Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
That's the evidence, Firenze? A hymn and a single quote from google search?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
I am not concerned to prove that every Christian now living holds such beliefs (or a range of others, on other topics, which are equally uncomfortable to the rational mind). Just that they are there. And surely have an equal right to proclaim the truth of their Christianity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Look to / at Jesus. Do you belong to a Church that believes that this is possible?

---

Thanks - I guess I'll keep trying to do just that. There may or may not be "a God" (whatever that means) but loving people is a good idea anyhow, IMO. (I was confirmed CoE but drifted... recently exploring a bit o' Quakerism. Nice bunch. No mystical revelations yet though )

--------------------
Art thou in the Darkness? Mind it not, for if thou dost it will fill thee more, but stand still and act not, and wait in patience till Light arises out of Darkness to lead thee. James Nayler, 1659

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Just that they are there. And surely have an equal right to proclaim the truth of their Christianity.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
My contention was with the idea that it was a majority Christian view. I did do some research - and placed a link with two mainstream churches (C of Scotland and the RCC) official spokespeople saying categorically they didn't think the tsunami was God's judgement.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
I get the impression though it is still alive and well in the (predominantly) US fundamentalist sects, which are very much in the mould of the popular evangelicism of the 19th C.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
SteveTom, I have just the thread for you...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Can one only convert to another religion? Can't one convert to a belief system that isn't necessarily a religious one?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Posted by mdijon: On the other hand, I know atheists who have no antipathy toward the church - who are happy to support some church run projects - even take part in services now and then - but are quite clear they don't believe there is a God, even if they think there are some useful aspects to religion.

---

Yep, that's me! But I'm not an ex-christian, I'm a second-generation atheist. Hence 'them' not 'us' in my previous post. In other words, I really am a-theist (without god, as in, not brought up with him - I like the term 'unchurched' used on here). But what one might call 'orthodox' atheism is based on a rejection of christianity and its replacement with science (something that rather baffles me)

--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
...I often find it hard to see what makes one person an atheist and another with almost identical ideas and approaches to life a Christian. Where do you draw the line?

---

quote:

---

Surely it is impossible to say whether you believe in God or not until someone has defined God.

---

Well, we often talk about concepts ( love, intelligence, fabulosity ) without being able to define them.

As it happens, I only `believe in' the God that I have a working understanding of. I suspect that there are as many different understandings of God as there are Christians (etc). Is it correct to say that I `don't believe in' the God that (at least some) other Christians recognize? Or is it better merely to say that we all `believe in' God, but disagree on the details?

I'm fairly sure that Pat Robertson's God does not exist, for example.

In short, I find it rather unhelpful to ask the question: ``God is A, B, C. Does God exist?'' A more helpful approach is: ``I think X, Y, Z; what (if anything) can I conclude about God?''. Of course that means being guided by what other people understand of God; but I don't see `belief in God' as requiring a prior definition of God.

quote:

---

After all, I’d believe a unicorn lived behind the kitchen cupboard if you defined unicorn as a small grey furry animal with a long tail.

---

quote:

---

Another question: is the statement ‘God exists’ the same type of statement as ‘there’s a pub down the road’? That is, is it a statement of fact which is or is not true (whether or not it is provable)?

---

quote:

---

Rather than, for example, a statement of opinion or moral jugement (eg such and such a thing is bad/delicious/weird). If it is, then surely one has to be prepared to make use of evidence rather than ‘which do I prefer’?

---

quote:

---

So, given that the evidence isn’t conclusive either way, it comes down to your principles on the Default Option. Are you Cartesian – don’t believe anything until you can prove it? Or do you go with believing what other people around you believe (which is not easy these days, given the mixture!) until proven otherwise?

---

quote:

---

I am not saying that I apply either of this principles rigorously to my assumptions – but I don’t need to, it makes no difference to my life.

---

Fine. No need to worry, then.

quote:

---

Whereas if you are planning for the next life then actually being right or wrong about unprovable things becomes extremely important.

