Ship of Fools: Why do you believe in God?

Thread: Why do you believe in God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023905

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

A spin off from the Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale thread.

Why do you believe in God?

On what basis do you believe? Where does it come from?

Some possibilities:

a) Philosophical argument
b) Reason
c) Feeling
d) Experience
e) Mysticism
f) Tradition
g) Your parents
h) Fear
i) I don't know but that's cool
j) I don't know and it annoys me
k) Hope
l) The Natural World
m) The Universe is Designed
n) Desire - the hole in your heart that can only be filled by God ( Pascal )
o) The Historical Jesus
p) The Resurrection
q) As a basis for ethics and morality
r) It's more fun than nihilism and meaninglessness
s) The people are nice
t) Ritual means something

u) ......Insert your own here.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

The whole "meaning and purpose" aspect is very important to me.

I mean, what's the point otherwise? The answer: "There is no point. Get used to it." doesn't work for me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

h), k) and bloodymindedness.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

o and p.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, i, k, l, n, o, p, r, t.

For myself, I would rephrase q as 'An inspiration for ethics and morality'.

About s: if I would believe in God on the basis of Christians being nice, I would have left my faith long ago [Biased]

And I totally dig the last part of Karl's answer.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
j) I don't know and it annoys me

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

q) r) and s). Mostly because I feel like I need something to believe in.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
a) Philosophical argument

Some vaguely enunciated amaglamation of Prime Mover Unmoved, Prime Causer Uncaused, and "Well, why the hell would anything bother existing at all if there was no purpose behind it?"

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

I don't believe in God, I recognise God as a feature of reality. Does that count as a u)?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

After Dawkins, I believe in God because it's genetically wired into the human species as necessary for its survival. I wouldn't mind betting that believers in God have a higher birth-rate than those who don't.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

u) regeneration, which involves b, c, and d but is more than their sum total.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
After Dawkins, I believe in God because it's genetically wired into the human species as necessary for its survival. I wouldn't mind betting that believers in God have a higher birth-rate than those who don't.

I always thought Dawkins was some kind of freaky mutant. Comforting to know that is how he describes himself.

I wonder what would happen if he suddenly woke up and discovered he had fathered 50 children.. disappear in a puff of logic, I suppose.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
r) It's more fun than nihilism and meaninglessness

I am not making this up: if you image 'bruce cockburn morose youth' the VERY first hit you get is this.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I don't believe in God, but I am on his side.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I like that one. I don't believe in God; I'm just rather in love with him, and (gulp) s/he with me.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
After Dawkins, I believe in God because it's genetically wired into the human species as necessary for its survival. I wouldn't mind betting that believers in God have a higher birth-rate than those who don't.

It seems possible - there are correlations between standard of living and belief in God and between between standard of living and number of children.

Blessed are the meek but fertile for they shall inherit the earth.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

I would have to go for d and e, because for most of my life God has been a presence I've intuitively felt, rather than believed with my mind. I can't prove to anyone, not even myself, that He isn't a product of my own imagination, but the older I get, the more I start to connect with Him on a rational level. But I think I will always agree with the anonymous writer of the medieval English spiritual classic, "The Cloud of Unknowing" who wrote,
"By Love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

S - my father committed suicide when i was aged 8 - although he was an atheist, he had a Christian funeral and the rector who conducted it reckoned i needed a father figure and I joined his choir, got baptised, confirmed, became an altar server etc.

So it's all about a caring priest and a supportive congregation.

[ 27. September 2012, 15:00: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Posting just to say: reading with interest.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Hmm, OK then, ordered from most to least relevant:

6 Philosophical argument / Reason
5 Experience / Mysticism / Desire - the hole in your heart that can only be filled by God ( Pascal )
4 Hope / The Resurrection / Fear
3 The Natural World / The Historical Jesus
2 It's more fun than nihilism and meaninglessness / Ritual means something
1 As a basis for ethics and morality

Sort of neutral towards:

0 The Universe is Designed / Tradition

Whereas not relevant (ordered from remotely to not at all applicable):

-1 I don't know and it annoys me / I don't know but that's cool
-2 Feeling
-3 Your parents / The people are nice

[ 27. September 2012, 15:28: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It makes the best sense of all the evidence as a whole. Is that (b)?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It makes the best sense of all the evidence as a whole. Is that (b)?

I like that. The alternatives simply don't make sense to me, and I am baffled as to why people fall for the simplistic arguments that support them.

[ 27. September 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Freddy ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I appreciate that philosophy and reason are cultivated by the church, and that non-Christian philosophers and reasoners have failed to disprove the existence of God despite trying. But as far as my faith is concerned, they're frosting on an already-baked cake. I think I'd cite

f) Tradition (i.e. passing something on actively like the runners in a relay race);
g) Your parents (the most important runners before me)
n) Desire
s) The people are nice
t) Ritual means something

And one not mentioned:

Beauty.

A few years ago, I would probably have given somewhat different answers.

I hope I don't give (g) and (s) in a naive way, as in "my parents would have been disappointed or angry if I apostasized." And the churchmen I've known have not always been nice. I'm very lucky in the present; but by and large, academia has treated me more fairly and kindly than the church has.

But some of my formative years were spent in a church dedicated to All Saints. The first time I sang "For all the saints" as a chorister was unforgettably thrilling. All Saints' Day has been an important festival to my spirituality ever since. How much we owe them over two thousand years! I think it comes down partly to epistemology. Science is great, but in practical terms most of what we believe or "know", we accept because we have heard or read it from sources we trust. If parents, teachers, and in fact "a long cloud of witnesses" who have built so much that we cherish also "show the same path to heaven"-- it would behoove us to pay attention.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

What comes to mind is:

--- habit.

--- The present circumstance works satisfactorily and I see no reason to change.

--- (a more serious reply) I feel an urgent need to thank someone.

Posted by fluff (# 12871) on :

I have to say my belief in God comes entirely from personal experience, and is a matter of feeling alone. Philosophical arguments for the existence of God are neither sound nor convincing. Though I can understand that theology could be viewed as a kind of poetry.

I sympathize with Dawkins's frustration with the tendency for people who believe in God to separate this from science. In "The God Delusion" he makes the very valid point that the existence of such a God would surely be of great scientific interest, and therefore should be susceptible to scientific scrutiny. However, despite my agreement with many of Dawkins's arguments and especially his criticisms of religion, his denial that spiritual experience is of any use to humanity whatsoever is clearly untrue, and also untrue in my own experience. His own positivistic scientism is also vulnerable to skepticism.

I have an experience which I call God. It is what happens when I pray and when I go through my days and nights as the person I am, the person I try to be better.

So - c, d, e, k, and n.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I think I believe in God. I believe that the universe is interconnected and 'alive' in a way that I can't quite verbalise and that somehow it's very important for us all to realise that. I love what little I can grasp of quantum physics and how weird everything really is.

Belief in God makes me feels small in the same way that staring at the deep space field of the Hubble Space Telescope makes me feel small, it's a sort of awesomely overwhelming sense that we are tiny and yet significant all at once.

I also think that somehow things have to make sense somewhere. Part of me fears that this is simply a genetic and cognitive answer to stop us going insane. The human brain likes patterns, God might be one, but I don't think it/he/she is.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

My belief in God comes from experience (d). I drew near to God by following Christ, and God drew near to me so that I was convinced, over time.

Many of the other categories have fed into the development of my faith, esp a,b,c.e,f,l&p, but they're not the reason I believe.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

In the play "Peter Pan" there is a point, when Tinker Bell is dying, that the audience is invited to "Clap, if you believe in fairies" to save her.

I find myself unable to contribute to this thread on the grounds an unbiased reader would see my contribution as being in similar vein.

Whether I theoretically believe in God or not, in the great scheme of things, doesn't matter. If that belief and the practical results of it seem to make me, in some way, a better person, they might, just might, be interested.

Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :

Whenever I'm asked this question, I point to the same answer. This is taken from "The Pilgrimage of Mass" by Kenneth Ingram (This book is not under copyright, so I hope this quotation is fine):

quote:
"The older I become,the more I realise that the deepest knowledge possess comes through a faculty greater than reason or the physical senses. It is a spiritual intuition which is too great for verbal definition, but is beyond all doubt. Only in this way I know myself to be real to myself, or that there is a beauty and goodness and love which sometimes reaches me.

