Justification for the Spread of Anti-Religious Sentiments

[Elephant]

What boggles my mind is that nobody else seems to really fret over what I consider a legitimate existential absurdity. I don’t even need to go further than to ask why is it even possible for it to be so.

Why is it that you believe nobody seems to fret about this? I think everyone does, to some extent; people concerned with philosophy are usually more baffled by this absurdity than most.

But this is just pouting.

I think you’ve hit on an important chord here. Why do we even care if there is a God or not? We should probably try to stay away from reinventing the wheel, but when a debate takes proportions, such a basic question might not be unreasonable. Why are we talking about this? You seem to suggest that it is because we don’t know what happens after we die. Bob (incidentally, welcome, Bob!) says that it is because we don’t know what happens during our life. I think religion and the subject of God are so delicate in part because of the complexity of the matter and the amount of our existence that it touches (aside from the emotional aspect, and we are all rather emotional under a shallow facade). Because, really, is there any aspect of life that isn’t affected by religion? Once you accept (by faith) the idea of a higher power and of a spiritual reality, you place the entirety of the immediate, material world in dependence to this idea.

Is this not so?

I have considered some very radical “philsophical/scientific” ideas regarding “God” that far surpass what content the Bible might offer.

I am very interested in hearing more about these ideas, if you are willing to share.

My point is that such a concept doesn’t even qualify logically, it needn’t be sure it made sense to me, it doesn’t even get that far.

Because God is thought of as infinite and all-encompassing? If that is the case, I see where you’re coming from. Nevertheless, people are attempting to solve (scientifically) Markov Decision Processes that have an indefinite horizon, problems that are NP-hard, and they have proven that there are several degrees of infinity (Cantor’s diagonal argument). I see no reason why God’s existence could not one day be proven or disproven scientifically. Perhaps science will be able to explain why people believe in God.

Perhaps it already has.

Especially in matters of “God,” because I would at least like to be sure that God was aware of that brick, that man, and the explaination he’d better have ready when the dude shows up wanting answers. This is tactless and rude. Whether it is metaphysically or ontologically possible that a God exists and we are here talking about him, makes no difference to me at this point. The concept is reckless, clumsy, and remains only a desperate belief in a God I would certainly hope didn’t exist. I could absolutely never be able to justify all the suffering, violence, struggle, and failure in the world no matter what I wanted to “belief” in, so any concept I could have of God would be very critical and weary.

God will likely know about the brick, if He or She exists. You seem to be attributing human emotions to a spiritual being, the supreme one, nonetheless. May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that God’s standards of suffering and struggle are the same as ours?

[detrop]

Why is it that you believe nobody seems to fret about this?

Nonchalance. People are very casual about such shocking truths, and this disturbs me. I’m not saying that everyone should drop what their doing and complain about something, just that I thought there would be a greater response to the problems that I think are dangerously important and ignored. There is a general malaise in everyone, I see it in public, at work, on TV, the radio, everywhere. The walking dead would be a decent exaggeration.

In other words, I don’t see signs of recognition like I want to see.

I also thought that part of the recognition of these problems would be a sudden reaction to “religion” and a quick disposal. Yet 70% of the world claims to be religious, and the numbers are growing.

Why do we even care if there is a God or not?

Well, its not even that, really. What we want to be is immortal, something permanent. It comes necessarily that “God” exists when people begin pondering the existence of “spiritual” immortality. A human being doesn’t set out to believe in a “God,” indeed that is incomprehensible, but rather begins a search for answers regarding his existence, and more precislely, his duration. He confronts his mortality, shudders, and devotes the rest of his life to that acceptance. In a reaction to this consolation he imagines what it might take for him to exist eternally, in some form or another, for some reason or another, and the possibility that this existence be for and toward such ends. No other concern can be of more importance to man than this, but there is no other way to reconcile it without a plunge into faith and the paradoxical. “God” is this, as an expediency for supporting a more obvious anxiety…that of approaching death. Would we need a god if we lived for ever? Surely not. But we aren’t yet concerned with whether or not God exists, but only what happens after death.

