Thread: Why believe? 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=020443
Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :
 
I am not sure how to phrase what I am trying to ask so apologies first up and hopefully you can find a better way and hence a better answer. I am definitely not asking “who do you believe’ - I don’t think.

I can love my neighbour as myself, but accept I don’t do it very well. I am also making the assumption that all the major religions and Buddhism also make compassion and active caring for others a major teaching for adherents. So if I attempt to conduct myself in this manner is there any point in undergoing the challenge, pain, frustration, in trying to believe in God (the ultimate mystery)? Jesus basically boiled the rules down for his followers to the 2 great commandments, the first cannot be unless the second is also adhered to. I don’t know about other religions or Buddhism as to how key (trying) loving your neighbor is to identifying with that belief system.

As an addendum I find the concept of believing in God/Jesus so that I get to heaven etc problematic. I think if something is real then it can be believed, the consequences of such belief are a whole other matter.

Not sue what I am really asking - maybe its ‘why cant I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Jesus boiled it down to two great commandments, but the first still presupposes the existence of God.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Unum Solum

Maybe it's the power of the Jesus-story that appeals to you? Maybe its the presence of the Christian community that supports you as you try to embody those truths that you all share in common? Maybe it's the call of your fathers and the pull of your culture? Maybe a mixture of all of them, plus many other things?

It's not clear if your post springs out of a sense of religious entrapment, or whether you just want to discuss the appeal of Christianity in general. The former may require you to reveal more about your personal journey so we can understand where your unease with Christianity lies. The latter invites a discussion about the tenacity of religious faith throughout history, and what Christianity in particular brings to the table.

OTOH, Christianity is eroding in many parts of the Western world. There are a lot of people who no longer see a reason to 'believe'. Apart from the obvious theological problems with this situation, we might also ask whether the 'death of God' has had and/or will have detrimental effects on the psychological and moral well-being of our civilization. The idea that the Judeo-Christian sensibility is now irrelevant to modern society is by no means a foregone conclusion....

[ 20. January 2018, 00:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Welcome! [Smile]

Why not start with the bits you *do* get? (Loving your neighbor, etc.) You can explore the God stuff as you go along, when you feel up to it.

IMHO, you don't necessarily have to take on everything at once.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Welcome Unum Solum.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind.
Love your neighbour as yourself.

I love these commandments.
For me they are freeing.

With My heart, My strength, My soul and My mind, I can love the Lord. In my capacity- and however that looks at a given moment. Who I am at any given time is enough.

And I am called to love myself- and out of that, my love for neighbour flows. Who I am at any given time is enough.

I see this as promise- and deliverance from having to strive for perfection.
 
Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus boiled it down to two great commandments, but the first still presupposes the existence of God.
But does the second require the first as it seems to me to be something that is ‘good’ (whatever good means), and existence (another loaded word) would be better for all if adhered to.

Or does belief/submission of will to God (the Biblical one) mean that we have divine help in carrying out the second command in a manner and extent that would not be possible alone? The indwelling Spirit enabling us beyond our mere mortal ability.
 
Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unum Solum

..........
It's not clear if your post springs out of a sense of religious entrapment,
......
I feel trapped by God. Growing up in a Western culture means believing in God means believing and accepting Jesus (yes I know Jesus is God - well I don’t really know). Jesus was around 2000 years ago, my only real way of finding out about him is through Scripture the validity and meaning of which seems to be increasingly being questioned by progressive scholars. Not doubting Scripture but reshaping our understanding of it, and in doing so scrambling my brain as to what Jesus said in the red letter parts of my Bible. If I am totally confused about what He said then I am confused about Him, and as a result messed up in my understanding of God - generally F&$)ed Up!

Messed up to the point of ‘Why say I believe in anything’, when it makes no difference to others but the doing does. Yet I want to believe and I don’t know why I want to believe, it’s certainly not because I care what others might think of me one way or the other. It’s much deeper than that, it’s 3am in the morning caring.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
I feel trapped by God.
So, why? IMO, no one should feel trapped by their religion or philosophy. I think combining SvitlanaV2's and Golden Key's advice is a good beginning.
 
Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
I feel trapped by God.
So, why? IMO, no one should feel trapped by their religion or philosophy. I think combining SvitlanaV2's and Golden Key's advice is a good beginning.
I understand why you would ask that question. The thing is I don’t feel trapped by a religion or a philosophy but by a “binding” of my spirit, my ‘self’ to something (someone) that is Other.. Sorry I don’t know how to describe it as words seem inadequate. I am free to walk away whenever I want but am always conscious somehow that it is a one way movement, the Other is always present.

As a Bhuddist maybe you would describe it as an awareness subconsciously of the Oneness of all things? Ranting and raving and rejecting never ultimately creates that separation that in my dark moments I hope will bring me peace.

Isn’t there a saying “no where to run, no where to hide”
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
But God should not feel "other". There are variations of Christianity that I feel do more harm than good to their adherents. Could it be the flavour, not the food, that you find unpalatable?
 
Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :
 
lilBuddha is it reasonable to assume your Buddhist? If so can I ask not what you believe but why you choose to believe what you do, does it add something to your life, to who you are? Or is it a no brainer and to you what you believe “just is”, therefore it is not a conscious decision there is for you just no other choice.

Apologies if you don’t adhere to the Buddha”s philosophical teaching.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Unum solum
( I like the user name - I wish I'd been able to think of something instead of my two forenames!)

You ask, 'Why believe?' Well, there is no reason to do so as far as I'm concerned! I know what it is to believe in God - that was belief in God only, none of the other associated mystical doings or miracles was more than a moral teaching, but then I realised that I’d known for ages that there was no such thing as God, or any god/spirit/etc for that matter, and that all gods have been entirely human ideas.
Once this was clear and obvious to me, there could never be a return to a belief in an idea which requires 100% faith.

Even the always most interesting discussions here on SofF have not changed my mind, but have added much to my knowledge and understanding of others' beliefs.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
Messed up to the point of ‘Why say I believe in anything’, when it makes no difference to others but the doing does.
Hi

I think I have been where you are - perhaps I can briefly share something.

I ended up accepting that what I believe is at least as important as what I do - because it provides the direction and energy behind that doing. I don't mean this in a mystic sense - 'God moved me to buy fruit and fibre this week' - but in a plain old sense of everyday English.

Why do I will the'good' of others? What is that 'good' anyway? Where (if anywhere) does it come from? What if their 'good' competes with my own? I'm tired, can't I just be 'good' to myself?

Nothing in that para is about doing - yet - it's just a bunch of (in my view unavoidably religious in character) questions. I don't think any of them have a solid answer if you work from a set of materialist presuppositions - certainly no more solid (or wobbly) than if you start with the possibility of God. But 'loving the Lord' - that's like wanting, being impatient for, the Good, and knowing what it looks like. Or starting to know. We're impatient for Good sometimes - whenever we clutch our forehead at the latest mad shite in the paper and think 'why the F*** did they do it that way?'.

But without those questions, why be arsed? Stick the telly on, eat some shit, get pissed if it hurts. Well, that's what I do when I lose the thread, but then I seem to find it again, or it / He finds me.

[ 20. January 2018, 07:19: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unum Solum

..........
It's not clear if your post springs out of a sense of religious entrapment,
......
I feel trapped by God. Growing up in a Western culture means believing in God means believing and accepting Jesus (yes I know Jesus is God - well I don’t really know). Jesus was around 2000 years ago, my only real way of finding out about him is through Scripture the validity and meaning of which seems to be increasingly being questioned by progressive scholars. Not doubting Scripture but reshaping our understanding of it, and in doing so scrambling my brain as to what Jesus said in the red letter parts of my Bible. If I am totally confused about what He said then I am confused about Him, and as a result messed up in my understanding of God - generally F&$)ed Up!

Messed up to the point of ‘Why say I believe in anything’, when it makes no difference to others but the doing does. Yet I want to believe and I don’t know why I want to believe, it’s certainly not because I care what others might think of me one way or the other. It’s much deeper than that, it’s 3am in the morning caring.
I understand that many people who are going through theological training can be challenged by a radically different approach to scripture than what they were taught as a child. I didn't have this reaction because of the way in which I came to be at a theological school. I recall one teacher responding to this challenge by saying that she thought that the approach taught at my theological college lad to a more robust belief than the traditional approach to scripture. Whether that is true or not is not for me to say, never having set much store in the idea that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Scripture is not your only way of finding out about God, and it was not my way. My way was through a 12-step programme and asking myself questions prompted by the course, "Can I believe in a power greater than myself", and "Can I believe that such a power can restore me to sanity?" I've adapted those questions.

Once I really could say yes to both those questions, the questioning journey that flowed from belief began.

My way of finding out about God worked for me in my circumstances. I reckon there are many ways of finding out about God.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
OTOH, Christianity is eroding in many parts of the Western world. There are a lot of people who no longer see a reason to 'believe'. Apart from the obvious theological problems with this situation, …
I hope this will not count as a tangent, but can you say briefly what one or two of the theological problems are, please?
quote:
we might also ask whether the 'death of God' has had and/or will have detrimental effects on the psychological and moral well-being of our civilization. The idea that the Judeo-Christian sensibility is now irrelevant to modern society is by no means a foregone conclusion....
Agreed. Whatever change takes place ( which I would hope will be away from belief), it must take place gradually, with something firmly in place to provide the strength needed. I hope this would be a confidence in the fact that humans have thought and done it all always anyway without, in my opinion, any god/god/s.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
I am not sure how to phrase what I am trying to ask so apologies first up and hopefully you can find a better way and hence a better answer. I am definitely not asking “who do you believe’ - I don’t think.

I can love my neighbour as myself, but accept I don’t do it very well. I am also making the assumption that all the major religions and Buddhism also make compassion and active caring for others a major teaching for adherents.
Do they all? I'm not sure that they do.

And, incidentally, why 'and Buddhism'? In world terms, Buddhism is hardly not a 'major religion'.
quote:
So if I attempt to conduct myself in this manner is there any point in undergoing the challenge, pain, frustration, in trying to believe in God (the ultimate mystery)? Jesus basically boiled the rules down for his followers to the 2 great commandments, the first cannot be unless the second is also adhered to. I don’t know about other religions or Buddhism as to how key (trying) loving your neighbour is to identifying with that belief system.

As an addendum I find the concept of believing in God/Jesus so that I get to heaven etc problematic. I think if something is real then it can be believed, the consequences of such belief are a whole other matter.

Not sue what I am really asking - maybe its ‘why cant I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?
But why bother? With no foundations underneath, why not just do what you like, what serves you?

Oddly, in the days when I didn't believe, I didn't have much of a problem explaining why I was selfish. What I found more of a problem explaining was why I found that sometimes spontaneously unselfish. It was where that came from that was more of a challenge to explain.

So if you say you can love your neighbour as yourself - though not very well - how? And why?

I've always found that a very difficult command even to attempt, much harder than just keeping a discipline.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Agreed. Whatever change takes place ( which I would hope will be away from belief), it must take place gradually, with something firmly in place to provide the strength needed. I hope this would be a confidence in the fact that humans have thought and done it all always anyway without, in my opinion, any god/god/s.
I find your militant and Evangelical vigour very offputting. I don't want to live in a world where people stop dreaming dreams about higher purposes, meaning and deities.

Your pseudo-scientific idealised future seems very grey to me.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Because it is true. According to my understanding of truth.

Yes, I can be a good person without a faith. And - for me - it is critical that my faith (whatever it is) encouages me to be a good person.

