Thread: Purgatory: Do we WANT there to be a God? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001211
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
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)
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
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.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on
:
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.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
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."
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on
:
Well, maybe, but not in all cases. See Amika's post above.
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
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.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
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.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
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,...?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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)
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
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.
Posted by 205 (# 206) on
:
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)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Daughter! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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.
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
According to James (as written), believing in God is over-rated. 'The powers of evil believe - and shudder.'
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
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.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
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?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Indeed, it's redundant. Endless night after one bad day. How's that?
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
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.
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Fugue: Universal niceness seems to be a rather bland thing to hope for.
Unrealistic, quite probably. But bland?
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If we do have a need for God to exist, it must be there for a reason.
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
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.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Yes, but what does it mean?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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)
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
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.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
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.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
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.
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
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?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
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...
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
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?
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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).
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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).
Can you point to any occasion in this thread where an atheist has actually said this, as compared to someone else claiming that atheists say this?
quote:
I am not sure that this accusation against Mark_in_Manchester is entirely fair. He was talking about wanting 'truth' to exist.
No, he explicitly said that everyone "human" wants God to exist, ergo someone who does not want God to exist is not human.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
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."
Not sure why, but this makes me think of early Christian martyrdom legends. Wasn't Polycarp accused of being an atheist, on the grounds that he would not pour out a libation for the statue of the emperor, or something?
It seems to me that the idea that atheists are superior for winning their struggle against the need to believe that there is a God, is not much different to the idea that the early Christians were superior for winning their struggle against the need to believe that the true god is the Roman emperor, rather than Jesus Christ.
The only difference is that one or two of those Christians may possibly have been mauled by one or two beasts over the matter. Then again, maybe they weren't. Perhaps the martyrdom legends were all made up. But that's not the point. Point is, I'm not really seeing equivalent bravery on the part of atheists. Yet. But never say never.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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.
I'd agree that it's difficult to see what "truth" might mean if human cognitive processes can be accounted for entirely in terms of natural phenomena that have already been successfully modelled.
But since I don't believe that the mechanics of cognition are themselves inherently beyond human comprehension, I am therefore sceptical of "truth".
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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.
It's nice to think that there is an objective reason. But that doesn't by itself mean that there is such a reason. Unless, of course, you use the argument that if it's possible to think of something, then the thing you've just thought of must therefore exist, because it's impossible to think about non-existent things.
What exactly is existence, anyway? Does existence exist? Does non-existence exist? If either existence or non-existence or both exist, how do we know that they exist? Can we know whether they exist or not? And what does it mean for existence and non-existence to exist anyway?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Thanks EE for your followup post, and sorry if you felt tarred with my rather sloppily-expressed brush...again, I'm very much behind your post, which is probably more clear and certainly more carefully constructed than anything I'm going to be able to put together. But here we go...
PreCambrian said:
quote:
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.
Well, I'd be happy to do it there if you want to..or perhaps I can have a go here.
Perhaps your 'secondly' first...no, that's very definately NOT what I said - though I can see that your inference of such an offensive statement is perhaps justified by my sloppy construction, and deserves a reply.
I AM saying that a commitment to objective truth which transcends the personal, is required to restrain actions in society which most would view as inhumane - indeed it is required to make the use of such a term meaningful. So - if a (misguided, as I would see it) theist started to harm or kill his unbelieving neighbours, we would need a commitment to some universal principle which would entitle us to make him cease.
I say that God (as I understand Him in his revealed nature in Christ) commands this guy to cease. (tangent - this is not to say that those who believe in Christ do not frequently do things which God commands them cease - as I tried to indicate by choosing a theist for the example).
A non-theist would clearly find such an appeal to the authority of God outrageous - and would need to appeal to a different source of Truth. To which I turn around your first question back to you - can you explain how Truth can be meaningful *without* a transcendent origin?
When I was an atheist, I found no philosophical basis for a commitment to such Truth which does not ultimately require a self-creating origin - or perhaps which look OK but then fail in circumstances which call for them to be 'trumped' by a higher authority which is ultimately self-creating. I've explored a few...perhaps another thread, or this will get too big? Such an origin is, in my view, a god by any common definition of that word. So the limit of my offence (and I understand that this may be indeed be offensive, to which I add that I'm not trying to be inflammatory) is to suggest that all who maintain a humane position are engaged in inter-faith dialogue, since at the end, they are all stuck with 'Truth...it just is'.
This is not at all the same as a suggestion that those who choose not to express their commitment to Truth in terms of God / god(s) are criminally-insane - the logic is not coummutative or associative or whatever the right term from maths is - it doesn't work backwards. Clearly and by observation, at least as many non-theists are 'humane', as theists. My argument concerns what makes them so.
It's also worth saying that I make no special claim for the Christian God here - hence the reference to inter-faith dialogue. I am a Christian - but the 'why' of that is not relevant to this exchange.
I'd seriously welcome your views on where Truth comes from, either here or somewhere more infernal. I'm sorry I wound you up - and I hope I've expressed myself more clearly.
MiM
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I AM saying that a commitment to objective truth which transcends the personal, is required to restrain actions in society which most would view as inhumane - indeed it is required to make the use of such a term meaningful.
I'm intrigued by the use of the word "inhumane" there - particularly given that I've recently read "The Beast Within" by Joyce E. Salisbury.
You see, I'm wondering why anyone really needs to commit to objective truth that transcends the personal. I'm also wondering exactly how far above the personal a truth needs to transcend before it is considered "objective".
It seems to me that the only thing you need to be able to restrain the "inhumane" is a belief that there's a difference between heroes and monsters. Between humans and animals. Between the civilised and the barbarians. Between "us" and "them". In short - you need some form of tribalism. And you need to be able to paint those outside the tribe as somehow inferior, somehow less humane, somehow more beastly, than those inside the tribe.
Hence the mores about bestiality. If a human mated with a primate, they probably won't produce offspring - but what if they do? Would the offspring be a human, or a beast? Would it participate in the resurrection, or wouldn't it? Most religions that claim to teach "objective truth" don't like to grapple with questions like that. So they duck them, by making out that such unions are bad. Hence the Old Testament prohibition of Jews intermarrying with Gentiles.
I grant that the "objective truth" about the difference between humans and beasts needs to transcend the personal. But does it need to transcend the tribe? Does it need to transcend humanity? What if you face a hungry wolf one day, and you have your own opinions about the difference between "humane" and "inhumane". Does it matter whether the wolf agrees with your opinions or not? If not, why not?
Supposing it doesn't matter whether the wolf agrees or not. And supposing you imagine that the nation you come from is civilised nation - and, one day, you meet someone who comes from a nation that you consider to be barbarian. Does it matter whether the barbarian agrees with your opinion on the difference between "humane" and "inhumane"? If so, then why does it matter? If it matters whether the barbarian agrees or not, but it doesn't matter whether the wolf agrees or not, then isn't that a contradiction? Just how "objective" does this so-called "objective truth" have to be, anyway?
I can certainly see how the ability to distinguish between "humane" and "inhumane" depends on a "truth" that transcends the personal. But does it need to transcend the tribe? Does it need to transcend humanity? If not, then is it really "objective" - and does it need to be "objective"?
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Hi Jessie -
quote:
And supposing you imagine that the nation you come from is civilised nation - and, one day, you meet someone who comes from a nation that you consider to be barbarian. Does it matter whether the barbarian agrees with your opinion on the difference between "humane" and "inhumane"? If so, then why does it matter?
Thanks for this - it's right at the heart of it, for me. For it to 'matter', God (or god(s), since I'm still not making any specific claims for Christ) has to be there to Make It So. I think nearly everyone thinks it does matter - matters that (for instance) women live in what I (and, I would guess but not presume, you) would regard as subjugation in some cultures, that their genital mutilation / foot binding / etc might be 'inhumane' - and so on. I am heartily glad that this is so, but in contrast to other posters, I think this means (to tie this back to the OP) that it necessitates a God / god(s) - and so, whether we express it in these terms or not, we all want there to be a God / god(s). The only defense against this assertion seems to me to be a rational derivation of transcendent Truth, which I don't believe exists...but which I am open to thinking about.
If there is no transcendent Truth, then I can find no argument why one tribe's view can take precedent, other than by brute strength justified on aesthetic or some other grounds. If this is the case, then Truth is not as I know it, and the only reason why I might not choose to piss on the next disabled person I meet will be because it is 'not very nice'. I'm too evil for that to work - moral choice for me needs a stronger injunction than that which dissuades me from wearing socks with sandals...
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Thanks for this - it's right at the heart of it, for me. For it to 'matter', God (or god(s), since I'm still not making any specific claims for Christ) has to be there to Make It So. I think nearly everyone thinks it does matter - matters that (for instance) women live in what I (and, I would guess but not presume, you) would regard as subjugation in some cultures, that their genital mutilation / foot binding / etc might be 'inhumane' - and so on. I am heartily glad that this is so, but in contrast to other posters, I think this means (to tie this back to the OP) that it necessitates a God / god(s) - and so, whether we express it in these terms or not, we all want there to be a God / god(s).
So - am I understanding you correctly, that you are saying that if there is a transcendent truth, there must also be a divinity?
Am I safe in assuming that your definition of "divinity" is quite loose here - and that any entity, with volition, and which is thought to be either immortal, or, failing that, to have a life span exceeding those of humans several times over, can be described as a "divinity"? Or am I making the definition of "divinity" even narrower than you would?
I think there's still an uncertainty over the level of transcendence. It's all very well to say that you should not mutilate genitals or bind feet, and then treat that more as transcending the tribe but not the species - but what about cannibalism? Is it wrong to eat other humans? If it's wrong to eat humans, is it okay to eat other animals?
If it's wrong for a human to eat a human, but it's okay for a human to eat a lamb, then is it okay for a lamb to eat a lamb? Not that a lamb would eat a lamb, of course - but, similarly, is it okay for wolves to eat lambs? How can it make sense to say that it's humane for humans to eat lambs, but not humane for wolves to eat lambs?
It seems to me that the definition of "humane" is based on the subjective experience of humanity. Since not every creature is human, then the idea that such a definition could ever be considered part of an objective truth seems questionable.
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
If there is no transcendent Truth, then I can find no argument why one tribe's view can take precedent, other than by brute strength justified on aesthetic or some other grounds.
So, don't you think that's what happens anyway? Might is right? History is written by the victors, and all that? You win the war, you colonise the foreign nations - and then you cook up the theological and/or cultural and/or aesthetic argument about how it was right that this happened.
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
If this is the case, then Truth is not as I know it, and the only reason why I might not choose to piss on the next disabled person I meet will be because it is 'not very nice'. I'm too evil for that to work - moral choice for me needs a stronger injunction than that which dissuades me from wearing socks with sandals...
