Thread: Purgatory: Atheism on Purpose Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001207

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
On the current Purg thread on the problem of evil, a tangent arose in which the proposition was made that, without (belief in) God, there could be no great purpose and meaning for life.

In this very honest post, sanityman stated that, although an atheistic worldview might be more sensible and logically satisfying (particularly in respect of the problem of innocent suffering), abandoning belief in God would mean giving up on the idea of ‘creation having anything more to offer than meets the eye’, and also giving up on hope.

Freddy also made the point that, although atheists may well have good purpose in life, without God, life cannot have a reason for being, and that individually we cannot have a ‘role in an eternal plan’. He suggested that life is less worthwhile without God, because it is not ‘part of something and leading to something that is objectively good and blessed in an eternal way’. Furthermore, an atheist ‘cannot have the expectation that [their] relationships and … inner qualities will last forever and therefore have purpose and meaning beyond the obvious.’

In reply to sanityman, I said:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I take your point about feeling the loss of something special when one removes the supernatural from one’s worldview. Naturally, I’m bound to disagree. Hope and wonder abound in an atheistic worldview, and I would even be so audacious as to propose that religion is the enemy of such things. I am happy to expand on this, but it would be a new thread.

Atheists believe we have just the one life, which of course makes it infinitely precious. No afterlife belief affords such life-affirmation. If we lose awe for god, we may gain awe for our view of mortal reality, the truth of which is attained by the honest and dependable method of science. And this view is astonishingly wonderful. With science, what ‘meets the eye’ is focussed broad, deep and clear, and with it we can see that the universe is chock full of profoundly life-enhancing truth.

Atheists make rubbish evangelists. Richard Dawkins, who has probably the loudest mouth in atheism, succeeds in offending and alienating almost everyone with an alternate viewpoint to his (and quite a lot of us who generally agree with him). There is no great atheistic movement that I’m aware of- no grand conspiracy of missionary intent. Non-militant atheists (surely the vast majority) don’t actually care much whether you believe in God or not, and have no burning desire to convert you. Perhaps partly because of this, atheism rarely seems to put itself over very well, and it’s therefore no surprise that many theists imagine all sorts of nonsense about atheism.

It will no doubt make some of you spill your cherryade to hear I’m actually pretty laissez-faire about theism, but I firmly believe people should be absolutely free to believe whatever they choose, just as long as it’s a free and informed choice (indeed, much of my objection to religion is based on this conviction), and nobody gets hurt. By this non-militancy and because of my own private uncertainties, I am a poor advocate of my own beliefs, so I apologise for my apologetics.

Anyway, I hereby invite you to comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview, and I’ll try to convey how people can just as well live in hope and with purpose without god.

[ 05. January 2015, 01:06: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Yorick: Atheists make rubbish evangelists. Richard Dawkins, who has probably the loudest mouth in atheism, succeeds in offending and alienating almost everyone with an alternate viewpoint to his (and quite a lot of us who generally agree with him).
Sounds like a lot of Christian evangelists I can think of [Biased]

FWIW, I do accept that atheists can have a live of hope and purpuse.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
The big problem I have with the argument about purpose, including the examples cited in the OP, is that it seems to boil down to saying that there must be a purpose to the universe/creation etc not because there is any evidence of it, but because we think there ought to be a purpose as we would feel diminished without it. It's expecting the universe to subscribe to our wants.

But it's irrelevant if I want there to be a purpose to the universe. It's irrelevant if every Christian on Earth wants a purpose to creation. If there is no such purpose we cannot will one into existence. On the other hand that does not mean that we cannot build purpose in our lives individually and collectively, it's just a case of recognising our limits.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Anyway, I hereby invite you to comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview, and I’ll try to convey how people can just as well live in hope and with purpose without god.

Okey dokey. I've done my time as a "hard" research scientist (climatology). One of the things I think present-day atheism gets wrong is when it says you don't need a sense of numinous mystery to experience wonder, awe, etc. - you can have those things perfectly well by contemplating the discoveries and achievements of science and rationalism.

Well, science never did that for me. I never discovered anything new and felt awe - only a sense of "Oh. Okay. Next problem ...". I never looked at an equation and found it elegant or beautiful. I never believed when a scientist proclaimed "this will change how we think of ourselves" (and I was right - it didn't). The alleged wonders of science for me were never anything more than a class run by Mr Gradgrind. And finally I left science behind because I found it unfulfilling.

So, one thing I think atheists get wrong is when they associate awe and wonder with science as if the association were something obvious or automatic. That association works for some people. It doesn't work for all.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
That is an excellent point. All these things (purpose, meaning, beauty) are clearly individually subjective, which of course disproves the theistic notion that they’re absolute and objective.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The big problem I have with the argument about purpose, including the examples cited in the OP, is that it seems to boil down to saying that there must be a purpose to the universe/creation etc not because there is any evidence of it, but because we think there ought to be a purpose as we would feel diminished without it.

I heartily agree. It's just us sad little beings scrabbling for something - anything - to make us feel like we're part of something bigger than just living our lives the best way we can.

Apparently it's not enough to just live, love, reproduce, and have as much fun as possible. Which is a shame, really...
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Yorick, I appreciate your framing of the question and your accurate representation of my argument and those of others.

As I said, I agree that any individual, whether atheist or religious, can have a satisfying life full of hope and purpose. Goals such as justice, world peace, or success in any number of senses, do impart purpose and meaning to life and do not depend on anything supernatural.

My meaning, however, is that if you step back from individual circumstance and ask what the point of life is, or ask why this matters a thousand years from now, the answers available to an atheist are, in my opinion, less satisfying and adequate than for a believer.

Adequacy is the central concept here. There is an undeniable solidity to the stance that nothing is true that can't be proved. It's a simple and easily defensible formula.

The problem is that many areas of interest lie outside of those parameters. "I don't know" is an honest and honorable answer to questions like, "What caused the 'big bang'" or "Will my conscious life continue after my body dies?" But is a formula whose answer to important life questions is "I don't know" really adequate?

Atheists are clearly and understandably willing to forego answers like these in favor of placing a high value on certainty. Most people don't think like that, though, and are willing to be more credulous in their pursuit of more adequate answers.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But is a formula whose answer to important life questions is "I don't know" really adequate?

Works for me.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
While I am a Christian, I have always found locutions like "the meaning of life" to be examples of category mistakes. It is perfectly meaningful to say things like, "I find the meaning of my life to be in the pursuit of justice (or raising my family, or...)," but the notion that life in the abstract has meaning is no more coherent than asking what is the meaning of granite.

When we say that we have found the meaning of our life in something, we are saying that we have found a cause or activity that fully involves us and makes us feel worthwhile. But it would be lunacy to suggest that everyone else ought to find their meaning in the same thing.

The initial impulse to the religious life for me is a primal urge to say "thank you" for my life and the magnificent richness of the world in which I reside. I recognize that not everyone's circumstances or disposition leads them to a similar impulse. But for me and my household, we will serve the Lord...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Atheists are clearly and understandably willing to forego answers like these in favor of placing a high value on certainty. Most people don't think like that, though, and are willing to be more credulous in their pursuit of more adequate answers.

I think that’s true, but it seems likely that, in so doing, they seriously undervalue truth. After all, it’s not a matter of ‘knowing’ these more adequate answers, is it? It’s merely believing.

I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Shipmates might like to know of the Sea of Faith Conference entitled 'The lust for certainty'. It looks good: David Boulton is the attraction for me.

And just to say: I'm actually more content now as a non-theist than I was as a Christian - something about freedom from guilt (but I don't lead too evil a life [Razz] ) but also about this enjoyable and challenging concept of not knowing, of being free to say 'I don't know' and then to continue the pilgrimage.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.

So it is a reasonable trade-off.

My point is that most people don't see it that way. For those who do I'm sure that it works just fine.

I am completely convinced, though, as are most people on this planet, that in a very few years when we both die we will find that life does not end but continues. If that is the actual truth - and you don't know one way or another - then wouldn't fitting it into the account be part of a more adequate world-view?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

My point is that most people don't see it that way. For those who do I'm sure that it works just fine.

I am completely convinced, though, as are most people on this planet, that in a very few years when we both die we will find that life does not end but continues. If that is the actual truth - and you don't know one way or another - then wouldn't fitting it into the account be part of a more adequate world-view?

Sounds too much like 'pie in the sky when you die' to me. Either that or hedging my bets. There's enough in my "adequate world-view", as you call it, without messing it up with unnecessary baggage. [Biased]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I am completely convinced, though, as are most people on this planet, that in a very few years when we both die we will find that life does not end but continues. If that is the actual truth - and you don't know one way or another - then wouldn't fitting it into the account be part of a more adequate world-view?

Yes, indeed it would, but your ‘if’ is truly monstrous here, and your ‘complete conviction’ is based on nothing more dependable than belief. Furthermore, the fact that ‘most people on this planet’ also subscribe to this view seems to me extremely poor grounds for confidence, given the nature of people. On the very contary.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Sounds too much like 'pie in the sky when you die' to me. Either that or hedging my bets. There's enough in my "adequate world-view", as you call it, without messing it up with unnecessary baggage. [Biased]

Sure, if you want to see it that way.

The point is that you have a choice of seeing it any way that you wish.

Choose whichever you prefer, but keep an open mind about the advantages and disadvantages of the choice.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
and your ‘complete conviction’ is based on nothing more dependable than belief.

Surely you see that the same is true of your own conviction. You have a choice.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Well, that’s the thing, Freddy. Because I know that my belief (that there’s no afterlife) is just that- belief- I am unable to claim ‘complete conviction’, and I therefore get to enjoy the satisfaction afforded by this greater intellectual honesty. It gives me 'purpose'.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Good, Yorick. That's the important thing. Seeing both sides of the question and knowing that it's a choice as to what to believe. And that we may be wrong.
 
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 
At a purely reductionist level, we are products of amoral and purposeless universe. All of us might act like there is purpose to life, but surely any purpose an atheist sees in life is illusory. How can it not be a figment of the imagination?

While I wouldn't dream of trying to divest somebody of the noble belief that things like justice and freedom are good and necessary, I don't see how this is grounded on anything other than the shifting sands of relativism.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.

Tosh. Been there, done that - just in the other direction. Now, the honest and simple truth is that all this poetical "awe and wonder" stuff is just rubbish 95% of the time for everybody (and I'm being optimistic with those 5%). Neither the wonders of the universe nor the awe of God is making us wander around aimlessly, eyes wide-open, saying "wow" a lot. If that's what your life is like, then you should thank your dealer, not atheism or theism.

If we are nevertheless going to talk about who can milk more awe out of their convictions, then we can do this on two levels: the principle one, or the practical one. The principle one is clear: theism wins hands down. It's simply a matter of adding an entire dimension of meaning. Nothing gets lost, more awe possibilities arise, end of story. For example, valuing your life because it's the only one you get is not something atheism can use to "pull ahead" in the awesomeness stakes. Firstly, of course one could have a theism where one also only has this life. That's just what I mean with adding another dimension without losing anything. Secondly, if we stick to Christianity, then viewing this finite life as strictly deciding over eternal heaven or hell makes it more valuable than it ever can be by and in itself.

However, on the practical level, all that awesomeness is simply not there most of the time for most of us. Hence it becomes far from clear whether a particular theist out-awes a particular atheist, even though potentially he could. The true attractions of spiritual paths (including perhaps atheism) are subtle, and in my opinion, irreducibly so. Large scale conversion of people work by social and cultural pressure. However, for the individual seeking their path it mostly will be small things that touch them, a particular flavor in what people say or do, a subtle vibe of come-hither. Blaring advertisement of awesome amazement do not particularly work for either case.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.

I'll re-echo IngoB's "been there, done that". But being my perverse self, for me it comes down to this - I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.

In Brideshead Revisited, Charles and Sebastian have a rare, short conversation about Sebastian's religion. Charles, frustratedly, says something like, "You can't believe something just because it's a lovely idea." And Sebastian replies, "Yes I can. That's how I believe." And that's not exactly where I am, but it's not far off.

[Adeo wanders off, jauntily humming "From glory to glory advancing, we praise thee, O Lord ...".]
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Yorick:
quote:
comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview
Atheists often seem to equate "true" with "objectively provable". Which I think is fundamentally mistaken.

I would be interested, therefore, in whether you believe there are propositions which are true but which could never be proved by rational or empirical reasoning?

Obviously, many theists believe this is where God fits.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Charles, frustratedly, says something like, "You can't believe something just because it's a lovely idea." And Sebastian replies, "Yes I can. That's how I believe." And that's not exactly where I am, but it's not far off.

I love that.

To me that's the argument as well.

Atheism works if you construe the alternative as unreasonable. But if it is a choice between equally debatable alternatives then the appeal of a "lovely idea" becomes stronger.

But the strongest foundation in my view is about having a view of how the entire system works, how it all fits together, a view that answers all questions. In other words, a view that is adequate and without holes or logical leaps.

Privately, however, I would say the real foundation is what Jesus said about the house built on the rock. World-view is inevitably adjusted to match practice.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Atheists often seem to equate "true" with "objectively provable". Which I think is fundamentally mistaken.

I agree and think that Yorick has agreed as well.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I don't get why a Theist's belief in the Truth of God falls into any different category than an atheist's belief in the Truth of truth...

...which is another way of suggesting that if share-able truth (required in science, which is not post-modern if my experience of the peer-review of submissions to academic journals is anything to go by) depends on a sustaining transcendent reality, then disbelief in God on the basis of His un-truth, is oxymoronic.

I'm only a (Christian) engineer, and my philosophy is homespun. Would an atheist like to put me straight?

M.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.

Ah, but the demonstrably-true truth is invariably more exciting than any fiction. The wildest imaginings of man are as nothing to the wonders of reality. Compare the brain-screwing scientific knowledge of big-bang cosmology with the oh-so predictable creationism of Genesis, for example. Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Straw men are easy tools for mocking a point of view, but they don't promote real understanding.
 
Posted by Dr Ransom (Order of C.S. Lewis) (# 16235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat. [/QB]

Lol! Yes, but Yorick-if what you say is true, which it in part is, isn't that 'knocking off of foot based clothing' largely because as some science guy once said on such matters should instances of discovery would:

quote:
... be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God
I'm not sure God went 'Ohh crap! I thought I hid those things so well?!' when we first found dinosaur fossils. And I don't read scientific journals and periodicals going "damn theses guys keep explaining the mystery off of everything [Frown] "

I just think, well whoever instigated that stuff knew what they were doing.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But being my perverse self, for me it comes down to this - I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.

As much as I admire your honesty (religious folks aren't usually so upfront in declaring their perversions) that's also the final knock-down argument against abandoning fairies, Santa Claus, and LSD.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Santa Claus derives from Saint Nicholas, whom I take to be a real historical figure, and one who was a Christian himself. Without Christ there would be no Saint Nicholas.

Is anything questionable about LSD? It produces lovely hallucinations and it can make us helplessly crazy the rest of our lives. The intrepid take it on account of the first characteristic, while the prudent avoid it because of the second. Diamonds in the sky are white, herrings are red.

[ 23. February 2011, 19:39: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Diamonds in the sky are white, herrings are red.

Hahahaha! [Killing me]
 
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :
 
I assume that an animal or plant such as a badger, a bear or a flower hasn't got any sense of purpose beyond what they see and experience. This is my hunch, but I can't prove it scientifically.

If we're the same and have no connection beyond what we see, experience and discover in this amazing (yes, I am constantly awestruck by the stuff we keep discovering, for example photography, electricity and the internet) universe, then why have we evolved this strange obsession with something beyond our experience? I know atheists have managed to revert to the animal behaviour I've described above, just concentrating purely on the here and now.

But for the rest of us with this religios quirk, is it an unnecessary evolutionary glitsch or appendix that we'll do away with one day when we're more highly evolved? Or is it a necessary facet of our behaviour that we've evolved in order to make us behave better towards each other and sustain our genes and race? And why do we need to do that anyway?

Just some idle exploratory thoughts, please humour me.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
And why do we need to do that anyway?

Maybe the answer is in the remarkable trajectory of human history. From utter superstitious ignorance to the capacity for a deep and informed objectivity...
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:

But for the rest of us with this religios quirk, is it an unnecessary evolutionary glitsch or appendix that we'll do away with one day when we're more highly evolved? Or is it a necessary facet of our behaviour that we've evolved in order to make us behave better towards each other and sustain our genes and race? And why do we need to do that anyway?

Just some idle exploratory thoughts, please humour me.

From an evolutionary point of view the surface answer is simply that it offers (offered?) humans in general a benefit. Why is the interesting bit and I suspect that we'll never really know - however:

I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc.. One or two convenient coincidences and well....you can see how the majority would like any idea that limited the excesses of a tyrannical leader.
Continue with some dodgy cause and effect (something we humans specialise in - homeopathy/arthritis wonder cures etc.), pay me to intercede with my mate/build us (me and the invisible friend)a nice house/give me some of your land and we'll lay on a good harvest/let you avoid the plague/see that your enemy suffers in some way (best if you can keep the precise benefit vague until after the event of course).
Then someone asked why bad things happened to believers and we got theology.

Out of theology comes the brainwave - heaven/valhalla etc. - a future reward with no possibility of complaints/demands for refunds etc. if it turns out to be fictitious, just do as we (religious and/or secular) leaders tell you and we'll see you right once you've got rid of this restricting physical body (and we can help with that if you get it wrong). Throw in a bit of original sin, (make up a problem and then offer the only true solution - bit like Listerine really), add some divine right of kings, season with just wars and so on and it's gravy time.

Why would it catch on? Those at the top of the pile prospered (relatively) and all the others hoped to see them get their comeuppance from a seat in the clouds. Besides, humans generally like to be associated with what they perceive as success (celebrity endorsements often work) and most don't like to question perceived authority (google Stanley Milgram). And they had no way of knowing why thunder happened.

Just a perhaps.

Interesting programme recently which included the document which recorded James I/VI's rules for the AV translation (ecclesia = church rather than congregation [bishops were to control as instructed by the king], no sidenotes equating kings with tyranny etc.).

Perhaps the question that needs to be answered is, would anyone have a religious quirk if they weren't told that they could/should have one? How many of us would have invented religion without external influence - possibly fewer with a modern education than, say, six hundred years ago?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc.. One or two convenient coincidences and well....you can see how the majority would like any idea that limited the excesses of a tyrannical leader.



I've speculated just the opposite: a tyrannical leader worried about what his subjects might be up to, and all too aware of his limited powers of surveillance, decided to cow them with threats of an all-seeing spy in the sky who sees and remembers everything they do, say, or even think-- and the more private and intimate, the more terrible is his wrath towards anyone crossing the line.

This makes just as much sense as an abstract hypothesis-- and somewhat more sense when we observe that the rulers and the priests are more often buddies than adversaries.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc..

You never saw "The Invention of Lying"? Much better explanation.

There seems to be something in human genetic makeup that latches onto the idea of God. It is one of the most universally held and most ancient concepts in existence.

The best explanation of this, in my opinion, is that it is a true idea. The most primitive humans and human cultures had spiritual connections that made them know this with certainty - connections that were lost over time as the human race grew up and lost its innocence.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Every so often I think about going athiest .BUT then I have to think that I am the center of the universe and omnipotent. Now I KNOW I am not that good or great. Better to believe in God . [Smile] [Angel]
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
^
No, that would still be theism, only with you schizophrenically imagining yourself to be the god.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
...Is anything questionable about LSD? It produces lovely hallucinations and it can make us helplessly crazy the rest of our lives...

Good call. However, religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute. [Big Grin] [Biased]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute. [Big Grin] [Biased]

Now that's a novel objection. More often we hear about those televangelists and pledge drives demanding money-money-money.
 
Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
...Is anything questionable about LSD? It produces lovely hallucinations and it can make us helplessly crazy the rest of our lives...

Good call. However, religion is a relatively inexpensive substitute. [Big Grin] [Biased]
Which religion is this, and where do I sign up? [Cool]
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
^
No, that would still be theism, only with you schizophrenically imagining yourself to be the god.

NO way I would want to be God . He works way too hard much easier to believe that he is . [Angel]
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'll re-echo IngoB's "been there, done that". But being my perverse self, for me it comes down to this - I'd rather a glorious possible-fiction than a mundane demonstrably-true any day. And for me, that's the final knock-down argument against atheism: it's dull.

