Ship of Fools: The jump from theism to Christianity

Thread: The jump from theism to Christianity 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=025908

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

I've been listening to a lot of the recent debates between the "New atheists" and the likely apologists.

One thing I am struggling to get my head around is this. I can JUST about take some of their arguments towards the existence of God, especially as an instigator for the universe. However, they seem to then make a huge jump to the biblical understanding of Jesus etc. as the saviour of the world.

Is there any more rational explanation for this than faith? I can't get my head around the scale of the universe both in terms of space and time (1 of around 10000000000000000000000000 planets, and a 6000 time scale in 14600000000 years); how does this at all point to intelligent design; let alone the truth of the Christian religion. That jump just seems like a huge jump to make; am I missing something here?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

This is an excellent question. You are - in my opinion - exactly in the position that an intelligent non-believer (?) should be in. The various metaphysical proofs of God's existence can be seen to be true, or at least eminently believable, by natural intelligence. But then what? This certainly does not suffice to prove Christianity.

I'm on the run at the moment, I'm afraid. But maybe two brief comments, and I will be back later.

First, are you aware that the metaphysical arguments about God that you are able to appreciate do not simply stop with proving God's existence? If you read for example the classic Summa Theologiae, you will find that after the second "question" (chapter) that focuses on God's existence a whole array of Divine attributes is being proven in similar metaphysical (rather than "faith-based") style. That kind of argument occupies most of the next few dozen "questions". For example, it is shown that God must be immutable and hence eternal. In this way one can draw a picture of God philosophically that is remarkably similar to the Christian God. It is by far not sufficient to get one all the way to the Christian God, but it is a lot closer than simply the existence of a "universe creating entity".

Second, it is important to see that atheists do have their points. In particular, the question of evil is really vexing and generally speaking our lives do not appear to have a good God written all over them. A disinterested or even evil god seems to make quite a lot of sense, really. What one can say is that any explanation how a good God can fit into the world we practically encounter had better be good. Now, I would say that Christianity is at its core exceedingly weird, like a Zen koan but not just in the mind but made real in the body and world. If one really understands the claims Christianity makes then "the fuck what?" is the most "natural" reaction to many of them... An incarnated eternal Creator spirit? A God that is both three and one? Being doomed by some guy eating a forbidden fruit? Being "saved" by some guy being tortured to death? Etc. What have they been smoking? This I consider a good thing though, because I do not believe that anything remotely "normal" can answer the most serious objection to a good God provided by everyday life. One needs a kind of "quantum physics" moment here, a mind-breaking "it's both a wave and particle" type of explanation that works precisely because it doesn't in any conventional sense of making sense. In my opinion, Christianity does provide such an explanation, or at least the beginnings of one.

Now, does the possibility of explaining the real world we see as compatible with a good God in some crazy-ass way make it so? Nope, of course not. But here's the deal, one can (somewhat reasonably) hope that it is so. Hope, faith and charity are in some sense sequential, one arises from the other. So this is what I would say: after the philosophy, one is still left with a God who could be indifferent or indeed horrible. (At least as far as we are concerned, from our perspective. That one can prove philosophically that all goodness comes from God will leave us cold if we get trampled on by life...) But I maintain hope that there is a good God. This is not irrational, but it is not a rational move either. At this point indeed I am happily guilty of "wishful thinking". It is not easy to maintain this hope with intellectual integrity though. For me, Christianity provides the best chance of doing so precisely because it has this strong "reasonable but nuts" quality. Hence I hold fast to it, I have faith in it. And if I manage to realise this faith, then hopefully I will manifest charity. (Still working on that one...)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
wishandaprayer: I can't get my head around the scale of the universe both in terms of space and time (1 of around 10000000000000000000000000 planets, and a 6000 time scale in 14600000000 years)

This subject has come up a couple of times on the Ship, but what I don't understand very well is: I can think of many reasons for not wanting to be religious. Is this one really that important? I mean, it's just a number. And we don't know what happened on those other planets and in those other years.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

wishandaprayer

I've never found the various arguments for God all that compelling or resonant.

It was my own experiences which impelled me towards Christianity, as the various symbols, stories, and rituals helped me make sense of my experience.

Of course, this tends to make religion something of a private thing, and not demonstrable to others, but I can't help that.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
I can't get my head around the scale of the universe both in terms of space and time (1 of around 10000000000000000000000000 planets, and a 6000 time scale in 14600000000 years); how does this at all point to intelligent design; let alone the truth of the Christian religion. That jump just seems like a huge jump to make; am I missing something here?

I can only speak for myself but I've always had some sense that 'God' is out there and, growing up in a country where most theists are Christians, I sort of defaulted to a weak version of Christianity (I prayed and read the Bible but it was a very private thing; I hardly ever went to church or talked about my faith).

What then prompted my move to a more active, robust Christianity was thinking about the development of the faith back in the first century AD. Principally, what on earth transformed those first followers of Jesus from people in hiding and in fear for their lives to fearless preachers of this resurrected saviour?

I was also becoming closer friends with some people who actively followed Jesus and they seemed somehow different; their faith in Jesus seemed to affect them and make them good, kind people.

Each Christian has their own story to tell, though; I'd be interested to read of how others came to believe in the specifically Christian version of God.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

You're not alone - I'm very aware of how christian apologists spend much time discussing the wonders of creation, then immediately leap to saying something like "therefore, put your faith in the Gospel."

I believe in both the existence of God through creation and the Gospel but to leap from one to the other as if one thing automatically leads to the other makes no sense to me.

I think this is because the first thing we are dealing with is more to do with science and our rationality - yes, these things don't necessarily lead to atheism (despite what atheists say) but can lead to an acknowledgement that there has to be a God.

The Gospel, however, is different because it is Revelation - things we cannot deduce from science and rationalism, but only through God Revealing them to us. These things are accepted through faith.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

Each Christian has their own story to tell, though; I'd be interested to read of how others came to believe in the specifically Christian version of God.

The risen dude appeared to me ...*

*(Not a Christian by birth or country of birth btw)

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
I've been listening to a lot of the recent debates between the "New atheists" and the likely apologists.

One thing I am struggling to get my head around is this. I can JUST about take some of their arguments towards the existence of God, especially as an instigator for the universe. However, they seem to then make a huge jump to the biblical understanding of Jesus etc. as the saviour of the world.

Is there any more rational explanation for this than faith?

If someone had (say) come to the conclusion that God existed and was interested in pursuing how to live that out, one would assume they would explore the plethora of options and then settle on Christianity because it grabbed them somehow. I personally came to Christianity through experience of the risen Christ but if the religion/people/doctrines had totally sucked or not "clicked" with me somehow, I suspect I never would have become a Christian.

As to saying how Christianity in particular must be the correct understanding or truth or direct revelation of God compared to all the other revelations? Can't be done.

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

I agree with you, though I could think of other scenarios than Ingob's. However you could read all the arguments for the existence of God and all those against and study them for the rest of your life without coming to a definite conclusion. Every argument has a counter argument and if you find one that doesn't it's because no one's been clever enough to think of one yet -- they will. And if you did come down on the theist side, you could spend another lifetime deciding which religion/sect to choose. If you've got two lifetimes to spare.

My guess (and as a atheist that's all it is) is that accepting a religion and growing into its way of seeing things (or rejecting religion and seeing how that changes things) is influenced by the fact that the question has become more urgent for some reason and you can't afford to spend a lifetime thinking about it. Having made the first step it may well be that you were influenced by a particular person, religious idea or whatever.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism can all tell you why their particular step from theism is the right one. Paganism can do so from reverence for the earth, Buddhism can do it from atheism, and so on. I'm not going try and swap logical arguments with Ingob on a particular choice (he's vastly more knowledgeable than me and probably a lot clever too) - but then neither part is a 'live' question for me.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

Thank you all for your replies.

There seems to be a similar thrust in the conclusions that are drawn by all - seemingly, we can't know; but we might find that it works for us contextually (forgive me if I'm losing some nuances).

