UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:This seems like a sloppy, over-broad definition of theism that would be rejected in any other context. For example, a lot of people love their families. Those that don't typically have other very strong feelings about their families. But it would be fatuous in the extreme to claim that anyone with strong feelings about their families didn't believe in God because they were really "familiests".
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Everyone has a set of beliefs, and they generally pursue them. Not always acknowledging that they are the foundation of their pursuit, because they may not realize that it is at thr level of belief. It often seems to be individuality in various guises which tries to replace transcendent belief, or it's a belief in progress, or in consumerism (acquisition of things), which all depend on the pretence that they are not items of belief and, while maybe not resembling actual overt reverence and worship, operate unconsciously that way, organizing thoughts, feelings, behaviour and relationships with others.
quote:But I think some atheists don't identify as such. Nearly everyone in my family lacked a belief in God, but they didn't talk about it. Well, my mum did, spitting and hissing in the corner about Christians. Well, it is Hallowe'en.
Originally posted by rolyn:
A lot of people who self identify as atheists tend to be rejectors of organised religion. Usually rejecting Christianity, probably because of it's historical dominance coupled with the fact that, in most instances these days, people are free to reject it.
Some tend to be adamant there is no God despite having no more evidence for this state of affairs than those who believe their is.
quote:This is probably true. But that's not a reason to suppose that it isn't atheism.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Everyone has a set of beliefs, and they generally pursue them.
quote:What does that mean? Not having read anything by Spong, how do I tell whether a particular thought or belief qualifies as "God" or not? It is rather presumptuous, of course, to assume that atheists think in stereotypical ways as imagined by those who believe differently.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
For the sake of this discussion, I am content with a definition of a nontheistic god á la Spong.
quote:That's a belief that was pursued - does it qualify as a non-theistic God, given that it is explicit rather than unacknowledged?
W. C. Fields said:
A man's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.
quote:A "nontheistic god"? You've given this a lot of thought, have you?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
For the sake of this discussion, I am content with a definition of a nontheistic god á la Spong.
quote:One of them is magician Penn Jillette. Some years back, he did an essay/recording for NPR's "This I Believe". Here is the audio and text for "There Is No God".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also strong atheists who actually assert that there is no God.
quote:Do they need evidence?
Originally posted by rolyn:
Some tend to be adamant there is no God despite having no more evidence for this state of affairs than those who believe their is.
quote:This is because they have no pressing need not to do so.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
One of the things I find interesting is the atheists I am familiar with want to take the Bible as literally as my fundamentalist friends.
quote:Well, there is a big difference between the firm assertion that there is no God, and citing a lack of belief in one. Dawkins' famous scale of belief, from 1-7, had 7 as 'definitely no God', and my memory is that about 25% of respondents chose that. So these would be gnostic atheists.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Do they need evidence?
Originally posted by rolyn:
Some tend to be adamant there is no God despite having no more evidence for this state of affairs than those who believe their is.
I don't believe in dragons.
quote:But that's just it. Atheism isn't about conviction about the existence of God. It's about lack thereof.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it was Leibniz who coined the phrase : Atheism is a Christian sect. There are many ways to read and understand that of course, but there is a lot of truth in it for today's 'new atheism' that often seems born from a reaction purely to Christian fundamentalism than to any true conviction about the existence of God.
quote:Is it really though? I've always understood atheism as a held conviction that there is no God, whereas agnosticism covers a broad spectrum of those who believe in a God, but are not affiliated to any particular religious faith and those who simply waver between thinking there might be a God and might not be. Agnosticism, as I understand it, is difficult to define being so broad. Atheism is quite certain of its parameters. It seems to me that there is today a lot of confusion because some agnostics think it is fashionable, hip or edgy to be labelled 'atheist' rather than agnostic and there's the added accusation that agnosticism is far too wooly by half. And who really wants to be labelled wooly in today's world unless you're a principled Anglican?
But that's just it. Atheism isn't about conviction about the existence of God. It's about lack thereof.
quote:Well said. That's the strawman isn't. Rejecting what isn't believed.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
One of the things I find interesting is the atheists I am familiar with want to take the Bible as literally as my fundamentalist friends.
quote:Does atheism have to have a point? Atheism denies either the truth or the relevance of monotheism and polytheism.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is the point of atheism to deny the unconscious drive towards purpose?
quote:What an interesting OP – I’ve been thinking about it since I read it first thing this morning. I think you are right – atheism is, like so many thousands of abstract nouns in English, a word to label something that does not exist.* The word became needed I should think to avoid having to use whole sentences to describe a lack of belief!
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have long thought that atheism doesn't actually exist, except in the narrow sense of rejecting some narrow, simple or strawman view of organized religion,…
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I agree with Hawking on this. Which I think is part of the strawman argument. Of course evolution doesn't need a god to command the natural processes involved in evolution. Nor chemical reactions, the weather, the orbits of planets etc. None of which is an argument for or against.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Having moved from a long history in Christianity to a non-believer in a supernatural being; I subscribe to Stephan Hawking's statement that "God is not necessary" (for natural evolution). That would make me an atheist but I have an aversion to that because many people assume that makes me an anti-theist. I do not feel that theistic believers are necessarily bad or evil.
quote:Would you mind my asking why 'non-religious'? Believing in the Golden Rule seems like a religious position to me; it not being a position which has a name commonly recognised as 'a religion' doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason why it isn't.
In other words I believe in the non-religious Golden Rule
quote:Atheism doesn't have a "point". It is no more nor less than the absence of belief in any Divine Being(s).
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is the point of atheism to deny the unconscious drive towards purpose?
quote:Believing that one should treat others how one wishes to be treated isn't an inherently religious poition. And not all beliefs are religions.
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:Would you mind my asking why 'non-religious'? Believing in the Golden Rule seems like a religious position to me; it not being a position which has a name commonly recognised as 'a religion' doesn't seem to me to be a good enough reason why it isn't.
In other words I believe in the non-religious Golden Rule
quote:Of course, many schools of Buddhism are non-theistic to start with.
Originally posted by HCH:
I do not usually hear of atheists as people rejecting Buddhism or various other religions.
quote:Human drive and achievement is perfectly capable of functioning independently from any theism, meditation or spiritual practicing.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Many, if not most, atheists have a drive towards purpose in their lives. They just don't derive that purpose from a theistic belief.
quote:
The Golden Rule or law of reciprocity is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself. It is a maxim of altruism seen in many human religions and human cultures
quote:This is well put, and sums up where I sit. I'd be one of the people who if someone insisted on a label would hover between agnostic and atheist dependent on context. (The agnostic part comes from the notion that a verifiable piece of evidence may pop up tomorrow, thus the door cannot be closed as a complete article of faith.)