---

quote:

---

But those of you who ‘feel right’ with God… what do you say to those of us who ‘feel right’ without it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:

---

originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Surely it is impossible to say whether you believe in God or not until someone has defined God.

---

Well, we often talk about concepts ( love, intelligence, fabulosity ) without being able to define them.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber: since the label `God' is associated in people's minds with all sorts of facts and concepts, it's really only helpful to ascribe the label God to something that is recognizably aligned with those facts and concepts.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber: Although I don't think that `God exists' is a simple proposition of first-order logic, I [...] personally, don't think it is an expression of opinion. Therefore, my reasons for thinking the statement is true do, indeed, have to be rationally defensible. Not everybody feels this way, however.

But I don't think my reasons have to be evidential. Most of the things that I believe, and which are most important to me, are not evidential. But I believe they are rational.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber:
Why must I adopt one of these two extremes of position?

---

quote:

---

I don't think you can plan for the next life. I tend to the optimistic view that, if you try to do what seems right and makes sense in this life, the next life -- if there is one -- will take care of itself. Of course, I appreciate that this is a heresy. Nevertheless, I think if God had meant us to get tied up in knots about the afterlife, She would have made its existence more obvious.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Fair enough – but I still think that I have an understanding of what I mean by ‘love’ or ‘intelligence’ and that other people will understand when I use that term. And in purely brain-chemistry terms, they probably CAN be reasonably defined.

---

quote:

---

Whereas – as you have acknowledged – there are very different definitions of God, ranging from ‘love’ or ‘the ground of our being’ through a pantheistic or animistic god, to an isolated deist Supreme Being, to a vengeful Zeus-type beardy guy.

---

quote:

---

You would not, for example, suggest that I ought to believe in ‘gogglefarbs’ and not expect me to ask you what that meant. So far the definition of God seems to be even LESS specific than ‘something behind the cupboard’!

---

quote:

---

I’d be very pleased to see a basic list of facts and concepts about God which all users of the term (of all religions) would be prepared to agree on.

---

Me too Most likely what you'd get, for N believers, is N different lists where particular propositions would appear with different frequencies. I doubt there would be any subset of propositions on which there would be consensus.

It would be an interesting academic exercise, but I'm not sure what the practical significance would be.

quote:

---

You listed a belief in ‘free will’ as something essential to the belief in God, but I’m not sure whether everyone would agree on this.

---

quote:

---

Could you give me an example of a belief about a fact (not a judgement or opinion) which is rational but not based on evidence? I expect you are right but I can't think of one.

---

quote:

---

For me, if I believed that Jesus was bodily resurrected, I would feel I had to believe in every miracle and supernatural event for which there was some evidence.

---

quote:

---

Since I don’t believe God exists at all, I don’t have to worry about the nature of God or whether I could be wrong about it. But since you DO believe in God, surely you sometimes worry that you have made a mistake and that God is not the way you want him (or her, if you prefer it that way) to be?

---

Why? If you don't worry about being wrong about the existence of God, why should I have to worry about being wrong about the nature of God? I would guess that the existence of a vengeful, fire-and-brimstone bastard, who will toast me for getting some point of doctrine wrong, is no more likely a proposition for me than it is for you.

BTW I don't think gender is a meaningful concept to apply to God. I feel uncomfortable using the pronoun `it' in respect to God, which is why I alternate `He' and `She'. I'm not making a theological proposition

Posted                       

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber: I think that we have a common understanding of intelligence, love, etc., from the context in which these words are used. My 5-year-old understands `love' to mean `when you want to hug someone', because that's the context in which he's heard the word used. As he gets older, most likely he'll see the word used in different contexts, and get a different understanding of what it means. But, nevertheless, I think it would be difficult to write down a definition.

I'm inclined to doubt that sensations like love, loyalty, hope, fear, etc., will ever be definable in terms of brain chemistry, although I accept that they are accompanied by physiological changes. But I guess that if you are a materialist, such a definition must be possible, at least in theory, since no other is admissible.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I agree that it is a problem. But I might be able to tell you what gogglefarbs mean to me, how I experience gogglefarbs. I might be able to tell you how other people understand gogglefarbs. I might be able to give you some sense of what gogglefarbs are, without being able to enumerate their properties.

