quote:

---

Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not believing in fairies is a religion. Do you understand my point now or are you going to insist I'm talking about something else?

---

quote:

---

And it seems my original point has been lost on you, which is that all it takes to be an atheist is to not believe in god; it doesn't require rationality.

---

quote:

---

[qb] Atheism is a faith like bald is a hair colour, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not believing in fairies is a religion. Do you understand my point now or are you going to insist I'm talking about something else?

---

quote:

---

There is a substantive difference between not believing in God and believing that there is no God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

As I said above, faith is trust in God. You can't trust in not-God.

---

Dawkins has stated that eliminating religion will affect the world for the better.

---

quote:

---

I don't think he has demonstrated any proof for that position; so to me it's a belief.

---

quote:

---

Of course he uses all sorts of rhetorical tricks to prop up his assertion, like disassociating himself from anything bad done by atheists because they did not do it 'in the name of atheism', while holding everyone with a faith responsible for anything bad ever done by anyone with a faith; but that isn't proof.

---

quote:

---

As Matt's posts demonstrate, you can't say anything about atheism without getting into first principles about what it is, which in effect prevent anyone who holds that position from accepting any critique of anyone because they are an atheist at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's no such thing as what atheism is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's because there are a lot of different atheisms, and they don't have anything in common with each other. Not even not believing n God, because the difference between two different types of atheism can be a lot more profound and a lot deeper than the difference between one of those types of atheism and Christianity.

---

quote:

---

This is the most fascinating and learned survey of the biggest wild-goose chase in history - the quest for God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] I'm not sure that works. Standing as I do on the shoulders of generations of dissenters, the statement "I do not go along with that" doesn't make it clear what "I do go along with".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arrietty:
The claim that it was an 'oasis of reason' - reason being a positive attribute that theists are assumed not to possess - seems to have been blown out of the water by recent events.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I should think that the idea of reason being something that theists do not possess was blown out of the water by Thomas Aquinas. Among many others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
...everyone has a worldview. Just as someone is not merely "theist", but Christian, Muslim, or a worshipper of Thor, or whoever, with a whole way of understanding the world that goes with that, no-one is merely "atheist", but secular humanist, Marxist, logical positivist, materialist or whatever. If you don't believe in God, then you'll still have some belief or philosophy by which you make sense of the world, which will happen to be atheistic.

Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.

---

It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

But atheists have a problem in that theism seems to have got there first in all world societies. So their position is inevitably a defensive, reactive one, hence the very name, which mostly comprises a word that is the antithesis of what they claim to be. As such, atheists often find themselves in the tedious position of being called to address such ridiculous circular arguments as 'if there's no god how can you say you don't believe in Him?'. (Previous posts noted in this respect.)

While there is some refuge in subsections like 'secular humanist','logical positivist', etc, there really is a need for a term which is more comprehensive, and a stand-alone statement on what non-god-imaginers agree on. I note some bands of atheists have taken to calling themselves 'brights', which says nothing about their position, sounds a bit like a breakaway homosexualist lobby, and seems further to be a cheap shot at theist 'retards'.

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief. From that point, we can lend uncritical credence to other points of view or demand evidence of them as we see fit. It seems like an incontrovertible bedrock for non-god located opinion. (I say I've coined it: it hasn't shown up in any google searches that would indicate its pre-existence.) Occasionally, I bandy it around internet discussions like this one in the hope that others will agree that it makes sense. If you do, please pass it on.
 

---

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

Isn't that a rather strange starting point for a Buddhist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm setting this new thread up to provide scope for a separate discussion on the developing tangent in the "Dawkins" thread. Such issues as whether Atheism is a faith, whether there are differences between disbelief in God and disbelief in fairies seem to point to a desire to explore belief and disbelief in the supernatural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
of course there is no proof of God's existence - S/He does not 'exist'. S/He is.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.

---

It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

quote:

---

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
The same does not apply to any concept of God that a rational adult might appropriately hold - of course there is no proof of God's existence - S/He does not 'exist'. S/He is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If someone else wants to believe in fairies, I'll would try to discourage them. I would do this because it's against my religion though.

Otherwise I wouldn't care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 205:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If someone else wants to believe in fairies, I'll would try to discourage them. I would do this because it's against my religion though.

Otherwise I wouldn't care.

---

What religion discourages believing in fairies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I know plenty of reasonable atheists, I also know some very unreasonable Christians (and vice verca)

I think when anyone starts to think that theirs is the 'one true way' they are closing their minds to possibilities - and there are always possibilities.

I don't believe in the supernatural - but I do believe there's a gret deal of 'not yet discovered' natural!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I know plenty of reasonable atheists, I also know some very unreasonable Christians (and vice verca)

I think when anyone starts to think that theirs is the 'one true way' they are closing their minds to possibilities - and there are always possibilities.

I don't believe in the supernatural - but I do believe there's a gret deal of 'not yet discovered' natural!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
The same does not apply to any concept of God that a rational adult might appropriately hold - of course there is no proof of God's existence - S/He does not 'exist'. S/He is.

---

I think you have to put quotes around 'is' just as you put quotes around 'exist'. You can't get round the problem just by switching from Latinate language to Anglo-Saxon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
But for a believer to understand an atheist's worldview, I think a leap of faith in the opposite direction is required.

How sensible does that sound? How useful? I think I am now atheist, though I still use the now "foreign language" of religion to make a point from time to time. Some things just don't translate too well from one language to another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
There are atheists with radical agendas but the absence of belief in something doesn't automatically imply anything. That seems so obvious that it's painful.

---

quote:

---

Just like if someone said they had experienced a fairy in their backyard, you might not jump right in and believe with him. That's really all that analogy is about.

---

quote:

---

As part of my "swotting" for the Trinity thread, I'm re-reading Karen Armstrong's historical survey entitled "A History of God". A N Wilson's review comment is quoted on the back page of my (paperback) copy and says.

quote:

---

This is the most fascinating and learned survey of the biggest wild-goose chase in history - the quest for God.

---

---

Tell me Barnabas, would we be talking about the same A. N. Wilson?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Talk about scholastic neutrality. Of course this is the guy who spent half of his bio of CS Lewis trying -- using exactly zero evidence -- to prove that Lewis was having an affair with Mrs. Moore. I wouldn't trust him to read me the bus schedule.
 

---

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Talk about scholastic neutrality. Of course this is the guy who spent half of his bio of CS Lewis trying -- using exactly zero evidence -- to prove that Lewis was having an affair with Mrs. Moore. I wouldn't trust him to read me the bus schedule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That and being in-your-face offensive.

---

quote:

---

This is the most fascinating and learned survey of the biggest wild-goose chase in history - the quest for God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:

---

As part of my "swotting" for the Trinity thread, I'm re-reading Karen Armstrong's historical survey entitled "A History of God". A N Wilson's review comment is quoted on the back page of my (paperback) copy and says.

quote:

---

This is the most fascinating and learned survey of the biggest wild-goose chase in history - the quest for God.

---

---

Tell me Barnabas, would we be talking about the same A. N. Wilson?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Talk about scholastic neutrality. Of course this is the guy who spent half of his bio of CS Lewis trying -- using exactly zero evidence -- to prove that Lewis was having an affair with Mrs. Moore. I wouldn't trust him to read me the bus schedule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Zeus? Thor?

---

quote:

---

Not true. You have a belief in the lack of a God. Your position is a faith position as much as anyone else's.

---

1. Folk religion: affective and ritualistic.
2. Organized/state religion: social and legalistic.
3. Philosophical religion: intellectual and moralistic.

quote:

---

A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Zeus? Thor?

---

True, although way back in the mists of time when Call Me Numpty made the comment that sparked all this off,

quote:

---

Not true. You have a belief in the lack of a God. Your position is a faith position as much as anyone else's.

---

he deserved an offensive answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
I wouldn't call the evidence exactly zero.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Zeus? Thor?

---

True, although way back in the mists of time when Call Me Numpty made the comment that sparked all this off,

quote:

---

Not true. You have a belief in the lack of a God. Your position is a faith position as much as anyone else's.

---

he deserved an offensive answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it just me, or is part of the problem here that there's no simple word to describe "don't-give-a-shit-ism"?

Not all atheists posit something about God at all. Some simply couldn't give a shit. They don't believe, but that lack of belief means nothing to them.

Which, in fairness, is exactly comparable to my lack of belief in Zeus. I'm not an antizeusest or an azeusest, I just don't believe Zeus exists. I don't define myself by my lack of belief in Zeus, just as most atheists don't define themselves by their lack of belief in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
I wouldn't call the evidence exactly zero.

---

It sounds like you have conjecture up until Sayer interviews Maureen, when you have evidence. Did Wilson have access to this interview?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it just me, or is part of the problem here that there's no simple word to describe "don't-give-a-shit-ism"?

Not all atheists posit something about God at all. Some simply couldn't give a shit. They don't believe, but that lack of belief means nothing to them.

Which, in fairness, is exactly comparable to my lack of belief in Zeus. I'm not an antizeusest or an azeusest, I just don't believe Zeus exists. I don't define myself by my lack of belief in Zeus, just as most atheists don't define themselves by their lack of belief in God.

---

Hold on a minute! Atheists do define themselves by their lack of belief in God. Atheism is the rejection of God(s) and the supernatural. That is the dictionary definition. Not long ago I was sitting beside two women on a plane who volunteered information on their non-belief in God(s) and the supernatural. We weren't even talking about God but they felt strongly enough about the subject to inform me out of the blue that they were both atheists. Somebody calling themselves an atheist is defining themselves as a non-believer in God(s) or the supernatural. Dawkins would be a prime example of a type of "career atheist" who is arguably more famous amongst the public for his atheism than his science. Am I missing something

Yes, in terms of day-to-day existence, I would think you are correct - that could probably be said of most of us irrespective of world-views and religious faith. But on a fundamental level, many atheists (at least the vocal kind found on forums, planes or appearing in the media) are very much guided and defined by their atheism.

Further, I don't think your azeusest position is exactly the same as entirely embracing atheism. Zeus is a well defined character from mythology with some very specific characteristics - he likes meddling in the affairs of humans, boning the occasional mortal woman, firing the odd thunder bolt at unsuspecting yokels and generally being a bit of a bollox. I assume you reject him for some very good reasons. Atheism, on the other hand, generally lumps all religions in together and rejects them. It doesn't get into specifics, and I would imagine that most atheists out there wouldn't have the faintest idea about the majority of religions they reject. You reject Zeus, a specific God, they reject the general concept of God.
 

---

Posted by Jason™ (# 9037) on :
 
Squibs, two questions:

1. If you asked me, "Do you believe that any God exists?" and I said, "No, I haven't seen evidence for it and I don't much care." What would that make me? I don't know if it counts as atheist, and I don't self-identify as one, but I bet many people would label me as such. And I think there are a lot of people like me.

2. Zeus is just one of thousands of gods that are believed in. Do you have to learn about all of them before you reject them, or do you just accept that they all exist? Or, like I would guess, do you reject most of them outright because you've never seen any evidence for them and you're pretty sure they don't exist, but you're not going to worry yourself about disproving it because it has no effect on your life?
 

---

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it just me, or is part of the problem here that there's no simple word to describe "don't-give-a-shit-ism"?

Not all atheists posit something about God at all. Some simply couldn't give a shit. They don't believe, but that lack of belief means nothing to them.

