|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Atheism on Purpose
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
On the current Purg thread on the problem of evil, a tangent arose in which the proposition was made that, without (belief in) God, there could be no great purpose and meaning for life.
In this very honest post, sanityman stated that, although an atheistic worldview might be more sensible and logically satisfying (particularly in respect of the problem of innocent suffering), abandoning belief in God would mean giving up on the idea of ‘creation having anything more to offer than meets the eye’, and also giving up on hope.
Freddy also made the point that, although atheists may well have good purpose in life, without God, life cannot have a reason for being, and that individually we cannot have a ‘role in an eternal plan’. He suggested that life is less worthwhile without God, because it is not ‘part of something and leading to something that is objectively good and blessed in an eternal way’. Furthermore, an atheist ‘cannot have the expectation that [their] relationships and … inner qualities will last forever and therefore have purpose and meaning beyond the obvious.’
In reply to sanityman, I said:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I take your point about feeling the loss of something special when one removes the supernatural from one’s worldview. Naturally, I’m bound to disagree. Hope and wonder abound in an atheistic worldview, and I would even be so audacious as to propose that religion is the enemy of such things. I am happy to expand on this, but it would be a new thread.
Atheists believe we have just the one life, which of course makes it infinitely precious. No afterlife belief affords such life-affirmation. If we lose awe for god, we may gain awe for our view of mortal reality, the truth of which is attained by the honest and dependable method of science. And this view is astonishingly wonderful. With science, what ‘meets the eye’ is focussed broad, deep and clear, and with it we can see that the universe is chock full of profoundly life-enhancing truth.
Atheists make rubbish evangelists. Richard Dawkins, who has probably the loudest mouth in atheism, succeeds in offending and alienating almost everyone with an alternate viewpoint to his (and quite a lot of us who generally agree with him). There is no great atheistic movement that I’m aware of- no grand conspiracy of missionary intent. Non-militant atheists (surely the vast majority) don’t actually care much whether you believe in God or not, and have no burning desire to convert you. Perhaps partly because of this, atheism rarely seems to put itself over very well, and it’s therefore no surprise that many theists imagine all sorts of nonsense about atheism.
It will no doubt make some of you spill your cherryade to hear I’m actually pretty laissez-faire about theism, but I firmly believe people should be absolutely free to believe whatever they choose, just as long as it’s a free and informed choice (indeed, much of my objection to religion is based on this conviction), and nobody gets hurt. By this non-militancy and because of my own private uncertainties, I am a poor advocate of my own beliefs, so I apologise for my apologetics.
Anyway, I hereby invite you to comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview, and I’ll try to convey how people can just as well live in hope and with purpose without god.
[ 05. January 2015, 01:06: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Yorick: Atheists make rubbish evangelists. Richard Dawkins, who has probably the loudest mouth in atheism, succeeds in offending and alienating almost everyone with an alternate viewpoint to his (and quite a lot of us who generally agree with him).
Sounds like a lot of Christian evangelists I can think of ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
FWIW, I do accept that atheists can have a live of hope and purpuse.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
The big problem I have with the argument about purpose, including the examples cited in the OP, is that it seems to boil down to saying that there must be a purpose to the universe/creation etc not because there is any evidence of it, but because we think there ought to be a purpose as we would feel diminished without it. It's expecting the universe to subscribe to our wants.
But it's irrelevant if I want there to be a purpose to the universe. It's irrelevant if every Christian on Earth wants a purpose to creation. If there is no such purpose we cannot will one into existence. On the other hand that does not mean that we cannot build purpose in our lives individually and collectively, it's just a case of recognising our limits.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Anyway, I hereby invite you to comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview, and I’ll try to convey how people can just as well live in hope and with purpose without god.
Okey dokey. I've done my time as a "hard" research scientist (climatology). One of the things I think present-day atheism gets wrong is when it says you don't need a sense of numinous mystery to experience wonder, awe, etc. - you can have those things perfectly well by contemplating the discoveries and achievements of science and rationalism.