But I believe because it is true.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
For me, faith of itself is nothing to do with ethics. I don't believe because it makes me a better person. I believe because my faith is an expression of my fundamental convictions about the nature and structure of the universe: that is it structured and held in being by love. I find that conviction most powerfully expressed in Christianity because of the trinity and the incarnation, which mean that divinity is intimately woven into the structure of being and has been given physical expression in time and space.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
SusanDoris's point is an important one, I think. Whatever your views on the existence of God, it remains a fact that many people don't believe in God and haven't been brought up to do so. You can share your faith with others, but you can't expect them to follow your ideals by appealing to a common religious belief.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this - will have another think later. But I definitely think we should see people with strong moral and humanitarian principles and no religious belief as an inspiration, not a threat; otherwise we would have to anticipate the complete collapse of society.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Always like that line from the hymn 'The double agony in man'
— meaning humankind.

Life with Faith can bring agony of it’s own, as can life without Faith. Our we free to dump Faith from our own free will? I am not sure about myself doing as such, this could be me being clingy. Some folks seem able to do this with no apparent regrets.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
SusanDoris's point is an important one, I think. Whatever your views on the existence of God, it remains a fact that many people don't believe in God and haven't been brought up to do so. You can share your faith with others, but you can't expect them to follow your ideals by appealing to a common religious belief.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this - will have another think later. But I definitely think we should see people with strong moral and humanitarian principles and no religious belief as an inspiration, not a threat; otherwise we would have to anticipate the complete collapse of society.
That, to my mind, is exactly what we are seeing because a toxic combination of the removal of practical constraints by technology and the ruthless smashing of any kind of moral framework by fundamentalist materialism is leading to an utterly inhuman egotism being seen as the norm.

I have nothing against humanists from this perspective, but I do believe that lumping together humanists and materialists is a huge mistake: humanists locate the spirit ontologically as well as experientially in the human person; materialists deny its existence, along with any other connection between individuals that is not purely self-interested.

[ 20. January 2018, 09:22: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Always like that line from the hymn 'The double agony in man'
— meaning humankind.

Life with Faith can bring agony of it’s own, as can life without Faith. Our we free to dump Faith from our own free will? I am not sure about myself doing as such, this could be me being clingy. Some folks seem able to do this with no apparent regrets.
I don't see free will being involved. I became a Christian because I was attracted to it, and I stopped because I wasn't. Definitely not based on rational considerations. But it's difficult to describe that inner need that moves towards religion, and very difficult to understand why I don't have it now! It reminds me of those old jokes about not stamp collecting.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Agreed. Whatever change takes place ( which I would hope will be away from belief), it must take place gradually, with something firmly in place to provide the strength needed. I hope this would be a confidence in the fact that humans have thought and done it all always anyway without, in my opinion, any god/god/s.
I find your militant and Evangelical vigour very offputting. I don't want to live in a world where people stop dreaming dreams about higher purposes, meaning and deities.
Why do you think that I don't dream dreams about higher purposes? My life is full of optimism, happiness in seeing my family flourish and be well; seeing them contribute towards the well-being of their friends and neighbours; seeing the younger ones looking forward to having their own families and bringing them up to be loving, caring people as they are themselves. And they do this as non-believers.
Of course, I dream, but my dreams do not include a god doing anything to help. I'm just as much an idealist as most people. I worry about the use of plastics and do as much as I can and as many people do, whatever their beliefs, to try and make the world a better place to live in. I care about my neighbours and the community, and I challenge anyone to say that my caring is less than someone's who believes in God and who prays.
quote:
Your pseudo-scientific idealised future seems very grey to me.
Take away the science whose ideas. Technologies, food and water production etc you live among, and your life would indeed be bleak. Remove the idea of God and replace it with a human-centred faith, and the physical life remains … well, I was going to say, identical’, but I’ll say ‘very similar’ instead.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If I think back to the to the born-again surge which came over me 17 years ago then maybe I could have resisted it. This stands to reason as I must have invited it through introspection in the first instance.

Belief in the 'other' could be something which completely drys up on its own if you let it, starve the faith and feed the doubt as it were.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
That, to my mind, is exactly what we are seeing because a toxic combination of the removal of practical constraints by technology and the ruthless smashing of any kind of moral framework by fundamentalist materialism is leading to an utterly inhuman egotism being seen as the norm.

I have nothing against humanists from this perspective, but I do believe that lumping together humanists and materialists is a huge mistake: humanists locate the spirit ontologically as well as experientially in the human person; materialists deny its existence, along with any other connection between individuals that is not purely self-interested.
Please elaborate on that last sentence of yours. Who are the particular materialists who are denying any spiritual or huanist idea, who have no idea of beauty, arts to uplift the spirit, whose lifelacks any joy? Okay, perhaps that’s a bit too stark, but I hope you will explain a bit more.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I hope this will not count as a tangent, but can you say briefly what one or two of the theological problems are, please?
Well, when I say theological I simply mean religious. If God does exist, and if he does make demands upon the beings whom he created in his image, then the loss of our faith is a catastrophe for him. And it must be a catastrophe for us, as we wander aimlessly away from the Father who loves us. We miss our one true calling and risk losing an eternity with 'the Ground of Being'.

quote:
Whatever change takes place (which I would hope will be away from belief), it must take place gradually, with something firmly in place to provide the strength needed. I hope this would be a confidence in the fact that humans have thought and done it all always anyway without, in my opinion, any god/god/s.
But what sign is there that there's something 'firmly' in place? Many have already lost their faith, and for some of them nothing worthwhile has taken it's place.

I believe that Nietzsche wrote about this problem. He referred to God's retreating shadow. Some still live happily under the shadow of a dead God, having removed the supernatural but kept all the nice, reasonable bits. Others have found the transition very hard. Perhaps the success one has with it depends on the usual sociological factors, as well as psychological ones.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I hope this will not count as a tangent, but can you say briefly what one or two of the theological problems are, please?
Well, when I say theological I simply mean religious. If God does exist, and if he does make demands upon the beings whom he created in his image, then the loss of our faith is a catastrophe for him. And it must be a catastrophe for us, as we wander aimlessly away from the Father who loves us. We miss our one true calling and risk losing an eternity with 'the Ground of Being'.
Thank you for a most interesting reply.
quote:
But what sign is there that there's something 'firmly' in place? Many have already lost their faith, and for some of them nothing worthwhile has taken it's place.
Definitely agree, and that is why I will support the basic CofE until a strong and reliable system is available.
quote:
[I believe that Nietzsche wrote about this problem. He referred to God's retreating shadow. Some still live happily under the shadow of a dead God, having removed the supernatural but kept all the nice, reasonable bits. Others have found the transition very hard. Perhaps the success one has with it depends on the usual sociological factors, as well as psychological ones.
Yes, I think you are right, also that the understanding of the reliability of science and technology will help,particularly with regard to the fact that when things go wrong, it is almost invariably human error, even if it is way back in some obscure beginning. Nothing much is going to change during my remaining years, though!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Whatever change takes place ( which I would hope will be away from belief), it must take place gradually, with something firmly in place to provide the strength needed. I hope this would be a confidence in the fact that humans have thought and done it all always anyway without, in my opinion, any god/god/s.
This is not my experience at all. My faith in God is certainly not a source of strength, but - rather like the OP - a source of confusion. But I see no need whatever for a ‘something’ else to provide strength.

None of us has strength imo. We are, every one of us, hugely vulnerable and reliant on having people of good will around us.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
nice one Boogie. That knowledge of personal frailty and weakness is why the crucified God appeals to me.

[ 20. January 2018, 11:51: Message edited by: simontoad ]
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
bugger should have thought more. I wish to add that I am not at all sure that the idea of personal weakness and inadequacy is a universal experience. I suspect that many people react against the idea that they could be in some way bad or wrong or evil. I never did theology of the human person, but I regret it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Unum Solum, I admire your courage. Keep coming back at us.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Why do you think that I don't dream dreams about higher purposes?
I never said nor thought otherwise: atheists are capable of many things. However it seems undeiable that theists see things differently to you - to other atheists - and so you're seeking to remove that colour from human society.

I'm perfectly happy for atheism to continue, yet you only see theism as a problem to be eradicated.

On your other point, I am a trained scientist. You might well think that facts are all there is, but I think the variety of human thoughts and beliefs is what makes life interesting.

Printing gives books, but stories give life.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unum Solum

..........
It's not clear if your post springs out of a sense of religious entrapment,
......
I feel trapped by God. Growing up in a Western culture means believing in God means believing and accepting Jesus (yes I know Jesus is God - well I don’t really know). [...]

Yet I want to believe and I don’t know why I want to believe, it’s certainly not because I care what others might think of me one way or the other. It’s much deeper than that, it’s 3am in the morning caring.
Do you mind me asking what country you live in? Because from a British perspective, the idea that Christian faith is normative is no longer true. Some European countries, e.g. Sweden, are even less religious.

Whether that's a help to you, I don't know! But I'm coming to the view that there's a kind of vicarious duty in maintaining a Christian faith - if one can - in modern Europe. 'I believe; help my unbelief' is a cry that has more than merely personal significance. One is helping to maintain something of tremendous value. Spiritually, and otherwise.

I mean, who else is going to do it? I don't know how old you are, but once all the old ladies at church are dead, who's going to be left to pray for this suffering world? Perhaps you're young, and you go to a new, trendy church with lots of young people. But the young are often fickle. For some of them faith is a phase, to be tried out before they discover sex and self-advancement, or whatever. Is theirs a better trade off?

Well, there's always something to be gained and lost in any decision we make, but AFAICS a lifetime of grappling with the divine on behalf of oneself and others is hardly worthless.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Why do you think that I don't dream dreams about higher purposes?
I never said nor thought otherwise: atheists are capable of many things. However it seems undeniable that theists see things differently to you - to other atheists - and so you're seeking to remove that colour from human society.
I don’t know where you get that idea from! I can’t imagine anything worse than losing the ability to imagine anything, trillions of things and situations. It is impossible to remove colour, the aesthetic sides of life, the naturally produced reactions and emotions all we humans feel. Perhaps I would say that the need to interpret them via a God/god softens their edges, blurs them, does not let them show fully in their true*, unmitigated reality. If people prefer the slightly-less-than-sharp-and-clear version, then their minds can easily provide them with that alternative view.
quote:
I'm perfectly happy for atheism to continue, yet you only see theism as a problem to be eradicated.
well on the first point, you have no choice [Smile] )! On the second, that is not so. I see theism as something that has been around since our history began, is going to be around for as long again, but
Will, because of the continuing, unbroken total lack of objective evidence for any God/god/s, sooner or late become a minority-held belief, however large that minority remains.
quote:
On your other point, I am a trained scientist. You might well think that facts are all there is, but I think the variety of human thoughts and beliefs is what makes life interesting.
Couldn’t agree more; however, most are explicable using science, whereas they cannot be shown to be valid as being from any god/god/s using the scientific method, I think you must agree? May I ask what branch of science? =genuine question, no overtones.
quote:
Printing gives books, but stories give life.
Every single word of which came from a human brain, not one, I would strongly assert, from any God/god/s.

*true: obviously not 100%, since science will never claim that.

[ 20. January 2018, 13:01: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Missed out the r in later. Bother!
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Whatever change takes place ( which I would hope will be away from belief), it must take place gradually, with something firmly in place to provide the strength needed. I hope this would be a confidence in the fact that humans have thought and done it all always anyway without, in my opinion, any god/god/s.
This is not my experience at all. My faith in God is certainly not a source of strength, but - rather like the OP - a source of confusion. But I see no need whatever for a ‘something’ else to provide strength.

None of us has strength imo. We are, every one of us, hugely vulnerable and reliant on having people of good will around us.
I was thinking more in terms of a need for a strong, background belief, based not on 100% faith, but on knowledge, facts, solid objective evidence, because if that is not available,, there could well be a push by unwelcome ideologies to take power. I think this should be resisted on all fronts.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I don’t know where you get that idea from! I can’t imagine anything worse than losing the ability to imagine anything, trillions of things and situations. It is impossible to remove colour, the aesthetic sides of life, the naturally produced reactions and emotions all we humans feel. Perhaps I would say that the need to interpret them via a God/god softens their edges, blurs them, does not let them show fully in their true*, unmitigated reality. If people prefer the slightly-less-than-sharp-and-clear version, then their minds can easily provide them with that alternative view.
Or perhaps the colour to humanity offered by the theist cannot be replaced by anything else.

