Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Converting from Christianity to Atheism

Thread: Purgatory: Converting from Christianity to Atheism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000995

Posted by Dioptre (# 10705) on :

Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear counter-argument.

The train of thought goes something like this:

P: I believe in God
A: Where's the testable evidence for God?
P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage
P: But God could act through people who believe
A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?
P: He does - the Gospels
A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?
P: I have faith
A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

[changed thread title for archiving]

[ 16. July 2006, 06:45: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

This has come up repeatedly here, of course, but the bottom line is that a religious belief system isn't about what you can prove through empirical enquiry. You can't prove God exists that way.

However, the view that all that exists must be provable through empirical enquiry or human perception is as much an unsupported philosophical position as the existence of God or a dragon in your garage.

In the end what gets you there is faith and the experience of God. I find that we all have dry patches. For these I use prayer along the lines of "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief."

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

G'day Dioptre

I noticed you said you are a sceptic challenging your own beliefs.

This is a healthy thing to do, to ask yourself what you believe and why? I don't think true faith is a blind faith, there are many reasons to believe in Christ and what he has done for us. There are many reasons why you can believe the gospel message is historically true, using all the facilities of your mind - if you are truly open to listening to the truth of it.

I would recommend reading some of Josh McDowells books, such as More than a Carpenter, and Evidence that Demands a verdict, which look at the historical evidence of the scriptures to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are historically factual.

If they are historically reliable, then the message of the scriptures are as well.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
This has come up repeatedly here, of course, but the bottom line is that a religious belief system isn't about what you can prove through empirical enquiry. You can't prove God exists that way.

Maybe not through empirical inquiry, but one can in principle show God's existence through rational inquiry. Admittedly, since in practice this relies on some deep metaphysics, no universal consensus is likely. I for one find that "Aquinas' five ways" are quite a good sketch of the type of argument that works. A specific defense of the rationality of such metaphysics against philosophical counter-arguments is provided for example in "Faith, Reason and the Existence of God" by Denys Turner. Whereas a more general overview of the path that leads through metaphysics to God is provided in "The Degrees of Knowledge" by Jacques Maritain.

For a more hands-on approach, I would point to the simple fact that empirical enquiry cannot show that any human being exists as a person (rather than as a complex "meat machine"), nevertheless there is not a single human being in the world who really believes himself to be a mere "meat machine". (Of course, some - IMHO rather hypocritical - scientists and philosophers claim that they are just that. But of course, they think, speak and act most of the time just as if they were a person and believed to be one.) Perhaps it's not so difficult to accept that there is a Being who can say "I Am Who Is", if we are beings who can say "I am".

A decent background in metaphysics certainly enables one to "find God". If I may say so as a working scientist, I think cutting edge natural science is approaching a stage where it also becomes conducive to "finding God". There are real problems in natural science of both specific (fine tuning of cosmology, consciousness, ...) and more general (intelligibility of the universe, the success of maths, emergence, teleology of systems, ...) form, which suggest that we might be starting to see the shadow of something "bigger" behind nature.

All this would not necessarily lead to the Christian God, of course. One may well become a Deist of some other type. But at least it's compatible with Christian beliefs. When queried by Napoleon where God fit into his new celestial mechanics, Laplace is supposed to have replied, "Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis." I think the next century or so will show that this is a good working principle for natural sciences, but not for humanity's rational knowledge of itself and of the universe as a whole.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

Dioptre, the very fact that this type of question is of the slightest concern to you is evidence enough that God is at work in your life. In my opinion. [Smile]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Less helpfully to you perhaps but it seems to me that you have assumed the end in your beginning. Your argument cannot fail ... but it is no argument for all that. A positivist approach to God cannot help but prove itself. It's a classic category failure masquerading as rationality.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

How about this?
P: I don't have faith
A: I do.
P: Why?
A: It feels right.
P: That's not faith.
A: What's faith then?
P: Coming to a position of being convinced by rational argument.
A: But that's not faith, that's conviction. Or knowledge. That's what mathematicians do.
P: So what do you call faith?
A: When it feels right.
P: Okay, we're going round in circles. Why does it feel right?
A: Well I was in church today and there was just a sort of whooshy intangible something that made me think, "Yes, this is a world where God has lived among his people, and lives today in bread and wine." Sorry for quoting Betjeman.
P: Who?
A: That last bit. Betjeman.
P: Oh.
A: See, faith isn't a shopping list of propositions. It's knowing where you are and who you belong to.
P: Oh.
B: (Arriving on the scene) Who are these P and A people anyway?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

What's so terrifying about atheism? Try it on. If God is a bit like a dragon in the garage - a hypothetical being who may or may not exist - then God does not exist (ask Aquinas or Denys Turner).

I think you have to abandon theism and see what's left. You can't spend the rest of your life basing everything on an unconvincing argument. It's like letting go of the side of the pool and starting to swim. Kierkegaard said faith is like swimming over 20,000 fathoms, a terrifying thought, but if you can swim, what difference does the depth make?

So, there's no God. So what do you still care about? What really matters? What do you take utterly seriously without any reservation? Ask those questions and your faith will start to come into view.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Kierkegaard said faith is like swimming over 20,000 fathoms, a terrifying thought, but if you can swim, what difference does the depth make?

Most excellent. Thanks, hatless.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dioptre:
Recently, as a skeptic, I've found myself challenging my own Christian beliefs. I'd be very interested to hear counter-argument.

A: Where's the testable evidence for God?

Why should there be testable evidence? You have no testable evidence that, when sitting in your living room at home, the pub at the end of the road exists. You cannot sense it in anyway - does it exist? Of course it does, but without using some equipment other than your own senses, you can't empirically verify it. I have no empirical evidence to hand that the moon exists, but because something cannot be empirically tested does not mean it does not exist.

quote:
P: God doesn't interfere directly in the world
A: And there's an invisible dragon in my garage

Not sure how these comments are directly related.......
Many people would argue that God does interfere directly in the world, after all, the idea of revelation requires it and tells us of instances where God has and does interfere in the world.

quote:
P: But God could act through people who believe
A: Then why doesn't he have a clearer method of communicating with believers?

I'm not sure that this is a very good model of God you are basing this on. This appears to imply that God would act more if he had a better line of communication. Which in turn implies that God can't act at the moment.

Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to say that we should act more and stop blaming a lack of good in the world on God. In the West, we are so concerned about believing the right thing, we sometimes forget to do the right thing. In fact, we've made sure that 'salvation by works' is a theologically untenable position. We've made such a good job of it in fact that when the brown smelly stuff hits the rotating device, we automatically blame God for it rather than taking responsibility for our own actions (or lack thereof) and accept that we have to do something about it.

quote:
P: He does - the Gospels
A: And where's the testable evidence that they are recounts of the truth?

We are back to testable evidence about God aren't we? Is this what it all boils down to? What we can prove?

Are you married? If so, can you empirically prove that your wife/husband loves you?

There is so much that people believe and know that cannot be empirically verified, that I wonder where this insistence comes from. To attempt to put a scientific methodology onto theology is as ridiculous as trying to put scientific methodology onto history, or relationships, or art, or philosophy etc. Theology is a different discipline to science and must be treated as such.

quote:
P: I have faith
A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

That's up to you. You either will be persuaded by the arguments or you won't. There is no such thing as a knock down argument for the existence of God, let alone a knock down argument for the Christian understanding of God. Such a thing does not exist, which is why we need faith.

It is good to have doubts and uncertainties and to try and learn and discover more. Your faith will hopefully be strengthened in the long run by it.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

From PhilA

quote:
There is no such thing as a knock down argument for the existence of God, let alone a knock down argument for the Christian understanding of God. Such a thing does not exist, which is why we need faith.

Indeed! But also ...

There is no such thing as a knock down argument AGAINST the existence of God, let alone a knock down argument AGAINST the Christian understanding of God. Such a thing does not exist, which is why we need faith.

Of course if your (the OP'er, not PhilA) positivism rules out faith then you have indeed started from where you intend to arrive ... my point about bias. I don't need the gloomy Dane's irrationality to expose that.

[ 09. May 2006, 07:56: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]

Posted by ed the big crazy bear (# 11330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
This has come up repeatedly here, of course, but the bottom line is that a religious belief system isn't about what you can prove through empirical enquiry. You can't prove God exists that way.

However, the view that all that exists must be provable through empirical enquiry or human perception is as much an unsupported philosophical position as the existence of God or a dragon in your garage.

In the end what gets you there is faith and the experience of God. I find that we all have dry patches. For these I use prayer along the lines of "Lord, I believe, help my unbelief."

In fact, it is very difficult to prove the existence of anything. Soren kierkegaard said that when you try to prove that a stone exists, you are not proving existence, you are proving that the thing in existence is a stone. The existence of something is never in doubt, it is whether the thing that exists is what you describe it to be. Trying too prove existence is futile, so is trying to prove the existence of God, the believer, or unbeliever, always starts with a prejudice, he believes, and then tries to prove. In this sense, there is no such thing as being objective. How can anyone be objective? any, belief, argument, or proof, is always subjective, regardless of how strong the evidence is.

Posted by Earthling (# 4698) on :

I feel I may be in a similar position to the OP; though I feel I'm more drifting towards agnosticism rather than atheism.

A couple of you have made points like, there is no empirical evidence that the pub down the road/the moon/the love of your partner exists...

But, we could walk down the road for a pint at the pub... we can look up in the sky and see the moon... we can look in our partners eyes and see their pupils widening, or we can remember the loving things they have done for us...

What can we do to find God? And how do we know when we've found him?

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

I was an atheist for a long time. It wasn't so bad. In my opinion, if your thoughts lead you that way, it makes more sense to persue that line of inquiry and see where it leads, than to try to base a religious faith on arguments that are unconvincing. Far better to be an honest atheist with intellectual integrity, in my opinion, than a self-deluded Christian -- if that is what it takes for you to remain a Christian.

For my part, I think that people who ask for a `proof' of the existence of God, or empirical evidence for the existence of God, are asking too much. I don't think it's in the nature of God to be amenable to empirical observation in the same way that physical objects are. And it's difficult to `prove' the existence of anything, let alone God. I have some sympathy with IngoB's view that the existence and nature of God are amenable to rational -- although not empirical -- enquiry; but in the end I've never really found such arguments totally convincing. Even Alvin Plantinga -- a philosopher who has been active in this field for about 40 years -- is on record as saying that he is a Christian because he was raised in a Christian household, and has never come across a good reason to change; not because he can prove the existence of God (although he claims to be able to, in a way).

And, as IngoB also says, philosophical enquiry has nothing to say about the historical-factual claims of any system of religious belief. If you believe in (say) the literal ressurection of Jesus, then (presumably) you do so because you trust that the observations of people nearer the events were reliable, and recorded reliably, and have been transmitted to us reliably. I can quite see why not everybody has such trust.

In the end, I believe that most thinking Christians believe what they believe because they find it personally compelling; because it makes some difference to their lives. They don't worry all that much about proof and evidence. Having said that, I suspect that most Christians do wonder, from time to time, whether the whole thing is a heap of nonsense.

In my opinion, the best thing you can do -- anyone can do -- is to talk to as many sensible and balanced Christians about why they are Christians, and decide as honestly and impartially as you can whether their reasons could be your reasons. But if you expect anybody to give an irrefutable logical argument why Christianity is right, you're going to be disappointed.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Earthling:

What can we do to find God? And how do we know when we've found him?

It's not, says Augustine, like looking for a friend in a crowd. You know what your friend looks like, you don't know what God looks like. But when you find God you know. It's like coming home.

I think you have to get lost first. You have to let go of all you thought you knew, including everything you thought you knew about God. You have to say you were wrong before.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

You know what's really wrong with positivism? As far as I know, nobody has ever used the word "fabulous" to describe positivism. The world of the positivist is a world without fabulosity. Or fabulousness, if you prefer.

Posted by craigb (# 11318) on :

Hmmmmmm I suddenly worked out what I didn't like about this Op, "Converting from Christianity to Athiesm"

This converting from Christianity means that you must have been first converted from a agnostic or athiestic belief towards Christ in the first place, somewhere in your life.

So your not really converting to Athiesm, you are renouncing your initial conversion as being a load of hogwash -for you can't convert to a belief system that doesn't have a belief system.