Well, science never did that for me. I never discovered anything new and felt awe - only a sense of "Oh. Okay. Next problem ...". I never looked at an equation and found it elegant or beautiful. I never believed when a scientist proclaimed "this will change how we think of ourselves" (and I was right - it didn't). The alleged wonders of science for me were never anything more than a class run by Mr Gradgrind. And finally I left science behind because I found it unfulfilling.
So, one thing I think atheists get wrong is when they associate awe and wonder with science as if the association were something obvious or automatic. That association works for some people. It doesn't work for all.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
That is an excellent point. All these things (purpose, meaning, beauty) are clearly individually subjective, which of course disproves the theistic notion that they’re absolute and objective.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The big problem I have with the argument about purpose, including the examples cited in the OP, is that it seems to boil down to saying that there must be a purpose to the universe/creation etc not because there is any evidence of it, but because we think there ought to be a purpose as we would feel diminished without it.
I heartily agree. It's just us sad little beings scrabbling for something - anything - to make us feel like we're part of something bigger than just living our lives the best way we can.
Apparently it's not enough to just live, love, reproduce, and have as much fun as possible. Which is a shame, really...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Yorick, I appreciate your framing of the question and your accurate representation of my argument and those of others.
As I said, I agree that any individual, whether atheist or religious, can have a satisfying life full of hope and purpose. Goals such as justice, world peace, or success in any number of senses, do impart purpose and meaning to life and do not depend on anything supernatural.
My meaning, however, is that if you step back from individual circumstance and ask what the point of life is, or ask why this matters a thousand years from now, the answers available to an atheist are, in my opinion, less satisfying and adequate than for a believer.
Adequacy is the central concept here. There is an undeniable solidity to the stance that nothing is true that can't be proved. It's a simple and easily defensible formula.
The problem is that many areas of interest lie outside of those parameters. "I don't know" is an honest and honorable answer to questions like, "What caused the 'big bang'" or "Will my conscious life continue after my body dies?" But is a formula whose answer to important life questions is "I don't know" really adequate?
Atheists are clearly and understandably willing to forego answers like these in favor of placing a high value on certainty. Most people don't think like that, though, and are willing to be more credulous in their pursuit of more adequate answers.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But is a formula whose answer to important life questions is "I don't know" really adequate?
Works for me.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
While I am a Christian, I have always found locutions like "the meaning of life" to be examples of category mistakes. It is perfectly meaningful to say things like, "I find the meaning of my life to be in the pursuit of justice (or raising my family, or...)," but the notion that life in the abstract has meaning is no more coherent than asking what is the meaning of granite.
When we say that we have found the meaning of our life in something, we are saying that we have found a cause or activity that fully involves us and makes us feel worthwhile. But it would be lunacy to suggest that everyone else ought to find their meaning in the same thing.
The initial impulse to the religious life for me is a primal urge to say "thank you" for my life and the magnificent richness of the world in which I reside. I recognize that not everyone's circumstances or disposition leads them to a similar impulse. But for me and my household, we will serve the Lord...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Atheists are clearly and understandably willing to forego answers like these in favor of placing a high value on certainty. Most people don't think like that, though, and are willing to be more credulous in their pursuit of more adequate answers.
I think that’s true, but it seems likely that, in so doing, they seriously undervalue truth. After all, it’s not a matter of ‘knowing’ these more adequate answers, is it? It’s merely believing.
I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Shipmates might like to know of the Sea of Faith Conference entitled 'The lust for certainty'. It looks good: David Boulton is the attraction for me.
And just to say: I'm actually more content now as a non-theist than I was as a Christian - something about freedom from guilt (but I don't lead too evil a life ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) but also about this enjoyable and challenging concept of not knowing, of being free to say 'I don't know' and then to continue the pilgrimage.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.
So it is a reasonable trade-off.
My point is that most people don't see it that way. For those who do I'm sure that it works just fine.
I am completely convinced, though, as are most people on this planet, that in a very few years when we both die we will find that life does not end but continues. If that is the actual truth - and you don't know one way or another - then wouldn't fitting it into the account be part of a more adequate world-view?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that most people don't see it that way. For those who do I'm sure that it works just fine.
