I think that is a fairly safe statement. Plus there is a conucopia of metaphors that would attest to that. I don’t fault people who come this forum that try to do so though. The enthusiasm placed in the denouncement of God here would be energy well spent on Chrisitians working in the other direction.
Christians, however hypocritically viewed by non-theists, are admonished by Jesus to be witness’ for God. Thus they are viewed as being weak minded sheep speaking blather. It’s scary to think there are so many of them doing so even in positions of high influence in the government and commerce isn’t it? I’m sure there are varying reason’s there are atheists and agnostics who try explain away such a large contingent of people who delve into such a fallacious endeavor. I have heard a lot of atheists have evolved from the Catholic religion. Something occured in their lives that left them disillusioned which caused their faith to wan.
No one is perfect. We are all just human after all. Even after a person accepts Christ as their savior, they are still imperfect. Thus the saying ‘Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven’. I personally think that someone who would accept the thought of a God who loves is courageous. To take on something that defies logic and reason and try to practice teachings which promotes brotherly love has merit. The bad thing is, when one or a few who contradict this lifstyle and losses their way, it affects the macrocosm of this faith. Sure, there is mudslinging from both sides of the fence, but this is primarily due to misconceptions on both sides.
I know I’m not the quintessential Christian…God knows my heart. I pray I don’t misrepresent His plan intentionally. This forum could be just another venue wherein His word may affect just one person here. That’s acceptable to me. Better than not trying at all. After all, something may be said or explained that may click in someone’s heart or mind that could redirect their thinking. I’m sure stranger things have happened. If any comments or reprisals are returned, I will try my best to enjoin a reply.
I agree that there is a lot of misdirected antagonism towards theism in ILP. Part of it is blowing off steam (something the internet is very useful for), some of it is the zeal of the newly converted, some of it is well-intentioned people seeking to prevent others from experiencing negative things that they experienced, and a variety of other individual reasons. I agree that many of the conflict is centered around misunderstandings, since most people do share a common set of basic values and most religiophilosophies build off of those, but I do think it goes beyond that. Most of those basic values can be valued in-and-of-themselves so it actually becomes the particular trappings of a religiophilosophy that make it stand out and be important as a means whereby not only those “universal” values can be recognized but also how to keep them intact when they conflict. To say nothing of the historical baggage that any system of belief has, not all of which is pleasant or has maintained its relevance into the modern era.
The question then, for me, is how to bring about a reconciliation? Clearly both sides have their antagonists and furthering the antagonism hardly seems a productive path. But at the same time, those antagonists are forcing a collapse of the moral sphere where each person is able to pursue their version of happiness as best they can (not that such a sphere really exists as such, but it is a useful model for thinking about action in problematic cases). I generally do my best to appeal to the center aspect on both sides and I find that the debate can be moderated, even if only under local conditions.
Logic and reason actually explain very little, maybe nothing at all . . . beyond belief and knowledge.
But it is precisely that, i.e., belief in the existence of God, that atheists need logic and reason to support before they can believe in the existence of god. We’re not expecting logic and reason to explain God to us. Various theologies might do that. We’re looking for logic and reason to support a belief in God.
Either we can believe that things exist in external reality by virtue of convincing evidence that we find to support belief that they exist or we can believe that they exist on faith alone.
The problem with the latter is that there is nothing that cannot be believed to exist by virtue of faith. Literally anything that is conceivable can be believed to exist if evidence that it exists is optional. Whatever your culture tells you exists can be believed to exist whether it’s God or Allah or Shiva or the ether or the efficacy of copper bracelets in mitigating the effects of rheumatoid arthritis or the supremacy of the white race or that Jews, Blacks, women, homosexuals, et. al., are inferior – anything!
OTOH, by requiring evidence for belief, we necessarily limit our beliefs to the existences of things in external reality for which we have good reason to believe exist. Evidence acts sort of like a filter for things that we may want to believe are true but which aren’t true. It is a filter which may not catch all false beliefs immediately, but over the long run it seems to catch many of them.
It’s not that I don’t want gods to exist or that the idea of gods is repugnant to me. (On the contrary, there are some versions of god that I would like very much to exist; that in fact I hope do exist.) But without good reason to believe that they exist, I will remain where I am – which is, skeptical of the proposition that they do exist.
Yes to a certain extent but not on the earlier part, logic will provide good foundation for all true-seekers. But it can only provide much.
If by chance you declare that you fully understand God then that “god” is not really god it is just the product of your mind. God is infinite and ungraspable that is why Christians declare that he became man just to invite us relate to him in a simpler level.
