I'll get straight into it: An encounter with a social media theist happened and a discussion ensued because of a remark I made in response to one of his comments:
Atheists often claim that life is irrelevant
I started by asking for examples of this claim, and I specifically requested examples where the word "irrelevant" was used, because, curiously, I don't recall ever encountering an atheist, either online, or in real life, whose sentiment on life's purpose is that it's "irrelevant". It sounds very grim, doesn't it? Well, in my experience with theists and moral objectivists, this is no accident. No. See, they need it to sound grim in order to bolster or fortify their belief that life can't possibly have any purpose if there's no gods/God, which of course, is where they (claim to) get their purpose.
This person came back with a Bertrand Russell quote(see above).
So, okay, putting aside the fact that the word "irrelevant" is nowhere to be found(yes, it could be considered a nitpick), there is still a distinction to be made here, and that is that Russell(an atheist) is saying that the question would be meaningless unless one assumes a God. He does not disclose his own personal feelings on life's purpose one way or the other; he is talking about the question, itself.
And, so, here's where I'm willing to give benefit of doubt:
Even if atheist X cannot see/find/secure/obtain, etc., any objective purpose to life and he or she regards life(not the question, but life, itself) as "irrelevant", that does not preclude me from finding subjective purpose in life. It just doesn't. Maybe there just isn't any "higher" Purpose to Life. Fine, whatever. That does not mean that there can't be any purpose in life---"in", being the operative word, here.
See, I decide if I find purpose in life. This is not something that other people get to decide for me, much less complete strangers on social media. Sorry, but nah.
I do "get it" to a degree, though, because for some people, fathoming their own non-existence is just out of the realm of possibility, hence, why they postulate (wish for) an afterlife, an unproven "realm" in which they never really die and life goes on forever and ever and ever..i.e..to infinity. I mean, if life ended, then theists would apparently be forced to conclude that everything up until that end is meaningless or "irrelevant".
But do theists live this mindset, is the question. I contend that, no, they do not.
Imagine you have a friend who identifies as a Christian and you invite them to the movies and his or her response is, "You know, I appreciate the offer, but I'm going to have to pass because the movie will eventually end, so it would be a meaningless night out in the grand scheme of things".
'Sound silly? It is, but let's keep going, though, because all of these things end, too...
- a nice, frosty mug of beer
- going on a picnic with friends
- taking a hike in the wilderness
- a snow cone on a hot day
- reading a good book
and on, and on, and on, and on.
This whole mindset that we get from religion that teaches us that life has to last forever in order for us to have meaning and purpose while on this earth is short-sighted, at best. When I used to harbor this very mindset myself, my perspective was short-sighted. It's actually easy to see, once on the outside of the theist bubble.
And let's back up a bit. If theists get their "purpose" from somewhere else, call me crazy, but it's not their own purpose at the end of the day. How ironic, then, that it's the ones ministering to us non-believers on the topic of "purpose" who don't have a purpose of their own????
Then there was a follow up comment regarding a "moral absolute". Not too shocking, though, because in my experience, these two subjects often go hand in hand when theists claim to want to understand what we atheists believe/do not believe.
Welp, as I've stated many times on this blog, I don't believe that morality is "absolute," nor that there even has to be an "absolute morality" in order to have morals(act ethically). I contend that the closest that one can get to an absolute morality is the avoidance of unnecessary harm.
But once again, I'm willing to point out the irony here, which is that so-called moral objectivists are in the same subjective boat in which they like to put me, the atheist.
Here's how and why: When theists - let's take for example, Christian theists - claim to get morals from their bible, they are filtering every passage on ethics or morals through their own, subjective moral standard. To think that we get morals from a book that condones owning and beating other human beings; to think that we learn "right" from "wrong" from a book that says one should feel "blessed" to take their enemy's children and dash their heads against rocks, is the height of craziness.
And the dead give-away? How would Moses or any other human being know the difference between a slab of "good" commands and a slab of "evil" commands? This is a no-brainer.
We do not get morals from gods or holy books.
67 comments:
I read your comments with interest. The statement that we (meaning Christians) get our morality from God and the bible are actually separate, not joint, items. To be a Christian is not to be a bible worshiper. In other words God is also found in creation (my first place I found God actually, never opened a bible until my 20s) in other people. In the testimony and actions of other people. And yes in some voice that is in us in some mysterious way. The bible did not create morality. And many subjects it doesn't talk about at all, internet porn, nuclear power, cluster bombs. How could it? It is not and was never intended to be an all encompassing moral guide. Part of it? For sure.
If you only believe in a moral truth that would say its better not to harm others (which leaves out it is actually better to help others) you are still referring to some form of moral truth. For example, an old woman is confused on the side of the road, one person stops to help her, the other keeps driving and she gets hit by a passing car. Is not the person who stops performing right? If so why? The old question. Where does it come from? The ether? An amoral society (and some would say we are headed there) is not an attractive picture.
The statement that we (meaning Christians) get our morality from God and the bible are actually separate, not joint, items
Welcome. Fair enough, but I frankly fail to see how one precludes the other. Right now you seem to be speaking on the behalf of all believers..e.g.."we"[etc., etc], as if there is some sort of consensus on how the two things are regarded, when, best as I can tell, the bible and God are separate when they're separate(e.g..now), and they are joint when they're joint(e.g..when it's pointed out that the Bible is "God's unchanging Word"). That being said, *I prefer to not go down the rabbit hole of discussing this under the pretense that there is somehow some sort of consensus as to what all believers believe about if/when/how/why the bible ties into God, and instead, focus on what you believe regarding morality. Deal?
To be a Christian[....].
What being "a Christian" entails depends on which Christian you ask. Please see here*, and from here on out I kindly ask that you do your best to refrain from generalizing, as if one Christian can know the minds of all others. Not. possible. If nothing else, there's upwards of 33,000 different denominations/split-offs of the Christian faith, all of whom think that the other is a little off, to way off. This speaks volumes, from where I sit.
God is also found in creation (my first place I found God actually, never opened a bible until my 20s) in other people. In the testimony and actions of other people
This might begin to be convincing if - and this is a big "IF" - if all people who claim to have found God, just as you claim it, acted the same. IOW, it's curious to me how believers claim to be led by the same "Holy Spirit"("by their fruits you will know them", etc), but their behaviors are all over the map. It's a mixed basket of "fruits", is what I'm saying.
Now, if you're saying that you can look around and see the good in people? Fine. I can do that too, though. This ability, alone, is not evidence that anyone's being led by a deity. In fact, in a world without a God, we'd expect to see some people doing good deeds and some doing not-so-good deeds.
continued due to character limitations...
The bible did not create morality.
Okay, except that I had not gotten into who or what created morality. The topic I raised is where moral objectivists who are Christians get their morality, and I laid out my reasons for how I know they don't get it from God or the bible.
And many subjects it doesn't talk about at all, internet porn, nuclear power, cluster bombs. How could it?
How could it, you ask? Simple. If the bible's redactors were inspired by an omniscient being, then it would be within reason for those redactors to touch on the moral issues of today, right here, right now. E.g..internet porn, abortion. The bible is claimed to be prophetic on other topics, so I don't see how it would be a stretch to talk about moral issues that would be problematic in the future.
If you only believe in a moral truth that would say its better not to harm others (which leaves out it is actually better to help others) you are still referring to some form of moral truth
Correct. The difference being, I'm not claiming that empathy in the human species is of a supernatural origin, that it's somehow bequeathed to us. Moreover, "The Golden Rule"(exhibiting empathy) is not exclusive to Christians or to Christianity. Oh, and I can (and do) help others as an atheist. How is this possible if your worldview is correct?
The old question. Where does it come from?
Morality comes from the species it actually applies to...us.
But I'm willing to grant for sake of discussion that it comes from the Christian deity. Done. Okay, does God command certain actions/behaviors because those actions/behaviors are "good"? Or does whatever action/behavior God command become "good" by virtue of him commanding? Yes, this is Divine Command Theory.
I can see where you are coming from with the speaking for Christians thing, and yes I agree not too speak for all Christians, if you agree not to generalize that all Christians are the same either? I am not Jerry Fowell. I am a Christian but I am ME. At the same time I will not generalize you with other atheists, your not Pol Pot. You are YOU.
We agree on one thing for sure. Morality does not come from the bible. But it must come from somewhere.
I would not say that the "Golden Rule" is exclusive to Christianity. Although Jesus does clarify it better than anyone else I ever heard of.
And yes Divine Command theory is what I believe. And always did. Other wise truth is subjective. The Nazi is as right as the homeless ad worker. I don't see moral truth as subjective and the idea kind of freaks me out to be honest. That is not to say not every moral situation is simple or easy to discern because its not.
So do you think morality comes from our minds? Or as an instinct?
Such thinks as music.
Or Art.
Or human love.
Are these just instincts? or something powerful and sacred? Does the power come from outside of us? I would say it does.
Is a Van Gogh just a, I don't know what, or a manifestation of something else?
And as my Friday is winding down and soon I will be firing up the grill and cracking a beer I am reminded of my favorite Ben Franklin quote. Which alas, was about wine not beer.
Franklin wrote in 1779, when he wrote his French friend, Abbe Morellet, according to McCormick. In a scientific commentary about how water is changed into wine, Franklin remarked, "We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy. The miracle in question was only performed to hasten the operation, under circumstances of present necessity, which required it."
I could never have put it better.
if you agree not to generalize that all Christians are the same either?
I will do my best, but I will add that if people adhere to a specific belief-system or philosophy, and if that belief-system or philosophy is found in a physical document..e..g..a mandate, or holy writ, then, while the adherents might not all interpret it the same, it is objectively the same document. IOW, insane is the idea that I would have to literally interview every single Christian before I could rightfully speak on the topic of the tenets of the Christian faith.
We agree on one thing for sure. Morality does not come from the bible. But it must come from somewhere.
What you mean to say is, you believe that morality does not come from the bible. See, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Millions of bible-believing Christians believe that we get our standard of morality ("right" Vs "wrong") directly from the bible, in whole or in part via the "Commandments" (supposedly) given to Moses by God, penned by God. This is the whole reason you see Evangelicals wanting the "Ten Commandments" on display at the courthouse. But I do agree that morality must come from somewhere, and I still contend that it comes from us. Consider that "right" Vs "wrong" has evolved(changed over time) right along with us as a society. To me, that is compelling evidence that morals are relative, not absolute.
Although Jesus does clarify it better than anyone else I ever heard of.
That would mean a lot more to guys like me if Jesus actually followed his own advice.
And yes Divine Command theory is what I believe. And always did.
So, God could command that you should kill all nonbelievers, and according to DCT, you would see that command as the moral thing to do by sheer virtue that God commanded it. If that's an incorrect assessment, feel free to tell me where I'm mistaken.
Other wise truth is subjective.
Here's the rub(and irony): If truth comes from a being who answers to nothing and to no one, then nothing prevents this being from commanding any ol' thing it wants. On a whim, this moral-giving being could feasibly command something that you and I both agree is despicably evil, and it'd be seen as "good" by some. Doing whatever the hell you want? Every action based on one's own opinion and nothing else? It doesn't really get much more subjective than that, unless......
Unless there is something preventing this being from commanding such things. If so, what is it?
So do you think morality comes from our minds? Or as an instinct?
Both, as I don't seem them as distinct from one another.
Are these [music, art, human love] just instincts? or something powerful and sacred? Does the power come from outside of us? I would say it does
Some people are more gifted than others. No denying it. However, if a gift such as musical talent comes from outside of us, why the need to practice? We are all born either gifted or not gifted? This is not at all what we see.
Regarding the quote, I like Franklin, but if I'm supposed to believe that needed rain on crops is proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy, what does it prove when insects, presumably also created by God, destroy an entire vineyard?
