homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Belief and Disbelief in God, Fairies etc (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Belief and Disbelief in God, Fairies etc
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Much atheism appears to be little more than wishing that God doesn't exist.

I don't think you really believe that. You don't really have to wish for God not to exist, because it already appears to be the case.

It's like two people sitting on a bench waiting for 5 years for a bus to come. If one person says they still believe the bus is coming, there's an element of wishful thinking there, no matter how many anecdotal accounts, reports, or trustworthy predictions the person can recount. But it's a much harder case to argue that the person who says, "I really doubt any bus is coming" is saying so out of wishful thinking of his own. The bus doesn't appear to be coming.

Even if you disagree with a certain premise or premises of the analogy, at least understand that this is how so many people are thinking about the relationship between believer and non-believer.

This is also why the "atheists have faith too" argument is so confusing. From the plane I'm looking at these terms, I see belief in God as requiring faith because not believing in God is the non-faith position. It [iappears as if there is no god[/i]. Those who have faith will make a leap to believe in God, despite those appearances.

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This comes down to words really, but although I more or less agree with that, the way I think of an atheist is someone who would be really very sure that the bus can't possibly be coming because in all other regards, the world just isn't one in which buses come along. And that seems, to me, to involve just a bit of faith in a particular world view.

The agnostic is the one who shrugs, and says there's no particular reason to think a bus may come along, and worrying about it isn't going to help since we have no data on which to even base a probability calculation. Which to me seems to be the true no faith position.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On that analogy, an atheist is simply a person who denies the existence of buses because they can't see a bus beyond the horizon of their natural sight.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
On that analogy, an atheist is simply a person who denies the existence of buses because they can't see a bus beyond the horizon of their natural sight.

Sigh. No, it isn't.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Explain.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:

This is also why the "atheists have faith too" argument is so confusing. From the plane I'm looking at these terms, I see belief in God as requiring faith because not believing in God is the non-faith position. It [iappears as if there is no god[/i]. Those who have faith will make a leap to believe in God, despite those appearances.

I've always thought the opposite. It appears as if there is a God. It appears as if there is something more at work in creation and ourselves than just our hearts and minds.

So IMO the leap of faith is to say there isn't anything else because its so obvious there is.

Faith is the much more reasonable position [Smile]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Appearances can be deceptive. There is an "obvious" belief that the material order was somehow "made", rather than being either eternal or self-making. All of which presupposes a maker and again it is "obvious" that such a maker would indeed be much superior to ourselves. And these obviousnesses have a lot to say about the general historical belief in God or Gods.

There are various philosophical arguments (of tolerable sophistication) which cast doubt on such "obviousnesses" and in any case, even if accepted, such arguments do not in themselves point to the kinds of beliefs held by all adherents of the monotheistic faiths (all of which see such a maker as in some sense benevolent as well as all powerful).

But I think it is pretty hard to believe in an eternal or self-creating universe simply from the appearance of things. It is also pretty hard to believe in the benevolence of a universe-maker from the appearance of things. So I don't think appearance arguments get us all that far.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This comes down to words really, but although I more or less agree with that, the way I think of an atheist is someone who would be really very sure that the bus can't possibly be coming because in all other regards, the world just isn't one in which buses come along. And that seems, to me, to involve just a bit of faith in a particular world view.

The agnostic is the one who shrugs, and says there's no particular reason to think a bus may come along, and worrying about it isn't going to help since we have no data on which to even base a probability calculation. Which to me seems to be the true no faith position.

mdijon, I pretty much agree with you here.

Numpty,

If you don't work inside the context of an analogy, the discussion breaks down. The existence of the buses wasn't in question, so introducing that in order to make your own point doesn't make sense in its context. Except, you know, for a cheap score.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've always thought the opposite. It appears as if there is a God. It appears as if there is something more at work in creation and ourselves than just our hearts and minds.

So IMO the leap of faith is to say there isn't anything else because its so obvious there is.

Faith is the much more reasonable position [Smile]

Wait, is faith believing that there isn't anything else? Or is it the more reasonable position, by which I assume you mean believing in God?

I can see how you got confused, because by all accounts believing in God, in a Christian context, involves faith. I'm not trying to antagonize when I say that atheism looks like the no-faith position. I'm looking at it from the Christian starting point of belief in God takes faith. Why does it take faith? Because there appears to be no god, and it's a faith statement/position to believe in one.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think it is pretty hard to believe in an eternal or self-creating universe simply from the appearance of things. It is also pretty hard to believe in the benevolence of a universe-maker from the appearance of things. So I don't think appearance arguments get us all that far.