So to remounce your Christian faith, you first have to renounce it, and to truly renounce your faith, don't you have to tell God you have had enough, you aint going to follow him any more, you don't care about what Christ has done for you, even though you know full well what it means, I'm still turning my back on you.

Then the quandry kicks in, if you are telling God that you are renouncing him, and going to take on Athiesm, you are still guilty of believing in him, as you just had a yakkk to him.....

Perhaps you are not as athiest in your belief system as you initially thought

Posted by ed the big crazy bear (# 11330) on :

We have this assumption that atheism is safer than theism. But it is still a faith claim. You have to believe that this is it, there is nothing more, that when i will die i will rot.
"believe in God, and you will face hours where God's existence looks rediculous, be an atheist, and you will face times when, actually, God's existence looks pretty likely". Imagine two people on a road, one thinks it leads to a celestial city, the other nowhere, along the way they see things that make things seem that there isn't a celestial city, other times it seems that there is. One of them must be right, and there is only one way to find out...

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
So to remounce your Christian faith, you first have to renounce it, and to truly renounce your faith, don't you have to tell God you have had enough, you aint going to follow him any more, you don't care about what Christ has done for you, even though you know full well what it means, I'm still turning my back on you.

No. Losing your faith is not like handing in your letter of resignation. To lose your faith is not to reject God, it is to accept that your initial reasons for accepting God were mistaken. You can't turn your back on something that you don't believe exists.

Although I am not (any longer) an atheist, I believe that a Christian can become an atheist with absolute integrity. Maybe such a person is, in fact, wrong to do so; but that doesn't make him dishonest, or wicked.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I tend to see things differently. Through revelation, the Christians ended up with a way that leads to an intimate relationship with God. This way is safer and more effective than the ways other religions have developed. Therefore, one has only to follow the steps (which, roughly speaking, are contained in the gospels) and see for himself whether the whole thing works or not!

In my opinion, it is wrong to make God's existence an issue where, if the wrong answer is given, man is condemned to hell. While faith in God is a precondition for someone to follow the Way Christ gave us in the gospels, doubt is not something that condemns man (as often movies seem to imply).

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
Losing your faith is not like handing in your letter of resignation.

Just so. Speaking from experience (as someone who loses about a faith a week, though this week's is holding up remarkably well so far), losing your faith is much more like when a friend dies. It's not glancing down your list of beliefs one morning and realising that you can't tick the boxes next to nos. 7, 14, and 23 today. It's more like the ache in the heart when it hits you that someone who was once there will never be there again.

Posted by ed the big crazy bear (# 11330) on :

A lot of the time though, people who lose their christian faith simply "slip away", rarely, though it does occur, does somone reason out of it. It is often prevailing circumstances, tragedy, wealth, etc, that change your faith. Not a rational but an emotional blitz. You may have got involoved in a sin, that it would be very convenient of you if God didn't exist right now. This is the biggest reason that non christians give me as to why they are not christians
"i am happy with my life as it is"

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
Hmmmmmm I suddenly worked out what I didn't like about this Op, "Converting from Christianity to Athiesm"

This converting from Christianity means that you must have been first converted from a agnostic or athiestic belief towards Christ in the first place, somewhere in your life.

So your not really converting to Athiesm, you are renouncing your initial conversion as being a load of hogwash -for you can't convert to a belief system that doesn't have a belief system.

So to remounce your Christian faith, you first have to renounce it, and to truly renounce your faith, don't you have to tell God you have had enough, you aint going to follow him any more, you don't care about what Christ has done for you, even though you know full well what it means, I'm still turning my back on you.

Then the quandry kicks in, if you are telling God that you are renouncing him, and going to take on Athiesm, you are still guilty of believing in him, as you just had a yakkk to him.....

Perhaps you are not as athiest in your belief system as you initially thought

craigb, this is a remarkably black-white view. The reality for those of us who struggle with faith at various times in our lives is very much as Adeoatus has said.

Some days I believe in God, the fulness of his promises, the cross and the Kingdom. Some days it seems like proposterous lies or a mirage dangling in the distance to tempt a thirsty desert traveller but never quite seeming to be within reach. Mostly I'm not sure.

But the cross-over between belief and unbelief, in my experience, is not to accept or reject a set of propositions.

Belief, like hope, is a much more fragile commodity than you suggest, I believe. It is more akin to the tightrope walker who must steady his nerves, keep his eyes looking ahead and attempt to keep his self belief.

At some point I am sure that even the most experienced tightrope walker struggles and it is all he can do to make himself put one foot in front of another.

In my experience, it is those who do not recognise the fragility of their personal faith-walk who fall most spectacularly.

And FWIW, Josh McDowell is largely useless in this respect. There is no point offering the man evidence for propositions he is not sure he can accept any longer. Rather you need an argument why the propositions are reasonable things to believe in the first place. Those two are completely different.

I'd recommend the book
orthodoxy by G K Chesterton, a book that sets out why christianity is something worth believing in.

Also let us remember the attitude of the Christ to those struggling with belief and unbelief.

C

[removed a sarky comment]

[ 09. May 2006, 08:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture (# 10614) on :

I would try and disprove God's existence first and use that as a starting point.

Almost certainly, you will not be able to do so which will leave your paradigm as that of having to take 'a leap of faith' either to believe in Him or not to.

I think you need to think about what God is (or what a Christian conception of God is) before comming back to those questions posed in the opening thread. If God is the Creator, he is not going to be inside His creation is he ? After all He would be outside the Universe !

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
No. Losing your faith is not like handing in your letter of resignation.

Quite right. As someone who's been through a lot of doubt and uncertainty recently (and been greatly helped by hanging around on the Ship), I'd say there are a lot of different issues at play, but it certainly isn't like saying "I've decided I don't want to be a Christian any more".

In fact, I frequently cried out to a God I hoped was out there, but was starting to suspect didn't exist at all. All I wanted was something, anything, to indicate that there really was someone out there and get me through the next couple of days. I wasn't handing in a letter of resignation, so much as sending out hundreds of letters asking for confirmation of my contractual status, and getting more and more worried when I didn't get a reply. I definitely did want to be a Christian, but I couldn't if there was no God.

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ed the big crazy bear:
We have this assumption that atheism is safer than theism. But it is still a faith claim. You have to believe that this is it, there is nothing more, that when i will die i will rot.
"believe in God, and you will face hours where God's existence looks rediculous, be an atheist, and you will face times when, actually, God's existence looks pretty likely".

True, but are there not two types of atheism?

There is a whole world of difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and saying "I believe there is no God."

quote:

Imagine two people on a road, one thinks it leads to a celestial city, the other nowhere, along the way they see things that make things seem that there isn't a celestial city, other times it seems that there is. One of them must be right, and there is only one way to find out...

We could take this one step further and say that it is safer to believe in the celestial city, because if you don't and there is one then you won't be allowed in, but if you do and there isn't one you have lost nothing. But in doing so we only end up with Pascal's Wager. The problem with that is that it logically says one should believe in God, but gives no indication which religion has the right picture of God! For all we know, going to church on a Sunday and worshipping Jesus is making Zeus mightily pissed off and one day soon he is going to thunderbolt the lot of us. Or maybe Christianity is right and all the Muslims are in trouble, or maybe the Jews are right and everyone else is in for it....... Or maybe it just doesn't matter and we're all going to be OK, or maybe there is nothing out there but believing in something is important for the human psyche - we can't logically, reasonably or scientifically know - we have to rely on our gut feeling and faith.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd recommend the book
orthodoxy by G K Chesterton, a book that sets out why christianity is something worth believing in.

I agreed; and would add that the text of this book is now in the public domain, and available from the Gutenberg Project, and elsewhere. As is Everlasting Man by the same author.

It can be argued that Christian writers like Chesterton, MacDonald, and even CS Lewis, were not as fully informed about the arguments against Christianity than we are today. Consequently, I'd recommend Polkinghorne's Faith of a Physicist, or Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief (which, I have to say, is a hard read). These are books by sensible, well-educated, smart, articulate people who, being fully aware of the opposing arguments, nevertheless think that Christianity has something going for it.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Dioptre, the very fact that this type of question is of the slightest concern to you is evidence enough that God is at work in your life. In my opinion.

That's what people used to tell me whan I was losing my faith.

Perhaps I should have another look behind the fridge?

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

You may or may not believe this, but Chesterton and the attempt to falsify athiesm have indeed slowed down my descent into apostacy and have, I would say, made me more open to the possibility that I was right in the first place than I would otherwise have been.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I found the point at which faith faded was when it no longer seemed either a convincing explanation for anything, nor an active help to a happier life.

It is a great relief: the earthquake that kills thousands is not a judgment - it is not even, in and of itself, an evil. It is nothing that tectonic plate theory cannot account for. In the biological sphere, all of observable nature is a system of parasitism and predation - nothing lives but by the death, and very likely suffering, of something else.

Some might argue that our sense of entitlement to something else argues another order - but then we get to our Not Happier reason.

Ultimately, I found Christian doctrine required that I be what I am not - but not in a good way; in a way that seemed to me to offer only an inauthentic life.

[ 09. May 2006, 11:33: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
It is a great relief: the earthquake that kills thousands is not a judgment - it is not even, in and of itself, an evil. It is nothing that tectonic plate theory cannot account for.

And this differs from the Christian view how exactly?

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

It doesn't require a God who sends such things as a punishment, which Christinity, or most forms thereof, explicity does, at least in my experience.

Firenze - yes, I agree. Christianity became less and less convincing, both intellectually and morally, so I eventually simply junked it in.

When I realise I didn't need to preted to like the God of my youth, or to give a damn what He thought, it was a huge relief. It was a giant weight off my shoulders. I felt free, for the first time in a long time.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Ultimately, I found Christian doctrine required that I be what I am not - but not in a good way; in a way that seemed to me to offer only an inauthentic life.

Inauthentic, impoverished, dishonest and demeaning, for me.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
It doesn't require a God who sends such things as a punishment, which Christinity, or most forms thereof, explicity does, at least in my experience.

I don't think that's true. I've only rarely encountered people who claimed earthquakes were God's judgement in Christian circles.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Losing your faith is not like handing in your letter of resignation.
Just so. Speaking from experience (as someone who loses about a faith a week, though this week's is holding up remarkably well so far), losing your faith is much more like when a friend dies. It's not glancing down your list of beliefs one morning and realising that you can't tick the boxes next to nos. 7, 14, and 23 today. It's more like the ache in the heart when it hits you that someone who was once there will never be there again.

Or that they had never been there is the first place.

There was some grief, and some shame, when I concluded that I had just had an imaginary friend, but mainly there was relief.

Ahhhhh. Finally, I can breathe.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
It doesn't require a God who sends such things as a punishment, which Christinity, or most forms thereof, explicity does, at least in my experience.

Ahh, the Pat Robertson school of theology... That you've suffered under stupid Christianity does not mean that there is no other kind, or for that matter that the majority of Christianity is stupid. I recommend the article "Evil" in Herbert McCabe's excellent book "God Matters" to you. (And as RC Dominican he's not presenting a point of view there that is in any way or form at odds with orthodoxy...)

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Papio, I think we should elope.

Crooked Cucumber: you might not want to identify with those Christians who see any given earthquake or hurricane or plague as God's judgment on sinners, but it's a long-standing and still practiced response. Even those who accept the scientific 'how' still express difficulty with the 'why [now/them]'.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dioptre:
P: I have faith
A: I don't

How do I get back from here?

I think there's two issues.

The first, is there a God, seems an essentially simple preference for how we think about our existence. Are we being created, or are we the result of some accidental quirk of an impersonal metaphysical system. Either way it's a judgement call. If we are drawn to such questions, it's the foundation of our faith.

The second, how then should we live, looks anything but simple. This, at least if we find the universe at every level reflects something beyond the accidental, is the realm of religion. Unlike the natural universe, religion is a human creation with all the flaws and limitations that come with that.

I used to believe that Christianity had a solution, with its internally consistent theories and long history. Now I'm fairly sure its traditional orthodoxy is no ultimate explanation. But what the Church actually is, a framework of support for multi-layered inter-personal networks within which those of us who prefer God can work out our faith, still seems the place in our culture where God can become most explicitly real.