Oh, well, happy grilling.... and hopefully it won't rain ;)
Hmmm. How do you feel about generalizations of atheists in this way? Because what I see you saying is its OK to generalize Christians, but not atheists. And frankly that seems like a double standard to me. In general atheists, 1. Are atheists because of politics. There is an overwhelming connection between the atheist worldview and leftist politics. I am sure there are exceptions (I have actually never met one personally. And because it is seen that religion in an obstacle to political aims. Which explains so much of the anger. 2. Because of a bitter personal experience (I have a friend whose dad was a pastor and he resented being second to the Church who got most of the attention). Or both. Is that every atheist on the planet? Of course not, and it might not be you. I don't know.
In the same way all atheists are not responsible for the Khymer Rouge. Although, they were atheists and as such certainly appropriate fodder, like it or not, for discussion of a possible atheist world. Just as the Crusaders are for Christians, or ISIS for religion in general. If you see my point? There is no one manuscript for atheism its true, but, there are atheist manuscripts.
It is not meaningless to talk about my specific faith path, Christ, but in general I feel its more important to talk about theism versus atheism. For an atheist every possible religion must be %100 wrong. There can be no chink in the armor correct? It explains in part why atheists are so likely to be on the offense. Is your personal quarrel with religion in totality? Or Christianity specifically? Because that seems to be your focus.
In regards to my question about art, love, music, I think you misunderstood. What is it? If it is not something mystical? Sacred? Is Bach explained by evolution? I am just not seeing it.
Respectfully, (grilling was awesome).
Me
[...] what I see you saying is its OK to generalize Christians, but not atheists
I could really dedicate an entire post to this topic, and at some point I just might. For now, the short answer is, no, I don't think it's OK to over-generalize about Christians, atheists, or any group.
Notwithstanding, when talking about a belief-system(in contrast to talking about the belief-system's adherents and how they interpret that belief-system's philosophy or mandate, if applicable), it is practical and sometimes even necessary to generalize. In short, atheism is not a "belief", it is a lack of belief. Thus, there is no "belief-system". And for sure, there are no official creeds, mandates, or "revealed Truths" from On High.
Christianity, on the other hand? It is a revealed Truth, and the claim is that this Truth is from On High. Moreover, said "Truth" is redacted in a holy writ called the "Holy Bible." Said bible has at least one section devoted to where man's morals come from, which is in the form of Commandments, "Ten" of which coming from the creator of the universe, himself. The scriber. On stone. Personally delivered.
What I'm getting at is, it is within reason for me to generalize, for instance, about where Christians get their morality. I shouldn't have to interview every single Christian to make sure that there aren't some who might argue that morality doesn't come from the bible.
In general atheists, 1. Are atheists because of politics. There is an overwhelming connection between the atheist worldview and leftist politics.
This is very interesting, because never in my 2 decades of blogging have I encountered an atheist who became one "because of politics". Not one. The number 1 reason I see for why/how people become atheists is because of reading the bible and/or simply losing faith in faith. Then of course, there are those who weren't raised in a religious household.
Because of a bitter personal experience (I have a friend whose dad was a pastor and he resented being second to the Church who got most of the attention). Or both. Is that every atheist on the planet? Of course not, and it might not be you. I don't know.
Not only is it not every atheist on the planet, I would contend that it would be a very small minority who leave the faith because of a lack of attention or a bitter experience. But again, even giving benefit of doubt, Atheists could be some of the most bitter, pissed-off people you've ever encountered. But guess what? This is ultimately non-sequitur, and here's why: Atheists being angry and/or bitter doesn't mean that atheism is wrong and/or that theism is right.
If there's any common ground to be found, it will take much, much longer if we have to weed through fallacious arguments and faulty reasoning. 'Hoping to stick to demonstrable, relevant facts from here on in,
There is no one manuscript for atheism its true, but, there are atheist manuscripts.
Except that an atheist delineating his or her personal views in a manuscript is not quite the same as a manuscript that has multiple authors, all of whom claimed to be summoned by the creator of the universe for the job of jotting down said creator's Will & Testament. This is apples and watermelon, I'm afraid.
continued.....
It is not meaningless to talk about my specific faith path, Christ, but in general I feel its more important to talk about theism versus atheism.
In case you haven't noticed, though, you've spent the bulk of your time here critiquing atheism. Not that this is entirely shocking; I see it a lot, but I have to ask, you do know, don't you, that even if you could somehow demonstrate atheism to be false, this would not make Christianity the default "truth", yes?
For an atheist every possible religion must be %100 wrong
I'm sorry...what? For starters, to make such a claim, one would have to investigate what every single religion is claiming. This would include claims not pertaining to the supernatural as well as those pertaining to the supernatural, if applicable. It's easier to just say atheism is a rejection of ALL supernatural claims. An atheist doesn't necessarily have to reject a poetic truth if they should find one in a certain religion.
Is your personal quarrel with religion in totality? Or Christianity specifically? Because that seems to be your focus.
Religion in general. I touch on this in my "about" section. I was raised a Christian, so I tend to put that under the microscope more. Yes.
In regards to my question about art, love, music, I think you misunderstood. What is it? If it is not something mystical? Sacred? Is Bach explained by evolution? I am just not seeing it
Love is a feeling, art and music are a means for people to express themselves. I readily confess that I don't understand this line of questioning, and my guess is because it's you who assumes that there has to be something (or Someone) behind it. Did you know that an elephant can paint a picture? True story, and a monkey can play the organ. A raccoon can love her babies.
Now, is there also something (or Someone) behind these things, too? Is an animal's love for their young, "Sacred"?
Is Bach explained by evolution?
Since when is it incumbent on the theory of evolution to explain how/why music or musicianship exists? Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life we see on earth. Atheism is a rejection of theist claims. Neither thing has to account for the things you seem to be claiming they must account for.
grilling was awesome
Cool. Doing it tomorrow night. Crossing fingers for good weather.
I am indeed interested in looking at atheism under a microscope, probably for the same reason you do faith in general and Christianity in particular. And there are actually reasons I think its important to debate this stuff (and other things) in a public forum. However, there are also things about atheism that just puzzle me, always have and I actually do hope you can help me understand them.
Here is what I mean about the 100% thing. If for example an atheist would say, and I am assuming you would? There is no afterlife. No God (or god's) and no supernatural anything, correct? And that is what I mean about the 100 percent thing. If anything is not true about those beliefs, then atheism is based on a false premise correct? If I asked you (and I am) "do you believe there is no God" How would you answer? If you say "I believe there is no God" yes, you do have a belief. This seems like splitting hairs to me. You have a belief, that there is no God.
I hope you are not one of those atheists who think that there are no weaknesses, no difficulties, and no doubts to be had with a life with no divine belief?
"If there's any common ground to be found, it will take much, much longer if we have to weed through fallacious arguments and faulty reasoning. 'Hoping to stick to demonstrable, relevant facts from here on in". Careful, just because the reasoning I have is not yours it is not a fallacious argument.
Do you do not see a connection between leftist politics and atheism? In fact the Pew survey pointed it out pretty clearly. It is clearer than the oft pointed out connection between Christianity and the Republican party. Why is there this connection? Or do you deny it? I am curious.
I am struggling a bit with what I see as a tendency to give an overly (my opinion) complex answer to something I have asked. What is outside evolution to an atheist? I am curious. Saying love is an instinct is like saying violin music is cat gut scrapped over horse hair.
Hope grilling goes well. I did salmon. shrimp, and craft beer. (I didn't grill the beer).
I am indeed interested in looking at atheism under a microscope, probably for the same reason you do faith in general and Christianity in particular.
I'm glad you're putting atheism under the microscope. 'Last thing I want to do is sit here and defend an erroneous position. However, if I'm mistaken and my conclusion on the existence of "God" or gods is wrong, then that means that there is some evidence that I am missing or overlooking. So, yes, feel free to put atheism under the microscope, but bear in mind that if I'm proven wrong, it won't be because of things like atheism not being able to adequately account for morality or because I harbor bitterness and/or anger. It won't be because evolution can't account for "music" or "art" or "Bach". It will be because evidence for theism has been put before me that I find to be credible. And I should state while on the subject that things like "Revelation" and personal experiences(anecdotes), while compelling evidence to the believer, these things do not constitute credible evidence to me.
If for example an atheist would say, and I am assuming you would? There is no afterlife. No God (or god's) and no supernatural anything, correct? And that is what I mean about the 100 percent thing
I do not believe there is such a thing as a "soul", so by extension, I do not believe in an afterlife. But note, that is not the same as saying there is no afterlife. If someone should catch me saying, "There is no afterlife!," it's meant in the practical sense..e.g.. "There are no leprechauns!". It's not meant in the absolute sense. (I address this topic several times on this blog, btw)
If I asked you (and I am) "do you believe there is no God" How would you answer? If you say "I believe there is no God" yes, you do have a belief. This seems like splitting hairs to me. You have a belief, that there is no God."
Again, I touched on this just above, and I go into more detail in other blog posts. Even if I were to answer your query, telling you that, "I believe there is no God!", it's implicit that it's in a practical sense, not an absolute sense. Do I have to prove gremlins absolutely do not exist before I can rightfully disbelieve in them or say they don't exist? Isn't that venturing into lunacy? I tend to think so.
As for atheism being a "belief", you're right, it is splitting hairs. But I'm not against splitting hairs if it actually gets us somewhere. Thing is, I fail to see how my admitting that atheism is a "belief" gets us anywhere, because ultimately atheism still doesn't have to account for things like morality and art. Moreover, a Muslim will surely tell me that Allah exists. Now, which person besides the Muslim cares if my response is, "I believe Allah doesn't exist!"? Furthermore, a Christian even agrees with me that Allah does not exist, and he or she might even say the same thing. Is it my or a Christian's burden to prove to the Muslim that Allah doesn't exist? No, of course it isn't. It's the Muslim's burden to prove to us that Allah exists.
I'd really like to agree on where the burden of proof lies before we go much further into this.
continued....
I hope you are not one of those atheists who think that there are no weaknesses, no difficulties, and no doubts to be had with a life with no divine belief?
My goodness. Okay, I detail the pluses and minuses of being an atheist throughout this blog. The long and short of it is, atheism is not a bed of roses, and yes, there are parts of it that are unsettling. That being said, I implore you to bear in mind that our feelings about our respective positions on the Divine and God's existence have not one iota to do with what's actually true. Do I wish I could somehow see my deceased family and friends in another realm when I die? Of course! But my wanting it to be true doesn't make it true. This is yet another thing I'd like to agree on before we go much deeper into this. "Feelings" mean shit when it comes to what's actually true. Reality just doesn't give a damn how we feel.
Careful, just because the reasoning I have is not yours it is not a fallacious argument.
True. However, this time I pointed out in detail where your reasoning breaks down. There is no such thing as "your logic", "my logic", "his logic", "her logic", etc., there is only logic. Pointing out how atheists are angry is ultimately a non-sequitur. It is a misuse of logic to imply that atheism is false because atheists are "angry".
Do you do not see a connection between leftist politics and atheism?
I notice that by and large, atheists identify with liberal principles, just as I notice that by and large, the Far Right identify with conservative principles. What does any of this prove or demonstrate, is what I'm wondering.
I am struggling a bit with what I see as a tendency to give an overly (my opinion) complex answer to something I have asked. What is outside evolution to an atheist?
Overly complex? Let's review. You asked, "What is it?"
That was your question in regards to "art," "love," "music." It's a loaded question, to say the least. Complex answer? To the contrary, I gave the most simple, basic answer I could, and I'll say it again until you feel you want to disclose what it is you're really driving at, which in my best guess, is that you want to know what is ultimately behind those things. The problem is, if you came right out and asked it, I'm guessing you know it would be begging the question and an argument from personal incredulity?
As for your specific question, "What is outside evolution", I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I fail to see relevance. So far there's a pattern, here: Your focal point since your arrival has been with the problems you feel there are with atheism and evolution. For one thing, you do know, don't you, that millions of devout, bible-believing Christians accept the theory of evolution, don't you? I've never understood why some Christians view evolution as a deal-breaker.
I will do chicken and shrimp kabobs. I don't drink beer with food.