However, that that comes down to believing in something that claims to be the ONE way - over another (for example Islam), seems strange. The follow up question, then, is this?

If we accept that we really can't know which way of knowing God is correct, is it fair to say there are merits in all religions?

If we accept the above is there any point for everyone to have religious views? I will not doubt the comforting, therapeutic etc. effects of faith - but to see it as an absolute necessity for everyone? Is this necessary?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
wishandaprayer: However, that that comes down to believing in something that claims to be the ONE way - over another (for example Islam), seems strange.

To be honest, I don't worry too much about this. I made the jump (in my case it was more of a slide [Biased]

) into Christianity because this is what I was born into, and this is what inspired me.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

wishandaprayer

There may be merits in all religions, but I wouldn't know, since I don't know them. Well, I know a bit about Buddhism, since I have practised meditation for 30 years, but this is non-theistic in any case.

I don't really know what you mean by 'necessary'.

For me it was necessary in a sense, not logically, but only that I found myself there. I don't see it as a choice really. I suppose that is theologically barbaric!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
However, that that comes down to believing in something that claims to be the ONE way - over another (for example Islam), seems strange.

Why? That we do not know (for certain) which way is the one way does not mean that there must be several possible ones or that none of the ways on offer is that one way. I've made this analogy before: assume you are with a large group of people stuck in the desert, and want to get out of there lest you die. Different people suggest different directions to head in (or indeed, to stay put), giving a variety of more or less convincing reasons and appealing to a variety of more or less convincing data. But none of them has an utterly compelling case, i.e., nobody has a working satnav that has both maps of the areas and receives the GPS signal. So what is the reasonable thing to do? Well, you weigh the options to the best of your abilities, and then you go for what seems most probable without looking back. Oscillating between various options (unless they are very close to each other) is generally not going to help, but is going to decrease your survival chances. If you think that one direction is right, then strain to reach the border of the desert that way. Maybe you are right and make it out, maybe you are wrong and will die at the end of a ruinous path, but running around like a headless chicken is going to get you killed for sure. This dedication does not mean however that one must stumble along blindly. If there is serious new information suggesting a change of direction, then one should follow it.

Likewise, I see no contradiction between being firmly committed, faithful, to Christianity and acknowledging that I cannot conclusively prove the falsity of Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. This path seems best to me, so I take it. There is no point in letting uncertainty halt your steps.

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
If we accept that we really can't know which way of knowing God is correct, is it fair to say there are merits in all religions?

Yes. There will be more or less merit in a religion, depending on how close it is to true religion. (Just like in the analogy a path close to the one leading out of the desert is better than one leading far away.) But even the worst of religion which has nothing in common with true religion at all in its characteristics has as religion at least this merit: the attempt to draw closer to the Divine. (Just like walking the opposite path to the one leading out of the desert is bad, but the deciding to get going is as such good.)

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
If we accept the above is there any point for everyone to have religious views? I will not doubt the comforting, therapeutic etc. effects of faith - but to see it as an absolute necessity for everyone? Is this necessary?

Yes, it is necessary, if one adopts a fairly open definition of "religious views". It is again easiest to refer to the analogy. Say you have all these people running off into different religions (different religions), and then you have some (atheists) that think staying put offers best chances. All these people have in their way dealt appropriately with the situation. Of course, it will turn out good for some and bad for others. But they realised the situation and made their decision on how to handle it. Whereas there are some (agnostics) that wander around aimlessly, without being able to commit to one direction or for that matter to staying put. They just cannot bring themselves to make a decision. And then there are some (apathetics) who are just insane and are busy playing card games or otherwise entertaining themselves, completely ignoring the situation they are in. It is these latter two groups who are really in a bad way, with the last group being the worst of them all. These two groups are not doing the necessary thing, they are not properly dealing with the situation at hand. Everybody else is, even the atheists. That is not to say that the outcomes will be the same for all of them, but at least they all gave it a shot. And so I think that this is what we have to do, we have to give religion a shot - one way or another, even by rejecting it.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
I've been listening to a lot of the recent debates between the "New atheists" and the likely apologists.

One thing I am struggling to get my head around is this. I can JUST about take some of their arguments towards the existence of God, especially as an instigator for the universe. However, they seem to then make a huge jump to the biblical understanding of Jesus etc. as the saviour of the world.

Saviour of the world? When did the world need a saviour? What was it doing during the multi-millions of years while this planet evolved as it did without any kind of humans? And then millions more before brains evolved to think of things like salvation. Being saved, etc makes no sense to me. Any saving that I need/needed has been done by people , not by some imagined God/god/s, even though I thought it was sometimes when I was young.

quote:
I can't get my head around the scale of the universe both in terms of space and time

Nor can I and nor can many people, but for atheists that is not a reason for conjecturing God/god/s instead.

quote:
am I missing something here?

I'd say, no, you're trying to put something in that is not necessary.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

wishandaprayer - as for which one chooses, have you seen The Life of Pi ?

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
wishandaprayer - as for which one chooses, have you seen The Life of Pi ?

Seen and read, yes. He does raise an interesting point.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'd say, no, you're trying to put something in that is not necessary.

I think you caught the wrong end of my questions. I'm arguing FOR what you are arguing for. You're just reiterating my point (maybe more clearly) after each of my paragraphs.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

For once the film was better than the book, although I love the book too.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

For me, the jump is this: either a man around 2000 years ago was crucified and then resurrected, or he wasn't. This is an historical question. If he wasn't then Christianity has precisely nothing to offer that you can't get from a dodgy self-help book.

If he was, the implications go bit further than mere conjecture about who or what created what when and how. Asserting that it did in fact occur must alter the scientific viewpoint of an explicable chain of causality, and I don't think the fundatheists™ and fundapologists™ cited in the OP can even begin to have a fruitful discussion at that point.

The other implication is that the suggestion that you should arrive at Christianty via theism is arse-about. Theism doesn't imply Christianity but Christianity by definition implies theism, albeit distinctive. So in a way you're exactly right, the leap from the mere supposition that a creator exists to a distinctively Christian theology is just way too big. But in some ways the leap from asserting there is no creator, to no resurrection, is even larger given that it can only be supposed not proven.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David:
For me, the jump is this: either a man around 2000 years ago was crucified and then resurrected, or he wasn't. This is an historical question. If he wasn't then Christianity has precisely nothing to offer that you can't get from a dodgy self-help book.

The ministry of Jesus' earthly life was nothing less than The Kingdom of God breaking into the world.

How the hell do you get dodgy self-help book from The Kingdom of God?

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

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
assume you are with a large group of people stuck in the desert, and want to get out of there lest you die.

Your choice of analogy suggests you've already decided on what sort of God and religion you want to find. I'd say I've found myself marooned on a desert island. I have friends, family, neighbours (not all nice) and an environment in which we can live. Every so often someone tells me that if we build a raft we can get to a wonderful place that they have, relying only on pure metaphysics, worked out must exist. Some are converted and sail off into the blue but I like it here.

Some aren't so certain but do a bit of local exploring. They never do the heroic sea crossing but potter about, find other islands, other people, other views of the world. Agnostics I think you'd call them.

Some, apatheists, just waste their time getting to know the island and show no interest in going elsewhere. In due course they find out stuff of interest only to those who still live on the island, and are scorned by those planning great armadas to the magical super land across the sea. "OK", says a mariner, "now you know which snakes are poisonous - but beyond the sea is a land with no snakes; now you know how to cure some ailments and no doubt relieve a lot of suffering but across the sea is a land without suffereing - follow us and give up your foolishness. We know this because we've worked it out logically, you've just done quotidian stuff based on looking at what's in front of you - so boring compared to imagining what the new world must be like."

But my friends and family are here on this perfectly adequate island. I'll stay with them, even the annoying neighbours aren't so bad. Good Luck, send us a postcard when you get there.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Interesting question with some interesting answers, many of which hint at spiritual experiences one would love to know more about.