I don't think losing your faith is anything to get back from. More like a wake-up call perhaps, an opportunity to feed different questions back into whichever branch of Church you feel comfortable with. It's only religion that tends to see faith as some gold standard to be maintained. God I suspect is much happier with an ongoing conversation.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

There's a hell of a difference between struggling with the why them/why now/why at all questions, and believing it's God's judgement.

I'll admit that it's an attractive point to atheism - to think it's all just random and pointless feels as if it might leave one freer to be angry, depairing and grieving over disaster.... but I've met very few Christians who would look you in the eye and say the earthquake in Pakistan was God's judgement.

You might argue that leaves no coherent alternative explanation.... but that's another story.... the point is not many people say it.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've met very few Christians who would look you in the eye and say the earthquake in Pakistan was God's judgement.

Really?

I've met literally hundreds.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Papio, I think we should elope.

You'd get annoyed by my spelnig.

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :

I've met none.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I've met literally hundreds.

You asked them all their views? You had a discussion on the topic with hundreds of people? Or was it a postal questionnaire?

I'm worried that the claim you've met hundreds who thought that suggests you've assumed it of many without adequate evidence. I've certainly not had the converstion with hundreds of people...

I accept many people in pentecostal or heavy going evangelical places might think that - but I doubt many C of E types, RCs or even mainstream evangelical christians would think that.

I certainly don't, and I doubt many posters on the ship do.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

It was pretty clear from the years that I spent in the church, from talking to people, going to prayer meetings, seeing people in church nod and say "yes" and "amen", from reading church notices, and from reading Christian books and tracts that the vast majority of the Christians I met believed, in general, that "acts of God" in lawyer-speak were, well, vengeful retribution for sin.

[ 09. May 2006, 12:24: Message edited by: Papio ]

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've met very few Christians who would look you in the eye and say the earthquake in Pakistan was God's judgement.
Really?

I've met literally hundreds.

Well, that alone is sufficient to account for the difference between your world-view and mine, I would imagine. I am aware that there are people who believe such things, in the same way that I am aware that there are people who believe the Earth is flat. But I can't remember ever meeting any, thankfully.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've met very few Christians who would look you in the eye and say the earthquake in Pakistan was God's judgement.

You might argue that leaves no coherent alternative explanation.... but that's another story.... the point is not many people say it.

I would have said it was a mainstream position for most of the church's history.

Although on massy pillars built,
The earth has lately shook;
It trembled under Britain’s guilt,
Before its Maker’s look...

But if these warnings prove in vain,
Say, sinner, canst thou tell,
How soon the earth may quake again,
And open wide to hell.

John Newton, 18th Century

and can still be found at the touch of a Google today

Katrina was no accident. Katrina was no haphazard natural disaster. Katrina was no climatic coincident of Mother Nature. Katrina was a warning from the Lord.

Remember, Katrina had to come with the foreknowledge and provision of God. To reason otherwise rejects the scriptures, and denies the sovereign presence of a Holy, Almighty God.

Dr Terry Watkins, Dial-the-Truth Ministeries 21st Century

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Earthling

quote:
What can we do to find God? And how do we know when we've found him?

Look to / at Jesus. Do you belong to a Church that believes that this is possible?

For all ...

I have not long finished reading the following work by the ex-atheist theologian, Alistair McGrath: "The Twilight of Atheism." Simply superb.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
It was pretty clear from the years that I spent in the church, from talking to people, going to prayer meetings, seeing people in church nod and say "yes" and "amen", from reading church notices, and from reading Christian books and tracts that the vast majority of the Christians I met believed, in general, that "acts of God" in lawyer-speak were, well, vengeful retribution for sin.

I have a good friend, whom I would call a Christian fundamentalist (although that isn't a term he would apply to himself), who is keen on telling people that the Bible (by which he means ``my church's interpretation of the Bible'') is a sort of instruction manual for human affairs. He says that to indulge in `sinful' activity is, to humankind, the spiritual equivalent of not reading your car's instruction manual, and putting olive oil in the radiator. Or something.

So `divine retribution' is the natural consequence of, as it were, not following the instructions laid down in the manual.

I don't subscribe to this view myself, as you might imagine; I only mention it because it's the closest to the POV you describe that I've encountered in a living person.

I wonder how many people around here believe that natural disasters are the wrath of a vengeful God?

Come on... hands up [Smile]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That's the evidence, Firenze? A hymn and a single quote from google search?

And even then the hymn is open to interpretation....

What Crooked Cucumber reports is closer to what I've often heard. Like him, even then I don't quite believe it myself.... but it's a long way from the divine retribution story.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

For instance here is the reaction of two mainstream institutions to suggestions the tsunami was divine retribution;

quote:
Other churches are also responding to MacLeod's suggestion.

"The view that the tsunami was some kind of divine retribution is utterly alien to the Catholic world view," reads a statement from the Catholic Church. "Our belief is in a God of love, who suffers with us, not an avenging deity."

A Church of Scotland spokesman dismissed the comments about not observing the fourth commandment, calling the event a natural disaster.

[ 09. May 2006, 12:49: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That's the evidence, Firenze? A hymn and a single quote from google search?

You know fine well it's not. If you do not know that, from the Bible onwards, Christian writers and preachers have cited all manner of bad stuff as God's judgment, then I am not about to do your research for you. I quoted the hymn because there are not very many hymns about earthquakes and I am rather fond of it. The attitudes that underlie it though could have been found in just about any Divine of Newton's generation - and later. (But if I cited Spurgeon, you'd say that was just 'one'?)

As for a 'single quote' from Google - how many do you want? Do your own search if you really think that was the only result I got.

I am not concerned to prove that every Christian now living holds such beliefs (or a range of others, on other topics, which are equally uncomfortable to the rational mind). Just that they are there. And surely have an equal right to proclaim the truth of their Christianity.

[ 09. May 2006, 12:58: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I was interested in the bit about hurricanes being a warning from the Lord. I had a warning from the Lord this morning: one of the back wheels on my car has started going squeeeek. It's a warning from the Lord: if I don't get it seen to, my wheel will fall off.

The warning isn't in the event. It's in how we read the event. And if you're the sort of person who's determined to go through life being scared of God (or the rather nastier kind who goes through life making other people scared of God) then everything's going to be a warning from the Lord, isn't it?

Me, I can't be doing with being scared of God, and the squeaky wheel thing is a rarity and a one-off. God's much more used to getting warnings from me! Though right now, I could do with sitting down and having an ice cream with him, and asking if he might perhaps keep a closer eye on the temperature around here.

[ 09. May 2006, 13:21: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I am not concerned to prove that every Christian now living holds such beliefs (or a range of others, on other topics, which are equally uncomfortable to the rational mind). Just that they are there. And surely have an equal right to proclaim the truth of their Christianity.

Sure they do. It's a free country. If people want to spout pernicious nonsense, let them. You don't have to listen. It's a shame to throw out Christianity completely, on the basis that some of its followers are berks.

Posted by Earthling (# 4698) on :

Father Gregory

quote:
Look to / at Jesus. Do you belong to a Church that believes that this is possible?

Thanks - I guess I'll keep trying to do just that. There may or may not be "a God" (whatever that means) but loving people is a good idea anyhow, IMO. (I was confirmed CoE but drifted... recently exploring a bit o' Quakerism. Nice bunch. No mystical revelations yet though [Biased]

)

Posted by Earthling (# 4698) on :

(Sorry, missed edit to add...)

My point was really just that believing in God is just not the same as believing in the pub down the road - for me, and I suspect for many people; no matter what the philosophers might say. [Smile]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Just that they are there. And surely have an equal right to proclaim the truth of their Christianity.

That they are there we are agreed on.... and that they have equal rights to proclaim it also.

My contention was with the idea that it was a majority Christian view. I did do some research - and placed a link with two mainstream churches (C of Scotland and the RCC) official spokespeople saying categorically they didn't think the tsunami was God's judgement.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Firenze is correct in stating that the "judgement of God" ideology once had much greater currency than it does today. Indeed, it was probably the default position once (although not an offical teaching as far as I'm aware). However, it will not do to pick one particular aspect of spiritual life in the past, drag it across centuries, put it in a modern context and then say "See how odd it looks!" The same would have to be said for many ideas from back then, if so isolated and compared, but in their setting back then they wouldn't have looked particularly odd at all. If I supported my modern theological opinion with science from the 12th century, I'm sure Firenze would object. So I hope she will be fair and stop setting modern science against ancient pop-theology.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Dioptre and Earthling, might I suggest a couple of books for you?

One that I'm currently reading is Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr. It's primarily a discussion of scientific materialism, of the faith-claims of that world view as compared with the faith-claims of a JudeoChristian wolrd view. Fabulous book.

Also, I'd suggest Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America by James C. Turner.

Both are, I think, may point out ways of thinking and of evaluating your beliefs that you might not otherwise consider. They move you out of the set of assumptions about the world and about God that you are likely to be so familiar with as to be almost unaware of. They are well worth reading.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My contention was with the idea that it was a majority Christian view. I did do some research - and placed a link with two mainstream churches (C of Scotland and the RCC) official spokespeople saying categorically they didn't think the tsunami was God's judgement.

No, I wouldn't say it was mainstream within the more long-established churches and denominations in the 1st world - particularly the UK. But that is the case now, not 100 years ago.

I get the impression though it is still alive and well in the (predominantly) US fundamentalist sects, which are very much in the mould of the popular evangelicism of the 19th C.

As to what the viewpoint is in the expanding pentecostalist churches of South America, or the Christian churches - of whatever stripe - in Africa, I couldn't say. They don't come up as readily on the web. The only thing that breaks surface in the UK media from there, is the views of African bishops on homosexual clergy - which tends to indicate less than liberal leanings.

I cannot say - and I suspect you can't either - just what the characteristics of the beliefs of the majority are vis a vis disasters.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I get the impression though it is still alive and well in the (predominantly) US fundamentalist sects, which are very much in the mould of the popular evangelicism of the 19th C.

I think that is probably true.

Most African pentecostal Christians I met would probably say the same thing - but on the other hand, most Africans, whether Christian, Muslim or following traditional religions, would probably also say that.

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

The idea that hardships, natural disasters, etc. are a punishment from God for some evil thing one has done is soundly refuted by the book of Job, as well as multiple Dominical sayings in the Gospels (the man born blind, the collapsing tower, etc.). Although it has persisted as an unofficial undercurrent to this very day in various stripes of Christianity, that doesn't make it orthodox, and people like Jerry Falwell et al. who make public pronouncements along the lines of Job's friends are betraying, not proclaiming, the Christian message.

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

If rational and empirical evidence cannot apprehend God, or indeed any truth-claim about religion, morality, etc. (which I believe to be the case), but faith can, then what is faith? What does the word mean?

An instinctive sense of the way things are?
A way of life that works?
A way of looking at the world that works?
A set of philosophical propositions that have given up the search for proof?
A combination of some/all/none/one/both of the above, or something else entirely?

(Not rhetorical questions, but a genuine enquiry.)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

SteveTom, I have just the thread for you... [Biased]

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
SteveTom, I have just the thread for you...

Fair point.

Posted by eyeliner (# 4648) on :

[brick wall]

How does one 'convert' to atheism anyway? Surely the entire point of it is that it's not a religion-it's the absence of religion and religious belief.
[brick wall]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Can one only convert to another religion? Can't one convert to a belief system that isn't necessarily a religious one?

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

I did.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

Okay, rather an alarmingly long post (this is what comes of writing it in Word rather than hurrying in case the computer loses the post!)

I’m an atheist (a true a-theist, not an apostate – please note that this is a distinction not a value judgement!) and I often find it hard to see what makes one person an atheist and another with almost identical ideas and approaches to life a Christian. Where do you draw the line?

Surely it is impossible to say whether you believe in God or not until someone has defined God. When I say that I believe my future husband loves me, I don’t mean that Love is some kind of concrete entity, but I DO believe that it is a useful word because it describes a real experience. When I say that I am an atheist it is the kind of God that Vesture Posture Gesture describes (an external creating being) that I don’t believe in. But a lot of people seem to me to start from the principle God Exists and then change what the word means. At what point does changing what you believe are the characteristics of something you know exists turn into believing in something completely different? After all, I’d believe a unicorn lived behind the kitchen cupboard if you defined unicorn as a small grey furry animal with a long tail.