This is very well written. You know what it immediately made me think of? A phrase which has stuck in my head since I first read it - a magnificent defence of the indefensible...

...in my vision the heavenly chariot flies through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.


You are in illustrious company, Adeodatus...

[ 24. February 2011, 07:50: Message edited by: anoesis ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I have wondered if the start of the god idea was when a little bloke realised that he could stop a big guy hitting him by threatening him with his invisible but ever-present mate who sent lightning, earthquakes etc.. One or two convenient coincidences and well....you can see how the majority would like any idea that limited the excesses of a tyrannical leader.



I've speculated just the opposite: a tyrannical leader worried about what his subjects might be up to, and all too aware of his limited powers of surveillance, decided to cow them with threats of an all-seeing spy in the sky who sees and remembers everything they do, say, or even think-- and the more private and intimate, the more terrible is his wrath towards anyone crossing the line.


I think an awful lot hinges on our concept of 'Father'.

If we see a Father God as controlling and despotic, that's how we'll portray him. If we see a Father God as providing, giving freedom and unconditional love, that's how we'll portray him. I see this continuum of our 'picture' of God everywhere.

Some people adhere to their own picture very vehemently (I know I do!)
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Every so often I think about going athiest .BUT then I have to think that I am the center of the universe and omnipotent.

I know that’s a bit tongue in cheek, but I’ve come across the theistic sentiment quite often- that an atheist viewpoint lacks due humility. To think there is no god is to place oneself at the centre of the universe? This is surely self-idolatry! How very dare we?

But, no. It's all upside down again. The way I look at it, the Christian worldview is just that: an Earthview, woefully anthropocentric and ethnic. It’s a philosophy based on scripture that concerns itself exclusively with a staggeringly insignificantly miniscule part of the whole. To imagine all ‘creation’ is centred by God on us is arrogance on a cosmic scale, to the point of total stupidity.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Atheists are clearly and understandably willing to forego answers like these in favor of placing a high value on certainty. Most people don't think like that, though, and are willing to be more credulous in their pursuit of more adequate answers.

I think that’s true, but it seems likely that, in so doing, they seriously undervalue truth. After all, it’s not a matter of ‘knowing’ these more adequate answers, is it? It’s merely believing.

I’m here to tell you that, although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true.

Coming late to the discussion but the above statement seems to imply atheism is more demonstrably true (via science) than faith?

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Pull the other one.

Science is just as subjective as faith. But less so in some respects, because many people of faith experience God.

Science was originally predicated on the clear separation of the true and the false, the observer and the observed: in quantum physics in the early nineteenth century that began to blur. The physics that led up to the atomic bomb suggested a mode of the world in which what is seen is contingent upon where you look from, the objectivity of the spectator is undermined, observation becomes a form of involvement, and no position is detached.(quoted from Tim Ingold and Jo Lee Vergunst)

Heisenberg wrote: "....we cannot disregard the fact that natural science is formed by men."

Terribly sorry Yorick, your God is as man made as you think mine is.

And atheism is irrational whereas faith in a reason and cause for existence is more rational.

Why is there something instead of nothing?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But, no. It's all upside down again. The way I look at it, the Christian worldview is just that: an Earthview, woefully anthropocentric and ethnic. It’s a philosophy based on scripture that concerns itself exclusively with a staggeringly insignificantly miniscule part of the whole. To imagine all ‘creation’ is centred by God on us is arrogance on a cosmic scale, to the point of total stupidity.

Yes, it is an earthview. Earth is where human beings live, and where human history has happened. That's what religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is concerned with: how human beings can live on earth - not an insignificant or miniscule issue in any sense.

It's really not meant to be a scientific explanation of the universe, but an explication of the human relationship with, and alienation from, God.

Of course it's anthropocentric; that's the whole idea....

[ 24. February 2011, 12:11: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

It will no doubt make some of you spill your cherryade to hear I’m actually pretty laissez-faire about theism, but I firmly believe people should be absolutely free to believe whatever they choose, just as long as it’s a free and informed choice (indeed, much of my objection to religion is based on this conviction), and nobody gets hurt. By this non-militancy and because of my own private uncertainties, I am a poor advocate of my own beliefs, so I apologise for my apologetics.

Welcome to postmodernism. [Yipee] [Biased]

You're just a pomo atheist. I'm just a pomo Anglican.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course it's anthropocentric; that's the whole idea....

Well, quite. And when you add a god who has apparently made humans in his own image, you've ended up with a situation where humans have made themselves the centre of the universe by proxy.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Coming late to the discussion but the above statement seems to imply atheism is more demonstrably true (via science) than faith?

Yorick did backpedal on that one, if you care to read the thread.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Coming late to the discussion but the above statement seems to imply atheism is more demonstrably true (via science) than faith?

Yorick did backpedal on that one, if you care to read the thread.
To you. Not to Adeodatus. He said it again.

If you care to read the thread.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course it's anthropocentric; that's the whole idea....

Well, quite. And when you add a god who has apparently made humans in his own image, you've ended up with a situation where humans have made themselves the centre of the universe by proxy.
This doesn't necessarily follow; earthly religions tell the story of earth, not of any other possible world.

In other words, and as the saying goes: we know God is interested in earthlings - but we don't know who else God may be interested in.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...many people of faith experience God.


Have people of faith managed to pin down a definition of God yet which makes that statement in any way cognitively meaningful?

When an atheist feels a sense of awe and inner well-being, s/he thinks, 'I'm feeling a sense of awe and inner well-being'. When a person of Christian faith feels the same, s/he thinks, 'This is God (of the Bible) revealing himself to me'. A Hindu is experiencing Krishna, a Buddhist is experiencing Buddha nature. The locus of experience is merely shifted to accord with the anticipated religious context.

quote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
That's a very pretty question - but, again, one that is not cognitively meaningful. Nothingness is not an option for anyone who has the substantiality to ask the question.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
To you. Not to Adeodatus. He said it again.

If you care to read the thread.

And here I thought that he would be perfectly consistent.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
I do wonder, though, about Yorick's main point - and I see he didn't answer the question about "being the center of the universe."

To me, one of the best features about religion is that it posits a Greater Power. In A.A., this idea gets used in the service of killing "self-will run riot" - a central problem for addicts. But there is more to it than that, I think, and Christianity does speak to the fact that people generally can't fix themselves - that they need help from outside themselves. (I'm sure other religions speak to this idea, too, although I don't know this firsthand.)

Now, people can get some fixing through psychotherapy - but of course, that's expensive (and you're dependent upon another fallible human being who may or may not be gifted at his/her profession). So religion seems like a good way to go for folks who haven't got that kind of money.

So then, how do poor atheists get their heads fixed? This isn't an idle comment; I certainly couldn't fix myself when I was an atheist, so I'm really wondering. Anyway, I think Yorick is really setting up a duality that doesn't actually exist; I've been both and atheist and theist, and still go back and forth on the question, sometimes in the course of the same day - or minute.

I've found my own way of working this out, but really: it's not like theists are one kind of person and atheists are a completely separate species. So I'm not sure why the need to set up opposing camps on this.....

[ 24. February 2011, 13:16: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Christianity does speak to the fact that people generally can't fix themselves - that they need help from outside themselves.

I don't need to be fixed.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Christianity does speak to the fact that people generally can't fix themselves - that they need help from outside themselves.

The discussion introduced by Yorick is about the claim that atheism posits a world devoid of ultimate purpose and meaning. You are adding another level, but one which is even more subject to ridicule from atheists.

To me, though, your point is right on. Without God we are nothing, and we have no power to move or improve without His help.

The fact that people sometime observe that so-called Christians do not seem to have availed themselves of that aid more than others is neither here nor there. That observation can only be anecdotal based on individual experience. It is also something that is impossible to judge objectively in other people. So the observation is unreliable.

My own experience is that sincere believers are the best people I have ever met and my effort has always been to emulate them.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
The discussion introduced by Yorick is about the claim that atheism posits a world devoid of ultimate purpose and meaning.
Isn't this whole issue easily squashed by the same sort of kids argument about the creator: Who created him?

So what ultimate meaning and purpose has God? None, outside of himself.

So if we accept and even worship a God without any meaning outside himself, what's so bad about a universe with no meaning outside itself?

I believe because I think it unlikely that reality can be explained purely in material terms, not because I need some ultimate meaning for life. In fact, isn't this search for meaning a sign we are not enjoying life? Who asks for the meaning of drinking a glass of fine wine?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To me, though, your point is right on. Without God we are nothing, and we have no power to move or improve without His help.

But that's only because you define "something" and "improvement" through reference to God!

quote:
My own experience is that sincere believers are the best people I have ever met and my effort has always been to emulate them.
Again, that's because you define what's best according to what you believe God says. Is it any wonder that those who most closely follow what you believe God is saying will also appear to you to be the best people you have met?
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without God we are nothing

I'm something.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Isn't this whole issue easily squashed by the same sort of kids argument about the creator: Who created him?

You can't get out of it that easily. It's turtles all the way down.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I believe because I think it unlikely that reality can be explained purely in material terms, not because I need some ultimate meaning for life.

That makes sense and I agree that this more adequate explanation of reality is a big attraction for me as well.

But my criticism of Yorick's view had been that atheism leaves us without purpose and meaning to existence, and he disagreed.

I think that ultimate meaning is important. It is not taken care of just by the idea that there is a Creator - because as you note we could then ask who His creator was. Rather it is in the idea of what the creator is and what the whole point is. It all comes together for me in the idea that it is all about love, what love is, and what love does. God is love and as such has no creator but is simply Being itself.

Love is to me a very satisfying explanation that invests everything with purpose, meaning and goodness. The idea that love:
I find this to be an extremely satisfying formula. It's not about some big man in the sky but about the purpose of existence itself. Also the fact that this can only exist as a supreme intelligence - and this can only be an individual person who is a God who is infinitely loving and wise.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without God we are nothing

I'm something.
My apologies. Of course you are.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
My own experience is that sincere believers are the best people I have ever met and my effort has always been to emulate them.
Again, that's because you define what's best according to what you believe God says. Is it any wonder that those who most closely follow what you believe God is saying will also appear to you to be the best people you have met?
Guilty as charged. Are you saying that this invalidates my experience? I already said that the observation was not reliable since it is necessarily anecdotal and subjective.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Forgive me, Freddy, if you already explained this, but would you say what convinces you that existence necessarily has purpose? I think we only previously got as far as your gut feeling, as it were.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Why is there something instead of nothing?
That's a very pretty question - but, again, one that is not cognitively meaningful. Nothingness is not an option for anyone who has the substantiality to ask the question.
A thing has to be an option for me in order for me to think about it in a cognitively meaningful way? Hmm. So, if I wonder, "does my dog realize he's a dog and not a person" that's not cognitively meaningful, just because I'll never be a dog*? Makes no sense to me to cut off my ability to wonder in that way.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
Just as in the world that wasn't created by God, you don't exist because there is no such world. This is surely a mere dodge.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Without God we are nothing

I'm something.
And you're not without God.

---------------------
*assuming of course there is no reincarnation and I don't end up going doggy if there is
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that ultimate meaning is important.

Why?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that ultimate meaning is important.

Why?
No, no, that's been tried before and doesn't fit the answer. Why? 42. Just doesn't work. [Two face]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you saying that this invalidates my experience? I already said that the observation was not reliable since it is necessarily anecdotal and subjective.

It doesn't invalidate your subjective experience, but the circular nature of the reasoning does somewhat devalue it's usefulness as an argument in favour of theism.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Forgive me, Freddy, if you already explained this, but would you say what convinces you that existence necessarily has purpose? I think we only previously got as far as your gut feeling, as it were.

Maybe it is just a gut feeling. We're talking about what makes for a satisfying and adequate explanation, so gut feeling is surely part of it.

Beyond that, though, causation and purpose are essential philosophical aspects of our thoughts about just about everything that happens or exists. Leopards have spots for a reason, and if we don't know what it is then we are happy to speculate. Having no good answer to "Why?" questions is not motivational.

Another way to say that is that cause and purpose are accepted aspects of just about everything in life. They are integral aspects of everyone's moment-to-moment thinking and we are easily conscious of a whole hierarchy of causes and purposes in our life and thoughts. Something always moves us from one moment to the next, and the thought that something is pointless is profoundly demotivating. It is only reasonable to expect that this pattern would apply on both the small scale of individual lives and the large scale of existence itself.

It is certainly possible that existence has no purpose. I would find that disappointing.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The discussion introduced by Yorick is about the claim that atheism posits a world devoid of ultimate purpose and meaning. You are adding another level, but one which is even more subject to ridicule from atheists.

To me, though, your point is right on. Without God we are nothing, and we have no power to move or improve without His help.

The fact that people sometime observe that so-called Christians do not seem to have availed themselves of that aid more than others is neither here nor there. That observation can only be anecdotal based on individual experience. It is also something that is impossible to judge objectively in other people. So the observation is unreliable.

My own experience is that sincere believers are the best people I have ever met and my effort has always been to emulate them.

Well, the conversation took a turn up there and PaulBC started to discuss the problem of human beings seeing themselves as "the center of the universe." I'm trying to talk about why this is really a problem, because I think it actually is - on a psychological level.

To me, it seems that Yorick ducks every question asked of him, actually! He didn't respond to that one, for example, instead trying to turn it around and use against "theists." Most recently, he's answered the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" with the non-responsive "Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise."

But in any case, surely the central idea in Judeo-Christian religion at least, and its whole raison d'être, is human alienation from God? It's about deeply flawed human nature, and how to live under those conditions and in a fallen world? This, and not "how the universe was created," is what Genesis is all about. And this is a serious psychological and existential problem that has been around for a long, long time. Philosophers, too, and not only religionists, have addressed this problem as if it were as centrally important to people as it actually is. And I'm always a bit surprised to hear that some people don't seem affected by it!

But actually I think "theoretical" discussions like this one are an excellent way of creating psychological distance from that central problem.

It would be interesting to hear you expound on your last statement, the one about "sincere believers." I felt that way years ago about Catholics - that their religion had really helped them in some important way and on some very deep level. (I say "years ago" because I remember that impression from my childhood very well.)

I guess maybe I'm disagreeing with the notion that religion is about "giving meaning and purpose to life" - at least, not in the way Yorick discusses it. I think it goes much, much deeper than that.

[ 24. February 2011, 14:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It doesn't invalidate your subjective experience, but the circular nature of the reasoning does somewhat devalue it's usefulness as an argument in favour of theism.

It's not circular, nor am I using it as an argument for theism. I was commenting on Tuba's observation. In fact I was agreeing with you that it's not a strong argument for theism.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It would be interesting to hear you expound on your last statement, the one about "sincere believers." I felt that way years ago about Catholics - that their religion had really helped them in some important way and on some very deep level.

The world I grew up in was the same as that of "Leave it to Beaver." All marriages were happy marriages, all families were well ordered, all the adults were wise and kind. All of them were devout believers whose lives seemed very much affected by their beliefs. Of course there were exceptions, but there are always exceptions.

My current world is pretty much the same - and I have enormous admiration for many of the people who surround me. Of course it's more complex than a child's world, and I'm much more aware of weaknesses, struggles, and flaws, but the same pattern applies.

It is also obvious to me that my own personal well-being depends on things that spring from belief and trust in God, not to mention obedience to Him. My very happy marriage and happy family life are clearly, to me, dependent on this.

Naturally, of course, this is my subjective assessment based on my subjective observations, presconceptions and prejudices.
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I guess maybe I'm disagreeing with the notion that religion is about "giving meaning and purpose to life" - at least, not in the way Yorick discusses it. I think it goes much, much deeper than that.

Yes, meaning is just a part of it. It's really about love, which is as deep and elusive as any concept can possibly be.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is certainly possible that existence has no purpose. I would find that disappointing.

I would find it liberating. Just think - no consequences. No penalties for getting things wrong, whether you get them wrong through genuine error, believing the wrong things or imbalances in your brain chemistry that simply don't allow you to get them right. It means that no matter how badly you screw up, ultimately it doesn't matter! Take risks! Have fun! If there's no purpose to life then there's nobody and nothing to tell you you shouldn't, or punish you if you do!

Sure, no purpose to life means there's no reason to do anything. But it also means there's no reason not to do anything! And if there's nothing but oblivion beyond the veil of death then that means there's no Heaven - but it also means there's no Hell! Somehow, I find it hard to think of that as a bad thing!
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is certainly possible that existence has no purpose. I would find that disappointing.

I would find it liberating. Just think - no consequences.
To each his own.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
^

That's nice. However, the absence of God isn't the same as an absence of general causality. Terms and conditions still apply.
 
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
Hummm... appealing to the largely unscientific multi-verse hypothesis to side-step a very reasonable question.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think an awful lot hinges on our concept of 'Father'.

If we see a Father God as controlling and despotic, that's how we'll portray him. If we see a Father God as providing, giving freedom and unconditional love, that's how we'll portray him. I see this continuum of our 'picture' of God everywhere.

Some people adhere to their own picture very vehemently (I know I do!)

[Overused] Very important point! I've suggested this, too. Our own family experiences crucially color the meaning of father, mother, etc. for each of us. To some extent, this is probably true of every word in the creed.

It follows that those who imagine that a group of people reciting the same verbal formula are professing the same beliefs are chasing a will-of-the-wisp.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure, no purpose to life means there's no reason to do anything. But it also means there's no reason not to do anything! And if there's nothing but oblivion beyond the veil of death then that means there's no Heaven - but it also means there's no Hell! Somehow, I find it hard to think of that as a bad thing!

Yippee! Just hurry up and make sure you do before you're done to.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
We're talking about what makes for a satisfying and adequate explanation

Ah, yes. Satisfying and adequate.

Adequate means sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need. The ‘need’ here is to feel that there’s some higher purpose to existence. For you, only God will do, because nothing else is adequate. You need God.

This is about neediness, isn't it?

[…oh, and to answer those of you who complain I’m ignoring and evading your arguments, I just haven’t had time. I’ve been needing a wee for about three hours now...]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
^

That's nice. However, the absence of God isn't the same as an absence of general causality. Terms and conditions still apply.

Of course they do, but they're not eternal. That's my point. If I want to eat a bit of shellfish and it's contaminated then whoops, game over. And that would suck. But at least I wouldn't wake up in an afterlife to find some god towering over me saying "eating shellfish is an abomination - you're going to suffer eternal torture in Hell".

I guess it depends on how you view the whole afterlife thing. If your basic assumption is that you'll go to heaven if there is one, of course you'll want it to exist. If your basic assumption is that you'll go to hell, you'll view the whole "eternal consequences" thing rather differently...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Yippee! Just hurry up and make sure you do before you're done to.

I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not. All the little tiny bits of life that don't hurt anyone else, but that various religions will, in all seriousness, tell you are Abominations Unto The Lord.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not. All the little tiny bits of life that don't hurt anyone else, but that various religions will, in all seriousness, tell you are Abominations Unto The Lord.

But since you don't worry about any of those things yourself - you're not Jewish, after all, and it seems clear you're not concerned about being damned for any of the other stuff - well, how can you know if it would be liberating for others or not?

BTW, some people who have faith in God - Christians, even - are at the same time agnostic on the question of Life after Death.....

[ 24. February 2011, 16:40: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
(I don't know any Jews, BTW, who think it's "hideously sinful" to eat pork or shellfish. Those who observe the dietary laws don't; those who don't observe the laws, go ahead and eat these things. And there are religious Jews of both persuasions, who attend religious services of their choosing.

Actually, in my experience, people who observe the dietary laws find the eating of certain foods physically repugnant to them, not sinful; it's just become natural to avoid them.

Also, I think "eating extra crisps" offends more against secular morality these days than it does against religious belief....)

[ 24. February 2011, 16:58: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
This is about neediness, isn't it?

It's about answers. Of course if answers aren't what you are looking for then why worry?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.

Well, then, that was rather short-sighted of you, wasn't it?

You did say "anything", and if you may do anything, then presumably others may also do anything, such as rob you in the street and leave you bleeding in the gutter. That would rather spoil your fun.
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
Just to throw a tangent into this discourse, I wonder what would be happening in a world where there was NO God only science; not religion, only atheism. Would there be no cathedrals? No works of religous art? No music based on religous texts?

Seems it would be a much less rich and lively place.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
This is about neediness, isn't it?

It's about answers. Of course if answers aren't what you are looking for then why worry?
That's really the question. Why worry?