You seem to suggest that it is because we don’t know what happens after we die. Bob (incidentally, welcome, Bob!) says that it is because we don’t know what happens during our life.

Sure, but understanding our existence doesn’t change the impossibility of concieving an existence other than this one, whether we understand it or not. My point is that even if someone claims to understand “what happens during life,” they are still confronted with the same question as one who admits the contrary. Their both after the same answer, the tangibility of experience has nothing to do with this endeavor. The contemplation of death begins all metaphysical thinking.

I think religion and the subject of God are so delicate in part because of the complexity of the matter and the amount of our existence that it touches

Religion is delicate because it is metaphysics. But I think that the desire to find meaning, purpose, and permanence is a basic structure in our existence and is more virtual that a system of metaphysics. Again, it is the simple animalistic response to physical death that produces our questions that consequently create postulates such as “spirit,” and “God.” Religion is only an elaborate hypothesis that can be anything, as long as it answers man’s most primordial question. “Metaphysics” means “man has stopped to think about it.”

Once you accept (by faith) the idea of a higher power and of a spiritual reality, you place the entirety of the immediate, material world in dependence to this idea.

“Higher power” and “spiritual reality” can mean anything. What lies underneath these projections is a psychological tic that is easily diagnosed. What each will represent is a foundation for values that man has experienced as lacking. Moral objectivity and necessity, firstly, a justification and absolution administrated by a conducting higher power. Permanence of existence- eternal consciousness and spirit. Two questions are answered for a man…

1. What am I.
2. What do I do.

The rest is metaphysics.

I see no reason why God’s existence could not one day be proven or disproven scientifically.

Kierkegaard asks “how could that be demonstrated?” Does one hear a voice from the sky? Does one rise above one’s dead body and ascend into the heavens? Does one find a grand unified theory?

How do we know he isn’t a fake?

May I ask what brings you to the conclusion that God’s standards of suffering and struggle are the same as ours?

Nothing. I do not conclude that. I don’t need to think about that. I don’t care what his standards are…it is human standards that I am concerned about, and how we would place value in them in the absence of a benevolent god or in the presence of an indifferent one. I agree with Sartre here, it doesn’t matter either way. We cannot go further.

[Marshall_McDaniel]

De’trop. I think this is where a lot of religions fail. They are concerned with eternal heaven, their doctrine, increasing their fold, and have forgotten to reach out to the poor and their fellow man. As an Atheist, i find that i have more time to help those around me, which i believe is one of the principal things that religion should be concerned with.

Fear and the question of death is behind a lot of these religious explanations, as Bertrand Russell asks, [paraphrase] “why do we not ask that our soul take up all of space after death instead of enduring for all eternity.” The attitude towards death is one of the main delineating aspects between theist/atheist, there are, however, some people who believe in life after death or reincarnation without necessarily espousing any deities. Perhaps the longing for immortality that one finds in almost all religions can be secretly traced to insecurity. Perhaps if people truly embraced their freedom and lived their lives, they would embrace death with the same kind of love.

De’trop said

I also thought that part of the recognition of these problems would be a sudden reaction to “religion” and a quick disposal. Yet 70% of the world claims to be religious, and the numbers are growing.

I was under the impression that the number of people who believed in God was declining. What evidence do you have for these assertions? I am aware that certain religions such as Islam are on the rise, but the overall percentage of theists should be declining.

Find out about William of Ockham and his sharp razor
HERE

Bob said:

Hi Marshall,

I have to agree with the dangers of a ‘one size fits all’ religion as Matt puts it. This attitude is dangerous in politics, ‘right through the party’, and a number of other disciplines.

If I seemed to make that case I apologise. I am ecumenical-minded because I believe that what we call “God” is one, but that our concepts of what we mean by that are many. Your know the story about the blind men around the elephant … I believe that human experience is much the same where ever you may be. We just present our experiences from different perspectives.