Which I guess is where the concept of life span comes into it.
Pissing on a disabled person won't exactly do your reputation a lot of good if anyone gets to hear about it. You might care what your reputation is right now - but will you still care about it after you die? Actually - a surprising number of people do seem to care how they might be remembered after they die. Why? Don't know. Maybe because of the kids. Maybe for other reasons. But the point is, they sometimes base their decisions about that on the lessons they think they've learned from the life stories of those who've died before us.
A person's legacy might outlive them - and the more ostentatious the deeds of the king, the hero or the celebrity are, the longer they are likely to be remembered. We are more impressed by the story of a person who has been remembered for thousands of years - even if we suspect they never actually existed in the first place - than we are with people who are alive today, but to whom we have never been introduced.
And I suspect it was this observation that gave rise to the concept of what we call a "divinity" in the first place.
It seems to me that Christians and atheists alike don't think anything of calling celebrities "Hollywood gods" or "football gods". But to call a manual labourer a "factory god" seems slightly ridiculous.
In this sense, the word "god" is used in much the same way as "star"; we talk about "rock stars" but not "factory stars". A "god" - or a "star" - is distinguished from an ordinary mortal by the belief that they have - or are developing - a legend that's thought to be likely to last a bit longer than our ordinary mortal lives.
Indeed - we even talk about celebrities being "immortalised in celluloid". Does having a film made of you really stop you from dying? Clearly not.
Point is, I think that the moral imperative lies not in whether the moral code itself is considered to be long-lasting - but in the question of what your actions are thought to do to any long-lasting legacy that you and your family may or may not have. And it's this that gives rise to the concepts of what we call "god", "immortality", and "eternity".
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Hi Jessie - some interesting points you raised.
Warning - Jessies post was long, and so is this reply.
quote:
So - am I understanding you correctly, that you are saying that if there is a transcendent truth, there must also be a divinity?
That's my working hypothesis - because I don't know of any satisfacitory arguments which don't work back and back through a chain of causal links, ending up with an 'it just is' - in which self-creating thing I'm drawing an equivalence with divinity. The other equivalence which strikes me is that this thing has 'saving power' - it saves me from nihilism.
quote:
Am I safe in assuming that your definition of "divinity" is quite loose here - and that any entity, with volition, and which is thought to be either immortal, or, failing that, to have a life span exceeding those of humans several times over, can be described as a "divinity"? Or am I making the definition of "divinity" even narrower than you would?
For the purposes of this argument, I think it's the 'self-creation' which does it for me, rather than anything worked out regarding volition, or temporal considerations.
quote:
I think there's still an uncertainty over the level of transcendence. It's all very well to say that you should not mutilate genitals or bind feet, and then treat that more as transcending the tribe but not the species - but what about cannibalism? Is it wrong to eat other humans? If it's wrong to eat humans, is it okay to eat other animals?
I'm not saying one should not do those things, so much as observing that secular commentators (I listen to a lot of Radio 4) do say them, consistently. I'm interested to know where their moral authority comes from - and since I can find none which will bear the weight of the kind of vehemence of their injunctions against this stuff apart from God, I suggest they worship (ascribe a source of ultimate values to) an unnamed, unwanted, involuntary moral god. Of course, i could just be blind-sided by my belief in God - but no-one has yet put a convincing case to me why accepting self-creating, sharable and solid moral views with no apparent rational derivation, is philospohically different from accepting a Creator.
I'm not hung up on the species stuff, as I can say as a theist (for example) Peter was commanded in a vision to eat all sorts of meat, Jesus ate meat etc; but also I know that 'doing it (good) to the least of these others...you did it for me' is a central concept, and that apparently 7 people can be fed on vegetables grown on the land required to raise beef for enough one. So it's a complex moral issue, which seems to suggest eating less meat in a heavily populated world would be a good thing. As regards humane killing...nature sure is red in tooth and claw. We would probably choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering, and Christians might think of that as part of stewardship of the created environment. Where secular thinking get this from is less clear to me - but I am very clear they do express it, lest anyone get the wrong idea that I'm calling secular thinkers 'savage'. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Since not every creature is human, then the idea that such a definition could ever be considered part of an objective truth seems questionable.
Humans have to decide how to act. 'Humane' is a useful word in that it has 'pre-theoretic' common meaning - sure, only humans can be humane - maybe we can have an interesting time working out where humans derive their moral authority from, before speculating about other species?
quote:
So, don't you think that's what happens anyway? Might is right? History is written by the victors, and all that?
Sure I do. But if that's all there is, then ISTM all our complex moral soul searching (were we _right_ to go into Iraq / Sierra Leone / Bosnia etc) goes out the window in favour of unrestrained self-interest. I know most Christians think things are more complicated - and the fact that most secular commentators also hold solid, principled, nuanced moral views, makes me wonder from where they derive them.
quote:
Which I guess is where the concept of life span comes into it.
I thought your ideas on posterity are interesting.
Going back to your 'tribe' analogy - your idea accounts for differing moral codes amongst different tribes, whose respective moral legacies might be expected to be judged by different standards. But it does not speak to our presumed right to contrast between tribes - unless I guess we harbour the assumption that our own tribe will 'win'...which I guess might be a natural assumption...
OK, working that one out - committed Nazi enagages enthusiastically in the holocaust, expecting to be praised by future Nazis. 21C UK historian praises 1940s German dissenters, looking for approval from future UK non-fascists. Looks OK...but does not account for Rosa Parks / Bonhoeffer (sp), challenging the system from within a hostile paradigm? Though I can see why it might account for our subsequent enthusiasm regarding their stance...
I struggle with your point about family legacy, as I'm not at all interested in it - but I am concerned very much about the derivation of my moral stance.
And - (again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or insulting, but I'm an engineer and in engineering one tests cases by applying ridiculous bounding test cases - zero load, infinite load - and then working back towards the more realistic but hard-to-model ground in the middle) - can we say that our objection to a hypothitical, 'foreign' paedophile culture only amounts to the social standing we expect to accrue from taking that position, in life and/or posterity?
I know a few people who seem to verge on something like that manner of thinking, but most 'secular' friends would look on them as having something missing...suggesting (to me) that unacknowledged first cause which (reverting again to the OP) they 'want'...
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on
:
mark_in_manchester, you seem to be suggesting that people who don't believe in some form of God or Gods (regardless of whether or not they acknowledge that belief) have no reason not to be cruel to others - am I right in thinking that's your position? Because if so, I'm afraid I don't agree. I am capable of recognising:
(a) That there are certain ways I would never wish to be treated
(b) That the same is true for other people, and that in many cases the behaviour they don't wish to experience is the same as the behaviour I don't wish to experience (I could attribute this similarity to a code instilled by God, culture, genetics, something else, or some combination of the above)
(c) That if I treat others in a cruel way, I have no right to expect any better treatment from them
(d) That other people are human too, and even if I am mistreated, this doesn't mean I should mistreat them... because showing others the kindness I would wish to be shown is just a decent thing to do, and makes the world a slightly better place.
In summary, I don't think I need the threat of a vengeful deity to make me behave. In fact I think it cheapens God when people suggest that the main point of his existence is to scare us into being good.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Hi Itokro -
quote:
you seem to be suggesting that people who don't believe in some form of God or Gods (regardless of whether or not they acknowledge that belief) have no reason not to be cruel to others - am I right in thinking that's your position?
Yes - so long as we note that very, very often (at least as often as self-professed theists, I guess), secular people *are* considerate, moral, thoughtful, searching etc etc. But no-one has offered any solid philosophical ground for where such lack of cruelty can be derived from, apart from the ultimate cause of 'it just is' - which self-creation makes it equivalent to an unacknowledged thiesm, IMV.
quote:
(a) That there are certain ways I would never wish to be treated
Sure, I find that too, but in the absence of an 'it just is' golden rule, why should that have anything to do with how you or I treat others?
quote:
(b) That the same is true for other people, and that in many cases the behaviour they don't wish to experience is the same as the behaviour I don't wish to experience
Sure - but again in the absence of an 'it just is' golden rule, or perhaps 'it just is' common humanity, why worry about what they're feeling? Nietzsche thought such worries were evidence of 'slavish' fear that the 'others' might get us if we didn't promise not to get them...but that ubermenschen might boldly go out and kick the shite out of them all regardless. Dostoyevsky's (sp) Crime and Punishment explores similar ideas..these are old problems (which is good because as an engineer I doubt my philosophical chops are very up-to-the-minute)...
quote:
(c) That if I treat others in a cruel way, I have no right to expect any better treatment from them
That presumes that the 'right' of reciprocity is already established somehow. How? Maybe God decrees justice...He created it...it just is. Where else can it come from? Please note I'm NOT saying only the Christian God can be the source (though I hope / trust he is) - but I AM saying that any other self-creating source is a de-facto god, in terms of making a philosophical categorisation - ISTM.
quote:
(d) That other people are human too, and even if I am mistreated, this doesn't mean I should mistreat them... because showing others the kindness I would wish to be shown is just a decent thing to do, and makes the world a slightly better place.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, would wish to follow them, expect/ hope you're better at it than I am etc etc . BUT - 'is just a decent thing to do' is not good enough to fight evil (in me, in the world around me), raises several questions about 'decent' as interpreted by different cultures, and rests on an undeclared 'it just is' - 'a slightly better place'...in whose terms? IMV an undiscovered, unwanted, undeclared deity.
quote:
In summary, I don't think I need the threat of a vengeful deity to make me behave. In fact I think it cheapens God when people suggest that the main point of his existence is to scare us into being good.
Me neither, and I agree wholeheartedly. BUT I think that universal love and justice are not derivable rationally, so they must be self-creating, so they must live in the same philosophical category as God / god(s). Which means that humanists knocking Christians for dogged adherence to irrational belief sets is (again IMV) daft - we're all theists on the above argument. IMV. Until someone destroys my faith (OK, a bit dramatic, but this would move me a good way back towards atheisism) by providing a really convincing argument for a truly rational, universal derivation of these things which avoids nihilism AND 'it just is' explanations, whilst adequately encompassing the common meaning of the terms as used by normal, pre-theoretic humans...
I can't get the right tone here at all, in writing on these lists - I'm going for convinced, urgent, but not pompous or didactic. You wouldn't have guessed, i guess. I'm not trying to big myself up for being such a wise theist, but I am saying the nihilistic abyss is there, real, and wants to eat us / scares me severely - whilst Chistians and Humanists who both 'mean well' are spending so much time arguing about whether 'it just is' beliefs are OK or not. ISTM that we both use them, and that such discussions are therefore a waste of time better spent agreeing on more areas of common cause to avoid the abyss...
cheers
MiM
Posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing (# 16382) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
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.