More to the point, why start a thread like this one, whose stated purpose is to "convey how people can just as well live in hope and with purpose without god" - and then proceed to turn every question or comment around to focus instead on the beliefs of theists?

So far, the only actual idea I've seen conveyed is that "although one may lose certain 'benefits' by abandoning belief in supernatural (and therefore highly ‘adequate’) purpose, one gains more than enough to compensate for this by knowing that one's beliefs (even that 'we simply don't know') are more demonstrably true." But this just means that any God-botherer who's on the fence should probably just stay on the theist side; it's a wash.

Anyway, all this is a straw man; religious believers have, as has been pointed out all over the place here, all sorts of beliefs - even some that could be classified as atheistic. Why would anybody on this board especially have much interest in "poking holes" in atheism?

Well, what can you do about these anti-God-botherers....?

[Biased]

[ 24. February 2011, 17:39: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.

Well, then, that was rather short-sighted of you, wasn't it?

You did say "anything", and if you may do anything, then presumably others may also do anything, such as rob you in the street and leave you bleeding in the gutter. That would rather spoil your fun.

I think we agreed that general causality and the Golden Rule would still be observed for their inherent merits.

That certain theists are so afraid of the mayhem they would reek if they lost sight of their imaginary babysitter says a lot more about them than it does about about the godless, the majority of whom are perfectly capable of behaving themselves.

[ 24. February 2011, 17:46: Message edited by: kankucho ]
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.

Well, then, that was rather short-sighted of you, wasn't it?

You did say "anything", and if you may do anything, then presumably others may also do anything, such as rob you in the street and leave you bleeding in the gutter. That would rather spoil your fun.

I think we agreed that general causality and the Golden Rule would still be observed for their inherent merits.

That certain theists are so afraid of the mayhem they would reek if they lost sight of their imaginary babysitter says a lot more about them than it does about about the godless, the majority of whom are perfectly capable of behaving themselves.

I find the idea I need a baby sitter at my age patronising. (tangent The bloody local teenagers cost a small fortune /tangent).

The point of the 'Golden' rule is to free us from the law so we can concentrate on doing the best for others. The way to love God is in relationship with others. The point of God being incarnate was, partly, to show us how. In person. Because God cannot be understood in terms of infinite all powerful being.

It is beyond our comprehension, no matter how aesthetically pleasing the concept is. God as concept is unproveable. God as person is knowable.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.

Or the things the various religions say about taking care of the poor.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Would there be no cathedrals? No works of religous art?

I'm sure that the art would be all wrong. [Disappointed] [Ultra confused] [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Coming late to the discussion but the above statement seems to imply atheism is more demonstrably true (via science) than faith?

Yorick did backpedal on that one, if you care to read the thread.
To you. Not to Adeodatus. He said it again.

If you care to read the thread.

Of course atheism is demonstrably true - if you accept atheism's criteria for what counts as "demonstrably true".

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat.

It really doesn't, you know. Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I think we agreed that general causality and the Golden Rule would still be observed for their inherent merits.

I must have overlooked that agreement, but fine.

quote:
That certain theists are so afraid of the mayhem they would reek if they lost sight of their imaginary babysitter says a lot more about them than it does about about the godless, the majority of whom are perfectly capable of behaving themselves.
Count me out. The Bible is not a rule book. Atheists can be just as ethical and virtuous as anyone; and actually Christians who do the right thing only out of fear of going to hell are not virtuous, merely prudent.

I only meant to point out that Marvin appeared to be saying something major with the word "all", but in fact he was just setting up a straw man that Christians knocked down ages ago.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
Straw men aside, could I attempt to move the show along a bit by asking what people do on a day-to-day basis, which is guided by their supposed assurance (if that's the right word) of an ultimate purpose dictated by their religious belief?

An ancient Greek proverb of anonymous origin says:
quote:
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
I'm not all that old (47), but I'm inspired and guided by the wisdom of this proverb. I think many others are too - an indication that we live in a great society perhaps?

As a conservation volunteer, I actually do plant trees, in places I will probably never return to. Through charity donations, I finance two life-changing medical operations each year for people I will never meet and who who will never know who their benefactor was. Crucially, although the prayer of St Ignatius is undeniably an excellent code for living a happy life, religious belief is not required to appreciate and act on either the prayer or the proverb: only a realisation of the pleasure to be had from doing things that benefit others.

So what do people of faith actually do to demonstrate, as cited in Yorick's OP, 'the expectation that [their] relationships and … inner qualities will last forever and therefore have purpose and meaning beyond the obvious'? How do you make this 'ultimate, eternal purpose' show in your life - and would you not do the same things were you not guided by it?

And I put the converse questions to the atheists.

[ 24. February 2011, 22:51: Message edited by: kankucho ]
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
i] How do you make this 'ultimate, eternal purpose' show in your life - and would you not do the same things were you not guided by it?

And I put the converse questions to the atheists.

I think +Tom puts it well:
quote:
"But what we can and must do in the present, if we are obedient to the gospel, if we are following Jesus, and if we indwelt, energised and directed by the Spirit, is to build for the kingdom. This brings us back to 1 Corinthians 15:58 once more: what you do in the Lord is not in vain. You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that's about to fall over a cliff. You are not restoring a great painting that's shortly going to be thrown on the fire. You are not planting roses in a garden that's about to be dug up for a building site. You are- strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself- accomplishing something which will become , in due course, part of God's new world. Every act of love, gratitude and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely handicapped child to read or to walk; every act of care and nurture, of comfort and support, for ones fellow non-human creatures; and of course every prayer, all Spirit-led teaching, every deed which spreads the gospel, builds up the church, embraces and embodies holiness rather than corruption, and makes the name of Jesus honoured in the world- all of this will find its way, through the resurrecting power of God, into the new creation which God will one day make. That is the logic of the mission of God"

Tom Wright, "Surprised by Hope" SPCK London, 2007. Chapter 13, pp 219. His emphasis.

The answer is through everything- because God is a redeeming God.

I'm lucky enough to have a job where I get to steward the environment, although more money and volunteers are always welcome!

[ 25. February 2011, 05:25: Message edited by: The Midge ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Straw men aside, could I attempt to move the show along a bit by asking what people do on a day-to-day basis, which is guided by their supposed assurance (if that's the right word) of an ultimate purpose dictated by their religious belief?

I don't think religious belief offers the answer to why (ultimate purpose and meaning) anymore than atheism does.

The difference between them is that the religious person believes there is one (even if we can't know it), and the atheist doesn't.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Adequate means sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need. The ‘need’ here is to feel that there’s some higher purpose to existence. For you, only God will do, because nothing else is adequate. You need God.

This is about neediness, isn't it?

I saw what you did there.

If we turn back neediness to something more akin to Freddy's original point then we have 'natural desire' - like thirsting for water or hungering for food.

Is the person who either suppresses or doesn't possess natural human desires somehow subhuman?

See what I did there? The same as what you did.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Is the person who either suppresses or doesn't possess natural human desires somehow subhuman?

No, I think you’re missing the point. This desire is simply the human condition (the clue here is in your own word ‘natural’). We’re hardwired with these desires and needs- they are the result of our natural makeup. Similar natural (and deeply primitive) instincts inform much of our behaviour- sex, hunting, territory, and so on. The desire/need for higher purpose (and god) is innate. I don’t think it’s subhuman to suppress it; rather, it is a sign of the capacity of our intelligence that we can see and understand it, and even ‘rise above’ it and control it. Although I’d quite like to fuck most human females of fertile age, I elect not to. I control the impulse to murder my neighbour in his sleep and steal his wine cellar. In the same way, I appreciate my natural desire to believe in purpose/god for exactly what it is, and reconcile it with my experience that he/she/it does not exist.

Furthermore, for me, my own natural neediness tells me something essential about the prevalence of gods in human history (in the last 6,000 years, we have amassed a catalogue of at least 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities). Obviously, we need god in some form or other, and that is why we invented it. The Christian God happens to be exceptionally durable, because the religion and theology that is constructed to support the deity is remarkably robust and effective in reinforcing this naturally innate human desire/need.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But since you don't worry about any of those things yourself - you're not Jewish, after all, and it seems clear you're not concerned about being damned for any of the other stuff - well, how can you know if it would be liberating for others or not?

Yeah, but what if the Jews are right? And I'm not saying it should be liberating for anyone else - just that I would find it so, if only I could actually believe it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was actually thinking of the sheer liberation of not having to worry about whether maybe eating shellfish or pork is hideously sinful, or whether my support for GLBT rights is going to get me damned, or whether it really ultimately matters if I have that extra pack of crisps/pint of beer/lie in on Sunday or not.

Or the things the various religions say about taking care of the poor.
No, this one really is about the fear of Hell. It's about the overwhelming, suffocating, you're-never-going-to-be-good-enough-which-means-you're-going-to-burn certainty that there's a God out there, that He demands a lot from us, and that I'm going to fail. It's about me knowing that I'm a selfish, loveless cunt who can't change how his brain works any more than a leopard can change his spots, and therefore no matter how many good works or noble causes I follow, and no matter how many of God's little arbitrary laws I obey (assuming I follow the right God), I'll never get in because even if I do the right things I'm doing them for the wrong reasons.

It's about me preferring the idea that life has absolutely no meaning or purpose to that nightmare. But feel free to characterise it as me just not wanting to feel vaguely bad about screwing over those worse off than me if it makes you feel better.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Yorick:

I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists. After all, we would seek to understand physical features of hom sap from actual conditions which gave rise to them.

In a thought experiment, if you found a certain animal preferred a type of food that is not naturally found in your environment, you may reasonably conclude that the animal originated in an area where this food was available.

I'm not saying this is conclusive, but to me it is indicative. Plus I think it is just silly to equate belief in God with a desire to unbridled sex. I do not hear you recommending aSexualality as the correct response to sexual crimes, nor will you hear me recommending unbridled religion. Nobody imagines that religion is not subject to abuse, nor that one of the advantages of rationalism is that it debunks religious and other hucksters.

But to simple rule mans' religious nature out of any questions about how we developed and can best live today is, IMHO, just too narrow.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.

But that’s probably because these numbers defy comprehension. The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.

I wouldn't expect Yorick to admit that for a second, but to me it is interesting that you consider this to be a valid argument.

One of the tenets of my denomination is almost exactly what you have stated:
quote:
There is a universal influx from God into the souls of men of the truth that there is a God, and that He is one. (Swedenborg, True Christian Religion 8)
In other words people are inclined everywhere to favor this idea. It doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who are ignorant of the idea of God, or who reject it. But these will never be the majority.

This kind of evidence would never impress Yorick, because, as others have said, it can be seen as amounting to no more than wishful thinking.

But it impresses me, because I think that it is the truth. People do believe in God - the huge majority of the world's population. It only makes sense that the origin of this universal human tendency would be God Himself.
 
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
Apologies for not having fully digested this thread yet, but a few rambling thoughts so far (scroll past if it's too much):

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the current Purg thread on the problem of evil, a tangent arose in which the proposition was made that, without (belief in) God, there could be no great purpose and meaning for life.

In this very honest post, sanityman stated that, although an atheistic worldview might be more sensible and logically satisfying (particularly in respect of the problem of innocent suffering), abandoning belief in God would mean giving up on the idea of ‘creation having anything more to offer than meets the eye’, and also giving up on hope.

I used to suspect that too - but I suspect that the question of whether or not hope exists without God depends on how you define "God".

I personally do not believe that it's necessary to believe in God to be able to see a purpose in life - however, I do think that it is necessary to believe in some sort of afterlife.

It seems to me that many Christians - and many atheists, for that matter - assume that belief in God and belief in the afterlife are an inseparable package; you cannot believe in the afterlife unless you also believe in God, and - to a lesser extent - you cannot believe in God unless you also believe in the afterlife. But in my opinion, this all depends on how "God", and "afterlife", and "belief in afterlife" are defined.

I personally wouldn't set the bar for belief in afterlife that high. You don't necessarily have to agree with everything that your particular religion may have said about heaven, hell, purgatory, saints, martyrs, angels, resurrection, the tribulation, the messianic return, the final judgement and the New Jerusalem, in order to qualify as having a "belief in afterlife".

As long as you think there's a point in wondering what your eulogy might say - or that there's a point in wondering who will turn up to your funeral - or that there's a point in not trashing war memorials, or graves, or archaeological artefacts - then that's a sign that you believe in some sort of afterlife, even though you might not have realised it. To put it another way, I don't see the need to make a distinction between "belief in the afterlife" and "caring about the future". Anyone who has any sort of care about the future at all has got some sort of afterlife belief, in my opinion.

I acknowledge that it's great fun to engage in polemics with people who hold some really weird views about the afterlife and the apocalypse. I like taking pot-shots at Harold Camping over his prophecy for May 21st just as much as the next guy. But just because you don't agree with someone else's crystal ball gazing about what will or won't happen in the future, does not mean that you don't don't believe in the afterlife.

So I think that to try to define the afterlife in terms of God is to get it the wrong way round. It makes a lot more sense to define God in terms of the afterlife. Most mythical narratives and religious dogma about the afterlife can be thought of as metaphors and allegories of people's more generalised hopes and fears about the future.

But does recognising this make you a Christian? Or does it make you an atheist? Does it mean that you can no longer rightfully describe yourself as either an atheist or a Christian? Why do we care about these labels anyway?

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The big problem I have with the argument about purpose, including the examples cited in the OP, is that it seems to boil down to saying that there must be a purpose to the universe/creation etc not because there is any evidence of it, but because we think there ought to be a purpose as we would feel diminished without it. It's expecting the universe to subscribe to our wants.

Can't argue with that. But then again, where did the idea of "purpose" actually come from in the first place? To say that there isn't any hope for the future begs the question, why do any of us eat? Why do any of us reproduce? Surely it can't just be because it "feels good"? Indeed, what is the point of feeling good?

How important is it that "purpose", however we define it, is measured objectively anyway? Is it really the case that life cannot be thought to have a purpose unless there's an eternal God who deems that it has a purpose? Supposing there isn't an eternal God; does that mean that the ideas that mortal men have about what their purpose might be are of no consequence?

Sure, not everyone will agree on the purpose of the existence of humanity - but as long as at least some people think life has a purpose, then isn't that good enough? Why does it make any difference whether those people try to externalise those beliefs about sense of purpose onto an imagined immortal deity or not?

As far as I'm concerned, life has got a purpose. The fact that God might not exist, and the fact that God might not agree with me about what the purpose of life is if he does exist, really doesn't bother me. However, what does bother me is the thought that other people might not agree with me about what I think the purpose of life is. But it makes very little difference whether those people who disagree with me ascribe their own beliefs about the purpose of life onto an imagined God or not. The only difference that it does make is that those who do ascribe their beliefs to God tend to be a bit more arrogant and dogmatic than those who don't. But there are exceptions to that rule - and, indeed, perhaps I'm being a bit dogmatic about my own beliefs too. On the one hand, we need to recognise our own dogmatism if we are to have constructive dialogue with the people around us - but on the other hand, a dogmatic person is not necessarily wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As I said, I agree that any individual, whether atheist or religious, can have a satisfying life full of hope and purpose. Goals such as justice, world peace, or success in any number of senses, do impart purpose and meaning to life and do not depend on anything supernatural.

My meaning, however, is that if you step back from individual circumstance and ask what the point of life is, or ask why this matters a thousand years from now, the answers available to an atheist are, in my opinion, less satisfying and adequate than for a believer.

I'm inclined to agree, but I can't see how it's possible to measure that sort of thing objectively. For example, is a scientist who also happens to be an atheist likely to believe that the world is a better place as a result of Aristotelian logic? I suspect that the answer to that question is yes - but we're talking about a development that occurred some 2,400 years ago here. If a development that took place 2,400 years ago benefits us now, then it's not unreasonable to think that contemporary developments might have benefits for future generations 2,400 years down the line from now.

And why not? Who exactly are the heroes that scientists try to ape anyway? Just because an atheist scientist says he doesn't believe in God, does not mean that he does not venerate Einstein.

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
At a purely reductionist level, we are products of amoral and purposeless universe. All of us might act like there is purpose to life, but surely any purpose an atheist sees in life is illusory. How can it not be a figment of the imagination?

While I wouldn't dream of trying to divest somebody of the noble belief that things like justice and freedom are good and necessary, I don't see how this is grounded on anything other than the shifting sands of relativism.

I completely agree. However, I don't see how religious belief and dogma is any different.

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:

Have people of faith managed to pin down a definition of God yet which makes that statement in any way cognitively meaningful?

I think some of them probably have. But a lot of what passes for religious apologetics is little more than elitist obscurantism. It's a way of saying "I'm a good Christian, you're a bad heathen" that rebuts any objections it faces by saying "Ah, but if you were a good Christian, you would understand these things."

Having said that, whilst I'm inclined to see evangelical Biblical elitism as my nemesis, on the other hand, I must admit that I think it's paid me enormous dividends in getting my brain cells working again, which I hope will put me in good stead in the knowledge-based economy. Not because I think I'm going to make lots of money out of theology books - but because I think it's given me insights into the cognitive processes that help with any kind of learning and planning.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But in any case, surely the central idea in Judeo-Christian religion at least, and its whole raison d'être, is human alienation from God? It's about deeply flawed human nature, and how to live under those conditions and in a fallen world? This, and not "how the universe was created," is what Genesis is all about. And this is a serious psychological and existential problem that has been around for a long, long time. Philosophers, too, and not only religionists, have addressed this problem as if it were as centrally important to people as it actually is. And I'm always a bit surprised to hear that some people don't seem affected by it!

Very good point. Indeed, in my opinion, you don't necessarily need to nail down the attributes of God in order to recognise the theme of alienation.

But I don't think this is the only thing that Hebrew tradition and Christianity are about - and I also don't think that the theme is completely peculiar to Hebrew and Christian tradition either. The archetypes that Joseph Campbell has spotted still mostly have some validity, in my opinion.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It is certainly possible that existence has no purpose. I would find that disappointing.

I would find it liberating. Just think - no consequences. No penalties for getting things wrong, whether you get them wrong through genuine error, believing the wrong things or imbalances in your brain chemistry that simply don't allow you to get them right. It means that no matter how badly you screw up, ultimately it doesn't matter! Take risks! Have fun! If there's no purpose to life then there's nobody and nothing to tell you you shouldn't, or punish you if you do!

Sure, no purpose to life means there's no reason to do anything. But it also means there's no reason not to do anything! And if there's nothing but oblivion beyond the veil of death then that means there's no Heaven - but it also means there's no Hell! Somehow, I find it hard to think of that as a bad thing!

Very good point. But the idea that there are no consequences is demonstrably not true. If you have a disagreement with your brother, and you get into a fight, and you kill him, it's quite likely that you're going to grieve the death a little bit later.

It could be argued that the question of whether we kill our brother or not is a rather trivial matter in the bigger scheme of things. But it's still big enough for most of us to care about it. So, if we care about something as small as that, how is it possible for us not to care about bigger things?

A world in which there are really no consequences would be a world in which it doesn't matter - either to you, or to anyone else - whether you kill your brother or not. It would be a world in which no-one ever dies. The fact that people do die is what makes things matter - which is kinda ironic, because some might say that it's the fact that we're doomed to die which means that nothing ultimately matters at all. Death doesn't just defeat purpose; it creates it too.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
People do believe in God - the huge majority of the world's population. It only makes sense that the origin of this universal human tendency would be God Himself.

No, Freddy, that absolutely does not necessarily follow. There are other explanations for the wide prevalence of religion (and I’m not just talking about wishful thinking, either). It is widely supposed that belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, and that religious faith developed as a by-product of human sociability. This is hot stuff in the cognitive sciences, and is being studied in all kinds of fields like neuroscience, human evolutionary biology, and linguistics and computer sciences. Evidence is being amassed, and you may very soon end up having your assumption refuted.
 
Posted by Moran (# 14195) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
By this non-militancy and because of my own private uncertainties, I am a poor advocate of my own beliefs, so I apologise for my apologetics.

No worries but 'I am apologetic for my apologetics' would have been a nice turn of phrase.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.

I wouldn't expect Yorick to admit that for a second, but to me it is interesting that you consider this to be a valid argument.