I was making a general statement and was not referring to you, Bob. I agree that we transmit our similiar experiences through a multitude of perspectives. Sometimes it seems that we are completely different, but a lot of times, maybe the inerpretation is the only different thing.

I too reject the notion of God for rational reasons, this does not, however address the role that religions and myths have played in helping us to relate to our experiences, adjust to different stages in our life, etc. Many people still go to church to get married even though they might not secretly buy into the overall religious viewpoint, or even believe in God. Myths have played a major role in the lives of people throughout the generations. Some of us aren’t able to see the myth as myth, but this is not the fault of the myth. The myth is merely the noble lie which in the past has helped us to relate to the World at large and the fact that some people choose to do this empirically instead of rationally seems no reason to reject myths out of hand.

Great posts everyone. I have enjoyed the lengthy detailed posts which have characterized this thread.

[Elephant]

Nonchalance. People are very casual about such shocking truths, and this disturbs me.

I think people are trying to make the reality cause less of a shock by diminishing its importance. I suspect this is only on the outside, though. On the other hand…

In other words, I don’t see signs of recognition like I want to see.

I’m sorry.

I also thought that part of the recognition of these problems would be a sudden reaction to “religion” and a quick disposal.

I doubt it. Recognition might result in a search for an escape or solution; certainly religion will provide such for some.

Yet 70% of the world claims to be religious, and the numbers are growing.

If we give credit to statistics. What was it, 60% of statistics are wrong? Maybe the number of religious people is increasing, but is their proportion?

What we want to be is immortal, something permanent.

Please forgive me, but it seems that you are making a number of generalizations. I am sure there are quite a few people alive that are happy with their transitoriness. In fact, it seems that some might even reason that permanence is not a possible goal.

It comes necessarily that “God” exists when people begin pondering the existence of “spiritual” immortality.

Why is that? If spirits did exist and were immortal, would God be necessarily set apart from the rest?

A human being doesn’t set out to believe in a “God,” indeed that is incomprehensible, but rather begins a search for answers regarding his existence, and more precislely, his duration. He confronts his mortality, shudders, and devotes the rest of his life to that acceptance.

Some human beings have an unmovable belief in God even before they know they are going to die.

In a reaction to this consolation he imagines what it might take for him to exist eternally, in some form or another, for some reason or another, and the possibility that this existence be for and toward such ends. No other concern can be of more importance to man than this, but there is no other way to reconcile it without a plunge into faith and the paradoxical. “God” is this, as an expediency for supporting a more obvious anxiety…that of approaching death. Would we need a god if we lived for ever? Surely not. But we aren’t yet concerned with whether or not God exists, but only what happens after death.

I don’t know how anyone else feels about this, but personally, I don’t give a flip what happens after I die. I do fear death, simply because my body (which encompasses, as far as I know, all my perceptions) understands very little about it. However, if God exists, perhaps I can (or even should), in some way, interact with Him or Her, during this life.

The contemplation of death begins all metaphysical thinking.

Very well, I will agree with that. I don’t know how much this matters. I am ignorant about what came first, the phenomena that couldn’t be explained, or the realization of one’s mortality.

“Metaphysics” means “man has stopped to think about it.”

Main Entry: meta·phys·ic
1 a : METAPHYSICS b : a particular system of metaphysics
2 : the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject : PHILOSOPHY 3b
(webster.com)

Perhaps we’re not talking about the same metaphysics.

Two questions are answered for a man…

1. What am I.
2. What do I do.

The rest is metaphysics.

What is the rest? The rest that religion offers man?

I see no reason why God’s existence could not one day be proven or disproven scientifically.

Kierkegaard asks “how could that be demonstrated?” Does one hear a voice from the sky? Does one rise above one’s dead body and ascend into the heavens? Does one find a grand unified theory?