I am completely convinced, though, as are most people on this planet, that in a very few years when we both die we will find that life does not end but continues. If that is the actual truth - and you don't know one way or another - then wouldn't fitting it into the account be part of a more adequate world-view?
Sounds too much like 'pie in the sky when you die' to me. Either that or hedging my bets. There's enough in my "adequate world-view", as you call it, without messing it up with unnecessary baggage.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I am completely convinced, though, as are most people on this planet, that in a very few years when we both die we will find that life does not end but continues. If that is the actual truth - and you don't know one way or another - then wouldn't fitting it into the account be part of a more adequate world-view?
Yes, indeed it would, but your ‘if’ is truly monstrous here, and your ‘complete conviction’ is based on nothing more dependable than belief. Furthermore, the fact that ‘most people on this planet’ also subscribe to this view seems to me extremely poor grounds for confidence, given the nature of people. On the very contary.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Sounds too much like 'pie in the sky when you die' to me. Either that or hedging my bets. There's enough in my "adequate world-view", as you call it, without messing it up with unnecessary baggage.
Sure, if you want to see it that way.
The point is that you have a choice of seeing it any way that you wish.
Choose whichever you prefer, but keep an open mind about the advantages and disadvantages of the choice.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
and your ‘complete conviction’ is based on nothing more dependable than belief.
Surely you see that the same is true of your own conviction. You have a choice.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Well, that’s the thing, Freddy. Because I know that my belief (that there’s no afterlife) is just that- belief- I am unable to claim ‘complete conviction’, and I therefore get to enjoy the satisfaction afforded by this greater intellectual honesty. It gives me 'purpose'.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Good, Yorick. That's the important thing. Seeing both sides of the question and knowing that it's a choice as to what to believe. And that we may be wrong.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
At a purely reductionist level, we are products of amoral and purposeless universe. All of us might act like there is purpose to life, but surely any purpose an atheist sees in life is illusory. How can it not be a figment of the imagination?
While I wouldn't dream of trying to divest somebody of the noble belief that things like justice and freedom are good and necessary, I don't see how this is grounded on anything other than the shifting sands of relativism.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.
Tosh. Been there, done that - just in the other direction. Now, the honest and simple truth is that all this poetical "awe and wonder" stuff is just rubbish 95% of the time for everybody (and I'm being optimistic with those 5%). Neither the wonders of the universe nor the awe of God is making us wander around aimlessly, eyes wide-open, saying "wow" a lot. If that's what your life is like, then you should thank your dealer, not atheism or theism.
If we are nevertheless going to talk about who can milk more awe out of their convictions, then we can do this on two levels: the principle one, or the practical one. The principle one is clear: theism wins hands down. It's simply a matter of adding an entire dimension of meaning. Nothing gets lost, more awe possibilities arise, end of story. For example, valuing your life because it's the only one you get is not something atheism can use to "pull ahead" in the awesomeness stakes. Firstly, of course one could have a theism where one also only has this life. That's just what I mean with adding another dimension without losing anything. Secondly, if we stick to Christianity, then viewing this finite life as strictly deciding over eternal heaven or hell makes it more valuable than it ever can be by and in itself.
However, on the practical level, all that awesomeness is simply not there most of the time for most of us. Hence it becomes far from clear whether a particular theist out-awes a particular atheist, even though potentially he could. The true attractions of spiritual paths (including perhaps atheism) are subtle, and in my opinion, irreducibly so. Large scale conversion of people work by social and cultural pressure. However, for the individual seeking their path it mostly will be small things that touch them, a particular flavor in what people say or do, a subtle vibe of come-hither. Blaring advertisement of awesome amazement do not particularly work for either case.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.
I'll re-echo IngoB's "been there, done that". But being my perverse self, for me it comes down to this - I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.
In Brideshead Revisited, Charles and Sebastian have a rare, short conversation about Sebastian's religion. Charles, frustratedly, says something like, "You can't believe something just because it's a lovely idea." And Sebastian replies, "Yes I can. That's how I believe." And that's not exactly where I am, but it's not far off.
[Adeo wanders off, jauntily humming "From glory to glory advancing, we praise thee, O Lord ...".]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Yorick: quote:
comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview
Atheists often seem to equate "true" with "objectively provable". Which I think is fundamentally mistaken.
