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.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote:Sounds like a lot of Christian evangelists I can think of
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).
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Works for me.
Originally posted by Freddy:
But is a formula whose answer to important life questions is "I don't know" really adequate?
quote: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.
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.
![[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.
quote:So it is a reasonable trade-off.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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?
quote:Sure, if you want to see it that way.
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.
quote:Surely you see that the same is true of your own conviction. You have a choice.
Originally posted by Yorick:
and your ‘complete conviction’ is based on nothing more dependable than belief.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Atheists often seem to equate "true" with "objectively provable". Which I think is fundamentally mistaken.
comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview
quote:I love that.
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.
quote:I agree and think that Yorick has agreed as well.
Originally posted by anteater:
Atheists often seem to equate "true" with "objectively provable". Which I think is fundamentally mistaken.
quote: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.
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.
quote:The two aren't mutually exclusive. Straw men are easy tools for mocking a point of view, but they don't promote real understanding.
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.
quote: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:
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]
quote: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
... be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
"quote: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.
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.
quote:Hahahaha!
Originally posted by Alogon:
Diamonds in the sky are white, herrings are red.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Maybe the answer is in the remarkable trajectory of human history. From utter superstitious ignorance to the capacity for a deep and informed objectivity...
Originally posted by redderfreak:
And why do we need to do that anyway?
quote: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:
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.
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.
quote:You never saw "The Invention of Lying"? Much better explanation.
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..
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Good call. However, religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute.
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...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Now that's a novel objection. More often we hear about those televangelists and pledge drives demanding money-money-money.
Originally posted by kankucho:
religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute.
quote:Which religion is this, and where do I sign up?
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:Good call. However, religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute.
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...
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:NO way I would want to be God . He works way too hard much easier to believe that he is .
Originally posted by kankucho:
^
No, that would still be theism, only with you schizophrenically imagining yourself to be the god.
quote: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...
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.
quote:I think an awful lot hinges on our concept of 'Father'.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:Coming late to the discussion but the above statement seems to imply atheism is more demonstrably true (via science) than faith?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote: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.
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’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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Welcome to postmodernism.
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.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course it's anthropocentric; that's the whole idea....
quote:Yorick did backpedal on that one, if you care to read the thread.
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?
quote:To you. Not to Adeodatus. He said it again.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yorick did backpedal on that one, if you care to read the thread.
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?
quote:This doesn't necessarily follow; earthly religions tell the story of earth, not of any other possible world.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote: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.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course it's anthropocentric; that's the whole idea....
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...many people of faith experience God.
quote:That's a very pretty question - but, again, one that is not cognitively meaningful. Nothingness is not an option for anyone who has the substantiality to ask the question.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
quote:And here I thought that he would be perfectly consistent.
Originally posted by Evensong:
To you. Not to Adeodatus. He said it again.
If you care to read the thread.
quote:I don't need to be fixed.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Christianity does speak to the fact that people generally can't fix themselves - that they need help from outside themselves.
quote:Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
quote:The discussion introduced by Yorick is about the claim that atheism posits a world devoid of ultimate purpose and meaning. You are adding another level, but one which is even more subject to ridicule from atheists.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Christianity does speak to the fact that people generally can't fix themselves - that they need help from outside themselves.
quote:Isn't this whole issue easily squashed by the same sort of kids argument about the creator: Who created him?
The discussion introduced by Yorick is about the claim that atheism posits a world devoid of ultimate purpose and meaning.
quote:But that's only because you define "something" and "improvement" through reference to God!
Originally posted by Freddy:
To me, though, your point is right on. Without God we are nothing, and we have no power to move or improve without His help.
quote:Again, that's because you define what's best according to what you believe God says. Is it any wonder that those who most closely follow what you believe God is saying will also appear to you to be the best people you have met?
My own experience is that sincere believers are the best people I have ever met and my effort has always been to emulate them.
quote:I'm something.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without God we are nothing
quote:You can't get out of it that easily. It's turtles all the way down.
Originally posted by anteater:
Isn't this whole issue easily squashed by the same sort of kids argument about the creator: Who created him?
quote:That makes sense and I agree that this more adequate explanation of reality is a big attraction for me as well.
Originally posted by anteater:
I believe because I think it unlikely that reality can be explained purely in material terms, not because I need some ultimate meaning for life.
quote:My apologies. Of course you are.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:I'm something.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without God we are nothing
quote:Guilty as charged. Are you saying that this invalidates my experience? I already said that the observation was not reliable since it is necessarily anecdotal and subjective.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Again, that's because you define what's best according to what you believe God says. Is it any wonder that those who most closely follow what you believe God is saying will also appear to you to be the best people you have met?
My own experience is that sincere believers are the best people I have ever met and my effort has always been to emulate them.
quote:A thing has to be an option for me in order for me to think about it in a cognitively meaningful way? Hmm. So, if I wonder, "does my dog realize he's a dog and not a person" that's not cognitively meaningful, just because I'll never be a dog*? Makes no sense to me to cut off my ability to wonder in that way.
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:That's a very pretty question - but, again, one that is not cognitively meaningful. Nothingness is not an option for anyone who has the substantiality to ask the question.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
quote:Just as in the world that wasn't created by God, you don't exist because there is no such world. This is surely a mere dodge.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
quote:And you're not without God.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:I'm something.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without God we are nothing
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that ultimate meaning is important.
quote:No, no, that's been tried before and doesn't fit the answer. Why? 42. Just doesn't work.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that ultimate meaning is important.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:It doesn't invalidate your subjective experience, but the circular nature of the reasoning does somewhat devalue it's usefulness as an argument in favour of theism.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that this invalidates my experience? I already said that the observation was not reliable since it is necessarily anecdotal and subjective.
quote:Maybe it is just a gut feeling. We're talking about what makes for a satisfying and adequate explanation, so gut feeling is surely part of it.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Forgive me, Freddy, if you already explained this, but would you say what convinces you that existence necessarily has purpose? I think we only previously got as far as your gut feeling, as it were.
quote:Well, the conversation took a turn up there and PaulBC started to discuss the problem of human beings seeing themselves as "the center of the universe." I'm trying to talk about why this is really a problem, because I think it actually is - on a psychological level.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The discussion introduced by Yorick is about the claim that atheism posits a world devoid of ultimate purpose and meaning. You are adding another level, but one which is even more subject to ridicule from atheists.
To me, though, your point is right on. Without God we are nothing, and we have no power to move or improve without His help.
The fact that people sometime observe that so-called Christians do not seem to have availed themselves of that aid more than others is neither here nor there. That observation can only be anecdotal based on individual experience. It is also something that is impossible to judge objectively in other people. So the observation is unreliable.
My own experience is that sincere believers are the best people I have ever met and my effort has always been to emulate them.
quote:It's not circular, nor am I using it as an argument for theism. I was commenting on Tuba's observation. In fact I was agreeing with you that it's not a strong argument for theism.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It doesn't invalidate your subjective experience, but the circular nature of the reasoning does somewhat devalue it's usefulness as an argument in favour of theism.
quote:The world I grew up in was the same as that of "Leave it to Beaver." All marriages were happy marriages, all families were well ordered, all the adults were wise and kind. All of them were devout believers whose lives seemed very much affected by their beliefs. Of course there were exceptions, but there are always exceptions.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It would be interesting to hear you expound on your last statement, the one about "sincere believers." I felt that way years ago about Catholics - that their religion had really helped them in some important way and on some very deep level.
quote:Yes, meaning is just a part of it. It's really about love, which is as deep and elusive as any concept can possibly be.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I guess maybe I'm disagreeing with the notion that religion is about "giving meaning and purpose to life" - at least, not in the way Yorick discusses it. I think it goes much, much deeper than that.
quote:I would find it liberating. Just think - no consequences. No penalties for getting things wrong, whether you get them wrong through genuine error, believing the wrong things or imbalances in your brain chemistry that simply don't allow you to get them right. It means that no matter how badly you screw up, ultimately it doesn't matter! Take risks! Have fun! If there's no purpose to life then there's nobody and nothing to tell you you shouldn't, or punish you if you do!
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is certainly possible that existence has no purpose. I would find that disappointing.
quote:To each his own.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I would find it liberating. Just think - no consequences.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is certainly possible that existence has no purpose. I would find that disappointing.
quote:Hummm... appealing to the largely unscientific multi-verse hypothesis to side-step a very reasonable question.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
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!)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Very important point! I've suggested this, too. Our own family experiences crucially color the meaning of father, mother, etc. for each of us. To some extent, this is probably true of every word in the creed.quote:Yippee! Just hurry up and make sure you do before you're done to.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure, no purpose to life means there's no reason to do anything. But it also means there's no reason not to do anything! And if there's nothing but oblivion beyond the veil of death then that means there's no Heaven - but it also means there's no Hell! Somehow, I find it hard to think of that as a bad thing!
quote:Ah, yes. Satisfying and adequate.
Originally posted by Freddy:
We're talking about what makes for a satisfying and adequate explanation
quote:Of course they do, but they're not eternal. That's my point. If I want to eat a bit of shellfish and it's contaminated then whoops, game over. And that would suck. But at least I wouldn't wake up in an afterlife to find some god towering over me saying "eating shellfish is an abomination - you're going to suffer eternal torture in Hell".
Originally posted by kankucho:
^
That's nice. However, the absence of God isn't the same as an absence of general causality. Terms and conditions still apply.
quote:I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not. All the little tiny bits of life that don't hurt anyone else, but that various religions will, in all seriousness, tell you are Abominations Unto The Lord.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Yippee! Just hurry up and make sure you do before you're done to.
quote:But since you don't worry about any of those things yourself - you're not Jewish, after all, and it seems clear you're not concerned about being damned for any of the other stuff - well, how can you know if it would be liberating for others or not?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not. All the little tiny bits of life that don't hurt anyone else, but that various religions will, in all seriousness, tell you are Abominations Unto The Lord.
quote:It's about answers. Of course if answers aren't what you are looking for then why worry?
Originally posted by Yorick:
This is about neediness, isn't it?
quote:Well, then, that was rather short-sighted of you, wasn't it?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.
quote:That's really the question. Why worry?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:It's about answers. Of course if answers aren't what you are looking for then why worry?
Originally posted by Yorick:
This is about neediness, isn't it?
quote:I think we agreed that general causality and the Golden Rule would still be observed for their inherent merits.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Well, then, that was rather short-sighted of you, wasn't it?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.