I don’t know the answer. Perhaps humanity will die before finding it. Do we know, for instance, that atoms aren’t sentient? And if, for the sake of argument, they were, do we know they don’t have intercommunication? Perhaps then, the sum of all things would be God. This belief exists already, doesn’t it?

I don’t care what his standards are…it is human standards that I am concerned about, and how we would place value in them in the absence of a benevolent god or in the presence of an indifferent one. I agree with Sartre here, it doesn’t matter either way. We cannot go further.

I don’t understand. So you are saying that even if God did exist, you wouldn’t care what His or Her nature is? Then why were you looking for Him or Her in the first place?

[Bob]

Marshall wrote:

De’trop. I think this is where a lot of religions fail. They are concerned with eternal heaven, their doctrine, increasing their fold, and have forgotten to reach out to the poor and their fellow man. As an Atheist, i find that i have more time to help those around me, which i believe is one of the principal things that religion should be concerned with.

I disagree that religions have forgotten to reach out to the poor, especially the Mystics were particularly active towards their fellow man. Christ and subsequent followers were also particularly compassionate. The churches still spend a lot of money on projects helping the poor.
What happens is that religions become a part of social life into which we are practically born. The only active part a lot of people take is in getting out. Millions are passively Christians, many take the view that it would be good to stay put “just in case” - which is what a passage of the Bible describes as being “lukewarm” and promises no good for such people.
I grasped the faith - even though I have made my own development within - particularly because of its social bearing. Church is about Community and looking after each other. That is where church has succeeded in the past. I wouldn’t have made my way into professional Care without the experience.
Church fails when it becomes the ping-pong ball of politics, when it becomes dependant upon generous donations and allows itself to be used by local notables. The local Church is effective when it is poor and the Pastor or Priest rubs shoulders with the congregation. But it is here where the teaching also takes on the “subversive” tone that Christ had on his lips.
It wasn’t only Leonardo Boff and his Liberation Theology that has caused a contraversial debate and a militant reaction from the henchmen of dictators. For me, this is the reminder of where Christianity came from - and it is sometimes a painful reminder for the politicians.
In the present climate of Globalisation, it would be fitting if all Christians stood up for liberation. It may be that the battle would end as it very often has done, with poor Christians being killed or suppressed, but it should send a message to those “lukewarmers” who hold onto traditions with no basis.
Christianity is about resistence to evil - which isn’t merely something spiritual, but often something political. The difference to Communism or other similiar movements is that it is non-violent. I ask myself sometimes whether many Christians even think about resisting evil - in whatever form they may see it. That is where religions often fail.
Shalom
Bob

[Marshall_McDaniel]

The rejection of Christianity solely for the reason that it’s adherents aren’t up to snuff would be a philosophical mistake. Still you say that the problem is not with religion, but with my perception of it. You may be right. A lot of what i see are people who profess Christianity, but fail to live up to it’s precepts. You can not force people to love the way that Jesus loved, that is something that is either in the heart or not.

Krishnamurti says that authority and spirituality are at odds, and i for one, have reached the same conclusion. Great teachers like Jesus, The Buddha, The Mahavira, Spitama Zarathustra, Confucious, Lao tzu, and Heraclitus arise and pour their teachings out like honey. Some of the honey fails to reach parched tongues. Parables, necessarily of a mystical nature due to the nature of the subject, are misunderstood, or misinterpreted. What does get through is eventually memorized, canonized, and thereby sanitized and thus unable to plumb the spiritual depths of the average man on the streets who desperately needs this sweet elixir.

I see this same theme adumbrating throughout your last post, so i’ll further support it with my silence.

Yes many times religions have failed to resist evil, sometimes they have even supported it, but that is what it means to be human.

[detrop]

Bob and the Elephant,

I apologize for my tardiness and am also sorry to say that I must withdraw from this discussion.

I don’t have a clue what is going on, what is being argued, or exactly what the point of “atheistic sentiments” might be.

Atheism makes no more sense to me than theism, for I still have no idea what a “God” may or may not be, and am not yet in a position to question the existence of such.

Please excuse me.