BTW, below is a link to just one post where I talk about the perks and cons of atheism. I'm sure I've talked about it more in other posts, but for now, this should satisfy your concern over whether you've encountered an atheist who thinks there's no weaknesses about arriving at atheism.
http://boomslangsrevenge.blogspot.com/2017/12/goodness-all-for-nothing.html
Interesting reply. Very interesting. The first point I will answer is in regards to burden of truth or agreement on it. I frankly don't think there is what people would call proof either for or against the existence of the divine, at least not intellectually, or scientifically. The closest thing I have ever seen to proof is those people who have died and returned. And those debates turn into he was lying, nuts, etc. That gets tedious fast. I personally believe in God because I have had direct experience with the manifest presence of God. But my experience with those discussions with atheists have not gone well either. If I am not lying about those things, then atheism is not true, therefore I am nuts, or lying, or both. That only isn't just tedious it tends to actually hurt my feelings.
Discussions about the existence of God generally honestly go to opinion, belief, evidence and probability. Not proof.
Logic is a very slippery topic. Logic can create different conclusions. Slavery can be logical. And interestingly some very important arguments against it can be emotional. Logic without passion or emotion is cold and to me rather frightening. I agree feelings don't create truth, and emotion is a good servant but a bad master.
I agree with you regarding the evolution thing. I am not an anti evolution person at all or a "Young Earther" as they are referred to. I just don't see it as a convincing explanation for everything. But my point was this. I would think (perhaps wrongly) that an atheist would see evolution as the only source of what makes us tick so to speak. I am curious, not scornful of what you mean. I feel that natural selection doesn't explain art. I looked up the Elephant thing and that was fascinating, did you know that there is evidence that Chimps worship or something very close to it?
In regards to the politics and atheism thing. I have theories about the connection I pointed out, and also many thoughts about the present (not historical) link between conservatism and Christianity. I am not very political and don't look at the world in a political way.
Your answer to the supernatural question was interesting. Life after death could be scientific (whatever that means) rather than religious (whatever that means).
Perhaps my questions are a little too wide ranging? I guess I am searching for a particular focus of our discussion. At the same time I am enjoying discussing some of this stuff with someone who doesn't make personal attacks. And maybe I like wide ranging discussions come to think of it.
Maybe as its your blog and so on you could direct the conversation as you see fit? Facebook is a shitty format to discuss things. Blogging is better, but I would prefer to grill and discuss this in person. My friends are rather diverse in regards to belief, Christian something else and nothing. How about you? Non atheist friends?
Oh just out of curiosity. Where do you stand on the whole "no atheist has ever killed in the name of atheism" theory?
Interesting reply. Very interesting
Thanks. I guess. I'd rather it be interesting and agreeable, but I'll settle for interesting and not necessarily agreeable, because both of these things are better than written off with a wave of the hand.
I frankly don't think there is what people would call proof either for or against the existence of the divine, at least not intellectually, or scientifically
Agreed. You are correct that there's no scientific proof for or against the divine. The thing is, we don't generally seek to prove a negative, and that being said, at some point we need to decide a few things about this.
First, we need to answer the question of, are all claims the same as far as plausibility? Me? I contend that they are not.
For example, if person X claims that they saw a man locate an underground water source using only a branch off of a tree, and person Y claims that they saw two dozen people get up out their graves and start walking around town, it is (I'm hoping) obvious which claim is more outrageous in terms of plausibility. So, when it comes to claims, we need to ask ourselves how reliable the claim is, and we need to decide where the default position lies.
Do we, a) believe a claim until it's disproven? Or do we, b) suspend belief until a claim is proven?
For me, when it comes to claims of invisible conscious beings, angels, ghosts, aliens, and so forth, I contend "b", above; we suspend belief until the claimant proves what they're claiming.
IOW, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Science seems to agree with this, because if not, then scientists would be running around trying to disprove every wacky, outrageous claim out there. Most assuredly, science is not in that business, and rightfully not.
The closest thing I have ever seen to proof is those people who have died and returned. And those debates turn into he was lying, nuts, etc.
You left one out..i.e..self-deceived. A misinterpretation of natural events isn't lying, nor does it necessarily mean the person is nuts, but it is always right up there near the top of the list of what most likely happened, while people returning from the dead, interaction with invisible beings, weeping statues, and so forth, are always closer to the bottom of that list.
I personally believe in God because I have had direct experience with the manifest presence of God."
Yes, the personal experience is very powerful, and in my deconversation it was the last thing to go, as it was with many former believers with whom I've crossed paths. The problem with personal experiences(anecdotal evidence) is that people of other religious faiths will offer up the same sorts of experiences. Even religions that directly oppose one another. Bottom line, once we allow one guy's personal experiences, the flood gates are open. In comes the personal experiences of the UFOlogist who swears he's been taken aboard a flying saucer. In comes the personal experiences of those who've participated in a seance, and on and on.
Logic without passion or emotion is cold and to me rather frightening. I agree feelings don't create truth, and emotion is a good servant but a bad master.
You seem to be talking about logic with nuance. I don't deny that there can be nuance with logic, or that, in *some* instances, emotion can override logic. But I'm more talking about logic as it pertains to an error in reasoning that might render an argument invalid.
continued....
I am not an anti evolution person at all or a "Young Earther" as they are referred to. I just don't see it as a convincing explanation for everything.
Good to know that you're not a young earther, given the abundance of scientific evidence that gives us a more accurate/reliable age of the earth and universe.
As for evolution not being able to explain everything, that could be the reason for the disconnect, because evolution is not meant to explain everything; it's meant to explain the diversity of life that we see here on earth.
But my point was this. I would think (perhaps wrongly) that an atheist would see evolution as the only source of what makes us tick so to speak.
"Makes us tick," okay, perhaps in the most fundamental sense..i.e..survival. But an innate will to survive doesn't preclude things like finding beauty in nature along the way or being moved by the sound of wind chimes. My newest post, inspired in part by this discussion, talks about this topic.
I feel that natural selection doesn't explain art.
I'm still not entirely clear as to what degree you seek to have evolution "explain art." This is why I keep rollin' with the same simplistic, "less baggage" answer: Art is a way for mankind to express himself. Evolution might explain the need or desire to express one's self through art, maybe providing a sense of purpose and fulfillment while here, or, as means to attract attention. This is much of the reason I switched from clarinet to electric bass while in school. Once I did, I was like a chick magnet. I'm mostly kidding, of course, but there is a kernel of truth to it. I saw a video of some sort of sea creature, maybe a puffer fish, I don't remember, but the male lures the female by creating an elaborate design in the sand at the bottom of the ocean, then hides in the middle. Sure enough, the female comes callin', and they mate. The symmetry of the design could pass a piece of man-made art if one didn't have a foreknowledge of what created it. But the ritual is clearly to procreate, which keeps the species going.
To me, this aligns with evolution perfectly. Being happy and having a sense of purpose in life aligns with evolution, too, given that we know that people who feel no sense of purpose are prone to ending their life.
I looked up the Elephant thing and that was fascinating, did you know that there is evidence that Chimps worship or something very close to it?
If it's true that chimps, with whom we interestingly share 98.8% of our DNA, worship or exhibit a behavior close to it, I would contend that this goes more to the side of evolution and that it actually creates problems for theism. For example, there is actually something called a "God gene hypothesis", a gene that predisposes people to have spiritual experiences. If man was God's crowning jewel, I'm trying to figure out why certain animals such as some lowly apes would have a similar predisposition. 'Not seeing how this would bolster theism's man at the center of the universe concept.
Maybe as its your blog and so on you could direct the conversation as you see fit?
Well, you said you wanted to understand atheists. I must confess that 9 times out of 10 when I've heard this in the past, it ends up being theists wanting to minister and second-guess my experiences. As long as neither of these two things happen, I suppose you can keep asking questions and I can do my best to provide answers.
Where do you stand on the whole "no atheist has ever killed in the name of atheism" theory?
I can't and won't claim to know the minds of every atheist to have ever lived. However, for any genocide to have ever occurred on an atheist's watch, I would contend that it was not because their atheism was not enough like religion, but because it was too much like it.
"If it's true that chimps, with whom we interestingly share 98.8% of our DNA, worship or exhibit a behavior close to it, I would contend that this goes more to the side of evolution and that it actually creates problems for theism. For example, there is actually something called a "God gene hypothesis", a gene that predisposes people to have spiritual experiences. If man was God's crowning jewel, I'm trying to figure out why certain animals such as some lowly apes would have a similar predisposition. 'Not seeing how this would bolster theism's man at the center of the universe concept."
I had the opposite feeling when I first heard about it. I can't imagine how we would evolve randomly a desire for religion. In fact that doesn't make any sense to me at. Why would we? I would say that people are more important than animals (I mean I eat them, wear their skins, I fish a lot, and hunt a little bit) but that doesn't mean animals are not important. I did a really interesting study on all the places in the bible where animals are mentioned, not as meaningless but as important. Its a lot of places actually. Whether we like it or not (or deserve it or not) humankind does hold the fate of the world in our hands. So in that sense we are the masters of creation, and we better take that responsibility seriously.
In regards to the art thing, or the religion chimp thing to, isn't the point of evolution that it only makes sense if its useful, makes it more likely to survive? I don't see where a painting would fill that purpose. Not for people anyway.
"Yes, the personal experience is very powerful, and in my deconversation it was the last thing to go, as it was with many former believers with whom I've crossed paths. The problem with personal experiences(anecdotal evidence) is that people of other religious faiths will offer up the same sorts of experiences. Even religions that directly oppose one another. Bottom line, once we allow one guy's personal experiences, the flood gates are open. In comes the personal experiences of the UFOlogist who swears he's been taken aboard a flying saucer. In comes the personal experiences of those who've participated in a seance, and on and on."
The reason I am a believer is not because of someone else having some sort of divine experience, its because I have. Which means I no longer doubt the existence of God at all. I mean I know I am not lying, and I am not crazy so I am left with believing. Confusion about the details? You Betcha.
The question about why I am communicating on this blog has a complex answer I think. We don't always (or even often) do things for one reason alone. And I am still figuring it out. Its a good question. I promise an answer.
In return why would you converse with me? Its pretty unlikely either of us is going to "convert" one another, and I am not really trying. Although you never know, C.S. Lewis became a believer after being an atheist, and previously an atheist after being a believer. I don't know why or how. But that's not my purpose, nor am I good at it. I have a spiritual gift but that not.
One more question then back to work. Why not be an agnostic? At the risk of sounding like a prick it seems much more sensible. I mean nobody can disprove God, afterlife or so on. Proving a negative is really really difficult. As an attorney I found that out the hard way. And its appealingly casual but with a dash of the cynic.
I can't imagine how we would evolve randomly a desire for religion. In fact that doesn't make any sense to me at [all].
For starters, evolution isn't a completely random process. The complete term for evolution, which is an explanation for how/why simpler organisms evolved over time into complex organisms, is, "Evolution by natural selection"(emphasis added).
This is what I'd like to believe is an oversight on the part of creationists, but sadly, I get the distinct impression that some creationists, I'd venture a guess, most, willfully misunderstand what evolution is and how it works.
When time allows, I recommend having a look at Talk Origins, as it seems to be the most comprehensive website for explaining evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Secondly, you seem to be wanting to conflate religion with spirituality. Many of the Christians I encounter insist that there's a distinction to made here. If nothing else, there's the "It's a relationship, not a religion" canard. They can be quite emphatic about this, too.
Nevertheless, being "spiritual" could just mean something as simple as wanting to be in tune with one's surroundings(or "the universe"). Naturalists and pantheists can be "spiritual" without invoking anything spooky or supernatural. I think a desire to feel at peace with one's surroundings, not only does it not preclude a will to survive, it aligns with it quite well.
And then lastly I feel I should point out that having an innate sense of yearning for something bigger than ourselves(or "something more", or a deity) doesn't automatically mean there is such a thing. IOW, the feeling can be useful without it actually pointing to anything real. A crude example would be goosebumps. 'Ever get them after hearing a strange noise in the house, then come to find out there's nothing there to be afraid of? I have.