You did say "anything", and if you may do anything, then presumably others may also do anything, such as rob you in the street and leave you bleeding in the gutter. That would rather spoil your fun.
quote:I find the idea I need a baby sitter at my age patronising. (tangent The bloody local teenagers cost a small fortune /tangent).
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:I think we agreed that general causality and the Golden Rule would still be observed for their inherent merits.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Well, then, that was rather short-sighted of you, wasn't it?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.
You did say "anything", and if you may do anything, then presumably others may also do anything, such as rob you in the street and leave you bleeding in the gutter. That would rather spoil your fun.
That certain theists are so afraid of the mayhem they would reek if they lost sight of their imaginary babysitter says a lot more about them than it does about about the godless, the majority of whom are perfectly capable of behaving themselves.
quote:Or the things the various religions say about taking care of the poor.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.
quote:I'm sure that the art would be all wrong.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Would there be no cathedrals? No works of religous art?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Of course atheism is demonstrably true - if you accept atheism's criteria for what counts as "demonstrably true".
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:To you. Not to Adeodatus. He said it again.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yorick did backpedal on that one, if you care to read the thread.
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?
If you care to read the thread.
quote:It really doesn't, you know. Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.
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.
quote:I must have overlooked that agreement, but fine.
Originally posted by kankucho:
I think we agreed that general causality and the Golden Rule would still be observed for their inherent merits.
quote:Count me out. The Bible is not a rule book. Atheists can be just as ethical and virtuous as anyone; and actually Christians who do the right thing only out of fear of going to hell are not virtuous, merely prudent.
That certain theists are so afraid of the mayhem they would reek if they lost sight of their imaginary babysitter says a lot more about them than it does about about the godless, the majority of whom are perfectly capable of behaving themselves.
quote:I'm not all that old (47), but I'm inspired and guided by the wisdom of this proverb. I think many others are too - an indication that we live in a great society perhaps?
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
quote:I think +Tom puts it well:
Originally posted by kankucho:
i] How do you make this 'ultimate, eternal purpose' show in your life - and would you not do the same things were you not guided by it?
And I put the converse questions to the atheists.
quote:Tom Wright, "Surprised by Hope" SPCK London, 2007. Chapter 13, pp 219. His emphasis.
"But what we can and must do in the present, if we are obedient to the gospel, if we are following Jesus, and if we indwelt, energised and directed by the Spirit, is to build for the kingdom. This brings us back to 1 Corinthians 15:58 once more: what you do in the Lord is not in vain. You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that's about to fall over a cliff. You are not restoring a great painting that's shortly going to be thrown on the fire. You are not planting roses in a garden that's about to be dug up for a building site. You are- strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself- accomplishing something which will become , in due course, part of God's new world. Every act of love, gratitude and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely handicapped child to read or to walk; every act of care and nurture, of comfort and support, for ones fellow non-human creatures; and of course every prayer, all Spirit-led teaching, every deed which spreads the gospel, builds up the church, embraces and embodies holiness rather than corruption, and makes the name of Jesus honoured in the world- all of this will find its way, through the resurrecting power of God, into the new creation which God will one day make. That is the logic of the mission of God"
quote:I don't think religious belief offers the answer to why (ultimate purpose and meaning) anymore than atheism does.
Originally posted by kankucho:
Straw men aside, could I attempt to move the show along a bit by asking what people do on a day-to-day basis, which is guided by their supposed assurance (if that's the right word) of an ultimate purpose dictated by their religious belief?
quote:I saw what you did there.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Adequate means sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need. The ‘need’ here is to feel that there’s some higher purpose to existence. For you, only God will do, because nothing else is adequate. You need God.
This is about neediness, isn't it?
quote:No, I think you’re missing the point. This desire is simply the human condition (the clue here is in your own word ‘natural’). We’re hardwired with these desires and needs- they are the result of our natural makeup. Similar natural (and deeply primitive) instincts inform much of our behaviour- sex, hunting, territory, and so on. The desire/need for higher purpose (and god) is innate. I don’t think it’s subhuman to suppress it; rather, it is a sign of the capacity of our intelligence that we can see and understand it, and even ‘rise above’ it and control it. Although I’d quite like to fuck most human females of fertile age, I elect not to. I control the impulse to murder my neighbour in his sleep and steal his wine cellar. In the same way, I appreciate my natural desire to believe in purpose/god for exactly what it is, and reconcile it with my experience that he/she/it does not exist.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Is the person who either suppresses or doesn't possess natural human desires somehow subhuman?
quote:Yeah, but what if the Jews are right? And I'm not saying it should be liberating for anyone else - just that I would find it so, if only I could actually believe it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But since you don't worry about any of those things yourself - you're not Jewish, after all, and it seems clear you're not concerned about being damned for any of the other stuff - well, how can you know if it would be liberating for others or not?
quote:No, this one really is about the fear of Hell. It's about the overwhelming, suffocating, you're-never-going-to-be-good-enough-which-means-you're-going-to-burn certainty that there's a God out there, that He demands a lot from us, and that I'm going to fail. It's about me knowing that I'm a selfish, loveless cunt who can't change how his brain works any more than a leopard can change his spots, and therefore no matter how many good works or noble causes I follow, and no matter how many of God's little arbitrary laws I obey (assuming I follow the right God), I'll never get in because even if I do the right things I'm doing them for the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Or the things the various religions say about taking care of the poor.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.
quote:But that’s probably because these numbers defy comprehension. The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.
quote:I wouldn't expect Yorick to admit that for a second, but to me it is interesting that you consider this to be a valid argument.
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.
quote:In other words people are inclined everywhere to favor this idea. It doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who are ignorant of the idea of God, or who reject it. But these will never be the majority.
There is a universal influx from God into the souls of men of the truth that there is a God, and that He is one. (Swedenborg, True Christian Religion 8)
quote:I used to suspect that too - but I suspect that the question of whether or not hope exists without God depends on how you define "God".
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
quote:Can't argue with that. But then again, where did the idea of "purpose" actually come from in the first place? To say that there isn't any hope for the future begs the question, why do any of us eat? Why do any of us reproduce? Surely it can't just be because it "feels good"? Indeed, what is the point of feeling good?
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. It's expecting the universe to subscribe to our wants.
quote:I'm inclined to agree, but I can't see how it's possible to measure that sort of thing objectively. For example, is a scientist who also happens to be an atheist likely to believe that the world is a better place as a result of Aristotelian logic? I suspect that the answer to that question is yes - but we're talking about a development that occurred some 2,400 years ago here. If a development that took place 2,400 years ago benefits us now, then it's not unreasonable to think that contemporary developments might have benefits for future generations 2,400 years down the line from now.
Originally posted by Freddy:
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.
quote:I completely agree. However, I don't see how religious belief and dogma is any different.
Originally posted by Squibs:
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.
quote:I think some of them probably have. But a lot of what passes for religious apologetics is little more than elitist obscurantism. It's a way of saying "I'm a good Christian, you're a bad heathen" that rebuts any objections it faces by saying "Ah, but if you were a good Christian, you would understand these things."
Originally posted by kankucho:
Have people of faith managed to pin down a definition of God yet which makes that statement in any way cognitively meaningful?
quote:Very good point. Indeed, in my opinion, you don't necessarily need to nail down the attributes of God in order to recognise the theme of alienation.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But in any case, surely the central idea in Judeo-Christian religion at least, and its whole raison d'être, is human alienation from God? It's about deeply flawed human nature, and how to live under those conditions and in a fallen world? This, and not "how the universe was created," is what Genesis is all about. And this is a serious psychological and existential problem that has been around for a long, long time. Philosophers, too, and not only religionists, have addressed this problem as if it were as centrally important to people as it actually is. And I'm always a bit surprised to hear that some people don't seem affected by it!
quote:Very good point. But the idea that there are no consequences is demonstrably not true. If you have a disagreement with your brother, and you get into a fight, and you kill him, it's quite likely that you're going to grieve the death a little bit later.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I would find it liberating. Just think - no consequences. No penalties for getting things wrong, whether you get them wrong through genuine error, believing the wrong things or imbalances in your brain chemistry that simply don't allow you to get them right. It means that no matter how badly you screw up, ultimately it doesn't matter! Take risks! Have fun! If there's no purpose to life then there's nobody and nothing to tell you you shouldn't, or punish you if you do!
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is certainly possible that existence has no purpose. I would find that disappointing.
Sure, no purpose to life means there's no reason to do anything. But it also means there's no reason not to do anything! And if there's nothing but oblivion beyond the veil of death then that means there's no Heaven - but it also means there's no Hell! Somehow, I find it hard to think of that as a bad thing!
quote:No, Freddy, that absolutely does not necessarily follow. There are other explanations for the wide prevalence of religion (and I’m not just talking about wishful thinking, either). It is widely supposed that belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, and that religious faith developed as a by-product of human sociability. This is hot stuff in the cognitive sciences, and is being studied in all kinds of fields like neuroscience, human evolutionary biology, and linguistics and computer sciences. Evidence is being amassed, and you may very soon end up having your assumption refuted.
Originally posted by Freddy:
People do believe in God - the huge majority of the world's population. It only makes sense that the origin of this universal human tendency would be God Himself.
quote:No worries but 'I am apologetic for my apologetics' would have been a nice turn of phrase.
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
quote:I don't know about Yorick, but I won't admit what anteater would want me to admit because I don't accept her basic premise. I have no desire for communion with the divine so I cannot see it as being innate to homo sapiens. Indeed on anteater's logic my lack of such a desire is an argument against the idea that the divine exists.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I wouldn't expect Yorick to admit that for a second, but to me it is interesting that you consider this to be a valid argument.
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.
One of the tenets of my denomination is almost exactly what you have stated:
quote:In other words people are inclined everywhere to favor this idea. It doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who are ignorant of the idea of God, or who reject it. But these will never be the majority.
There is a universal influx from God into the souls of men of the truth that there is a God, and that He is one. (Swedenborg, True Christian Religion 8)
This kind of evidence would never impress Yorick, because, as others have said, it can be seen as amounting to no more than wishful thinking.
But it impresses me, because I think that it is the truth. People do believe in God - the huge majority of the world's population. It only makes sense that the origin of this universal human tendency would be God Himself.
quote:I do admit it. God might exist, and this might explain why people believe in Him. However, despite this, the fact that we all feel this desire for God to exist very much more strongly persuades me against his existence. Very much more strongly, like about a gazillion to one in ratio.
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.
quote:It looks like the discussion has moved on. So - a little bit of what Anteater said.