I would be interested, therefore, in whether you believe there are propositions which are true but which could never be proved by rational or empirical reasoning?
Obviously, many theists believe this is where God fits.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Charles, frustratedly, says something like, "You can't believe something just because it's a lovely idea." And Sebastian replies, "Yes I can. That's how I believe." And that's not exactly where I am, but it's not far off.
I love that.
To me that's the argument as well.
Atheism works if you construe the alternative as unreasonable. But if it is a choice between equally debatable alternatives then the appeal of a "lovely idea" becomes stronger.
But the strongest foundation in my view is about having a view of how the entire system works, how it all fits together, a view that answers all questions. In other words, a view that is adequate and without holes or logical leaps.
Privately, however, I would say the real foundation is what Jesus said about the house built on the rock. World-view is inevitably adjusted to match practice.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Atheists often seem to equate "true" with "objectively provable". Which I think is fundamentally mistaken.
I agree and think that Yorick has agreed as well.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I don't get why a Theist's belief in the Truth of God falls into any different category than an atheist's belief in the Truth of truth...
...which is another way of suggesting that if share-able truth (required in science, which is not post-modern if my experience of the peer-review of submissions to academic journals is anything to go by) depends on a sustaining transcendent reality, then disbelief in God on the basis of His un-truth, is oxymoronic.
I'm only a (Christian) engineer, and my philosophy is homespun. Would an atheist like to put me straight?
M.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.
Ah, but the demonstrably-true truth is invariably more exciting than any fiction. The wildest imaginings of man are as nothing to the wonders of reality. Compare the brain-screwing scientific knowledge of big-bang cosmology with the oh-so predictable creationism of Genesis, for example. Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Straw men are easy tools for mocking a point of view, but they don't promote real understanding.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis)
Shipmate
# 16235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat. [/QB]
Lol! Yes, but Yorick-if what you say is true, which it in part is, isn't that 'knocking off of foot based clothing' largely because as some science guy once said on such matters should instances of discovery would:
quote:
... be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God
I'm not sure God went 'Ohh crap! I thought I hid those things so well?!' when we first found dinosaur fossils. And I don't read scientific journals and periodicals going "damn theses guys keep explaining the mystery off of everything ![[Frown]](frown.gif) "
I just think, well whoever instigated that stuff knew what they were doing.
--------------------
+ NRG,Dei Gratia
Posts: 99 | From: Lichfield | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But being my perverse self, for me it comes down to this - I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.
As much as I admire your honesty (religious folks aren't usually so upfront in declaring their perversions) that's also the final knock-down argument against abandoning fairies, Santa Claus, and LSD.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Santa Claus derives from Saint Nicholas, whom I take to be a real historical figure, and one who was a Christian himself. Without Christ there would be no Saint Nicholas.
Is anything questionable about LSD? It produces lovely hallucinations and it can make us helplessly crazy the rest of our lives. The intrepid take it on account of the first characteristic, while the prudent avoid it because of the second. Diamonds in the sky are white, herrings are red.
[ 23. February 2011, 19:39: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Diamonds in the sky are white, herrings are red.
Hahahaha! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
I assume that an animal or plant such as a badger, a bear or a flower hasn't got any sense of purpose beyond what they see and experience. This is my hunch, but I can't prove it scientifically.
If we're the same and have no connection beyond what we see, experience and discover in this amazing (yes, I am constantly awestruck by the stuff we keep discovering, for example photography, electricity and the internet) universe, then why have we evolved this strange obsession with something beyond our experience? I know atheists have managed to revert to the animal behaviour I've described above, just concentrating purely on the here and now.
But for the rest of us with this religios quirk, is it an unnecessary evolutionary glitsch or appendix that we'll do away with one day when we're more highly evolved? Or is it a necessary facet of our behaviour that we've evolved in order to make us behave better towards each other and sustain our genes and race? And why do we need to do that anyway?
Just some idle exploratory thoughts, please humour me.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
And why do we need to do that anyway?
Maybe the answer is in the remarkable trajectory of human history. From utter superstitious ignorance to the capacity for a deep and informed objectivity...