Another question: is the statement ‘God exists’ the same type of statement as ‘there’s a pub down the road’? That is, is it a statement of fact which is or is not true (whether or not it is provable)? Rather than, for example, a statement of opinion or moral jugement (eg such and such a thing is bad/delicious/weird). If it is, then surely one has to be prepared to make use of evidence rather than ‘which do I prefer’? So, given that the evidence isn’t conclusive either way, it comes down to your principles on the Default Option. Are you Cartesian – don’t believe anything until you can prove it? Or do you go with believing what other people around you believe (which is not easy these days, given the mixture!) until proven otherwise? I am not saying that I apply either of this principles rigorously to my assumptions – but I don’t need to, it makes no difference to my life. Whereas if you are planning for the next life then actually being right or wrong about unprovable things becomes extremely important.

I agree that it probably comes down to faith / instinct / ‘I just believe it’ etc on both sides. But those of you who ‘feel right’ with God… what do you say to those of us who ‘feel right’ without it? Is it possible that some of us are actually disagreeing more about words than about things?

And [Overused]

to all those who managed to read through all that without falling asleep! [Razz]

Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Can one only convert to another religion? Can't one convert to a belief system that isn't necessarily a religious one?

Yes. But I bet an ex-Christian atheist has a different set of counter-beliefs from an ex-Jewish or an ex-Muslim atheist. I say "counter-belief" rather than "non-belief" to indicate that a positive declaration of atheism differs from a bland passive state of not entertaining ideas about a God that could be believed in.
As +Fulton Sheen most unfairly and very glibly used to say, "To claim to be an atheist requires something to atheate."

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Could you give an example of a "counter-belief" (whatever that is) that would be specific to an ex-Christian atheist?

I'm a bit lost, otherwise.....

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

I think it's more to do with how they talk about their atheism. They may criticise particular things - the inconsistency of the bible, the cruelty of hell/predestination/substitutionary atonement, nasty episodes in christian history etc. I have even noticed an odd tendency for ex-christian and ex-jewish atheists to praise other religions, including islam and buddhism, as a way of criticising judeo-christianity.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I take BM to mean that the God I don't believe in is the one described by the church, rather than the mosque. So I don't have a counter-belief that Koran was not divinely dictated, since I have never thought that it was.

By the bye, the reason I call myself a pagan, rather than an atheist, is that I do not believe in God, but see no reason to disbelieve in the gods (au contraire). I am mostly rationalist/humanist, but keep a little corner in my heart for irrational mysticism.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Then perhaps that refers to a particular breed of atheist who isn't really an atheist, but is actually angry with God.

On the other hand, I know atheists who have no antipathy toward the church - who are happy to support some church run projects - even take part in services now and then - but are quite clear they don't believe there is a God, even if they think there are some useful aspects to religion.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Posted by mdijon: On the other hand, I know atheists who have no antipathy toward the church - who are happy to support some church run projects - even take part in services now and then - but are quite clear they don't believe there is a God, even if they think there are some useful aspects to religion.

Yep, that's me! [Big Grin]

But I'm not an ex-christian, I'm a second-generation atheist. Hence 'them' not 'us' in my previous post. In other words, I really am a-theist (without god, as in, not brought up with him - I like the term 'unchurched' used on here). But what one might call 'orthodox' atheism is based on a rejection of christianity and its replacement with science (something that rather baffles me)

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
...I often find it hard to see what makes one person an atheist and another with almost identical ideas and approaches to life a Christian. Where do you draw the line?

I don't know -- is it the same as the distinction between a person who says the glass is half full, and one who says it's half empty? That is, is the difference simply one of outlook, or mindset? The same data -- or lack of data -- is, in principle, available to everybody, after all.

Intelligent, reasonable people seem perfectly able to come to different conclusions.

quote:

Surely it is impossible to say whether you believe in God or not until someone has defined God.

Well, we often talk about concepts ( love, intelligence, fabulosity [Smile]

) without being able to define them.

As it happens, I only `believe in' the God that I have a working understanding of. I suspect that there are as many different understandings of God as there are Christians (etc). Is it correct to say that I `don't believe in' the God that (at least some) other Christians recognize? Or is it better merely to say that we all `believe in' God, but disagree on the details?

I'm fairly sure that Pat Robertson's God does not exist, for example.

In short, I find it rather unhelpful to ask the question: ``God is A, B, C. Does God exist?'' A more helpful approach is: ``I think X, Y, Z; what (if anything) can I conclude about God?''. Of course that means being guided by what other people understand of God; but I don't see `belief in God' as requiring a prior definition of God.

quote:

After all, I’d believe a unicorn lived behind the kitchen cupboard if you defined unicorn as a small grey furry animal with a long tail.

Well, clearly if `God' is the label I attach to the spot on my bum, then God exists. But since the label `God' is associated in people's minds with all sorts of facts and concepts, it's really only helpful to ascribe the label God to something that is recognizably aligned with those facts and concepts. But that's a question of semiotics, not theology.

If I believe that there is something that I can reasonably apply the label `God' to, it is because I understand that this entity has enough God-like stuff about it to make the use of the label sensible. That doesn't mean that I have to understand it perfectly, or define it exactly.

quote:

Another question: is the statement ‘God exists’ the same type of statement as ‘there’s a pub down the road’? That is, is it a statement of fact which is or is not true (whether or not it is provable)?

Well, since I can define `pub' exactly (or, at least, in a way on which there is likely to be consensus), and I can't define `God' exactly, these two statements are not propositions of the same type (to me). Rather, to me, `God exists' expresses a set of propositions, at least some of which must be true for the statement to be valid. That set of propositions includes, for example, the propositions that time and space are created things; that their creation was for a purpose (albeit not well understood by me); that there is such a thing as `free will'; and so on. To say that there is a `thing called God' which may, or may not, exist is just shorthand.

quote:

Rather than, for example, a statement of opinion or moral jugement (eg such and such a thing is bad/delicious/weird). If it is, then surely one has to be prepared to make use of evidence rather than ‘which do I prefer’?

Although I don't think that `God exists' is a simple proposition of first-order logic, I do believe that it is a statement that expresses something that is either objectively true or not.
I, personally, don't think it is an expression of opinion. Therefore, my reasons for thinking the statement is true do, indeed, have to be rationally defensible. Not everybody feels this way, however.

But I don't think my reasons have to be evidential. Most of the things that I believe, and which are most important to me, are not evidential. But I believe they are rational.

quote:

So, given that the evidence isn’t conclusive either way, it comes down to your principles on the Default Option. Are you Cartesian – don’t believe anything until you can prove it? Or do you go with believing what other people around you believe (which is not easy these days, given the mixture!) until proven otherwise?

Why must I adopt one of these two extremes of position? I've got eyes and ears and a brain, of sorts. I make observations, and I try to figure out what metaphysical proposition offer the best fit to the data. I don't have to be sceptical about everything, but neither must I soak up other people's beliefs like a sponge. The data is inconclusive, of course, as you rightly point out. So my conclusion is likely to be based as much on my overall mindset as it is on data. But, to be honest, my conclusion on just about anything that is important is similarly arrived at.

quote:

I am not saying that I apply either of this principles rigorously to my assumptions – but I don’t need to, it makes no difference to my life.

Fine. No need to worry, then. [Biased]

quote:

Whereas if you are planning for the next life then actually being right or wrong about unprovable things becomes extremely important.

I don't think you can plan for the next life. I tend to the optimistic view that, if you try to do what seems right and makes sense in this life, the next life -- if there is one -- will take care of itself. Of course, I appreciate that this is a heresy. Nevertheless, I think if God had meant us to get tied up in knots about the afterlife, She would have made its existence more obvious.

quote:

But those of you who ‘feel right’ with God… what do you say to those of us who ‘feel right’ without it?

Nothing. I have enough of a problem figuring out what I believe without worrying what other people believe. It's none of my business.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Surely it is impossible to say whether you believe in God or not until someone has defined God.
Well, we often talk about concepts ( love, intelligence, fabulosity ) without being able to define them.

Fair enough – but I still think that I have an understanding of what I mean by ‘love’ or ‘intelligence’ and that other people will understand when I use that term. And in purely brain-chemistry terms, they probably CAN be reasonably defined. Whereas – as you have acknowledged – there are very different definitions of God, ranging from ‘love’ or ‘the ground of our being’ through a pantheistic or animistic god, to an isolated deist Supreme Being, to a vengeful Zeus-type beardy guy.

Yes, if you already believe in God, then you could move between these different meanings and see it as simply ‘I have now got a better understanding of God’. Just as I might, knowing that there was something behind my kitchen cupboard, slowly come to realise that it was grey with a long tail. But from my position outside the believing community, it is very hard to deal with the concept of God (let alone believe it!) when nobody is particularly capable of telling me what it means! You would not, for example, suggest that I ought to believe in ‘gogglefarbs’ and not expect me to ask you what that meant. So far the definition of God seems to be even LESS specific than ‘something behind the cupboard’!

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber: since the label `God' is associated in people's minds with all sorts of facts and concepts, it's really only helpful to ascribe the label God to something that is recognizably aligned with those facts and concepts.

I’d be very pleased to see a basic list of facts and concepts about God which all users of the term (of all religions) would be prepared to agree on. You listed a belief in ‘free will’ as something essential to the belief in God, but I’m not sure whether everyone would agree on this.

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber: Although I don't think that `God exists' is a simple proposition of first-order logic, I [...] personally, don't think it is an expression of opinion. Therefore, my reasons for thinking the statement is true do, indeed, have to be rationally defensible. Not everybody feels this way, however.

But I don't think my reasons have to be evidential. Most of the things that I believe, and which are most important to me, are not evidential. But I believe they are rational.

Could you give me an example of a belief about a fact (not a judgement or opinion) which is rational but not based on evidence? I expect you are right but I can't think of one.

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber:
Why must I adopt one of these two extremes of position?

Maybe you don’t. But you do have to have some basic assumptions, some limits to what you can believe. The best example of this is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. There is evidence for it, but not conclusive evidence. So if you believe ‘resurrection of the dead is impossible’ then you believe it didn’t happen. If you believe ‘resurrection of the dead is possible, if God chooses to do it’ then you believe it could have happened. For me, if I believed that Jesus was bodily resurrected, I would feel I had to believe in every miracle and supernatural event for which there was some evidence.

quote:
I don't think you can plan for the next life. I tend to the optimistic view that, if you try to do what seems right and makes sense in this life, the next life -- if there is one -- will take care of itself. Of course, I appreciate that this is a heresy. Nevertheless, I think if God had meant us to get tied up in knots about the afterlife, She would have made its existence more obvious.

That’s a completely reasonable and very common position. But it is a risky one. Since I don’t believe God exists at all, I don’t have to worry about the nature of God or whether I could be wrong about it. But since you DO believe in God, surely you sometimes worry that you have made a mistake and that God is not the way you want him (or her, if you prefer it that way) to be?

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Fair enough – but I still think that I have an understanding of what I mean by ‘love’ or ‘intelligence’ and that other people will understand when I use that term. And in purely brain-chemistry terms, they probably CAN be reasonably defined.

I think that we have a common understanding of intelligence, love, etc., from the context in which these words are used. My 5-year-old understands `love' to mean `when you want to hug someone', because that's the context in which he's heard the word used. As he gets older, most likely he'll see the word used in different contexts, and get a different understanding of what it means. But, nevertheless, I think it would be difficult to write down a definition.

I'm inclined to doubt that sensations like love, loyalty, hope, fear, etc., will ever be definable in terms of brain chemistry, although I accept that they are accompanied by physiological changes. But I guess that if you are a materialist, such a definition must be possible, at least in theory, since no other is admissible.

quote:

Whereas – as you have acknowledged – there are very different definitions of God, ranging from ‘love’ or ‘the ground of our being’ through a pantheistic or animistic god, to an isolated deist Supreme Being, to a vengeful Zeus-type beardy guy.

I wouldn't call these definitions of God; I would call these descriptions, or representations, of God. I tend to think that over the years our conceptual vocabulary has increased, so that we have an increasing number of ways to conceptualize God. But because (as I see it) God isn't really `like' anything in the physical world, our attempts to do this are not always very compelling. And sometimes they're just plain daft.

quote:

You would not, for example, suggest that I ought to believe in ‘gogglefarbs’ and not expect me to ask you what that meant. So far the definition of God seems to be even LESS specific than ‘something behind the cupboard’!