Originally posted by Yorick:
The desire/need for higher purpose (and god) is innate. I don’t think it’s subhuman to suppress it; rather, it is a sign of the capacity of our intelligence that we can see and understand it, and even ‘rise above’ it and control it. Although I’d quite like to fuck most human females of fertile age, I elect not to. I control the impulse to murder my neighbour in his sleep and steal his wine cellar. In the same way, I appreciate my natural desire to believe in purpose/god for exactly what it is, and reconcile it with my experience that he/she/it does not exist.
quote:Sooner or later we are going to catch on to the truth of those words.
“You cannot go on explaining away forever, or you will find that you have explained your explanation itself away. You cannot go on seeing through things forever, because the whole point is that you can see something else through it, it is good that you can see through a window because the garden beyond is opaque. But if you see through everything then everything is transparent and a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. So to see through things is the same as not to see at all.”
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
People do believe in God - the huge majority of the world's population. It only makes sense that the origin of this universal human tendency would be God Himself.
quote:This is a most interesting turn in the discussion. Would anyone else like to chip in their conviction that God has been willed into existence by some sort of democratic agreement on the part of homo sapiens?
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.
quote:I could get really bored saying this, but no. Yorick, I was a scientist. I lived numbers for nine years, student and researcher. They're only numbers. I haven't got the little twitchy thing in my head that gets excited at mathematical inevitability.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:But that’s probably because these numbers defy comprehension. The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.
quote:The difficulty with this argument is that science is based on the presumption that common human experience is the means to finding truth.
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, Freddy, that absolutely does not necessarily follow. There are other explanations for the wide prevalence of religion (and I’m not just talking about wishful thinking, either). It is widely supposed that belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, and that religious faith developed as a by-product of human sociability. This is hot stuff in the cognitive sciences, and is being studied in all kinds of fields like neuroscience, human evolutionary biology, and linguistics and computer sciences. Evidence is being amassed, and you may very soon end up having your assumption refuted.
quote:Well, of course. But we’re not talking about the numbers in themselves here- in Big Bang terms they’re simply descriptors, and entirely symbolic ones at that. The thing that’s amazing isn’t the smallness and bigness of the numbers, but what they represent. It’s the smallness of the amount of time it took for the bigness of the expansion of the universe that’s impressive. You are impressed by that, right?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
no. Yorick, I was a scientist. I lived numbers for nine years, student and researcher. They're only numbers.
quote:No. Like I said, what's impressive about the inevitable? You might as well ask me to be impressed that this morning - shock! - my shoes were the same colour as they were last night.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Well, of course. But we’re not talking about the numbers in themselves here- in Big Bang terms they’re simply descriptors, and entirely symbolic ones at that. The thing that’s amazing isn’t the smallness and bigness of the numbers, but what they represent. It’s the smallness of the amount of time it took for the bigness of the expansion of the universe that’s impressive. You are impressed by that, right?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
no. Yorick, I was a scientist. I lived numbers for nine years, student and researcher. They're only numbers.
quote:What I mean is, in the empirical sciences, AFAICS, experience is King, in that the only thing that trumps experience is more experience.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I don’t follow, Ricardus. Aren’t you talking about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity?
quote:But that's not what anyone's saying. Yes, of course, all evidence is personal experience, including evidence derived by the scientific method. However, science deals with a subset of personal experience called intersubjective, which is personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Religious experience is non-intersubjective personal experience.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What seems unreasonable, though, is to say that experience can be treated as an authoritative source, except when it's religion.
quote:Hmmmmmm ...
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that is precisely what you’re trying to do by explaining the purpose of life as being God-created. I say it is objectively purposeless because there’s no god, and you say it’s objectively purposeful because there is God. The difference is not whether we explain how thing work, but that your threshold for satisfaction in understanding how things work is very much lower than mine. Yours goes something like, ‘because God made it that way’.
quote:That's what I say about people who don't like Indian classical music.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Wow. I'm honestly surprised.
It must be a very dull world for you.
quote:Yes, I agree. But then the question is 'why'?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, of course- if you believe He exists, you will surely find Him there. This is how religion works, and it touches on what I was saying earlier. (Almost) everyone is naturally inclined to believe in god, and if we allow ourselves, that is the natural default position. That’s actually how ‘knock and it shall be opened’ works.
Atheism, IMO, is an intellectual standpoint that goes against the natural grain.
quote:OK, I'm over-simplifying my case somewhat, but the point is that there must be some rationale to interpreting experience.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:But that's not what anyone's saying. Yes, of course, all evidence is personal experience, including evidence derived by the scientific method. However, science deals with a subset of personal experience called intersubjective, which is personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Religious experience is non-intersubjective personal experience.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What seems unreasonable, though, is to say that experience can be treated as an authoritative source, except when it's religion.
quote:I so want to be here. I'm in a religion I cannot obey and I have things right now that I cannot confess to my priest - a bone-chilling pickle!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, this one really is about the fear of Hell. It's about the overwhelming, suffocating, you're-never-going-to-be-good-enough-which-means-you're-going-to-burn certainty that there's a God out there, that He demands a lot from us, and that I'm going to fail. It's about me knowing that I'm a selfish, loveless cunt who can't change how his brain works any more than a leopard can change his spots, and therefore no matter how many good works or noble causes I follow, and no matter how many of God's little arbitrary laws I obey (assuming I follow the right God), I'll never get in because even if I do the right things I'm doing them for the wrong reasons.
It's about me preferring the idea that life has absolutely no meaning or purpose to that nightmare...<snip>
quote:The question that I think is hard-wired is your first one — 'Why?"
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick:
[qb].....But then the question is 'why'?
Why are we 'hard wired' to look for 'God' however God is perceived?
quote:You are getting awed there more by modern journalism than by science. After all, you wouldn't know a FLRW metric if it bit you in the butt. Anyway, this was just a stupid claim. A bit like saying that Terminator 2 is a better story than Hamlet because the CGI of the liquid-metal T-1000 is cooler than any stage effect in a Shakespeare play. Genesis was not written as an article for SciAm, and guess what, we all knew that...
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
quote:Firstly, Christianity is not identical with theism. Your average deist is a theist but does not believe that God particularly cares about Earth or humans. You really like to do that: evade theistic critique by finding issues with Christianity. However, theism could be right and Christianity wrong. Secondly, Christianity simply sticks to the evidence: God in fact incarnated on Earth to bring salvation to humanity. You don't believe in that evidence. Fine, it's not compelling, only believable. However, accepting this evidence as true means that an aloof deism makes no sense. To claim that Christians believe this evidence just because they want God to care about humanity is Bulverism on your part. Thirdly, I'm not aware that any evidence exists that we are not utterly unique in the universe. If we one day make contact with aliens, then your argument may become meaningful. Till then, you are just arguing from your favorite speculation - and that has no force at all.
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
quote:I think you are confusing the experience of God with drinking a cold beer on a warm summer day. Why precisely are you telling us what sort of experience we must be having? Handy hint: What is the first thing the angels (messengers from God) tend to say to people? "Don't be afraid." not "Have another one."
Originally posted by kankucho:
When an atheist feels a sense of awe and inner well-being, s/he thinks, 'I'm feeling a sense of awe and inner well-being'. When a person of Christian faith feels the same, s/he thinks, 'This is God (of the Bible) revealing himself to me'. A Hindu is experiencing Krishna, a Buddhist is experiencing Buddha nature. The locus of experience is merely shifted to accord with the anticipated religious context.
quote:That just tells you why this questions would not be asked if there was nothing, which is trivial and totally not an answer to the question.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
quote:The issues is not squashed by such questions, but rather defined thereby. What is God? That which is totally self-referential in meaning, purpose, existence, ... and therefore is capable to impart these things on other entities without external prompting. God is be-cause of God, all else is be-cause of God. That's basically the definition of God. You can try to define the universe in its entirety as this entity "God". Then you are a pantheist, not an atheist. (There are clear difficulties with pantheism in my opinion, but that's a different discussion.) You are an atheist when you believe that there is no such entity.
Originally posted by anteater:
Isn't this whole issue easily squashed by the same sort of kids argument about the creator: Who created him? So what ultimate meaning and purpose has God? None, outside of himself. So if we accept and even worship a God without any meaning outside himself, what's so bad about a universe with no meaning outside itself?
quote:And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is 1) retaliation from others and 2) evolved instincts to avoid such retaliation. But following Yorick, we surely can use our intellect to overcome such biological predispositions if in fact we have no retaliation to fear. Thus once I grab power, I'll use my intellect to overcome my irrational qualms, and kill those I don't like, and exploit / rape those I do like. After all there's nobody and nothing to tell me I shouldn't.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just think - no consequences. No penalties for getting things wrong, whether you get them wrong through genuine error, believing the wrong things or imbalances in your brain chemistry that simply don't allow you to get them right. It means that no matter how badly you screw up, ultimately it doesn't matter! Take risks! Have fun! If there's no purpose to life then there's nobody and nothing to tell you you shouldn't, or punish you if you do!
quote:That's really missing the point. The question is not what happens "normally", where frankly most of us have no capability of doing great evil without harming ourselves significantly. Other people place strong checks and balances on our behavior most of the time. The question is whether that's all there is to it. Because then the behavior of your average dictator is perfectly fine: given that they can get away with murder, there's no rationale for avoiding murder. There's is no "good" and "evil" then, just a power balance, and if that shifts to you, then you can do what you want (if you can suppress those cautionary, irrational biological urges). With God in the game, this is just not true. Or if you like, the power balance never ultimately shifts away from God.
Originally posted by kankucho:
That certain theists are so afraid of the mayhem they would reek if they lost sight of their imaginary babysitter says a lot more about them than it does about about the godless, the majority of whom are perfectly capable of behaving themselves.
quote:As with most of your claims, so also with this one: other explanations why something does (not) occur are a lot more reasonable than yours...