This struck a chord within me because I've had the same but opposite experience. I've never not believed that Jesus is what the bible says he is, etc. I even tried lying a couple of times by saying that I was looking for proof either way but in my head I'd chosen to lie and it even felt like a lie. Though belief is a considered to be a choice, my own experience is different. I could have chosen to live what felt in me to be a lie though and perhaps in time it would have felt true.
Having never been atheist I'm not sure what atheists would expect of any G-d that were to exist. I'm also not sure what is lacking from or included in their view of this world that tells them there is no G-d. I'm fairly certain it would differ greatly between people so I'm not sure how anyone, atheist or not, can claim that all atheists and indeed people want there to be G-d.
It seems like there could be a few purposes to it though.
Defence - An atheist with some doubts trying to reinforce to themselves there is no G-d might tell themselves whatever bad feeling they feel about the lack of G-d is ok because everyone wants there to be G-d.
Attack - An atheist trying to attack theists might come from the perspective of there is no G-d but it is understandable that others believe in one because we all want to. A similar perspective to your take Trudy Scrumptious.
Retreat - An atheist not wanting to debate the existance or non-existance of G-d might choose to say that everyone wants there to be G-d so why are we even talking about it?
Posted by ZombieBunny (# 16388) on
:
Basically, there are two choices:
1) Life is a comedy. There is a plot with a happy ending.
2) Life is a tragedy. This is all a bit of a fluke, there are no guarantees, and everyone dies at the end of the story.
By default, atheism requires the second premise to be true. Yet, atheists seem to create their own comedy by turning science into something of a religion. It's comforting to think that science and reason can provide a happy ending for the human race [immortality, eradication of disease, end to poverty, etc.], even if religion fails us.
Which is telling. There does appear to be a deep-seated desire in the human psyche [generally speaking, of course] to believe that it's all going to work out for the better eventually. Whether or not it actually *will* work out in the end is a matter of debate. But the desire, I think, is decidedly present in most of the population; actual mileage may vary.
By the way, the statement, "I'm too much of an intellectual to believe there is a god" is roughly on par with, "I'm a Christian so I don't believe in evolution." It is simply a way of disposing of information or problems we currently don't know how to deal with. The truth, as usual, is likely to be someplace in the middle.
/Just my opinion
[ 02. May 2011, 15:30: Message edited by: ZombieBunny ]
Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on
:
Zombie,
There are transcendent atheist narratives, though. Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" is one of the most striking and most accessible examples of this.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
quote:
Having never been atheist I'm not sure what atheists would expect of any G-d that were to exist. I'm also not sure what is lacking from or included in their view of this world that tells them there is no G-d. I'm fairly certain it would differ greatly between people so I'm not sure how anyone, atheist or not, can claim that all atheists and indeed people want there to be G-d.
It seems like there could be a few purposes to it though.
Defence - An atheist with some doubts trying to reinforce to themselves there is no G-d might tell themselves whatever bad feeling they feel about the lack of G-d is ok because everyone wants there to be G-d.
Attack - An atheist trying to attack theists might come from the perspective of there is no G-d but it is understandable that others believe in one because we all want to. A similar perspective to your take Trudy Scrumptious.
Retreat - An atheist not wanting to debate the existance or non-existance of G-d might choose to say that everyone wants there to be G-d so why are we even talking about it?
If only everything was so clear as these options sound! I don't know that everyone wants there to be a god, but I have found that a majority of people believe in something 'supernatural', from Christianity to astrology or even the sense of natural justice: 'what goes around comes around'. I have never had any of these beliefs, but have been conscious of a desire for life to be more than I perceive it to be: a random event with no meaning whatsoever. Hence my previous post when I said I longed for a god. It is the associated meaning and purpose for which I actually long. I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
What tells an atheist there is no god? I can only speak for myself, but it distills down to the simple inability to believe in any religion I've yet come across. It's not because I 'worship' science instead, or because something happened to me that turned me away from the Christianity in which I was brought up. It's not because of Dawkins or Hitchens. I just couldn't believe from the age of about eight, and nothing has altered that view since. As I think I showed above, though, being an atheist doesn't preclude being an idealist/dreamer, and longing for a better world...
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Hi Amika -
Thanks - I've enjoyed reading your frank posts.
You said:
quote:
I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were!
I can identify with that feeling, having been there for some time...if you don't mind me asking a genuine question, are you sure there is no meaning for you? I ask since you say you've not been able to find your way to faith, despite being sympathetic to the possibility of something more to life - I presume because you find those faiths you have explored unconvincing, perhaps rationally / emotionally / morally or on other grounds. Doesn't such a rejection of deficient faith imply a quite solid kind of meaning, required to frame a judgement of insufficient Truth? And (yes my record is stuck - I'm a one-trick philosophical pony/pigmy)...from whence does that meaning derive?
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: 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.
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge Truly I would welcome evidence that my ‘invisible friend’ did not exist because we’re enemies at times.
Wrong way round I'm afraid folks.
Nothing ever will confirm the non-existence of God, it is impossible to prove such a negative. The onus of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims not those who reject them. Claims made without valid evidence may be dismissed without valid evidence.
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.
Sorry to keep on about this - Atheist = One who does not believe in a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief - not necessarily an active disbelief (although some atheists do also adopt such a position). For me, there seems to be no valid evidence for a god or gods, but there might, of course, be something equating to a god (who has no interaction with our universe) in a different existence. If you think that makes me an agnostic - feel free, but as far as this existence is concerned I'm an atheist through an inability to believe in something that seems to me to be as irrational, irrelevant and unnecessary as god(s).
quote:
originally posted by ZombieBunny Basically, there are two choices:
1) Life is a comedy. There is a plot with a happy ending.
2) Life is a tragedy. This is all a bit of a fluke, there are no guarantees, and everyone dies at the end of the story.
By default, atheism requires the second premise to be true
Alternatively
1) It's a farce? It's a (Grimm?) faiytale?
2) It's a (mainly) joyous voyage of discovery unburdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed by irrational superstition. Random mutations moderated by benefit, there are no unrealistic and unsupported expectations, and everyone dies.
By default, a lack of atheism leads to cognitive dissonance when that which is sensed fails to match that which the preferred brand of revalatory story insists is true.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The onus of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims not those who reject them.
The claim that something Divine exists is incredibly ordinary.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Claims made without valid evidence may be dismissed without valid evidence.
"Valid" operates as weasel word there, allowing the insertion of one's philosophical prejudices.
Posted by ZombieBunny (# 16388) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Alternatively
1) It's a farce? It's a (Grimm?) faiytale?
2) It's a (mainly) joyous voyage of discovery unburdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed by irrational superstition. Random mutations moderated by benefit, there are no unrealistic and unsupported expectations, and everyone dies.
By default, a lack of atheism leads to cognitive dissonance when that which is sensed fails to match that which the preferred brand of revalatory story insists is true.
I'd like to respond to your comments, but since it has not been my personal experience as a Christian to be "burdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed" upon me by my own antiquated and moronic belief that God exists, I feel that I can't speak to this. Perhaps, though, there are a few Christians who have some comprehension of what burdened, conflicted, and miserable failures they are who could respond to you.
To be honest, being called "irrational" by the scientific community doesn't sway me much. Scientific knowledge shifts and changes over time based on the current level of understanding. At one time, the scientific community [all perfectly rational and scientific thinkers in their day] thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Those who disagreed were considered to be "irrational" in their time, but later turned out to be right. Is it so unlikely to suppose that other "irrational" views or theories might be proved to be right in the future?
What about other views currently supported by the scientific community that are, basically, unprovable? We think the Big Bang probably happened, but it's not repeatable and no one appears to have been around at the time to witness it. So, since it can't be proven [unless, of course, you've figured out how to spontaneously create a universe in your garage and can show us how to do it in ours], we should reject it as "irrational" and move on? I hardly think so.
I also don't see that theism leads to dissonance. I believe that god created the universe and everything in it [Religion], including humans, whom he endowed with the cognative ability [Reason] necessary to discover what makes the universe tick and bend it's various processes to suit our needs [Science]. Maybe I've got something screwed in backwards here, but it appears that everything fits neatly with little or no dissonance.
But then, what does a lowly superstitious moron like me know about things like this?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The onus of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims not those who reject them.
The claim that something Divine exists is incredibly ordinary.
Nice turn. The predominance of belief in god(s) makes these claims very common, so in that narrow sense they’re ordinary. However, this is not what is meant here by ‘extraordinary claims’, as you know very well. The Divine is by definition extraordinary, regardless of the depressingly gross commonness of man’s claims about it.
Of course, some of us feel ordinary life is already so special that we don’t feel any irresistible compulsion to imagine the Divine, however attractive the rewards might be. You would, no doubt, call this arrogance.
(Oh, and welcome to the SoF, NoSuchThingAsNothing.)
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ZombieBunny:
Scientific knowledge shifts and changes over time based on the current level of understanding. At one time, the scientific community [all perfectly rational and scientific thinkers in their day] thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Those who disagreed were considered to be "irrational" in their time, but later turned out to be right. Is it so unlikely to suppose that other "irrational" views or theories might be proved to be right in the future?
But that’s the thing. The scientific view is open to revision, whereas the religious view is not (except whenever it becomes convenient).
Welcome to the SoF, ZombieBunnie.
[ 03. May 2011, 09:01: Message edited by: Yorick ]
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Of course, some of us feel ordinary life is already so special that we don’t feel any irresistible compulsion to imagine the Divine, however attractive the rewards might be. You would, no doubt, call this arrogance.
Now, see, I wouldn't call that arrogance at all, because that's quite different from what you said on the other thread. If you are satisfied with a godless world and feel no need of a god, then of course it's logical for you to be an atheist.
It's the implication that you DO feel the need for a god, but have been clever and brave enough to overcome that need unlike the rest of us weaklings, that I find offensive.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I didn't say need. Well, at least if I did, that wasn't what I meant. I meant people tend to want there to be a god, and they want him to be exactly the way they imagine him to be, so much, in fact, that that's precisely how they do in fact imagine him to be.
Posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing (# 16382) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
quote:
Having never been atheist I'm not sure what atheists would expect of any G-d that were to exist. I'm also not sure what is lacking from or included in their view of this world that tells them there is no G-d. I'm fairly certain it would differ greatly between people so I'm not sure how anyone, atheist or not, can claim that all atheists and indeed people want there to be G-d.
It seems like there could be a few purposes to it though.
Defence - An atheist with some doubts trying to reinforce to themselves there is no G-d might tell themselves whatever bad feeling they feel about the lack of G-d is ok because everyone wants there to be G-d.