I disagree, I think if there is a God out there, (and I belive that there is) His existance would be entirely logical, however it would most definatly be outside the scope of conventional logic if he existed befre the systems that govern our universe. This does not mean that God is illogical, it means that he is utside of our understanding, which I think if God exists is a fairly safe statement
Tortoise, I was using that first sentence to help qualify my topic. It is what it is.
The second point is I said ‘something’ not ‘nothing’ that defies logic. I have heard of secular humanism. You may not understand the underpinnings concerning God, but I do not look down on you.
Xunzian, without purposely stroking your ego, your insight on this topic is very thoughtful and on key. My purpose was soliciting just such responses whichever way they leaned. There is nothing polemical here from my viewpoint. Thank you.
Your post on the whole is very well thought out too. I enjoy reading concise to the point posts like I have in this topic.
There are two sentences I have hi-lited though above of yours that seem a little contradictory. Please explain the subtleties of the two. Thank you for your thoughtful participation here.
‘logic will provide good foundation for all true-seekers.’ This part of your statement I assume you mean is only applicable for ‘true-seekers’. Thus this would mean it is only logical for the person looking for it. It’s ashame it can not cross-link with other consciences so we could all share in the epiphany.
I certainly can not say I totally understand God. His existence I’m sure greatly surpasses any measure we could place on it. Thank goodness He will relate to us on a simpler level. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Rhinoboy, I am in averment with your post where believers are concened. With non-theists however, this assertion can not take a foot hold (of which I am sure you know without me telling you so). I’m glad you disagree with my beginning statements (odd saying such isn’t it). I won’t go into a list of litany’s of saying why, due to the fact that it wouldn’t be pertinent all participants here. Your participation is well valued by me…thanks.
Perhaps over time your thoughts will become more malleable as you have interactions with other people. Even my thinking has changed through discussions in forums like these. I can appreciate the rigidness of a non-belief. Some people can’t take a stand on anything
I think seeking a center or middle ground is a fantasy and would be a misdirection of effort. At their core, faith and reason are irreconcilable. And that’s okay as far as I’m concerned. I don’t sense a ‘collapse of a moral sphere for pursuing happiness’, but maybe my world is just too sheltered, I only interact with self-identified Christians regarding faith issues online here. But it seems to me that there are still an awful lot of venues out there in the real world where people can congregate and commune according to whatever they believe.
When it comes to differing beliefs, I’ve participated a little as the token Buddhist in interfaith dialogue groups, but I think the people who are drawn to those gatherings tend to be the sort of people inclined to focus on seeking points of agreement they can find with others in the first place. Which is a fine thing, but I’ve mostly come away from those events feeling okay that people can listen and share and that this is as much as I should expect. It’s a huge (huge) challenge for me to sit in a room with a Muslim woman wearing a head scarf and not say anything about the treatment of women in Islamic countries, but I work at sitting with the negative feelings and not letting them get in the way of listening to what she has to say about other stuff. I’m always a bit conflicted, though, because I think that not speaking out is contributing to what I believe to be the problem.
Also, I don’t perceive ‘pursuing happiness’ to be a path without a significant amount of challenge and antagonism and discomfort.
Where we have the best chance to maintain freedom of choice and peaceful co-existence is by promoting tolerance and freedom of speech. Discourse is what promotes understanding, airing points of disagreement equally with agreement, but not for the purpose of pressuring people to change their minds either way. People feel better when they get a chance to be heard and to air their grievances, so a society that promotes that will have a better chance of keeping the peace. Tolerance is best accomplished by enforcing as a society a separation between private and public. The former may be religious, the latter must remain secular. That sacrosanct line has always been blurry, but has been increasingly violated in the last couple of decades. I still sometimes shake my head over stem cells and creationism. I can’t believe this country let itself move so far away from rationality.
I think we can be true to ourselves while allowing for others to hold different beliefs. We can speak what we feel to be true in a gentler way - not gentler because we are ‘giving in’ or compromising somehow, but because we understand through the process of openminded critical thought that we are ultimately pretty uncertain about the truth, our opinion about truth has changed over time so there is no reason to believe that our current version is the perfect one, our outlook and opinions are formed through completely unique circumstances, etc. etc. In fact gentleness ultimately seems to me an expression of critical thinking itself. To the extent that I am not gentle I can probably (though not necessarily) attribute that to a narrow, biased, and un-thought-through worldview.
