|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Do we WANT there to be a God?
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
To avoid further hijacking "God is so weird," I am starting this thread with a question that derives specifically from something Yorick said, but is of course open to anyone to discuss.
On that thread, Yorick quoth:
quote:
It’s much easier for you to say, ‘what the fuck, there is a Duck’, because it goes with the grain of what you want the quacking to mean. (If you dispute what your wanting ‘has to do with it’, I urge you to think more deeply about this. You say you sometimes don’t want God to exist, but I respectfully doubt that. Even the staunchest atheist wants God to exist, deep down inside- I most certainly do myself. It’s an essential part of our healthy human function, primitive and largely unconscious, and as influential in its motivating effect as our desire for chocolate, crisps and sex).
This is the kind of statement by atheists that drives me completely batshit insane.
If you (Yorick, or any atheist) were willing to say, "Christians believe because they WANT there to be a God, and I disbelieve because I DON'T want there to be a God," I could live with that, although I think it's an extreme oversimplification.
If you leave "want" out of it altogether and say, "Believers and non-believers each make a choice of what to believe based on the evidence available to them," I could live with that (although I do think that "want" is an important factor in what we choose to believe, and is worthy of examination).
But what I think is so incredibly arrogant and cannot stand is the attitude that says, "Well, of course we all, being the weak human beings we are, have a 'need' for some kind of 'God,' we all want to believe in something, but I, the Noble, Brave, and Superior Atheist have managed to struggle against that desire for God and have chosen the lonely but honest path of not believing, though it goes against the grain, while the rest of you weak-kneed believers have simply invented a God to satisfy your innate need for one."
This attitude is arrogant and offensive on so many levels I can barely manage to pick them apart. I think it's probably most realistic to say that all human beings feel, to varying degrees, a need for something beyond themselves to believe in, but that we also feel that in many ways it would be easier NOT to believe, and we have different ways of answering these needs. I've always believed, heavily influenced by CS Lewis here of course, that the existence of our "need" or "want" to believe is in itself evidence that there is something out there to believe in, though I accept that I could be totally wrong about that.
It's just the attitude that says, "We Atheists are better, tougher and stronger because we defy our natural desire for God and take the hard road of intellectual honesty," that I find really quite arrogant and, at the same time, sort of ingenuous.
[ 05. January 2015, 01:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I've always believed, heavily influenced by CS Lewis here of course, that the existence of our "need" or "want" to believe is in itself evidence that there is something out there to believe in, though I accept that I could be totally wrong about that.
This calls to mind Augustine's famous prayer: "You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."
Funnily enough the atheist bus slogan "there probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" (or words to that effect), is kind of a negative image of Augustine's words, in that it too seems to acknowledge that there is a restless "god spot" in the psyche, but unlike Augustine the Dawkinsians think the answer to the restlessness it creates is to educate yourself out of it with 'rationalism'.
So maybe Yorick was onto something, maybe we do all "want" God to exist... but that would still prove nothing either way.
It's annoying, though, when you say you don't actually want (or not want) to believe in God, it's simply that you just do, and someone else says "yes you do, deep down inside" as if they have more privileged information about your innermost psyche than you do yourself! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
But what I think is so incredibly arrogant and cannot stand is the attitude that says, "Well, of course we all, being the weak human beings we are, have a 'need' for some kind of 'God,' we all want to believe in something, but I, the Noble, Brave, and Superior Atheist have managed to struggle against that desire for God and have chosen the lonely but honest path of not believing, though it goes against the grain, while the rest of you weak-kneed believers have simply invented a God to satisfy your innate need for one."
It's just the attitude that says, "We Atheists are better, tougher and stronger because we defy our natural desire for God and take the hard road of intellectual honesty," that I find really quite arrogant and, at the same time, sort of ingenuous.
That's not the way this atheist sees it at all. It does seem that there is an innate desire to believe in God, but I don't feel that atheists are somehow 'resisting the pull', or are better or superior in consequence. Over the years I've become convinced that there is a genetic element to belief, and I at least seem to have been incapable of it from a very young age. When it comes to the wish that there were a God, it's not in my own case a pull that I resist, but a longing that can never be satisfied. I long for there to be a loving God who cares for all, but I have no sense whatsoever that there is one: on the contrary.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
To avoid further hijacking "God is so weird," I am starting this thread with a question that derives specifically from something Yorick said, but is of course open to anyone to discuss.
On that thread, Yorick quoth:
quote:
Even the staunchest atheist wants God to exist, deep down inside- I most certainly do myself.