Attack - An atheist trying to attack theists might come from the perspective of there is no G-d but it is understandable that others believe in one because we all want to. A similar perspective to your take Trudy Scrumptious.
Retreat - An atheist not wanting to debate the existance or non-existance of G-d might choose to say that everyone wants there to be G-d so why are we even talking about it?
If only everything was so clear as these options sound! I don't know that everyone wants there to be a god, but I have found that a majority of people believe in something 'supernatural', from Christianity to astrology or even the sense of natural justice: 'what goes around comes around'. I have never had any of these beliefs, but have been conscious of a desire for life to be more than I perceive it to be: a random event with no meaning whatsoever. Hence my previous post when I said I longed for a god. It is the associated meaning and purpose for which I actually long. I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were!
What tells an atheist there is no god? I can only speak for myself, but it distills down to the simple inability to believe in any religion I've yet come across. It's not because I 'worship' science instead, or because something happened to me that turned me away from the Christianity in which I was brought up. It's not because of Dawkins or Hitchens. I just couldn't believe from the age of about eight, and nothing has altered that view since. As I think I showed above, though, being an atheist doesn't preclude being an idealist/dreamer, and longing for a better world...
*armchair psychologist hat on*
Just out of curiosity, was 8 about the same time you found out or started to suspect the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus weren't real and those who loved you and you loved and looked up to had been essentially lying to you your whole life though with the very best of loving intentions?
*armchair psychologist hat off*
Not judging that by the way. Most of my kids still believe in them.
(thanks for the welcome Yorick )
Posted by ZombieBunny (# 16388) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that’s the thing. The scientific view is open to revision, whereas the religious view is not (except whenever it becomes convenient).
Welcome to the SoF, ZombieBunnie.
Thanks, Yorick.
I tend to agree with you on this one to a point, but I'd rather not take the thread direction off on a wild tangent.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago? When it comes to anathematising each other, some scientists leave the theologians on the starting-blocks!
As to the OP, I'm not sure I want there to be a God. People's opinions about him have certainly made my life pretty miserable sometimes, principally because I'm gay. But I'm sure a worldful of atheists would have found an excuse to be horrible to me, too.
Posted by itokro (# 16135) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ZombieBunny:
What about other views currently supported by the scientific community that are, basically, unprovable? We think the Big Bang probably happened, but it's not repeatable and no one appears to have been around at the time to witness it. So, since it can't be proven [unless, of course, you've figured out how to spontaneously create a universe in your garage and can show us how to do it in ours], we should reject it as "irrational" and move on? I hardly think so.
Except Science, in my experience, is less likely to claim Absolute Truth. It's more likely to say "Yes, this is a model. It's not a perfect one*, but it produces usable results and/or is the best we've got at the moment". I have a lot of respect for religious people who can take a similar view of their faith and admit they don't know it all, but are willing to work off what they've got. But taking that attitude towards Religion seems to be less common than taking it towards Science.
*"Assume x to be a perfect sphere"; "neglect the effect of friction"; "assume y operates in a vacuum"...
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
*armchair psychologist hat on*
Just out of curiosity, was 8 about the same time you found out or started to suspect the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus weren't real and those who loved you and you loved and looked up to had been essentially lying to you your whole life though with the very best of loving intentions?
*armchair psychologist hat off*
Not judging that by the way. Most of my kids still believe in them.
Not exactly. I don't remember ever believing in Santa Claus! I think eight was when I was first able to think for myself, and no one could answer my questions about God adequately. I sought some real evidence of what I was being taught to believe in and there was none. I didn't feel lied to until much, much later when I read the Bible all the way through.
Posted by Amika (# 15785) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
You said:
quote:
I know there is no meaning, but that doesn't stop me wishing there were!
I can identify with that feeling, having been there for some time...if you don't mind me asking a genuine question, are you sure there is no meaning for you? I ask since you say you've not been able to find your way to faith, despite being sympathetic to the possibility of something more to life - I presume because you find those faiths you have explored unconvincing, perhaps rationally / emotionally / morally or on other grounds. Doesn't such a rejection of deficient faith imply a quite solid kind of meaning, required to frame a judgement of insufficient Truth? And (yes my record is stuck - I'm a one-trick philosophical pony/pigmy)...from whence does that meaning derive?
I think that depends on how you define 'meaning'. My interpretation of it is a reason for existence beyond procreation/the continuation of one's species. I can't call procreation/continuation of species a meaning.
Yes I've found all religion and other beliefs to be deficient on many grounds (not that I've ever sought a religion in which to believe - on the contrary). I think you're asking on what that rejection is based - as in, what do I believe that makes it impossible to believe in God (getting very circular here!) and where does that 'belief' come from? I could write a whole book on that topic but in a tiny nutshell the world sans any deity makes sense to me in its randomness. I don't see this as meaning, however.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ZombieBunny:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Alternatively
1) It's a farce? It's a (Grimm?) faiytale?
2) It's a (mainly) joyous voyage of discovery unburdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed by irrational superstition. Random mutations moderated by benefit, there are no unrealistic and unsupported expectations, and everyone dies.
By default, a lack of atheism leads to cognitive dissonance when that which is sensed fails to match that which the preferred brand of revalatory story insists is true.
I'd like to respond to your comments, but since it has not been my personal experience as a Christian to be "burdened by the fear, failure and futility imposed" upon me by my own antiquated and moronic belief that God exists, I feel that I can't speak to this. .................But then, what does a lowly superstitious moron like me know about things like this?
From whence cometh lowly and moronic?
I was merely providing an alternative view using unsupported sweeping generalisations - it seemed appropriate.
Originally posted by IngoB quote:
"Valid" operates as weasel word there, allowing the insertion of one's philosophical prejudices.
But removing "valid" without effective replacement means that he(a)r(e)s(a)y and guesswork can be weighted equally with undeniable fact. If you wish to proffer a better word I'm open to suggestions.
Adeodatus - you could have added Plate tectonics as well (and no doubt many more).
Thanks to Yorick and itokro - seems to me you've made it unnecessary to respond further.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
....[I} suggest that all who maintain a humane position are engaged in inter-faith dialogue, since at the end, they are all stuck with 'Truth...it just is'.
This is not at all the same as a suggestion that those who choose not to express their commitment to Truth in terms of God / god(s) are criminally-insane - the logic is not coummutative or associative or whatever the right term from maths is - it doesn't work backwards. Clearly and by observation, at least as many non-theists are 'humane', as theists. My argument concerns what makes them so....
Hello Mark
Non-theist here. Well - sort of.
I hope you'll agree that the above pulled quote is a fair snip of your longer argument, and that I'm not evading your more detailed argument if I say that I am humane for the same reason that theists are humane. Humanity is an innate, fundamental aspect of what I am - of what we all are. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"... etc.
The only difference between us is perhaps that I embrace the 'just-isness' of truth, whereas you want to believe there is a transcendent reason for truth being so. Yet, those who (want to) believe in God are apt to say God is truth. If so, why not just call it truth, and cut out the superfluous and heavily loaded synonym?
Truth is what all of us really seek, isn't it?
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago?
The statement I've highlighted is a bit odd for you to make immediately before you provide two stellar examples of scientists accepting new ideas.
Posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing (# 16382) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
quote:
Originally posted by NoSuchThingAsNothing:
*armchair psychologist hat on*
Just out of curiosity, was 8 about the same time you found out or started to suspect the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus weren't real and those who loved you and you loved and looked up to had been essentially lying to you your whole life though with the very best of loving intentions?
*armchair psychologist hat off*
Not judging that by the way. Most of my kids still believe in them.
Not exactly. I don't remember ever believing in Santa Claus! I think eight was when I was first able to think for myself, and no one could answer my questions about God adequately. I sought some real evidence of what I was being taught to believe in and there was none. I didn't feel lied to until much, much later when I read the Bible all the way through.
Ahh k
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Yorick: But that’s the thing. The scientific view is open to revision, whereas the religious view is not
Aha, so this is why religious thought has remained unchanged during the last 5000 years, and why religious people always agree with eachother
Christian religion too has changed enormously since its beginnings. Many forms of contemporary Christianity would be unrecognisable to its first century adherents. That is because religion has always been reinterpreted, revised, changed. This is what people like St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther... did. And I could name countless others.
Some of their ideas were accepted swiftly, some met resistance, and yes, some of them were answered with violence. And I readily admit that the latter probably happened more often in religion than in the scientific world. But saying that religion isn't open to revision is a very transparent strawman.
quote:
itokro: Except Science, in my experience, is less likely to claim Absolute Truth. It's more likely to say "Yes, this is a model. It's not a perfect one*, but it produces usable results and/or is the best we've got at the moment".
This is certainly true at the level of scientific models. But if we go up one philosophical level, I heard many people express the idea that "The Scientific Method is the only true way in which we can view the world."
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But saying that religion isn't open to revision is a very transparent strawman.
We were talking about belief in the existence of god(s). How has that changed in religion, exactly?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Yorick: We were talking about belief in the existence of god(s). How has that changed in religion, exactly?
You're arguing semantics here. Many religious people have stopped believing in a god. But the thing is: by definition then they are not religious anymore.
But within religion, ideas of what a "god" is, and what "believing in a god" means, has changed enormously in the last millennia, and is still changing.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're arguing semantics here. Many religious people have stopped believing in a god.
No, I’m not. You’re sidestepping. We’re not talking about people who lose their belief in god- I agree. My point about science was that, unlike with religion and belief in god, knowledge derived by its method is always subject to revision. You can argue that the way people believe in god has changed over millennia, but the ‘knowledge’ that god exists (however theology has changed) has not, and it is not subject to revision.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago?
The statement I've highlighted is a bit odd for you to make immediately before you provide two stellar examples of scientists accepting new ideas.
Contintuing minor tangent ...
Kicking and screaming. The evidence for those theories (and plate tectonics - thank you, HughWillRidMee) was conclusive long, long before the theories began to be accepted by the establishment. The issue wasn't lack of evidence, it was that the evidence went against the long-held ideas of Important People. Between the theories being put forward and their acceptance, careers and reputations of good scientists were ruined.
But you don't need to go looking through the literature to find evidence of scientific conservatism. Ask any physicist how many senior female colleagues he has. Or why he still uses FORTRAN IV in his computer models.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Yorick: My point about science was that, unlike with religion and belief in god, knowledge derived by its method is always subject to revision.
You're making false analogies here. Let me try to put into a table. The Ship's formatting doesn't help much, but I'll try.
SCIENCE <-> RELIGION
METAPHYSICAL LEVEL: The idea that we can understand the Universe by measurements and observation <-> The idea that there is something "higher" and that we can know something about them by revelation and/or faith
DETAILED LEVEL: Knowledge and models derived by this method <-> Religious opinions and ideas derived by this method
What you're doing is to confuse the metaphysical level with the detailed level.
