Download PDF
Check out a publication to make your life running well, check out a book making your experience improves without going someplace, and review a book for meeting your spare time! These sentences are so familiar for us. For the people who do not like reading, those sentences will be kind of very monotonous words to utter. However, for the visitors, they will certainly have larger spirit when someone sustains them with the sentences.
Download PDF
When one is faced to the issues, numerous prefer to look for the motivations and amusement by analysis. Are you among them? Nonetheless, from these lots of, it will be various on exactly how they choose guides to check out. Some could prefer to get the literary works or fiction, some could had much better to obtain the social or scientific research publications, or religions book catalogues. Nevertheless, all publications could offer you all finest if you're actually honest to read it.
When some other individuals still feel so hard to discover this book, you could not deal with that trouble. Your way to utilize the net connection as well as participate in this website is right. You can find the resource of the book as that will certainly not go out whenever. For making terrific condition, it turns into one of the manner ins which lead you to constantly utilize as well as make use of the innovative innovation.
To get this book , you could not be so confused. This is online book that can be taken its soft file. It is different with the online book where you can purchase a book and then the seller will certainly send the printed book for you. This is the area where you can get this by online as well as after having deal with investing in, you could download and install alone.
Don't worry, the material is same. It ca exactly make easier to read. When you have the printed one, you should bring that product and also load the bag. You may likewise really feel so hard to find the published book in guide shop. It will waste your time to go for strolling onward to the book shop and also browse guide racks by shelfs. It is just one of the benefits to take when picking the soft file as the choice for analysis. This can aid you to optimize your totally free or extra time for daily.
Product details
File Size: 1281 KB
Print Length: 156 pages
Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press (February 15, 2008)
Publication Date: December 31, 2007
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B001IBHX1Y
Text-to-Speech:
Enabled
P.when("jQuery", "a-popover", "ready").execute(function ($, popover) {
var $ttsPopover = $('#ttsPop');
popover.create($ttsPopover, {
"closeButton": "false",
"position": "triggerBottom",
"width": "256",
"popoverLabel": "Text-to-Speech Popover",
"closeButtonLabel": "Text-to-Speech Close Popover",
"content": '
});
});
X-Ray:
Not Enabled
P.when("jQuery", "a-popover", "ready").execute(function ($, popover) {
var $xrayPopover = $('#xrayPop_056C760851E211E98D42CE98F610DE18');
popover.create($xrayPopover, {
"closeButton": "false",
"position": "triggerBottom",
"width": "256",
"popoverLabel": "X-Ray Popover ",
"closeButtonLabel": "X-Ray Close Popover",
"content": '
});
});
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Not Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting:
Not Enabled
P.when("jQuery", "a-popover", "ready").execute(function ($, popover) {
var $typesettingPopover = $('#typesettingPopover');
popover.create($typesettingPopover, {
"position": "triggerBottom",
"width": "256",
"content": '
"popoverLabel": "Enhanced Typesetting Popover",
"closeButtonLabel": "Enhanced Typesetting Close Popover"
});
});
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#206,814 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
The important questions of whether or not God exists, whether or not morality is connected to the divine, and whether or not God (if he/she/it exists) is a personal being are very old questions. The Platonic Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro poses the question of morality and the gods to the titular character, Epicurus declared that while gods existed they did not interfere with the affairs of humankind, and Aristotle gave several arguments in Metaphysics for what he called an "unmoved mover" and "first cause", which he identified with the gods.However, in our modern age the so called "New Atheists" (a misleading appellation, there is nothing new about them) appear to have definitively answered these age old questions and assert that science is the pathway to answering this and all meaningful questions because science is the only thing that counts as evidence. This position, known as scientism, is of course itself not supported by science or experience, but the New Atheists seem to have missed the memo.In his short book God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, theologian John F. Haught takes on the primary New Atheist writers and shows that they are neither new nor atheistic in a philosophical sense. His first critique of them is that they do not take on the arguments for God's existence or the proper definition of faith; rather they attack caricatures and straw-men and never seem to show that they have ever read a book of theology or philosophy of religion. The New Atheists would argue that the average religious person has probably not read Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Karl Barth, Blake Ostler, or Paul Tillich, and they likely would be right (which should make the average religious person feel intellectually lazy and have the desire to repent). However, the principle of charity demands that when trying to falsify a claim you attack the argument at its strongest rather than at its weakest point. But then, it is likely the New Atheists have not taken a course in logic either.Two of the best points that Haught makes in his book are about whether or not belief in God is a scientific hypothesis and also whether we can be good without God. On the first question, he reminds readers that science is useful (but limited) in finding out about the material universe that we reside in, but God is a transcendent being (in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense) so we cannot use the scientific method to verify or falsify the proposition that God exists. Also, Haught talks abut the fact that meaning is not monistic as Richard Dawkins wants to imply, meaning that not all meaning is reducible to scientific inquiry. Rather, meaning can be pluralistic as Haught shows here:This assumption [scientific naturalism] overlooks the fact that multiple layers of understanding or explanation can exist. Almost everything in our experience, after all, admits of a plurality of levels of explanation in which various accounts