Originally posted by Yorick:
Although I’d quite like to fuck most human females of fertile age, I elect not to.
quote:I hate these "just so" stories, if they are told without the slightest inkling of doubt as factual. You in fact know none of this, just as we theists do not know that our desire for God has been put by God in every human heart. That's also a "just so" story, but at least it is not sold as a fact. It's a belief, just like your little story there.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Obviously, we need god in some form or other, and that is why we invented it. The Christian God happens to be exceptionally durable, because the religion and theology that is constructed to support the deity is remarkably robust and effective in reinforcing this naturally innate human desire/need.
quote:I have some good news for you: what you describe is not the (traditional) Christian point of view. According to Christian teaching, if you can't help yourself, then you are not culpable. Hence any such sins, as grave as they may be, will not count concerning your eternal destiny. Furthermore, it is true that you should obey God because He is God, and feel sorry about your sins because you have offended God. However, if you obey God because you are afraid of hell and desire heaven, and if you feel sorry about your sins for the same reason, then that's suboptimal but sufficient. Yes, fear of hell can be enough to scrape into heaven. That's not precisely heroic sanctity, but God will take what He can get. That's what (traditional) Christianity actually teaches. It's not at all as inhumane and impossible as you make it out to be.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's about the overwhelming, suffocating, you're-never-going-to-be-good-enough-which-means-you're-going-to-burn certainty that there's a God out there, that He demands a lot from us, and that I'm going to fail. It's about me knowing that I'm a selfish, loveless cunt who can't change how his brain works any more than a leopard can change his spots, and therefore no matter how many good works or noble causes I follow, and no matter how many of God's little arbitrary laws I obey (assuming I follow the right God), I'll never get in because even if I do the right things I'm doing them for the wrong reasons.
quote:No, Yorick, we certainly do not know that this has happened. It's a decent enough theory, supported mostly by circumstantial evidence (like fixing gaping holes in other theories). Furthermore, you understand very little about human imagination indeed, if you think that inflation is unimaginable. Of course you can "form an image of it in your mind". We've seen plenty of expanding things, so that's not even particularly hard. Even the numbers involved are not any more unimaginable than say a thousand or a thousandths. You have no intuitive grasp of those numbers either. Yet you know how to manage them: 10^3 and 10^-3. Guess what, you can manage your super-numbers just the same way: 10^30. Wow, that wasn't so hard... Imagining and managing mentally cosmological inflation is really easy, actually, and that's no surprise. It's a scientific idea, and we scientists are working professionals. We don't invent this sort of stuff to say "Wow, awesome." We invent theories to do things, to get to places - so they better be serviceable.
Originally posted by Yorick:
The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
quote:If there is no God, then it is trivial that belief in God must have evolved as some by-product of human sociability. It is much less trivial to show what sort of evolutionary advantage that may bring, and as usual we will likely just get another "just so" story there. At any rate, whatever evidence may get scraped together for the evolution of faith, it will tell us shit all about the involvement of God. Evolution is no argument against God, it simply is a tool He can use.
Originally posted by Yorick:
There are other explanations for the wide prevalence of religion (and I’m not just talking about wishful thinking, either). It is widely supposed that belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, and that religious faith developed as a by-product of human sociability. This is hot stuff in the cognitive sciences, and is being studied in all kinds of fields like neuroscience, human evolutionary biology, and linguistics and computer sciences. Evidence is being amassed, and you may very soon end up having your assumption refuted.
quote:That would be all humans but Pre-cambrian, apparently? So does that reduce your odds? Our desire for God is not much like our desire to eat or have sex. You love that idea, but I've never heard anyone describe it as such. I think it is more like the desire for music. There is always music where there are humans. But it is not like you will die if you can't listen to music. And popularity is not necessarily a measure of quality for music, but neither is sophistication.
Originally posted by Yorick:
God might exist, and this might explain why people believe in Him. However, despite this, the fact that we all feel this desire for God to exist very much more strongly persuades me against his existence. Very much more strongly, like about a gazillion to one in ratio.
quote:Religious experience is a lot more uniform and reproducible than you claim. The surest way to avoid any religious experience is of course to stay away from any systematic religious practice, which is what most atheists do. (The second best way is modern "practice", which removes all traces of ritual, discipline, study and habit-formation, arriving roughly at the equivalent of a boring TV show...)
Originally posted by Yorick:
However, science deals with a subset of personal experience called intersubjective, which is personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Religious experience is non-intersubjective personal experience.
quote:IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?
Originally posted by IngoB:
The surest way to avoid any religious experience is of course to stay away from any systematic religious practice, which is what most atheists do. (The second best way is modern "practice", which removes all traces of ritual, discipline, study and habit-formation, arriving roughly at the equivalent of a boring TV show...)
quote:Can't be both?
Originally posted by Yorick:
The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it.
quote:Because of the sometimes-spoken belief that multiple people are extremely unlikely to all be deluded the same way at the same time, Jonestown notwithstanding. Of course solipsism would destroy that, but solipsism is existentially untenable. Nobody acts like a solipsist all the time. Maybe people scrabbling a life for themselves in a very remote corner of the world where their only interaction is with (nonhuman) predators and prey. In society, you have to act like other people exist in order to eat.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Both intersubjective experience and religious experience can be explained as a delusion. The question is why favour delusion as the explanation in the latter case but not the former.
quote:The thing is, though, arguing the other way: people do have the same sorts of experiences - testable ones, in fact - via religion! This is a point that always seems to get lost in discussions about "the scientific method vs. religion."
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because of the sometimes-spoken belief that multiple people are extremely unlikely to all be deluded the same way at the same time, Jonestown notwithstanding. Of course solipsism would destroy that, but solipsism is existentially untenable. Nobody acts like a solipsist all the time. Maybe people scrabbling a life for themselves in a very remote corner of the world where their only interaction is with (nonhuman) predators and prey. In society, you have to act like other people exist in order to eat.
quote:I gave an operational definition, didn't I? The crap I suffer through most Sundays is for example modern liturgical practice in Catholic terms - not however, mind you, merely because they follow the "new liturgy". Mostly because they haven't got the foggiest about stagecraft.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?
quote:I must say I agree with you, Ingo. Christianity is quite subtle in many ways, and it takes awhile to catch hold of many of its precepts. And it takes muscle memory - or would that be "spirit memory"? - just like anything else does.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I gave an operational definition, didn't I? The crap I suffer through most Sundays is for example modern liturgical practice in Catholic terms - not however, mind you, merely because they follow the "new liturgy". Mostly because they haven't got the foggiest about stagecraft.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?
It's not particularly hard to make people religious. What's hard - nowadays - is to make people do what makes them religious. I'm confident I can get Yorick to experience God - or at least his soul - within a year: in a monastery, with me as prior and him as novice. (And no, the whippings have nothing to do with it. That's just for my personal entertainment...) If he's willing to practice at typical "enthusiast hobbyist" level (4-6 hours a week), two to three years. At the "Show me God, or bugger off." level that he is at, never.
And that's the entire problem with modernity, that's why churches are empty. People see no point anymore in practicing religion. Practicing as in exercising, building up strength. It used to be that people came just because it was the done thing. Then, after a couple of years of practice, they would get religion. Now, they want the BVM do a little dance routine for them first time they kneel down, or else they are out of the door. And nobody knows what to do about it, because nothing can be done about it. You cannot get religion like that. Religion is many things, but as far as human effort is concerned, it is a skill, craft and habit. Like anything we humans do. (And no, I'm not Pelagian, I know about the role of the Holy Spirit, etc.)
quote:And when reason and rationality could not answer the question either, the revelry began again.
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:The question that I think is hard-wired is your first one — 'Why?"
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick:
[qb].....But then the question is 'why'?
Why are we 'hard wired' to look for 'God' however God is perceived?
"God" is one of the answers to that question; and it's the answer that got deeply ingrained into our consciousness long before we had the wherewithal to conduct more rational investigations into the origins and purposes of the world around us.
(Rational investigation was a sober late arrival at a party where everyone was already heartily drunk. It was inevitable that a fight would ensue.)
quote:This is an interesting idea.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I gave an operational definition, didn't I? The crap I suffer through most Sundays is for example modern liturgical practice in Catholic terms - not however, mind you, merely because they follow the "new liturgy". Mostly because they haven't got the foggiest about stagecraft.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?
It's not particularly hard to make people religious. What's hard - nowadays - is to make people do what makes them religious. I'm confident I can get Yorick to experience God - or at least his soul - within a year: in a monastery, with me as prior and him as novice. (And no, the whippings have nothing to do with it. That's just for my personal entertainment...) If he's willing to practice at typical "enthusiast hobbyist" level (4-6 hours a week), two to three years. At the "Show me God, or bugger off." level that he is at, never.
And that's the entire problem with modernity, that's why churches are empty. People see no point anymore in practicing religion. Practicing as in exercising, building up strength. It used to be that people came just because it was the done thing. Then, after a couple of years of practice, they would get religion. Now, they want the BVM do a little dance routine for them first time they kneel down, or else they are out of the door. And nobody knows what to do about it, because nothing can be done about it. You cannot get religion like that. Religion is many things, but as far as human effort is concerned, it is a skill, craft and habit. Like anything we humans do. (And no, I'm not Pelagian, I know about the role of the Holy Spirit, etc.)
quote:You misunderstood my point, and the Lewis quote.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that is precisely what you’re trying to do by explaining the purpose of life as being God-created. I say it is objectively purposeless because there’s no god, and you say it’s objectively purposeful because there is God. The difference is not whether we explain how thing work, but that your threshold for satisfaction in understanding how things work is very much lower than mine. Yours goes something like, ‘because God made it that way’.
quote:There are many variants of "losing one's faith", and hence many answers. For one thing, many people do not lose their faith a such, but rather their faith in a particular institution.
Originally posted by Evensong:
This is an interesting idea. How would you answer someone that had lived and practiced religion for decades and then "lost" their faith?
quote:Completely the opposite. For me there's nothing beautiful, nothing exciting, about the plodding inevitability that runs from Maxwell's equations to E=mc^2. Science is about discovery - finding out what's just waiting to get found out. What excites me and thrills me is invention - the hairs-on-the-neck zinngg that I get when I experience at first or second hand the ex nihilo of the creation of a literary character who becomes a real person in their fictional world; a painting in front of which I have to sit down because I'm too overwhelmed to stand up straight; a phrase of music that sticks like an electrode into the pleasure or grief centres of our brain.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Wow. I'm honestly surprised.
It must be a very dull world for you.
quote:Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,
Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?
- that's 'content' and 'content'.
quote:Wow.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD
quote:Yeah, I'm with you. Not, maybe, that they make us human - but they put up a mirror human life on earth, and look deeply at what we're all about.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The "humanities" are aptly named - they are what makes us human, not science.
quote:So...what do you do now? For fun?, For excitement? For inspiration? For love?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD
quote:Don't want to derail thread so will simply say - still on a pilgrimage, exploring non-theism.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
quote:So...what do you do now? For fun?, For excitement? For inspiration? For love?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD
quote:Maybe you did!
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
My fundamentalist friends never did and think I went off the rails years ago. [/QB]
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Thanks Mark. I'm still not sure that I can see how the choosin' came before the losin', but I guess I just wasn't there.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,
Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?