Within science, knowledge at the detailed level is subject to revision of course. Bbut you'd be surprised how many scientists are reluctant to give up their cherished model. Albert Einstein's reluctance to accept Quantum Mechanics is a well-documented example.
Within religion, ideas at the detailed level are also subject to revision - to a degree. Yes, there are fundamentalists that will reject any revision of their detailed beliefs. However, the fundamentalist view isn't the only view, and there are many revisions happening of religion at the detailed level. We wouldn't have theology if there weren't.
Within science, you'll have to admit that the basic idea at the metaphysical level isn't challenged much. Of course, there are people within Philosophy of Science polishing somewhat at the edges of this idea, but the basic idea pretty much stands.
Within religion, also the basic idea is pretty much a given. We wouldn't be religious if we didn't have it. However, you'd be surprised how much "polishing at the edges" is also done by theologists at this front.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Kicking and screaming.
Of course, scientists have investment in their knowledge, and there are many human reasons why they might be reluctant to accept challenges to that investment- this is perfectly natural, and it works in exactly the same way for religion. The difference, however, is evidence. A scientist can refute accepted and invested knowledge with independently reproducible proof. For every scientist determined to possess the accepted knowledge, there are others more determined to dispossess him of it by proving better otherwise. Thus, scientific knowledge is subject to evolutionary forces that work towards truthfulness, as opposed to religion, which may only seek to find new and better ways of evidencing the same thing, regardless of its status as truth.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
LeRoc, where does the Bible fit in your ordering of Metaphysical and Detailed Levels?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Pre-cambrian: LeRoc, where does the Bible fit in your ordering of Metaphysical and Detailed Levels?
Depends on what we're saying about the Bible. I would place the statement "Through the Bible, we can know something about God" pretty high towards the Metaphysical level. But discussing particular Bible texts and their meaning would go much farther down to the detailed level.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Hi Kanchuko -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
....[I} suggest that all who maintain a humane position are engaged in inter-faith dialogue, since at the end, they are all stuck with 'Truth...it just is'.
This is not at all the same as a suggestion that those who choose not to express their commitment to Truth in terms of God / god(s) are criminally-insane - the logic is not coummutative or associative or whatever the right term from maths is - it doesn't work backwards. Clearly and by observation, at least as many non-theists are 'humane', as theists. My argument concerns what makes them so....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, I think that's a very fair quote - perhaps I can send you my next verbose meanderings for your proof reading / a decent precis!
you replied:
quote:
...I'm not evading your more detailed argument if I say that I am humane for the same reason that theists are humane. Humanity is an innate, fundamental aspect of what I am - of what we all are. "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"... etc.
The only difference between us is perhaps that I embrace the 'just-isness' of truth, whereas you want to believe there is a transcendent reason for truth being so. Yet, those who (want to) believe in God are apt to say God is truth. If so, why not just call it truth, and cut out the superfluous and heavily loaded synonym?
I'm glad we agree on the first bit - so if it's not too insulting and you understand my use of the term, it seems to me we're now into inter-faith dialogue. Occam's Razor works in your favour (just-is truth is a whole lot more 'economical' (less imparsimonious? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) than 2000 years of thinking about the 'Son of God', not to mention other contenders which make appearances on the ship from time to time such as Cthulu (??sp!!) or the flying spaghetti monster)...'revealedness' (is that a word?) works in my favour, in that Truth Incarnate is still tough, but a whole lot easier to think about as a human, than just-is-but-remote-and-not-incarnate-truth.
After that, I guess we're into 'who moved the stone' territory. But we both have faith, ISTM - and WRT the OP, we both want Truth (I'll call it God, you'd rather not) to exist. I don't think that point is widely grasped by those who have an aversion to the whacky, out-there idea of an irrational belief in God / god(s).
quote:
Truth is what all of us really seek, isn't it?
Absolutely - it's either there and one or both of us is wrong about it, or we both made it up in which case our difference of opinion (and pretty much everything apart from physical appearance which makes us 'recognisably human') is not worth a brass razzoo...
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Pre-cambrian: LeRoc, where does the Bible fit in your ordering of Metaphysical and Detailed Levels?
Depends on what we're saying about the Bible. I would place the statement "Through the Bible, we can know something about God" pretty high towards the Metaphysical level. But discussing particular Bible texts and their meaning would go much farther down to the detailed level.
What I was hoping to tease out was how the Bible equates to a science text book in the Religion/Science analogy, because that helps to show how willing each is prepared to go in responding to shifts in evidence.
In the case of the text book scientists have no qualms in saying that x text book is out of date, incorrect, just plain wrong. but with the Bible, e.g. in the case of the genocide of the Amalekites apparently ordered by God, we have seen on threads on the Ship Christians trying to justify it, or explain it, or suggesting in this case that black actually means white. But they cannot say that Samuel is just plain wrong and the lines should be crossed out, which is what science would do.
Equally in the case of homosexuality, individual Christians have to talk round Leviticus or Romans, they cannot simply cross it out and say it was wrong and no longer applies. So of course there will always be Christians justifying homophobia in the name of the Bible.
So I think Yorick was not making a false analogy in saying that science is much more open to self-criticism and self-correction.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The difference, however, is evidence. A scientist can refute accepted and invested knowledge with independently reproducible proof. For every scientist determined to possess the accepted knowledge, there are others more determined to dispossess him of it by proving better otherwise. Thus, scientific knowledge is subject to evolutionary forces that work towards truthfulness, as opposed to religion, which may only seek to find new and better ways of evidencing the same thing, regardless of its status as truth.
You are confused about what is analogous to what here. This is better:
natural science <-> (Christian) theology
- nature <-> God
- experimental/observational data <-> revealed data
- experimentalists <-> prophets, OT writers, Christ, NT writers, Church Fathers / bishops under certain conditions
- a particular data set <-> a particular piece of revelation
- most important / established data set <-> the canonical scriptures
- hunting for experimental errors <-> hunting for errors in historical transmission / translation
- hypothesis / model / theory <-> interpretation / exposition / argumentation
- theoreticians <-> preachers / theologians / spiritual advisers
- hunting for errors in theory <-> hunting for errors in interpretation / advice
The core of faith is untouchable exactly as the core of natural science is untouchable: one cannot doubt the revelation of God in principle and still do theology, just as one cannot doubt the experimental / observational collection of data about nature in principle and still do natural science. What one can doubt in science are the theories, and to a much lesser extent, the actual data available. That is to say: while there is a chance of error both in theory and data, ultimately data is the arbiter of theory and not vice versa. Likewise, in religion one can doubt all the various interpretations given (say some exegesis of the bible), yet only to a much lesser extent the actual revelation we have in hand. The latter one can investigate concerning errors in the process of it coming to us, but ultimately revelation will be the arbiter of interpretation, not vice versa.
The analogy is really quite close. The difference is that natural data is compelling by our senses (which we cannot but ultimately trust), whereas revealed data is compelling by faith (which we must decide to ultimately trust). The same "evolutionary forces" that you see in natural science have been at work in theology, i.e., there has been considerable progress. However, it lies in the nature of the subject that theology progresses much more slowly than natural science, since it is based on cultural - and hence intrinsically complex and imprecise - material. Theology is more comparable to the social sciences than physics concerning that.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
.....The analogy is really quite close. The difference is that natural data is compelling by our senses (which we cannot but ultimately trust), whereas revealed data is compelling by faith (which we must decide to ultimately trust)..........
In separating the "natural" from the "revealed" I suspect you have hit the nail upon it's head and may be providing a better determination of relevance than my earlier, and probably clumsy, use of "valid evidence".
(I do have a problem with "revealed data" - as the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, but this may not be crucial in this context).
For clarification - When you say (which we must decide to ultimately trust) should the reader understand the "we" to refer to all human beings, those who wish to be christians/religious/theologically aware or some other subset of humanity?
I hope you don't mean all of us because I really think that I am incapable of making such a decision. Hence my negative reaction to the thread headline.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Just a note to say that anybody who thinks that scientists are all happy little revisionists, changing their theories to fit all the new evidence, has never worked in a science department. The scientists I know would all have to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept a new idea. Anybody remember the vitriolic verbal abuse - much of it personal - that was directed in the 60s and 70s to those who thought that birds might have been descended from dinosaurs? Or that an asteroid impact might have been responsible for a mass extinction 65 million years ago?
The statement I've highlighted is a bit odd for you to make immediately before you provide two stellar examples of scientists accepting new ideas.
Contintuing minor tangent ...
Kicking and screaming. The evidence for those theories (and plate tectonics - thank you, HughWillRidMee) was conclusive long, long before the theories began to be accepted by the establishment. The issue wasn't lack of evidence, it was that the evidence went against the long-held ideas of Important People. Between the theories being put forward and their acceptance, careers and reputations of good scientists were ruined.
Cherry picking. (And I'm skeptical of your confident assertion of what constitutes conclusive evidence, or when it was reached.)
Vast tracts of today's physics would be totally unrecognizable to a scientist from the end of the 19th century - so where are all the physicists whose new ideas resulted in their careers and reputations being ruined as everyone else was reluctantly dragged "kicking and screaming"? Wait, here they are! Oh, the poor martyrs.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
(I do have a problem with "revealed data" - as the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, but this may not be crucial in this context).
Data comes in many forms, as also indicated by the Latin root (a "datum" is simply "something given"). Historical data, for example, is no less data just because it is not read off some meter. The trustworthiness of data is partly related to its kind, but of course a meter reading can be completely wrong and "soft" data can be basically certain (e.g., "there were once Romans", or "sex is important to human culture"). However, it is actually Christian dogma that Christian "revealed data" is not per se compelling. One cannot come to faith by one's own lights, i.e., by judging intellectually the evidence as it is given (thus, the "revealed data"). Hence much ado about this is simply mistaken, the Christian data claim vs. non-believers is merely that there are non compelling reasons against Christianity, i.e., the "revealed data" could be right and is not obviously wrong. Once you are convinced of Christianity by other means, then Christian "revealed data" plays much the same role for theology and spiritual advice as empirical data plays for natural science. This analogy is hence not intended for apologetic battles, it is simply pointing out that within the context of faith believers operate in much the same way intellectually as non-believers outside of it.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
For clarification - When you say (which we must decide to ultimately trust) should the reader understand the "we" to refer to all human beings, those who wish to be christians/religious/theologically aware or some other subset of humanity?
I hope you don't mean all of us because I really think that I am incapable of making such a decision. Hence my negative reaction to the thread headline.
If you were genuinely incapable of making this decision - and many people are, e.g., infants - then obviously you would not have to make it. God does not ask the impossible of us. However, it is basically certain that you can make this decision - after all, you are presumably having this conversation with me, thus are mentally sufficiently able.