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
But for the rest of us with this religios quirk, is it an unnecessary evolutionary glitsch or appendix that we'll do away with one day when we're more highly evolved? Or is it a necessary facet of our behaviour that we've evolved in order to make us behave better towards each other and sustain our genes and race? And why do we need to do that anyway?
Just some idle exploratory thoughts, please humour me.
From an evolutionary point of view the surface answer is simply that it offers (offered?) humans in general a benefit. Why is the interesting bit and I suspect that we'll never really know - however:
I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc.. One or two convenient coincidences and well....you can see how the majority would like any idea that limited the excesses of a tyrannical leader.
Continue with some dodgy cause and effect (something we humans specialise in - homeopathy/arthritis wonder cures etc.), pay me to intercede with my mate/build us (me and the invisible friend)a nice house/give me some of your land and we'll lay on a good harvest/let you avoid the plague/see that your enemy suffers in some way (best if you can keep the precise benefit vague until after the event of course).
Then someone asked why bad things happened to believers and we got theology.
Out of theology comes the brainwave - heaven/valhalla etc. - a future reward with no possibility of complaints/demands for refunds etc. if it turns out to be fictitious, just do as we (religious and/or secular) leaders tell you and we'll see you right once you've got rid of this restricting physical body (and we can help with that if you get it wrong). Throw in a bit of original sin, (make up a problem and then offer the only true solution - bit like Listerine really), add some divine right of kings, season with just wars and so on and it's gravy time.
Why would it catch on? Those at the top of the pile prospered (relatively) and all the others hoped to see them get their comeuppance from a seat in the clouds. Besides, humans generally like to be associated with what they perceive as success (celebrity endorsements often work) and most don't like to question perceived authority (google Stanley Milgram). And they had no way of knowing why thunder happened.
Just a perhaps.
Interesting programme recently which included the document which recorded James I/VI's rules for the AV translation (ecclesia = church rather than congregation [bishops were to control as instructed by the king], no sidenotes equating kings with tyranny etc.).
Perhaps the question that needs to be answered is, would anyone have a religious quirk if they weren't told that they could/should have one? How many of us would have invented religion without external influence - possibly fewer with a modern education than, say, six hundred years ago?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc.. One or two convenient coincidences and well....you can see how the majority would like any idea that limited the excesses of a tyrannical leader.
I've speculated just the opposite: a tyrannical leader worried about what his subjects might be up to, and all too aware of his limited powers of surveillance, decided to cow them with threats of an all-seeing spy in the sky who sees and remembers everything they do, say, or even think-- and the more private and intimate, the more terrible is his wrath towards anyone crossing the line.
This makes just as much sense as an abstract hypothesis-- and somewhat more sense when we observe that the rulers and the priests are more often buddies than adversaries.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc..
You never saw "The Invention of Lying"? Much better explanation.
There seems to be something in human genetic makeup that latches onto the idea of God. It is one of the most universally held and most ancient concepts in existence.
The best explanation of this, in my opinion, is that it is a true idea. The most primitive humans and human cultures had spiritual connections that made them know this with certainty - connections that were lost over time as the human race grew up and lost its innocence.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Every so often I think about going athiest .BUT then I have to think that I am the center of the universe and omnipotent. Now I KNOW I am not that good or great. Better to believe in God . ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Now that's a novel objection. More often we hear about those televangelists and pledge drives demanding money-money-money.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
...Is anything questionable about LSD? It produces lovely hallucinations and it can make us helplessly crazy the rest of our lives...
Good call. However, religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute.
Which religion is this, and where do I sign up? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
^
No, that would still be theism, only with you schizophrenically imagining yourself to be the god.
NO way I would want to be God . He works way too hard much easier to believe that he is .
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'll re-echo IngoB's "been there, done that". But being my perverse self, for me it comes down to this - I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.
This is very well written. You know what it immediately made me think of? A phrase which has stuck in my head since I first read it - a magnificent defence of the indefensible...
...in my vision the heavenly chariot flies through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
You are in illustrious company, Adeodatus...