Which, in fairness, is exactly comparable to my lack of belief in Zeus. I'm not an antizeusest or an azeusest, I just don't believe Zeus exists. I don't define myself by my lack of belief in Zeus, just as most atheists don't define themselves by their lack of belief in God.

---

• an atheist is a "person of faith" ?
• the late Dawkins forum was a "community of faith" ?
• the American Humanist Association (or similar) should be included, at their request, in "faith-based initiatives" ?

• I accept certain truths on the basis of revelations that are beyond the analysis of human reason
• using my reason to the best of my ability, I accept certain truths because reason tells me that they are the most probable of several possibilities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Squibs, two questions:

1. If you asked me, "Do you believe that any God exists?" and I said, "No, I haven't seen evidence for it and I don't much care." What would that make me? I don't know if it counts as atheist, and I don't self-identify as one, but I bet many people would label me as such. And I think there are a lot of people like me.

---

Without meaning to sound unpleasant: I don't know what that makes you and I don't much care . You are free to call yourself whatever you want.

Assuming you are accurately describing yourself and not just presenting a scenario, why if you don't much care about God - or the concept of a God - have you got over 4000 posts? Even at 30 seconds a post you would be clocking in about 33 hours of typing (never mind reading). This is a lot of time to spent on something you don't care about!

While I don't particularly want to get into a big discussion about evidence, I wonder how you support your claim that there is no evidence for God? That you happen to reject all the evidence doesn't unmake it as evidence, it's simply unreliable evidence in your eyes.

But all this is off the point of my post, no? I was talking about people who readily identify themselves as atheists. I wasn't referring to Divinely apathetic people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

2. Zeus is just one of thousands of gods that are believed in. Do you have to learn about all of them before you reject them, or do you just accept that they all exist? Or, like I would guess, do you reject most of them outright because you've never seen any evidence for them and you're pretty sure they don't exist, but you're not going to worry yourself about disproving it because it has no effect on your life?

---

quote:

---

For me there simply is too much unknown information and untested experience to make a categorical statement about the non-existence of God.

---

But you make these so-called categorical statements about the non-existence of thousands of gods all the time. Unless you actually study them all, that is. Or unless you believe in them all until you have time to study them enough to reject them.

I won't be wasting years of my life trying to come up with that body of evidence for each and every god. I pretended that I was sure one existed for many years, and then decided I didn't need to pretend that anymore. I don't have any delusions that I've categorically disproven God, or that there is "no evidence". And I'd bet a lot of the people you'd consider to be "atheists" are a lot like me.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I imagine plenty do pretend that God exists - there is a huge 'tribal' aspect to church, where our beliefs are affirmed though the group.

My problem is kind of the opposite. I don't believe in the supernatural - but I do believe in God. The only reason I believe in God is because I can't not believe in him/her/it.

I need to give thanks - and who/what can I give thanks to for everything?

I also know there is much more to life than the things we can currently see/evidence/prove.

In my darkest times I have curled up and thought - "Ok now I can reject 'you'" - but it doesn't work. The comforting/safe/peaceful/real/outside of myself/eternal (no words work really) presence of 'God' is still there.

So I continue to worship. But I don't fit in well at Church and people find my ideas disturbing.

So as a worship leader I have to be careful!



[ 04. March 2010, 05:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
Hello General Ranker

an atheist is a "person of faith" ?
the late Dawkins forum was a "community of faith" ?
the American Humanist Association (or similar) should be included, at their request, in "faith-based initiatives" ?

An atheist probably won't be a person of faith per-se. As has been pointed out, don't-give-a-shitters are difficult to identify with any 'faith'/'trust' position, unless you ascribe faith to all sorts of values. However, for those who put their trust in scientific materialism/logical positivism or whatever as being the way the world ought to be made sense of (Richard Dawkins has talked about 'truth'), I think that this has parallels at least with faith.

In the same way that one is properly agnostic about something, that one can believe in God without adhering to a particular religion, atheism probably isn't a 'faith' in itself, but there might be 'faith' present in the atheist's values depending on the circumstances.

Faith is not an ideal word, as your examples show, as it has religious connotations.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think 'faith' is a good word. It implies more than trust.

If 'God' is that which is good/truth/love in the universe then why not have faith in him/her/it?

My sons are both atheists but there is no fervour whatever in their atheism. We have some great discussions. They see no need to convert me and I see no need whatever to convert them.

They happily come to church sometimes (high days and holidays) and will sometimes go up for communion. I don't ask them why they do it - there is no harm done after all. They have hindu and muslim friends and treat their faiths with the same respect and interest - and join in when invited to.

My eldest son is 24 now. When he was 12 he was asked to read in Church. He said to me 'I can't read this stuff, I can't believe any of it' I said 'That's no problem - read it as a story, because that's what it is'

[ 04. March 2010, 06:45: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason:
But nobody (at least, not when I've heard the fairy analogy) is arguing that belief in fairies is exactly the same thing, from every philosophical angle, as belief in god(s)

---

You don't know some of the militant atheists I do

Or maybe :|
 

---

Posted by Orianna02 (# 14858) on :
 
[QUOTE]

Not all atheists posit something about God at all. Some simply couldn't give a shit. They don't believe, but that lack of belief means nothing to them.

[QUOTE]

But they are aware of the idea of a God, and live in a culture which has, and has historically had, a belief in a God. The only way someone one could be truly indifferent to the idea of a God, it seems to me, is if they had had not exposure to the concept at all.
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason:
But nobody (at least, not when I've heard the fairy analogy) is arguing that belief in fairies is exactly the same thing, from every philosophical angle, as belief in god(s)

---

You don't know some of the militant atheists I do

Or maybe :|

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orianna02:
But they are aware of the idea of a God, and live in a culture which has, and has historically had, a belief in a God. The only way someone one could be truly indifferent to the idea of a God, it seems to me, is if they had had not exposure to the concept at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orianna02:
The only way someone one could be truly indifferent to the idea of a God, it seems to me, is if they had had not exposure to the concept at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

For me there simply is too much unknown information and untested experience to make a categorical statement about the non-existence of God.

---

But you make these so-called categorical statements about the non-existence of thousands of gods all the time. Unless you actually study them all, that is. Or unless you believe in them all until you have time to study them enough to reject them.

---

• Firstly there is a difference between polytheistic and monotheistic religions. I believe polytheism is false. If I'm right, then all polytheistic systems are ipso facto false, I don't need to disbelieve in them all individually. Just as, if for some reason I was convinced that the internal combustion engine is a myth, I would disbelieve in cars as a whole, I wouldn't disbelieve in Volvos and Volkswagens and Fords each individually.
• As far as monotheistic religions are concerned, I would not say that Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Platonists, etc., believe in distinct Gods in whom I don't believe, but rather that they believe incorrect things about the God in whom I do believe. In other words, a Muslim and I disagree over certain characteristics of God, whereas a Muslim and an atheist disagree over the very concept of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I believe polytheism is false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I believe polytheism is false.

---

Exactly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it's mostly that it's gobbledygook. Other than that, I'm good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not all atheists posit something about God at all. Some simply couldn't give a shit. They don't believe, but that lack of belief means nothing to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Squibs, you don't have to care much about God's existence to post around here. Stick around a while and you'll see plenty of examples of that. In my case, well, it's been a journey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I think you're trying to strongarm the definition of atheist here to be, as you say, "the vocal atheists who spend a considerable amount of time and energy worrying about a Being they don't believe exists." This is a problem in all of these discussions, because nobody can agree on what any of the words mean. But the title of the thread doesn't actually even mention "atheist", it just mentions disbelief in God. In that respect, I think Marvin's points were perfectly made.

---

quote:

---

But you make these so-called categorical statements about the non-existence of thousands of gods all the time. Unless you actually study them all, that is. Or unless you believe in them all until you have time to study them enough to reject them.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

I don't have any delusions that I've categorically disproven God, or that there is "no evidence". And I'd bet a lot of the people you'd consider to be "atheists" are a lot like me. [/QB]

---

Sorry, but what are you then? It might help me to understand. Because so far it sounds to me like you are a strong but apathetic agnostic (who just so happens to post on a Christian forum - though obviously not in relation to God )
 

---

Posted by Jason™ (# 9037) on :
 
I'm sorry, Squibs, but your "desire to put people into nice, neat categories so you can more easily dismiss them" is showing.

I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But like you said (which was my point), you consider me so, just like you consider me to be a homo sapien even if I don't. But that's the problem, because then you've worked up a list of attributes that go with "atheist", faith positions, philosophical points of view, etc. that may or may not apply to me.

So then, when I say, "I don't have any delusions that I've categorically disproven God, or that there is 'no evidence'," you scratch your head and ask, "Sorry, but what are you then? It might help me to understand."

It's a semantic hamster wheel.

You: Atheists are people who don't believe there is a god.
Me: Ok.
You: Do you believe there is a god?
Me: I haven't experienced much good evidence for it, no.
You: Aha! You're an atheist then.
Me: Maybe? I don't really know.
You: See, friends, he's an atheist. And atheists are x, y, and z.
Me: Wait, I'm not really x or z.
You: Oh yes you are, you're an atheist, remember?
Me: If that's what makes someone an atheist, than I guess I'm not one.
You: Well, wait a minute then. So you believe there is a god?
Me: Oh, well, I haven't experienced much good evidence for that, no.

And round and round we go, until someone gets so frustrated with the circle that they intervene.

Someone: Ohhhhh, so you're agnostic, then!
Me: What's an agnostic?

The crowd erupts with several hundred conflicting answers...

The really interesting thing is to consider us all starting from some kind of semi-agnostic stance, not really knowing what we believe. You have a group of people who choose to believe some body of evidence that God exists, and decide to act on it in a way that others consider to be extreme. You have another group of people who decide the evidence is too poor, and to act on that in a way that others consider to be extreme.

Then, you have a much larger group of people who say, "Yes, I'm pretty sure, my gut is telling me and the evidence seems to support that there is a God, I'm going to go to church or do any other number of things that believers do, etc." This group is diverse, but within each faith it makes up most of what we think of when we talk about Christians, etc.

But, what's the corollary to that group for those who moderately decided the other way (but certainly wouldn't claim to be 100% sure, or god-forbid to die for it)? There's not exactly a shared action like "going to Church" that can provide an easy to see grouping of these people, but I know they exist. And I'm pretty sure they're far more numerous (and much less vocal/controversial) than the extremists, just like on the other side.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gentleman Ranker:
For those who consider atheism a form of faith, would you also say that

• an atheist is a "person of faith" ?
• the late Dawkins forum was a "community of faith" ?
• the American Humanist Association (or similar) should be included, at their request, in "faith-based initiatives" ?

I don't intend this as cheapjack sophistry, but rather as a way to tease out the meaning of "faith" in current, common usage -- which may be different from academic or formal usage.

---

quote:

---

Taking a somewhat different tack, is it useful and desirable to label both of the following as statements of faith?

• I accept certain truths on the basis of revelations that are beyond the analysis of human reason
• using my reason to the best of my ability, I accept certain truths because reason tells me that they are the most probable of several possibilities.