Yes, I agree that it is a problem. But I might be able to tell you what gogglefarbs mean to me, how I experience gogglefarbs. I might be able to tell you how other people understand gogglefarbs. I might be able to give you some sense of what gogglefarbs are, without being able to enumerate their properties.

quote:

I’d be very pleased to see a basic list of facts and concepts about God which all users of the term (of all religions) would be prepared to agree on.

Me too

Most likely what you'd get, for N believers, is N different lists where particular propositions would appear with different frequencies. I doubt there would be any subset of propositions on which there would be consensus.

It would be an interesting academic exercise, but I'm not sure what the practical significance would be.

quote:

You listed a belief in ‘free will’ as something essential to the belief in God, but I’m not sure whether everyone would agree on this.

Most likely they wouldn't. And I'm aware that `free will' is a problem even among Christian thinkers. In a totally deterministic physical universe, I think free will is a meaningless concept. But that's just my $0.02 -- maybe there are free will particles or something.

quote:

Could you give me an example of a belief about a fact (not a judgement or opinion) which is rational but not based on evidence? I expect you are right but I can't think of one.

Well, the textbook example is `the past really happened'. Another is `other people are conscious'. These are what Plantinga calls `properly basic believes' -- things that we believe because life would fall apart otherwise.

quote:

For me, if I believed that Jesus was bodily resurrected, I would feel I had to believe in every miracle and supernatural event for which there was some evidence.

That depends on the weight and source of the evidence, no? Martha P Scoggins from Lesser Piddle testifies that martians turned her son into a fish finger. That's evidence, of a sort. Even if I believed, on a priori grounds, that on one occasion in the past martians had, in fact, turned somebody into a fish finger, that doesn't mean in itself that I have to believe Martha's story. There are a whole heap of other factors I would have to take into account.

Same with the resurrection. A Christian who believes in a boldily resurrection does so (I assume) because it (a) is possible for God, and (b) forms part (perhaps the central part) of the coherent message of Christianity.

That I don't believe in charismatic leg-lengthening is not because I don't believe that God could not lengthen people's mismatched legs if She so wished; it's because it would wreck the coherence of the understanding I have of how God does things.

quote:

Since I don’t believe God exists at all, I don’t have to worry about the nature of God or whether I could be wrong about it. But since you DO believe in God, surely you sometimes worry that you have made a mistake and that God is not the way you want him (or her, if you prefer it that way) to be?

Why? If you don't worry about being wrong about the existence of God, why should I have to worry about being wrong about the nature of God? I would guess that the existence of a vengeful, fire-and-brimstone bastard, who will toast me for getting some point of doctrine wrong, is no more likely a proposition for me than it is for you.

BTW I don't think gender is a meaningful concept to apply to God. I feel uncomfortable using the pronoun `it' in respect to God, which is why I alternate `He' and `She'. I'm not making a theological proposition [Smile]

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber: I think that we have a common understanding of intelligence, love, etc., from the context in which these words are used. My 5-year-old understands `love' to mean `when you want to hug someone', because that's the context in which he's heard the word used. As he gets older, most likely he'll see the word used in different contexts, and get a different understanding of what it means. But, nevertheless, I think it would be difficult to write down a definition.

I'm inclined to doubt that sensations like love, loyalty, hope, fear, etc., will ever be definable in terms of brain chemistry, although I accept that they are accompanied by physiological changes. But I guess that if you are a materialist, such a definition must be possible, at least in theory, since no other is admissible.

Believing that love is in one sense a chemical reaction doesn’t stop you wanting to talk about it from the point of view of subjective experience. That there are chemical changes in my brain when I see the man I love is true, it just doesn’t say very much. People do not use language only to talk about what is objectively factual. I have yet to see anyone on here define (or ‘describe’ or whatever) God even as far as your five year old can define love. I don’t need a dictionary definition, just what you are calling ‘common understanding’.

quote:
Yes, I agree that it is a problem. But I might be able to tell you what gogglefarbs mean to me, how I experience gogglefarbs. I might be able to tell you how other people understand gogglefarbs. I might be able to give you some sense of what gogglefarbs are, without being able to enumerate their properties.

Please, do! Obviously, about God not googlefarbs [Razz]

(or ooglie booglies, as is rapidly becoming the new in word on the other thread!)

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber:
quote:
Posted by Wannabe Heretic: Could you give me an example of a belief about a fact (not a judgement or opinion) which is rational but not based on evidence? I expect you are right but I can't think of one.
Well, the textbook example is `the past really happened'. Another is `other people are conscious'. These are what Plantinga calls `properly basic believes' -- things that we believe because life would fall apart otherwise.

I’m not sure I would call these beliefs ones for which there is no evidence. There is evidence, but it requires certain assumptions – particularly that your experiences (that you have consciousness and that things happen) are a model that can be extended to others. But this is a rational assumption to make from the evidence, since other people seem to go around being and doing and saying very much as you do, and since the evidence from the past is very much similar to the evidence the present is producing for future generations to look at. Ultimately you will always get to some kind of assumption, some kind of judgement that comes right at the bottom.

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber:
quote:
For me, if I believed that Jesus was bodily resurrected, I would feel I had to believe in every miracle and supernatural event for which there was some evidence.
That depends on the weight and source of the evidence, no?

Sorry, I meant, for which there was a comparable level of evidence. In my St Francis and St Clare seminar we watched a video hagiography of Padre Pio and a Jewish girl got quite worried because she found the testimonies as convincing as the evidence for some things she did believe.

quote:
Why? If you don't worry about being wrong about the existence of God, why should I have to worry about being wrong about the nature of God? I would guess that the existence of a vengeful, fire-and-brimstone bastard, who will toast me for getting some point of doctrine wrong, is no more likely a proposition for me than it is for you.

I understand most people aren’t very afraid that they might be wrong about something! But I’m getting very fond of my mouse behind the cupboard analogy. If I don’t think there’s anything behind the cupboard, fine. If I think there is something, it’s probably a mouse, but I don’t know… aren’t I going to wonder if it might be a rat?

quote:
BTW I don't think gender is a meaningful concept to apply to God. I feel uncomfortable using the pronoun `it' in respect to God, which is why I alternate `He' and `She'. I'm not making a theological proposition

Ah, all the trouble I have with the concept of God would never have come about if I’d been brought up with an It. Sigh.

[ 10. May 2006, 19:54: Message edited by: Wannabe Heretic ]

Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I take BM to mean that the God I don't believe in is the one described by the church, rather than the mosque. So I don't have a counter-belief that Koran was not divinely dictated, since I have never thought that it was.

Sorry to be so long replying; time zones mean that I'm fast asleep when the UK'ers are posting. Yes Firenze, that's what I was getting at.Anyone claiming atheism who has had a theistic belief beforehand is going to deny the God that sort of
theism defines. A Buddhist, however, would find it hard put to deny what the monotheistic faiths call God, not having a belief in such a being anyway.

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Anyone claiming atheism who has had a theistic belief beforehand is going to deny the God that sort of
theism defines. A Buddhist, however, would find it hard put to deny what the monotheistic faiths call God, not having a belief in such a being anyway.

A former theist who finds that they have no belief in a theistic God does not have to deny something they don't believe in. They merely have to claim that no reason for belief in such a being exists.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Believing that love is in one sense a chemical reaction doesn’t stop you wanting to talk about it from the point of view of subjective experience.

Fair enough. But if you are a materialist, `love' isn't in `one sense' a chemical reaction; it is a chemical reaction in the only sense that has any sense. I'd be happy to discuss this issue in more detail, but I don't think it will fit into this thread [Smile]

quote:

I don’t need a dictionary definition, just what you are calling ‘common understanding’.

I don't think I said that there was, or could be, a `common understanding' of God, even among believers. In fact, I seem to remember saying that if you asked N believers to make a list of things they believed about God, you'd get N different lists.

Because God isn't the same kind of thing as anything in the material world -- in fact, I don't conceptualize God as a thing at all -- it's difficult to use the linguistic constructs we apply to material things to describe God. I think this is why most God-talk is based on analogy: God is `like' this, or `like' that. If you read the Biblical Psalms you see many, many attempts to describe what God is `like': God is like a shepherd and we are his sheep; God is like a potter and we are the clay; God is a warrior, a rock, an overflowing vessel, etc, etc.

I appreciate that this is frustrating for a person bought up in the Western, Aristotelian tradition of description. As an experimental scientist brought up in the `Baconian' understanding of science, I experience the same frustration trying to understand Goethe's `holistic' model of science. ``Aaargh! But what does it actually meeeeeeeeeean!''.

This Aristotelian tradition leads us to `define' God as an entity that is all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good, etc., etc. But this just side-steps the problem because `good', `powerful', etc., are human values -- we still have to determine how, if at all, they apply to something that is way different from anything in our direct experience.

quote:

I’m not sure I would call these beliefs ones for which there is no evidence. There is evidence, but it requires certain assumptions – particularly that your experiences (that you have consciousness and that things happen) are a model that can be extended to others.

But why should the existence of God on the basis of assumptions be irrational, while the existence of the past is rational when so based? Maybe my fundamental assumptions are such as to favour explanations in terms of God, and yours are not. But, hey ho, people are different.

quote:

Sorry, I meant, for which there was a comparable level of evidence....

Sure. If you (say) believe in the ressurrection of Jesus, and you feel that there is evidence of the same type and the same weight of martians turning people into fishfingers, and if there's room for martian fishfingerisation in you world-model, then of course you should believe in martian fishfingerisation. Why is this a problem?

quote:

If I don’t think there’s anything behind the cupboard, fine. If I think there is something, it’s probably a mouse, but I don’t know… aren’t I going to wonder if it might be a rat?

Only if you had a priori grounds for thinking that the existence of rats is probable. Do you worry that your mouse might, in fact, be a frumious bandersnatch?

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber: Because God isn't the same kind of thing as anything in the material world -- in fact, I don't conceptualize God as a thing at all -- it's difficult to use the linguistic constructs we apply to material things to describe God. I think this is why most God-talk is based on analogy: God is `like' this, or `like' that. If you read the Biblical Psalms you see many, many attempts to describe what God is `like': God is like a shepherd and we are his sheep; God is like a potter and we are the clay; God is a warrior, a rock, an overflowing vessel, etc, etc.

I think the problem for me would be how you then make the next step. There are plenty of things which I don’t understand or have any direct contact with which I nevertheless suppose may be true (most of science, for example, is completely beyond by understanding). But Christians don’t just say ‘there is a God’, they say, there is a God and therefore…. All the rest of it – Christ, sin, redemption etc etc – is pointless if you don’t start from ‘there is a God’. So since this God is so completely unknowable, why should you assume he has anything to do with all the rest of it?

quote:
Posted by Crooked Cucumber: But why should the existence of God on the basis of assumptions be irrational, while the existence of the past is rational when so based? Maybe my fundamental assumptions are such as to favour explanations in terms of God, and yours are not. But, hey ho, people are different.

Ultimately you always come down to some kind of assumption, even if only an assumption as to the criteria for judging the rightness or goodness of other assumptions. ‘God exists, but we don’t know what the word means’ – that is a big and unobvious assumption. But if it works for you I don’t have a problem with that.

The main problem that a lot of atheists I think have with Christians (and to some extent those of other religions, in as much as they come in contact with them) is: If you think this is objectively true, ie that it will have some effect on people other than through their belief, then people ought to know and believe it and you should try harder to make them do so. If you don’t think this is objectively true, then it’s just a hobby.

quote:
Sure. If you (say) believe in the ressurrection of Jesus, and you feel that there is evidence of the same type and the same weight of martians turning people into fishfingers, and if there's room for martian fishfingerisation in you world-model, then of course you should believe in martian fishfingerisation. Why is this a problem?

I’m not sure what the stats are, but on the whole christians are more likely to believe in the bodily resurrection than in other miracles, and in particular they are going (naturally) to favour christian miracles over the evidence that has been produced for reincarnation etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic: If I don’t think there’s anything behind the cupboard, fine. If I think there is something, it’s probably a mouse, but I don’t know… aren’t I going to wonder if it might be a rat?
Only if you had a priori grounds for thinking that the existence of rats is probable. Do you worry that your mouse might, in fact, be a frumious bandersnatch?