Perhaps only through myths and stories do we see things as they really are.

quote:

quote:
I'm perfectly happy for atheism to continue, yet you only see theism as a problem to be eradicated.
well on the first point, you have no choice [Smile] )!
Rubbish.
quote:

On the second, that is not so. I see theism as something that has been around since our history began, is going to be around for as long again, but
Will, because of the continuing, unbroken total lack of objective evidence for any God/god/s, sooner or late become a minority-held belief, however large that minority remains.
That's nice - remind me why anyone should take what you think with anything other than a pinch of salt. There is no evidence that theism is going to die any time soon.


quote:
quote:
On your other point, I am a trained scientist. You might well think that facts are all there is, but I think the variety of human thoughts and beliefs is what makes life interesting.
Couldn’t agree more; however, most are explicable using science, whereas they cannot be shown to be valid as being from any god/god/s using the scientific method, I think you must agree?
I think that science and philosophy (and religion) are as different as different languages. Answering different questions in different ways with a different vocabulary.

Science can never help with ethics, for example.

I'd rather have a theist make ethical decisions (even a theist with views I didn't agree with) than someone who thinks all moral questions can be reduced to fundamental science. Because molecules and chemistry are important and interesting; but they can't tell us about what it means to care, what is means to feel responsible, what is means to love.

quote:
May I ask what branch of science? =genuine question, no overtones.
I have a postgraduate degree in a biological/natural science. But I don't see what that has to do with anything - what qualifications do you have in philosophy?


quote:
Every single word of which came from a human brain, not one, I would strongly assert, from any God/god/s.
That's nice. Remind me again why that view should be given any more standing than any other.

I see you asserting things, and then simply saying that eventually everyone else will agree. They won't.

[ 20. January 2018, 13:41: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I was thinking more in terms of a need for a strong, background belief, based not on 100% faith, but on knowledge, facts, solid objective evidence, because if that is not available,, there could well be a push by unwelcome ideologies to take power. I think this should be resisted on all fronts.
My faith is far, far less than 100% and the influence of the Church in this country is very small imo.

Life isn’t about certainties, it’s full of messy compromise.

I am beginning to enjoy Church services a lot more now that I’m seeing it as full of stories which explain the human condition - no answers, just stories which help.

It’s interesting because my son lost his faith long ago, he was about 12. He was down to read the Bible reading in Church and was very upset as he didn’t believe what he read. I said “You’ve promised to read it now, so you must do it. But you don’t need to believe it at all, just read it as you would any story.” Now, 20 years later, I’m at the same stage - I see the whole lot as stories, the narrative which ministers hang good (hopefully good!) messages from.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm perfectly happy for atheism to continue, yet you only see theism as a problem to be eradicated.
well on the first point, you have no choice. [Smile] [/QUOTE]Rubbish.
[/QUOTE]
Surely you don’t think atheism will be eradicated?!!
quote:
why anyone should take what you think with anything other than a pinch of salt. There is no evidence that theism is going to die any time soon.
Which, as you will have noted, iswhat I said.
quote:
I'd rather have a theist make ethical decisions (even a theist with views I didn't agree with) than someone who thinks all moral questions can be reduced to fundamental science.
this is something I have not said … unless you can cite evidence to the contrary.
quote:
I have a postgraduate degree in a biological/natural science. But I don't see what that has to do with anything - what qualifications do you have in philosophy?
Thank you – it just makes it more interesting I think. And no, I have no qualifications in philosophy.
quote:
quote:
Every single word of which came from a human brain, not one, I would strongly assert, from any God/god/s.
That's nice. Remind me again why that view should be given any more standing than any other.
Possibly total lack of objective evidence for any god-produced word?!
quote:
I see you asserting things, and then simply saying that eventually everyone else will agree. They won't.
On the contrary, I have particularly said, that there will always be a minority, probably a very large one, that most certainly wil not agree.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
But belief is not based on facts: can't be, ever, for anyone. It is based on experience and conviction. To put it another way, belief or faith is an element of being, not an element of knowledge.

The requirement for beliefs to be based on fact is a fundamental category error which excludes its speaker from any debate about faith unless and until they have learned what it actually is.

[ 20. January 2018, 15:02: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
If so can I ask not what you believe but why you choose to believe what you do, does it add something to your life, to who you are? Or is it a no brainer and to you what you believe “just is”, therefore it is not a conscious decision there is for you just no other choice.
Nothing, for me, is a no brainer. Sometimes a wrong brainer, but my positions and beliefs contain much internal examination. My journey is an odd one and I don't generally do personal details. But I believe what I do because it feels right. Not without question or challenge, but right. For me.
In the end, that is the only solid advice I can offer: Self-examination.
Unquestioned belief is worthless.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

And, incidentally, why 'and Buddhism'? In world terms, Buddhism is hardly not a 'major religion'.
Some view Buddhism as a philosophy, rather than a religion.

[ 20. January 2018, 15:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

Surely you don’t think atheism will be eradicated?!!
Sorry pardon, I misread what you said. I thought you were saying that I had no choice in the gradual eradication of theism.

Apologies.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But belief is not based on facts: can't be, ever, for anyone. It is based on experience and conviction. To put it another way, belief or faith is an element of being, not an element of knowledge.
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.
quote:
[The requirement for beliefs to be based on fact is a fundamental category error which excludes its speaker from any debate about faith unless and until they have learned what it actually is.
There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction. If one has had a belief which required the total faith aspect, then one can join in a debate with knowledge of what and how it was to be so. I had that absolute faith for many years. There were those who tried to point out the lack of evidence but I would respond with, But there must be a force/power out there.’
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... Who are the particular materialists who are denying any spiritual or huanist idea, who have no idea of beauty, arts to uplift the spirit, whose lifelacks any joy? ...
SusanDoris, I've probably asked this before, and I've chosen one of your statements making more or less the same point at random.

I'm not denying that many atheists experience beauty, uplift of the spirit, the effects on the spirit of inspirational art, even the inspiration of noble ideals and ethics. It's clear that you do.

What puzzles me, though, is where that fits into the atheist or humanist universe. Where in it is the dimension in which these things can function? Is there a sound explanation of how and where these higher human qualities are or can come from? Or is the explanation a bit of wishful thinking, an attempt to get round the possibility that the foundations of the atheist or humanist universe are sand?

Even without having to accept any particular theology as to what that 'more' is, and how it works, the other possible explanations are all too dreadful to contemplate because they all involve having to accept the possibility that there might be a 'more' of some sort.

It's a bit like Professor Dawkins's memes. They explain a problem for him. There might even be something in his theory. But he refuses to recognise that there is nowhere in his picture of the universe for them to exist. His theory of them, and to him, their malign influence, has to be dependent on an explanation of life, the universe and everything that is fundamentally alien to his understanding of it.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

Surely you don’t think atheism will be eradicated?!!
Sorry pardon, I misread what you said. I thought you were saying that I had no choice in the gradual eradication of theism.

Apologies.
No problem - thank you for saying.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
But some things cannot be proven, and must either be accepted or denied.

Mathematics is philosophy. Various complicated and beautiful mathematical proofs exist, but it isn't possible to prove the basic assumptions of how numbers work.

You just have to either accept it and move on with the complex ideas built upon those assumptions, or stubbornly reject them and likely remain ignorant about mathematics.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Enoch

Thank you for that very interesting post. I'll need to have a think! so I will be responding as soon as I have done so!
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But belief is not based on facts: can't be, ever, for anyone. It is based on experience and conviction. To put it another way, belief or faith is an element of being, not an element of knowledge.
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.
quote:
[The requirement for beliefs to be based on fact is a fundamental category error which excludes its speaker from any debate about faith unless and until they have learned what it actually is.
There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction. If one has had a belief which required the total faith aspect, then one can join in a debate with knowledge of what and how it was to be so. I had that absolute faith for many years. There were those who tried to point out the lack of evidence but I would respond with, But there must be a force/power out there.’
But there it is again. Your insistence is wrong because it falsifies the nature of belief. There can be no evidence for belief. There never will be.

Perhaps you have just shown the reason why. There is no such thing as absolute faith or belief either. That is idolatrous, because it tries to make mystery into something which is absolutely known. It can't be known; it can only be believed in, an object of faith.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But some things cannot be proven, and must either be accepted or denied.
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties, don't -knows, etc. However, to explain them with a faith belief is the way, in my opinion, to block the finding of the best answer.
quote:
Mathematics is philosophy. Various complicated and beautiful mathematical proofs exist, but it isn't possible to prove the basic assumptions of how numbers work.

You just have to either accept it and move on with the complex ideas built upon those assumptions, or stubbornly reject them and likely remain ignorant about mathematics.
I think you have chosen a fairly easily demurred against topic here!
maths is a known thing;. it needs no faith to accept its 'existence'. I have heard people say that mathematics existed before human brains *found* it, or that that humans are *discovering* something that already exists. Well, I don't think that matters, since no-one worships maths , i.e. in a similar way to worshipping God. . It is perceived as an amazingly marvellous thing and it is awe-inspiring to hear mathematicians speak about their subject.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:



But there it is again. Your insistence is wrong because it falsifies the nature of belief. There can be no evidence for belief. There never will be.
Please correct me if I’m wrong (using voice to listen to all posts sometimes means I mis-remember something) but you still seem to be mixing two kinds, or two categories of, beliefs. There are beliefs which are based on known facts (always with the proviso that no proof is 100% absolute) whereas beliefs involving ideas of any God/god/s/etc require faith alone.
I will leave the rest of your post for the moment.
quote:
Perhaps you have just shown the reason why. There is no such thing as absolute faith or belief either. That is idolatrous, because it tries to make mystery into something which is absolutely known. It can't be known; it can only be believed in, an object of faith.

 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties, don't -knows, etc. However, to explain them with a faith belief is the way, in my opinion, to block the finding of the best answer.
Then you are wrong. One has to have "faith" in the fundamental building blocks of mathematics just as one has to have "faith" in the philosophy of science. It isn't about uncertainty, that's a category error.

You just have to accept that this is how mathematics (or science) works. One can't prove it, because it is so fundamental that it isn't testable.


quote:
I think you have chosen a fairly easily demurred against topic here!
maths is a known thing;. it needs no faith to accept its 'existence'.
No. Quite the reverse. The problem here appears that you don't seem to accept that mathematics is philosophy and that its fundamentals are not testable.

That's just wrong.

quote:
I have heard people say that mathematics existed before human brains *found* it, or that that humans are *discovering* something that already exists. Well, I don't think that matters, since no-one worships maths , i.e. in a similar way to worshipping God. . It is perceived as an amazingly marvellous thing and it is awe-inspiring to hear mathematicians speak about their subject.
Again, none of that matters.

I'm simply talking to you about the assumptions that one must accept in order to do mathematics. And, actually, science.

There are things in life that cannot be proven by science, indeed there are things that are unprovable but that one must accept to do it.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus boiled it down to two great commandments, but the first still presupposes the existence of God.
But does the second require the first as it seems to me to be something that is ‘good’ (whatever good means), and existence (another loaded word) would be better for all if adhered to.

Or does belief/submission of will to God (the Biblical one) mean that we have divine help in carrying out the second command in a manner and extent that would not be possible alone? The indwelling Spirit enabling us beyond our mere mortal ability.
Welcome thoughts, thank you.

Yes, the world would be a better place for everyone if we all loved one another, were considerate, and didn't try to impose our beliefs on other people but invited them to be kind too. Or at least if everyone tried to do this, regardless of faith in God.