I cannot demonstrate, I cannot define, but I cannot question. These are the truths which belong to innate conviction, which gradually reveal themselves, and become part almost of myself. It is a faculty entirely distinct from emotion, and for me, it is the nearest point to absolute knowledge which I can obtain."

So I suppose, it's mainly B,C,D, and E, except that by E, I mean what is spoken above. When I say reason, I don't actually mean that reason has convinced me that a God exists,but rather than reason has kept me from denying one exists.

I have read and understood philosophical arguments for God's existence, and none have proven to me that he exists. But they do keep me from being able to believe that belief in him is irrational. I suppose the main reason is the experience. I don't know how to explain it, I don't entirely know what it is. To paraphrase, I know because I have seen, and though I cannot explain it, I know that I haven't been deceived nor have I deceived myself.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

How about "Because I can't help it"? Which probably boils down to B, C, and E--almost. I do occasionally think it would be so much simpler if I could just drop that stuff and become a sort of Taoist, but I can't do it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
How about "Because I can't help it"? Which probably boils down to B, C, and E--almost.

Sounds more like (i) to me.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

fluff

quote:
despite my agreement with many of Dawkins's arguments and especially his criticisms of religion, his denial that spiritual experience is of any use to humanity whatsoever is clearly untrue, ...

I am not saying you're wrong here, because I couldn't possibly find the quote, but are you sure he denies the worth of spirituality?Spirituality im a non-religious context is a part of everyone's life.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Alogon: And one not mentioned:

Beauty.

Good one!

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

I believe in God for the same reason I believe in Blackpool Tower and Ben Nevis. He is there.

Posted by fluff (# 12871) on :

SusanDoris: I am not saying you're wrong here, because I couldn't possibly find the quote, but are you sure he denies the worth of spirituality? Spirituality im a non-religious context is a part of everyone's life.

Well certainly spirituality involving any deistic content, or stuff derived from religion - such as for instance, prayer or experience of a higher power - he is pretty hostile to, and seems to see as basically harmful/regressive and A Bad Thing. Whilst I agree with some of his criticisms of religion (particularly Creationism!) he doesn't convince me here. I don't see God as a "delusion", basically.

He is into a "awe at the Universe" kind of spirituality, which he sincerely promotes, and ethical values that are certainly often closer to my own that, say, those of conservative Christianity.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

Coincidentally, Melvin Bragg's programme on Radio 4 In Our Time yesterday was discussing Anselm's ontological proof for the existence of God. It made my mind spin a bit, I must admit. However, there was a reference to Bertrand Russell admitting it held water (although that did not seem to affect his attitude to any afterlife).

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

@Higgs

Russell did indeed in his undergraduate years exclaim "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound." In later years, though, he did argue against it, concluding that to the modern mind it appears obviously wrong, but tracking down exactly where was more difficult. I think that's because, as with most philosophers, he had his difficulties with the map and territory distinction.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

For my part it demands a whole lot more faith to believe there aint no God.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Because he called me?

That said, there's a whole lot of alphabet soup that supported the original call.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Higgs

Russell did indeed in his undergraduate years exclaim "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound." In later years, though, he did argue against it, concluding that to the modern mind it appears obviously wrong, but tracking down exactly where was more difficult. I think that's because, as with most philosophers, he had his difficulties with the map and territory distinction.

There has also been a lot of confusion over the question of Anselm I and Anselm II. The first version was cracked open by the perfect island argument, (a perfect island must exist, since existence is an attribute of perfection), but the second version substituted 'necessary existence', which demolishes that argument, since islands don't exist necessarily. Hence, it is necessary existence which is said to be an attribute of perfection. (Still sounds dodgy, as if you are defining God into existence).

This is the version which Gödel formalized in modal logic, thereby rendering it incomprehensible to nearly everyone. Never mind.

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :

A whole cluster of reasons. Most basically I'd say I believe in God because God first believed in me, to paraphrase 1 John 4:19. He loved me and called me, and I believe because of that.

I was brought up to believe in God, which is undoubtedly a factor, but I've also questioned and examined the arguments for and against the Christian faith. But on balance, I find the Christian faith to be both intellectually and emotionally satisfying, and gives a framework by which to live my life.

I find Christianity intellectually satisfying because it answers the basic philosophical questions of life coherently - why is there something rather than nothing? What is the basis for morality? How can we know truth? and so on. Other worldviews, such as materialism, don't seem to me to offer adequate answers.

As well as being coherent, I find it intellectually satisfying because it makes empirical claims that are possible to investigate rationally. For example, the historical claims concerning the Resurrection of Jesus. Christianity can in principle be disproved - so it isn't a matter of blind faith.

I find it emotionally satisfying in that the God revealed in the Bible is attractive and worthy of worship. The triune God of the Bible is a God of grace and love, and I enjoy knowing him and following him.

The Bible gives an authoritative basis for my life and morality. It both fits with normal human moral intuitions - "do unto others..." and also extends and challenges my instinctive morality by commanding me to love my enemies and to treat people not just as I would like to be treated, but as God himself treats us. Also, the combination of free grace and forgiveness, plus the Holy Spirit in us to produce faith and love, is one that enables real moral change (even if I'm a lot more stubborn in co-operating than I'd like to be!)

And finally, the church gives community, support and friendship that helps sustain my faith. It's far from perfect, but my experience of church is overall very positive.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Whatever about the philosophical, historical, scientific or other arguments, I guess I've never seen any reason not to believe in a supernatural being. It gets a little more complicate when I try to understand the nature of God.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

God is. That is all I need to believe.

Posted by REALLYMAD (# 17317) on :

Afternoon all.

I'm relatively new here, up to this point purely a spectator but I figured it was time to dip my toe in. I couldn't find a thread specific for introductions so I've just chosen one at random.

So that there are no misunderstandings as to my standpoint on religion I will answer the opening post by saying that I DID believe in God via parents, peer pressure, indoctrination of local social norms to avoid ostracism, and the education system in 1960s suburban UK primary schools.

In my teens I became a confirmed member of the church (C of E).

I grew out of it.

Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal phallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience. Generally speaking. But more on that later.

I'm a BBC Religion MB refugee. My reason for being there? I guess I got tired of seeing all the blinkered Biblebots lording it up over anyone with a differing opinion. After a while I discovered that my input in certain debates had indeed made not one but two people question their religion and open their eyes. As the more seasoned posters will already be aware this is extremely rare, whatever side of the fence you sit. To me it justified all the time I spent in there.

Nice to meet you.

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :

Welcome to the Ship, Reallymad. When you say you "grew out of" believing in God, what did that involve for you? How did you "grow into" whatever you believe now?

I'd say that I grew out of my childhood faith, but I also grew into a more mature faith, that came through questioning and thinking things through to see if I could really believe them for myself. It's possible to grow out of one's faith, but that doesn't mean all faith is itself something childish to be grown out of.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Biblebots, eh?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I grew out of my childhood agnosticism.

The simplest formal logic version of the Ontological Argument runs as follows:

( G -> G )
♦G
--------------
G

which is valid. The controversy lies in the major premise, as to what it means and whether it is intuitively true or not. In a "possible worlds" semantic rendering, it does seem to encapsulate something like the major premise of the Anselm II argument given above.

(translation:
Necessarily, if God exists, then God exists necessarily. It's possible that God exists. Therefore God exists.)

All of which does nothing for me. I believe in God, as noted above, for other reasons.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I grew out of my childhood agnosticism.

The simplest formal logic version of the Ontological Argument runs as follows:

( G -> G )
♦G
--------------
G

which is valid. The controversy lies in the major premise, as to what it means and whether it is intuitively true or not. In a "possible worlds" semantic rendering, it does seem to encapsulate something like the major premise of the Anselm II argument given above.

(translation:
Necessarily, if God exists, then God exists necessarily. It's possible that God exists. Therefore God exists.)

All of which does nothing for me. I believe in God, as noted above, for other reasons.

Very nicely set out. I sometimes stare at that argument, possibly and necessarily, therefore extant, and feel slightly queasy. It looks right, and it doesn't feel right.