Good point, I don’t. But if other people went around saying there were rats behind their cupboards, and you had something behind yours, you might wonder if it was a rat. Whereas if you didn’t have anything behind yours, or saw no evidence (knawed wood, droppings etc!) then you wouldn’t even think about it at all. I love the name Frumious Bandersnatch though. Can you get them as pets? [Yipee]

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
So since this God is so completely unknowable, why should you assume he has anything to do with all the rest of it?

Well, I wouldn't say that God is completely unknowable. I think it is possible to intuit something of the nature of God, without being able to explain what God means exactly, or in detail. One can `know' God by analogy: God is like this, God is like that; while being mindful of the fact that this process is imperfect.

My intuitive understand of what God is `like' informs my interpretation of what other people have written and claimed above God, and vice versa. I feel intuitively that (for example) God has an ongoing relationship with the physical world (I am not a deist) -- that `creation' is an ongoing process -- and therefore I tend to read scriptures, etc., in line with that understanding.

I don't feel intuitively that scripture is God's dictation, and therefore I don't feel obliged to contort my own reasoning and intuition to fit things that don't make sense to me. At the same time, I do think that the Bible was written by people who had a deeper, fuller, and more personal experience or intuition of God than I do. So what I read informs what I think, but what I think influences how I interpret what I read.

To be honest, I think that the whole Christian proposition rests on the fact that some people, some time ago, had a closer and more direct experience of God than we (collectively) currently do. You can't get by observation and intuition alone to specific facts about the life of Jesus. You have to trust (assume?) that people nearer the events interpreted what they saw correctly, and recorded it properly. How likely you are to have this kind of trust, of course, depends on the view you already have of the likelihood that the described events might be true.

I am aware that some of this reasoning is circular. All I can do -- all any of us can do -- is construct our model of reality on the basis of what seems most compelling, informed by what we observe and experience. This is a circular process for atheists too (and I was an atheist for a long time).

quote:

‘God exists, but we don’t know what the word means’ – that is a big and unobvious assumption. But if it works for you I don’t have a problem with that.

I'm so glad [Smile]

But I don't think I'm assuming this at all. The only actual assumption I am making is that it is meaningful (useful, rational) to use the expression `X exists' without being able to define X with precision. If we know nothing about X, even by analogy, then of course `X exists' is a non sequitur. It's just gibberish. If we define X in such a way that it has to exist (`God is the spot on my bum') then `X exists' is meaningful, but unhelpful. I'm not trying to define God into existence like St Anselm, nor am I throwing up my hands and saying `Nothing can be known of God, but most likely there word can be applied to something that exists'. I guess I'm somewhere in between these extremes.

quote:

The main problem that a lot of atheists I think have with Christians ... is: If you think this is objectively true, ie that it will have some effect on people other than through their belief, then people ought to know and believe it and you should try harder to make them do so.

What do you think I'm trying to do? [Smile]

In fact, I don't have the talent for this. What I can (perhaps) do, and try to do, is to counter illogical objections people raise to theistic and Christian belief. But, in the end, I think very, very few people come to Christianity (or any other religion) because they are persuaded by logic that its propositions are objectively true. I think people come to Christianity either because they have some sort of `conversion experience', or because of the good witness of other Christians. I always found direct evangelism a real turn-off.

quote:

I’m not sure what the stats are, but on the whole christians are more likely to believe in the bodily resurrection than in other miracles, and in particular they are going (naturally) to favour christian miracles over the evidence that has been produced for reincarnation etc.

Yes, fair enough. Although there's a (to me) surprisingly high proportion of people who tick the `Christian' box and yet to profess to believe in reincarnation in some sense. We had a poll around here on this subject recently, I believe.

quote:

But if other people went around saying there were rats behind their cupboards, and you had something behind yours, you might wonder if it was a rat. Whereas if you didn’t have anything behind yours, or saw no evidence (knawed wood, droppings etc!) then you wouldn’t even think about it at all.

Maybe. But rats are ejusdem generis with rats, aren't they? There's not a way big difference between a mouse and a rat. If people told me they had ten-foot fire-breathing dragons under their sinks, I wouldn't think I had one on the basis of finding mouse poo under my sink.

quote:

I love the name Frumious Bandersnatch though. Can you get them as pets?

You'd have to ask Lewis Carroll where he got his [Smile]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

It’s a big, big, step from scepticism and agnosticism to atheism.

“I don’t believe in God” is not necessarily an atheistic statement. To be atheistic the speaker of that statement would have to go further and say, “I believe there is no God”. Otherwise they are simply either expressing uncertainty – “I have no belief in a god; a god may or may not exist, I do not know” or they are sceptical – “I have no belief in a god and I have not yet seen any reason why I should believe in a god.”

I am not really convinced that to be ‘without a god’, in the sense that one has not been brought up with a god, is atheism either. I can try to explain this by way of a figure (not to be pushed too far!):

Supposing an acquaintance of mine personally knew the official who was British Ambassador to Bolivia in 1980. I didn’t know this official and, for all I know, such a person may not have existed. My acquaintance may attempt to describe the Ambassador to me – attributes, characteristics, role and responsibilities, etc. I may choose to deny such a person’s existence in the face of this, but really the only rational stance I can take is to say that I haven’t met such a person yet.

The point is that a person who has not had an experience that they can attribute to a god can only say that they have not met a god yet. That’s as far as they rationally can go (and it is a ‘reasoned’ statement). This, essentially, is agnosticism, not atheism: I haven’t met/experienced God, so I am unable to confirm or deny God’s existence. Someone who has experienced God in some way can at least base his or her faith on that experience; on the other hand, no experience is at best only a basis for agnosticism.

On this basis, to be an atheist is to take a faith stance. It is a statement of faith to say, “I believe there is no God.” This is not a rational statement in the sense that it can be reasoned out logically. Whether it is reasonable or not to take this stance is a debatable point. Can someone provide a logical reason for believing that there is no god at all, anywhere? If pressed, would they not have to fall back on saying that they have not met a god yet? If so, then perhaps there is no such thing as an atheist!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I once knew someone who was offended when I asked them if they were agnostic or atheist.

Their view was that this labeled them from a religious perspective - that this presupposed the question of God was important.

Their view was that whether God existed or not was completely unimportant. Not just that they didn't care, that there was no reason for the question to occur.

I have to say I found it one of the most disturbing views I've heard... more disturbing than biblical satanism.

Posted by m.t-tomb (# 3012) on :

Posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
craigb, this is a remarkably black-white view. The reality for those of us who struggle with faith at various times in our lives is very much as Adeoatus has said.

Some days I believe in God, the fulness of his promises, the cross and the Kingdom. Some days it seems like proposterous lies or a mirage dangling in the distance to tempt a thirsty desert traveller but never quite seeming to be within reach. Mostly I'm not sure.

Calvinists beleive that God deliberately lets this happen so that we cry out to him like the psalmist crying to have the joy of his salvation restored.

God allows (indeed controls) the ebb and flow of your faith in order to woo you into greater and greater intimacy with him. You see the irony is this: the more you are desperate for God to be real (even though you doubt) the more God is actively reorientating your appetites toward him as the ultimate satisfaction of the universe. It's just part of what it is to be a Christian.

[ 11. May 2006, 21:14: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I once knew someone who was offended when I asked them if they were agnostic or atheist.

Their view was that this labeled them from a religious perspective - that this presupposed the question of God was important.

Their view was that whether God existed or not was completely unimportant. Not just that they didn't care, that there was no reason for the question to occur.

I have to say I found it one of the most disturbing views I've heard... more disturbing than biblical satanism.

I think the mere fact that you had the conversation with them proved the point that it wasn't unimportant; it sounds as though they preferred to duck the issue, rather than try to talk about it, though a more honest answer from them would then have been that he or she really had too many other more pressing things to think about. Would that be the case, perhaps? Or did he or she have reasons to support what was said?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Personal issues, I think. I left it alone afterwards.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Their view was that whether God existed or not was completely unimportant. Not just that they didn't care, that there was no reason for the question to occur.

I have to say I found it one of the most disturbing views I've heard... more disturbing than biblical satanism.

Hmmm... I can sort of understand this, because I get the same way when people ask me what `star sign' I am. My polite answer is ``Don't know, don't care''. My impolite answer is ``Why do you imagine that I'm stupid enough to take any interest at all in such obvious bollocks?''

Although I can imagine being an atheist or an agnostic, I can't ever imagine thinking that questions of religion are the province of the incurably stupid. But clearly some people do take such a view.

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
If rational and empirical evidence cannot apprehend God, or indeed any truth-claim about religion, morality, etc. (which I believe to be the case), but faith can, then what is faith? What does the word mean?

An instinctive sense of the way things are?
A way of life that works?
A way of looking at the world that works?
A set of philosophical propositions that have given up the search for proof?
A combination of some/all/none/one/both of the above, or something else entirely?

(Not rhetorical questions, but a genuine enquiry.)

I think it may be a combination of the above. Gosh, that's not very helpful, is it? But I think it's more. But in so asserting I acknowledge that my faith is based on tradition plus experience, and that this experience cannot be empirically meaningful to anyone else, and that I may in fact be delusional.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: perhaps there is no such thing as an atheist!

Okay, you guys want to be allowed to define God however you want him (or not at all) and I’m not even allowed to define MYSELF??

I choose to use the term ‘atheist’ because it seems the best term for communicating my position, which is after all the purpose of a word. If somebody said to me that they were an agnostic, I would probably ascribe to them one or more of the following positions:
1) I’ve never thought about religion
2) I would like to have a religion and I am convinced by some religious ideas but I am still wavering
3) I dislike organised religion but like healing crystals and I’m reading a book on Buddhism
4) I don’t think the question of whether God exists could ever possibly be answered

Now I might be wrong about this hypothetical agnostic, and they would have to set me straight. But saying straight out that I’m an atheist makes things clear and has the great advantage that any subsequent interest I show in religion will be a bonus, rather than having to disappoint people who take agnostic to mean ‘waiting to be converted’.

Also, I have said before that I need a definition (even a vague one) of God for the word to make any sense to me. There are some definitions of God for which I would say ‘I believe there is no God’. Not ‘I KNOW there is no God’ but ‘It seems most likely to me that there is no God’. There are other definitions of God about which I would say ‘I don’t currently believe this, because I haven’t seen any evidence for it, but it is possible.’ However, these tend to be definitions of God which veer off towards the abstract, metaphorical or non-interventionist.

One term I sometimes use is that I am ‘not religious’, and I think this is the term of choice for many atheists who are trying not to offend. It is also completely untrue, since there are ways in which I am very religious.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic: The main problem that a lot of atheists I think have with Christians ... is: If you think this is objectively true, ie that it will have some effect on people other than through their belief, then people ought to know and believe it and you should try harder to make them do so.
What do you think I'm trying to do?

In fact, I don't have the talent for this. What I can (perhaps) do, and try to do, is to counter illogical objections people raise to theistic and Christian belief. But, in the end, I think very, very few people come to Christianity (or any other religion) because they are persuaded by logic that its propositions are objectively true. I think people come to Christianity either because they have some sort of `conversion experience', or because of the good witness of other Christians. I always found direct evangelism a real turn-off.

Oh, I agree - I don't like to have religion shoved down my throat at all, and in fact I've found that those who do it most are those who believe that a person cn be converted through reason. There is an underlying assumption that atheists are ignorant or unintelligent which is not a good technique for getting them on your side! And you're doing a good job, if rather quixotically in this particular case. Keep it up! [Smile]

But it's a catch 22 situation, and I apologise on behalf of my fellow atheists for the fact that it is! Because the 'good witness of other Christians' is undermined, in the eyes of sceptics, if they do not seem to be completely and horribly convinced. One thing that always confused me was the fact that I had friends at school (and at uni, although they were good enough not to mention it) who believed I was going to hell. I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling??

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Okay, you guys want to be allowed to define God however you want him (or not at all) and I’m not even allowed to define MYSELF??

The risk associated with using labels that come from the public domain to describe ourselves is that they can act as ‘red flag’ words, because different people understand different things by them and judge accordingly. Examples of such labels within Christianity (and the Ship) include: Evangelical; Charismatic; Liberal; Fundamental; etc. The problem is not confined to religion, either; recent examples include The National Spastics Society and The Voluntary Euthanasia Society, both of which had to change their titles to avoid red flag words.

