• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am

VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

#133: Sept. - Nov. 2014 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3507 times
Been thanked: 1310 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Please use this thread to discuss the Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God."
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

I'm surprised at the humility Carrier shows in his book, especially considering the polemic language he uses in other venues. I think his views are a bit more emotional in every day life, but were edited out of the book. I agree with the conclusion, and the hopeful tone he uses.

See Massimo Pigliucci's blog regarding some of what Carrier has said regarding the A+ movement. It's less generous than the tone in his conclusion.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/ ... riers.html
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

I liked the book. It's not a classic, but it's readable.

I particularly appreciated his moderate political views. I'm perhaps fully on board with him re politics.
And I was personally pleased to see that he recognized the importance of preserving religious tolerance. He gave it a quick passing, but mentioned it nonetheless. His "Star Trek" utopia is not a society free of religion. That's a delusional tooth fairy wish by someone who perhaps has deeper psychological scars from their personal experience with religion.

I do agree with his suggestion that religious studies offered in school should be a broad survey of ALL world religions. After which, each is free to pursue according to preference.

He fought hard against the personal god of Christianity; his tone nearly seeped acrimony and contempt for Christianity. I'd speculate there is more to his experience with a christian worldview than mentioned in his book.

As I mentioned before, he seemed at times to almost express himself like a pantheist.

I was surprised that a historian would be capable of completely brushing off the middle ages as a time of a thousand years of ignorance like he did. Perhaps he can collaborate with professional historians that specialize in middle age histories. It is a fascinating and unique era that helped build the foundation of the following "Enlightenment" era.
Carrier's "dark ages" claim is a broad brush rhetorical device used mostly by uniformed or dishonest religious bigot imbeciles.
But I guess tidbits of propaganda are to be expected when promoting a worldview one feels is the truest of them all!

And of course his implicit assertions that the "facts" (scientific facts, that is) point to a mutiverse THEORY are not grounded as empirically as he attempts to portray. Carrier advances/attacks with the hypothetico-deductive model of empiricism and retreats into metaphysics as he sees fit. His "evidence" for metaphysical hypotheses is the abstract language of mathematics that theoretically models nature but can not be experienced (experience is everything, right Carrier?).

It seems that as branches science become more specialized, abstract and unobservable, they nevertheless continue to inform the layman.
If the math is telling us (and Carrier) that something can come from nothing, that the universe is eternal, and there are an infinite number of universes, hence no need for a God, then those that wish to have a worldview without God are apt to soak it up because science has informed us all with "evidence."
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Carrier's "dark ages" claim is a broad brush rhetorical device used mostly by uniformed or dishonest religious bigot imbeciles.
Nice non-polemic language here.

I don’t get the knee jerk reaction to calling the Dark Ages the Dark Ages. The rate of advancement was slower than during Roman times. It was also slower than during recent times. This is true even if the time period had more advancement than previously thought. Why is your language so harsh here, when the term Dark Ages is more or less justified?

Or am I outright wrong? Was there as much or more progress during these times as during recent/Roman times? What am I missing that makes you so angry?
If the math is telling us (and Carrier) that something can come from nothing, that the universe is eternal, and there are an infinite number of universes, hence no need for a God, then those that wish to have a worldview without God are apt to soak it up because science has informed us all with "evidence."
If math is the source, why refer to science at the end? You're so angry at science you forgot that you began the sentence by attributing the advancements to mathematics.

I'm sure you mean something different. But all we have are the words you write...
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Or am I outright wrong? Was there as much or more progress during these times as during recent/Roman times? What am I missing that makes you so angry?
Yes

Yes (anyone that has bothered to give the middle ages more than a cursory glance knows this)

I actually am in a very good mood today.

I'm sure you mean something different. But all we have are the words you write...
If math can be classified as part of the hypothetico/deductive methodology of science in all cases is debatable.
You're so angry at science you forgot that you began the sentence by attributing the advancements to mathematics.


If you think I'm "angry" at science you're either insane or not very bright.
I'd bet it's a combination of the two.
(but it was good for a chuckle)


Why is it that you have to shoot down every effin' critical opinion about any aspect of a worldview you share?
I'm not forcing Christianity on you like some family member might be.