And yes, when we submit to God's will and our true selves are released, God infuses the love we have for others with that extraordinary power which takes it further than we can, and which helps us to love unlovable people and to overcome some of the temptations which cause us to fail.
 
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties, don't -knows, etc. However, to explain them with a faith belief is the way, in my opinion, to block the finding of the best answer.
Then you are wrong. One has to have "faith" in the fundamental building blocks of mathematics just as one has to have "faith" in the philosophy of science. It isn't about uncertainty, that's a category error.

You just have to accept that this is how mathematics (or science) works. One can't prove it, because it is so fundamental that it isn't testable.


quote:
I think you have chosen a fairly easily demurred against topic here!
maths is a known thing;. it needs no faith to accept its 'existence'.
@SusanDoris Many truths of mathematics are much more uncertain then you perhaps realise. May I suggest you search for "Godel's Incompleteness Theorems" online.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.[/
As does belief that no God/god/s exist. There are no “facts” that can prove this. Rather, there is an absence of facts, or evidence, that a particular person finds persuasive. One may say that without supporting facts they will not "believe" something, but that is itself a belief statement. It is "not proven and, I believe, unlikely to be proven" rather than "disproven." Others can, and do, look at the same evidence and say "more likely than not."

quote:
There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction.
I agree, SusaDoris, which is why, with all respect, I have trouble with the assertion you have repeatedly made, including in this thread, that you "know" there is/are no God/god/s. Upon what facts is that knowledge based?

And it's no good saying that the burden is on those positing the existence of God to come forward with facts. I would agree if that those asserting that they “know” God exists bear the burden of proof. But here, you are the one who has made the assertion that you "know" God does not exist, so the burden of proof is on you.

For my money, no one "knows" that God exists or doesn’t exist. We all look at the same circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof, and go one way or ther other. Either we, we're talking about belief.

As for the OP, I can readily identify with the inability to not believe. That’s me. Even when I doubt—seriously doubt—I seem unable to let go of belief. It’s not so much because I don't want to, but more because at more core I find the non-existence of God even less "believable" than the existence of God.

One thing I wonder about in this context: We now seem to think of “belief” as intellectual assent. But it seems that those in Scripture thought of it more as trust—more the heart than the mind, so to speak.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Blimey, Nick Tamen!
That is such a brilliant summary of where I and many others I know would say we find ourselves.
I have a very analytical mind which I love but it can end up tying me in knots.....at which point I return to my heart and the deep-seated desire within me to continue to trust in God.
Why believe? Because despite many doubts and wilderness experiences, considering everything, the Presence I have known for decades remains and my life would be less rich and fulfilling if I did not.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believe are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.
As does belief that no God/god/s exist. There are no “facts” that can prove this. Rather, there is an absence of facts, or evidence, that a particular person finds persuasive. One may say that without supporting facts they will not "believe" something, but that is itself a belief statement. It is "not proven and, I believe, unlikely to be proven" rather than "disproven." Others can, and do, look at the same evidence and say "more likely than not."
I agree with that. If one says that belief in God has to be based on 100% faith, i.e. certainty, it must also follow that belief in No-God has also to be based on the same 100% certainty.

The argument that unless God is certain, he must not and cannot exist, doesn't follow at all, either from those parameters, or as far as I know, any others. That would be say that even if there were 95% proof he is, that would prove that he isn't.
 
Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :
 
Thank you all.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

None of us has strength imo. We are, every one of us, hugely vulnerable and reliant on having people of good will around us.
[Overused] Brilliantly put, Boogie.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Nothing, for me, is a no brainer. Sometimes a wrong brainer, but my positions and beliefs contain much internal examination. My journey is an odd one and I don't generally do personal details. But I believe what I do because it feels right. Not without question or challenge, but right. For me.
In the end, that is the only solid advice I can offer: Self-examination.
Unquestioned belief is worthless.
Sheeeyit. 100% agree.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?
No. Absolutely not. There are no beliefs based on faith alone. All beliefs are based on a mixture of facts, personal experience, the testimony of trusted people, one's other beliefs, and so on. Beliefs based on faith alone aren't beliefs, they're schizophrenia.

[ 21. January 2018, 03:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I suspect that, once again, my vehemence has rather undone me. I meant that there can be no ultimately decisive evidence for faith in God other than the resonance with one's own truest self. To me, that is and must always be, the final test. That resonance can, however, be tested: by experience, by reading, by prayer, by approaching God in and through the sacraments, which are after all signs of God's presence which the body can read, and therefore help to interpret. I did not mean, however my earlier posts can be interpreted, that faith must ultimately be solipsistic, leading to endless individuals trapped in a bubble of self-referential sanctity. That strikes me as a road to hell.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Enoch

It has been relly interesting thinking about your words and how to respond. If I have misinterpreted or misunderstood, please let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... Who are the particular materialists who are denying any spiritual or huanist idea, who have no idea of beauty, arts to uplift the spirit, whose lifelacks any joy? ...
SusanDoris, I've probably asked this before, and I've chosen one of your statements making more or less the same point at random.

I'm not denying that many atheists experience beauty, uplift of the spirit, the effects on the spirit of inspirational art, even the inspiration of noble ideals and ethics. It's clear that you do.

What puzzles me, though, is where that fits into the atheist or humanist universe.
I would go for the science here. Evolutionary biology, painstakingly acquired archaeological evidence, observations of humans since our species began, knowledge passed on orally by ancient peoples, subsequently recorded, recorded by the scribes in the manner which seemed to best explain events.
If you feel you are adding something to your life by a faith belief, can you define - or hazard a guess! - as to what it is? I consider I did not lose something when my belief in God evaporated, but I did not [I]gain[I] anything either
- It was just a case of a minuscule-sized missing piece falling into place.
quote:
Where in it is the dimension in which these things can function?
I’m not quite sure what you mean when you refer to the dimension here. From a practical point of view we live on the planet earth with time moving inexorably along and more information being discovered daily about the elements and composition of the universe … that is our dimension.
- We can imagine others, and some physicists talk of parallel dimensions, but I'm happy enough with this one!
- From the philosophical point of view, I have all the aesthetic and spiritual dimensions to my life as anyone, but I do not ascribe them to any purely subjective source.
-
quote:
Is there a sound explanation of how and where these higher human qualities are or can come from? Or is the explanation a bit of wishful thinking, an attempt to get round the possibility that the foundations of the atheist or humanist universe are sand?
I rather think the foundations of faith beliefs are the ones on sand, of course!! All the accumulated evidence* leads to the TofE as the best and most consistently reliable explanation of why we have developed into the complicated physical animals that we are. Knowledg of how the brain functions and how the neural networks work mean that, although not enough is known about consciousness, the amount of information is not zero, I think we can be confident that consciousness is most likely to be anemergent property of the brain/mind, and needs a living brain to function, but there's still a long way to go.
quote:
Even without having to accept any particular theology as to what that 'more' is, and how it works, the other possible explanations are all too dreadful to contemplate
- because they all involve having to accept the possibility that there might be a 'more' of some sort.
- Can you give me an example of the possibly to dreadful to contemplate explanations? Being an optimnistic type, I can think of dreadful things happening, but then the human species has muddled through and, mostly, progressed in solving the problems we create ourselves.
quote:
It's a bit like Professor Dawkins's memes. They explain a problem for him. There might even be something in his theory. But he refuses to recognise that there is nowhere in his picture of the universe for them to exist. His theory of them, and to him, their malign influence, has to be dependent on an explanation of life, the universe and everything that is fundamentally alien to his understanding of it.
I'm afraid I can’t remember what RD's ‘memes’ were  but from the context here, they are faith beliefs. I think 'malign' is probably too strong a word - we find ourselves in the current state of varying beliefs on the one hand, all branches of science forging ahead (with its ups and downs), on the other. Perhaps it is the confusion of totally faith beliefs with beliefs based on objective evidence plus the don't-knows, that is the problem.

[ 21. January 2018, 08:23: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
maybe its ‘why cant I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?
You mean "believe" in God in the same way as people believe in UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster ?

Why do you have to try to convince yourself that the God story is factually true ?

I don't think you do.

Interesting that you say "good and caring". If "caring" represents the second great commandment, to love your neighbour as yourself, how do you understand the first ?

Some would say that you can't love God if you don't think He exists, and therefore trying to talk yourself into belief in His factuality is what it's about.

Others would say that loving God means keeping his laws, so that the first great commandment is fulfilled by keeping the second, in effect reducing the two to one.

I don't agree with either. I see the first great commandment as about loving and trusting in goodness (and by implication rejecting evil). As something that is above, beyond, prior to, both theologising - how you conceive God - and your relationships with the other people in your life.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Several edits needed:

* evidence: i.e. the objective, verifiable etc kind.

" but I do not ascribe them to any purely subjective source"
" should have been any supernatural source.
although a better choice of word is needed.

optimistic has an extra n - I can hear it when Synthetic Dave reads it!!
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
I have just come across this thread, so I have to begin with a reaction to an earlier point.
It’s about compassion. A New Zealand Sea of Faith conference several years ago centred on the meaning and place of compassion in different religions and philosophies. So the opening speakers were Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, Jewish, Atheist – I’m sure there were one or two others, but all placed Compassion as a central feature of their belief. Our atheist member underlined his illustration of compassion with the story of an a school for poor children set up by an atheist organisation somewhere in India in the same way christian groups have often done.

And as I read, I could hear some of you expressing much of what I have experienced in the course of my life.

Our primitive ancestors decided there must be something that sent rain, or sickness, or helped them overcome their enemies, and gradually imagined a being rather like themselves but infinitely more powerful, who must be worshiped and appealed to for help – and eventually a Galilean peasant concluded (as other prophets had done before him) that the sacred paraphernalia of temple, priests and sacrifices was not necessary because god embodied love and grace, and wanted us to emulate those qualities in our lives.
So from learning the stories of the bible in my youth, I too have come to understand that the bible is a wonderful library of myths that help us to understand our human nature, that an unnecessary complex structure of theology built on the Jesus stories can be discarded (do you have to grasp how Jesus can be both fully God and fully man? or how God can be both three and one? Does it matter if you can’t?) while the life and teaching of Jesus give a pattern for living that would surely make human life more blessed. Of a life after death I am not interested, it is this life that we have to live.
I do not agonise over God. Now in my eighties I have fallen back on the conclusion that there is indeed something more that we can call God, which is Love, and which is present in and among us, and which we are sometimes conscious of, but which does not manipulate our lives, or send illness or drought or disaster or punishment or cure for illness. As a lay preacher, I tell my congregation that every person in the church has their own concept of God, and that ultimately God is the greatest mystery.

I hope this long ’sermon’ is helpful. It is late at night or I might have been more concise. Thank you all for your thoughts. SusanDoris, you are like a magnifying glass to make us reexamine our ideas.

GG
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
GG

[Overused]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Then you are wrong. One has to have "faith" in the fundamental building blocks of mathematics just as one has to have "faith" in the philosophy of science. It isn't about uncertainty, that's a category error.
But I do have faith in the fundamental building blocks of maths and the Theories of Science. They are based on observations, can be challenged and tested. I am constantly aware, though, of the fact that science never claims a 100% proof of anything.
quote:
You just have to accept that this is how mathematics (or science) works. One can't prove it, because it is so fundamental that it isn't testable.
But neither maths nor science is based on anything supernatural and they can be observed to work.
quote:
@SusanDoris Many truths of mathematics are much more uncertain then you perhaps realise. May I suggest you search for "Godel's Incompleteness Theorems" online.
Yes, there are uncertainties in maths, and, yes, I heard about that incompleteness theorem some years ago and listened to some of the Wikipedia entry, but only got the vaguest concept of it!! [Smile]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, you can apply instrumentalism to maths and science - that is, they work most of the time, and as Susan said, can be observed to work. Having said that, you can apply it to religion as well, that it works for some people some of the time. By 'works' I mean, they get benefit from it. But instrumentalism ignores stuff such as truth and reality. Post-truth, you see.