---

Please, do! Obviously, about God not googlefarbs (or ooglie booglies, as is rapidly becoming the new in word on the other thread!)

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber:

quote:

---

Posted by Wannabe Heretic: Could you give me an example of a belief about a fact (not a judgement or opinion) which is rational but not based on evidence? I expect you are right but I can't think of one.

---

Well, the textbook example is `the past really happened'. Another is `other people are conscious'. These are what Plantinga calls `properly basic believes' -- things that we believe because life would fall apart otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber:

quote:

---

For me, if I believed that Jesus was bodily resurrected, I would feel I had to believe in every miracle and supernatural event for which there was some evidence.

---

That depends on the weight and source of the evidence, no?

---

quote:

---

Why? If you don't worry about being wrong about the existence of God, why should I have to worry about being wrong about the nature of God? I would guess that the existence of a vengeful, fire-and-brimstone bastard, who will toast me for getting some point of doctrine wrong, is no more likely a proposition for me than it is for you.

---

quote:

---

BTW I don't think gender is a meaningful concept to apply to God. I feel uncomfortable using the pronoun `it' in respect to God, which is why I alternate `He' and `She'. I'm not making a theological proposition

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
I take BM to mean that the God I don't believe in is the one described by the church, rather than the mosque. So I don't have a counter-belief that Koran was not divinely dictated, since I have never thought that it was.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
Anyone claiming atheism who has had a theistic belief beforehand is going to deny the God that sort of
theism defines. A Buddhist, however, would find it hard put to deny what the monotheistic faiths call God, not having a belief in such a being anyway.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Believing that love is in one sense a chemical reaction doesn’t stop you wanting to talk about it from the point of view of subjective experience.

---

Fair enough. But if you are a materialist, `love' isn't in `one sense' a chemical reaction; it is a chemical reaction in the only sense that has any sense. I'd be happy to discuss this issue in more detail, but I don't think it will fit into this thread

quote:

---

I don’t need a dictionary definition, just what you are calling ‘common understanding’.

---

quote:

---

I’m not sure I would call these beliefs ones for which there is no evidence. There is evidence, but it requires certain assumptions – particularly that your experiences (that you have consciousness and that things happen) are a model that can be extended to others.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, I meant, for which there was a comparable level of evidence....

---

quote:

---

If I don’t think there’s anything behind the cupboard, fine. If I think there is something, it’s probably a mouse, but I don’t know… aren’t I going to wonder if it might be a rat?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber: Because God isn't the same kind of thing as anything in the material world -- in fact, I don't conceptualize God as a thing at all -- it's difficult to use the linguistic constructs we apply to material things to describe God. I think this is why most God-talk is based on analogy: God is `like' this, or `like' that. If you read the Biblical Psalms you see many, many attempts to describe what God is `like': God is like a shepherd and we are his sheep; God is like a potter and we are the clay; God is a warrior, a rock, an overflowing vessel, etc, etc.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Crooked Cucumber: But why should the existence of God on the basis of assumptions be irrational, while the existence of the past is rational when so based? Maybe my fundamental assumptions are such as to favour explanations in terms of God, and yours are not. But, hey ho, people are different.

---

quote:

---

Sure. If you (say) believe in the ressurrection of Jesus, and you feel that there is evidence of the same type and the same weight of martians turning people into fishfingers, and if there's room for martian fishfingerisation in you world-model, then of course you should believe in martian fishfingerisation. Why is this a problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic: If I don’t think there’s anything behind the cupboard, fine. If I think there is something, it’s probably a mouse, but I don’t know… aren’t I going to wonder if it might be a rat?

---

Only if you had a priori grounds for thinking that the existence of rats is probable. Do you worry that your mouse might, in fact, be a frumious bandersnatch?

---

Good point, I don’t. But if other people went around saying there were rats behind their cupboards, and you had something behind yours, you might wonder if it was a rat. Whereas if you didn’t have anything behind yours, or saw no evidence (knawed wood, droppings etc!) then you wouldn’t even think about it at all. I love the name Frumious Bandersnatch though. Can you get them as pets?