[ 24. February 2011, 07:50: Message edited by: anoesis ]
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc.. One or two convenient coincidences and well....you can see how the majority would like any idea that limited the excesses of a tyrannical leader.
I've speculated just the opposite: a tyrannical leader worried about what his subjects might be up to, and all too aware of his limited powers of surveillance, decided to cow them with threats of an all-seeing spy in the sky who sees and remembers everything they do, say, or even think-- and the more private and intimate, the more terrible is his wrath towards anyone crossing the line.
I think an awful lot hinges on our concept of 'Father'.
If we see a Father God as controlling and despotic, that's how we'll portray him. If we see a Father God as providing, giving freedom and unconditional love, that's how we'll portray him. I see this continuum of our 'picture' of God everywhere.
Some people adhere to their own picture very vehemently (I know I do!)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Every so often I think about going athiest .BUT then I have to think that I am the center of the universe and omnipotent.
I know that’s a bit tongue in cheek, but I’ve come across the theistic sentiment quite often- that an atheist viewpoint lacks due humility. To think there is no god is to place oneself at the centre of the universe? This is surely self-idolatry! How very dare we?
But, no. It's all upside down again. The way I look at it, the Christian worldview is just that: an Earthview, woefully anthropocentric and ethnic. It’s a philosophy based on scripture that concerns itself exclusively with a staggeringly insignificantly miniscule part of the whole. To imagine all ‘creation’ is centred by God on us is arrogance on a cosmic scale, to the point of total stupidity.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Atheists are clearly and understandably willing to forego answers like these in favor of placing a high value on certainty. Most people don't think like that, though, and are willing to be more credulous in their pursuit of more adequate answers.
I think that’s true, but it seems likely that, in so doing, they seriously undervalue truth. After all, it’s not a matter of ‘knowing’ these more adequate answers, is it? It’s merely believing.
I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.
Coming late to the discussion but the above statement seems to imply atheism is more demonstrably true (via science) than faith?
Pull the other one.
Science is just as subjective as faith. But less so in some respects, because many people of faith experience God.
Science was originally predicated on the clear separation of the true and the false, the observer and the observed: in quantum physics in the early nineteenth century that began to blur. The physics that led up to the atomic bomb suggested a mode of the world in which what is seen is contingent upon where you look from, the objectivity of the spectator is undermined, observation becomes a form of involvement, and no position is detached.(quoted from Tim Ingold and Jo Lee Vergunst)
Heisenberg wrote: "....we cannot disregard the fact that natural science is formed by men."
Terribly sorry Yorick, your God is as man made as you think mine is.
And atheism is irrational whereas faith in a reason and cause for existence is more rational.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But, no. It's all upside down again. The way I look at it, the Christian worldview is just that: an Earthview, woefully anthropocentric and ethnic. It’s a philosophy based on scripture that concerns itself exclusively with a staggeringly insignificantly miniscule part of the whole. To imagine all ‘creation’ is centred by God on us is arrogance on a cosmic scale, to the point of total stupidity.
Yes, it is an earthview. Earth is where human beings live, and where human history has happened. That's what religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is concerned with: how human beings can live on earth - not an insignificant or miniscule issue in any sense.
It's really not meant to be a scientific explanation of the universe, but an explication of the human relationship with, and alienation from, God.
Of course it's anthropocentric; that's the whole idea....
[ 24. February 2011, 12:11: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It will no doubt make some of you spill your cherryade to hear I’m actually pretty laissez-faire about theism, but I firmly believe people should be absolutely free to believe whatever they choose, just as long as it’s a free and informed choice (indeed, much of my objection to religion is based on this conviction), and nobody gets hurt. By this non-militancy and because of my own private uncertainties, I am a poor advocate of my own beliefs, so I apologise for my apologetics.
Welcome to postmodernism. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
You're just a pomo atheist. I'm just a pomo Anglican.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course it's anthropocentric; that's the whole idea....
Well, quite. And when you add a god who has apparently made humans in his own image, you've ended up with a situation where humans have made themselves the centre of the universe by proxy.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Coming late to the discussion but the above statement seems to imply atheism is more demonstrably true (via science) than faith?
Yorick did backpedal on that one, if you care to read the thread.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