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The atheist contention is that no such test, no such observation, not such falsifiability criteria are provided. The atheist is provided with no reasons to believe that God exists, and therefore, like pink unicorns and Russel's teapot, the rational conclusion is that he doesn't. And if it turns out that he does, he is of little consequence because he doesn't make any verifiable difference to the world. If he did, believers could point to that difference as evidence for his existence.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
, but resonates with Karl's summation. quote:Why? Whilst Buddhism is most properly described as non-theist, there are atheist Buddhists.
Originally posted by HCH:
I was thinking more of atheism as the rejection of a religion (or of all such).
quote:Yes. You must discollect a particular kind of stamp.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But you are disbelieving specific things. An atheist doesn't need to know the particulars of Christianity or Hinduism to say they don't believe in any god.
It is a weird thing to insist an atheist must specifically disbelieve.
quote:Hemant Mehta who has a fairly popular atheist blog is a former Jain and has had some scathing remarks about his former religion's tendency to promote extreme fasts (no food for several days) even for children (this recently led to the death of a child). India has a fairly large rationalist association (though small when one considers the population size). There are atheists who use to be Muslim; at least one is in prison in Saudi Arabia and several have been hacked to death in Bangladesh. Atheists who use to be Buddhists may be a bit less seen especially since it is possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist (just as it is possible to be Jewish and an atheist).
Originally posted by HCH:
Usually when I hear of atheists, they are in countries like Britain or the U.S. where a common reference point is some version of Christianity. I hear thereby of atheists as rejecting specifically Christianity. I do not usually hear of atheists as people rejecting Buddhism or various other religions. I suppose there must be such but I do not hear of them. Are there societies in which atheism is rare?
quote:Yes. I should probably have written 'don't believe them'.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But you are disbelieving specific things. An atheist doesn't need to know the particulars of Christianity or Hinduism to say they don't believe in any god.
It is a weird thing to insist an atheist must specifically disbelieve.
quote:I heartily agree with this. Very well put, sir.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The unfortunate conclusions start to appear thick and fast when a collective term is coined for non-stamp-collectors. Let's say, astampists. Then people ask, what motivates astampists? Which stamp or stamps are they rejecting? Don't they really have hobbies that take the place in their lives that philately takes in ours? Doesn't that show they're really repressed philatelists deep inside?
One could easily forgive the astampist, or atheist, who irritably growls, "It's not about you."
quote:You can't say that you are not a philatelist unless you have an idea in your head about what a philatelist is.
Originally posted by mousethief:
X-post. This is to HCH.
But is atheism a rejection at all? If I say, "I am not a philatelist" I'm not saying I reject anything, but only that I don't collect stamps. There is not one sort of stamp that I don't collect more than any other stamp. I'm not saying I hate all stamp collectors. It does not follow from my statement that I was a member of the philately society and had an unfortunate experience there that left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. It just means I don't collect stamps.
The unfortunate conclusions start to appear thick and fast when a collective term is coined for non-stamp-collectors. Let's say, astampists. Then people ask, what motivates astampists? Which stamp or stamps are they rejecting? Don't they really have hobbies that take the place in their lives that philately takes in ours? Doesn't that show they're really repressed philatelists deep inside?
One could easily forgive the astampist, or atheist, who irritably growls, "It's not about you."
quote:Well, thank you for your posts, and mousethief also, which are very clear. It baffles me why some Christians make such heavy weather of atheism, and set up various straw men, to do with rejecting God and so on.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
quote:The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
quote:I agree. It is possible to imagine a world in which some believe in God and some don't but in which there are no religions. Conversely religions could exist whether or not there is a God. Why should atheism be linked to any understanding of religion?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s).
quote:Religions are there to help facilitate our beliefs, not to dictate but to guide us in them, to help us to develop spiritually and to come together in them - where God is involved, to worship alongside each other.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
It is possible to imagine a world in which some believe in God and some don't but in which there are no religions. Conversely religions could exist whether or not there is a God. Why should atheism be linked to any understanding of religion?
The idea of God doesn't have enough emotional force to make me believe but if one day it did would my belief cause me to join a religion? Why?
quote:Of course a non-stamp collector such as myself doesn't need a very robust understanding of stamp collecting to say he isn't one. I know what stamps are. I know what collecting is. Therefore I know I am not a stamp collector. But the thing is, I don't define myself as an astampist. It just so happens I'm an astampist.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You can't say that you are not a philatelist unless you have an idea in your head about what a philatelist is.
quote:This is true. But those aren't astampists, they're antistampists. Which is a different beast.
If you had preconceived ideas about the nature of philately which were inaccurate, and tried to recruit others to your point of view that philately was a pointless hobby and anyone who took it up was an idiot, and in fact it should be only exercised out of the public eye and definitely not taught to children, you would be creating your own group of 'astampists'. It would not then be a surprise if there were challenges to your position,
quote:Nope, sorry, I'm calling bullshit. People were burning atheists at the stake when they were still secretive and not the least bit evangelical. The "new atheism" is a reaction to persecution, not the origin of it. Of course being human beings they have become just as big of assholes as the theists they are reacting to. But that's humans for you. We kinda suck that way.
If you simply didn't collect stamps and got on with your life, leaving stamp collectors to get on with theirs, there would not be an issue.
quote:But that's quite irrelevant to the existence and nature of atheists. Some of them may think that of theists; others may not give a crap.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
quote:And Tillich said the West is still "Christian" (or, was when he was alive and writing) because Christianity has formulated the questions we ask.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it was Leibniz who coined the phrase : Atheism is a Christian sect. There are many ways to read and understand that of course, but there is a lot of truth in it for today's 'new atheism' that often seems born from a reaction purely to Christian fundamentalism than to any true conviction about the existence of God.
quote:Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
quote:My statement makes absolutely no assumptions about theists.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
quote:Buddhism doesn't properly fit any but the loosest interpretation of religion. And yet, it does not sit completely outside, either.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Anyway, my advisor is a professor at the Graduate Theological Union. He happens to hate the term "theological," because it excludes his belief system. "Religious" doesn't fare much better, because he says it also doesn't describe the reality of Buddhist thought and practice (although as a Westerner, I have a hard time understanding that one).
quote:The italicized part is not lack of belief but positive belief, and as such falls under the burden of proof rule. I'd say it's anti-theist, that is anti-god-botherers, although perhaps not anti-god. It is part of the arrogance of the "New Atheists" that sticks in the craw of theists the way that theists' assumptions about the ethics/morals of atheists stick in their throats.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Once you've decided that believing in God has no evidential basis, and is actually rather silly (like believing in fairies or Father Christmas), then you don't have to go far (ISIL, Norn Irn, Palestine) to find places where people not believing in their particular version of the Great Sky Fairy could hardly be presumed to be likely to make things worse. [emphasis mine]
quote:All of those places have been buggered about by imperialists disempowering local people including by bringing in competing aliens whose culture is radically different. In Iraq (the product of terribly wiser Ottoman then unwise Anglo-French then American imperialism) the Shia majority is not plural. Religion is a very good differentiator. Otherizer. Tyrannizer. Secularization would certainly help, the Soviets understood that. But that doesn't work in an open society. Look at France.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Burden of proof is always on the person proposing the existence of something. This is the Atheists' point. You wouldn't accuse someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove it doesn't exist; you'd ask the believer to provide evidence for Nessie's existence.