I'm clearly a failure at staunchiness.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I really don't see that what I want in the matter matters in the least. It's not like She's going to ask me for permission to exist.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There is a rather good part of C S Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress" which does a demolition job on the wish-fulfillment argument. I'll see if I can find the relevant quote - my copy of the book is not currently to hand.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What drives ME batshit insane is having someone tell me that they know better than I what dwells in the deepest bits of my psyche. How the hell could they know?
I happen to be a fearful thinker rather than a wishful thinker. I am by nature far more inclined to think that horrible things are true than that lovely things are. I naturally assume the dinner will be burnt, the test will come back positive for some terminal illness, the person on the phone is calling to tell me about a death in the family. I am, in short, a pessimistic freak of the highest order.
And so if I were to believe in a g/God based on my own personal psychology, s/he/it would be far more akin to an evil Ogre than to the good, holy and merciful God I actually DO believe in. In fact, it's a triumph of God over human nature that I believe at all. It has nothing to do with my wants--my wants would be to not exist at all, so as not to run the risk of being hurt (again). In fact, now that I think of it, my natural "wants" would make me an atheist. Oh dear.
But instead of getting what would make me comfortable, I'm faced with an interventionist God. And he says, "Come here." ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) And I'm sure that from God's perspective, I behave very much like a badly abused dog who cowers in a corner because it can't believe that the kind hand held out to it isn't going to slap the shit out of it.
I'm very very slowly getting over this, with the incredibly patient kindness and gentleness of an utterly reliable God whom I have tested again and again and never found my deepest beliefs (fears) to be true. But damn it's hard to go against those gut feelings.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
C. S. Lewis's argument was that if we dreamed up a god, that god would never demand that we do things we don't want to, and refrain from doing things we do want to.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I do believe in part that because I want there to be a god I am prepared to be receptive to the idea and reality. But to argue from that fact that necessarily that it is just part of our wish that we think God exists, is to look at it backwards. Who was it who said that just because we have noses that can hold spectacles that necessarily that is the reason we have eye glasses?
I suspect we are receptive to matters spiritual because that is just part of the fabric of the universe. In CS Lewis' creation allegory for Narnia, we have all nature singing as life unfolds and emerges from raw earth. None of this commands us to believe, anymore that having legs commands me to ride a bicycle with them.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
Maybe there are some atheists who want God to exist, but don't see much evidence for his existence. I'm not sure if that's what Yorick meant.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:
Maybe there are some atheists who want God to exist, but don't see much evidence for his existence. I'm not sure if that's what Yorick meant.
Ah yes, the "I wish I could have a faith, it must be so comforting" brigade. Translates as: "I wish I, too, could live in cloud cuckoo land but unfortunately I am too intelligent to do so."
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
Well, maybe, but not in all cases. See Amika's post above.
--------------------
Gaero?.......Gaero!
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
That's not the way this atheist sees it at all. It does seem that there is an innate desire to believe in God, but I don't feel that atheists are somehow 'resisting the pull', or are better or superior in consequence. Over the years I've become convinced that there is a genetic element to belief, and I at least seem to have been incapable of it from a very young age. When it comes to the wish that there were a God, it's not in my own case a pull that I resist, but a longing that can never be satisfied. I long for there to be a loving God who cares for all, but I have no sense whatsoever that there is one: on the contrary.
Amika, the desiring or longing for God that you speak of seems to me, as a Christian, far more satisfactory language to use of ourselves in relation to God than any talk about "wanting" God to exist.
I can accept the view that we may be genetically, or 'memetically', pre-determined to experience these feelings in some way, but I don't see this as necessarily inconsistent with the view that as a loving creator, God made human beings to enter into relationship with him and so we are created to be pre-disposed to that relationship. If this is so, we could all expect to experience some feeling of longing or unfulfilled desire for God, whether we are believers or not, because we are all finite creatures who find ourselves at an infinite distance from him.
(But if an atheist was to deny that they felt any such desire or longing, I couldn't contradict them because how can I know better?)
The idea of "wanting God to exist" which Yorick originally raised seems to me to relate to an impersonal concept of a small-g god, some kind of fantasy figure made in our own image, rather than the personal God of Judeo-Christian revelation, who continually confounds our expectations.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:
Maybe there are some atheists who want God to exist, but don't see much evidence for his existence. I'm not sure if that's what Yorick meant.
Ah yes, the "I wish I could have a faith, it must be so comforting" brigade. Translates as: "I wish I, too, could live in cloud cuckoo land but unfortunately I am too intelligent to do so."