[ 21. January 2018, 09:36: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.[/
As does belief that no God/god/s exist. There are no “facts” that can prove this. Rather, there is an absence of facts, or evidence, that a particular person finds persuasive. One may say that without supporting facts they will not "believe" something, but that is itself a belief statement. It is "not proven and, I believe, unlikely to be proven" rather than "disproven." Others can, and do, look at the same evidence and say "more likely than not."
That sounds like a complicated way of talking about or asking for the negative proof theory. The onus for providing proofs and explanations for something they believe exists is on those who believe it does, most definitely not on those who have no reason to consider it as even possible.


quote:
quote:
There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction.
]I agree, SusanDoris, which is why, with all respect, I have trouble with the assertion you have repeatedly made, including in this thread, that you "know" there is/are no God/god/s.
If indeed I have used words which make that assertion, then I will correct them. I try always to be most careful to allow for the probability, however, vanishingly, remotely, small of a god appearing one day.
[
quote:
Upon what facts is that knowledge based?

And it's no good saying that the burden is on those positing the existence of God to come forward with facts. I would agree if that those asserting that they “know” God exists bear the burden of proof. But here, you are the one who has made the assertion that you "know" God does not exist, so the burden of proof is on you.
As I say, I will correct my words if you can quote them.
quote:
For my money, no one "knows" that God exists or doesn’t exist. We all look at the same circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof, and go one way or ther other. Either we, we're talking about belief.[[QUOTE]I will dig my heels in here a bit because surely no-one can assert that the odds are equivalent?
[QUOTE]As for the OP, I can readily identify with the inability to not believe. That’s me. Even when I doubt—seriously doubt—I seem unable to let go of belief. It’s not so much because I don't want to, but more because at more core I find the non-existence of God even less "believable" than the existence of God.
And I would have agreed in the days when I believed.
quote:
One thing I wonder about in this context: We now seem to think of “belief” as intellectual assent. But it seems that those in Scripture thought of it more as trust—more the heart than the mind, so to speak.
Yes, but they were writing without the knowledge we have now.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
I can't see how Godel's theorems, which I do just about understand, imply anything about the existence, whatever that means, of God.

Cohen's independence proofs, which I cannot follow beyond their bare statement, might just be relevant, although I doubt it.

As for science, the details of Quantum Dynamics and General Relativity are beyond me, but what I would ask the scientists is how their observations rule out the possibility that we are living in a simulation - a simpler question than the existence of an undetectable transcendent deity.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
GG

[Overused]
Yes, that was a super post from GG.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But some things cannot be proven, and must either be accepted or denied.
Always with the acknowledgement that there is a chance, however vanishingly small, of either being right. It occurs to me that it is usually the non-believer who has to point this out. Believers, i.e. with not a scrap of objective (etc etc) evidence to back them up, do not mention this much!!
quote:
Mathematics is philosophy. Various complicated and beautiful mathematical proofs exist, but it isn't possible to prove the basic assumptions of how numbers work.

You just have to either accept it and move on with the complex ideas built upon those assumptions, or stubbornly reject them and likely remain ignorant about mathematics.
*mutters under breath a bit, but decides on no comment [Smile] *
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But I do have faith in the fundamental building blocks of maths and the Theories of Science. They are based on observations, can be challenged and tested. I am constantly aware, though, of the fact that science never claims a 100% proof of anything.
You are wrong. They're not based on observation and they can't be challenged.

They're assumptions.

It is very difficult to talk to you when you clearly don't know the first thing about the thing you are talking about: in order to do mathematics - and by extension science - one needs to accept prerequisite axioms and ideas which cannot be tested. One just has to accept them to do everything else that follows.

You can keep bleating about observations, but that misses the point. These are philosophical ideas at the heart of mathematics that cannot be tested by mathematics.

Your belief in science suggests that you've done very little study of science, mathematics and the history of how those forms of study grew out of philosophy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Always with the acknowledgement that there is a chance, however vanishingly small, of either being right. It occurs to me that it is usually the non-believer who has to point this out. Believers, i.e. with not a scrap of objective (etc etc) evidence to back them up, do not mention this much!!
I was talking about mathematics and science. What are you talking about?

It isn't about the axiomatic ideas of mathematics being "right" or "wrong", but simply that these branches of philosophy are built on them.

I'm finished trying to explain this to you - as you simply don't seem to understand the point.

[ 21. January 2018, 10:18: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Unum Solum maybe its ‘why can't I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?
I can't speak for the mindset of atheists but my own faith journey is one of having discovered what a 'relationship' with God entails and experienced the dichotomy implicit in God's intimate proximity and paradoxically concurrent remote 'otherness'.

God is a concept of the human mind, just as everything else is entirely a construct of the mind but the construct is usually a construct of some objective reality, though in the case of a 'God' concept, substantially beyond our actual comprehension.

Most people's understanding of what they mean by descriptive use of the word 'God' is quite limited, usually to images and concepts they formed as children. Most atheists brought up in a 'faith' environment, imagine that, 'growing out' of such infantile imaginings constituted, for them, a better understanding of 'reality'. In fact they merely arrived at an 'alternative' understanding of reality, not a definitive one.

There is no dichotomy between 'trying to be a good and caring person', and either atheism on the one hand or 'belief in a Transcendent Being' on the other. Neither philosophical position has any bearing whatever on the decision to be 'a good and caring person'. One either IS or one ISN'T, 'a caring person', instance by instance, according to personal choice and the dictates of circumstance. If 'faith in a transcendent being 'enhances one's prospects of success in that venture', then it would be foolish to 'walk away from your need to believe in God, (what ever level of intellectual comprehension you may have of the term 'God').

Neither philosophical position 'atheism' or 'faith', is mathematically, scientifically or theologically provably correct, and those who would convince you otherwise, whether 'certainty filled believers' or 'certainty filled and supposedly liberated atheists', are deluded liars.

Belief in the possibility of the existence of a creating transcendent being is not provably irrational. Belief that such a being does not NEED to exist as an explanation for what we choose to call 'reality' is a quite viable option. The choice is ours to make.

quote:
Galloping Granny I do not agonise over God. Now in my eighties I have fallen back on the conclusion that there is indeed something more that we can call God, which is Love, and which is present in and among us, and which we are sometimes conscious of, but which does not manipulate our lives, or send illness or drought or disaster or punishment or cure for illness. As a lay preacher, I tell my congregation that every person in the church has their own concept of God, and that ultimately God is the greatest mystery.
No comment is necessary, just thought your contribution well worth repetition.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Unum Solum maybe its ‘why can't I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?
I can't speak for the mindset of atheists …
I'll just put in a line then to say that this particular atheist does not have a 'mind set' - I wonder how you define this?- and is someone who does not reference God in her
Daily life.
quote:
…but my own faith journey is one of having discovered what a 'relationship' with God entails and experienced the dichotomy implicit in God's intimate proximity and paradoxically concurrent remote 'otherness'.
How do you have a relationship with an idea which you cannot observe in any way?
quote:
God is a concept of the human mind, just as everything else is entirely a construct of the mind but the construct is usually a construct of some objective reality, though in the case of a 'God' concept, substantially beyond our actual comprehension.[
So if it is beyond your comprehension, how are you imagining you comprehend it, in order to have a relationship with it?
quote:
Most people's understanding of what they mean by descriptive use of the word 'God' is quite limited, usually to images and concepts they formed as children. Most atheists brought up in a 'faith' environment, imagine that, 'growing out' of such infantile imaginings constituted, for them, a better understanding of 'reality'. In fact they merely arrived at an 'alternative' understanding of reality, not a definitive one.
that was most certainly not the case as far as I'm concerned and that sweeping statement about 'most atheists' simply will not do. All atheists have one thing in common a total lack of belief in any god/god/s; otherwise they have as wide a range of beliefs and interestsas anyone else.
quote:
There is no dichotomy between 'trying to be a good and caring person', and either atheism on the one hand or 'belief in a Transcendent Being' on the other. Neither philosophical position has any bearing whatever on the decision to be 'a good and caring person'. One either IS or one ISN'T, 'a caring person', instance by instance, according to personal choice and the dictates of circumstance. If 'faith in a transcendent being 'enhances one's prospects of success in that venture', then it would be foolish to 'walk away from your need to believe in God, (what ever level of intellectual comprehension you may have of the term 'God').
Agreed.
quote:
Neither philosophical position 'atheism' or 'faith', is mathematically, scientifically or theologically provably correct, and those who would convince you otherwise, whether 'certainty filled believers' or 'certainty filled and supposedly liberated atheists', are deluded liars.
I will just mention again there is always the qualification that both positions must logically and rationally leave a small gap for the opposing view to be right. I certainly reject the idea of an equivalence.
Why do you use the phrase supposedly liberated atheists?
quote:
Belief in the possibility of the existence of a creating transcendent being is not provably irrational. Belief that such a being does not NEED to exist as an explanation for what we choose to call 'reality' is a quite viable option. The choice is ours to make.
Certainly is. My sort of bottom line is do not tell children that this belief is a true fact.
. This also bears repeating.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The mindset of atheists - well, eating babies, celebrating matter as the lodestar of life, spitting on graves, that sort of thing.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facs and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there? I don’t think you can put them together.
All the things I believ are backed up by facts. Some contain an element of ‘don’t know’ of course, but there are no things I believe which require 100% faith alone. All God/religious ideas require the 100% faith.
As does belief that no God/god/s exist. There are no “facts” that can prove this. Rather, there is an absence of facts, or evidence, that a particular person finds persuasive. One may say that without supporting facts they will not "believe" something, but that is itself a belief statement. It is "not proven and, I believe, unlikely to be proven" rather than "disproven." Others can, and do, look at the same evidence and say "more likely than not."
That sounds like a complicated way of talking about or asking for the negative proof theory. The onus for providing proofs and explanations for something they believe exists is on those who believe it does, most definitely not on those who have no reason to consider it as even possible.
No, the onus is on those who make an assertion to provide the proofs for that assertion. If I say I know God exists, then the burden is on me to demonstrate how I know that. Likewise, if you say you know God does not exist, then the burden is on you to demonstrate how your assertion can be “known.”


quote:
quote:
quote:
There is no ‘requirement’ for beliefs to be based on fact, but if someone states that a belief is true and they know – from experience or something - it to be true, in spite of a total lack of objective evidence, then that certainly could be labelled an error, especially if it is indoctrinated into children. I think there is a requirement for such a person to say clearly that they believe such and such to be true but cannot supply the verifiable( etc etc) back0-up. In such a case, then I would defend absolutely their right to express such beliefs with conviction.
I agree, SusanDoris, which is why, with all respect, I have trouble with the assertion you have repeatedly made, including in this thread, that you "know" there is/are no God/god/s.
If indeed I have used words which make that assertion, then I will correct them. I try always to be most careful to allow for the probability, however, vanishingly, remotely, small of a god appearing one day.
Here is an example from this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I know what it is to believe in God - that was belief in God only, none of the other associated mystical doings or miracles was more than a moral teaching, but then I realised that I’d known for ages that there was no such thing as God, or any god/spirit/etc for that matter, and that all gods have been entirely human ideas.
You have made similar statements in other threads.

quote:
For my money, no one "knows" that God exists or doesn’t exist. We all look at the same circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof, and go one way or ther other. Either we, we're talking about belief.
quote:
I will dig my heels in here a bit because surely no-one can assert that the odds are equivalent?
Why not? Though many would assert they are not equivalent—that the odds of God existing outweigh the odds of God not existing. I understand and respect that you do not see it that way at all. But others look at the same evidence you do and weigh it differently.

quote:
quote:
One thing I wonder about in this context: We now seem to think of “belief” as intellectual assent. But it seems that those in Scripture thought of it more as trust—more the heart than the mind, so to speak.
Yes, but they were writing without the knowledge we have now.
What do you mean? That didn’t know what they meant by the words they used?