But why would we even get goosebumps in the first place? Unless at one time we had feathers? Why do we have "tail bones"? Why, if man is the most important creature, do we not have gills if the earth is 2/3rds water, most of which not even drinkable? You say that man is more important than animals, and yet, by the looks of things, fish are the most important creatures.
These are interesting questions and I feel they demand satisfactory answers. To me, neither Christianity nor any other religion, for that matter, provide satisfactory answers. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Christianity provides some really bad answers, even demonstrably false answers. And if we can't trust the bible to tell us where we came from, why trust it on anything else?
continued....
The reason I am a believer is not because of someone else having some sort of divine experience, its because I have.
Yes, of course, I fully realized this. My apologies if I implied somewhere that you are a believer because of someone else's personal experiences. Regardless, I stand by my position when it comes to personal experience as "evidence": If I have to accept one guy's personal experiences with the Divine, then I have to accept all people's personal experiences with the Divine. And mind you, if the other guy's personal experiences misled him - IOW, if the other guy is flat-out wrong - then this tells me that you could be wrong, too. Note, not a liar, or crazy, but self-deceived, as you will no doubt insist other people of faith are self-deceived(??)
Which means I no longer doubt the existence of God at all.
If you have no doubts, whatsoever, then I must respectfully ask, why do you need "faith"(assuming you have it)? The bible explains faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".[Hebrews 11:1](emphasis mine)
I should give fair-warning that this is a topic on which I don't usually allow much wiggle room, if any, simply because so much is riding on it. Absolute certainty makes "faith" obsolete. If one knows something, and if one has no doubts about this, whatsoever, then one doesn't need "faith".
In return why would you converse with me?
Because I'm always willing to have a look at a piece of evidence that I might have missed, but mostly, for the benefit of any silent lurkers who may be experiencing honest doubt. It was peering into conversations exactly like this one that became a contributing factor in my deconversion.
Although you never know, C.S. Lewis became a believer after being an atheist
I don't know how much that is really saying, as we all come into world without beliefs in God or the supernatural, which, at a minimum, qualifies as passively atheist.
Why not be an agnostic? At the risk of sounding like a prick it seems much more sensible
You don't sound a prick at all. You do, however, sound like one of the many people I encounter who erroneously believes that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. They are not. It's possible to be both, and I am both.
spir·it·u·al·i·ty
ËŒspiriCHo͞oˈalÉ™dÄ“/Submit
noun
the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
"the shift in priorities allows us to embrace our spirituality in a more profound way"
I guess I have always thought of spirituality as the definition above. (this is a dictionary version). I am not saying you are wrong. I have always thought of spirituality as having some link, even if its pretty thin, to soul or something mystical, or supernatural.
In a courtroom a witness is judged on credibility. What kind of person are we dealing with? In terms of myself obviously my own credibility is not in question. However you don't know me from Adam, so whatever experience I had could be a ploy, or I could be nuts, or dishonest or whatever. I don't in general trust any kind of testimony from a person I don't know well. And a courtroom setting, where the witness is attacked to create doubt, is not one I am too thrilled with, its pretty ugly. Or likely to subject myself to without a compelling reason. Plus the stuff if too personal to share lightly.
Your faith question is a good one, but it doesn't take much thought to answer. I don't have any doubt about the existence of God, but I have lots of questions about "other related stuff" and yes that is pretty vague. I have a lot to learn there, lots to think about. There is a lot unknown there. As an example I have been swept into several are there UFOs conversations and I am not convinced they have much to do with my faith, but some people seem to think its an attack somehow. What do they mean? So I have absolute faith in some things, not in others. God? Check. Christ. Check. Every word of the bible....hmmm. There are things I am not too sure about. Heaven? Yeah I really think so, but I am not John transported into the throne room. So I need some faith there. Is sin truly forgiven? Geez sure hope so. I believe it through faith. But do I know it? Not sure I do. Hope that clarifys a bit.
Your atheism is complex. But in fairness my belief might be too. I am not finding you to be typical of the atheists I have met, but maybe you could say the same thing about me. And I sense we both get a tab irritated when the stereotypes surface, I am honestly trying not to let them shape my views.
I have one last thought and its pretty important. "but mostly, for the benefit of any silent lurkers who may be experiencing honest doubt. It was peering into conversations exactly like this one that became a contributing factor in my deconversion". To have your blog as a way for another person like you to be deconverted. That puts a lot of pressure on you, and I have a question about that, if something I said truly challenged you enough, that it made a good point, or a reasonable doubt, would you be honest enough to answer that way in your blog? I admire authenticity in people, both believers and non.
Oh, in regards to C.S. Lewis I meant as an adult. He went from believer to atheist, back to believer, all as an adult.
I guess I have always thought of spirituality as the definition above. (this is a dictionary version)
If the most traditional of meanings works best for you, then fair enough. But when it comes to things such as people's most deeply held core beliefs about how the universe works and our place in it, I would think someone would have to be living under a rock to not see that many people today have jettisoned the constraints of traditionalism and have instead opted for a looser, dare I say, more liberal, religious view.
This explains, perfectly, why we see newer, more liberal sects such as Progressive Christianity cropping up, versus your older more hardcore flavors of Christianity such as Five Point Calvinism. I mean, let's consider that there's a dictionary entry for "God", too. I think it's pretty evident that "God" means different things to different people, and I don't see "Spirituality" as being any different. Deus Aderit might say "spirituality" is getting in touch with his creator, and that's fine. But someone else might say attending a drum circle on the beach is a spiritual experience.
whatever experience I had could be a ploy, or I could be nuts, or dishonest or whatever. I don't in general trust any kind of testimony from a person I don't know well.
Okay, noted. For me, though, my being very well acquainted with someone does't preclude that person from incredulousness, nor does it make that person exempt from error. At some point we've all misinterpreted events that have happened in our lives. We look for patterns, and this could be part of the problem, because a lot of the time we see what we want to see, instead of what actually is.
I don't have any doubt about the existence of God, but I have lots of questions about "other related stuff" and yes that is pretty vague.
Also noted. But again, I'm not talking about related stuff; I'm talking about "God" and your level of certainty as to said God's existence.
Here's the hurdle we need to get over: If you have zero doubt and are absolutely certain that God exists, then I'm contending that you don't need "faith", as least, not in the religious sense. This is important, because when you say that you have "absolute faith"(in God and Christ), this raises an eyebrow. Putting the qualifier "absolute" in front of "faith" just makes it an oxymoron. It'd be like putting "married" in front of "bachelor".
Your atheism is complex. But in fairness my belief might be too.
"My atheism" is a rejection of the theist's claim. There needn't be anything difficult about this, so maybe, just maybe, it's only complex to you because you are insisting that my atheism account for many of the things for which you feel your belief in God accounts..e.g..happiness, morality, purpose in life, etc. And again, this is wrong-minded for a few reasons: (1) again, evolution doesn't have to account for an Absolute moral standard, and I'm not even saying morality is Absolute. Morality has evolved right along with the men who created it. If nothing else, it's relative to the times. (2) even if you find that atheism doesn't account for those things, that does mean that theism is true by default.
if something I said truly challenged you enough, that it made a good point, or a reasonable doubt, would you be honest enough to answer that way in your blog?
I take it you mean if you proffered a POV or piece of evidence that I had not ever heard nor seen before, and the answer is yes. I changed my mind once; I'll do it again. However - and this relates to C.S. Lewis - reconverting will never happen on "faith". "Faith" can make a virtual infinite list of claims "true". Ironically, "faith" makes the other guy's religion "true".
Assuming the story of Saul (then Paul) on the road to Damascus is true, do you think he needed "faith" to believe in the existence of God after? Its more like, meaning no disrespect, "holy shit, not only did I think God was real before, now he freaking appeared in front of me and talked to me." (spoken in Aramaic) No more doubt. I met my fiance at a book group, I know, not just believe, I could met someone cool at a book group. I got stung by a hornet, I know hornets sting. I saw a bull snake on my walk yesterday, now I know they live in my area, not just because of books, but because of experience. Likewise if my neighbor said, "hey seen that bull snake in the park?" I would say "yeah, I did, so cool" (no doubt in my mind).
I no longer need "faith" to believe in God. Although I needed it I believe to experience God. I don't need it to believe bull snakes live in my area either. However, there are many other things I do need faith to believe. For example, I am not by nature very trusting, some past experiences childhood blah blah. So trusting God is a faith struggle for me. I have some pretty dark past stuff too, I was a druggie and went far down that road. And I need faith to believe some of that stuff is truly forgiven. So do I have answers to everything? Of course not. But in my mind I have answers, conclusive ones, on some things. Does that make sense?
"I take it you mean if you proffered a POV or piece of evidence that I had not ever heard nor seen before, and the answer is yes. I changed my mind once; I'll do it again. However - and this relates to C.S. Lewis - reconverting will never happen on "faith". "Faith" can make a virtual infinite list of claims "true". Ironically, "faith" makes the other guy's religion "true".
That is partially what I meant, getting a triple yatzee and change a total viewpoint. But more what I meant was this. Hmmm. How to put it. I have had discussions where I have floundered, badly, in talking about old testament stuff. Painted myself in a corner, made factual or logical errors, and in the end said "you know what, I was wrong about that". I personally don't like that avenue of questioning and handle it poorly. In my opinion both faith and non faith (or whatever you want to call it) have both strengths and weaknesses. Logically, in the end only one is right of course. As an attorney I was trained to know both sides (and even argue both sides) to clarify my own view. Typically a person who argues and admits no weaknesses (especially when they are obvious) loses credibility to the person on the sidelines. For example I was discussing life after death with (several actually) people who claim to "know" there is not life after death. I mean, BS, only the dead "know". We believe. Based on what we see as evidence. I mean after a while they sound sort of stubborn and inflexible, at least to me. So if I say something stupid, and I might, I will "gasp" admit I was, or did. I am not talking about disputable stuff mind you. Conversations without some give or take get pretty old pretty fast.
I have realized that Christians tend to make answers too simple. On the and hand atheists seem to delight in incredible complex answers. For example the argument over what a belief is. Is atheism a belief. I would say yes, and I have been given long explanations as to why its no but it honestly doesn't seem that important. Its like the how many angels can dance on a pin. I mean, why is important? Unless I am missing something?
Assuming the story of Saul (then Paul) on the road to Damascus is true, do you think he needed "faith" to believe in the existence of God after?
One stipulation: assuming that the story is true isn't necessarily one and the same as assuming his experience in the story happened the way it was portrayed.
So, if I assume the story is true the way it is portrayed - IOW, if "Saul" was an actual person and his experience was not hallucination or outright fabrication and he actually saw a physical being named "Jesus" with his own physical eyes - then no, he wouldn't have needed faith after that point.
Note, though, that if you proffer your experience as evidence, then we must also assume that your experience wasn't hallucination, fabrication, or a misinterpretation of natural events. We have to take your word for it. IOW, your subjective experience might very well be telling you that you don't need faith. However, if you're putting your experience on exhibit as some sort of objective evidence for "God"..e.g..to prove atheism is wrong, then at that point you will need some sort of objective evidence. I might not be telling you anything you don't already know, though. I hope I'm not.
I met my fiance at a book group, I know, not just believe, I could met someone cool at a book group. I got stung by a hornet, I know hornets sting. I saw a bull snake on my walk yesterday, now I know they live in my area, not just because of books, but because of experience.
We all have the ability to prove to ourselves that we can meet someone at a book group should any of us doubt it(although, whether it'll be a match won't be a guarantee). We've likely all been bitten or stung by an insect at some point in our lives. It is relatively easy to find a bull snake if a person lives in central United States, and if not, there are zoos and various herpetology exhibits......if someone doubts that bull snakes exist.
And therein lies the rub: None of the above events are extraordinary or remarkable in any way. Now, claiming to see and/or speak to the creator of the universe? This is extraordinary and remarkable. Therefore, the evidence needs to be kicked up several notches.