More content these days
quote:Do you have an opinion on why not?
Originally posted by IngoB:
They are not the problem. The problem is that kids do not want to sit down to learn playing the piano anymore.
quote:Critical mass? And the decline could be attributed to lack of discipline or practising?
Originally posted by IngoB:
The true challenge is the breakdown of the culturally derived input stream that had enough people practicing at the entry level to keep a religious community going.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's been a long time since Christianity had to attract people by offering an idealistic alternative to the general society. But we are now rapidly collapsing to the point where that's the case again. All in all, I think that's a good thing.
quote:Yes they do. My husband teaches piano and his pupils all had to work hard at persuading their parents to pay for lessons.
Originally posted by IngoB:
They are not the problem. The problem is that kids do not want to sit down to learn playing the piano anymore.
>quote:Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.
Originally posted by jackanapes:
quote:Thanks Mark. I'm still not sure that I can see how the choosin' came before the losin', but I guess I just wasn't there.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,
Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?
More content these days
quote:And what was the reason and deliberation?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.
quote:Not the place. But basically it was that GOD had been found wanting in the area of the supernatural (not in 'personal' stuff, rather in ideals that I believe are fundamental to human dignity and respect for one another) and an absence of intervention where things are clearly wrong in both church and society.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:And what was the reason and deliberation?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.
quote:I go along with almost all of the OP, except that I have always found RD's manner to be courteous, and his reading voice on his audio books is one of the very best I think. I just wanted to post this before going through the thread.
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.
quote:And none of that intervention, changing church and society was our responsibility?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:Not the place. But basically it was that GOD had been found wanting in the area of the supernatural (not in 'personal' stuff, rather in ideals that I believe are fundamental to human dignity and respect for one another) and an absence of intervention where things are clearly wrong in both church and society.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:And what was the reason and deliberation?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.
quote:Fair enough. And good luck to you.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am far more content, complete, whole, happy, hopeful, etc as a total atheist than ever I was while I still retained the idea of a power/force somewhere out there.
quote:Really???? Could all those of you who see that identify yourselves with some sort of badge? Because usually, when I suggest to Christians that there might be something in that idea, they throw things at me.
Originally posted by Evensong:
........many of us do not see God "somewhere out there". We see God as who we are......
quote:Your conscience works precisely as it has done up till now. You think of your options, make a decision, however tentative, as to what to do. Such decisions are set against our society's understanding of what is moral and right or the opposite. Since I am confident (as an atheist) that all decisions, from the smallest to the largest, have been made by you without any 'God' input anyway, you just carry on being the best self you can be. Do not judge yourself too harshly and remember that the decisions you have made have been the best you could do at the time. Forget the hindsight view!
Originally posted by Scarlet:
How would one handle their conscience? If christians believe their conscience is pricked by the holy spirit, how would an atheist consider the matter? And how would one quiet down that brain chatter of guilt and worry (that was MTL tainted by religion anyway)?
quote:Most decidedly not! God was a support, a friend, which was always with us. At church I'd 'know' God was around. I never, however, imagined God as anything other than an invisible, but powerful, spirit.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But it's probably because you had a fucked up notion of God.
quote:Yes, I should have made it clear that that's the sort of view I had. It was only over the years that the thought, the space in my head and God's location that diminished and diminished until I finally found it was so small and insignificant that I simply erased it.
For a start, many of us do not see God "somewhere out there". We see God as who we are and what sustains all life.
quote:Not to pick on you, but what's a "total atheist"? Are there partial atheists?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am far more content, complete, whole, happy, hopeful, etc as a total atheist than ever I was while I still retained the idea of a power/force somewhere out there.
quote:Thanks Mark - I understand.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.
Originally posted by jackanapes:
quote:Thanks Mark. I'm still not sure that I can see how the choosin' came before the losin', but I guess I just wasn't there.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,
Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?
More content these days
I suppose, to be provocative, there was nothing to 'lose' (in the faith, that is, 'though I certainly recognise that I have left behind some good things).
quote:Thanks for responding to my question. Only a lobotomy would cure me of rehashing the past! It seems to me that it would be difficult to go back and take God out of all my past decisions, but perhaps that was true even if I haven't believed it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Your conscience works precisely as it has done up till now. You think of your options, make a decision, however tentative, as to what to do. Such decisions are set against our society's understanding of what is moral and right or the opposite. Since I am confident (as an atheist) that all decisions, from the smallest to the largest, have been made by you without any 'God' input anyway, you just carry on being the best self you can be. Do not judge yourself too harshly and remember that the decisions you have made have been the best you could do at the time. Forget the hindsight view!
quote:That's rather obvious. Kids just got dragged to Church and forced to participate. That may make most of us recoil in horror now, but it actually works: a sufficiently large fraction of them would in the end engage. One could call it the Stockholm syndrome path to religion...
Originally posted by Evensong:
Do you have an opinion on why not?
quote:No. There is no critical mass. 12 disciples were enough to smash thousands of years of previous culture across a significant part of humanity. The decline is causing the lack of discipline of practice. The decline is prior, the established cultural feed has dried up. Why would a young person now go to church? Tell me a single good reason. I have none. All the reason I have come after a prior commitment, they are a consequence of already believing in God, and indeed the Church. If you don't, then there's just nothing there anymore. Hence I have no doubts that Christianity will radicalize where it doesn't die. Today we had Matt 6:24-34 as mass reading. Of course we got the usual rendering in society-compatible terms by the preacher. But this will die with the gray-haired people that still sit around in Church. Read this mass text as a call to revolution, and you will have an inkling where one of the battle lines of a future Christianity may be drawn.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Critical mass? And the decline could be attributed to lack of discipline or practising?
quote:Yes, the ultimate decline of Christianity in the Western world seems inevitable. This and future generations of children will hopefully be much safer from the influences of indoctrination, as church becomes increasingly irrelevant, and as their own social forces (particularly in communication) undermine the cultural restrictions and ties of religious family culture.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Kids just got dragged to Church and forced to participate. That may make most of us recoil in horror now, but it actually works...
quote:I’m not so sure the long-term future of the Christian church is assured, if its only means is to take metaphorical arms in a battle of assertion against culture. Such an approach may have been effective in ancient times, but I don’t see it working in this modern age. Those kids use Facebook, you know. As you rightly say, Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies they're building for themselves.
...a call to revolution ...the battle lines of a future Christianity may be drawn.
quote:But we can't do it without forcing our children?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No. There is no critical mass. 12 disciples were enough to smash thousands of years of previous culture across a significant part of humanity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Critical mass? And the decline could be attributed to lack of discipline or practising?
quote:I'm doing a unit on Homilectics at the moment. The battle lines in the postmodern world seem to be about constructing a compelling narrative that rings with authenticity.....
Originally posted by IngoB:
Read this mass text as a call to revolution, and you will have an inkling where one of the battle lines of a future Christianity may be drawn.
quote:No. They'll just be indoctrinated in a different way....consumerism, materialism, individual selfishness.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Yes, the ultimate decline of Christianity in the Western world seems inevitable. This and future generations of children will hopefully be much safer from the influences of indoctrination,
Originally posted by IngoB:
Kids just got dragged to Church and forced to participate. That may make most of us recoil in horror now, but it actually works...
quote:Amen. Thank God for that.
Originally posted by Yorick:
As you rightly say, Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies they're building for themselves.
quote:What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.
quote:Quite. I hear that sort of thing all the time, and I have to be honest, it actually makes no logical sense.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.
quote:Hate to mention it, Yorick, but society wants you to believe lots of things - and you have already succumbed, as does everybody.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.
quote:This analogy doesn't work for the simple reason that when someone stops playing the piano it isn't because they've come to the conclusion that pianos and piano music don't actually exist.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your question then amounts to: why do some people learn playing the piano, play it happily for many years, and yet stop playing at some stage? Hard to say, isn't it? Something about diminishing returns, boredom with the level they are at, too much effort involved, too many other things going on, ... who knows. One thing however one can say about such people is that the likelihood that they will start playing the piano again later on is rather high. And so it is also with the "previously strongly religious". If they live long enough, they are likely to become active in religion again.
quote:Actually, I didn't say "cultural climate" - you did (this time) - a fairly obvious straw man. I said "society" - which is what you yourself said (last time). I was merely answering your question.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ah, you mean the Zeitgeist.
Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).
quote:It isn't, as such, and it's unhelful to just blame it on "society".
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ah, you mean the Zeitgeist.
Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).
quote:No, what "they" are saying is that - in the case of the hatred and loathing of homosexuals, for instance - there wasn't really a question of "disagreeing with the prevailing winds of opinion."
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:It isn't, as such, and it's unhelful to just blame it on "society".
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ah, you mean the Zeitgeist.
Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).
What I think they're saying is that institutional and societal structures: authority figures, the media, and that have some part in shaping our opinions, and even if we disagree with the prevailing winds of opinion, we exist in their context.
I don't believe FWIW that societal factors coerce us into believing things, but I think it's ridiculous to make the assumption that what everyone around us thinks has no effect, positive or negative, on what we think. We exist in the context of all sorts of beliefs.
quote:By your own testimony, someone obviously did question it! Indeed, I suspect quite a lot of people did.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No, what "they" are saying is that - in the case of the hatred and loathing of homosexuals, for instance - there wasn't really a question of "disagreeing with the prevailing winds of opinion."
Nobody thought there was or could be a different opinion. People were indoctrinated to hate gay people - the taboo was very strong - and nobody had any questions about it. They just followed it slavishly. I'm speaking about this because I know this situation well - but I'm sure the same conditions obtained in the case of race hatred and in the case of the situation for women in earlier times.
In fairly recent times, BTW, it was widely believed that women could not and should not run marathons. Nobody questioned it; in fact, an official at the 1976 Boston Marathon physically tackled a woman who tried, as a protest, to run it.
quote:Which was precisely what I saw as the fundamental problem. I've checked back to see if you replied to my post, and didn't find it. Sorry if I'm repeating it.
Of course, atheism is merely the belief that no god exists. It isn’t a philosophical worldview in its own right, and it makes no claims about anything except the existence of god. The suggestion is that by not believing in god, an atheist is prohibited from living with purpose and hope.
quote:As in
Okay: Humanism.
quote:This could become a side-track in which case I'll shut up.
...are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves, individually and together.
quote:Yes, of course - the people who are the targets of these things question them, because they are aware they are prejudice. But the Civil Rights movement took 100 years to accomplish, and Women's Rights about that long, too. So it's not as if the whole world jumped on the bandwagon; there was a lot of opposition.