I like Ingo's "reasonable but nuts," Christianity-strange-as-a-zen-koan, formulation. Also SC Kevin's wondering what actually happened in the first century to change those people so radically. And David's emphasis on the Resurrection. Am tempted to the sin of envy of someone else's path on reading that Evensong had a direct experience of the Risen Christ. (I think a thread of people's stories about how they came to faith would be a wonderful thing...)

I seem to recall C S Lewis got to theism and then, during a day trip to Chessington Zoo, somehow made the jump to Christianity. I think he said--correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have Surprised by Joy with me here--on the outward bus journey he was a theist, by the time the bus brought him home again he believed in Jesus, only he couldn't really be sure--or reproduce for a reader--how exactly this happened!

Re IngoB's lost-in-the-desert analogy: Ingo, at first I thought it was really clear and worked brilliantly. Then I came to the bit where you say that even those who decided to simply stay where they were and not seek a way out--your image for atheists--had at least taken a stand, and this was preferable to wandering around aimlessly without committing to any one direction--agnostics.

That we need to make a decision. "There is no point in letting uncertainty halt your steps."

I find myself asking: Rather than seeing agnostics as "wandering round aimlessly," can't they be seen as seeking?? Can't it be that they try one direction--and it doesn't seem right; then they try another one, which doesn't seem right either.....they are trying to discover the direction which seems the most likely to be best for them, and it simply takes a while....

But I suppose you could reply that it's not the trying different directions that is wrong--what matters is the degree of commitment with which you do it? So you can decide to, for example, follow one religion as faithfully as possible; and then later, if new information comes along or see change your mind, you can switch to another and follow it with equal firmness...but at least you have not been "aimless." Not throwing your hands up in agnostic helplessness.

Very thought-provoking. Is uncertainty such a terrible thing? In the Victorian crisis-of-faith time, it was held to be a dreadful fate--to be gripped by Doubts, whether about the existence of God at all, or about whether to be a Tractarian, Catholic or whatever, was seen as a terrible place to be (IIUC). One had to hasten out of it as fast as possible.

And it's true, in life, one has to get on with things...choose a house, a career path, sometimes a partner, out of several choices. How do we make these decisions, when we cannot know for sure which will be best? In the end, a combination of gut instinct and inclination...we realise we just have to get on with it, go with our best guess.

But for religious matters, nowadays we feel it's less urgent to make a choice. Is this a malady of our times? Is Ingo right, we should just get on with it, even though we can never be 100% sure--because one can't be 100% sure of anything, anyway? Do we not take the need for a religious direction--way out of the desert--seriously enough?

Or is it OK to continue in a more tentative place, a place of uncertainty, a place of listening, seeking, waiting....? Perhaps it depends on how active vs how passive we are in this listening and seeking phase?

To answer the OP, I feel that Christianity has more of "the truth" (I would not say "the truth of the Christian religion," as in the OP, since this could imply it is the only truth) than other religions because--apart from my being born in it!--of the compelling story of Jesus, his life and death. The Gospels seem to me so full of details that one couldn't or wouldn't have invented. Jesus clearly lived (historians agree on this, anyway); he clearly had this enormous transforming effect on people; only something as crazy and impossible as his resurrection would seem able to explain their commitment even unto death. And so on. And in a way the small details--like the story of Mary of Magdalen thinking Jesus was the gardener, or the story of doubting Thomas--are as powerful as the whole.

But of course, as many have said (eg Alice Meynell in her poem Christ in the Universe), who knows in what guise God might have appeared, or sent a representative, on other planets--each could have a different incarnation.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

David's point is very well made - and links nicely with SCK's point. Evensong, I don't know why you took issue with what David said - he was suggesting what the options were? Are you suggesting that without the resurrection Christianity has much to stand on? If we can doubt the account of the resurrection then why not of the rest of the Kingdom of God "breaking out"?

Que sais-je - I wasn't really sure what you were implying by the island analogy - but I get it now. However, by saying

quote:
Every so often someone tells me that if we build a raft we can get to a wonderful place that they have, relying only on pure metaphysics, worked out must exist.

I assumed you were referring to the journey to atheism rather than away from it. I see now that you aren't - and actually find some degree of comfort in your position.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'd say, no, you're trying to put something in that is not necessary.
I think you caught the wrong end of my questions. I'm arguing FOR what you are arguing for. You're just reiterating my point (maybe more clearly) after each of my paragraphs.

Ah,, thank you -My apologies!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But my friends and family are here on this perfectly adequate island. I'll stay with them, even the annoying neighbours aren't so bad. Good Luck, send us a postcard when you get there.

I think you are sort of self-identifying as "apathetic" here, and in your analogy the secular life is mapped to living happily on the island that you are on, whereas the religious / metaphysicists are on a mission to find better islands (and agnostics are sort of lazily exploring). Well, then that part of your analogy fails. The religious claim is in terms of your analogy not simply to find some other, better island. Religion does claim to be about something qualitatively different. So in terms of your analogy, people are not simply looking for better islands, they are building spaceships to go to the stars. Furthermore, all religions claim some urgency for their doings. So people are not simply building spaceships just for the fun of exploring the stars, but because they think a big asteroid is coming that will smash into earth and wipe out life.

Now, obviously one can think that these religious claims are full of shit. Fine, that's what atheists are doing: they consider the fear of that asteroid to be deluded and the spaceship building to be an utter waste of money on technology guaranteed to fail. I may think that they are wrong, but at least they have assessed the situation and made a clear choice. Agnostics are people that cannot decide whether an asteroid is coming or not, or whether spaceships can be build or not, leaving them at a loss what to do. Well, actually I'm not sure that agnostics exist other than as a concept - seems to me that most "agnostics" de facto are atheists or apathetics that give themselves airs of Popperian sophistication. Finally, apathetics just ignore the whole thing. It's not like they reject the possibility of an asteroid strike or space technology, they just can't be arsed to consider any of it. If the atheists are right, then the apathetics were most sensible, because they didn't even waste any energy on this. If the theists are right, then the apathetics were least sensible, because they didn't even consider this. While I think the latter is correct, my (somewhat unusual) point is true either way: their lack of interest actually makes them the extreme case in terms of outcome.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I find myself asking: Rather than seeing agnostics as "wandering round aimlessly," can't they be seen as seeking?? Can't it be that they try one direction--and it doesn't seem right; then they try another one, which doesn't seem right either.....they are trying to discover the direction which seems the most likely to be best for them, and it simply takes a while....

That's not really an agnostic. That's what one would call an inquirer, if they are already zeroing in on one faith, or perhaps a seeker if they are still, well, seeking. An agnostic is someone who has looked at all this and decided that it cannot be decided and hence shouldn't be. That's really the opposite to seeking, it is saying that seeking is futile! Actually, I have serious doubts that agnostics even exit. It seems to me that in practice it is more a particular intellectual stance that is adopted in spite of a life that is clearly atheist or apathetic, or sometimes theist, practically speaking. Or to put it differently, I don't think that one can "live" agnosticism. It's a bit like Schrödinger's cat that is said to be both alive and dead. Well, at some point you are going to open that box, and then the cat will be either alive or dead. One cannot sit on a fence and walk down the road at the same time, practice will decide what one's agnosticism de facto amounts to.

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
But I suppose you could reply that it's not the trying different directions that is wrong--what matters is the degree of commitment with which you do it? So you can decide to, for example, follow one religion as faithfully as possible; and then later, if new information comes along or see change your mind, you can switch to another and follow it with equal firmness...but at least you have not been "aimless."

Indeed. Or you can be an intense seeker. Or you can be a rejecter, and just sit down with full intent. What I consider as really wrong is the apathetic stance. For this is simply not the kind of issue that should be ignored. It's like a non-doctor telling you "I think that lump might be cancer." At this point you go to a doctor. Or you say "No, I'm sure that this is not cancer, but simply a callus." But to say "whatever" is dumb. Cancer is not a "whatever" kind of thing. Neither is God.