--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
So since this God is so completely unknowable, why should you assume he has anything to do with all the rest of it?

---

quote:

---

‘God exists, but we don’t know what the word means’ – that is a big and unobvious assumption. But if it works for you I don’t have a problem with that.

---

I'm so glad But I don't think I'm assuming this at all. The only actual assumption I am making is that it is meaningful (useful, rational) to use the expression `X exists' without being able to define X with precision. If we know nothing about X, even by analogy, then of course `X exists' is a non sequitur. It's just gibberish. If we define X in such a way that it has to exist (`God is the spot on my bum') then `X exists' is meaningful, but unhelpful. I'm not trying to define God into existence like St Anselm, nor am I throwing up my hands and saying `Nothing can be known of God, but most likely there word can be applied to something that exists'. I guess I'm somewhere in between these extremes.

quote:

---

The main problem that a lot of atheists I think have with Christians ... is: If you think this is objectively true, ie that it will have some effect on people other than through their belief, then people ought to know and believe it and you should try harder to make them do so.

---

What do you think I'm trying to do?

In fact, I don't have the talent for this. What I can (perhaps) do, and try to do, is to counter illogical objections people raise to theistic and Christian belief. But, in the end, I think very, very few people come to Christianity (or any other religion) because they are persuaded by logic that its propositions are objectively true. I think people come to Christianity either because they have some sort of `conversion experience', or because of the good witness of other Christians. I always found direct evangelism a real turn-off.

quote:

---

I’m not sure what the stats are, but on the whole christians are more likely to believe in the bodily resurrection than in other miracles, and in particular they are going (naturally) to favour christian miracles over the evidence that has been produced for reincarnation etc.

---

quote:

---

But if other people went around saying there were rats behind their cupboards, and you had something behind yours, you might wonder if it was a rat. Whereas if you didn’t have anything behind yours, or saw no evidence (knawed wood, droppings etc!) then you wouldn’t even think about it at all.

---

quote:

---

I love the name Frumious Bandersnatch though. Can you get them as pets?

---

You'd have to ask Lewis Carroll where he got his

Posted                      

quote:

---

craigb, this is a remarkably black-white view. The reality for those of us who struggle with faith at various times in our lives is very much as Adeoatus has said.

Some days I believe in God, the fulness of his promises, the cross and the Kingdom. Some days it seems like proposterous lies or a mirage dangling in the distance to tempt a thirsty desert traveller but never quite seeming to be within reach. Mostly I'm not sure.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I once knew someone who was offended when I asked them if they were agnostic or atheist.

Their view was that this labeled them from a religious perspective - that this presupposed the question of God was important.

Their view was that whether God existed or not was completely unimportant. Not just that they didn't care, that there was no reason for the question to occur.

I have to say I found it one of the most disturbing views I've heard... more disturbing than biblical satanism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Their view was that whether God existed or not was completely unimportant. Not just that they didn't care, that there was no reason for the question to occur.

I have to say I found it one of the most disturbing views I've heard... more disturbing than biblical satanism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:
If rational and empirical evidence cannot apprehend God, or indeed any truth-claim about religion, morality, etc. (which I believe to be the case), but faith can, then what is faith? What does the word mean?

An instinctive sense of the way things are?
A way of life that works?
A way of looking at the world that works?
A set of philosophical propositions that have given up the search for proof?
A combination of some/all/none/one/both of the above, or something else entirely?

(Not rhetorical questions, but a genuine enquiry.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M: perhaps there is no such thing as an atheist!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic: The main problem that a lot of atheists I think have with Christians ... is: If you think this is objectively true, ie that it will have some effect on people other than through their belief, then people ought to know and believe it and you should try harder to make them do so.

---

What do you think I'm trying to do?