You're a lawyer. Are dead eyewitnesses credible? The eyewitness accounts in the NT is what many a Christian's faith rests on.
I have had discussions where I have floundered, badly, in talking about old testament stuff.
Admirable to admit it, and this could be part of the reason you say morality isn't found in the bible.
Typically a person who argues and admits no weaknesses (especially when they are obvious) loses credibility to the person on the sidelines
If the person on the sidelines is genuinely interested in truth, he or she will probably hone in on any weaknesses, regardless of which debater admits having them. In fact, I don't recall seeing theist or atheist admitting the weaknesses or drawbacks in the various online discussions/debates. I was swayed because the atheists made more sense.
For example I was discussing life after death with (several actually) people who claim to "know" there is not life after death.
I don't claim to know such things, and I think it's wrong to claim such things, at least in the Absolute sense. I do point out that what science has to say on the matter is that our personalities, the part that make us "us", are dependent on a healthy, physical brain. This is not proof, mind you, but it's compelling evidence that when we expire, or brains cease to function.
continued...
Is atheism a belief. I would say yes
I might say that if atheism is a "belief", then "off" is a TV channel. However, I'm willing to just shrug my shoulders on this one and say that atheism is a "belief". I'm not worried in the least bit what the implications would be. It doesn't lend any credence to theism, and I don't feel it hurts my conclusion as someone who's arrived at atheism.
I posted the Paul example not as am example of "God is real" but as why I don't need faith to believe in God, if you see how that works? Obviously my personal testimony is important to me, and others that know me well.
"You're a lawyer. Are dead eyewitnesses credible? The eyewitness accounts in the NT is what many a Christian's faith rests on". Yes, dead eyewitnesses give testimony in court all the time. The two examples I can think of are wills with a video interview used as evidence in probate (especially when there is a lot of scratch involved) or video from an abused woman who has a video of her history of abuse saying "he will kill me sooner or later". The credibility depends on all surrounding circumstances, as with any witness.
I could point out that all history is the testimony of dead people. And even some myth and saga. (The discovery of Troy). I believe Joan of Arc lived because other people wrote about her. And honestly her life is as extraordinary as many things in the bible. There is plenty of BS from the living and dead. In the military I was involved in several incidents that made the news and each one was reported incorrectly. By the "Reliable" main stream media too.
Personally I think you might underestimate the miraculous nature of what you see as ordinary events. Falling in love, seeing a sunset, watching my brand new daughters born. Well science can explain these things, in a way, but there was a time when they could not. Will science show us eventually if there is an afterlife? Maybe. It would still be amazing, just explained. think life is an amazing miraculous thing. It didn't have to exist at all. And yet here it is.
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I am curious if you have read the stories of people who have an out of body experience after death? I have read many of them and find some pretty compelling. I would not say "proof" so to speak. The ones where people can see things they could see, hear conversations and so on.
Science believes more in proof (I think this is true) although its wrong often. Law teaches that proof is elusive, and often impossible. That is why court happens, to determine which event is more likely, not beyond doubt. Its not like math or science, its more like life in general. I am stuck by how many assumptions we make every day based on things we can't prove. So I live my life as if there is a life after death. You as if there is not. But we both don't know.
As a former addict I spent time in AA. AA has an excellent record of dealing with addiction and helped me immensely. One of the AA beliefs is in a "higher power" in the 12 step program. As an addict I and many others felt like our problems were bigger than our ability to handle it (I would say that is a definition of addict). The addiction is in the driver seat. I firmly believe that I and many others needed the higher power to survive. And I stress AA has a very effective track record. But non the less, its difficult for me to even grasp the idea that I am the captain of my own ship when I have encountered something beyond my capacity to handle.
Once you eliminate the impossible [EDIT]
Best as I can tell, no theist has demonstrated that a self-existing universe (or one that doesn't require a creator) is absolutely impossible. So, no, these possibilities have not been eliminated. Providing a quote that, on the one hand, says that the universe is too enormous and complex for our finite minds, but then the next minute, providing a quote in which the author claims to know which theories are impossible and which aren't, seems a little inconsistent, to say the least.
I am curious if you have read the stories of people who have an out of body experience after death?
Yes, I've read the stories, and that's the right word for it....stories. Again, these are anecdotes that have yet to be tested in a controlled, scientific setting. For starters, a heart can stop pumping, but the brain can still receive trace amounts of oxygen, which would explain both NDRs and out of body experiences. "Near" death is not dead. Dead is when all bodily organs shut down and enough time goes by that there's no chance of bringing them back. A toe is tagged and an official cause of death form is filled out, and off they go the morgue.
I have read many of them and find some pretty compelling.
That's fine and all, but that would be like me saying that I find it compelling that some people have near death experiences and remember nothing at all. Would you accept those stories as proof that there's no afterlife? I'm guessing not.
I would not say "proof" so to speak. The ones where people can see things they could see, hear conversations and so on.
There is no proof, one way or the other. This, however, does not mean that there's a 50/50 chance that there's an afterlife. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, all possibilities are not equally plausible.
But we both don't know.
Correct. Similar to how we both don't know if divining information about human affairs can be determined by the position of the stars. I can't disprove it; you can't disprove it. But millions swear by it, and each person probably has an anecdote that they can share.
Now, does this therefore mean that there's a 50/50 chance that astrology is true? I'm running out of ways to show you how and why I find your reasoning lacking.
As for AA, first things, first: I'm glad this helped with your problem with addiction. My aunt was a drinker and AA helped her. I feel in some ways she traded one dependency for another. But she stopped drinking, that's the point.
The belief in a higher power helped her(she was a cultural Christian). This doesn't prove there actually is a higher power, though. You'll get no argument from me that beliefs don't have to point to something real in order to be useful. But the debate/discussion here isn't about whether or not the belief in God is useful.
This kind of how I see a summary of where we are.
A person is in the hospital with a serious health issue and recovery is touch and go. The person does recover and says afterwards, "I have never felt stronger, somehow the strength to survive just was in me." It turns out afterwards that because of a prayer chain there were 1000 people praying for this person. The believer would say it was because of the prayers. The non believer, atheist if you will, would say "they found the strength within themselves". This in a nutshell is the problem where so many discussions like ours flounder. Neither person can prove anything. Its all about perspective. However, one person is right and the other wrong.
Areas where we fundamentally disagree. I could also list these as" Reasons why I believe in a Creator God", (this is not the same as why I am a Christian, that is different, rightly or wrongly to me it seems like the belief in "a" God is different that belief in a certain kind of God, and for me it was God exists, what is the nature of this God that exists).
1. One, I believe in the existence of a creator God because the incredible complexity of both life and the nature of existence is so intricate and the inter workings so linked that it could not be accidental. We live in a design. Design means designer. Its like walking down the beach, finding the words "I love Alice" written in the sand and thinking, well did the sand just happen to form the words by accident? Wind and waves? Or did someone write it? The accidental explanation is practically, although not conceptually, almost impossible. I understand this not the way you feel about everything. Although I don't agree I can grasp where you can come from. The more we know the more we can explain that which seems impossible.
2. My own personal experience. If you see, experience something first hand, feel its power and effect, you believe it exists.
continued....
3. Morality, the very idea that there is a right and wrong must have a source.If materialism is true, there are only physical facts. But there are not just physical facts, there are moral facts as well. Religion best explains the reality of moral facts (and not materialism), hence there is something that creates the moral truth. When I was teaching Ethics I would ask my students if they believed in "absolute moral truth". Most would say no. I would then ask who thought having sex with a child of, say 5, was always 100% wrong in all circumstances. They all said yes. It was not just perceived as wrong. It IS wrong.
a. If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.
b. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.
c. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective. To me an atheist viewpoint stumbles badly in this area. People are always referring to some abstract authority as an intangible referee for anything. Is moral truth objective or subjective? Is the example I gave wrong, always, and it doesn't depend on the point of view. It seems like you answer to this is, it's a Mystery. (correct me if I am wrong). So in the regards to the nature of the universe physically you look to tangible proof, in the nature of morality its easier for you to just say. Its a mystery and I am ok with that. Of all the atheist viewpoints this is the one I struggle with the most, I just don't get it. Meaning I just can't grasp the viewpoint at all. In your case you don't seem to be that hypocrite with extremely strong viewpoints on everything but no moral authority to point to. You, too me, don't seem to believe in a morally objective world.
4. The clincher for me is this, and maybe its the true point of our discussion. Why would I want to be an atheist? For the first time you used one of the phrases that make me cringe I have heard before, "My aunt was a drinker and AA helped her. I feel in some ways she traded one dependency for another". As if there is any possible equivalency in the harm of the dependencies. I have been both an addict and a believer, believe me, the harm is not the same. If a believer can go to AA with better results, if I can think about my mom who I lost some years ago, I am comforted to believe her again. This makes sense to me. I am sure you are familiar with Pascal's wager? In some ways I think his reasoning is flawed, it makes me uneasy as the only purpose for faith. And yet there is a logic there too. What is your version of the wager? What benefit comes from a belief (however you style it) in Atheism?
By the way, is there anyway I can. A. Go back into my post to correct spelling errors? B. Post an image?
Deus Aderit,
Recently, you used the word "tedious" to describe a certain undesirable scenario, apparently one that at some point you encountered in your various attempts to discuss the issues with those who don't think like you, namely, atheists.
Welp, I'm saying that, for me, this is precisely the direction that our discussion is heading right now. It's seems as though you are not listening, and I'm left to believe this because you are repeating some of the same logical errors over and over and over and it's getting to that point where I'm tiring of repeating myself. These replies take time to type out, as I would think you'd already know.
You say, The clincher for me is this, and maybe its the true point of our discussion. Why would I want to be an atheist?
Of everything written in your latest reply, this statement/question jumps out the most. It tells me that either you aren't listening, or I am talking past you somehow.
How many times do you think I should have to tell someone that I am not an atheist because I WANT TO BE one, before I finally just give up on them? What's a reasonable number? Two times? Three times? Four, five, or six times? I've been trying to be respectful in my replies to you, and I will continue to do so, but I really need you to especially let one thing penetrate, and that is this:
Reality does not give a rat's hindquarters what I, or anyone else, want to be true. I am not an atheist because I WANT there to be "no God." I am not an atheist because I WANT to be an atheist. I am not an atheist because I WANT there to be no afterlife. I did not wake up one day and think, "Meh. I don't want to be a Christian anymore. I think atheism sounds better. I think I want to be an atheist from this day forward!".
And this means that I don't WANT you or anyone else to be an atheist, either. Not to sound crass, but I don't care one iota if you become an atheist, or not. Early on it was you who said you want to understand atheists. Okay, fine. I figured I'd give it go. But riddle me this----how are you going to understand atheists if you don't listen to what they're actually saying? How can you claim to be in an objective quest for truth if/when you don't correct previous viewpoints about atheists that were mistaken??
I reiterate: I did not WANT to become an atheist. Atheism is a RESPONSE to a claim(also reiterated). Atheism is the result when the theist cannot substantiate their claim that there exists an invisible, conscious creator-being, aka, "God".
Moreover, non-belief is not always a choice. I can no more will myself to go back to believing in God than I can will myself to go back to believing in the tooth fairy or monsters in the closet. See, once the bell rings, you cannot "unring" it. At least, I can't, and I need you to please respect that. And note, my asking you to respect this is not that same asking you become an atheist.
Case-in-point, you shouldn't "want"(or not "want") to be an atheist. You hopefully want to have as many correct beliefs about the world we live in as possible, and by extension, you hopefully want to discard as many incorrect beliefs as possible.
continued...
Next, I need you to acknowledge that you see and understand the difference between the following two statements:
1) X is disproven
2 X is unproven
See the difference? It may be subtle, but there IS a difference, nonetheless.
I, as an atheist, opine option 2, should X = God.