I don't think you have to believe anything about a self-creating universe in order to have an opinion about how the existence of god appears. The comparison is a false one, or at least, an unnecessary one.

It's possible to have no opinion on how existence came to be (as you say, the appearance of things lends few clues, at least to those of us who aren't astro physicists or the like), and yet still examine your own experience and come to a pretty reasonable conclusion that there really doesn't appear to be any kind of god. For some to argue that "Well, to me there does appear to be a God" seems to be stretching what we mean by "appear" here.

Again, this isn't a dig on people who believe. I'd think believers would pretty much agree with this assessment, considering Christian belief is usually built around faith, which acts in the face of how things might appear. As you said, Barnabas, appearances can be deceptive and all that.

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Even though I may not get an answer I could write down and defend in a way that holds water for 10mins, I think God still speaks to me through the darkened search, and that I learn more about how I should live.

I would be interested to know what makes you think that it is God speaking to you and not, as I would say, your own mind, with its intelligence, experience, imagination and capabilities - which are being slowly but surely better understood from a scientific point of view.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I suggested that...

<snip> an atheist is simply a person who denies the existence of buses because they can't see a bus beyond the horizon of their natural sight.

To which you replied that...

quote:
Posted by Jason&trade:

If you don't work inside the context of an analogy, the discussion breaks down. The existence of the buses wasn't in question, so introducing that in order to make your own point doesn't make sense in its context. Except, you know, for a cheap score.

Extending a metaphor is an acceptable rhetorical practice - your conversation with IngoB about desert islands and alcohol being a good example. I think what I did with the bus analogy falls within the realms of reason.

I also think the metaphor that I've suggested is coherent and can stand alone propositionally. Would you be prepared to engage with it in its own right?

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While I'm not an atheist, I think that the extension of the bus analogy is that an atheist is someone who believes there are no buses because;

a) They can't see one at the moment
b) They've never seen one.
c) They only find documented sitings of buses on accounts of uncertain veracity
d) All the recent accounts of seeing buses seem to be based on subjective impressions rather than objective encounters.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I would be interested to know what makes you think that it is God speaking to you and not, as I would say, your own mind, with its intelligence, experience, imagination and capabilities - which are being slowly but surely better understood from a scientific point of view.

Whether we understand those things scientifically is neither here nor there. Clearly imagination has the potential to mislead one irrespective of an understanding of its workings. But I do think our scientific understanding of these things is pretty lacking, nevertheless.

I don't believe because I hear a special internal voice or dream dreams or something like that. I'm talking about an experience of living, being part of a church, worship - and believing that God is in those things. Sometimes I don't believe that very strongly, but go through the motions anyway. But overall it's an approach and a calling that makes sense to me.

Perhaps I'm misled in that. I can't know. But one could ask the same questions about my choice of political philosophy, career development, relationships etc. After all, if we understand the human mind scientifically, what is love?

[ 12. March 2010, 08:14: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems to me that many atheists reach a point where they have invested so much of themselves in the conviction that God does not exist they start positively hoping that He doesn't simply because they - like all human beings - desperately want to be right.

I would therefore suggest that there is an element of nihilistic desire in the basic tenet of atheism that tends to manifest itself as antipathy towards theism rather than simple ambivalence. In this respect I think the inevitable philosophical trajectory of atheism is from uninformed and largely intuitive ambivalence towards a more aggressively entrenched, ideologically totalitarian antipathy toward to theism.

This, I think, is why atheism is a faith position. Atheism requires 1) assent to a basic proposition concerning the existence of God, 2) trust in the veracity of the philosophical methodology by which it reaches that conclusion, and 3) ideological commitment to the cultural and social ramifications of its position.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
While I'm not an atheist, I think that the extension of the bus analogy is that an atheist is someone who believes there are no buses because;

a) They can't see one at the moment
b) They've never seen one.
c) They only find documented sitings of buses on accounts of uncertain veracity
d) All the recent accounts of seeing buses seem to be based on subjective impressions rather than objective encounters.

You could apply the same analysis to dinosaurs.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Add criteria e) No remains of buses have been identified.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I think it is pretty hard to believe in an eternal or self-creating universe simply from the appearance of things. It is also pretty hard to believe in the benevolence of a universe-maker from the appearance of things. So I don't think appearance arguments get us all that far.

I don't think you have to believe anything about a self-creating universe in order to have an opinion about how the existence of god appears. The comparison is a false one, or at least, an unnecessary one.