Once you've decided that believing in God has no evidential basis, and is actually rather silly (like believing in fairies or Father Christmas), then you don't have to go far (ISIL, Norn Irn, Palestine) to find places where people not believing in their particular version of the Great Sky Fairy could hardly be presumed to be likely to make things worse.
quote:Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
quote:Problem is my experience is very different. So much so that I'm no longer sure I believe there is a God. More uninclined to let go of the hope than anything.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
Jesus said 'Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened, Ask and it will be given to you.' I found this to be the truth. When we draw near to God, God draws near to us.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
quote:I see your bullshit and raise you one.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope, sorry, I'm calling bullshit. People were burning atheists at the stake when they were still secretive and not the least bit evangelical. The "new atheism" is a reaction to persecution, not the origin of it. Of course being human beings they have become just as big of assholes as the theists they are reacting to. But that's humans for you. We kinda suck that way.
quote:I should withdraw that question because I think we did a similar Q and A not so long ago!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
quote:I see I'm not the first person to have this reaction. "Atheism" has nothing do with a lack of belief in general. It only refers to a lack of belief in gods.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems like a sloppy, over-broad definition of theism that would be rejected in any other context.
quote:I don't know why, Karl. I know that no two people's experience of God is identical, and that our relationship with Christ is personal.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Problem is my experience is very different. So much so that I'm no longer sure I believe there is a God. More uninclined to let go of the hope than anything.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Jesus said 'Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened, Ask and it will be given to you.' I found this to be the truth. When we draw near to God, God draws near to us.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
So if your experience and application of that verse is correct, why doesn't it happen for everyone? I find that verse one of the hardest in the NT, because it doesn't seem to chime with my experience.
quote:Can you prove the existence of burden of proof?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Burden of proof is always on the person proposing the existence of something.
quote:On a strict reading of the burden of proof principle, I'm not under any burden to argue this doesn't establish your point. I can just say that it doesn't establish your point, and leave you to try and prove that it does.
You wouldn't accuse someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove it doesn't exist; you'd ask the believer to provide evidence for Nessie's existence.
quote:That's a legal definition. And a narrow definition of what belief and nonbelief is, to the point of mockery and hubris; the implication is that people who hold to a belief are childlike akin to believers in leprechauns. It makes it easy to dismiss as stupid, uneducated and nitwit when the comparison is attempted this way.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Burden of proof is always on the person proposing the existence of something. This is the Atheists' point. You wouldn't accuse someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove it doesn't exist; you'd ask the believer to provide evidence for Nessie's existence.
Once you've decided that believing in God has no evidential basis, and is actually rather silly (like believing in fairies or Father Christmas), then you don't have to go far (ISIL, Norn Irn, Palestine) to find places where people not believing in their particular version of the Great Sky Fairy could hardly be presumed to be likely to make things worse.
quote:This is a reasonable and respectable answer.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
quote:This is not.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
quote:If I am trying to convince you of something, then yes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In so far as the burden of proof is at all applicable to epistemology, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to change the other person's mind.
quote:And telling atheists that they are deluding themselves isn't?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
And a narrow definition of what belief and nonbelief is, to the point of mockery and hubris;
quote:I don't think that this is the right place for the long version.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well a good scientist always takes an interest in someone else's research, even if it conflicts with his own conclusions. So to that end, I would - genuinely - like to know, in precise terms:
1. What you did
2. What the results were
3. What you concluded
4. The reasoning that drive your conclusions from your results.
And this is genuine. Data is data.
quote:If you aren't trying to convince anyone of something then you aren't making a claim.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:If I am trying to convince you of something, then yes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In so far as the burden of proof is at all applicable to epistemology, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to change the other person's mind.
However, in general, the burden belongs to the extraordinary claim.
quote:What it actually is, is a proper recognition that we're not defining "belief", we are defining "belief in".
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's a legal definition. And a narrow definition of what belief and nonbelief is
quote:Hmm. I don't personally know any white supremacists, but I don't doubt that they exist.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know any Christians who consider atheists inherently immoral, that seems to be another straw man.
quote:I guess the discussion has moved on but I'd say arguments for and against belief in God seem fairly equally balanced for me. So starting from a position of disbelief why would I change?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know how an idea of God could provide emotional force so that someone would believe. Any idea of God must surely include something about the nature of God.
quote:Furry Snuff; if you could possibly find a right place though I'd be very interested. I have a pressing need to form a consistent view of reality that can explain both your experience and mine, but to do that I need to understand your experience and associated thought processes. See the paper, not just the Abstract, if you will.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:I don't think that this is the right place for the long version.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well a good scientist always takes an interest in someone else's research, even if it conflicts with his own conclusions. So to that end, I would - genuinely - like to know, in precise terms:
1. What you did
2. What the results were
3. What you concluded
4. The reasoning that drive your conclusions from your results.
And this is genuine. Data is data.
quote:I completely agree with you Karl: Liberal Backslider. And with Raptor Eye.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Problem is my experience is very different. So much so that I'm no longer sure I believe there is a God. More uninclined to let go of the hope than anything.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
Jesus said 'Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened, Ask and it will be given to you.' I found this to be the truth. When we draw near to God, God draws near to us.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
So if your experience and application of that verse is correct, why doesn't it happen for everyone? I find that verse one of the hardest in the NT, because it doesn't seem to chime with my experience.
quote:Because the church is THEORETICALLY the best way to be incarnational. It isn't by a country mile of course. Secular and even and especially state charity and good works are orders of magnitude more so.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:I guess the discussion has moved on but I'd say arguments for and against belief in God seem fairly equally balanced for me. So starting from a position of disbelief why would I change?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know how an idea of God could provide emotional force so that someone would believe. Any idea of God must surely include something about the nature of God.