There are likely many independent obstacles to faith for you, e.g., upbringing, social environment, lack of role models, etc. However, I'm betting that there is a key mistake in your very approach to this. Basically, data gathering, analysis, argument and so forth will not be able to do more for you than this: identify Christianity as possible enough to be a viable intellectual option. If you see the chance of Christianity being true as roughly 50:50 (some parts perhaps more likely, some less, but overall it could go either way), then the job of your intellect is done as non-believer. More it cannot really do for you concerning finding faith. There are also techniques for "strengthening" weak faith once it is there (nothing particularly esoteric, as usual there is no magic but simply repetition and effort). But it is a mistake to employ them before some faith is present.
The key decision cannot be forced. Quite to the contrary, it is more something that comes when you let go. It bubbles up from the deep, it is not forced down from above. It is a soft whisper that you can hear when all is quiet, not a shout of command. So here's my step by step guide to faith:
- Convince yourself diligently that it is possible.
- Relax. Really. After 1. is done, whenever you tense up it is going wrong.
- Keep engaging, keep listening, keep searching. Don't go to sleep about this just because you are relaxed.
That's all. Oh, and do not necessarily expect the decision to occur consciously in a single moment. For some people it is indeed like that, for some it is a mostly unconscious process taking a long time. The way is not the goal, the goal is the way.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Pre-cambrian: What I was hoping to tease out was how the Bible equates to a science text book in the Religion/Science analogy, because that helps to show how willing each is prepared to go in responding to shifts in evidence.
I see. I wouldn't equate the Bible to a science text book in this analogy, I would probably equate commentaries on the Bible to science text books.
So, where does this leave the Bible? I like IngoB's analogy above, where Bible is "reveiled data". It is a big amount of what we study, and therefore could be analogous to observational/experimental data in nature.
Look, Yorick is probably partly right: resistance against revision of our beliefs certainly exists within religion, and probably more so than in science.
But that doesn't mean that within science there aren't any absolute or near-absolute truths. "We can understand the Universe through measurement and observation" is a big one. And it also doesn't mean that revision of beliefs doesn't happen within religion. They happen all the time. I for one are glad that I don't believe anymore in a god who disguised as a bull to mate with an innocent girl. Religion has progressed.
In science, models are revised based on evidence. In religion, idea systems are revised based on discussion, new insights, interaction with an ever-changing society... Of course there are differences between the two proocesses, but I don't see a moral difference between the two ways of doing revision, as Yorick claims.
I'm also not sure if openness to revision of ones ideas is a moral absolute. There are some personal ideas of mine that are not open to revision. To give an example, "family is important" is one of them.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
… ultimately data is the arbiter of theory and not vice versa. …
I fully agree- data is king. However, you do not seem to acknowledge the profoundly fundamental difference between your revealed data and science’s experimental/observational data, which is of course that the former is not interpersonal whereas the latter is.
Your revealed data belongs subjectively to you alone. Your ticket is not transferable.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Yorick: Your revealed data belongs subjectively to you alone. Your ticket is not transferable.
Of course it is. I transfer it every time I go to church, have a discussion about religion, do voluntary work...
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I fully agree- data is king. However, you do not seem to acknowledge the profoundly fundamental difference between your revealed data and science’s experimental/observational data, which is of course that the former is not interpersonal whereas the latter is. Your revealed data belongs subjectively to you alone. Your ticket is not transferable.
You are getting confused again. Please actually look at my detailed analogical mapping provided above! The "revealed data" of Christianity is of course (basically) as accessible to you as it is to me. You can pick up a bible and read it just as much as I can, for example. I do not have any revealed data that is mine alone in the sense of my analogy. Of course, I have had subjective experiences which you are not able to share directly. However, they are not part of the Christian revelation - which in one sense ended with Christ, and in another sense continued afterwards through very specific operations of His Church.
My basic point is that within the context of faith in God, theology operates basically like natural science operates within the context of nature. The analogy is precisely not about how one may arrive in this context of faith, which is what you are getting at. Becoming faithful is not analogous to being convinced by some scientific theory. Rather, becoming convinced by some particular interpretation of the bible, when having faith in its validity, is analogous to that.
As I've said above, the analogy one can draw between theology and natural science is not one that can do battle in order to convince you that God exists. Rather, the analogy merely shows that within faith, intellectual life can flourish in the same sort of patterns that you appreciate in natural science, albeit founded on a different basis. One can indeed be a scientist of God, as one can be a scientist of nature.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you were genuinely incapable of making this decision - and many people are, e.g., infants - then obviously you would not have to make it. God does not ask the impossible of us. However, it is basically certain that you can make this decision - after all, you are presumably having this conversation with me, thus are mentally sufficiently able.
There are likely many independent obstacles to faith for you, e.g., upbringing, social environment, lack of role models, etc. However, I'm betting that there is a key mistake in your very approach to this. Basically, data gathering, analysis, argument and so forth will not be able to do more for you than this: identify Christianity as possible enough to be a viable intellectual option. If you see the chance of Christianity being true as roughly 50:50 (some parts perhaps more likely, some less, but overall it could go either way), then the job of your intellect is done as non-believer. More it cannot really do for you concerning finding faith. There are also techniques for "strengthening" weak faith once it is there (nothing particularly esoteric, as usual there is no magic but simply repetition and effort). But it is a mistake to employ them before some faith is present.
The key decision cannot be forced. Quite to the contrary, it is more something that comes when you let go. It bubbles up from the deep, it is not forced down from above. It is a soft whisper that you can hear when all is quiet, not a shout of command. So here's my step by step guide to faith:
- Convince yourself diligently that it is possible.
- Relax. Really. After 1. is done, whenever you tense up it is going wrong.
- Keep engaging, keep listening, keep searching. Don't go to sleep about this just because you are relaxed.
That's all. Oh, and do not necessarily expect the decision to occur consciously in a single moment. For some people it is indeed like that, for some it is a mostly unconscious process taking a long time. The way is not the goal, the goal is the way.
Thank you for your time - it's only right that I provide some background, I was brought up in vicarages, in an unquestioning, "low church", CofE environment (my father's passport said he was a "Clerk in Holy Orders" but his preferred status was "Anglican minister"). I was head choirboy, attended Sunday school and then Bible classes and never doubted the veracity of Christianity until my early teens. My mother died convinced that we will meet in Heaven, albeit I shall be eight years old, in short trousers and with ears that made Dumbo's appear unremarkable.
With hindsight I suspect that, with a few exceptions - one being my father - the role models I had were the reason that doubt crept in. Sunday's christianity seemed to evaporate on Monday morning. At fourteen I decided I was a rebel, at fifteen I realised that opposing my parents in all things was to be bound by the same rules as them and I have consciously tried to think for myself since then. I fully accept that this means that when I'm wrong there's no-one else to blame (though I may disagree about when I'm wrong).
I think that your 1, 2, 3 and final para. is pretty much the way I lost christianity. I never decided to become an unbeliever, it just happened. No trauma, no kicking and screaming, just a realisation that supernature was, for me, unnecessary and unsupportable. That's why I can't decide that Christianity might be a 50/50 option - I'm convinced it isn't and to pretend otherwise would be to lie - albeit only to myself. Therefore I claim incapability based on the fact that I would not believe my belief. Of course I might be wrong, but being wrong about the existence of supernature would in no way enhance the cause of christianity. The alternative to atheism is a confused jumble of competing claims and theories which will only become real through faith. Well, I had faith; total, unquestioning, obedient, childlike faith; and there was no God. (I'm an unbeliever in a lot of other things as well - homeopathy, reiki, theraputic touch, the efficacy of inspirational speakers, acupuncture, detoxing, Fung Shui, power bands, Santa etc. - it's not just religion that goes when you decide to think critically).
As a salesman, as well as an atheist, I would be very wary about strengthening through repitition and effort - how do you differentiate between true religion and a cult if you're deliberately trying to justify a decision which is less than whole-hearted? Delusion usually needs constant strengthening if it is to be maintained. We human beings are very good at keeping digging even when we've broken the handle, blunted the edge and forgotten why we started excavating in the first place.
I'm content with my lack of belief and don't (as in the OP) want there to be a God, others do and I'm fine with that whilst it's their personal conviction. What I react against is the misuse of people's trust to convince them of things that, at very, very best, might in some way be true, by offering untestable benefits at some future time whilst siphoning off time, energy, concern and money to the benefit of the purveyors of unsupported hope and the actual impoverishment of the donors and those around them.
Posted by ZombieBunny (# 16388) on
:
Yes, but. Religion is unprovable because that's the nature of the game. If the proof [of the existence of God] was glaringly obvious and totally undeniable, then adherence to religion would not be a committed decision.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
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.
Yes my use of the word nice was a bit flippant. Along the lines of a world weary, "Why can't we all get along and be nice to one another". Having said that. I would imagine that if people were nice to one another they would not:
Commit suicide bombings.
Murder.
Rape.
Steal.
Start wars.
You get the idea, I don't need to keep adding tp the list.
A bland thing to hope for? I'd say it would be a 100% improvement on the world we have now.
Sorry for not being clear. I wasnt Implying that Christians do not want people to get along better with each other. I was implying that after 2000 years of people believing in God we have a world where the above happens frequently. So experience suggests that god is not the answer to achieving my hope.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I was head choirboy, attended Sunday school and then Bible classes and never doubted the veracity of Christianity until my early teens.
It is a remarkable problem that intense "religious teaching" during childhood tends to produce a serious case of disbelief just as readily, or perhaps even more readily, than belief. Perhaps this should have its own thread.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I think that your 1, 2, 3 and final para. is pretty much the way I lost christianity. I never decided to become an unbeliever, it just happened. No trauma, no kicking and screaming, just a realisation that supernature was, for me, unnecessary and unsupportable.
You are wrong in your conclusions. However, I think the process you followed was more right than what came before. You had something oppressive to get rid off, and you did. From my perspective you let the pendulum swing too far, but that's a separate issue.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
That's why I can't decide that Christianity might be a 50/50 option - I'm convinced it isn't and to pretend otherwise would be to lie - albeit only to myself. Therefore I claim incapability based on the fact that I would not believe my belief.
Indeed. Luckily, this means that concerning Christianity you are back to my step one. Thus you can work with your intellect on the question. There's no point in bringing in belief to override the intellect, and I did not suggest to do so. Truth cannot oppose truth, faith cannot be at odds with what we know. Now, I'm confident that I can demonstrate intellectually, without any reference to faith, that Christianity is possible, not clearly wrong. Furthermore, I think I can have a fair shot at arguing that it is plausible up to about 50% probability level. Though clearly this is harder. All this is intellectual work, and I will happily oppose your intellectually false opinions on this matter in the hope that one day you will complete step one. This is a good use (among many bad) of so-called apologetics.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The alternative to atheism is a confused jumble of competing claims and theories which will only become real through faith.