If not, why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
But the person who makes the analogy (aside from trying to offend, as Mouse pointed out) is saying that the kind of experiences that God-believers point to are similar to the kinds of experiences they would immediately dismiss if they came from someone who claimed to have had them with fairies in their back yard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it just me, or is part of the problem here that there's no simple word to describe "don't-give-a-shit-ism"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which, in fairness, is exactly comparable to my lack of belief in Zeus. I'm not an antizeusest or an azeusest, I just don't believe Zeus exists. I don't define myself by my lack of belief in Zeus, just as most atheists don't define themselves by their lack of belief in God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
If you asked me, "Do you believe that any God exists?" and I said, "No, I haven't seen evidence for it and I don't much care." What would that make me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Or, like I would guess, do you reject most of them outright because you've never seen any evidence for them and you're pretty sure they don't exist, but you're not going to worry yourself about disproving it because it has no effect on your life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
But, what's the corollary to that group for those who moderately decided the other way (but certainly wouldn't claim to be 100% sure, or god-forbid to die for it)? There's not exactly a shared action like "going to Church" that can provide an easy to see grouping of these people, but I know they exist. And I'm pretty sure they're far more numerous (and much less vocal/controversial) than the extremists, just like on the other side.

---

I presume RD will vomit out the lukewarm... Seriously though, the proper activity for such people is simply "not going to Church". It's really entirely symmetric. "Extreme" atheists are characterized by doing lots of other things in support of their atheism, just as "extreme" theists for their faith. Or perhaps one could say that "extreme" theist "really go to Church, and that "extreme" atheists "really do not go to Church".
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not all atheists posit something about God at all. Some simply couldn't give a shit. They don't believe, but that lack of belief means nothing to them.

---

Marvin. How do you understand the word posit? I understand it to mean: to assume as true, definitely or for argument's sake; to claim; to take for granted.

---

quote:

---

I am saying that it is the the fundamental assumption of atheism is the non-existence of God.

---

quote:

---

Atheism by definition posits the non-existence of God. It is, therefore, a faith position. All discourse concerning God(s) is inherently philosophical and religious, not scientific. This is because all discourse concerning God(s) falls outside of the valid remit of science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
<snip>what of people like my mate Jim? He simply doesn't think about it at all. He doesn't have discourse about it. But as he doesn't believe in god, he is still technically an atheist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
For example, one can make a clear metaphysical case (from physical data using philosophical means) for the existence of God, but none for the existence of fairies.

---

quote:

---

Likewise, I think there are proper atheists, and those that are only formally atheistic by a sort of social accident. I think the latter group is basically irrelevant for the discussion, since they stand like children outside the proper categories.

---

quote:

---

Thus you cannot motivate your rejections other than based on some principle decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orianna02:
The only way someone one could be truly indifferent to the idea of a God, it seems to me, is if they had had not exposure to the concept at all.

---

I think you are confusing 'indifference towards' with 'ignorance of'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
In your opinion. I do think the idea of a "metaphysical case from physical data using philosophical means" being described as "clear" is kind of funny, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
and a few who much less fervently say "Probably not, but I don't really care seeing how I don't see any alcohol around here."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
My stance is probably closest to: "I'm not going to say that god exists."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Which is pretty similar to my stance on whether Elvis is dead: I'm not going to say he is, I'm not going to say he isn't, but... I lean toward the side that makes the most sense in situations where the decision has any effect on my life.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
and a few who much less fervently say "Probably not, but I don't really care seeing how I don't see any alcohol around here."

---

I already took care of that in my analogy by discussing children.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
My stance is probably closest to: "I'm not going to say that god exists."

---

Which really makes little sense intellectually, whether God exists or not.

---

quote:

---

However, whether Elvis is alive or not really has little effect on your life. Unless you are perhaps a relative and have inherited parts of his estate. However, if God is alive then it does make a major difference, the difference really, for your life. So by opting to not particularly care, you are de facto saying that God is dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not all atheists posit something about God at all. Some simply couldn't give a shit. They don't believe, but that lack of belief means nothing to them.

---

Marvin. How do you understand the word posit? I understand it to mean: to assume as true, definitely or for argument's sake; to claim; to take for granted.

---

If one claims nothing, one makes no claim. Simples. It works equally well for "posit".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
<snip>what of people like my mate Jim? He simply doesn't think about it at all. He doesn't have discourse about it. But as he doesn't believe in god, he is still technically an atheist.

---

Well I would only call him an atheist if he positively believes there is no god. If he simply doesn't happen to believe in (a) god, but does not per se exclude the possibility of (a) god - I wouldn't use the word 'atheist' do describe him or 'atheism' to describe his views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Truth is, when I've heard people explain why they believe in God, they don't talk about metaphysical realities grounded in observable reality. They talk about some scripture and their personal experience of their god.

---

quote:

---

So I don't accept that whether God exists is the difference in my life. I think it has about as much effect on me as whether or not Elvis is alive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This "don't-give-a-shit-ism" concerning God(s) is still a faith position because the "not-giving-shit" is about God, and not about something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm sorry, Squibs, but your "desire to put people into nice, neat categories so you can more easily dismiss them" is showing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But like you said (which was my point), you consider me so, just like you consider me to be a homo sapien even if I don't. But that's the problem, because then you've worked up a list of attributes that go with "atheist", faith positions, philosophical points of view, etc. that may or may not apply to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
So then, when I say, "I don't have any delusions that I've categorically disproven God, or that there is 'no evidence'," you scratch your head and ask, "Sorry, but what are you then? It might help me to understand."

It's a semantic hamster wheel.

You: Atheists are people who don't believe there is a god.
Me: Ok.
You: Do you believe there is a god?
Me: I haven't experienced much good evidence for it, no.
You: Aha! You're an atheist then.
Me: Maybe? I don't really know.
You: See, friends, he's an atheist. And atheists are x, y, and z.
Me: Wait, I'm not really x or z.
You: Oh yes you are, you're an atheist, remember?
Me: If that's what makes someone an atheist, than I guess I'm not one.
You: Well, wait a minute then. So you believe there is a god?
Me: Oh, well, I haven't experienced much good evidence for that, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Ingo, your definition of "clear" is probably an obscured, philosophical one. Truth is, when I've heard people explain why they believe in God, they don't talk about metaphysical realities grounded in observable reality. They talk about some scripture and their personal experience of their god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
No, you didn't, and it sort of seems like you're just deliberately ignoring the point, so I'll skip that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm not sure I know what you mean, but maybe you're too concerned about being intellectual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
You don't really mean "if God is alive", you mean "if God is alive and I'm right about everything that means".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
It made no difference whatsoever, so there really was just no point for me to keep pretending all those things, based on my experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This "don't-give-a-shit-ism" concerning God(s) is still a faith position because the "not-giving-shit" is about God, and not about something else.

---

I think this cuts to the root of the problem, and is why these discussions ultimately never get anywhere. It is the assumption that because the question relates to God it should be treated in a fundamentally different way to any other discussion. Most theists probably believe God is fundamentally different and their philosophical groundrules reflect that, but that does not give them universal validity and it is no reason why anyone else should also start from that position or be required to work within those groundrules. But that is what you seem to be demanding.

---

quote:

---

"Don't-give-a-shit-ism" is not a faith position. It may well be a "position regarding a faith" as long as position is not taken to imply the result of deliberation. It is not a faith position with the implication that it is a position reached by means of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
It is funny that you accuse me of all sort of things, yet you haven't bothered to answer my question. I'll ask again: what are you?

---

quote:

---

After cutting through the needless verbiage, it seems to me that you are still saying, "No, I don't believe in God."

---

quote:

---

Hence belief in fairies and in God are not equivalent.

---

quote:

---

You cannot return to a state of childish ignorance and apathy about God. Just as one cannot "just not drink alcohol", after being a regular drinker. As a former drinker, you simply become a teetotaler by not drinking any alcohol (assuming of course that you could drink, if you wanted to). You may become a very low-key teetotaler, but you cannot undo your experience of drinking anymore.

---

quote:

---

No. Your only way of being easy about the possible existence of God is by assuming a certain theology, e.g., by making the assumption that God is distant and does not care anyhow what you do. But then you are actually a believer of sorts, namely in an "atheism-tolerant" god.

---

quote:

---

You cannot possibly be comfortable about the existence of a god as such, because among the many possibilities what a god could be like there are plenty that could make your (after-)life highly unpleasant.

---

quote:

---

If you do not say that, and nevertheless are comfortable about denying god, then you are either confused or in fact a believer (possibly a believer in something vague, but a believer nonetheless).

---

quote:

---

What are you talking about? You actually listed all the differences that it made, and you are acutely aware of having stopped with all that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If we have a case we can defend for saying God is not a religious fiction but a feature of our existence (its first cause) then of course we can ignore it. Like we can ignore the existence of Mars or Venus. But if we wish to think or talk about the solar system, it's handy to know the conventional labels for the local planets.

Equally, consideration of how or why we exist is likely to need a label for the first cause of existence, God by long-established convention. Whether that consideration makes consistent sense, and can therefore be practically useful, will depend among other factors on how closely the meaning we associate with the label reflects reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
At the point you're talking about, there's little to no relevance to my daily life coming from whether or not the first-cause of all existence is called God or Zorbuxx or STARTFORCE™.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
It is funny that you accuse me of all sort of things, yet you haven't bothered to answer my question. I'll ask again: what are you?

---

I'm a who, actually. My name is Jason. I don't know how to answer your question any better than that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm a who, actually. My name is Jason. I don't know how to answer your question any better than that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:This is a pretty good demonstration of what I mean. You want everything to be very simple and neatly aligned into nice boxes. Anything that adds complexity or subtlety to the conversation is "needless verbiage".

---

So you say! I was initially talking about people who happily identify with the term atheist. After a few posts you succeeded in turning this general debate into a debate about yourself, and you now presume that you have managed to figure me out.

In reality, I rather think you have imposed your own negative associations with atheism on this thread and have even tried to pass them off as my own. Atheism is not x, y and z, atheism is simply the non-belief in God(s). All in all, I find the personal nature of your your last couple of posts to be underhanded and objectionable.

As for needless verbiage, I found your imaginary conversation to be preposterous. Firstly, it was a cheap caricature of my position. Secondly, at root you admitted that you don't believe in God. Forgive the difficulty that I'm having with this, but in light of the definition of what an atheist is - something which has been repeated on a number of occasions - I've asked for clarification about why you don't fit that category.

The response: you have refused to answer the question, and instead you have accused me of "strongarming" the definition of atheism (one that came out of a shagging dictionary); you have claimed that I've got some sort of atheist attribute list; and, finally, you have attempted to speak for me - even to the point of putting something I never said in quotes.

[ 05. March 2010, 18:39: Message edited by: Squibs ]
 

---

Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :
 
If atheists are right and there is no god, we'll never know. Because we'll be dead.

I don't know how Richard Dawkins can say that there probably isn't a god, as if it's a scientific statement. Does he mean that the probability that there is a god is only 32%, or something like that?

 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
No more than he can say "There is no God." All he can really say is "I don't believe there is a God" to which the proper response is "that's nice. Who the fuck are you and why should your beliefs have anything to do with how I live my life?"

So he goes with the fudge "there probably isn't a God" because, at bottom, it sells better. Even atheists will lie to push their product.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No more than he can say "There is no God." All he can really say is "I don't believe there is a God" to which the proper response is "that's nice. Who the fuck are you and why should your beliefs have anything to do with how I live my life?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't know how Richard Dawkins can say that there probably isn't a god, as if it's a scientific statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No more than he can say "There is no God." All he can really say is "I don't believe there is a God" to which the proper response is "that's nice. Who the fuck are you and why should your beliefs have anything to do with how I live my life?"