One of the tenets of my denomination is almost exactly what you have stated:
quote:
There is a universal influx from God into the souls of men of the truth that there is a God, and that He is one. (Swedenborg, True Christian Religion 8)
In other words people are inclined everywhere to favor this idea. It doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who are ignorant of the idea of God, or who reject it. But these will never be the majority.

This kind of evidence would never impress Yorick, because, as others have said, it can be seen as amounting to no more than wishful thinking.

But it impresses me, because I think that it is the truth. People do believe in God - the huge majority of the world's population. It only makes sense that the origin of this universal human tendency would be God Himself.

I don't know about Yorick, but I won't admit what anteater would want me to admit because I don't accept her basic premise. I have no desire for communion with the divine so I cannot see it as being innate to homo sapiens. Indeed on anteater's logic my lack of such a desire is an argument against the idea that the divine exists.

You seem to claim that I do in fact have that innate desire but are somehow ignorant of it or rejecting it. That of course is the same dismissal of the other point of view as self-delusion which theists find so insulting when it issues from the mouth of Dawkins.

You say the argument impresses you because you believe it is the truth. But how much of that is because it is what you believe and helps to confirm you in what you believe?
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.

I do admit it. God might exist, and this might explain why people believe in Him. However, despite this, the fact that we all feel this desire for God to exist very much more strongly persuades me against his existence. Very much more strongly, like about a gazillion to one in ratio.
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The desire/need for higher purpose (and god) is innate. I don’t think it’s subhuman to suppress it; rather, it is a sign of the capacity of our intelligence that we can see and understand it, and even ‘rise above’ it and control it. Although I’d quite like to fuck most human females of fertile age, I elect not to. I control the impulse to murder my neighbour in his sleep and steal his wine cellar. In the same way, I appreciate my natural desire to believe in purpose/god for exactly what it is, and reconcile it with my experience that he/she/it does not exist.

It looks like the discussion has moved on. So - a little bit of what Anteater said.

However, all I would add is a great quote from Clive himself (Abolition of Man):

quote:
“You cannot go on explaining away forever, or you will find that you have explained your explanation itself away. You cannot go on seeing through things forever, because the whole point is that you can see something else through it, it is good that you can see through a window because the garden beyond is opaque. But if you see through everything then everything is transparent and a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. So to see through things is the same as not to see at all.”
Sooner or later we are going to catch on to the truth of those words.

Yorick - explaining how things work is not the same as explaining them - you do get that don't you?

[ 25. February 2011, 11:40: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
But that is precisely what you’re trying to do by explaining the purpose of life as being God-created. I say it is objectively purposeless because there’s no god, and you say it’s objectively purposeful because there is God. The difference is not whether we explain how thing work, but that your threshold for satisfaction in understanding how things work is very much lower than mine. Yours goes something like, ‘because God made it that way’.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
People do believe in God - the huge majority of the world's population. It only makes sense that the origin of this universal human tendency would be God Himself.

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't see why you cannot admit that the innate desire of homo sap for communion with the divine is an argument in favour of the idea that the divine exists.

This is a most interesting turn in the discussion. Would anyone else like to chip in their conviction that God has been willed into existence by some sort of democratic agreement on the part of homo sapiens?

Are we talking about God here, or Tinkerbell? Could we collectively will Him out of existence if we disbelieve hard enough?

Was the Earth actually flat right up to the moment we discovered it was spherical?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.

But that’s probably because these numbers defy comprehension. The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
I could get really bored saying this, but no. Yorick, I was a scientist. I lived numbers for nine years, student and researcher. They're only numbers. I haven't got the little twitchy thing in my head that gets excited at mathematical inevitability.

(Do you "get" Wagner? If you don't, it wouldn't be much worth my while trying to make you get him, would it? If you do, I'm sure you're familiar with the inability to make people get him. Well, that's me with all the cutesy maths stuff.)
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, Freddy, that absolutely does not necessarily follow. There are other explanations for the wide prevalence of religion (and I’m not just talking about wishful thinking, either). It is widely supposed that belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, and that religious faith developed as a by-product of human sociability. This is hot stuff in the cognitive sciences, and is being studied in all kinds of fields like neuroscience, human evolutionary biology, and linguistics and computer sciences. Evidence is being amassed, and you may very soon end up having your assumption refuted.

The difficulty with this argument is that science is based on the presumption that common human experience is the means to finding truth.

Science proceeds by experiments - that is, a series of human experiences. This presupposes that experience tells us something about the world - which is an unprovable hypothesis, but a useful one.

If we're now going to say that common human experience doesn't prove or even suggest anything because human experience can be deluded, then where does that leave the empirical sciences?

I'm not trying to be clever here. I've read Dawkins on religion and memes, and though I think his arguments are valid as far as they go, I honestly don't see why they can't be applied to the scientific method as well.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
I don’t follow, Ricardus. Aren’t you talking about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity?
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
no. Yorick, I was a scientist. I lived numbers for nine years, student and researcher. They're only numbers.

Well, of course. But we’re not talking about the numbers in themselves here- in Big Bang terms they’re simply descriptors, and entirely symbolic ones at that. The thing that’s amazing isn’t the smallness and bigness of the numbers, but what they represent. It’s the smallness of the amount of time it took for the bigness of the expansion of the universe that’s impressive. You are impressed by that, right?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
no. Yorick, I was a scientist. I lived numbers for nine years, student and researcher. They're only numbers.

Well, of course. But we’re not talking about the numbers in themselves here- in Big Bang terms they’re simply descriptors, and entirely symbolic ones at that. The thing that’s amazing isn’t the smallness and bigness of the numbers, but what they represent. It’s the smallness of the amount of time it took for the bigness of the expansion of the universe that’s impressive. You are impressed by that, right?
No. Like I said, what's impressive about the inevitable? You might as well ask me to be impressed that this morning - shock! - my shoes were the same colour as they were last night.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Wow. I'm honestly surprised.

It must be a very dull world for you.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I don’t follow, Ricardus. Aren’t you talking about the difference between objectivity and subjectivity?

What I mean is, in the empirical sciences, AFAICS, experience is King, in that the only thing that trumps experience is more experience.

If lots of people observe that e=mc^2, then that's considered reasonable grounds for believing that e does indeed =mc^2, and the only thing that can alter that is if lots of other people observe that, actually, the relationship between e and m is more complex.

Now scientists don't have to do that: they could say that experience is unreliable because of the various issues in meme theory, and that the only sure path to wisdom is by logical deduction from necessary truths like Aristotle did.

What seems unreasonable, though, is to say that experience can be treated as an authoritative source, except when it's religion.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What seems unreasonable, though, is to say that experience can be treated as an authoritative source, except when it's religion.

But that's not what anyone's saying. Yes, of course, all evidence is personal experience, including evidence derived by the scientific method. However, science deals with a subset of personal experience called intersubjective, which is personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Religious experience is non-intersubjective personal experience.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that is precisely what you’re trying to do by explaining the purpose of life as being God-created. I say it is objectively purposeless because there’s no god, and you say it’s objectively purposeful because there is God. The difference is not whether we explain how thing work, but that your threshold for satisfaction in understanding how things work is very much lower than mine. Yours goes something like, ‘because God made it that way’.

Hmmmmmm ...

I don't agree with either idea. I think we make our own purpose in life. I believe God leaves us to it. Completely. But lends his love/strength/hope or whatever to those who want/need it ( Not only Christians, but all who look outside of themselves for inspiration/hope/whatever).

I have tried pretty hard to not believe in God - I'm sure I'd be less confused and questioning if I could. But, somehow, S/he is still there - even in the darkest of times, underneath everything else.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Well, of course- if you believe He exists, you will surely find Him there. This is how religion works, and it touches on what I was saying earlier. (Almost) everyone is naturally inclined to believe in god, and if we allow ourselves, that is the natural default position. That’s actually how ‘knock and it shall be opened’ works.

Atheism, IMO, is an intellectual standpoint that goes against the natural grain.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Wow. I'm honestly surprised.

It must be a very dull world for you.

That's what I say about people who don't like Indian classical music.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, of course- if you believe He exists, you will surely find Him there. This is how religion works, and it touches on what I was saying earlier. (Almost) everyone is naturally inclined to believe in god, and if we allow ourselves, that is the natural default position. That’s actually how ‘knock and it shall be opened’ works.

Atheism, IMO, is an intellectual standpoint that goes against the natural grain.

Yes, I agree. But then the question is 'why'?

Why are we 'hard wired' to look for 'God' however God is perceived?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What seems unreasonable, though, is to say that experience can be treated as an authoritative source, except when it's religion.

But that's not what anyone's saying. Yes, of course, all evidence is personal experience, including evidence derived by the scientific method. However, science deals with a subset of personal experience called intersubjective, which is personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Religious experience is non-intersubjective personal experience.
OK, I'm over-simplifying my case somewhat, but the point is that there must be some rationale to interpreting experience.

Both intersubjective experience and religious experience can be explained as a delusion. The question is why favour delusion as the explanation in the latter case but not the former.
 
Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, this one really is about the fear of Hell. It's about the overwhelming, suffocating, you're-never-going-to-be-good-enough-which-means-you're-going-to-burn certainty that there's a God out there, that He demands a lot from us, and that I'm going to fail. It's about me knowing that I'm a selfish, loveless cunt who can't change how his brain works any more than a leopard can change his spots, and therefore no matter how many good works or noble causes I follow, and no matter how many of God's little arbitrary laws I obey (assuming I follow the right God), I'll never get in because even if I do the right things I'm doing them for the wrong reasons.

It's about me preferring the idea that life has absolutely no meaning or purpose to that nightmare...<snip>

I so want to be here. I'm in a religion I cannot obey and I have things right now that I cannot confess to my priest - a bone-chilling pickle!

If I forsook religion and still desired to be "good"...

How would one handle their conscience? If christians believe their conscience is pricked by the holy spirit, how would an atheist consider the matter? And how would one quiet down that brain chatter of guilt and worry (that was MTL tainted by religion anyway)?

Since this thread is titled "Atheisn on Purpose", hopefully this is a topical question...
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick:
[qb].....But then the question is 'why'?

Why are we 'hard wired' to look for 'God' however God is perceived?

The question that I think is hard-wired is your first one — 'Why?"

"God" is one of the answers to that question; and it's the answer that got deeply ingrained into our consciousness long before we had the wherewithal to conduct more rational investigations into the origins and purposes of the world around us.

(Rational investigation was a sober late arrival at a party where everyone was already heartily drunk. It was inevitable that a fight would ensue.)

[ 25. February 2011, 14:26: Message edited by: kankucho ]
 
Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :
 
Afterthought to my previous post...

I should have said "if I forsook my religion and my belief in god...
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ah, but the demonstrably-true truth is invariably more exciting than any fiction. The wildest imaginings of man are as nothing to the wonders of reality. Compare the brain-screwing scientific knowledge of big-bang cosmology with the oh-so predictable creationism of Genesis, for example. Understanding what really happened in the first 10^-32 seconds of expansion knocks boring old God’s magical zappery into a cocked hat.

You are getting awed there more by modern journalism than by science. After all, you wouldn't know a FLRW metric if it bit you in the butt. Anyway, this was just a stupid claim. A bit like saying that Terminator 2 is a better story than Hamlet because the CGI of the liquid-metal T-1000 is cooler than any stage effect in a Shakespeare play. Genesis was not written as an article for SciAm, and guess what, we all knew that...

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The way I look at it, the Christian worldview is just that: an Earthview, woefully anthropocentric and ethnic. It’s a philosophy based on scripture that concerns itself exclusively with a staggeringly insignificantly miniscule part of the whole. To imagine all ‘creation’ is centred by God on us is arrogance on a cosmic scale, to the point of total stupidity.

Firstly, Christianity is not identical with theism. Your average deist is a theist but does not believe that God particularly cares about Earth or humans. You really like to do that: evade theistic critique by finding issues with Christianity. However, theism could be right and Christianity wrong. Secondly, Christianity simply sticks to the evidence: God in fact incarnated on Earth to bring salvation to humanity. You don't believe in that evidence. Fine, it's not compelling, only believable. However, accepting this evidence as true means that an aloof deism makes no sense. To claim that Christians believe this evidence just because they want God to care about humanity is Bulverism on your part. Thirdly, I'm not aware that any evidence exists that we are not utterly unique in the universe. If we one day make contact with aliens, then your argument may become meaningful. Till then, you are just arguing from your favorite speculation - and that has no force at all.

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
When an atheist feels a sense of awe and inner well-being, s/he thinks, 'I'm feeling a sense of awe and inner well-being'. When a person of Christian faith feels the same, s/he thinks, 'This is God (of the Bible) revealing himself to me'. A Hindu is experiencing Krishna, a Buddhist is experiencing Buddha nature. The locus of experience is merely shifted to accord with the anticipated religious context.

I think you are confusing the experience of God with drinking a cold beer on a warm summer day. Why precisely are you telling us what sort of experience we must be having? Handy hint: What is the first thing the angels (messengers from God) tend to say to people? "Don't be afraid." not "Have another one."

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because in all the universes in which there’s nothing, the question doesn’t arise.
That just tells you why this questions would not be asked if there was nothing, which is trivial and totally not an answer to the question.

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Isn't this whole issue easily squashed by the same sort of kids argument about the creator: Who created him? So what ultimate meaning and purpose has God? None, outside of himself. So if we accept and even worship a God without any meaning outside himself, what's so bad about a universe with no meaning outside itself?

The issues is not squashed by such questions, but rather defined thereby. What is God? That which is totally self-referential in meaning, purpose, existence, ... and therefore is capable to impart these things on other entities without external prompting. God is be-cause of God, all else is be-cause of God. That's basically the definition of God. You can try to define the universe in its entirety as this entity "God". Then you are a pantheist, not an atheist. (There are clear difficulties with pantheism in my opinion, but that's a different discussion.) You are an atheist when you believe that there is no such entity.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Just think - no consequences. No penalties for getting things wrong, whether you get them wrong through genuine error, believing the wrong things or imbalances in your brain chemistry that simply don't allow you to get them right. It means that no matter how badly you screw up, ultimately it doesn't matter! Take risks! Have fun! If there's no purpose to life then there's nobody and nothing to tell you you shouldn't, or punish you if you do!

And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is 1) retaliation from others and 2) evolved instincts to avoid such retaliation. But following Yorick, we surely can use our intellect to overcome such biological predispositions if in fact we have no retaliation to fear. Thus once I grab power, I'll use my intellect to overcome my irrational qualms, and kill those I don't like, and exploit / rape those I do like. After all there's nobody and nothing to tell me I shouldn't.

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
That certain theists are so afraid of the mayhem they would reek if they lost sight of their imaginary babysitter says a lot more about them than it does about about the godless, the majority of whom are perfectly capable of behaving themselves.

That's really missing the point. The question is not what happens "normally", where frankly most of us have no capability of doing great evil without harming ourselves significantly. Other people place strong checks and balances on our behavior most of the time. The question is whether that's all there is to it. Because then the behavior of your average dictator is perfectly fine: given that they can get away with murder, there's no rationale for avoiding murder. There's is no "good" and "evil" then, just a power balance, and if that shifts to you, then you can do what you want (if you can suppress those cautionary, irrational biological urges). With God in the game, this is just not true. Or if you like, the power balance never ultimately shifts away from God.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Although I’d quite like to fuck most human females of fertile age, I elect not to.

As with most of your claims, so also with this one: other explanations why something does (not) occur are a lot more reasonable than yours... [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Obviously, we need god in some form or other, and that is why we invented it. The Christian God happens to be exceptionally durable, because the religion and theology that is constructed to support the deity is remarkably robust and effective in reinforcing this naturally innate human desire/need.

I hate these "just so" stories, if they are told without the slightest inkling of doubt as factual. You in fact know none of this, just as we theists do not know that our desire for God has been put by God in every human heart. That's also a "just so" story, but at least it is not sold as a fact. It's a belief, just like your little story there.

Of course, you have not explained why people would need a God according to your belief. So your "just so" story also stinks.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's about the overwhelming, suffocating, you're-never-going-to-be-good-enough-which-means-you're-going-to-burn certainty that there's a God out there, that He demands a lot from us, and that I'm going to fail. It's about me knowing that I'm a selfish, loveless cunt who can't change how his brain works any more than a leopard can change his spots, and therefore no matter how many good works or noble causes I follow, and no matter how many of God's little arbitrary laws I obey (assuming I follow the right God), I'll never get in because even if I do the right things I'm doing them for the wrong reasons.

I have some good news for you: what you describe is not the (traditional) Christian point of view. According to Christian teaching, if you can't help yourself, then you are not culpable. Hence any such sins, as grave as they may be, will not count concerning your eternal destiny. Furthermore, it is true that you should obey God because He is God, and feel sorry about your sins because you have offended God. However, if you obey God because you are afraid of hell and desire heaven, and if you feel sorry about your sins for the same reason, then that's suboptimal but sufficient. Yes, fear of hell can be enough to scrape into heaven. That's not precisely heroic sanctity, but God will take what He can get. That's what (traditional) Christianity actually teaches. It's not at all as inhumane and impossible as you make it out to be.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).

No, Yorick, we certainly do not know that this has happened. It's a decent enough theory, supported mostly by circumstantial evidence (like fixing gaping holes in other theories). Furthermore, you understand very little about human imagination indeed, if you think that inflation is unimaginable. Of course you can "form an image of it in your mind". We've seen plenty of expanding things, so that's not even particularly hard. Even the numbers involved are not any more unimaginable than say a thousand or a thousandths. You have no intuitive grasp of those numbers either. Yet you know how to manage them: 10^3 and 10^-3. Guess what, you can manage your super-numbers just the same way: 10^30. Wow, that wasn't so hard... Imagining and managing mentally cosmological inflation is really easy, actually, and that's no surprise. It's a scientific idea, and we scientists are working professionals. We don't invent this sort of stuff to say "Wow, awesome." We invent theories to do things, to get to places - so they better be serviceable.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
There are other explanations for the wide prevalence of religion (and I’m not just talking about wishful thinking, either). It is widely supposed that belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind, and that religious faith developed as a by-product of human sociability. This is hot stuff in the cognitive sciences, and is being studied in all kinds of fields like neuroscience, human evolutionary biology, and linguistics and computer sciences. Evidence is being amassed, and you may very soon end up having your assumption refuted.

If there is no God, then it is trivial that belief in God must have evolved as some by-product of human sociability. It is much less trivial to show what sort of evolutionary advantage that may bring, and as usual we will likely just get another "just so" story there. At any rate, whatever evidence may get scraped together for the evolution of faith, it will tell us shit all about the involvement of God. Evolution is no argument against God, it simply is a tool He can use.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
God might exist, and this might explain why people believe in Him. However, despite this, the fact that we all feel this desire for God to exist very much more strongly persuades me against his existence. Very much more strongly, like about a gazillion to one in ratio.

That would be all humans but Pre-cambrian, apparently? So does that reduce your odds? Our desire for God is not much like our desire to eat or have sex. You love that idea, but I've never heard anyone describe it as such. I think it is more like the desire for music. There is always music where there are humans. But it is not like you will die if you can't listen to music. And popularity is not necessarily a measure of quality for music, but neither is sophistication.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
However, science deals with a subset of personal experience called intersubjective, which is personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Religious experience is non-intersubjective personal experience.

Religious experience is a lot more uniform and reproducible than you claim. The surest way to avoid any religious experience is of course to stay away from any systematic religious practice, which is what most atheists do. (The second best way is modern "practice", which removes all traces of ritual, discipline, study and habit-formation, arriving roughly at the equivalent of a boring TV show...)
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The surest way to avoid any religious experience is of course to stay away from any systematic religious practice, which is what most atheists do. (The second best way is modern "practice", which removes all traces of ritual, discipline, study and habit-formation, arriving roughly at the equivalent of a boring TV show...)

IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?

[ 25. February 2011, 16:52: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it.

Can't be both?

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Both intersubjective experience and religious experience can be explained as a delusion. The question is why favour delusion as the explanation in the latter case but not the former.

Because of the sometimes-spoken belief that multiple people are extremely unlikely to all be deluded the same way at the same time, Jonestown notwithstanding. Of course solipsism would destroy that, but solipsism is existentially untenable. Nobody acts like a solipsist all the time. Maybe people scrabbling a life for themselves in a very remote corner of the world where their only interaction is with (nonhuman) predators and prey. In society, you have to act like other people exist in order to eat.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because of the sometimes-spoken belief that multiple people are extremely unlikely to all be deluded the same way at the same time, Jonestown notwithstanding. Of course solipsism would destroy that, but solipsism is existentially untenable. Nobody acts like a solipsist all the time. Maybe people scrabbling a life for themselves in a very remote corner of the world where their only interaction is with (nonhuman) predators and prey. In society, you have to act like other people exist in order to eat.