It's possible to have no opinion on how existence came to be (as you say, the appearance of things lends few clues, at least to those of us who aren't astro physicists or the like), and yet still examine your own experience and come to a pretty reasonable conclusion that there really doesn't appear to be any kind of god. For some to argue that "Well, to me there does appear to be a God" seems to be stretching what we mean by "appear" here.

Again, this isn't a dig on people who believe. I'd think believers would pretty much agree with this assessment, considering Christian belief is usually built around faith, which acts in the face of how things might appear. As you said, Barnabas, appearances can be deceptive and all that.

Is personal experience that good a guide? I hesitate to use the word "indifference" when applied to the origins of the Cosmos, perhaps "lack of concern" is less loaded? I can't avoid the question - my curiosity draws me into it - but I appreciate it can be set aside.

The whole thing reminds me of a remark by the UK broadcaster Robert Robinson in a kind of paraphrase of Psalm 8.

"When I consider the vastness of the universe, the way it functions according to common laws of science, yet remains mysterious in its purpose and origins, why is that these things pale into insignificance compared with the pressing personal challenges of my life".

[From a broadcast conversation several years ago]

And again, this remembered quote from the logical positivist the late A J Ayer - also from a radio broadcast many years ago.

"Although Darwin's findings suggest that the need to survive dominates behaviour, yet I cannot escape this notion that we should behave scrupulously towards one another"

I think it is a case of "if the left don't get you than the right one will". Lack of concern about the origins of the Cosmos may sit comfortably with a proper concern about "how then shall we live together". And I suppose vice versa?

Personally, I'm more than curious about both dimensions and I suspect that curiosity is one of the things which keeps me energetic and young for my age. But you're right. You can give up on one without giving up on the other. However, I don't think it's healthy to give up on both. And that's not just based on personal experience.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Add criteria e) No remains of buses have been identified.

What about historical figures for whom there are no remains?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought we were doing bus analogies?

I'm not about to defend overall the atheist position, since I'm not an atheist. I was simply pointing out that their position is not as simplistic as "I can't see a bus right now therefore buses don't exist".

If you want to argue for a historical standard for the proof of God's existence rather than a scientific one all good by me. Frankly I'm not sure that either discipline really applies.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Add criteria e) No remains of buses have been identified.

What about historical figures for whom there are no remains?
What about the historical figures that didn't believe in God?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
You don't really have to wish for God not to exist, because it already appears to be the case.

It's like two people sitting on a bench waiting for 5 years for a bus to come. If one person says they still believe the bus is coming, there's an element of wishful thinking there, no matter how many anecdotal accounts, reports, or trustworthy predictions the person can recount. But it's a much harder case to argue that the person who says, "I really doubt any bus is coming" is saying so out of wishful thinking of his own. The bus doesn't appear to be coming.

Even if you disagree with a certain premise or premises of the analogy, at least understand that this is how so many people are thinking about the relationship between believer and non-believer.

This is also why the "atheists have faith too" argument is so confusing. From the plane I'm looking at these terms, I see belief in God as requiring faith because not believing in God is the non-faith position. It [iappears as if there is no god[/i]. Those who have faith will make a leap to believe in God, despite those appearances.

And yet the majority of people, even in supposedly secularised Europe, believe there's a God.

It seems a bit counter-intuitive to suggest that the "obvious" position is also the one that only a minority hold.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect that "the obvious position" is what everyone else around you thinks. That's how people are.

If you are a member of the enlightened classes in Europe, the obvious position is atheism/agnosticism.

If you are a Pakistani, the obvious position is Islam.

etc.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you are a Pakistani, the obvious position is Islam.

I think obvious might be another confusing word here. As far as, you obviously should believe in Islam, well then of course.

Either religions prize faith, or they don't. If their beliefs are truly obvious, I don't see why they have any need for faith. Consequently, I don't know why so many religious people are so intent on proving that their beliefs are obvious in this way.

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you are a Pakistani, the obvious position is Islam.

I think obvious might be another confusing word here. As far as, you obviously should believe in Islam, well then of course.

Either religions prize faith, or they don't. If their beliefs are truly obvious, I don't see why they have any need for faith. Consequently, I don't know why so many religious people are so intent on proving that their beliefs are obvious in this way.

I'd say this is because you don't understand what faith is. Faith is not believing what you can't prove, but trusting (in a person, particularly). Believing what you can't prove is called "believing".

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
I think obvious might be another confusing word here.

Certainly a very subjective word, which was my point. If you ask most people in Pakistan if Islam is true, they'll probably indicate that it seems obviously so to them.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say this is because you don't understand what faith is. Faith is not believing what you can't prove, but trusting (in a person, particularly). Believing what you can't prove is called "believing".