Saul very probably knew something about Jesus' teachings but I suspect it wasn't the logic of some new argument which made him a Christian.
In my case, I'd be happy to believe in the existence of God but the world just doesn't seem that sort of way to me. And, if I did believe, I struggle to see how joining a religion would make the world a better place. OK it might nurture my spiritual development but what isn't clear is how necessarily that helps anyone else.
quote:Yeah, but I've got a feeling it's going to take an objective God to do this raising up on the last day stuff, and all that what's meant to be promised in the NT. A non-objective God isn't much use to me.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, that is an objectivist view of reality, with an objective God, and an objective self (me). I don't see it like that at all. I think some theists and some atheists fall into the trap of a false dichotomy in this way. However, going o/t.
quote:Well, good luck with that. I don't see that it's feasible. I think objectivity is a useful heuristic, but then to turn it into a philosophical or theological position seems bizarre to me. My whole consciousness doesn't seem objective to me, after all, I live in the first person. What is that?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yeah, but I've got a feeling it's going to take an objective God to do this raising up on the last day stuff, and all that what's meant to be promised in the NT. A non-objective God isn't much use to me.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I mean, that is an objectivist view of reality, with an objective God, and an objective self (me). I don't see it like that at all. I think some theists and some atheists fall into the trap of a false dichotomy in this way. However, going o/t.
quote:Might have been that Sense of impending doom which some of us get struck down with from time to time.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Last Day? Hmmm. The End (Time(s)) of Days came with Jesus. Which He appeared to defer. To the end of His natural lifetime, generation. And that may have been possibly deferred again in the minds of Paul and John. Or not. Certainly not until now or later.
quote:An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, but there's either a God or there isn't one. So it's possible to get a coherent view on that. I'm looking for an evidenced coherent view.
quote:Well, I personally do not feel 'woolly' about any of the 'big questions'!
Originally posted by rolyn:
[QB] Afraid my God , Jesus and Holy Spirit are unashamedly woolly. Similar to the 'woolly' that I suspect many atheists might draw on when faced with the Big Questions.
quote:Of course there are.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
raptor Eye, thank you for your, as always, interesting replies.quote:An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, but there's either a God or there isn't one. So it's possible to get a coherent view on that. I'm looking for an evidenced coherent view.
quote:It is always worthwhile to look for the truth.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I guess the discussion has moved on but I'd say arguments for and against belief in God seem fairly equally balanced for me. So starting from a position of disbelief why would I change?
Saul very probably knew something about Jesus' teachings but I suspect it wasn't the logic of some new argument which made him a Christian.
In my case, I'd be happy to believe in the existence of God but the world just doesn't seem that sort of way to me. And, if I did believe, I struggle to see how joining a religion would make the world a better place. OK it might nurture my spiritual development but what isn't clear is how necessarily that helps anyone else.
quote:Evidence-- we exist, you exist. If we have the use of our 5 physical senses then we are likely to make the rational deduction that a whole lot of other physical stuff around us also exists.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
quote:Can you think of one such observation for which the only answer is God?
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Of course there are.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, but there's either a God or there isn't one. So it's possible to get a coherent view on that. I'm looking for an evidenced coherent view.
quote:Yes, agree – no argument there.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Evidence-- we exist, you exist. If we have the use of our 5 physical senses then we are likely to make the rational deduction that a whole lot of other physical stuff around us also exists.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
quote:I think Science is doing a pretty good job of understanding and verifying much of the way the universe has come to be as it is at the moment. The study will keep them busy for a long time to come, but so far they have not found any need for the added complexity of any god to have had anything to do with it.
Question-- how did this incredibly intricate order from chaos we observe, and been given the ability to measure, come about?
quote:The idea of purpose, whether for oneself, the world or the universe is a human idea, isn’t it?
Religion answers God, implying purpose to existence even though we might not know what that purpose is.
quote:That is an interesting choice of words. Why do you think it is a ‘predicament’? How does the predicament have a purpose?
Science answers Natural Forces. Which is all perfectly plausible but science alone can never specify purpose to our predicament.
quote:I hadn’t heard of that before, so I googled. It came up with an interesting page about how some scientists are beginning to be able to find the patterns in the randomness of natural shapes in nature and use this in mathematical probability, but I don’t think I’ll be able to get my head round all that!
It trys to apply the theory of randomness, something to which even scientists themselves do not seem wholly convinced.
quote:Either infinite, eternal, material stuff (the 'natural' stuff in your back yard, obeying the laws of thermodynamics and the stuff that makes universes, not obeying the laws of thermodynamics: some paradox) is sui generis or is generated by non-material ('supernatural', transfinite, pre-eternal) sui generis stuff.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Can you think of one such observation for which the only answer is God?
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Of course there are.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, but there's either a God or there isn't one. So it's possible to get a coherent view on that. I'm looking for an evidenced coherent view.
quote:Yeah, not a fan of such declarative statements, especially when they are false. Or at least overly simplistic to the point of being meaningless.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
For some people, probably most, religion comes first. Through the Christian religion, people follow Jesus and find God, grow spiritually, and are sent out to serve God by sharing God's love in the community. This makes a positive impact on the world.
quote:I have read your response through several times. I have highlighted it, copied and pasted it on to a document and slowed down the reading speed of Synthetic Dave, but would much appreciate a simplified version which would get a commendation from the Plain English Campaign! In the meantime, I’ll have a go at responding.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Can you think of one such observation for which the only answer is God?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Of course there are.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[qb] Yeah, but there's either a God or there isn't one. So it's possible to get a coherent view on that. I'm looking for an evidenced coherent view.
quote:That is a rash assertion I think. Why do you think they need God rather than a scientist’s answer: ‘We don’t know all the answers yet, but we will keep on putting forward hypotheses and devising tests to see whether we can come close to a good explanation.’
Either infinite, eternal, material stuff (the 'natural' stuff in your back yard, obeying the laws of thermodynamics and the stuff that makes universes, not obeying the laws of thermodynamics: some paradox) is sui generis or is generated by non-material ('supernatural', transfinite, pre-eternal) sui generis stuff.
[Neither is amenable to science. And never will be.
quote:Pretence is unnecessary.It has been described quite well over the last 150 years and it is, I would say, just about impossible for the understanding of existence etc to revert to a necessity for faith without well-tested evidence. Because we cannot say exactly why the first cells replicated etc several billion years ago does not mean that the reason is 100% ineffable.
The dichotomy is. Reality, existence is ineffable. To pretend otherwise is delusional. Half brained.
quote:A draw?!! This brings us back to the idea that a God is as probable as not, it seems, with which of course I most certainly do not agree.