Originally posted by Inger:
By your own testimony, someone obviously did question it! Indeed, I suspect quite a lot of people did.
In any case, if things were as you maintain, how would change ever come about? It clearly does.
And how far back are you referring to about homosexuality? When I grew up, it wasn't much spoken of, and few people were 'out', but I was certainly never "indoctrinated to hate gay people". I would say most people were simply not very interested, unless they were directly affected in some way.
quote:The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.
Originally posted by Yorick:
The question is whether (secular) humanism can provide us with purpose and hope comparable to that offered by Christianity. The goals of "human welfare, happiness and fulfilment" can provide profoundly hopeful and purposeful existence, vague though those terms may seem.
Again, I’m wondering what Christianity offers in the purposeful living department that humanism cannot?
quote:I for one believe in life before death. 'Eternal life' starts in the present and goes on. It might not be unique to Christianity. I accept I won’t know for certain until I stand/ or not stand in front of God.
Originally posted by Yorick:
So, exactly what is unique about the Christian god that makes hope and purpose possible, where it cannot be found elsewhere? Afterlife? Nope- plenty of religions promise that. The Golden Rule? Nope- lots of atheistic philosophies are in accord. Personal redemption? Nope- tons of other religions offer this, and secular philosophies too- certainly in regards to what happens in our mortal lives- so until the rapture actually happens, I guess we’re all in the same purpose boat.
quote:I think it is part of the narrative of redemption. You can be changed even if everyone else has written you off, there is another way. God came to help us be better- to be what was intended. It might mean signing your own death warrant in certain circumstances. "Pick up your cross and follow me" isn't a light commandment.
Clearly, believing in a god is not a fundamental prerequisite for actually living a purposeful and hopeful life. Philosophically, I'm a secular humanist, and this permits me a very meaningful mortal existence in many of the ways that Christians claim are exclusively theirs, so I challenge any Christian to show how his life is purposeful and hopeful where mine cannot be.
quote:In the case of the Deceased Equine that's been trotting round recent posts it is the societal attitudes and secular laws which have been able to shift, remove the causes of oppression, and offer hope. But because a Bronze Age writer declared the Deceased Equine to be an abomination and turned it into a matter of religion Christianity's position is equivocal at best and always will be.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.
quote:Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what your point is here. I don't even understand the English.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:In the case of the Deceased Equine that's been trotting round recent posts it is the societal attitudes and secular laws which have been able to shift, remove the causes of oppression, and offer hope. But because a Bronze Age writer declared the Deceased Equine to be an abomination and turned it into a matter of religion Christianity's position is equivocal at best and always will be.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.
quote:That was not Yorick, that was me on another thread saying that atheism fails to provide a context of meaning and purpose for human life.
Originally posted by anteater:
Yorick:
Well firstly, I don't know where you get this idea that the aim of Christianity is to provide purpose, and I'm not so focussed on that.
quote:OK, read it alongside another of your recent posts:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what your point is here. I don't even understand the English.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:In the case of the Deceased Equine that's been trotting round recent posts it is the societal attitudes and secular laws which have been able to shift, remove the causes of oppression, and offer hope. But because a Bronze Age writer declared the Deceased Equine to be an abomination and turned it into a matter of religion Christianity's position is equivocal at best and always will be.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.
quote:The point is that in this case it is the Bible that is still the vehicle for oppression not hope. Put bluntly, as long as there are Christians there will be Christians who want to oppress gays because of Leviticus and Romans.
And within the past two generations, gay people - in your country, in the 1950s, Alan Turing, for example - were jailed and given medical "treatments" - in Turing's case, female hormones - for homosexuality.
quote:That may be true. Of course, it's also true that there are Christians who believe the earth is 10,000 years old. I can also mention that Conservative Judaism is in the middle of changing its stance on the gay issue, since you brought up about the Bible and its "Bronze-age writers." In any case: gay people - whether or not they are members of the church - really can and do take comfort in the fact that God chose to live among ordinary people, incarnate on earth, and chose to suffer a criminal's death. Just as lots of other oppressed groups do and have. We're not talking about the church here, but about Christian faith (I thought).
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The point is that in this case it is the Bible that is still the vehicle for oppression not hope. Put bluntly, as long as there are Christians there will be Christians who want to oppress gays because of Leviticus and Romans.
quote:Bully. I wasn't answering the question, "can atheists hate materialism" but rather
Originally posted by Yorick:
But I detest materialism too.
quote:You appeared to be looking for an example of something that the cultural climate inculcates in people. I gave one. I didn't say it was universal; and I think your choice of the word "force" presupposes your desired answer to the question. The culture pours it on pretty thick and it comes at us from all sides. "Volition" and "force" have nothing to do with it; those are weasel words anyway. But it is true that culture pushes beliefs on us and sits on our head (figuratively speaking) in an attempt to drive them home.
Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).
quote:To dumb it down even further. As long as there are humans there will be a desire to oppress minorities. It seems that the godless can be just as willing to oppress. Try being gay in Vietnam or North Korea.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Put bluntly, as long as there are Christians there will be Christians who want to oppress gays because of Leviticus and Romans.
quote:Thanks for your straight answer.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Again, I’m wondering what Christianity offers in the purposeful living department that humanism cannot?
And the reminder that "the traumatic truth of human history" is a body nailed to a cross.
quote:Life without God has just as much meaning as life with God- that is my contention. It’s no good continuously repeating your refutation without qualifying it. Please explain how, without God, life itself has no meaning.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Which is not saying that anyone, atheist or no, can't have a perfectly satisfactory purpose in life, only that without God life itself has no meaning and individual lives have no long term purpose beyond what this world offers.
quote:You've made a mistake in interpretation here; I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the people I mentioned - "the poor and traumatized, the oppressed, and those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all, I mean."
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Thanks for your straight answer.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Again, I’m wondering what Christianity offers in the purposeful living department that humanism cannot?
And the reminder that "the traumatic truth of human history" is a body nailed to a cross.
I don’t understand how my failing to recognise and believe that all human beings are made in God's image should mean that my life cannot be as purposeful and hopeful as yours. Please would you explain? I can certainly live in hope for the poor and traumatized, the oppressed, and those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all. Some atheists are ardent humanists, and helping to do good for those causes gives us great purpose. We can hope for a better real world- which, I would cordially suggest, those whose ‘ultimate hope and purpose’ is redemption and delivery on Judgement Day can hardly claim. That's the opposite of hope and purpose for (mortal) life.
And I don’t see how the reminder of the crucifixion being "the traumatic truth of human history" has anything to do with it. Gobbledegook.
quote:All I say, Yorick, is that people don't pray to other people, in the middle of the night, for help with problems they can't solve. They don't tell random strangers about their deepest feelings and failings, or admit their shortcomings to unknown secular humanists. They don't look for forgiveness for their sins where they feel they're unlikely to find it. They don't depend upon other people for help when they are not certain that help will be forthcoming. They don't try to set their spiritual lives right by appealing to other human beings. They don't go to secular humanists for money or support when they don't have any. They don't go to atheist organizations to pour out their hearts to somebody after their spouses die and they are left alone.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right? It’s exactly the same in principle whether those people do so under divine inspiration or secular humanist inspiration.
And I would say to you and anteater that those Christians who must care for the poor and traumatised are in a certain respect further from serving a noble purpose than those who do simply because they choose to. It’s rather like forcing an apology out of a child who does something wrong- it doesn’t mean so much. I'd say that freely elected secular humanism is of Higher purpose than obligatory religious humanism.
quote:You are quite right that a Christian has nothing to boast about by doing God's will. Indeed, in the particular case you cite, Christians are warned to "not let their left hand know what their right hand is doing." Whatever glory is due, in Christian terms, is due to the Lord. To the extent that a Christian insists on "getting in on" the glory, he is stealing from God. If you find such constraints to be lacking in purity, so be it. But they are the rules of engagement under which we work.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Meanwhile, which, in your opinion, is nobler in purpose:
a) an atheist, who freely chooses to donate £5 to Christian Aid, and who gains nothing in return (except that nice warm feeling); or
b) a theist, who donates £5 to Christian Aid because they must, and who gains God’s almighty approval- and maybe the reward of salvation (oh, and that nice warm feeling)?
It seems to me that the obligation to care for the poor and oppressed takes something important away from the philosophical purity of purpose, and is nothing to boast about.
quote:Well, show me the money, so to speak. If "religion has the field" and "Mankind hasn’t come of secular age yet," then why should anybody choose secularism? This is all very theoretical so far - a bit pie-in-the-sky, so to speak. It might happen - but it really might not.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Naturally. Religion has the field. Mankind hasn’t come of secular age yet, but it will surely do so eventually, and then people will be able to look after one another without all the other shit that comes with religion.
quote:As for this, I'll make the point again: people choose Christianity. IOW, they are choosing their own obligations - just as you say you are.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Meanwhile, which, in your opinion, is nobler in purpose:
a) an atheist, who freely chooses to donate £5 to Christian Aid, and who gains nothing in return (except that nice warm feeling); or
b) a theist, who donates £5 to Christian Aid because they must, and who gains God’s almighty approval- and maybe the reward of salvation (oh, and that nice warm feeling)?
It seems to me that the obligation to care for the poor and oppressed takes something important away from the philosophical purity of purpose, and is nothing to boast about. You invented your canon- that’s your problem. Doing something out of voluntary compassion is quite different from doing it out of requisite duty.
quote:The reason she said that was to show that atheists have no particular platform on the matter. Atheists might choose to look after others - or they might instead be Social Darwinists (in I think the comparison she made).
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, you tell me. You were the one reiterating anteater's point that Christians must look after the afflicted, as opposed to secular humanists, who only choose to. I was relating that difference to the original issue of atheists lacking higher purpose.
quote:I don't think you've got my point. I was arguing from what your worldview carries as an implication for what you should do. For example: a scientific worldview would carry the implication that smoking is injurious to health. It probably does not carry the implication that moderate drinking is injurious to health, but even so plenty of people become complete teetotallers. It's a choice, but is not based or does not follow from what they believe the facts to be.