But surely trust in a person is believing something about them, their character motivations etc that you can't prove.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I thought we were doing bus analogies?

I'm not about to defend overall the atheist position, since I'm not an atheist. I was simply pointing out that their position is not as simplistic as "I can't see a bus right now therefore buses don't exist".

If you want to argue for a historical standard for the proof of God's existence rather than a scientific one all good by me. Frankly I'm not sure that either discipline really applies.

Fair point.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd say this is because you don't understand what faith is. Faith is not believing what you can't prove, but trusting (in a person, particularly). Believing what you can't prove is called "believing".

But surely trust in a person is believing something about them, their character motivations etc that you can't prove.
Alister McGrath (along with most evangelicals) would say that faith is 1) assent - believing certain things are true, 2) trust - a personal and relational disposition toward the object of faith, 3) commitment - an act of the will in which a person expresses loyalty and allegiance to the object of faith, 4) obedience - a resolution to think and act in ways that are intentionally congruent with the character of the object of faith.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This seems to me to be a difficult thread to engage in because there seems to be quite varied usage of words such as 'faith', 'agnostic/ism' and 'atheist/ism'

So faith for example can be used to describe simply a belief that something is or is not the case, or a belief not supported or only partially supported by evidence, or the holding of an axiomatic belief. It can also be used to describe the process of putting trust in someone: a person might have faith in their doctor, their lawyer or a deity.

Atheism is used to describe those who simply don't believe in any god as well as those who positively believe there is no such thing as a god. They are two different positions.

Agnosticism is used to describe those who don't know whether there is a god or not as well as those who positively believe that such knowledge is impossible. Again two distinct positions.

The problem with the bus stop analogy is that it is already seeded with some unstated presuppositions about the way buses behave (so 5 years is much too long to wait for one to come), and that our experience of the divine (assuming it exists) is qualitatively the same kind of thing as our experience of buses.

But to stick with the bus analogy for a moment, one kind of atheist is like someone who sits at a bus stop all day (using 5 years simply breaks the context of the analogy - no-one waits at a bus stop for 5 years) and says they don't believe a bus is coming. Another sort of atheist does the same and says that they believe no bus will ever come. One sort of agnostic does not know whether a bus is coming or not and the other sort believes that it is impossible to know whether a bus is coming or not. The believer in buses believes that they hold a statement from the bus company which states that there will be a bus one day. In the meantime they point to all kinds of collateral phenomena as evidence (e.g. the existence of bus stops, bus tickets, the accounts of others who claim to have travelled by bus, the sound of engines and the smell of diesel fumes). None of these are 'proof' that a bus is coming, or indeed of the existence of buses, but to the believer in buses they together form adequate grounds for belief.

Of course the analogy really only works in relation to some specific 'manifestation' of God and it doesn't really accommodate differing opinions about present experience of the divine. The presence or absence of a bus is a pretty unequivocal shared experience for those physically present in a way that is not true of the presence or absence of the divine. I don't think the bus analogy can be stretched to accommodate different views about the present action or influence of the divine in the world today.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Whether we understand those things scientifically is neither here nor there. Clearly imagination has the potential to mislead one irrespective of an understanding of its workings. But I do think our scientific understanding of these things is pretty lacking, nevertheless.

Yes, of course - still a long way to go, but pursuing the research is important I think.
quote:
I don't believe because I hear a special internal voice or dream dreams or something like that. I'm talking about an experience of living, being part of a church, worship - and believing that God is in those things. Sometimes I don't believe that very strongly, but go through the motions anyway.
Yes, I can understand that; the many years I spent in the choir and taking part in social functions encouraged the sort of thing you describe.
quote:
But overall it's an approach and a calling that makes sense to me.

Thank you for your interesting answer.
[/QUOTE]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Alister McGrath (along with most evangelicals) would say that faith is 1) assent - believing certain things are true, 2) trust - a personal and relational disposition toward the object of faith, 3) commitment - an act of the will in which a person expresses loyalty and allegiance to the object of faith, 4) obedience - a resolution to think and act in ways that are intentionally congruent with the character of the object of faith.

I'm okay with this definition of faith. By this definition, soldiers here have faith in their commanding officers. Heck, shop employees have faith in their managers. I think we speak of those who have great faith because they believe, trust, commit, and obey, all in the face of what would typically be insufficient supporting evidence or, sometimes, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Alister McGrath (along with most evangelicals) would say that faith is 1) assent - believing certain things are true, 2) trust - a personal and relational disposition toward the object of faith, 3) commitment - an act of the will in which a person expresses loyalty and allegiance to the object of faith, 4) obedience - a resolution to think and act in ways that are intentionally congruent with the character of the object of faith.