The enquiry can only ever be rhetorical, dialectical, philosophical and will always play to a draw.
quote:I need clarification on this.
So, if natural stuff isn't sui generis (and there is no REASON why it should be, apart from an infinite loop stating it, it is non-teleological, purposeless, meaningless, in fact there is just a thermodynamically open null) what generates it?Something (qualitatively) more complex, something with meaning, with purpose. Best case purpose.
This is a very simple, perfectly rational, bifurcation of posits.
quote:Obviously it is not the only guess! People have been guessing ever since the emergence of language I should think. However, the alternative, which in your last sentence here seems to be faith in Jesus etc, cannot be ‘explored’ without objectivity.
What is your reason for claiming that a 'simpler', purposeless thermodynamically open thing is the only guess?
Can the alternative be explored? Of course. On a plate. Full of Jesus.
quote:You have moved the goalposts. First the call is for evidence, now the call is for evidence that can only be explained by God. It may be that the case for God is not made up of observations that can only be explained by God, but by the preponderance of observations that can be explained by God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Can you think of one such observation for which the only answer is God?
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Of course there are.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, but there's either a God or there isn't one. So it's possible to get a coherent view on that. I'm looking for an evidenced coherent view.
quote:In this case, I don't agree that this constitutes a goalpost shift as much as it does a clarification.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have moved the goalposts. First the call is for evidence, now the call is for evidence that can only be explained by God.
quote:It is not without good reason that beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence are different legal standards in some jurisdictions.
It may be that the case for God is not made up of observations that can only be explained by God, but by the preponderance of observations that can be explained by God.
quote:My apologies, I should have made it clear that my understanding of evidence almost always includes the adjective objective.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have moved the goalposts. First the call is for evidence, now the call is for evidence that can only be explained by God.
quote:In which caseit would seem that God is assumed?
It may be that the case for God is not made up of observations that can only be explained by God, but by the preponderance of observations that can be explained by God.
quote:Once the scales had tipped, observations and checks increased the volume of knowledge and continued to confirm the heliocentric model. Do you think the scales would, or should, tip towards God nowadays?
Thus did we move from a geocentric to a heliocentric model of the sun and planets. At the time the scientific community started the slide over, there were no data the geocentrists couldn't explain with their epicycles and what-not.
It wasn't any one observation that tipped the scales. It was the preponderance of evidence and the beautiful simplicity of the theory. The latter not being terribly "scientific" in the narrow sense, but nevertheless a very widely used criterion in science, and one specially commended by Einstein, if I'm not mistaken.
quote:That's not at all clear. Some kind of verbiage such as "No, what I meant was..." could help here. Clarifications and goalpost shifting can look identical when you're not in the head of the person speaking. Sometimes it's hard to remember that other people can't see inside your head. (generic "you").
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In this case, I don't agree that this constitutes a goalpost shift as much as it does a clarification.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have moved the goalposts. First the call is for evidence, now the call is for evidence that can only be explained by God.
quote:True but not clear on how to apply this to the current conversation.
It is not without good reason that beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence are different legal standards in some jurisdictions.
quote:"Objective" and "can only be explained by God" are not anywhere near the same thing.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:My apologies, I should have made it clear that my understanding of evidence almost always includes the adjective objective.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have moved the goalposts. First the call is for evidence, now the call is for evidence that can only be explained by God.
quote:But we're not talking about "once the scales had tipped" because clearly they haven't, at least for you and many other people. So we can't apply the expectations of what happened after the acceptance of the heliocentric view to the question of the existence of God. We're at different stages in the process.
Once the scales had tipped, observations and checks increased the volume of knowledge and continued to confirm the heliocentric model.
quote:What I think hardly matters, but since you ask, it doesn't appear that the state of the conversation between theists and atheists tips either way. What I fear is that atheists will never allow it to tip the other way, as they insist on defining the terms of the discussion in such a way as to prevent it ever tipping against them. Which is clever in the self-protection department, but kind of wimpy in the argumentation department.
Do you think the scales would, or should, tip towards God nowadays?
quote:I fixed that.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I have read your response through several times. I have highlighted it, copied and pasted it on to a document and slowed down the reading speed of Synthetic Dave, but would much appreciate a simplified version which would get a commendation from the Plain English Campaign! In the meantime, I’ll have a go at responding.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Either infinite, eternal, material stuff (the 'natural' stuff in your back yard, obeying the laws of thermodynamics and the stuff that makes universes, not obeying the laws of thermodynamics: some paradox) is sui generis or is generated by non-material ('supernatural', transfinite, pre-eternal) sui generis stuff.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Can you think of one such observation for which the only answer is God?
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:Of course there are.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:An evidenced view needs to start with a method, doesn't it? The scientific method cannot be used because there are no actual observations on which to base a question.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, but there's either a God or there isn't one. So it's possible to get a coherent view on that. I'm looking for an evidenced coherent view.
quote:No it's a scientific statement of fact. It is not possible to investigate any event outside the thermodynamically closed finite universe, despite there certainly being a growing infinite eternity of them.
quote:That is a rash assertion I think. Why do you think they need God rather than a scientist’s answer: ‘We don’t know all the answers yet, but we will keep on putting forward hypotheses and devising tests to see whether we can come close to a good explanation.’
Neither is amenable to science. And never will be.
quote:What have events inside the finite, closed thermodynamic system in which we exist got to do with anything?
quote:Pretence is unnecessary.It has been described quite well over the last 150 years and it is, I would say, just about impossible for the understanding of existence etc to revert to a necessity for faith without well-tested evidence. Because we cannot say exactly why the first cells replicated etc several billion years ago does not mean that the reason is 100% ineffable.
Neither is rational. The dichotomy is. Reality, existence is ineffable. To pretend otherwise is delusional. Half brained.
quote:How?
quote:A draw?!! This brings us back to the idea that a God is as probable as not, it seems, with which of course I most certainly do not agree.
The enquiry can only ever be rhetorical, dialectical, philosophical and will always play to a draw.
quote:50:50
quote:I need clarification on this.
So, if natural stuff isn't sui generis (and there is no REASON why it should be, apart from an infinite loop stating it, it is non-teleological, purposeless, meaningless, in fact there is just a thermodynamically open null) what generates it?
Something (qualitatively) more complex, something with meaning, with purpose. Best case purpose.
This is a very simple, perfectly rational, bifurcation of posits.
quote:It's the only guess of any quality.
quote:Obviously it is not the only guess! People have been guessing ever since the emergence of language I should think.
Can the alternative be explored? Of course. On a plate. Full of Jesus.
quote:Correct. That's what I do.