In a way, I think it is more important to preach the importance of the God question to the people than what I think is true about God. Perhaps this is something that all religions, and even the serious atheists (!), can unite about. I really think that everybody should give this some thought. This should be something that people make some kind of actual decision about.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

que sais-je and Cara

Most interesting reads.

quote:
of the compelling story of Jesus, his life and death. The Gospels seem to me so full of details that one couldn't or wouldn't have invented.

On the contrary, that's what it seems humans have been experts at since our brains evolved to be so good at imagining and creating ideas.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Evensong, I don't know why you took issue with what David said - he was suggesting what the options were? Are you suggesting that without the resurrection Christianity has much to stand on? If we can doubt the account of the resurrection then why not of the rest of the Kingdom of God "breaking out"?

It was this line I took exception to:

quote:
If he wasn't then Christianity has precisely nothing to offer that you can't get from a dodgy self-help book.

Do you agree with him that the inauguration of the Kingdom of God that is recounted in the Gospels constitutes a dodgy self-help book?

I can't think of anything further from the truth.

If the resurrection is all that mattered, one wonders why the Gospels were written at all. You could condense them all to a few short chapters.

Five hundred words is all you would need.

A dead dude rose in a different form. That's all you need to know. SOLD! Salvation is yours!

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
que sais-je and Cara

Most interesting reads.
quote:
of the compelling story of Jesus, his life and death. The Gospels seem to me so full of details that one couldn't or wouldn't have invented.
On the contrary, that's what it seems humans have been experts at since our brains evolved to be so good at imagining and creating ideas.

Indeed. Imagining everybody makes everything up is what atheists do best.

You guys trump us Christians in creative imagining anyday.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Indeed. Imagining everybody makes everything up is what atheists do best.

You guys trump us Christians in creative imagining anyday.

I don't think I can ignore that one! The only thing atheists say is made up and entirely from the imagination is any kind of supernatural spirit or entity, including God/god/s.

[ 27. June 2013, 01:03: Message edited by: David ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Indeed. Imagining everybody makes everything up is what atheists do best.

You guys trump us Christians in creative imagining anyday.
I don't think I can ignore that one! The only thing atheists say is made up and entirely from the imagination is any kind of supernatural spirit or entity, including God/god/s.

All ideas are made up, aren't they? Or do some of them exist in a sort of Platonic state of frozen splendour, awaiting a thaw?

A nice example is provided by mathematics and logic. Do they exist in the universe in a latent state? Or do humans make them up?

Ironically, the first idea - that the universe is rational, is used by some theists as arguments for God.

[ 26. June 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Do you agree with him that the inauguration of the Kingdom of God that is recounted in the Gospels constitutes a dodgy self-help book?

No, I don't. If the resurrection is not true, then it's more akin to a cross between a self-help book and a fantasy novel.

I'm not arguing that it could be condensed down - more that the resurrection is the distinctive that is central to the whole Kingdom of God. If you disregard that, and frame it as untrue or merely allegorical, then you may as well disregard the rest - not in terms of its value, but in terms of its veracity.

Thanks.

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

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think you are sort of self-identifying as "apathetic" here, and in your analogy the secular life is mapped to living happily on the island that you are on, whereas the religious / metaphysicists are on a mission to find better islands (and agnostics are sort of lazily exploring).

I probably wouldn't read SoF if I was apatheist.

Sorry if I got a bit carried away by my desert island idyll. I think the change of setting was because some religious writers have a tendency to say things like 'the universe seems like a cold and empty place' or 'a barren desert'. Which I guess is true statistically, but I don't see life in those terms. I took your analogy to be that we were in a dreadful place and had to find a better one before we died.

Actually I'm getting a bit puzzled. Is the asteroid our own death (possibly our species) and possible oblivion: i.e. it's all about meaning in the universe? Or is it specifically a Christian type day of judgement when we go to heaven or hell? Or the Second Coming?

I may think that they are wrong, but at least they have assessed the situation and made a clear choice. Agnostics are people that cannot decide whether an asteroid is coming or not, or whether spaceships can be build or not, leaving them at a loss what to do.

A bit like admiring terrorists - at least they go out and do something even if totally wrong. The sin is sitting on the fence and deciding you just don't have enough evidence to make a decision.

Well, actually I'm not sure that agnostics exist other than as a concept - seems to me that most "agnostics" de facto are atheists or apathetics that give themselves airs of Popperian sophistication.

I wonder if this says more about the sort of person you are. You seem to admire decision makers. I have a lot of sympathy for the indecisive. Those strong confident dominant types who know just what's needed scare me. I don't get the link to Popper - paradoxically falsification is about as positive as you can get: if all the failed experiments got counted against a theory even the true ones would probably never be accepted. More of a Feyerabend type myself.

Finally, apathetics just ignore the whole thing. It's not like they reject the possibility of an asteroid strike or space technology, they just can't be arsed to consider any of it.

Would fideism count as apathy? Since we aren't really talking about asteroids but God's judgement or something similar. If there is a God, I see no reason to suppose he is constrained by any humanly invented institution or philosophy (nor clear evidence that one rather than another has his approval).

A Somali friend was concerned that all the volunteers at a local charity where he helped out were atheists. He try to persuade me to become a Muslim. When that failed he said what about a Christian? I said no. "Jews go to Heaven", he said hopefully. After a long pause he said, "This isn't what the Book says but I think Allah does a deal with anyone who tries to be good. You can go to Heaven but don't tell anyone."

When the asteroid hits I'll think of Mahmood - till then I'll do my best and in a muddled, confused sort way get on with my life.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:

Is there any more rational explanation for this than faith? I can't get my head around the scale of the universe both in terms of space and time (1 of around 10000000000000000000000000 planets, and a 6000 time scale in 14600000000 years); how does this at all point to intelligent design; let alone the truth of the Christian religion.

On the Numbers thing, Lewis did make an interesting observation.
He particularly had lived through a time when the world view of the cosmos had gone from small (or to paraphrase Adam's merely infinite) and earth centred to very big and repetitive.
He refers to Hoyle (and something like the Drake Equation). And basicly says that before:
everyone said "empty universe -> our view of god. crowded universe -> their view, therefore they're stupid"
after it reversed.
"crowded universe -> our view of god. empty universe -> their view, therefore they're stupid"

For those interested the actual quote is in "Religion in Rocketry" and extracts below

quote:

When I was a youngster...We were alone in an infinite desert. Which just showed the absurdity of the Christian idea...
But then came Professor Hoyle and...[everyone decided there were many habited planets]...which showed the absurdity of Christianity
...
Each new discovery is seized by unbelievers...and more embarrassingly by injudicious believers...

[formatting]

[ 26. June 2013, 21:36: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by David (# 3) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by David:
For me, the jump is this: either a man around 2000 years ago was crucified and then resurrected, or he wasn't. This is an historical question. If he wasn't then Christianity has precisely nothing to offer that you can't get from a dodgy self-help book.

The ministry of Jesus' earthly life was nothing less than The Kingdom of God breaking into the world.

How the hell do you get dodgy self-help book from The Kingdom of God?

While I don't disagree with your characterisation of Jesus' ministry, it's pointless to call it The Kingdom of God unless you've already come to the conclusion that God can exist. If you take this away, you not only need to reject anything "supernatural" but also Jesus' authority.

What you're left with at that point doesn't seem hugely impressive to me. YMMV.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Indeed. Imagining everybody makes everything up is what atheists do best.

You guys trump us Christians in creative imagining anyday.
I don't think I can ignore that one! The only thing atheists say is made up and entirely from the imagination is any kind of supernatural spirit or entity, including God/god/s.

Aside from the observation that you seem to be speaking for all atheists, which is pretty funny, your definition of "supernatural" only works if you define "natural" tightly enough that it excludes all of the things you want to exclude.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Indeed. Imagining everybody makes everything up is what atheists do best.

You guys trump us Christians in creative imagining anyday.
I don't think I can ignore that one! The only thing atheists say is made up and entirely from the imagination is any kind of supernatural spirit or entity, including God/god/s.
.

