Understanding Latin and Book Reviews

[Ginnsu]

I'm currently reading two very interesting books, each on the opposite side of the Atheist vs. Theist debate. The first one I started after a devoutly Christian Aunt of mine sent it to me for Christmas. I'm sure many of you have heard of it: "The Case For Faith" by Lee Strobel. My analisys so far is that Lee Strobel is a very smart man with a nasty habbit of stating very compelling skeptic arguements as an introduction to an interview with those he is questioning on the big skeptical objections to theism, and then he neglects those arguements during his interviews. They get glossed over with all kinds of emotionalism and circular arguements.

The other book is, of course, "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith. My problem with George H. Smith's book is that he neglected to clarify the meaning and reason for the use of the term "atheist qua atheist" which has me a little be lost. I looked up the Latin word "qua" to find this definition:

qua - (adv.) by which route, where.

qua - (fem. sing. abl.) (the abbess) BY WHOM she was advised

ref: latin.realdictionary.com/Latin/qua.asp

I found another definition in an English WordWeb dictionary program that states:

In so far as; in the capacity or character of; as

The program then links to this MS Encarta definition:

qua [ kway ]

preposition

as: in the capacity or function of

[Mid-17th century. From Latin qua , from qui “who” (source also of English quorum and quibble).]

ref: encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=qua

Honestly, I'm still quite lost. I was wondering if anyone could give an indepth explanation in laymans terms. So I can stop stumbling over this phrase every time George H. Smith uses it.

[tamara]

I think we could do better if you posted a whole sentence he uses it in, Ginnsu. Otherwise, it just means "atheist as atheist" which is not very illuminating.

I am interested in more on the books... I have not read either.

[Maverick]

tamara said:

I think we could do better if you posted a whole sentence he uses it in, Ginnsu.

Before tamara made the suggestion, I was going to ask you to do the same thing. Although I have read "Atheism: The Case Against God" by Smith, I can't remember when or how it was being used.

I'd also recommend "Why Atheism?" by Smith. This book is a follow-up on "The Case Against God" and it approachs the atheism/theism debate from a slightly different angle by defending the reasons why atheism is a better choice than theism.

I haven't read Strobel's book yet but several theists have recommended that I read it. Ginnsu, do you have any further impressions of "The Case for Faith" or any impressions of Smith's book? I'm interested in your impressions of both books.

[Ginnsu]

tamara said:

I think we could do better if you posted a whole sentence he uses it in, Ginnsu.

Sorry, I had not thought to quote Smith. Here are a few refrences:

... The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of "atheist" tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. ...

... The atheist qua atheist, whether implicit or explicit, does not assert the existence of anything; he makes no positive statement. ...

In both instances when I see "atheist qua atheist" I feel like I can read it simply as "The atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration..." or "The atheist, wether implicit or explicit..." etc. Especially noting the definitions of qua that I found. But I can't help but think that Smith was using qua to demonstrate something, otherwise it would just be a waste of text, would it not?

[Ginnsu]

As for my impressions of the books Atheism: The Case Against God and The Case For Faith I will write a breif notation now, but do take note that I have not finished either book. In The Case For FaithI have just recently finished reading the first "Objection" (The book is divided into 8 Objections to faith, before the first Objection, there is an Introduction, and a lead in Chapter. The Chapters aren't refrenced by numbers as one might expect.) As I mentioned before Lee Strobel seems to be a smart man. He seems to know and understand many of the Objections that atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers refer to in great in great detail. He claims to have been a skeptic and an atheist at one time, but he misrepresents the definition of atheist as I know it, and instead goes by the strong definition that states "One who believes God does not exist."

I'd have to say the thing that bothers me most about this book is that the people he interviews often ignore such concepts as the Burden of Proof, and he lets them get away with that with no critisizing or further questioning. A perfect example of this is laid out in a passage that I just read, quoted as follows:

Craig’s discussion of evidence for miracles prompted me to ask about another point that was made by Hume, the eighteenth-century Scottish skeptic and history’s most famous doubter of the miraculous. “Hume said the evidence for the uniformity of nature is so conclusive that any evidence for miracles would never be able to overcome it,” I pointed out. “For instance, look at the Resurrection. We have thousands of years of uniform evidence that dead people simply do not return from the dead. So Hume says no amount of evidence would be able to overcome that tremendous presumption.”

Craig shook his head. “There’s no contradiction between believing that men generally stay in their graves and that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. In fact, Christians believe both of these. The opposite of the statement that Jesus rose from the dead is not that all other men remained in their graves; it’s that Jesus of Nazareth remained in his grave.

“In order to argue against the evidence for the Resurrection, you have to present evidence against the Resurrection itself, not evidence that everybody else has always remained in their grave. So I think his argument is simply fallacious.

“Now, I would agree with Hume that a natural resurrection of Jesus from the dead, without any sort of divine intervention, is enormously improbable. But that’s not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is God raised Jesus from the dead. That doesn’t say anything against the laws of nature, which say dead men don’t come back to life naturally.”

After that passage that section ends and Strobel continues the interview without even bothering to point out that Craig (William Lane Craig, PH. D.) just reversed the burden of proof and asked that the skeptic provide evidence against the Resurrection. Also I should point out that the title of this Objection (chapter... whatever you wish to call it) is "Miracles Contradict Science." I would have rather hoped to see at least some hint of the Burden of Proof in an Objection that is talking about science, if not the Burden of Proof being the prime topic after every time somebody makes a claim that something needs to be disproved. But I have seen none so far.

Now, I would have to say that I agree with Craig on the point "The opposite of the statement that Jesus rose from the dead is not that all other men remained in their graves; it’s that Jesus of Nazareth remained in his grave." The statement Hume made "We have thousands of years of uniform evidence that dead people simply do not return from the dead." does not directly oppose the resurrection, but there is a matter of consistancy that can be considered as well.