However, the alternative, which in your last sentence here seems to be faith in Jesus etc, cannot be ‘explored’ without objectivity.
quote:Make another. Of similar quality.
What is your reason for claiming that a 'simpler', purposeless thermodynamically open thing is the only guess?
quote:Aaaand, this is faith in science. The whole "science will one day be able to explain this" is quite simply faith. You may feel you have good reason for this faith, but your reasons are not scientific.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Because we cannot say exactly why the first cells replicated etc several billion years ago does not mean that the reason is 100% ineffable.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What have events inside the finite, closed thermodynamic system in which we exist got to do with anything?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:OK, let me rephrase it. When making a case for God existing, there is no practical difference between evidence for his existence and evidence which can only be explained by God's existence.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That's not at all clear. Some kind of verbiage such as "No, what I meant was..." could help here. Clarifications and goalpost shifting can look identical when you're not in the head of the person speaking. Sometimes it's hard to remember that other people can't see inside your head. (generic "you").
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:In this case, I don't agree that this constitutes a goalpost shift as much as it does a clarification.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You have moved the goalposts. First the call is for evidence, now the call is for evidence that can only be explained by God.
quote:When people, such as Raptor's Eye, give statements like
quote:True but not clear on how to apply this to the current conversation.
It is not without good reason that beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence are different legal standards in some jurisdictions.
quote:the burden of proof is so much higher.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
quote:Why is the existence of God a special case? It's immensely rare for there to be evidence that can only be explained in one specific way. That's why physicists and biologists usually rely on heuristics like Occam's razor.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When making a case for God existing, there is no practical difference between evidence for his existence and evidence which can only be explained by God's existence.
quote:Look here in All Saints
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well a good scientist always takes an interest in someone else's research, even if it conflicts with his own conclusions. So to that end, I would - genuinely - like to know, in precise terms:
1. What you did
2. What the results were
3. What you concluded
4. The reasoning that drive your conclusions from your results.
And this is genuine. Data is data.
quote:Thank you for your rephrase. Now let me ask, "Why?"
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, let me rephrase it. When making a case for God existing, there is no practical difference between evidence for his existence and evidence which can only be explained by God's existence.
quote:Is he trying to prove something? He says "I believe" not "You should believe."
When people, such as Raptor's Eye, give statements likequote:the burden of proof is so much higher.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
quote:That seems like a description of a more-or-less observable process. Fron which one might conclude that God exists as a meme or idea.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
For some people, probably most, religion comes first. Through the Christian religion, people follow Jesus and find God, grow spiritually, and are sent out to serve God by sharing God's love in the community. This makes a positive impact on the world.
quote:It is an observable process to some extent only, as God is not only an idea, and cannot be tested.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That seems like a description of a more-or-less observable process. Fron which one might conclude that God exists as a meme or idea.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
For some people, probably most, religion comes first. Through the Christian religion, people follow Jesus and find God, grow spiritually, and are sent out to serve God by sharing God's love in the community. This makes a positive impact on the world.
The difference between the theists and the atheists is that one group believe that the idea is "true" - corresponds with reality, with how things actually are. And the other group believe that the idea is "false", that God exists only as an idea, as a mental construct.
With other instances of uncertain existence - such as the Loch Ness monster - it is in principle possible that evidence will be found - a specimen captured, or else some form of scan of Loch Ness detailed and comprehensive enough to demonstrate that there is nothing there. The argument is all about what it is reasonable to think pending the acquisition of such evidence.
It's not clear to me that this is a suitable model for God.
I find it hard to conceive of what evidence one way or the other would look like.
And find it possible to conceive of a (? non-objectivist ?) philosophy in which God is both the way things really are and a purely mental phenomenon.
Whether this would be a "win" for the
theists or the atheists is pointless quibbling.
quote:Er... you appear to be using the word 'objective' in two separate senses.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand why Christians get hung up on objectivity, in the sense of an objective God. Surely, God is a who not a what, and a who cannot be objective.
quote:I can't see where I was using 'objective' in the jury sense. At any rate, I definitely don't mean that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Er... you appear to be using the word 'objective' in two separate senses.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand why Christians get hung up on objectivity, in the sense of an objective God. Surely, God is a who not a what, and a who cannot be objective.
We hope a judge or jury try to be as objective as possible about the defendant; that's a different sense of 'objective' from that in which whether or not the defendant was where they say they were is a matter of objective fact.
In any case, saying a who cannot be objective seems to me one of these statements in which a state of ideal perfection is used as bathwater with which to tip out the good enough to work for baby. Just because one hundred per cent objectivity is not achievable doesn't mean we can't try for close enough. If we don't, we end up with Brexit-Trump-style post-truth public debate.
Also, God is not a who in the same way as other whos are.
quote:Science is based upon observation. When the conclusions derived do not fit, the new or modified conclusions are formulated. Newtonian physics to Einsteinian.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why is the existence of God a special case? It's immensely rare for there to be evidence that can only be explained in one specific way. That's why physicists and biologists usually rely on heuristics like Occam's razor.
quote:Because there is no objective evidence for deity.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Thank you for your rephrase. Now let me ask, "Why?"
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, let me rephrase it. When making a case for God existing, there is no practical difference between evidence for his existence and evidence which can only be explained by God's existence.
quote:It isn't about him trying to enforce belief.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Is he trying to prove something? He says "I believe" not "You should believe."
When people, such as Raptor's Eye, give statements likequote:the burden of proof is so much higher.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
quote:Rubbish. We may never understand how the universe came to be, but that does not put it into the same realm as magic. Which religion effectively is.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Pushing the boat out naïvely, in pathetic ignorance and hubris based on 'avin' a goo fer Jesus, I say that there is objective evidence for deity.
Existence. Existence is predicated on either the superphysical, i.e. the physics of unthinking, unthought, thoughtless infinite, eternal open negative entropy, or the supernatural, i.e. the physics of thinking, thought, thoughtful, infinite, eternal open negative entropy.
They're both as bad as each other.
quote:Create a split between what? God as 'I am' seems to me to definitely be either objective or not.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To say that God is an objective entity seems to create a split straight away, whereas God as 'I am' does not.
quote:That's neither precisely a restatement of your original point, nor exactly addressing what I said.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Science is based upon observation. When the conclusions derived do not fit, the new or modified conclusions are formulated. Newtonian physics to Einsteinian.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why is the existence of God a special case? It's immensely rare for there to be evidence that can only be explained in one specific way. That's why physicists and biologists usually rely on heuristics like Occam's razor.