But as you say, fortunately, it does nothing for me either. I could never 'believe in God' because of that, and I've never met anyone who did either.

I sometimes fantasize about a crowd outside a church, baying feverishly, and breaking the door down, 'if it's possible that it must be, then it is!'

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

For me I think maybe the problem is the minor premise. To say "it's possible that God exists" could be taken in one of two senses. In the weaker sense, you just mean "it isn't nonsense" but that's not strong enough to make the argument work. If you mean "there's a possible world in which God exists" — which is what is needed to carry the syllogism — then it appears to be smuggling the conclusion into the premises.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

I tried listening to the In Our Times episode but I got lost pretty quickly.

Why must God exist if you can imagine a situation where he could exist? I can imagine all kinds of things - say a pink elephant - but how does that make it exist? Or is this something about him being all-powerful God which makes it different to all other things?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I tried listening to the In Our Times episode but I got lost pretty quickly.

Why must God exist if you can imagine a situation where he could exist? I can imagine all kinds of things - say a pink elephant - but how does that make it exist?

Yah. I've never understood that bit either.

Tho Augustine thought everything existed in the mind of God and we could only know things because we participated in the mind of God.......so I wondered if that might be the link somehow....

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal phallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience.

It certainly can be (ab)used in that way-- God as the great spy-in-the-sky, who sees and records everything that our earthly surveillance apparatus hasn't figured out how to catch you at yet. Hence a grotesque emphasis, on the part of compliant religious authorities, on the most private and intimate acts as particularly interesting to the deity, while steering clear of even the cruelest public injustices.
[Projectile]

But then there's the Magnificat: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and exalted the humble and meek." The church I love lifts us up, would make princes and princesses of us all. Where else could we have gotten the notion that might does not make right; or that the world's power structures, which leave most of us in the dust, are not facts as unquestionable as the weather?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

--- (a more serious reply) I feel an urgent need to thank someone.

This I find very intriguing. I spoke to someone just last week that said she returned to church after 25 years absence precisely for that reason!

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It makes the best sense of all the evidence as a whole. Is that (b)?

Yes it is. Belief in God is by far the more reasonable option than non-belief. I never understand what the new atheists are banging on about when they say theism is irrational.

Posted by REALLYMAD (# 17317) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Welcome to the Ship, Reallymad. When you say you "grew out of" believing in God, what did that involve for you? How did you "grow into" whatever you believe now?

Thank you.

A tragic event occured involving a close family friend. At some point I might divulge the details but not just yet.
In fairness my faith had been waning for a while anyway but this acted as the catalyst that tipped me over the edge.

There were no specific eye-opening revelations, no mental fanfares. The air didn't smell any cleaner, colours were no more vivid. But there was a sensation of a weight being lifted, and a somewhat attenuated sense of release. Relief too I suppose.

I would fight for anyone's right to believe in whatever they wish, even though I don't share those beliefs.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I tried listening to the In Our Times episode but I got lost pretty quickly.

Why must God exist if you can imagine a situation where he could exist? I can imagine all kinds of things - say a pink elephant - but how does that make it exist? Or is this something about him being all-powerful God which makes it different to all other things?

Yes, necessity. Pink elephants don't necessarily exist, but God has often been defined in that way. In other ways, there is something which could not not exist.

This changes the argument considerably, and demolishes all those arguments, 'I can think of nice Tories, therefore they exist'. Since presumably, Tories are contingent beings, (hang on, though, if they are demonic, maybe they exist necessarily).

Mousethief summarized it beautifully.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I never understood necessity nor contingency either..... [Paranoid]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

So... God exists because he must exist..?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, one day I suddenly experienced something that could not not exist. It was a big surprise, and I thought, hey, all those medieval theologians were onto something.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Why can't God not exist? I don't understand.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So... God exists because he must exist..?

No. The full argument is not that. I'm not sure where mousethief did a summary of it, well, actually based on Gödel's formulation, I suppose.

But, please note, it does not convince me either.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So... God exists because he must exist..?

Personally, I find the formulation, "I believe because it is impossible" more compelling...

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
So... God exists because he must exist..?

No. Rather: God is the sort of being that, if He does exist, his existence is necessary, not contingent.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

OK, sorry still makes no sense.

Even if he exists, surely there is no agreement on the kind of God he is, so how can it be said that his existence is necessary? Necessary for what?

Posted by REALLYMAD (# 17317) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Biblebots, eh?

I'm sure you know the type; usually creationists that maddenly cling to the KJV text as God's Word verbatim. On the BBC boards they would avoid any rational discussion regarding the usual standards such as "carbon dating against the 6,000 years age of the world", or the scientific absurdity of a flat earth in a terra-centric orbit.

Instead they unthinkingly and repetitiously default to the base mantra of "It is right because it says so in the bible, the bible is the Word of God and cannot ever be questioned".

They do more for the atheists' cause than atheists do.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

You know the old joke: read a few creationists, and atheism seems quite attractive.

OK, read a few Gnu Atheists, and suddenly, it's not.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

I don't think I have a reason any more, I don't think I need one either.

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I never understood necessity nor contingency either.....

If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and everything we know exists had a beginning, then everything exists contingently. In other words it doesn't have to exist. If everything exist contingently (because its existence depends on - is contingent - on something else) then there must be a metaphysically necessary being. If not, we fall into an infinite regress of causes.

Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.

[ 28. September 2012, 16:15: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.

But then if I can postulate a universe without a beginning, then I don't need a God. Why doesn't he then disappear?

Posted by REALLYMAD (# 17317) on :

Oh, and I'd be a little unsettled by anyone agreeing with the flawed tenet that "the people are nice".

My experience of the religiously bent quite often contradicts that on a sliding scale, travelling further from "nice" the more fervent the belief.

I'm sure this differs widely depending on the individual.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think there are other factors in the idea of necessary existence. For example, I think Anselm is saying that contingency is an obvious imperfection, for it means that, say, a magpie, may well not exist, and indeed, will not exist one day, unless you are a hardened mystic, and declare that this magpie in this moment exists eternally. Fair enough.

By contrast, a being which cannot not exist is closer to perfection, and since God is traditionally defined as a perfect being, his existence has often been seen like that.

But I'm sure that you could define God without invoking necessity, and as I said earlier, I think the ontological argument is rather unconvincing, as it seems to define God into existence, so it seems rather arid.

[ 28. September 2012, 16:40: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

All of the above except reason and fear. Well, some of the people are not so nice. And I might expand parents to cultural heritage, since my parents were mostly cultural Christians.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
OK, sorry still makes no sense.

Even if he exists, surely there is no agreement on the kind of God he is, so how can it be said that his existence is necessary? Necessary for what?

1. Our agreements or disagreements don't change who or what God is.

2. You are equivocating on necessary. God is not necessary for something. YOu're thinking of "necessary" meaning "required" or "needed." The "necessary" this refers to means "not contingently" and specifically in this instance "not dependent on any other thing for its existence either originally (as source) or continuously."

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
But then if I can postulate a universe without a beginning, then I don't need a God. Why doesn't he then disappear?

Why would what you can postulate have any effect on God?

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why would what you can postulate have any effect on God?

I don't know, that is what I am trying to understand. The position seems to suggest that God's existence is somehow dependent on my inability to imagine a situation whereby he doesn't exist.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Somebody else step in here. I'm obviously not explaining it well.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Somebody else step in here. I'm obviously not explaining it well.

You'll look back at this in a week or two and find that others aren't engaging at your level. Not that there's anything clever about that, it just is.

A bit like God [Biased]

Posted by Jonm (# 1246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Hmm, OK then, ordered from most to least relevant:

6 Philosophical argument / Reason

Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)

Yours Impertinently

Jonm

Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :

I suppose c,d & l - feeling, experience and the natural world. However, the arguments that Richard D. uses against my faith are all valid.
In the end it is just trust in something which cannot be in any way proven or disproven. That is what faith is.

What follows may be a load of gibberish, but I would be interested to hear if my own philosophical reason has been expressed in other ways. Not that it means much to my faith, but I am interested in the relationship of ‘time’ to all that exists around us.