Indeed. But that takes a huge amount of imagination and creativity.

To imagine that huge swathes of human history and experience are fabricated fiction and therefore should be discounted takes more creativity and imagination and than the reverse.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by David:
For me, the jump is this: either a man around 2000 years ago was crucified and then resurrected, or he wasn't. This is an historical question. If he wasn't then Christianity has precisely nothing to offer that you can't get from a dodgy self-help book.

The ministry of Jesus' earthly life was nothing less than The Kingdom of God breaking into the world.

How the hell do you get dodgy self-help book from The Kingdom of God?
While I don't disagree with your characterisation of Jesus' ministry, it's pointless to call it The Kingdom of God unless you've already come to the conclusion that God can exist. If you take this away, you not only need to reject anything "supernatural" but also Jesus' authority.

And God only exists if Jesus was really raised from the dead?

You mean God didn't exist before the resurrection?

[Confused]

For arguments sake, lets say the resurrection never happened. Why would the teachings and healings of Jesus about the nature of God all be moot?

In my view, he would essentially be relegated to the role of prophet like others before him (Elijah, Elishah etc). But there's no reason that God cannot work and establish God's will via prophets. That's precisely what God did before Jesus.

I fail to see why a lack of resurrection discounts the work of God in more mundane ways.

It's essentially like saying, "well, unless God works in this particular way God is incapable of working at all."

Posted by David (# 3) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And God only exists if Jesus was really raised from the dead?

You mean God didn't exist before the resurrection?

I'm not saying anything about the existence of God. You're getting yourself all tangled up by forgetting the context of this discussion. If the resurrection isn't true, then there's no reason to believe the rest of the gospel accounts. I chose the resurrection for a number of reasons:

because it is an historical event with a binary question of truth.
because I agree with Paul that unless it really happened, we're wasting our time.
because it is easily the best-attested gospel event in terms of detail.
because, well, it's the central claim of Christianity, isn't it?

If the resurrection WAS a real historical event, it gives credence to the Christian faith as distinct from other claims, and also begins to fill in some of the metaphysical questions that would enable someone to move from accepting the possibility of god to the probable existence of God.

Now, if you decided that the resurrection didn't happen - for whatever reason - sure as hell you shouldn't be accepting any of the other gospel claims. Which leaves you with some nice thoughts and some possible magic tricks or misunderstandings. That's all.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And God only exists if Jesus was really raised from the dead?

You mean God didn't exist before the resurrection?

I'm not saying anything about the existence of God. You're getting yourself all tangled up by forgetting the context of this discussion.

Yeah. Fair enough.

quote:
Originally posted by David:

If the resurrection WAS a real historical event, it gives credence to the Christian faith as distinct from other claims, and also begins to fill in some of the metaphysical questions that would enable someone to move from accepting the possibility of god to the probable existence of God.

I think this is true and a good point but I don't think it proves Christianity is the natural leap of faith.

Resurrection is not an uncommon theme amongst religions.

The distinctive Christian twist to resurrection seems to be the formulation that Jesus was both fully human and fully God.

Can't say I've ever heard that one before.

But then we get into philosophy that does my head in.......is something only true if it's distinctive? [Ultra confused]

I think not.

quote:
God loves otherness. She’s an anti-Sameite.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The only thing atheists say is made up and entirely from the imagination is any kind of supernatural spirit or entity, including God/god/s.

That's an awful lot of only...

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
All ideas are made up, aren't they? Or do some of them exist in a sort of Platonic state of frozen splendour, awaiting a thaw?

You know, the more I have been thinking about this, the more I think you nicely prove my point! i.e. Gods are made up in human imagination. And I think I'll add [Smile]

quote:
A nice example is provided by mathematics and logic. Do they exist in the universe in a latent state? Or do humans make them up?

I think the only way I can think about this is, that if humans had not evolved, then there wouldnot have been a creature able to observe and consider such abstract ideas.

quote:
Ironically, the first idea - that the universe is rational, is used by some theists as arguments for God.

An entirely reasonable conclusion before knowledge increased about the universe.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Indeed. But that takes a huge amount of imagination and creativity.

Agreed - and well within the ability of evolved brains.

quote:
To imagine that huge swathes of human history and experience are fabricated fiction and therefore should be discounted takes more creativity and imagination and than the reverse.

But that's not what I suggest. Of course it is extremely important to try to understand the beliefs and motivations of peoples throughout history and such studies should never be discounted. [

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
All ideas are made up, aren't they? Or do some of them exist in a sort of Platonic state of frozen splendour, awaiting a thaw?
You know, the more I have been thinking about this, the more I think you nicely prove my point! i.e. Gods are made up in human imagination. And I think I'll add !

quote:
A nice example is provided by mathematics and logic. Do they exist in the universe in a latent state? Or do humans make them up?
I think the only way I can think about this is, that if humans had not evolved, then there wouldnot have been a creature able to observe and consider such abstract ideas.

quote:
Ironically, the first idea - that the universe is rational, is used by some theists as arguments for God.
An entirely reasonable conclusion before knowledge increased about the universe.

The thing I like about you, Susan, is that you often answer a question that wasn't asked. This seems admirable to me, and it certainly requires one to keep one's wits about one, since then there are different questions and answers buzzing about!

On maths, I conclude that they are also made up, although some people argue that they are intrinsic to the universe itself, a nice idea. However, too complicated really, and off-topic.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The only thing atheists say is made up and entirely from the imagination is any kind of supernatural spirit or entity, including God/god/s.
That's an awful lot of only...

Yes! Reading it again, I can see that. to clarify(!): Humans can imagine an infinite number of things, including God/god/s. The only one of those that is believed to be true outside of the imagination is the God/god/s idea. (This includes any kind of supernatural spirits, myths etc.)
Hmm, Hope that's an improvement!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quetzalcoatl
Thank you! These sorts of discussions are such an excellent alternative to the U3A classes and discussion groups I would have joined in retirement if circumstances had been different. For those, one does need to be able to make eye contact and to read print.
I came here in the first place thanks to The Atheist who directed me here! I look at his web site occasionally (he's still as forthright as ever!) and belong to a small, down-under forum where he's a member.

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

Is it too late to get back to the OP? I know I'm as much to blame as anyone for getting off it. But I had a thought which I don't have an answer for.

Suppose you believe there is a Theity (Deists have the Deity, Theists have ... ). The assumption of believers is that you should worship him/her and then the choice is between religions. I can see why that approach might have once seemed correct - God was Ruler and rulers need a bit of sycophancy.

But modern Theists often use other metaphors for God: a loving parent, someone who shares our suffering and so on. Or the purpose of the universe may be a great act of sharing love, a divine work of art, an experiment with freewill (maybe even God didn't know how it would turn out).

It doesn't seem obvious to me that any form of religion is necessary for some of these. We don't want our children to forget us but neither do we expect never ending paeans of praise about how wonderful we are. Maybe being ourselves, living our lives and being independent of God is a good policy.

If those metaphors work for anyone it isn't obvious that they need 'religion' as usually understood. As the Buddha said: If your house is on fire, put it out first, then discuss who started the fire. The traditional religious response seems to be more get your relationship with God sorted first, whereas many long suffering parents discover that when the kids have sorted themselves out, their relationship with their parents improves anyway.

For anyone who points out that Christianity/Islam etc don't see it this way, we were originally talking about the zone between finding God and choosing a religion.

So do we necessarily need religion?

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

This is such an interesting discussion.

I am particularly struck by IngoB's point that, to him, the importance of the God question itself is even greater than what he himself believes about God. That the God question is something we really ought to make a decision about.

"Cancer is not a "whatever" kind of thing. Neither is God."
(Quotes file?)
And the worst choice is that of making no choice--of being completely apathetic to the question.

Now que sais-je (love this name!) is saying (IIUC) maybe we can just live independent lives, even if God is out there; need it affect us in our everyday lives?