I'm okay with this definition of faith. By this definition, soldiers here have faith in their commanding officers. Heck, shop employees have faith in their managers. I think we speak of those who have great faith because they believe, trust, commit, and obey, all in the face of what would typically be insufficient supporting evidence or, sometimes, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Yes, and by this definition, atheists (of the Dawkins variety at least) have faith. They assent to certain philosophical propositions; they trust in the hypothetico-deductive method; they are committed, and express allegiance, to the superiority of a particular worldview; and they encourage obedience to their particular ideology (i.e. stop worrying and enjoy yourself).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Alister McGrath (along with most evangelicals) would say that faith is 1) assent - believing certain things are true, 2) trust - a personal and relational disposition toward the object of faith, 3) commitment - an act of the will in which a person expresses loyalty and allegiance to the object of faith, 4) obedience - a resolution to think and act in ways that are intentionally congruent with the character of the object of faith.

I'm okay with this definition of faith. By this definition, soldiers here have faith in their commanding officers. Heck, shop employees have faith in their managers. I think we speak of those who have great faith because they believe, trust, commit, and obey, all in the face of what would typically be insufficient supporting evidence or, sometimes, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Yes, and by this definition, atheists (of the Dawkins variety at least) have faith. They assent to certain philosophical propositions; they trust in the hypothetico-deductive method; they are committed, and express allegiance, to the superiority of a particular worldview; and they encourage obedience to their particular ideology (i.e. stop worrying and enjoy yourself).
A definition so broad that it includes everything is virtually useless. Is there any group under this definition that wouldn't be faith-based?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No. And this is precisely the point. This is because human beings are hard-wired to have faith in things. From a biblical perspective the essential choice is either to believe in God or to believe in idols. Money, sex and power are idols. Science, relationships, career, children, spouses you name it are idols.

These idols are "functional saviours"; they are "Gods" inasmuch as people believe that they can give them ultimate meaning, satisfaction, significance and so on. Science and reason are Dawkin's "functional saviours"; they offer liberation, meaning; knowledge, power, significance, joy, satisfaction. He believes in them because atheism is a faith position.

We worship what we value most in life. We worship what we believe will 'save us'. For Dawkins science has 'saved' him from God/religion. The irony of course is that he doesn't realise that he has put his faith in a functional saviour just like every other human being. For Dawkins the saviour is science; for Christians the saviour is God. The religious impulse is just as strong in Dawkins as it is in Billy Graham; they just worship different saviours.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No. And this is precisely the point. This is because human beings are hard-wired to have faith in things. From a biblical perspective the essential choice is either to believe in God or to believe in idols. Money, sex and power are idols. Science, relationships, career, children, spouses you name it are idols.

The idea that to be a good Christian you need to reject money, sex, power, science, relationships, career, children, and marriage is pretty radical. I note that since you're using a computer to make this point it's not one you've fully embraced, what with computers relying on science for their design and power to operate. Have you decided to abandon Christianity, or is this a final farewell before you head off to the caves? If it's the latter, I'll understand if I don't get a response.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
No. And this is precisely the point. This is because human beings are hard-wired to have faith in things. From a biblical perspective the essential choice is either to believe in God or to believe in idols. Money, sex and power are idols. Science, relationships, career, children, spouses you name it are idols.

The idea that to be a good Christian you need to reject money, sex, power, science, relationships, career, children, and marriage is pretty radical. I note that since you're using a computer to make this point it's not one you've fully embraced, what with computers relying on science for their design and power to operate. Have you decided to abandon Christianity, or is this a final farewell before you head off to the caves? If it's the latter, I'll understand if I don't get a response.
I didn't say that they those must be rejected, I said that they must not be deified. I said that if you gain ultimate satisfaction and significance from them then they have become idols. If I found that I cannot live or function or experience satisfaction without my computer then I would seriously consider getting rid of it. This is beacuse an idol can be a good thing (like sex, money, computers and science) that has become a God-thing (i.e. a functional saviour) and therefore a bad thing.

[ 12. March 2010, 19:21: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I didn't say that they those must be rejected, I said that they must not be deified. I said that if you gain ultimate satisfaction and significance from them then they have become idols.

I think you're confusing what you meant with what you actually said.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If I found that I cannot live or function or experience satisfaction without my computer then I would seriously consider getting rid of it. This is beacuse an idol can be a good thing (like sex, money, computers and science) that has become a God-thing (i.e. a functional saviour) and therefore a bad thing.