Also this is incorrect. One can - intellectually - dismiss a rather large number of claims about the supernatural as either logically impossible, or at least as "less likely" than others. The discipline that drives this enterprise is metaphysics, which basically means that one extrapolates from how nature is to how super-nature may be. While there cannot be proof for this procedure as such, it does allow one to keep the intellect as "guardian of sanity". And I have a lot of faith in that, as do most people.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
(I'm an unbeliever in a lot of other things as well - homeopathy, reiki, theraputic touch, the efficacy of inspirational speakers, acupuncture, detoxing, Fung Shui, power bands, Santa etc. - it's not just religion that goes when you decide to think critically).
I'm an unbeliever in most of these, too, though I would assume that some of these tap into real effects (e.g., placebo). A first step in a honest intellectual assessment would be to stop comparing the Christian apple with these oranges. Not all beliefs are created equal, and one does not need faith oneself to see that.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
As a salesman, as well as an atheist, I would be very wary about strengthening through repitition and effort - how do you differentiate between true religion and a cult if you're deliberately trying to justify a decision which is less than whole-hearted? Delusion usually needs constant strengthening if it is to be maintained.
In my scheme, repetition and effort come after one has intellectually convinced oneself that faith is possible and has decided based on a non-intellectual but definitely non-forced process that it is appropriate. Strengthening such faith is hence supportive of the "best shot" one has at understanding and dealing with the world. Of course one could be wrong, but as with all good things, one has to take one's chances to make progress. Cults are usually identified by "social issues", rather than by their central beliefs. The guru sucking you dry of money can be identified without reference to whatever faith he peddles. Finally, it is true that delusion can be strengthened as much as true faith. However, faith cannot "do work" unless it strong enough. So I say what one should look at is the what work it is doing if it gets stronger. If good things are happening because of it, then who is to complain?
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What I react against is the misuse of people's trust to convince them of things that, at very, very best, might in some way be true, by offering untestable benefits at some future time whilst siphoning off time, energy, concern and money to the benefit of the purveyors of unsupported hope and the actual impoverishment of the donors and those around them.
Well, who could support that? The problem is that reality is a lot more complicated than such simplistic judgments in most cases. Value judgments are not objective, but always tied to some framework. It is hence difficult - other than in extreme cases - to say that someone is getting abused when they believe that they are not. In general, I think people and organizations should be given the benefit of the doubt and left to their devices. Better is the enemy of good, so I think the best way is to offer people something better than what they have identified as good - rather than attacking them aggressively on their judgments.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm confident that I can demonstrate intellectually, without any reference to faith, that Christianity is possible, not clearly wrong. Furthermore, I think I can have a fair shot at arguing that it is plausible up to about 50% probability level. Though clearly this is harder.
I find this a truly astonishing claim, and I really hope you will expand upon it. The plausibility of Christianity is obviously a very slippery fish, since we all have our own individual thresholds of credulity. Since we’re putting our hearts on our sleeves here, I admit with some mortification that you, IngoB, present for me, the single most persuasive human being I have ever encountered, of the intellectual plausibility of the possibility that Christianity is true. I don't wish to flirt, but, as the world and his wife can tell, I am obviously a closet seeker, and if anyone must look like one day renouncing his atheism, it’s gotta be me- with all my neuroses and uncertainties. And yet, of everything I have ever come across that you have said here (or any other fine intellectual Christians like Rowan Williams, for example- and I’m sorry if it offends your modesty to group you in such company), nothing has ever persuaded me that the plausibility of your claims approaches anything near 5% probability level. And I'm sure I want it to be true, unconsciously.
So, whence this incredible 50%?
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
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.
Yes my use of the word nice was a bit flippant. Along the lines of a world weary, "Why can't we all get along and be nice to one another". Having said that. I would imagine that if people were nice to one another they would not:
Commit suicide bombings.
Murder.
Rape.
Steal.
Start wars.
You get the idea, I don't need to keep adding tp the list.
A bland thing to hope for? I'd say it would be a 100% improvement on the world we have now.
Sorry for not being clear. I wasnt Implying that Christians do not want people to get along better with each other. I was implying that after 2000 years of people believing in God we have a world where the above happens frequently. So experience suggests that god is not the answer to achieving my hope.
Hi George. I appreciate you 'unpacking' what you said in your earlier post.
I am not doubting we both hope for an end to the kind of atrocities that you mention. And as you may have seen, I agreed in a later post on this thread that if everyone was nicer to each other it would indeed be a vast improvement on what we have now.
But as you say, your use of the term "nice" was a little flippant, and that was why I challenged you about it, perhaps with a little flippancy of my own - sorry.
In the light of your comments above, I still think the point I made about "niceness" not equating to "goodness" is a valid one. If people were "good" to each other, they would not commit crimes against other people, or start wars either. But I believe goodness to go deeper than mere niceness. I relate it to values that transcend the merely contingent or expedient. We could all agree to be nice or pleasant to each other until we come against a fundamental clash of values that it would be dishonest to ignore. That's where goodness comes in. It's more resilient than mere civility, though not exclusive of it. I think it implies a commitment to go the extra mile, to be personally disinterested in order that the ultimate good can be served. It has, perhaps, a sacrificial quality. It is, I guess, more properly related to love. And if violence or any other coercive or dishonest act is committed in its name, under a religious or any other ideological banner, then it ain't goodness.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
So, whence this incredible 50%?
Say you are Indiana Jones and you start finding clues about something called the Jewel of Murgath in various sources. After sufficient study, you estimate the probability that the Jewel exists to be 50%. Being Indiana Jones, you decide to track it down. It is pretty clear that the Jewel is somewhere in South America, but where precisely? After flying over to some scenic location in South America and consulting with your local informants, you decide it is with 50% probability in Bolivia and leave towards there. On the way a street urchin tries to steal your money, and you estimate that with 50% probability keeping him around will do more good than harm. Upon arriving with your new sidekick in La Paz, you encounter an klutzy but beautiful woman whose father got lost seeking for the Jewel. You decide that the 50% probability of the old map from her dad being sound is good enough for you and off you are to the rain forest with the two. Then we have the 50% of the bridge holding up, the 50% of the Indians not eating you, the 50% of escaping the traps in the pyramid, the 50% of fishing for the Jewel in the right tomb, the 50% of running faster than the jaguar, the 50% of stealing the plane, the 50% of getting it up in the air before the runway ends, and the 50% of escaping the bandits trying to take the Jewel away from you. But in the end you have the Jewel of Murgath, bed the pretty woman and foster the street urchin.
What is the probability of all this? One way of looking at it is calculating 50%^12=0.024%, i.e., the compound probability of success is exceedingly low. Another way of looking at it is that the procedural probability is 50%: a lot of decisions and actions, all of which are quite reasonable as such. Following the former, you will remain in a comfortable but boring office, following the latter, you will be Indiana Jones or dead.
The probability game for faith is a bit like that. Of course, it is not as purely sequential as in my Indiana Jones story. At every level there are multiple things to take into account, and it makes sense to make a "compound assessment" of them. But there are many levels indeed, intellectual, emotional and practical. If one views them all as one compound aggregate, then indeed the likelihood for the whole lot together is very low. If however one views the levels procedurally, as stages one visits more or less sequentially, then every step along the way is reasonable enough.
In the end, you have to decide: will you stay in the office, or will you put on the leather hat and grab the whip? There is a Jewel of great price out there, they say. What say you?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
That's where goodness comes in. It's more resilient than mere civility, though not exclusive of it. I think it implies a commitment to go the extra mile, to be personally disinterested in order that the ultimate good can be served. It has, perhaps, a sacrificial quality. It is, I guess, more properly related to love. And if violence or any other coercive or dishonest act is committed in its name, under a religious or any other ideological banner, then it ain't goodness.
You make a good point and I agree that "nice" is a bit of a weak way of putting things. The reason that I want to avoid using "good" in this context is that its far too open to interpretation. A right wing person may believe they are being good to the homosexual couple and to society when they vote/legislate to stop them marrying. And so on.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
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.
An honest atheist is a lovesome thing, God wot. But one who uses greengrocers' apostrophes should be confined to everlasting -
er, should that be "greengrocer's"? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
An honest atheist is a lovesome thing, God wot. But one who uses greengrocers' apostrophes should be confined to everlasting -
er, should that be "greengrocer's"?
It depends on how many greengrocers you are talking about.
Moo
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
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.
An honest atheist is a lovesome thing, God wot. But one who uses greengrocers' apostrophes should be confined to everlasting -
er, should that be "greengrocer's"?
Sorry about that. I struggle a great deal with grammar and spelling. Typing this via phone doesn't help.
Posted by Fugue (# 16254) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Fugue:
That's where goodness comes in. It's more resilient than mere civility, though not exclusive of it. I think it implies a commitment to go the extra mile, to be personally disinterested in order that the ultimate good can be served. It has, perhaps, a sacrificial quality. It is, I guess, more properly related to love. And if violence or any other coercive or dishonest act is committed in its name, under a religious or any other ideological banner, then it ain't goodness.
You make a good point and I agree that "nice" is a bit of a weak way of putting things. The reason that I want to avoid using "good" in this context is that its far too open to interpretation. A right wing person may believe they are being good to the homosexual couple and to society when they vote/legislate to stop them marrying. And so on.
Fair point. Goodness as such is an ideal, and so prone to conflicting interpretation, I'd agree. But I don't think people should give up seeking for the common good simply because it is sometimes difficult to agree on its practical content. It's probably fair to say, though, that kindness and tolerance (perhaps a slightly stronger way of putting what you meant by niceness?) are worthwhile qualities to cultivate whilst actually striving to discover what is good and true.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
To interpret "I'd like there to be a God but the idea of a transcendent supernatural being just doesn't make any sense to me" as "I'd like there to be a God but I guess I'm just too intelligent for that sort of stuff" seems to me to say more about the interpreter than the doubter.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there is a hint of inferiority complex here, because that would imply that I too thought the doubter was itellectually superior.
There is such a thing as honest doubt, you know. Remember that lady who spent a long time in a convent trying to accept and make sense of orthodox doctrine? And then, when they discovered her "hysteria" was a mis-diagnosed epilepsy, went on to become a very successful historical author? Was she arrogant? I don't think so.
We all get on best with people of roughly the same intellectual capabilities. There's no need on a mixed forum like this to second-guess ulterior motives in people we disagree with.