This has been the way things are presented for at least the first part of the book that I have read thus far. I had hoped for there to be more compelling arguements, but I know I should have expected this. Which brings me to another thing that this book has brought to my attention. That is, that misconception and ignorance run rampent on both sides of the Theist vs. Atheist arguement. I was astounded to find exactly how much Lee Strobel was confused about the Atheist position. As well as exactly how much I wasn't aware of concerning the Christian Theist position. Strobel claims to have been at one time an Atheist, and I claim to have grown up in a Christian household. Yes, I do hold some Atheists equally responsible. The Infidel Guy and other Atheists often comment on how much the theists don't know about their own religions, and how often the Atheist tends to know more. I think both may be true up to a point, but not for me, or most people I know. Mind you, I'm just starting to read this stuff heavily.

As for Atheism: The Case Against God I have yet to finish the first chapter. I picked it up and started reading it only to study the first chapter anyways, because I had heard that the first chapter titled "The Scope of Atheism" did a good job of laying out the definition and other contending viewpoints in a fashion that made it clear and easy to understand. I must say that it's doing it's job nicely.

I'm finding more and more that I am not just born an Atheist, as they say, nor am I just a born again Atheist, but I am born to be an Atheist (as if there is some sort of predestination at work here. ) When I say that I mean that, having a sevear lack of prior education on the topics at hand, when I read the theist position I find myself thinking about all the various objections to the claims that are being made. And when I read the atheist position, I have very few objections. I want to say "If the shoe fits, wear it." as if the ideas on one side or the other can only be truely grasped by certain types of people.

[nonny]

i'm studing latin and i might be able to answer your question. First off latin is a very complex and complicated langaue.

From my text

qua(adv) (interrog) by which road? which way? in which direction? by which route? where? by what means? how? (part) II (rel) where; to the extent that; in so far as; in as much as; in the manner of which, as II (indef) by any route; by any chance; in anyway; qua....qua partly....partly, both...and

So that is the deffinention in entirity, i don't really know how that is translated in to what you were asking about, but usually you have a phrase all in latin not just one word and atheist is not a latin word. So i don't actually know sorry.

[tamara]

Ginnsu, I think all he is saying is that he is speaking for someone per being an atheist specifically... seems kinda unnecessary, but the atheist community is very strict about definitions...

You could say that an atheist qua veterinarian believes such and such but well, I don't know if this is necessary. My advice = ignore it!

(I think I know what he means... he is trying to separate strictly atheistic belief from any other beliefs that person may have, like say materialistic cosmology.)

[tamara]

“In order to argue against the evidence for the Resurrection, you have to present evidence against the Resurrection itself, not evidence that everybody else has always remained in their grave. So I think his argument is simply fallacious.

Ha! Well, all I can say is, when people argue their pet beliefs, they lose track of... cough, cough... common sense, honesty, and sound judgement over all. Sad but true.

I hope you don't dismiss theism just cuz some people can't make a good case for it tho...

[Ginnsu]

tamara said:

Ginnsu, I think all he is saying is that he is speaking for someone per being an atheist specifically... seems kinda unnecessary, but the atheist community is very strict about definitions...

Aha, I see now. Atheist qua Atheist and not Atheist qua Buddhist, for example. Essentially keeping it simple by limiting it to the philosophy defined by the definition of Atheism alone, which tells you only what someone is not and not what someone is. If I were to say I was an Atheist qua Buddhist that would mean I had a whole other philosophy surrounding my lack of belief in God.

“In order to argue against the evidence for the Resurrection, you have to present evidence against the Resurrection itself, not evidence that everybody else has always remained in their grave. So I think his argument is simply fallacious.

Ha! Well, all I can say is, when people argue their pet beliefs, they lose track of... cough, cough... common sense, honesty, and sound judgement over all. Sad but true.

I hope you don't dismiss theism just cuz some people can't make a good case for it tho...

I dismiss theis because I have never heard a good case for it. However, that doesn't mean I won't stop researching it. To stop would be resigning myself to ignorance. My next (theist) reading project will probably be the Bible.

Also, I see a need to create understanding of the Theist arguements for myself and the Atheist community, as well as, to create understanding of the Atheist arguements for the Theist community. Preferrably presented in a non-judgemental, non-prostelitizing manner. Otherwise, I see the animosity between the two sides only growing. Heated debates, fear and hatred, insults, etc.

[nonny]

I asked my latin teacher about your quote the "atheist qua atheist" and she says it doesn't translate into anything at all, it is nonsense.

[Maverick]

I finally had the opportunity to skim through The Case For Faith the other day. I agree with Ginnsu, Lee Strobel often seems to start out by stating the atheist's position accurately but then seems to get lost in the emotionalism of the responses he receives. I even vaguely remember, at one point in the book, a part where one of the people Strobel interviewed stated something about how atheists take the arrogant position (for what reason, I can't remember). I would've liked to see Strobel be a little more critical, but he seems to only start off his interviews that way.

I read both Atheism: The Case Against God and Smith's follow-up, Why Atheism? about a year ago. The Case Against God is very detailed and, in my opinion, argues for atheism very well. I suggest that anyone reading this book take enough time to digest the content of the book, as it could be a little overwhelming for those who aren't used to detailed discussions about philosophy. Why Atheism? is a much shorter book and, though it follows up on Smith's first book, has a slightly different goal. Smith sought to establish the credibility of atheism more than he tried to argue against theism in his second book.

I hope I can read Strobel's book completely sometime soon. Maybe then, I can give you more of my thoughts on it.