I don't think, que sais-je, that originally we were talking about "the zone between finding God and choosing a religion." I think the OP was specifically about the jump from accepting the existence of a God to believing in the particular Christian story about God. Which seems to wishandaprayer (another evocative moniker!) an impossible leap.

If the Christian story is true, and we really take it on board, it absolutely would have to affect our everyday lives in every way, most profoundly.

So--how does one make that leap? Easier perhaps if one's brought up in the Christian faith. I'm especially interested in the story of people like Evensong who weren't, and who chose Christianity without having grown up in it--seems a freer choice to me, very interesting.

I have no answers about how to make the leap. As I get older I get more and more "agnostic" --though I think IngoB may be right and there isn't really such a thing; in his desert analogy the agnostics and apathetics aren't so different from each other.
So I prefer to say I am a seeker, of fluctuating intensity!

I've just seen something I missed earlier--que sais-je's comment about different personality types, the people who feel certain about things versus those who temperamentally don't. Which echoes what I said upthread about the way uncertainty was seen in Victorian times as such a dreadful non-place to exist. Yet is uncertainty so bad? A.N.Wilson, since his recent return to faith, said something somewhere about not seeing "wishy-washy" as necessarily a bad thing.

I fluctuate between feeling like him, wishy-washy in many ways, still seeking, still not sure of what I really believe, and then remembering the dire lines from the Bible about how God will spit those who are lukewarm out of his mouth!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Cara

Yet skeptical theism seems a live option today. I mean, I don't know if God exists, how could I? But I can live as if he does, well, sometimes.

Same with Christianity - I don't know if it's true. I find it useful and resonant though.

I guess this is the pernicious effect of postmodernism!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I guess this is the pernicious effect of postmodernism!

Not pernicious at all. Just the rational alternative to modernism. And a much, much better alternative than nihilism (which is where the failure of modernism can tend to - e.g. Nietzsche).

I'm personally curious about what comes after postmodernism. But I can't imagine that far yet [Biased]

Here's to hoping it's not a reversion to fundamentalism in the face of excessive anxiety. [Votive]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That would be postpostmodernism.

I was being ironic about 'pernicious effects', since it seems very difficult to escape them today.

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

cara - glad you like the name, though I can't claim much credit. Que sais-je was the motto of Michel de Montaigne (as you probably know). I like it because it could have the sense of today's 'whatever!' or a simple question about what we know. I can't resist mentioning that my hero produced several editions of his essays, each time adding new thoughts without modifying what he had said before. The result is a glorious - almost unreadable - tangle of contradictions, ideas that go nowhere or re-emerge several chapters later. Just like life really, which was, maybe, what he intended.

I guess I've taken to heart his comment that he had lived his life preparing for death (a good C16 sentiment - this was the era of the French religious wars after all), then after a silly accident he nearly died and realised that you don't have to prepare for death: death is already prepared - all you need to do is live.

I agree that once you make the choice then it can become urgent if you choose Islam or Christianity, less so if you choose Buddhism or (I'm guessing) Judaism. But I'm very poor at choices, like Montaigne (again), "It's the diversions which make the journey".

quote:
I think IngoB may be right and there isn't really such a thing; in his desert analogy the agnostics and apathetics aren't so different from each other.

I just get scared by anyone who is sure they are right. Commitment is a sometimes great thing, but the SS's commitment to Hitler wasn't. The knack seems somehow to believe enough to get somewhere but not so much that you are blind to the possibility of being wrong. If I was on The Apprentice, I couldn't give it 110%, maybe 90% and save 10% for checking if I might be wrong.

If God exists and I get spat out, I hope I'll end up wherever Montaigne went - though he was very good at avoiding visitors.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Cara
Very interesting post. The word 'if' does keep cropping up, doesn't it!

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
cara - glad you like the name, though I can't claim much credit. Que sais-je was the motto of Michel de Montaigne (as you probably know). I like it because it could have the sense of today's 'whatever!' or a simple question about what we know. I can't resist mentioning that my hero produced several editions of his essays, each time adding new thoughts without modifying what he had said before. The result is a glorious - almost unreadable - tangle of contradictions, ideas that go nowhere or re-emerge several chapters later. Just like life really, which was, maybe, what he intended.

I guess I've taken to heart his comment that he had lived his life preparing for death (a good C16 sentiment - this was the era of the French religious wars after all), then after a silly accident he nearly died and realised that you don't have to prepare for death: death is already prepared - all you need to do is live.

I agree that once you make the choice then it can become urgent if you choose Islam or Christianity, less so if you choose Buddhism or (I'm guessing) Judaism. But I'm very poor at choices, like Montaigne (again), "It's the diversions which make the journey".

quote:
I think IngoB may be right and there isn't really such a thing; in his desert analogy the agnostics and apathetics aren't so different from each other.
I just get scared by anyone who is sure they are right. Commitment is a sometimes great thing, but the SS's commitment to Hitler wasn't. The knack seems somehow to believe enough to get somewhere but not so much that you are blind to the possibility of being wrong. If I was on The Apprentice, I couldn't give it 110%, maybe 90% and save 10% for checking if I might be wrong.

If God exists and I get spat out, I hope I'll end up wherever Montaigne went - though he was very good at avoiding visitors.

Ah, Montaigne--well, I sorta knew that, and then sorta forgot it!
[Hot and Hormonal]

I have had his essays on my bookshelf for ages but not got around to reading them (shameful) ...I was very taken by a talk Sarah Bakewell gave about her recent book on him, "How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in one questions and twenty attempts at an answer" and what I've read so far of this book, which I'm sure you know, is excellent...

yes, I too fear those who are certain of things. You are right, we need to know how to find that ideal balance between believing enough to get somewhere but not so much that you are blind to the possibility of being wrong....being an intense seeker rather than apathetic, but remaining open-minded....

and yet, isn't there a certain courage in going out on a limb, having faith, trusting....committing?

Houston Smith addressed this somewhere in a compelling way at the beginning of one of his recent books....will have a look.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
and yet, isn't there a certain courage in going out on a limb, having faith, trusting....committing?

Good to see you even open minded about being open minded.

Is courage a virtue? It seems more like being physically strong, clever or a fast runner - not good in itself (unlike, say, compassion) but a characteristic which can be put to good or bad use. But I tend to identify virtues with things that bring us closer to other people (and animals for that matter) which won't please many shipmates.

susandoris: 'if' and 'but' are my favourite words! Many years ago I had a row with my then girl friend. "The trouble with you" she said, "is that you think there are two sides to everything". Without thinking I replied, "In one way that's true but in another ...". She left. I've become less decisive and, in my 60s have found 'if's and 'but's I never dreamed of in my youth.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, it's the young who cannot tolerate ambivalence, and want stuff in black and white. We old men realize that we just don't know.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

Yes indeed. I always see both sides of a question (except perhaps with regard to certain crucial questions like correct spelling and grammar!!!) and am very put off by dogmatism. More and more so with age. Especially dogmatism about things we cannot possibly know about for sure. Eg the claim by both RC and Orthodox churches to be the one and only true church of Christ on earth. A claim made with absolute certainty. But they can't both be it!

SusanDoris, "if" --indeed, useful and important word.

I mentioned that excellent writer Huston Smith earlier, but misspelled his name.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I have some thinking to do on the 'Sense of Wonder' thread, but while I was out today, I remembered something to add here. I have read quite a few discusssions in recent years on whether one can choose to believe something. An example is given, such as: you know Paris is the capital of france, and you know it exists; can you then choose to believe that it is not the capital and does not exist? I tend to read but seldom get involved!

The next thing is: if you believe that there are zero gods, can you choose to believe there are, or rather, one in particular. This change of belief would of necessity be without any evidence except people's opinions and various books.

In my case, the chances of my returning to a belief that there is any god, let alone one particular one, is so near to 100% certain, that I would need 99.9recurring% to even begin to be convinced! Well, I hope this can be considered as being relevant to the thread. I'll go back to my other homework now!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Deleted - made a mistake posting.