The thing is, though, arguing the other way: people do have the same sorts of experiences - testable ones, in fact - via religion! This is a point that always seems to get lost in discussions about "the scientific method vs. religion."

Lots and lots (and lots) of people find comfort, for example, in the Psalms - and the 23rd Psalm, in particular, seems to hit all the notes for people in various states of distress (and even those not in distress).

Yet somehow, these things are ignored, and religious experience is considered to be merely "subjective" and therefore without merit. But it's actually not - and in fact, that's why these worldwide religions have lasted for such a long time, and continue even today to affect people's lives.

The dismissal of religion as nonsense is, in fact, mighty unscientific (and, BTW, very subjective).
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?

I gave an operational definition, didn't I? The crap I suffer through most Sundays is for example modern liturgical practice in Catholic terms - not however, mind you, merely because they follow the "new liturgy". Mostly because they haven't got the foggiest about stagecraft.

It's not particularly hard to make people religious. What's hard - nowadays - is to make people do what makes them religious. I'm confident I can get Yorick to experience God - or at least his soul - within a year: in a monastery, with me as prior and him as novice. (And no, the whippings have nothing to do with it. That's just for my personal entertainment...) If he's willing to practice at typical "enthusiast hobbyist" level (4-6 hours a week), two to three years. At the "Show me God, or bugger off." level that he is at, never.

And that's the entire problem with modernity, that's why churches are empty. People see no point anymore in practicing religion. Practicing as in exercising, building up strength. It used to be that people came just because it was the done thing. Then, after a couple of years of practice, they would get religion. Now, they want the BVM do a little dance routine for them first time they kneel down, or else they are out of the door. And nobody knows what to do about it, because nothing can be done about it. You cannot get religion like that. Religion is many things, but as far as human effort is concerned, it is a skill, craft and habit. Like anything we humans do. (And no, I'm not Pelagian, I know about the role of the Holy Spirit, etc.)
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?

I gave an operational definition, didn't I? The crap I suffer through most Sundays is for example modern liturgical practice in Catholic terms - not however, mind you, merely because they follow the "new liturgy". Mostly because they haven't got the foggiest about stagecraft.

It's not particularly hard to make people religious. What's hard - nowadays - is to make people do what makes them religious. I'm confident I can get Yorick to experience God - or at least his soul - within a year: in a monastery, with me as prior and him as novice. (And no, the whippings have nothing to do with it. That's just for my personal entertainment...) If he's willing to practice at typical "enthusiast hobbyist" level (4-6 hours a week), two to three years. At the "Show me God, or bugger off." level that he is at, never.

And that's the entire problem with modernity, that's why churches are empty. People see no point anymore in practicing religion. Practicing as in exercising, building up strength. It used to be that people came just because it was the done thing. Then, after a couple of years of practice, they would get religion. Now, they want the BVM do a little dance routine for them first time they kneel down, or else they are out of the door. And nobody knows what to do about it, because nothing can be done about it. You cannot get religion like that. Religion is many things, but as far as human effort is concerned, it is a skill, craft and habit. Like anything we humans do. (And no, I'm not Pelagian, I know about the role of the Holy Spirit, etc.)

I must say I agree with you, Ingo. Christianity is quite subtle in many ways, and it takes awhile to catch hold of many of its precepts. And it takes muscle memory - or would that be "spirit memory"? - just like anything else does.

The Church Year itself, and all its seasons and ebbs and flows, still has the power to do this, and so does prayer and meditation, and so does simple singing of chant. But you're right: people don't give it a chance to work - but I eventually they'll come back.

You're right about stagecraft, too; church is like opera, only religious. Nothing wrong with that, either - it's been part of deal for a long time.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick:
[qb].....But then the question is 'why'?

Why are we 'hard wired' to look for 'God' however God is perceived?

The question that I think is hard-wired is your first one — 'Why?"

"God" is one of the answers to that question; and it's the answer that got deeply ingrained into our consciousness long before we had the wherewithal to conduct more rational investigations into the origins and purposes of the world around us.

(Rational investigation was a sober late arrival at a party where everyone was already heartily drunk. It was inevitable that a fight would ensue.)

And when reason and rationality could not answer the question either, the revelry began again. [Yipee]

Atheists that are atheists because they believe in "reason" or "rationality" are a couple of hundred years behind the philosophical times. [Disappointed]

It never ceases to amaze me that they think they are cleverer than theists.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, my question is a tangent on this thread but hopefully short enough to be tolerated. What do you mean by "modern practice"?

I gave an operational definition, didn't I? The crap I suffer through most Sundays is for example modern liturgical practice in Catholic terms - not however, mind you, merely because they follow the "new liturgy". Mostly because they haven't got the foggiest about stagecraft.

It's not particularly hard to make people religious. What's hard - nowadays - is to make people do what makes them religious. I'm confident I can get Yorick to experience God - or at least his soul - within a year: in a monastery, with me as prior and him as novice. (And no, the whippings have nothing to do with it. That's just for my personal entertainment...) If he's willing to practice at typical "enthusiast hobbyist" level (4-6 hours a week), two to three years. At the "Show me God, or bugger off." level that he is at, never.

And that's the entire problem with modernity, that's why churches are empty. People see no point anymore in practicing religion. Practicing as in exercising, building up strength. It used to be that people came just because it was the done thing. Then, after a couple of years of practice, they would get religion. Now, they want the BVM do a little dance routine for them first time they kneel down, or else they are out of the door. And nobody knows what to do about it, because nothing can be done about it. You cannot get religion like that. Religion is many things, but as far as human effort is concerned, it is a skill, craft and habit. Like anything we humans do. (And no, I'm not Pelagian, I know about the role of the Holy Spirit, etc.)

This is an interesting idea.

How would you answer someone that had lived and practiced religion for decades and then "lost" their faith?
 
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that is precisely what you’re trying to do by explaining the purpose of life as being God-created. I say it is objectively purposeless because there’s no god, and you say it’s objectively purposeful because there is God. The difference is not whether we explain how thing work, but that your threshold for satisfaction in understanding how things work is very much lower than mine. Yours goes something like, ‘because God made it that way’.

You misunderstood my point, and the Lewis quote.

‘because God made it that way’ - as a bald assumption, is no more satisfying.

My aim was much more modest - just to point out the (very common) illusion that being able to offer some model as to how things work really explains 'how things work' (in the exhaustive sense).

The examples you give are like synonyms. Someone asks you to define a word and you do so by giving a synonym. At first glance it looks like an explanation but you haven't actually explained anything at all.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This is an interesting idea. How would you answer someone that had lived and practiced religion for decades and then "lost" their faith?

There are many variants of "losing one's faith", and hence many answers. For one thing, many people do not lose their faith a such, but rather their faith in a particular institution.

However, a more general answer can be given: start thinking of religion as a hobby. Yes, I know, it's about meeting God, the most essential part of our lives, and apparently we have to fight with Yorick whether it's more or less awesome than science. But if you want to understand what real people really do, think of it as a hobby. A strong hobby perhaps, like learning an instrument and playing it for fun (at least not fully professional), but still a hobby.

Your question then amounts to: why do some people learn playing the piano, play it happily for many years, and yet stop playing at some stage? Hard to say, isn't it? Something about diminishing returns, boredom with the level they are at, too much effort involved, too many other things going on, ... who knows. One thing however one can say about such people is that the likelihood that they will start playing the piano again later on is rather high. And so it is also with the "previously strongly religious". If they live long enough, they are likely to become active in religion again.

They are not the problem. The problem is that kids do not want to sit down to learn playing the piano anymore. The "answer" that most churches give amounts to a bunch of old farts giving lessons in hip hop, so that the kids become interested in music again. Or it amounts to sitting kids down in front of a piano, while a Liszt recording plays in the background.

Meanwhile, people like Yorick or even Dawkins are more an entertaining diversion than anything else. Can you convince the tone-deaf to grab an ukulele and learn how to play some music? As much as they would like to be "the challenge" to religion, they are a mere minor symptom of the illness that has befallen religion. The true challenge is the breakdown of the culturally derived input stream that had enough people practicing at the entry level to keep a religious community going. It's been a long time since Christianity had to attract people by offering an idealistic alternative to the general society. But we are now rapidly collapsing to the point where that's the case again. All in all, I think that's a good thing. Pity about the many nice church buildings, charities and whatnot. Not a pity about much else that is church now.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Evensong:How would you answer someone that had lived and practiced religion for decades and then "lost" their faith?

I realise the word is in " ". I am just waiting for someone to accuse me of losing my faith (strange it hasn't happened from any of my fundamentalist friends) and they will hear why I gave up faith quite deliberately (but not lightly) after a great deal of thought. Doubt they would listen, though. [Razz]
 
Posted by jackanapes (# 12374) on :
 
Mark,

Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Wow. I'm honestly surprised.

It must be a very dull world for you.

Completely the opposite. For me there's nothing beautiful, nothing exciting, about the plodding inevitability that runs from Maxwell's equations to E=mc^2. Science is about discovery - finding out what's just waiting to get found out. What excites me and thrills me is invention - the hairs-on-the-neck zinngg that I get when I experience at first or second hand the ex nihilo of the creation of a literary character who becomes a real person in their fictional world; a painting in front of which I have to sit down because I'm too overwhelmed to stand up straight; a phrase of music that sticks like an electrode into the pleasure or grief centres of our brain.

The "humanities" are aptly named - they are what makes us human, not science. For me, when it comes to the wow factor, science is to the humanities as going by tram is to piloting a stunt plane.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,

Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?

Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.

More content these days [Smile] - that's 'content' and 'content'. [Biased]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD

Wow.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The "humanities" are aptly named - they are what makes us human, not science.

Yeah, I'm with you. Not, maybe, that they make us human - but they put up a mirror human life on earth, and look deeply at what we're all about.

And I think that's why all these old texts - and the old rituals and rhythms of church - still matter to people. Frankly, too: I think we've only just scratched the surface of what we can find there.

The Christian story, in particular, speaks very directly and bluntly to and about the human condition and experience. Even when I was outside the church for all those years, I could feel its power - and be affected by its ecstatic heights and disastrous depths.

Which is why I think it's nowhere near done yet....

[ 26. February 2011, 13:39: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD

So...what do you do now? For fun?, For excitement? For inspiration? For love?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD

So...what do you do now? For fun?, For excitement? For inspiration? For love?
Don't want to derail thread so will simply say - still on a pilgrimage, exploring non-theism.

Actually, I did have fun and excitement in the church - often on my own!! Still have some excellent Christian friends who understand me. My fundamentalist friends never did and think I went off the rails years ago.
 
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
My fundamentalist friends never did and think I went off the rails years ago. [/QB]

Maybe you did! [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Even longer ago than they think. Hallelujah!
 
Posted by jackanapes (# 12374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,

Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?

Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.

More content these days [Smile] - that's 'content' and 'content'. [Biased]

Thanks Mark. I'm still not sure that I can see how the choosin' came before the losin', but I guess I just wasn't there.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

They are not the problem. The problem is that kids do not want to sit down to learn playing the piano anymore.

Do you have an opinion on why not?


quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The true challenge is the breakdown of the culturally derived input stream that had enough people practicing at the entry level to keep a religious community going.

Critical mass? And the decline could be attributed to lack of discipline or practising?


quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's been a long time since Christianity had to attract people by offering an idealistic alternative to the general society. But we are now rapidly collapsing to the point where that's the case again. All in all, I think that's a good thing.

I agree.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:


They are not the problem. The problem is that kids do not want to sit down to learn playing the piano anymore.

Yes they do. My husband teaches piano and his pupils all had to work hard at persuading their parents to pay for lessons.

I don't think the 'kids' in your analogy are to blame.

My husband keeps the kids interested by searching out music which interests them - he doesn't expect them to learn to play stuff they don't enjoy.

If Church 'worked' for families, they'd be there imo.

<typo - what's new? [Smile] >

[ 27. February 2011, 07:57: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,

Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?

Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.

More content these days [Smile] - that's 'content' and 'content'. [Biased]

Thanks Mark. I'm still not sure that I can see how the choosin' came before the losin', but I guess I just wasn't there.
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.
I suppose, to be provocative, there was nothing to 'lose' (in the faith, that is, 'though I certainly recognise that I have left behind some good things).
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.

And what was the reason and deliberation?
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.

And what was the reason and deliberation?
Not the place. But basically it was that GOD had been found wanting in the area of the supernatural (not in 'personal' stuff, rather in ideals that I believe are fundamental to human dignity and respect for one another) and an absence of intervention where things are clearly wrong in both church and society.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Oh, my! I forget to see what's going on here for a few days and find that there are several pages of this interesting topic to read.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
Anyway, I hereby invite you to comment critically on the obvious philosophical shortfalls of an atheistic worldview, and I’ll try to convey how people can just as well live in hope and with purpose without god.

I go along with almost all of the OP, except that I have always found RD's manner to be courteous, and his reading voice on his audio books is one of the very best I think. I just wanted to post this before going through the thread.

I am far more content, complete, whole, happy, hopeful, etc as a total atheist than ever I was while I still retained the idea of a power/force somewhere out there.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.

And what was the reason and deliberation?
Not the place. But basically it was that GOD had been found wanting in the area of the supernatural (not in 'personal' stuff, rather in ideals that I believe are fundamental to human dignity and respect for one another) and an absence of intervention where things are clearly wrong in both church and society.
And none of that intervention, changing church and society was our responsibility?

Sounds like you rejected the doctrine of free will.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

I am far more content, complete, whole, happy, hopeful, etc as a total atheist than ever I was while I still retained the idea of a power/force somewhere out there.

Fair enough. And good luck to you.

But it's probably because you had a fucked up notion of God. [Razz]

For a start, many of us do not see God "somewhere out there". We see God as who we are and what sustains all life.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
........many of us do not see God "somewhere out there". We see God as who we are......

Really???? Could all those of you who see that identify yourselves with some sort of badge? Because usually, when I suggest to Christians that there might be something in that idea, they throw things at me.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:
How would one handle their conscience? If christians believe their conscience is pricked by the holy spirit, how would an atheist consider the matter? And how would one quiet down that brain chatter of guilt and worry (that was MTL tainted by religion anyway)?

Your conscience works precisely as it has done up till now. You think of your options, make a decision, however tentative, as to what to do. Such decisions are set against our society's understanding of what is moral and right or the opposite. Since I am confident (as an atheist) that all decisions, from the smallest to the largest, have been made by you without any 'God' input anyway, you just carry on being the best self you can be. Do not judge yourself too harshly and remember that the decisions you have made have been the best you could do at the time. Forget the hindsight view!
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But it's probably because you had a fucked up notion of God. [Razz]

Most decidedly not! God was a support, a friend, which was always with us. At church I'd 'know' God was around. I never, however, imagined God as anything other than an invisible, but powerful, spirit.
quote:
For a start, many of us do not see God "somewhere out there". We see God as who we are and what sustains all life.
Yes, I should have made it clear that that's the sort of view I had. It was only over the years that the thought, the space in my head and God's location that diminished and diminished until I finally found it was so small and insignificant that I simply erased it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am far more content, complete, whole, happy, hopeful, etc as a total atheist than ever I was while I still retained the idea of a power/force somewhere out there.

Not to pick on you, but what's a "total atheist"? Are there partial atheists?
 
Posted by jackanapes (# 12374) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by jackanapes:
Mark,

Do you mean that while still a 'believer', you chose to unplug your faith?

Yes, exactly. Had been a Christian for 60 years, including years as a minister. Retired and asked questions. Gave up on GOD - had given up on church years before but stayed to try to do something about it.

More content these days [Smile] - that's 'content' and 'content'. [Biased]

Thanks Mark. I'm still not sure that I can see how the choosin' came before the losin', but I guess I just wasn't there.
Associated with 'You lost your faith" is an implication, ISTM, that it was my fault - that's what I object to. My choice was reasoned and deliberate, not due to complacency or sloth or even a lack of understanding or 'anger' at GOD.
I suppose, to be provocative, there was nothing to 'lose' (in the faith, that is, 'though I certainly recognise that I have left behind some good things).

Thanks Mark - I understand.
 
Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Your conscience works precisely as it has done up till now. You think of your options, make a decision, however tentative, as to what to do. Such decisions are set against our society's understanding of what is moral and right or the opposite. Since I am confident (as an atheist) that all decisions, from the smallest to the largest, have been made by you without any 'God' input anyway, you just carry on being the best self you can be. Do not judge yourself too harshly and remember that the decisions you have made have been the best you could do at the time. Forget the hindsight view!

Thanks for responding to my question. Only a lobotomy would cure me of rehashing the past! It seems to me that it would be difficult to go back and take God out of all my past decisions, but perhaps that was true even if I haven't believed it.

Ironically, I've spent a fair amount of "prayer" time, accusing God of leading me astray...
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Do you have an opinion on why not?

That's rather obvious. Kids just got dragged to Church and forced to participate. That may make most of us recoil in horror now, but it actually works: a sufficiently large fraction of them would in the end engage. One could call it the Stockholm syndrome path to religion...

Now that this path is closing up, Christianity can only do what religion always has done when not in power: offer idealism to the young, contemplation to the old - and management to the middle aged. But one has to realize that this new setup does not come for free. Peace was bought off Christianity by making it the cultural default and supplying it with adherents. Make it compete for people, and its face will change. Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies we have built.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Critical mass? And the decline could be attributed to lack of discipline or practising?

No. There is no critical mass. 12 disciples were enough to smash thousands of years of previous culture across a significant part of humanity. The decline is causing the lack of discipline of practice. The decline is prior, the established cultural feed has dried up. Why would a young person now go to church? Tell me a single good reason. I have none. All the reason I have come after a prior commitment, they are a consequence of already believing in God, and indeed the Church. If you don't, then there's just nothing there anymore. Hence I have no doubts that Christianity will radicalize where it doesn't die. Today we had Matt 6:24-34 as mass reading. Of course we got the usual rendering in society-compatible terms by the preacher. But this will die with the gray-haired people that still sit around in Church. Read this mass text as a call to revolution, and you will have an inkling where one of the battle lines of a future Christianity may be drawn.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Kids just got dragged to Church and forced to participate. That may make most of us recoil in horror now, but it actually works...

Yes, the ultimate decline of Christianity in the Western world seems inevitable. This and future generations of children will hopefully be much safer from the influences of indoctrination, as church becomes increasingly irrelevant, and as their own social forces (particularly in communication) undermine the cultural restrictions and ties of religious family culture.
quote:
...a call to revolution ...the battle lines of a future Christianity may be drawn.
I’m not so sure the long-term future of the Christian church is assured, if its only means is to take metaphorical arms in a battle of assertion against culture. Such an approach may have been effective in ancient times, but I don’t see it working in this modern age. Those kids use Facebook, you know. As you rightly say, Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies they're building for themselves.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:


quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Critical mass? And the decline could be attributed to lack of discipline or practising?

No. There is no critical mass. 12 disciples were enough to smash thousands of years of previous culture across a significant part of humanity.
But we can't do it without forcing our children?

Contradiction here.....

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Read this mass text as a call to revolution, and you will have an inkling where one of the battle lines of a future Christianity may be drawn.

I'm doing a unit on Homilectics at the moment. The battle lines in the postmodern world seem to be about constructing a compelling narrative that rings with authenticity.....

Let's hope we never resort to violence in those battle lines...

Because, imo, we contradict the gospel if we do.

And you're forgetting one thing.....the movement of God in all this.

We do not live and work alone.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Kids just got dragged to Church and forced to participate. That may make most of us recoil in horror now, but it actually works...

Yes, the ultimate decline of Christianity in the Western world seems inevitable. This and future generations of children will hopefully be much safer from the influences of indoctrination,

No. They'll just be indoctrinated in a different way....consumerism, materialism, individual selfishness.

When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As you rightly say, Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies they're building for themselves.

Amen. Thank God for that.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.

What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.

What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
Quite. I hear that sort of thing all the time, and I have to be honest, it actually makes no logical sense.

Surely, atheists, just like religionists/theists/deists/whateverists believe in the end whatever they want to believe.