I think I might try the “I’m too intelligent” excuse. It might be useful when dealing with a deity who is so demanding on my time and energy that expects me to do stuff I’d rather not. And out of love of all things (even when dealing with the unlovely I’m supposed to apply will and love full stop). Practically speaking it is more convenient to be agnostic or even atheistic at times, and I wish that there were no God. I could rationalise away all those platitudes and commandments then eat drink and be merry.
Truly I would welcome evidence that my ‘invisible friend’ did not exist because we’re enemies at times.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
C. S. Lewis's argument was that if we dreamed up a god, that god would never demand that we do things we don't want to, and refrain from doing things we do want to.
Moo
Interesting. How does he account for all the various gods that Christians believed people simply "dreamed up" who demand they do things they don't want to, etc,...?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
C. S. Lewis's argument was that if we dreamed up a god, that god would never demand that we do things we don't want to, and refrain from doing things we do want to.
Moo
Interesting. How does he account for all the various gods that Christians believed people simply "dreamed up" who demand they do things they don't want to, etc,...?
Well, Lewis wouldn't have believed that the gods of other religions were simply "dreamed up," nor would a lot of Christians.
Oh, and Lamb Chopped, about this ...
quote:
I naturally assume the dinner will be burnt, the test will come back positive for some terminal illness, the person on the phone is calling to tell me about a death in the family. I am, in short, a pessimistic freak of the highest order.
...Mom? Is that you?'' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
I could also add that as a gay man, it would be a hell of a lot more convenient for me on the social and church front if God didn't exist.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
Over the years I've become convinced that there is a genetic element to belief, and I at least seem to have been incapable of it from a very young age.
Pardon the tangent but it is remarkable to me how pervasive the theory of 'genetics' influencing our perceptions/behavior has become... perhaps another thread someday.
And given Yorick has on more than one occasion essentially admitted to agnosticism why the continued angst? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
He's already all but converted to theism. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Hello Amika. I recall Yorick posting on these boards something along the lines of the following: our beliefs arise from our personal experiences, atheist or otherwise. It sounds a little like what you're saying. I presume that the way things are make some people think there can't be a God. I don't think that's case of being too cool for school.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Most real Amika. And TC, I'm happy to accept my weakness compared with Yorick. My lack of courage. Dawkins is a most courageous man. I experienced the love of God today in being able to support a homeless person for a few hours and in gathering with a bunch of fellow broken creatures, for a couple of hours this evening, accepting, including them as I am accepted, included. Without judgement. At the point of need. Seeing them revive a little in the gutter when given a nubbin of unconditional welcome. There was nowhere else in a city of a third of a million people where that could have happened. Giving tottering, helpless, terminal alcoholics respect is so worth it. Having dangerous, violent men hold your hand. Awesome.
THEY all want there to be a God better than the one they fear and can hardly dare to believe that He might be. Helping them to dare despite their fear, their pathological doubt. Priceless. Helps dispel mine.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I think it makes more sense that we want there to be meaning in our lives. I am reminded of a passage written by Bertrand Russell when he wrote that at the end of the day, the earth will crumble, the sun will die out and all of our history and fancy ideas will be forgotten as if they never existed. Now what Bertrand Russell wrote is absolutely correct of what will happen.
For religious people, that meaning is fulfilled through a relationship with God. However there are secular variants, such as a belief in social justice, finding meaning through family and building community.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
According to James (as written), believing in God is over-rated. 'The powers of evil believe - and shudder.'
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
To avoid further hijacking "God is so weird," I am starting this thread with a question that derives specifically from something Yorick said, but is of course open to anyone to discuss.
On that thread, Yorick quoth:
quote:
Even the staunchest atheist wants God to exist, deep down inside- I most certainly do myself.
I'm clearly a failure at staunchiness.
Absolutely. An atheist ought at least to know better than to come out with sweeping generalisations about atheists.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
As an atheist I can't say I wish there was a god. My wish's are directed more towards people learning to all get along and be nice to one another.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Until meaningless oblivion before which no matter how much niceness is realised for a few sheltered lives cannot be realised for the hundred billion suffered dead?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Until meaningless oblivion before which no matter how much niceness is realised for a few sheltered lives cannot be realised for the hundred billion suffered dead?
Why meaningless?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed, it's redundant. Endless night after one bad day. How's that?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
C. S. Lewis's argument was that if we dreamed up a god, that god would never demand that we do things we don't want to, and refrain from doing things we do want to.