Seriously though, I think that this is a red herring. Many of us accept all the science you do, and find it irrelevant to the question of whether God exists. In other words, the doubts we have are not prompted by scientific understandings. And there are those who, in light of all that science teaches us, find their belief in the existence of God strengthened. That is not your experience, but it is the experience of some.

[ 21. January 2018, 14:31: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I think it is marvellous that the OPer is asking such questions. An honourable tradition of wrestling with the faith, something which would have been well known to theologians over many centuries. Really we should all be doing much more of it, actively engaging with the faith rather than passively accepting what we are told, as a given.

Where ever did the idea come from that people should swallow the lot whole??
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
I can't see how Godel's theorems, which I do just about understand, imply anything about the existence, whatever that means, of God.

Cohen's independence proofs, which I cannot follow beyond their bare statement, might just be relevant, although I doubt it.

As for science, the details of Quantum Dynamics and General Relativity are beyond me, but what I would ask the scientists is how their observations rule out the possibility that we are living in a simulation - a simpler question than the existence of an undetectable transcendent deity.
This has been taken up recently by various people, that is, a simulation by aliens. As far as I can see, it cannot be ruled out, but then green super-intelligent insects ruling the universe, can't be, can they?

DeGrasse Tyson lent some weight to it, which seemed to shock some people; I expect that it will die down, unless someone makes a startling discovery, e.g. a rock floating in space with 'Insects rule OK' written on it.

I think there's something here about constraints, I mean, I can suggest anything I want, along the lines of the Matrix, but it's speculation, unless we have some observation linked to it.

Religion is different, cos, err, well, I mean ...
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Apologies for muddling the tags slightly.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Here is an example from this thread:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I know what it is to believe in God - that was belief in God only, none of the other associated mystical doings or miracles was more than a moral teaching, but then I realised that I’d known for ages that there was no such thing as God, or any god/spirit/etc for that matter, and that all gods have been entirely human ideas.
You have made similar statements in other threads.
I'm afraid it will be too late to edit that particular post, but the proviso should have been said that of course I always did leave that small opening for a god to appear one day., Perhaps if I add the word *proviso* everywhere, that will solve the problem!
[QUOTE[]
quote:
For my money, no one "knows" that God exists or doesn’t exist. We all look at the same circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof, and go one way or ther other. Either we, we're talking about belief
I will dig my heels in here a bit because surely no-one can assert that the odds are equivalent?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Why not? [/QB][/QUOTE][Because there is a wealth of objective scientific evidence for the TofE, nature etc, available for checking and zero objective evidence for any god.
quote:
Though many would assert they are not equivalent—that the odds of God existing outweigh the odds of God not existing. [[
Using what as evidence?!!
quote:
I understand and respect that you do not see it that way at all. But others look at the same evidence you do and weigh it differently.
Could you give an example?
quote:
quote:
One thing I wonder about in this context: We now seem to think of “belief” as intellectual assent. But it seems that those in Scripture thought of it more as trust—more the heart than the mind, so to speak.
Yes, but they were writing without the knowledge we have now.
What do you mean? That didn’t know what they meant by the words they used?[/QB][/QUOTE]No, simply that they were very limited in their available knowledge base.
quote:
Seriously though, I think that this is a red herring. Many of us accept all the science you do, and find it irrelevant to the question of whether God exists. In other words, the doubts we have are not prompted by scientific understandings. And there are those who, in light of all that science teaches us, find their belief in the existence of God strengthened. That is not your experience, but it is the experience of some.

 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
My question about simulation is not: "is it remotely probable"; but, can we rule it out - in the same way that we are sometimes told that science has effectively ruled out God. But then ...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
Not sue what I am really asking - maybe its ‘why cant I escape the need to believe in God and just walk away and try and be a good and caring person?
Coming late to the thread, I think that for me it has to do with the question of what the world and humanity must be like for 'try to be a good and caring person' to be a worthwhile enterprise.

It doesn't seem to me that one can just decide that being a good and caring person is worthwhile whatever the world and humanity are like. For example, Machiavelli or Nietzsche might be right that being good and caring causes more harm than good.
So I think that if you trust that good and caring are worthwhile, you have to assume that the universe is despite the ambiguous appearances somehow fundamentally moral. And then it seems to me that belief in God is the best way to describe that including the ambiguity.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm afraid it will be too late to edit that particular post, but the proviso should have been said that of course I always did leave that small opening for a god to appear one day., Perhaps if I add the word *proviso* everywhere, that will solve the problem!
The problem is solved, SusanDoris, if you hold yourself to the same standard you’ve set for others: Only use the word "know"—as in "I know there's no such thing as God; I know that God is simply a human construct"—if you have facts that establish that knowledge. If you do not have such facts, then you "believe" there is no such thing as God, just like some others believe otherwise. To do anything less subjects the knowledge-belief distinction for others to a higher standard than you’re willing to abide by for yourself.

quote:
I will dig my heels in here a bit because surely no-one can assert that the odds are equivalent?
quote:
Why not?
quote:
Because there is a wealth of objective scientific evidence for the TofE, nature etc, available for checking and zero objective evidence for any god.
I'll concede for argument there might be zero scientific evidence for the existence of any god, but that is not the same as saying there is evidence for the non-existence of any god. The reality is that people find ample evidence for the existence of a god; you and others do not find that evidence persuasive.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct if I have, but it seems to me that you put all your eggs in the basket of "If it can't be tested scientifically, it should not be believed." To me that is problematic, because I don't think it follows logically. If it can’t be tested scientifically, that just means that science can’t give us an answer one way or the other, and we either have to rely on other types of evidence or living without knowing for sure one way or another. We do that all the time in life with the things that matter most. I think it was mousethief who, in another thread, askedsomething along the lines of "how can science tells me whether my wife loves me?"

As I've said before, I find science of relatively little use when it comes to the question of whether God exists. I think expecting science to be able to answer that question is like expecting a refrigerator to vacuum my floor. To me, the evidence is found in music, poetry and art, in creation, creativity and beauty, in love and in relationships.

With regard to ancients:
quote:
No, simply that they were very limited in their available knowledge base.
If I recall correctly, this is what Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." It is certainly true they lacked our scientific knowledge base, and that bears on how they perceived and expressed things. But I think the idea that they were less wise than we are is demonstrable false. If anything, I too often suspect that the opposite is true.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Susan Doris: You wrote I'll just put in a line then to say that this particular atheist does not have a 'mind set' - I wonder how you define this?-
(First may I advise everyone not to Google 'Atheist Mindset'. You will get nothing but ranting religious, pedantic bigotry from dozens of American religious websites). So I tentatively submit my own definition.

Atheist Mindset - Definition: A person's usual attitude, mental state or system of reasoning is his or her mindset. An atheist mindset believes the passage of time and event is entirely governed by 'cause and effect', attributing no cause of any effect, to a supernatural being of any sort. Such a mindset not only believes no effect could be caused by any supernatural entity but also predicts with confidence that no 'effect' will ever shake their confidence in their own prediction. This circular reasoning constantly reinforces their mindset.

quote:
How do you have a relationship with an idea which you cannot observe in any way?
I have a relationship with 'Time' such that I feel myself subject to it and am compelled to exist in it, from moment to moment. However I do not even know what it is or how it operates. I merely know that its progress can be measured, but my experience of it is strictly speaking only relative, not objective. I can observe time passing and know its effects upon me, therefore I have a relationship experience, but I have no idea what time IS and neither do YOU.

quote:
So if it is beyond your comprehension, how are you imagining you comprehend it, in order to have a relationship with it?
My wife is currently menopausal, her logic is sometimes beyond my comprehension but I 'relate to her' in the circumstances with as much understanding and compassion as I am able.

quote:
Why do you use the phrase supposedly liberated atheists?
Because most of the atheists I know regarded atheism as a form of enlightenment and a liberation from superstitious ignorance. Once having undergone this renascence they seem to have settled into a mindset perfectly comfortable without the need for 'faith' in any transcendent being, to which they might be answerable at any future time.

quote:
Certainly is. My sort of bottom line is do not tell children that this belief is a true fact.
I don't suppose you are one of those people who told your children "Santa does not exist, it is all untrue", before they were 3 years old? Learning IS discovering truth but with children you have to start with something other than, "There IS NO Santa", "There IS NO Magic", "There ARE NO Fairies", "There IS NO God"! Parenting is more than just precipitant indoctrination, or censorship, with whatever the parent believes to literally be 'True'.

Children are unable to ask sensible questions until they have some foundation of knowledge. Knowledge in the field of theology, (i.e. religion), is subject to the same sort of pedagogic limitations as science and mathematics. Higher thought forms and understandings are not possible for a child until the basic foundations of the discipline are in place. For science it is necessary for the child to conduct simple experiments and make simple observations before moving on to more complicated matters. In mathematics the child needs to be able to add, subtract, multiply, divide and reason before moving on to imaginary numbers, calculus, statistical analysis etc. In Christian Theology the basic stories of Old and New Testament need to be heard and understood before moving on to the possible nature of God / gods / no gods etc.

It is unreasonable to expect an adolescent to choose whether to study higher mathematics if they have no understanding of basic arithmetic and algebra. It is unreasonable to expect an adolescent to choose to study quantum mechanics or astro physics, if they have never done a simple experiment. It is also unreasonable to expect an adolescent or adult to decide whether or not to believe in a Transcendent Creator Being or to reject such a hypothesis, if they know nothing whatever about the basics of their religion and have never been taught to question 'facts' presented by pedagogues.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

Atheist Mindset - Definition:
Fixed this for you.
There. Is. NO. Such. Thing.
All being an atheist requires is not believing in god(s).
Really, truly.
Thought and reason are not required for any belief or lack thereof.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The problem is solved, SusanDoris, if you hold yourself to the same standard you’ve set for others: Only use the word "know"—as in "I know there's no such thing as God; I know that God is simply a human construct"—if you have facts that establish that knowledge. If you do not have such facts, then you "believe" there is no such thing as God,
Then one comes up against the tricky bit about having a positive belief that there is not, whereas I maintain that I lack belief in any god.
quote:
just like some others believe otherwise. To do anything less subjects the knowledge-belief distinction for others to a higher standard than you’re willing to abide by for yourself.
Not quite sure if I agree with that – I'll have to have a think!
quote:
I'll concede for argument there might be zero scientific evidence for the existence of any god, but that is not the same as saying there is evidence for the non-existence of any god. The reality is that people find ample evidence for the existence of a god;[/QB[
All of which is subjective, is it not?
quote:
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct if I have, but it seems to me that you put all your eggs in the basket of "If it can't be tested scientifically, it should not be believed."
Bearing in mind my age, the necessarily limited number of years I have left, and the total lack of objective evidence for God , I think I am fairly safe in concluding that!  However, I'll be checking up here until the very last moment!! [Smile]
quote:
With regard to ancients:
quote:
[qb]No, simply that they were very limited in their available knowledge base.
If I recall correctly, this is what Owen Barfield and C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." It is certainly true they lacked our scientific knowledge base, and that bears on how they perceived and expressed things. But I think the idea that they were less wise than we are is demonstrable false. If anything, I too often suspect that the opposite is true.
No disagreement here. I am listening to The Ancient Greeks’ by Edith Hall and, also have heard A History of the World in 100 Objects’ and one can only be in awe of how ancient peoples made maximum use of the knowledge available.