I’m with you on the need to find a word that best defines your position and agree that whatever word is used needs defining. Your earlier post on this point started me thinking about the use of the word ‘atheist’ in your context, because I had never heard it used that way before (one of the benefits of being on the Ship!). Having thought about it, though, I have to say that I am not convinced that ‘atheist’ does your position justice. I would think that your position would be agnostic or sceptical, depending on the definition of god you are presented with (‘god’ with a small ‘g’, to refer to any god, not just the Judaeo-Christian God).

I’m probably not explaining this very well, but my reasoning goes something like this, based on the following definitions:
An agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a god (a fairly neutral stance);
A sceptic is someone who has not been convinced of the arguments for the existence of a god (a more active stance); and
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a god (a conclusive decision).

To allow ‘atheism’ to include the position of one who grew up without the awareness of a god defers, to my mind, the question of the the existence of any god. Such a person has not been faced with a definition of a god that they can react to, which is why they are – at best – at the agnostic level. They do not know whether a god exists or not; in fact they cannot in fairness be drawn to any conclusion until they have the definition of a god to react to – the very point you are making.

I admit that you could argue over my definitions above, but I adopt them because when ‘atheism’ is defined too broadly it squeezes out the definitions of ‘agnosticism’ and ‘scepticism’. I don’t sense that you are stating your position to be one of conclusive denial for the existence of a god; rather you are saying, “Give me a definition and let me see how I react to it.” Is that a fair summary?

I’m not offended by the word ‘atheist’, by the way; but I have had trouble finding a justification for its position. I grew up at a time when atheism had virtually become an unquestioned part of my peers’ worldview. Yet if ever I pressed my friends for a definition or reason for their stance, I would be answered with something glib, such as, “Because it’s obvious!” Or, “Science proves me right”. I concluded that atheism is a faith statement, not a reasoned position. I have yet to find an atheist who can reasonably justify their stance and I am, therefore, agnostic as their existence! As I argued in my earlier post, the most they can say is that they haven’t met a god yet (in which case, they are agnostic). To bring this back to our discussion, is it the case that you haven’t yet met a definition of a god that you can draw a reasoned position on? From your statement...

quote:
There are other definitions of God about which I would say ‘I don’t currently believe this, because I haven’t seen any evidence for it, but it is possible.

...I gather that you are agnostic, basing your position on some of the definitions you have come across.

My apologies if I have come across in a confrontational way – I don’t mean to. I just have concerns over the use of the word ‘atheist’. I certainly do not think that those who adopt that position are unintelligent, in fact, it would take a great deal of bravery to take the leap of faith that reaches that stance and then to try and live consistently according to it.

However, I can see your dilemma. If you say you are agnostic, lots of well meaning people of faith will try to convert you! The question is, should one adopt labels depending on who you are talking to, or should one take a label that can be defined consistently in a way that accurately reflects one’s stance?

Thanks for getting me thinking on this!

[ 14. May 2006, 08:10: Message edited by: Nigel M ]

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: Your earlier post on this point started me thinking about the use of the word ‘atheist’ in your context, because I had never heard it used that way before (one of the benefits of being on the Ship!). Having thought about it, though, I have to say that I am not convinced that ‘atheist’ does your position justice.

I am surprised you have never heard the word ‘atheist’ used in the way that I use it since I have always assumed it is the most common if not only definition used by atheists about themselves. That is, no belief in God, verging on active disbelief. Perhaps you have only heard it used by non-atheists, which is like me defining Christian by how atheists define them.

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I’m probably not explaining this very well, but my reasoning goes something like this, based on the following definitions:
An agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a god (a fairly neutral stance);
A sceptic is someone who has not been convinced of the arguments for the existence of a god (a more active stance); and
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a god (a conclusive decision).

I would say my position is, according to your definitions, somewhere between sceptic and atheist; that is, I am much more convinced by the arguments against the existence of a God than the arguments for the existence of a God.
Nobody who is basing their position on reason and evidence rather than on faith can come to a ‘conclusive denial’. If evidence suddenly appeared, then I would change my position. But I do not expect any evidence to appear. If I were applying the same level of conviction that I would need to make a statement in a history article then yes, I would say ‘there is no God’. But even if I didn’t feel that there was any evidence either way, I would consider that not believing would be the default, and the burden of proof would be on those who wanted me to believe. Making a distinction between ‘lack of belief’ and ‘disbelief’ strikes me as rather hair-splitting.

Also I don’t like the term ‘sceptic’ because it has negative connotations, and makes me sound unfriendly!

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: To allow ‘atheism’ to include the position of one who grew up without the awareness of a god defers, to my mind, the question of the the existence of any god. Such a person has not been faced with a definition of a god that they can react to, which is why they are – at best – at the agnostic level. They do not know whether a god exists or not; in fact they cannot in fairness be drawn to any conclusion until they have the definition of a god to react to – the very point you are making.

I spend lots of time on the ship and at church – if I haven’t yet come across a definition of god that I can react to, how long am I supposed to wait before I can call myself an atheist?

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: I admit that you could argue over my definitions above, but I adopt them because when ‘atheism’ is defined too broadly it squeezes out the definitions of ‘agnosticism’ and ‘scepticism’.

A definition of the word ‘atheist’ that makes it meaningless is as unhelpful and ridiculous a definition as one which makes it too broad.

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: I’m not offended by the word ‘atheist’, by the way

But I am offended by your denial that I exist! I don’t take it personally because I know you don’t intend to be rude. You are not the first Christian to try and define atheists out of existence, and I’m sure you won’t be the last, but it strikes me as a cheap way of trying to fiddle the statistics.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic: I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling?? [/QB]

Well, I don't believe that but if I did, I probably still wouldn't try too much hard core evangelism on you because I think it wouldn't work. I woudl figure that letting you know what I believe and then waiting might be the best way. The church I know of that does believe that used to say just pray about them and God will do the rest...if it's his will.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

Gwai, I've heard that explanation before and I'm afraid it doesn't convince me. Yes, a purely rational, rather emotionless person would indeed think 'This person is going to suffer horribly, but the best way of rescuing them is to be nice and wait and hope'. Just like a rational person, on seeing someone drowning or burning to death would go 'I must call the emergency services; they will know what to do better than I can'. That is indeed the sensible reaction (and I certainly would not blame anyone for not wanting to rush in and get drowned or burned to death!)

But any human being with human feelings, whatever they might sensibly choose to do, would find it a traumatic situation and wish that they could rush in and drag the person out kicking and screaming. After all, it is extremely unlikely that I will ever convert to (especially that form of) Christianity, and anyway I might die at any time. If any of my friends really believed that I'm going to hell I would expect them to be pretty upset about it.

Unless of course you are calvinist, in which case you're on the winning side and don't really give a damn about the rest.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
But it's a catch 22 situation, and I apologise on behalf of my fellow atheists for the fact that it is! Because the 'good witness of other Christians' is undermined, in the eyes of sceptics, if they do not seem to be completely and horribly convinced.

Yes, that's a bummer. For my part, I find complete and horrible conviction on more-or-less any subject rather disturbing.

I think part of the problem is that people (including Christians; perhaps especially Christians) mix up conviction and committment. Complete committment, I submit, is a good thing; but I have a feeling that some people then conclude (consciously or otherwise) that complete conviction is a good and necessary thing.

I have seen people (presumably intelligent and lucid people) express on this forum the notion of being more certain of the existence of God than the existence of other people. As you might imagine, such a position baffles the hell out of me.

But to live out the implications of your belief, come what may and at whatever cost, when your belief falls short of certainty, seems very laudable to me.

quote:

I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling??

I think that most Christians who do ascribe to the notion of Hell, hope and trust that people they know aren't going to end up there. I assume that they hope their Hell-bound frieds will eventually see the light, even if it's only between the stirrup and the ground.

Since I'm agnostic on the subject of Hell, I don't think it's my place to worry about the states of other people's souls.

As for the issue whether there really are atheists, or whether atheists really exist...

Well, there was a time in my past when I called myself an atheist. I heard the usual spiel about how to be an atheist is to believe in something enough to disbelief it, yadda yadda yadda, and it irritated the hell out of me. As it does you, by the sound of it.

But, with hindsight, I now realize that I did at least know what it wasn't I didn't believe in -- I didn't believe in the fire-and-brimstone bastard god that most Christians I knew (at that time) subscribed to. Since I still don't believe in such a God, my position, in some sense, hasn't changed.

But I stopped calling myself an atheist when I came to appreciate that there were clearly many, many conceptualizations of God (or gods) that I had never heard of. I couldn't, in all honesty, claim that I actively disbelieved in things I knew nothing about.

Having said that, I think that materialism, as distinct from atheism, is a logically tenable position. If you rule out everything but the observable material world, that must a fortiori rule out all, or at least most, formulations of God, or gods. But to claim that I was a `materialist but not an atheist' got me odd looks a parties, so I started calling myself an agnostic instead.

The problem with materialism, as I see it, is that it rules out true free will; and I'm sure that I have true free will, even if nobody else does [Smile]

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

Mmm, I've been thinking a lot about this since my rather intemperate last reply, and now I don't know what the hell I am. I wouldn't ever use the word 'materialist' about myself, because it has such negative connotations, but I would call myself a 'nominalist' in that I would grant only a 'subjective reality' to non-material things.

I've come to the conclusion that I am an agnostic in terms of evidence, a sceptic in terms of belief, and an atheist in terms of how I live.

That is, it is clearly possible to posit a God (if you have no qualms about defining God exactly how you wish) who by its very nature produces no clear evidence of its existence. As for example a God outside the universe and of an utterly different type to everything within the universe. Many people do define God in this way, and of course there is no evidence one way or the other, since there wouldn't be any evidence even if it did exist.

However, there is also no evidence FOR the existence of this God, nor any need to posit one, so, on the principle of Ockham's razor, I don't believe in it.

Given that I don't believe in God, I don't make use of the idea of God in questions of morality, for example. Nor do I ascribe to the other claims made by Christianity and the other religions with which I am at all familiar, such as life after death. Since these are questions on which one can expect evidence in this world, and can therefore come to a judgement, I would say I am an atheist (in as much as the word can be applied to questions rathe than the existence of God) on those questions.

I would still like to defend the word 'atheist'. 'Christian' does not mean 'somebody who believes what all christians have believed for centuries', it means 'someone who is coming from a basic culture of christianity, although perhaps changing the way in which they understand and express it'. I think the same is true of the term 'atheism', and more so since it has only been a widespread belief for a relatively short period of time.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

I'd still like someone to explain what the difference is between 'not believing' in something (of which one HAS heard, since I've heard several definitions of God) and 'actively disbelieving' in it.

[ 15. May 2006, 19:28: Message edited by: Wannabe Heretic ]

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

Grr, how did 'other' come out as 'rathe'??

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I think one is utterly decided (one who is actively disbelieving) and one isn't sure just doesn't see any point thinking about the issue (the one who doesn't believe.)

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Mmm, I've been thinking a lot about this since my rather intemperate last reply, and now I don't know what the hell I am. I wouldn't ever use the word 'materialist' about myself, because it has such negative connotations, but I would call myself a 'nominalist' in that I would grant only a 'subjective reality' to non-material things.

It's only a question of names [Smile]

You know, presumably, what you `are' -- it's only a problem if you describe yourself with a word that other people use differently. But that's hardly a problem exclusive to religion.

I take your point about `materialism'. Because I think about religion much more than about politics, the negative connotations would not really come into my mind when I used the term. But, thinking about it now, I can see why it would be a problem.

quote:

However, there is also no evidence FOR the existence of this God, nor any need to posit one, so, on the principle of Ockham's razor, I don't believe in it.

Depends what you mean by evidence. People have had, or have claimed to have, direct revelation from God throughout history. The testimony of these people is definitely evidence, in the court-of-law sense -- the issue is the weight and reliability of the evidence. Whether a person's intuitive understand of God constitutes evidence or not, is more problematic, in my view.

The problem with Occam's razor, as I see it, is that if you apply it to a singular event (e.g., the creation of the physical universe), then such application is, in itself, an act of faith. We know how and why Occam works when applied to multiple situations in the same general class -- this is a statistical process. But the creation of the universe is sui generis -- it isn't in a class with anything else. We don't have any `evidence' that Occam produces a better answer than anything else in such cases.

quote:

I would still like to defend the word 'atheist'. 'Christian' does not mean 'somebody who believes what all christians have believed for centuries', it means 'someone who is coming from a basic culture of christianity, although perhaps changing the way in which they understand and express it'. I think the same is true of the term 'atheism', and more so since it has only been a widespread belief for a relatively short period of time.