Moo
Interesting. How does he account for all the various gods that Christians believed people simply "dreamed up" who demand they do things they don't want to, etc,...?
Well, Lewis wouldn't have believed that the gods of other religions were simply "dreamed up," nor would a lot of Christians.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you claiming them to be different understandings of the One True God™ or demonic deceit?
Regardless, going purely on the contents of Christianity's own holy book, it's natural to conclude that (depending on your position on the DH of inerrancy) either we're very good at dreaming up a god who doesn't do what we want, or God is indeed a bastard, contrary to Christian apologetics throughout history.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As an atheist I can't say I wish there was a god. My wish's are directed more towards people learning to all get along and be nice to one another.
I find this kind of wish a bit disappointing, to be honest. I'm sure you could dream bigger. Universal niceness seems to be a rather bland thing to hope for. Not to mention completely unrealistic, assuming there is no transcendent reality to help everyone on their way.
I may be wrong here, but are you also implying that as an atheist you think that Christians do not want people to get along better with each other? Obviously, countless Christians down the ages have given the impression that they don't, so it would be a fair and serious challenge if you are making it. But I think that Christian hope is rightly grounded in joyful and peaceful anticipation of the coming of God's Kingdom, to which all are invited. Will it be merely 'nice'? I doubt it. I think it will be wondrous beyond our wildest imaginings.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Fugue: Universal niceness seems to be a rather bland thing to hope for.
Unrealistic, quite probably. But bland?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fugue
Shipmate
# 16254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Fugue: Universal niceness seems to be a rather bland thing to hope for.
Unrealistic, quite probably. But bland?
Uh huh, I think so. Niceness isn't something to be scorned in and of itself, but it seems to me to represent a minimum level of civilised human relating. That's not to say more of it than we have wouldn't be a vast improvement.
But niceness doesn't equate to goodness, and I don't even think it is quite the same thing as kindness, either. Though C. S. Lewis in "The Problem of Pain" has some interesting thoughts on the problems that arise from equating kindness with love, or goodness. Kindness is included within these things, but love and goodness are something greater. You can be nice to your neighbour without actually going further and truly loving them in accordance with the commandment.
I'm also not convinced it is always on every occasion appropriate to be nice. Jesus of Nazareth certainly wasn't. But I'm quite sure it is always appropriate to be good. That's why I think wishing for nothing more than niceness is, in the end, a little bland in itself.
Posts: 126 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If we do have a need for God to exist, it must be there for a reason.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Fugue: Universal niceness seems to be a rather bland thing to hope for.
Unrealistic, quite probably. But bland?
Uh huh, I think so. Niceness isn't something to be scorned in and of itself, but it seems to me to represent a minimum level of civilised human relating. That's not to say more of it than we have wouldn't be a vast improvement.
But niceness doesn't equate to goodness, and I don't even think it is quite the same thing as kindness, either. Though C. S. Lewis in "The Problem of Pain" has some interesting thoughts on the problems that arise from equating kindness with love, or goodness. Kindness is included within these things, but love and goodness are something greater. You can be nice to your neighbour without actually going further and truly loving them in accordance with the commandment.
I'm also not convinced it is always on every occasion appropriate to be nice. Jesus of Nazareth certainly wasn't. But I'm quite sure it is always appropriate to be good. That's why I think wishing for nothing more than niceness is, in the end, a little bland in itself.
I don't think evolution will deliver niceness, with survival of the fittest. The fittest and strongest often aren't the nicest people and animals.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't think evolution will deliver niceness, with survival of the fittest. The fittest and strongest often aren't the nicest people and animals.
You're a bit out of date there - some evolutionary psychologists are now arguing that empathy has been hard-wired into the human brain because we needed group cohesion to survive.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Fugue: But niceness doesn't equate to goodness, and I don't even think it is quite the same thing as kindness, either.
Ok, I agree.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If we do have a need for God to exist, it must be there for a reason.
Yes, indeed, everything about our condition is there for a reason, since it has evolved like that by natural selection. As QLib said, there is a survival advantage conferred by our innate capacity for empathy, for example. Our in-built desire for god is the same.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Yes, but what does it mean?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
It doesn’t mean anything, in and of itself. A giraffe has a long neck with which it may reach leaves on the higher branches of trees, and, as a result, there are long-necked quadrupeds walking about munching leaves high up in trees. That we desire god means nothing, except that we are here having this discussion partly as a result of the survival advantage this afforded our ancestors.