Thank you for your interesting post.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?
No. Absolutely not. There are no beliefs based on faith alone. All beliefs are based on a mixture of facts, personal experience, the testimony of trusted people, one's other beliefs, and so on. Beliefs based on faith alone aren't beliefs, they're de facto evidence of schizophrenia.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Then one comes up against the tricky bit about having a positive belief that there is not, whereas I maintain that I lack belief in any god.
But your words have done more than assert lack of belief. When you say "I know there is no God," you’re doing more than I saying you lack a belief in God. You’re saying—per your own criteria of what should be required for one to say one "knows" something rather than that one "believes" something—that the non-existence of God can be established by facts and evidence.

quote:
quote:
I'll concede for argument there might be zero scientific evidence for the existence of any god, but that is not the same as saying there is evidence for the non-existence of any god. The reality is that people find ample evidence for the existence of a god;
All of which is subjective, is it not?
Yes, but no more subjective than evidence that there is no God. As I have said, I think science is, so to speak, agnostic. All other evidence will turn on the weight given it by those considering it.

Thank you for your interesting posts as well, SusanDoris. As someone else said, I appreciate the opportunity to think and re-examine. And I hope you'll be with us for many years. [Smile]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?
No. Absolutely not. There are no beliefs based on faith alone. All beliefs are based on a mixture of facts, personal experience, the testimony of trusted people, one's other beliefs, and so on. Beliefs based on faith alone aren't beliefs, they're de facto evidence of schizophrenia.
I don't think I agree. Many people are what they are because of what they were born into. Now, one could stretch 'testimony of trusted people' to include what mum and dad believe, but people believe without real thought. All day, every day.
And that is pretty damn near faith alone.
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Has anyone ever published a book of Jewish Bible (=Old Testament) myths for children, not as our beliefs but as the tales people told to make sense of life and their situation?
My now 11-yeaar-old grandson is an omnivorous reader and I've given him many books, including myths, but the book of bible stories that I have can go to the book fair.
He asked me once 'Is God real?' (or did he say 'true'?) And I said some people are quite certain God is real and some are quite sure God is not real, and you will make up your mind some day.

GG
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
There are beliefs based on facts and beliefs based on faith alone, aren’t there?
No. Absolutely not. There are no beliefs based on faith alone. All beliefs are based on a mixture of facts, personal experience, the testimony of trusted people, one's other beliefs, and so on. Beliefs based on faith alone aren't beliefs, they're de facto evidence of schizophrenia.
I don't think I agree. Many people are what they are because of what they were born into. Now, one could stretch 'testimony of trusted people' to include what mum and dad believe, but people believe without real thought. All day, every day.
And that is pretty damn near faith alone.
And what percent, do you think, of the children of Christians remain in the church when they grow up? Whatever number you guess, it will be too high. No, this is just inaccurate. Children believe what their parents tell them, sure. But not for long.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
LilBudha Fixed this for you.
There. Is. NO. Such. Thing.
All being an atheist requires is not believing in god(s).
Really, truly.
Thought and reason are not required for any belief or lack thereof.
And your Mind is therefore Set on an atheist perspective I suppose. QED.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And what percent, do you think, of the children of Christians remain in the church when they grow up? Whatever number you guess, it will be too high. No, this is just inaccurate. Children believe what their parents tell them, sure. But not for long.
Didn't say everyone kept the faith of their parents forever. Just saying that thought has less to do with belief than some feel.
A potential blinder on this website is that it is mostly made up of people who have put thought into their belief systems.
This is much less true of the general population. Look at politics if you need another example.
You said no one just believes and that will be wrong on sheer variation alone.
We can argue the percentages, but the idea that everyone puts thought into what they do/say/believe is belied by human behaviour.
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
LilBudha Fixed this for you.
There. Is. NO. Such. Thing.
All being an atheist requires is not believing in god(s).
Really, truly.
Thought and reason are not required for any belief or lack thereof.
And your Mind is therefore Set on an atheist perspective I suppose. QED.
QEDoesn't make your point.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Let's say person X believes something. You say it's by faith alone. I say it's from a multitude of causes, including the testimony of people they trust.

For some reason you think people don't trust their parents, and yet believe whatever their parents tell them.

This makes no sense at all.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
And then there was a follow-on question "And who is my neighbor" Through the Good Samaritan story Jesus said it is not about who is my neighbor, but it is about how to be neighborly.

But there is more to my faith than me being a good boy because I know I can never be good enough.

The purpose of Christianity is to show how God cares so much for us he goes all the way to the cross. It is a costly grace, something I do not deserve. I can only celebrate that grace and show that grace in my life.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let's say person X believes something. You say it's by faith alone. I say it's from a multitude of causes, including the testimony of people they trust.

For some reason you think people don't trust their parents, and yet believe whatever their parents tell them.

This makes no sense at all.
I am saying that most people are born into their belief system and many, if not most, don't question it. They trust their parents, because this is how our species works, but that is not testimony. It isn't evaluation. It is acceptance. Even in rebellion, there isn't always thought.
Can't see how this is remotely controversial.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can't see how this is remotely controversial.
Because you're playing with words. But we're not going to agree on this.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Can't see how this is remotely controversial.
Because you're playing with words. But we're not going to agree on this.
I'm not playing with words. Most people do not testify to their children about religion just as they don't testify to them about why porridge is for breakfast or why they should wear wellies when it rains. It is just what they do.
I do agree that we likely won't agree, but likely not why we won't.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
I wrote this yesterday evening, but needed to sort out the tags and edit first!
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
First may I advise everyone not to Google 'Atheist Mindset'. You will get nothing but ranting religious, pedantic bigotry from dozens of American religious websites).
Oh dear!!!
quote:
So I tentatively submit my own definition.
Atheist Mindset - Definition: A person's usual attitude, mental state or system of reasoning is his or her mindset. An atheist mindset believes the passage of time and event is entirely governed by 'cause and effect', attributing no cause of any effect, to a supernatural being of any sort. Such a mindset not only believes no effect could be caused by any supernatural entity but also predicts with confidence that no 'effect' will ever shake their confidence in their own prediction. This circular reasoning constantly reinforces their mindset.
Well, I can go along with quite a few of those things, but of course the amount of time that such analysis takes up for me personally is minimal, and nearly all of that is on discussion forums! Atheism is, as lilBuddha says below, a lack of belief in any god/etc, otherwise each atheist has as many different ideas and beliefs as anyone else.
quote:
quote:
How do you have a relationship with an idea which you cannot observe in any way?
I have a relationship with 'Time' such that I feel myself subject to it and am compelled to exist in it, from moment to moment. However I do not even know what it is or how it operates. I merely know that its progress can be measured, but my experience of it is strictly speaking only relative, not objective. I can observe time passing and know its effects upon me, therefore I have a relationship experience, but I have no idea what time IS and neither do YOU.
I think that is a false analogy. The concept of time – which we , to all intents and purposes, manage, is not analogous to the concept of God.
quote:
I don't suppose you are one of those people who told your children "Santa does not exist, it is all untrue", before they were 3 years old?
I did not tell them any untruths. I was particular in my use of words about such things.
quote:
Learning IS discovering truth but with children you have to start with something other than, "There IS NO Santa", "There IS NO Magic", "There ARE NO Fairies", "There IS NO God"!
God is the only one carried on as a belief until adulthood. I was always careful with words about God too, but even if I had not been, my children had worked it out for themselves before I did!
quote:
Children are unable to ask sensible questions until they have some foundation of knowledge. Knowledge in the field of theology, (i.e. religion), is subject to the same sort of pedagogic limitations as science and mathematics. Higher thought forms and understandings are not possible for a child until the basic foundations of the discipline are in place. For science it is necessary for the child to conduct simple experiments and make simple observations before moving on to more complicated matters. In mathematics the child needs to be able to add, subtract, multiply, divide and reason before moving on to imaginary numbers, calculus, statistical analysis etc. In Christian Theology the basic stories of Old and New Testament need to be heard and understood before moving on to the possible nature of God / gods / no gods etc.
This is, in my strongly held opinion, another false analogy, since there are no verifiable facts to put forward for God.
quote:
It is unreasonable to expect an adolescent to choosewhether to study higher mathematics if they have no understanding of basic arithmetic and algebra. It is unreasonable to expect an adolescent to choose to study quantum mechanics or astro physics, if they have never done a simple experiment. It is also unreasonable to expect an adolescent or adult to decide whether or not to believe in a Transcendent Creator Being or to reject such a hypothesis, if they know nothing whatever about the basics of their religion and have never been taught to question 'facts' presented by pedagogues.
More false analogy. By this token the young person will already have been deeply indoctrinated with a belief but without the necessary access to objective evidence. I say again that all other academic subjects have independent facts to refer to and learn; God has none.

And, yes, I feel quite strongly about this! [Smile]

Thank you for your post.

[ 22. January 2018, 06:19: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I'm unsure why there have been so many comparisons in this discussion between the teaching of maths and science to children and the teaching of concepts about God to children. Surely most churches, schools and parents would start with stories and progress along a route more closely aligned with the study of literature, history and/or philosophy?
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Lilbudha QEDoesn't make your point.
So your Mind is not Set on the concept that 'There is no God'?

All your arguments lead me to believe otherwise. In fact most other readers of this thread would probably agree that your Mindset on this matter is quite decidedly fixed. (Which is aptly demonstrated by your own words. Therefore QED

e.g. A person with an ecological Mindset would be inclined to always turn up at the supermarket with their own shopping bags and turn off their lights at home when a room is not in use etc.

A person with an atheist Mindset would not be at all concerned about upsetting or pleasing God by their conduct or demeanour.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
So your Mind is not Set on the concept that 'There is no God'?

All your arguments lead me to believe otherwise. In fact most other readers of this thread would probably agree that your Mindset on this matter is quite decidedly fixed. (Which is aptly demonstrated by your own words.
What a load of crap. Kindly stop inferring that I agree with you.

quote:
Therefore QED
Stop using logic terms you plainly don't understand. There is nothing inevitable about your claim.

quote:

e.g. A person with an ecological Mindset would be inclined to always turn up at the supermarket with their own shopping bags and turn off their lights at home when a room is not in use etc.
OK, but even if this is true, you can only use QED when your argument is self-reinforcing and when there is an inevitability about the conclusion. If you are introducing the possibility that there are situations where the outcome doesn't happen, you can't claim a slam-dunk QED.

quote:
A person with an atheist Mindset would not be at all concerned about upsetting or pleasing God by their conduct or demeanour.
This is confused. They don't accept there is a deity to be upset. If they thought there was, they'd be a form of deist.

Give it up, you are talking shite.

[ 22. January 2018, 08:33: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Mindset?

Hmmmm - I wonder what my mindset is. Honest question, I’ve no idea.

I don’t want to believe in God or please her. But I find I can’t not believe in him. I want to do ‘good’ to the best of my ability, but that’s not about pleasing God, it’s about doing the right thing.

What’s the point in pleasing God?
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I'm unsure why there have been so many comparisons in this discussion between the teaching of maths and science to children and the teaching of concepts about God to children. Surely most churches, schools and parents would start with stories and progress along a route more closely aligned with the study of literature, history and/or philosophy?
The 'god is true' idea should of course be introduced later, but I think that there is, unfortunately, an underlying strong assumption, a decidedly taken-for-granted assumption, that the God referred to is a truth. Have you, I wonder, heard any Bishop, or archbishop, or any Christian on the TFTD slot on the 'Today' programme (BBC RAdio 4), clearly state that many people think this god is a belief, unsupported, as other subjects are, by independent observations? Probably not!!
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Mindset?

Hmmmm - I wonder what my mindset is. Honest question, I’ve no idea.

I don’t want to believe in God or please her. But I find I can’t not believe in him. I want to do ‘good’ to the best of my ability, but that’s not about pleasing God, it’s about doing the right thing.