The amount of coercion related to what anyone believes about anything surely depends on the society in question, and the currently extant secular humanist societies we have are generally less coercive than most Christian ones.

Coercion exists, though. Just not as an ill-defined figure called "society". It exists in authority figures, in a localised sort of way, and in institutions. But it's not as if the institutions in British (and American) society are really disposed to try to teach one to be an atheist.

[ 28. February 2011, 12:06: Message edited by: Wood ]
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.

What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
[Overused]

Got there before me!
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
When you stop believing in God you don't believe nothing Yorick, you believe anything that society wants you to believe.

What a bullshit statement. How can society ‘want’ me to believe something, and why must I succumb to its sinister mind-coercion?
Hate to mention it, Yorick, but society wants you to believe lots of things - and you have already succumbed, as does everybody.

Couple of quick examples: once it was thought reasonable and normal to look down upon people of different races, or homosexuals, or women (or whatever it was). No particular reason given or needed. You would likely have done so, too, simply because "society" mind-coerced you into it.

Nowadays, of course, this is no longer expected or even acceptable in "society" - so the coercion goes the other way.

Fickle, fickle society.

It's very easy to see this by simply looking at history; it's happened not just once or twice, but over and over and over again. People easily succumb to one thing in particular: fear of being cast out. This is a reasonable fear, because people can't live on their own; we need our fellow human beings to survive, in innumerable ways. And that pressure can be used on anybody, at any time, for any reason. I mean, it's possible you would have rebelled against the particular mores and philosophies of whatever group you found yourself in - but it's doubtful. You would likely have just swallowed the whole thing whole, like everybody did.

And will do again, no doubt. It's the price of being part of a social species.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Ah, you mean the Zeitgeist.

Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your question then amounts to: why do some people learn playing the piano, play it happily for many years, and yet stop playing at some stage? Hard to say, isn't it? Something about diminishing returns, boredom with the level they are at, too much effort involved, too many other things going on, ... who knows. One thing however one can say about such people is that the likelihood that they will start playing the piano again later on is rather high. And so it is also with the "previously strongly religious". If they live long enough, they are likely to become active in religion again.

This analogy doesn't work for the simple reason that when someone stops playing the piano it isn't because they've come to the conclusion that pianos and piano music don't actually exist.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ah, you mean the Zeitgeist.

Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).

Actually, I didn't say "cultural climate" - you did (this time) - a fairly obvious straw man. I said "society" - which is what you yourself said (last time). I was merely answering your question.

"Society" is, of course, made up of people, and is not an "abstract." "The way people think" is certainly a large part of it, I'd agree - but of course, "the way people think" doesn't occur in the abstract, either. Or in a vacuum. People are highly influenced by their families and their communities - by "society," in other words. This explains the "red/blue" situation in the United States currently, and the mapping of where same-sex marriage (for instance) has been permitted and banned (and the disparate attitudes towards women and homosexuality, for instance, worldwide, as well.

I'm reading Freud's "Totem and Taboo" right now, which speaks to the question of how societies work by coercion in maintaining collective belief certain in things. Lots of really bizarre and interesting taboos among various groups of people. Nobody dissented, or thought to; dissent would have been fatal. Yep.

[ 28. February 2011, 13:12: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ah, you mean the Zeitgeist.

Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).

It isn't, as such, and it's unhelful to just blame it on "society".

What I think they're saying is that institutional and societal structures: authority figures, the media, and that have some part in shaping our opinions, and even if we disagree with the prevailing winds of opinion, we exist in their context.

I don't believe FWIW that societal factors coerce us into believing things, but I think it's ridiculous to make the assumption that what everyone around us thinks has no effect, positive or negative, on what we think. We exist in the context of all sorts of beliefs.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Ah, you mean the Zeitgeist.

Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).

It isn't, as such, and it's unhelful to just blame it on "society".

What I think they're saying is that institutional and societal structures: authority figures, the media, and that have some part in shaping our opinions, and even if we disagree with the prevailing winds of opinion, we exist in their context.

I don't believe FWIW that societal factors coerce us into believing things, but I think it's ridiculous to make the assumption that what everyone around us thinks has no effect, positive or negative, on what we think. We exist in the context of all sorts of beliefs.

No, what "they" are saying is that - in the case of the hatred and loathing of homosexuals, for instance - there wasn't really a question of "disagreeing with the prevailing winds of opinion."

Nobody thought there was or could be a different opinion. People were indoctrinated to hate gay people - the taboo was very strong - and nobody had any questions about it. They just followed it slavishly. I'm speaking about this because I know this situation well - but I'm sure the same conditions obtained in the case of race hatred and in the case of the situation for women in earlier times.

In fairly recent times, BTW, it was widely believed that women could not and should not run marathons. Nobody questioned it; in fact, an official at the 1976 Boston Marathon physically tackled a woman who tried, as a protest, to run it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'd say "society" has pretty much brainwashed us all into a consumerist mindset -- "materialism" where that means desire to accumulate stuff*. Ain't many people broken free of that Zeitgeist, and I'd be willing to bet they're mostly Christians and people of other religions.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
But I detest materialism too.

In my OP, I said I’d ‘try to convey how people can just as well live in hope and with purpose without god’. I’ve been neglectful of this, and, although others have touched on it, I think it might be helpful to get the discussion going this way a bit.

Of course, atheism is merely the belief that no god exists. It isn’t a philosophical worldview in its own right, and it makes no claims about anything except the existence of god. The suggestion is that by not believing in god, an atheist is prohibited from living with purpose and hope.

I feel this is wrong, because, apart from on the single matter of the existence of god, atheists aren’t necessarily any different from theists. Indeed, Christians are almost exactly as atheistic as me- they just disbelieve in one less god than I do- but I suppose other gods don’t count, and a Christian would say that believing in Osiris or Thor is the same as being an atheist in respect of hope and purpose.

So, exactly what is unique about the Christian god that makes hope and purpose possible, where it cannot be found elsewhere? Afterlife? Nope- plenty of religions promise that. The Golden Rule? Nope- lots of atheistic philosophies are in accord. Personal redemption? Nope- tons of other religions offer this, and secular philosophies too- certainly in regards to what happens in our mortal lives- so until the rapture actually happens, I guess we’re all in the same purpose boat.

Clearly, believing in a god is not a fundamental prerequisite for actually living a purposeful and hopeful life. Philosophically, I'm a secular humanist, and this permits me a very meaningful mortal existence in many of the ways that Christians claim are exclusively theirs, so I challenge any Christian to show how his life is purposeful and hopeful where mine cannot be.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No, what "they" are saying is that - in the case of the hatred and loathing of homosexuals, for instance - there wasn't really a question of "disagreeing with the prevailing winds of opinion."

Nobody thought there was or could be a different opinion. People were indoctrinated to hate gay people - the taboo was very strong - and nobody had any questions about it. They just followed it slavishly. I'm speaking about this because I know this situation well - but I'm sure the same conditions obtained in the case of race hatred and in the case of the situation for women in earlier times.

In fairly recent times, BTW, it was widely believed that women could not and should not run marathons. Nobody questioned it; in fact, an official at the 1976 Boston Marathon physically tackled a woman who tried, as a protest, to run it.

By your own testimony, someone obviously did question it! Indeed, I suspect quite a lot of people did.

In any case, if things were as you maintain, how would change ever come about? It clearly does.

And how far back are you referring to about homosexuality? When I grew up, it wasn't much spoken of, and few people were 'out', but I was certainly never "indoctrinated to hate gay people". I would say most people were simply not very interested, unless they were directly affected in some way.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
Of course, atheism is merely the belief that no god exists. It isn’t a philosophical worldview in its own right, and it makes no claims about anything except the existence of god. The suggestion is that by not believing in god, an atheist is prohibited from living with purpose and hope.
Which was precisely what I saw as the fundamental problem. I've checked back to see if you replied to my post, and didn't find it. Sorry if I'm repeating it.

What's happening is that a denial is slugging it out with a positive belief, and the latter are easier to attack. So if you think (as I hope you do) that some worldview which provides a rationale for "a good society" is needed, then isn't it fair for us believers to ask you to come into the ring with a positive view, so we can slug it out positive to positive?
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Okay: Humanism.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
Okay: Humanism.
As in
quote:
...are atheists and agnostics who make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values. We take responsibility for our actions and base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfilment. We seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves, individually and together.
This could become a side-track in which case I'll shut up.

The only positive statement, i.e. where somebody could disagree, is that ethics is to be based on the goals of "human welfare, happiness and fulfilment". Well I'm not convinced of that. I assume that it is taken as an axiom like belief in God. I don't see how you could establish it by argument, any more than God.

The main problem is that it is so vague. In the end, societies have to be formed on something more specific. Would you accept Marx as a humanist? (I assume yes). Also, I would expect, John Rawls. It's a broad church.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
The question is whether (secular) humanism can provide us with purpose and hope comparable to that offered by Christianity. The goals of "human welfare, happiness and fulfilment" can provide profoundly hopeful and purposeful existence, vague though those terms may seem.

Again, I’m wondering what Christianity offers in the purposeful living department that humanism cannot?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
By your own testimony, someone obviously did question it! Indeed, I suspect quite a lot of people did.

In any case, if things were as you maintain, how would change ever come about? It clearly does.

And how far back are you referring to about homosexuality? When I grew up, it wasn't much spoken of, and few people were 'out', but I was certainly never "indoctrinated to hate gay people". I would say most people were simply not very interested, unless they were directly affected in some way.

Yes, of course - the people who are the targets of these things question them, because they are aware they are prejudice. But the Civil Rights movement took 100 years to accomplish, and Women's Rights about that long, too. So it's not as if the whole world jumped on the bandwagon; there was a lot of opposition.

And within the past two generations, gay people - in your country, in the 1950s, Alan Turing, for example - were jailed and given medical "treatments" - in Turing's case, female hormones - for homosexuality.

That seems like some pretty serious indoctrination to me.

And before that, it was somebody else. Lots of prejudicial opinion around about Jews, for instance. The Irish, maybe, in your country.

And the list goes on.

[ 28. February 2011, 15:46: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The question is whether (secular) humanism can provide us with purpose and hope comparable to that offered by Christianity. The goals of "human welfare, happiness and fulfilment" can provide profoundly hopeful and purposeful existence, vague though those terms may seem.

Again, I’m wondering what Christianity offers in the purposeful living department that humanism cannot?

The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.

And the reminder that "the traumatic truth of human history" is a body nailed to a cross.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Yorick:
Well firstly, I don't know where you get this idea that the aim of Christianity is to provide purpose, and I'm not so focussed on that.

In terms of world-view, what Christianity states is that as a matter of objective (though eminently not publicly-provable) fact, the future of the world is determined by a Being whose commands for Man are that we build society to care for the weak, based on honesty and purity in all our dealings, and that we all will be judged on the basis of how far we promoted the welfare of all, and that just as in some distant future, the Earth will be dissolved, equally certainly, the world will belong to the poor, the meek and those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Now an atheist may take a similar view. He is at liberty to do so. Or he may take a Social-Darwinian view. But a Christian has to take that view, and there lies a difference.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
So, exactly what is unique about the Christian god that makes hope and purpose possible, where it cannot be found elsewhere? Afterlife? Nope- plenty of religions promise that. The Golden Rule? Nope- lots of atheistic philosophies are in accord. Personal redemption? Nope- tons of other religions offer this, and secular philosophies too- certainly in regards to what happens in our mortal lives- so until the rapture actually happens, I guess we’re all in the same purpose boat.

I for one believe in life before death. 'Eternal life' starts in the present and goes on. It might not be unique to Christianity. I accept I won’t know for certain until I stand/ or not stand in front of God.

quote:
Clearly, believing in a god is not a fundamental prerequisite for actually living a purposeful and hopeful life. Philosophically, I'm a secular humanist, and this permits me a very meaningful mortal existence in many of the ways that Christians claim are exclusively theirs, so I challenge any Christian to show how his life is purposeful and hopeful where mine cannot be.
I think it is part of the narrative of redemption. You can be changed even if everyone else has written you off, there is another way. God came to help us be better- to be what was intended. It might mean signing your own death warrant in certain circumstances. "Pick up your cross and follow me" isn't a light commandment.

There is change, growth, movement along the journey and the power to feed that, all the key signs of life as it were; a life that is going somewhere other than entropy. Entropy is all there is if this mortal life is all there is, for there will be nothing left of us when we crumble into dust after x trillion years.

Belief in God might not be a prerequisite for a purposeful life, but it certainly gives life a different slant.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.

In the case of the Deceased Equine that's been trotting round recent posts it is the societal attitudes and secular laws which have been able to shift, remove the causes of oppression, and offer hope. But because a Bronze Age writer declared the Deceased Equine to be an abomination and turned it into a matter of religion Christianity's position is equivocal at best and always will be.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.

In the case of the Deceased Equine that's been trotting round recent posts it is the societal attitudes and secular laws which have been able to shift, remove the causes of oppression, and offer hope. But because a Bronze Age writer declared the Deceased Equine to be an abomination and turned it into a matter of religion Christianity's position is equivocal at best and always will be.
Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what your point is here. I don't even understand the English.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Yorick:
Well firstly, I don't know where you get this idea that the aim of Christianity is to provide purpose, and I'm not so focussed on that.

That was not Yorick, that was me on another thread saying that atheism fails to provide a context of meaning and purpose for human life.

Which is not saying that anyone, atheist or no, can't have a perfectly satisfactory purpose in life, only that without God life itself has no meaning and individual lives have no long term purpose beyond what this world offers.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.

In the case of the Deceased Equine that's been trotting round recent posts it is the societal attitudes and secular laws which have been able to shift, remove the causes of oppression, and offer hope. But because a Bronze Age writer declared the Deceased Equine to be an abomination and turned it into a matter of religion Christianity's position is equivocal at best and always will be.
Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what your point is here. I don't even understand the English.
OK, read it alongside another of your recent posts:
quote:
And within the past two generations, gay people - in your country, in the 1950s, Alan Turing, for example - were jailed and given medical "treatments" - in Turing's case, female hormones - for homosexuality.
The point is that in this case it is the Bible that is still the vehicle for oppression not hope. Put bluntly, as long as there are Christians there will be Christians who want to oppress gays because of Leviticus and Romans.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The point is that in this case it is the Bible that is still the vehicle for oppression not hope. Put bluntly, as long as there are Christians there will be Christians who want to oppress gays because of Leviticus and Romans.

That may be true. Of course, it's also true that there are Christians who believe the earth is 10,000 years old. I can also mention that Conservative Judaism is in the middle of changing its stance on the gay issue, since you brought up about the Bible and its "Bronze-age writers." In any case: gay people - whether or not they are members of the church - really can and do take comfort in the fact that God chose to live among ordinary people, incarnate on earth, and chose to suffer a criminal's death. Just as lots of other oppressed groups do and have. We're not talking about the church here, but about Christian faith (I thought).

I do wonder why 1950s England, for instance, was still under the thumb of "Bronze-age writers," though! Seems a little weird to me - but an apt demonstration of the depth of influence that a society or culture or idea can have on individuals.

[ 28. February 2011, 17:56: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But I detest materialism too.

Bully. I wasn't answering the question, "can atheists hate materialism" but rather

quote:
Explain to me again how cultural climate has its own discrete volition, and is somehow able to force people to think certain things (as ironically opposed to being, say, an abstract reflection of the way people think).
You appeared to be looking for an example of something that the cultural climate inculcates in people. I gave one. I didn't say it was universal; and I think your choice of the word "force" presupposes your desired answer to the question. The culture pours it on pretty thick and it comes at us from all sides. "Volition" and "force" have nothing to do with it; those are weasel words anyway. But it is true that culture pushes beliefs on us and sits on our head (figuratively speaking) in an attempt to drive them home.

ETA: Maybe "beliefs" is too concrete. Unconscious modes of operation that we follow without realizing it. It takes an effort to realize that's what we're doing, and reject it.

[ 28. February 2011, 18:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Put bluntly, as long as there are Christians there will be Christians who want to oppress gays because of Leviticus and Romans.

To dumb it down even further. As long as there are humans there will be a desire to oppress minorities. It seems that the godless can be just as willing to oppress. Try being gay in Vietnam or North Korea.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Again, I’m wondering what Christianity offers in the purposeful living department that humanism cannot?

The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.

And the reminder that "the traumatic truth of human history" is a body nailed to a cross.

Thanks for your straight answer.

I don’t understand how my failing to recognise and believe that all human beings are made in God's image should mean that my life cannot be as purposeful and hopeful as yours. Please would you explain? I can certainly live in hope for the poor and traumatized, the oppressed, and those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all. Some atheists are ardent humanists, and helping to do good for those causes gives us great purpose. We can hope for a better real world- which, I would cordially suggest, those whose ‘ultimate hope and purpose’ is redemption and delivery on Judgement Day can hardly claim. That's the opposite of hope and purpose for (mortal) life.

And I don’t see how the reminder of the crucifixion being "the traumatic truth of human history" has anything to do with it. Gobbledegook.

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Which is not saying that anyone, atheist or no, can't have a perfectly satisfactory purpose in life, only that without God life itself has no meaning and individual lives have no long term purpose beyond what this world offers.

Life without God has just as much meaning as life with God- that is my contention. It’s no good continuously repeating your refutation without qualifying it. Please explain how, without God, life itself has no meaning.

You also say that ‘individual lives have no long term purpose beyond what this world offers’. I have already said that I’m talking about purpose and hope in our mortal existences- not some mooted afterlife. Thus, all purpose and hope in this discussion pertains to this world we live in. In that regard, in what ways does living as a Christian proffer hope and purpose that living as an atheist cannot? My own life has long-term purpose, extending beyond my lifetime- I am happy to elaborate on this if you like. How does your life have long-term purpose and hope that mine does not and cannot?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Again, I’m wondering what Christianity offers in the purposeful living department that humanism cannot?

The recognition and belief that all human beings are made in God's image - even those who aren't "living purposefully" according to the Powers That Be. Hope for the poor and traumatized. Hope for the oppressed. Hope for those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all.

And the reminder that "the traumatic truth of human history" is a body nailed to a cross.

Thanks for your straight answer.

I don’t understand how my failing to recognise and believe that all human beings are made in God's image should mean that my life cannot be as purposeful and hopeful as yours. Please would you explain? I can certainly live in hope for the poor and traumatized, the oppressed, and those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all. Some atheists are ardent humanists, and helping to do good for those causes gives us great purpose. We can hope for a better real world- which, I would cordially suggest, those whose ‘ultimate hope and purpose’ is redemption and delivery on Judgement Day can hardly claim. That's the opposite of hope and purpose for (mortal) life.

And I don’t see how the reminder of the crucifixion being "the traumatic truth of human history" has anything to do with it. Gobbledegook.


You've made a mistake in interpretation here; I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the people I mentioned - "the poor and traumatized, the oppressed, and those accounted as nothing in society, and who have no belief in themselves at all, I mean."

Desperate and traumatized human beings turn to God for strength and hope, not to random people they don't know (and who may or may not care at that or any other moment). In the first place, human beings are not particularly reliable; you could decide to change your ideas about anything at any time - and of course, your philosophy, whatever it is, may not include them to begin with. Perhaps they are not living purposefully enough for your taste, for instance. (I'm not picking on you in particular, here; I'm saying that any human philosophy is merely human and fallible, and will necessarily include the particular prejudices of the people who hold to it.)

But people who believe in God, and in particular in the Christian God - and in Christ - have a permanent anchor and advocate. And, they can appeal to that advocate in the (figurative) public court, too, saying: This is what God is like. God has said, over and over again and in a thousand ways: care for the poor and those in distress. Christ himself said that "when you give food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, when you clothe the naked, when you visit the prisoners - you do these things also to me." Christ went to death on the cross for the sake of the world.

If we were talking about you personally, well, then: Anteater above has made the case. An atheist may take the position of caring for the poor and traumatized - but a Christian must do so.

The point about the cross is this: first, the Christian God is a God who has suffered, so people can feel that God understands and identifies with them. Second, that the suffering of Christ is a reminder for all of us, at all times, that human suffering is real; that there are people all around us going through pain of all kinds. And especially that this is a fallen world, one in which the Powers That Be crucify the innocent.

[ 01. March 2011, 12:24: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right? It’s exactly the same in principle whether those people do so under divine inspiration or secular humanist inspiration.