It seems to me that in the absence of any ‘mind’ to comprehend it, the universe can have no conceivable duration - or for that matter existence.

Consider the following common experience. When one undergoes deep anaesthetic, time takes a leap, often of many hours, from the first prick of the needle to someone talking to you. You can only be told that time has passed - there is no experience.

We understand from physics that for many millions of years, the state of the ’big bang’ was incapable of forming worlds, let alone life. Therefore it could only have had a duration, if there was a mind to comprehend it. Our observations only imply it had duration because our minds interpret it that way.

The Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the waters………..

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

shadeson

Your ideas have been discussed a lot in different areas. For example, the physicist Niels Bohr famously said, 'no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon'. And others have talked about an observable universe having consciousness at its core.

You can also cite Bishop Berkeley's ideas, which are rather similar - esse est percipi - to be is to be perceived.

Of course, this contradicts all the ideas in naturalism and materialism, that there is a universe, separate from our consciousness. This is one of the great philosophical divides, of course.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal phallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience. Generally speaking. But more on that later.

I'm a BBC Religion MB refugee.

Nice post! Ex-BBC too, but I've been here for ages! (I'm also on R&E.)

quote:
Nice to meet you.

Ditto.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Hence a grotesque emphasis, on the part of compliant religious authorities, on the most private and intimate acts as particularly interesting to the deity, while steering clear of even the cruelest public injustices.

That is the best and most concise summary of that aspect of religion that I have ever read.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, one day I suddenly experienced something that could not not exist. It was a big surprise, and I thought, hey, all those medieval theologians were onto something.

But why did you not, on reflection, credit your brain with the ability to think and imagine any experience you have, I wonder?

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.
But then if I can postulate a universe without a beginning, then I don't need a God. Why doesn't he then disappear?

Even if the universe doesn't have a beginning that would not, of itself, make God 'disappear.' God's existence is not contingent on the universe having a beginning. That the universe has a beginning, and that God is the cause of it, is a philosophical argument based on our experience of reality. There is scientific evidence to support the proposition - the Standard Model of cosmology (or Big Bang theory). The philosophical argument does not depend on the science, and the science does not conclusively support the argument, but the science certainly supports it.

I personally put quite a lot of store on this since the question "why are we here?" is the most fundamental of all philosophical questions. It's not the most compelling reason for my belief in God, but it's one of a number.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

In fact, somewhere Aquinas makes the point that his arguments for God do not hinge on the 'start' of the universe, since God is the source and sustainer of reality right now, and at every moment. I think this is a useful corrective to the obsession with the Big Bang.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I never understood necessity nor contingency either.....
If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and everything we know exists had a beginning, then everything exists contingently. In other words it doesn't have to exist. If everything exist contingently (because its existence depends on - is contingent - on something else) then there must be a metaphysically necessary being. If not, we fall into an infinite regress of causes.

Or to put it in less confusing language, if everything starts there must be a starter that wasn't itself started. We are all optional extras in the universe. God is necessary, not optional.

That's actually helpful. Thank you. [Angel]

The issue of infinite regress is a very interesting one IMO.

Some argue that belief in a creator God is just one step back from the big bang theory.

There is some importance in the question - then who made God?

Why should we not regress infinitely?

Alister E. McGrath points out the scientific paradigm is looking for that point of stopping infinite regress by finding "a theory of everything".

Good analogy.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, one day I suddenly experienced something that could not not exist. It was a big surprise, and I thought, hey, all those medieval theologians were onto something.
But why did you not, on reflection, credit your brain with the ability to think and imagine any experience you have, I wonder?

Are you saying that the brain is simply the source of all experience? That seems unlikely to me. I am sure that my brain constructs 'redness', but there is presumably some stuff which triggers it to do that, something like strawberries or flags.

So I don't normally see the brain as source of experience, except stuff like thoughts and dreams, and even these presumably also rest on experiences of stuff that is not-brain. Thus, if I think about strawberries, the thought is constructed by the brain, but are the strawberries?

Well, we are opening a can of worms here. Possibly they are as well!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
The philosophical argument does not depend on the science, and the science does not conclusively support the argument, but the science certainly supports it.

I recently read that two famous figures had a debate in the 1940's (one an atheist and one a Christian) and that the scientific understanding that the world did not have a beginning (at that time) was good evidence against God.

In the 60's, when the big bang theory was discovered, it was evidence that God did exist, because the universe had a beginning, just like the creation accounts in Genesis said they did.

Funny that. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, somewhere Aquinas makes the point that his arguments for God do not hinge on the 'start' of the universe, since God is the source and sustainer of reality right now, and at every moment. I think this is a useful corrective to the obsession with the Big Bang.

Agreed.

Which is why I don't understand how a materialistic Darwinism is supposed to "explain everything".

And why science is supposed to supplant God. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Of course, cynics argue that one reason for the development of the multiverse idea is to get away from the accursed theistic implications of the Big Bang, specifically, that since the universe could not create itself, something else did, not part of the universe. Errm, what would that be?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The whole "meaning and purpose" aspect is very important to me.

I mean, what's the point otherwise? The answer: "There is no point. Get used to it." doesn't work for me.

How do you get from there is no God to there is no purpose?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Cos the purpose you get from "there is no God" isn't real. It's something you make up to fill a void.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, cynics argue that one reason for the development of the multiverse idea is to get away from the accursed theistic implications of the Big Bang, specifically, that since the universe could not create itself, something else did, not part of the universe. Errm, what would that be?

I'm reading Dawkins God Delusion at the moment for an assignment.

His argument against "God created the universe" is manifold but one particular section that he concludes with says that it's basically not a good answer. The answer still raises a billion questions.

And he's right.

Those of us that believe in God don't ultimately know what God is and how she created the universe and how he managed to be outside time and first cause and prime mover.

The question is ultimately just delayed.

How would you respond to that?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonm:
Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)

First, I believe the so-called cosmological arguments of the Thomistic kind. The original you can find here. But these arguments are easy to misunderstand, see for example Feser's summary of common misunderstandings. (See also Feser's roundup for further reading material. I am being a bit lazy here though in not going through my books to see where I myself actually learned things from. For sure there was something in Herbert McCabe's books, probably in "God Matters".)

Second, in the mode of these arguments one can make several others, I even provided one myself: "A random proof of God". (My proof will make particular sense to anyone who has done typical analyses of dynamical systems, and has been considering trajectories in phase space - I believe.) I'm not sure that I would say that any one particular variant is "the" proof for me. It's more that there's a conceptual core behind them all that I find compelling.

Third, I also quite like Robert Spaemann's grammatical proof (see the last two pages for a very short summary, the other sources for this that I know are unfortunately all in German). I think this poof is sufficiently different from the other proofs above to open up new ways of approaching this. In particular because it has to do with mind. I think mind is a very dangerous thing for atheists...

As far as real proof goes, that's pretty much it. I've read lots of other stuff that makes the existence of God seem rather plausible (from Anselm to Swinburne). But not with the same compelling force...

And yes, none of the above proves the Christian God, merely a God compatible with what Christians believe.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Um. Dear. Sweet. Ingo.

Could you possibly summarise in your own words?

Some of us lesser beings have a hard time with Aquinas and other Very Clever People.

And you know what they say. If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it yourself. [Biased]

[ 29. September 2012, 13:59: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I think I should probably delete this post but I haven't...!

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are you saying that the brain is simply the source of all experience?

No, not the source, since the sources are everything that is experienced by the senses from the natural world, but yes, the brain is then the store of every single thought and idea that it creates and synthesises from the information it has.

quote:
That seems unlikely to me. I am sure that my brain constructs 'redness', but there is presumably some stuff which triggers it to do that, something like strawberries or flags.

However, whether each of us sees the colour red in exactly the same way doesn't really matter from an evolutionary point of view, does it, since the ability to do so was obviously a survival trait. There is no other place for the storage, and creation of thoughts, ideas, concepts, whether concrete or abstract, is there?

quote:
So I don't normally see the brain as source of experience, except stuff like thoughts and dreams, and even these presumably also rest on experiences of stuff that is not-brain. Thus, if I think about strawberries, the thought is constructed by the brain, but are the strawberries?