As the Buddhist teachings strike me as the fullest and most accurate expression of an outlook that gives us the uninhibited ability to inquire into the nature of reality in an openminded manner and live a fulfilling life, I don’t see it as a contradiction to express my admiration for and help to clarify the Buddhist teachings and at the same time to point out what I consider to be ‘errors’ in alternate ways of thinking. We are all in the same big boat of being deluded and attempting to not be deluded. It doesn’t matter what religion or lack of religion we profess. I personally strongly identify with the Buddhist teachings as providing essential tools to help us overcome delusion (and they are generally presented with that stated aim) and I consider myself deluded as most likely are all the people I come into contact with. Therefore my understanding of the Buddhist teachings is that they are relevant to everyone, regardless of belief. It is not an either/or situation. Further, that understanding of Buddhism makes everyone a Buddhist in a way in my eyes. Am I only willing to learn from other Buddhists? I learn about the world and my place in the world from everyone and everything that I can, including people who disagree with me and even who insult me (though this can be difficult obviously). They may be pointing out my own ‘errors’ if I am not too defensive and have the ability to listen.
I think what I am expressing here is in fact a middle ground, even if it is not solid ground. It is not necessary to gloss the details or abandon critical thought to come to these conclusions (in the manner of the cartoon ‘new ager’). In fact I believe critical analysis is just as important as synthesis if we would have societal peace of any sort (not that I think we will necessarily achieve such a thing). Religious and cultural beliefs are not monoliths. We can question the components of worldviews - it is not necessary to bang our heads against the wall of an imaginary beast. For many people here ‘Christianity’ is an entity. There is no such thing as ‘Christianity’, just as there is no such thing as ‘Buddhism’ or ‘atheism’.
Tortoise, you took my previous last statement out of context. Plus you didn’t observe the one before it…‘I can appreciate the rigidness of a non-belief.’ What I meant by not taking a stand is some people will not choose either way. Neither in a theist or non-theist vein. I don’t mean that in an agnostic sense either. At least agnostic people will keep an open mind to make a possible choice later.
Atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, et. al., cannot prevent anyone else from believing whatever it is that they will believe. They try only to point out that there is a difference in rational belief and non-rational belief.
Some atheists, especially atheists who call themselves agnostics, try to gloss over this fact and that they do this is very harmful to the notions of rational thought and truth.
This is precisely what I’m talking about above. The fact that we may never know absolute truth is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to believe that that for which we have less reason to believe today is just as likely to be true as is that for which we have more reason to believe.
To gloss over this fact or to downplay it is to do great damage to the notions of rational thought and truth.
This shows a misunderstanding of what the term “atheist” means. An atheist is not someone who believes that a logically possible god cannot exist. An atheist is someone who believes that logically possible gods DON’T exist; i.e., that we have no reason to believe that they exist.
If at any point in the future evidence is discovered which makes the existence of such gods probable, then I, an atheist, will believe that such gods probably exist and many other atheists will believe the same thing.
A true “agnostic” HAS already come to a belief about the probable existence of gods. This is why these agnostics are atheists.
Side note: You say, “At least agnostic people will keep an open mind to make a possible choice later.”
I don’t believe that we “choose” our beliefs. I believe we come to accept our beliefs because of reasons. Sometimes we are not consciously aware of what these reasons are and this is why, assuming the importance of the belief to the way we live our lives, we should spend a great deal of time trying as best we can to root out and examine closely the reasons, both the obvious and the non-obvious, that have compelled us to believe whatever it is that we are compelled to believe.
Oh come on, the core of humanity is about defying logic. If humans were rational and logical we probably would still be in huts and caves. Its never been logical or rational to take the risks and chances humans do in order to change things. sometimes it may be logical but, over all, nope.
My philosophies are Christianed based. I chose to become a Christian. You choose your atheistic position since you can not logically in your own mind due to the fact there is no physical, scientific way to explain what theists believe. Accepting; choosing to me are mere semantics, even where agnosticism is concerned. I can not disbelieve there is no God due to the experinces I have had, just as you due to the absence of spiritual experiences can not accept the existence of God to allow you the opportunity to choose.
I disagree. It is much more than semantics if one understands the difference between “choose” and “accept.” “Choose” implies our actively picking one belief among at least two. “Accept” OTOH implies that we received a belief from our experience. If our experience were otherwise, then we would believe otherwise.
We never “choose” what we believe is true because this would mean that, at the same moment, we could choose to believe that the contradiction of what we believe to be true is true, as well. Instead, we “accept” one belief as true and reject its contradiction as false.
It would seem weird to say “I choose to believe that X is true and that ~X is false, although I could just as easily choose to believe that ~X is true and that X is false.”