And I would say to you and anteater that those Christians who must care for the poor and traumatised are in a certain respect further from serving a noble purpose than those who do simply because they choose to. It’s rather like forcing an apology out of a child who does something wrong- it doesn’t mean so much. I'd say that freely elected secular humanism is of Higher purpose than obligatory religious humanism.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right? It’s exactly the same in principle whether those people do so under divine inspiration or secular humanist inspiration.

And I would say to you and anteater that those Christians who must care for the poor and traumatised are in a certain respect further from serving a noble purpose than those who do simply because they choose to. It’s rather like forcing an apology out of a child who does something wrong- it doesn’t mean so much. I'd say that freely elected secular humanism is of Higher purpose than obligatory religious humanism.

All I say, Yorick, is that people don't pray to other people, in the middle of the night, for help with problems they can't solve. They don't tell random strangers about their deepest feelings and failings, or admit their shortcomings to unknown secular humanists. They don't look for forgiveness for their sins where they feel they're unlikely to find it. They don't depend upon other people for help when they are not certain that help will be forthcoming. They don't try to set their spiritual lives right by appealing to other human beings. They don't go to secular humanists for money or support when they don't have any. They don't go to atheist organizations to pour out their hearts to somebody after their spouses die and they are left alone.

But they do pray to God for these things, and they do go to the church for them. Because the church actually does do things; I'm not sure why you think there is some organization of secular humanists out there for people to appeal to under some of these conditions. I've worked at a church, and people come there all the time for all these reasons.

And, hate to have to point out the obvious, but: people choose Christianity, too.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Naturally. Religion has the field. Mankind hasn’t come of secular age yet, but it will surely do so eventually, and then people will be able to look after one another without all the other shit that comes with religion.

Meanwhile, which, in your opinion, is nobler in purpose:

a) an atheist, who freely chooses to donate £5 to Christian Aid, and who gains nothing in return (except that nice warm feeling); or

b) a theist, who donates £5 to Christian Aid because they must, and who gains God’s almighty approval- and maybe the reward of salvation (oh, and that nice warm feeling)?

It seems to me that the obligation to care for the poor and oppressed takes something important away from the philosophical purity of purpose, and is nothing to boast about. You invented your canon- that’s your problem. Doing something out of voluntary compassion is quite different from doing it out of requisite duty.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Meanwhile, which, in your opinion, is nobler in purpose:

a) an atheist, who freely chooses to donate £5 to Christian Aid, and who gains nothing in return (except that nice warm feeling); or

b) a theist, who donates £5 to Christian Aid because they must, and who gains God’s almighty approval- and maybe the reward of salvation (oh, and that nice warm feeling)?

It seems to me that the obligation to care for the poor and oppressed takes something important away from the philosophical purity of purpose, and is nothing to boast about.

You are quite right that a Christian has nothing to boast about by doing God's will. Indeed, in the particular case you cite, Christians are warned to "not let their left hand know what their right hand is doing." Whatever glory is due, in Christian terms, is due to the Lord. To the extent that a Christian insists on "getting in on" the glory, he is stealing from God. If you find such constraints to be lacking in purity, so be it. But they are the rules of engagement under which we work.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Naturally. Religion has the field. Mankind hasn’t come of secular age yet, but it will surely do so eventually, and then people will be able to look after one another without all the other shit that comes with religion.

Well, show me the money, so to speak. If "religion has the field" and "Mankind hasn’t come of secular age yet," then why should anybody choose secularism? This is all very theoretical so far - a bit pie-in-the-sky, so to speak. It might happen - but it really might not.

In any case, what evidence do you have for it? The only "utopian communities" - where people look after one another and others and so forth, I mean - that have ever lasted have been religious ones. There are still churches and religious orders that do this - but everything else has died off (what there ever was of such things, anyway). I don't even know of any proposals for such things anymore.

One woman I know theorizes that the reason for the higher levels of religiosity in the U.S. as compared to, say, Europe, is that in the U.S. we have very few social safety nets. And of course, unlike Japan, say, we have very fragile family relationships, too, because people move far away from one another for work. It's the natural reaction in a hard-line capitalist society like ours, she thinks.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Meanwhile, which, in your opinion, is nobler in purpose:

a) an atheist, who freely chooses to donate £5 to Christian Aid, and who gains nothing in return (except that nice warm feeling); or

b) a theist, who donates £5 to Christian Aid because they must, and who gains God’s almighty approval- and maybe the reward of salvation (oh, and that nice warm feeling)?

It seems to me that the obligation to care for the poor and oppressed takes something important away from the philosophical purity of purpose, and is nothing to boast about. You invented your canon- that’s your problem. Doing something out of voluntary compassion is quite different from doing it out of requisite duty.

As for this, I'll make the point again: people choose Christianity. IOW, they are choosing their own obligations - just as you say you are.

I don't really see the difference. Did you think we're automatons, unable to decide which group we'll throw our support behind and give our loyalties to? Did you think that Christianity's particular ethos isn't a factor in deciding to become Christian or remain in the fold?

[ 01. March 2011, 15:27: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Well, you tell me. You were the one reiterating anteater's point that Christians must look after the afflicted, as opposed to secular humanists, who only choose to. I was relating that difference to the original issue of atheists lacking higher purpose.

Of course, atheists, as a group, are less charitable than Christians, and this is one reason I'm happy to give to Christian charities- they do actually walk the walk, as you rightly point out.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, you tell me. You were the one reiterating anteater's point that Christians must look after the afflicted, as opposed to secular humanists, who only choose to. I was relating that difference to the original issue of atheists lacking higher purpose.

The reason she said that was to show that atheists have no particular platform on the matter. Atheists might choose to look after others - or they might instead be Social Darwinists (in I think the comparison she made).

You've actually moved the goalposts again, IOW. The thread is called "Atheism on Purpose" - not "Secular Humanism on Purpose." "Secular humanists" are a subset of atheists, not the other way around.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Yes, well the way that came round was as part of my attempt to show how atheists might have a moral philosophical framework that permitted purpose and hope, and I did carefully point out that atheism in and of itself does not do this. Any goal-post relocation was inadvertent.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Yorick:
quote:
And I would say to you and anteater that those Christians who must care for the poor and traumatised are in a certain respect further from serving a noble purpose than those who do simply because they choose to.
I don't think you've got my point. I was arguing from what your worldview carries as an implication for what you should do. For example: a scientific worldview would carry the implication that smoking is injurious to health. It probably does not carry the implication that moderate drinking is injurious to health, but even so plenty of people become complete teetotallers. It's a choice, but is not based or does not follow from what they believe the facts to be.

So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.

Of course, in practice it's more personal. I fear atheism because I see the plausibility of the Brave New World scenario. Indeed one of the reason for the success of the book is that the case is presented as quite reasonable, and I believe Huxley rather inclined to it at the time.

Outisde of a believe that God cares for them, I have not got a strong enough reason to care for the extremely handicapped, that I believe could stand up on purely humanistic principles. Now if you say that means I'm just a nasty piece of work, then I think you are falling into the trap of being so influenced by concepts which were originally sown into our mentality by Christianity, than you assume they are a part of being human.

I don't believe that people who have and still do advocate eugenics are bastards. They can argue their point of view. THat's my point.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, the ultimate decline of Christianity in the Western world seems inevitable. This and future generations of children will hopefully be much safer from the influences of indoctrination, as church becomes increasingly irrelevant, and as their own social forces (particularly in communication) undermine the cultural restrictions and ties of religious family culture.

It's funny that you are so happy about it all. As if a Golden Age of Atheism was in the making. Of course not, there never was and never will be a society without religion. Yet if the domesticated dog dies, the wild wolf comes.

What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...

Frankly, as an atheist your best hope is for regular Christianity to still be sufficiently strong when the economic shit hits the demographic fan. Otherwise, you are pretty much toast.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m not so sure the long-term future of the Christian church is assured, if its only means is to take metaphorical arms in a battle of assertion against culture. Such an approach may have been effective in ancient times, but I don’t see it working in this modern age. Those kids use Facebook, you know. As you rightly say, Christianity is not particularly compatible with the societies they're building for themselves.

Traditional (conservative) Christianity so far has been way more effective at leveraging the internet than liberal variants, I would say. And I'm not worried about getting the kids to dedicate their life to this or that revolution, that's par for the hormonal course, really. However, almost all revolutions are about changing others - often by removing their brains from their skulls with rapidly moving pieces of metal - only a very few are about changing yourself. You better pray that something as nice as Christianity is on the cards when the next revolution comes...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:


What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...


You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
 
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:


What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. That's neither new nor special as such. Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force. Now look around the world, and tell me what the chances are for things continuing in the West as they have been...


You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.
I think IngoB is right. Atheism thrives in a wealthy complacent culture. You could translate what Jesus says as that it's very difficult for a Western (i.e. relatively rich) person to enter the kingdom of God.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is 1) retaliation from others and 2) evolved instincts to avoid such retaliation. But following Yorick, we surely can use our intellect to overcome such biological predispositions if in fact we have no retaliation to fear. Thus once I grab power, I'll use my intellect to overcome my irrational qualms, and kill those I don't like, and exploit / rape those I do like. After all there's nobody and nothing to tell me I shouldn't.

3) affection and sympathy for friends and family; and a desire for their approval of one’s actions
4) the capacity to empathize with others and their position
5)the traditions and mores of the society in which one is a constituent
6)conscience... 7)... 8)...

But you see only two Ingo? Retaliation and the desire to avoid it?

Is that the only thing that dissuades you from sin – the fear of an all-seeing God’s retribution?

What a sad doctrine it must be to which you adhere.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In any case, what evidence do you have for it? The only "utopian communities" - where people look after one another and others and so forth, I mean - that have ever lasted have been religious ones.

The Israeli kibbutzim? Admittedly their members are predominantly Jewish, but the majority of these settlements were established as avowedly non-religious communities.
But I understand your point. Religious communities usually provide a welcome for those in need.

S-E
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You don't paint a great picture of Chistianity/religion there IngoB. Is it really just a last ditch hope for the poor? I certainly don't think so.

Rather, I paint a realistic picture of people. This is not limited to Christianity either, other religions are likewise affected. I think it is actually mostly the illusion wealth provides that one is in control of one's life and fate. That's also why (corrupted versions of) Buddhism are getting popular in the West. They are basically about mastering the remaining uncontrollable issues life provides by your own power and effort. In other words, Pelagius is the high priest of mammon.

quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
But you see only two Ingo? Retaliation and the desire to avoid it? Is that the only thing that dissuades you from sin – the fear of an all-seeing God’s retribution? What a sad doctrine it must be to which you adhere.

Firstly, I was reacting to Marvin's statement. As I said, and you quoted, "And people wonder why theists claim that one needs God to have a foundation for morals... If this is true, then the only thing stopping me from doing whatever I like is..." So spare me the cheap rhetoric, and start reading the actual thread. Secondly, I note with amusement that you were incapable to supply additional reason that went beyond the two I listed. Your "4) the capacity to empathize with others and their position, 5) the traditions and mores of the society in which one is a constituent, 6) conscience" can of course - in the absence of God - be understood as nothing but instantiations of my two points. Your 4) and 6) being examples of my 2) (evolved instincts for retaliation avoidance), your 5) being an example of my 1) (retaliation avoidance).
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's funny that you are so happy about it all. As if a Golden Age of Atheism was in the making. Of course not, there never was and never will be a society without religion. Yet if the domesticated dog dies, the wild wolf comes.

I have no doubt that human beings will always have religious tendencies in some form or other, but I do not share your vision that Christianity (or indeed any of the other main religions today) will endure indefinitely, especially on the foundations you describe (more of which below). But I’d like to know why you feel so confident that there can never be an age of global secularism, and that, without religion, mankind must face the wolves. Do you have a crystal ball?
quote:
What you currently are seeing in the West is largely just the religious acedia and sinful excess induced by wealth. …The only thing special is that the West has managed to make such a lot of people so comparatively rich. To the extent that this universal wealth can be maintained, religion will remain low key. Where the system fails, religion will be back in force.
I find this sentiment both fascinating and repulsive. You seem to relish the prospect of mankind’s decline and fall back to medieval times, in which religion shall have the opportunity to prosper again. Do you really think religion is worth having if it only thrives at the expense of our civilisation and prosperity? Our very recent Western wealth is the product of our industrial, technological and cultural development, and the fruits of our brave and astonishing struggle out of the grime and suffering of poverty. The ‘acedia’ you see is nothing more than a manifestation of the increasing irrelevance of religion in the modern world- not the other way round. Without poverty and suffering mankind has no use for religion, but does that mean we would be better off being poor and suffering? Does it hell.

I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.

I wonder if you have ever experienced true poverty first hand, IngoB. Have you ever seen with your own eyes (and nose) the terrible, terrible depths to which poverty utterly and remorselessly destroys people’s lives? I seriously doubt it, or you would never see prosperity’s ‘acedia’ as a bad thing, and you would never for one nanosecond wish and hope for a cultural disintegration for the sake of your world of slick-lipped priests and corrupt churches and harmful superstitions. You’re sick with the very wealth you condemn!
quote:
You better pray that something as nice as Christianity is on the cards when the next revolution comes...
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion. Indeed, the way I see it, religion still poses the single greatest threat to our ultimate cultural progress, but, I hope, not for long. Although I also lack a crystal ball, I give it another four generations, tops, if we can make it that far.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.

I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?

As to your claim of an inevitable link between the Christian worldview and care for the poor I suggest you have a look at some of the threads about the policies of the US Tea Party types, who often wear their Christian beliefs very much on their sleeves. They are the people currently most active in trying to bring social Darwinism into public policy.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?

No.

In my case it wasn't people; it was God.

The church and the bible and the people came later.

Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion. Indeed, the way I see it, religion still poses the single greatest threat to our ultimate cultural progress, but, I hope, not for long.

Hear, hear!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?

No.

In my case it wasn't people; it was God.

The church and the bible and the people came later.

Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.

Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.

Hallelujah is right. And suffering is universal.

How about these far more common cases, instead of the ones you chose to put the faith in the worst possible light:

A woman loses her job. A man loses his wife. A couple loses their child. A woman loses her sanity. A mother cries over her learned-disabled child. A father cries over his inability to provide for his family during an economic downturn. A family is ripped apart by alcoholism. A veteran becomes homeless because of PTSD. A person has to deal with minority status and the problems that go with it. Somebody cheats you. Somebody lies to you about something very important. You are unjustly accused of some sort of wrongdoing. People gossip about you negatively, hurting your standing in your commmunity.

This is the human condition. People die; children have learning disabilities and the pain that comes from them; jobs are lost; the economy goes into the tank; people lose their feelings of self-worth; people lose their sanity.

How will the philosophy of secular humanism help any of these people? Particularly when even the best professional people often can't?
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
Sigh! [brick wall]
So for the removal of doubt, I have never said, thought or implied that atheism is
quote:
inevitably . . in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview
I totally accept that atheists may, and many do, oppose social-darwinism. You need to turn it the other way around. My argument is:

Social-darwinism in not inevitably unacceptable on atheist principle, whereas it is on Christian principles.

If you believe atheism renders social-darwinism out of court, please explain why? If not the argument stands.

[ 02. March 2011, 15:43: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve seen this time and again. As TubaMirum pointed out, at periods of great suffering, people resort to god. Bereavement is a superb recruiter for Christ. Imprisoned criminals suddenly find faith. Brothers of the murder victims of religious hatred become devoutly, fundamentally, religious. God is in all the darkest and sickest places, like a parasitic opportunist of our suffering. Halleluiah.

Hallelujah is right. And suffering is universal.

How about these far more common cases, instead of the ones you chose to put the faith in the worst possible light:

A woman loses her job. A man loses his wife. A couple loses their child. A woman loses her sanity. A mother cries over her learned-disabled child. A father cries over his inability to provide for his family during an economic downturn. A family is ripped apart by alcoholism. A veteran becomes homeless because of PTSD. A person has to deal with minority status and the problems that go with it. Somebody cheats you. Somebody lies to you about something very important. You are unjustly accused of some sort of wrongdoing. People gossip about you negatively, hurting your standing in your commmunity.

This is the human condition. People die; children have learning disabilities and the pain that comes from them; jobs are lost; the economy goes into the tank; people lose their feelings of self-worth; people lose their sanity.

How will the philosophy of secular humanism help any of these people? Particularly when even the best professional people often can't?

How will religion help them? How many devout Christians have lost their faith precisely in those situations? "How could God do this to me? I must assume there is after all no God."

It happens. I remember a case reported in the papers some years ago when a vicar lost his son. His wife stated that she had lost all faith in a loving God. Is that not worse? At least an atheist need not feel thus bereft.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?

No.

In my case it wasn't people; it was God.

The church and the bible and the people came later.

Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.

Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
You're missing the point, I'd say. What difference does it make whether people will do the saving or not - and they are part of the picture but definitely not the entire picture in my own case - if you won't go to them for help in the first place?

The facts of the matter are these: human beings are broken. There isn't one person on earth that's whole and well - and some people, like me, are broken a lot worse than others. I have a very bad strain of alcoholism in my family; everybody around me was an alcoholic while I was growing up. I didn't, therefore, absorb very much information about how to live in a healthy way - and my brain chemistry is also screwed up. I need to keep my own spiritual condition healthy, or I'll fall back into the insanity. This is a truism, plain and simple, in my case: I've learned over the years how to do it. It works well.

If Yorick wants to argue with people about how they find health and wellness, and (as he says) to destroy religion and I imagine God as well - well, he should at least recognized that he's consigning many of us to continued insanity and likely to an early death. We cannot get ourselves better without spiritual help. At that's really the long and short of it.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
How will religion help them? How many devout Christians have lost their faith precisely in those situations? "How could God do this to me? I must assume there is after all no God."

It happens. I remember a case reported in the papers some years ago when a vicar lost his son. His wife stated that she had lost all faith in a loving God. Is that not worse? At least an atheist need not feel thus bereft.

All I can say is that I had no faith in God for many years, either. Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?

Actually, A.A. has something to say about this, too; "Sometimes A.A, comes harder to those who have lost or rejected faith than to those who never had any faith at all, for they think they have tried faith and found it wanting. They have tried the way of faith and the way of no faith. Since both ways have proved bitterly disappointing, they have concluded there is no place whatever for them to go."

A.A.'s answer is that these people can help others, later, who may be in the same situation. And that's pretty much true of any problem or tragedy; our own experience can benefit others and help them.
 
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?

I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?

I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
He will be a better priest in the future, if he goes back to it. He will be able to really help identify with and help others to whom this has happened. He will be able to say things that will make sense to them, and give them some kind of comfort and hope.

I understand loss of faith, too - it happens to everybody, just as life happens to everybody. I have a bizarre kind of faith anyway, really - I often don't believe in God, but somehow it no longer matters to me. I just go on in hope, I guess. (I believe in Christ, though! Still can't figure that one out. I think I'm a "Doubting Thomas" sort, actually; I need to see it here on earth. Or something like that....)

[ 02. March 2011, 16:58: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Some of us just haven't got the turn of mind to be impressed by very big numbers. Even less so by very small ones.

But that’s probably because these numbers defy comprehension. The Big Bang is so mindblowing not because of whatever we might imagine caused it, but because of what we know happened instantly after it. In the first 10^-30 seconds (that’s one million, million, million, million, millionth of a second), it expanded from being the size of a golf ball to being at least a hundred billion light-years across (or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger), and maybe infinite size. If this inflation doesn’t impress you it’s because you simply cannot imagine it (even though you can easily enough imagine god magicking it).
Yorick, I want to ask you this: how do you, personally, know that what you stated above actually happened? Vass you dere, Sharley? What you have stated is every bit as much a belief system as the theist's propositions about G-d, as far as you personally are concerned. Can you honestly say otherwise? And if so, on what grounds?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But I’d like to know why you feel so confident that there can never be an age of global secularism, and that, without religion, mankind must face the wolves. Do you have a crystal ball?

Read for comprehension. I said you'll always face religion. If you weaken "domesticated dog" religion, then when (not if) religion comes back in force, it will be of the "wild wolf" variety. Atheists should be the best friends of tame religion. You can have your age of global secularism, if you manage to make everybody on the globe live the Western life (as it used to be, one now perhaps must begin to say...). Since that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future, neither is your atheist paradise.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I find this sentiment both fascinating and repulsive. You seem to relish the prospect of mankind’s decline and fall back to medieval times, in which religion shall have the opportunity to prosper again.

