This is completely unrelated to anything regarding this conversation. My apologies. Feel free to delete this extraneous comment. It's just that I am reading War and Peace for the first time in a book club at work and found something exciting there to me. In Vol. 4, Part III, Ch. 18, Tolstoy speaks of the absurd ways historians justify the actions of tyrannical men like Napoleon and it reminded me of the absurd ways that you find theologians and religious people use to justify the actions of God, in this age, and in those to come.
"When the elastic of historical argument is stretched to the breaking point, when an action flagrantly infringes anything humanity can agree to call by the name of goodness and justice, these historians take refuge in the concept of greatness. 'Greatness' seems to exclude quantification of right and wrong. A great man knows no wrong. There is no atrocity that could be laid at the door of a great man.... 'There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.' And it never enters anybody's head that to acknowledge greatness as something existing beyond the rule of right and wrong is to acknowledge one's own nothingness and infinite smallness."
Given this, I think Tolstoy was certainly a universalist. I'd be surprised if he wasn't. Just wanted to share a beautiful passage from a wonderful book and see what your thoughts were on it.
This is one of my absolute favourite public discussions, one to which I return often (though I do wish I could understand everything you said!!!). If I recall correctly, Patrick does something rather entertaining such that it causes you to burst out in a rather delightful kind of laughter, to which Dr Norman indeed respons rather graciously!
I simply cannot comprehend how anyone that has read The Experience of God can remain an atheist. Any doubts should have disappeared liked a genie after fulfillment of the third wish at the face of the argument regarding the utter incapability of the naturalists to offer a rational non-theistic explanation for existence (on ontological rather than on cosmological level), i.e. to explain why there is something rather than nothing. I spelt out this reasoning to my 13-year-old daughter and I am quite confident that she can defend it against any atheistic scientists (she may have more trouble against philosophers since they are a cunning lot), because it is a very simple, logical and ultimately undefeatable argument. The attempts for refutation I have seen (not all of them in response of the book though) are far from convincing and often pathetic (e.g. “the God described by DBH is so amorphous that we can equate it with the quantum vacuum or any other pre-material reality”, or “someone is trying to hide from the irresistible attacks against the God as understood by the religious masses by conjuring such an enormous abstraction that renders the debate meaningless”, or “let’s just say that something exists and build any further theories upon that axiom, without succumbing to supernatural explanations”).
By the way, the pro-theistic arguments in the chapter regarding the consciousness are equally convincing, but I will grant that they are much more difficult to understand (at least for a 13-year old).
DBH will not like this argument as it is theoretically refutable and, when arguing with atheists, he usually aims to build impenetrable defenses (I assume this is why he very rarely speaks of miracles or supernatural experiences in his books (the Bliss chapter in the Experience of God is one of the rare exceptions), but I am astonished how anyone can believe that something as complicated and wonderful as a human being is just a result of a series of random mutations (without any formal or final cause), and at the same time not to wonder why such an advanced technological civilization as ours is incapable of manufacturing even a robot with the functions of a simple fly (or an ant, or an earthworm).
As an aside I'm curious, if I may inquire, as to the symptomatology you experienced in your encounter with the mold. I experienced multiple sinus infections while enrolled in a private school, the primary physical structure of which had been built back in the 1940s. This dissipated, however, upon my enrolling into a public school whose facilities were much more recently constructed. It was deemed a fit for so-called "sick building syndrome". But at least in my case a direct connection to mold, while presumed, was never definitively established. The typical go-to resources online are a tad vague and seemingly uncertain. And yet toxic mold has been alleged (though again, not without debate) in even high-profile deaths such as that of actress Brittany Murphy followed, months later, by that of her husband's death as well. It'd be nice to have more solid information about the phenomenon. In any event, I'm glad you were able to establish the link in your case and get it resolved. It's quite an insidious thing that for some who are affected goes unnoticed, or at least unsolved, until too late.
This is one of my absolute favourite public discussions, one to which I return often (though I do wish I could understand everything you said!!!). If I recall correctly, Patrick does something rather entertaining such that it causes you to burst out in a rather delightful kind of laughter, to which Dr Norman indeed respons rather graciously!