I agree with you actually , but as soon as any experience happens and is recorded, then it becomes part of the brain.*

quote:
[Q B]Well, we are opening a can of worms here. Possibly they are as well! [/QB]

*cCalling an evolutionary biologist! Calling an evolutionary biologist!... [Smile]

Posted by Jonm (# 1246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonm:
Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)
First, ...

<snip>
And yes, none of the above proves the Christian God, merely a God compatible with what Christians believe.

Thanks very much. Will read.

Posted by Jonm (# 1246) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Jonm:
Sorry, you've probably been asked this loads of times before, but could you give any pointers to books/papers/thinkers who have led you to this conclusion (mainly asking because of your statement on the Dawkins probability thread that you were a 1 from philosophical arguments)
First, ...

<snip>
And yes, none of the above proves the Christian God, merely a God compatible with what Christians believe.

Thanks very much. Will read.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
...
Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal fallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience. Generally speaking. But more on that later.

One odd thing is that in many ways the 'reality' described by the Bible isn't the sort of thing you'd expect from something with that effect. Which isn't to say the church and synagogue haven't managed to bury it. (for one thing, the mere act having a king is seen as an act of rebellion against God)

In a sense the atheist portrayal of reality is much more what you'd design to support the bad sides of capitalism and underclassism.
(although one look at the 20thC makes the point that reality is more complex)

To take a pile of curses from the end of Deut (I was looking for the King quote, but it's a reasonable highlight of what got focused on)

quote:

Cursed be anyone who

dishonors his father or his mother.

moves his neighbor's landmark.

misleads a blind man on the road.

perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.

lies with his father's wife, because he has uncovered his father's nakedness.

lies with any kind of animal.

lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.

lies with his mother-in-law.

strikes down his neighbor in secret.

takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.

does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

there's the pile of obsessed with sex ones, one heirachial (parents), one status quo (bounderies), but most of the obedience is towards the even-lower classes.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm reading Dawkins God Delusion at the moment for an assignment.

<thumbsup/ok> emoticon!! If you get a chance to hear him reading it, even just a little of it, you will see why I think he has one of the[/I] best voices for audio books!

quote:
His argument against "God created the universe" is manifold but one particular section that he concludes with says that it's basically not a good answer. The answer still raises a billion questions.

And, therefore of course in my opinion, the answer has to remain a 'we don't know exactly yet,' not, 'God'!

quote:
And he's right.

And another of those emoticons!

quote:
Those of us that believe in God don't ultimately know what God is and how she created the universe and how he managed to be outside time and first cause and prime mover.

The question is ultimately just delayed.[
Until when, would you say?
[QUOTE]How would you respond to that?

Do you think you will be reading, 'Against All Gods' by A C Grayling? It's a smallish, slim book which was recommended to me recently and one of my readers is reading a chapter each week to me. It is in our opinion excellent and is vastly more accessible than another of his books we tried a couple of years back, where we couldn't even understand the introduction so we gave up after a few pages of Chapter 1!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, cynics argue that one reason for the development of the multiverse idea is to get away from the accursed theistic implications of the Big Bang, specifically, that since the universe could not create itself, something else did, not part of the universe. Errm, what would that be?
I'm reading Dawkins God Delusion at the moment for an assignment.

His argument against "God created the universe" is manifold but one particular section that he concludes with says that it's basically not a good answer. The answer still raises a billion questions.

And he's right.

Those of us that believe in God don't ultimately know what God is and how she created the universe and how he managed to be outside time and first cause and prime mover.

The question is ultimately just delayed.

How would you respond to that?

Well, I think I would respond to you differently from my response to Prof Dawkins.

He is basically saying that every explanation must itself be explained. This is just daft. The classic argument here is if we found artefacts on Mars, say a broken down tractor. We could say it is an artefact, because of its obvious design features. But would we say, ah, but we cannot say this, because we don't understand who made it? No.

Another point about Prof D., which I have been rather hammering on about, is that covertly he assumes a naturalistic framework, so he is really saying that God should be explained within that, which is not just daft, but perverse.

But then, at another level, surely all theists would accept that they don't understand the nature of God, or how she does things? I don't count creationists as theists. Does this mean that we should not believe in God?

That's like saying that we cannot have a notion of the transcendent, unless we fully understand it, but if we did, of course it could not be the transcendent.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Cos the purpose you get from "there is no God" isn't real. It's something you make up to fill a void.

You see I have a completely opposite viewpoint. If as many theists tell me this life is but a pale shadow of what's to come, a short blip in a sea of infinity. If we are all judged by a being who's sense of justice is "far above my own", if I could spend my entire life doing what I judged to be good works only to find that I had fallen way short of this beings idea of perfection. If in fact the only way to be good turns out to be somehow making myself "love" this being....... That's a reality that seems pointless to me.

We make our own purpose in the short amount of time we have before death and the shortness of life actually adds meaning to it.

If we take the Christian view that god judges all by gods standard then everyone is in a rigged game with no exit. No one has the free choice to disagree with the rules or morals of the system. You end up being "given" one purpose. Seems pretty pointless to me.

If we take another Christian view that, "All are saved" and all have an eternal life then yet again things become pretty pointless. Where is the motivation to get anything done? With no time limits and presumably all things provided for then what is there left to do?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Um. Dear. Sweet. Ingo. Could you possibly summarise in your own words? Some of us lesser beings have a hard time with Aquinas and other Very Clever People. And you know what they say. If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it yourself.

Well, I will do one of the seven (one of which was anyway mine). There are two ways in which one can consider a causal chain. On one hand cause understood in a temporal manner: first this, then this, next that... You kick a ball, it flies into the goal, you score, later you win the game. That is not the sort of chain underlying the "first cause" argument. On the other hand, cause understood in a logical-hierarchical manner: this is based on that which relies on this and is founded on that... The nail is driven in the wall due to the hammer impacting on its head because of the triceps in the arm holding the hammer extending as commanded by the incoming nerve impulses. Note that time is not of essence for this, we are talking about (more or less) simultaneous actions in terms of "logically-hierarchically" prior causes. Even if there are temporal chains (the nerve impulses arrive slightly before the muscle contractions), that's not what we are thinking about here. We think about what must be for something else to change. In modern scientific terms this is what undergirds the search for the "fundamental forces" of nature.

Now, change always requires a cause. (Irrespective of whether it is stochastic or deterministic.) We see that these causes come in a logical-hierarchical sense other changes. The nail is driven in the wall because of the hammer impacting. Etc. But this kind of causal chain, the non-temporal one, must end. We cannot for ever say "this is based on that" without there being a final underlying cause. (Whereas me may be able to say "this came before that" forever.) This would be like building a column from the top down, but never connecting to the ground. It cannot stand on its own, because its weight does not rest on the ground.

It is also clear that what we must end with is something that causes, but is not being caused (again, not understood in a temporal manner, but in a logical-hierarchical sense). This "First Cause" is then what we call God. It is important to point out that the universe could be eternal and would still require this "First Cause".

Another important point to make is the relationship with fundamental physics. Modern physics describes regularities between observed entities, or theoretical entities constructed from observed entities, nothing more and nothing less. It is possible that fundamental physics will penetrate to the very core of the "first causal" activity in some regular aspect. But a description of regularity is not "being". A description in terms of Newton mechanics of a hammer hitting a nail is not the same as an actual hammer actually hitting an actual nail. Thus it is not enough to propose some mathematical equation of fundamental physics as "First Cause". A descriptions has no being of its own. We would still have to ask what is actually doing this.

Basically, this argument says that everything need something else to power it, considered in the here and now. But if you look to the very ground of it all, what is the juice that drives it? What steps the universe ever one Planck time forward? What breathes life into the mathematical descriptions of fundamental physics? What is the green light, the go signal, the push, the driver, the tick to the tock? Something must be saying "Let there be light", and there was light... All the time. Forever and ever. And that we call God.

[ 30. September 2012, 10:24: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus it is not enough to propose some mathematical equation of fundamental physics as "First Cause". A descriptions has no being of its own. We would still have to ask what is actually doing this.