Again, non-belief is default, and yet, you are treating things like belief is default. I say we should suspend belief in claims until those claims are proven, and you apparently feel the opposite way, at least when it comes to God and the Divine, which is, that we should believe the claim until it's disproven. You've got it the wrong way around, friend. It's worth noting - and I find it remarkable - that in no other facet of life does anyone employ the latter philosophy. Only when it comes to the "supernatural" do you find people with this mindset. Color me skeptical.
So....
RE: Point 1: I'd say you're prayer analogy is not a very good choice to make your point given that intercessory prayer has been tested in a scientific setting, complete with a control, and it failed to meet the burden of proof. In fact, people who knew they were being prayed for fared worse than those who didn't know, the theory being because it created pressure to "get well".
And anyway, if "prayer" worked, what is this person doing in the hospital to begin with? Surely you've heard of Christian Scientists. These are the people who actually put their faith on the line(and lose over and over). To them, "faith", alone, should work, no doctors required. If people die? Oh, well, it was "God's Will".
RE: Point 2. I believe that you believe your personal experiences are real. But as I said before, personal experience falls under andecdotal evidence.
continued...
RE: Point 3: You say the idea that we have a concept of "right" and "wrong" is evidence that it must have a source. I agree. That source is us. Saying that if materialism is true then, oh, there are only "physical facts" is a red herring and, AGAIN, it commits the fallacy of composition.
Just because our brains are made up of physical material does not mean that the product of said physical material is limited to the physical. An atheist can rightfully harbor "concepts", including a concept of right and wrong.
You go on to say that religion "best explains the reality of moral facts". Which religion would that be? Give me a name and a mandate, or provide the name of the document on which these "moral facts" are written. Surely it's not the same book in which the moral giver's standard changes with time..e.g...an old mandate, versus a new one. Surely we don't get morality from a being who answers to nothing or no one, because then there'd be nothing at all wrong with that being commanding you to kill your second born child(assuming you have two or more kids). If I'm wrong on that, please tell me what or who would stop him from such a despicable command. I want either a name or the moral standard that would stop the God you worship from commanding things that you and I would agree are wrong
RE: Point 4: I started out by addressing this one and explained why. You continue on, saying, "As if there is any possible equivalency in the harm of the dependencies", in regards to AA. I didn't suggest the harm was the same; I merely pointed out that first there was a dependency on the bottle, which then became a dependency on a belief in a higher power. *I feel she was convinced to believe that she was too weak to go it alone.
*(note, I am absolutely, positively not claiming to know everyone else's experiences with AA)
As for your belief(s) bringing you comfort when it comes to loss, for instance, the lose of your mom, I am glad that your faith gives you ample, and I assume, realistic hope and comfort. Please try to accept that not all of us have that luxury. As mentioned previously, I would love to be able to believe that when my friends and family pass that this won't be the last time I see them. But alas, I cannot WILL myself to believe in that which I find unbelievable.
As for benefits of atheism, one of the biggest is that I am no longer shackled to my previous belief that my every action and thought was being monitored.
Next, is being able to accept the world exactly as it looks (to me), which is a world in which there is no all-loving/all-powerful being overseeing things and watching everyone's every move. No more wasted time creating bloated rationalizations for human suffering. No more time wasted trying to get into the "next" life. Sh*t happens, and curiously, it happens at roughly the same statistical rate to all people of all color and beliefs, depending on where one is born, of course.
IOW, I'm free of the tension and cognitive dissonance.
“We know what we are, but know not what we may be.” – William Shakespeare
First please know, I have not attempted to be either disrespectful, OR failing to listen to you. If I come across that way I apologize. I don't know how else to put this, our natures are different. That makes understanding your perspective often difficult for me. We are just wired differently. If we compared results from the color personality test I suspect you would be a green (logic and rationality) I am a blue (emotion and intuition) same with our myers briggs results and so on. So again if it seems like I am asking for multiple answers to the same question I am sorry.
For example, I have a hard time grasping non-belief as a not a choice. To me it seems very much a choice, and one that takes a lot of effort. However, I grant that you don't see it that way (and being you you certainly are the chief authority on yourself). We can think our way to a feeling just as we can feel a way to a thought. In me feeling comes first. Its not that I lack intelligence its that overthinking has never proven very successful for me. I felt a drawing to God even before I thought them, if that makes sense. Often emotion is perceived as not truth, or invalid, or somehow "lessor" than emotion. Buts thoughts can be false as well, reasoning flawed. Spock is an interesting side character, but just Spock would be one dimensional and drab. Holmes needs a Watson to humanize the stories.
I could say that there are studies that show prayer does indeed work, as well as those that say it does not work. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/. Its probably not surprising that you focus on the later, where I focus on the former. I might point out that to prove that prayer does not work, it can never work. Where as if it works one time its disproves the idea that prayer does not work (see I can be logical from time to time). I would certainly challenge the claim that you have made that scientific studies show prayer does not work. Additionally, I have seen it work. And its worked on me.
If we are the source of moral truth then God help us. Just like a ship needed a compass that pointed a true north to navigate we need a moral compass, and I am not talking just about me and you. Like it or not we both live in a society that has a backdrop of moral structure that comes from a Judeo-Christian tradition. Views on compassion, individually, charity all have been shaped by that tradition. In that respect I think almost every American atheist is placing that tradition on their own mind and claiming it as coming from themselves. They act out the scenes but don't remember who the playwright was. Inevitably with no compass but ourselves we are going to drift off into some very strange moral waters, and I would say this is already occurring.
The idea of God as a sort of divine NSA has never occurred to me. I can see why that would horrify you.
"Next, I need you to acknowledge that you see and understand the difference between the following two statements:
1) X is disproven
2 X is unproven
See the difference? It may be subtle, but there IS a difference, nonetheless.
I, as an atheist, opine option 2, should X = God."
Understood. I see the difference. There is a difference in the burden of proof for one thing. Disproving something is almost impossible. And its to your credit not to say I "know" there is no afterlife for instance. Saying it's unproven is an easier burden. A defense case is based on saying you have not proven your case, beyond a reasonable doubt (a arbitrary ideal). I still don't understand why it makes you an atheist, not an agnostic but its Ok. It doesn't seem important.
I don't know how else to put this, our natures are different.
We're both comprised of the same atoms and molecules. It's our beliefs about how reality works that are different. I contend that we're both skeptics, however. It's just that I apply it to all religions, whereas, you apply to all but one.
That makes understanding your perspective often difficult for me.
Is it difficult to see why I don't believe "Poseidon" controls the tides? Is it difficult to see why I don't believe "Thor" hurls lightening bolts at earth? Is it difficult to see why I don't believe in "Brahma," "Vishnu," or "Shiva"? Is it hard to believe I'm not afraid of going to "Jahannam," which is the Islamic version of "hell"?
See, you are not so different from me. You disbelieve in all the gods and religions I disbelieve in, again, except for one.
We are just wired differently
Evidently I was "wired" just like you at some point, because I was a bible-believing Christian before becoming an atheist. Did I "unwire" myself? No. I simply lost faith in faith and made an agreement with myself that I'd pursue my doubt and follow it wherever it led me, regardless of how I felt about the conclusion.
I have a hard time grasping non-belief as a not a choice.
If someone can grasp how disbelief in Santa or the tooth fairy isn't a choice, then they shouldn't have a hard time grasping how atheism is not a choice. I don't believe in Santa anymore, not necessarily because I don't want to, but because I am unable to. The same is true for invisible, conscious beings.
To me it seems very much a choice, and one that takes a lot of effort.
I've been on both sides. Having faith takes waaaay more effort. I don't expect you to take my word for it like you apparently expect me to take your word for things.
I could say that there are studies that show prayer does indeed work, as well as those that say it does not work. Its probably not surprising that you focus on the later, where I focus on the former
Prayer works as a placebo, at best. That just means that the person being prayer for believes it works. It doesn't necessarily mean anything otherworldly has taken place.
Additionally, I have seen it work. And its worked on me.
More personal anecdotes, a la...
- Sally has seen astrology work. It has worked on her
- Richard has seen alien abductions. He was abducted
- Mary has seen a faith healing. It has worked on her
etc., etc., etc.
If we are the source of moral truth then God help us
Argument from personal incredulity, or specifically, the "Divine fallacy".
Takes this form:
1) I can't imagine X coming from us
2) X comes from God
Like it or not we both live in a society that has a backdrop of moral structure that comes from a Judeo-Christian tradition.
Just because some of the Founding Fathers identified as Christians doesn't mean that our society's moral structure is rooted in biblical morality, also noting that you're the guy who agreed that morality doesn't come from the bible. In any case, many of the Founding Fathers identified as Deists, which might explain why you don't see "Jesus" or "Yahweh" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, if we were intended to be a Christian Nation, odd, then, that there's the no respecting the establishment of religion clause and the "No religious test" clause.
I still don't understand why it makes you an atheist, not an agnostic
For the second time---the two things are not mutually exclusive.
I want to make an important distinction, "To me it seems very much a choice, and one that takes a lot of effort. I've been on both sides. Having faith takes waaaay more effort. I don't expect you to take my word for it like you apparently expect me to take your word for things". There is an enormous difference between saying it "seems" and not taking your word for it. Its true if you don't take my word for things, why should I take yours? You have pointed out that testimony should be rejected it not reliable. Why should yours be under a different standard? None the less I do believe you. However I will say this. From glimpses of what you reveal of your previous faith life lets just say we don't seem to have felt the same way, I tend to wear my faith lightly, but deeply. Other Christians tend to be legalistic, or fearful of judgement, or fearful of being unworthy. My experience freed me from those things. But a person's background changes that a lot. What was your background? How was faith delivered to you? And how did it interact with your personality? Which I would like to use as a segue to my next points.
I would say you made three points that I flat out disagree with. We may be made up of the same atoms and so on (are we actually?) but you are discounting individuality. People are enormously different. For one thing I didn't grow up with anyone in my life who was religious or went to church or anything. I had a family of thinkers. It creates a different dynamic. Additionally gender and culture, even region, effect this. But even if they were the same we would still be different. My brother and I (and my handicapped brother) are extremely different. And have different beliefs accordingly. Your answer seems to state there is a universal similarity between people. And I say again, we are very different. And even if we were both believers, or both not, we would still be different. I spent half my life as a non Christian and some of that as, I don't know, a vague Diest?
Did you actually read the article? No, placebo is not the only result. Did you read about the bush babies? Or the women trying to get pregnant? Lets just say you might attack the results but the article specifically points to results that are not just placebo effect.
Last, in regards to our cultural background, really? I mean I wasn't talking about something political from our Founding Fathers (testimony of dead people by the way) who did not want a state church. It is clear that they thought the church was a good influence, and I believe the congressional chaplain was hired in 1789.
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?" Ben Franklin leading prayer at the Constitutional Convention.
I am not I am talking about our political system however. If you deny the Judeo Christian influence on, well everything. Our Judicial system, our belief in compassion. The modern liberal movement was founded as a Christian movement. Even if we don't believe in God it shaped our culture which shaped us, and the culture shaped you. I am surprised you would deny that. How much of your morality is independent of the culture, influenced so heavily by this tradition, is truly yours?
There is an enormous difference between saying it "seems" and not taking your word for it.
Noted. I've done my best to explain to you why/how my non-belief is not a choice. If you still don't see it that way, idk, maybe ask yourself if your non-belief in "Allah" is a choice. If that doesn't convince you, I guess I'm prepared to just shrug my shoulders on this one.
Its true if you don't take my word for things, why should I take yours?
It depends. If person X has a personal experience in which he or she claims to have been abducted by ancient astronauts from a distant galaxy, but person Y has never had that sort of experience, we must agree that taking their respective "word for it" is not on the same grounds as for as plausibility. If someone says, "I've never been on a flying saucer before", does that somehow sound fishy?
So, again, this is where (and why) the burden of proof comes into play, and yet, the mindset that you apparently employ asks that the two people's respective experiences above be given the same credence. I'm just saying that this isn't going to fly here, is all.
How was faith delivered to you? And how did it interact with your personality?