---

I've found that it's usually those who believe in God who are much more active in telling other people how to live their lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
If I meet people who are arguing that belief in fairies is philosophically and morally equivalent in every way to belief in god(s), I'll be sure to send them your way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
You're still ignoring the point (willfully or not, I don't know) about action. The island example is about the irrelevance of a belief without effect. If I can't see any alcohol on the island, and you can't show me any, then why should I care about whether or not it's okay to drink?

---

quote:

---

1 Kings 19:11-13 (RSV-CE):
And he said, "Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord." And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him, and said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
The assumption I'm making is that if a god exists and I should be doing something about that, it'll be clear to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Aside: bringing it up like this just makes it so damn obvious what the point of the hell teaching is, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Like I said, whatever god exists, if they have demands, will make them clear. Some people will say, "But they're not demands, they're helpful pieces of advice about how to live life to the fullest." And I like that, except that I'm living live to fullerest I've ever lived in these last two years, so it's just not my experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
If and when someone discovers some alcohol, then let's talk about whether or not it's ok to drink it, and everything else that will lead to. Until then, I'm over here eating coconuts and not caring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

Isn't that a rather strange starting point for a Buddhist?

---

I think Buddhists can start anywhere - in fact, they have to start where they are, even if that leaves them with a concept of self that much modern science and philosophy is undercutting....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.

---

It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

Some atheists make that case. Some atheists, e.g. Steven Pinker wrote a book, The Blank Slate, to refute the idea that we start as blank slates.
I suppose the claim is true in just the same sense that it's true that everyone is born with no intrinsic language; language is acquired from later social influences.

Saying atheism ought to be the default worldview is like saying that 'non-Indo-European language ought to be the default language'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

I can't be sure of the self; neither can you. The self, defined as the only thing that one can be sure of, turns out on examination to be incoherent. It doesn't exist. The best you can do is something like Galen Strawson's idea that I am a different self now than the self that first read your post - and you, as you read this, are a completely different self from the 'kankucho' to whom I am replying. That's a shifting sand from which to start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your actual self - rather than the non-existent artifact of misguided philosophising that you're talking about - is grown as a result of later social influences. It's not a default.
(Of course, the concept of the artifact of misguided philosophising is also acquired from later social influences in a different sense.)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nichiren:
If you truly fear the sufferings of birth and death and yearn for nirvana, if you carry out your faith and thirst for the way, then the sufferings of change and impermanence will become no more than yesterday’s dream, and the awakening of enlightenment will become today’s reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
Sorry to butt in, but I've just revisited something I posted way back and subsequently forgot about. It seems to have attracted a few responses...

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

Isn't that a rather strange starting point for a Buddhist?

---

I think Buddhists can start anywhere - in fact, they have to start where they are, even if that leaves them with a concept of self that much modern science and philosophy is undercutting....

---

Quite. If I didn't exist, there would be no ‘me’ to consider the truth of Buddhism. Though the idea of Buddhism being undercut by modern science and philosophy isn't something I recognise: quite the opposite, in fact.

-------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.

---

It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

Some atheists make that case. Some atheists, e.g. Steven Pinker wrote a book, The Blank Slate, to refute the idea that we start as blank slates.
I suppose the claim is true in just the same sense that it's true that everyone is born with no intrinsic language; language is acquired from later social influences.

Saying atheism ought to be the default worldview is like saying that 'non-Indo-European language ought to be the default language'.

---

It isn't. It's like saying no language ought to be (nor is) the default. As you point out, language (all language) is acquired from later social influences. So it is also with belief systems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

I can't be sure of the self; neither can you. The self, defined as the only thing that one can be sure of, turns out on examination to be incoherent. It doesn't exist. The best you can do is something like Galen Strawson's idea that I am a different self now than the self that first read your post - and you, as you read this, are a completely different self from the 'kankucho' to whom I am replying. That's a shifting sand from which to start.

---

I cross the River Thames twice during every working day. The water I cross over is never the same stuff twice. Unfathomably huge amounts of molecules flow by each moment, and are constantly replaced by others. But, for all that, it is always the River Thames. And, whenever I cross it, it is always me that does so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your actual self - rather than the non-existent artifact of misguided philosophising that you're talking about - is grown as a result of later social influences. It's not a default.
(Of course, the concept of the artifact of misguided philosophising is also acquired from later social influences in a different sense.)

---

On the contrary: philosophy, misguided or otherwise, is just one among many ‘later social influences’. Everything I learn, all the philosophising I may do, and the influences to which I am subject, are like the ‘impermanent’ water constantly flowing through it. But my actual self is like the river. Always the river; always the central locus of consciousness (or ’ sum’, as my suggested expression would have it) which encounters and interacts with all this.

quote:

---

Originally written by Nichiren:
If you truly fear the sufferings of birth and death and yearn for nirvana, if you carry out your faith and thirst for the way, then the sufferings of change and impermanence will become no more than yesterday’s dream, and the awakening of enlightenment will become today’s reality.

---

---

 

---

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
Sorry -- I accidentally 'replied' rather than 'edited' there. See if you can spot the difference.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

Some atheists make that case. Some atheists, e.g. Steven Pinker wrote a book, The Blank Slate, to refute the idea that we start as blank slates.
I suppose the claim is true in just the same sense that it's true that everyone is born with no intrinsic language; language is acquired from later social influences.

Saying atheism ought to be the default worldview is like saying that 'non-Indo-European language ought to be the default language'.

---

It isn't. It's like saying no language ought to be (nor is) the default. As you point out, language (all language) is acquired from later social influences. So it is also with belief systems.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

I can't be sure of the self; neither can you. The self, defined as the only thing that one can be sure of, turns out on examination to be incoherent. It doesn't exist. The best you can do is something like Galen Strawson's idea that I am a different self now than the self that first read your post - and you, as you read this, are a completely different self from the 'kankucho' to whom I am replying. That's a shifting sand from which to start.

---

I cross the River Thames twice during every working day. The water I cross over is never the same stuff twice. Unfathomably huge amounts of molecules flow by each moment, and are constantly replaced by others. But, for all that, it is always the River Thames.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your actual self - rather than the non-existent artifact of misguided philosophising that you're talking about - is grown as a result of later social influences. It's not a default.
(Of course, the concept of the artifact of misguided philosophising is also acquired from later social influences in a different sense.)

---

On the contrary: philosophy, misguided or otherwise, is just one among many ‘later social influences’. Everything I learn, all the philosophising I may do, and the influences to which I am subject, are like the ‘impermanent’ water constantly flowing through it. But my actual self is like the river. Always the river; always the central locus of consciousness (or ’ sum’, as my suggested expression would have it) which encounters and interacts with all this.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nichiren:
If you truly fear the sufferings of birth and death and yearn for nirvana, if you carry out your faith and thirst for the way, then the sufferings of change and impermanence will become no more than yesterday’s dream, and the awakening of enlightenment will become today’s reality.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Proselytizers will sometimes urge wannabe Christians to take "a leap of faith" - when reason doesn't provide adequate answers.

---

I disagree. That would be counter-productive, surely? It is only necessary to recommend that any supernatural belief be subjected to testing in order to see if it stands up to such scrutiny. Even if it does not, at this present time then it should not be attributed to God, but left under, 'We don't know' heading for now. A 'leap of faith' should not be one of the tests. I suppose it could be used as an argument: You ask me to take a leap of faith into belief in God, and I know how to do that as I was a believer, so put yourself in my position and see it from my point of view. This does of course mean that the final, very small indeed (I will refrain from saying 'vanishingly' possibility that a God exists has to remain in the picture. Since it has in fact been this way for millenia, then I definitely choose to discount it.

quote:

---

How sensible does that sound? How useful? I think I am now atheist, though I still use the now "foreign language" of religion to make a point from time to time. Some things just don't translate too well from one language to another.

---

quote:

---

I now think as an atheist. I don't feel "liberated" or frightened by this.

---

quote:

---

There will always be people who can achieve things that I cannot, and if some of those things are the useful, healthy, compassionate outcome of their religious beliefs, why should I not applaud them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I wonder if it makes any difference to go at this question -- whether elements of something faith-like form part of atheism -- from a different angle.

---

quote:

---

Would most people who answer to "atheist" agree that they are materialists, at least in the sense of assuming that the universe consists solely of that which can be (or can eventually be) observed, sensed, tested, and/or measured?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps it's simply a way of stating that the universe is ultimately explicable.

---

quote:

---

The opposing view would seem to be that there's an "extra" component of the universe for those who believe in God,...

---

quote:

---

fairies, tree-sprites, etc., and that "extra" is the inexplicable (or singular, or anomalous). . . sorry. I like it here, but maybe I'm having trouble with the jargon.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I'm hung about midway between the two camps and can't reconcile. Camped at one end for several years; now sitting in t'other camp.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

As there are atheist belief systems, 'atheism ought not to be the default' does not mean 'no belief system ought to be the default'.
Also, what exactly does 'no language ought to be the default' mean? .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it means we shouldn't have prejudices against any language - no language should have a burden of justification, the equivalent is we shouldn't have prejudices against any belief system; belief systems don't need any initial justification.
If it means that we should reject all language until we are presented with a reason to adopt a particular language, then it's clearly ridiculous. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

You defined the self as the one thing that you can be completely certain of.
The River Thames is nothing like such a thing. For example, are the Kennet, the Fleet, the Isis, the Medway part of the River Thames or not? If you came across the Isis as part of a random walk through England you would not be able immediately to recognise whether it was the same river as the Thames in London.

---

The river metaphor is just to indicate how something that is constantly changing can also be a constant entity. So it is with conscious life. In my fumbled attempt at editing the post, I added when I cross the Thames, it is always me doing the crossing. I’m carrying different experiences, possibly in a different frame of mind, but it’s most definitely me crossing the river. Also, at those times, the river itself is within my sphere of perception and, as such, becomes a part of me and my consciousness.
Whether I, as an observer, recognise a stretch of river as 'the Thames' doesn’t really matter, except when I need a convenient marker for finding Borough station. The Thames is what the Thames is. Most likely it doesn’t know it’s called the Thames; it just gets on with the business of flowing through London because that's where it is and that's what it does. 'Are the Kennet, the Fleet, the Isis, the Medway part of the River Thames?' That’s a good question. Of course, the boundaries are quite arbitrarily declared by entities outside of themselves. But, essentially, they're all parts of the same thing. You also offer, 'you can't distinguish between the water and the river'. That’s entirely true, IMO. The provisional, constantly changing, aspect is integral to the entity as a whole. Are you sure you're not a Buddhist at heart?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

You've made three propositions here.
1) You have an actual self, the central locus of consciousness.
2) The actual self is distinct from all the influences which it encounters and interacts with.
3) You can be completely certain of this actual self, and of nothing else.

The only thing of which you are ever directly aware is that learning, philosophising, and so on. If you define the self as the self that is aware of them, then by definition you're never aware of your self. You therefore have no direct evidence for this actual self, let alone that you have an actual self that is something other than, standing apart from, the experiences with which it interacts..... .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

So, you believe in your actual self because of Nichiren? You acquired your belief in it because of the social influences of Nichiren's philosophy and other teachers?
(Not that the passage you quote seems to me to have anything to do with the idea of a self.) .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I think this cuts to the root of the problem, and is why these discussions ultimately never get anywhere. It is the assumption that because the question relates to God it should be treated in a fundamentally different way to any other discussion. Most theists probably believe God is fundamentally different and their philosophical groundrules reflect that, but that does not give them universal validity and it is no reason why anyone else should also start from that position or be required to work within those groundrules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
If atheists are right and there is no god, we'll never know. Because we'll be dead.

