Much of what you and zumby discuss in the posts following this one is worthy of comment, but let's get a few things cleared up first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
OK here it is.
I think the big themes touched on this thread ("why is atheism on the rise?", "why are scientists disproportionately atheist?") have potential to be interesting, but you aren't really engaging with them very well. Partly this is because you are presenting the atheist viewpoint very naively, and partly because your proposed theistic explanations are weaker than the theistic arguments that you COULD make.
Fair enough. I've stated a few times that my main interests lie in the field of biblical interpretation and that "genuine" philosophical and theological questions only interest me soandso much. There's a reason why I stay out of the free will debate or discussions of theodicy.
So it's not only to be expected that my arguments in a thread like this will be flawed - it would be outrageous if they weren't (or if their flaws went undetected). I don't see why you, for example, who knows better, couldn't simply provide a smartened-up version of arguments/accounts for either side. I, for one, have no problems doing exactly that when we're discussing topics in which I'm qualified to do so.
Quote:
To what extent the sophisticated theists have failed to convey more science-positive theology to the masses is another topic that would be interesting but you have not engaged with ITT.
Actually, I was under the impression of at least having alluded to that in my OP - it may have been lost among the noise. A very rough version is that "more science-positive theology" is not as simple to convey. If we take your poll as an example again, there are so far 7 mentionings of "scriptural inaccuracies" as being among the major reasons for them becoming (or staying) atheist. Those 7 reasons
are no legit reasons - they shouldn't even be there. But realizing that requires a somewhat more sophisticated approach to questions such as divine inspiraton of scripture, relevance and reliability of scripture, truth, authority etc. Once a better understanding of these notions and their interrelations is achieved - I would assume - the "scriptural inaccuracies" would cease to be a major reason. Other reasons may take their place, but this one would and should be gone. However, gaining such an understanding requires commitment - something that "we" are no longer willing to invest w/out further good reasons.
Quote:
You have provided no data to indicate that we should take seriously your assertion that society is 'dumbed down',
Partially that is because I have not claimed such a thing. I've referred to the current intellectual climate of general public discussion which favors short and catchy arguments/phrases over protracted but often more accurate portrayals of positions and discussions therof. Do you want to question that observation? Furthermore, I've mentioned the ever-accellerating nature of modern societies that commit the individual to making more decisions about more things faster (from the selection of music chanel to political affiliation and choice of carreer) and as far as my "university background" goes - that's an observation that's pretty much a given. I wasn't aware that it's a contested observation/interpretation of reality in a modern society.
Quote:
nor that the natural sciences are outliers in the wider field of academia, with specific reference to the humanities. As a counter, I can link you to data that indicates that a majority of philosophers are also atheist. This also undermines your point that the fact that science can only rule out falsehoods rather than discover truth; the same can not be said of philosophy, so this is another surprising observation that you need to explain.
No, I don't, because in the OP I've said "One could legitimately wonder..." and in my reply to Xylo I said "I have little reason to believe..." Well, now I have a little more reason to believe. Thanks for the link.
Quote:
you'll get more responses from the sort of people you want to respond if you take a bit of time to present the best arguments and counter-arguments from both sides.
See above. I was expecting both sides to chime in to improve both sides of the argument. That's basically what a RTG forum that's not just a pool for pissy-fights should be about, no?