I was handed the family belief-system by my grandparents, who of course were handed the same belief-system by their parents, and on and on down the line. This belief-system being Christianity. I don't know that it changed or shaped my personality, except that it maybe made me more conscientious of my thoughts.
I would say you made three points that I flat out disagree with. We may be made up of the same atoms and so on (are we actually?) but you are discounting individuality.
You previously used the word "nature", saying we have different natures. I was under the impression you meant we have different components that make each of us, "us". Hence why I pointed out we're made of the same atoms, etc. So, no, I fully accept we are different individuals.
Lets just say you might attack the results but the article specifically points to results that are not just placebo effect.
If the results from any such studies are not peer-reviewed, those results are not exempt from criticism, or if you prefer, not exempt from "attack".
continued...
I wasn't talking about something political from our Founding Fathers (testimony of dead people by the way) who did not want a state church. It is clear that they thought the church was a good influence, and I believe the congressional chaplain was hired in 1789.
I am skeptical that those of the Founding Fathers who were Deists thought the church was "a good influence". Especially if there's no mention of which specific church they had in mind. And weren't some of them trying to actually get away from a certain church back across the pond? I'm thinking so.
Our Judicial system, our belief in compassion.
Surely you're not suggesting that a belief in compassion is exclusive to Christianity. At least, I hope not.
And our judicial system? Based on Christianity? Do we line up juvenile delinquents and pelt them with rocks? Do we admonish rape victims to marry their rapists? Do we let one person take the punishment for the crime of another? No, on all counts.
Even if we don't believe in God it shaped our culture which shaped us, and the culture shaped you. I am surprised you would deny that.
I've not denied that Christianity has been interwoven into American culture. It has. But that is not quite the same as saying that our society's morality/judicial system is based on the Christian faith, which of course means the bible, because that's where the actual language for how Christians are to behave is found.
IOW, you can't cite personal experience here, because it's not objective. Evidence for this claim? Christians fall on opposite sides of the fence when it comes today's social issues..e.g...war, abortion, capital punishment, and on and on. The demonstrable fact that Christians, themselves, cannot agree on what's moral and what's not, is all the evidence anyone should need to see that Christianity hasn't shaped us as culture, at least not in the legality sense.
History and the law are both areas where my knowledge is much stronger than it is in science.
One example of the multitude of direct connection between Christianity and the bible and Law. History of Bankruptcy (this is from a legal, not religious source). The “seven year rule” respecting the discharge of debts stems from the “Lord’s Release” in the bible. In Deuteronomy, it was mandated that debts be forgiven every seven years, regardless of a person’s circumstances. Deuteronomy 15: 1-3 (“At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor or his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed”.).
Congress codified this biblical provision in the Bankruptcy Act of 1938 whereupon an individual could receive a discharge under Chapter 7 bankruptcy once every seven years. It has been changed twice since and is now eight years. Congress actually chose the number “7” to assign to “Chapter 7” of the Bankruptcy Code out of respect for the biblical precepts.
From our foundation. The Declaration of Independence, America's birth certificate, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The concept that we have rights that cannot be given or taken by government or and king or power or person is fundamental to the American experiment. Americans believe that our rights are not granted, but inherent. As far as I know we were the first to act or belief in that way as a nation.
Another example. How the Western world views time. Within the matrix of ancient religions and philosophies, life was seen as part of an endless cycle of birth and death; time was like a wheel, spinning ceaselessly. This was common to the majority the world. The ancient Jews began to see time differently. For them, time had a beginning and an end; it was a narrative, whose triumphant conclusion would come in the future. Time ceased to be considered as non linear. I don't know how to overstate the importance of this. A culture that believes that history repeats itself over and over is one where true change becomes extremely difficult. We think of progress. We are sad when there is a lack of progress. We lament, "No progress". Can you imagine your mind without seeing the world as linear?
These three are only a tiny sample of examples. I could literally send them all day. Law, Political Structure, the way we think.
"IOW, you can't cite personal experience here, because it's not objective. Evidence for this claim? Christians fall on opposite sides of the fence when it comes today's social issues..e.g...war, abortion, capital punishment, and on and on. The demonstrable fact that Christians, themselves, cannot agree on what's moral and what's not, is all the evidence anyone should need to see that Christianity hasn't shaped us as culture, at least not in the legality sense".
It is true of course that Christians do not line up on social issues, exactly as you say. However, I would still argue that they shaped the argument between the value of life, and the right of the individual to make decisions. The just war doctrine, The tension in our legal system between mercy and justice. In a sense they are arguing over directions like people heading to the same destination.
We live in world where we automatically consider that individuals have rights. But that was not always so. In the ancient world the idea that Pharaoh had the same value as a person as a commoner would have been considered ridiculous. To the Jews every soul (who was Jewish) was equal to God, a truly revolutionary idea. For Paul, in many ways I would argue the true architect of the Christian religion as we know it, the fatherhood of God implied the brotherhood of man and (an even more revolutionary implication) the sisterhood of woman. Irrespective of their social roles, all individuals—slaves as well as the free, women as well as men—were equal in the sight of God. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." It has been called the most revolutionary thought in western history, and not just by Christians either. It has taken centuries to make progress to that vision, and we still are striving to achieve it. Handicapped rights, true democracy, the end of slavery. You automatically think of individuals as having rights, but it was not always so. We can all thank the Jews for lighting the match.
John Adams “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” --October 11, 1798
I want to restate my original point. I am not arguing that our nation was founded necessarily on a "Christian Foundation." I have never seen any reliable evidence that any of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Many of them, by no means all. were Deists who believed strongly in the idea of freedom of religion, some of them like Jefferson in a surprisingly sophisticated way. My point is that you have not formed your view of ethics in a moral vacuum. You formed it in a culture steeped and formed by hundreds of years of religious influence, its not you who created it.
"Lets just say you might attack the results but the article specifically points to results that are not just placebo effect.
If the results from any such studies are not peer-reviewed, those results are not exempt from criticism, or if you prefer, not exempt from "attack".
Attack I agree with. Absolutely. But illogical? And is by definition the only information that is considered reliable by you peer reviewed? That is a narrow field indeed. Or do you mean anything that sort of has science related to it. Having worked in a college if you truly believe that I would modify that to "honestly or actually peer reviewed, because it can be an extremely flawed review.
These three are only a tiny sample of examples. I could literally send them all day. Law, Political Structure, the way we think.
Right, and I don't doubt that you could provide more. But given your latest restating of your original point..i.e.. "I am not arguing that our nation was founded necessarily on a 'Christian Foundation'," I don't really see what this demonstrates or proves, because that's all I was really contesting.
You go on to say...
I have never seen any reliable evidence that any of the Founding Fathers were atheists
Atheists aren't running around saying that this is an "Atheist Nation". It's not like Atheists want, "In No God We Trust!", on our money. Most simply want neutrality.
Deists who believed strongly in the idea of freedom of religion
Which includes freedom from it. Bottom line, the Founding Fathers, even those of faith, were smart enough to know that an establishment of religion would be bad. Many of them came here trying to escape that very thing.
My point is that you have not formed your view of ethics in a moral vacuum. You formed it in a culture steeped and formed by hundreds of years of religious influence, its not you who created it.
I've not claimed to single-handedly form our society's views on ethics. And it should be pointed out that within the hundreds of years of religious influence you cite, that secular humanism played a role in abolishing the religious ideals from days gone past that were no longer useful, some of which, downright harmful.
Its important for this reason. Your view is as I understand it. I can be an ethical person with no religion. And ethics is a human made, not divine, thing. As an example, "I am an atheist, and I work in a food shelter, which is a good and ethical thing." "Or I work for peace and equality as part of giving all people equal rights." Are these good things. You bet. Commendable? Absolutely. Did the pre Christian Roman world believe in these things? Absolutely not. They believed fate governed affairs and if you were in poverty, tough shit. Equality of humanity? They literally would not have known what you were talking about. So, the ethical non believer in the west is simply boot strapping religious ideas on to their own "mind" and calling it their own "ethics".
"Which includes freedom from it. Bottom line, the Founding Fathers, even those of faith, were smart enough to know that an establishment of religion would be bad. Many of them came here trying to escape that very thing."
The founding fathers had almost no concept of freedom "from" religion. And again the attempts of atheists to claim some modern belief of religion as potentially harmful is a totally modern concept. Below is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson and the document he was most proud of and that incredibly important in founding America's belief on religion. We have a free market, which has served us very well. The idea of religious freedom from our founders was that religion would be free from Government influence. This is why we have a Bill of Rights that gives us freedom of, not from, religion.
The founders would not have understood the word secular as it wasn't even used until 1851. And humanism wasn't used until the 1920s. Humanism believes as far as I can tell that humankind is fundamentally good (nonsense in your words). Which flies in the face of "If men were angels government would not be necessary." They believed that men were inherently wicked and corrupted by power.
"An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;
That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,
That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to ENCORAGE (my capitals), by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;"
Correction below.
The founders would not have understood the word secular as it wasn't even used until 1851. And humanism wasn't used until the 1920s (typo 1820s) Humanism believes as far as I can tell that humankind is fundamentally good (nonsense in your words). Which flies in the face of "If men were angels government would not be necessary." They believed that men were inherently wicked and corrupted by power.
and if you were in poverty, tough shit.
Sounds vaguely familiar. One political party in particular is against their tax dollars going to those who live in poverty. Yeah, they want drug testing for recipients and they cite loopholes in the system as one of the main reasons they just don't like the welfare system. I guess tough shit for those who really need the help? And I don't recall Jesus drug testing the poor.
Oh, and speaking of the RCC, I believe spokesperson Mother Teresa's stance on poverty and human suffering was something like... no problem, if it brings them closer to God. Human suffering is virtuous, don't you know.
So, the ethical non believer in the west is simply boot strapping religious ideas on to their own "mind" and calling it their own "ethics".
Good grief. Really, guy? Gee, then I wonder why I haven't boot-strapped to my mind ideas such as fucking burning, alive, people who don't think like me? I wonder why we "in the West" haven't adopted the practice of stoning adulterers and rebellious teenagers? Hmm. Wait, let me guess---I'm supposed to believe that we use the same document that recommends the above-mentioned "ethical practices" as the source to know those practices are unethical. As if we'd never figure out on our own that burning people alive is unethical...::SMH::
And again the attempts of atheists to claim some modern belief of religion as potentially harmful is a totally modern concept
Then I guess I'm one of the 'cRaZy' people who doesn't think that modern is necessarily bad. I mean, it's a relatively modern idea that woman can vote and that "niggers" can drink out of public water fountains.
Regardless, thank goodness we are free to be non-religious in 2018, albeit, we have a VP who would love to make Christianity mandatory, which is a pretty scary thought.
This is why we have a Bill of Rights that gives us freedom of, not from, religion.
We're constantly told by Christians that "Atheism is a religion, too!". So there should be no conflict.
Notwithstanding - and I'm dead serious about this - if you, "Deus Aderit" truly believe that I shouldn't have the freedom to be an atheist and not subscribe to a belief in God in this country, which is also my country, then this is grounds for your excusing yourself from this blog, and I advise you to "click off" at once. I'm not under any fucking obligation, whatsoever, to tolerate anyone's intolerance. In fact, I won't even finish addressing your latest remarks until I get an answer.
Humanism believes as far as I can tell that humankind is fundamentally good (nonsense in your words)
Still waiting on an answer, but in the meantime, here is the definition from Merriam Webster because I feel you should take it with you, should that be your last post.
Humanism:
1 a: devotion to the humanities
b: the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 :devotion to human welfare
3 :a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason
So, no, nothing about humanity being "fundamentally good".
Yep that would be the last post. Good luck to you sir. If you desired to bully me off your website with a set of un scientific, illogical bile, then you succeeded. I suggest you seek help to deal with your clearly unresolved anger.
Yep that would be the last post. ~ Deus Aderit
So we can safely conclude that Christian apologist, "Deus Aderit", is an American who doesn't believe other Americans should have the right to be non-religious. IOW, ideally, we are just like the enemy. Thick with irony.