For anything observable, you can cut and paste between different theistic positions and nothing changes. This is not to denigrate religion or belief, but it is in a different category completely from science.
quote:Religion, if we subtract the many abuses heaped on it, is not the same as "magic".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We may never understand how the universe came to be, but that does not put it into the same realm as magic. Which religion effectively is.
quote:
mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
quote:The Christian religion is not about influencing events by using any forces. God cannot be manipulated. There is no magic involved.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who said anything about stage magic?
quote:
mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
quote:Yes and if someone thinks they are using God to influence the course of events, they are, among other things, not acting in accordance with historic Christianity. This is why the "name it and claim it" people are looked down on by real Christians. Because they are treating Christianity as magic. Which it isn't.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who said anything about stage magic?
quote:
mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
quote:For some values of God, but not for the one who thinks universes. No more than for the unthinking thing that makes universe if He doesn't exist.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But religion is not fact-based theory either.
One sees the world as it is and, for some, the interpretation needs something more.
This is a subjective, I do not se how it can be quantified into a this is type of statement.
But ISTM it is in a similar category to magic in that it operates outside of the rules of the rules.
It is not necessary that the practitioners of a religion manipulate anything, just that some of their rules/beliefs do.
In other words, God = magic for all practical purposes.
quote:I am not doing what you think I am doing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well if you insist on defining religion as magic, and poo-poo the words of people who actually belong to a religion, there's not much more to be said.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean. If you are trying to say that not completely understanding the universe is equal to believing in God, then I disagree.
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:For some values of God, but not for the one who thinks universes. No more than for the unthinking thing that makes universe if He doesn't exist.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But religion is not fact-based theory either.
One sees the world as it is and, for some, the interpretation needs something more.
This is a subjective, I do not se how it can be quantified into a this is type of statement.
But ISTM it is in a similar category to magic in that it operates outside of the rules of the rules.
It is not necessary that the practitioners of a religion manipulate anything, just that some of their rules/beliefs do.
In other words, God = magic for all practical purposes.
quote:So everything that's not objective is magic? This makes sense of those love songs that say oh oh oh it's magic.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I am not doing what you think I am doing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well if you insist on defining religion as magic, and poo-poo the words of people who actually belong to a religion, there's not much more to be said.
All I am saying is that religion is not objective. If you can show me how it is, I am willing to listen.
quote:I am not saying that. But God, as described by Christians, is extra-natural.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So everything that's not objective is magic? This makes sense of those love songs that say oh oh oh it's magic.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I am not doing what you think I am doing.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well if you insist on defining religion as magic, and poo-poo the words of people who actually belong to a religion, there's not much more to be said.
All I am saying is that religion is not objective. If you can show me how it is, I am willing to listen.
quote:I'm not sure that we need to. Experience is a bitch, it is filtered through perception, conditioning, expectation, fear, etc.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In like manner people who have had religious experiences talk to each other and say, "Was it like thus-and-such for you? Yeah, me too." So at what point do we admit there's "something there?"
quote:Prayer doesn't influence events ? Sacraments don't accomplish anything ?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:The Christian religion is not about influencing events by using any forces. God cannot be manipulated. There is no magic involved.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who said anything about stage magic?
quote:
mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
quote:We ask God to influence events, but God is not under our control. When prayers are answered it is by God's grace, not by our manipulation of God's power. As with the sacraments.
Originally posted by Russ:
Prayer doesn't influence events ? Sacraments don't accomplish anything ?
quote:That is exactly what it is. It may not include a guarantee of receiving, but it is a method of getting.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The analogy that has come to me is asking someone for something. Asking someone for something isn't a technique for getting that something.
quote:No, it is reading the bible. You may assert that it is not the correct translation/intention of the words, but to say the words are not their is wrong.
It's not a means to the end of getting what you want. People can view it that way if they're sociopathic or if they're talking in the abstract in thrall to a certain view of economics or human nature.
quote:Not how people work at all. If you only think of people as a means to an end, you are a sociopath. But nearly everyone thinks in these terms to some degree.
Some people can see other people as just means to their ends and interacting with them as just a techique to get what they want. But if you're not that kind of sociopath then you don't do that.
quote:It is not such a clear line. The main functional divide between magic and "true" religion is belief. Prayer to the divine for a result, whether it is expected or merely hoped, is assigning the control elsewhere. It is still an appeal to the supernatural. Or extra-natural if you prefer.
That's the difference between prayer and magic. The second is a technique for imposing your will on reality and the first is not.
quote:Magic is not an appeal to the supernatural. Magic is manipulation or command of the supernatural.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
<snip> It is still an appeal to the supernatural. Or extra-natural if you prefer.
quote:No. I am sorry, but no. Asking someone for something is not a technique. It just isn't. It's an entirely different stance. Maybe to some people there is only a difference in degree between asking, manipulating, and coercing. But the stance of technique and the stance that treats other people as people are fundamentally different. As different as the I-It / I-Thou stances that get brought up by people on these kinds of thread.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That is exactly what it is. It may not include a guarantee of receiving, but it is a method of getting.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The analogy that has come to me is asking someone for something. Asking someone for something isn't a technique for getting that something.
quote:Then again there are some who would say that all interaction with other people is, at root, manipulation. Our conceit of treating one another as subjects and not objects (as I believe Kant put it) is pretence.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I doubt we can convey to you just how utterly jarring it is ... to hear prayer described as manipulation. I'd as soon call conversation with my husband that.
quote:I am imagining a book that explores the concept that asking is manipulation. Perhaps, Asking as Magic: Incantations to Get Loved Ones to Pass the Salt Every Time.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That you have to ask is a ritual to manipulate a supernatural force.
IMO, it is semantics to elevate one's own practice above others'
quote:Take manipulating out of it, then. It is still a ritual performed to receive. And that is what a lot of magic is. Look, I am not defending magical rituals, I am just point out that it is less different tan presented.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I am imagining a book that explores the concept that asking is manipulation. [/i]
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That you have to ask is a ritual to manipulate a supernatural force.