Basically, this argument says that everything need something else to power it, considered in the here and now. But if you look to the very ground of it all, what is the juice that drives it? What steps the universe ever one Planck time forward? What breathes life into the mathematical descriptions of fundamental physics? What is the green light, the go signal, the push, the driver, the tick to the tock? Something must be saying "Let there be light", and there was light... All the time. Forever and ever. And that we call God.

Thank you Ingo for taking the time.

Are you saying "that which animates" is first cause aka God?

If so, is that not something of a God of the Gaps argument?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you think you will be reading, 'Against All Gods' by A C Grayling?

I appreciate your enthusiasm for your subject SusanDoris. [Biased]

But no, I'm afraid I won't be reading Grayling. I think I've got all I need from Dawkins. [Big Grin]

It has been interesting to finally read him. He's not as bad as many make out. He makes good points against bad religion, but ultimately his worldview is one I find to be too limited.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

He is basically saying that every explanation must itself be explained. This is just daft. The classic argument here is if we found artefacts on Mars, say a broken down tractor. We could say it is an artefact, because of its obvious design features. But would we say, ah, but we cannot say this, because we don't understand who made it? No.

It's the whole infinite regression thing isn't again isn't it......I can't get my head around it but I think if we purely base God on that idea then God certainly is screwed. That would essentially be saying "God created then departed"....or something.....(which I don't believe).

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Another point about Prof D., which I have been rather hammering on about, is that covertly he assumes a naturalistic framework, so he is really saying that God should be explained within that, which is not just daft, but perverse.

Yes. He has only one worldview and isn't keen on looking outside the possibilities of that.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But then, at another level, surely all theists would accept that they don't understand the nature of God, or how she does things? I don't count creationists as theists. Does this mean that we should not believe in God?

That's like saying that we cannot have a notion of the transcendent, unless we fully understand it, but if we did, of course it could not be the transcendent.

Amen.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Cos the purpose you get from "there is no God" isn't real. It's something you make up to fill a void.
You see I have a completely opposite viewpoint. If as many theists tell me this life is but a pale shadow of what's to come, a short blip in a sea of infinity. If we are all judged by a being who's sense of justice is "far above my own", if I could spend my entire life doing what I judged to be good works only to find that I had fallen way short of this beings idea of perfection. If in fact the only way to be good turns out to be somehow making myself "love" this being....... That's a reality that seems pointless to me.

We make our own purpose in the short amount of time we have before death and the shortness of life actually adds meaning to it.

If we take the Christian view that god judges all by gods standard then everyone is in a rigged game with no exit. No one has the free choice to disagree with the rules or morals of the system. You end up being "given" one purpose. Seems pretty pointless to me.

If we take another Christian view that, "All are saved" and all have an eternal life then yet again things become pretty pointless. Where is the motivation to get anything done? With no time limits and presumably all things provided for then what is there left to do?

I agree that the purposes of God as you have defined above seem rather unjust and silly.

But personally, I think God gave us life as a free gift. I do not live for the next life. I try follow Christ not so I'll be "saved" in the sense of judgement or motivation. I follow Christ because it's the best way to live; for myself and for others. And because God is worthy of my worship.

The next life is a bonus. [Big Grin]

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, cynics argue that one reason for the development of the multiverse idea is to get away from the accursed theistic implications of the Big Bang, specifically, that since the universe could not create itself, something else did, not part of the universe. Errm, what would that be?

The multiverse theory is as nonsensical to this atheist as all religions, and for similar reasons, pretty much - it infers that every human act is of immeasurable importance. One might as well argue that when an ant on an anthill chooses to go one way to pick up a tasty treat, an alternative universe is formed in which it takes the other route.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, an infinite multiverse is actually quite an amazing place, since everything that is possible is actual. This is rather like the Aristotelian view of God, isn't it, as Pure Act without potential?

I'm not sure about that, but certainly God must exist, since God is a possibility.

And there is all the usual stuff about Elvis having breakfast with the Queen, but I suppose also Elvis is also the King of England, somewhere.

It also seems to support reincarnation in a way. Well, I suppose it supports everything.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure about that, but certainly God must exist, since God is a possibility.

[QB]
But then, of course, you're stuck with the fact that all the other conjectures- pink unicorn, etc etc - must exist! [Smile]

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[qb] I'm not sure about that, but certainly God must exist, since God is a possibility.

But then, of course, you're stuck with the fact that all the other conjectures- pink unicorn, etc etc - must exist!

The pink unicorn only exists if there an infinite number of multiverses. If there are an infinite number of multiverses then God must exist in one of them. Since God is the creator of everything, if he exists in one of the multiverses he must exist in all of them - including ours. So if there are an infinite number of universes, the pink unicorn only has to be in one of them. You can't have an infinite number of universes without having God as well.

[ 30. September 2012, 14:18: Message edited by: Truman White ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There is actually a clever argument that the infinite multiverse is very like God, except for being intelligent, or being Mind, since it creates everything that could exist. But since it is possible that there is a conscious or intelligent universe, then the multiverse actually contains a God-like universe. And as the previous poster indicated, this God must exist everywhere.

However, it is simply a clever argument. It does not wake me up at night with the screams.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Cos the purpose you get from "there is no God" isn't real. It's something you make up to fill a void.
You see I have a completely opposite viewpoint. If as many theists tell me this life is but a pale shadow of what's to come, a short blip in a sea of infinity. If we are all judged by a being who's sense of justice is "far above my own", if I could spend my entire life doing what I judged to be good works only to find that I had fallen way short of this beings idea of perfection. If in fact the only way to be good turns out to be somehow making myself "love" this being....... That's a reality that seems pointless to me.

You got it the wrong way around George. This isn't the Christian view of God. Jesus Christ comes so that we can know God, and live life out of that knowledge. We don't spend life trying to earn enough credits to get into God's good book, but from a relationship as sons to a heavenly Father. We start from a position of acceptance - this life is the beginning of an eternal journey to who knows where. What's important is who we take that journey with. You're life is valuable because Christ put a price on it - his own life. How much meaning it has is up to you. You can choose to live it for the time you have in this world, or make it count for eternity. Your call.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Truman White: The pink unicorn only exists if there an infinite number of multiverses. If there are an infinite number of multiverses then God must exist in one of them.

I'm sorry, but mathematically this is false.

You seem to base your argument on the premise "an infinite set must contain every possible element at least once". This premise is false.

For example, it's quite easy to construct a number with an infinite amount of digits after the decimal point, yet none of these digits is 3.

Likewise, it's entirely possible to have infinitely many universes, yet none contains a pink unicorn.

[ 30. September 2012, 15:03: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
ity that seems pointless to me. [/qb]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Oops, I messed that up, sorry.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:...
I'm sorry, but mathematically this is false.
...
Likewise, it's entirely possible to have infinitely many universes, yet none contains a pink unicorn. [/QB]

Probably not, in fact it's quite likely they're quite common (at least given that it also includes our universe). The multiverse (I'll use the quantum variant to cancel infinities) would include all possible derivatives from our universe 50mya*. Which clearly includes something that could have mono-horned descendants and very horse like descendants.
The antelope suggests that natural selection would favour unicorns as much as not (although even if it didn't if there's a way for it to be lucky billions of time, there's a component). Which is just as well as the pinkness is more likely to be a low probability.

The chocolate space-teapot on the other hand, could well be absent. Romanesque god's likewise.
(but if there's a stable way of building either, there would be a probability of that and from the view of an external observer there would be a (infinitesimal) probability of the multiverse being a universe in which they exist)

A truly Theistic God of course would be outside the multiverse, and exempt. He would be all or nothing, but it could well be nothing.**
Although a universe where something creates a sub-universe...could likely exist (but then the all or nothing goes).

*infinite worlds generated differently (e.g. by infinite dynamic space) would not have this requirement. Although the odds of there being a chocolate space-teapot would be 'almost certain'.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I pray to God , I attend Church and worship God . However to really really believe in an all-powerful God , an all-inteligent Supreme Being , I'd need to see a more even distribution of rainfall around our Globe for starters.

Sorry for saying that God but I'm something of a faith-wrestler . In the odd times of non-wrestling it is a very very nice feeling knowing You.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Are you saying "that which animates" is first cause aka God? If so, is that not something of a God of the Gaps argument?

