get to you on email] PP4M I certainly take the point that prejudice is inescapable. However, doesn’t this imply a sort of preconception theory of faith in the development of man? - something remarkably and markedly similar to the idea of predestination? Or does it just justify the necessity of our belief in the Holy Ghost to have the unparalleled power to delineate the essence of Christianity to the earnest spiritual seeker?
It also makes me rather hesitant whether the abolition and enforcement of laws unethical and ethical is a better realization than Anarchy, when variance and deviance of innate prejudice is so rampant and prevalent? I mean, we know we have prejudice and they have prejudice (I am assuming for the case of argument that this is a polarized debate on a certain law): how can we meet to ensure that law enforces an ideal that both parties will in general abide by?
I have yet to think this completely and in every part, however, I have a sinking feeling that this can not be resolved, except for trusting in innate consciousness. Yet, it is clearly evident that innate consciousness is prone to developmental molding, and is thus a unbecoming way to meet.
Must we contend with the majority? How can we, when “ it consists of a few strong men who lead, of knaves who temporize, of the feeble who are hangers-on, and of the multitude who follow without the slightest idea of what they want.” (Goethe)

[Also, I can’t seem to get to you on email]

PP4M

]]>