I don't know how Richard Dawkins can say that there probably isn't a god, as if it's a scientific statement. Does he mean that the probability that there is a god is only 32%, or something like that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the reasons I thought it was pitched exactly right was that it did not try to hit people over the head with the information, but provided an easy-to-remember slogan which also made people smile.

---

The main reason I disliked it was its exclusivity and glibness which implied a distinct lack of compassion. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is quite a bourgeois, 'first' world response.
 

---

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
Redux. (Am I allowed to do this? )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, you believe in your actual self because of Nichiren? You acquired your belief in it because of the social influences of Nichiren's philosophy and other teachers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the reasons I thought it was pitched exactly right was that it did not try to hit people over the head with the information, but provided an easy-to-remember slogan which also made people smile.

---

The main reason I disliked it was its exclusivity and glibness which implied a distinct lack of compassion. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is quite a bourgeois, 'first' world response.

---

quote:

---

Which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? - Jesus of Nazareth

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
If atheists are right and there is no god, we'll never know. Because we'll be dead.

I don't know how Richard Dawkins can say that there probably isn't a god, as if it's a scientific statement. Does he mean that the probability that there is a god is only 32%, or something like that?

---

I was at a conference last October where Ariane Sherine was one of the speakers and she gave us the whole story of the campaign.

One of the reasons I thought it was pitched exactly right was that it did not try to hit people over the head with the information, but provided an easy-to-remember slogan which also made people smile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

As there are atheist belief systems, 'atheism ought not to be the default' does not mean 'no belief system ought to be the default'.
Also, what exactly does 'no language ought to be the default' mean?

---

So-called atheist belief systems, including that proposed by your Mr Pinker, are applied ways of perceiving the universe to be without gods. As such, they vie for space in the non-default intellect along with god-oriented beliefs. But a newly born child has no conception even of what gods are until it has learned some rudimentary language skills and is presented with a concept, usually by its closest kin. As such, the newly born consciousness is innately atheist (without gods).

---

quote:

---

'No language ought to be the default' means that it is nonsense to think that a child is born with a head full of a 'default' language. I'm not sure why you're objecting to this point. It was your own argument that 'language is acquired from later social influences'. I'm just agreeing with you. The same is true of externally locused beliefs.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

You defined the self as the one thing that you can be completely certain of.
The River Thames is nothing like such a thing. For example, are the Kennet, the Fleet, the Isis, the Medway part of the River Thames or not? If you came across the Isis as part of a random walk through England you would not be able immediately to recognise whether it was the same river as the Thames in London.

---

The river metaphor is just to indicate how something that is constantly changing can also be a constant entity. So it is with conscious life. In my fumbled attempt at editing the post, I added when I cross the Thames, it is always me doing the crossing. I’m carrying different experiences, possibly in a different frame of mind, but it’s most definitely me crossing the river.

---

quote:

---

You also offer, 'you can't distinguish between the water and the river'. That’s entirely true, IMO. The provisional, constantly changing, aspect is integral to the entity as a whole. Are you sure you're not a Buddhist at heart?

---

Now that you say it, I do think I'm closer to being a Buddhist at heart than you are.

quote:

---

To No 3) Agreed. But I won't worry about that because I can't possibly be wrong in believing myself to exist. If I were, then I wouldn't be here to be wrong about it. Everything outside of a conscious entity being conscious of itself is an acquisition which we invest with varying degrees of reliability. That includes, God, Jesus, Nichiren and enough information about the Thames to get us to the Borough station every day.
Where would you suggest I go looking for indisputable evidence of myself, other than myself?

---

quote:

---

To my mind, which I happily confess has been strongly influenced by Nichiren, it is precisely the acquired, non-innate aspects of life which disappear at the time of physical death. The essential self only entertains such things for as long as manifest social and environmental existence lends them some purpose. I would have thought there would be some parallel to this in the Christian idea. Isn't it the essential self that's supposed to take its place Up There? The Hereafter is going to be a pretty unpleasant place if we're going take all our acquired social and psychological baggage with us – together with all that experience of ageing and sickness. Surely the new body promised in the Christian retirement home brochures comes complete with a free and unencumbered mind? (Remember how the water is indistinguishable from the river?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you're not interested in metaphysics then obviously you can just ignore such things. It means, though, that if others justify opinions about morality or whatever by reference to their understanding of God, you have no basis for dialogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I was initially talking about people who happily identify with the term atheist. After a few posts you succeeded in turning this general debate into a debate about yourself, and you now presume that you have managed to figure me out. In reality, I rather think you have imposed your own negative associations with atheism on this thread and have even tried to pass them off as my own.

---

quote:

---

Atheism is not x, y and z, atheism is simply the non-belief in God(s).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
God doesn't come in bottles. One can see Him intellectually to a limited degree, but you do not seem interested in that. The other way is much better, but subtle.

---

quote:

---

That's a remarkable assumption indeed! Can you name anything else in your life where clarity about what needed to be done similarly descended onto you spontaneously and with perfect timing?

---

quote:

---

Without hell, your current life is a ultimately just pointless waiting.

---

quote:

---

...most religions do have clear lists of demands for your perusal. Hence you cannot claim to reject those religions because of a lack of clear demands. Rather you reject them first, and therefore then their demands. And since you do that indiscriminately, you are furthermore implicitly saying that clear demands of a god cannot come to you through the agency of a religion. Rather, you apparently expect the Archangel Gabriel to appear to you and respectfully hand you your personalized list of commandments, or something like that. Is that a realistic attitude?

---

quote:

---

You are rather sitting there in a corner saying "I'm not interested in all that intellectual talk about brewing. And no, I don't want to taste any fermented fruit juice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Atheism, ISTM, is a philosophy masquerading as science. It claims scientific objectivity while simultaneously promulgating its ideas using the language of philosophy. In this respect it is deeply disingenuous because it attempts to present its claims as scientific in order to seduce people. In reality however, the philosophical claims of atheism are exactly the same as the scientifically unsubstantiated claims of any other faith position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I keep forgetting if it's just not believing that gods exist, or if it's believing that gods don't exist, or if it requires a level of knowledge about the gods that you don't believe in, or what. Sorry, I'm trying to keep up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
What is the difference, from a scientific standpoint, between saying "There probably is no God" and "Humans probably can't fly"? It sounds like they are both saying something like, "We have little to no scientific evidence that x is true, and we can't scientifically recommend that you make any decisions that assume that x is true, especially if they endanger you or anyone else."

---

quote:

---

Those statements don't preclude that evidence could emerge, and they don't say whether or not you should believe it outside of a scientific framework. Many discussions and arguments could exist outside of that initial statement, about the pros and cons of believing in x despite having little to no scientific evidence, the benefits of believing, community, morality, etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Is there a difference you see? Or do you take objection with "Humans probably can't fly", too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We have no such set of data that God doesn't exist, except simple "we asked Him and he didnt answer" and experiments that rely upon interpretations we have no good reason to think really show (or not) that God exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We have no such set of data that God doesn't exist, except simple "we asked Him and he didnt answer" and experiments that rely upon interpretations we have no good reason to think really show (or not) that God exists.

---

Isn't a complete lack of evidence of something usually considered a good reason to either doubt its existence or, at the very least, proceed as if it didn't exist? I mean, using the same logic you could postulate the existence of lumiferous æther, but what would be the point of postulating such a thing in the absence of a need to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
The first two options amount to the same thing and the third related to what I believe would be my position if I were to lose faith - agnosticism. Given that I've twice provided you with a definition of atheism, I can only assume you are acting the tit at this stage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Those two statements are categorically different, and so much so that the question is rendered nonsensical. The "probably" in the first proposition is essential to its intellectual and philosophical integrity because there is insufficient evidence to justify its omission.

---

1. "I assert positively that God doesn't exist".
2. "There's no evidence that God exists, and therefore no case to answer".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm interested in metaphysics like I'm interested in Greek mythology, utilitarianism, etc. I don't much care if it's true or not and I'm not devoting my life to any of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Must we devote our whole lives to a philosophical stance, and then find out at the very end of life whether or not we came to believe it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Isn't it more realistic to believe that we'd consider a philosophical stance at some length, listen intently to those who care about it deeply, talk, join in to some of the customs, traditions, honestly take part in liturgy, etc. and after a finite amount of time, come to a conclusion about whether or not it resonates as intellectually true? Or even subtly, still-small-voicedly true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Rather, you apparently expect the Archangel Gabriel to appear to you and respectfully hand you your personalized list of commandments, or something like that. Is that a realistic attitude?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Leaving aside your deliberately sensationalized description of that kind of event, yes, that's a pretty fair description of what I think we should all demand.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now that you say it, I do think I'm closer to being a Buddhist at heart than you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't a complete lack of evidence of something usually considered a good reason to either doubt its existence or, at the very least, proceed as if it didn't exist?

---

quote:

---

I mean, using the same logic you could postulate the existence of lumiferous æther,

---

quote:

---

but what would be the point of postulating such a thing in the absence of a need to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If you claim to be truly interested why the sun shines, one can expect you to study physics. If you claim to be truly interested whether God exists, one can expect you to study metaphysics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
That's not a philosophical stance anymore which you are talking about, that's already some religion. Here are Aquinas' famous five ways of proving God (start reading at "I answer that..."). Whether you agree with these proofs or not, I think you can see that they will not force you to commit to anything much other than the existence of God. That's what philosophy can hope to do for you.

---

quote:

---

Nothing in my experience suggests that the universe will accommodate us in this way. Nothing in my faith suggests that we have any right to make such demands of God. In fact, what you want there is simply to replace faith by knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now that you say it, I do think I'm closer to being a Buddhist at heart than you are.

---

Sorry. When I typed that it was late at night and it appeared to be in the same spirit as the comment to which I replied. I shouldn't have adopted a tone of knowing more about your beliefs than you do.

---

There's a surprising amount of shared ground when we get into the nitty-gritty of Buddhism and Christianity, so no offence taken. I spend a lot of time and effort trying to convince people of their Buddha status, so you've just saved me a bit of work there.

You raise some good points about the matter of 'what is true self', but I fear we're skewing the topic with this. If you want to pursue it further, I'll be pleased to take your lead into a new thread.

Just to summarise my response to your previous longer post as it relates to 'default' positions, all models - Christian, Buddhist, atheist sub-channels, whatever - are all packages that we pick up from the societies we are born into, once self-and-other consciousness has taken shape. We are born 'a-theist' in the literal sense: without (a conception of) gods. The rights and wrongs of any subsequently adopted models of self-identity have no bearing on that fact.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I don't understand why we wouldn't have the right to ask of God the things we would ask of any other experience in this life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Or another example (from the pen of Prof Dawkins, IIRC):

A: "Why don't you believe there's a teapot orbiting Pluto?"
B: "Because I've no evidence that there's a teapot orbting Pluto."

Which is an entirely rational response from B, but the situation is more like this:

A: "Why don't you believe Mr Smith when he said he saw a teapot orbiting Pluto with his big telescope?"
B: "Because X ..."

Now X may be perfectly sensible, but it still falls to B to justify it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Some folks listen to the cases that are presented, find them extremely wanting, and decide to stop caring about the question because nobody can make a convincing argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Belief as wish-fulfillment? Wasn't in my case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Welcome back, Yorick!

Belief as wish-fulfillment? Wasn't in my case. Perhaps it is for some folks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
However, religion promises so much it's hardly equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Belief as wish-fulfillment? Wasn't in my case.