do not compete with one another. For example, one explanation of the page you are reading is that a printing press has stamped ink onto white paper. Another is that the author intends to put certain idea across. Still another explanation is that a publisher asked the author to write a critical response to the new atheism. Notice that these three layers all explain the page you are reading, but they are not competing with or contradicting one another. It makes no sense to argue, for example, that the page you are reading can be explained by the printing press rather than by the author's intention to write something. Nor does it make sense to say that this page exists because of the publishers request rather than because the author wants to record some ideas. The distinct levels are noncompetitive and mutually compatible. (God and the New Atheism, pg. 85)Close quote. To simplify Haught's eloquence, religion and science are not in competition with each other because they are different ways of looking at things. Take for example the existence of humans. A scientific way of looking at this question is that humans exist because they evolved from simpler forms of life through natural selection and random mutation. A religious way of looking at the same question is that God created humans for the purpose of coming to know him and become like him. Both answers are explaining the same phenomena, and both are compatible.Also, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens seem to think that people believe in God because he is the ultimate explanation of why anything at all exists. While it is true that this is an argument for God's existence, this is not why people worship God. A God who is merely a mechanic is not worthy of worship; notice Aristotle says nothing about worshiping God in Metaphysics.The last point I want to make is about God and morality. For some reason, both New Atheists and some theists believe that the scriptures primary purpose is to teach us morality (something neither the Torah, New Testament, Book of Mormon, or Quran say), and since there are instances of murder, adultery, genocide, rape, and other moral atrocities, the scriptures cannot be the foundation of morality. In response to this, Haught makes the following points. First, it is a misuse of the text to try to learn something book that the book is not trying to teach. The scriptures are primarily about God's dealings with ancient people, not teaching ethics. Also, while the scriptures are not the foundation of morality, the New Atheists have not provided an adequate explanation of moral realism, which they all seem to espouse. Dawkins appeals to biology, but that is to rush from facts to values, something David Hume cautioned against. Harris, appeals to moral intuition, but he forgets A.J. Ayer's objection to moral intuitionism by stating that different cultures have different intuitions, so morality cannot be objective. In short, the New Atheist's have torn down the foundations of traditional morality (or so they think), but they have not given an adequate replacement.Whether one is a theist, atheist, or agnostic, one should read carefully Haught's book.
A friend recommended Haught's work to me on this subject. Most books written contra the New Atheists are written by apologists (eg. Trent Horn's Answering Atheists). Haught's book is different as he writes as a theologian. For comparison, Edward Feser's rebuttal (the Last Superstition) on the other hand is a philosophical response. All three share many things in common, but each work shows a slightly different approach appropriate to the expertise of the author. Haught's main complaint is that the New Atheists share a major commonality with the fundementalist religions they debunk: they don't bother to even try to take engage with theology. This is as dishonest as someone who writes to debunk evolution who has never even bothered to become aquainted with the study of biology.
The book is very readable and the author is clearly well read. While the author does a reasonably fair job in laying out the central arguments of the new atheists, he neither provides much substantive criticism of the atheist's case or much of a defense of his own beliefs. His criticism of atheism seemed to involve a lot of name dropping (Camus, Sartre, various modern theologians) and focus on what seemed to me to be minor issues (we can't be absolutely sure of anything so who are we to decide someone's beliefs are wrong?), but it doesn't tackle the major issues (is there any evidence for god/gods, are there any major flaws in science's approach to understanding the universe, is religion a fundamentally positive or negative thing). His own beliefs were very unclear; he doesn't seem to believe God has any direct impact on the world, he doesn't seem to think the bible is particularly accurate or authoritative, he's very unclear as to what faith is (other than it's not what is traditionally meant by it), etc.As someone brought up in a god free environment, I've never really understood why a rational person would believe in the supernatural. I'm glad I read the book to try to get an understanding of the theistic point of view; but based on this book, the theistic point of view seems to lack any solid arguments in it's favor.
Best brief response I've see to the "new atheists" who (1) not only limit their anti-religion arguments to attacks on literalists and fundamentalists while ignoring much more nuanced and intelligent understandings of faith, (2) but also insist that there is no religion other that literalistic fundamentalism; (3) assume without examination that naturalism is the only rational world view, and (4) lack both the candlepower and courage of significant atheists of previous eras who were willing to acknowledge the meaninglessness of life in a world without purpose. That they have made such a splash in our time says more about the ignorance and shallowness of readers than the quality of their thought. In terms of what they believe and they way they defend it, they are simply the mirror opposites of the fundamentalists they lampoon.
The author lays out very clearly the case against God by the "new" aethiests, or scientific materialists and shows its fatal flaws. First it is logically incoherent as it relies on principles that cannot meet their tests of verifiability. Second it fails at the beginning because while abusing "faith" in God, It depends on the same kind and level of "faith" in reason. The "new" aethiests have not read VOQuine, a materialist himself, who recognizzes that all knowledge begins in faith. We have faith that the universe is organized and knowable. Why not God?
PDF
EPub
Doc
iBooks
rtf
Mobipocket
Kindle
Tidak ada komentar :
Posting Komentar