[ 29. June 2013, 17:41: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SusanDoris: An example is given, such as: you know Paris is the capital of france, and you know it exists; can you then choose to believe that it is not the capital and does not exist?

No, that would be silly. But the thing is: the existence of Paris has been proven (scientifically, if you will). Not believing it doesn't make much sense.

In the case of the existence of God, we are dealing with something that has neither been proven or disproven in scientific terms. So, we have the freedom to choose if we believe it or not.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the case of the existence of God, we are dealing with something that has neither been proven or disproven in scientific terms. So, we have the freedom to choose if we believe it or not.

Entirely agree, but why does this one make sense and the other example make no sense?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SusanDoris: Entirely agree, but why does this one make sense and the other example make no sense?

It makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not able to put it into words very well, but it inspires me. It moves me to live in a different way with myself, with others, and with the world. I guess it's some kind of an extra dimension. I can't express it very well, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Believing (or not) that Paris exists doesn't exist doesn't do these things to me.

(PS I was kidding before. It doesn't exist, but don't tell that to the Parisians [Biased]

)

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

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the case of the existence of God, we are dealing with something that has neither been proven or disproven in scientific terms. So, we have the freedom to choose if we believe it or not.

We have the freedom to believe anything, scientific or not. And some people do. It is logically possible to believe that matter isn't made up of atoms - it just happens to be a false belief. The political left doesn't share the beliefs of the political right. Logically you could swap from one position to the other in the blink of an eye. Psychologically you can't.

The problem is you believe things because you think they are true. Ask any Christian if they can stop believing in God, they can't because they think their belief is true. It works the same with atheists: we don't believe in God because, well, crudely, we'd be lying to ourselves.

In something as significant as religious or political belief, changing what you believe can have consequences for your whole system of beliefs, it may also affect your relationships with other people. Instinctively we seem to resist major restructuring of our life and thought. Wisely I'd say.

If I'm happy with my life I tend to stick to the beliefs I have and go on thinking them true. If someone comes up with a new amazingly powerful proof of the existence of God I behave in much the same way as most Christians do at the latest new atheist onslaught: look for the errors, probably misinterpret some of what's said and wait for someone to write a brilliant rebuttal.

If I am unsatisfied with my life, my unconscious mind may be prepared to risk a 'conversion' to a new set of beliefs as less painful than continuing. Then the presence of a 'proof' or a charismatic friend may do the trick (there are some good examples in Kathryn Shultz' Errorology).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
que sais-je: We have the freedom to believe anything, scientific or not. And some people do. It is logically possible to believe that matter isn't made up of atoms - it just happens to be a false belief.

I have the feeling that there's only a semantic difference here with what I've said before. But I agree with you about the importance of psychological factors in determining our beliefs.

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

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
que sais-je: We have the freedom to believe anything, scientific or not. And some people do. It is logically possible to believe that matter isn't made up of atoms - it just happens to be a false belief.
I have the feeling that there's only a semantic difference here with what I've said before. But I agree with you about the importance of psychological factors in determining our beliefs.

Fair enough, just pointing out that I can't believe in God because I don't believe in his existence. Belief has no necessary connection with truth.

Slightly irrelevantly, according to the American Psychiatric Association (I think it was), a delusion is a false belief which isn't widely shared. You are not deluded if you believe in alien abduction (even if it doesn't happen) because lots of people share your belief. On the other hand if you think the government is spying on you ... bad example, how about ... if you think the bowl of irises in the corner is in love with you, then you are deluded. Unless lots of other people also think it's in love with you.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
que sais-je: Belief has no necessary connection with truth.

Hmm, but I also don't think that there is no connection at all between these concepts. For example, when something has been proven to be true, it should become much easier to believe it. But I agree with you that this doesn't always happen. In any case, I have the feeling that we're continuing to discuss semantics here.

quote:
que sais-je: Slightly irrelevantly, according to the American Psychiatric Association (I think it was), a delusion is a false belief which isn't widely shared.

I think I would call a belief in something that has been disproven a delusion too.

quote:
que sais-je: On the other hand if you think the government is spying on you ... bad example

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

SusanDoris

I tend to think that I don't have choice over beliefs. Your example of Paris is a standard example - I can't choose to believe that London is the capital of France, unless I was in a crazy state maybe.

I feel the same about religion. I can't unchoose my beliefs. Sometimes they fade away, but I didn't choose for that to happen, well, not consciously at any rate.

Some people do argue that I can choose to ignore my beliefs, well, yes. Do they then fade away? Maybe.

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

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think I would call a belief in something that has been disproven a delusion too.

But, except in mathematics, 'proof' and 'disproof' are rarely absolute. Einstein never really accepted quantum indeterminacy for example.

My sister-in-law believes I am deluded to rely on mainstream medicine rather than homoeopathy and other 'natural' cures. She will cite numerous examples of 'disproofs' of mainstream medicine, I point out that these are at best partial and that evidence based medicine depends upon a consensus developing over years. She says doctors ignore results which don't suit their beliefs, I think she ignores evidence which doesn't suit hers. The situation of atheists and believers on SoF seems very similar.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
que sais-je: But, except in mathematics, 'proof' and 'disproof' are rarely absolute. Einstein never really accepted quantum indeterminacy for example.

For the moment I go along with the Popperian definition of 'proof'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Psychiatrists tend to define 'delusion' against cultural norms. Thus, for example, in New Zealand it is part of Maori culture to revere one's ancestors, not really ancestor 'worship'. But if you went to a psychiatrist, and said, 'this old Maori next door is talking to his ancestors, he should be sectioned', the psychiatrist might want to section you!

Well, not really, but this obviously also applies to many religions. Hence the use of the term 'delusion', when applied to Christian beliefs, is incorrect.

Sorry, just noticed that que sais-je said the same thing.

[ 30. June 2013, 13:42: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I guess there are different definitions of 'delusion'. I accept the psychological definition both of you are giving here, but I suspect that when Richard Dawkins is talking about 'The God Delusion', the word has a different meaning to him.

Whether you believe in God's existence or not, in most places you can't really say that this belief is against the cultural norm.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

'Delusion' is a clever word to use. You get two for the price of one - first, the idea that theism has no evidence for it; but, second, and this is the real thrill, that theists are bonkers.

So 'delusional' has a semantic slippage to 'bonkers'. Not bad, eh?

On atheists forums, you regularly get threads arguing that religious people are mentally ill, but as with the Jesus mythers, there are plenty of atheists who are sensible enough to argue against.

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

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess there are different definitions of 'delusion'. I accept the psychological definition both of you are giving here, but I suspect that when Richard Dawkins is talking about 'The God Delusion', the word has a different meaning to him.

Whether you believe in God's existence or not, in most places you can't really say that this belief is against the cultural norm.

I agree, and with quetzalcoatl's answer. There's a nice story of Carl Sagan talking about alien abductions on TV and saying they were delusions. He got lots of letters from people who insisted they had been abducted but one in particular caught his eye. The correspondent said he'd been abducted several times but had assumed the abductions weren't real but psychotic episodes. He hadn't known other people had had the same experiences and felt relieved to find he wasn't alone. Even a shared delusion is better than thinking you're going mad!

But my sister-in-law, mentioned above, is coming to stay tonight. She is a kind and lovely person but some of the things she says appal me. I had a student who died of some rare blood disease. My sister-in-law said if doctors weren't so blinkered they'd have realised he could easily have been cured using past life regression.

But her husband is dying and she is frightened. I will try to remember that and try not get cross but sometimes it isn't easy. Does God answer atheists prayers ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Jung's take on stuff like alien abductions is interesting, as he argued that they reveal an upsurge in the unconscious, so that people need to find symbols for this. These things are so unconscious that they are taken as real.

In his book 'Flying Saucers' he made the point that what was really interesting, wasn't whether flying saucers were real, but why people wanted them to be.