Please stop with this hyper-critical, paranoid nonsense of yours:
-No one is angry about anything Carrier has said.
-No one is angry at certain people being grossly misinformed about a certain epic in history.
-No one is angry at science.

I read the book and participated in a book discussion on a book forum.
The contrasting views did not make me "angry" at any time.

If you aren't hearing your worldview echoed loud enough here, go to infidels.com.

Live with it.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Yes (anyone that has bothered to give the middle ages more than a cursory glance knows this)
Yeah, no. I just now gave it a cursory glance by looking up scientific discoveries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... iscoveries

There is a gap between the 2nd and 9th centuries. Whether or not that gap is filled by other learning(Islamic medicine/European philosophy) would require an examination that is more than a cursory glance.

I'm not as interested in most people about whether or not the Dark ages were really dark. There are too many books with opposing points of view, and it doesn't interest me enough to read through them all. I may have to defer to your expertise. 8)
Please stop with this hyper-critical, paranoid nonsense of yours:
-No one is angry about anything Carrier has said.
-No one is angry at certain people being grossly misinformed about a certain epic in history.
-No one is angry at science.
I'm hyper-critical, it's who I am. You write angry words without realizing the tone, it's who you are I guess.
If you aren't hearing your worldview echoed loud enough here, go to infidels.com.

Live with it.
The last thing I want is an echo chamber. I want well thought out criticism. Don't get angry if I reply to your criticisms with hyper-criticism, expecially when it's obviously valid. That's sort of the point of the forums.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

'm not as interested in most people about whether or not the Dark ages were really dark. There are too many books with opposing points of view,
The scholarly consensus is that the middle ages were not "dark" as they were pejoratively described a handful of years ago.

As I've said before, the foundations of critical thinking and scientific methodology were laid out during the MA.
War and strife may have prevented accelerated progress, but it did not plummet man into a dark sea of ignorance like some ant-religious bigots portray it did.

There were also more than a handful of great thinkers during the middle ages. The intellectuals of the time were not simply throwing their hands up in the air praising God, having lamb barbecues, and devising schemes to stultify natural philosophy (now known as "science").


I have done more research than typing in "the dark ages" in wiki.
My interest was aroused by several course lectures I purchased independently. The lectures were not performed by religious apologists.

Let me guess.., there's a conspiracy in place that denies the middle ages were intellectually dark in order to defend Christianity, right?


The "Enlightenment" is regularly contrasted with the MA by those with an inadequate knowledge of history.
The "Age of Reason" and the Birth of Science vs "The Dark Ages"

What's not mentioned about the Enlightenment is that the majority of its intellectuals were either outright theists, deists, pantheists, or apposed entirely to intolerance of any kind (Voltaire, who was NOT an atheist), including toward the peaceful practice of religion.
They were much more open minded than these current new atheist popular "intellectuals" They're not even in the same ballpark, pal.
But of course teams will look for the best looking mascot to portray them as the better team.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

I'm hyper-critical, it's who I am. You write angry words without realizing the tone, it's who you are I guess.
Your tone is often arrogant and condescending.
It's who you are, I guess.
You've just recently scaled it down a bit.


I don't care if what I write might make you think I'm also angry while I'm typing.
You're simply wrong about, as you are about a lot of things.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

ant wrote:Carrier's "dark ages" claim is a broad brush rhetorical device used mostly by uniformed or dishonest religious bigot imbeciles.
I understand the dishonest religious bigot imbecile part, but uniformed? Well, heck, I want a uniform too! I imagine that it has a big 'A' across the front.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: VIII: Conclusion of "Sense and Goodness Without God"

Unread post

Seriously though, in politically correct scholarly circles, the Dark Ages is an increasingly obscure term that means the early Middle Ages. One can certainly make an argument that this was a dark period in human history. Especially in the early Middle Ages, Europeans were living the ruins of an advanced civilization—namely the Greco/Roman period during which huge leaps in science and philosophy were made and which wee nearly lost to the ravages of time. The Roman Empire could boast a huge diversity of religions; while the Dark Ages had One True Religion. It was a bitch if you were a Jew or Muslim or a non-believer.

It has become trendy of late to denounce the Dark Ages as much more complex than the term implies. Of course they were. The term is shorthand for a period of history. It carries no moral implications.
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism - by Richard Carrier”