And I would say to you and anteater that those Christians who must care for the poor and traumatised are in a certain respect further from serving a noble purpose than those who do simply because they choose to.
quote:It's funny that you are so happy about it all. As if a Golden Age of Atheism was in the making. Of course not, there never was and never will be a society without religion. Yet if the domesticated dog dies, the wild wolf comes.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, the ultimate decline of Christianity in the Western world seems inevitable. This and future generations of children will hopefully be much safer from the influences of indoctrination, as church becomes increasingly irrelevant, and as their own social forces (particularly in communication) undermine the cultural restrictions and ties of religious family culture.
quote:Traditional (conservative) Christianity so far has been way more effective at leveraging the internet than liberal variants, I would say. And I'm not worried about getting the kids to dedicate their life to this or that revolution, that's par for the hormonal course, really. However, almost all revolutions are about changing others - often by removing their brains from their skulls with rapidly moving pieces of metal - only a very few are about changing yourself. You better pray that something as nice as Christianity is on the cards when the next revolution comes...
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m not so sure the long-term future of the Christian church is assured, if its only means is to take metaphorical arms in a battle of assertion against culture. Such an approach may have been effective in ancient times, but I don’t see it working in this modern age. Those kids use Facebook, you know. As you rightly say, Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies they're building for themselves.
quote:You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
Originally posted by IngoB:
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...
quote:I think IngoB is right. Atheism thrives in a wealthy complacent culture. You could translate what Jesus says as that it's very difficult for a Western (i.e. relatively rich) person to enter the kingdom of God.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
Originally posted by IngoB:
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...
quote:3) affection and sympathy for friends and family; and a desire for their approval of one’s actions
Originally posted by IngoB:
And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is 1) retaliation from others and 2) evolved instincts to avoid such retaliation. But following Yorick, we surely can use our intellect to overcome such biological predispositions if in fact we have no retaliation to fear. Thus once I grab power, I'll use my intellect to overcome my irrational qualms, and kill those I don't like, and exploit / rape those I do like. After all there's nobody and nothing to tell me I shouldn't.
quote:The Israeli kibbutzim? Admittedly their members are predominantly Jewish, but the majority of these settlements were established as avowedly non-religious communities.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In any case, what evidence do you have for it? The only "utopian communities" - where people look after one another and others and so forth, I mean - that have ever lasted have been religious ones.
quote:Rather, I paint a realistic picture of people. This is not limited to Christianity either, other religions are likewise affected. I think it is actually mostly the illusion wealth provides that one is in control of one's life and fate. That's also why (corrupted versions of) Buddhism are getting popular in the West. They are basically about mastering the remaining uncontrollable issues life provides by your own power and effort. In other words, Pelagius is the high priest of mammon.
Originally posted by Boogie:
You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
quote:Firstly, I was reacting to Marvin's statement. As I said, and you quoted, "And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is..." So spare me the cheap rhetoric, and start reading the actual thread. Secondly, I note with amusement that you were incapable to supply additional reason that went beyond the two I listed. Your "4) the capacity to empathize with others and their position, 5) the traditions and mores of the society in which one is a constituent, 6) conscience" can of course - in the absence of God - be understood as nothing but instantiations of my two points. Your 4) and 6) being examples of my 2) (evolved instincts for retaliation avoidance), your 5) being an example of my 1) (retaliation avoidance).
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
But you see only two Ingo? Retaliation and the desire to avoid it? Is that the only thing that dissuades you from sin – the fear of an all-seeing God’s retribution? What a sad doctrine it must be to which you adhere.
quote:I have no doubt that human beings will always have religious tendencies in some form or other, but I do not share your vision that Christianity (or indeed any of the other main religions today) will endure indefinitely, especially on the foundations you describe (more of which below). But I’d like to know why you feel so confident that there can never be an age of global secularism, and that, without religion, mankind must face the wolves. Do you have a crystal ball?
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's funny that you are so happy about it all. As if a Golden Age of Atheism was in the making. Of course not, there never was and never will be a society without religion. Yet if the domesticated dog dies, the wild wolf comes.
quote:I find this sentiment both fascinating and repulsive. You seem to relish the prospect of mankind’s decline and fall back to medieval times, in which religion shall have the opportunity to prosper again. Do you really think religion is worth having if it only thrives at the expense of our civilisation and prosperity? Our very recent Western wealth is the product of our industrial, technological and cultural development, and the fruits of our brave and astonishing struggle out of the grime and suffering of poverty. The ‘acedia’ you see is nothing more than a manifestation of the increasing irrelevance of religion in the modern world- not the other way round. Without poverty and suffering mankind has no use for religion, but does that mean we would be better off being poor and suffering? Does it hell.
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. …The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force.
quote:I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion. Indeed, the way I see it, religion still poses the single greatest threat to our ultimate cultural progress, but, I hope, not for long. Although I also lack a crystal ball, I give it another four generations, tops, if we can make it that far.
You better pray that something as nice as Christianity is on the cards when the next revolution comes...
quote:I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
Originally posted by anteater:
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
quote:Hear, hear!
Originally posted by Yorick:
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion. Indeed, the way I see it, religion still poses the single greatest threat to our ultimate cultural progress, but, I hope, not for long.
quote:Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:No.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
In my case it wasn't people; it was God.
The church and the bible and the people came later.
Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
quote:Hallelujah is right. And suffering is universal.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.
quote:Sigh!
I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:I totally accept that atheists may, and many do, oppose social-darwinism. You need to turn it the other way around. My argument is:
inevitably . . in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview
quote:How will religion help them? How many devout Christians have lost their faith precisely in those situations? "How could God do this to me? I must assume there is after all no God."
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Hallelujah is right. And suffering is universal.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.
How about these far more common cases, instead of the ones you chose to put the faith in the worst possible light:
A woman loses her job. A man loses his wife. A couple loses their child. A woman loses her sanity. A mother cries over her learned-disabled child. A father cries over his inability to provide for his family during an economic downturn. A family is ripped apart by alcoholism. A veteran becomes homeless because of PTSD. A person has to deal with minority status and the problems that go with it. Somebody cheats you. Somebody lies to you about something very important. You are unjustly accused of some sort of wrongdoing. People gossip about you negatively, hurting your standing in your commmunity.
This is the human condition. People die; children have learning disabilities and the pain that comes from them; jobs are lost; the economy goes into the tank; people lose their feelings of self-worth; people lose their sanity.
How will the philosophy of secular humanism help any of these people? Particularly when even the best professional people often can't?
quote:You're missing the point, I'd say. What difference does it make whether people will do the saving or not - and they are part of the picture but definitely not the entire picture in my own case - if you won't go to them for help in the first place?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:No.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
In my case it wasn't people; it was God.
The church and the bible and the people came later.
Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
quote:All I can say is that I had no faith in God for many years, either. Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
Originally posted by Inger:
How will religion help them? How many devout Christians have lost their faith precisely in those situations? "How could God do this to me? I must assume there is after all no God."
It happens. I remember a case reported in the papers some years ago when a vicar lost his son. His wife stated that she had lost all faith in a loving God. Is that not worse? At least an atheist need not feel thus bereft.
quote:I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
quote:He will be a better priest in the future, if he goes back to it. He will be able to really help identify with and help others to whom this has happened. He will be able to say things that will make sense to them, and give them some kind of comfort and hope.
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
quote:Yorick, I want to ask you this: how do you, personally, know that what you stated above actually happened? Vass you dere, Sharley? What you have stated is every bit as much a belief system as the theist's propositions about G-d, as far as you personally are concerned. Can you honestly say otherwise? And if so, on what grounds?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:But that’s probably because these numbers defy comprehension. The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.
quote:Read for comprehension. I said you'll always face religion. If you weaken "domesticated dog" religion, then when (not if) religion comes back in force, it will be of the "wild wolf" variety. Atheists should be the best friends of tame religion. You can have your age of global secularism, if you manage to make everybody on the globe live the Western life (as it used to be, one now perhaps must begin to say...). Since that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future, neither is your atheist paradise.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But I’d like to know why you feel so confident that there can never be an age of global secularism, and that, without religion, mankind must face the wolves. Do you have a crystal ball?
quote:I'm simply analyzing the situation. It has nothing to do with wishing this or that. I would wish that everybody in the world would be at least as healthy, wealthy, educated, ... as I am now and at least as religious. Yet, while that is possible in principle, that's not going to happen in practice.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I find this sentiment both fascinating and repulsive. You seem to relish the prospect of mankind’s decline and fall back to medieval times, in which religion shall have the opportunity to prosper again.
quote:That's a strange question. Replace "religion" by "freedom" to get a feel for how strange. (I'm not equating the two, I'm saying that reading one for the other will give you an idea how I see your question.) On one hand, civilization and prosperity are only truly worth having with religion. On the other hand, they are sufficiently distinct to be considered as goods in themselves, and in the total absence of these religion will not have much "space" for being good either. What one needs is a harmony. However, our obesity is a beautiful image of the culture we have built. Our culture is "fat" in a way that is not natural to being human in this world. This will rectify itself, but till it does religion will continue to suffer. I would prefer if nothing too drastic happened, because I quite like my own love handles myself (at least the metaphorical ones). But it's quite obvious that change is coming.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Do you really think religion is worth having if it only thrives at the expense of our civilisation and prosperity?
quote:I've experienced Filipino slums and Russian poor. And for that matter I've seen some of the underbelly of Germany when working as a paramedic (instead of military service). I didn't spend more time there than I had to, but yeah, I've seen some true poverty.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I wonder if you have ever experienced true poverty first hand, IngoB. Have you ever seen with your own eyes (and nose) the terrible, terrible depths to which poverty utterly and remorselessly destroys people’s lives?
quote:It's not my problem that your world view is so binary. The religious acedia and many other features of the "fat" West are indeed a very bad thing. That does not make fighting for survival in abject poverty a good thing. And I have never said that I hope for "cultural disintegration". It is however hardly prophetic to note that the West as it has been will be no more in the not so far future, perhaps still in our lifetimes. Change is always destructive to some extent, it is hence prudent to think ahead and maneuver. I told you that atheists would do well to support as much as they can Christianity as it has developed. It would provide a safety buffer for them in future. But frankly, atheists are just too stupid for that, as your little rant once more demonstrates.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I seriously doubt it, or you would never see prosperity’s ‘acedia’ as a bad thing, and you would never for one nanosecond wish and hope for a cultural disintegration for the sake of your world of slick-lipped priests and corrupt churches and harmful superstitions. You’re sick with the very wealth you condemn!
quote:That's pretty daft then. On my optimistic days, I can believe that history is not repeating along the lines of late antiquity. We may just be able to develop the base fast enough to keep the superstructure from collapsing catastrophically. But we will come out of the exercise a lot "leaner" than we are now.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion.
quote:Perhaps in Sweden, but again it is pretty daft to confuse Sweden with the world.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Although I also lack a crystal ball, I give it another four generations, tops, if we can make it that far.
quote:Try reading what you write. You said, and the contrast with [your idea of] Christianity was clear, that social-darwinism is as equally in harmony with an atheist worldview as care for the poor is with Christianity. In other words you were claiming that there was an inevitable link between social darwinism and atheism.