You don't give us a lot of credit, do you? Your last response is just two posts up and you don't think anyone will notice that you didn't actually say what you're now claiming.

You didn't say "Money, sex and power can be idols", you said "Money, sex and power are idols". Likewise with family, friends, career, and science. Furthermore you said that the "biblical perspective" requires a choice between your God and all these things you identify as idols, that if you believe in God then you can't believe in marriage or science or money and vice versa.

What you seem to be revising your statement to say is that a little idolatry is okay, just don't get carried away.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, you can tell where the allegiance of most so-called Christians lie when you reflect that they've all broken the Laws of God (everyone's a sinner) but they shy away from breaking the Laws of Physics. That tells you where their real priorities are! [Big Grin]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
It's like two people sitting on a bench waiting for 5 years for a bus to come. If one person says they still believe the bus is coming, there's an element of wishful thinking there, no matter how many anecdotal accounts, reports, or trustworthy predictions the person can recount. But it's a much harder case to argue that the person who says, "I really doubt any bus is coming" is saying so out of wishful thinking of his own. The bus doesn't appear to be coming.

I haven't read through the whole thread - only the last page of it, but I feel I must comment on this bus analogy, which is, IMO, a bit misleading.

There is a common and powerful assumption behind this illustration, which suggests that Christians (or indeed other believers in some kind of personal supernatural reality) are really in fact "experiential atheists", who are desperately clinging to the "theory" that God exists and that "one day" the "bus will come" - so that we can finally experience what we have been theorising about all these years.

This is an entirely false idea. I can only speak for myself, but, as a Christian, I am not sitting here theorising about whether God exists. The bus - in one sense - has already arrived and I am sitting in it, thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit - who is also a reality. This is no vain boast.

In my discussions with atheists there is often the insinuation that "God" is nothing more than a philosophical theory, that these wishful thinking believers are clinging to despite all the so-called "evidence" to the contrary. No one has the right to make this assumption about other people's experiences. How do they know that God is only a theory in my life? How can they presume that I am just sitting waiting for a bus, and therefore my experience of reality is no different from theirs?

Now I am quite aware that atheists will dismiss my experience as merely psychological and hallucinatory. But they do this because of their a priori commitment to a particular philosophy which rules out any kind of experience of God. That is their faith position. The assumption that there must always be a naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon is a case of petitio principii or "begging the question" - i.e. building your conclusions into your premise. If that is not a "leap of faith", then I don't know what is.

Take "consciousness", for example. Where is the independent objective evidence that tells us that "there must be a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon of consciousness"? Justify that presupposition! In fact that premise is a conclusion derived from a prior commitment to the philosophy of naturalism or materialism. Someone else could just as validly argue that the reality of consciousness is itself evidence of a spiritual world. Why not? Where is the objective evidence that refutes that position?

In fact, can "reason" itself be explained materialistically? And what about empiricism, in which the central claim - namely that all knowledge derives from sense perception - cannot itself be verified empirically (in other words, it is self-refuting)? Therefore the empiricist has to make a huge assumption about reality before he can even say anything at all.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, the fact that consciousness can be altered or reason impaired through natural, material means is a strong indicator that such phenomena exist in the natural, material world.

You could, of course, make the same argument about gravitation or electricity.

quote:
Where is the independent objective evidence that tells us that "there must be a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon of [electricity]"? Justify that presupposition! In fact that premise is a conclusion derived from a prior commitment to the philosophy of naturalism or materialism. Someone else could just as validly argue that the reality of [electricity] is itself evidence of a spiritual world. Why not? Where is the objective evidence that refutes that position?
Maybe electrons are really angel farts. You can't prove that they're not!

The reason naturalism and materialism are so often used is because they work, not because of some sinister, unspoken agenda propagated behind the scenes. If they stop working, they'll stop being used, regardless of the philosophical ramifications.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I didn't say that they those must be rejected, I said that they must not be deified. I said that if you gain ultimate satisfaction and significance from them then they have become idols.

I think you're confusing what you meant with what you actually said.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
If I found that I cannot live or function or experience satisfaction without my computer then I would seriously consider getting rid of it. This is beacuse an idol can be a good thing (like sex, money, computers and science) that has become a God-thing (i.e. a functional saviour) and therefore a bad thing.

You don't give us a lot of credit, do you? Your last response is just two posts up and you don't think anyone will notice that you didn't actually say what you're now claiming.

You didn't say "Money, sex and power can be idols", you said "Money, sex and power are idols". Likewise with family, friends, career, and science. Furthermore you said that the "biblical perspective" requires a choice between your God and all these things you identify as idols, that if you believe in God then you can't believe in marriage or science or money and vice versa.