---

Are you sure about that? I mean, really, really sure?

---

I kind of heard that as "weally, weally shure?" and immediately there flashed before my eyes a whole load of "Loony Toons" ..

Yes, grasshopper.
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
However, religion promises so much it's hardly equivalent.

---

But atheism can also promise much. Imagine there's no heaven... brave new worlds... humankind's advancement without it's chains.

And religion, as well as promising, also threatens, bullies, depresses. There's plenty even a believer might want to be free of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But atheism can also promise much. Imagine there's no heaven...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Granted, but aren't you flogging the point rather? I mean, the believed benefits of Being Saved must make all that other stuff pale into zilch. Eternal Paradise Alongside Him? Kind of outweighs everything else in the universe, doesn't it? And I strongly suspect the mortal Christian life well-lived giveth more than it taketh away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

(Bows out with a flourish).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, come, come. Compare the (implicit) 'promises' of atheism with those (explicit) of Christianity. It’s apples and a gazillion Chocolate Oranges.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
But I've heard many an atheist (and Christian for that matter) baulk at the idea of eternity. Some people don't like the very concept. I find this is because they don't actually know what the ultimate hope of Christianity is...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
But I've heard many an atheist (and Christian for that matter) baulk at the idea of eternity. Some people don't like the very concept. I find this is because they don't actually know what the ultimate hope of Christianity is...

---

What I've found is that, with Christ-fueled hope or not, nobody actually has any cognitive grasp of what eternity means. Our conscious minds are only equipped to handle images with identifiable edges. So baulking at the idea of eternity (in fact, baulking at the idea that there is an idea to be baulked at!) is surely the most honest mortal response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Belief as wish-fulfillment? Wasn't in my case. Perhaps it is for some folks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
I'm not frightened of eternity. How can I be frightened of a concept if I have absolutely no idea of what the concept is. Although, I can guess that a concept of something without boundaries would be something pretty pointless to try and run away from. If there is such a thing as eternity, then all of us are already living in it.

What are you trying to sell us on here? Do you know what eternity is like? Can you describe it to us?

---

Yeah, I'm selling the secrets to all life. Just send me you credit card details and I'll send you the answers. Promise

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning or what? I'm not trying to sell anything. I said eternity was a state that we can't understand, and that is why I was talking about the concept of eternity and alluded to the earliest Christian hope of what this entailed. I don't pretend to have the answer, nor did they. I was simply attempting to relate an adjustment of focus (away from a platonic ethereal existence in-amongst the clouds and to a physical existence in creation remade) that helped me tackle the problem I had with eternal bliss. Is that OK with you?

I find it mildly ironic that you go off on one and accuse me of selling something and in the same breath define what eternity must be.

[ 09. March 2010, 12:52: Message edited by: Squibs ]
 

---

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I was simply attempting to relate an adjustment of focus (away from a platonic ethereal existence in-amongst the clouds and to a physical existence in creation remade) that helped me tackle the problem I had with eternal bliss. Is that OK with you?

---

It's cool, honey-bunny. We're still just talkin'!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I find it mildly ironic that you go off on one and accuse me of selling something and in the same breath define what eternity must be.

---

Sorry. I didn't think I'd done that. I hazarded a guess that a situation with no time boundaries would include the here & now. But I'm as much in the dark on that point as any other mortal, so I'm just offering it as a point for discussion if anyone wants to go for it.

pax

 

---

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

pax

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Belief as wish-fulfillment? Wasn't in my case. Perhaps it is for some folks?

---

C. S. Lewis's comment on this idea was that if he had dreamed up the kind of God he wanted, his God would not demand that he do things he didn't want to and not do things he did want to.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I don't understand why we wouldn't have the right to ask of God the things we would ask of any other experience in this life.

---

I think I take many of my life's decisions and form many of my beliefs without any scientific evidence or knowledge. My choice of career, political philosophy to believe in, personal development, choice of life-long partner, decision to have children... I had very little rational basis for any of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
You know many people involved in pogroms?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Or another example (from the pen of Prof Dawkins, IIRC):

A: "Why don't you believe there's a teapot orbiting Pluto?"
B: "Because I've no evidence that there's a teapot orbting Pluto."

Which is an entirely rational response from B, but the situation is more like this:

A: "Why don't you believe Mr Smith when he said he saw a teapot orbiting Pluto with his big telescope?"
B: "Because X ..."

Now X may be perfectly sensible, but it still falls to B to justify it.

---

Not really. It falls to Mr Smith to supply evidence of what's he's seen, which B can assess to make his case (although that in itself might be B's sensible justification). If it transpires that Mr Smith didn't actually see a flying teapot, but he feels in his heart that it's there and its presence makes him feel safe (etc, etc), there should be no further onus on B to waste his time pursuing the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I don't appreciate the thinking that we should all believe in a God, trust a group of people to tell us what that God demands, obey those demands, etc, and even if they don't feel right, we have no right to question them or ask for a bit more clarity or resonance before we act on them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
it implies the acceptance of a methodology to decide what is credible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I don't appreciate the thinking that we should all believe in a God, trust a group of people to tell us what that God demands, obey those demands, etc, and even if they don't feel right, we have no right to question them or ask for a bit more clarity or resonance before we act on them.

---

Probably no-one would be willing to view themselves as arguing that way - I certainly wouldn't. I hope that's not my approach to anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
that if it does feel right, who am I to tell you that you shouldn't believe? I think the question of "whether or not it's true" is one of the biggest red herrings of all time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
which is why I don't like to even try to answer questions like the one Squibs couldn't seem to let go of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I agree with the first bit, but not really the second. I still hang on to the idea that what is really true matters, and deep down I think that I believe what I honestly think is really true. I know I might be wrong etc. and that others with equal sincerity think otherwise, but that's not quite enough to disabuse me of the notion that there's an objective truth. Even if my take on it is subjective.

Incurable, probably.

---

I wouldn't say incurable.

I think I agree with you that there is probably objective truth. But we sure have a hell of a time figuring it out, don't we?

Whether or not there is a God, you go on living like there is, others go on living like there isn't, some of us go on living trying not to think about the question too much, and whether or not it's true has very little to do with what any of us does.

We make a decision about what feels right to us, and then we make more decisions based off that, and more off that, and so on. Sometimes it feels good to go back and try to argue for or against some of those first decisions, and explain why they are almost certainly true. But none of us really knows for sure, and here we all are. Making all kinds of important decisions without the slightest idea about what's true.

Some people feel strongly that they have it figured out, or that the answers revealed to them contain a larger chunk of that oh so elusive Truth than anyone else's. But that hardly makes them any closer to holding it, as I'm sure we would all agree.

So the one piece of all this that has the least active effect on all of our most important decisions is the one thing we dwell on and argue about the most. It sounds like a big, tasty, red herring to me.

What is true is mostly irrelevant if all we have is what we believe to be true, and then we act on that.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Whether or not there is a God, you go on living like there is, others go on living like there isn't, some of us go on living trying not to think about the question too much, and whether or not it's true has very little to do with what any of us does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Belief as wish-fulfillment? Wasn't in my case.

---

Are you sure about that? I mean, really, really sure? I don't mean to patronise you, dear chap, but have you thoroughly considered this?

It seems to me a truth universally unacknowledged that people believe pretty much whatever they want to believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Yorick, have you ever wondered if wishes (and we all have them) are a form of belief suppression?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I feel that our searching is useful and good in ways that we can't perceive, regardless of its immediate outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
In other words, couldn't we all better spend our time on a good and useful search for how we should act and live, regardless of whether any gods exist or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
But what's the use of spending our whole lives searching for whether or not God exists, when what we all seem to really be after is all of the things that "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" will then imply about how we should live our lives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What I don't get is why you don't get that questions about God's existence are meaningless unless you can say what you mean by God.

---

quote:

---

I think I already know how to live.

---

quote:

---

I also think that the search is part of how to live. That in the search for God I refine what I should do and how I should be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Your stance on this sounds like, "Study metaphysics until you believe that God exists. You did and you still don't believe? You didn't study it long enough. Keep studying." Some folks listen to the cases that are presented, find them extremely wanting, and decide to stop caring about the question because nobody can make a convincing argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
This working definition of faith is the same kind of faith that led Abraham up a mountain, intent on killing his own son.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I mean, the believed benefits of Being Saved must make all that other stuff pale into zilch. Eternal Paradise Alongside Him? Kind of outweighs everything else in the universe, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
My experience is that God usually demands people [do/not do] things that they [want to/don't want to] do but don't want to admit to [wanting/not wanting] to do.

---

Yeah... I'm sure deep down inside you really want to follow Catholic sexual morals. And just admit that you have this deep urge to get up early on Sundays for mass, we are tolerant here. You would also enjoy confessing your sins to a priest, if they would only let you. I'm sure you are furthermore secretly fasting for Lent, studying the bible, praying the Liturgy of the Hours, and walking to Santiago de Compostela. Really, religion is just one big convenient excuse for doing what you want to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I think some would probably argue something close. I think IngoB, although he'd have several clarifications and revisions, would be somewhere in that vicinity, quite proudly, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
But what's the use of spending our whole lives searching for whether or not God exists, when what we all seem to really be after is all of the things that "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" will then imply about how we should live our lives? In other words, couldn't we all better spend our time on a good and useful search for how we should act and live, regardless of whether any gods exist or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
What I'm wondering aloud is whether we could more directly discover those refinements by searching for them, maybe not directly since we might not know what they are, but in a more direct way than having to arrive at them through what seems like such a long way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
My experience is that God usually demands people [do/not do] things that they [want to/don't want to] do but don't want to admit to [wanting/not wanting] to do.

---

Yeah... I'm sure deep down inside you really want to follow Catholic sexual morals. And just admit that you have this deep urge to get up early on Sundays for mass, we are tolerant here. You would also enjoy confessing your sins to a priest, if they would only let you. I'm sure you are furthermore secretly fasting for Lent, studying the bible, praying the Liturgy of the Hours, and walking to Santiago de Compostela. Really, religion is just one big convenient excuse for doing what you want to do.

---

Jason&trade hasn't mentioned any of that stuff, IngoB. Reading through your list I can quite honestly and confidently say that God hasn't commanded his people to do any of that... with exception (possibly) of mass, but he wouldn't call it that.

[ 11. March 2010, 14:20: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
 

---

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Yorick, have you ever wondered if wishes (and we all have them) are a form of belief suppression?

---

Yes, I’m sure that’s right. Wishful thinking is often nothing more than denial of the perceived truth. We wish X would happen when we don’t expect or believe it shall, but when we wish for it hard enough it seems we very often start to believe it. Conversely, and I think massively importantly, this doesn’t much happen with things we don’t wish were true (whether or not we believe/expect they are).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jason™ hasn't mentioned any of that stuff, IngoB.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Reading through your list I can quite honestly and confidently say that God hasn't commanded his people to do any of that... with exception (possibly) of mass, but he wouldn't call it that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Much atheism appears to be little more than wishing that God doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
On that analogy, an atheist is simply a person who denies the existence of buses because they can't see a bus beyond the horizon of their natural sight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

This is also why the "atheists have faith too" argument is so confusing. From the plane I'm looking at these terms, I see belief in God as requiring faith because not believing in God is the non-faith position. It [iappears as if there is no god[/i]. Those who have faith will make a leap to believe in God, despite those appearances.

---

I've always thought the opposite. It appears as if there is a God. It appears as if there is something more at work in creation and ourselves than just our hearts and minds.