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:Sigh!
I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
So for the removal of doubt, I have never said, thought or implied that atheism isquote:I totally accept that atheists may, and many do, oppose social-darwinism. You need to turn it the other way around. My argument is:
inevitably . . in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview
Social-darwinism in not inevitably unacceptable on atheist principle, whereas it is on Christian principles.
If you believe atheism renders social-darwinism out of court, please explain why? If not the argument stands.
quote:No, she's not saying that at all. Here's a quote, page 3, my bold:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Try reading what you write. You said, and the contrast with [your idea of] Christianity was clear, that social-darwinism is as equally in harmony with an atheist worldview as care for the poor is with Christianity. In other words you were claiming that there was an inevitable link between social darwinism and atheism.
I gave you examples of why declared Christians are promoting social Darwinism. Have you read those threads? If not, why not, before commenting further? So there are clearly Christians who don't think that social Darwinism is unacceptable to Christian principles, despite what you say, and they are actively promoting that view in US politics. BTW you do realise that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin?
And it is not for me to argue why atheism renders social-darwinism out of court. It is you who are making the libel; the onus of proof lies on you.
quote:I really can't see what could possibly be confusing about that. Either-or, plain as day. No "inevitable link" stated or implied.
In terms of world-view, what Christianity states is that as a matter of objective (though eminently not publicly-provable) fact, the future of the world is determined by a Being whose commands for Man are that we build society to care for the weak, based on honesty and purity in all our dealings, and that we all will be judged on the basis of how far we promoted the welfare of all, and that just as in some distant future, the Earth will be dissolved, equally certainly, the world will belong to the poor, the meek and those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.
Now an atheist may take a similar view. He is at liberty to do so. Or he may take a Social-Darwinian view. But a Christian has to take that view, and there lies a difference.
quote:A very selfish one, I'm thinking-- where evils that happen to other people aren't really evil compared to evils that happen to me.
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?
quote:The former
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:No.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?
In my case it wasn't people; it was God.
The church and the bible and the people came later.
Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
quote:Okay, I apologise for my miscomprehension, but why do you think ‘wild wolf religion’ would have any greater foothold than ‘tame religion’ in a post-religious secular age, in which acedia/prosperity makes religion irrelevant? I guess you’re talking about religious extremism and fundamentalism stepping into the chaos of a post-apocalyptic imploding secular world, I suppose. Crystal ball much?
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you weaken "domesticated dog" religion, then when (not if) religion comes back in force, it will be of the "wild wolf" variety.
quote:But you do though, don’t you? I find your thinly-veiled relish rather chilling, but again, why are you so convinced that Western culture is doomed? All of mankind wants it, it seems.
I would prefer if nothing too drastic happened, because I quite like my own love handles myself (at least the metaphorical ones). But it's quite obvious that change is coming…
the West as it has been will be no more in the not so far future, perhaps still in our lifetimes.
I have never said that I hope for "cultural disintegration".
quote:Again, I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand this. Why do you suppose a flourishing Christian church would be beneficial to a secular world? How would it operate as a ‘safety buffer’ (from religious extremism, I suppose)?
I told you that atheists would do well to support as much as they can Christianity as it has developed. It would provide a safety buffer for them in future. But frankly, atheists are just too stupid for that, as your little rant once more demonstrates.
quote:Yes, I think so too, because we will hopefully be rid of the pathological atherosclerosis of religion.
On my optimistic days, I can believe that history is not repeating along the lines of late antiquity. We may just be able to develop the base fast enough to keep the superstructure from collapsing catastrophically. But we will come out of the exercise a lot "leaner" than we are now.
quote:But where Sweden leads, who knows that the world will not follow? There’s always one child who matures before the rest of the class.
Perhaps in Sweden, but again it is pretty daft to confuse Sweden with the world.
quote:I.e. just as care of the poor must be a result of a Christian worldview so social-darwinism is equally in harmony with an atheist worldview. OK, you are now saying that isn't your position. Good.
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
quote:Riiiiiiight.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:The former
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
quote:I'm not sure that a catastrophic end of "the West as we know it" is necessary. With a bit of luck and a lot of effort, it will just fade into something new. I'm merely saying that I'm betting religion will be back much stronger in what is to come. The weaker "tame" religion will be at that point in time, the more likely that "wild" religion will rule the day. Hence atheists should cultivate "tame" religion as insurance policy - if they were any smart.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay, I apologise for my miscomprehension, but why do you think ‘wild wolf religion’ would have any greater foothold than ‘tame religion’ in a post-religious secular age, in which acedia/prosperity makes religion irrelevant? I guess you’re talking about religious extremism and fundamentalism stepping into the chaos of a post-apocalyptic imploding secular world, I suppose. Crystal ball much?
quote:Why would I relish something that will likely bring great disadvantage to me and my family? Do you reckon a computational neuroscientist will be all the rage post-apocalypse? Western culture is doomed by virtue of being unsustainable for the global population, and likely being unsustainable even for "core Western countries" much longer. And the attraction of our culture to others is at least to 50% based on simple envy for our current wealth and power.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But you do though, don’t you? I find your thinly-veiled relish rather chilling, but again, why are you so convinced that Western culture is doomed? All of mankind wants it, it seems.
quote:It would not be beneficial to a secular world. It would be beneficial to the non-religious in case the secular world (or rather, the mostly secular part of the world) goes belly up. Because it is almost certain that other contenders for religious leadership will be a lot less tolerant to the non-religious.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Again, I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand this. Why do you suppose a flourishing Christian church would be beneficial to a secular world? How would it operate as a ‘safety buffer’ (from religious extremism, I suppose)?
quote:I really have no time for this attitude.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, I think so too, because we will hopefully be rid of the pathological atherosclerosis of religion.
quote:There's also always one child who has head lice before the rest of the class. So what?
Originally posted by Yorick:
But where Sweden leads, who knows that the world will not follow? There’s always one child who matures before the rest of the class.
quote:Right on both counts Ingo!
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm merely saying that I'm betting religion will be back much stronger in what is to come.
......
Western culture is doomed by virtue of being unsustainable for the global population, and likely being unsustainable even for "core Western countries" much longer.
quote:I think she left out a word in that post or something; just keep in mind what she said in her original post and there isn't any problem.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles". Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than a non-belief in god. You raise a strawman and then complain when I don't accept it as the basis of discussion.
But you went beyond even that. Following TubaMirum's attempted defence of you I refer her, and you, again to your post that I had actually quoted:quote:I.e. just as care of the poor must be a result of a Christian worldview so social-darwinism is equally in harmony with an atheist worldview. OK, you are now saying that isn't your position. Good.
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
quote:On the contrary.....like TubaMirium said....sometimes God is the only thing that can help you out of it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Riiiiiiight.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:The former
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
For that to be in any way true, you must be defining "trauma and oppression" in some misty, new-agey, all-in-your-head kind of way. Right?
Which means you weren't actually answering Yorick's point. He wasn't talking about some kind of "I felt really bad and then I suddenly felt really good - it must have been God" thing, he was talking about real trauma and oppression. The kind that happy thoughts can't actually change. The kind that needs people to help you out of it.
quote:But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the contrary.....like TubaMirium said....sometimes God is the only thing that can help you out of it.
quote:I'm not sure many people would agree with that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
quote:If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I'm not sure many people would agree with that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
quote:Generally I agree with you. But I think you under-estimate changes that are purely internal by equating them to "I think bad now I feel good". For a start some of these internal changes work in the opposite direction, as when someone realises the wrongness of their current actions. Plus it under-values the changes thjat can sometimes take place, as in the example I have quoted before of someone who totally collapsed and became (in her own words) "a stinking drug and alcohol dependent wreck" and then simply "came to" entirely without any other person involved. She went on to take a degree in sociology and SFAIK is working in that field.
If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.
*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.
quote:Well, when people pray to God for help in the middle of the night, many times there's nobody else there. Who's going to help? And fairly often, nobody who might be around can help either. (i.e., even married people can feel completely alone, if their marriage is not working properly.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I'm not sure many people would agree with that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.
*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.
quote:Oh yes, people cry out for help all the time. I'm not denying that. I'm asking about where that help actually comes from (if anywhere).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, when people pray to God for help in the middle of the night, many times there's nobody else there. Who's going to help? And fairly often, nobody who might be around can help either. (i.e., even married people can feel completely alone, if their marriage is not working properly.)
quote:So what help does He give? Financial? Medical? Demonstrable? Actual?
At times, in other words, there is no help but God. Even people who get paid to provide help aren't able to.
quote:So give me one.
There are lots of examples, actually.
quote:Since when have Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism been the only two options? You are claiming that any atheist who is not a Secular Humanist must be a Social Darwinist which is complete nonsense. And the "logic" that deduces this from there being no set of atheist principles leaves me speechless.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."
quote:So sorry: I'm not claiming any such thing. I'm speaking to the two issues that have been raised here.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Since when have Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism been the only two options? You are claiming that any atheist who is not a Secular Humanist must be a Social Darwinist which is complete nonsense. And the "logic" that deduces this from there being no set of atheist principles leaves me speechless.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."
quote:That is Social Darwinism, in the western country with the highest level of regular church going, where right-wing politics, free-market economics and conservative Christianity go hand in hand. Are you really saying there is no connection?
In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable.
quote:I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
No. What is perfectly clear is that you write things ("an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist", i.e. one or the other, the only two options) and then when you are challenged you deny them.
quote:
Interesting that I never did say "i.e. one or the other, the only two options." You're the only one who did.
But I can understand this; it's definitely a good way to continue avoiding what's actually happening in the discussion.quote:That is Social Darwinism, in the western country with the highest level of regular church going, where right-wing politics, free-market economics and conservative Christianity go hand in hand. Are you really saying there is no connection?
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
[QB] You say Christians are stopped from being Social Darwinists. But earlier you said:
[QUOTE] In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable.
quote:Of course not. Would a Christian nation elect a Muslim President?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.
quote:Depends on how you mean the phrase "Christian nation". If you mean "a nation with a population that predominantly adheres to some form of Christianity", then the U.S. is indeed a Christian nation. On the other hand if you mean "a nation where the state officially provides support for Christianity", then the U.S. should not be so classified. It seems like Pre-cambrian's comments on Christianity in the U.S. are more along the lines of the former than the latter.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.