IMO, it is semantics to elevate one's own practice above others'
quote:I did not say asking is the same thing as demanding. The verse is ask and you shall receive. That is what asking is for. Getting. It is that simple. By what definition is it something else?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
No. I am sorry, but no. Asking someone for something is not a technique. It just isn't. It's an entirely different stance.
quote:It does when the question should not have to be asked.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Asking a question ≠ performing a ritual.
quote:I don't understand what you mean.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It does when the question should not have to be asked.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Asking a question ≠ performing a ritual.
quote:God, as posited by mainstream Christianity, is all knowing, all powerful and all loving. As such he doesn't need to hear you ask. As such, your suffering, or that of who you ask prayers for, should not need to wait until someone asks.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I don't understand what you mean.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It does when the question should not have to be asked.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Asking a question ≠ performing a ritual.
quote:It makes no sense to a lot of Christians too, for the reasons you cite. I think we've had a thread recently asking exactly that: what's prayer for? Why pray when God already knows what you need? Is it just for OUR benefit, i.e. makes us feel better? And so on. These are all very live questions in the church, and people agonize over them (or laugh over a beer over them) all the time.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Prayer, as a request, makes no sense to me in the Christian context.
quote:This is a really basic misunderstanding of what prayer is about. Of course God knows what we need already! Jesus himself admitted it--heck, he didn't admit it, he stressed it over against the fools who thought otherwise! And of course he wants to give us what we need, as he also said.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It does when the question should not have to be asked.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Asking a question ≠ performing a ritual.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:This is a really basic misunderstanding of what prayer is about. Of course God knows what we need already! Jesus himself admitted it--heck, he didn't admit it, he stressed it over against the fools who thought otherwise! And of course he wants to give us what we need, as he also said.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It does when the question should not have to be asked.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Asking a question ≠ performing a ritual.
But prayer--even asking in prayer--is hugely different from "them as don't ask, don't get." Take the example of a child with a loving parent. Does the parent know what the kid needs? Yes. Does the parent want to supply that? Yes. Does the parent still want the kid to ask? A lot of the time, yes.
Why? Because asking does several things. First, it reinforces the kid's knowledge of his own needs and inability to fulfill them, which is one way of grounding the kid in reality. There are few things nastier than a kid who treats his parents like shit because he has never for a moment experienced a sense of dependence. He takes them for granted, not in the good sense but in the bad sense. And he demands stuff as his right which is unreasonable even as a gift. If he never learns a sense of reality, you wind up with people like the young man in the affluenza case.
The second thing asking does is to train the kid in the basic human grace of gratitude. If you ask for what you need and see another person respond with care, gratitude is a pretty natural response. I think this is pretty much the only way a person learns that grace.
Third, asking teaches you to be content with what you have. When you ask--whether it be parents, teachers, or God--you become aware that what you want is coming from someone else, freely to you, at a cost to them. You become a bit more careful with your asking, because you begin to realize it is costing someone you care about something. Thus my son has learnt to ask for new Legos or software about once a month rather than every freaking day. He gets a lot more out of what he already possesses, as well.
All of this is part of the civilizing process. And the analogy with us and God is pretty strong. We too learn gratitude by asking. We learn contentment, we learn to appreciate what he gives us, and we even learn to value things more because of what it costs him (here I'm thinking primarily of forgiveness and our re-creation).
The last thing asking does for us is to build a stronger relationship between us and God. We have one strong disadvantage in that relationship as opposed to others, which is that we cannot physically see or hear him. That means it's very easy to forget all about him. The prodding of need is something that sends us back to communicate, much as certain college students away from home only contact their folks when they run out of money! It is not where you want to end up, relationship-wise, but it will do for a very basic beginning, until we mature more.
Getting booted off the computer--husband has asked me to set up his Vietnamese program. Relationship building, heh.
quote:If something beyond my understanding - like my car - isn't working as I want, I can try to influence it in three different ways.
mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
quote:Okay this is your first problem right here, referring to "Christians" as if we were an undifferentiated blob, a puréed soup rather than a chunky stew. You can hear different Christians saying myriad different things, especially if you define "Christian" as "anybody who claims to be a Christian." It would be very odd if you didn't find differences in what they say about things like God, prayer, the sacraments, the Church, the morality of fair-trade tea.
Originally posted by Russ:
But I don't in general see Christians rigorously sticking with the relationship model in the way they talk about religion.
quote:Innumberable. Just as I have heard people say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God (among many other heresies). But Lamb Chopped will join me in condemning all of these things.
How many times have you heard that prayers are answered if you pray the right way ? Or if you call up enough inner resources ?
quote:I'd agree with that. Because God has promised us this will be the case. That if we set the table, He will come.
Or that sacraments if performed correctly confer graces ?
quote:It seems a bit much to insist that we lay out our entire theology every time we mention something. "Oops, you talked about buying more incense without mentioning that God may or may not find pleasure in the sweet odor ascending." Puh-leeze.
With no mention of God as a person who chooses to give or to withhold.
quote:So that metaphor doesn't work for you. Fine. People here have used others.
Getting a drink of water from the tap is use of technology, not asking and receiving.
quote:So on the one hand there's this big important difference between religion and magic, that religion appeals to a personal mysterious force (like asking an invisible parent) and magic atempts to manipulate mysterious forces (like a mechanism, like switching on a light or turning a tap).
Originally posted by mousethief:
Magic is not an appeal to the supernatural. Magic is manipulation or command of the supernatural.
Even though the psychology of religion probably explains that. Couldn't care less, yet. Nothing is convincing. As disturbing as the utterly ineffable facts of eternity and infinity which don't need God, in fact make Him unbelievable, along with the perfection, the fullness of reality beyond which I can envisage no meta-reality. No afterlife. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:I'll thank you to never, ever call me two-faced again. Thank you fucking much.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:So on the one hand there's this big important difference between religion and magic, that religion appeals to a personal mysterious force (like asking an invisible parent) and magic atempts to manipulate mysterious forces (like a mechanism, like switching on a light or turning a tap).
Originally posted by mousethief:
Magic is not an appeal to the supernatural. Magic is manipulation or command of the supernatural.
And on the other hand, a whole heap of Christians have a mechanistic atitude to prayer without you disowning then as practicing magic rather than religion. And a whole heap of Christians including you talk of sacraments in terms that are somewhat mechanistic, but that's not important.
Which of your faces are you expecting me to believe ?
One moment religion has nothing to do with magical thinking, and the next expecting Christians to have a common position on how close to magical thinking they get is asking too much ?
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with your principle but think you're not carrying it through. But I could be wrong.
quote:I really think your caricature of my position:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Okay this is your first problem right here, referring to "Christians" as if we were an undifferentiated blob, a puréed soup rather than a chunky stew. You can hear different Christians saying myriad different things, especially if you define "Christian" as "anybody who claims to be a Christian." It would be very odd if you didn't find differences in what they say about things like God, prayer, the sacraments, the Church, the morality of fair-trade tea.
Originally posted by Russ:
But I don't in general see Christians rigorously sticking with the relationship model in the way they talk about religion.
quote:Innumberable. Just as I have heard people say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God (among many other heresies). But Lamb Chopped will join me in condemning all of these things.
How many times have you heard that prayers are answered if you pray the right way ? Or if you call up enough inner resources ?