What you seem to be revising your statement to say is that a little idolatry is okay, just don't get carried away.

You correctly point out that I said that money, sex, and power are idols. That was a mistake and not a true reflection of what I was trying to say. I was in fact trying to say that money, sex, power, computers, family, friends, chocolate, alcohol and so on (all good things) can become idols if we ascribe ultimate worth to them. In their proper place they are extremely pleasurable and useful and fulfilling. When not in their proper place (i.e. when elevated the the status of functional saviour) they become idols that will ultimately disappoint and damage us.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Jason™:
It's like two people sitting on a bench waiting for 5 years for a bus to come. If one person says they still believe the bus is coming, there's an element of wishful thinking there, no matter how many anecdotal accounts, reports, or trustworthy predictions the person can recount. But it's a much harder case to argue that the person who says, "I really doubt any bus is coming" is saying so out of wishful thinking of his own. The bus doesn't appear to be coming.

Now I am quite aware that atheists will dismiss my experience as merely psychological and hallucinatory. But they do this because of their a priori commitment to a particular philosophy which rules out any kind of experience of God. That is their faith position. The assumption that there must always be a naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon is a case of petitio principii or "begging the question" - i.e. building your conclusions into your premise. If that is not a "leap of faith", then I don't know what is.
[Overused]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
However, the difficulty with the "you dismiss my experience" approach is that we all do that. The muslims, hindus, pagans and all have their experiences that lead them to believe what they believe. I dismiss that with varying degrees of precision in terms of the reasons why I dismiss them.

I think from an atheists point of view, one starts with the null hypothesis - that a thing isn't or doesn't - and rejects the null hypothesis (i.e. accepts it does exist) if substantial evidence is observed.

How substantial that needs to be is a matter of judgement rather than precision, granted.

Now that might be a faith position I suppose, but it doesn't seem to me a faith position in the same sense as my faith in Christ is.

[ 13. March 2010, 15:10: Message edited by: mdijon ]

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
He believes in them because atheism is a faith position.

I think atheists say that faith that things will work or happen in certain ways is based on historical evidence.
quote:
We worship what we value most in life.

Here I most strongly disagree. The atheists I know do not 'worship' anything. I cannot think of any definition of 'worship' which would apply.
quote:
We worship what we believe will 'save us'. For Dawkins science has 'saved' him from God/religion. The irony of course is that he doesn't realise that he has put his faith in a functional saviour just like every other human being. For Dawkins the saviour is science; for Christians the saviour is God. The religious impulse is just as strong in Dawkins as it is in Billy Graham; they just worship different saviours.
I do not need or want to be saved, whatever that is supposed to mean. I work out my life in the best way I can with zero reference to any god and take full responsibility for anything I do or say. Why do you say that Richard Dawkins was 'saved from God'? I would be extremely surprised if he was in any way lacking in confidence in his understanding of Biology and his total lack of belief in any god. He looks for and relies on evidence to support what he has to say..

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Worship means simply to 'ascribe ultimate worth'. In this sense atheists (at least of the Dawkins variety) ascribe ultimate worth to science and the 'rational' philosophical position that they ascribe to that science.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suggest that scientific rationalism has become a functional saviour for Dawkins. Dawkins clearly considers religion to be a great evil from which he - and everybody else - should be rescued or saved. In this sense atheism is his saviour.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Worship means simply to 'ascribe ultimate worth'. In this sense atheists (at least of the Dawkins variety) ascribe ultimate worth to science and the 'rational' philosophical position that they ascribe to that science.

Thank you. I like that definition! [Smile] Ascribing 'ultimate worth' to something sounds like a straightforward human, rational conclusion, although I would add 'until further information supersedes it'. It does not put the subject of 'ultimate worth' into the realm of supernatural, or 'beyond human understanding' etc. Yes, I am happy with that idea of worship. I still would not use the word though, as I think the general idea of it would be less practical.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I suggest that scientific rationalism has become a functional saviour for Dawkins.

I Still don't agree that RD needs any kind of a saviour.
quote:
Dawkins clearly considers religion to be a great evil from which he - and everybody else - should be rescued or saved. In this sense atheism is his saviour.
A person who needs 'saving' or who feels insecure or vulnerable? RD is definitely not one of them, I think.
I suggest I am correct in saying that, in the opinion of many atheists, me included, religions, with their belief in, and deference to, invisible, supernatural (etc etc) gods or figureheads hold back our species from resolving more of the world's problms than we do at present. If people accepted that all such beliefs and ideas are products of our brains and minds, there would be no avoiding the fact that every single one of such gods is a human idea, and therefore controlled by human brains and minds; not controlled or influenced by outside entities. If ever humanity reached that stage, gods and religions would become redundant.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
If people accepted that all such beliefs and ideas are products of our brains and minds, there would be no avoiding the fact that every single one of such gods is a human idea, and therefore controlled by human brains and minds; not controlled or influenced by outside entities. If ever humanity reached that stage, gods and religions would become redundant.