This is completely unrelated to anything regarding this conversation. My apologies. Feel free to delete this extraneous comment. It's just that I am reading War and Peace for the first time in a book club at work and found something exciting there to me. In Vol. 4, Part III, Ch. 18, Tolstoy speaks of the absurd ways historians justify the actions of tyrannical men like Napoleon and it reminded me of the absurd ways that you find theologians and religious people use to justify the actions of God, in this age, and in those to come.
"When the elastic of historical argument is stretched to the breaking point, when an action flagrantly infringes anything humanity can agree to call by the name of goodness and justice, these historians take refuge in the concept of greatness. 'Greatness' seems to exclude quantification of right and wrong. A great man knows no wrong. There is no atrocity that could be laid at the door of a great man.... 'There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.' And it never enters anybody's head that to acknowledge greatness as something existing beyond the rule of right and wrong is to acknowledge one's own nothingness and infinite smallness."
Given this, I think Tolstoy was certainly a universalist. I'd be surprised if he wasn't. Just wanted to share a beautiful passage from a wonderful book and see what your thoughts were on it.
This is one of my absolute favourite public discussions, one to which I return often (though I do wish I could understand everything you said!!!). If I recall correctly, Patrick does something rather entertaining such that it causes you to burst out in a rather delightful kind of laughter, to which Dr Norman indeed respons rather graciously!
All my love, and prayers.
I'd be curious to know whom you regard as the best atheist philosophers, both contemporary and historical.
I simply cannot comprehend how anyone that has read The Experience of God can remain an atheist. Any doubts should have disappeared liked a genie after fulfillment of the third wish at the face of the argument regarding the utter incapability of the naturalists to offer a rational non-theistic explanation for existence (on ontological rather than on cosmological level), i.e. to explain why there is something rather than nothing. I spelt out this reasoning to my 13-year-old daughter and I am quite confident that she can defend it against any atheistic scientists (she may have more trouble against philosophers since they are a cunning lot), because it is a very simple, logical and ultimately undefeatable argument. The attempts for refutation I have seen (not all of them in response of the book though) are far from convincing and often pathetic (e.g. “the God described by DBH is so amorphous that we can equate it with the quantum vacuum or any other pre-material reality”, or “someone is trying to hide from the irresistible attacks against the God as understood by the religious masses by conjuring such an enormous abstraction that renders the debate meaningless”, or “let’s just say that something exists and build any further theories upon that axiom, without succumbing to supernatural explanations”).
By the way, the pro-theistic arguments in the chapter regarding the consciousness are equally convincing, but I will grant that they are much more difficult to understand (at least for a 13-year old).
DBH will not like this argument as it is theoretically refutable and, when arguing with atheists, he usually aims to build impenetrable defenses (I assume this is why he very rarely speaks of miracles or supernatural experiences in his books (the Bliss chapter in the Experience of God is one of the rare exceptions), but I am astonished how anyone can believe that something as complicated and wonderful as a human being is just a result of a series of random mutations (without any formal or final cause), and at the same time not to wonder why such an advanced technological civilization as ours is incapable of manufacturing even a robot with the functions of a simple fly (or an ant, or an earthworm).
This was indeed a good exchange. Two gentlemen with opposing points of view having an actual conversation. It’s quite rare.
As an aside I'm curious, if I may inquire, as to the symptomatology you experienced in your encounter with the mold. I experienced multiple sinus infections while enrolled in a private school, the primary physical structure of which had been built back in the 1940s. This dissipated, however, upon my enrolling into a public school whose facilities were much more recently constructed. It was deemed a fit for so-called "sick building syndrome". But at least in my case a direct connection to mold, while presumed, was never definitively established. The typical go-to resources online are a tad vague and seemingly uncertain. And yet toxic mold has been alleged (though again, not without debate) in even high-profile deaths such as that of actress Brittany Murphy followed, months later, by that of her husband's death as well. It'd be nice to have more solid information about the phenomenon. In any event, I'm glad you were able to establish the link in your case and get it resolved. It's quite an insidious thing that for some who are affected goes unnoticed, or at least unsolved, until too late.
This is one of my absolute favourite public discussions, one to which I return often (though I do wish I could understand everything you said!!!). If I recall correctly, Patrick does something rather entertaining such that it causes you to burst out in a rather delightful kind of laughter, to which Dr Norman indeed respons rather graciously!
All my love, and prayers.