One very good thing about this thread IMO is the title itself. Do I want there to be a God? I don't know. I understand as much theology as I do particle physics. Very close to zilch. In speaking to experts in either field I don't expect to be able to argue on equal terms. But there is a class of bullshit that many children can suss out. It appears when honest questions are met with dishonest evasion, actual or implied threats, or physical or mental brutality.
I'm currently reading C.G. Jung's answer to Job. I'm told CGJ didn't believe in God - he knew God was. I'm looking forward to his comments on Job -and his comforters. And the brutal, threatening creature he was so faithful to.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
There is such a thing as honest doubt, you know. Remember that lady who spent a long time in a convent trying to accept and make sense of orthodox doctrine? And then, when they discovered her "hysteria" was a mis-diagnosed epilepsy, went on to become a very successful historical author? Was she arrogant? I don't think so.
If you're talking about Karen Armstrong,and I think you must be, you're conflating largely unrelated things together. The accusations of hysteria were nothing to do with her doubts, they were to do with behaviours connected with her undiagnosed epilepsy.
Nobody said there wasn't such a thing as honest doubt. Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I understand as much theology as I do particle physics.
Me, too.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
How does one attain those depths of invicible humility?
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I think that your 1, 2, 3 and final para. is pretty much the way I lost christianity. I never decided to become an unbeliever, it just happened. No trauma, no kicking and screaming, just a realisation that supernature was, for me, unnecessary and unsupportable.
You are wrong in your conclusions. However, I think the process you followed was more right than what came before. You had something oppressive to get rid off, and you did. From my perspective you let the pendulum swing too far, but that's a separate issue.
You may disagree with my conclusions, you may be certain/sure/convinced/without doubt etc. etc. that I am wrong but you are wrong to make the statement you did since it assumes knowledge you do not have.
I may consider your ideas to be silly/nonsensical/risible/irrational but I cannot state with total certainty that they are wrong, however much I might wish so to do.
quote:
faith cannot be at odds with what we know
I think your definitions of faith and know might be interesting.
quote:
that Christianity is possible
of course Christianity is possible, but only for "a given value" of Christianity. Your first problem is to define that Christianity - though doubtless many christians will disagree with your definition, whatever it be.
quote:
A first step in a honest intellectual assessment would be to stop comparing the Christian apple with these oranges. Not all beliefs are created equal, and one does not need faith oneself to see that.
From where I stand, and you have made no attempt to enlighten me, the honest assessment is that all require subscription to a concept that embraces something that cannot be demonstrated to be true; a supernature which we cannot detect except by reference to events which may be as described or not, coincidence or biological progression, placebo or psychosomatic disorder. Can you provide a non-believer with more evidence for the existence of the Holy Ghost than an acupuncturist would for chi, or a chiropractor for subluxions?
quote:
However, faith cannot "do work" unless it strong enough. So I say what one should look at is the what work it is doing if it gets stronger. If good things are happening because of it, then who is to complain?
Firstly - there's the question as to who decides whether what is happening is good/stronger. Usually this amounts in practice to whatever the speaker chooses it to mean, and that is going to vary between individuals depending upon their standpoint, and move with an individual's standpoint if the underlying assumptions move. A christian who became an atheist and promoted his new stance could be seen by fellow atheists as doing good work could he not?
Second - whether or not there are complaints is an odd basis for justifying anything, absence of opposition is not the same as support.
Whatever your definition of good works it is not possible to judge faith by good work - many people of many faiths (and none) do good works and many people of many faiths (and none) do bad (on balance since we all do both to some degrees). You are confusing peoples' natural/nurtured characters with a non-demonstrable supernatural influence. If you define a change in good things as being due to faith and faith as being evinced by those same works you are using circular reasoning aren't you?
quote:
In general, I think people and organizations should be given the benefit of the doubt and left to their devices. Better is the enemy of good,
???????? - where on earth did that come from???????
so I think the best way is to offer people something better than what they have identified as good - rather than attacking them aggressively on their judgments.
So someone who thinks that a homepathic protection against malaria is all they need should be left unchallenged to become another, very seriously ill, patient? How about someone who is told that they don't even need homeopathy - just prayer to whatever deity?
In practice it is not possible to offer any alternative without "attacking aggressively" (how does one attack passively?). Even if we try to disguise reality with weasel words and abject body language it still boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't it?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I may consider your ideas to be silly/nonsensical/risible/irrational but I cannot state with total certainty that they are wrong, however much I might wish so to do.
That's a good thing, because I'm right and you are wrong. Anyway, you don't need to go all epistemology on me just because I left out the "I think that..." The important bit was what followed that first sentence, not that (I think that) you are wrong. That said, I think certainty is defined operationally, i.e., behaviorally, not by principle, i.e., philosophically. Hence actually I can say that I'm certain that you are wrong, though that certainty partly has a non-rational basis.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I think your definitions of faith and know might be interesting.
Knowledge is what the intellect proposes as true - and hence as desirable to agree with - to the will, faith is what the will chooses as desirable to agree with - and hence proposes as true - to the intellect. Since truth cannot contradict truth, and both knowledge and faith propose truth, faith cannot contradict knowledge. If there is conflict, then either the intellect has made an error (which happens a lot) or the will has chosen wrongly (which happens a lot).
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Your first problem is to define that Christianity - though doubtless many christians will disagree with your definition, whatever it be.
Why would that be a problem? I'm a Roman Catholic Christian, and I can define my position within that community further if that is of interest. I am quite willing to call people Christian who are not Roman Catholic. However, this does not imply that I consider their position correct where it differs from mine. It merely means that I assign the label "Christian" according to less specific criteria. Actually there are multiple senses of this label to me. The most general one includes everyone as "Christian" who was baptized with water, using the right formula, and with at least a vague intent "to do as the Church does" (rather than say to play a scene in a movie). That makes no reference to the beliefs of the person in question at all...
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
From where I stand, and you have made no attempt to enlighten me, the honest assessment is that all require subscription to a concept that embraces something that cannot be demonstrated to be true; a supernature which we cannot detect except by reference to events which may be as described or not, coincidence or biological progression, placebo or psychosomatic disorder. Can you provide a non-believer with more evidence for the existence of the Holy Ghost than an acupuncturist would for chi, or a chiropractor for subluxions?
Naturally I can. However, that was not my point. It is idiotic to say that all belief in the supernatural is the same. That's exactly like saying that all food is the same, which is also idiotic. One can of course say that all food is the same in the sense of providing nourishment. But it is idiotic to dismiss all differences of members within a category because they all share what defines the category. We precisely say that a MacDonalds hamburger is food and the Michelin three star dinner is food, so that we can say in what ways they differ. And this difference is clearly important to people (as expressed in the hundreds of dollars you have to pay more for the dinner).
My point is that any established religious system is clearly different from belief in an invisible pink unicorn, or homeopathy, or whatever. And this difference is something that is clearly discernible for all. Religious systems have structures, goals, practices, social realizations etc. which set them obviously apart from a childish belief in unicorns or an adult belief in alternative therapies. They may well also share certain aspects, and of course you can then define a category based on these shared aspects. But then to claim that therefore they are all the same is idiotic. They are all the same concerning some things, but clearly not concerning others. Maybe those other things are not important to you, but they clearly are to the people involved. Maybe you don't care about the difference between a McDonald hamburger and a Michelin three star dinner, but you sure can detect it (if not with your taste buds, then by what goes on around it). If you are talking to a bunch of gourmets and gourmands, it's common courtesy and a sine qua non for convincing them of anything that you do not insist that the only thing relevant about food is that it nourishes. That just will not fly.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Firstly - there's the question as to who decides whether what is happening is good/stronger.
I've pointed out that problem myself (next paragraph of previous post, starting with "Well, who could support that?"). Nevertheless, it remains true that within any faith framework, weak faith and insufficiently good action tend to go hand in hand.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Whatever your definition of good works it is not possible to judge faith by good work - many people of many faiths (and none) do good works and many people of many faiths (and none) do bad (on balance since we all do both to some degrees). You are confusing peoples' natural/nurtured characters with a non-demonstrable supernatural influence.
I did not say that good works must imply strong faith of a particular kind. I did not even say that strong faith always lead to good works. Rather strong faith typically leads to good works ("good" as defined by that faith), and the absence of the latter is circumstantial evidence for the absence of the former. Individual ability and history modifies what we can expect of someone in an absolute sense, but not what we can expect relative to their condition. That I'm not turning into St Francis is no evidence that my faith is weak as such, but if you see no effect to the better of faith in me (better in the sense of my declared faith), then that is evidence that my faith is weak. (Of course I may be hindered by external circumstances or you may not be able to detect the change, etc.)
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
So someone who thinks that a homepathic protection against malaria is all they need should be left unchallenged to become another, very seriously ill, patient? How about someone who is told that they don't even need homeopathy - just prayer to whatever deity?
As if a conflict between faith and health care was very common and as if it was reasonable to assume that I was thinking about that sort of stuff... I hate these rhetorical distractions. In brief, modern medicine should (though not always is) based on knowledge rather than faith. I've already stated that faith cannot contradict knowledge, hence where it does, it can be challenged. To what extent there is a right of a person to remain wrong to their own detriment is a non-trivial moral and judicial question though (and of course it gets worse when children are involved). This is not at all as straightforward as you make it, but this is not what I was thinking about. So I will leave it at that.
The point I was making is that in general it is best to start from a position of letting a Christian be Christian, a Muslim be Muslim, and a Buddhist be Buddhist. There should be sufficiently flexibility in a society and its members to accommodate faith they consider wrong in daily life. (I'm not saying that all must be tolerated, but I'm saying that some must.) Furthermore, the full frontal attack on someone's belief system is practically never convincing. If at all, it works because of implied threats, i.e., it bullies people into submission by using fear of social consequences. That a person has chosen a particular belief system (or at least that they have chosen to remain in a belief system they were brought up in) always indicates that they see some good in it. The best strategy to convince them to change their faith is to demonstrate that some other faith (or if you like no faith) is even better. One convinces more by positive attraction, rather than by negative destruction - that was my point.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
In practice it is not possible to offer any alternative without "attacking aggressively" (how does one attack passively?). Even if we try to disguise reality with weasel words and abject body language it still boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong" doesn't it?
See above. Debating is a different game from convincing, certainly where matters are concerned that afford no easy proof. (Actually, debating is never convincing as such. Debating can work in say science because of prior shared convictions of the contending parties: they are both convinced that certain kinds of evidence and certain types of arguments judged by certain criteria should in the end determine the outcome.)
I sincerely believe that one cannot argue someone into faith, or indeed out of faith. Hence I can strongly argue for my faith here without "crusading" - I truly believe that argument is largely in vain as far as convincing anyone of any faith goes. It just doesn't work that way. At most argument will remove some intellectual misconceptions or false information people may have, and thus make convincing them by other means easier.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0