I'm simply analyzing the situation. It has nothing to do with wishing this or that. I would wish that everybody in the world would be at least as healthy, wealthy, educated, ... as I am now and at least as religious. Yet, while that is possible in principle, that's not going to happen in practice.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Do you really think religion is worth having if it only thrives at the expense of our civilisation and prosperity?

That's a strange question. Replace "religion" by "freedom" to get a feel for how strange. (I'm not equating the two, I'm saying that reading one for the other will give you an idea how I see your question.) On one hand, civilization and prosperity are only truly worth having with religion. On the other hand, they are sufficiently distinct to be considered as goods in themselves, and in the total absence of these religion will not have much "space" for being good either. What one needs is a harmony. However, our obesity is a beautiful image of the culture we have built. Our culture is "fat" in a way that is not natural to being human in this world. This will rectify itself, but till it does religion will continue to suffer. I would prefer if nothing too drastic happened, because I quite like my own love handles myself (at least the metaphorical ones). But it's quite obvious that change is coming.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I wonder if you have ever experienced true poverty first hand, IngoB. Have you ever seen with your own eyes (and nose) the terrible, terrible depths to which poverty utterly and remorselessly destroys people’s lives?

I've experienced Filipino slums and Russian poor. And for that matter I've seen some of the underbelly of Germany when working as a paramedic (instead of military service). I didn't spend more time there than I had to, but yeah, I've seen some true poverty.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I seriously doubt it, or you would never see prosperity’s ‘acedia’ as a bad thing, and you would never for one nanosecond wish and hope for a cultural disintegration for the sake of your world of slick-lipped priests and corrupt churches and harmful superstitions. You’re sick with the very wealth you condemn!

It's not my problem that your world view is so binary. The religious acedia and many other features of the "fat" West are indeed a very bad thing. That does not make fighting for survival in abject poverty a good thing. And I have never said that I hope for "cultural disintegration". It is however hardly prophetic to note that the West as it has been will be no more in the not so far future, perhaps still in our lifetimes. Change is always destructive to some extent, it is hence prudent to think ahead and maneuver. I told you that atheists would do well to support as much as they can Christianity as it has developed. It would provide a safety buffer for them in future. But frankly, atheists are just too stupid for that, as your little rant once more demonstrates.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I have an incorrigibly optimistic outlook for the future of mankind, but it depends almost completely on our growing up about religion.

That's pretty daft then. On my optimistic days, I can believe that history is not repeating along the lines of late antiquity. We may just be able to develop the base fast enough to keep the superstructure from collapsing catastrophically. But we will come out of the exercise a lot "leaner" than we are now.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Although I also lack a crystal ball, I give it another four generations, tops, if we can make it that far.

Perhaps in Sweden, but again it is pretty daft to confuse Sweden with the world.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
I'm not sure why you keep saying that atheists have no choice but to agree with your opinion of what atheism means. As Yorick has already pointed out, atheism means nothing more than a non-belief in god. Why should that inevitably be in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview?
Sigh! [brick wall]
So for the removal of doubt, I have never said, thought or implied that atheism is
quote:
inevitably . . in harmony with a social-darwinist worldview
I totally accept that atheists may, and many do, oppose social-darwinism. You need to turn it the other way around. My argument is:

Social-darwinism in not inevitably unacceptable on atheist principle, whereas it is on Christian principles.

If you believe atheism renders social-darwinism out of court, please explain why? If not the argument stands.

Try reading what you write. You said, and the contrast with [your idea of] Christianity was clear, that social-darwinism is as equally in harmony with an atheist worldview as care for the poor is with Christianity. In other words you were claiming that there was an inevitable link between social darwinism and atheism.

I gave you examples of why declared Christians are promoting social Darwinism. Have you read those threads? If not, why not, before commenting further? So there are clearly Christians who don't think that social Darwinism is unacceptable to Christian principles, despite what you say, and they are actively promoting that view in US politics. BTW you do realise that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin?

And it is not for me to argue why atheism renders social-darwinism out of court. It is you who are making the libel; the onus of proof lies on you.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Try reading what you write. You said, and the contrast with [your idea of] Christianity was clear, that social-darwinism is as equally in harmony with an atheist worldview as care for the poor is with Christianity. In other words you were claiming that there was an inevitable link between social darwinism and atheism.

I gave you examples of why declared Christians are promoting social Darwinism. Have you read those threads? If not, why not, before commenting further? So there are clearly Christians who don't think that social Darwinism is unacceptable to Christian principles, despite what you say, and they are actively promoting that view in US politics. BTW you do realise that "social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin?

And it is not for me to argue why atheism renders social-darwinism out of court. It is you who are making the libel; the onus of proof lies on you.

No, she's not saying that at all. Here's a quote, page 3, my bold:


quote:
In terms of world-view, what Christianity states is that as a matter of objective (though eminently not publicly-provable) fact, the future of the world is determined by a Being whose commands for Man are that we build society to care for the weak, based on honesty and purity in all our dealings, and that we all will be judged on the basis of how far we promoted the welfare of all, and that just as in some distant future, the Earth will be dissolved, equally certainly, the world will belong to the poor, the meek and those who hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Now an atheist may take a similar view. He is at liberty to do so. Or he may take a Social-Darwinian view. But a Christian has to take that view, and there lies a difference.

I really can't see what could possibly be confusing about that. Either-or, plain as day. No "inevitable link" stated or implied.

[ 03. March 2011, 03:31: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Perhaps it's harder for people who are "in the business," so to speak. But why should they be exempt from the pain of living, when nobody else is?

I must admit that, sorry as I felt for her, that was my reaction. What kind of faith survives the knowledge of the terrible things that happen to other people, but dies when it happens to you?
A very selfish one, I'm thinking-- where evils that happen to other people aren't really evil compared to evils that happen to me.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But it’s people who actually deliver in this mortal life, isn’t it? God doesn’t go round knocking on doors with those little red envelopes, collecting coins for Christian Aid. When those poor people call upon God, their anchor and advocate, to save them from their trauma and oppression, it’s people who actually do the saving, right?

No.

In my case it wasn't people; it was God.

The church and the bible and the people came later.

Never knew a thing about the Christian faith until God arrived.

Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.
The former [Yipee]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you weaken "domesticated dog" religion, then when (not if) religion comes back in force, it will be of the "wild wolf" variety.

Okay, I apologise for my miscomprehension, but why do you think ‘wild wolf religion’ would have any greater foothold than ‘tame religion’ in a post-religious secular age, in which acedia/prosperity makes religion irrelevant? I guess you’re talking about religious extremism and fundamentalism stepping into the chaos of a post-apocalyptic imploding secular world, I suppose. Crystal ball much?
quote:
I would prefer if nothing too drastic happened, because I quite like my own love handles myself (at least the metaphorical ones). But it's quite obvious that change is coming…
the West as it has been will be no more in the not so far future, perhaps still in our lifetimes.
I have never said that I hope for "cultural disintegration".

But you do though, don’t you? I find your thinly-veiled relish rather chilling, but again, why are you so convinced that Western culture is doomed? All of mankind wants it, it seems.
quote:
I told you that atheists would do well to support as much as they can Christianity as it has developed. It would provide a safety buffer for them in future. But frankly, atheists are just too stupid for that, as your little rant once more demonstrates.

Again, I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand this. Why do you suppose a flourishing Christian church would be beneficial to a secular world? How would it operate as a ‘safety buffer’ (from religious extremism, I suppose)?
quote:
On my optimistic days, I can believe that history is not repeating along the lines of late antiquity. We may just be able to develop the base fast enough to keep the superstructure from collapsing catastrophically. But we will come out of the exercise a lot "leaner" than we are now.
Yes, I think so too, because we will hopefully be rid of the pathological atherosclerosis of religion.
quote:
Perhaps in Sweden, but again it is pretty daft to confuse Sweden with the world.
But where Sweden leads, who knows that the world will not follow? There’s always one child who matures before the rest of the class.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Pre-Cambrian:

I note you never attempted to show why social-darwinism is refutable on atheist principles.

Can you at least say whether you think it is? All I'm saying it that it isn't. If you change "in harmony with" to "not refutable by" do we agree?

What I suspect is that you agree that atheism does not provide a refutation of social-darwinism (in which we agree) but against me, you believe christianity can't do it either. Hence your references to far-right christian groups.

Am I right? If so it's probably to long an argument. There are good/bad/wise/stupid christians, socialists, atheists etc. That only reflects on the beliefs they purport to hold, if you can show that the badness comes from the belief, considered intelligently.

The fact that many socialists are rich and use any tax dodge they can, does not in my view detract from the fact that socialism teaches egalitarianism. As christianity teach care for the weak, and many other things.

And as atheism teaches: there is no god. THere have been quasi religious cults set up by atheists. I would not use that as an argument that atheism "secretly" is a religion.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles". Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than a non-belief in god. You raise a strawman and then complain when I don't accept it as the basis of discussion.

But you went beyond even that. Following TubaMirum's attempted defence of you I refer her, and you, again to your post that I had actually quoted:
quote:
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
I.e. just as care of the poor must be a result of a Christian worldview so social-darwinism is equally in harmony with an atheist worldview. OK, you are now saying that isn't your position. Good.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.

The former [Yipee]
Riiiiiiight.

For that to be in any way true, you must be defining "trauma and oppression" in some misty, new-agey, all-in-your-head kind of way. Right?

Which means you weren't actually answering Yorick's point. He wasn't talking about some kind of "I felt really bad and then I suddenly felt really good - it must have been God" thing, he was talking about real trauma and oppression. The kind that happy thoughts can't actually change. The kind that needs people to help you out of it.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay, I apologise for my miscomprehension, but why do you think ‘wild wolf religion’ would have any greater foothold than ‘tame religion’ in a post-religious secular age, in which acedia/prosperity makes religion irrelevant? I guess you’re talking about religious extremism and fundamentalism stepping into the chaos of a post-apocalyptic imploding secular world, I suppose. Crystal ball much?

I'm not sure that a catastrophic end of "the West as we know it" is necessary. With a bit of luck and a lot of effort, it will just fade into something new. I'm merely saying that I'm betting religion will be back much stronger in what is to come. The weaker "tame" religion will be at that point in time, the more likely that "wild" religion will rule the day. Hence atheists should cultivate "tame" religion as insurance policy - if they were any smart.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But you do though, don’t you? I find your thinly-veiled relish rather chilling, but again, why are you so convinced that Western culture is doomed? All of mankind wants it, it seems.

Why would I relish something that will likely bring great disadvantage to me and my family? Do you reckon a computational neuroscientist will be all the rage post-apocalypse? Western culture is doomed by virtue of being unsustainable for the global population, and likely being unsustainable even for "core Western countries" much longer. And the attraction of our culture to others is at least to 50% based on simple envy for our current wealth and power.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Again, I’m sorry, I genuinely don’t understand this. Why do you suppose a flourishing Christian church would be beneficial to a secular world? How would it operate as a ‘safety buffer’ (from religious extremism, I suppose)?

It would not be beneficial to a secular world. It would be beneficial to the non-religious in case the secular world (or rather, the mostly secular part of the world) goes belly up. Because it is almost certain that other contenders for religious leadership will be a lot less tolerant to the non-religious.

Incidentally, Dawkins may be stupid in many ways, but as a career academic he is instinctively doing the right thing, see his comments on Rowan Williams & the CofE.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, I think so too, because we will hopefully be rid of the pathological atherosclerosis of religion.

I really have no time for this attitude.

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But where Sweden leads, who knows that the world will not follow? There’s always one child who matures before the rest of the class.

There's also always one child who has head lice before the rest of the class. So what?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm merely saying that I'm betting religion will be back much stronger in what is to come.
......
Western culture is doomed by virtue of being unsustainable for the global population, and likely being unsustainable even for "core Western countries" much longer.

Right on both counts Ingo!

I am always amused by talk of an increasingly secular world because that secular world is mainly in the West, and its position is declining, not gaining. Most of the world is not so secular.

But I have hope that a sustainable form of western culture is spreading around the globe. It is pretty hard to distinguish development and the West, but if Facebook is overthrowing governments in North Africa it seems that the whole world has a come a long way.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles". Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than a non-belief in god. You raise a strawman and then complain when I don't accept it as the basis of discussion.

But you went beyond even that. Following TubaMirum's attempted defence of you I refer her, and you, again to your post that I had actually quoted:
quote:
So a christian worldview states that the care of the poor and ( . you get the picture . ) is vital for happiness, and if you go against this, it is injurious to you. That does not mean that you have to have this worldview to take this moral stance, but it doesn't follow from the worldview, and I don't see how the atheist could argue that a social-darwinian position is not equally in harmony with an atheist worldview.
I.e. just as care of the poor must be a result of a Christian worldview so social-darwinism is equally in harmony with an atheist worldview. OK, you are now saying that isn't your position. Good.
I think she left out a word in that post or something; just keep in mind what she said in her original post and there isn't any problem.

The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."

However, there is a set of Christian principles; they're found in the Bible, with its repeated injunctions to care for the poor and for widows and orphans - and with Jesus' statements. Such as, "Whatever you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it for me." "The meek shall inherit the earth." Etc. And with his execution as a criminal. And with Paul: "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty...."

There really is no way to make these things compatible with Social Darwinism, no matter what any particular group of people tries to claim; they can be easily refuted.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either you're claiming that God Himself directly saved you from your trauma and oppression without anyone else being involved, or you're not answering Yorick's point at all.

The former [Yipee]
Riiiiiiight.

For that to be in any way true, you must be defining "trauma and oppression" in some misty, new-agey, all-in-your-head kind of way. Right?

Which means you weren't actually answering Yorick's point. He wasn't talking about some kind of "I felt really bad and then I suddenly felt really good - it must have been God" thing, he was talking about real trauma and oppression. The kind that happy thoughts can't actually change. The kind that needs people to help you out of it.

On the contrary.....like TubaMirium said....sometimes God is the only thing that can help you out of it.

Christians believe in the presence of God. Yes we, as people, change and help things to bring in the Kingdom, but there is also always the transcendent aspect of God present.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
On the contrary.....like TubaMirium said....sometimes God is the only thing that can help you out of it.

But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.

If you're going to claim a genuine case of demonstrable oppression and/or trauma that was alleviated by God alone, with no other people involved, then I would be fascinated to hear more of the details.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.

I'm not sure many people would agree with that. [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.

I'm not sure many people would agree with that. [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.

*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.

*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.

Generally I agree with you. But I think you under-estimate changes that are purely internal by equating them to "I think bad now I feel good". For a start some of these internal changes work in the opposite direction, as when someone realises the wrongness of their current actions. Plus it under-values the changes thjat can sometimes take place, as in the example I have quoted before of someone who totally collapsed and became (in her own words) "a stinking drug and alcohol dependent wreck" and then simply "came to" entirely without any other person involved. She went on to take a degree in sociology and SFAIK is working in that field.

I agree that this can never be provably anything to do with God, and the case I quote illustrates this since the lady involved had and has no religious faith. But in the case of Peter Howson (Scottish artist - whose story as told on BBC4 is very moving), he does attribute his turnaround to God.

So it can be neither conclusively proved, nor denied to any purpose. Like most of this, the action of God is believable.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But He doesn't, does He? No poor person has ever been lifted out of their poverty by God alone, it's people that do it.

I'm not sure many people would agree with that. [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
If it's so obvious to you all that God does save people from oppression or trauma* without any other people being involved then please do give me some examples of it happening. Hell, one example will do.

*= other than of the the "I felt bad and now I feel good" variety which I mentioned earlier, of course.

Well, when people pray to God for help in the middle of the night, many times there's nobody else there. Who's going to help? And fairly often, nobody who might be around can help either. (i.e., even married people can feel completely alone, if their marriage is not working properly.)

That's one pretty simple and common example.

Further, I personally can say that even having sought help for various problems from professionls (i.e., people I paid to help me), I often didn't receive even the smallest amount of help - and sometimes I was ridiculed. I'll give you an example if you like.

And Freddy is making a good point, too. Who does help people who are, say, on their last dollar? In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable. That's just the way it is.

You seem to want to lower the bar of desperation (or depression, or whatever the emergency is) to "I felt bad and now I feel good." That's not the reality.

At times, in other words, there is no help but God. Even people who get paid to provide help aren't able to.

There are lots of examples, actually.

[ 04. March 2011, 11:50: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, when people pray to God for help in the middle of the night, many times there's nobody else there. Who's going to help? And fairly often, nobody who might be around can help either. (i.e., even married people can feel completely alone, if their marriage is not working properly.)

Oh yes, people cry out for help all the time. I'm not denying that. I'm asking about where that help actually comes from (if anywhere).

quote:
At times, in other words, there is no help but God. Even people who get paid to provide help aren't able to.
So what help does He give? Financial? Medical? Demonstrable? Actual?

quote:
There are lots of examples, actually.
So give me one.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."

Since when have Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism been the only two options? You are claiming that any atheist who is not a Secular Humanist must be a Social Darwinist which is complete nonsense. And the "logic" that deduces this from there being no set of atheist principles leaves me speechless.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The point is that, exactly for the reason you give above ("Of course social-darwinism cannot be refuted on atheist principles, because as has been said more than once there is not a set of atheist "principles".), an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist. Because there is not a set of atheist "principles."

Since when have Social Darwinism and Secular Humanism been the only two options? You are claiming that any atheist who is not a Secular Humanist must be a Social Darwinist which is complete nonsense. And the "logic" that deduces this from there being no set of atheist principles leaves me speechless.
So sorry: I'm not claiming any such thing. I'm speaking to the two issues that have been raised here.

The point is a perfectly obvious one, and I'll lay it out in the simplest possible terms for you: There is nothing to stop an atheist from being a Social Darwinist; she is perfectly free to do so. There is something that stops a Christian from being a Social Darwinist; he is NOT perfectly free to do so.

It's pretty clear you're not open to actually discussing the issue, though, preferring to ignore what people have said, set up straw men, feign shock, and remain speechless. That's fine with me. If you ever get your voice again, and would like to be reasonable about this, I'll be happy to continue the conversation.

Till then, thanks - but no thanks.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
No. What is perfectly clear is that you write things ("an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist", i.e. one or the other, the only two options) and then when you are challenged you deny them.

You say Christians are stopped from being Social Darwinists. But earlier you said:
quote:
In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable.
That is Social Darwinism, in the western country with the highest level of regular church going, where right-wing politics, free-market economics and conservative Christianity go hand in hand. Are you really saying there is no connection?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
No. What is perfectly clear is that you write things ("an atheist can either be a Social Darwinist or a Secular Humanist", i.e. one or the other, the only two options) and then when you are challenged you deny them.

quote:
Interesting that I never did say "i.e. one or the other, the only two options." You're the only one who did.

But I can understand this; it's definitely a good way to continue avoiding what's actually happening in the discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
[QB] You say Christians are stopped from being Social Darwinists. But earlier you said:
[QUOTE] In the U.S., at any rate, there's not much help. And there's not much sympathy, either; this is a hard-core capitalistic society, and if you're not making somebody some money, you're not really worth anything to them, and you're expendable.

That is Social Darwinism, in the western country with the highest level of regular church going, where right-wing politics, free-market economics and conservative Christianity go hand in hand. Are you really saying there is no connection?

I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Sorry, a little problem with the formatting there.

(BTW, if you'd actually read the things I've been writing, instead of making your own assumptions and pretending they're mine, you'll notice that I said I believe that the cause-and-effect factor between U.S. religiousity and capitalism goes exactly the other way. To wit: there IS a connection - and that is that hard-line capitalism RESULTS in more religiosity. Not the other way around.)
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.

Of course not. Would a Christian nation elect a Muslim President? [Big Grin]

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have never, once, anywhere, or at any time claimed that the U.S. was a "Christian nation." Because, you know, I don't believe it is.

Depends on how you mean the phrase "Christian nation". If you mean "a nation with a population that predominantly adheres to some form of Christianity", then the U.S. is indeed a Christian nation. On the other hand if you mean "a nation where the state officially provides support for Christianity", then the U.S. should not be so classified. It seems like Pre-cambrian's comments on Christianity in the U.S. are more along the lines of the former than the latter.

Or are you maintaining that most of those claiming to be Christians in the U.S. aren't real and for true Christians?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0