The fact that you're here to wonder about what it means also demonstrates advantages in our capacity so to wonder.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious
It's just the attitude that says, "We Atheists are better, tougher and stronger because we defy our natural desire for God and take the hard road of intellectual honesty," that I find really quite arrogant and, at the same time, sort of ingenuous.
I'm quite fascinated by the phrase 'the hard road of intellectual honesty'. In my many conversations with atheists I'm at a loss to know what this 'intellectual honesty' is.
I try my best to be intellectually honest, and this 'honesty' simply does not lead me in the direction of concluding that complexity must derive from natural causes uninfluenced by intelligent input and control. All the empirical evidence that I have ever encountered in my life drives me to one inescapable conclusion: that there is an unmistakable causal relationship between 'intelligence' and 'complexity'. Even abiogenesis experiments which seek to simulate the putative conditions of the early earth also simulate intelligent input (i.e. through the necessary intelligent input of the scientists), thus affirming the very thing they try to disprove.
You are right, Trudy, in saying that this attitude on the part of some atheists is arrogant. While it may not be displayed by many - or even most - atheists, it certainly is an intensely patronising attitude. But what is even worse is that it is a lie, because it is not at all obvious that intellectual honesty affirms the non-existence of God.
If anyone questions this, then we can always start with the validity of the concept of 'honesty' itself. How does that fit into a materialistic philosophy? Or the validity of 'reason'? In fact, what does the concept of 'truth' mean if everything is reducible to atoms and molecules, mind is reducible to brain and all human cognition is reducible to material brain states?
Materialism is an epistemological disaster, and I fail to see how anyone who truly 'wants' God could be driven (against his or her will) to embrace that philosophy.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
That we desire god means nothing, except that we are here having this discussion partly as a result of the survival advantage this afforded our ancestors.
An advantage which no longer applies to us (being so different from our ancestors)?
I'm quite willing to speculate that, if it's all hard-wired, the evolutionary optimum in society is not 100% believers. Maybe a few doubters need to be in the mix to keep the believers on their toes and honest. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I've always felt that to be agnostic is the only absolutely intellectually honest position. Surely any honest person would have to admit that we cannot possibly know FOR CERTAIN where there is a god, many gods, or no gods at all? It seems to me we are all agnostics (don't know) but some of us make the choice to believe, or to disbelieve. But people (on either side) who argue with absolute certainty as if they know there is, or isn't, a god, and their statements can be definitely proven, seem a bit scary.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I've always felt that to be agnostic is the only absolutely intellectually honest position. Surely any honest person would have to admit that we cannot possibly know FOR CERTAIN where there is a god, many gods, or no gods at all? It seems to me we are all agnostics (don't know) but some of us make the choice to believe, or to disbelieve. But people (on either side) who argue with absolute certainty as if they know there is, or isn't, a god, and their statements can be definitely proven, seem a bit scary.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) With one further observation: being as you describe it, agnosticism is not a safe middle ground. There isn't any. Harry Blamires analyzes the situation in the opening pages of The Kirkbride Conversations, which begin when a gentle, agreeable, intelligent young man mentions to a priest, "I don't know what I believe." Anyone who takes refuge or satisfaction in mere uncertainty is actually an unbeliever.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I've always felt that to be agnostic is the only absolutely intellectually honest position. Surely any honest person would have to admit that we cannot possibly know FOR CERTAIN where there is a god, many gods, or no gods at all? It seems to me we are all agnostics (don't know) but some of us make the choice to believe, or to disbelieve. But people (on either side) who argue with absolute certainty as if they know there is, or isn't, a god, and their statements can be definitely proven, seem a bit scary.
I agree that we cannot know for certain, but I still call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic because I find the claims of all world religions impossible to believe in. I allow the faint possibility that there may be 'a god', but not as described by any religion I have as yet come across.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I've always felt that to be agnostic is the only absolutely intellectually honest position. Surely any honest person would have to admit that we cannot possibly know FOR CERTAIN where there is a god, many gods, or no gods at all? It seems to me we are all agnostics (don't know) but some of us make the choice to believe, or to disbelieve. But people (on either side) who argue with absolute certainty as if they know there is, or isn't, a god, and their statements can be definitely proven, seem a bit scary.
I agree that we cannot know for certain, but I still call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic because I find the claims of all world religions impossible to believe in. I allow the faint possibility that there may be 'a god', but not as described by any religion I have as yet come across.