What’s the point in pleasing God?
I think the word 'mindset' should ring alarm bells because a mind set is a closed one. It's a bit like the phrase 'world view'I think.
When I was a child, being told that God was everywhere and knew what was going on, and asked questions such as, 'Wel, does god watch me when I'm on the toilet?' The question was easily waved away because such things were simply not considered! As I grew older, awkward questions were responded to with, 'God moves in mysterious ways' and no further discussion was permitted.
Actually, the older I get the more shocked I am that I took so long to realise that my belief in God had simply disappeared.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The word 'mindset' is an absurdity. If you look round the internet, there are tons of ridiculous websites listing the attributes of the atheist mindset - the favourite being that they are narcissistic.

What a pile of poop. Usually there is no empirical observation at all, simply prejudice. I know atheists who are not materialists, who are not determinists, and so on.

Lazy thinking.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Has anyone ever published a book of Jewish Bible (=Old Testament) myths for children, not as our beliefs but as the tales people told to make sense of life and their situation?
My now 11-yeaar-old grandson is an omnivorous reader and I've given him many books, including myths, but the book of bible stories that I have can go to the book fair.
He asked me once 'Is God real?' (or did he say 'true'?) And I said some people are quite certain God is real and some are quite sure God is not real, and you will make up your mind some day.
Could I check with you? Are you asking whether anyone has ever written a book that tells Jewish legends? Or are you asking whether anyone has written a book that retells parts of the Old Testament in a different way?

On the former M. R. James, he of the ghost stories, did. Here is a link to the text on Gutenberg but I don't know if it's in print anywhere now. Or you could try Isaac Bashevis Singer.

On the latter, I'm inclined to say 'go to the source'. Personally, there are very contexts where I wouldn't regard that as generally a good motto to follow, as a preference for something, anything, that is derivative or a re-telling.

Your grandson sounds fairly bright. If he reads eagerly as you describe, then pick a translation that is reasonably fluent and easy to read, and give him that. You might even be able to find one with pictures. If that seems a bit heavy, what with all the other bits that are harder to follow, Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc, you could mark in pencil the bits you think he might most enjoy.

And if he decides to look at some of the bits you haven't marked, well and good. Let him. It won't do him any harm.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:

I can love my neighbour as myself, but accept I don’t do it very well.
None of us do it well. I think it's possible to mount a credible argument that it is impossible for any human to do it. The human love that comes closest to perfection in my life is that between myself and my children - but I know it isn't without limit. Would I die for my children? I hope I never have to find out.

So...

If there's no God, why have we humans created for ourselves an (almost) impossible ideal? We fail, and we fall back on our human ideas of justice. These allow us to organise society, but they don't make it beautiful.

Or...

If there is a God, He wouldn't have asked us to do the impossible - He made us and knows what we are and aren't capable of. He is the loving parent we read about in the Gospels, who invites us to live through His power, to love others through His power - because our own powers are pretty feeble. If this scenario is true, there is the potential for a really beautiful way of living - the Kingdom.

Perhaps then, for me, it is simply a question of asking which story I prefer, and choosing the second one.

But I also see, in my own inability to let go of belief, despite my best efforts, the hand of a loving Father, always stretched out to me.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But then perfect parental love would be damaging for children. They would never experience frustration or absence, which would be an absurd human situation, and would equip them poorly for adulthood.

There's an old phrase in therapy about the 'good enough' mother, but we also used to talk about the 'bad enough' mother, who gave sufficient disappointment to her kids.

You can probably extrapolate this to marriage and other adult relationships - do you really want a perfect spouse? How utterly infuriating!
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Has anyone ever published a book of Jewish Bible (=Old Testament) myths for children, not as our beliefs but as the tales people told to make sense of life and their situation?
My now 11-yeaar-old grandson is an omnivorous reader and I've given him many books, including myths, but the book of bible stories that I have can go to the book fair.
He asked me once 'Is God real?' (or did he say 'true'?) And I said some people are quite certain God is real and some are quite sure God is not real, and you will make up your mind some day.

GG
The 'Godly Play' storytelling is good for helping children and young people to explore spirituality through both Old and New Testament stories. Some schools are enlightened enough to welcome it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Lilbudha QEDoesn't make your point.
So your Mind is not Set on the concept that 'There is no God'?
First, the set in mindset* refers to a group not a fixative.
Second, this isn't about my mindset, of which you know little, but about the definition of atheist.

Ignorance aside, you projected a definition of atheist that is inaccurate to that group.

quote:

All your arguments lead me to believe otherwise.
On this thread? I've not made too many on it.

There is no rule about the quality of debate on this site, but for someone who claimed to enjoy that quality here, your posts have not evinced much of it. But then, I enjoy watching sport that I am rubbish at, so...

*mindset
ˈmīn(d)set/
noun
noun: mindset; plural noun: mindsets; noun: mind-set; plural noun: mind-sets

the established set of attitudes held by someone.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The 'Godly Play' storytelling is good for helping children and young people to explore spirituality through both Old and New Testament stories. Some schools are enlightened enough to welcome it.
I would be interested to know if spirituality is locked into/linked with God belief in the books you mention?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I'm unsure why there have been so many comparisons in this discussion between the teaching of maths and science to children and the teaching of concepts about God to children. Surely most churches, schools and parents would start with stories and progress along a route more closely aligned with the study of literature, history and/or philosophy?
I thought that comparison was intended to point out that while one can legitimately teach science as factually based, one cannot teach religion in the same way. I thought that in fact, it was illegal in England to do this, but maybe with the increase in faith schools, this isn't correct. I suppose it's about teaching about, as opposed to teaching 'it's true'.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
my original statement: - A person with an atheist Mindset would not be at all concerned about upsetting or pleasing God by their conduct or demeanour.
Compare this to perhaps a religious persons 'mindset'.

mr cheesy's foul mouthed reply.
quote:
(You are talking shite)

This is confused. They don't accept there is a deity to be upset. If they thought there was, they'd be a form of deist.
It is you who seem to be confused. Why, (in God's name), would an atheist who postulates the non existence of any gods at all, be either concerned about upsetting or attempting in any way to please, a god that they are convinced does not even exist?

That was exactly my point. Only some kind of Deist would even consider doing so. The reasson I stated this was to illustrate the fact that an atheist mindset leads to a certain way of viewing reality, which is different than someone with a religious mindset.

A mindset can be specific to a particular isolated belief in anything unprovable. It is just the same with atheists it is with religious people.

Most Christians with anything like a passing acquaintance with true religion would not actively seek to placate God or to impress Him. They would leave their salvation entirely in God's hands, trust themselves to His providence and their own common sense and get on with loving their neighbour as themselves.

You either could not read or more likely understand what had been written. Read it again. You will notice that I never even implied that a person with an atheistic world view would ever concern themselves about God's opinion on anything.

Do you understand what I wrote yet? Keep trying. When you finally get there you might, if you have any manners, consider offering an apology.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
quetzalcoatle wrote: - I thought that comparison was intended to point out that while one can legitimately teach science as factually based, one cannot teach religion in the same way. I thought that in fact, it was illegal in England to do this, but maybe with the increase in faith schools, this isn't correct. I suppose it's about teaching about, as opposed to teaching 'it's true'.
Religion is of course not, like science, based upon fact and observation. Mathematics and science are supposed to be fact and logic based. Religion is more like other humanities, like history, geography, economics, sociology etc, where so termed 'facts' are debatable and can be questioned. History is quite often not factually based, quite often biased, sometimes downright lies, depending on where and by whom the curriculum was compiled, and to what purpose.

You are right to observe 'Religion' is about 'teaching about', rather than indoctrination. Just as history should be as factually accurate as is possible and unbiased in its inculcation.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

Do you understand what I wrote yet? Keep trying. When you finally get there you might, if you have any manners, consider offering an apology.
Cute. This post is what my post was in response of. Where you place a set of beliefs onto atheism. Here is the particular quote from that post.
quote:
Atheist Mindset - Definition: A person's usual attitude, mental state or system of reasoning is his or her mindset. An atheist mindset believes the passage of time and event is entirely governed by 'cause and effect', attributing no cause of any effect, to a supernatural being of any sort.
And this is incorrect. Atheism does not require substituting any set of beliefs for the ones they reject.

And please, cease with the playpen attempts at manipulation.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
quetzacotle The word 'mindset' is an absurdity. If you look round the internet, there are tons of ridiculous websites listing the attributes of the atheist mindset - the favourite being that they are narcissistic.
I warned everyone not to do that, didn't I?

Even gave reason why not to Google it. You get religious fanatical tripe!

[ 22. January 2018, 16:37: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:


Most Christians with anything like a passing acquaintance with true religion would not actively seek to placate God or to impress Him. They would leave their salvation entirely in God's hands, trust themselves to His providence and their own common sense and get on with loving their neighbour as themselves.
Ah, yes; the Christian variant of a famous logical fallacy.

quote:

Do you understand what I wrote yet?
Were I in an uncharitable mood, I would question if you understand what you wrote.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting point about atheists and the supernatural. Most of my family were atheists, but some of them regularly consulted mediums, for a good 'skry'. I suppose you could argue that this is not supernatural, well, it's not anything.

But there is a similar argument about animists, some of whom accept a kind of spiritual universe, but don't have a belief in God. So are they atheists? It depends what you mean!

Just remembered that my local shaman believes that animals and plants have a spiritual essence, but calls herself an atheist.

[ 22. January 2018, 16:51: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Also Jains?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point about atheists and the supernatural. Most of my family were atheists, but some of them regularly consulted mediums, for a good 'skry'. I suppose you could argue that this is not supernatural, well, it's not anything.
I've met people who've argued that belief in gods was irrational and yet believed in astrology. Go figure.
Atheism, in general, mixes fine with other forms of spirituality.
Granted, some atheists don't think so, but there is nothing in the basic parameters of the word that preclude it.
quote:
Just remembered that my local shaman believes that animals and plants have a spiritual essence, but calls herself an atheist.
This is not inherently a contradiction. Though I can understand why some theists and atheists might think so.

[ 22. January 2018, 17:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Religion is of course not, like science, based upon fact and observation. Mathematics and science are supposed to be fact and logic based. Religion is more like other humanities, like history, geography, economics, sociology etc, where so termed 'facts' are debatable and can be questioned. History is quite often not factually based, quite often biased, sometimes downright lies, depending on where and by whom the curriculum was compiled, and to what purpose.
Religion should always be taught ABOUT, not taught as fact. It can be linked with history because the religious beliefs that people have held have been an integral part of their lives and the historical decisions that were made. However, it is not like history, or geography or anything else because the GGod/god/s beliefs behind the religious beliefs are the ony ones that cannot be checked, i.e. there is no fact anywhere about any God/god/s that can be checked. If facts about other subjects are checked and found to be right, wrong or unknown, the proponents of those subjects will not go to war over it. Or, if they do, they will be able to say why, however stupid the stated cause. No-one worships other subjects; no-one thinks of them as having separate, independent existences, ; they are not considered to have relationships with people; they are not prayed to; they do not try to consider a person’s after-death fate.
quote:
You are right to observe 'Religion' is about 'teaching about', rather than indoctrination. Just as history should be as factually accurate as is possible and unbiased in its inculcation.
And here again you put two ideas together – I think the verb ‘elide’ would fit well here - which are not analagous.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes indeed - the teaching of religion(s) should always be about.

The older I get, the more uncertain I become as to the 'certainties' peddled by religious groups, Christians included.

Faced with a potentially fatal surgical procedure back in 2016, I philosophically took the view that, if there was anything to deal with after death, I would deal with it as and when.

The possibility that one might die in a few days' time concentrates the mind most wonderfully....

If, OTOH, there was nothing after death to deal with, why, then, I wouldn't have any worries, would I?

I do still class myself as a 'Christian', however, simply on account of what Jesus said and did, and his word is good enough for me.

IJ
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0