So basically, he is saying that people need transpersonal symbols, but they take the symbols literally. Hmm, sound familiar.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I tend to think that I don't have choice over beliefs. Your example of Paris is a standard example - I can't choose to believe that London is the capital of France, unless I was in a crazy state maybe.

I feel the same about religion. I can't unchoose my beliefs. Sometimes they fade away, but I didn't choose for that to happen, well, not consciously at any rate.

That can be somewhat problematic. Suppose you actually did believe that London is the capital of France. You seem to be indicating that there's nothing that could possibly convince you otherwise if that was what you believed. In short, "belief" means never having to admit you're wrong.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I tend to think that I don't have choice over beliefs. Your example of Paris is a standard example - I can't choose to believe that London is the capital of France, unless I was in a crazy state maybe.

I feel the same about religion. I can't unchoose my beliefs. Sometimes they fade away, but I didn't choose for that to happen, well, not consciously at any rate.
That can be somewhat problematic. Suppose you actually did believe that London is the capital of France. You seem to be indicating that there's nothing that could possibly convince you otherwise if that was what you believed. In short, "belief" means never having to admit you're wrong.

Good point. However, if I did believe that London was the capital of France, and somebody demonstrated to me somehow that it wasn't, would I be choosing to change my belief? I mean, my belief might change, because of the new evidence, but I did I change it?

Well, we are getting into free will now, no, no, no, loud screams. I told my mum I would never talk about that.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That can be somewhat problematic. Suppose you actually did believe that London is the capital of France. You seem to be indicating that there's nothing that could possibly convince you otherwise if that was what you believed. In short, "belief" means never having to admit you're wrong.
Good point. However, if I did believe that London was the capital of France, and somebody demonstrated to me somehow that it wasn't, would I be choosing to change my belief?

Hopefully. The other option is to double down and believe otherwise convincing evidence is an elaborate conspiracy of deception. Given numerous historical examples, this is always a possibility.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Croesos

I think you missed my point. My beliefs might well change, but is an agent involved in that? Well, I don't know. Is there somebody not knowing?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Croesos

I think you missed my point. My beliefs might well change, but is an agent involved in that?

Yes. You. You're the one deciding whether the evidence presented to you is convincing or not. Can you be convinced that Paris is the capital of France by simply being shown a map? Talking to a couple Parisians? Actually going to Paris? You're the one setting your own threshold for what it would take to change your beliefs.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Crœsos: Can you be convinced that Paris is the capital of France by simply being shown a map? Talking to a couple Parisians? Actually going to Paris?

Put me on a nice terrace on the Île de la Cité, with some cheese croissants and a good wine, and I'm won over [Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Croesos

I think you missed my point. My beliefs might well change, but is an agent involved in that?
Yes. You. You're the one deciding whether the evidence presented to you is convincing or not. Can you be convinced that Paris is the capital of France by simply being shown a map? Talking to a couple Parisians? Actually going to Paris? You're the one setting your own threshold for what it would take to change your beliefs.

How do you know that?

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

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That can be somewhat problematic. Suppose you actually did believe that London is the capital of France. You seem to be indicating that there's nothing that could possibly convince you otherwise if that was what you believed. In short, "belief" means never having to admit you're wrong.

I didn't read it that way. I'd agree with quetzalcoatl that to believe something isn't just to give intellectual assent. It's Hume's Fork again: I don't have to believe things just because I've been presented with a strong intellectual argument, I can just say No because someone is bound to have a counter argument even if I don't. I'd say it's often unconscious mental processes, closer to emotion than reason. Sometimes it's pure emotion.

I could give lots of reason as to why my wife was a good rational choice of spouse - but we got married because we were in love. Could I have decided, calmly and logically that we shouldn't? Maybe but I wouldn't have believed the argument.

Could there be an agent involved that I wasn't aware over. Certainly a logical possibility but emotion does it for me ... though why do I have those emotions ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

'Unconscious mental processes' is a killer really. Or shall we just call them neurons?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I didn't read it that way. I'd agree with quetzalcoatl that to believe something isn't just to give intellectual assent. It's Hume's Fork again: I don't have to believe things just because I've been presented with a strong intellectual argument, I can just say No because someone is bound to have a counter argument even if I don't. I'd say it's often unconscious mental processes, closer to emotion than reason. Sometimes it's pure emotion.

Which brings us back to there being no way to convince you that Paris is the capital of France if you believe otherwise.

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

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Unconscious mental processes' is a killer really. Or shall we just call them neurons?

I'd certainly assume they are implemented by neurons (and associated chemical reactions). Clearly a lot of mental processing is unconscious. Do you think exactly what you are doing while riding a bike?

I was thinking of, to use a computing analogy, the difference between the programs you are running (which appear on the task bar - currently, for me, firefox and a scanner program) and the 100 or so which I can see with the system monitor. I assume similar subliminal processing takes place in the brain.

But neuronal activity isn't trivial. Suppose you decide to click your fingers and then do so. Somehow a chemical reaction has to take place to raise ion levels, to cause neurons to fire, to select nerve pathways, to contract muscles with just the right tension to cause a satisfying 'click'.

How do 'you' get that first chemical reaction to start? It feels that you just think it and everything happens. To me that sounds amazingly weird - much weirder that believing things.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

My comment was a bit cryptic really. I think the idea of unconscious mental processes is quite revolutionary. In fact, I recall that Freud was originally a neurologist, but eventually argued that 'mental events have mental causes', as he found that treating patients required seeing them as human beings with a psyche, rather than brains. Sending someone off for a brain-scan might be OK, but talking to them and listening to them, is surprisingly powerful as a technique.

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

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My comment was a bit cryptic really. I think the idea of unconscious mental processes is quite revolutionary.

Well we say "Sleep on it. Things will look different in the morning." Also often writers insist their characters "take on lives of their own". Though there could be other explanations than unconscious mental processes by we certainly seem to solve some problems unconsciously. I believe quite a lot of research has been done on this and "Sometimes I sits and thinks" may be no more useful than "Sometimes I just sits". Suppose a writer insists her characters don't have lives of their own: she sets the stage, thinks of things which could happen, develops a plot, etc. But were does she get the 'things which could happen' from? Things occur to you (from where if not the unconscious mind) and a bit later you may well find you've thought of others (how?).

But I don't see why an unconscious cognitive process should seem odd. It's quite easy to do with a dual processor computer, processors can share memory but neither needs to be aware of the other's processes (indeed such systems are used). I'm not saying the brain is a computer, but if a computer can do something I see no reason why a brain shouldn't, in theory, be able to do the same.

quote:
he found that treating patients required seeing them as human beings with a psyche, rather than brains. Sending someone off for a brain-scan might be OK, but talking to them and listening to them, is surprisingly powerful as a technique.

Level is important. If you want to understand the behaviour of gases, using PV = kT is more sensible that trying to look at individual molecules. Even if the brain is wholly material, it is clear that much of it's activity is caused external inputs so there is no reason why 'talking cures' shouldn't work. To the materialist the issue is how best to trigger appropriate processes in the brain - that could be at the chemical, neuronal or talking level.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which brings us back to there being no way to convince you that Paris is the capital of France if you believe otherwise.

I was only implying that, in itself, logical argument doesn't necessarily make us change our beliefs. I used to believe in Father Christmas but over a period of time lots of arguments against his existence were presented, none extinguished belief but in time you find your peers don't belief, feel a bit silly and slowly you find it has faded away.

This seems a better way of saying it than I can:

quote:
"it was not logic that carried me on; as well one might say that the quicksilver in the barometer changes the weather. It is the concrete being that reasons; pass a number of years, and I find my mind in a new place; how? the whole man moves; paper logic is but a record of it.

No doubt many SoF readers can identify the writer (may be easier for Anglo-Catholics and RCs).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

que sais-je

Just on writing, when I was seriously writing stuff, I used to wake up at 3am with whole paragraphs running through my head, and the only solution was to get up, type them out, and then go back to sleep. Kind of annoying, yet also, blissful.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0