By that same logic even "reason" itself would become redundant, since that (according to your philosophy) is merely the product of our brains and minds - and therefore lacking any kind of objective reality and validity.

This is the problem with the idea that natural selection has produced knowledge (which for the atheist it must have done). All human ideas - including moral ideas - would have arisen as nothing more than a survival mechanism, and this therefore tells us nothing about objective reality, since the "survival agenda" is entirely subjective.

The fact that we overwhelmingly feel that "reason" does have objective validity is evidence that it has not arisen by natural selection.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Following on from my last post...

The moment we acknowledge that there are ideas (such as "reason" itself) which have objective validity - and are therefore not merely the product of the human mind - then the whole edifice of naturalism collapses. We then have to accept that there are realities which transcend the material world. This does not mean that all "supernatural ideas" are true, but if follows that some at least must be true.

If the idea of God is merely a product of the human mind, we cannot claim that it is redundant or invalid for that reason, while at the same time holding to a philosophy that all ideas have to be the product of the human mind (which is what natural selection dictates). Otherwise we contradict ourselves.

To clarify:

A: The idea of God.

B: The claim that the "idea of God" is redundant, since it is the product of the human mind.

"B" is as much an "idea" as "A", and within a naturalistic epistemology it has the same status as "A" - namely, it is the product of the human mind. Therefore if the idea "A" is invalid and redundant - due to it being the product of the human mind - then so is the idea "B". And if "B" is invalid and redundant, where does that then leave "A"? Thus we are faced here with a contradiction.

Naturalism (or materialism) therefore leads to a total scepticism about all knowledge, and can therefore claim nothing about the nature of reality.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Posted by SusanDoris:A person who needs 'saving' or who feels insecure or vulnerable? RD is definitely not one of them, I think.

[quote][b]I suggest I am correct in saying that, in the opinion of many atheists, me included, religions, with their belief in, and deference to, invisible, supernatural (etc etc) gods or figureheads hold back our species from resolving more of the world's problms than we do at present.

I think that you're correct in saying that the world has got problems. I also think that I'm correct in saying that you see atheism as a solution to those problems. In this respect atheism - in your view - is capable of saving the world. The concept of salvation isn't exclusively religious. People campaign for the salvation if whales and the environment for example. That's what phrases like "Save the Whale" and "Save the Planet" mean. Of course, the "functional saviours" behind these campaigns are the people who inspire and support them.

Christianity says certain things about the world's problems (evil); it offers a specific diagnosis (sin) and prescribes a particular solution (salvation). Atheism says certain things about the world's problems (scientific ignorance); it offers a specific diagnosis (religion) and prescribes a particular solution (atheism). You've done precisely this in your post.

quote:
If people accepted that all such beliefs and ideas are products of our brains and minds, there would be no avoiding the fact that every single one of such gods is a human idea, and therefore controlled by human brains and minds; not controlled or influenced by outside entities. If ever humanity reached that stage, gods and religions would become redundant.
Indeed. The world would be 'saved' from religion by atheism (the saviour). As I said before, the religious impulse is as strong in atheism and it is in theism - the only difference is the nature of the saviours in which these divergent faith positions put their trust. For you, it's the functional saviour (i.e. you believe that atheism will do the saving work) of scientific progress. For Christians it the personal saviour, Jesus Christ (i.e. Christians believe that a person will do the saving work).

So, you may object to this by saying that religion clearly hasn't functioned inasmuch as it hasn't 'saved' the world. But if you did say that I would have to respond by asking why you think that scientific atheism will function as a saviour inasmuch as it has the capacity to rescue the world from its problems.

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I suggest I am correct in saying that, in the opinion of many atheists, me included, religions, with their belief in, and deference to, invisible, supernatural (etc etc) gods or figureheads hold back our species from resolving more of the world's problms than we do at present.

Now that's got to be close to faith.

Considering that most cultures seem to have a religion, it seems a striking example of convergent evolution in biological terms. Convergent evolution implies a strong selection pressure and a limited number of "good solutions" to the selection pressure.

It seems a remarkable leap of faith to think we've reached the point where we can do without that evolved feature. And an even more remarkable leap of faith to think that problems could be resolved without it.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools