Thread: Is belief in God about whom you know nothing directly worth having? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020063
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
I think I am getting close to this.
I have long been drawn to the much quoted Feuerbach saying that "Statements about God can always be reduced to statements about man" and whilst I am cautious of it, it makes a lot of sense.
My main reason for holding back is the similarity of saying "Statements about other people can be reduced to statements about our sensory experience" which makes the same sort of sense but which my instinct tells be is radically mistaken.
But I am drawn to it particularly now, as my wife is studying a theology course and is engaging with view of providence, and people imagining God ordering his decrees, or running possible scenarios on a celestial super computer. And that's before you get to problems about God being "outside of time" (whatever that means) which seems to make foreknowledge a nonsense concept. All the books she has which once I would have valued (as an ex-Calvinist) just strike me as verbiage, which I can't even be bothered to read. (Partly, of course because I've heard it all before).
In practice it leads to a religion in which all you can say about God reduces to what can be said about Jesus, and I would include other religious leaders, such as the OT prophets. And I believe it was Schleiermacher who wanted to redefine theology as the study of religious experience, because at least we can study that. What we can't do is study God.
So why not just be an atheist and have done with it? And I think that is because I find explanations of experience that leave out God are incomplete and unsatisfactory. There is something else worth seeking after, but I don't think we can obtain direct knowledge of him. Perhaps, as with art, seeking a theoretical framework is the wrong response.
Is it only me?
[ 29. January 2017, 17:45: Message edited by: anteater ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I disagree with you on two counts:
The first, in that I think there is more to be said about God than can be said about Jesus, especially if you are limiting this to what is said in the gospels. Other scriptural, traditional, and reasoning sources add to what we might say about God.
The second, in that we can have direct experience of God, and many do. I do, for example, through the contemplative route - 'Be still, and know that I am God'.
Naturally talk and thoughts about God are from a human perspective: as God is revealed to us, we can only use our own language, intellect and imaginative interpretation to describe and translate it.
We can study God, through the lens of our and others' experience of God, and through all that God has created.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
... In practice it leads to a religion in which all you can say about God reduces to what can be said about Jesus, ...
Why is that shocking? Haven't you just made a profound theological statement? Col 1:15, of Jesus, (this from the WEB to avoid copyright issues)
quote:
"who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation".
In Christian theology, if one wants to try to find out anything about the nature of God Is there anywhere else to start? Why insist on looking elsewhere? Anything else would be working from one's own speculations. What value would that be? What prospect would there be that way, of getting anywhere worth going to?
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Raptor Eye: quote:
Other scriptural, traditional, and reasoning sources add to what we might say about God.
Well of course, I see that in principle, and used to be dedicated, to the point of obsession, at understanding God. I just lost confidence in it all, as it became less and less meaningful to me. I assume that is not true of you. Maybe it means something to you to say "God is outside of time". To me, now, it is just words. Confession: I have been influenced a lot by logical positivism and linguistic philosophy, and this colours my thought.
quote:
The second, in that we can have direct experience of God, and many do.
I agree we can interpret our experience in this way, which is what converts are taught. But I don't know how you tell whether a feeling of, say, ecstatic calmness and oneness with the world, is any more that simple that, and needing no interpretation. Rather like Metson's remark about Christians who can't walk through a beautiful countryside without going on about God "as if there's something wrong with religion" (to quote him). What does it add to bring God in? Most recorded theophanies made the recipients feel bad. How often do you hear: God drew close to me, I know because I felt like shit?
Enoch: quote:
Why insist on looking elsewhere?
I would say because of an extremely strong desire to understand God so as to be able to predict how things will turn out, and/or cope with the way things do. So for many, it is vitally important to still believe the God is all-powerful and then somehow to square this with the messiness of the world. Hence theories of providence.
They've lost their appeal to me, not because I no longer would like to know, but because I have just ceased to find that sort of discourse at all relevant.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
... I would say because of an extremely strong desire to understand God so as to be able to predict how things will turn out, and/or cope with the way things do. So for many, it is vitally important to still believe the God is all-powerful and then somehow to square this with the messiness of the world. Hence theories of providence.
They've lost their appeal to me, not because I no longer would like to know, but because I have just ceased to find that sort of discourse at all relevant.
Has it occurred to you that that might be progress?
Rather than trying to explain God, as though one can only believe if he can fit within what we expect of him, perhaps the next step might be to accept him on his own terms, irrespective of whether one can make sense of him.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rather than trying to explain God, as though one can only believe if he can fit within what we expect of him, perhaps the next step might be to accept him on his own terms, irrespective of whether one can make sense of him.
Good thought. If we are using God as an index at the back of the book to understand the book, we really have the bull by the wrong end of the horns*. God isn't an explanatory principle but a person to be in relationship with. Using God to explain things is a God-of-the-gaps kind of use. Not really what God is "for".
___________________________
* (no metaphors were harmed in the production of this sentence)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Excellent question, anteater. And no. For you and me no one has had 'direct' experience of God for two thousand years. I'm happy with God in Christ as 99.9% of all the most direct human experience of the divine. Surely all we can do is seek a (theoretical) framework?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well of course, I see that in principle, and used to be dedicated, to the point of obsession, at understanding God. I just lost confidence in it all, as it became less and less meaningful to me. I assume that is not true of you. Maybe it means something to you to say "God is outside of time". To me, now, it is just words. Confession: I have been influenced a lot by logical positivism and linguistic philosophy, and this colours my thought.
As others have suggested, this is progress. It means very little to me to say that God is outside of time, but that is OK. Once I too would have worked on it mentally. Now I hold many ideas and possibilities about God as questions without answers. It is important to shed the images of God we have often held in our minds since childhood, and to approach God with as open a mind as is possible.
quote:
I agree we can interpret our experience in this way, which is what converts are taught. But I don't know how you tell whether a feeling of, say, ecstatic calmness and oneness with the world, is any more that simple that, and needing no interpretation. Rather like Metson's remark about Christians who can't walk through a beautiful countryside without going on about God "as if there's something wrong with religion" (to quote him). What does it add to bring God in? Most recorded theophanies made the recipients feel bad. How often do you hear: God drew close to me, I know because I felt like shit?
I haven't heard anyone say that it was a bad experience when God drew near to them. Rather, it is an experience of joy.
Ecstatic encounters happen, but there is a caution in that this is the area in which some might be manipulated. I suggest that if there is a 'low' afterwards, perhaps the 'high' should be questioned.
I would extend your 'ecstatic calmness and oneness with the world' to include God simply because God is also there in the oneness of the world, in and through it all.
We human beings are limited by our own capacity, but the capacity of God is boundless and worth opening ourselves up to, even though we will not comprehend it.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
An unequivocal yes to the OP of course. The no was to your being alone.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
What does it add to bring God in? Most recorded theophanies made the recipients feel bad. How often do you hear: God drew close to me, I know because I felt like shit?
Okay, this cracks me up. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'll say it, if you like: Though I've had the occasional ecstatic experiences, I've also had the "oh shit" ones. Mainly because it became clear that the reason he was drawing near was to tell me something I didn't want to hear.
One case happened when I was in the hospital a couple of years ago and feeling fairly unnoticed and ignored by God. I was also in a tight spot as far as an obligation I had badly neglected. When the person I had, er, never mind, called and I had to face the music, I did what I've never (well, very very rarely) done before: I used my skill with words to spin doctor the situation.
THAT got me a divine eye swiveling in my direction faster than a very very VERY fast thing (shudder). Oh dear. Oh shit, rather. Yes, I wanted his attention, but not THAT way.
I'll spare you all the details of my divine spanking, but it was memorable. And I knew what was going down ahead of time, and sure enough... If I'd been in any mood to get into further trouble, I could have played the prophet.
Definitely an "oh shit" experience of God's drawing near.
Another (less painful to my tush) was when I made the mistake of asking him what he wanted me to do with my life (you know, the usual thing you're wondering when you're trying to pick a college and a major). Yes, I had an experience of his nearness on that occasion; I got one word, too: "Missions." To which my answer was literally "OH SHIT!" and I spent the next two hours walking round the backyard and trying to argue him out of it. Behold my lack of success.
Seriously, I think a lot of people have had "oh shit it's him again" experiences when they feel him breathing down their necks. Because if you pick up that phone (to mix a metaphor) you might get something you just don't want to deal with. And so we (well, I) ignore him. Until my cowardice becomes too unbearable.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have long been drawn to the much quoted Feuerbach saying that "Statements about God can always be reduced to statements about man" and whilst I am cautious of it, it makes a lot of sense.
Certainly does! I would go further and say that all ‘statements’ about god are statements about what people believe God to be.[ quote:
But I am drawn to it particularly now, as my wife is studying a theology course and is engaging with view of providence, and people imagining God ordering his decrees, or running possible scenarios on a celestial super computer. And that's before you get to problems about God being "outside of time" (whatever that means) which seems to make foreknowledge a nonsense concept. All the books she has which once I would have valued (as an ex-Calvinist) just strike me as verbiage, which I can't even be bothered to read. (Partly, of course because I've heard it all before).
I shall be interested to hear if anyone on such a course comes up with any claim to have actual knowledge of God, or whether there is a tacit understanding that they are always studying what humans have said. quote:
In practice it leads to a religion in which all you can say about God reduces to what can be said about Jesus, and I would include other religious leaders, such as the OT prophets. And I believe it was Schleiermacher who wanted to redefine theology as the study of religious experience, because at least we can study that. What we can't do is study God.
No argument from me there! I would say we can study human experiences which are considered to be religious, but that is, I acknowledge, unnecessarily picky with the wording. quote:
So why not just be an atheist and have done with it? And I think that is because I find explanations of experience that leave out God are incomplete and unsatisfactory. There is something else worth seeking after, but I don't think we can obtain direct knowledge of him. Perhaps, as with art, seeking a theoretical framework is the wrong response.
I think it is because we humans are so accustomed to finding answers to questions, that we find it a little harder to be able to say ‘we don’t know’ without addinga ‘but’ at the end!
That was a very interesting OP.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Missed edit time - I should have said 'all posts' not just OP.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
LambChopped:
Well maybe I've got too cynical about Christians, being around too many who equate God's presence with woozy kinda' nice feelings, and have overlooked than many realise that (as with Peter) contact with the divine can be unpleasant (those who have achieved perfection excepted).
I can can see a lot of sense in interpreting these type of "Oh shit, not that!" moments as a truer encounter with God than floaty ecstasy.
But getting back to what you can say, it does affect how one talks to those interested in the faith and those in need of help to cope with what happens to them. Maybe the best response to "why did God allow that" is to admit that you've not got a clue, but can think of half a dozen nostrums which are useless.
It is often said in sermons, that the only time Job's comforters were administering the comfort of God was when they kept quiet.
But as a self-critique of the dangers of liberalism, I am now in a position of being able to see a life of purely natural happiness, which sadly does include material resources, and where other demands get in my way. This could be the practical removal of the fear of God, and there is a danger. At present, a cynic might say from my conversations and fads, I've got more fear of carbohydrates than God.
Room to improve?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
My unlearned take.
Extremity. Violence, death, terror. No rescue, no answer, no nothing. Comfort later. I am a child about it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
LambChopped:
Well maybe I've got too cynical about Christians, being around too many who equate God's presence with woozy kinda' nice feelings, and have overlooked than many realise that (as with Peter) contact with the divine can be unpleasant (those who have achieved perfection excepted).
I can can see a lot of sense in interpreting these type of "Oh shit, not that!" moments as a truer encounter with God than floaty ecstasy.
Yeah, well, maybe the problem is that it's embarrassing to talk about most of the "oh shit" moments, since they are so often hooked up with "I fucked up" causes. (Though I have to say that being a good Lutheran, I get extremely embarrassed about any talk of woozy emotions either, maybe more so, because we're the kind of people who shake hands politely instead of kissing at our weddings. (just kidding!) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
Also, it seems to me that the floaty ecstasy moments come to certain personality types a lot easier than others--certainly the admitting of them does, anyway--and while I think God is capable and likely to produce either "oh God" or "oh SHIT" feelings in us, the "oh SHIT" feelings are easier for me to trust, because they're not the sort of things I'd likely manufacture myself. But other people's mileage may vary, particularly if they're prone to false guilt.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But getting back to what you can say, it does affect how one talks to those interested in the faith and those in need of help to cope with what happens to them. Maybe the best response to "why did God allow that" is to admit that you've not got a clue, but can think of half a dozen nostrums which are useless.
It is often said in sermons, that the only time Job's comforters were administering the comfort of God was when they kept quiet.
Yes, my usual first response to "I've got cancer" or the like is "Oh fuck. That sucks." and then a ton of listening. When it comes to theological explanations I don't go there unless the person begs me to (ha, like that's likely), and then I stick to "We don't really know, God hasn't told us" and focus on Christ crucified (which is God experiencing all of our shit along with us). We really don't know much more than that--well, and his promises to love us, be with us, etc. which are only of comfort to a believer, and not them in certain moods. It's far more helpful when I get off my ass and start calling the foreclosure people or whatever, making soup or driving them to the doctor. God in action through his people--not yaffling about what we don't understand.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But as a self-critique of the dangers of liberalism, I am now in a position of being able to see a life of purely natural happiness, which sadly does include material resources, and where other demands get in my way. This could be the practical removal of the fear of God, and there is a danger. At present, a cynic might say from my conversations and fads, I've got more fear of carbohydrates than God.
Room to improve?
Dude! (excuse the out-of-date Californianism) You've found a life of purely natural happiness? Do tell! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Seriously, I've never been able to keep my head above the shit long enough to find more than brief periods of natural happiness, and the same seems to be true of the people around me. Well, color me jealous. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
How does someone "do" sorrow without something other than "just this here"? Maybe I'm deluded. But I prefer delusion to the alternative.
Didn;t someone day that if God didn't exist, we'd have to invent God, and look! we did!
I could philosophically support the notion that we did invent God, and then we follow the teachings of <name guru or founder of religion here> as a moral example of how to live a good life. I can't realistically support it though. I've tried rather vigourously. It doesn't work for me.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
SusanDoris: Will we ever shop-meet again?
Maybe in the next life? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But seriously, how do you handle my anti-Feuerbach saying that all statements about other people can be reduced to statements about myself and my sensory experiences?
I think intuition comes in somewhere.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have long been drawn to the much quoted Feuerbach saying that "Statements about God can always be reduced to statements about man" and whilst I am cautious of it, it makes a lot of sense.
Certainly does! I would go further and say that all ‘statements’ about god are statements about what people believe God to be.
All statements about anything are about what people believe that thing to be. Two of the questions to ask are is it a fruitful or meaningful statement (or merely a truism*), and what is the basis of the belief? What evidence is it founded on - historical, eyewitness, experiential, scientific etc.
(*This may vary with context - the law of gravity tends to be a truism in general human discourse, but comes freighted with much meaning and many questions in relation to quantum physics, relativity etc.)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Thank you for your reply. I'll have a think or two and come back!
... and to Bro James.
[ 30. January 2017, 15:39: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have long been drawn to the much quoted Feuerbach saying that "Statements about God can always be reduced to statements about man" and whilst I am cautious of it, it makes a lot of sense.
Certainly does! I would go further and say that all ‘statements’ about god are statements about what people believe God to be.
All statements about anything are about what people believe that thing to be. Two of the questions to ask are is it a fruitful or meaningful statement (or merely a truism*), and what is the basis of the belief? What evidence is it founded on - historical, eyewitness, experiential, scientific etc.
(*This may vary with context - the law of gravity tends to be a truism in general human discourse, but comes freighted with much meaning and many questions in relation to quantum physics, relativity etc.)
Yes, it's not really a harsh criticism of religion to say that it's about what people believe. Humans are not going to have access to the noumena, or objective reality. They have to make do with inter-subjective stuff, which is testable, (phenomena). Or in the case of aesthetics and religion, subjective stuff.
But then you could only criticize religion if you expected it to be like science. I suppose some religionists treat it as if it is.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
SusanDoris: Will we ever shop-meet again?
Maybe in the next life?
I wish I was good at light, witty comments!!! quote:
But seriously, how do you handle my anti-Feuerbach saying that all statements about other people can be reduced to statements about myself and my sensory experiences?
I went to Wikipedia and read the page on Ludwig Feuerbach. Not having studied Philosophy, I had not heard of him before. He sounds like a person I'd like to have Met! Finding enough like minds in his time must have been hard, and the likelihood of finding international correspondents with similar views and maintaining good communication with them even harder.
!
As far as reducing all statements about other people to statements about myself and my experiences, I suppose one could do that, but it would seem to be rather a pointless exercise, if done more than a few times to see how it works. quote:
I think intuition comes in somewhere.
Quick check for definition of intuition: quote:
the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning
Since our instincts have evolved and persist and are mainly for survival, I would say that all other 'intuitions'’ are learned from the adults who keep us alive when small, the environment and general ethos we grow up in and are the reason for what we call our 'intuitions'. We know from the knowledge gained by scientists and researchers in more recent times that many things we believed were intuitive are in fact the opposite , so it is more important than ever to be clear about what are facts and what come under the 'don't know' heading, rather than trust intuition. In my opinion we can then better enjoy the non-fiction and all the Arts much more satisfactorily.
Because of the information available to us we can be confident about a great deal for which we do not have personal experience.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Back to counting my days again in the face of only physical reality that needs no explanation beyond the infinite eternal open thermodynamic universe coalescer.
In the morning gloom I'd forgotten that last night's retaken Pascal's wager is quite a good deal. Suffering ends either way. And, if, unbelievably, there is something, a transcendent spirit reality beyond this breath, it will be, as Dave says to Hal at the end of 2010, something wonderful.
What lies before us is restitution for all loss.
[ 18. March 2017, 10:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
There is always going to be a feeling or claim that mankind created a straw god and, as religion became increasingly complex, came to more and more put his/her own head on it's shoulders.
That's if I've got the OP right.
The earliest development of the Homo Sapien intellect, and how religion came to be a part of that intellectual experience is where the rational answer must lie. That is presuming one is seeking a scientific explanation as opposed to simply accepting God as God which, having willingly excluded all evidence to the contrary, happens to be what Faith actually is
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Both. As I was writing my defense of Pascal's wager as a response to the OP, it occurred to me that Platinga, I would imagine, in the tradition of Aquinas (To the Thomist God is. God is an unavoidable, obvious given.) would say that it is illogical, meaningless to propose a non sapient supra-physical, open thermodynamic, universe making entity, predicated on, or being, something as bizarre as because null, then non-null. Stuff exists. Because it can. That is the first (in layer terms, not time) cause.
Such statements are empty tautologies?
Therefore the only logical explanation is that stuff exists because an entity that depends on nothing, no layer, just is, wills it?
The trouble is, that is still dependent on logic being inferred beyond physics.
Cuh, I dunno.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
You've lost me a little there Martin, although I do concur with the "Cuh, I dunno" bit.
It is the overwhelming irrationality of a Godless Universe that prevents me trying to claw my way back to secularism.
Faith can be weak, it can be groaning of the Spirit aplenty, but a vast incomprehensible Cosmos with --splat-- us on a planetary pinhead for no purpose other than to scratch our butts? Nah, can't see it.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's the trouble, I can. But for Jesus.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It seems I'm just recapitulating an 'O' level version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Which I feel less dismissive of now. Despite William Lane Craig!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
You've lost me a little there Martin, although I do concur with the "Cuh, I dunno" bit.
It is the overwhelming irrationality of a Godless Universe that prevents me trying to claw my way back to secularism.
Faith can be weak, it can be groaning of the Spirit aplenty, but a vast incomprehensible Cosmos with --splat-- us on a planetary pinhead for no purpose other than to scratch our butts? Nah, can't see it.
Could you say more about why you think it is so irrational for there to be a universe without a God?
Apart from the fact that the universe does not have to be 100% explicable to us - our species has been around for only a milli-second of the time this planet has had life onit - and that present-day scientists are gradually building up a fairly good understanding of things, as soon as some agency is conjectured which put us here, a whole new set of questions opens up!
It is our human personal incredulity which thinks there must be a purpose because we live our lives with purpose most of the time, and it is very hard to remind oneself that there isn't or wasn't one. We happened to evolve with an ability to ask why, which though as helped our species to survive - one might say, far too successfuly!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, Susan, I think the universe is not so incomprehensible as formerly, is it? We no longer think that Thor produces thunder, for example, or that God tinkers with epicycles, although ironically they were attempts to produce comprehensibility.
Also, the issue of purpose seems very confused to me. I have a purpose right now, which is to write this post; I don't extrapolate this to the universe however. This used to be called ultimate and proximate causation, I'm not sure if these terms are now defunct.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Missed the post - you could argue that the universe does seem rational, in the sense of having regularities in it, which can be described. However, if by 'rational' you mean 'having a purpose or design', I'm not sure why that is particularly rational.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, Susan, I think the universe is not so incomprehensible as formerly, is it? We no longer think that Thor produces thunder, for example, or that God tinkers with epicycles, although ironically they were attempts to produce comprehensibility.
Also, the issue of purpose seems very confused to me. I have a purpose right now, which is to write this post; I don't extrapolate this to the universe however. This used to be called ultimate and proximate causation, I'm not sure if these terms are now defunct.
I googled it - interesting read.
quote:
example of a contrastive explanation is a cohort study that includes a control group, where one can determine the cause from observing two otherwise identical samples. This view also circumvents the problem of infinite regression of why's that proximate causes create.
I'd dig my heels in a bit here because, yes, I have quite often found that people avoid facing up to the infinite regression question!
In s
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Does that say 'infinite regression of why's'? That sounds a bit odd, but it looks like it means that one can go on asking 'why does gravity exist?', and so on.
But 'why' itself is an ambiguous word, as in the famous example of the kettle boiling - why? Because water boils at 100 degrees, or because I want a cup of tea.
I suppose you might end up with 'why does the universe exist?', to which various replies exist, e.g. don't know, or 'why should there be a why?' But I don't think it's irrational to say that the universe has no apparent explanation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It is the overwhelming irrationality of a Godless Universe that prevents me trying to claw my way back to secularism.
This is mental. Virgin birth, walking on water and raising the dead.* How is any of that rational? Atheism is far more rational. Though, TBH, agnosticism is the most rational position. Here is what can observe, here is what we theorise based upon this, here is where conjecture leads and why. And the rest we don't know.
I would argue that a rational person could indeed fit their religious views into this. But that doesn't mean that every bit of what that religion professes is rational.
And simply because the universe cannot, and may not ever, be completely explained doesn't make atheism irrational.
And as has been mentioned countless times, atheism as a designation merely means one doesn't believe in god(s).
No explanation of, or belief in, anything is necessary.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
A tl;dr version of my post:
A religious person must accept the irrational.
An atheist doesn't have to.*
An agnostic person shouldn't.
* They might, but there is no requirement.
[ 20. March 2017, 12:46: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Also, there's nothing wrong with the irrational, in fact, we are irrational and rational animals.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, there's nothing wrong with the irrational,
Not saying there is. My own behaviour would appear to indicate support for the irrational.
But ISTM, rolyn wasn't using it that way. I suppose it is understandable, the walls of his argument are so transparent that he does not see them?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I can't say that I can follow the argument, except that, as Susan says, it's a joyful celebration of incredulity. But incredulity does not an argument make, except:
I don't understand things, therefore God.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
My own belief is that if you don't accept the probability of a Supreme Ruler in the Universe, then your own Ego will enlarge to fill the vacant spot.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
My own belief is that if you don't accept the probability of a Supreme Ruler in the Universe, then your own Ego will enlarge to fill the vacant spot.
Very nice. Of course, Freud argued that it was your supreme ego which pictured itself as ruler of all, by one of those curious infantile yet ubiquitous feats of projection. In fact, not just the ego, but also the super ego (which punishes you for your sins), and the id (which fills you with unbearable desires, which the super ego convinces you are sins).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sorry, I missed a bit off there. This whole psychodrama then gets projected onto religious symbols.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose you might end up with 'why does the universe exist?', to which various replies exist, e.g. don't know, or 'why should there be a why?' But I don't think it's irrational to say that the universe has no apparent explanation.
For the moment the answer is ‘don’t know’, and I agree it is rational to say that the universe has no apparent explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheism is far more rational. Though, TBH, agnosticism is the most rational position. Here is what can observe, here is what we theorise based upon this, here is where conjecture leads and why. And the rest we don't know.
Agree of course! However, the ratio of atheism to the agnostic obligatory position is, as far as I’m concerned, 99/1. quote:
I would argue that a rational person could indeed fit their religious views into this. But that doesn't mean that every bit of what that religion professes is rational.
Agree. All aspects which apply to human co-operation and mutual, altruistic help are beneficial. It is, in my opinion, a pity that an extra non-human element is believed to exist and brought into things.
`
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
For ratio I should have put 99:1, shouldn't I!!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
My own belief is that if you don't accept the probability of a Supreme Ruler in the Universe, then your own Ego will enlarge to fill the vacant spot.
Can you give examples of this? Personaly, when I erased from my mind the very small remaining belief in God, I had already known for a long time that I was responsible for all that I did and all decisions I took. The space occupied by belief in God was so tiny that even if my ego had enlarged to fill the space, you'd have needed a magnifying glass to see it!!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Oh dear - that was back to front. I listened to the thread title and thought it was advice you have been given. However, I've said it to quite a few people because it is good advice.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
All aspects which apply to human co-operation and mutual, altruistic help are beneficial. It is, in my opinion, a pity that an extra non-human element is believed to exist and brought into things.
I've just read a book called Sapiens in which the author argues that the success of homo sapiens derives from our inclination to believe myths - and to act on those beliefs.
That we'd still be in small tribes of 150 or so people, competing with other apes and animals if we hadn't eveolved the capacity to tell stories. He gives many examples of myths which work for us and which allow us to live in enormous groups - religion, money, democracy etc.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Could you say more about why you think it is so irrational for there to be a universe without a God......
It is our human personal incredulity which thinks there must be a purpose because we live our lives with purpose most of the time, and it is very hard to remind oneself that there isn't or wasn't one. We happened to evolve with an ability to ask why, which though as helped our species to survive - one might say, far too successfuly!
It isn't easy to say why one should think, feel or believe there is a God. And I can see why people don't consider the content of the Bible, at face value, to offer much convincing evidence as it is pretty off-the-wall.
I get what you say about 'purpose' in our everyday lives and not really wanting to think about any greater purpose. Many who come to Faith via the emotional route can find it disquieting and uncomfortable rather than the other way round. What I mean is a person in that position can end up thinking in a way they'd rather not.
Faith doesn't work with tangible evidence so it is impossible to argue it on that basis. Don't get me wrong I'm not talking about religious dogma which is of little real value in acknowledgement of God, a lot of that is a complexity of man-made rules which are easily broken.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Maybe we'd have been better off in small tribes, competing with other apes.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Then that's all we'd be. We wouldn't be human.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Maybe we'd have been better off in small tribes, competing with other apes.
The writer of 'Sapiens' thinks so too ...
"The forager economy provided most people with more interesting lives than agriculture or industry do. Today, a Chinese factory hand leaves home around seven in the morning, makes her way through polluted streets to a sweatshop, and there operates the same machine, in the same way, day in, day out, for ten long and mind-numbing hours, returning home around seven in the evening in order to wash dishes and do the laundry. Thirty thousand years ago, a Chinese forager might leave camp with her companions at, say, eight in the morning. They’d roam the nearby forests and meadows, gathering mushrooms, digging up edible roots, catching frogs and occasionally running away from tigers. By early afternoon, they were back at the camp to make lunch. That left them plenty of time to gossip, tell stories, play with the children and just hang out. Of course the tigers sometimes caught them, or a snake bit them, but on the other hand they didn’t have to deal with automobile accidents and industrial pollution."
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
All aspects which apply to human co-operation and mutual, altruistic help are beneficial. It is, in my opinion, a pity that an extra non-human element is believed to exist and brought into things.
I've just read a book called Sapiens in which the author argues that the success of homo sapiens derives from our inclination to believe myths - and to act on those beliefs.
That we'd still be in small tribes of 150 or so people, competing with other apes and animals if we hadn't evolved the capacity to tell stories. He gives many examples of myths which work for us and which allow us to live in enormous groups - religion, money, democracy etc.
Great book - one of the best of past 10 years.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I've just read a book called Sapiens in which the author argues that the success of homo sapiens derives from our inclination to believe myths - and to act on those beliefs.
Yes, I agree it is a very good book. I listened to it recently. There were several places where I would like to have argued with him, but the chapter on capitalism was particularly interesting I thought.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
rolyn
Thank you for your interesting reply. Can't think of anything further to add at the moment!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Maybe we'd have been better off in small tribes, competing with other apes.
The writer of 'Sapiens' thinks so too ...
"The forager economy provided most people with more interesting lives than agriculture or industry do. Today, a Chinese factory hand leaves home around seven in the morning, makes her way through polluted streets to a sweatshop, and there operates the same machine, in the same way, day in, day out, for ten long and mind-numbing hours, returning home around seven in the evening in order to wash dishes and do the laundry. Thirty thousand years ago, a Chinese forager might leave camp with her companions at, say, eight in the morning. They’d roam the nearby forests and meadows, gathering mushrooms, digging up edible roots, catching frogs and occasionally running away from tigers. By early afternoon, they were back at the camp to make lunch. That left them plenty of time to gossip, tell stories, play with the children and just hang out. Of course the tigers sometimes caught them, or a snake bit them, but on the other hand they didn’t have to deal with automobile accidents and industrial pollution."
That's the story of a single subspecies.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
rolyn
Thank you for your interesting reply. Can't think of anything further to add at the moment!
Had just got in from work and felt it to be slightly ramble-like.
Not easy to articulate as to why one feels the existence a greater being or greater meaning .
Along with everything else it must have something to do with the wonder of it all, coupled with the absolute perculiarness of ourselves...
Good /Bad , Order/Chaos, the possibilities and permutations are endless. Unless we are to say that the death of us and our planet is the end of everything ?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Another thought that has just entered my transparent walls...
It goes like this, as is it the point where science and religion overlap that I find most interesting.
Going with the notion of our death, and that of the Earth, with all it's richness of biodiversity gone, (because we shat all over it or the sun blows up etc.). Along comes secularism and comforts itself with an Ah well, there's bound to be other life out there somewhere .
But Hey, what if we never aquire tangible evidence that there is actually any other life anywhere other than here, doesn't this then make such sentiment akin to religion of sorts, a hope based on fancy?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Another thought that has just entered my transparent walls...
It goes like this, as is it the point where science and religion overlap that I find most interesting.
Going with the notion of our death, and that of the Earth, with all it's richness of biodiversity gone, (because we shat all over it or the sun blows up etc.). Along comes secularism and comforts itself with an Ah well, there's bound to be other life out there somewhere .
But Hey, what if we never aquire tangible evidence that there is actually any other life anywhere other than here, doesn't this then make such sentiment akin to religion of sorts, a hope based on fancy?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Who comforts themselves that life on other planets will continue after our ends?
Straw argument, IMO.
I think it is silly making comparisons like that. This false idea of equivalence does no argument any good. Personally, I think it does faith no good. One believes what they do for the reasons they have worked out and that should be sufficient for them.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Before I start... an ancient forager starting work at 8am? I find that hard to believe. More like first light.
My adult conversion experience involved an overwhelming feeling that there was a power for good in the world beyond humanity. That's the bedrock of my faith and my antidote to self-loathing and despair. People might say that it was the product of anti-depressants and intense emotional pain, and that's OK. They are probably wrong, but why can't everybody be right?
The New Testament and especially the writings of Paul caused me to make the intellectual identification of my power for good with the Triune God. My youth as an Australian Sectarian Catholic made that easier.
For me then, most theological speculation is a waste of time, but it can be diverting. I think someone said something about how in the past they wanted to know all about God so they could see what's going to happen in the future. That was a revelation to me. I know it sounds incredibly naive, and as a consumer of history especially the middle ages I should hang my head in shame, but it bought home to me just how much the quest to know God can be a quest to control God and everyone else.
What a pack of bastards some of those theologians could be.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I suspect the time the ancient foragers got up depended on whether they had young kids. Just like today, really...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, we are those same staggeringly successful story telling monkeys.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's the story of a single subspecies.
The last human species.
We wiped out all the others, all easily as clever as us - but without the story telling capacity which allows us to wipe out all that's in front of us. Animal species too, of course.
"No sooner had they arrived at a new location than the native population became extinct. The last remains of Homo soloensis are dated to about 50,000 years ago. Homo denisova disappeared shortly thereafter. Neanderthals made their exit roughly 30,000 years ago. The last dwarf-like humans vanished from Flores Island about 12,000 years ago. They left behind some bones, stone tools, a few genes in our DNA and a lot of unanswered questions. They also left behind us, Homo sapiens, the last human species.'
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There's no evidence we wiped them out. That we ever met. There were far too few of any of us.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's no evidence we wiped them out. That we ever met. There were far too few of any of us.
The evidence is in the here and now - we continue to wipe out species after species of wild animals.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
AIUI many homo sapiens carry some Neanderthal genes. There is a theory that these genes protect against schizophrenia.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's the story of a single subspecies.
The last human species.
We wiped out all the others, all easily as clever as us - but without the story telling capacity which allows us to wipe out all that's in front of us. Animal species too, of course.
"No sooner had they arrived at a new location than the native population became extinct. The last remains of Homo soloensis are dated to about 50,000 years ago. Homo denisova disappeared shortly thereafter. Neanderthals made their exit roughly 30,000 years ago. The last dwarf-like humans vanished from Flores Island about 12,000 years ago. They left behind some bones, stone tools, a few genes in our DNA and a lot of unanswered questions. They also left behind us, Homo sapiens, the last human species.'
And if they couldn't do story telling, they weren't as clever as us.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who comforts themselves that life on other planets will continue after our ends?
Straw argument, IMO.
I think it is silly making comparisons like that. This false idea of equivalence does no argument any good. Personally, I think it does faith no good. One believes what they do for the reasons they have worked out and that should be sufficient for them.
Well I can't names as to exactly who would be reassured to believe that life exists outside of this Planetary Sphere. How then would you explain our human, ( beyond the curious), obsession with trying to find traces of life on places like Mars, Europa or elsewhere in the Cosmos.
It strikes me as odd that you find my line of enquiry 'silly', and appear to want to protect holders of Faith from such nonsense while yourself not professing to hold any Faith.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I thought Homo Denisova was a tennis player.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
How then would you explain our human, ( beyond the curious), obsession with trying to find traces of life on places like Mars, Europa or elsewhere in the Cosmos.
Curiosity for its own sake is a strong feature in our species.
quote:
It strikes me as odd that you find my line of enquiry 'silly', and appear to want to protect holders of Faith from such nonsense while yourself not professing to hold any Faith.
I do not denigrate faith or those who have it. Nor atheism and those who hold to it. This doesn't preclude questioning aspects of either or points of view of their adherents.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's no evidence we wiped them out. That we ever met. There were far too few of any of us.
The evidence is in the here and now - we continue to wipe out species after species of wild animals.
And we have tended to wipe out tribal people in many parts of the world. This isn't proof that sapiens wiped out other species, of course, but isn't it suggestive?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
One species wiping out another is not a purely sapiens trait. Many animal species have wiped out other animal species.
Moo
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One species wiping out another is not a purely sapiens trait. Many animal species have wiped out other animal species.
Moo
Yes, but humans have specialized in it, haven't they? I look out the window at the barren arable fields, with few birds and animals. OK, this isn't deliberate extirpation, but in some ways, it is worse. Getting a bit o/t now.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's a completely different mechanism. Solo man was erectus. Not sapiens. They used fire and eventually cooked. They were gone 100,000 years ago. Story telling didn't wipe them out. As with Neanderthals, whose peak Eurasian population was less than that number too, climate change was a somewhat larger factor.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Will all story telling creatures transcend? Do ALL creatures transcend? Does all creation? In a new heaven and a new Earth? Now? Paradise? Today?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
It seems a sure certainty that our story will be ended just as we have ended for other species'. Therein lies the appeal of an eternal God I suppose.
Daresay our story will live on a longer than our species in the form of various tin can time-capsules floated off into space. Some extra terrestrial might just bump into one of them in the far off future, read our story, and say to itself "Bleepin tough ****"
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It seems a sure certainty that our story will be ended just as we have ended for other species'. Therein lies the appeal of an eternal God I suppose.
It is also a weakness. "God'll fixit"
"It's all God's Plan" etc.
quote:
Daresay our story will live on a longer than our species in the form of various tin can time-capsules floated off into space. Some extra terrestrial might just bump into one of them in the far off future, read our story, and say to itself "Bleepin tough ****"
Given the size and age of the universe, it is incredibly likely that there is other life. Given the size and age of the universe, it is very likely some of it survived at least as far as we have.
Given the size and age of the universe, it is very unlikely that we'll encounter each other or even each other's debris.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's an absolute certainty a thousand times over at least, concurrently, in our galaxy. Myriads. Millions even. And we will never, can never communicate. We will detect watery worlds in goldilocks zones, we will detect biogenic oxygen. In a century or ten. But never talk. Ever. There are no magic materials or power supplies. No fusion. No diamond space elevator cable. We can't even charge our phones with body heat. Ever.
Anyone would think it's designed that way by some Joker ...
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
The question that interests me most concerns the specific type of atheist objection, favoured a lot by positivists, and well expressed by Anthony Flew's well-known argument.
And a lot of Christian apologists, especially those who follow the via negativa do tend to do what Flew suggests. And it is my own approach.
So God is not an item in the external universe, is not a being that causes the Sun to rise, Set (and occasionally have a break), etc. So what is God? Unknowable, yes. But if that's all you can say, have you said anything, and why do you believe an unknowable to be a Good Thing? Aren't you secretly admitting that you do know Him, at least to the extent that He is Good?
So you almost end up with a sort of fideism. Because whatever we say about God as Other, we do say all sorts of things about Him: Father, Triune, Cares for the widow and orphan. And we do that by an act of the will to embrace the idea that God (who can presumably do this???) has given a revelation that He knows is the best humanly comprehended revelation that we can get.
And I would agree that this is non-rational. There is, to my knowledge, no good argument to suppose that this is more likely that not.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
"Absolute certainty" can be modified somewhat by comparing the mean time between catastrophes interrupting the progress of a biosphere towards a culture analogous to humanity and the age of Earth.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The question that interests me most concerns the specific type of atheist objection, favoured a lot by positivists, and well expressed by Anthony Flew's well-known argument.
And a lot of Christian apologists, especially those who follow the via negativa do tend to do what Flew suggests. And it is my own approach.
So God is not an item in the external universe, is not a being that causes the Sun to rise, Set (and occasionally have a break), etc. So what is God? Unknowable, yes. But if that's all you can say, have you said anything, and why do you believe an unknowable to be a Good Thing? Aren't you secretly admitting that you do know Him, at least to the extent that He is Good?
So you almost end up with a sort of fideism. Because whatever we say about God as Other, we do say all sorts of things about Him: Father, Triune, Cares for the widow and orphan. And we do that by an act of the will to embrace the idea that God (who can presumably do this???) has given a revelation that He knows is the best humanly comprehended revelation that we can get.
And I would agree that this is non-rational. There is, to my knowledge, no good argument to suppose that this is more likely that not.
Interesting post. I never quite get the idea of likelihood or probability, in relation to the supernatural. I mean, probability is to do with outcomes, which are usually part of a physical system.
So I don't get how that gets transferred to something non-material or supernatural. I suppose you could say that 'probable' is being used to mean 'I prefer it'.
I think that the idea of the non-falsifiable is being used a lot today on atheist forums and so on. It's not a killer argument, (since you can believe something that can't be falsified), but it seems to reduce many ideas to a kind of equal zero, e.g. tap-dancing unicorns in Alpha Centauri, or more mundanely, the Matrix.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
@agingjb. We are average. Our evolution accelerating catastrophes included.
@TheGenerality
To communicate above noise from 100-1,000 LY apparently we'd need 10 PW (a thousand times human energy consumption) - EW (a million). That takes us a ways up and down our spiral arm only. And we'll never even be able to do that. Neither will they. The teeming civilizations in the neighbouring spiral arms are at least 10,000 LY away.
@anteater et al
The only rational argument for the existence of God is the Kalam Cosmological one taken up by William Lane Craig, which I'm surprisingly warming to.
Platinga then gives us the free will defense against the logical problem of evil.
Simple ennit?
Transcending the critiquable apologetics is the Jesus story.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Given the size and age of the universe, it is incredibly likely that there is other life. Given the size and age of the universe, it is very likely some of it survived at least as far as we have.
Given the size and age of the universe, it is very unlikely that we'll encounter each other or even each other's debris.
I do get that. Look at the night sky away from city lights and you see an incalculable number of shining heat sources, and beyond all that is visible we are to assume there is more and more, on to ad infinitum.
To date our knowledge tells us three main components are necessary for the formation of life, heat, water and amino acids. So it is indeed understandable to believe that infinite lifeform possibilities are in existence but are too far away for us to ever see it or touch it. 'Happy are they who believe without seeing' ?
I know all of this doesn't necessitate the existence of a single Supreme Being but given the apparent pointlessness of infinite random Cosmic chaos it is possible that a species such as ours has been given a unique insight to put a meaning to it.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I know all of this doesn't necessitate the existence of a single Supreme Being but given the apparent pointlessness of infinite random Cosmic chaos it is possible that a species such as ours has been given a unique insight to put a meaning to it.
May I just raise a small quibble about the idea that we have been*given* an insight. We, with our brains having most fortunately evolved to think in a million ways including the abstract, have thought of the ideas. They did not arrive from somewhere or something else, did they.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I did think twice on using 'given' as it has Godspot * overtones.
Maybe better to say we have 'developed' an insight.
* A pocket in the human brain which some think God purposefully put there in order that we may come to know Her/Him.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I know all of this doesn't necessitate the existence of a single Supreme Being but given the apparent pointlessness of infinite random Cosmic chaos it is possible that a species such as ours has been given a unique insight to put a meaning to it.
May I just raise a small quibble about the idea that we have been*given* an insight. We, with our brains having most fortunately evolved to think in a million ways including the abstract, have thought of the ideas. They did not arrive from somewhere or something else, did they.
My quibble is infinitely large. It isn't possible that we've been given a unique insight (what?) beyond the Incarnation although we've been given a unique Incarnation, just like every other sapient species in our practically infinite universe of infinity from eternity. Nothing else is faithfully reasonable.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
rollyn
I agree that 'developed an insight' works well!
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It isn't possible that we've been given a unique insight (what?) beyond the Incarnation although we've been given a unique Incarnation,…
First part of that – not too sure about what you mean! Second part – well, each individual’s genetic code is unique; and we could say ‘given’ by our parents, but they cannot choose that code can they.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
rollyn
I agree that 'developed an insight' works well!
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It isn't possible that we've been given a unique insight (what?) beyond the Incarnation although we've been given a unique Incarnation,…
First part of that – not too sure about what you mean! Second part – well, each individual’s genetic code is unique; and we could say ‘given’ by our parents, but they cannot choose that code can they.
My incarnation isn't THE Incarnation.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
lilBuddha: quote:
Given the size and age of the universe, it is incredibly likely that there is other life.
I'm never convinced by this argument, although it's better than the apes and typewriters one which is pure bullshit.
Maybe it's because I've engaged rather a lot with the probability of large numbers. Maybe you have, but then your assertion is even harder to understand.
In fact I read a book on the probabilities of very large and very small numbers, which dealt a lot with how badly we handle it. Above a certain level we think: Wow, that's so-o-o-o much time and space that everything must not only be impossible but incredibly likely.
I'm not saying I know, because any opinion requires you to place probabilities on life occurring. And that's more or less impossible. So yes, I cannot state as a fact than it is highly unlikely. We just do not know.
But I have no difficulty in believing that it may never have been repeated, and I cannot see what basis for assuming it to be highly likely other than the "everything's possible given 10 or so billion years", which is plainly not true.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The refutation of that stares you in the mirror. You exist because it started raining here four billion years ago. It's raining on thousands of other worlds. Millions. In our average galaxy. Of hundreds of billions.
You have no rational reason for not being uniformitarian.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
...and we are able to look in the mirror and think that because the jaw muscle succumbed to a chance mutation which allowed our craniums to expand.
Nothing at all miraculous or mind-bending in an infinite Cosmos, with an infinite number of intelligent beings all pondering an infinite number of possibilities or Supreme Beings ?
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
How would we go about showing that the universe is infinite?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
How would we go about showing that the universe is infinite?
By proving that it's constant. In a steady state.
[ 26. March 2017, 09:25: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Surely a lot of the problem with this argument is what God is, or at least the role played by God, as a concept and an element in the life of followers.
God is precisely a way of relating with the elements of life that one sees out of the corner of one's eye. A focus of relationship for all the elements of life and one's own being that otherwise elude "square-on" relationship.
I'm not sure how to make this more than an assertion, and can hear the objections coming form SusanDoris and others, but as they are committed materialists, that doesn't bother me because they are irrelevant. God is not relevant to materialists because God is neither the sum of the material universe nor an element in it. Whatever God may be, God is both more and less than that.
For this very reason, we cannot know anything about God, even though faith is precisely the process of reaching out to do so. Faith is a gift that goes on giving precisely because this longed-for gift can never be entirely received.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Rolyn: quote:
Nothing at all miraculous or mind-bending in an infinite Cosmos, with an infinite number of intelligent beings all pondering an infinite number of possibilities or Supreme Beings ?
I agree it's neither of those - it's just invalid.
Still, I'm not qualified to enter into a discussion of finite mathematics but I am sure they are on to something.
Of course you can rephrase the typomonkeys fallacy so that it makes sense. So you could say:
As the number of typo monkeys increases, the probability of one of them typing the Sonnets of Shakespeare increases. But you have no idea from what to what. Maybe if all the living space in all the planets was (as a thought experiment) inhabited by such entities, you have no idea what the probability is.
Martin:
I think your picture of the set of events that has to occur is over simplistic. I think more than rain is needed. Do you think you can put a figure on the probabilities involved? I don't.
However, this is a bypass, because it's not as if I were a creationist.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's got nothing to do with probabilities. Math. That's all bollocks. Look in the mirror, look in your back yard. Look at the Milky Way. It's all the same. Empirical. NOTHING special. Like the universe.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
lilBuddha: quote:
Given the size and age of the universe, it is incredibly likely that there is other life.
I'm never convinced by this argument
I am not an astrophysicist, nor astrobiologist. From what I've read, though there is not universal agreement, a good number of reputable people in both those fields do so believe.
Astronomers keep finding more earth sized planets in potentially habitable zones, what we are finding in our own solar system keeps expanding possible life zones and it is possible that life evolved more than once on our own planet.
I am not qualified to back these statements, but many qualified people do. So what makes you so certain they are wrong?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Surely a lot of the problem with this argument is what God is, or at least the role played by God, as a concept and an element in the life of followers.
All roles apparently played by God are laid down – and subsequently defined in different religions and sects - by people. The followers of a religion are, therefore, following the ideas that other people have told them are what God wants or is, and how and why said God should be worshipped and prayed to. The system fits quite well with human needs for a routine, for a structure in which some lead, some follow, and the group successfully survives … in spite of rebels! And I bet there have always been those. quote:
God is precisely a way of relating with the elements of life that one sees out of the corner of one's eye. A focus of relationship for all the elements of life and one's own being that otherwise elude "square-on" relationship.
I think that I agree with that sensible description! quote:
I'm not sure how to make this more than an assertion, and can hear the objections coming form SusanDoris and others, but as they are committed materialists, that doesn't bother me because they are irrelevant. God is not relevant to materialists because God is neither the sum of the material universe nor an element in it. Whatever God may be, God is both more and less than that.
Whatever God people believ in or believe exists can be whatever the people concerned imagine it to be. Could you explain a little more what you think committed materialists are and why you think they are irrelevant? For atheists, God is irrelevant since Earth and the universe runs as it does with or without any God/s. However, belief in God/god/s is absolutely relevant since it has been such a consistent and integral part of human history, and pre-history.
quote:
For this very reason, we cannot know anything about God, even though faith is precisely the process of reaching out to do so. Faith is a gift that goes on giving precisely because this longed-for gift can never be entirely received.
If something has been ‘given’, then the giver needs defining if one is to accept that they have received a gift. ] I have no reason to doubt that who and what we are is a result of the evolutionary process but gratitude and appreciation of this is all in my mind. Fortunately, there aare many who think similarly!
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
This may appear, or indeed be, arrogant and presumptuous on my part, but I'm not interested in discussing the validity and foundations of my faith. I'm interested in discussing the life of faith, relationship with God, how faith is best and most productively lived out and the challenges it creates.
This is why, for me, the perspective of materialists on faith in God is not relevant: it feels to me like discussing the roundness of a square. Discussions of faith with materialists are not possible from within faith because they are not within faith, meaning that such discussions have to be conducted outside the parameters and experience of faith itself.
I don't doubt that the sociology of religion is a valid subject, and that atheists and believers can participate in debates in that sphere on an equal footing. I simply find myself profoundly and utterly turned off by the prospect of such discussions. I also dispute the validity of any attempt at conflating theology with the sociology of religion. Theology is a quest in search of the heart of faith. Theology of religion looks at the effect of that faith on society without engaging with, still less interrogating, the tenets or substance of that faith itself.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Of course, not all atheists are materialists. There are some who are dualists, and there are others who reject all metaphysical claims, of which materialism is one.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
....and now a translation of my previous point into the terms of the original debate, so that others can see its relevance.
My point is that experience of the indirect, only semi (at best) empirical, gives the answer "yes", and that is where any conversation of any meaning about God begins. It's not possible to talk about relationship with God without that answer first being given, and likewise it's impossible to experience relationship with an entity whose existence you have already dismissed as impossible.
Maybe my impatience is psychologically driven, in that I spend my entire life in other respects hovering on every available threshold and debating the wisdom of crossing them endlessly, and my faith is the only exception to this in my life at present. I want to live that faith, and to talk about living it, not focus constantly on the circumstances of its existence and watch it, or imagine it, teetering on the knife-edge of the oblivion of loss.
So yes, I am convinced with my entire being that my faith is worth having. But then, since I am one of these for whom "I believe" is synonymous with "I am", this is inevitable.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
His existence is not impossible. It's simply unnecessary. Unless William Lane Craig's robust defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sufficient.
And Jesus.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I realise I'm getting into this very late, but a lot of what anteater said in the OP rings bells with me. I increasingly think that God isn't to be believed in so much as imagined, simply because there is no two-way traffic in the imagined "relationship". In fact, as I said here once before (and some kind soul popped it in the Quotes File), if I'm supposed to be in a relationship with Jesus, would it kill him to pick up the phone every now and then?
As to religious experience, I can't really think of anything that couldn't be explained in other terms - as Scrooge says to the ghost of Marley, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato". And why spend your life in adoration of an undigested bit of beef?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Believe in and imagine. That's it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suppose what matters (at least on some level) is hope. I don't suppose something you know-to-be indigestion is going to give one much hope - hope that life can be better, that resources are available to help one out of a dark place, that inner reserves of strength are there and that there is something to live for.
In contrast, even if one believes in a deity who is not involved in the minutiae of an individual's life, maybe belief in that as a thing sets off a string of other thoughts; if there is an ultimate being, there is some purpose in the universe. If there is purpose in the universe then maybe the deity is good and generous not hard and unkind.
One might then think that putting trust in this deity is worthwhile as a thing to hang one's life upon even if there is nothing back in return - just as one might be energised by a belief in Communism even if one individually doesn't see any personal improvement from it.
Isn't that the nature of believing in anything bigger than oneself? If they don't give some hope and a reason for living, then surely nobody would bother.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I realise I'm getting into this very late, but a lot of what anteater said in the OP rings bells with me. I increasingly think that God isn't to be believed in so much as imagined, simply because there is no two-way traffic in the imagined "relationship". In fact, as I said here once before (and some kind soul popped it in the Quotes File), if I'm supposed to be in a relationship with Jesus, would it kill him to pick up the phone every now and then?
As to religious experience, I can't really think of anything that couldn't be explained in other terms - as Scrooge says to the ghost of Marley, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato". And why spend your life in adoration of an undigested bit of beef?
Very amusing, but it seems a bit harsh to me. I think one of the issues with imagining, is that people imagine all kinds of things, (and also guess a lot). This seems fine, and in some ways, a core human faculty, but it does tend towards relativism, or whatever you call it. The Nigerian ant god is valid then, and my local shaman, who talks about sacred animals. Let a 100 flowers bloom.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Pure Viktor Frankl, mr cheesy. Sartre too. Find, create a best case purpose.
[ 29. March 2017, 13:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose what matters (at least on some level) is hope. I don't suppose something you know-to-be indigestion is going to give one much hope - hope that life can be better, that resources are available to help one out of a dark place, that inner reserves of strength are there and that there is something to live for.
In contrast, even if one believes in a deity who is not involved in the minutiae of an individual's life, maybe belief in that as a thing sets off a string of other thoughts; if there is an ultimate being, there is some purpose in the universe. If there is purpose in the universe then maybe the deity is good and generous not hard and unkind.
One might then think that putting trust in this deity is worthwhile as a thing to hang one's life upon even if there is nothing back in return - just as one might be energised by a belief in Communism even if one individually doesn't see any personal improvement from it.
Isn't that the nature of believing in anything bigger than oneself? If they don't give some hope and a reason for living, then surely nobody would bother.
To your first and last paragraphs, on the subject of hope, I would respond, "There's also fear". Fear can be a great motivator though ultimately, I believe, one that corrodes our humanity. Fear of punishment can be a pretty good motivator. Fear, not necessarily of hell, but even of non-existence, can conjure up all kinds of gods in our imagination.
Your middle two paragraphs made me think of C.S.Lewis's Puddleglum, with whom I think I have a lot of sympathy - even if there's no "Narnia" it might be better to live as if there were, simply because the alternative would be so grim. But Puddleglum's outlook is very this-worldly, and I'm sure we can imagine better worlds than this without also imagining they're inhabited by a god.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
To your first and last paragraphs, on the subject of hope, I would respond, "There's also fear". Fear can be a great motivator though ultimately, I believe, one that corrodes our humanity. Fear of punishment can be a pretty good motivator. Fear, not necessarily of hell, but even of non-existence, can conjure up all kinds of gods in our imagination.
Yes it can, but I was responding to the question "is belief in God about whom you know nothing directly worth having". I agree with you that if belief in God about whom you know nothing provokes only fear and not hope, then that's not worth having (and not really answering the question posed).
quote:
Your middle two paragraphs made me think of C.S.Lewis's Puddleglum, with whom I think I have a lot of sympathy - even if there's no "Narnia" it might be better to live as if there were, simply because the alternative would be so grim. But Puddleglum's outlook is very this-worldly, and I'm sure we can imagine better worlds than this without also imagining they're inhabited by a god.
I can't stand CS Lewis, and refuse to discuss his characters.
Maybe there are other worlds which are better than this without imagining a god, although again, that wasn't the question posed. I'm answering how one might get something positive from belief in the kind of unknown God described.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0