No. Just ... no.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

What Jay Em said. The multiverse idea ain't based on maths - it's a metaphysical proposition masquerading as science.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Are you saying "that which animates" is first cause aka God? If so, is that not something of a God of the Gaps argument?
No. Just ... no.

Then I'm afraid I couldn't make heads nor tails of your last post. [Big Grin]

Did I at least get the first premise right?

You did seem to imply engines and juice and power.

quote:
something else to power it

[ 30. September 2012, 23:36: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
How about "Because I can't help it"? Which probably boils down to B, C, and E--almost.
Sounds more like (i) to me.

Actually, I meant C, D, and E. I don't believe reason has anything to do with believing in God (or not believing either), though a lot of post hoc reasoning goes on after the decision is made. I think it's fundamentally an aesthetic choice--a world with or without God feels intuitively right, in the same way that a guitar riff seems to fit in a song, or a bit of dialogue in a novel. You can analyze why it feels right, but the analysis is unlikely to change your sense that it does.

And there is, of course, no accounting for taste.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

That is an interesting position Timothy.

How then would you account for a "loss of faith" or a "conversion to faith"?

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Something parallel to the way I was enthralled with Led Zeppelin's first album, and then came to believe they were a bunch of technically gifted wankers.... My aesthetic perspective shifted.

[This is an analogy. I will not respond to posts from irate Zep fans!]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
My aesthetic perspective shifted.

But why does an aesthetic perspective shift? For what reason?

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Well, sticking with the Zeppelin analogy--I went to the Ann Arbor Blues Festival in August 1969 (a few months after that first album) and heard music that moved me and changed the frame (Arthur Crudup was more powerful than Jimmy Page and Robert Plant combined). Experience and feeling, sure. Mysticism? Maybe. New information made things fit or not fit in a different way. I've known people who started believing in God because it was the only way they could make sense of their marriage and stay in it. I've known people who stopped believing for similar reasons. (There was probably a lot more to it than that, but that's the bit they told me.) There's just an intuitive coherence--for Dawkins, God is an intrusion, a crude device mucking up the elegance of a self-organizing system. Ugly. For others (e.g., me) the presence of an Author makes the story more satisfying. Why? Why do some people think Ulysses is a sublime portrayal of the human condition and others think it's pretentious, self-indulgent, bullshit?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Did I at least get the first premise right? You did seem to imply engines and juice and power.

I gave towards the end a really "intuitive motivation", in the hope that some of the spirit of it would come through, if perhaps the argument was too much. You singled that out to thrown in a well-worn piece of atheist sophistry. How much time did you actually spend thinking about all this? Did you even try to go back to Aquinas' original, Feser's list of common misunderstandings or anything else in order to test what you think you have understood from me? Do you understand what "God of the Gaps" tries to claim? What did I say about modern science in my post? What is the difference between a philosophical demonstration and a physical "proof"?

If you ask for philosophy, you must be willing to think things through.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
How about "Because I can't help it"? Which probably boils down to B, C, and E--almost.
Sounds more like (i) to me.
Actually, I meant C, D, and E. I don't believe reason has anything to do with believing in God (or not believing either), though a lot of post hoc reasoning goes on after the decision is made. I think it's fundamentally an aesthetic choice--a world with or without God feels intuitively right, in the same way that a guitar riff seems to fit in a song, or a bit of dialogue in a novel. You can analyze why it feels right, but the analysis is unlikely to change your sense that it does.

And there is, of course, no accounting for taste.

I think there is something in that. I feel that analysis can only go so far, as you say, as with aesthetic judgements. I like Victorian paintings, but it's quite hard to explain why, without becoming pompous, but really, it's just a gut feeling.

Maybe a sense of life cohering together, or 'even flow', in the words of Pearl Jam.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For me I think maybe the problem is the minor premise. To say "it's possible that God exists" could be taken in one of two senses. In the weaker sense, you just mean "it isn't nonsense" but that's not strong enough to make the argument work. If you mean "there's a possible world in which God exists" — which is what is needed to carry the syllogism — then it appears to be smuggling the conclusion into the premises.

I agree. Suppose I say "It's possible the Goldbach Conjecture* is true". It certainly isn't nonsense but does that imply there is a possible world where the statement is true? If so the conjecture is true in all worlds (assuming, as seems reasonable, all world have integers). So I've just proved the Goldbach Conjecture - pity I'm too old for the Fields medal

* An incredibly simple but unproved bit of maths:

Every even number greater than 2 can be expressed in at least one way as the sum of two prime numbers.

Prime numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 etc as eny fule kno.

Eg. 4 = 2 + 2, 180 = 101+79 and so on. It is certainly true for even numbers less than 33000000 - which is almost no evidence at all to a mathematician.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I'm late to this (Hell is quiet these days).

I rather like Lamb Chopped's alphabet soup. I can't pinpoint any particular reason. Nor would I begin to try.

I believe in God. I just do. I'll work it out at the Eschaton.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
New information made things fit or not fit in a different way.

I agree with your idea that intuition is a big part of it.

I guess I'm wary of pure, unexamined intuition however.

If you don't know why you believe, you are vulnerable to the shifting sands of time and experience and do no credit at all to the original intuition.

Intuition is no longer a real thing, it's on how you're feeling at the time.

The house is built on sand.

See what I mean?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Did I at least get the first premise right? You did seem to imply engines and juice and power.
I gave towards the end a really "intuitive motivation", in the hope that some of the spirit of it would come through, if perhaps the argument was too much. You singled that out to thrown in a well-worn piece of atheist sophistry. How much time did you actually spend thinking about all this? Did you even try to go back to Aquinas' original, Feser's list of common misunderstandings or anything else in order to test what you think you have understood from me? Do you understand what "God of the Gaps" tries to claim? What did I say about modern science in my post? What is the difference between a philosophical demonstration and a physical "proof"?

If you ask for philosophy, you must be willing to think things through.

I tried to think things through on your explanation but didn't understand it. If I grasped something of the "intuitive motivation" then it was because it was the only thing I could grasp.

IRL I am not generally credited with stupidity Ingo. Quite the reverse.

If I can't get your explanation I am either:

1) not suited to such abstract thought
2) your explanation is not clear
3) your explanation is nonsensical

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I tried to think things through on your explanation but didn't understand it.

So, how many minutes of actual thinking are we talking about? And indeed, how many minutes of background reading and research?

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If I can't get your explanation I am either:
...

The bad breath of the gift horse has offended you?

Sophia isn't a slut. You will have to woo her before she will fuck your brains in.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Ouch.

I'm sorry I asked.

Posted by REALLYMAD (# 17317) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
Belief in God to me is now an ontologocal phallacy perpetuated to subjucate the underclass into obedience. Generally speaking. But more on that later.

I'm a BBC Religion MB refugee.
Nice post! Ex-BBC too, but I've been here for ages! (I'm also on R&E.)

quote:
Nice to meet you.
Ditto.

Thank you. I wish I could take the credit but I lifted it from a parodied news story. That said, I agreed whole-heartedly with the message, brief and eloquent, however tongue-in-cheek the delivery was intended.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Sounds like Marx.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina
I also think that somehow things have to make sense somewhere. Part of me fears that this is simply a genetic and cognitive answer to stop us going insane.

With all due respect, but I find your fear utterly incomprehensible. Why would nature create beings so uncomfortable with being what they are, and who have to cling to illusions in order to function properly? Given that the only method by which any ideas are verified within the philosophy of naturalism, is pragmatism or utilitarianism, then it follows that such illusions would have to be accepted as being true, given that they are so useful.

But then naturalism informs us that these ideas are not true!

This, of course, is a contradiction at the heart of the philosophy of naturalism. And it reveals that the epistemology of naturalism is impossible. Your fear is therefore unfounded.

The idea of God exists, because God exists. Nature could not have generated such an idea, for the reason I have given.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by grokesx
I think that's because, as with most philosophers, he had his difficulties with the map and territory distinction.

Given that you claim that most philosophers have difficulty with the "map and territory distinction", I am sure you could list a few for us?

How about it?

And perhaps you might like to add a few lines explaining why these particular philosophers have this "difficulty".

Then we might have some idea what on earth you're talking about.