So IMO the leap of faith is to say there isn't anything else because its so obvious there is.

Faith is the much more reasonable position
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Appearances can be deceptive. There is an "obvious" belief that the material order was somehow "made", rather than being either eternal or self-making. All of which presupposes a maker and again it is "obvious" that such a maker would indeed be much superior to ourselves. And these obviousnesses have a lot to say about the general historical belief in God or Gods.

There are various philosophical arguments (of tolerable sophistication) which cast doubt on such "obviousnesses" and in any case, even if accepted, such arguments do not in themselves point to the kinds of beliefs held by all adherents of the monotheistic faiths (all of which see such a maker as in some sense benevolent as well as all powerful).

But I think it is pretty hard to believe in an eternal or self-creating universe simply from the appearance of things. It is also pretty hard to believe in the benevolence of a universe-maker from the appearance of things. So I don't think appearance arguments get us all that far.
 

---

Posted by Jason™ (# 9037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
This comes down to words really, but although I more or less agree with that, the way I think of an atheist is someone who would be really very sure that the bus can't possibly be coming because in all other regards, the world just isn't one in which buses come along. And that seems, to me, to involve just a bit of faith in a particular world view.

The agnostic is the one who shrugs, and says there's no particular reason to think a bus may come along, and worrying about it isn't going to help since we have no data on which to even base a probability calculation. Which to me seems to be the true no faith position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I've always thought the opposite. It appears as if there is a God. It appears as if there is something more at work in creation and ourselves than just our hearts and minds.

So IMO the leap of faith is to say there isn't anything else because its so obvious there is.

Faith is the much more reasonable position

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think it is pretty hard to believe in an eternal or self-creating universe simply from the appearance of things. It is also pretty hard to believe in the benevolence of a universe-maker from the appearance of things. So I don't think appearance arguments get us all that far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Even though I may not get an answer I could write down and defend in a way that holds water for 10mins, I think God still speaks to me through the darkened search, and that I learn more about how I should live.

---

quote:

---

I suggested that...

<snip> an atheist is simply a person who denies the existence of buses because they can't see a bus beyond the horizon of their natural sight.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Jason&trade:

If you don't work inside the context of an analogy, the discussion breaks down. The existence of the buses wasn't in question, so introducing that in order to make your own point doesn't make sense in its context. Except, you know, for a cheap score.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I would be interested to know what makes you think that it is God speaking to you and not, as I would say, your own mind, with its intelligence, experience, imagination and capabilities - which are being slowly but surely better understood from a scientific point of view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
While I'm not an atheist, I think that the extension of the bus analogy is that an atheist is someone who believes there are no buses because;

a) They can't see one at the moment
b) They've never seen one.
c) They only find documented sitings of buses on accounts of uncertain veracity
d) All the recent accounts of seeing buses seem to be based on subjective impressions rather than objective encounters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think it is pretty hard to believe in an eternal or self-creating universe simply from the appearance of things. It is also pretty hard to believe in the benevolence of a universe-maker from the appearance of things. So I don't think appearance arguments get us all that far.

---

I don't think you have to believe anything about a self-creating universe in order to have an opinion about how the existence of god appears. The comparison is a false one, or at least, an unnecessary one.

It's possible to have no opinion on how existence came to be (as you say, the appearance of things lends few clues, at least to those of us who aren't astro physicists or the like), and yet still examine your own experience and come to a pretty reasonable conclusion that there really doesn't appear to be any kind of god. For some to argue that "Well, to me there does appear to be a God" seems to be stretching what we mean by "appear" here.

Again, this isn't a dig on people who believe. I'd think believers would pretty much agree with this assessment, considering Christian belief is usually built around faith, which acts in the face of how things might appear. As you said, Barnabas, appearances can be deceptive and all that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Add criteria e) No remains of buses have been identified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Add criteria e) No remains of buses have been identified.

---

What about historical figures for whom there are no remains?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
You don't really have to wish for God not to exist, because it already appears to be the case.

It's like two people sitting on a bench waiting for 5 years for a bus to come. If one person says they still believe the bus is coming, there's an element of wishful thinking there, no matter how many anecdotal accounts, reports, or trustworthy predictions the person can recount. But it's a much harder case to argue that the person who says, "I really doubt any bus is coming" is saying so out of wishful thinking of his own. The bus doesn't appear to be coming.

Even if you disagree with a certain premise or premises of the analogy, at least understand that this is how so many people are thinking about the relationship between believer and non-believer.

This is also why the "atheists have faith too" argument is so confusing. From the plane I'm looking at these terms, I see belief in God as requiring faith because not believing in God is the non-faith position. It [iappears as if there is no god[/i]. Those who have faith will make a leap to believe in God, despite those appearances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
If you are a Pakistani, the obvious position is Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
If you are a Pakistani, the obvious position is Islam.

---

I think obvious might be another confusing word here. As far as, you obviously should believe in Islam, well then of course.

Either religions prize faith, or they don't. If their beliefs are truly obvious, I don't see why they have any need for faith. Consequently, I don't know why so many religious people are so intent on proving that their beliefs are obvious in this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I think obvious might be another confusing word here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say this is because you don't understand what faith is. Faith is not believing what you can't prove, but trusting (in a person, particularly). Believing what you can't prove is called "believing".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I thought we were doing bus analogies?

I'm not about to defend overall the atheist position, since I'm not an atheist. I was simply pointing out that their position is not as simplistic as "I can't see a bus right now therefore buses don't exist".

If you want to argue for a historical standard for the proof of God's existence rather than a scientific one all good by me. Frankly I'm not sure that either discipline really applies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say this is because you don't understand what faith is. Faith is not believing what you can't prove, but trusting (in a person, particularly). Believing what you can't prove is called "believing".

---

But surely trust in a person is believing something about them, their character motivations etc that you can't prove.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Whether we understand those things scientifically is neither here nor there. Clearly imagination has the potential to mislead one irrespective of an understanding of its workings. But I do think our scientific understanding of these things is pretty lacking, nevertheless.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe because I hear a special internal voice or dream dreams or something like that. I'm talking about an experience of living, being part of a church, worship - and believing that God is in those things. Sometimes I don't believe that very strongly, but go through the motions anyway.

---

quote:

---

But overall it's an approach and a calling that makes sense to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Alister McGrath (along with most evangelicals) would say that faith is 1) assent - believing certain things are true, 2) trust - a personal and relational disposition toward the object of faith, 3) commitment - an act of the will in which a person expresses loyalty and allegiance to the object of faith, 4) obedience - a resolution to think and act in ways that are intentionally congruent with the character of the object of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Alister McGrath (along with most evangelicals) would say that faith is 1) assent - believing certain things are true, 2) trust - a personal and relational disposition toward the object of faith, 3) commitment - an act of the will in which a person expresses loyalty and allegiance to the object of faith, 4) obedience - a resolution to think and act in ways that are intentionally congruent with the character of the object of faith.

---

I'm okay with this definition of faith. By this definition, soldiers here have faith in their commanding officers. Heck, shop employees have faith in their managers. I think we speak of those who have great faith because they believe, trust, commit, and obey, all in the face of what would typically be insufficient supporting evidence or, sometimes, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Alister McGrath (along with most evangelicals) would say that faith is 1) assent - believing certain things are true, 2) trust - a personal and relational disposition toward the object of faith, 3) commitment - an act of the will in which a person expresses loyalty and allegiance to the object of faith, 4) obedience - a resolution to think and act in ways that are intentionally congruent with the character of the object of faith.

---

I'm okay with this definition of faith. By this definition, soldiers here have faith in their commanding officers. Heck, shop employees have faith in their managers. I think we speak of those who have great faith because they believe, trust, commit, and obey, all in the face of what would typically be insufficient supporting evidence or, sometimes, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

---

Yes, and by this definition, atheists (of the Dawkins variety at least) have faith. They assent to certain philosophical propositions; they trust in the hypothetico-deductive method; they are committed, and express allegiance, to the superiority of a particular worldview; and they encourage obedience to their particular ideology (i.e. stop worrying and enjoy yourself).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No. And this is precisely the point. This is because human beings are hard-wired to have faith in things. From a biblical perspective the essential choice is either to believe in God or to believe in idols. Money, sex and power are idols. Science, relationships, career, children, spouses you name it are idols.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No. And this is precisely the point. This is because human beings are hard-wired to have faith in things. From a biblical perspective the essential choice is either to believe in God or to believe in idols. Money, sex and power are idols. Science, relationships, career, children, spouses you name it are idols.

---

The idea that to be a good Christian you need to reject money, sex, power, science, relationships, career, children, and marriage is pretty radical. I note that since you're using a computer to make this point it's not one you've fully embraced, what with computers relying on science for their design and power to operate. Have you decided to abandon Christianity, or is this a final farewell before you head off to the caves? If it's the latter, I'll understand if I don't get a response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I didn't say that they those must be rejected, I said that they must not be deified. I said that if you gain ultimate satisfaction and significance from them then they have become idols.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If I found that I cannot live or function or experience satisfaction without my computer then I would seriously consider getting rid of it. This is beacuse an idol can be a good thing (like sex, money, computers and science) that has become a God-thing (i.e. a functional saviour) and therefore a bad thing.

---

You don't give us a lot of credit, do you? Your last response is just two posts up and you don't think anyone will notice that you didn't actually say what you're now claiming.

You didn't say "Money, sex and power can be idols", you said "Money, sex and power are idols". Likewise with family, friends, career, and science. Furthermore you said that the "biblical perspective" requires a choice between your God and all these things you identify as idols, that if you believe in God then you can't believe in marriage or science or money and vice versa.

What you seem to be revising your statement to say is that a little idolatry is okay, just don't get carried away.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Of course, you can tell where the allegiance of most so-called Christians lie when you reflect that they've all broken the Laws of God (everyone's a sinner) but they shy away from breaking the Laws of Physics. That tells you where their real priorities are!
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
It's like two people sitting on a bench waiting for 5 years for a bus to come. If one person says they still believe the bus is coming, there's an element of wishful thinking there, no matter how many anecdotal accounts, reports, or trustworthy predictions the person can recount. But it's a much harder case to argue that the person who says, "I really doubt any bus is coming" is saying so out of wishful thinking of his own. The bus doesn't appear to be coming.

---

quote:

---

Where is the independent objective evidence that tells us that "there must be a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon of [electricity]"? Justify that presupposition! In fact that premise is a conclusion derived from a prior commitment to the philosophy of naturalism or materialism. Someone else could just as validly argue that the reality of [electricity] is itself evidence of a spiritual world. Why not? Where is the objective evidence that refutes that position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I didn't say that they those must be rejected, I said that they must not be deified. I said that if you gain ultimate satisfaction and significance from them then they have become idols.

---

I think you're confusing what you meant with what you actually said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If I found that I cannot live or function or experience satisfaction without my computer then I would seriously consider getting rid of it. This is beacuse an idol can be a good thing (like sex, money, computers and science) that has become a God-thing (i.e. a functional saviour) and therefore a bad thing.

---

You don't give us a lot of credit, do you? Your last response is just two posts up and you don't think anyone will notice that you didn't actually say what you're now claiming.

You didn't say "Money, sex and power can be idols", you said "Money, sex and power are idols". Likewise with family, friends, career, and science. Furthermore you said that the "biblical perspective" requires a choice between your God and all these things you identify as idols, that if you believe in God then you can't believe in marriage or science or money and vice versa.