In fact, I don't have the talent for this. What I can (perhaps) do, and try to do, is to counter illogical objections people raise to theistic and Christian belief. But, in the end, I think very, very few people come to Christianity (or any other religion) because they are persuaded by logic that its propositions are objectively true. I think people come to Christianity either because they have some sort of `conversion experience', or because of the good witness of other Christians. I always found direct evangelism a real turn-off.

---

Oh, I agree - I don't like to have religion shoved down my throat at all, and in fact I've found that those who do it most are those who believe that a person cn be converted through reason. There is an underlying assumption that atheists are ignorant or unintelligent which is not a good technique for getting them on your side! And you're doing a good job, if rather quixotically in this particular case. Keep it up!

But it's a catch 22 situation, and I apologise on behalf of my fellow atheists for the fact that it is! Because the 'good witness of other Christians' is undermined, in the eyes of sceptics, if they do not seem to be completely and horribly convinced. One thing that always confused me was the fact that I had friends at school (and at uni, although they were good enough not to mention it) who believed I was going to hell. I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling??

--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Okay, you guys want to be allowed to define God however you want him (or not at all) and I’m not even allowed to define MYSELF??

---

quote:

---

There are other definitions of God about which I would say ‘I don’t currently believe this, because I haven’t seen any evidence for it, but it is possible.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M: Your earlier post on this point started me thinking about the use of the word ‘atheist’ in your context, because I had never heard it used that way before (one of the benefits of being on the Ship!). Having thought about it, though, I have to say that I am not convinced that ‘atheist’ does your position justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
I’m probably not explaining this very well, but my reasoning goes something like this, based on the following definitions:
An agnostic is someone who is undecided about the existence of a god (a fairly neutral stance);
A sceptic is someone who has not been convinced of the arguments for the existence of a god (a more active stance); and
An atheist is one who denies the existence of a god (a conclusive decision).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M: To allow ‘atheism’ to include the position of one who grew up without the awareness of a god defers, to my mind, the question of the the existence of any god. Such a person has not been faced with a definition of a god that they can react to, which is why they are – at best – at the agnostic level. They do not know whether a god exists or not; in fact they cannot in fairness be drawn to any conclusion until they have the definition of a god to react to – the very point you are making.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M: I admit that you could argue over my definitions above, but I adopt them because when ‘atheism’ is defined too broadly it squeezes out the definitions of ‘agnosticism’ and ‘scepticism’.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M: I’m not offended by the word ‘atheist’, by the way

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic: I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling?? [/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
But it's a catch 22 situation, and I apologise on behalf of my fellow atheists for the fact that it is! Because the 'good witness of other Christians' is undermined, in the eyes of sceptics, if they do not seem to be completely and horribly convinced.

---

quote:

---

I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling??

---

I think that most Christians who do ascribe to the notion of Hell, hope and trust that people they know aren't going to end up there. I assume that they hope their Hell-bound frieds will eventually see the light, even if it's only between the stirrup and the ground.

Since I'm agnostic on the subject of Hell, I don't think it's my place to worry about the states of other people's souls.

As for the issue whether there really are atheists, or whether atheists really exist...

Well, there was a time in my past when I called myself an atheist. I heard the usual spiel about how to be an atheist is to believe in something enough to disbelief it, yadda yadda yadda, and it irritated the hell out of me. As it does you, by the sound of it.

But, with hindsight, I now realize that I did at least know what it wasn't I didn't believe in -- I didn't believe in the fire-and-brimstone bastard god that most Christians I knew (at that time) subscribed to. Since I still don't believe in such a God, my position, in some sense, hasn't changed.

But I stopped calling myself an atheist when I came to appreciate that there were clearly many, many conceptualizations of God (or gods) that I had never heard of. I couldn't, in all honesty, claim that I actively disbelieved in things I knew nothing about.

Having said that, I think that materialism, as distinct from atheism, is a logically tenable position. If you rule out everything but the observable material world, that must a fortiori rule out all, or at least most, formulations of God, or gods. But to claim that I was a `materialist but not an atheist' got me odd looks a parties, so I started calling myself an agnostic instead.

The problem with materialism, as I see it, is that it rules out true free will; and I'm sure that I have true free will, even if nobody else does