Fair enough -- I accept that there's probably no greater ambiguity in the word `atheist' than there is in the word `Christian'.

Incidentally, concerning `don't believe' and `actively disbelieve' -- I've never really been sure what it means to `actively disbelieve' something. I seem to recall that Douglas Adams (RIP) used to use this term to describe his atheism, and it never made a huge amount of sense to me. Perhaps it's a term that (materialist) atheists use to distance themselves from wishy-washy agnostics? [Smile]

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

I would say that the fact a large number of people do believe in God is the one main reason for asking the question at all.

However when you look at these people's testimonies, no offence to present company, they all seem to be talking about different things and having different ideas. It is not easy to move from not believing in God to believing in it when you have first to choose which God you want! And it is also easy to see how people might come up with the idea of God quite apart from whether it did or didn't exist. My mother actually claims to have lost her faith on meeting a schizophrenic who heard the voice of God when he stopped taking the tablets.

As for revelations, I specifically said there was no evidence (by the very nature of the thing) for a deist or otherwise outside-the-universe God. The more you bring God into the world, the more evidence one should expect to see - so the lack of evidence seems (to me!) striking.

By the way, I have heard that there are some priests and even have been some bishops who consider themselves atheist christians, using the word 'atheist' to describe an understanding of God which has moved far away from 'traditional' understandings. This makes my atheism seem positively conventional! Does anybody know any more about this idea?

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling??

OK, fools rush in, and I'm going to do my best with this, even though I have no great confidence that it'll make any sense once I try to express it. I've thought about this quite a lot, though, at various times, so I might as well throw in my 2p worth.

I think there are two different, and linked, factors in play in this sort of situation. One is a sort of mental disconnect between the conscious affirmation of a particular belief and the experiential feedback of the friendship and discussion. In simple terms, each person's brain is telling them that you're a nice, good, kind person, and they're thinking, on the basis of that, that God couldn't possibly send you to hell. But at the same time, there's still no reduction in their belief that all non-believers do indeed go to hell, or whatever their faith position is on that. What I think happens in these cases is that the brain actually conspires to ensure that their fundamental beliefs don't get toppled for any reason, and it does this by holding two incompatible thoughts at the same time, just not drawing attention to it.

The other factor is one that I think we can all identify with, and could reasonably be summarised as compassion fatigue. Basically, we don't function well as people when we're anxious. If we worry about every little thing that's wrong in the world, we never get anything done, because the scale of the problem overwhelms us, so we learn to ignore problems. I'm embarrassed to say that I'm all too good at thinking "oh, another famine in Africa, they had one last week, that's not news" and turning off (either the TV or my brain). I think the same thing happens in Christians who believe in hell - the problem of evangelising about 5bn people isn't one they can cope with, so the brain conspires to tuck it away in a corner somewhere, filed under "Don't Go There".

I realise that all this talk of the brain deliberately misleading us seems a bit crazy, but the evidence that it happens is fairly conclusive, ISTM. Oh, and on the subject of a God outside the universe, that's one thing that always keeps what faith I have in God ticking over, because any time anyone thinks they've shown why we're here, they're just begging the question. Without positing the existence of something outside the universe, I personally don't see why anything exists at all. The discussion could go something like:

Why are we here?
Because there was a big bang
Right, but what caused the big bang?
Well, we think a couple of superdense particles collided
Yes, and where did they come from?
Er, we'll get back to you...

Just a bit of fun to demonstrate (without much of a point) that different people can consider the same evidence and reach different conclusions. It doesn't get us any further towards any sort of conclusion, unless you want to get all metaphysical, but it's something to ponder.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
However when you look at these people's testimonies, no offence to present company, they all seem to be talking about different things and having different ideas.

True. But I think that's what one should expect from people trying to get their heads around something as far outside the human experience as God. When I read what people around here post about their concepts of God, I find some whom I agree with pretty much, some whom I have at least some common ground with, and some whom I don't understand at all. I don't find this particularly surprising.

quote:

It is not easy to move from not believing in God to believing in it when you have first to choose which God you want!

That's a fair point, but I would suggest that the processes of deciding what you believe, and deciding what `God is like' (i.e., `which God') are inextricably entangled. I don't think anybody tries to compared `Gods' in the abstract.

quote:

And it is also easy to see how people might come up with the idea of God quite apart from whether it did or didn't exist.

I don't know. It doesn't seem intuitive to me. I can see how people might get to ``There must be more to life than this'', but I think it's a big step -- a big conceptual step -- from there to monotheism. In fact, true monotheism is a relatively recent thing in human history.

quote:

By the way, I have heard that there are some priests and even have been some bishops who consider themselves atheist christians, using the word 'atheist' to describe an understanding of God which has moved far away from 'traditional' understandings.

I'm not sure, but I think Bishop John Spong, before he retired, was pretty close to an atheist. But I don't mean to impugn his character, and I think that there are some people around here who know him personally and could put me right. British bishops are frequently accused of atheism, but usually in a derogatory way rather than a descriptive one.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

Great Gumby, I think you are probably right about the psychological processes that go on. I have some sympathy - I did once meet a bloke (atheist, much good it did him!) who really did care personally about all the bad things in the world, and barely functioned as a human being at all [Votive]

But I still think that it is cowardly to believe that unbelievers are going to hell and not face up to the fact that this and this and this particular person are going to hell. Especially when you still think the guy who's in charge of the whole system is just great!

But this is almost certainly on another thread.

quote:
Originally posted by the Great Gumby: Why are we here?
Because there was a big bang
Right, but what caused the big bang?
Well, we think a couple of superdense particles collided
Yes, and where did they come from?
Er, we'll get back to you...

It depends whether 'we'll get back to you' is a satisfactory answer. Most scientists, and scholars of all kinds, accept that 'we don't know yet, but this is the direction in which we are looking' is going to be the answer to a lot of things. Just saying 'I want an answer right now, so I'll go for God' doesn't seem appealing to me. Scientific methods and types of evidence seem to be working so far, so why suddenly change?

Also, I've never much cared where the universe came from. But that brings us back to the how versus why question again.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
It depends whether 'we'll get back to you' is a satisfactory answer. Most scientists, and scholars of all kinds, accept that 'we don't know yet, but this is the direction in which we are looking' is going to be the answer to a lot of things. Just saying 'I want an answer right now, so I'll go for God' doesn't seem appealing to me. Scientific methods and types of evidence seem to be working so far, so why suddenly change?

Oh, sorry. I'd better clarify what I was getting at. I'm much happier when people say they don't know than try to find a clever explanation that makes it sound like they do. My point wasn't that God exists at the stage before what we can understand or guess at - I've never been a fan of any sort of God of the Gaps theology. Rather, I was saying that I find the existence of anything at all to be, in some way, a profound indication of the existence of a God external to the universe.

The reason why there's anything at all is one question we'll never be able to answer, because by its very nature it's a philosophical and metaphysical question. Yet whenever someone has a new theory about the mechanism for the Big Bang, it's almost always packaged in the media as some sort of challenge to religion, which is something I just don't see. This is a bit tangential, and I was only trying to demonstrate that different people can reach different conclusions on the same evidence, but I don't want you to think I was proposing any sort of God of the Gaps.

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
But I still think that it is cowardly to believe that unbelievers are going to hell and not face up to the fact that this and this and this particular person are going to hell. Especially when you still think the guy who's in charge of the whole system is just great!

But this is almost certainly on another thread.

No, it's on about a dozen threads. Looooong threads. As you might expect. I won't try to summarise several hundred posts here, but I would say that many Christians have no more time for this idea than you do.

quote:

Scientific methods and types of evidence seem to be working so far, so why suddenly change?

Nobody I know is proposing a change; I'm a professional scientist, like many of the folks around here, and I'm as much in favour of the scientific process as anybody. The problem is those pesky `why' questions again. If such a question requires an answer to be sought outside the confines of this material universe, then science, properly applied, is incapable of answering it. It's just the wrong problem domain. Of course, it's arguable whether religion can answre it either; but that's a different problem.

quote:

Also, I've never much cared where the universe came from. But that brings us back to the how versus why question again.

Well, maybe that's why I am where I am, and you are where you are. I care very much about questions like this.

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

Slight tangent!

quote:
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber: I'm not sure, but I think Bishop John Spong, before he retired, was pretty close to an atheist. But I don't mean to impugn his character, and I think that there are some people around here who know him personally and could put me right. British bishops are frequently accused of atheism, but usually in a derogatory way rather than a descriptive one.

I found a very interesting statistic today, from Prospect magazine (Hosts, I am assuming that a single quote doesn't breach anything copyright wise, do correct me if I am wrong!):

quote:
The 2001 census showed that 77 percent of people in Britain said they belonged to a religion. A more recent ICM survey found that 54 per cent did not believe in God ... it follows that about 40 per cent of those with a religion are nevertheless atheists

Now there are plenty of reasons why this statistic may be up the creek - unrepresentative sample, people not wanting to admit to believing in God in a face-to-face interview, unexpected massive increase in Buddhism - but I doubt that can explain all of it.

Also I'm glad to know that I am not alone in thinking that 'atheist' doesn't have to mean 'anti-religious' or even 'unreligious'. It simply means that they did not (actively) believe in God. [Razz]

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Also I'm glad to know that I am not alone in thinking that 'atheist' doesn't have to mean 'anti-religious' or even 'unreligious'. It simply means that they did not (actively) believe in God.

Of course, when pressed, these people who do not (actively) believe in God have then to decide whether they are saying that they do not believe in the existence of God, or that they do not know (or care) whether there is a God in the first place.

The latter stance is not atheism, is it? It's a step removed and doesn't require a leap of faith to believe in. It's a pre-judgement, if you like (in the middle European judicial sense of 'prejudice'): an interim judgement made pending fuller and final evidence. If we label this stance 'atheist', doesn't that push 'agnostics' and 'sceptics' out of the picture?

I quite agree that atheism doesn't have to take any stance at all on 'religion'. That's quite separate from the question of God. Plenty of people leave religion because they fall out with church, but they don't necessarily lose faith in God as a result.

I understand the reason why you prefer to avoid the term 'agnostic'; and I also see that terms like 'unchurched' or 'materialist' do not really do your position justice either. On balance, I still think you are a-gnostic: without the knowledge to convince you of the need to make a judgement one way or the other.

[ 19. May 2006, 18:29: Message edited by: Nigel M ]

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

But where do you draw the line with 'agnostic'? A definition of 'not being certain either way' would catch a large number of conscientious Christians who do not have a certain and definite knowledge of the existence of God. ++Rowan Williams, for example. If 'currently taking this position, but open to any new evidence' is a good enough definition for a Christian, why isn't it good enough for an atheist?

I'm afraid, Nigel, if you want me to accept that everyone on here who calls themselves Christian is Christian (and you haven't yet suggested that you are of the Agree-with-everything-I-say-or-you-aren't-a-Christian type) then you have also to accept that everyone who calls themselves an atheist, and can give reasons for it, is entitled to call themselves that. A word can only be defined by how people use it, and I think 'atheist' is a far more widely used term than you may think ('unchurched', for example, I have never come across outside the Ship)

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: I understand the reason why you prefer to avoid the term 'agnostic'; and I also see that terms like 'unchurched' or 'materialist' do not really do your position justice either. On balance, I still think you are a-gnostic: without the knowledge to convince you of the need to make a judgement one way or the other.

Sorry, I believe I may have slightly misread this the first time. But I have never said that I saw 'no need' to make a decision on the existence of God, or even that I haven't made one. I think the question is extremely important, or I wouldn't be here; and I haven't not made a decision, or I wouldn't say 'I don't believe in God', I would say 'I don't know whether I ought to believe in God'. But a decision is always open to being changed if new evidence or arguments appear. I don't see why I should apply a stricter set of standards to my statement 'I don't believe in God' than I would to a statement of, say, professional or historical judgement.

I think your term 'sceptic' could with reason be used to describe me, but not agnostic, unless you want to include a very large number of people.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0