[ 01. October 2012, 14:20: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would nature create beings so uncomfortable with being what they are, and who have to cling to illusions in order to function properly?

What is this "nature" to which you refer?

quote:
Given that the only method by which any ideas are verified within the philosophy of naturalism, is pragmatism or utilitarianism, then it follows that such illusions would have to be accepted as being true, given that they are so useful.

The illusions, as you call them, are a side effect of our natural curiosity and creativity. That curiosity and creativity is very useful as a survival technique, which is why it persists.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

quote:
And perhaps you might like to add a few lines explaining why these particular philosophers have this "difficulty".

Then we might have some idea what on earth you're talking about.

With anyone else I'd expand, but seeing as it's you, if you can't follow a link and join up the dots yourself, frankly I don't give a shit.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
With anyone else I'd expand, but seeing as it's you, if you can't follow a link and join up the dots yourself, frankly I don't give a shit.

Grokesx, engage the argument, not the man. If you don't want to engage the argument, don't post.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would nature create beings so uncomfortable with being what they are, and who have to cling to illusions in order to function properly?
What is this "nature" to which you refer?

Evolution. How has evolution ended up creating beings who mostly seem to need to believe in the God delusion in order to prosper?

I'm with

quote:
Timothy the Obscure:
How about "Because I can't help it"? Which probably boils down to B, C, and E--almost. I do occasionally think it would be so much simpler if I could just drop that stuff and become a sort of Taoist, but I can't do it.

God knows, I've tried. The weird thing is that this God-stuff seems to work. I try to live in Faith and avoid Belief, but you can't help trying to make sense of it all. (though I think I'd go for c, d, e and o, rather than b,c,e)

[ 02. October 2012, 06:47: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

quote:
Grokesx, engage the argument, not the man. If you don't want to engage the argument, don't post.

Fair enough.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
How has evolution ended up creating beings who mostly seem to need to believe in the God delusion in order to prosper?

I would dispute the "need to believe in God in order to prosper" bit. Other than those who prosper by being religious leaders - for whom religion is useful as a means to control others rather than useful in and of itself - the most successful individuals generally seem to be those who are least likely to follow religious strictures.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

The idea of God exists, because God exists.

Does the idea of dragons exist becuase dragons exist? There is no limit to wo/man's imagination - why do ideas have to have a basis in reality - can't they simply be imaginations?

(I do believe in God and do not think S/he is a product of our imaginations - but I certainly concede that S/he could be)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would dispute the "need to believe in God in order to prosper" bit. Other than those who prosper by being religious leaders - for whom religion is useful as a means to control others rather than useful in and of itself - the most successful individuals generally seem to be those who are least likely to follow religious strictures.

What sort of "success" are you talking about? Number of surviving offspring? Social status? Political power? Financial means? Length of life? Quality of life? Happiness? Etc.

Whatever it may be, I reckon your calculus of likely success here amounts to a simplistic "if I don't have religion, then I don't need to do X, Y, and Z." That is hardly going to tell us much about actual individual success, unless you define success precisely as "freedom from having to do X, Y, and Z."

The real interesting bit about humans is that they are both the most individual of animals, thanks to their intelligence, and fundamentally group animals. The success of human beings, and hence the role of religion, is very much caught up in this unique dynamics. And this is true for all measures of success, including the basic biological one of maximizing the number of surviving offspring.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whatever it may be, I reckon your calculus of likely success here amounts to a simplistic "if I don't have religion, then I don't need to do X, Y, and Z." That is hardly going to tell us much about actual individual success, unless you define success precisely as "freedom from having to do X, Y, and Z."

It works if "X, Y and Z" are barriers to success.

As to how I define "success" in the first place, I'm mostly thinking of the people in power, the ones at the top of the social and economic tree.

Posted by Animinima (# 17360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A spin off from the Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale thread.

Why do you believe in God?

On what basis do you believe? Where does it come from?

Some possibilities:

a) Philosophical argument
b) Reason
c) Feeling
d) Experience
e) Mysticism
f) Tradition
g) Your parents
h) Fear
i) I don't know but that's cool
j) I don't know and it annoys me
k) Hope
l) The Natural World
m) The Universe is Designed
n) Desire - the hole in your heart that can only be filled by God ( Pascal )
o) The Historical Jesus
p) The Resurrection
q) As a basis for ethics and morality
r) It's more fun than nihilism and meaninglessness
s) The people are nice
t) Ritual means something

u) ......Insert your own here.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

As to how I define "success" in the first place, I'm mostly thinking of the people in power, the ones at the top of the social and economic tree.

Then the philosophy of Nietzsche will probably appeal to you.

It's the complete opposite of the Christian notion of success.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's the complete opposite of the Christian notion of success.

Yes, that was the point I was making.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It works if "X, Y and Z" are barriers to success. As to how I define "success" in the first place, I'm mostly thinking of the people in power, the ones at the top of the social and economic tree.

And yet, even on this very limited notion of success the situation is far from clear. In order to climb the social and economic tree, there has to be be one - and ideally it should stand tall. What is the role of religion in making that tree grow? And again, social and economic success has a lot to do with what people think of each other. What is the role of religion in the interactions of the climbers? Finally, it is nice to be at the top of the tree, but one would also like to stay there. What is the role of religion in keeping the tree from shaking, in particular at the top?

The modern West is a bit of a social experiment, really. It is asking the question whether a society can be run whole-scale on "practical philosophy" rather than religion. For that is what post-Christianity is about. I think the jury is still very much out on that one. We know from history that elites can follow a "practical philosophy" instead of a religion with quite some success, but we do not know whether entire populations can. One should not forget that the "West" is a global empire of sorts, and a very powerful and wealthy one at that. It takes time for empires of that size and might to rise or fall, typically a lot of time. The secularization of this empire is neither complete nor has it been going on for long enough to show its effects clearly. In a few hundred years we will know more, or at least our descendants will.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I always think that those atheists who argue that we can look forward to a bright secular future (just look at Sweden), are being a bit previous. We have a long way to go, before we can say that, and I think it will take several centuries before we can establish whether or not the secular experiment has worked.

There is also the problem of how we evaluate it. How do we compare prosperous secular Sweden with the Soviet Union, for example? I don't know.

Reminds of that joke about the French Revolution, and its possible effects - too soon to say!

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There is also the problem of how we evaluate it. How do we compare prosperous secular Sweden with the Soviet Union, for example? I don't know.

You don't? Me, I'd start by thinking which one I'd prefer to live (or have lived) in. Or you could just count the bodies.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, I wasn't expressing myself very well there. I mean that both Sweden and the Soviet Union are plausible examples of secular society.

So the cheery atheist can say, look at all the happy shiny people in Sweden, that's because of secularism. But I can say, look at all the grey unhappy people in the gulags in the Soviet Union, that's because of secularism.

It just makes me think that these historical comparisons are rather fanciful.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Ok, but then you come up against the fact that merely being secular probably doesn't explain what happened in either place. In fact, the Soviet Union in some ways more like a theocracy. A Godless theocracy might sound like a contradiction in terms, but isn't that what all theocracies actually are? Because who believes that God is really ruling in a theocracy? What you have in a theocracy is people who use an idea to give themselves power - the fact that, in a theocracy, the idea is their idea of God is pretty much irrelevant IMHO.

I suppose that this is a bit of a tangent .... except that one answer to the question "Why do you believe in God?" is: because it is from my culture's idea of God that I derive my position and power - the more fervently I believe, the better it is for me. I would hate to be thought a cynic.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think correlation and causation covers it.

People who eat chocolate live longer, but eating chocolate doesn't cause you to live longer.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... eating chocolate doesn't cause you to live longer.

O ye of little faith.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :

I think it's a question of which faith, QLib. [Big Grin]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... eating chocolate doesn't cause you to live longer.
O ye of little faith.

I can feel an utter volte-face and epiphany dawning in me - I hereby renounce everything I have said denying the life-giving properties of chocolate, and I vow to eat tons of the stuff in future.

Oh numinous power known to the Aztecs, vouchsafe to come to my humble dwelling this very night, in any form that thou wouldst like, drinking chocolate would do, or preferably, a big bar of hazelnut flavoured Lindt.

Saved at last!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0