What you seem to be revising your statement to say is that a little idolatry is okay, just don't get carried away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
It's like two people sitting on a bench waiting for 5 years for a bus to come. If one person says they still believe the bus is coming, there's an element of wishful thinking there, no matter how many anecdotal accounts, reports, or trustworthy predictions the person can recount. But it's a much harder case to argue that the person who says, "I really doubt any bus is coming" is saying so out of wishful thinking of his own. The bus doesn't appear to be coming.

---

Now I am quite aware that atheists will dismiss my experience as merely psychological and hallucinatory. But they do this because of their a priori commitment to a particular philosophy which rules out any kind of experience of God. That is their faith position. The assumption that there must always be a naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon is a case of petitio principii or "begging the question" - i.e. building your conclusions into your premise. If that is not a "leap of faith", then I don't know what is.

---

 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
However, the difficulty with the "you dismiss my experience" approach is that we all do that. The muslims, hindus, pagans and all have their experiences that lead them to believe what they believe. I dismiss that with varying degrees of precision in terms of the reasons why I dismiss them.

I think from an atheists point of view, one starts with the null hypothesis - that a thing isn't or doesn't - and rejects the null hypothesis (i.e. accepts it does exist) if substantial evidence is observed.

How substantial that needs to be is a matter of judgement rather than precision, granted.

Now that might be a faith position I suppose, but it doesn't seem to me a faith position in the same sense as my faith in Christ is.

[ 13. March 2010, 15:10: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
He believes in them because atheism is a faith position.

---

quote:

---

We worship what we value most in life.

---

quote:

---

We worship what we believe will 'save us'. For Dawkins science has 'saved' him from God/religion. The irony of course is that he doesn't realise that he has put his faith in a functional saviour just like every other human being. For Dawkins the saviour is science; for Christians the saviour is God. The religious impulse is just as strong in Dawkins as it is in Billy Graham; they just worship different saviours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Worship means simply to 'ascribe ultimate worth'. In this sense atheists (at least of the Dawkins variety) ascribe ultimate worth to science and the 'rational' philosophical position that they ascribe to that science.

---

Thank you. I like that definition! Ascribing 'ultimate worth' to something sounds like a straightforward human, rational conclusion, although I would add 'until further information supersedes it'. It does not put the subject of 'ultimate worth' into the realm of supernatural, or 'beyond human understanding' etc. Yes, I am happy with that idea of worship. I still would not use the word though, as I think the general idea of it would be less practical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I suggest that scientific rationalism has become a functional saviour for Dawkins.

---

quote:

---

Dawkins clearly considers religion to be a great evil from which he - and everybody else - should be rescued or saved. In this sense atheism is his saviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
If people accepted that all such beliefs and ideas are products of our brains and minds, there would be no avoiding the fact that every single one of such gods is a human idea, and therefore controlled by human brains and minds; not controlled or influenced by outside entities. If ever humanity reached that stage, gods and religions would become redundant.

---

quote:

---

Posted by SusanDoris:A person who needs 'saving' or who feels insecure or vulnerable? RD is definitely not one of them, I think.

[quote][b]I suggest I am correct in saying that, in the opinion of many atheists, me included, religions, with their belief in, and deference to, invisible, supernatural (etc etc) gods or figureheads hold back our species from resolving more of the world's problms than we do at present.

---

quote:

---

If people accepted that all such beliefs and ideas are products of our brains and minds, there would be no avoiding the fact that every single one of such gods is a human idea, and therefore controlled by human brains and minds; not controlled or influenced by outside entities. If ever humanity reached that stage, gods and religions would become redundant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I suggest I am correct in saying that, in the opinion of many atheists, me included, religions, with their belief in, and deference to, invisible, supernatural (etc etc) gods or figureheads hold back our species from resolving more of the world's problms than we do at present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The moment we acknowledge that there are ideas (such as "reason" itself) which have objective validity - and are therefore not merely the product of the human mind - then the whole edifice of naturalism collapses. We then have to accept that there are realities which transcend the material world. This does not mean that all "supernatural ideas" are true, but if follows that some at least must be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think that follows. For instance, I think it's consistent to believe that snowflakes are formed by chaotic natural processes in the upper atmosphere. From these chaotic natural processes great order, symmetry, and a form that recognizes all number of mathematical truth emerges.

Likewise, I think one could believe that humans arise out of a chaotic biological process, and that our minds nevertheless are capable of recognizing and describing transcendent objective truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Such ideas would be entirely subjective - simply characteristics of homo sapiens of no more significance than the colour of one's skin. Natural selection would have created all innate ideas in order to enhance the subjective goal of survival (although, as a matter of fact, there is no reason why any naturally produced system should "want to" survive. This is a value and agenda read by us back into nature, and not derived from nature).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think it follows that such ideas would be entirely subjective. We have maths. These ideas aren't entirely subjective, yet aren't the product of supernatural revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am saying that the existence of reason itself is evidence of a reality other than mere matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
By that same logic even "reason" itself would become redundant, since that (according to your philosophy) is merely the product of our brains and minds - and therefore lacking any kind of objective reality and validity.

---

quote:

---

This is the problem with the idea that natural selection has produced knowledge (which for the atheist it must have done). All human ideas - including moral ideas - would have arisen as nothing more than a survival mechanism, and this therefore tells us nothing about objective reality, since the "survival agenda" is entirely subjective

---

quote:

---

The fact that we overwhelmingly feel that "reason" does have objective validity is evidence that it has not arisen by natural selection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Following on from my last post...

The moment we acknowledge that there are ideas (such as "reason" itself) which have objective validity - and are therefore not merely the product of the human mind ...

---

quote:

---

- then the whole edifice of naturalism collapses. We then have to accept that there are realities which transcend the material world.

---

quote:

---

This does not mean that all "supernatural ideas" are true, but if follows that some at least must be true.

---

quote:

---

If the idea of God is merely a product of the human mind, we cannot claim that it is redundant or invalid for that reason,...

---

quote:

---

while at the same time holding to a philosophy that all ideas have to be the product of the human mind (which is what natural selection dictates). Otherwise we contradict ourselves.

To clarify:

A: The idea of God.

B: The claim that the "idea of God" is redundant, since it is the product of the human mind.

"B" is as much an "idea" as "A", and within a naturalistic epistemology it has the same status as "A" - namely, it is the product of the human mind. Therefore if the idea "A" is invalid and redundant - due to it being the product of the human mind - then so is the idea "B". And if "B" is invalid and redundant, where does that then leave "A"? Thus we are faced here with a contradiction.

Naturalism (or materialism) therefore leads to a total scepticism about all knowledge, and can therefore claim nothing about the nature of reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But then how would reason arise by natural means? What form would "reason" - and all ideas - take? Such ideas would be entirely subjective - simply characteristics of homo sapiens of no more significance than the colour of one's skin.

---

quote:

---

Naturally produced "reason" is known as "instinct" and we see plenty of it in the natural world. Animal instinct does not produce insights and give lectures on any aspect of the nature of reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Hell, some species of birds can do the same thing, to a lesser degree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It then strikes me as a leap of faith to say we'd be better off without it, given the results of this natural experiment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I also think that I'm correct in saying that you see atheism as a solution to those problems.

---

quote:

---

In this respect atheism - in your view - is capable of saving the world.

---

quote:

---

Of course, the "functional saviours" behind these campaigns are the people who inspire and support them.[/QUOE]
Yes, definitely agree.
[QUOTE]...the religious impulse is as strong in atheism and it is in theism - the only difference is the nature of the saviours in which these divergent faith positions put their trust.

---

quote:

---

For you, it's the functional saviour (i.e. you believe that atheism will do the saving work) of scientific progress. For Christians it the personal saviour, Jesus Christ (i.e. Christians believe that a person will do the saving work).

---

quote:

---

So, you may object to this by saying that religion clearly hasn't functioned inasmuch as it hasn't 'saved' the world. But if you did say that I would have to respond by asking why you think that scientific atheism will function as a saviour inasmuch as it has the capacity to rescue the world from its problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No, I do not think scientific atheism will solve the world's problems, but working towards better and clearer knowledge of how it works, leaving out the supernatural, has a better chance, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But it isn't an either/or choice - one can study how the world works from a scientific standpoint, and yet maintain a religious faith. And I think one can be consistent in maintaining that both those things improve the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
*Sigh*! You are right of course, but I wish you weren't!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me that reason is simply a complex natural/biological feature like any other. Like the complexity of the workings of the eye, the complexity of snowflakes or the complexity of deep sea life around a volcanic vent.

...

But my point is that there's nothing special about human reason in that argument. It is just another feature of a complex creation/evolution depending on your view. Either complexity makes you believe in a creator or it doesn't, but reason isn't a special case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let me at least reiterate one sentence from what I wrote, which is the nub of what I want to say: If the ideas of religion have merely evolved in order to help us survive (but are judged to tell us nothing about "truth"), then, to be logically consistent, the same must be true of the ideas of atheism.

Atheists cannot claim that their ideas about reality are any more "true" than religious ideas, since, according to their viewpoint, all human ideas have evolved in order to help us survive. Therefore no idea is more "true" than any other, since all ideas simply serve a purpose that has nothing to do with "truth" (a point that is actually consistent with Dawkins' lecture.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let me at least reiterate one sentence from what I wrote, which is the nub of what I want to say: If the ideas of religion have merely evolved in order to help us survive (but are judged to tell us nothing about "truth"), then, to be logically consistent, the same must be true of the ideas of atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Alright, maybe there is a communication problem here. The issue is clear to me, but perhaps I haven't quite got the knack of articulating it.

Let me at least reiterate one sentence from what I wrote, which is the nub of what I want to say: If the ideas of religion have merely evolved in order to help us survive (but are judged to tell us nothing about "truth"), then, to be logically consistent, the same must be true of the ideas of atheism.

Atheists cannot claim that their ideas about reality are any more "true" than religious ideas, since, according to their viewpoint, all human ideas have evolved in order to help us survive. Therefore no idea is more "true" than any other, since all ideas simply serve a purpose that has nothing to do with "truth" (a point that is actually consistent with Dawkins' lecture.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the gnome:
mdjijon, it seems to me that you (and Doris, and probably others here) are using "reason" to mean the mental ability to process data and arrive at logical conclusions--something that plausibly could evolve through natural processes--whereas EtyEvan is using "reason" to mean the metaphysical possibility of arriving at conclusions based on data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It is illogical for atheists to make Truth&trade claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the gnome:
mdjijon, it seems to me that you (and Doris, and probably others here) are using "reason" to mean the mental ability to process data and arrive at logical conclusions--something that plausibly could evolve through natural processes--whereas EtyEvan is using "reason" to mean the metaphysical possibility of arriving at conclusions based on data.

---

Difficult to seperate though - one could hardly have the mental ability to process data and conclude things without the metaphysical possibility of it. And the latter without the former seems a bit of a damp squib to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let me at least reiterate one sentence from what I wrote, which is the nub of what I want to say: If the ideas of religion have merely evolved in order to help us survive (but are judged to tell us nothing about "truth"), then, to be logically consistent, the same must be true of the ideas of atheism.

---

quote:

---

Atheists cannot claim that their ideas about reality are any more "true" than religious ideas, since, according to their viewpoint, all human ideas have evolved in order to help us survive. Therefore no idea is more "true" than any other, since all ideas simply serve a purpose that has nothing to do with "truth" (a point that is actually consistent with Dawkins' lecture.)

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0