Yes, I can see that, and I choose to believe because I find it close to impossible NOT to, which may of course be influenced by my wishes, my background, etc etc. I just think that even the most convinced believer (in any religion) should always be aware of the possibility that they may be entirely wrong and there's absolutely nothing more "out there," just as the most convinced atheist should allow for the faint possibility that there just might BE something.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't think evolution will deliver niceness, with survival of the fittest. The fittest and strongest often aren't the nicest people and animals.
You're a bit out of date there - some evolutionary psychologists are now arguing that empathy has been hard-wired into the human brain because we needed group cohesion to survive.
...so we're getting nicer and nicer?
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
In fact, what does the concept of 'truth' mean if everything is reducible to atoms and molecules, mind is reducible to brain and all human cognition is reducible to material brain states?
Thanks EE, I'm with you all the way. I'd go further with this in the context of this thread and suggest that all but those we call 'inhuman' (or perhaps 'criminally insane') want truth to exist - and since truth is meaningless without a transcendent origin, then everyone we call 'human(e)' wants God to exist.
We're all presented with a quest to locate the God who saves us from the moral vacuum - who provides the 'it just is' to justify the golden rule. We can attempt to locate him in a conflation of the biological and social aspects - eg empathy as an evolved disposition to enhance the breeding success of the group - but a Christian will regard such attempts as idolatry, due to locating god in part(s) of the created order. Are supporters of such theories open to the eugenic implications of such conflations, if we're serious about giving them moral authority? Doesn't remotely wash, IMV...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't think evolution will deliver niceness, with survival of the fittest. The fittest and strongest often aren't the nicest people and animals.
You're a bit out of date there - some evolutionary psychologists are now arguing that empathy has been hard-wired into the human brain because we needed group cohesion to survive.
...so we're getting nicer and nicer?
Why would that follow from what's been said?
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Thanks EE, I'm with you all the way. I'd go further with this in the context of this thread and suggest that all but those we call 'inhuman' (or perhaps 'criminally insane') want truth to exist - and since truth is meaningless without a transcendent origin, then everyone we call 'human(e)' wants God to exist.
This is offensive bollocks. Firstly explain why truth is meaningless without a transcendent origin. Secondly you are saying that anyone who has no desire for God to exist - i.e. me and some other contributors to this thread - are sub-human and criminally insane. This really does deserve a hell call.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian
This is offensive bollocks. Firstly explain why truth is meaningless without a transcendent origin. Secondly you are saying that anyone who has no desire for God to exist - i.e. me and some other contributors to this thread - are sub-human and criminally insane. This really does deserve a hell call.
I am not sure that this accusation against Mark_in_Manchester is entirely fair. He was talking about wanting 'truth' to exist. It's not for me to presume as to what Mark means, but since he affirmed something I wrote, then I feel I have to express my view.
All but those who are insane believe (consciously or unconsciously) in something called 'truth', even though there may be disagreements concerning the content of 'truth'. I would argue that the concept of 'truth' only makes sense within a worldview in which there is an objective - and therefore eternal - basis for truth, which is the view that affirms the existence of an eternal 'reason', which Christians call the mind of God. I find it difficult to comprehend what meaning 'truth' has if the entire content of the human mind is simply an emergent property of animal instinct, which is, in turn, the product of the mindless movement of matter.
You don't need to be a theist to live as though there is such a thing as 'truth'. Most people believe in the validity of reason, because that is part of our humanity and therefore, to all practical intents and purposes, most people are 'sane'. However, there is a difference between how we live our lives and what we may affirm to be true about reality as a whole - in other words, our metaphysics may not be in sync with our practice.
I would say that our fundamental human need for truth and reason reflects the reality of an ultimately objective reason, which cannot be merely the emergent property of matter. But this is an epistemological discussion, which most people (I assume!) don't think about on a day to day basis.
Someone may affirm, correctly, that the earth orbits the sun, but may have all sorts of wrong ideas about why this is so. That person is clearly sane in asserting that fundamental fact. In the same way, philosophical materialists may affirm the idea of objective truth, which is a 'sane' thing to do, even though (in my view) their philosophy may throw up all sorts of epistemological problems.
The same applies to morality. Someone may say that morality is relative, but live as though it is not. That person is, to all practical intents and purposes, 'sane', even though they fail to live consistently with their moral philosophy which is, in effect, saying that what is 'evil' for one person can legitimately be called 'good' for another.
Mark may clarify what he meant, but if his position agrees with mine, then I really don't think this is anything more than a philosophical discussion about the concept of 'truth'.
If you want to talk about 'offence', then the idea that only atheists are 'intellectually honest' just about takes the biscuit! (A point brought up in the OP).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