Good luck to you sir. If you desired to bully me off your website with a set of un scientific, illogical bile, then you succeeded. ~ Deus Aderit
Yes, yes, wish me "luck", but then take a parting shot because you actually encountered someone whom you can't push around on his own blog. Remember, I saw how you conducted yourself on social media.
As for this so-called "un scientific, illogical bile" I used, probably a safe bet that it's the same "un scientific, illogical bile" you'd use to determine that the other guy's religion is false. Again, so much irony.
I suggest you seek help to deal with your clearly unresolved anger. ~ Deus Aderit
Aww. You're mistaking anger for concern. Concerned that I walk among people who don't think I should have the right to not adhere to their religion. But even if you made me "angry," the god you couldn't prove came unglued for way more trivial things. A fig tree that won't produce fruit when I want it to?!?!?!? Grrrrrrrrr!!!!
UPDATE:
I'm glad to report that Christian guest "Deus Aderit" and I have since ironed out a few things behind the scenes, and in a somewhat amicable manner.
The long and short of it is that he informed me that he is not a Republican, didn't vote for Trump/Pence, doesn't think prayer belongs in school, and finally, believes that my freedom to not practice or adhere to a religion is just as protected as his freedom to practice whatever religion he chooses. Also, he added that he took an oath to defend these rights in the service, which is always admirable. Do I wish I could have gotten the disclosure about where he stands on the Amendment protecting both the freedom to not partake in religion as well as to participate, sooner, rather than later? Yes. But it is water under the bridge now, and although it didn't end a high note here, you could say it did in private, at least, comparatively, and that's all that matters. We both gave it our best shot based on where we're each coming from, which, where many of the important issues are concerned..e.g..morality, how we ascertain truth, etc, is 180 degrees apart. I believe that we(he and I/theist and atheist) found about as much common ground as we were going to find, so maybe it was just a matter of time before things came to blows. I really don't know.
In the end, I harbor no ill feelings, and even as heated as this got, I still believe that these debates/discussions can be invaluable to onlookers who may be experiencing honest doubt, one way, or the other. These are the people who are going to decide for themselves which views resonate with them, and which do not. Maybe minds will be changed, maybe not.
DA said:
"Saying it's unproven is an easier burden"
I'd contend it's no "burden" whatsoever. The vast number of "unproven" things in this world like fairies, dragons, magic rings, etc etc etc (to include gods like Athena, Thor, Jupiter, Allah, Shiva, Yahweh) are of equal unconcern without any evidence to MAKE them a concern - thus, zero burden. If one wants to contend any of the above is "real" and manifests in reality such that it actually interacts with reality in a way that is tangible and detectable - the one who chooses to hold the belief is burdened with providing the evidence to support their chosen belief.
Definitions:
Atheism = WITHOUT Theism
Agnosticism - WITHOUT Knowledge (Gnosticism = Knowledge)
By and large, most Atheists simply have no compelling reason to believe a god exists due to a lack of testable and falsifiable evidence to support a god hypothesis (ANY god) .. those same atheists are also Agnostic (without knowledge) to "know" for certain that there ARE no gods but the lack of evidence to support any/all gods allows us to live - for practical purposes - under the continuing hypothesis that there are no gods.
My 2 cents regarding a couple points that stuck out to me - not to pick at any scabs - although I'm bummed I didn't see this post sooner :/
Also - re: the purpose of "art" is easily explained in an evolutionary context of "communication" - in other words it likely started in it's simplest most pragmatic utilitarian form as a means to communicate an idea - such as drawing a mammoth to suggest "food" or drawing images of people to suggest a camp. Certainly one can see where the better the drawing, the more clear the message being conveyed to others - in other words evolving ... and continuing to evolve past utility to more pleasurable pursuits.
Music could have similarly started with the accidental generation of a resonate sound that was pleasing and then replicated and expanded
Love - possibly started as more rudimentary displays of desire with the hopes of having a compliant procreation partner vs a combative one ... it's not hard to envision simpler versions of these concepts ... it just requires some honest effort after shedding preconceptions we currently hold in modern societies.
**None of the above were "thought" of, nor reliant on, archaeological or biological evidence, which I'm sure exists somewhere - these are just ideas that "seem" plausible to my ignorant (classic definition) mind
If one wants to contend any of the above is "real" and manifests in reality such that it actually interacts with reality in a way that is tangible and detectable ~ R. Hall
So, "tangible" and "detectable".
Okay, so right away you're talking testable and falsifiable, are you not? I would think so. IOW, anything that manifests in some way, shape, or form in the physical, natural world means that said "something" is within the scope of scientific investigation/discovery.
For example, if someone claimed that, say, "Dhanvantari" was real, and they further claimed that "Dhanvantari" can heal the sick via incantations uttered in his name, this is a claim that can be tested and falsified. We don't have to just take someone's word for it. The claim can be tested, and if successful, the results should then be repeatable in a scientific setting. We should be able to make predictions on it, because that how science works....observation
But okay, there's that word again, the one that caught and still catches so much flak. "Science" is strangely somehow seen by some as a dirty word, since many will claim that it's not the only way for acquiring knowledge about the universe. We hear how there's things like history, philosophy, and personal experience, all of which are also claimed to play a part in acquiring knowledge.
While I certainly won't pretend to speak on the behalf of all atheists, skeptics, and least of all, scientists, I'd say it might very well be true that the above-listed play a part in acquiring knowledge. Fine. Notwithstanding, I opine that science, to date, is still the the most reliable out of the bunch.
But back to incantations to god X for a minute---scientists know that in order to find out if a claim is actually true, or not, they need to first see if the claim meets certain criteria..e.g...manifests in physical world. If so, then they need to set up tests in a controlled environment. Then they need to eliminate, or at least minimize the possibility of skewed results..e.g..false positives. When it comes to distant healing, or faith healing, scientists would also want to rule out placebo effect, because placebo effect is achievable in the natural, physical world, no gods necessary.
Bottom line, scientists who take their jobs seriously are going to want to make sure that OTHER FACTORS are not influencing results, for example, when "Dhanvantari" allegedly heals the sick under certain conditions. Examples of other factors might be that certain ailments clear up on their own. Then there's certain medical treatments that may be given in conjunction with the incantations.
See, these procedures and processes are not, oh, scientists just being picayune, or prejudice, or trying to poo-poo anyone's religious beliefs. Scientists are just doing their job. Are they bias? Yes, of course! Biased to want to know what is mostly true and most likely false about the world we live in. Do they understand where the burden of proof lies? Yes. Otherwise, they'd be spending all their time trying to disprove all sorts of outrageous claims.
"personal experience" is just another term for "experiment" ... albeit, rudimentary not under scientific (read: lab) condition that minimize variables.
DA went on ad nauseum about some "prayer study" ... I wonder how much of this "study" was done in conjunction with medical care? Interesting that he really hung his hat on the fact that it wasn't reliable, i.e. sometimes worked/sometimes not ... Think about what that says about that particular god and how capricious it is to blithely pick and choose which prayers to answer and how. I just watched a social media thread in real time where an acquaintance's child was in hospital in surgery - of course the obligatory "prayers are needed" call went out and of course dozens dutifully responded with hails and pleadings to divinity (I added an "all the best for ...") ... a few hours later "Surgery successful" and of course wouldn't you know dozens more "god is great" etc. comments appeared and NOT. ONE. MENTION of the doctors' and nurses' skill and the hospital's facilities
Anyway - yeah - "falsifiable" If any deity interacted with our world in ANY way it would be detectable (like, say, a burning bush or divinely sculpted tablets) ... SOME evidence of how that intersection between divinity and the physical world would be present ... but alas, when we're "told" that something "divine" happened, it always looks suspiciously like a natural known and explainable event ... just coincidentally timed with someone's heartfelt WISH for a positive outcome.
As an aside - an this might be a tad acidic ... but, if there was ever evidence that prayer did NOT work AT ALL ... it'd be with school shootings - you can be assured that MILLIONS of people - with all their heart and faith - PRAYED that there no be another school shooting - yet 10 dead at Santa Fe High school ... yeah, that's a real swell god you have there
comments appeared and NOT. ONE. MENTION of the doctors' and nurses' skill and the hospital's facilities
Par for the course, isn't it? But of course, even if you point this out to them, dollars to doughnuts the explanation would go from God answering the prayer....to... God is guiding the doctor's hands. The same mental sleight of hand for other things, too..e.g..the Big Bang, the Singularity, zero point energy, vacuum fluctuations. God is ultimately the Prime Mover. No matter how much science closes in on the unknown, God will get the credit.
BTW, I mentioned somewhere up there that when prayer is done in conjunction with medical treatment, this can skew results on any prayer study. I went on to point how Christian Scientists are the people who are truly living their "faith", since they reject modern medicine and rely solely on "prayer".
continuing...
Think about what that says about that particular god and how capricious it is to blithely pick and choose which prayers to answer and how. ~ R. Hall
When you ask what is says about "that particular god" [etc., etc], you also illuminate another problem for proponents of intercessory prayer, which is that no prayer study to my knowledge has conclusively shown which god out literally hundreds that have been claimed to exist throughout history is the one that is presumably interceding, in this case, healing the ill when summoned to do so.
IOW, even if we accept for sake of discussion that some of these prayer studies are legit' and that they're somehow proof that "prayer" actually works, the claimant still has all of his or her work ahead of him or her. Best as I can tell, proponents of intercessory prayer simply assume that it is their particular god answering these various incantations for healing.
but alas, when we're "told" that something "divine" happened, it always looks suspiciously like a natural known and explainable even ~ R. Hall
Correct---indistinguishable from natural events. Not all disease is fatal, for starters. Secondly, the effects of having taken actual medicine would have to be ruled out in order to avoid false positives. This is why, if prayer actually healed an amputee by regrowing a limb, we could begin to take this stuff seriously, because we know for fact that humans regrowing a limb is out of the realm of nature, thus, strongly suggesting an explanation that is beyond the natural world, aka, "supernatural".
"... has conclusively shown which god out literally hundreds that have been claimed to exist throughout history is the one..." - B
Thousands would be more accurate.
".. because we know for fact that humans regrowing a limb is out of the realm of nature, thus, strongly suggesting an explanation that is beyond the natural world ..." - B
I'd still not go that far - if evolution s fact (and it is), then it's STILL possible that we carry the gene that regenerates parts of the body i.e. an anole (lizard) regenerating it's tail and that a person who "may" regenerate a lost limb "might" have a mutation of that gene that turned this functionality back "on" ... tada - no supernatural shenanigans (aka intercessory prayer) required
I'll stand corrected if it's a known scientific fact that we don't carry such genes, turned off or otherwise, in our DNA
Just saying - there COULD be a very natural reason for such an event regardless how unlikely
Thousands would be more accurate
Oddly enough, I was inclined to say thousands, but I didn't want to bother with investigating it at the time, so I knew "hundreds" was a safe bet and would still make my point.
I'd still not go that far - if evolution s fact (and it is), then it's STILL possible that we carry the gene that regenerates parts of the body
True. For all intents and purposes, though, to date, human beings cannot regenerate missing limbs(albeit, SCIENCE and only science can provide useful substitutes). What I'm saying is, if a group of people formed a prayer chain and asked god P to give an amputee a new limb, and overnight said amputee regrew a new limb(or a new one simply appeared, ex nihilo), this could at least begin to warrant some serious investigation from the medical community.
Conversely, when the same sort prayer chain summons god P to heal an elderly lady's bunion and 3 weeks later the elderly lady is bunion free, this hardly warrants anyone's attention, albeit, those already convinced that prayer works, regardless of the evidence(or complete lack, thereof), will likely find it noteworthy, a la, confirmation bias and subjective validation.
Just saying - there COULD be a very natural reason for such an event regardless how unlikely
Again, true and agreed, but if the reason was because of an evolved characteristic in the human species, I'm tending to think that it wouldn't just be an isolated event, plus, it wouldn't be limited to those who received prayer. IOW, it would also be happening to those amputees who received nary a prayer.
Post a Comment